NOPEC

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am glad our country continues to focus on what we can do better to produce energy for electricity, fuel for our automobiles, and the like, in a way that is friendly to our environment and promotes our national security because in many situations, we are far too dependent on nations that are not friendly and are hostile, actually. Huge amounts of our wealth each year, particularly for the fuel that goes into our automobiles, is transferred to nations, such as Venezuela. It has made them very rich in the short term, and as a result, as Tom Friedman, a writer, said: The richer they get, the worse they behave. So we need to reduce the amount of America's wealth being transferred abroad.

With regard to electric power, almost all of that power is generated domestically with our own energy sources and by our own American people. It is not

as significant for us in the economic and national security area as is automobile gasoline, 60 percent of which is imported. That is why I think when it comes to choices, we need to emphasize automobile fuels and what we can do to reduce our dependence and improve efficiencies.

I have been pleased to serve with Chairman Bingaman on the Energy Committee. I just joined that committee. He is a man of intelligence and decency and commitment to doing right. We have had quite a number of hearings. We have not gone into this issue lightly. I am, however, reluctantly compelled to oppose his renewable portfolio standard amendment and would like to share a few thoughts about it.

First, the overall estimate is that in areas of the country that do not have the natural conditions that allow us to expand renewable energy sources there will be huge costs that will be borne. It seems that some like to suggest those costs will fall on the utilities. Nobody likes utilities because they send us a bill every month. We tend to forget they send us electricity every month also. But they send us a bill every month, and if we don't pay it, they will shut off our electricity. It is not a very pleasant thing to hear from your utility. But utilities throughout America are regulated utilities. What they charge has to be approved by public service commissions or commissions of a like nature.

We have a public service commission in Alabama. Those public service commissions monitor their profits and monitor their charges for electricity and disapprove many times requests for rate increases.

There is a principle that each and every one of our Senators need not forget; and that is, if areas that don't have the capacity to generate electricity with renewables have to pay the penalties and have to pay for other ways to get electricity, that cost, which some have estimated to be $100 billion to $200 billion annually, is the equivalent of this Congress taxing the people in those areas of the country $100 billion to $200 billion and directing it to be spent in this fashion whether or not it is the best way to protect our environment.

In an economic sense and in a true sense, we are saying we are not going to tax the people in the country to fund these programs. We are just going to pass a mandate, and we are going to mandate it on these businesses. And if they cannot meet it, then we are going to require them to pay a penalty. We didn't tax them, we are not taxing anybody, and we are going on about our business and we are going to move us to a more renewable portfolio--a good goal, you see.

But if you step back and look at this, it is the equivalent of taxing the people hundreds of billions of dollars, and that tax will be passed on to consumers of electricity. Already their gasoline prices have gone up dramatically, and now we are seeing some rise in electricity rates, and this is going to be passed on. There is no free lunch. It will be passed on, and the people to whom it is going to be passed on to the most are the people in my State because our wind resources will not work.

Wind in some areas of this country will work. It really will. It can be virtually competitive with other sources of electricity, and that is nice; although in areas that are fairly congested with people, people don't like all these wind turbines. But out West, in some areas, I assume there is still potential to expand wind, and I am for that. I just don't like to see us require wind turbines where it is not going to work, or solar panels where it won't work.

In my home State of Alabama, one would think we have a good bit of sunshine, but in truth, we have a lot of clouds, and solar is not effective in our area. It is not effective anywhere really. It is much more expensive than any other form of generating electricity and least effective in the Northeast. Even in the Southeast, because of our thunderstorms and our long periods in which we have cloudy weather, it is an unpredictable source of electricity, and it is very expensive anyway. It will be a great expense.

I share with my colleagues a letter from the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions. These are the people who, for the most part, are elected by their constituents. They represent the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. They are very much opposed to this amendment, not because they are not for renewables, not because they want to defend some utility, but because they know if this amendment is adopted, rates are going to go up on their constituents and with nothing to show for it.

This is their May 31 letter, just a few weeks ago, to the leadership in this body and the House. They say:

. . . to express our concerns about the nationwide,

mandatory federal renewable portfolio standard being

discussed/introduced by Senator Bingaman. As state

regulators, we are responsible for ensuring that retail

electricity consumers receive affordable, reliable electric

service. We are concerned that a uniform, federal RPS mandate

fails to recognize adequately that there are significant

differences among the states in terms of available and cost-

effective renewable energy resources and that having such a

standard in energy legislation will ultimately increase

consumers' electricity bills.

Then they go on to note, quote:

The reality is that not all States are fortunate enough to

have abundant traditional renewable energy resources, such as

wind, or have them located close enough to the load to render

them cost effective. This is especially true in the southeast

and large parts of the Midwest.

They go on to say, quote:

Our retail electricity customers will end up paying higher

electricity prices, with nothing to show for it.

With nothing to show for it.

So the letter goes on, and they say, quote:

While State public service commissions and energy service

providers should certainly consider available and cost-

effective renewable energy resource options as they make

long-term decisions for incremental energy needs, the

imposition of a strict Federal RPS mandate, as contrasted

with a State-driven cost-effectiveness determination, will

only result in higher electric prices for our consumers.

So that is the fundamental concern.

The goal of how we can go about this is complicated. I think we can make progress toward more renewable energy sources, but I don't see how we can omit nuclear power as a major player in this as the source of tremendous amounts of electricity with no adverse emissions into the atmosphere. How we could be ignoring that is difficult for me to understand, I would say to my colleagues.

My goal is pretty simple, in how I analyze legislation. First, I believe we ought to consider our national security. How does it help us remain independent? Does it impact our economy adversely? A healthy, growing economy is good for this country. I certainly think we should not and must not have a goal of raising energy costs, whether it is gasoline at the pump or electricity on the monthly bill. Raising those prices cannot be our goal. It can only make us less competitive in this competitive global marketplace.

Our goal cannot be to raise prices, but I will tell you that it is a secret, unstated goal of many of the people who are driving some of this legislation. They think if they can drive up the price of gasoline, if they can drive up the price of electricity, the average person won't use so much of it because they do not have enough money to pay for it.

Well, that is not good. Our goal as a nation should be to have safe, clean, reliable energy available at a cost as low as possible as part of living a healthy, productive life. Electricity in nations that have it readily available compared to countries where it is not available have twice the lifespan. You have twice the lifespan if electricity is readily available in your country as you do if you don't. It is a tragedy to see countries struggle so badly. So it is a blessing for us. Energy is not something bad. It is a fabulous blessing to our Nation to have it as readily available as we do, and we need to keep that cost down.

The proposal requires all distribution utilities that sell more than 4 million megawatt hours a year to meet targeted levels beginning in 2010. The RPS standard in this amendment requires each such utility to have 15 percent of its load in renewables, and renewables are only solar, wind, geothermal--there is no geothermal out East, either; there is no ocean capability in our area of the country--biomass--some small possibility but nothing like this area--

landfill gas--which is only incremental--and the like. It does not include nuclear or hydro, which is so important.

The Domenici substitute would require 20 percent by 2020, but it would allow for new nuclear and incremental nuclear, new hydropower, and certain efficiency measures to qualify. Even then, I am afraid we cannot reach that number.

According to the Energy Information Administration, current nonhydroelectric renewables only account for 2.3 percent of total generation in the United States. To get to 15 percent of all electricity from this source would require us to increase that production over six times. That is a lot--over six times the current rate. So under these standards, as they are written today, according to the Tennessee Valley Authority, according to the Southern Company and other companies that are in our area of the country, they say there is only one way, one thing they can do, and that is to pay the Department of Energy the two-cents-per-kilowatt-hour penalty to meet these targets.

Let me tell you, two cents per kilowatt-hour is a big deal. Huntsville Utilities in Huntsville, AL, a progressive utility run by the city, a board appointed through the city, states that the Bingaman RPS and even the Domenici CPS would cost them $4.2 million in 2010. This is just the city of Huntsville--$4.2 million; $8.8 million in 2013; $14.1 million in 2017; and $19.8 million in just 1 year--2020. That is a lot of money on a city--$19 million a year, $4 million a year. They are trying to manage their budgets carefully.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, the governmental entity Franklin Roosevelt started back many years ago, the conservative TVA--this is a quasi-government agency--estimates that systemwide it would cost an additional $70 million to comply with the 3.75-percent RPS requirement in 2011 and $410 million to meet the full 15 percent requirement in 2020. That is $400 million for the TVA system per year. That is a lot of money.

I think Senator Alexander had raised some points: Well, what if you used all that money--the $100 billion, $200 billion--how could you use it if you just applied it in some rational way to include renewables and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and keep the cost of energy at a good level and encourage research and development? Man, you could put scrubbers on every coal plant in the country. You could build nuclear plants in large numbers. We could do lots of things. So this is a cost we are imposing, but the movement it will accrue in the direction we want to go is not great. The Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners said, quote, ``There will be nothing to show for it.''

That is the problem I have. I want to move in this direction. I would like to see us use more biofuels, and I believe there is a potential for that. That is the only thing that seems to be viable in my area of the country, is expanded use of biofuels. But this is really such a huge step that I don't think there is any way it can be met except by paying penalties or a tax. Also, the way this thing works is the money may very well end up just going to the Government in the form of compliance payments or a penalty or a tax, maybe as much as $100 billion.

I really am excited about the leadership Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici have given to the Energy Committee. We have had lots of hearings with some of the world's best experts on energy. We all share a view that if we develop a good energy policy, we can improve our environment, we can strengthen our national security, we can improve our economy, and the like. Any change that can actually reduce our consumption of energy and actually pay for itself over a period of time is a step we clearly should take. But when you are taking steps that are likely to cost far more than the benefit you receive, you have to be very cautious.

Remember, we are not spending Federal taxpayers' money and, therefore, creating a cost. We are passing a law which mandates that the citizens around the country, particularly in areas that don't have readily renewable power, will have to pay more for their electricity to meet this standard. And they are going to have to pay a lot more. The cost is going to be very significant, and the question is, Would that cost have been better spent in other areas? I suggest that it would. Some people have already made some suggestions about how we could spend that money better.

I thank my colleagues for giving me a few moments to talk about this amendment. I am sorry I could not be in agreement with it. The goal is worthy. My analysis of it is the burden will fall disproportionately on constituents in my area of the country, particularly in my State, and therefore I must oppose it. I think we can do better in how to achieve this goal.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I won't persist. I thank the Senator for comments that are very valid for my part of the country.

Mr. President, since the March 2003 start of the Iraq war, more than 24,042 members of our Nation's armed forces have been injured, more than 10,685 of them too severely to be returned to action.

I have visited these soldiers at Walter Reed, at Fort Dix, and at the East Orange Veterans Hospital. I have heard stories consistently from our veterans about fighting against DoD and VA bureaucracy for months and even years simply to receive the basic benefits they are owed by a grateful Nation.

The controversy at Walter Reed again brings to light the shortcomings in the process our returning veterans must deal with in their difficult transition from soldier to civilian. Just as

the deplorable conditions that have come to light are unacceptable, so too are the countless stories detailing the maze of forms, hearings, and medical evaluations that prevent so many of our veterans from getting the health care and benefits they need.

Too often, it seems that rather than thanking the soldier for their sacrifice, this system sets up yet another battle of bureaucracy. Too often, it seems that the system is stacked against the very soldiers it is designed to help. Too often, veterans must seek out their own treatment options and benefits or risk missing deadlines and losing benefits. It doesn't have to be this way. We have an obligation not only to fulfill the promises we make to America's fighting men and women, but to do so in a manner that ensures the benefits we owe them are made readily available.

At the East Orange VA hospital in my State of New Jersey, for instance, we have a modern War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center that stands underutilized because many veterans aren't even informed that it's there. Patients whose quality of life could be drastically improved by the technology the center provides miss the opportunity simply because they are not aware the option is available. This country can do better; the will of the American people is to do better; now this government must do better.

That's why I am proud to introduce the ``Veterans Navigator Act'', a bill that would expand and enhance the important work done by VSOs and other non-governmental organizations to guide our Nation's servicemen and women to and through the VA healthcare system. It would, in fact, acknowledge the work of these organizations by providing $25 million in grants over 5 years to augment their capabilities.

The ``navigator'' concept is not new. It is similar to the Patient Navigator demonstration program I introduced and which was subsequently enacted into law. There, we also took a successful small-scale program being used at select medical facilities around the country and expanded it by providing grants for a scaled-up demonstration program to serve those with cancer and other chronic diseases, and in particular, to provide support to medically underserved populations.

With the Veterans Navigator bill, I propose to do something similar, capitalizing on the successes of the Patient Navigator concept, to help our troops. The $25 million over 5 years in the bill would allow VSOs and other organizations to apply for grants so that they could hire and train navigators to provide assistance, on an individualized basis, to members of the Armed Forces as they transition from military service to the VA healthcare system. They would do so in coordination with DoD and the VA. Right now, many VSOs rely principally on donations to perform these services.

At the end of the 5 years, the VA Secretary would submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the Veterans Navigator demonstration program and recommend whether or not it should be made permanent.

Often called National Service Officers or counselors, a navigator is a ``sherpa'', a guide through the maze of paper and people and specialists and benefits. A navigator is an advocate for those no longer able to go it alone. A navigator is a facilitator, someone who will be with you through the process, to provide the expertise you will need to transition between active duty and veterans status and to get the urgent care you need.

Let me be clear: a navigator does not supplant the role of the DoD or the VA. A navigator is meant to complement the work done by these organizations, particularly at a time when those systems are struggling to meet the needs of the soldiers returning from war and will continue to do so long after the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have ended.

While all veterans will benefit, the bill focuses particular attention on four underserved groups in the military community: the seriously injured or wounded soldiers, female soldiers, those suffering from psychological problems like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, and members of the activated National Guard and Reserves.

These underserved groups have not been sufficiently served in existing VA and DoD transition programs and activities. It is these underserved groups who especially need continuity of care as they enter and wind their way through the VA medical system. Part of the reason they have not been adequately cared for is that the nature of the current wars we are fighting, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, is different from previous conflicts we've undertaken.

During the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, we have the largest activation of National Guard and reservists since World War II. As of March 12, according to DoD, the United States had 141,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq. Of these, 119,005 were active component personnel and 21,995 were National Guard and Reserves. These numbers are set to increase due to the recent announcement by President Bush to send at least 20,000 more troops to Iraq by May.

The GAG released a report in February 2005 citing deficiencies in benefits for these soldiers. The report concluded that National Guard and Reserve soldiers ``are given little help navigating a thicket of regulations and procedures necessary to gain access to military doctors.''

To complicate matters, members of our National Guard who seek medical care must file for an extension of their active duty status in order to continue to access military bases and hospitals.

In its report, GAG also concluded that, and I quote, ``the Army has not consistently provided the infrastructure needed to accommodate the needs of soldiers trying to navigate their way through the ``active duty medical extension'' (ADME) process . . . this has resulted in injured and ill soldiers carrying a disproportionate share of the burden for ensuring that they do not fall off their active duty orders.''

The Veterans Navigator Act would help minimize such occurrences by providing National Guardsmen and Reservists someone to help bring them through the ADME process and to help correct any discrepancies before they cause a delay in accessing VA medical care.

Veterans with psychological problems also need help. In the last several years, we've been hearing a lot more about post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD in veterans and those returning from conflict. The GAO report concluded that almost four out of five service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who were found to be at risk for PTSD were not provided appropriate medical assistance. All of these factors mean that now, more than ever, our Nation's soldiers need help moving between the DoD and VA realms.

According to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs, roughly 13 percent of service men and women returning from Iraq suffer from PTSD. GAO has concluded that roughly 78 percent of those service members at risk for PTSD do not get further evaluation. That means they return to active duty or are discharged without receiving the appropriate care.

It is the nature of this disorder to appear not right after the traumatic event is experienced, but often not until an individual re- experiences an event, has a flashback or is somehow reminded of a battlefield event. That may not happen until after a service member has been discharged from service. Once PTSD does emerge, the veteran may not know how to access VA medical assistance, or he or she may not have yet enrolled into the VA medical system.

Again, as in the case of the severely wounded, time is of the essence. PTSD can manifest itself so severely as to incapacitate a soldier, making medical care more urgent. In the case of returning National Guardsmen and Reservists, the problem is made more complex because of the 2-year time limit on filing for VA benefits.

Since 1991, opportunities for women in our Nation's armed forces have grown. For the first time, the military is placing women in support units at the front line. This has come partly as the result of more than 10 years of policy changes making 91 percent of the career fields gender neutral.

The Navy and the Air Force have begun to allow female soldiers to fly fighters and bombers. The Army has expanded the role of women in ground-combat operations. Right now, ``women command combat military police companies, fly Apache helicopters, work as

tactical intelligence analysts, and serve in artillery units.''

This would have been unheard of a decade ago, but it's happening right now. Right now, record numbers of female soldiers are fighting on the front lines and, as a result, more are being seriously wounded or killed. A Baltimore reporter profiling women soldiers' participation in Iraq observed that ``the war in Iraq has been an equal opportunity employer, by killing and injuring a historic number of female soldiers in combat situations.''

Therefore, a VA medical system designed to treat wounded male soldiers must now ensure that female soldiers get the right kind of medical care. They will need help finding that care and getting access to that care. A veteran navigator can help them do that.

Because of the length and size of the deployment, many more soldiers are being seriously wounded. According to the GAO, roughly 30 percent of U.S. soldiers wounded in combat during World War II later died. Today, that number has dropped to 3 percent for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan due to advances in technology and protective gear.

While this is clearly a positive development, it also means that many of these injured soldiers are returning home with severe disabilities, including traumatic brain injuries and missing limbs that require comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services.

But, severe injuries often mean a lengthy transition from active duty to veteran status. As my story earlier indicates, the physical evaluation of a seriously wounded service member to determine whether he or she can return to active duty can take months to complete. In the interim, the VA has to be able to identify these soldiers so that they can perform early outreach, provided that they have the information to do so.

Despite this, the GAO observed in a March 2005 report that the VA faces ``significant challenges in providing services to seriously injured service members.''

In many cases, VA staff have reported that seriously injured service members are simply not ready to begin thinking about VA benefits or dealing with the VA system during the recovery process. The problem here, as GAO has pointed out, is that the VA has no policy for maintaining contact with these soldiers down the line, once they are discharged. Contact is often conducted on an ad hoc basis. Navigators can also help these seriously wounded soldiers.

VSOs such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans and so many others have emphasized the importance of maintaining contact with seriously injured veterans who do not initially apply for VA health care benefits because it may be many months or even years before they are prepared to apply for them.

The Veterans Navigator can help perform this function. Because this individual or individuals have reached out to the injured service member before his or her discharge, they can, in coordination with the VA caseworkers, remain in contact with them as they recover and prepare to re-enter civilian life. The navigator can also help obtain information from DoD on seriously injured soldiers earlier on so that they can help ensure that all service members and veterans benefit from VA health care services at the right time.

At a time when many active duty service people and veterans have fought and often made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, we cannot risk having any soldier fall through the cracks. We cannot take the risk that our female soldiers, who are fighting alongside their male colleagues, may not receive the medical care they need. We cannot risk the lives and health of soldiers with PTSD. We cannot risk the lives and the health of any service member who put their lives at risk for our country.

As we have seen with the situation at Walter Reed, DoD and VA simply do not have the manpower to effectively handle the influx of veterans cases coming into the system. With a backlog of over half a million claims, the VA can not adequately address the individual needs of America's warriors. Our service members didn't have to wait to sign up to serve their country; they shouldn't have to wait and fight to get the benefits they are seriously entitled to.

The very least that we can do is to ensure that all of these brave men and women are able to access the medical benefits to which they are entitled, particularly in their time of greatest need. At some point in each of our lives, we might need a guiding hand to help us find our way. Today, I am proposing to provide that helping hand to our troops in a time of their greatest need. It is the very least that we can do.

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

Mr. President, I know there are other amendments pending, but I wish to speak to an amendment that is to be offered by our colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, on creating a national greenhouse gas registry. I am pleased to join her in this effort because I do think it is so critical if we are to aggressively and comprehensively address the question of climate change and instituting some major initiatives with respect to global warming. I am pleased to join Senator Klobuchar and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, in offering this amendment at the appropriate time today.

I know Senator Klobuchar has spoken to the question, and I want to make sure I have the opportunity to express my views on creating this greenhouse gas registry which I think is absolutely essential in fulfilling the existing void by requiring vital information to help us more effectively and efficiently reduce our Nation's carbon dioxide emissions.

I know this is Senator Klobuchar's first major initiative in the Senate as one of our newest colleagues. I had the pleasure of working with her on this initiative. No question it is going to be a major contribution to the environmental debate and to our national energy policy because a greenhouse gas registry is an absolutely integral beginning for collecting emissions data that will lead to an economy- wide number for our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

Everyone rightly speaks of the increased greenhouse gas emissions that scientists, through peer-reviewed research, have verified are creating the temperatures to rise, severe droughts, weather events to intensify, and sea levels to rise around the globe. We now have sufficient scientific certainty to know we must act to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, the largest greenhouse gas pollutant both domestically and globally.

While there is this sense of urgency, as there should be, I think we well recognize all the consequences of our failure to act both internationally as well as domestically. The United States EPA has no facility-by-facility inventory to even accurately report emissions in the United States. We simply have no solid number representing how much carbon is even emitted.

While the powerplant sector is responsible for reporting under the Clean Air Act, the Government has no accurate system to account for the largest U.S. emitters, as we are currently under an incomplete and voluntary system for reporting yearly emissions for non-powerplant facilities.

Now is the time to follow the lead of our neighbor to the North, Canada, which already has a mandatory registry system in place. In fact, the Senate has addressed establishing a greenhouse gas registry in the past. Specifically, the 107th Congress 2002 Energy bill called for a national database for greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary reporting language, and also a hard trigger that I proposed that made the program mandatory after 5 years if industry had not stepped to the plate and voluntarily reported and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, regrettably, no bill emerged from conference that year.

I have no doubt our Nation would be in a much better position today if such a provision had been put in place 5 years ago. I also have no doubt the United States would have engendered more respect internationally if we had instituted a mandatory program for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Indeed, let us recall--and I certainly do because I was here, I was in the House of Representatives at the time--the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by former President Bush and ratified by the Senate and which entered into force on March 21, 1994. The United States agreed to gather and share information on its annual greenhouse gas emissions.

In response, the EPA makes an estimate on what the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are every year. Frankly, I would call it more of a guesstimate because how precisely and exactly can emissions be reported under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change when accurate data is not even available to the EPA from well over half of the emitters in the United States?

There are around 12,000 U.S. industries, from petroleum refiners, cement and steel manufacturers, chemical plants, and others, that do not have to report any greenhouse emissions whatsoever. They are only being asked to participate in a voluntary reporting scheme called the Department of Energy's 1605(b) voluntary registry program which has been marginally successful at best when one considers that according to the Energy Information Administration, in 2005, only about 200 companies voluntarily reported their emissions--only 200, Mr. President. It is truly alarming there is no comprehensive national accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for major emitters in the United States, nor is there any certification that the reported greenhouse gas emissions are even accurate.

The Department of Energy's Office of Policy and International Affairs is only asked to review the 1605(b) guidelines every 3 years. All we are requiring today is a mandatory greenhouse gas emissions registry to secure accurate numbers. For those who don't favor advancing climate change legislation, they should at least be concerned that the United States meets its obligations by accurately reporting its total annual greenhouse gas emissions, not having a guesstimate or uncertain data, but data that give us the most precise and accurate information.

For those of you, like myself, who support a market-based carbon cap- and-trade system, as called for in the Kerry-Snowe legislation and the Lieberman-McCain climate bill to decrease domestic greenhouse gas emissions through a carbon cap-and-trade system, the registry we are requesting has to be the very first step. It is an integral component to any type of carbon cap and trade we might initiate in the future.

We are being proactive by not waiting until we have established a cap-and-trade system that will require reporting emissions for major industries. This will jump-start the actions in the United States for decreasing emissions.

A trading system carries with it a value of every ton of carbon. A ton of

carbon not emitted is worth a credit that can be sold to a company that emitted a ton too much. So we will need a level of detail and verification to make the market truly work in distributing credit for tons not emitted in the shortest timeframe possible.

The European Union has been a living laboratory for its bold step in setting up the world's first carbon cap-and-trade system. They modeled its greenhouse gas emissions scheme after a sulfur dioxide cap-and- trade program that was put into place by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 to combat acid rain.

A European official, in appraising the mistakes made with their still new system, said:

You need a registry, and you need a reporting vehicle.

That information gathering is vital, ``a very important first step,'' he indicated.

I recall it took EPA 5 years to get the acid rain program up and running because powerplant operators had to install devices to gather pollution rates. The European Union is going through similar growing pains because they had no registry of verified data to make its cap- and-trade system work accurately. Too many credits were given.

So a national greenhouse gas registry is a crucial precursor to both mandatory and market-based carbon cap-and-trade regulations of industrial greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming which we know has been verified indisputably by the numerous reports and scientific data and studies, such as from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is quite simple: If there is no system for counting carbon emissions, there is no accurate way these emissions can be reduced, and certainly there is no accurate way they can be capped or a trading scheme developed.

Once again, the States are undertaking initiatives. They are certainly assuming a leadership role for climate change actions. There are 31 States, with California and the New England States in the lead, that represent more than 70 percent of the population in the United States that are now participating in the Climate Registry, all measuring in the same manner and jointly tracking greenhouse gas emissions from major industries.

This partnership with the climate registry is yet another example of the States going farther than the Federal Government and taking the initiative and taking the steps essential to combating global warming.

More significantly, the emissions statistics of the new registry are subject to third-party verification as opposed to the Federal voluntary program that doesn't require any verification of any kind and, therefore, undermines the certainty, the credibility, and the confidence in that information because it has not been certified in any way.

I hope my colleagues will support this initiative offered by Senator Klobuchar, Senator Bingaman, and myself to establish this essential accounting tool that will give businesses and policymakers the ability to track emissions as a building block for climate change emissions reduction initiatives that are currently before Congress.

Very recently, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, held a meeting with a number of CEOs of various major corporations around the United States who have supported a carbon cap-and-trade system. They have joined in a major partnership, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, with environmental organizations and other stakeholders in support of initiating domestic climate change initiatives and legislation.

This is very significant because these companies and these corporate executives have indicated their support for a carbon cap-and-trade system for the very first time because they understand that many of the States, as I indicated, the 31 States--with California having taken the lead and now the New England States and my State of Maine is certainly one of them that has been in the forefront of environmental leadership--have adopted the various regulations that will be part of a carbon cap-and-trade system.

The fact is, these States have taken the lead, and they have been very aggressive and bold in their steps to reduce emissions in their respective States and regions. Now companies understand the true value that will emerge in having one national standard so they have predictability, if they have a national standard that creates a carbon cap-and-trade system, so they can plan for the future. After all, companies have to make long-term decisions and have to have lead time in making decisions 30 to 40 to 50 years and beyond. So they have to understand exactly what regulations they will be governed by. They want the certainty, and they do not want to deal with States' different rules and regulations. They would like to be governed and regulated by one standard, a Federal standard, with respect to regulations through a national carbon cap-and-trade system.

In our discussions during the course of that luncheon, they indicated a greenhouse gas emissions registry would be absolutely integral to this process; that, in fact, it is the very first step that is so essential in developing the predictability, the certainty, and the confidence in the data that has been yielded so we know for sure which companies are emitting how much so the carbon cap-and-trade system that is ultimately put in place is put in place with confidence. We can then have a verifiable trading system that can buy and sell credits that will be important to this process if we are going to establish a cap and trade program to ultimately reduce carbon dioxide emissions which is, of course, what it is all about if we are ever going to begin the process of curtailing climate change and to avert any increases in the Earth's temperature by the year 2050, which most scientists have indicated is the tipping point. We have to prevent an increase in the Earth's temperature by more than 2 degrees centigrade by the middle of this century.

Ultimately, it is going to require a major reduction in carbon dioxide emissions at least at a minimum at 65 percent, which is the legislation I have joined Senator Kerry on that will achieve that level in order to avert that climatic tipping point we obviously want to accomplish over the next few decades.

This carbon cap-and-trade system is going to be a vital component to bringing everybody on board in industry, and having an economy-wide approach is very important if we are going to be effective in curtailing these emissions that indisputably and undeniably are having an unambiguous impact on our environment. The science has obviously been verified by so many of the reports that have been issued in the last couple of years and these reports are alarming. Now is the time to begin action. So I want to commend my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, for taking this initiative for a national greenhouse gas registry. By all accounts it is absolutely an integral part of our effort as we begin to take the measures needed to be proactive in combating global warming.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2264) to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, gas prices have now reached an all-time record high, topping even the 1981 spike in price that had stood as the record high for 26 years. According to the Energy Information Administration, the nationwide price of unleaded regular gas hit $3.22 a gallon, 11.5 cents higher than last week's price. In Michigan, it is even higher than that.

Today's record-breaking price, one in an unending series of continuous price hikes over the past month, is hurting Americans in their pocketbooks, and we have got to do something about it. Retailers across the Nation are saying that soaring gas prices are prompting consumers to cut back on their shopping trips and their purchases.

We are told this won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either. The AAA forecasts that more record prices are probably on the way, especially as the summer begins, which is usually the busiest driving season of the year.

In Michigan, gas prices have reached their highest levels ever at $3.27 a gallon. Michigan is now the third most expensive State for gasoline in the country, behind California and the State of Illinois.

Last week, in an effort to help address this crisis, the House Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Task Force examined the OPEC cartel and its impact on the price of gas. OPEC accounts for two-thirds of the world's oil reserves and more than 40 percent of the world's oil production, but, even more significantly, OPEC oil exports represent 70 percent of all the oil traded internationally.

You know what that means. This affords OPEC, obviously, considerable control over the global market. Its net oil export revenues should reach nearly $395 billion in this year alone, and its influence on the oil market is dominant, especially when it decides to increase or reduce the levels of production.

For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy, and that is what I call it, a conspiracy, has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, the administration has done little or nothing to stop this.

So now the time has come. It is time for us to do something to point them in the right direction. We have got to get ahold of this economic crisis. The cries are rising up in every congressional district in the Nation, so your Committee on the Judiciary has produced H.R. 2264, with the help of Mr. Chabot and Mr. Keller and other Members, to make clear that the oil cartel nations that are colluding to limit crude oil production as a means of fixing its price is illegal under United States law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct.

It clarifies and reaffirms the law in several critical respects:

First, it exempts OPEC and other nations from the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to the extent those governments are engaged in price fixing and other anticompetitive activities.

Second, H.R. 2264 makes clear that the so-called ``act of state'' doctrine does not in any way prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments, and that foreign governments are ``persons'' subject to suit under the antitrust laws.

Third, it explicitly authorizes the Department of Justice to bring lawsuits in Federal court against oil cartel members.

Ladies and gentlemen, we, on behalf of the American people, have had enough. These price rises are not something that we have to merely humbly drive into the gas station and look at the new, increased cost. We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of our gas without any recourse whatsoever. We can do something about it to combat this blatantly anticompetitive, anticonsumer behavior, and we are.

I urge Members to carefully consider the legislation that is now being debated on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) whose State has been most affected by the subject matter we are here on the floor considering.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished Judiciary member from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, may I close with this observation. It was in 1978 that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers sued OPEC under the Sherman Antitrust Act, but the case was rejected because the Court said that OPEC could not be prosecuted under the Sherman Act due to the foreign sovereign immunity protection clause it claimed for its member states.

I'm here to announce on the floor, as modestly as I can, that that decision was in error. Government-owned companies that engage in purely business activities do not warrant sovereign immunity protection according to prevailing legal doctrines, and so what we do in this measure is that we don't start a lawsuit against OPEC. We merely authorize for the first time by law the Department of Justice to, when in their good judgment they choose to be able to do that.

These high prices facilitated by OPEC serve to transfer wealth from Western consumers to petroleum producers, and I have this on the very conservative words of the Heritage Foundation itself. I will insert this in the Record at this point.

[From The Heritage Foundation, May 21, 2007]

Time for Congress To Lift OPEC's Immunity

(By Ariel Cohen)

This week, the House is likely to pass the No Oil Producing

and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007 (NOPEC, H.R. 2264). This

bill, sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and

Steve Chabot (R-OH), would allow the federal government to

sue the Organization for Petroleum Exporting States (OPEC)

for antitrust violations. Similar legislation (S. 879) is

pending in the Senate, sponsored by Senators Herb Kohl (D-WI)

and Arlen Spector (R-PA). At a time when oil prices are

climbing to ever-higher levels, fighting OPEC's

anticompetitive practices would be a welcome first step

towards reestablishing the free market in this strategically

important sector. This is long overdue and points the way

toward a second step: allowing private antitrust suits

against OPEC.

The Intolerable Status Quo. Since its inception in 1960,

OPEC, which is dominated by Persian Gulf producers, has

successfully restricted its member states' petroleum

production, artificially distorting the world's oil supply to

line its members' pockets. Member states' production quotas

are determined at semi-annual meetings of members' petroleum

ministers and are at times changed through telephone

consultations. Several times, this supply-fixing strategy has

brought devastation to the U.S. and global economies:

In 1973, OPEC's actions in response to U.S. support for

Israel, which was attacked in the Yom Kippur War, resulted in

a worldwide economic recession that lasted from 1974 to 1980.

In 1980, OPEC's failure to increase production in the face

of the Iranian revolution resulted in historically high oil

prices of $81 per barrel (in 2005 dollars).

In 1990, OPEC refused to increase production sufficiently

to keep prices stable as Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait.

Lately, OPEC's resistance to add productive capacity has

sent oil prices to $70 a barrel, once again endangering

economic growth worldwide.

The cartel's operations ensure that its members' oil and

gas economies remain insulated from foreign investment flows.

Members of OPEC have not worked to enhance the rule of law

and property rights and have imposed severe restrictions to

prevent foreign investors from owning upstream production

assets (oil fields and pipelines). This is a testament to the

cartel's de facto monopoly over the petroleum market. Indeed,

the only serious challenge to the organization came in 1978

when a U.S. non-profit labor association, the International

Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), sued

OPEC under the Sherman Antitrust Act, in IAM v. OPEC. But the

case was rejected in 1981 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit. OPEC, the court affirmed, could not be

prosecuted under the Sherman Act due to the foreign sovereign

immunity protection it claimed for its member states.

That decision was wrong. Government-owned companies that

engage in purely business activities do not warrant sovereign

immunity protection according to prevailing legal doctrines.

High oil prices, which OPEC facilitates, serve to transfer

wealth from Western consumers to petroleum producers. This

wealth transfer funds terrorism through individual oil wealth

and government-controlled ``non-profit'' foundations. It also

permits hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on

radical Islamist education in madrassahs (Islamic religious

academies).

Furthermore, the oil-cash glut in the Gulf states and

elsewhere empowers resistance to much-needed economic reform

in oil-producing countries. State subsidies for everything

from health care to industry to bloated bureaucracy continue

unabated, funded by Western consumers.

Congress Gets Into Action. Growing concerns over energy

prices have prompted Congress to examine the legal hurdles

that prevent the United States from defending its economic

and national security interests.

In the early part of 2005, a group of senators led by

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) introduced the ``No Oil Producing

and Exporting Cartels Act'' (S. 555), known as NOPEC, to

amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting

cartels illegal.

The bill has now returned the Senate calendar. The House

and Senate now have a unique opportunity to:

Join forces in defending American businesses and consumers.

NOPEC would send a strong and long-overdue signal to OPEC oil

barons that they must stop limiting production and investment

access.

Allow private suits against OPEC. If OPEC is to be reined

in, individuals and companies that it has damaged must also

be allowed to bring suits against the cartel. As the

International Association of Machinists (IAM) v. OPEC made

clear, Congress must amend the Sherman Act to allow these

suits. Reform should not begin and with the DeWine-Kohl

legislation.

Conclusion. The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act

of 2007 would place much needed pressure on OPEC. It is time

for the cartel to cease its monopolistic practices. Otherwise

the American People can expect more of the same from OPEC--

insufficient production and higher energy bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside. I have an amendment, No. 1557, at the desk and am asking for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senator from New Mexico has objected to the consideration of my amendment No. 1557. It provides for a national greenhouse gas registry and has the support of many people on the other side of the aisle as well as this side of the aisle. I ask that we try to work this out in the future, but I ask that I may discuss this amendment.

My amendment, which I have submitted with Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Collins, Carper, Coleman, and Kerry, establishes a national greenhouse gas registry--a comprehensive and uniform method of tracking greenhouse gas emissions by major industries. This registry creates a national framework for credible and consistent greenhouse gas emissions reporting.

Currently, reporting of greenhouse gas emissions data falls under a number of different Federal and State programs. Reporting is largely voluntary, and the criteria and reporting formats are inconsistent. The resulting data is meager and unsatisfactory.

The Klobuchar-Snowe-Bingaman amendment requires the Administrator of the EPA to gather complete, consistent, transparent, and reliable data on greenhouse gas emissions at the facility level. It builds upon existing reporting requirements to minimize the impact on businesses as well as the EPA.

This amendment is very similar to legislation that has passed this Senate twice in the past 5 years as part of comprehensive energy legislation.

A little over 5 years ago, Senator Brownback, along with then-Senator Corzine, passed an amendment creating a greenhouse gas registry. This registry would have been voluntary, but

after 5 years--if the registry contained less than 60 percent of the total national greenhouse gases in the United States--mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases would have been triggered.

Now it has been over 5 years since the passage of that amendment in this body of Congress, and we still lack credible greenhouse gas emissions data from nearly all major sectors of our economy.

This amendment is simpler than the Brownback-Corzine amendment, requiring reporting from a little over 10,000 establishments in the U.S. economy, representing over 80 percent of our human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, without requiring costly monitoring equipment for smaller entities.

Collection of greenhouse gas emissions data is necessary to better understand how much greenhouse gas various sectors of our economy emit and design effective strategies to address greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week, on National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition,'' a reporter asked a seemingly simple question that helps illustrate the need for such a registry: Who is the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the country?

It turns out, finding the answer is not that simple. The reporter could not find an answer because we do not have an accurate and complete inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in this country.

This is a problem. As Peter Drucker, the famous business management scholar, has said:

If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.

Without accurate measurement, it is hard to implement effective solutions. At the moment, there is a void of accurate measurements on greenhouse gases, and what data is available is not certified by either the EPA or a third party.

There is strong support in the business community for the establishment of a national registry. In January 2007, a group of businesses unified to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This diverse group of businesses urged Congress to act within the year to create a greenhouse gas registry, along with a number of other steps. The group includes General Electric, DuPont, Duke Energy, General Motors, PG&E Corporation, and many others.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the companies be printed in the Record.

The strength and breadth of this coalition demonstrates the fact that the U.S. business community anticipates a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program coming into force. Having accurate greenhouse gas emissions data is necessary to assess risks of capital investment decisions.

It also provides an opportunity for major industries to gather information on greenhouse gas emissions from previous years and make good decisions on the design of any future greenhouse gas regulatory program.

In response to the absence of action by the Federal Government, 31 States--representing over 70 percent of the population of this country--have banded together to create a greenhouse gas reporting system called the Climate Registry.

While it is a good start, and a sign of bipartisan impatience with the Federal Government's inaction, this registry is no substitute for a comprehensive national registry. You now have a situation where 31 States are having to start their own registry because we have not acted.

The other issue with the 31-State registry is that it does not require mandatory reporting or third-party verification. Its participants range from States that are moving to impose mandatory greenhouse gas reduction programs to those that are beginning to evaluate whether to take any steps.

According to Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano:

The State Climate Registries are another example of how

States are taking the lead in the absence of Federal action

to address greenhouse gas emissions in this country.

These States will benefit from a national registry, which will reduce administrative costs, centralize technical expertise and support, and greatly reduce the risk of under- or overreporting.

As the Climate Registry--the nonprofit entity coordinating the 31 States' efforts--claims:

The creation of a Federal greenhouse gas emissions

reporting system would be a significant step forward in U.S.

climate policy that will build on the progress made through

existing reporting systems and make it easier and less costly

for corporations to track and report their greenhouse gas

emissions.

We need a greenhouse gas registry because there simply isn't a consistent set of data. We have a patchwork system that is simply unworkable for accurate data measurement. We can't make good policy choices unless we collect good data.

At the Federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy collect a lot of data on energy production and consumption. However, the quantity and quality of the data vary greatly across different fuels and different sectors. For example, data on crude oil and petroleum product stocks is collected weekly from selected oil companies, while data on energy use in the industrial sector is collected only once every 3 years through surveys. In some cases, the EPA collects the data itself, while in other cases, the data is collected through State or Federal agencies.

There are two existing programs that provide some, but not nearly enough, data on greenhouse gas emissions. The first is the Department of Energy's 1605(b) Program, and the second is EPA's Climate Leaders Program. However, neither of these programs gathers facility-by- facility emissions data. Additionally, both of these programs are voluntary with no means of verifying greenhouse gas emission reports. The PEW Center on Global Climate Change, as well as the National Commission on Energy Policy, have criticized both of these programs for lacking rigorous reporting standards and verification requirements, allowing for the double-counting of reductions and failing to account for overall greenhouse gas emission increases. This inconsistency in approaches has resulted in a lack of comparability of reported emissions from company to company, as well as a lack of comparability of results from reporting program to reporting program. We need to have consistent, high-quality data across all sectors, which is what I call a national carbon counter system.

Our amendment--again, a bipartisan amendment--seeks to create common standards for measuring, tracking, verifying, and reporting greenhouse gas emissions by major industries. These standards do not currently exist at either the State or the Federal level.

This amendment does not place limits on greenhouse gas emissions; it simply requires that the EPA establish and maintain a database of greenhouse gas emissions. A national greenhouse gas registry will create reliable and accurate data that can be used by public and private entities to inform their financial decisions and allows investors to identify and manage future risks and opportunities.

The amendment has a number of checks to ensure it does not harm small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration, which emit less than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases. It will promote full and public disclosure by requiring the EPA to post greenhouse gas emissions on its Web site. You really can't see greenhouse gas emissions, but at least you will be able to check the Web site. It will build on existing reporting requirements to minimize the impact on businesses and the EPA.

This amendment is not designed to support any specific legislation or policy position; it simply ensures that greenhouse gas emission data will be generated and collected in a consistent manner, regardless of its intended use. We will be able to make good decisions in the future on policy only if we have good and accurate information.

I would note that Senator Boxer is also a cosponsor, in addition to Senators Snowe, Collins, and Coleman, and Senator Kerry and Senator Bingaman, who is managing this Energy bill, as well as Senator Carper.

I would like to add that I am very disappointed that the Senator from New Mexico has objected to me putting this amendment in at this time. There is support on the Republican side of the aisle for this bill. I am hoping I can work with him and others to finally get this amendment admitted and considered by the Senate. I believe it is very important. I think it is the least we can do to begin information-reporting and to begin doing something about climate change. So I will work with the Senator from New Mexico and others to be able to get this amendment considered.

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 1573 to Amendment No. 1537

(Purpose: To provide for a renewable portfolio standard)

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I call up amendment No. 1573 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation that would expand the Federal student loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers.

Nationwide, only 31 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program.

In California, that number is even smaller: only 21 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree.

To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning.

Recruiting and retaining teachers with such qualifications is critical to ensuring that our children start elementary school ready to learn.

A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), found that ``teachers with higher education levels were found to have more high quality language activities and more creative activities in their classrooms.''

In order to give every child a jump start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving.

Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better.

Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of about $21,000--almost half the amount of elementary school teachers' salary of about $43,000.

Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, makes it increasingly difficult to attract and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers.

We must provide incentives to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in this important field.

This legislation would allow recent college graduates (obtaining a minimum of a bachelor's degree), and current Head Start teachers without a degree, to receive up to $5,000 of their Federal student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a qualified Head Start program; and provide Head Start teachers with the same opportunity as currently offered to eligible elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 5 years of service.

Providing our Nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified Head Start teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success.

Head Start is the primary Federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing.

Research shows that Head Start is a smart investment in our children's future.

For example, a 2003 Kindergarten Readiness: Head Start Success study of more than 600 graduates in San Bernardino County, CA, demonstrated that society receives nearly nine dollars in benefits, i.e. increased earnings and employment, for every one dollar invested in Head Start children.

That is why we must act now.

Every teacher that the Head Start program loses impacts the quality and access to services for our Nation's neediest children, and ultimately can impact their future success.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Voinovich in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with Senator Durbin to restore our Nation's agricultural inspection functions to the Department of Agriculture.

This bill would transfer the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program--AQI--from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection back to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--(APHIS).

In 2003, as part of the Homeland Security Act, agricultural inspections at all points of entry in the United States were transferred from the USDA to DHS. Four years later, it is clear that fewer agricultural inspections are being conducted at our borders and ports.

I have heard this message loud and clear from: California Secretary of Agriculture A.G. Kawamura, California Farm Bureau, the American Landscape and Nursery Association, the California Agriculture Commissioners and Sealers Association, the Nisei Farmers League, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, Defenders of Wildlife, and the San Diego County Agriculture Commissioner, the Contra Costa County Agriculture Commissioner, and many California farmers.

These groups have observed not only the decrease in the number of inspections since the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--but also decreased communication between the program and State agricultural organizations.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office produced a report that highlighted the problems associated with the transfer of the program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security, entitled ``Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease.''

The GAO study found:

The inspection rate at several key American points of entry has significantly decreased. Inspections decreased in Miami by 12.7 percent, in Boston by 17.9 percent, and San Francisco by 21.4 percent.

Sixty percent of agricultural inspection specialists believed they were doing either ``somewhat'' or ``many fewer'' inspections since the transfer.

Sixty-three percent of survey respondents did not believe that their port had enough agriculture specialists to carry out agriculture duties.

Lastly, 64 percent of the agriculture specialists reported that their work was not respected by Customs and Border Patrol.

These statistics are deplorable.

The failure to protect our borders from the invasion of agricultural pests

places our farmlands and forests at great risk of infestation.

USDA estimates nationally that agricultural pests cost the American agricultural industry an annual loss of about $41 billion.

In California alone, pest infestations cost my State's farmers about $3 billion. This amount includes crops lost in the quarantine, and the cost of measures taken to control and eradicate pest outbreaks.

The farmers in my State continue to battle against serious agricultural pests, such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, the Asian long-horned beetle, the Mediterranean fruit fly, and many others.

During the time that DHS has been in charge of agriculture inspections, Fresno County experienced its first fruit fly outbreak, quarantine, and eradication.

According to the Fresno County Department of Agriculture, a 105- square-mile area had to be quarantined due to an outbreak of the peach fruit fly. The pest is indigenous to Asia, and is believed to have entered the country on smuggled fruit carried by an airline passenger. The eradication effort cost approximately $1 million.

The interception of pests at inspection points, coupled with the elimination and eradication of pest outbreaks, is a top priority for California agriculture organizations. And these groups have asked for help in improving the agricultural inspection process.

But this is not just a California problem. Farmers and foresters from every corner of our country have faced the imposing threat of a foreign agriculture pest invasion.

Here are just a few examples of the pests that threaten our Nation:

The glassy-winged sharpshooter is a devastating new pest for California. Since its migration into California in 1990 from the southeastern United States, the glassy-winged sharpshooter population there has ballooned throughout southern California. This pest transmits Pierce's disease, which threatens 450,000-plus acres of winegrapes, more than 330,000 acres of raisin and table grapevines, a crop production of $4 billion and associated economic activity of $45 billion. There is no known cure for Pierce's disease. The glassy-winged sharpshooter also threatens crops such as almonds, citrus, and peaches as well as native plants, shrubs, and trees.

Citrus canker is believed to have originated in Southeast Asia and was discovered in Florida in 1995. It causes lesions on the leaves, stems, and fruit of citrus trees, causes leaves and fruit to drop prematurely, and makes fruit too unsightly to be sold. The Federal Government has spent $378 million for eradication, with little results.

The Asian long-horned beetle was introduced to the United States in August 1996 inside solid wood packing material from China. The beetle is a serious threat to hardwood trees and has no known natural predator in the United States. The beetle has the potential to destroy millions of acres of America's hardwood forests and industries such as lumber, maple syrup, nursery, and tourism accumulating over $41 billion in losses. The beetle has spread to New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.

In the summer of 2002, scientists detected a new exotic insect in Michigan, the emerald ash borer. This insect is an invasive species originally from Asia. To date, it has killed or damaged millions of ash trees in Michigan. It has been detected in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, and in Ontario, Canada.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--NASDA-- recognizes the impending danger and has first-hand experience of how inspections have changed since the DHS takeover.

NASDA recently announced that one of its key recommendations is to reassign cargo inspection from DHS to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS.

NASDA explains: APHIS has ``the expertise and communication system to carry out a focused and effective agricultural safeguarding effort at our borders.''

Our Nation's agriculture is too important to leave open to the risk of invasion of agricultural pests. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Let us reprioritize the plant and animal border inspections and strengthen the anti-terrorism mission of DHS by returning the Agricultural Quarantine Inspections to its logical place, the United States Department of Agriculture.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I filed that would extend the current tariff on imported ethanol by 2 years. Over the past 2 years, I have been proud to stand with my colleagues in the Senate as we have made clean renewable energy a top priority in our national energy policy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed in the previous Congress, made a historic commitment to renewable fuels by establishing a national renewable fuels standard and extending several important renewable energy tax credits. This law has effectively promoted homegrown sources of energy such as ethanol and biodiesel. The bill before the Senate today builds upon that success by boosting the renewable fuels standard to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022 and establishing other valuable incentives for renewable energy production.

The amendment I have offered to the underlying bill would significantly add

to the existing renewable energy incentive promoted by this bill. My amendment would extend the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports through 2010. The current tariff is set to expire at the end of 2008.

This energy legislation does some great things for renewable fuels such as corn-based ethanol and advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. However, if we increase the renewable fuels standard without extending the tariff on ethanol imports, we are sending a mixed signal to our ethanol producers, their investors, and the farmers who sell their products to ethanol plants. In essence, Congress is telling the ethanol industry that we are demanding more of your product, but at the same time we are going to open the backdoor and begin subsidizing foreign sources of ethanol.

We need to ask: What is the purpose of the ethanol import tariff, and what will happen if the tariff is allowed to expire? First, the ethanol tariff serves to offset heavily subsidized ethanol from foreign countries. Brazil, which is a world leader in ethanol production, has been subsidizing its ethanol industry for the past 30 years. Now that Brazil's ethanol industry is mature and meeting a high percentage of Brazil's fuel needs, Brazil is hungry to export their subsidized ethanol to the United States. In 2005, Brazil exported 33 million gallons into the United States. In 2006, that number increased more than tenfold to 433 million gallons. That same year Brazil paid over $220 million in duties to import this amount of ethanol. Further, Members of Congress and the American public have every reason to believe this trend will continue well into the future and will certainly be expedited if the tariff is allowed to expire.

According to media reports, Brazil's state-run oil firm, Petrobas, has publicly announced plans to build an ethanol-only pipeline from central Brazil to ports in the western part of Brazil in order to more easily export ethanol to North America and Asia. According to the Inter-American Development Bank's Global Biofuels Outlook for 2007, Brazil will be exporting almost 1.6 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. Clearly, foreign producers of ethanol would love to import billions of gallons of unregulated ethanol into our country.

The second purpose of the ethanol tariff is to offset the current tax credit available to domestic blenders of ethanol. It is important to remember that each gallon of ethanol that is blended with gasoline in the United States currently receives a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit. This tax credit, which has played a leading role in ethanol's success story, does not discriminate between domestic or foreign sources of ethanol. If a shipment of Brazilian ethanol arrives at a U.S. port and is blended with gasoline on U.S. soil, this Brazilian ethanol is eligible for the blenders tax credit. This tax credit is currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2010.

Extending the ethanol import tariff to correspond with the expiration of the tax credit is in the best interest of our ethanol producers and the American taxpayer. If the tariff expires before the ethanol blenders tax credit expires, American taxpayers will be subsidizing hundreds of millions of gallons of foreign-made ethanol each year. Simply put, the well-intentioned policy of boosting the renewable fuels standard could have serious unintended consequences, if the ethanol tariff expires at the end of 2008. In fact, we would merely trade our dependence upon foreign sources of oil for a new and growing dependence upon foreign ethanol. This tradeoff is dangerous and will undermine hard-fought efforts to grow our domestic ethanol industry which is creating jobs and economic growth in America's heartland.

Critics of the tariff claim that we will need ethanol imports to meet a growing demand for ethanol and to comply with the strengthened renewable fuels standard. However, the facts tell a very different story. Our Nation's current domestic production capacity is 6.2 billion gallons of ethanol. According to industry experts, an additional 6.4 billion gallons of capacity are currently under construction and will soon be refining ethanol. That is a total of 12.8 billion gallons in current and planned production. By comparison, the heightened renewable fuels standard in this bill is 12 billion gallons in 2010, the year the ethanol import tariff would expire under my amendment. The renewable fuels standard will require 12.6 billion gallons in 2011. Clearly we do not need imported ethanol to meet the renewable fuels requirement included in this bill.

The Senate has also voted on extending the ethanol tariff to the year 2010. During debate on the transportation reauthorization bill in the 108th Congress, 76 Senators voted in favor of extending the ethanol tariff through the year 2010. Again, I stress, the Senate is already on record in support of the very proposal outlined in my amendment.

In addition to extending an effective renewable fuels policy, my amendment would also shed light on a disturbing loophole in our trade policy which allows foreign ethanol producers to avoid the ethanol tariff by shipping ethanol through the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The CBI is a Cold-War-era policy established to promote the political and economic stability of 24 Caribbean countries. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, many goods, including ethanol, can be shipped into the United States duty free. Brazil is currently shipping wet ethanol, ethanol that contains 10 percent water, to beneficiary countries, only to be dehydrated and shipped to the United States duty free. According to the Congressional Research Service, ethanol dehydration plants are currently operating in Jamaica, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Trinidad, and Tobago, all of which are Caribbean Basin Initiative countries.

Although Caribbean Basin Initiative imports are capped relative to the size of the U.S. ethanol market, these imports are increasing rapidly and could reach 2.5 billion gallons by the year 2022, under an expanded renewable fuels standard.

The troubling part of this policy is that it is unclear how much of this ethanol actually originates in Caribbean countries. If the majority of this ethanol is simply dehydrated in Caribbean countries, then the purpose of the ethanol tariff and of the Caribbean Basin Initiative is being subverted. My amendment calls for a study of Caribbean Basin Initiative imports to determine the origin of these imports and the economic impact on both the domestic ethanol market and the economies of the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries.

My amendment also promotes renewable energy on another front. Part of the revenue generated by duties applied to ethanol imports would be directed to a renewable energy fund within the United States Treasury.

This fund would be dedicated to funding renewable energy systems rebates, which were authorized in section 206 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Transfers from this fund would be subject to appropriations.

The section 206 rebate program offers incentives for the installation of renewable energy systems in homes and small businesses. The amount of the rebate is 25 percent of the costs for purchasing or installing the equipment or $3,000, whichever is less.

According to the Energy Information Administration, section 206 rebates could increase residential renewable energy consumption between 7 trillion to 14 trillion Btu's by the year 2010.

The Energy Information Administration also predicts that section 206 rebates would greatly increase the use of geothermal heat pumps, residential wood stoves, solar technologies, residential wind turbines, and wood-pellet and corn-burning stoves.

This commonsense, bipartisan measure gives consumers choice and flexibility to produce and consume renewable energy in their homes. Although it was supported by the Senate in 2005, it is yet to be funded. My amendment would direct some of the revenue generated from extending the tariff toward funding this important program.

Specifically, it would direct up to $100 million in 2009 and $150 million in 2010 to fund the renewable energy systems rebate program-- well below the $250 million authorized level.

In conclusion, ethanol is being produced here at home at record levels, but it is an industry that is still in its infancy, and we need to be doing all we can to invest in it and encourage its growth--not the growth of foreign ethanol companies. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment

which will keep American-made, homegrown renewable fuels at the forefront of our national energy policy.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.