A bill to authorize a cost of living adjustment for the Federal judiciary.

Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I now call up the amendment I have at the desk. It is No. 1566.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and my colleagues and, indeed, the floor managers for giving me this opportunity.

I rise to bring before the Senate an amendment similar to amendments I have put forward on this same subject in years past, but I think at this time on this particular bill it is extremely important this body-- --

Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I apologize, and I certainly allow that to go ahead. I thought that was done.

Amendment No. 1557 To Amendment No. 1502

(Purpose: To establish a national greenhouse gas registry)

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I say to the distinguished floor manager, do we have to lay this amendment aside and then go back to mine or is that taken care of? Could we ask the Parliamentarian to clarify the situation in light of the recent UC agreement?

Automatically; is that correct?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Amendment No. 1566

Mr. President, as I was saying, I have raised this basic amendment or similar ones to it over the years, but I think it is particularly pertinent this Chamber once again address this issue. I am anxious the Chamber give it very serious consideration because our situation in the United States of America and, indeed, in the context of the global demand for energy, is becoming more serious.

Our citizens are laboring under higher prices--be it for home heating oil, gasoline, natural gas--and we must look at the full potential of America to help resolve this situation. So in that sense we could, hopefully, reduce some of our dependence on the need to import various forms of energy from abroad.

It is my firm belief the United States must take a balanced approach toward its energy policy. Not only must we increase conservation--I support that--and efficiency efforts--I strongly support that--use more alternative and renewable fuels--I support that, to the extent we can; there is quite a deliberation going on as to the ability of certain States, including mine, which does

not have a lot of natural wind power during much of the year, to try to bring in wind power but, nevertheless, I encourage clean coal technology. The bottom line is, we simply have to look at the natural resources we have in this country.

Because the United States has strong domestic natural gas resources, and because the potential for increasing our domestic supply exists-- because the demand is ever increasing for natural gas--I bring forward this amendment.

Natural gas is the fuel of choice for many of America's businesses and industries. Today, natural gas meets 23 percent of U.S. energy requirements. It heats 57 percent of U.S. households and accounts for 90 percent of the new electricity--new electricity--capacity built in the last 5 years.

I might also add, for those colleagues who have an interest in gasohol, look at how most of the gasohol is produced and its reliance on natural gas. That is a growing source of energy for our country, and it involves a large usage of natural gas.

Our supply clearly is not meeting our growing demand. Prices--I find this astonishing--prices for natural gas have risen 74 percent since 2000. That is in the last 7 years. Domestic production has remained comparatively flat, but imports are on the rise.

I want Senators who are thinking maybe this amendment does not meet all of their needs to think carefully about what I have said: a 74- percent increase in prices, domestic production remaining basically flat, and our imports, at considerable prices, are on the rise.

It is time America turned to its own resources. Therefore, I offer today an amendment to the pending legislation that seeks to allow my State--the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing its Governor and the State legislature concur--to explore for natural gas offshore. If that exploration--the first step. This is a two-step amendment. It simply says, first, the Governor and the State legislature--going through the various procedures with the Department of the Interior--can explore. If they find a reservoir of natural gas which economically can be extracted to help meet America's needs, then they can start a second step. The Governor has to go back to the State legislature, and with the concurrence of our Government--the legislature and Governor acting together--then, working with the Department of the Interior, the State can provide for the extraction of this natural gas, which will come-- all of it--to America--it is ours--thereby lessening our reliance on importing it.

I know the Virginia General Assembly, over the years, and the Governors of Virginia have already expressed--the last two--a measure of support for exploring--I underline and I carefully delineate ``exploration'' from ``extraction.'' The Virginia Governor and the State legislature have indicated, in various ways, they are receptive to a program regarding the exploration of natural gas off the Atlantic Coast.

The amendment I offer today returns power to the Commonwealth of Virginia, using this two-step process I have outlined, to make decisions about exploration and, if they wish to go to the second step, taking the second procedure to extract that gas for purposes of bringing it to America.

So, specifically, it first allows the Governor of our State to petition the Department of Interior for a targeted waiver from the current moratorium to explore for natural gas in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf. That term is well defined.

Should this exploration justify a second step--namely, that the exploration shows there is a sufficient reservoir for economic extraction--then the Governor goes back to the legislature, and if they agree, they can further pursue that extraction by working out arrangements, which are well known, with the Department of Interior; namely, to petition the Department of Interior for the various permittings that are required.

Again, the Virginia General Assembly has already passed legislation in favor of, and the Governor of Virginia has already expressed his support for exploring--that is ``exploration''--for natural gas in this area offshore.

When drafting this legislation, I was certain to note that Virginia's neighbors should also have an input on what goes on near their own coastlines. Consequently, if Virginia petitions the Secretary of Interior for the right to explore--that is, do the exploration--or the right to extract--a subsequent step--the Secretary of the Interior, in both instances, shall provide our Atlantic coastal neighbors with an opportunity to comment on the petition or petitions coming from the State of Virginia, because I want to ensure that these neighboring States have a voice in this process before the Secretary of the Interior--and therein resides the ultimate authority--issues the appropriate concurrences to, first, explore and, then subsequently, to extract.

This amendment also addresses a matter of equity by allowing for revenuesharing between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Virginia for this offshore reservoir of gas, should it be produced, that is extracted and brought to America.

My bill is modeled, in large measure, after last year's Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, S. 3711. That bill states that 50 percent of all revenue would be tagged for the General Treasury. Mr. President, 37.5 percent would be for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. President, 6.25 percent would go to the land and water conservation fund for conservation purposes.

In addition, I have put in here--and this is for the first time that I have seen it--I want to alleviate the concerns of bordering States, and therefore, in this bill, another 6.25 percent of any revenues would be placed into a fund administered by the Secretary of the Interior which would be used to mitigate for any damages incurred by those several States as a consequence of the drilling, the exploration process, and the subsequent extraction process.

Now, it is highly unlikely, with the advanced technology, that anything would occur. You need only look at the aftermath of the travesty we experienced with the various hurricanes in the gulf recently: While some rigs were made inoperable, to the best of my knowledge, there was no consequent damage to the shoreline as occasioned by the disruption of the operation of those rigs, certainly none of any great consequence. So I repeat that it is a source of revenue for Uncle Sam, the State, and it seems to me to be very equitable in the distribution of these funds.

I once again note that this bill is natural gas only. There is no mention, no request for other products such as oil.

I have again tried to make it clear that this Nation is in dire straits regarding its domestic energy supply and its ever-increasing reliance on foreign energy. Now is the time for each Member of the Senate to stand and be counted. Geological exploration and geological analysis of these areas offshore to date have indicated that there are potentially enormous reserves of natural gas off the Atlantic coastline. I say to my colleagues, I say to every citizen of this country, now is the time we should begin to, first, find out and corroborate and verify the existence of those reserves and, second, let the individual States decide for themselves by a Democratic process-- i.e., the Governor working with the State legislature--to start the extraction of those natural resources of gas.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I simply say to my distinguished colleague and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, this amendment is carefully drawn to apply only to Virginia.

The Senator can oratorically describe something. This is a one-State package.

Mr. President, will the Senator entertain a question?

Mr. President, this measure is deserving of a strong colloquy. I have often felt it is through the colloquies that the Senate does its best work, not through a series of canned speeches and everybody getting up and down. Anyway, so much for that.

The Senator from California said 25 years this moratorium has been in effect. I say to my good friend, I have been here 29 years, and I have watched the Nation in these 25 years grow more and more dependent on foreign energy. When this moratorium was put in, we didn't have $4 to $5 a gallon gasoline prices. We didn't have natural gas at its all-time high. I say to my good friend from California, this is a changing world, and we cannot lock ourselves into a world that existed 25 years ago and ask our citizens to continue to bear these ever-increasing costs.

This Senate last year approved legislation which granted to the several States in the gulf the right to continue drilling. So it is not as if I am breaking a precedent. Other States have been accorded this right. Why deny my State, if my citizens, my Governor, decide it is in the best interest of our State? Is there nothing left to States rights?

The Senator talks about this pollution thing--

Yes. Then I will pose a second one.

If the Chair would indulge as much colloquy as is possible--and before the chairman leaves, she posed, in a sense, a situation. So if I could ask just two quick questions, I ask of my colleague.

I thank my colleague.

Now, the Senator from California is the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and she has raised this specter of oil flow, and my good friend from New Jersey is talking about the oil that has washed up.

Does the Senator from California know what percentage of the oil that reaches our beaches, absent a tanker problem, the oil that seeps from this drilling, what percentage ever comes to shore?

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following from the National Academy of Sciences, a very trusted and respected objective organization. According to their studies, less than 1 percent of petroleum seepage comes from drilling and extraction activity--63 percent, conversely, comes from natural seepage; 32 percent from cars, boats, and other sources; and 4 percent from transportation.

So I just have to say this is workable.

Well, then, I would say to both colleagues, if I could, lastly, put the question to both colleagues, because this is intrinsic to the debate: Is it your position that the United States of America shall never permit its several States to ever, ever, ever drill offshore, be it east coast, west coast? And, somehow, I don't know how you rationalize it, we will let the gulf do it, but we won't let the two coasts do it?

If I could have my colleague answer that question.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: I believe the Senator from New Jersey has the floor, and I believe the rules do not permit him--

I think he yielded for the purpose of a question, not to your right to the floor. Just a technicality, but I think we ought to--

That is right, but, Mr. President, I don't hear the question. I hear a speech. That is fine. I think we want to hear the speech. I don't wish to deny him the right to speak, but let us at least follow parliamentary procedure.

I wonder if I might reply to my good friend for a minute, and I will then likewise yield the floor so my colleague from Florida, my good friend, can continue in his own right.

First, I think I have worked out with the Department of Defense an answer to your question. I simply do not have with me at this time the documents, so therefore I am going to have to indulge the Senate by either laying my amendment aside or some other parliamentary procedure to let the Senate go forward until I can come back with that. I thank the Senator for bringing that up because it is an important consideration. We have a significant command there, the Atlantic Command.

I wish to go to the amendment of my good friend and read the last paragraph:

Requirement.--The Secretary shall not approve a petition

under this paragraph unless the Governors of all States

within 100 miles of the coast waters of the State--

presumably the State making the petition--

have approved the petition.

That gives all the Governors a veto power on this; Mr. President, would that be correct? I pose that as a question to my colleague.

There is a difference between the amendments. My amendment generally states the Secretary of the Interior, who is the final arbiter of this whole issue, would entertain the petitions from the several Governors, whatever geographic area, as he, the Secretary of Interior, makes a decision.

But I think the Senator has gone a step too far. If there is anything left of States' rights after this sort of paragraph, I don't know what it would be. Listen to what you say:

The Secretary [Interior] shall not approve a petition under

this paragraph unless the Governors of all States within 100

miles of the coastal waters of the State have approved the

petition.

It doesn't say anything about working it out. It is flat veto power put in the hands of such Governors within 100 miles.

Mr. President, I am enjoying this debate, perhaps to educate the Senate. But I bring up another situation to my good friend who has recently joined this body. I don't know how many times I have gone to the floor and contested the right of the several States north of my State, largely, to ship through Virginia thousands of tons of garbage by truck, by rail, leaking, exuding methane gas in my State.

You have the good fortune of a clause in the Constitution on interstate commerce, by which you can throw up your hands and say it is the exercise of that constitutional power. You say my State cannot object to your shipping garbage through it every day. The Senator knows New Jersey ships through 1,000 tons of it. Yet you are saying to me, we cannot go through a process--working with the Federal Government of the United States and the Department of Interior--to drill offshore unless your Governor and all others, any one of the Governors within 100 States--if he has not given the approval, this thing stops?

No, 100 miles.

Mr. President, ``in concert'' to me means entrusting to the Secretary of that department of our Federal system, by which the power resides, to grant or deny the license. That Secretary has to arbitrate the concerns of all Governors within 100 miles of this drilling, so to speak. I thought that is the only procedure I know. But I think you have gone to an extreme. You put an absolute veto power in.

At this time, I would like to advise my colleague that, in consultation with the managers of the bill, I would like to lay my amendment aside until I can give a definitive answer to the Senator from Florida. I think I have it worked out in the Pentagon, but I need to provide you with the documents to manifest that resolution.

I will put in a quorum call at this time, such that the managers can advise me.

I will withhold that if the Senator wishes to speak.

Mr. President, in reply to the question of my good friend, I remember that very well. As a matter of fact, he and I worked on that. I remember breaking out the charts in the Armed Services Committee and looking how the aircraft and everything would operate and the ships in that area. You are well spoken and well taken on that.

But I have to tell you, Senator, face to face, things have changed. Every day, things change. We have to reexamine, periodically, that framework of laws that have protected our environment, to a certain extent, in the light of our growing desperate needs for energy and the growing capability of our industrial base to do the drilling, to do the extraction in such a way as to minimally put at risk our environment.

I do not take a backseat to any person in this Chamber with regard to my fervor in protecting the environment. I don't want to be called a tree hugger, but I am one step removed. I work on that Environment Committee, where I have now served 24 years or something--I don't know, a long time.

That is correct. But the military can't do a broad sweep. I know what is underlying this thing. I have to get the papers here. There are certain navigational aspects of it, certain electronic aspects, but the military can't say no drilling on the east coast.

I hope it works out my way, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I call for the regular order, and I believe that will make my amendment pending. I send to the desk a modification. I have a right to modify my amendment.

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

(5) No extraction or exploration plan under this provision

shall be accepted by the Secretary of the Interior if the

Secretary of Defense determines that such a plan is

inconsistent with critical military test or training

activities off the Virginia coast.

The distinguished Senator from Florida referred to a letter he read regarding the concerns the Department of the Navy--and most specifically, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy--had with regard to the ability of this body to enact legislation which presumably would result in the Department of Defense finding that something was done inconsistent with our national security interests. So this modification corrects that so that the Secretary of the Interior, acting under my amendment, would not take any such action unless he had the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.

I also have discovered, since the colloquy between Senator Nelson of Florida and myself, a letter which was written subsequent to the letter he had and addressed the Senate. This letter addresses a modification to the letter of April 10, 2006. This letter was written on November 27, 2006, and it states the following:

Notwithstanding the above, the Department is willing to

discuss with you--

That is, the Department of Interior--

possible alternatives that may provide opportunities for

exploration and potential joint use of the Mid-Atlantic area

consistent with the critical military test and training

activities in this area.

The letter goes on to say:

Our departments--

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

have worked closely together over the years to insure a

continuing successful leasing program with a manageable

impact on defense operations. We agree that oil and gas

development on the Outer Continental Shelf must strike a

balance between our Nation's energy and national security

goals. As the administration moves forward on a plan to best

meet the Nation's oil and gas energy needs for 2007 to 2012,

we look forward to working with you to ensure its success.

Clearly, this indicates that with all good intention my colleague from Florida read the older letter which is now amended substantially by a subsequent letter that the Department of Defense will work with the Secretary of Interior to make certain that any action with respect to drilling off the coast of Virginia is not inconsistent with national defense requirements.

Madam President, I am perfectly willing to accommodate the managers as to how best they want to proceed on a vote. I hope I can get my amendment up this afternoon for purposes of a vote, but I leave that to the discretion of the managers.

I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair for her courtesy.

Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of my amendment, which presumably will be voted on here in a matter of minutes.

I accept the 60 votes because what I want to do is to have a record of just where the sentiments are among my esteemed colleagues with regard to what I view as an advancement in technology and a worsening of the situation with regard to our energy supply and why these two forces cannot converge in such a manner as to enable a Member of the Senate to acknowledge that a State has a right to utilize those resources on the Continental Shelf off of its shore. It just concerns me greatly. I mean, natural gas is up--a 78 percent increase in price since the year 2000.

My good friend and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee got up in her usual eloquent way to explain why she was very much opposed to my amendment. So I went back and did a little homework and determined that California is the second largest consumer of natural gas in the Nation. So I say to my colleague: Where is it going to come from? Where is it going to come from?

Florida. My good friend got up and raised a technical amendment, which momentarily knocked me off stride, but I went back and found documents

which clarify the situation that the Department of Defense will work with the Department of the Interior, and in no way should a petition be filed by the Governor of Virginia for a drilling permit to explore and determine the presence or absence of natural gas off our coast, in no way will that interfere with national security. And that letter is in the record. But he is very much against that. It is interesting; Florida consumes 2\1/2\ times the amount of natural gas that Virginia consumes, and New Jersey--my good friend who opposed me on this-- consumes twice the amount of natural gas that the State of Virginia consumes.

My State is simply trying to manifest the courage, and thus far two successive Governors have broken ground on this, both of them distinguished members of the Democratic Party. And the State legislatures--coincidentally under the control of Republicans--have indicated Virginia's willingness to look in the direction of drilling offshore.

Our State, I believe, is on the verge of stepping up to accept the responsibility to help this Nation meet its needs to begin to prepare to ward off this energy crisis which is rapidly coming our way.

I thank Virginians. I would hope that given the right of States to make choices for themselves, my colleagues would see fit to recognize the problem of the shortage of energy and the need for States such as ours to step up and help.

Mr. President, may I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which superceded the letter to which the Senator from New Jersey referred to be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to the Warner amendment No. 1578, and I ask that it be called up.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate and respect the desire of the Senator from Virginia to be an advocate for his State for the pursuit of whatever natural resources it may have. However, the ocean is not refined to defined blocks that can be confined in terms of consequences. We share that Atlantic Ocean along many States. So the decision of one State, while it may be seen to be sovereign to it, actually has a ripple effect to other States, and the consequences can be very significant.

Now, the Warner amendment, far from helping end our dependence on oil, is seeking to tap another vein to feed our oil and our fossil fuel addiction. I would say to all of my colleagues in this body, all States and Members of those States who reside within the Outer Continental Shelf should be paying a lot of attention to this amendment because the undoing of the moratorium for one State can create a domino effect that will undo the whole basis of the moratorium throughout both the east and west coasts. That moratorium has existed for a quarter of a century, and for good reason. It has existed for a quarter of a century, and for good reason because it is about preserving the very essence of other natural resources as well--the shorelines of those States which often generate billions of dollars in economic activity-- and also about being good stewards of the land for future generations of Americans.

Now, I appreciate that the Senator from Virginia has in his amendment a percentage of the proceeds, some which will go to the Commonwealth of Virginia, some which will go to a fund to potentially mitigate damages, but that recognizes, in fact, that damage is possible to other States. I don't want to be in a position of New Jersey having to mitigate damages caused to its coastal shoreline which is critical in estuary capacity, critical in terms of the economy of our State, critical to the fishing industry of our State, critical to the tourism of our State, and critical to the State of New Jersey. I would replicate that through other States throughout the Atlantic seaboard as well as on the Pacific seaboard. So having a fund that says to other States: Well, if there is damage, we will work to mitigate it, is not very consoling. And to think that one would say: We will only drill for gas, don't worry about it, it is not about oil, we are only going to drill for gas, but if while we are drilling for gas we happen to hit oil, to believe that, oh, we are going to stop and plug it up and we are not going to pursue oil exploration I think is rather ludicrous.

The Clean Energy Act of 2007 which we are debating is supposed to be--supposed to be--about transforming our economy from one based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable energy; from an economy which threatens our planet to one which is sustainable; from energy sources which are old and inefficient to ones which conserve our resources and use them efficiently. Instead, this amendment would promote oil and natural gas drilling in the mid-Atlantic. To me, that is an unacceptable threat to New Jersey's coastline.

The area the Senator from Virginia is interested in opening to drilling is about 75 miles from Cape May, NJ--more than close enough for spills to pollute New Jersey's beaches. Furthermore, any drilling in the mid-Atlantic puts us on a slippery slope toward a day when oil rigs are the norm along the entire eastern coast. One of the greatest jewels of New Jersey is without a doubt our shore. Millions of people visit the Jersey shore every year, bringing an estimated $20 billion into the State's economy--$20 billion into the State's economy--and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. We simply cannot afford to put our shoreline at this type of risk.

Mitigation doesn't help us. We had a time in New Jersey history where oil slicks, where garbage came up on New Jersey's beaches and shores, and the consequences were enormous for the State's economy, for the vitality of the communities that are along the shoreline, consequences in employment. We worked very hard at cleaning up through the Clean Water Act and other initiatives to make sure the shoreline was preserved for future generations of New Jerseyans and, for that fact, the entire Outer Continental Shelf for the future generations of Americans who call that part of our country home.

Now, the proponents of this amendment say that other States on the east coast will have the opportunity to provide input into any drilling decision, but to be very honest, the Secretary of the Interior will have the ability just to ignore their views and approve a recommendation for drilling anyway. Actually, this administration has already, through the mineral-mines management part of the Interior Department, been promoting a plan that actually seeks to create more drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. It is an advocate of that regardless of any potential consequences to natural resources. So I have no faith in a Secretary of Interior directed by an administration that promotes drilling, and all he has to do is say: OK, I heard you, New Jersey; thank you, but no thanks. That doesn't do anything to safeguard the sovereignty of any State that may be affected by the decisions of another State as it relates to the Outer Continental Shelf. This would leave States well within the scope of environmental impacts helpless--helpless--to stop most leases and, more importantly, for the circumstance at hand in my home State of New Jersey, we could not object to any drilling off the coast of Virginia--object in a way that would ultimately have a consequence--even though this drilling could seriously endanger our coast.

Now, the proponents of this measure also claim drilling for natural gas will not have any negative environmental impact on our shores. With all due respect, that assertion is just simply not rooted in science, and it couldn't be more wrong. Massive amounts of waste muds and drill cuttings are generated by drilling operations. Most of this waste is dumped untreated into surrounding waters. Drilling muds often contain toxic metals, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Mercury in particular has been found in very high concentrations around rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and has raised significant concerns about contamination of fish.

In our own State of New Jersey, one of the challenges--and I know Virginia has very significant port activity as part of its economic generation--where there are ports, in the nature of the activity that takes place in those ports, there is often contamination of various sites. We had that reality as we dealt with the Port of Elizabeth in Newark and the Port of Newark in New Jersey, the megaport of the east coast. So the reality is that drilling muds often contain toxic metals, and mercury in particular is one of those.

A second major polluting discharge is called produced water. Produced water typically contains a variety of toxic pollutants, including benzene, arsenic, lead, naphthalene, zinc, toluene, and can contain varying amounts of radioactive pollutants. All major field research programs investigating produced-water discharges have detected petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic metals, and radium in the water column down-current from the discharge. Again, these pollutants have a devastating effect on fish populations that are already under considerable stress, particularly along the eastern seaboard, and those industries are very important, not only to the economies and the jobs they create and the economies of those States but to the consumers of those States who seek to have fish as part of their daily diet.

Now, even if offshore areas are leased for gas exploration, there is always the possibility that oil could also be found, and if oil is found, the exploration company will surely drill for it since there has never been an instance where a lease prohibits--prohibits--an oil company from developing oil if oil is found in a ``gas-prone region.'' Without such a restriction included in the lease, there would be no assurances that oil, in fact, would not be developed, raising the possibility of an oil spill.

According to the Department of the Interior, 3 million gallons of oil spilled from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999. Oil is extremely toxic to a wide variety of marine species. Even if oil is not found, liquid natural gas condensates and can also spill. These gas condensates are highly toxic to virtually all forms of marine life.

Those are just some of the environmental concerns. But beyond these environmental impacts, the Department of Defense has specifically expressed grave concerns about drilling off the coast of Virginia. In a letter drafted on April 10, 2006, to the Minerals Management Service, the Department of Defense made it clear that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the Department of Defense training and testing exercises.

The letter states in part that proposed drilling would compromise the Virginia Cape's operations area. The Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps all use the Virginia Cape's operation area for critical training that could not be accomplished elsewhere.

The letter makes clear that any structures built in the water where these types of activities are conducted would severely restrict military activities to test missile systems or have amphibious or air training missions. The letter by the Department of Defense concludes by saying:

[b]ecause hazards in this area to operating crews and oil

company equipment and structures would be so great, the

department opposed oil and gas development activity in this

Outer Continental Shelf planning location.

The moratorium this amendment would begin to undo began in 1981, and it has continued ever since then. Congress has imposed restrictions on the Outer Continental Shelf leasing in sensitive areas off the Nation's coasts. These moratoria now protect the east and west coasts of the United States and a small portion of the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida.

The moratoria reflects a clearly established bipartisan consensus on the appropriateness of OCS activities in sensitive areas of the country, and they have been endorsed by an array of elected officials from all levels of Government and diverse political persuasions.

In a moment, I will be happy to. I strongly oppose lifting these protections because not only is there concern for my home State of New Jersey, which has enormous consequences, but at the same time, the incredible domino effect it can have as it relates to the overall moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. Anyone who believes it can just be done for Virginia and that others will not pursue it and they have at least under this amendment's procedures very little to say--they can raise a clamor, but they have no real ability to do anything.

My amendment simply says, if we are going to let this happen, those States within 100 miles from where the drilling should take place should have some significant say, the ability to have a significant say about their future as well, their economies as well, and the right to be good stewards of the land for future generations of their States and of this Nation as well.

I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from California.

I appreciate the Senator's question. The reality is that for a quarter of a century, we have had a moratorium exactly because we have come to understand that the values that are generated by our coastal regions, in economic terms, in terms of the environment, in terms of marine and aquatic life, in terms of all the ripple effect that means, has a greater value than any of the deposits that might exist there.

The Senator from California is absolutely right as well, if all we are going to do is go back to what this bill seeks to undo, which is our dependency on oil, whether that oil is foreign or that oil is domestic, at the end of the day, it is a nonrenewable source, it is a highly polluting source, and it has consequences to the ozone. Yes, the Senator is absolutely right. That is why I oppose it.

I think the latest copy of the amendment that was filed, the final copy that was filed by Senator Warner only says the State of Virginia, if I am not mistaken, on page 2 at line 21. But I do believe, however, that the consequence of opening the Outer Continental Shelf, even for one State, has a ripple effect to all the States the Senator mentioned.

Yes. The answer, in my view, is clearly yes. I appreciate that Senator Warner says this is drafted only for the State of Virginia. It is drafted only for the State of Virginia so far as that State will make a determination as to whether to exempt itself from the moratorium. But the consequences of that action clearly have, in my mind, consequences to other States that will be absolutely neutered in their ability to do anything more than to vociferously object but without consequence. So, therefore, a drilling takes place. Even the Senator recognizes by virtue of having in his amendment a provision where some of the royalties go to the State of Virginia, some go to a fund for the purposes of damages done by a spill. So, therefore, there is a recognition of the possibility of damage, and who is that damage to? To other States.

I don't want to be in a position of having to draw on a fund because my State has been damaged. I wish to avoid the damage in the first instance, and that clearly cannot be done under the amendment as offered. That is why my second-degree amendment is so critical to States for them to have a say as well about their well-being.

Parliamentary inquiry.

I will be happy to yield. I wish to make sure I have not yielded the floor.

I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia for the purpose of propounding his questions.

Reserving the right to object.

I will not ultimately object, but I would note that it is not just the potential from drilling and it is not just the potential of oil spills from drilling. I have listed in my remarks a series of other consequences environmentally from drilling, but it is also the consequence of when drilling takes place and then we have, during hurricane seasons, the consequences to those drill rigs and how that can create a disruption.

So there are many facets that are involved that are not addressed by the National Academy of Sciences information. But as it relates to the Senator's unanimous consent request, I will withdraw my objection so that he may enter that into the Record, and I will reclaim my time.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the dialogue, and if the Senator from California would like to respond, I will yield to her.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I see my colleague from the State of Florida is here, and he has a lot of experience in the situation, so I will be happy to yield to him for his comments.

Well, I appreciate the Senator from Florida asking a question and raising a concern. I expressed it in my comments. I am familiar with the letter of the Department of Defense to the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior that made clear that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the DOD's training and testing exercises, and it went on for a variety of reasons and then concluded by saying:

Because hazards in this area to operating crews and oil

company equipment and structures would be so great, the

Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this

OCS planning area.

So, yes, I am aware, and it is an additional concern. However, I know the Senator from Virginia has an exceptional record, which we all admire, in his support of the Nation's military forces. I am sure that somehow he believed he could overcome that objection. Nonetheless, it is an objection on the record in addition to the objections of States such as my own.

What I hope, in reality, is that the second-degree amendment I have offered to the amendment from the Senator from Virginia would be accepted and we could move forward because it still would allow Virginia to move forward, but it would give those States whose coastline is within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia the real opportunity to work between States to come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. I think that is a reasonable effort to try to achieve some compromise.

I know the Senator from Virginia raised previously with the chair of the Environment Committee: Well, does it mean that we shouldn't drill anywhere else? Well, the gulf coast had already

been drilling. It had been well established. But there is a reason there is a moratorium for other parts of the country, and the distinguished Senator from Florida wanted to preserve what is a critical part of the Florida coastline, which means so much to Florida's economy and to all of us who visit, as Americans, the great State of Florida--what it means to us as Americans, as one Nation.

Yes, there isn't a one-size-fits-all policy, I say to my friend from Virginia. Just because the gulf coast has for quite some time pursued it, there are limitations, limitations the Senator from Florida created to ensure its coastline.

Last, we talk about the cost. What is the cost of an oilspill? What is the cost of a leakage? What is the cost of the consequences? What is the cost of a hurricane? What is the cost to the other States, not just New Jersey, but the other States within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia?

I believe our amendment allows Virginia to move forward, but it has to move forward in concert with those States that can most profoundly be hurt, potentially, as is recognized by the amendment of the Senator by virtue of the fact of creating a fund for damage, so they can work together and come to a conclusion.

In the absence of that amendment being accepted, I have to notify the body that this is such a critical issue to my State and to others along the Outer Continental Shelf that this Senator is willing to spend as much time on the floor as is necessary to pursue the full discussion of this matter and, if necessary, to raise it to a 60-vote level because it is that critical an issue.

I thank the Senator from Florida for his observations. I thank him for his leadership in this regard, both past and present.

With that, I yield the floor.

I am happy to answer. What it is is an opportunity for those Governors within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State of Virginia to work together to ensure that their interests are protected and maybe come to a collaborative approach as to how it might be done, which the Senator from Virginia does not, under his amendment, permit in any way whatsoever.

If I can respond to my friend from Virginia, I would say under the amendment of the distinguished Senator, clearly there are no States' rights for those States that will be affected by the amendment of the Senator. Second, there can be no negotiation of any consequence if there is not some sound footing under which one can negotiate. If you have no right, then there is very little to negotiate.

If the Senator will yield, first of all it is all Governors within 100 miles, not 100 States.

But the distinguished Senator from Virginia has a very significant port operation in his State, and his trucks come through the interstate into the State of New Jersey and do quite a bit of damage on the roads of New Jersey along the way, in terms of the wear and tear, in terms of the movement of its product. Some of that product is not the most fanciful product we might all enjoy. That is the collectivity of our consequence as a Nation.

There is a reason there is a moratorium that we, collectively as a body, the Congress, have adopted for 25 years. The distinguished Senator, whom I admire so much on so many issues, wants to aggregate what the Congress has done as a body for his State, without recognizing there are consequences to others. I simply offer an amendment that says we will allow Virginia to do what they want, but they must do it in concert with those within 100 miles of its territorial waters. I didn't say the whole eastern seaboard but within 100 miles of its territorial waters, to make sure those States rights are not affected.

Reserving the right to object, if there would be equal time, 10 minutes on each side, I would not object.

Mr. President, am I to assume the unanimous consent request is for 5 minutes additional for each side?

I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

I yield to the senior Senator from New Jersey 5 minutes and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I hope all States within the Outer Continental Shelf understand the passage of the Warner amendment begins the undoing of the moratorium. For if one State is able to do this, the domino effect that could undo the whole basis of the moratorium that has existed for a quarter of a century will begin to be undone.

Secondly, this is not simply about Virginia's waters. These are Federal waters. This is the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. It is a national context in which we look at it. That is why we have a national moratorium.

Thirdly, even the Senator from Virginia recognizes that damage to other States can take place, because he creates a fund in his amendment to mitigate damages that may take place as a result of such drilling. I don't want my State or any other coastal State to have to deal with damages and to mitigate damages. I want to prevent those damages.

Fourthly, anyone who believes we are going to drill for gas and then maybe find oil and plug it up and not pursue the oil is living under a different set of illusions. That is the reality.

Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the April 10, 2006 letter from the Department of Defense to the Department of the Interior opposing such efforts for drilling off of Virginia.

I believe on all of these scores, this is not pursuing the renewable energy sources the underlying bill is all about. This undermines the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. This puts at risk other States. This is not about Virginia alone. This is about the entire Federal Outer Continental Shelf. Other States have interests when one shore can ultimately create consequences on the rest of that coastline. Also the Department of Defense takes the position that it is in opposition. For all of those reasons, it is fitting and appropriate that we oppose the Warner amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to speak in favor of the Bingaman amendment. I have worked with Senator Bingaman not just in this iteration of our energy policy choices but also previously as a member of the Energy Committee when we put together an EPAct 2005.

My belief is we ought to manifest change here, and the change with respect to the proposal offered by my colleague, Senator Bingaman, is to require that 15 percent of the electricity that we would generate in the future would come from renewable energy sources. That is change.

I do wish to say to my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, we work together on the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee, and we have a good working relationship. I do not believe he needs to in any way injure or demolish the Bingaman amendment in order to achieve his goals because, frankly, Senator Domenici has pushed very hard, for example, to advance the nuclear energy industry in this country.

In conversation with him, as I have told him, I believe we are going to see additional nuclear energy power in this country because we now come to a different intersection. That intersection includes energy and climate change. As a result of climate change being a part of this calculation, I think there will be some additional nuclear energy in our country. I might say that Senator Domenici has made a substantial amount of progress in recent years, both on the policy side and also the appropriations side, in advancing those issues.

So the point I would make is this: I do not think one has to in any way injure what Senator Bingaman is doing in order to accomplish the other pieces that Senator Domenici wishes. Because of that, I do not support the Domenici amendment which I think injures the center of what Senator Bingaman is trying to do, because I support the renewable portfolio standard. I do not particularly like that name because it is not a very identifiable name. I used to call it homegrown energy. But whatever it is, it is saying: We need a change.

What is that change? Well, let's decide that a portion--15 percent-- of our electric energy in this country shall come from renewable sources. We have the capability of producing renewable energy from a variety of sources: wind energy, biomass, solar, and others. There is great promise in a number of these areas. Take a look at what Europe is doing in solar energy. Some of the very large solar energy applications are very promising and exciting, bringing prices down with substantial widespread development.

Let me just mention wind energy for a moment. I know some have said this is only about wind energy, but that is

not the case at all. But wind energy does have substantial potential. Taking energy from the wind, using the new, advanced, highly capable turbines, and using that energy to produce electricity--what a wonderful thing that is. In fact, it is not even a new idea. Go to a farmstead that has long since been abandoned and take a look at what the homesteaders did on their farmsteads. They used their wind and their wind-charger devices to pump water to produce some electricity. This is not a new idea, but the new part of it is the unbelievable technology leap in turbines, to be able to put up these wind towers and take from the wind the energy through these turbines to produce electricity and extend America's energy supplies.

Frankly, you can do even more with them, if you like. For example, we have a project in North Dakota that I have helped create that I am very proud of. We are taking energy from the wind to produce electricity and using that electricity in the process of electrolysis--separating hydrogen from water and creating a hydrogen fuel and storing the fuel. So think of that. Use a turbine to take energy from the wind and produce hydrogen fuel. That is pretty remarkable. There is so much we can do. Now, I am talking about wind, but you can talk about biomass, you can talk about wood chips, you can talk about all of the biomass that is available in all parts of the country.

I know some have said, when talking about wind, that there are certain parts of this country that have a fair amount of wind, other parts do not have as much, and in any event, it is an intermittent source of energy. That is true, but that does not deny the fact that there are other kinds of renewable sources of energy, including biomass and other forms of energy, that can be used to meet this new standard we ought to be embarking upon. For example, we ought to be encouraging solar energy. That is why this amendment by Senator Bingaman makes so much sense.

There is this old saying: If you do not care where you are, you are never going to be lost. Well, that is true. I mean, if you do not set some standards, you are never going to wonder whether you got there. If you did not decide where you were going and did not care where you were, I guess you will never come up short, will you? But I think the entire goal here of trying to put together a new energy policy ought to be change, and change with respect to the production of electricity, in my judgment, would be to say: Let's require 15 percent of our electric energy to come from renewable energy.

Now, frankly, a lot of the utility companies around the country are moving aggressively in those areas. I mean, they are moving aggressively in pursuit of that kind of policy. I commend them. Boy, I think many of them are moving in a way that is something they deserve great compliments about. They understand renewable energy. Yes, even intermittent sources of energy, if you put them together in different ways, can provide almost a stable source of baseload.

So I think this amendment is one of the most important amendments on this Energy bill because it represents profound change. We have only 2 or 3 percent of the electricity in this country now produced by renewable sources of energy. We can just blithely go and act as if, you know, things never change and we don't have to worry, we can just be happy and decide we don't want to change in this area, or we can decide now that as we debate the policies, let's try to develop fundamental change. That is what the Bingaman amendment does.

I understand the resistance to it. I understand there is always resistance to change. That is just a fact. There was an old codger who was once interviewed by a radio station. He was 80-something years old. The radio reporter said to him: Well, you must have seen a lot of changes in your long life. He said: Yep, and I have been against every one of them. Easiest thing in the world to be against change. In many ways, it is the most natural thing in the world to be against change.

There are two changes here. The change with respect to the 15 percent--that change makes great sense. Senator Domenici is also pursuing change in a different way. I think that makes some sense, moving in other areas, but that should not be done in a way that injuries the Bingaman amendment because I think, as I indicated previously, this issue of clean energy, which represents the addition of more hydropower, which I support, which represents the understanding we are going to have additional nuclear energy, which I think most in this body understand given the intersection now of climate change and energy--but that ought not and does not have to come at all at the expense of what Senator Bingaman is promoting with respect to fundamental change in the construct of the electric energy that is delivered around this country.

Mr. President, it will be a profound disappointment if we go through a second round of energy policy discussion on the floor of the Senate-- we did it a couple of years ago; we are doing it now--it will be a profound disappointment if we are not able to enact what is called a renewable energy standard or renewable portfolio standard. I think one would be able to look at this and say: Well, yes, you talked about energy. Yes, you did some things that were good. But you missed a very important opportunity. This legislation was brought the floor of the Senate on a bipartisan basis; that means the absence of partisanship.

Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, both people who know a lot about energy, both have been leaders of the Energy Committee--I have worked with both, and have great regard for both of them. So we did not, in the Energy Committee, push this amendment to have a renewable portfolio standard because we knew it would cause a division in what was brought to the floor of the Senate. I think it was almost unanimous in the Energy Committee, Republicans and Democrats. Now there is a division. I don't think so much that it is Republican or Democratic, but there is a division with respect to this larger question: Should our electric energy reflect a change in how it is produced? Should we require those who produce electricity in this country to produce 15 percent of it from renewable sources--solar, hydro and wind and biomass and so on? The answer ought to be a resounding yes. It ought to come in a chorus from this Senate because it reflects exactly the right kind of change.

The question my colleague, Senator Domenici, is asking with his second-degree is one that, in my judgment, I would prefer he ask without injuring the Bingaman proposal. I don't think we have to try to defeat a 15-percent requirement in order to say we believe there are constructive choices ahead of us with respect to other forms of energy.

That is why I hope--I know there is this discussion about, we ought not to have two votes, a vote on the Bingaman amendment and a vote on what I believe is a second-degree, and each should require 60 votes. I don't support that at all. That does not make any sense. Let's try now to do two things. Let's try, in this area of constructing energy policy, to pass the Bingaman amendment which reflects real change. The construct of our electric production in this country ought to be 15 percent from renewables. If we cannot do that, then we are not going to make great progress in changing energy policy. After we do that, I would hope we could talk about Senator Domenici's aspirations. Could we use more hydropower? Sure. Do I support that? Yes, absolutely. Are we on the road to additional nuclear energy? Absolutely, and much to the credit of his work in the authorizing and the Appropriations Committee. But that need not be done at the expense of a policy that says: We ought to, as a matter of course in this country, require 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources.

You know, this whole energy issue is interesting. I mentioned the other day that we just take it all for granted. Every single day, we get up in the morning and we just flip a switch; normally it is down, we put it up. All of a sudden, there are lights. We plug something into a wall which looks like an ordinary wall, with a couple of holes in it, and all of a sudden, you can shave or you can run a hair dryer, you can run an electric toothbrush. Through the rest of our entire day, it is all about energy. We just take it for granted until it does not exist. When that energy does not exist, our lives change.

The water is not hot--there are so many things in our lives that come from energy, and we just take it all for granted.

Sixty percent of our oil comes from off our shore, much of it from very troubled parts of the world. We want to deal with that. We produce a substantial amount of electricity, and we now understand there is an intersection between the energy production and also climate change in our country that we have to address, not just in our country but on this planet. So we bring a bill to the floor that has portions of each. This is not so much a climate change bill as it is an energy bill, but it reflects in the bill itself--recognizes where we are headed as a Congress with respect to all of it.

I have said previously and I believe that we will continue to use fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas. That is just the fact. The question is not whether we use them; it is how we use them. That is why some of us are offering amendments. I will work on the appropriations side on the issue of clean power and the issue of clean coal technology and so on. But even as we do that, as we decide we will continue to use fossil fuels, we should not embrace the same old nonsense we have heard for decades around here; that is, real men dig and drill. If you are a real man, you dig and drill. If you are talking about renewables, somebody can pat you on the forehead and say: Good try. Its kind of a softheaded thing to be talking about, but it does not have the equivalence of understanding that you need to dig and drill for America's future. Yes, we need to dig some. Yes, we need to drill some. We are going to use fossil fuels. But we need to understand that renewables are no longer just some sort of sideshow. Renewable energy is a significant part of our capability. If we do not exercise that capability and use it in a way that benefits our energy supply and also benefits the climate change issues we confront, then we will have fallen far short of what we should do.

I see my colleague from Idaho is here. I wanted to mention that he has spoken on the floor about the need to increase supply, and he and I agree on that. We introduced a piece of legislation called the SAFE Act which supports increased automobile efficiency. It also supports increased production of fossil fuels, of oil.

I see Senator Craig in the Chamber. He and I are filing an amendment that deals with the increased production recommendations we had previously made in legislation that is called the SAFE Act, Security and Fuel Efficiency Energy Act. It would authorize additional production, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico where the greatest potential production exists. From my standpoint, Senator Craig and I have had long discussions about this. We have filed the amendment. My expectation is I would not call that particular amendment up. From what we have learned in the Chamber, I don't think we have the capability to get the votes for that particular amendment.

I believe filing it is important to say this: We need to do a lot of things well, and we need to do a lot of things right in order to address the energy issue. Part of it is conservation. Part of it is efficiency. Part of it is production. There exists substantial additional production capability in the Gulf of Mexico that is untapped that I believe we ought to consider for additional production. Senator Craig and I have worked on that.

The amendment is filed. It is likely we will not call it up for consideration because we do not have the capability to get that enacted in the Senate. Everything has a maturity date, and this is short of that date. But because the Senator from Idaho came on the floor, I wanted to mention that important issue.

Energy legislation that works for this country is balanced legislation which balances a range of issues.

I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, let me thank my colleague. I have been pleased to work with him. Both of us have been putting together a piece of legislation we introduced earlier this year. We believe there needs to be some significant balance. We support conservation. We support efficiency and additional production, all with appropriate safeguards and restrictions.

Finally, the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, I believe Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, have done a good job in bringing a bill to the floor that allows us early on this year, in June, to debate an energy policy so we can get something through the Congress. This is a good bill. It is not the best bill, necessarily, but it is an awfully good bill. I commend their work. I believe we will lose something important if we get involved in this debate about the Bingaman amendment, the 15- percent RPS, and we decide we can't move in that direction.

There is a Cherokee Indian chief who once said: The success of a rain dance depends a lot on the timing. Timing is everything. That is especially true in a public policy debate. We have been at this for a long while talking about a requirement, a mandate that a certain portion of what we produce for electricity come from renewables. The only way we are going to get there is to pass legislation to do it. Senator Bingaman proposes--and I support, as do others--a 15-percent requirement. It adds to the bill. It creates an important public policy change that will add to this bill in a way that tells the American people: We are about constructive change for energy security. I hope very much we can pass this amendment.

People need to understand, while Senator Domenici has offered his as a second degree, some of what he is trying to do makes a lot of sense to me and is being done in other venues and should be done in other circumstances and can be done exclusive of the Bingaman amendment. What he aspires to do and what I support, in many cases, ought not be done at the expense of obliterating the 15-percent RPS that Senator Bingaman and I and others are trying to get done. I hope we can move on at some point, have an up-or-down vote on the Bingaman amendment, and add something in policy to this energy bill that all of us will be proud of in the future.

There are many utilities moving in this direction, probably not quite this aggressively, but they are moving in this direction because they too believe this is essentially good public policy. My hope is the Bingaman amendment will be approved by the Senate, perhaps today, and all of us will believe we have significantly strengthened the Energy bill we are considering today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me just recount the state of play and where we are. I have just spoken to my colleague, Senator Domenici. I advise all Senators and their staffs we are still hung up on the two proposals that relate to requiring utilities to produce a larger amount of their energy from renewables. The amendment I offered, which is designated the renewable portfolio standard, requires 15 percent for renewable sources. The amendment offered on behalf of Senator Domenici, which has a different base against which it is applied--but it has a requirement of 20 percent against that different base and has a wider list of ways that people can meet that requirement, a wider set of options available--is a second-degree amendment to my amendment.

It would be my hope that we could get a vote on both amendments today and move on to other items on the bill. This is a very important part of what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation, so I hope very much we can do that.

I do have a unanimous consent request that I will propound at this point.

I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 11 a.m. this morning be for debate with respect to the pending amendments, with the time equally divided and controlled between myself and Senator Domenici or our designees; that no other amendments be in order prior to the vote; and that at 11 a.m., without further intervening action, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Domenici second-degree amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment, as amended, if amended.

Mr. President, in light of the objection, I have no choice but to move to table the Domenici amendment, which I intend to do sometime after 11 o'clock. I understand there are committees meeting right now in important sessions, so I am not going to make that motion right now, but I expect to sometime after 11 o'clock. Then the Senate will be able at that point to go on record as to their views on the Domenici amendment.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Idaho leaves the floor, I wish to make a short statement and then pose a question to him so I am sure we are understanding things correctly.

My short statement is that the Energy Information Administration has made it clear they see the main beneficiaries of the renewable portfolio standard proposal I have put forward--not as wind--they see the increase in wind capacity at 50 percent, but they say biomass will increase 300 percent. Beyond that, they recognize biomass currently produces more electricity--about twice as much electricity--as does wind. So they see a dramatic increase in biomass, which the Southeast part of the country has a great deal of. They also project a 500- percent increase in electricity production from solar power.

But to the point the chart makes that the Senator from Idaho has in the Chamber, first of all, there are two ways--Mr. President, this is in preface to a question I am going to pose to the Senator from Idaho. There are two ways we are trying to stimulate more use of renewable energy and more production of renewable energy. One is through the Tax Code. As he points out, there are various tax credits--the production tax credit, the investment tax credit for various kinds of renewable energy. The other is through what I have proposed here, which is the renewable portfolio standard, which is a requirement that utilities produce power from these sources.

Now, if we just do the tax provisions, and do not do the renewable portfolio standard, then that is what is indicated on the bottom line of the chart, as I understand it. You get the substantial increase in budget impacts--that the red line reflects--if you do both, if you do the tax provisions and you also do the renewable portfolio standard because the renewable portfolio standard will ensure that more people qualify for the tax credits because you are going to be producing more electricity from solar, you are going to be producing more electricity from wind, you are going to be producing more electricity from biomass. Every time you do, it costs the Federal Treasury because that new energy is eligible for these tax credits.

Am I understanding correctly that is why the budget impact is reflected as it is there?

Mr. President, let me ask another question. Does the chart the Senator from Idaho has on the floor assume there is a renewal of the tax credit or that the tax credit expires?

Mr. President, let me ask one other line of questioning to the Senator, and I appreciate his answer.

The Domenici proposal, which is the alternative the Senator from Idaho is advocating for, as I understand it--not only as it has been described by the Senator from Idaho but by my colleague from New Mexico and others--not only would encourage utilities to produce more power from the sources I have identified--the renewable sources, traditional renewable sources of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, tidal and all-- but it also says we want to encourage more production of nuclear power, as I understand it.

Would the Senator from Idaho agree with me that to the extent that amendment is successful in doing that, in encouraging all of that additional nuclear power, nuclear generation, and all, that also is going to cost the Treasury, and that is also going to drive up what is indicated on the chart?

I notice there is no line on the Senator's chart to represent what the fiscal impact on the budget would be from the Domenici proposal. But my assumption is, it would be at least as expensive to the Federal budget as mine would be, or else if it would not be as expensive that is because the Domenici amendment would not be as effective in promoting development of these sources; am I correct?

Mr. President, I see my colleague from Georgia is in the Chamber wishing to speak on the bill. I will defer to him, and we will come back for additional debate in the coming hour.

Mr. President, just to advise folks of what I believe the course is going to be here in the next few minutes, Senator Cantwell from Washington is waiting to speak. She is going to speak for up to 10 minutes or something in that range; Senator Corker is here from Tennessee, and he wishes to speak for a relatively short period also; and then, as I have indicated to Senator Domenici, it will be my intent at that point to move to table his amendment.

So that is my expectation of how we will proceed. I am not asking for any consent to do that, but I wanted to advise Senators.

Mr. President, let me say a few words about the Domenici amendment, which I will move to table. I know my colleague, Senator Domenici, wishes to speak in support of his amendment. I certainly will not make the motion to table until he gets a chance to do that.

Let me say why I think his amendment is a major mistake for the Senate to adopt and why we should table the amendment. The underlying amendment that I offered tries to put in place a requirement that over the next couple of decades we move toward more

electricity in this country being produced from renewable sources. We have a very extensive list of what we are talking about. We are talking about solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, biomass, ocean tidal current wave energy, incremental hydropower, landfill gas--those are all what are defined as renewable energy sources, and we are trying to stimulate the production of electricity from those sources.

We have said we have to get to a point by 2020, each utility does, where it is either producing 15 percent of the power that it is selling from those sources or it is buying 15 percent, taking 15 percent of what it is selling from someone else who has produced it from those types of sources or it is buying credits from someone who has produced more than they were required to and therefore has sold them credits or they have made a compliance payment. Those are all ways that utilities can comply.

The Domenici amendment comes along and says three things: First, it purports to say the 15 percent is not the right percentage, it ought to be 20 percent. That sounds encouraging for those of us who like renewable energy. But there is a bit of a sleight of hand in there, and let me explain what that is.

In that amendment they say you take the base amount of electricity that the utility sells and then go back and define what is the base amount of electricity that the utility sells. It is what they sell minus what they are selling that is produced from nuclear. That is 20 percent. So instead of taking 15 percent of 100 percent, which is what my amendment proposes, they are taking 20 percent of the lower amount, which would be 18 percent of the base because 20 percent of our electricity today is produced from nuclear power. So we have essentially a requirement that would be something in the range of 16 percent instead of the 15 that I have asked for.

Then they say: OK, let's define the requirement in a way that it does not just include those things the Bingaman amendment calls for; that is, production of electricity from solar power, wind power, geothermal, biomass, ocean tidal, current wave energy, incremental hydropower, landfill gas; you get credit for doing any of those if you want to do them. But if you want to build a nuclear plant, we will give you credit for that too. If you want to improve energy efficiency, we will give you credit for that too. If you want to adopt the demand-response program to reduce the demand of your customers, then we will give you credit for that too. If you want to adopt capture-and-storage technology for carbon in some coal plant, we will give you credit for that too.

Then it has a general catchall. It says: The Secretary of Energy can pick out other things in the future he may think people ought to get credit for. So what it does is it eliminates any real requirement that any company, any utility, actually go and produce additional power from renewable sources. That was the whole purpose of the Bingaman amendment.

There is one other provision I want to alert my colleagues to, because it is a very important provision, and this relates to the States' abilities to opt out. I know various people have been here and said: Well, States ought to be able to opt out. Well, you don't have a national renewable standard. You don't drive the development of these technologies in a national market if it is up to each State to decide whether they want to participate.

There is a provision in here called Governor certification. This is on page 9 of my friend's amendment. It says: On submission by the Governor of a State to the Secretary--that is the Secretary of Energy-- of a notification that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State portfolio standard that substantially contributes to the overall goals of the Federal clean portfolio standard, under this section the State may elect not to participate.

Under this section, it is clear to me the problem with the Domenici amendment is it essentially prescribes that utilities should do what they are doing at any rate. Then it sets up a complicated procedure of credits and monitoring and trading they have to comply with as well. But it does not require any change in the mix of energy they are, in fact, producing and selling. That, of course, is the purpose of the Bingaman amendment, which is a second-degree amendment.

I do think it is very important we table this amendment so we have a chance to consider the Bingaman amendment and add it to this bill. For that reason I urge my colleagues to support the motion to table which I will make following the remarks of my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR addressed the Chair.

I withhold that suggestion.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Warner amendment No. 1566 is offered and reported by number, the amendment be temporarily set aside and that the Klobuchar amendment No. 1557 be called, and once reported by number, the amendment be set aside and we return to the Warner amendment No. 1566.

Mr. President, could I ask my colleague from Virginia to suspend for a moment while the clerk calls up the Klobuchar amendment, as provided for?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, and please proceed.

Mr. President, I perhaps can clarify for the Senator from California, there is a definition of Atlantic coastal States on the second page of Senator Warner's amendment. But the definition, as I read the amendment, is there for the purpose of defining which States are eligible to comment on a petition the Governor of Virginia would make or submit. Only the Governor of Virginia and only the State of Virginia is affected by it, except to the extent these other States have a right to comment.

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

I ask if I may use 1 minute of the time of the Senator from New Jersey.

Let me speak very briefly to oppose the amendment by my friend and colleague from Virginia. In my view there are two reasons why we do not have drilling off the coast of Virginia. No. 1 is that the President, by executive order, has put a moratorium on any drilling off the coast of Virginia or the mid-Atlantic. Second, every year when we pass the Interior appropriations bill, we include in it boilerplate language. We have done it for a couple decades now. It says: No funds provided in this title may be expended by the Department of Interior to conduct oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, or related activities in the middle Atlantic and south Atlantic planning areas.

If the Senator from Virginia wants to see drilling off the coast of Virginia, he should change this provision when we get to the Interior appropriations bill in 3 or 4 weeks. That is the place to get that changed. If that is not changed, I would say even if the Senator's amendment today were enacted, it would have no force and effect, because no funds could be spent to carry it out. In my view, it should be changed in that respect.

Mr. President, my colleague from New Mexico wishes to make a statement for some of his colleagues before they leave.

Mr. President, I underscore the point that my colleague has made. If Senators do have amendments they want to have seriously considered, they need to get them to us. We will be trying to consider or at least organize amendments tomorrow. We are not having rollcall votes, I have

been informed by the majority leader, either tomorrow or Monday, but we are going to try to process any amendments we can get agreements to move ahead with. We urge Senators to get those amendments to us and get those amendments filed.

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

I thank the Senator for yielding. I appreciate the filing of that amendment.

What Americans are frustrated by--and I think the Senator realizes that--is the lack of balance. He and I have said that. We can conserve and we can change and we can adjust and we can adapt, but we also have to produce, and that brings the balance. I think what you and I did very early this year helped drive the debate that is on the floor now, when we looked at biofuels and efficiencies and production in the SAFE Act and began to argue and articulate those points of view. I thank the Senator for filing that amendment because that completes a very necessary package that brings us to the reality of what Americans want from their energy portfolio.

Mr. President, the debate that has had the Senate occupied for the last several days is a fundamentally very important debate, for not only this Senate but certainly for the American people. There are a variety of things that have grasped the attention of the American consumer at this moment. Obviously immigration has been one, and we have been aggressively involved in that in the Senate the last month. The other thing happens weekly, when that consumer goes to the gas pump and pulls his or her car up and fills it. All of a sudden, they pay a $45 or a $50 or a $60 or a $70 fuel bill. They say: My goodness, how am I going to readjust my family budget to fit these kinds of needs?

The broad bill we have before us is in part attempting to address that issue. There is no question about that. We are working very hard to get this country back into the business of production but in a diversified way. That is important. We should not be held hostage by foreign energy suppliers. Yet over the years we have drifted into that environment for a lot of reasons, some of them of our own doing, because we constantly restricted our own ability to

produce and we have set standards that make it much more expensive to produce. Some of that production has gone offshore. But we have also grown, and we demand more. We have larger cars, and that is our choice in the marketplace.

At the same time the American consumer is being hit by pump shock today, or nozzle shock, whatever you want to call it, in the reality of what we are about.

On the electricity side of the issue--because that is a bit more subtle, because that bill doesn't happen every day or every other day or twice a week at the pump by the digits rolling in the pump to show you what it is going to cost you--it comes once a month in a power bill or it may even be automatically deducted from your checking account. The subtlety of energy costs from the electrical side are less, but they are still very real. In creating an abundant electrical market, we ought to be extremely careful that we don't limit it in a way that continually drives up the cost of electrical production.

We have said, and we are continuing to say, the old concepts of electrical production are largely out or at least they aren't as clean as we want them to be. Because in the context of this whole energy debate, several years ago entered the concern about climate change, therefore, the emission of greenhouse gases that some believe are a major contributor to the warming of our globe. That is in dispute. I believe it is legitimately in dispute as to what or how or in what volume greenhouse gases play to climate change and warming, but the reality is, Americans say today: It has to be clean, or you shouldn't produce it. So we are now on the floor debating, if you will, cleanliness. Some years ago we started talking about that and we said: Well, the only way, 10 or 12 years ago, you could get clean into your electrical production was wind and solar.

In the Clinton years, because of the environmental movement and the power they had over that administration, they no longer said hydro is allowed to be considered a renewable or a clean fuel. It is an anomaly of the past, and it dams up rivers and changes the ecosystems of aquacultures. We can't go there anymore. So they pulled hydro out of the mix and out of the blend. As a result, it doesn't get fitted into the environment of a renewable portfolio standard of the kind we are debating today.

What evolved out of a 1990s debate to today is a standard we call RPS the Senator from New Mexico has introduced, and it is largely a wind standard. Yes, it includes biofuels, but it is dominantly driven by wind today. It creates a unique niche in the electrical market for wind, and it subsidizes wind. It requires that to meet the standard, you pretty much have to go wind.

I have not disagreed in total with it in the past, although I have opposed it because I think it is an arbitrary act on the part of Government to distort the marketplace. But at the same time there is no question, through tax subsidy, a tax credit, that we have, in fact, driven the marketplace toward wind. That was then. What is now?

The world has changed since the mid-1990s, since the concept of RPS. But we are still here having a 1990s debate when we ought to be having a 2010 and a 2020 debate. That debate is not all about renewable and all about wind. It is partially about it, but it is not all about it. Today it is about wind, biomass, biofuels in a lot of forms, nuclear-- clean, nonemitting sources. It is about new hydro efficiencies. We are learning very rapidly that efficiencies in the marketplace can create quantum leaps in savings and, therefore, less growth rate in demand of production.

All of those ought to be a part of a test today, if we are going to establish national policy. If we are going to demand certain levels of performance out of the production side of our utility industry, our electrical industry, then we ought to be balanced. We ought to be broader and, most importantly, we ought to use a new, modern definition, a new, modern screen, a measurement. I don't think it is RPS anymore. I think it is clean.

Having said all of that, if RPS survives this debate, here is what is going to happen. It is going to be a very expensive trip for the consumer and the taxpayer. If RPS survives and we don't move to a newer standard and we put into place the kinds of demands that take us to a 15-percent requirement and then we turn to the Finance Committee, I believe Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley--and we will debate that as it relates to wind energy and a tax credit on a 1, 3, 5, sometimes 10 years, someday probably a 10-year involvement--what will it cost? It is estimated it could cost $3 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15 billion, in a direct Government subsidy, a tax credit, to produce the RPS requirement that is being proposed.

Fairness is fair. A CPS requirement will cost some money. We are having it costed out today. We don't believe it will be anywhere near as dramatic, because it will be spread amongst a much broader portfolio than the narrowest of an RPS. Is this an expensive process? You bet it is. When you enter a new technology into the market that isn't as efficient or competitive, you subsidize it.

That is what we are doing with wind today. But we are creating a new uniqueness. We are saying: OK, here is a market niche for your wind. We are going to give you some of the market. Then we are going to give you tax credits and benefits to get into the market because we want you producing wind. So we are creating a very unique market niche, and we are saying to all the utilities: You have to meet it.

Well, 23 States are already out in front of us. They have some form of RPS or renewable portfolio standard. Some of them are higher than the Bingaman standard, some of them are lower. But there is a movement out there, and there ought to be flexibility in that movement, instead of the rigidity that is the reality of the current RPS. That is what we offer in a CPS or a clean portfolio standard--broaden the base, get modern, let's do not keep regurgitating the past.

I am always amazed that once one group--any group, any interest group--locks on to an idea they can capture the mind with, and they ride that idea for decades, sometimes when it no longer fits the technology of the day or the demands of the marketplace. I believe RPS is that idea that got locked on to in the mid-1990s that no longer fits the marketplace today. I do believe CPS fits the climate change concern, fits the regional disparity as a result of the geography of our country, where there is wind and no wind. I tell some of my southern Senator friends there is a lot of hot air in the South but there is not any wind. Well, there is not any wind in the South. So they have to go out and buy it.

You have utilities in Florida buying wind farms out in the Midwest. Is that somehow going to make Florida cleaner? Why don't we give Florida the opportunity to build clean energy right in Florida, instead of buying something out in the Midwest to offset? It is a strange thing. It is kind of like: Well, we believe in a very green standard. You are going to have to buy your way in if you cannot produce your way in.

I disagree with that. I think you ought to be able to produce your way in. I do not mind clean standards, but I do not think you ought to disadvantage certain regions of the country by the standard you are requiring. CPS changes that. It says we are requiring a cleaner standard in new production. You can do it through wind, as the Senator from New Mexico is proposing; you can do it through biomass; you can do it through new nuclear; you can do it through new hydro; You can do it through new efficiencies. If someday--and I believe it will--coal to liquids comes on line, you can do it through carbon sequestration or, ultimately, we may be able to retrofit our existing coal-fired generation facilities in a way to capture that carbon and sequester it. If we can, shouldn't they get credit for it? Shouldn't there be some benefit for cleaning up the air, instead of letting that remain dirty, but you buy your way out of it by going somewhere else to buy something that is clean?

That is an interesting concept, but that is the concept if you do not identify with the marketplace and you do not identify with the regions and the capability of the regions and the uniqueness of our country today. That is why Southern Senators are frustrated at this moment, because the amendment on RPS says you cannot do it by what we say so you have to go somewhere else and buy it.

Let's make the standard uniform. Let's make it fit all parties. Let's allow it to reflect the diversity of the countryside and the resource that is available in the countryside. We think that is possible. We think if you do it, it is less expensive than the RPS that is currently being proposed.

Here is what I am suggesting to those who are a little concerned about budget exposure because we have not seen what the Finance Committee will do. But if the Finance Committee brings about the tax credits that we think for a 1-, a 3-, and a 5- and someday a 10-year reality, that cost could be $3 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15 billion. Current law is here. Future law could well be here based on what we think the Finance Committee will offer. So we create the marketplace niche today for wind, and tomorrow we finance it. It is a very expensive proposition.

I have wind farms coming up in Idaho, and I am glad they are there, and they are going to blend and be a part of our overall economy. I am all for wind, but I am not just for wind. Again, it is a concept whose day has matured. It is an idea that now fits well beyond the 1990s into the year 2000 and beyond, as new concepts come on board.

In other words, let's get modern. Let's build a policy for the future. Let's don't simply react to the past because the interest groups of the past are still here driving it. Let's think beyond that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, that is my understanding, I say to the Senator, if there is a renewal of the tax credit based on what we think Finance will do. Here is the problem--

It assumes there is a renewal of it. Because what you do, what you know you are doing, if your policy becomes law--there is no opt out at this point--you drive the entire national utility marketplace to a standard. By driving them there, you give them this opportunity, and it is a U.S. tax opportunity. There is no question that is the tax credit. You must go here. And when you go there, you can identify with the tax credit under the assumption--and that is fair--the Finance Committee is going to come forth with it. And we have every reason to believe they will.

That is what drives it. The reason it does is because, if you do not, you put the industry in a very precarious situation. Wind today does not pay its way. It is still on the margin. Based on its productivity in certain wind patterns, it has to be subsidized to fit into the market. How you subsidize it is through the credit, or you are simply saying you are going to do something you cannot afford to do, so you are going to have to go right to the ratepayers and charge them a much higher price than you otherwise would with the credit to come into compliance with the RPS.

Yes. So that is the appropriate assumption of this chart.

And new hydro, where it fits, and efficiencies and sequestration, yes.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you are correct to assume a CPS standard would have a budgetary impact as much as an RPS standard. The RPS standard--as I have said, it is a bit old school, so it is considerably more measurable, and you are forcing production into a narrower slot in the marketplace--wind and bio--whereas we are broadening the slot dramatically.

Yes, there are some of those new nuclear plants, as you know, as it relates to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that are going to have some tax benefits. The first certain numbers are. Sequestration, more than likely--to encourage it, and to make it reasonable in the marketplace-- is going to have some tax consequence. We promote efficiency in the marketplace through that. But in all fairness to the Senator, it is not yet a measurable item. Those who are looking at it now say it is probably spread and less costly, but it is also more than just a cost item.

As I said, if you take a Florida utility that meets the standards by buying wind in the Midwest, it does nothing for the airshed in Florida; whereas, a CPS says you can build clean in Florida and benefit the airshed of Florida. I think there is the other side of that value.

Lastly, if I could react, and the Senator would allow me to, I am all for biofuels. But driving the biofuel market under the current technology--I am surprised some environmentalists are not reacting because it is not a totally clean emitting technology. We are all for it because it is renewable. I am for it because it helps us clean up

the forest floors and do a lot of other things that are the right things to do out there. But we also know when you burn it--and you are burning it--you have carbons, and that is escaping to some degree.

So driving it is the right thing but giving clean options is also the right thing. That is what CPS does.

Thank you.