Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kusai Merchant, who is a fellow in the office of the majority leader, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 6 and any votes thereon.

Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to use 3 minutes from the time of the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly against the Inhofe amendment. I do believe there are several substantial problems with it. First of all, the underlying assumption is that the reason we do not have enough refining capacity in this country is we cannot find places to put refineries. That is not the reality. We have had various hearings in the Energy Committee. The companies that are engaged in refining oil into gasoline and other products are not short of places to put those refineries. They look at a whole variety of issues--the economics in particular--to determine whether to build new refineries or expand refining capacity. It is not a failure to have a BRAC military base or a failure to have an Indian reservation they can put these on.

The other thing is location. They need to locate refineries where the pipelines are. They need to locate refineries where the demand is. Clearly, that is not contemplated as part of this as well.

Another part that concerns me greatly is the notion that we would be making grants to support these projects which exceed the cost of the projects. That strikes me as very unusual. In the underlying bill, we do have some lien programs, where the Government will step in and guarantee 80 percent of the loan that is required to build a project, for example. We do not have anything similar to the provisions that are in this bill, which say the Federal share

for an EDA grant, under this program, shall be 80 percent of the project cost, assuming that the project is not on Indian land, and it will be 100 percent of the project cost if it is on Indian land, and, by the way, there can be an additional award in connection with the grant to the recipient of an additional 10 percent on top of that.

How it benefits the American taxpayer to pay 110 percent of the cost of one of these refineries I cannot see. So I think the amendment is flawed in several respects.

Obviously, we all want to see additional refining capacity built. I think what we need to be sure of is that the regulatory regime in place is such that it encourages and provides an incentive for the companies that are in the refining business to build that additional refining capacity. It is not efficient to say we, the Federal Government, are going to finance 100 percent of a project to an Indian tribe and they are going to go into the refining business; or we, the Federal Government, are going to provide 80 percent plus 10 percent, or 88 percent of the cost to some kind of local municipality and they are going to go into the refining business. That is not going to happen.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of Senator Boxer's time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Salazar, and Senator Cardin be added as cosponsors to my amendment that was recently sent to the desk.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania is in the Chamber. I know he wishes to speak on another matter. I ask him how long he will need to speak, and maybe we could defer to him to make whatever statement he wanted.

Mr. President, I know Senator Reed from Rhode Island also would like to speak for 15 minutes on the bill.

Mr. President, why don't we have that be the order then: the Senator from Pennsylvania have 15 minutes on his amendment, which is not pending but which he intends to offer later, and then Senator Reed on the bill.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for his kind words and for his strong support for this legislation. He has been a leader on this whole set of energy issues and proposed very strong legislation in the last Congress on this very set of issues. We are hopefully moving ahead on some of the policy recommendations and proposals he has made here in the Senate in the last year or two. I congratulate him on that and look forward to continuing to work with him.

We are now on what is called the renewable portfolio standard and the renewable electricity standard amendment. This is an amendment I offered. Senator Domenici has now offered a second-degree amendment to it, which is really a substitute, which is really a very different piece of legislation than the amendment I offered.

I thought I would take a few minutes. I know Senator Domenici will be returning to the floor here in a few minutes, and he will want to speak on his proposed substitute amendment. I thought I would take a few minutes right now to describe the amendment I have offered on the renewable portfolio standard.

In each of the last three Congresses, we passed a major energy bill in the Senate. In each of those energy bills, we have included a provision to require that a certain percentage of the electricity sold by electric utilities throughout the Nation come from renewable energy sources. That is the nature of the amendment I am offering again today. The Senate has approved this proposition again and again.

In the 107th Congress, we included such a portfolio standard. That is the phrase which has been used historically to describe this amendment, a portfolio standard. It is really an electricity standard or electricity requirement on utilities. But in the 107th Congress, we included such a portfolio standard as part of the Energy bill, and strong votes on the floor affirmed the Senate's determination that the standard we proposed there should not be weakened.

In the 108th Congress, there was a letter signed by 53 Senators that went to the chairs of the conference on the Energy bill. The Senate conferees went on to approve the portfolio standard and sent it on to the House as part of our bill.

In the 109th Congress, the same thing happened.

In all three cases, the House conferees rejected the proposal that had been passed by the Senate. Now we have an opportunity to renew our support for this proposal and to place it in a bill that hopefully can garner strong bipartisan support and finally reach the President's desk.

There are good reasons for the Senate to support this proposal. A strong renewable portfolio standard is an essential component of any comprehensive national energy policy. It is not just an important part of such a strategy but an essential component of such a strategy.

The benefits are clear. This portfolio standard would reduce our dependence on traditional polluting sources of electricity. It would reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. It would reduce the growing pressure on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of electricity. It would reduce the price of natural gas. It would create new jobs. It would make a start on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and it would increase our energy security and enhance the reliability of the electricity grid. Those are some of the benefits.

Mr. President, I failed at the beginning of my comments to ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

This portfolio standard we have offered is a flexible, market-driven approach to achieving all of the goals I have enunciated here and to do so at a negligible cost to consumers. The proposal would require retail sellers of electricity who sell more than 4 million megawatt hours per year to provide 15 percent of that electricity from renewable sources by the year 2020. The requirement would be ramped up. There would be an increase in the requirement each year, in 3-year increments to allow planning flexibility for those utilities.

The Secretary of Energy would be required to develop a system of credit for renewable generation that could be traded or sold, again making the program easier to comply with. Utilities could use new or existing generation to comply with the program or they could comply with the program by buying credits from someone who has produced more renewable energy than they were required to produce. New renewable producers could receive the credits to trade or to sell.

Let me just summarize at this point and interject. The way we have drafted this, the flexibility is that an electric utility can comply with the requirement--the requirement being to ensure that 15 percent of the electricity they sell comes from renewable sources--in any of four ways:

First, they can produce the electricity themselves. They could put in a wind farm or a biomass facility or whatever and produce that energy from renewable sources themselves.

Second, they could buy that energy from someone else who is producing that renewable energy.

Third, they could buy credits from someone who has produced more renewable energy than they themselves are required to have in order to meet their requirements under the law.

Fourth, there is a compliance fee that they could pay the Secretary of Energy if they are not able to do any of the previous three. That would be at a rate of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. So the cost of the program to utilities would be capped by allowing utilities to make this alternative compliance payment of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is adjusted for inflation. As long as the difference between the cost of renewable generation and the cost of other generation resources is less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, the utility could buy or generate renewables or buy credits in the open market. When it reaches or exceeds that 2-cent price, the cap would kick in.

We also would create a program from the alternative compliance payments so that, to the extent a utility chose to go ahead and just pay the 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, those funds would go into a State program for development of renewable energy in that State.

Congress has tried before to spur the development of renewables. In 1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. That bill required utilities to buy renewables if the generators could meet the avoided cost of the utilities. Cogeneration--the combined use of heat and industrial processes for generation of electricity--was also eligible. That program resulted in a huge growth in cogeneration. Over half of the new generation that came on line in this country during the 1980s and the 1990s was from that resource. It did not, however, do much for renewable generation. These technologies have remained at about 2 percent of total electricity supply for several decades now.

We have a chart here which makes that point. This chart depicts electricity generation by fuel during the period 1970 projected through 2025 in billions of kilowatt-hours.

You can see, from 1970 up to the current time, renewables is way down toward the bottom. It is the second to the bottom line on that chart. Then it stays flat going forward, unless we pass this legislation. This legislation is intended to change these lines on this chart. That is the entire purpose of the legislation.

Critics of the program claim that the cost of this would be too much, that States are already requiring development of renewables, and that some areas do not have readily available renewable resources. My response is, I would point to a number of studies of this proposal that have been done over the years.

In 2003, I asked the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy to look at the effect the proposed renewable standard at that time would have had. They found that the standard would result in 350 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable generation being constructed between 2008 and 2025; that is generation that would not be constructed absent the passage of that provision. They found that the cost would be minimal. The report indicated there would be an increase in the cost of electricity by about one-tenth of a cent in 2025 over projected costs. When combined with the reduction in natural gas prices which would

be caused by the renewable portfolio standard, the total aggregate cost to consumers on their energy bills was projected to be less than one- twentieth of 1 percent.

In 2005, again I asked the Energy Information Administration to update the analysis, taking contemporary conditions into account. That update found that the portfolio standard we were proposing then would cause the prices of both electricity and natural gas to actually go down, and the letter that outlines those results stated:

Cumulative residential expenses on electricity from 2005 to

2025 are $2.7 billion, that is 2/10th of a percent lower,

while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are

reduced by $2.9 billion, or one half of 1 percent. Cumulative

expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end use

sectors taken together will decrease by $22.6, again, one-

half of 1 percent.

That report also indicates that generation of electricity from natural gas would be 5 percent lower with the RPS than it would be without the RPS. It also projected that total electricity-sector carbon-dioxide emissions would be reduced by 249 million metric tons relative to the reference case.

This year, once again, I asked the Energy Information Administration to analyze the proposal we now have before the Senate. This analysis indicates that the renewable electricity standard or renewable portfolio standard would result in a tripling of generation from biomass, a 50-percent increase in wind generation, and a 500-percent increase in solar generation. The net expenditures for energy by consumers are projected to increase by three-tenths of 1 percent, electricity prices are projected to increase by nine-tenths of 1 percent, while natural gas prices are slated to fall.

The renewable electricity standard would also be expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 6.7 percent, or 222 million metric tons in 2030.

These projections are not as optimistic as those we got 2 years ago in the 2005 analysis. There are some different assumptions which they used which explain the different conclusions. The first assumption was that the reference case projects a much greater expansion of coal generation than earlier projections. That was partly a result of the higher natural gas price projected. Second, the study assumes tax credits for renewables will, in fact, end next year, in 2008.

They are scheduled to expire next year. I think all or at least most Members of the Senate believe we ought to extend those tax credits. I hope we do so as part of our amending of this bill on the Senate floor this week and next week. I know the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley on the Finance Committee are working to develop a package of tax extenders and provisions to expand the tax provisions that are related to renewables.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the study--this is the study the Energy Information Administration did for us this year. The study does not assume any controls on carbon emissions anytime in the next 13 years. Frankly, I don't think that is a likely occurrence. I think this Congress and this Government is going to come to a responsible position with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and there are going to be limits on carbon emissions imposed in this country, as they have been imposed in many industrial countries around the world--the sooner the better, from my perspective. But certainly that is going to happen long before the end of the next 13 years.

The report acknowledges these assumptions but states that different assumptions would result in lower costs for the renewable electricity standard. There is, of course, considerable uncertainty regarding the projected baseline electricity mix. Actual implementation of future policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions could lead to a larger role for natural gas in the generation mix.

This is a quote from the report we received this year. It says:

In such a scenario----

That is where natural gas has a larger role in the generation mix----

the projected impact of the 15 percent renewable portfolio

standard proposal would move toward those identified in the

2005 analysis.

In the tax title that is being developed by the Finance Committee to accompany the bill, we are working to extend the production tax credit, to extend the investment tax credits that are available for renewables. We are also going to do something, I believe, to try to encourage sequestering of carbon emissions.

I don't think anyone in this body believes Congress will fail to act on this issue for the period of time that is built in for these assumptions. If we assume what we believe is going to happen, we are back with a projection of considerable consumer savings from the renewable electricity standard, as we found in the 2005 report that they did.

A recent report from Wood Mackenzie, which is a noted natural gas industry analytic consulting firm, concluded that a 15-percent renewable portfolio standard would result in a savings in variable costs for electricity of $240 billion by 2026.

That is far more than offsetting the $134 billion increase in capital expenditures. The study indicates that natural gas prices would be from 16 to 23 percent lower in their projection by 2026 as a result of enactment of this provision. The study also projects that carbon emissions from the power sector would be 10 percent lower in 2026 as a result of this.

A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this proposal would result in $16.4 billion in savings to consumers on electricity and natural gas bills. It also reported a 7-percent reduction in carbon emissions.

A number of other studies found positive results, even to the point of reducing overall energy costs. In 2005, we had a hearing in the energy committee. Senator Domenici was chairing the committee at the time. It was on the issue of generation portfolios. Dr. Ryan Weiser, of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, presented a report that summarized the results of 15 studies of renewable portfolio standards, much like the one I am offering.

All these studies found that a portfolio standard would reduce natural gas prices; 12 of the 15 studies projected a net reduction in overall energy bills for consumers as a result of the renewable portfolio standard. In other words, we can save natural gas, we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly, and we can save money both on electricity bills and on natural gas bills from making this move that this proposal contemplates.

Many have argued that States are already implementing renewable portfolio standards so there is no need for a Federal program. It is true States have taken the lead in pushing for more renewable generation.

Twenty-three States currently have in development renewable requirements. Almost all these standards are more aggressive than the Federal standard I am proposing in the amendment I have sent to the desk. New Mexico requires 16.2 percent by 2020. California requires 20 percent by 2017. Maine requires 30 percent by 2000. Minnesota requires 27.4 percent by 2025.

This will spur the growth of renewables in these regions. There is one thing, however, that a State standard cannot do--it cannot drive a national market for the technologies involved here. If some States have renewable standards and others do not, it is impossible for a national market to develop for renewable credits.

This credit trading system is the piece of our proposal that gives the greatest flexibility for compliance. The credit trading system also helps to reduce the cost of compliance by allowing credits for lower cost renewables from one region to be bought by utilities in another region.

Some argue this is a cost shift from the regions without renewable resources to those that have renewable resources. I would argue it is a way to spread the cost to all who are, in fact, benefitting. If States do not have or choose not to develop renewable resources, they still realize very real benefits in lower natural gas prices, lower SO2 allowance costs, and low-cost carbon reductions. It is only fair they share the slight increase in costs for generation of electricity that, in fact, created the savings. The argument that many States do not have, or many regions do not have renewable generation resources has been made. It is true the best wind, geothermal, and solar resources are concentrated in the West.

The entire country has extensive biomass potential. As Maine and other Eastern States have shown, paper production and agricultural processes are

available everywhere. We have a chart that makes that point. It shows, up in the left-hand corner, biomass and biofuel resources; on the right side, solar insolation resources; geothermal resources on the left-hand side; and wind resources on the bottom right.

If Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and New Jersey and Maryland can implement aggressive standards, then the standard we are calling for can be implemented in all States. The chart from the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab shows that virtually every State has the biomass production potential to meet this target. Environmental benefits are clear.

RPS would result, according to the Energy Information Administration, in a 6.7-percent reduction in carbon emissions in the year 2030. That is a reduction of 222 million tons in that area alone. RPS standards also benefit the economy. It drives job growth. The Union of Concerned Scientists says that wind turbine construction alone would result in 43,000 new jobs per year, on average.

An additional 11,200 cumulative long-term jobs will result from subsequent operations and maintenance. There is another study by the Regional Economics Application Laboratory for the Environment, Environmental Law and Policy Center, that found that over 68,000 jobs at 6.7 billion in economic output would result from the development of the renewable energy capacity contemplated in this amendment.

According to the AFL-CIO, an estimated 8,092 jobs would be created over a 10-year period for installation and O&M on wind power in Nevada alone, and another 19,137 manufacturing jobs would be created. Agricultural interests have begun to be aware of the potential and have indicated their support.

Last month, the 21st Century Agricultural Policy Project, under the guidance of former Senators Bob Dole and Tom Daschle, issued a report. That report made recommendations to sustain the Nation's farm sector. One of the key recommendations was that Congress pass a Federal renewable portfolio standard. I do have executive summaries of those reports. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record following my remarks.

So support for RPS is strong throughout the Nation. A poll recently by Melvin & Associates found that 70 percent of those surveyed nationwide supported a 20-percent portfolio standard. That is not what I am recommending. I am recommending 15 percent.

But these results were about the same in States as diverse as North Dakota and Georgia and Missouri and Arizona. Environmental groups, from the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, to the industrial associations, to the renewable trade groups, to utilities have all supported RPS. We recently received letters from a great many organizations.

Let me indicate what these letters are. First, we have a letter to Senators Reid, McConnell, Bingaman, and Domenici, signed by several hundred organizations indicating their strong support for this proposal that I have put before the Senate today.

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Next I have a letter from Michael Wilson of FPL Group-- he is vice president for government affairs with FPL--saying: Please consider this letter an endorsement in the renewable portfolio standard amendment that you intend to offer.

I ask unanimous consent that be included in the Record following my remarks.

Next, a letter from the National Farmers Union directed to Senators Reid, McConnell, Domenici, and myself, saying: On behalf of the farm, ranch and rural members of National Farmers Union, we are writing to urge you to support inclusion of a strong national renewable portfolio standard in energy security legislation and oppose attempts to weaken that when the Senate considers this issue in the coming days.

I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Finally, I have a letter from the American Wind Energy Association indicating strong support for my amendment and concern and opposition to the proposed substitute amendment that Senator Domenici has offered under the title: Clean Portfolio Standard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, we are moving ahead on this bill. This is an important part of the legislation. I think all Senators have known this was intended to be offered as an amendment on the floor. I have certainly indicated that repeatedly over recent weeks and even months. So as I say, it has been offered and passed in a somewhat different forum, three previous Congresses in the Senate. I hope very much that we can proceed to a good debate on this proposal and on the proposal by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and then have votes on those two proposals.

I know Senator Kerry also has a proposed second-degree amendment to raise the percentage requirement from 15 percent to 20 percent. He would like to have a chance to have the Senate consider that proposal as well.

At this point, I think that gives a general overview of the amendment and the reasons why I think the Senate should support it. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I will also want to address Senator Domenici's amendment once he has had a chance to explain that.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

21ST CENTURY AGRICULTURE POLICY PROJECT

executive summary

America's farmers and ranchers face unprecedented

challenges and opportunities in the decades ahead.

Globalization, technological change, trade issues, federal

budget constraints, global warming, high energy costs, land-

development pressures, and increasing environmental and food

safety concerns are all likely to have a profound impact on

rural communities and on future prospects for sustaining a

prosperous and vibrant farm economy. At the same time, new

markets are opening to farmers that already are paying

enormous dividends. Investments in biofuels projects and wind

farms, as well as the generation of carbon credits, are

providing farmers and ranchers with new sources of income

that are transforming the rural American economy.

The 21st Century Agriculture Policy Project was motivated

by a recognition that rapidly changing landscape calls for a

more expansive and creative approach to national farm policy.

Sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center and chaired by the

two of us, who together have eight decades of experience at

the forefront of federal engagement with agriculture issues,

the Project was launched in March 2006. Its aim has been to

work directly with farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders

to forge bipartisan consensus around a new agenda for U.S.

farm policy in the 21st century. It is our intent to put

forward a series of recommendations that, taken together, can

be implemented at a net savings to the federal government

compared with the current Farm Bill. Specifically, our

recommendations assume that increased demand for biofuels

under an expanded renewable fuel standard will produce

substantial savings in existing agriculture support programs,

including elimination of the direct payment program, less

reliance on countercyclical and loan deficiency payments, and

more reliance on the marketplace.

Programs to sustain the nation's agricultural sector must

necessarily evolve to reflect emerging budget pressures and

new economic realities, while also being responsive to the

larger concerns and interests of American taxpayers,

consumers, and utility ratepayers. Indeed, as taxpayers,

consumers, and ratepayers themselves, farmers and ranchers

are best served by well-designed policies that achieve

equitable outcomes, do so in a fiscally responsible

manner, and are carefully targeted to achieve maximum

societal benefits at the lowest possible cost.

Fortunately, the input gathered through this project from

farmers and researchers points to promising opportunities

for reforming current policies in ways that are responsive

to broader public-interest objectives without in any sense

diminishing the federal government's longstanding

commitment to an economically secure agricultural base.

The recommendations advanced here reflect the view that

strategic investments in developing new

market opportunities and in helping agricultural producers

gain a larger stake in high-value-added enterprises can

reduce farmers' need for current safety net programs in

ways that are less susceptible to political uncertainty

and international trade rules and that are revenue-

neutral, in terms of overall federal spending. Four

overarching themes connect these recommendations:

Securing a robust, economically vibrant future for American

agriculture in the 21st century requires a more expansive and

creative approach to farm policy. A continued federal

commitment to the financial security and stability of the

nation's farm community is essential at a time when

globalization, technological change, environmental concerns,

high energy costs, international pressure to cut traditional

subsidies, and continued urbanization all pose new challenges

for agriculture. To help farmers respond effectively while

continuing to undergird U.S. competitiveness, federal policy

must evolve to encompass a broader set of issues and

successfully leverage multiple synergies.

An emphasis on new markets and on increasing farmers'

equity share in value-added enterprises provides the best

foundation for expanding opportunity in rural communities.

Biofuels, renewable energy like wind power, carbon

sequestration, and habitat preservation for recreation and

hunting are just some examples of agriculture-related

activities that can significantly augment and diversify

future sources of income for America's farm families.

Targeted policies are needed to increase farmers' stakes in

the new wealth generated by these emerging markets.

Increasing the role of America's farms in energy production

can be achieved at a net savings to the federal budget

because increased demand for corn and other crops to serve

the rapidly growing alternative-fuels market will naturally

reduce outlays for traditional ``safety net'' programs. New

economic research suggests that explosive growth in ethanol

production will lead to higher prices not only for corn, but

also for soybeans and wheat, as acreage now in these crops is

shifted to corn. These market shifts are expected to

dramatically reduce countercyclical and loan deficiency

payments for certain crops, potentially freeing billions of

dollars each year for farm programs that have broad political

support and that generate promising, and ultimately more

self-sustaining, economic opportunities in the long run.

Federal action to establish a mandatory program to limit

greenhouse gas emissions is sensible and will provide

agricultural producers with significant new market

opportunities. The agriculture sector is in a unique position

to lead in--and benefit from--efforts to address climate

change. Expanded demand for biofuels is an obvious example,

but ranch and farm lands are also well-suited for future

development of renewable electricity sources (e.g., wind and

solar power) and carbon sequestration.

summary of recommendations

Continue to provide economic stability through existing

countercyclical programs, while investing in market-based

opportunities for agriculture and addressing new sources of

financial insecurity through a permanent disaster program:

First, the core of the federal farm program must be a

strong countercyclical program based on the two

countercyclical elements of the current farm bill: (1) a

robust marketing loan program that treats all producers

equally and (2) a partially decoupled countercyclical

program. Individual farm benefits should be capped at

$250,000 per year and eligibility to obtain benefits through

more than one entity should be eliminated.

Second, Congress should eliminate the direct payment

program and redirect funds for this program--along with

savings generated by reduced countercyclical and LDP payments

for corn, wheat, and soybeans--to permanent disaster

assistance and promoting new income-generating opportunities

for farmers in markets such as biofuels, renewable

electricity, carbon sequestration, and conservation.

Third, Congress should establish a Value-Added Equity

Creation Program to provide farmers and ranchers with no-

interest revolving loans so that they can participate in

high-value agriculture-related business opportunities, such

as biofuels plants and wind projects. Producers should be

eligible to participate if their primary occupation is

farming and should be able to receive up to $100,000 in

interest-free loans for equity investments in qualifying

value-added enterprises (as certified by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA)).

Finally, in recent years, Congress has frequently passed

annual emergency spending bills to provide agricultural

producers with disaster assistance. While these measures have

provided important relief to farmers and ranchers, they have

been ad hoc in nature and off budget. As a result, Congress

may decide to establish a permanent disaster assistance

program, administered by USDA, to provide ranchers and

farmers with assistance for clearly defined disaster

conditions. If so, we recommend that Congress replace the

current system of ad hoc off-budget emergency supplemental

spending bills, make the permanent disaster assistance

program on-budget as part of the Farm Bill, and include a

reasonable benefit cap of $250,000 per farm or ranch in any

single year. If a reasonable benefits cap is imposed, net

federal outlays for disaster assistance should be reduced

compared with the current off-budget approach.

To promote biomass-based alternative liquid fuels, Congress

should:

Expand and extend the recently-adopted renewable fuels

standard (RFS) to reach at least 10 billion gallons per year

by 2010, 30 billion gallons per year by 2020, and 60 billion

gallons per year by 2030, as proposed in bipartisan

legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate. This step would

lead to expansion of biofuels markets beyond the E-10 market

and spur new investment in the next generation of advanced

biofuels technologies, such as cellulosic ethanol.

Promote the use of higher blends of ethanol in the existing

fleet of automobiles by instructing the Environmental

Protection Agency to conduct analysis of the viability of

using higher blends of ethanol (including E-15, E-20, E-30,

and E-40) in the existing fleet of automobiles by January 1,

2009.

Extend the existing volumetric ethanol excise tax credit

(VEETC) to 2020 while simultaneously restructuring this

program in ways that account for expected growth in corn

ethanol production under an expanded national RFS. After the

current tax incentive authorization expires in 2010, Congress

should look for ways to ensure that the cost of the tax

credit--in the context of other policies and expected ethanol

production volumes--remains acceptable, while ensuring that

new and innovative biofuels project are provided the support

they need to be successful. Among the criteria that

Congress should use to design the post-2010 biofuels tax

credits are:

1. Limiting the overall cost of the tax incentives to the

government;

2. Encouraging expansion of the industry by ensuring that

investments in new plants and recently-built plants can be

fully amortized;

3. Rewarding energy-efficient and low-carbon emitting

technologies;

4. Ensuring that pioneering processes, such as those that

convert cellulosic feedstocks like corn stover and

switchgrass to ethanol, are economically competitive with

fossil fuels;

5. Encouraging farmer ownership of ethanol plants;

6. Balancing domestic tax credits with an import duty of

similar size, so that U.S. taxpayers do not subsidize ethanol

imports to the detriment of American producers.

Extend the small producer renewable fuels tax credit beyond

2008 for plants that are at least 40 percent locally-owned

and for cellulosic ethanol plants. Consolidate all cellulosic

biofuels loan guarantee programs into a single program at

USDA and establish an energy security trust fund to provide

consistent funding for that program. Successfully

commercializing the production of ethanol and other fuels

from cellulosic (i.e., woody or fibrous) plant materials

would dramatically expand the potential contribution of

biofuels in terms of displacing current petroleum use and

associated carbon emissions. Implementing many existing loan

guarantee programs through three separate federal agencies

makes little sense. USDA has considerable experience in

implementing loan guarantee programs and expertise in

evaluating biofuels projects through its Office of Energy.

Therefore, Congress should consolidate all federal biofuels

grant and loan guarantee programs at USDA and establish a

national energy security trust fund to provide at least $1

billion per year in loan guarantees and grants to promote

necessary advances in production technology and bio-science.

Establish a demonstration cellulosic biofuels feedstock

program. Congress should establish a new set-aside program to

demonstrate how the cultivation and harvesting of cellulosic

feedstocks could be accomplished in an economically

attractive manner. Following the model of several existing

programs, the 2007 Farm Bill should provide a modest payment

to landowners who convert existing cropland to grow

cellulosic biofuel feedstocks for nearby cellulosic biofuels

plants in ways that improve wildlife habitat, reduce soil

erosion, and protect water quality. New lands to be set aside

under such a program should be capped at 500,000 acres for

the duration of the 2007 Farm Bill.

Establish policies to encourage a rapid increase in the

number of flexible fuel vehicles sold in the United States

and the installation of E-85 pumps and blender pumps at

gasoline stations. For example, we recommend extending the

existing tax credit for installing E-85 refueling stations

and redesigning it to provide relatively greater benefits in

the near-term to encourage more rapid deployment of E-85

infrastructure. We also recommend clarifying that blender

pumps be eligible for the tax credit, since in the long run

it will make more sense to install blender pumps that are

capable of dispensing a range of ethanol blended fuels.

Congress also should consider more attractive expensing and

accelerated depreciation options to encourage installation of

E-85 and blender pumps in lieu of tax credits.

To promote renewable electricity production and other

renewable energy projects on farms and ranches, Congress

should:

Establish a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS)

along with complementary policies to promote maximum

development of cost-effective renewable energy potential on

agricultural lands. Such policies to promote renewable energy

have been adopted by 21 states and the District of Columbia

and Congress should now take action to adopt a

portfolio requirement at the federal level. Moreover, federal

policies to promote renewable energy should encourage the

siting of new projects on farm or ranch lands wherever

possible. Given that the use of these lands would be far

preferable to new development in wilderness areas and would

simultaneously provide important economic benefits for rural

communities, an appropriate policy goal would be to satisfy

at least two-thirds of a national RPS with renewable energy

production on agricultural lands. In addition, a federal RPS

should be designated to complement and not pre-empt any state

requirements (which may be more ambitious) and should apply

equally to all large retail electricity providers. (To

simplify implementation requirements and to address supply

and price concerns, it may be appropriate to exclude rural

electric coops and small municipal utilities.)

Expand and strengthen existing programs outside the Farm

Bill that promote renewable energy development and related

technology advances. To provide investment certainty,

existing renewable-energy production tax credits (PTCs)

should be extended for ten years and funding for related

research, development, demonstration, and early deployment

efforts should be increased. In addition, such programs

should be modified so that incentives can be taken against

non-passive income. The Community Renewable Energy Bonds

(CREBs) program should be extended and expanded, with a

substantial sum set aside for rural electric cooperatives and

municipal utilities.

Establish a Rural Community Renewable Energy Bonds program

to provide a federal incentive for local private investment

in renewable energy to complement the PTC and CREBs programs.

This new initiative would be limited to projects of not more

than 40 MW; where at least 49 percent of the project is

owned by entities resident within 200 miles of the project

site.

Expand the capacity of the existing federal power

administration transmission system. The federal power

marketing administrations (PMAs) own and manage a vast

network of existing power lines, which should be

substantially expanded to provide the additional capacity

needed to tap cost-effective renewable energy resources.

Congress should direct the federal power administrations to

pursue this objective under a structure in which non-

benefiting PMA customers do not shoulder the cost and

preference is given for system investments that maximize

promising opportunities for renewable energy development on

agricultural lands. Priority should be placed on the

expansion of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission systems.

The PMAs also should be authorized and encouraged to enter

into partnerships with non-federal parties for the siting,

planning, and construction of transmission lines; the

participation of PMAs can streamline siting by avoiding

multiple state siting authorities.

The Department of Energy (DOE) should designate the

Heartland Transmission Corridors ``National Interest Electric

Transmission Corridors'' pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of

2005. Federal assistance in the form of an expanded role for

WAPA as a facilitator for planning and investment, and a 20

percent matching investment from the federal government would

go a long way toward addressing cost and siting hurdles,

encouraging state cooperation, and ensuring that needed

transmission system enhancements are implemented.

Congress should authorize $1 billion per year for five

years to provide tax-exempt bonds for the construction of

transmission facilities (or the expansion of existing

facilities) where such construction or expansion is cost-

effective and offers substantial public policy benefits in

terms of facilitating the development of clean, domestic

renewable resources. Under such a program, loans would be

provided by eligible government entities to qualified private

entities seeking to finance eligible transmission

infrastructure. Such bonds would assure the availability of

financing for transmission at significantly lower cost than

presently available in the market. They could be used both

for new transmission and for upgrades to existing facilities

(for example, to address transmission constraints in west

Texas and Minnesota, where substantial wind development

opportunities exist, or to access renewable energy projects

anticipated as a result of the Rocky Mountain Area

Transmission Study (RMATS) in the Western Interconnect. In

addition, current private use restrictions applicable to

projects that receive tax-exempt bonds should be reviewed to

assess whether they create unnecessary additional hurdles to

investment.

Explore further opportunities for an expanded federal role

in directly facilitating the implementation of, and providing

resources for, investments to enhance grid capacity and to

promote a more efficient, seamless, and reliable transmission

system nationwide.

Reauthorize and expand USDA's Energy Audit and Renewable

Energy Development Program under Section 9005 of the 2002

Farm Bill. This program to assist farmers, ranchers, and

rural small businesses in becoming more energy efficient and

in using renewable energy technology and resources has never

been funded. It should be reauthorized with a goal of

performing audits of 25 percent of all farms and ranches over

the time horizon covered by the next Farm Bill and funds

sufficient to achieve that goal should be appropriated in the

future.

Reauthorize and expand USDA's Rural Development Business

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (Section 9006

of the 2002 Farm Bill). This program currently provides a

modest number of grants--$23 million per year--to support

renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects. Future

funding should be scaled up over the next 5 years to at least

$500 million per year and the program should be expanded to

enable participating agencies to provide grants for

feasibility studies and loan guarantees for project

development. As long as feasibility studies are accurately

performed, the cost to the federal government of providing

loan guarantees for up to 75 percent of project costs should

be fairly small. In addition, Congress should consider

modifying the program to (1) increase loan guarantees for

cellulosic ethanol facilities to at least $100 million per

project, and $25 million for other projects, (2) create a

rebate program to streamline the application process for

smaller, standardized projects by reducing the paperwork

burden, and (3) expand eligible applicants to include

agricultural operations in non-rural areas (such as

greenhouses) and schools.

To promote markets for carbon sequestration and other cost-

effective greenhouse-gas mitigation measures on farm and

ranch lands, Congress should:

Establish a national, mandatory, market-based program to

reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions that provides

substantial market opportunities for cost-effective carbon

sequestration on farm and ranch lands. Specifically,

agricultural producers should have the opportunity to

participate fully in the carbon markets that will be created

under a greenhouse gas trading program. To facilitate this

participation, priority must be given to establishing robust,

well-defined protocols for measuring and verifying carbon

reductions achieved through terrestrial sequestration.

Establish tax incentives, such as federal tax refunds for

local and state property taxes, for farmers and ranchers who

enroll land in a carbon trading program that works in tandem

with entities that buy, sell and trade carbon credits.

Direct USDA to work with other state and federal agencies

on continued economic and technical research on different

options for sequestering carbon and on better methods of

documenting sequestration for market participation.

To advance widely supported environmental habitat-

preservation, and open-space objectives while creating

additional income-generating opportunities for farmers and

maximizing potential business opportunities related to

hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation,

Congress should:

Expand existing conservation programs:

1. Expand the Conservation Reserve Program at 40 million

acres;

2. Expand the Wetlands Reserve Program at 5 million acres,

with annual enrollment capped at 250,000 acres per year;

3. Expand the Grasslands Reserve Program at 5 million

acres, with annual enrollment capped at 500,000 acres per

year;

4. Increase funding for the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection

Program to at least $300 million per year.

5. Implement the Conservation Security Program on a

nationwide basis on all working lands.

Enact ``Open Fields Bill'' to provide $20 million per year

in federal funds to supplement state ``walk in'' programs

that give farmers and ranchers financial incentives to expand

public access to their lands.

Exhibit 2

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader,

U.S. Senate.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Pete V. Domenici,

Ranking Member, Energy & Natural Resources Committee.

Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Bingaman and Domenici: As a

diverse group of corporations, manufacturers, electric

utilities, renewable energy developers, labor organizations,

farm groups, faith-based organizations and environmental

advocates, we are writing to urge the Senate to include a

national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in energy

security legislation that may soon be considered by Congress.

An RPS is an essential component of a broader national energy

strategy, because it will held the nation to take full

advantage of the abundant domestic renewable resources

available for the generation of electricity.

An RPS is a market-based mechanism that requires electric

utilities to include a specific percentage of clean,

renewable energy in their generation portfolios, or to

purchase renewable energy credits from others. By

substantially increasing renewable electricity generation,

the RPS would enhance national energy security by

diversifying our sources of electric generation. At a time

when the United States is increasing energy imports, an RPS

would make America more energy self-reliant. The reduction in

the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity would also

limit fuel price volatility, which is important to both

industry and consumers. In fact, the U.S. Department of

Energy's own Energy Information Administration has found in

several studies that an RPS would actually cause natural gas

prices to decline.

Increasing the market share for renewable energy resources

would also have substantial environmental benefits. An RPS is

one of the most important and readily available approaches to

reducing greenhouse gases from the electricity generation

sector. In addition, an RPS also would help reduce

conventional pollutants including nitrogen oxide, sulfur

dioxide and mercury emissions.

Moreover, a national RPS will produce substantial economic

benefits. The additional investment in renewable electric

generation would create hundreds of thousands of well-paying

jobs. In addition, because many renewable resources are

located in remote areas, rural America will experience a

substantial economic boost.

We believe the time has come for Congress to move quickly

to enact national RPS legislation. The costs of inaction for

our environment, national security and economy are too high.

Although more than 20 states have adopted individual RPS

programs, the country will not realize the full potential for

renewable electricity without the adoption of a Federal

program to enhance the states' efforts.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

GE, BP America, Inc., National Venture Capital Association,

Miasole, Wisconsin Power and Light, National Council of

Churches of Christ in the USA, Technet, APX, Inc., Alliant

Energy, Sempra Energy, Shell Wind Energy, Inc., Solar

Turbines, Inc., Business Council for Sustainable Energy,

Alliant Energy, Invenergy LLC, Owens Corning Composites

System Business, Leeco Steel, Clipper Wind Power, Inc.,

Google, United Steelworkers, Edison International, Pacific

Gas & Electric, Union for Reform Judaism, GT Solar, PPM

Energy, Inc., Avista Utilities, Horizon Wind Energy, Enel NA,

D.H. Blattner and Sons, Applied Materials, Inc., Greene

Engineers, Oregon Steel Mills, LM Glasfiber ND, Inc., Noble

Environmental Power, enXco, Interstate Power and Light,

National Audobon Society, American Wind Energy Association,

Blue Green Alliance, Big Crane & Rigging Company, Iberdrola

U.S.A., Natural Resources Defense Council.

DMI Industries, Union of Concerned Scientists, Lake

Superior Warehousing, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union,

Pennsylvania Interfaith Climate Campaign, Interfaith Power &

Light, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Western

Organization of Resource Council, ATS Wind Energy Services,

BioResource Consultants, Bosch Rexroth Corporation, Castle &

Cooke Resorts, Chermac Energy Corporation, Dominion Energy,

EFormative Options, Energy Unlimited, Enertech, Environmental

Stewardship & Planning, Eurus Energy America, FPC Services,

Generation Energy, Green Energy Technologies, Gro Wind I,

Highland New Wind Development, Knight & Carver, LAPP

Resources, Louis J. Manfredi Consulting, Mackinaw Power,

Mizuho Corporate Bank, Nordex USA, Old Mill Power Company,

Otech Engineering, Phoenix Contact, Renewable Energy

Consulting Services, San Gorgonio Farms, SIPCO (MLS

Electrosystem), TCI Renewables Limited, Tideland Signal,

Trinity Structural Towers, Varelube Systems, Wind Capital

Group, Wind Utility Consulting, WindLogics, Windsmith.

PowerWorks, Physicians for Social Responsibility, McNiff

Light Industry, Citizen's Utility Board, Great Southwestern

Construction, RES America, JPW Riggers, AES Wind Generation,

Suzlon Wind Energy, U.S. PIRG, University of Alaska,

Fairbanks, Atlantic Testing Laboratories, National

Environmental Trust, AWS Truewind, Big Stone Wind, CAB, Inc.,

Bluewater Wind, BQ Energy, Competitive Power Ventures,

Chinook Wind, EcoEnergy LLC, Electric Power Engineers,

Enerpro, FAW Foundry, Foresight Wind Energy, Excellent Energy

Solutions, General Compression, Hopwood, Greenwing Energy,

Hailo, HMH Energy Resources, Pandion Systems, ReEnergy,

Tamarack Energy, Mariah Power, Molded Fiber Glass Companies,

Oak Creek Energy Systems, Sierra Club, Padoma Wind Power,

Project Resources, RSMR Global Resources, Signal Wind Energy,

Sustainable Energy Strategies, The Conti Group, TMA, Inc.,

Oregon Rural Action, Venti Energy, Wind Turbine Tools,

Windland.

WindRose Power, Winergy Drive Systems, Winergy Power,

Appropriate Energy, Castaic Clay Products, Cannon Power,

TOWER Logistics, Energy Development and Construction Corp.,

Institute for Environmental Research and Education, RENEW

Wisconsin, Fallon County Disaster & Emergency Services,

Stevens County (KS) Economic Development, Dakota Resource

Council, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, West

Wind Wires, Interwest Energy Alliance, Concord Energy Policy

Group, Renewable Northwest Project, Friends Committee on

National Legislation, American Lung Association of the

Central States, Tompkins Renewable Energy Education Alliance,

Alaska Wilderness League, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Citizens

Campaign for the Environment, Grassroots Citizens of

Wisconsin, NH Sustainable Energy Association, Southwest

Wisconsin Progressives.

Cabazon Wind Energy, Zephyr Lake Energies, Hodge Foundry,

Commonwealth Capital Group, Mankato Area Environmentalists,

Clean Wisconsin, Missourians for Safe Energy, Oklahoma Wind

Power Initiative, OverSight Resources, Kansas Rural Center,

Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Greenpeace, Southern

Alliance for Clean Energy, Clean Power Now, RMT/WindConnect,

The Land Institute, Western Colorado Congress, Idaho Rural

Council, Clean Water Action, Coulee Progressives, League of

Conservation Voters, Penn Future, REACH for Tomorrow, The

Minster Machine Company.

Exhibit 3

FPL Group, Inc.,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2007.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bingaman: Please consider this letter an

endorsement of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)

amendment you intend to offer during upcoming Senate

consideration of energy legislation.

As you may know, FPL Group, comprised of two major

subsidiaries, Florida Power & Light (FPL) and FPL Energy

(FPLE), is one of America's cleanest, most progressive energy

companies. Our commitment to the environment is manifested by

FPL's diverse generation mix and by FPLE's largely renewable

energy portfolio. FPLE operates two of the largest solar

projects in the world, over 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric

power, a number of geothermal projects and several biomass

plants. Additionally, FPLE is the world's largest generator

of wind power.

We appreciate your leadership on this important issue and

support your efforts to enact a fair and balanced RPS in

order to increase the amount of non-emitting electricity

generation in the United States.

Sincerely,

Michael M. Wilson,

Vice President, Governmental Affairs.

Exhibit 4

National Farmers Union,

June 11, 2007.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Washington,

Mr. President, let me make a few comments in response to my colleague's statement and in opposition to his amendment, which he has designated the clean energy portfolio standard. I think people need to understand what his amendment provides, and let me try to explain that.

This amendment purports to be significantly stronger than the 15- percent requirement I have proposed as part of the renewable portfolio standard I have sent to the desk. It actually, though, accomplishes very little in driving the development of new technologies for electricity supply.

The amendment talks about a target of 20 percent clean energy resources by 2020, but when you look at it carefully, it is a recipe for business as usual, given all the other things that are going on and in the planning stages.

There are various reasons why I say that. First of all, it is very clear from his amendment that existing nuclear power is subtracted from the base against which the requirement is measured. Now, what does that mean? What that means is that instead of taking 100 percent, you say: OK. How much of our current electricity supply comes from nuclear power? About 20 percent. You subtract that, and you are then left with the remaining 80 percent; and that remaining 80 percent is what he calculates his 20 percent against. So, in fact, 20 percent of 80 percent gets you down to 16 percent--rather than a 20-percent requirement.

He also has a provision in here that says incremental nuclear power is counted for full credit. Now, that means any new powerplant that is built is new energy and helps to meet the requirement that would be imposed by his amendment. Let me say, first of all, I worked very closely with Senator Domenici in supporting additional incentives and additional supports--subsidies, in fact--for the nuclear energy industry in the 2005 Energy bill we passed. We put a variety of things into law to encourage the construction of new nuclear powerplants in this country. We put in regulatory risk insurance. We put in a production tax credit, which I think was 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 10 years you had one of these new nuclear powerplants in production. We extended the Price Anderson Act. We had loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear plants--the first six, I believe. We had a substantial increase in funding for nuclear research and development, and we had a transfer to the Federal taxpayer of much of the expenditure for safety and security that would otherwise have been borne by the industry.

So there are a lot of things in there to support the nuclear power industry. I still believe those are very good provisions, and I am in no way backing away from those. But now my colleague has come to the floor and said: OK, now let's give them another subsidy, another incentive to build nuclear power by including them as one of the ways you would meet the requirement of this clean energy portfolio standard.

As I am sure anybody who was paying attention to our discussion yesterday would know, I believe Senator Domenici made this point very strongly: Since we passed the 2005 bill, there has been a resurgence in interest on the part of various companies that want to build new nuclear powerplants. I think there are some 30 letters of intent currently pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stating that companies are looking seriously at filing applications for the construction of new powerplants. So the expectation is that we are going to have a lot of new nuclear powerplants constructed in this country over the next decade, and I, frankly, hope we do because I think that is an essential part of meeting our energy needs. But we do not need to further incentivize that by including them as part of a renewable or a clean energy portfolio standard as the Domenici amendment would have us do.

He talks about how the amendment I have offered is strictly a wind type of incentive; it is a program to encourage construction of more wind energy.

That is directly contrary to what has been stated by the Energy Information Administration. In their analysis, they concluded very clearly that wind energy would be expected, under this amendment I have offered, to increase 50 percent; that biomass energy production, electricity production from biomass, which is already twice as large as energy production from wind, would be expected to increase 300 percent rather than 50 percent, as is the case with wind; and that energy production from solar would be expected to increase 500 percent. So it is clear to me that this is not just a wind energy amendment I have proposed. Our amendment talks about meeting the requirements from solar power, from wind power, from geothermal power, from biomass power, from ocean.

The Senator from Utah was just on the Senate floor talking about his support for the idea of energy from tidal waves. We have that included. That is one of the new renewable energy

sources which we contemplate. Incremental hydro--so that if we have a hydroelectric facility and one wants to increase the amount of power from that facility, we count that against the requirement; landfill gases as well. So I think all of that is included, and all of it would be increased significantly.

Let me also talk about the issue of subsidies. I went through a list of the various subsidies we provide in the 2005 bill for the nuclear power industry, and I support every one of those. I think that was the right thing to do. But let me just be clear that we have subsidies for a great many types of energy sources, including tax deductions, loan guarantees, liability insurance, and provisions for leasing of public lands at below-market prices. Some, like the depletion allowance for oil and gas, are permanent subsidies that are built into the Tax Code, and I am not suggesting they need to be repealed. I am just pointing out the largest subsidy--and I think any economist would make this point and would agree with this point--the largest subsidy is an invisible subsidy, the fact that the environmental impacts from use of fossil fuels are nowhere reflected in the cost of those energy sources. That is what has caused our problem with greenhouse gas emissions. That is why--it does not cost anything to pump 100 tons of CO2 or other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There is no cost to the person who is producing their energy for those fossil fuels. There is a cost to society, and we are beginning to understand what that cost is. But the idea of a major impetus for the renewable portfolio standard I have offered is that we would reduce dramatically these greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives for the development of these other technologies. There are already incentives for the improvement in the development or improved use of nuclear power for energy production, and, as I say, I support those.

Let me also talk a little about this proposal that States can opt out. First, let me mention that the Secretary can add others. I think that is a very major loophole, for us to essentially say to the Secretary of Energy: It is up to you; if you find something else that you believe ought to be included in the way we meet essentially this 16 percent requirement, then add that in. I think the idea that States can opt out is unfortunate, indeed. Obviously, many States have chosen to put in place their own renewable portfolio standards. Nothing in my amendment in any way overrides those States' proposals.

What we try to do with the proposal I put forward is to set a national minimum. We say you should at least do this 15 percent. If you want to do something else, have a go at it. If your laws provide for something else, then so much the better. But we do not say to States: You can opt out of any Federal requirement. I think to do so essentially eliminates any coherence we might have in the system.

Let me conclude my comments at this point by saying that my own reading of the proposal Senator Domenici has made here as a second- degree amendment to mine is that it really gets us to the worst of all locations in the debate or in our deliberations on this issue. It is a Federal program that does not result in the generation of electricity from clean energy sources beyond what otherwise would be expected to happen at any rate. But it does require utilities to go through very extensive efforts to track and buy and sell credits and comply with a regulatory regime. The Government would have to establish a credit- trading scheme, a tracking system, a monitoring system, regulations for implementation--a whole panoply of Government machinery--but they would do so in order to achieve a result that could have been achieved without the implementation of the proposed amendments.

So I think it would be an unfortunate provision for us to adopt. I hope my colleagues will agree with that and will vote against the Domenici proposal and, of course, as I said earlier in the debate, a vote in favor of the one I propose.

Let me conclude with that. I know my colleague may wish to speak some more, and I know there are others coming to the floor intending to speak as well, and there may be additional opportunities for me to add to these comments as the afternoon progresses.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe from Maine be added as a cosponsor to the underlying amendment I have sent to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and colleague from Idaho. I would just direct a question to him and see if I am confused or he is confused, or just where the confusion lies. He says there is not authority in the Domenici proposal, the clean energy proposal; that there is not authority for a State to opt out. Here is the sentence on page 9 of that legislation. 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 in the program under this section.

Now, that clearly states, as I understand it, that it is entirely up to the State whether it chooses to participate in the program or chooses not to participate in the program, and there is no discretion on the part of the Secretary of Energy about it at all. There is no certification required by the Secretary of Energy. There is no requirement that the State program meet any particular standard other than it contribute to the overall goals of the Federal standard.

To me, that means a State can opt out of the Federal program, unless I am misreading it.

Well, Mr. President, let me just reiterate that the clear language of the statute states if the State determines that it has a ``portfolio standard that substantially contributes to the overall goals of the Federal clean portfolio standard, then the State may elect not to participate in the program.''

To me, that is a clear opt-out for the State. There is no requirement that anybody certify or anything else. If I were Governor of New Mexico, I could type up a letter, send it off to the Secretary and say we are opting out--include us out--and that clearly would let me out of the program.

So I don't think the bill says what the Senator has indicated.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my friend. I would just say he is describing a provision in an amendment that is not before us. I want to point that out to my colleagues.

Mr. President, I do object. I believe we need to complete action on the two pending amendments before we take up any other amendments or have other amendments pending. Obviously he can send anything he wants to the desk, but as far as calling up any amendment for consideration, I would object.

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

I yield to the Senator from Iowa for whatever time he wishes.

Mr. President, let me speak briefly. I know my colleague, Senator Sanders, is in the Chamber and wishes to speak. I will not delay him long.

Let me make three brief points with regard to Senator Domenici's second-degree amendment. What that amendment does is it does three things to the renewable portfolio standard I have sent to the desk.

First of all, it starts out by saying: Since it is a requirement that you produce a certain percent of the power you are selling from renewable sources, let's take the base amount of power you are selling and redefine it so it is smaller. It does that by saying: OK, if you are selling any power you produce from nuclear sources, that does not count in the base. So that automatically eliminates 20 percent of the electricity being sold in this country today.

It says: OK, that way, you can suggest to people we have a 20-percent goal here--whereas the one I have sent to the desk is only 15 percent. But you do not need to be a mathematician to realize that after you take the 20 percent out, and you take 20 percent of 80 percent, then you are getting down to 16 percent. So, essentially, there is some smoke and mirrors going on there.

Second, they say: OK, let's redefine how you can meet that requirement, that 16 percent requirement, which is what it, in fact, is. They say: You can meet it by using any of the renewable sources the Bingaman amendment allows for; and that is, biomass, solar,

wind, geothermal, tidal energy. Those are all options. In addition, if you want to build another nuclear plant, that counts. If you want to improve energy efficiency, that counts. If you want to adopt some demand response programs to reduce demand, that counts against your requirement. If you want to use the capture and storage technology, that counts. The Secretary is given authority to identify other things that could count, too, which are unspecified in the bill.

So, essentially, what you wind up--and then the final thing it does with our amendment is it says: If you are a State that has some kind of program, and you think it is pursuing the same--I will read the exact language. It says:

If the governor of a State submits to the Secretary 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, then the State may elect not to

participate in the Federal program.

So, essentially, it is an invitation to States to adopt something and then opt out, which I think undermines what we are trying to accomplish.

Essentially, the way I read the amendment by my colleague, his second-degree amendment would basically say: Let's put together this complicated trading system to keep track of what utilities are doing, but, in fact, it is designed essentially to mirror what they are already planning to do at any rate. It doesn't require them to do anything different.

The amendment I have sent to the desk does require them to do some things differently. They are going to have to actually start either producing energy from renewable sources, buying energy that has been produced from renewable sources by someone else, buying credits from someone else who has produced more renewable energy than they, in fact, needed, or pay a compliance fee to the Secretary of Energy. So we have some real teeth in our provision.

Now, it is not as strong as some Senators would like. I know my colleague, who is about to speak, will speak to that issue, and I know Senator Kerry from Massachusetts feels very strongly that this is not a strong enough requirement that I have suggested. But I would suggest to anyone who is studying these issues, the proposal I have made is a vastly stronger proposal than the one that my colleague, Senator Domenici, has proposed as an alternative.

I urge my colleagues to study both amendments tonight and perhaps tomorrow we can get a vote on both amendments. Also, I know Senator Kerry would like an opportunity to propose that we have even a stronger standard. I think he should be given that opportunity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three letters--one from Constellation Energy, one from a large group of environmental organizations, and then another one from a separate group of environmental organizations--be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Legislation

S. 1257, District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007;

S. 274, Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act;

H.R. 1254, Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007;

S. Res. 22, a resolution reaffirming the constitutional and statutory protections accorded sealed domestic mail, and for other purposes;

S. 967, Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2007;

S. 1046, Senior Professional Performance Act of 2007;

S. 1099, a bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals employed by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission eligible to obtain Federal health insurance;

S. 597, a bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 years;

H.R. 1255/S. 886, Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007;

S. 381, Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations to the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Department of Labor, Department of Defense, VA cooperation, and collaboration to meet the employment needs of returning service members.

Madam President, I know there are others waiting to speak. I don't want to delay the proceedings greatly, but I do have some concerns. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the amendment sponsor, if I can.

Yes, I am glad to yield.

Madam President, let me respond. I think the simpler thing would be to have the Senator from California, who is the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, go ahead with any statement she wants, and I will withhold my questions at this point. I know there are others wishing to talk about CAFE standards.

The Senator from Oklahoma has indicated a willingness to set his amendment aside. He is not pushing for a vote at this time. Why doesn't the Senator from California go ahead and speak in response to the amendment at this point, and then perhaps we can have the other Senators who want to talk about CAFE standards talk about that issue, and we will see what other amendments we can also line up.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I have conferred with my colleague and we are willing to accept the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, the one he presented to the Members, the one that is currently pending. Perhaps my colleague wants to speak to that.

Madam President, I appreciate those comments, and the Senator from California who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee indicates it is acceptable to her committee as well. So at this point, I think the Senate is ready to vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, let me propound a unanimous consent agreement with regard to tomorrow morning.

I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, June 13, when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 6, the time between the end of morning business and 11:45 a.m. be for debate with respect to the Inhofe amendment No.

1505, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that the time be equally divided and controlled between the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, or their designees; and that at 11:45, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment without further intervening action or debate.

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 there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the preparedness of Federal land management agencies for the 2007 wildfire season and to consider recent reports on the agencies' efforts to contain the costs of wildfire management activities has been rescheduled.

The rescheduled hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Rachel Pasternack.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to equally divide a full hour, which was our plan this afternoon.

Some of that time may be yielded back, but I didn't want to cut off anyone who wishes to speak on this issue before we go to a vote.

Mr. President, today we begin consideration of energy legislation in the Senate. Later today, we will be voting to take up legislation that will make a meaningful and bipartisan contribution to charting a new direction for America's energy policy.

There is a growing consensus among Federal, State, and local policymakers across the ideological spectrum, also from corporate leaders and the American public in general, that our Nation needs to move faster and needs to go farther to secure its energy future.

America's family farmers and businesses look no further than the prices that are posted at the corner gas station to see the vivid and daily indicators of the economic perils inherent in maintaining the status quo. In fact, they have watched as gas prices have stayed at more than $3 per gallon for well over a month.

Our national security experts cite the geopolitical implications and the foreign policy challenges presented by the rise of State-owned energy companies and by our own growing dependence on oil imports. In 2005, the United States imported roughly 60 percent of the petroleum that we consumed. Without decisive action, that figure is expected to approach 70 percent over the next two decades, with more than 35 percent of that increase expected to come from member nations of OPEC or the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Meanwhile, economists take note of our energy policy's fiscal implications as well related to America's global competitiveness. In 2005 and 2006, our dependence on petroleum imports combined with rising prices to add an estimated $120 billion to our Nation's trade deficit.

There is no doubt there is a compelling case for action, but there is also something more fundamental that is embedded in the American consciousness that is animating the national call for a new direction in our energy policy.

President Franklin Roosevelt once observed:

The creed of our democracy is that liberty is acquired and

kept by men and women who are strong and self- reliant.

Perhaps it is this American principle of self-reliance that is driving national debate forward when it comes to energy policy.

After all, by tapping America's limitless capacity for innovation, our most abundant renewable resource, the United States can become more energy self-sufficient. Americans believe we can and should lead the world when it comes to developing the new technologies that will produce clean alternative energy and help us to address the threat of global warming. Inherent in this grand challenge is enormous opportunity--opportunity to build a

stronger economy, to create the high-paying jobs of the 21st century, and the opportunity, of course, to lower our energy costs.

No single political party has a monopoly on these ideas. Rather, these ideas are broadly shared by Members of the Senate on both sides of the political aisle. The shared will to make progress in securing America's energy future is what has brought us to this point today. Later this afternoon, we will vote on a motion to proceed to legislation that represents the bipartisan efforts of four committees in the Senate--the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Foreign Relations Committee. If we are successful in bringing the measure before the Senate, I believe by the time the debate is concluded, we will also have the recommendations of a fifth committee, the Senate Finance Committee, to add to this legislation.

Suffice it to say there has been a tremendous amount of bipartisan legislative effort on display in bringing this measure forward. Since the outset of the 110th Congress, the Senate has held more than 50 hearings on energy and climate-related issues. That is at least one hearing held every other day that we have been in session. As it relates to what we have been able to accomplish in the Senate Energy Committee, let me at the outset thank Senator Domenici, the ranking member on the committee, for the goodwill and the diligence he has demonstrated at every step in this effort.

On the second day of the 110th Congress, we jointly announced an all- day conference related to biofuels policy. This conference drew submissions and suggestions from more than 100 stakeholders. During that all-day session, attended by nearly every member of our committee, we heard from about 30 experts, who gave us suggestions that formed the intellectual basis for the committee's work in the important area of renewable fuels. After that, we held more than 15 energy policy-related hearings, including 8 oversight and legislative sessions, specifically tailored to take testimony on the issues at the core of our legislation. Those issues, in addition to biofuels, were energy efficiency and, second, carbon capture and storage.

As a result of this process, Senator Domenici and I were able to circulate a bipartisan proposal to the committee for markup. After a session at which we adopted almost 30 amendments from members on both sides of the dais, the Energy Committee reported legislation with a substantial bipartisan margin of 20 to 3. On the whole, I think what we were able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time is something all members of our committee can be proud of.

As I mentioned, the legislation touches on three key topics related to our energy future. First, it boosts domestic renewable fuel supplies. It does so in a manner that will reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and spur regional diversity of biofuels production and infrastructure.

The second thing the bill that came out of the Energy Committee does is it proposes to enhance economywide energy efficiency in a way that will reduce our Nation's imports of foreign oil and provide significant savings to consumers.

The third item we addressed is that we will invest in the carbon capture and storage technologies that will help us to cut back on the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

I think it would be helpful to describe for my colleagues some of these issues in a little more detail.

First, on the topic of biofuels, there is no question that in recent years many factors have sharpened public focus on the search for viable alternatives to conventional petroleum-based fuels. I have already described many of those factors, including increased world oil prices, concerns regarding import dependence, and the environmental effects of vehicle emissions.

Biofuels, which is a term that includes both ethanol and biodiesel, can be derived from an array of crops and other biological materials that are available throughout our Nation. Since the 1970s, all cars and light trucks with gasoline engines built for the U.S. market have been able to run on ethanol blends of up to 10 percent. That is E10. A smaller yet increasing number of vehicles that is now estimated at about 6 million on American roads today can run on fuel comprised of 85 percent ethanol or E85. Meanwhile, existing diesel engines can run on biodiesel in any concentration. Due to concerns about quality standards, however, manufacturers may not honor warranties for engines running on biodiesel blends in excess of 5 percent, that is B5, or 20 percent, which is B20.

There is little question that passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a watershed event for the Nation's biofuels industry. Establishing the first Federal renewable fuel standard, the RFS, created an escalating requirement for the amount of biofuels blended in U.S. gasoline, starting with 4 billion gallons in 2006, and accelerating to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012.

However, less than 2 years after that Energy Policy Act was signed by President Bush, increased use of biofuels is already surpassing the original RFS targets, with 5 billion gallons added to U.S. gasoline in 2006. Another 6 billion gallons of production capacity is expected to go into operation by 2009, bringing total domestic production capacity to approximately 11.7 billion gallons. According to the Energy Information Administration's 2007 Annual Energy Outlook:

the market potential for biofuel blends--that is B10, B5,

and B20--remains significantly larger than the current

production levels and will continue to absorb the biofuel

supply for the foreseeable future.

Yet as the Energy Committee began developing its legislation, it was obvious significant challenges remained if biofuels are to become a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to improve our energy self-sufficiency. Today, approximately 98 percent of domestic ethanol production is derived from cornstarch, and that creates upward pressure on commodity prices, restricting production to regions of the country where corn is grown, and posing challenges to efficient distribution of the fuel.

Diversifying feedstocks to include a broader array of renewable biomass can promote regional diversity in biofuels production and distribution, spreading economic benefits to rural communities across the country and relieving pressure on corn commodity prices. In addition, it can lead to greater efficiency in the fuel production process and help save on fossil fuel emissions.

Another issue key to making biofuels a significant factor in displacing domestic petroleum use relates to existing infrastructure challenges. Of the nearly 170,000 vehicle fueling stations in the United States, only 1 percent carried E85 or biodiesel in 2006. Consumers must have access to these fuels if they are to become a viable alternative.

To address these various challenges, the Energy Committee's legislation increases and extends the existing RFS to 36 billion gallons in 2022, with specific incentives for the production of biofuels from new sources of renewable biomass. Taken together, these provisions will help provide market certainty to both the existing ethanol industry and to the next generation of advanced biofuels producers.

In addition, our legislation provides resources to help break down infrastructure barriers to renewable fuel distribution, and it invests in research into the basic scientific challenges associated with the use of promising new feedstocks.

Altogether, the Energy Information Administration has estimated the legislation's biofuels provisions can help reduce America's petroleum imports by a million barrels per day, an important contribution to improving our Nation's energy security.

The second major topic of the Energy Committee's reported legislation is energy efficiency. The obvious goal of these provisions is to use existing resources more efficiently, which promises to further enhance U.S. self-sufficiency and provide environmental benefits and, of course, save consumers money.

Improving efficiency in transportation remains one of the most important and vexing energy challenges facing this Nation. Consumption of liquid fuels is currently projected to grow by more than 6 million barrels per day,

from 2005 to 2030, with 5.8 million barrels per day attributable to transportation. So as fuel consumption increases, so too do U.S. imports, a key concern for both the economy and our national security.

The Senate Commerce Committee has reported legislation that will increase corporate average fuel economy standards for the first time in many years, and this legislation is also included in the bill we will vote on later this afternoon. The Commerce Committee's chairman and vice chairman are to be congratulated on finding a way forward on this very difficult issue.

As such, I am pleased to say the provisions reported by the Energy Committee also support the goal of reducing the transportation sector's consumption of liquid fuels in general, and gasoline in particular. Our provisions establish an escalating goal for reducing U.S. gasoline consumption, starting with 20 percent in 2017. That is enough to reduce world oil prices more than $2.50 per barrel under current EIA assumptions.

This national goal ramps up to 45 percent in 2030, which is the equivalent of 5.6 million barrels of oil per day. That is more than twice the amount of oil the United States imported from the Persian Gulf in 2005.

To complement these initiatives, the legislation also makes investments in advanced vehicle technology development, basic science related to energy storage, and public education about how consumers can help reduce their own petroleum consumption.

In addition to the transportation sector, efficiency is a resource we can better deploy in end uses throughout the U.S. economy. For example, lighting and common household appliances can account for as much as two-thirds of an average American family's electricity bills. By improving a number of appliance efficiency standards and streamlining and strengthening the Department of Energy's existing program, consumers stand to collect $12 billion in benefits as a result of provisions included in this underlying bill.

In fact, altogether, the bill's appliance efficiency provisions will save at least 50 billion kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8 million typical U.S. households. It will save 17 trillion Btus of natural gas per year, or enough to heat about a quarter million typical U.S. homes, and it will conserve at least 560 million gallons of water per day, or 1.3 percent of daily potable water usage around this Nation. These savings result from provisions which establish the first ever Federal water conservation standards for clothes washers and dishwashers.

Finally, on the topic of efficiency: The legislation recognizes the Federal Government itself represents the Nation's largest energy consumer and can play a key role in bringing new technologies to market. The Federal Government has an obligation to lead by example, and in doing so we can save taxpayers money.

For example, even as the Government has reduced its energy consumption, saving 2.5 percent from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005, Federal energy costs nevertheless increased 24.1 percent or $14.5 billion. Clearly, rising energy prices have an impact on the Federal budget, just as they have an impact on the budgets for families and on the budgets for businesses across America.

To capture additional savings, this legislation strengthens Federal energy requirements from lighting procurement, to petroleum displacement, to energy management strategies across Federal buildings. As a result, leading efficiency groups have estimated that the legislation's provisions in this area can save 60 trillion Btu's of energy, 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and almost $4 billion of taxpayer money between now and 2015.

A final issue touched on by the NRC committee's reported legislation relates to carbon capture and storage or carbon sequestration. While scientific and technological challenges remain, carbon sequestration holds particular promise related to the potentially large amounts of carbon dioxide emitted from the use of fossil fuels. Electric generating plants may be the most likely initial candidates for implementing carbon sequestration.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Secretary of Energy to carry out research and development on technologies designed to capture carbon dioxide, specifically with respect to combustion-based energy systems. However, given the critical nature of these efforts, the need to demonstrate emerging methodologies, and the potential to apply them to a wider variety of energy technologies, our legislation strengthens and further expands this research.

In summary, I believe the Energy Committee has produced legislation that will help us move forward expeditiously with groundbreaking research on carbon sequestration that is key to addressing global warming, will help spur diverse domestic renewable fuels production, and it will promote energy efficiency throughout our economy.

These efforts, of course, by our committee, have been further complemented by good bipartisan work of the other Senate committees I mentioned. Taken together, these bipartisan measures form the backbone of a national strategy that meet at least three complementary goals: boosting U.S. energy self-sufficiency, driving American leadership in clean alternative energy, and putting us on a trajectory to address the threat of global warming.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to proceed to energy legislation which we will have later this afternoon.

I know my colleague, Senator Domenici, wishes to speak, giving his views on the pending legislation.

I yield the floor.

As soon as Senator Domenici has concluded his statement, I am glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

I am glad to yield the remaining 3\1/2\ minutes on this side to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I rise today to with Senators Kerry, Akaka, Salazar and Whitehouse to introduce the Drug Rebate Equalization Act of 2007.

As you know, the Medicaid drug rebate ensures that State Medicaid programs receive the best price for prescription drugs for their beneficiaries. Unfortunately, health plans that serve over 10 million Medicaid beneficiaries cannot access the same discounts

through the Federal drug rebate program. Plans typically get no rebate on generic drugs and about a third of the rebate on brand drugs as States receive. Therefore, States are paying more for the acquisition of prescription drugs for these health plan enrollees than for beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicaid, raising costs for Federal and State governments.

Even with this price disadvantage, the total cost of prescription drugs for health plans is less on a per member per month basis because of health plans' greater use of generics and case management. Unfortunately, many States are considering carving prescription drugs out from health plans for the sole purpose of obtaining the rebate, thereby undermining plans' ability to maintain a comprehensive care and disease management program that includes prescription drugs. Not only will this legislation save money, it will eliminate this incentive and ensure that health plans can maintain a comprehensive care coordination system for their patients.

This policy change was passed by the Senate during last year's debate over the Deficit Reduction Act. This year's version of the bill improves on last year's bill in several important ways. First, the bill ensures that health plans can continue their good work by using their own integrated care coordination and disease management protocols. Second, the bill will maintain the fee-for-service prohibition against health plans ``double dipping'' into the Medicaid drug rebate and the 340b discount drug pricing program. Finally, it will ensure that plans can use so-called positive formularies while simultaneously ensuring that enrollees will have access to off-formulary drugs through the regulated prior authorization process. These changes significantly improve the bill and will help improve its chances of passage.

This policy enjoys widespread support. Extending the Medicaid drug rebate to enrollees in health plans is supported by the National Governors Association, the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, the National Medicaid Commission, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Partnership for Medicaid, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, and the Medicaid Health Plans of America. I am entering into the record copies of letters provided by these organizations over the last few years memorializing their support for this concept.

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Bingaman amendment would have saved Federal taxpayers $1.7 billion over 5 years. Likewise, the CMS Office of the Actuary estimated that extending the drug rebate to health plans would save Federal taxpayers $2.2 billion over 5 years. I think that we can say that this policy will provide significant savings to Americans, whatever the number.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to with Senators Kerry, Akaka, Salazar and Whitehouse to introduce the Drug Rebate Equalization Act of 2007.

As you know, the Medicaid drug rebate ensures that State Medicaid programs receive the best price for prescription drugs for their beneficiaries. Unfortunately, health plans that serve over 10 million Medicaid beneficiaries cannot access the same discounts

through the Federal drug rebate program. Plans typically get no rebate on generic drugs and about a third of the rebate on brand drugs as States receive. Therefore, States are paying more for the acquisition of prescription drugs for these health plan enrollees than for beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicaid, raising costs for Federal and State governments.

Even with this price disadvantage, the total cost of prescription drugs for health plans is less on a per member per month basis because of health plans' greater use of generics and case management. Unfortunately, many States are considering carving prescription drugs out from health plans for the sole purpose of obtaining the rebate, thereby undermining plans' ability to maintain a comprehensive care and disease management program that includes prescription drugs. Not only will this legislation save money, it will eliminate this incentive and ensure that health plans can maintain a comprehensive care coordination system for their patients.

This policy change was passed by the Senate during last year's debate over the Deficit Reduction Act. This year's version of the bill improves on last year's bill in several important ways. First, the bill ensures that health plans can continue their good work by using their own integrated care coordination and disease management protocols. Second, the bill will maintain the fee-for-service prohibition against health plans ``double dipping'' into the Medicaid drug rebate and the 340b discount drug pricing program. Finally, it will ensure that plans can use so-called positive formularies while simultaneously ensuring that enrollees will have access to off-formulary drugs through the regulated prior authorization process. These changes significantly improve the bill and will help improve its chances of passage.

This policy enjoys widespread support. Extending the Medicaid drug rebate to enrollees in health plans is supported by the National Governors Association, the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, the National Medicaid Commission, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Partnership for Medicaid, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, and the Medicaid Health Plans of America. I am entering into the record copies of letters provided by these organizations over the last few years memorializing their support for this concept.

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Bingaman amendment would have saved Federal taxpayers $1.7 billion over 5 years. Likewise, the CMS Office of the Actuary estimated that extending the drug rebate to health plans would save Federal taxpayers $2.2 billion over 5 years. I think that we can say that this policy will provide significant savings to Americans, whatever the number.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Allyson Anderson, a AAAS fellow, and Paul Augustine, an EPA detailee, with my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on this Energy bill.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Benjamin Robinson, Kristen Meierhoff, and Matthew Zedler, who are interns with my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, also be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the Energy bill.

Mr. President, I wish today to join with my colleague, Senator Snowe to introduce the bipartisan Rural Aviation Improvement Act. Senator Snowe has been a longtime champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I applaud her continued leadership on this important legislation.

One of the goals of our bill is to preserve and improve the Essential Air Service Program. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in 35 States. EAS supports an additional 39 communities in Alaska. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. I believe our bill makes a number of important improvements to EAS to ensure rural communities continue to have the commercial air service that is so vital to their futures.

Our bill also extends through 2011 the Department of Transportation's authority to provide grants to cities under the Small Community Air Service Development Program, which was first established in 2000. The program helps rural communities establish new air service or to promote and improve their existing air service. Since it was first enacted, a number of New Mexico communities have won grants, including most recently Gallup in 2006.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads, or broadband

telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. I do believe Congress must help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America.

The Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee are well along in developing a reauthorization of aviation programs this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service programs for rural areas. I believe our bill is one important step in that process.

Mr. President, the landmark 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health brought a hidden mental health crisis to the attention of the U.S. public. According to that report, 13.7 million children in our country--about one in five--suffer from a diagnosable emotional or behavioral disorder. Such disorders as Anxiety Disorders, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and Depression are among the most common in this age group. Yet more than two-thirds of these children do not receive any treatment. Long waiting lists for children seeking services, including those in crisis, are not uncommon. The primary reason is that severe shortages exist in qualified mental health professionals, including child psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health also found that ``the supply of well-trained mental health professionals is inadequate in most areas of the country . . . particular shortages exist for mental health providers who serve children, adolescents, and older Americans.'' The situation is no better in our public schools, where children's mental health needs are often first identified. According to the National Center for Education Statistics within the Department of Education, there are approximately 479 students for each school counselor in U.S. schools, nearly twice the recommended ratio of 250 students for each counselor.

The situation in my home State of New Mexico is a case in point. Estimates suggest that 56,000 children and adolescents in New Mexico have an emotional or behavioral disorder. Of these, roughly 20,000 have serious disturbances that impair their ability to fulfill the demands of everyday life. In 2001, there were a total of 44 child and adolescent psychiatrists in the entire State of New Mexico. The impact of this shortage on the affected children and their communities is disconcerting. Research shows that children with untreated emotional and behavioral disorders are at higher risk for school failure and dropping out of school, violence, drug abuse, suicide, and criminal activity. For New Mexico youth, the suicide rate is twice the national average, the fourth highest in the nation, and the third leading cause of death. By one estimate, roughly one in seven youth in New Mexico detention centers are in need of mental health treatment that is just not available.

New Mexico is not alone in its struggle to address the needs of these children. Nationwide, over 1600 urban, suburban, and rural communities have been designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government due to their severe lack of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other professionals to serve children and adults. Rural areas are especially hard hit. For example, in New Mexico there is one psychiatrist per 20,000 residents in rural areas, whereas in urban areas there is one per 3000 residents. In rural and frontier counties, it is not unusual for the parents of a child in need of services to travel 60 to 90 miles to reach the nearest psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health provider. In States like Alaska and Wyoming, the distance may be even farther.

Finally, graduate programs providing the vital pipeline for the child mental health workforce have not sufficiently increased their funding, class sizes, and training programs to meet the ever growing need for these specialists. In the U.S., only 300 new child and adolescent psychiatrists are trained each year, despite projections by the Bureau of Health Professions that the shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrist will grow to 4,000 by the year 2020. Federal grant funding for graduate psychology education has also been significantly reduced in the past two years, which could reduce the numbers of child and adolescent psychologists entering the profession.

Clearly something needs to be done to address this serious shortage in mental health professionals to meet the growing needs of our Nation's youth. It is for this reason that I rise today with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Sanders of Vermont to offer The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain mental health professionals providing direct clinical care, and to help create, expand, and improve programs to train child mental health professionals. It provides loan repayments and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals as well as internships and field placements in child mental health services and training for paraprofessionals who work in children's mental health clinical settings. The bill also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. It restores the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program for child and adolescent psychiatrists and extends the board eligibility period for residents and fellows from 4 years to 6 years. Across all mental health professions, priority for loan repayments, scholarships, and grants is given to individuals and programs serving children and adolescents in high-need areas.

Finally, The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007 requires the Secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals, including disparities in the availability of services, on a State-by-State basis. This report will help Congress more clearly ascertain the mental health workforce needs that are facing our Nation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and my statement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the appended letter from the Mental Health Liaison Group, representing 40 national professional and mental health advocacy organizations in support of The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish today to join with my colleague, Senator Snowe to introduce the bipartisan Rural Aviation Improvement Act. Senator Snowe has been a longtime champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I applaud her continued leadership on this important legislation.

One of the goals of our bill is to preserve and improve the Essential Air Service Program. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in 35 States. EAS supports an additional 39 communities in Alaska. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. I believe our bill makes a number of important improvements to EAS to ensure rural communities continue to have the commercial air service that is so vital to their futures.

Our bill also extends through 2011 the Department of Transportation's authority to provide grants to cities under the Small Community Air Service Development Program, which was first established in 2000. The program helps rural communities establish new air service or to promote and improve their existing air service. Since it was first enacted, a number of New Mexico communities have won grants, including most recently Gallup in 2006.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads, or broadband

telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. I do believe Congress must help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America.

The Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee are well along in developing a reauthorization of aviation programs this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service programs for rural areas. I believe our bill is one important step in that process.

Mr. President, the landmark 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health brought a hidden mental health crisis to the attention of the U.S. public. According to that report, 13.7 million children in our country--about one in five--suffer from a diagnosable emotional or behavioral disorder. Such disorders as Anxiety Disorders, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and Depression are among the most common in this age group. Yet more than two-thirds of these children do not receive any treatment. Long waiting lists for children seeking services, including those in crisis, are not uncommon. The primary reason is that severe shortages exist in qualified mental health professionals, including child psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health also found that ``the supply of well-trained mental health professionals is inadequate in most areas of the country . . . particular shortages exist for mental health providers who serve children, adolescents, and older Americans.'' The situation is no better in our public schools, where children's mental health needs are often first identified. According to the National Center for Education Statistics within the Department of Education, there are approximately 479 students for each school counselor in U.S. schools, nearly twice the recommended ratio of 250 students for each counselor.

The situation in my home State of New Mexico is a case in point. Estimates suggest that 56,000 children and adolescents in New Mexico have an emotional or behavioral disorder. Of these, roughly 20,000 have serious disturbances that impair their ability to fulfill the demands of everyday life. In 2001, there were a total of 44 child and adolescent psychiatrists in the entire State of New Mexico. The impact of this shortage on the affected children and their communities is disconcerting. Research shows that children with untreated emotional and behavioral disorders are at higher risk for school failure and dropping out of school, violence, drug abuse, suicide, and criminal activity. For New Mexico youth, the suicide rate is twice the national average, the fourth highest in the nation, and the third leading cause of death. By one estimate, roughly one in seven youth in New Mexico detention centers are in need of mental health treatment that is just not available.

New Mexico is not alone in its struggle to address the needs of these children. Nationwide, over 1600 urban, suburban, and rural communities have been designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government due to their severe lack of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other professionals to serve children and adults. Rural areas are especially hard hit. For example, in New Mexico there is one psychiatrist per 20,000 residents in rural areas, whereas in urban areas there is one per 3000 residents. In rural and frontier counties, it is not unusual for the parents of a child in need of services to travel 60 to 90 miles to reach the nearest psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health provider. In States like Alaska and Wyoming, the distance may be even farther.

Finally, graduate programs providing the vital pipeline for the child mental health workforce have not sufficiently increased their funding, class sizes, and training programs to meet the ever growing need for these specialists. In the U.S., only 300 new child and adolescent psychiatrists are trained each year, despite projections by the Bureau of Health Professions that the shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrist will grow to 4,000 by the year 2020. Federal grant funding for graduate psychology education has also been significantly reduced in the past two years, which could reduce the numbers of child and adolescent psychologists entering the profession.

Clearly something needs to be done to address this serious shortage in mental health professionals to meet the growing needs of our Nation's youth. It is for this reason that I rise today with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Sanders of Vermont to offer The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain mental health professionals providing direct clinical care, and to help create, expand, and improve programs to train child mental health professionals. It provides loan repayments and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals as well as internships and field placements in child mental health services and training for paraprofessionals who work in children's mental health clinical settings. The bill also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. It restores the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program for child and adolescent psychiatrists and extends the board eligibility period for residents and fellows from 4 years to 6 years. Across all mental health professions, priority for loan repayments, scholarships, and grants is given to individuals and programs serving children and adolescents in high-need areas.

Finally, The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007 requires the Secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals, including disparities in the availability of services, on a State-by-State basis. This report will help Congress more clearly ascertain the mental health workforce needs that are facing our Nation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and my statement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the appended letter from the Mental Health Liaison Group, representing 40 national professional and mental health advocacy organizations in support of The Child Health Care Crisis Relief Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Clinton amendment No. 1183 be further modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes of the remaining time be reserved for Senator DeMint.

Mr. President, I want to first speak on behalf of an amendment I offered with Senator Obama. It is one of the two amendments that will be voted on in the sequence at 2 o'clock. The amendment is aimed at addressing what I believe is a very shortsighted provision in this draft immigration bill.

My amendment applies only to this new guest worker program we are creating under the bill, the so-called Y-1 program. It doesn't impact the Y-2 program, which is the seasonal and nonagricultural program that is based on the existing H-2B program, or the H-2A program, which is the agricultural temporary worker program.

Under this immigration bill as it now stands, Y-1 workers--guest workers, which is how we refer to them--would be able to work in the United States for three 2-year work periods. But before they could renew their visas for the second and the third of those 2-year work periods, they would have to leave the country for at least a year. This is the so-called 2-1-2-1-2 provision. Work for 2 years, leave for 1 year, work for 2 years, leave for 1 year, work for 2 years, and then leave for good. The total number of work years in the United States would be limited to 6 years, but the work pattern would be interrupted twice each time by a 1-year absence requirement.

The amendment I have offered, and that we will be voting on in a few minutes, simply removes the requirement these guest workers leave the country before they renew their visas. It would leave in place the term of the visa, which is 2 years, and it would not alter the 6-year total work limit that is provided for in the bill. In addition, it would modify the requirement that Y-1 workers meet all of the relevant requirements under the program each time they apply to renew their visas.

Over the last 2 days, I have come to the floor to discuss this provision a couple of times. I strongly believe it does not make any sense from a policy standpoint and, ultimately, we are going to be judged by how much sense this legislation makes. As I have pointed out, this provision is bad for employers; it harms American workers; it will be difficult and costly to implement; and it will likely encourage these workers, whom we are bringing here as so-called guest workers, to overstay their visas.

For these reasons, my amendment has the broad support of labor groups, such as the Service Employees International Union; business organizations, such as the National Association of Home Builders and the Associated Builders and Contractors; and immigration and religious groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Association of Immigration Lawyers, and the National Immigration Forum. The coalition of organizations supporting this amendment is indicative of how harmful the 1-year absence requirement would be from a variety of different perspectives.

I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the following material be printed in the Record: the statement that was issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a letter by the Associated Builders and Contractors Organization, a letter by the National Association of Home Builders, and a statement by the SEIU, the Service Employees International Union.

Mr. President, with regard to the employer, it would be extremely costly to require businesses to retrain and rehire new workers every 2 years. No employer I am aware of would think it satisfactory for an employee to take a 1-year so-called break every couple of years. Each of us in the Senate employs people in our offices, here in the Capitol and our home States. This would be an unacceptable condition for us, and I am sure it would be for any employer. Businesses would have to hire other workers to take over for the leaving guest worker, would have to invest time and money in retraining additional staff. This would be extremely burdensome, particularly on small businesses.

From an economic standpoint, I believe it generally does not make sense

to enact laws that cause instability in the workforce and create requirements that unnecessarily impose significant costs on our small businesses. I am not an economist, but this does not seem to be a sensible way for us to do business.

Let me take a moment to read a portion of a letter I received from the National Association of Homebuilders on this issue. The letter says:

This system essentially makes the entire program in title

IV unworkable for the construction industry. In the

residential construction industry, employers spend much time

and resources training employees. To arbitrarily lose valued

employees at the end of 2 years, as they are forced to return

home for a full year, creates unnecessary amounts of

instability in our workplaces, and wastes scarce employer

resources.

The construction industry is not the only sector of the economy that would be adversely impacted by this provision. The new guest worker program is not limited in the respect that existing temporary worker programs are in terms of the work being seasonal or within certain industries, such as in agriculture. These are, in fact, permanent jobs we are talking about, and they are scattered throughout our economy and will be affected if we leave this provision unchanged.

The 1-year absence requirement is also harmful to American workers. Kicking workers out of the country every 2 years ensures that there will always be guest workers who will be coming in to be paid at the low end of the pay scale, and this will result in a depression of wages for all workers, not just those guest workers but for the American workers who are competing for those jobs as well.

According to a letter of support I have asked to be printed in the Record that I received from the Service Employees International Union, they say the following:

Employers will be less likely to invest in worker training

or other benefits and wages to retain workers. . . . The 2-1-

2-1-2 is a recipe for wage depression, job turnover and

increased illegal workers.

The structure of the new guest worker program will also result in a substantial number of these workers overstaying their visas so they don't have to leave the country for an extended period of time. The Government has not done a great job in the past of ensuring that individuals leave the country at the expiration of their visas, and I have no reason to believe--I don't think any of us have any reason to believe--that the Department of Homeland Security will be able to do a substantially better job in the near future.

In December of last year, after the Government Accountability Office issued a report regarding the US-VISIT Program, which is a mechanism by which Government is supposed to be able to track the entry and the exit of foreign visitors, the Department of Homeland Security scrapped its plans to implement the exit portion of that program for U.S. land ports of entry.

In essence, the GAO report found it could take up to 10 years to develop the technology required to fully implement the program and that the cost of doing so could be in the tens of billions of dollars. There is nothing in the immigration bill that indicates that this capability is within our reach.

In section 130 of the bill, the Federal Government is required to come up with a schedule for deploying the exit component of the US- VISIT system. However, we have already been told by the GAO that this will not be a reality for a very long period of time.

In crafting this immigration bill, there has been a lot of attention given to trying to bring together individuals with a wide variety of political views. In my opinion, we have not focused enough on the practical aspects of how this bill is going to be implemented. Compromises need to be made as part of any legislative package, but we cannot lose sight of the need to craft legislation that makes sense from a policy standpoint and that actually can be implemented and can work.

It is my belief the new guest worker program is currently structured in a manner that has more to do with the politics of getting a compromise among those who drafted the legislation than it does with sound policy. As I have discussed, the requirement that these guest workers leave every 2 years before renewing their visas is bad for employers, it is harmful to American workers, it is difficult to enforce, and it will likely result in a larger population of undocumented workers in this country in the future.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to help make this bill more workable and better public policy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

United States Conference of

Catholic Bishops,

Washington, DC, June 6, 2007.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Senate To Support Amendments Protecting Asylum Seekers and Guest Workers in the Comprehensive Immigration Bill

The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops urges Senators to

vote for the following amendments to S. 1348, the

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007:

The Lieberman Safe and Secure Detention Amendment.

Lieberman amendment #1191 would maintain U.S. obligations to

international human rights by providing safe and secure

detention for victims of torture and persecution seeking

asylum protection in this country. While awaiting judgment on

their cases, persons claiming persecution or fear of

persecution in their home countries often are subjected to

prison-like conditions in U.S. detention facilities without

proper health, nutritional, physical or spiritual care. This

amendment makes major improvements to the U.S. detention

system by reinforcing the country's rich heritage and

tradition of assisting especially vulnerable persons.

The Bingaman Guest-Worker Workability Amendment. Bingaman

amendment #1267 would eliminate the requirement for the

``years out'' for guest workers who are renewing their

temporary Y-visas. By requiring workers to leave the country

after two years, only to return one year later, the

underlying legislation would create a highly-bureaucratic and

unstable system for guest workers to come in to the country.

It is likely that many guest workers would overstay their

visas, knowing that they are to return in just a year, and

many government resources would likely be devoted to seeking

out and punishing individuals who are providing valuable and

much-needed work. The Bingaman amendment provides a

significant step toward creating a worker program that is

more humane, workable, and desirous for both guest workers

and employers alike.

Mr. President, I first thank my colleague and congratulate him for his leadership on this bill. I know he has worked long and hard to bring this bill to the floor and is making the best out of a very awkward, difficult situation in trying to get all the interested parties under the same tent.

I am reminded of when I was attorney general of my State of New Mexico. One of the duties of the attorney general in New Mexico is to issue what are called attorneys general opinions about different legal points that come up. Sometimes those opinions are followed by various State agencies and then they are challenged in court. I remember in one of the cases where it was challenged in our State supreme court, a friend of mine on the State supreme court, who was a very wise man, wrote an opinion essentially saying that the opinion I had issued, the attorney general opinion, was wrong. He said attorneys general opinions are entitled to great weight, except when they are wrong.

That is sort of the way I feel about the bill that has been brought to the floor. I have great respect for those who have put it together, and it is entitled to great weight and deference, except where it clearly is wrong. That is what we are trying to do with this amendment, is to correct an area of the bill that clearly is wrong. I hope my colleagues will see it the same way and support my amendment. But I compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this important issue.

Amendment No. 1177

I wish to speak very briefly about another amendment, unless the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to say something, and then I would defer to him. I gather he does not need to at this point.

Let me speak briefly about another amendment I have filed. It is amendment No. 1177. It provides forestry workers with Y visas some of the same rights to ensure that the terms of their guest worker contracts are honored the same way other guest workers in the agricultural sector can have their contracts honored.

This is an amendment that is eminently reasonable. It was adopted by unanimous consent during the debate as part of the immigration bill we passed out of the Senate in the last Congress. I hope we can get agreement from the managers of the legislation to include it this year as well. So I wished to briefly allude to that amendment and urge every consideration of it.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor to amendment 1267.

Mr. President, this amendment tries to eliminate the 2- 1-2-1-2 provisions in this bill. The underlying bill says if a guest worker comes here, they can work for 2 years, they are kicked out for a year, they can come back, work for two more, they are kicked out for a year, they can come back work for two more, then they are kicked out for good.

What my amendment does is to say: Let's bring them here for 2 years, allow them to renew their visa twice, so that they would be here a maximum of 6 years. This makes a lot more sense for employers, for American workers who are competing for these jobs, for the guest workers themselves.

This has the support of the business community, the unions, the Catholic bishops. Everybody interested in this bill supports this. This is commonsense legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.