Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows, interns, and detailees of the staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of debate on the Energy bill: Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, Sara Shepherd, Amy Branger, Jennifer Donohue, Lindsay Erickson, David Lee, Alex Mazuro, Jennifer Smith, and Erik Willborg.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the following individuals who are interns in my office be given floor privileges during the pendency of H.R. 6: Samantha Currier, Allison Freedman, Gregory Gonzales, Kori Higgins, Blake Peterson, Sarah Pike, Heather Roach, Shannon Saltclah, Joshua Sanchez, and Claire Smith.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the minority side be given an additional 5 minutes, and would note that Senator Domenici and Senator Craig are here to use that time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I will take 5 minutes. I know Senator Tester is here and wishes to speak. I understand Senator Kerry and many others wish to speak also.

The issue between the two amendments is what our focus should be, when we think about the future of coal, are we sure the best use of coal and the best future for coal is in the developing of transportation fuels? In my view, that is what the Bunning amendment concludes.

The Tester amendment, to the contrary, takes a broader view of the future of coal. I believe we want to enable the development of many potential uses of coal that are both environmentally and economically sound. We should not be focused on commercializing in large-scale uses of coal that do not make good sense in the marketplace.

First, let me say a couple of things about the Bunning amendment.

There are currently no large-scale coal-to-liquid plants in the United States. The price tag of a typical plant is in the billions of dollars.

The Bunning amendment purports to require that coal-derived fuels be 20 percent better than gasoline. But we have an apples-to-oranges comparison here because coal-to-liquids plants will produce primarily diesel fuel, not gasoline. The total greenhouse gas emissions from coal-derived diesels are likely to be greater by about 150 percent than the emissions from diesels that are powered from petroleum.

The Bunning amendment is technologically limiting, and such uses of coal as conversion to chemicals, to plastics, and to fertilizer are not permitted to benefit from the Bunning amendment.

Coal-to-liquids products mandated by the Bunning amendment have very large water requirements. Water requirements are estimated to be about 2 gallons for every gallon of coal-derived fuel produced. The Tester amendment, by contrast, is much more broad in the beneficial uses coal can be put to, whether to make fuels or fertilizers or plastics or chemicals.

There are industrial plants in the United States that do use coal commercially as a feedstock for chemical products.

I have a letter from the president of Dow Chemical which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

He states as follows in that letter:

On behalf of Dow Chemical Company, I write to offer my

strongest support for Senator Tester's ``Coal Innovation''

amendment.

Simply put, it will allow companies to build gasification

plants in the United States that run on coal, biomass and

other feedstocks, while helping to increase fuel and

feedstock diversity and demonstrate options for carbon

capture and storage. This will result in gasification plants

that are more efficient and help address climate change and

contribute to energy security.

Mr. President, I also have a letter that I want to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks from various unions--the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, the Industrial Union, the United Mine Workers, various others.

They strongly endorse the Tester amendment. They previously were part of a coal-to-liquids coalition which issued an earlier letter which has now been rescinded which spoke in favor of the Bunning amendment and against the Tester amendment, and they say in their letter that they strongly support the Tester amendment.

Clearly, I think the Tester amendment gives us the best chance of promoting the use of coal to meet our energy needs in the future, and I strongly support it and oppose the Bunning amendment. I hope my colleagues will do the same. I believe this is the right course for us to follow.

Exhibit 1

The Dow Chemical Company,

Midland, Michigan, June 18, 2007.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of The Dow Chemical

Company, I write to offer my strongest support for Senator

Tester's ``Coal Innovation'' amendment to H.R. 6, the energy

bill pending before the Senate. Simply put, it will allow

companies to build gasification plants in the United States

that run on coal, biomass and other feedstocks, while helping

to increase fuel and feedstock diversity and demonstrate

options for carbon capture and storage. This will result in

gasification plants that are more efficient, help address

climate change and contribute to energy security.

Dow is excited by the prospect of this legislation being

enacted. As you know, Dow is one of the world's largest

chemical companies and is heavily reliant in the U.S. on

natural gas and oil as raw materials for the products we

manufacture. High and volatile prices for these inputs have

caused the company's energy bill to swell three-fold since

2002, reaching $22 billion last year, and have forced us to

look to other parts of the world for our growth.

In an effort to address this problem, and to help sustain

our operations here, we have expressed interest in utilizing

industrial gasification technology and in leading a

consortium in the U.S. to demonstrate it on a commercial

scale. A company like Dow could be a major purchaser of the

syngas and/or the naphtha that these plants produce. As you

know, the military also has a high interest in taking syngas-

based liquid fuels.

Dow would be able to make virtually all of the products we

currently make from natural gas liquids by substituting coal,

biomass or a combination thereof. The ability to manufacture

products like plastics, fibers and coatings would help to

optimize the carbon footprint of a project, since a portion

of the carbon would reside in finished goods that are not

burned. However, one major hurdle for any would-be plant

sponsor is the financing. The direct loans in the amendment

would go a long way toward helping to get these types of

plants built, and help provide, in the long run, a lower cost

alternative to oil and natural gas.

In addition, Dow believes that the environmental standards

in the bill are achievable. The requirement that 75% of the

carbon dioxide generated is captured will ensure that all

companies prepare for long-term CO2 management. This will

help drive action to make carbon capture and storage a

reality sooner rather than later.

Thank you for your and your staff's attention to this

issue, which is critical to American manufacturing, the

economy and our energy security. Please let us know if there

is any way we can be of assistance on this matter.

Sincerely,

Andrew N. Liveris,

Chairman and CEO.

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

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from Montana if he wanted to use the remaining 9 minutes or some lesser amount of that. We can go ahead and go to a vote whenever you are finished with your statement.

Madam President, I yield back the time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I strongly urge support for the Tester-Byrd amendment.

I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Tester.

Madam President, there is an old legal adage that says, hard cases make bad law. That seems to be the case here. No one likes OPEC. None of us like being put in a position of appearing to defend OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law. The Framers of the Constitution wisely assigned responsibility for formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the President and to the Congress, not to the law courts.

Chief Justice Marshall said nearly two centuries ago:

The judiciary is not the department of the Government to

which the assertion of its interest against foreign powers is

confided. A question like this is more a political one than a

legal one.

There has been much talk in this Chamber over the years about the proper role of the judiciary. Nearly every time we are asked to confirm a judicial nomination, we hear speeches given on the Senate floor about the need for judges to confine themselves to the business of interpreting the law, not making the law. And this is exactly what the courts have done in this circumstance.

Here is a case where the courts have wisely recognized that OPEC's pricing policies are not something that should be litigated in U.S. courts but should instead be addressed by the political branches of the Government--the President, the executive branch, and the Congress. Senator Kohl's amendment would throw the issue of OPEC's

oil prices back into our courts and force the courts to address those issues.

The amendment before us has its roots in a lawsuit filed by the labor union nearly 30 years ago. The union at that time charged OPEC with price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws.

The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that OPEC members are sovereign nations and are immune from suit. On appeal, the appeals court affirmed the dismissal, though for different reasons. It dismissed the suit under the act of State doctrine. In the court's words:

The act of State doctrine declares a United States court

will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute which

would require the court to judge the legality of the

sovereign act of a foreign State.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the Court said:

Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence

of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country

will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of

another done within its own territory.

Senator Kohl's amendment overturns the act of state doctrine, at least so far as OPEC is concerned. It also creates a new offense under the Sherman Act to get at OPEC, it waives sovereign immunity for this new offense, and it amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to cover the new offense. In short, it sweeps away all of the legal defenses OPEC members have against antitrust suits in our courts.

Adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular, but it is also very unwise. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained nearly 30 years ago:

To participate adeptly in the global community, the United

States must speak with one voice and pursue a careful and

deliberate policy.

The President can do this, the court said; the judiciary cannot.

Here is another quote from that same decision:

When the courts engage in piecemeal adjudication of the

legality of the sovereign acts of states, they risk

disruption of our country's international diplomacy. The

executive may utilize protocol, economic sanction,

compromise, delay, and persuasion to achieve international

objectives. Ill-timed judicial decisions challenging the acts

of foreign states could nullify these tools and embarrass the

United States in the eyes of the world.

In this case--

the granting of any relief would in effect amount to an order

from a domestic court instructing a foreign sovereign to

alter its chosen means of allocating and profiting from its

own valuable natural resources. On the other hand, should the

court hold that OPEC's actions are legal, this would greatly

strengthen the bargaining hand of the OPEC nations in the

event that Congress or the executive chooses to condemn

OPEC's actions.

In addition, we here in the Senate ought to consider how enactment of this amendment might affect our relations with OPEC members. What will be the international repercussions when the United States starts awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets in this country? What sort of precedent will the amendment set in the international community? Will other nations start to view our trade policies--such as our nuclear trade restrictions--as violations of their antitrust laws?

The Bush administration has offered us answers to some of these questions. Its statement of administration policy on this bill, which we are considering here in the Senate, says that:

The consequent targeting of foreign direct investment in

the United States as a source of damage awards would likely

spur retaliatory action against American interests in those

countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S.

refiners. Not only would such a result substantially harm

U.S. interests abroad, it would discourage foreign investment

in the United States economy.

For these reasons, the administration concluded:

If a bill including such a provision is presented to the

President--

That is the bill we are considering right here on the Senate floor.

--his senior advisers will recommend that he veto the bill.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kohl amendment.

Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, if we could complete the debate on this amendment, and then if the Senator wishes to yield back time, we could proceed to debate on the next amendment.

Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam President, I think the Senator from Wisconsin should be given the chance to conclude

his remarks or close the argument. I will yield back the time in opposition and allow Senator Kohl to use whatever additional times he wants. Then we can close the debate on this amendment and proceed to the next amendment.

Madam President, I see Senator Whitehouse is waiting to speak on the Cardin amendment. Senator Thune is agreeable to letting him speak for 3 minutes or so on that before beginning discussion on the Thune amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that that be the order.

Madam President, Senator Thune's amendment makes a major change in a provision of the Federal Power Act that governs the siting of electric transmission lines. Until 2 years ago, the siting of electric transmission lines was under the exclusive control of the States. The Federal Power Act gave neither the Secretary of Energy nor the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to site transmission lines.

The States tended to make their siting decisions in the best interests of their citizens, not necessarily in the best interests of the citizens of neighboring or even distant States that might benefit by the long distance transmission of electricity.

Two years ago, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I worked on with Senator Domenici, which amended the Federal Power Act to provide what is called the Federal backstop siting authority. Specifically, we directed the Secretary of Energy to conduct a comprehensive national study of electric transmission congestion once every 3 years.

We then authorized the Secretary to designate, based on the study, any geographic areas experiencing electric transmission congestion as ``national interest electric transmission corridors.'' The Secretary completed the first congestion study last August, and he has begun proceedings to designate the first national interest corridors.

Designation of an area as a national interest corridor is likely to have serious consequences. Under the law we passed 2 years ago, a utility that wants to build an electric transmission line within the corridor can apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a permit, and the Commission can approve construction of the transmission line without the permission of or even over the objections of the State. Once the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues the utility a permit, the utility can then go into Federal court and exercise the Federal Government's power of eminent domain and take private property to erect the transmission line.

I have heard speeches in the time I have served in the Senate from many of my colleagues about their concern over the exercise of the power of eminent domain. The passage of the Thune amendment substantially increases the likelihood that authority, that power of eminent domain, will be exercised against private property rights. Giving Federal officials and private utilities these powers was a major change in Federal law and a major departure from past practice. Nonetheless, we believed the step was warranted to ensure that the national interest in a national electric grid was protected. We believed that entrusting the Secretary of Energy with the task of studying congestion on a national basis and allowing the Secretary to designate only those areas which affected the national interest would prevent abuse of this Federal eminent domain authority.

Even though this authority is less than 2 years old, no corridors have yet been designated, no construction permits have been issued, and no private property has been taken. The authority is already, however, proving very controversial. There is major opposition to the use of this authority just west of here in northern Virginia and in other areas of the country. There has been talk of repealing the authority.

The Thune amendment will only add to the controversy. It makes a fundamental change in the current authority. The Thune amendment says that ``the Secretary may designate additional corridors . . . upon the application by an interested person.'' So even though the Secretary of Energy did not find that a particular area presented congestion concerns of national interest in conducting his congestion study last year and even though the Secretary of Energy did not see fit to propose an area as a national interest corridor, a utility that would like to make use of the Federal eminent domain authority to take private property can apply to the Secretary and the Secretary could then designate the area as a corridor under this new authority. This, as one of the authors of the provision we put in law in 2005, is a major expansion of that authority, and it is an unwarranted expansion.

In addition, the Thune amendment contains additional provisions on rates and recovery of costs which direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue new rules setting transmission rates for the recovery of the cost of transmission lines in national interest corridors. Frankly, I am not entirely sure what the purpose of these provisions are. I am not sure how these provisions affect the ratemaking authority the Commission already exercises under the Federal Power Act. They are either redundant or unnecessary or else they authorize the Commission to set up a new rulemaking standard that will apply in national interest corridors different from the standard the Commission applies elsewhere.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. We should give the program we created in the Energy Policy Act just 2 years ago a chance to work before we dramatically expand it in ways that are not entirely clear.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield back any additional time remaining in opposition.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1610

Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the concerns of my colleagues from Maryland, but I also rise to oppose their amendment.

Just 2 years ago, the Senate approved the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which contains this comprehensive approach to the siting of liquefied natural gas receiving terminals. In that bill, Congress gave FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the jurisdiction to approve the siting of LNG terminals that are located on shore.

FERC acts as the lead agency for NEPA compliance and also as a safety regulator. The combined NEPA and permitting process set forth in that legislation, EPAct 2005, fully recognizes the role of other Federal agencies and the role of State agencies acting under delegated Federal authority.

A project developer is not able to move forward unless all relevant permits are granted. FERC has addressed State concerns related to other LNG facilities through conditions placed on its approval certificate and it has denied a certificate due to safety concerns. So it is clear FERC is taking this authority and responsibility very seriously.

Moreover, this EPAct 2005 legislation also mandated the consideration of State concerns in the NEPA prefiling process which occurs very early in the siting process. The Governor of the affected State has a direct role in that process.

The Senators from Maryland describe their amendment as ``not affecting FERC authority,'' but the amendment would essentially trump FERC's authority to site the entire facility.

As my colleagues know, LNG is imported. It is delivered to this country by ship. Therefore, an absolutely essential piece of the LNG receiving facility is a place for the ship to moor and to unload its cargo; that is, a dock that is constructed in the navigable waters of the United States. The Senators' amendment would allow a Governor of an affected State--and there is a very broad definition of which States are affected; in fact, any State within 15 miles of the terminal would be an affected State under their definition--it would allow the Governor of an affected State to block the Corps' permit, Army Corps of Engineers' permit. Obviously, there is no point in building a terminal if the ship is not permitted to get near it.

Finally, all of us are aware of the high price of natural gas and the pressure that puts on electricity prices, home heating prices, and on the viability of domestic industries that rely on natural gas. The Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2030 the United States will need almost 21 billion cubic feet per day of regasified LNG to meet a total estimated demand of about 81 billion cubic feet per day. This means LNG will account for over 25 percent of our natural gas supply. We need a workable process to assure we have adequate capacity to meet this need.

So, Mr. President, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I know the Senator from Maryland wishes, I assume, to use the remainder of his time or to conclude his argument. Following that, I will yield back the remaining time in opposition.

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

Mr. President, since I don't see anyone else here, let me speak in opposition to the amendment.

This is one of these feel-good amendments where you can tell your constituents you struck a blow for freedom by outlawing OPEC.

The truth is, this is terrible precedent for us to say we are going to drag foreign governments into our court system and allow them to be sued for antitrust violations. We have always stopped short of doing this. The precedent would be terrible because obviously they would do the same thing with us. If we can bring foreign governments into our courts and subject them to penalties here, they can bring our Government into their courts and do the same thing. The courts have stayed away from these issues. These are diplomatic issues and political issues the courts should stay out of.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. President, this amendment does not just allow the States to participate in the decision; this amendment would give the States the ability to veto the issuance of any permit to the Army Corps of Engineers to build a terminal and would, in that way, cut us off from needed access to international supplies of liquefied natural gas, LNG. We are going to be more and more dependent upon these liquefied natural gas supplies from overseas. We need to have these terminals constructed. We have a provision in existing law that gives us good processes for including the States, but it is important that we not change existing law.

Senator Domenici, did you wish to speak?

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

Mr. President, who is the next person to speak?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on June 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1171, a bill to amend the Colorado River Storage Project Act and Public Law 87-483; to authorize the construction and rehabilitation of water infrastructure in northwestern New Mexico; to authorize the use of the reclamation fund to fund the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund; to authorize the conveyance of certain reclamation land and infrastructure; to authorize the Commissioner of Reclamation to provide for the delivery of water; and to resolve the Navajo Nation's water rights claims in the San Juan River basin in New Mexico.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Michael Connor at (202) 224- 5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jodie Sweitzer, an intern with my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted the privileges of the floor during the remainder of debate on the energy bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment Senator Domenici just called up be set aside at this point.

Madam President, I call up amendment 1614 on behalf of Senator Tester, Senator Byrd, Senator Salazar, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Bingaman, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Webb.

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

Madam President, I am not going to speak about the amendment at this point or about the Bunning amendment Senator Domenici described in general terms. But this is a very important issue. It is one we spent time on in our Energy Committee markup. It is one we clearly need to resolve here on the Senate floor and allow Senators to express their views on the issue.

I know Senator Tester was hoping to be here to speak on the amendment possibly later today but, if not, then tomorrow. I know he will want to speak both about his amendment and about the Bunning amendment, and I will plan to do the same.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 19, when the Senate resumes H.R. 6 following morning business, there be up to 2\1/2\ hours of debate prior to a vote in relation to Bunning amendment No. 1628 and Tester amendment No. 1614, to run concurrently, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Bunning and Tester or their designees; that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the respective party conferences; that upon reconvening at 2:15

p.m., the Senate resume debate on the above-mentioned amendments; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to Bunning amendment No. 1628; that upon disposition of that amendment, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to Tester amendment No. 1614, with no amendment in order to either of the above amendments prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the Tester amendment, the Senate then debate consecutively the following amendments listed below and that the debate time on each be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and controlled in the usual form with no amendment in order to any of the amendments enumerated below; that upon the use or yielding back of all time with respect to the amendments listed below, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to each vote; and that after the first vote in this sequence, the remaining votes be 10 minutes in duration: The listed amendments are Kohl amendment No. 1519, Thune amendment No. 1609, and Cardin amendment No. 1610.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 238, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 1639, introduced earlier today by Senators Kennedy and Specter, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 19; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes, and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that upon the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 6, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, one amendment that was offered today by Senator Salazar on behalf of himself, Senator Bayh, Senator Cantwell, Senator Lincoln, Senator Clinton, Senator Brownback, Senator Lieberman, Senator Coleman, Senator Biden is an amendment related to plug-in hybrids. It is amendment No. 1572, as modified. We have now cleared this with all interested parties on both sides of the aisle. It is my information that it is ready for a vote. I will send the modification to the desk.

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 thank my colleague from Alaska for her courtesy in yielding me time to do this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation with my colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Lincoln, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Kerry, and Senator Collins, that will help to address the critical shortage of nurse faculty and physical therapists that is facing our Nation. The nationwide nursing shortage is growing rapidly, because the average age of the nursing workforce is near retirement and because the aging population has increasing health care needs. And the shortage is one that affects the entire Nation. A 2006 Health Resources and Services Administration report estimated that the national nursing shortage would more than triple, to more than 1 million nurses, by the year 2020. The report also predicts that all 50 States will experience nursing shortages by 2015. Quite simply, we need to educate more nurses, or we, as a Nation, will not have enough trained nurses to meet the needs of our aging society.

One of the biggest constraints to educating more nurses is a shortage of nursing faculty. Almost three-quarters of nursing programs surveyed by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing cited faculty shortages as a reason for turning away qualified applicants. Although applications to nursing programs have surged 59 percent over the past decade, the National League for Nursing estimates that 147,000 qualified applications were turned away in 2004. This represents a 27 percent decrease in admissions over the previous year, indicating the need to scale up capacity in nursing programs is more critical than ever.

I know that in my home state of New Mexico, nursing programs turned down almost half of qualified applicants, even though the Health Resources and Services Administration predicts that New Mexico will only be able to meet 64 percent of its demand for nurses by 2020. With a national nurse faculty workforce that averages 53.5 years of age, and an average nurse faculty retirement age of 62.5 years, we cannot and must not wait any longer to address nurse faculty shortages.

Nursing faculty are not the only segment of the population that is aging. As the baby boom generation ages, there will be an increased need for nurses to care for the elderly. However, less than 1 percent of practicing nurses have a certification in geriatrics.

The Nurse Faculty and Physical Therapist Education Act will amend the Public Health Service Act, to help alleviate the faculty shortage by providing funds to help nursing schools increase enrollment and graduation from nursing doctoral programs. The act will increase partnering opportunities between academic institutions and medical practices, enhance cooperative education, support marketing outreach, and strengthen mentoring programs. The bill will increase the number of nurses who complete nursing doctoral programs and seek employment as faculty members and nursing leaders in academic institutions. In addition, the bill authorizes awards to train nursing faculty in clinical geriatrics, so that more nursing students will be equipped for our aging population.

By addressing the faculty shortage, we are addressing the nursing shortage.

The aging population will also require additional health workers in other fields. Physical therapy was listed as one of the fastest growing occupations by the U.S. Department of Labor, with a projected job growth of greater than 36 percent between 2004 and 2014. The need for physical therapists is particularly acute in rural and urban underserved areas, which have three to four times fewer physical therapists per capita than suburban areas. To address this need, the bill also authorizes a distance education pilot program to improve access to educational opportunity for both nursing and physical therapy students. Finally, the bill calls for a study by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences which will recommend how to balance education, labor, and immigration policies to meet the demand for qualified nurses and physical therapists.

The provisions of the Nurse Faculty and Physical Therapist Education Act are vital to overcoming workforce challenges. By addressing nurse faculty and physical therapist shortages, we will enhance both access to care and the quality of care. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Ben Nelson, for their leadership and hard work on this important issue.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation with my colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Lincoln, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Kerry, and Senator Collins, that will help to address the critical shortage of nurse faculty and physical therapists that is facing our Nation. The nationwide nursing shortage is growing rapidly, because the average age of the nursing workforce is near retirement and because the aging population has increasing health care needs. And the shortage is one that affects the entire Nation. A 2006 Health Resources and Services Administration report estimated that the national nursing shortage would more than triple, to more than 1 million nurses, by the year 2020. The report also predicts that all 50 States will experience nursing shortages by 2015. Quite simply, we need to educate more nurses, or we, as a Nation, will not have enough trained nurses to meet the needs of our aging society.

One of the biggest constraints to educating more nurses is a shortage of nursing faculty. Almost three-quarters of nursing programs surveyed by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing cited faculty shortages as a reason for turning away qualified applicants. Although applications to nursing programs have surged 59 percent over the past decade, the National League for Nursing estimates that 147,000 qualified applications were turned away in 2004. This represents a 27 percent decrease in admissions over the previous year, indicating the need to scale up capacity in nursing programs is more critical than ever.

I know that in my home state of New Mexico, nursing programs turned down almost half of qualified applicants, even though the Health Resources and Services Administration predicts that New Mexico will only be able to meet 64 percent of its demand for nurses by 2020. With a national nurse faculty workforce that averages 53.5 years of age, and an average nurse faculty retirement age of 62.5 years, we cannot and must not wait any longer to address nurse faculty shortages.

Nursing faculty are not the only segment of the population that is aging. As the baby boom generation ages, there will be an increased need for nurses to care for the elderly. However, less than 1 percent of practicing nurses have a certification in geriatrics.

The Nurse Faculty and Physical Therapist Education Act will amend the Public Health Service Act, to help alleviate the faculty shortage by providing funds to help nursing schools increase enrollment and graduation from nursing doctoral programs. The act will increase partnering opportunities between academic institutions and medical practices, enhance cooperative education, support marketing outreach, and strengthen mentoring programs. The bill will increase the number of nurses who complete nursing doctoral programs and seek employment as faculty members and nursing leaders in academic institutions. In addition, the bill authorizes awards to train nursing faculty in clinical geriatrics, so that more nursing students will be equipped for our aging population.

By addressing the faculty shortage, we are addressing the nursing shortage.

The aging population will also require additional health workers in other fields. Physical therapy was listed as one of the fastest growing occupations by the U.S. Department of Labor, with a projected job growth of greater than 36 percent between 2004 and 2014. The need for physical therapists is particularly acute in rural and urban underserved areas, which have three to four times fewer physical therapists per capita than suburban areas. To address this need, the bill also authorizes a distance education pilot program to improve access to educational opportunity for both nursing and physical therapy students. Finally, the bill calls for a study by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences which will recommend how to balance education, labor, and immigration policies to meet the demand for qualified nurses and physical therapists.

The provisions of the Nurse Faculty and Physical Therapist Education Act are vital to overcoming workforce challenges. By addressing nurse faculty and physical therapist shortages, we will enhance both access to care and the quality of care. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Coleman, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Ben Nelson, for their leadership and hard work on this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 14, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in open session to mark up the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing will focus on communications policy issues implicated by the upcoming auction of frequencies in the 700 Megahertz band.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 14, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Committee Authorization

Authorization of Subpoena in Connection with Investigation of Legal Basis for Warrantless Wiretap Program

II. Bills: S.535--Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act (Dodd, Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Hatch, Specter, Cardin, Durbin, Whitehouse); S.456--Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 (Feinstein, Hatch, Schumer, Specter, Biden, Kyl, Cornyn, Kohl); and S.1145--Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Leahy, Hatch, Schumer, Cornyn, Whitehouse).

III. Nominations: Leslie Southwick to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

IV. Resolutions: S. Res. 105--Designating September 2007 as Campus Fire Safety Month (Biden, Kennedy). S. Res. 215--Designating Sept. 25, 2007 as National First Responder Appreciation Day (Allard, Graham).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The impact of rising gas prices on America's small businesses,'' on Thursday, June 14, 2007, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled ``Importing Success: Why work-family policies from abroad make economic sense for the U.S.'', in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, Thursday, June 14, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.