Floor Statements

Mr. President, this amendment will gut the ethanol amendment which has been crafted in a bipartisan manner. My good friend from New York suggested it would be unfair to make us all buy milk produced in New York. I think that would not only be unfair, but it would be a disaster because we wouldn't have any milk anywhere because they do not produce enough milk to go anywhere in the United States.

In any event, we ought to table this amendment and get on with the Energy bill. I compliment the Senator on his arguments. He always makes excellent arguments in behalf of his State and his people. In this case I believe the country is going to be well served by making us less dependent upon oil that is imported from a cartel.

He speaks of competition and whether there is going to be competition in ethanol. Let's be serious about this. There is no competition in the world markets for oil. In this case we are going to be producing ethanol that is American in order to displace, gallon by gallon, the oil we import.

Having said that, I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

We are still on the ethanol amendment. I understand--so Senators will know--there are still negotiations taking place. I am hopeful they will be fruitful with reference to some portion of this amendment. We are going to stay on it and see what happens.

In the meantime, a couple Senators have indicated they would like to speak. I understood Senator Akaka had

come up and asked if he could be heard. He is not here.

I yield to the Senator.

Let me say to the distinguished minority leader, I am fully aware of the problem he has discussed. I am empathetic and want to move ahead. But I think it is better for a while to let the ethanol deal which is being considered in terms of perhaps some modification to continue for a while rather than get off of it. We are going to do the best we can to move this bill. We need your help. We need our leader's help to move ahead.

I am pleased to yield.

Let me ask maybe if we could put in a quorum for a minute.

Reserving the right to object, how long do you think the Cantwell amendment might take?

Could I ask the distinguished minority leader another question? Do you know if there are any other amendments that are ready on your side after Senator Cantwell?

I think global warming is going to wait until next week.

I have no objection--just a moment.

Let me say, before the distinguished Senator leaves the floor, how much I appreciate his comments today and his analysis of this bill. But more than that, around the Senate there are some people--I guess, in the parlance of the racetrack, some are show horses and some are work horses. This Senator is a work horse. He has been on this committee for a few years--not as long as this Senator, but that is just because I have been here so long. Hardly anybody has been here longer than this Senator. But he works all the time on this. He knows a lot about this bill. He has some specialties in this area to which he has contributed immensely.

Some things on this bill he is right on. He is more correct than the bill. He didn't get to do what he wanted on some of them, but he understands that we have a good bill.

It is hard work. He was there all the time, helping us, doing his share, pulling his part of the load, helping us get this bill through.

I want those who are aware of him and know of him to understand that is what the Senator from New Mexico thinks about that. I want the record to reflect that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send modifications to the pending amendment to the desk. It has been approved by both sides and the parties to this discussion.

Just for the benefit of the Senators, I know it is close here to leaving, but we are getting close also to a vote. I am very hopeful that will occur in a couple of minutes here. We will ask for the yeas and nays and have a vote on the ethanol amendment, as modified, which I think will make many people happy, before we draw to a close this afternoon. We will not be closing the Senate, but as far as voting, we will wait until the Senators return from the Nebraska trip on behalf of the late Senator Exon.

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

Mr. President, we are ready to vote on the ethanol amendment, as modified.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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 note the presence of the distinguished Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, on the floor. We have agreed heretofore that her amendment would now be the subject matter before the Senate. I understand the Senator is prepared to offer it.

Mr. President, may we have a copy of the final draft of the amendment?

We have it. I wonder if we can discuss what the Senator's pleasure is. We have nothing else pending but her amendment for at least a couple of hours or more. How much time does the Senator think she might need?

Mr. President, we will not set a specific time, but let's talk about a couple of hours. I gather that the Senator would not need all that time continuously, if somebody desired to speak. I ask the Chair to recognize the Senator to answer my question.

It is the understanding--and I hope Senator Cantwell would comply--that there will not be any other subject matter come up. I ask unanimous consent that no other amendments be in order while this discussion is taking place, other than discussing the amendment.

Mr. President, having said that, Senators on our side have heard we will be on this amendment for 2 hours, probably longer. If any of my colleagues desire to come down and debate the issue, I would very much appreciate them letting us know or, in fact, come to the floor and we will arrange for them to speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will take 1 minute. Before Senator Bond leaves, I thank him for his statement. I have heard the Senator eloquently describe this whole situation regarding automobiles in the United States and CAFE standards, but it seems to me this amendment is even way beyond anything we debated before. We are talking about changing by a couple miles, 2 or 3 miles. What we are talking about here would never become law. Let's be serious about it. But if it would, we are talking 3 or 4 times the CAFE standards we have today. What kind of cars could we build?

It seems to me the answer is impossible. That is the answer. This is an impossible amendment. People want to dream, but you do not build a country on dreams. Maybe you can dream, wake up and think of something that is quite appropriate for goal achievement. This seems like somebody dreamt up something to tell us we ought to save 40 percent of crude oil we use in the United States by 2025; is that what it sounds like to the Senator?

I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Just for a few minutes, without losing your right to the floor.

I want to say to the Senator, thank you for your discussion, as you zero in on what States do and do not do. I will not repeat that. People heard it and they ought to heed it. Some of the States you have alluded to ought to heed it, too. Some of them are the very ones who do not want to produce anything and have production somewhere else, not there.

But in passing, the Senator discussed offshore production in her State, which she described in terms of new technology that is very safe. There is nothing happening that hurts anybody. There is no degradation of the water, no degradation of the air. I have seen one of the new facilities. I wish everybody who is worried about offshore drilling would take a helicopter and go out there. They are not next door to your house, they are miles and miles out in the ocean, and they are very large. They look like a big battleship out there all lighted up, full of technology, with 10 or 12 oil wells you cannot even see, producing natural gas for America, and you don't know where it goes, no pipes, nothing. Nothing spills, and it is our resource.

The Senator knows in this bill one big thing is missing and that is we are not going to do anything significant about letting the United States of America or States make a decision that off their shores they could produce more natural gas or crude oil for this great country. That is because Senators will not vote for it because the Senators with coastlines stand up and talk about what you have been talking about here.

``We need the energy, we need to grow, we are great Americans, we have a lot of plants, we want jobs--but you bring the energy here.'' Right?

Off our shores, remember--and Americans should remember it well--sits the largest reserve of natural gas that America has today, but for some parts of Alaska which are very difficult right now, but we are going to bring some down. It is the largest mainland reserve of natural gas we are going to have for generations to come.

What does it mean that we do nothing about it? Listen well, we are not going to stop using it. Remember how much crude oil we import. It will be 5, 6, 10 years and what will we be importing? The Senator knows the answer: Natural gas. Where from? Not from our seashores 100 miles away out there in the ocean where our natural gas is. From thousands of miles away in big, gigantic boats. They are going to come across the ocean and come over to America. And do what? Pump it into these States you are talking about. Because right here on this floor, if the Senator from New Mexico and two Senators from Louisiana were to say, just simple: Those States that have moratoriums off their shores where we can't drill, if they would like to let us drill, let's let them say yes and then let's pay them a little more royalties than we have been paying. Because right now we get no royalties. Give them more than we are paying now and let them decide whether they would like to or not.

Guess what would happen. I have already been told. The bill, if it passed, will die. First of all, it will not pass. Because for all this language around here--flexibility, let's do what we can, let's use every avenue for exploration--that is not true. That is not true. Because don't touch this one I have just talked about. Right?

Your State has. They have done it, along with Texas and a couple of other States. Frankly, before we start giving other States resources, I wish they would start making decisions and we would start making them so other States would join. We have to help your State. We have to help you because you are taking the burden, and we are going to try to do something about that.

I don't know what we can do because we are stymied by a few things that are intangible, that we don't control--fiscal policy and budget policy and the like. But I want to say it doesn't do very much good to adopt resolutions on this floor and proposals such as are pending here from Senator Cantwell--it doesn't do a bit of good to say these are our goals, let's do them. Flexibility.

We don't need that kind of bill if we do what we know we should do. We have not built a nuclear powerplant in two decades plus, while the rest of the world built them. We can talk all we want about why did we use so much natural gas in the powerplants of America. We know why. We didn't want to use anything else. Right? So we used natural gas, even some from offshore, some from your State. We piped it all the way over and burned it in powerplants as though it were coming out and would be here forever. It starts running out, right? So we are going to import it pretty soon.

That is the problem. We have been doing that. It is the problem in this bill. We are 90 percent where we ought to go, but the big thing is no action with reference to the largest asset we have toward independence, which is natural gas and crude oil hundreds of miles--not a mile--offshore.

There is one thing we are asking in this bill: Let's inventory it. Right? We voted in our committee. It was a hard vote. Hard? Just ask somebody to go out and tell America what we own. That natural gas you have been talking about, how much is there? You don't have to disturb anything anymore.

We have been talking about high tech. You don't drill holes to find out what is there. We do it by technology, by looking, by checking, by a new kind of geophysical equipment. Should not we tell America how much is there?

You watch, there will be a motion to strike that here on the floor. You and I will be here saying, What is the matter with that. But we are apt to lose that. Yet we are talking about some ``pie in the sky,'' let's set a goal 30 years from now to be 40 percent less dependent upon crude oil and we will have all the flexibility in the world. We don't need flexibility of any statute. We need the flexibility of Americans deciding that we have to do what you said.

If we have a source of energy, we have to produce it. Do not think we are producing ourselves out of existence. This bill conserves more than any piece of legislation will ever ask Americans to conserve. But we can't conserve our way out of this dilemma either, right?

We could close up the wells offshore in Louisiana and say, ``Thank you.'' Of course not. We need more--and conservation. But I thought, since you raised the subject of offshore, we ought to tell the Senate, tell the few people listening, where the real value in America is, that we refuse. We are like ostriches when it comes to offshore.

People say, it is so pretty here, we don't want to touch it. What about 100 miles out from that shore? You cannot even see it. And people around here are crying that you will hurt their States. You could put any limitation you would like that is credible and let's go beyond that and try to do something with this very important asset--this asset field that is ours.

I thank the Senator for her comments and thank her for yielding.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

We think it will be Senator Inhofe, but leave it up to the manager to decide.

Mr. President, I do not want the Senator to misunderstand, but I am going to object to the request, not because I do not want that to be the order. I would like very much to understand that is probably going to be the order, but I do not want to lock it in that way right now.

What we are going to do, if the distinguished minority leader agrees, is I will make an opening statement. If, in fact, Senator Bingaman is ready, somebody will get him here to make his, and then, if the Senator from Florida desires, we will let him proceed. Then we will work with you to get the other two amendments lined up.

The reason I say that, I say to the Senator, is there is going to be a long debate and many amendments with reference to ethanol, and I would like to get it out here and see how it is going. It will be ready pretty soon. Then you will be right after that in order, as we have been discussing. I hope that is satisfactory.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, so the Senate will have an idea what we are trying to do, the first amendment we are trying to offer up is in the process of being completed in a bipartisan manner, the ethanol amendment. We don't know exactly when that will be ready. It looks as though they are working on the last clearances or clarification of words. I was told a while

ago it may be an hour, it may be less. That will give us a chance to speak. In Senator Bingaman's absence, we agreed that after our statements, Senator Nelson will speak.

Mr. President, I think the most important thing to start with here is that this bill before us cleared the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, after years of stalemate, by a rather incredible vote of 21 to 1. Some would think perhaps that doesn't mean a great deal. But to the Senator from New Mexico, as chairman of this committee, I think it is very important. I think it means that, for once, Republicans and Democrats have seen an American problem of real significance and have tried very, very hard to see if they could cooperate at every level, with every amendment, and give everybody a chance to argue, present, win, lose, and produce a bill.

I will start by saying that is one of the big differences between why we are here today and what we are here about. I think it means that eventually the American people and their great concern finally bubbles up, and I hope partisanship disappears and we try to get a bill. Partisanship might not be over because when you get to the floor, there is still a chance to be partisan, and that is all right. The thing is, we want very much--and I use ``we'' because I speak for my friend, Senator Bingaman--to get a bill. That means the Senate is going to have a lot of time but perhaps not as much as last time or the time before, when we had literally hundreds of amendments left when we finished debate. And only through good fortune were we able to go to conference, in a very unordinary way, and we lost on the floor for reasons that the Chair and others understand.

Having said that, let me say there is no question that this great country, with this rather fantastic economy, with its leadership role in terms of security, is in a position where we need a bill that enhances America's energy supply, maximizes conservation, and that produces clean energy. So what we are talking about is an American Clean Energy Act that will produce security of supply, affordability and, ultimately, national security and prosperity.

It sounds as though that is a rather auspicious hope for a bill, and I am not here saying everything about it is perfect, nor am I saying some could not find ways to criticize it and say that perhaps it could be done a better way. But remember, we are in the Senate, where Senators have to get a chance to work their will, where there is a myriad of ideas about how America should move through this very, very difficult time.

I want to say right up front that I wish we were here saying we could go back 25 years and make some big changes so we were not having such a serious problem with reference to crude oil and the requirement that we import so much. Of that importation, a huge amount, 75 percent, goes to transportation. Americans should know that means automobiles, that means SUVs, trucks, and everything that has to do with moving us around. We decided years ago that cheap oil, even if it came from overseas, should come to America and feed this desire for prosperity and mobility and transportation, which was one of our ways of providing our freedom. Now, 25 to 30 years later, we are in one gigantic bind, in that we cannot produce enough oil to meet this need.

As a matter of fact, today, as we stand here, the United States has diminished regularly its ability to produce the quantity of oil that it produces so that in the world we are no longer a major producer; we are No. 6. If you look out in the world, we are the sixth largest producer--and fading. There is nothing we can do about it, in terms of gigantic steps forward. We can, and this bill attempts to, enhance our ability to produce oil on American soil, where oil exists. We attempt to create a better format for permitting and drilling and acquiring American oil, and then, as an aside, there will be a major debate later--not on this bill--as to what we do, if anything, with the oil of America that is in Alaska, which we frequently call and discuss as ``ANWR''.

Nonetheless, in this bill, we have tried, with a degree of reasonableness, to say we are going to insist that we save 1 million barrels of oil a year, as far as what we use, by saying to the President: You use whatever means at your disposal to save a million barrels. And we give him that authority. Anybody who thinks we can do way more than that--I hope everybody understands that that is a discussion that doesn't have a great deal of merit, and it is beyond the realm of the responsible and reality.

Having said that, in addition to that 1 million barrels, this bill is laden with opportunities for additional savings because we are promoting hybrid cars, and I am sure the tax bill, which would be attached to this, will further enhance the use of hybrid cars, which is a great energy saver.

In addition, while some are critical, we will produce a very major ethanol bill before we are finished. The finishing touches are being put on it now. That particular bill will say to America, produce the maximum amount of ethanol, and ethanol will be used to mix with derivatives of crude oil and, yes, indeed, that will have a tremendous impact on how much oil we have to import from overseas from foreign countries. I will get to the specifics on that shortly.

At the same time, that particular aspect of the bill produces a lot of jobs. As a matter of fact, as I spoke of this bill at the inception and I spoke about prosperity, I spoke about security, I should have said to Americans it also will produce jobs because, with an abundance of energy, we are more competitive; with an abundance of alternative sources of energy, we get stronger in terms of our ability to compete, which means this is a jobs bill.

So it is a jobs bill, a security bill, a clean air bill, and a clean energy bill. Add all of that up, it is a tremendous step forward for the United States.

I will speak for a minute about one of the most important commodities that we use in the United States: it is that marvelous product called natural gas. We are very grateful and fortunate in America that we do produce a lot of our own natural gas, but I regret to say that we have begun to use it in such abundance because we started about 8, 9, or 10 years ago putting natural gas in all of our new electric powerplants.

Understand that powerplants in America and in the world produce electricity that goes into a grid that is distributed out. If anyone is wondering how important it is, turn on the lights, and that is electricity that came from some far away power company. In the United States, powerplants receive their basic energizing from a number of sources. Currently, 20.5 percent of America's energy comes from nuclear power. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in almost two decades. Energy from nuclear power is undergoing a renaissance. It is beginning to percolate up as something that many more people think is a real, bona fide source of electricity and energy for the future.

I am well aware that the occupant of the chair, the distinguished junior Senator from New Hampshire, is a staunch proponent of nuclear power. I recall vividly his father, who had been Governor of the granite State many years ago, discussing with this Senator way before people were talking about it that we ought to move ahead with nuclear power. That is one source.

This bill, in a number of ways--and when the tax bill is finished and gets before us, that will finish the requirements--will push us in the direction of saying let us move ahead with nuclear power, provided we follow all of the rules, regulations, and laws because we have concluded that it is as safe, if not safer, than any other source of energy.

In addition, this bill would be a producer of clean energy. Nuclear is one of them. Secondly, we are a country while on the one hand not so blessed because we use so much crude oil and do not have enough, we are a country that is laden with coal. Right now the largest source of electricity produced in America comes from coal.

In numerous ways, this bill is a boost and sends a real powerful signal that we want to invest in new technology to produce clean coal for clean powerplants. We even provide incentives for the production of new coal transformation plants where we will begin to produce clean energy and capture the carbon that is one of the negative aspects of burning coal today.

Harkening back to natural gas, this bill does another very important thing.

We must bring down over time, if we can, the price of natural gas. People wonder what we can do in other areas, but natural gas is a feedstock in America. It is fertilizer, it is jobs, it is agriculture, it is the feedstock for many other products in our country. I believe we are paying the highest price in the world today for natural gas.

In this bill, we provide for a better way to site and locate liquefied natural gas--commonly called LNG--ports in the United States. We say they cannot be delayed indefinitely. If they are safe, then the Federal Government ultimately can get involved and see that we do them. It is important that we do that.

I did not mention everything. There are so many other aspects of this bill, but I want to talk about conservation because there are some who do not think conservation is the kind of thing that is important in an energy bill. It is vitally important, and I compliment those who have pursued it with vigor, led by my good friend, Senator Bingaman, who has pursued conservation for a long time.

This bill has very major conservation aspects. The amount of conservation that will be forthcoming in this bill is astounding. From what we understand, this bill will give us an opportunity, with reference to the use of energy from powerplants, to have the equivalent, if I am correct, of 50 powerplants of 1,000 megawatts over time. Just think of that. That is rather major. We could go on and talk about many other aspects, but Senator Bingaman will talk about the bill from his vantage point.

I close by saying that renewables are important. This bill recognizes renewables in many aspects and ways. Clearly, we promote fuel cells. We fund it. We encourage its research. Clearly, it is an energy source of the future. It will be part of making us more independent and clearly help us even in our transportation problems with reference to fuel.

Likewise, there is a section of this bill that I believe is about as innovative as anything we have done, and it has to do with incentives for building new and innovative sources of energy. In this bill, we call that title incentives. What we have done in the bill is provided for a new way for the United States, through the Secretary of Energy, to make decisions about new technology applied to pilot projects that might be built in various kinds of new technological breakthrough activities. It will be a provision that will be known as the loan guarantee provision, but it is different in that whoever applies will pay the risk insurance costs, and then they will borrow on an 80/20 basis. That means the U.S. Treasury should come through this with no actual cost to the Government.

According to our budget provisions and the law that provides for loan guarantees, it will not cost the Treasury and will be a very big source of new and exciting applications for the United States of new innovation, which among all the things we have mentioned--the breakthroughs in coal gasification, the breakthroughs in many other areas of technology--are really going to be important in making America more secure, producing more jobs, producing a society that indeed continues to be prosperous. So this is a bill that has great efficiency and conservation built in.

On the electric front, I mentioned production of electricity, but I also want to remind everybody this bill also should provide for a framework where we will not have blackouts in the future. That is an easy one to remember. Even the young people here remember blackouts because they just occurred a while ago.

We have a reliability section which everybody in the business says is high time we have because everyone will have the same reliability standards, and we hope blackouts will become a thing of the past.

I mentioned ethanol. I note there is one of the strongest proponents of ethanol on the floor, and I say to the distinguished Senator, I hope we get a good ethanol bill. Thanks to his efforts and many others, we should get one that produces literally thousands of jobs, billions of gallons of gasoline, and millions of barrels of oil saved from overseas.

When we add that all together, the hybrid cars that will be produced--and I just heard the other day that if we continue to stimulate the purchase of hybrids, and if indeed they are produced as they have been, and if American manufacturers will get to where they are producing them so that it is not just Japanese hybrids, we should have in the not too distant future the equivalent of a million cars a year that would be hybrids. That will be a huge saver along with the other things that we are doing.

I want to add two things that are not in this bill that are very important to our future. Separate and apart, as everybody remembers, we produced a proposal that should bring natural gas down from Alaska into Chicago, a huge pipeline, one of America's major construction projects. I do not want to overstate the case because it is not in this bill, but what we are trying to say is everything put together, this is where we are going. When that is completed, there will be a huge new supply of natural gas coming into our country, along with what we are discussing in this bill regarding other fronts. I will not give the details of what the ethanol provisions will do for our country, but it is obvious that will be discussed many times over.

I can get it now. It will reduce crude oil imports by 2 billion barrels and reduce the outflow of dollars to foreign oil producers by $64 billion. It will create 234,000 new jobs. It will add $200 billion to the GDP between 2005 and 2012, and it will create $6 billion in new investment, much to go to States that are currently called rural States that truly need the economic development that will come with it.

Actually, because it is agricultural products and because of the add- on that will occur in the development of ethanol, U.S. household incomes could, indeed, go up substantially overall, as much as $43 billion.

This bill has provisions and ideas that came from every Senator. Senator Bingaman remembers on his side of the aisle four or five Senators have major provisions they got in this bill. Senator Bingaman and I negotiated out a number that were his ideas. I worked hard on the nuclear section. As I said, I think this bill, with the tax provisions, is going to cause a renaissance in nuclear power. In fact, I believe it is fair to say we will have a nuclear powerplant started in this country, ground turned, within 5 years--and I think that is the outside.

Three consortia applied for pre-permitting under our rather new law for the expeditious handling of nuclear power permits. I mean expeditious only in that they will not have to stop over so many times. It will be clearly reviewed and have to meet standards, but they will not stop six or eight times from the construction until the end.

And we do provide some assurance to those who will fund those powerplants that they will not get stuck midway through construction; that they will be able to complete the powerplants.

I hope I have not neglected important issues, but the most important is we have done our very best to get a bipartisan bill. We have done our very best to send the right kind of messages to the world that, if we get this, America is alive in terms of our energy security, our jobs for the future, our competitiveness and reduction in the costs of some of the major basic energy sources, and, yes, cleaner air, cleaner coal--cleaner electricity production. If you add it up, it is truly an American Clean Energy Act.

With that, I understand my fellow colleague from New Mexico would like to give his statement on the bill and I yield at this time.

Please.

The time got away. It is almost 12.

How long will my colleague take?

Unless there is something intervening, the Senator can speak right after that.

We all agreed that the next issue, the next item is going to be an amendment on ethanol. It is being gotten ready. We would take it up, but you understand when you do ethanol it is not one person, it is both sides of the aisle and 10 or 15 Senators. They are almost finished. That will be the next item.

If you are referring to a colloquy with respect to coastal offshore drilling, we are working on something with you and Senator Martinez, both sides, and I don't know when we will have that ready. It is being worked on right now. But this side does not have any desire to delay that. We have to bring Senator Landrieu and other Senators in on that-- Senator Vitter--and we will do that as soon as we can, I assure you.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield without losing his right to the floor?

Go ahead, Senator.

I thank the Senator. I was just wondering, we understand your genuine concern. You are going to have plenty of opportunity as this bill moves along to make sure that your State is protected. What I would like to do, since we are going to have to go out because of your caucus--we do not have ours today--I wonder if you might consider making this first statement of yours kind of abbreviated so Senator Dorgan could have a little opportunity before we break. Then we would take our break, and, hopefully, we would have ethanol ready. You would not lose anything, obviously. The floor is going to be open to you, and you can state what you wish to state beyond what you have spoken here today.

Mr. President, I wish to say to the Senate, the distinguished junior Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, has spoken with this chairman on numerous occasions about this issue. He continues to be as concerned as Senator Nelson about this issue. We are working with him--I am not sure how it is all going to turn out in terms of a colloquy, but we do not intend to do anything to harm Florida. We have already told everybody that. It is very hard to make broad-based commitments in advance, and it is not just up to me. There are other Senators, including Senator Bingaman. But we are doing our best.

I want everybody to understand that both Senators are working very hard at this.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to members of staff who will be listed hereinafter. They are members of the committee who will have to spend time, from time to time, on the floor. And I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator, Mr. Dorgan.

There is no objection, as long as it is understood I have the floor when we return.

The Senator from New Mexico would have the floor.

Yes.

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

Mr. President, the committee substitute is at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, does the Senator understand there may be some amendments to ethanol?

I have no objection.

I am waiting now momentarily for the final text of the ethanol amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. This amendment is the ethanol amendment. It is bipartisan in nature. I offer it in behalf of myself and Senators Thune, Harkin, Lugar, Dorgan, Frist, Obama, Grassley, Bayh, Bond, Nelson of Nebraska, Brownback, Hagel, Conrad, DeWine, Dayton, Talent, Stabenow, Coleman, and Salazar.

Mr. President, I am sure this matter will take a little bit of time this afternoon, and from what we understand--I am not assured--there may be one, maybe two, perhaps even three amendments. But this is an amendment that has been worked on by Republican and Democrat members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Essentially, from the energy and natural resources bill it has the 8 billion gallons, but the rest of the language has been worked out with most of the jurisdiction going back to the Environment and Public Works Committee rather than the Energy Committee.

Let me say I am pleased with the agreement, the improvement that is included in it. For that I am grateful to Chairman Inhofe and his staff. They have helped immeasurably. Senators Talent and Johnson and Feinstein and Cantwell have been very helpful during the Energy Committee considerations. Chairman Inhofe's assistance has been invaluable after we had done our work in our committee.

We now have before us what I think is a very important amendment, one that helps us make a significant step forward in the development of a domestic renewable resource.

This represents progress toward developing transport fuels made from domestic sources that can lessen dependence on foreign oil to meet our fuel needs. Congress has been working on the renewable fuel standard for nearly 6 years. I hope this will be the year that it passes. I fully support our raising the expectations that we have by including a goal of 8 billion gallons of ethanol in the national motor fuel mix by 2012. It is my firm belief that we must take every opportunity available in order that we help ourselves to produce more of the fuel that is part of our transportation activity in this great country.

In addition to making us less dependent on foreign sources for energy, increasing the production of domestic ethanol will help keep within our economy dollars that would otherwise be spent acquiring energy from overseas. And it will create jobs. One important analysis suggests that an 8 billion gallon renewable fuel standard will benefit the economy greatly. That analysis suggests it will reduce crude oil imports by 2 billion barrels; that, coupled with the 1 billion we have mandated in our bill, makes 3 billion, and it will reduce the outflow of dollars to foreign oil producers by $64 billion. It would create 234,000 jobs in all sectors of the economy, and clearly in many of the very large rural States of the West and Southwest.

It would add about $200 billion to the GDP between 2005 and 2012. It could create $6 billion in new investments. That is a significant infrastructure addition to our country. And it could increase--in fact, this study says it would increase--household incomes by about $43 billion.

The amendment also makes provision for increasing our output of biofuels from cellulosic biomass. Many in industry and the scientific community believe that this area holds enormous promise for vastly increasing domestic production of ethanol from this renewable resource.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that oil consumption and crude oil and finished petroleum product imports will continue to rise. Further, with gasoline prices hovering at record levels and domestic crude oil production declining, it strikes this Senator that we should be doing everything we can to maximize the production and use of clean, renewable, domestically produced energy such as ethanol and biodiesel.

Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that in our spirit of bipartisanship on the Energy Committee that amendments were included allowing a seasonal adjustment for California and increases in the use of biofuels sponsored by Senators Feinstein and Cantwell, respectively.

Now, we are prepared to begin consideration of any amendments our colleagues would like to offer to this amendment.

With that, I yield the floor and designate on our side that Senator Larry Craig manage the bill.

I have checked this with the other side. There was a unanimous consent request that this amendment would be introduced now as the first amendment.

The unanimous consent request said then the Cantwell amendment would be introduced. I ask that be vitiated.

So we know what will happen, instead of that, the record reflects we will follow this tradition of the Senate, and after the ethanol amendment we

will go to the Democrat side, to the distinguished minority leader or his designee, for offering of an amendment of their choosing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Talent for his excellent work in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. He was the leader of a group that put together the new 8 billion barrels that we are going to have as our new American goal for ethanol. That was not easy to put together. It got a very large vote in committee. That momentum brought it here. I think he is to be congratulated for his effort.

I appreciate Senator Craig's managing the bill for me. I would like to say to the Senate, there are two or three amendments that people want to offer to this bill. I wish they would bring them to the floor. We are prepared now, from what I understand, to debate amendments. I understand Senator Boxer has one. Maybe Senator Feinstein has one. There may be one other. If we could get them up, we are going to be here for a while tonight. Even though we are leaving early, we could get those debated and voted on, and then the next thing that we would do would be to take up the amendment the distinguished minority leader chooses to bring up. We hope that can come up tomorrow morning before Senators leave for the Exon funeral, which means we might get the amendment for Senator Cantwell offered that the minority leader wants to have brought up, get that up tomorrow before we leave. That would get two very major issues behind us, plus the amendments on this bill.

Again, if Senators have amendments on the ethanol provision, bring them down so we can debate them. I ask the minority leader in short order if he would help me try to get that accomplished.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's attitude and his willingness to cooperate. I remind the Senator, in all graciousness, that we are going to be on this bill for about 2 weeks. So nothing is going to happen. We have our own initiative, and we have prepared something. There is a Senator who wants to see it from my standpoint before we submit it. It is en route to her now--Senator Landrieu. She has been working in our committee. She is looking at what I suggest. It is what I have in mind. We should be ready soon.

I thank the Senator for inquiring, and I hope he will let us take up an amendment on ethanol. It will not take very long, and we will be back to the Senator very soon.

Senator, could I say to you, please let us proceed. The reason I am showing it to a Senator is to try to make sure you get something quicker rather than later. It is not an effort to avoid you. We are not just discussing Florida. We greatly respect you, but some other Senator would like to look at this, which would make it easier for you.

I can make a deal with you, Senator, and I have to show it to some other Senator. I am trying to show it to one who I know wants to see it. Now, we cannot just drop everything. I very much am sorry about that. I am going to do my best, but if you would like to talk tonight, we will all leave and you can talk tonight. If you would like us to get a little bit of work done, please relax. We know you are going to win. Nothing is going to happen to Florida. How many more times do you want us to say it? We are hiding nothing from you. We have some other work to do. You are terrific. You are a great advocate. You are going to win for Florida. You have got the most terrific Senator. Please understand you are going to win.

Senator Martinez, you are going to win. You do not have to come down here every minute. You are going to succeed. Floridians, do not worry. This bill will be here 2 more weeks. It cannot pass without you two. So would you give us a little leeway? I just beg you.

Now having said that, I ask the Senator from California to offer an amendment that is relevant.

The Senator from New Mexico has the floor. I did not ask him to give me the floor. I got the floor.

I do not care if I have the floor or not. You can have the floor.

Senator, I want to tell you one more time, I cannot share--Mr. President, I ask if he would yield for a moment without losing his right to the floor.

There are 100 Senators. I am not trying to do anything but get the Senator a proposal as soon as humanly possible. Now, if you choose to delay us further, we are going to get nothing done tonight. I want you to know that accomplishes nothing. If you think it accomplishes something, just go right ahead. I would say you can have the floor back--I will ask consent that you can have it--as soon as the Boxer amendment is disposed of. Would you let us take it up, and then you can have the floor back? In the meantime, we are trying to get your language--not your language, the language so we can share with those Senators who have the concern that you have. If you let us do that, we will proceed in that manner. We have done everything bipartisan on this bill. There is no intention otherwise. I ask you one more time if you would do that, Senator. I would appreciate it.

Senator, would you yield?

Senator, you can talk all night. There will be no language for you tonight.

I yield the floor.

Yes, there is some language I have to give you to look at.

Senator Inhofe will desire to speak. Let's put it all together, and then we can finish.

And then we will vote on or in relation to it.

Do we understand the unanimous consent request? After all of that has happened, the Senator from New Mexico would be recognized.

Before the Senator proceeds--but you have the floor-- could you yield to me for 1 minute?

I want to say the distinguished Senator from Florida, who has been speaking, submitted a proposal quite a few hours ago, an idea, a thought piece. I want everybody to know that was not acceptable not only to the Senator from New Mexico, it was not acceptable to Democratic Senators on his side of the aisle. So we have not tried to hide anything.

I regret the Senator has even implied that we tried to do that. It is not right. We have been working as hard as we can. It is not much to take 4 or 5 hours. Sometimes around here you have to take a dictionary when you are working on something because people do not understand words. That is how hard it has been in the past.

Having said that, I yield the floor, and I will give the Senator this statement. I hope he understands--the senior Senator and the junior Senator--I would like both of you to read it. I don't think it is anything fabulous, but I hope the Senators will feast their eyes on it.

The Senator is correct.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the status of the bill now?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 781 and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I believe I have the floor. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from New York, maybe on this one we disagree, but we have another big issue that we agree on. We are going to do something about the art community in your State and collectible items.

I don't know what would happen if we went to the House with it. Maybe we could hurry it up that way. In any event, a number of Senators want to speak. I will not address the issue that was spoken to because many others are going to--except I remind everybody that something was said here about a monopoly, lack of competition. The Senator from New York made the case for lack of competition. When we use gasoline, let's not forget we have been subjected to the most monopolistic control mechanism for the price of almost anything this country has ever seen. The cartel is strangling us.

As we drive down the road, we are driving on gasoline that is indeed noncompetitive. It is competitive for a few cents because the filling stations might be competitive, but the basic price is the monopolistic issue.

Mr. President, it is my position that it is unfair to prejudge any hypothetical amendment, ruling it in or out without knowing the substance of the provision. Furthermore, I do not want to be in a position to preclude any of my colleagues from offering what they think are improvements to this legislation.

That having been said, I assure my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, that I will not support any amendment that alters current OCS moratoria with respect to submerged lands off of Florida's coast or that affects lands in Lease Sale 181, not so much because of the substance of any amendment of the sort, but because it would bog down this bill.

I want it to be clear that restricting development of our natural resources is not a policy view that I share, particularly in these times of severe shortages and high prices. I am on record supporting the principle that individual States should have greater input in petitioning the Federal Government to allow oil and natural gas production on the OCS. I am also on record stating that I believe that the time has come for the executive branch to draw boundaries and publish these boundaries as previously required under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. I also believe that it is imperative that we increase our production on the OCS in order to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Finally, I think that it is important that we work toward recognizing, in real financial terms, the sacrifice that certain coastal States make toward helping our Nation meet its energy needs.

Having said all of this, I understand the importance of this issue to my colleagues from Florida. Although we do not agree, I respect their difference of opinion. I respect their passion on this issue and I make this concession because I understand the necessity of moving forward with this energy bill. This bill in its totality is more important than any one part. And, to that end, I extend this offer to my colleagues.

It should be noted, however, that this position does not apply in any way to any provision currently contained in this bill as reported out of the Energy Committee, including the comprehensive OCS inventory. While I will assist Members in working toward what I think are improvements to the inventory section, I will strongly oppose any attempt to strike the section. Furthermore, I will oppose any amendment that I think weakens any of the OCS provisions already contained in this bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this issue and look forward to working with them on this in the future.

As I said at the outset, I will not support any amendment that alters current OCS moratoria with respect to submerged lands off of Florida's coast or that affects lands in Lease Sale 181.

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

Mr. President, I heard the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. I don't have time tonight to make my comments about the distinguished Senator, Governor Exon, but tomorrow I will.

Suffice it to say, it was my privilege to serve with him. He was everything the Senator from Nebraska said and more.

Tomorrow I will elaborate on my years of service on various committees. He truly was a wonderful man, a hard worker, a man of great common sense, and he contributed immensely to the years I knew him in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on North Korea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 14, at 10 a.m., for a hearing entitled, ``Finding and Fighting Fakes: Reviewing the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open executive session during the session on Tuesday, June 14, at 10 a.m., to review and make recommendations on proposed legislation implementing the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 2 p.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the benefits and future developments in agriculture and food biotechnology.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2005, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Role of the Financial Markets in Social Security Reform.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 2 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Accountability and Results in Federal Budgeting''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Patent Law Reform: Injunctions and Damages'' on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen 226.

Tentative Witness List: Carl Gulbrandsen, Managing Director, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), Madison, WI; Jeffrey P. Kushan, Partner, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, Washington, DC; J. Jeffrey Hawley, President, Intellectual

Property Owners Association, and Legal Division Vice President, Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, New York; Mark A. Lemley, Professor, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA; Jonathan Band, Counsel on behalf of VISA and the Financial Services Roundtable, Washington, DC; Chuck Fish, Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel, Time Warner, Inc., New York, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 161, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed at the appropriate place in the Record as if read, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 15. Further, I ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy bill. I further ask consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. on tomorrow for the Republican Party luncheon.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the Energy bill. Currently pending is a Schumer second-degree amendment to the underlying Domenici ethanol amendment. We expect a vote in relation to that amendment early tomorrow morning, hopefully by 10 a.m. Senators should take note of that fact. That is a probability, not just a speculation.

For the remainder of the day, we will continue working through the amendments to the bill.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Harkin for up to 15 minutes, Senator Durbin for up to 25 minutes, and Senator Dodd for up to 10 minutes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 109-78 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report, which is now available, be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. President, I support this important resolution designating June 5 through June 11 as National Hispanic Media Week.

For nearly four centuries, Hispanic publishers, writers, and editors have made immeasurable contributions towards our national commitment to promote free speech and the free exchange of ideas. This group of hard working Americans has dedicated themselves to better informing our communities on the great political, economic, and social issues of the day. Hispanic publications serve a population of over 20 million people meaning that one in every eight Americans receives at least part of their news from a Hispanic media outlet

The designation of a week to honor the Hispanic media of America will help affirm the importance of freedom of speech, civic engagement, and further development of the Hispanic media. This recognition of the Hispanic media will serve as a reminder of the valuable contributions made by Hispanic publishers, journalists and editors.

This resolution is important across the country, but I can personally speak to its importance in my home State of New Mexico. Forty-two percent of New Mexico's population is Hispanic. I know that many of those individuals rely on Hispanic media for news and entertainment. They tap into such New Mexico outlets as El Hispano newspaper, radio stations like KDCE in Espanola and KLVO in Albuquerque, Spanish- language television stations

like KLUZ, and magazines like La Herencia. I am proud to be apart of honoring a group that is so important to so many people in my home State.

This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and States across the Nation to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in promptly passing this resolution designating June 5 through June 11 as National Hispanic Media Week.