[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 82 (Monday, June 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6786-S6795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, 
     affordable and reliable energy.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator, 
Mr. Wyden, is here and desires to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 792

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, Senator Domenici. I ask unanimous consent to call up at this 
time an amendment I filed with Senator Dorgan, No. 792.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, is there a pending 
amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no pending amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He does not need consent to bring up the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
correct.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for himself and Mr. 
     Dorgan proposes an amendment numbered 792.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the suspension of strategic petroleum reserve 
                             acquisitions)

       On page 208, strike lines 11 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (e) Fill Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Capacity.--
       (1) Definition of price of oil.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``price of oil'' means the West Texas Intermediate 1-
     month future price of oil on the New York Mercantile 
     Exchange.
       (2) Acquisition.--The Secretary shall, as expeditiously as 
     practicable, without incurring excessive cost or appreciably 
     affecting the price of gasoline or heating oil to consumers, 
     acquire petroleum in quantities sufficient to fill the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the 1,000,000,000-barrel 
     capacity authorized under section 154(a) of the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6234(a)), in accordance with 
     the sections 159 and 160 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 6239, 6240).
       (3) Suspension of acquisitions.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall suspend acquisitions 
     of petroleum under paragraph (2) when the market day closing 
     price of oil exceeds $58.28 per barrel (adjusted in 
     accordance with the Consumer Price Index for all-urban 
     consumers United States city average, as published by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics) for 10 consecutive trading days.
       (B) Acquisition.--Acquisitions suspended under subparagraph 
     (A) shall resume when the market day closing price of oil 
     remains below $40 per barrel (adjusted in accordance with the 
     Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers United States 
     city average, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) 
     for 10 consecutive trading days.


[[Page S6787]]


  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his thoughtfulness.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would watch the floor for me 
while I leave for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WYDEN. Absolutely. It is my intent to speak on this amendment I 
offer with Senator Dorgan and then lay it aside. My hope is we can work 
something out. I know Senator Collins and Senator Levin are working on 
something and desire to work with you, as well. If we bring it up now, 
we can start the discussion on it and work something out.
  I see Senator Bingaman. He has been so thoughtful throughout the 
process as well.
  Mr. President and colleagues, the reason I have come to the floor 
today is because oil prices per barrel are now at an all-time record 
high. If you scour this legislation, it is hard to find anything in it 
that would provide relief to the American consumer any time soon. It is 
my hope as we go forward with this debate, at a time when prices are in 
the stratosphere, that we work in a bipartisan way and at least provide 
some help in this legislation for the consumer who is getting clobbered 
by these historically high costs.
  What especially concerns me is it seems to this Member of the Senate 
that the Federal Government actually makes the problem of high oil and 
gasoline prices worse every day. Every single day, the Federal 
Government, through its policies, is compounding the problem the 
consumers are seeing at the pump because it has been the policy of the 
Federal Government to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the worst 
possible time--when prices are at record-high levels.
  When the prices are at a record-high level, it seems to me this is 
not the time to be taking oil out of the private market and putting it 
in the Government reserve. It just does not make economic sense to add 
more pressure to what is already a very tight oil supply. Reducing the 
supply of oil on the market, of course, leads to higher oil prices. 
That is simply supply and demand. Because oil accounts for 49 percent 
of the cost of gasoline, that means higher prices for consumers at the 
pump. For the life of me, I do not see how it makes sense for 
consumers, who are already paying sky-high prices at the pump, to then 
have their Government force them to pay higher prices by taking oil out 
of the private market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. So it does not make sense for the consumer, and, in my view, 
it does not make sense for taxpayers as well, who have to pay record-
high prices for the oil that is taken off the market.
  Now, this is not just my opinion. The Senate Energy Committee heard 
testimony last year by experts who said the policy with respect to 
filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices are so high jacks 
up costs. I asked John Kilduff, senior vice president of energy risk 
management at Fimat USA, whether the SPR fill rate of 300,000 barrels 
per day was contributing to oil price increases. Before the committee 
that day, which the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Domenici, chairs, and our friend, Senator Bingaman, is the ranking 
minority Member, when we were all in our committee, the expert 
witnesses said they do believe these policies are contributing to oil 
price increases. Mr. Kilduff specifically stated:

       A fill rate of 100,000 represents, obviously, 700,000 
     barrels for a week. At 300,000 it is 2.1 million barrels. A 
     2.1 million barrel increase in U.S. commercial crude oil 
     inventory in a particular weekly report would be a big build 
     for the particular week and would help with downward pressure 
     on crude oil prices.

  So I would say to colleagues that this notion that this is something 
the Senate can just let the Secretary of Energy do what he wants is 
belied by the expert testimony we have had before the Senate Energy 
Committee where experts specifically said that a fill rate of several 
hundred thousand barrels per day is contributing to oil price 
increases.
  As far as I can tell, under the policy we are now seeing at the 
Energy Department, it does not matter how high the prices are, they are 
just going to keep filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They will 
continue to take oil off the private market no matter how high the 
prices get.
  I would just like to say, Mr. President and colleagues, I am not 
talking about taking oil out of the Reserve. I know people very often 
bring that up. I am just saying it does not make sense to have the same 
fill rate when you are talking about historically high prices because 
that very high cost of filling it at that point directly hurts the 
consumer at the pump.
  On Friday, and again today, when the price of oil skyrocketed to the 
highest price ever recorded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, our 
Government has continued to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
Earlier this spring, when gasoline prices set an all-time record high 
of $2.28 for a gallon of gas, the Energy Department continued to fill 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So I say to those who have 
reservations about what I am advocating, I would simply ask, how high 
do prices have to go before we stop pursuing policies that drive the 
prices even higher? At some point, there should be some limit when it 
comes to the Federal Government actually compounding the difficulties 
consumers are having at the pump.
  Under the language currently in the bill, there are no limits. There 
seems to be some language about ``excessive'' costs, but there is 
nothing that actually blocks our Government from filling the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve if the price goes even higher than the current record 
price of $59.23 per barrel. So I want to repeat that. Even if the price 
goes to $60 or $70 or $80, there is nothing that would force our 
Government to change its policy of filling the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve at these very high prices. So with no restrictions in sight, I 
guess the Government can just continue indefinitely to fill the Reserve 
with these record prices.
  To address this problem, my amendment directs that the Secretary of 
Energy suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the 
prices go above the record-high level in the market and stay above that 
record-high level for 10 consecutive trading days. The suspension of 
filling would continue until the price of oil falls back down for 10 
consecutive days.
  I also note the House of Representatives at least is trying to move 
in the direction of a bit of consumer protection because they have 
included a prohibition against continuing to fill the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve until the price drops below $40 per barrel. Under my 
amendment, current SPR filling could go forward. But additional filling 
would be halted when prices are at record-high levels unless there is 
some consumer protection for our citizens.

  The bottom line is we cannot continue to allow filling of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve when our economy suffers due to high gas 
and oil prices without providing some safety valve. Unless this 
amendment is adopted or unless we can work out a compromise with 
Senator Collins and Senator Levin and other colleagues who worked on 
this--unless we can get some legislation in place--there will be no 
standard for action or any certainty there will be some consumer 
protection for our citizens when oil prices are out of control.
  Now, some may argue there should not be these kinds of price triggers 
for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I guess that argument is: Let's 
just leave it to the Secretary of Energy. Well, there are parts of this 
bill, such as section 313, that do not leave matters to the Secretary's 
discretion, such as when you are talking about price relief, royalty 
relief for oil and gas producers. Section 313 of the legislation has 
clear price levels for when the oil companies get a break from the 
normal royalty policy.
  So what we have here is a double standard. There are price levels to 
protect oil and gas producers when it comes to their royalties but 
absolutely no protection for the consumer who is getting clobbered at 
the pump and who could get some relief if the Government simply did not 
fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when prices are at a 
record-high level.
  The last point I would make is suspending the fill of the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve when prices are at a record-high level will not hurt 
this country's energy security. The Reserve already has more than 693 
million barrels now in storage. That is the highest level in history. 
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is expected to be filled to

[[Page S6788]]

its current authorized capacity by the end of the summer.
  What is more, a 2003 study by the Senate Permanent Investigations 
Subcommittee found that increased filling of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve when prices were high did not increase overall U.S. oil 
supplies. Instead, because of the higher prices, oil companies took oil 
out of their own inventories rather than buy higher priced oil on the 
market. That does not increase our overall oil supply or our Nation's 
energy security.
  So what we have is record prices for the consumer, record costs in 
terms of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Federal 
Government, in effect, providing free oil storage for high-priced oil 
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so oil companies can reduce their 
own inventories and storage costs. That is not energy security; that is 
just pounding the consumer and taxpayers once more.
  For these reasons, I strongly urge colleagues to place some limits on 
when the Energy Department can fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
When prices are at an all-time high, it seems that to do otherwise 
denies consumers a fair shake and taxpayers a fair shake. It is my view 
the Senate can take pressure off the price of a barrel of oil and off 
consumers who are getting squeezed at the pump without compromising our 
national security. One way to do it is along the lines of the amendment 
I propose this afternoon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oregon for 
his comments and his amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Wyden, just offered 
an amendment on his behalf and mine. He spoke in support of it. 
Obviously, I am a cosponsor so I support the amendment. It is an 
amendment that is very simple. We are putting oil away underground in 
something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or SPR. The purpose of 
putting oil underground at this point is in the event that we would 
have an emergency at some point in the future, we would have a 
substantial inventory of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  That SPR is nearly full. As I understand, it is well over 98 percent 
filled at this point. Yet we are still, each day, taking about 100,000 
barrels of oil off the market and putting it underground at a time when 
we are effectively paying the highest price ever for that oil in order 
to put it there.
  There are two problems with that. No. 1, at a time when we have very 
high prices, which means we have lower supplies and higher demand, it 
makes no sense to have 100,000 barrels a day taken off the market and 
stuck underground. Even more than that, it makes no sense to do this, 
with the last increment to be put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
at a time when oil is $55, $57, $58 a barrel.
  Our amendment is very simple. It would suspend the acquisition of oil 
at these inflated prices, suspend the acquisition of oil at a time when 
we need more supply, not less, and it would allow the acquisition to 
complete filling the SPR when the price of a barrel of oil reaches $40 
per barrel or below.
  My hope is the Senate will adopt the amendment. It is just common 
sense. It is not rocket science to believe that if you have a Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve almost filled, you should not go to the market and 
take $55 or $57 oil in order to take inventory off the market at a time 
when you have record prices. That doesn't make any sense.
  We are asking that the Senate approve the amendment.
  Before the Senator from New Mexico leaves the floor, I have another 
matter I wish to address, but I don't intend to address something in 
morning business that would interrupt the work on the bill. I ask 
unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes 
with the understanding that if someone comes to the floor with an 
amendment on the Energy bill, I will defer. I don't want to delay the 
bill. I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes in morning business with 
that understanding.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I don't think that is going to be any major obstacle to 
the progress we are making on the Senate floor this afternoon. I have 
no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for 1 
minute?
  Mr. BUNNING. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Bunning 
from the State of Kentucky, is going to speak, and I assume he is going 
to talk about the Energy bill; is that correct?
  Mr. BUNNING. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to say as a preamble to his speech, for those 
who are going to listen to him, that he is a member of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee and has been for some time. Most of the 
time people think that the committee is a committee of interior, public 
land States, but it also has a lot to do with coal and our energy 
future, diversification of our energy resources.
  We have had a marvelous committee. Part of it is because of Members 
such as Senator Bunning. He has been a great participant. He comes to 
the meetings, he works hard, he offers amendments. He understands we 
need an energy bill. He does not win all the time, but he has his 
views, and he has been a strong proponent for us getting our house in 
order and to use as much American energy as possible for our future. I 
commend him for it.
  I trust we will get a bill out of the Senate and out of conference, 
one he can vote with not just a ``yea'' but with a hearty ``yea,'' not 
just one of those softballs but one of those fastballs he used to 
throw. That is what we are looking for.
  I yield the floor and thank the Senator.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Domenici for his 
extremely hard work in trying to get an energy policy for the United 
States since I have been in the Senate.
  Many of us have spoken on this Senate floor several times about the 
need for our national energy policy. We have been here before debating 
an energy bill. To some, it may seem like the same old song and same 
old dance. But here we are again. I am more optimistic than I have ever 
been about finally getting an energy bill to the President's desk.
  I commend Chairman Domenici for his leadership and determination in 
helping to put America on an independent path with this energy 
legislation. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the Energy 
Committee.
  The Energy bill before us is a good starting point that attempts to 
strike a balance between conservation and production. In the past, 
Congress failed to make progress on energy policy because we tried to 
make a choice between conservation and production, but it does not have 
to be one or the other.
  Many of us understand that a balanced and sensible energy policy must 
boost production of domestic energy sources as well as promote 
conservation. This Energy bill takes a good step toward striking a 
balance, and passing an energy bill is important now more than ever.
  We all know the price of energy has risen very sharply in the last 
few years, and it is only going to keep rising. It goes without saying 
that energy costs touch every single part of our economy and our lives. 
The average

[[Page S6789]]

price of gasoline has risen, for unleaded regular around this country, 
to about $2.13 a gallon, and the price of oil is bumping up against $60 
a barrel. Natural gas, coal, and other fuels have also seen record 
prices this year. This is hitting Americans in their wallets, 
especially now when so many families are hitting the road for 
vacations.

  Higher energy prices also slow business growth and force businesses 
to pass increased pricing on to consumers with higher priced goods. 
While passing an energy bill might not help energy prices in the short 
term, it will make a big difference over the long term.
  This bill's domestic energy production provisions and increased 
conservation provisions will help slow these spikes of price increases. 
But without a new energy policy, there is not much we can do about 
rising energy prices. Oil producers and production are at full 
capacity, and with China and India upping their demands for oil, the 
world oil supply will be drawn down while prices continue to rise. This 
means that we cannot just try to conserve our way out of any kind of 
energy problem. We must find other sources of reliable and low-cost 
fuels or our economy and national security will be at risk.
  We continue to depend on oil from some of the most dangerous and 
unstable parts of the world. It is a recipe for disaster.
  The stock market jumps up and down, all around, depending on the 
latest reports of pipeline sabotage in the Middle East. Everyone 
wonders where the next terrorist attack is going to hit. We also worry 
about Iran's developing nuclear weapons, and we are trying with our 
allies to figure out a diplomatic answer that will bring stability to 
the region. But the Iranians do not have a lot of incentive to deal 
when they are getting nearly $60 a barrel for their oil. In a way, our 
increasing need for energy is cutting our influence in the part of the 
world where we need it the most. We have to reduce our reliance on 
foreign oil and do a better job internally of taking care of our own 
energy needs.
  Congress has been playing political football with this issue over the 
past few Congresses, and it is time to end the game. Our Nation and our 
national security continue to be at risk. We do not want the United 
States beholden to other countries just to keep our engines running and 
our lights turned on.
  It impresses me to know that the bill contains some strengthened 
electrical provisions. We have outgrown our electrical system, and 
changes need to be made. One of the provisions in the bill is PUHCA 
repeal, which will go a long way in helping our energy system meet 
increasing demands.
  Also, we desperately need to build new transmission lines. I am glad 
to see that this bill has some provisions which will help ensure that 
happens. Building a better electric system, however, should not require 
mandates for electricity companies to get into regional transmission 
organizations. States and companies should be able to decide on their 
own what is best for their consumers. So I am pleased to see a 
provision in the bill that explicitly prevents FERC from mandating 
RTOs.
  The Energy bill will also help reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
by increasing domestic energy production. It also provides important 
conservation provisions which will help protect the environment. And 
because coal is such a key industry in Kentucky, I am pleased that this 
bill contains clean coal provisions that I have authored and been 
pushing for a long time. The clean coal provisions will help to 
increase domestic energy production and help improve the environment.
  Coal is an important part of our energy plans. It is cheap, 
plentiful, and we do not have to go very far to find it. For my home 
State and the States of others, this means more jobs and a cleaner 
place to live. Clean coal technologies will significantly reduce 
emissions and sharply increase efficiencies in turning coal into 
electricity.
  Previously, our Government overpromoted production of one source of 
energy--natural gas. This not only depleted our supply, but it created 
so much demand that it completely outstripped supply and left Americans 
to pay higher prices for just this one energy source.
  A sound energy policy should promote the use of many different types 
of fuels and technologies instead of favoring just one source. As we 
have seen time and again, putting all our eggs in one basket simply 
does not work.
  I am glad we are turning things around and taking steps toward making 
sure clean coal and other sources play a vital role in meeting our 
future energy needs.
  This bill encourages research and development of clean coal 
technology by authorizing about $2.4 billion for the department of 
energy.
  These funds will be used to advance new technologies to significantly 
reduce emissions and increase efficiency of turning coal into 
electricity.
  And almost $2 billion will be used for the clean coal power 
initiative.
  This is where the Department of Energy will work with industry to 
advance efficiency, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness 
of new clean coal technologies.
  And the Finance Committee's energy tax package provides $2.7 billion 
to encourage the use of coal and deployment of clean coal technologies.
  Coal plays an important role in our economy. It provides over 50 
percent of the energy needed for our Nation's energy.
  The Energy Information Administration expects coal will continue to 
remain the primary fuel for electricity generation over the next 2 
decades.
  As my colleagues can see, I am a little biased when it comes to coal.
  It means so much to my State, and it is such an affordable and 
plentiful fuel to help America in her quest for energy independency.
  The 21st century economy is going to require increased amounts of 
reliable, clean, and affordable energy to keep our Nation running, and 
clean coal can help fill that requirement.
  With research advances, we have the know-how to better balance 
conservation with the need for increased energy production at home.
  The diversity of this energy package to promote new fuels is quite 
impressive.
  There are provisions for nuclear, hydro-power, solar, wind, bio-fuels 
and other renewable energy sources.
  All this put together with the bill's conservation provisions will 
help America meet its sensible and long-term energy strategy and goals.
  I look forward to the continued debate and consideration of this 
bill.
  And I hope we can get it approved, conferenced and sent to the 
President's desk for his consideration.
  The quicker we can do this, then the sooner we can help make our 
environment, economy, and national security stronger, and the sooner we 
can become more energy independent from other sources.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to address some statements made 
last week, during the debate on the Bingaman amendment No. 791, 
regarding community acceptance of renewable energy in Vermont. After I 
left the floor, one Senator tried to make a point in opposition to the 
creation of a national renewable portfolio standard by referencing some 
opposition to a wind power project in Vermont. I want to set the record 
straight: though we have had some siting issues, Vermonters 
overwhelmingly support renewable energy over nuclear, coal, or natural 
gas.
  The Senate should not confuse local concerns about the appropriate 
location for wind power siting in Vermont as a monolithic objection to 
any new renewable energy in my State. In fact, the views are contrary 
to such a conjuncture, even in the case of wind power. Numerous polls 
throughout the last decade have consistently shown that Vermonters 
support wind energy. In fact, a survey in March 2004 found 74 percent 
of respondents said they would consider wind turbines along a Vermont 
mountain ridge either beautiful or acceptable. The same survey found 83 
percent of Vermonters choose renewable energy from wind, solar, hydro 
and wood as preferable to other energy sources.
  Lawrence Mott, Chair of Renewable Energy Vermont, which commissioned 
the energy poll said, ``It's clear, Vermonters want more renewable 
energy, including wind turbines, and that they find installation on 
ridgelines very acceptable.''
  Vermont's history with wind power goes back to the turn of the 
century when farmers used windmills to pump

[[Page S6790]]

drinking water from their wells. One of the first great experiments in 
converting wind to energy was conducted atop a peak in Vermont called 
Grandpa's Knob in Castleton, Vermont. It was, at the time, the world's 
largest wind turbine and produced 1.25 MW with the first synchronous 
electric generator. I recall visiting this wind turbine with my 
grandfather, an architect, and we marveled at its beauty and ingenuity. 
It was the first time energy from a wind turbine was interconnected to 
the utility grid.
  Vermont's interest in wind power has continued to grow since then. 
Just look at Green Mountain Power's wind farm in Searsburg, Vermont. 
Eleven wind turbines generate enough electricity to power more than 
2,000 homes, reducing toxic air emissions by 22 million pounds compared 
to the impacts if that amount of electricity had been produced through 
combustion of fossil fuels.
  Vermont has a tremendous capacity for wind power, as several of my 
colleagues have demonstrated with wind maps produced from the U.S. 
Department of Energy. Industry representatives in Vermont envision a 
handful of wind farms scattered about Vermont producing enough 
electricity to power about 50,000 homes, which would account for about 
10 percent of the State's electricity needs.
  Last week, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas signed a new renewable energy 
bill into law. He did so at the manufacturing plant of Northern Power 
Systems, a world leader in off-grid power systems. Northern Power is 
about to ship seven 100-kilowatt wind turbines to three communities in 
remote western Alaska, and the Governor used a 31-foot-long blade from 
one of these turbines as his writing table.
  Clearly, Vermont's Governor and Vermont's legislators see the value 
of renewable energy. A large majority of Vermonters support wind energy 
and renewable energy. And I am very optimistic about the role wind 
energy can play in satisfying a growing proportion of this Nation's 
energy needs.
  Last week the Senate defeated an important amendment that would have 
helped set this nation on a course to significantly reduce our reliance 
on foreign oil. It is unfortunate that a majority of my colleagues did 
not see fit to put the U.S. on the right course--to break our addiction 
to foreign oil.
  H.R. 6 requires a 1 million barrel a day oil saving goal. 
Unfortunately, this goal would actually result in more oil being 
imported, not less. In fact, the U.S. will still be importing 14.4 
million barrels a day under the underlying bill's goal. Slowing down 
the increased rate of consumption alone is not enough. We should be 
setting an ambitious goal that actually reduces imported oil, not a 
goal that will result in more oil being imported.
  Instead, the Senate refused to set a national goal to reduce the 
Nation's addiction to foreign oil. The Cantwell amendment would have 
established that goal--to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 40 
percent by 2025. By turning our backs on this goal, we are sending the 
wrong message. Reducing our addiction to foreign oil is essential to 
the economic security of our Nation. We cannot continue to rely on 
unstable foreign countries for the energy that runs the economic 
machine of this Nation.
  Fluctuating energy prices and instability in the Middle East once 
again are prompting calls for energy independence for the U.S.
  Federal efforts to ensure freedom from fluctuations in energy prices 
have been advocated by every President, both Republican and Democrat, 
since 1973 and the infamous oil boycott. As Americans we count on 
energy to protect our security, to fuel our cars, to provide heat, air 
conditioning and light for our homes, to manufacture goods, and to 
transport supplies. In all of these needs, we, as consumers, pay the 
price for fluctuations in the global energy market.
  Reducing our reliance on foreign oil is essential and the most basic 
step we need to take to address this crisis. The Cantwell amendment 
would have resulted in about 7.6 million barrels per day less oil being 
imported in 2025. Those savings are equivalent to the amount of oil the 
U.S. currently imports from Saudi Arabia. We can and should stop the 
oil cartels from controlling the future of this Nation.
  In addition, I believe setting an oil saving goal could have 
beneficial effects on our air quality. Since a vast majority of current 
oil consumption is from the transportation sector, I believe setting an 
oil saving goal would encourage auto manufacturers to voluntarily 
improve efficiency of cars and trucks. As our population continues to 
grow and more people are driving more miles, it is essential to our air 
quality to continue to improve fuel efficiency of the vehicles we 
drive.
  As it stands now, this bill does not require auto manufacturers or 
others in the transportation sector--the plane, train and truck 
sector--to meet corporate average fuel economy standards. I believe 
increased fuel economy standards can and should also be included in 
this bill. But short of adding new standards, setting this goal would 
have been a significant step in that direction.
  By failing to set an oil saving goal, I think we have failed to state 
one of the most basic goals of this bill--a real reduction the amount 
of foreign imported oil.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 799

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mr. 
     Carper, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 
     799.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today as 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, 
Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety. This amendment is a bipartisan 
piece of legislation that was introduced last Thursday. It is called 
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, or S. 1265.
  This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee 
Chairman Jim Inhofe and Ranking Member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom 
Carper, Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and 
Dianne Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting 
public health, it would establish voluntary National and State-level 
grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. 
Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the 
new air quality standards.
  Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the 
legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 
regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new 
diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group 
of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense, Clean Air Task 
Force, Union of Concerned Scientists, Ohio Environmental Council, 
Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Inc., Diesel Technology Forum, Emissions 
Control Technology Association, Associated General Contractors of 
America, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency 
in Dayton, OH., and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission.
  The cosponsors and these groups do not agree on many issues, which is 
why this amendment is so special. I ask unanimous consent that letters 
of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S6791]]




                                             Caterpillar Inc.,

                                     Mossville, IL, June 16, 2005.
     Hon. George Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: Caterpillar is in full support of 
     the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. Thank you for 
     assembling a broad coalition of stakeholders in this 
     bipartisan effort to modernize and retrofit millions of 
     diesel engines across the country. It is impressive to see 
     such a strong coalition of environmental groups, regulators 
     and industry representatives working hard to advance retrofit 
     as a national energy and environmental policy issue.
       As a company. Caterpillar has invested more than $1 billion 
     in new clean diesel engine technology. No power source can 
     match the reliability, efficiency, durability and cost 
     effectiveness of the diesel engine. From the late 1980s to 
     2007, Caterpillar will have reduced diesel emissions in on-
     road trucks and school buses by 98 percent. When meeting 
     Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 regulations, 
     Caterpillar will reduce emissions for off-road machines an 
     additional 90 percent by 2014. This ensures that clean diesel 
     engines will continue to be the workhorses of our economy for 
     years to come.
       Our customers who operate fleets of buses, trucks, 
     construction machines and the equipment that safeguards our 
     homes and lives in non-attainment areas are very interested 
     in retrofit technology. However, they need a nationally 
     consistent approach to address these challenges. Your bill, 
     which focuses on grants and loans, wisely lets the market 
     determine the right technologies for various product 
     applications. Retrofitted engines last longer and, most 
     importantly, have fewer emissions.
       Thank you again for your commitment to this legislation. 
     You can count on Caterpillar's support as the bill moves 
     forward in Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James J. Parker,
     Vice President.
                                  ____



                                        Environmental Defense,

                                      New York, NY, June 17, 2005.

     Re Introduction of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act of 2005.

     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich, I am writing to express 
     Environmental Defense's support for the Diesel Emission 
     Reduction Act of 2005 which you are introducing today.
       As you are aware the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
     regulations establishing new standards for diesel buses and 
     freight trucks and new nonroad diesel equipment will slash 
     diesel emissions by more than 80% from 2000 levels, 
     ultimately saving 20,000 lives a year in 2030. But because 
     these federal standards apply only to new diesel engines and 
     because diesel engines are so durable, the high levels of 
     pollution from existing diesel sources will persist 
     throughout the long lives of the engines in service today.
       Your legislation establishing a national program to cut 
     pollution from today's diesel engines would speed the 
     transition to cleaner diesel engines and achieve healthier 
     air well in advance of that schedule. The program design 
     principles embodied in your bill help ensure that the funds 
     for diesel emission reduction projects will be spent in an 
     equitable and efficient manner.
       Environmental Defense has long been a proponent of smart 
     policy design. We have promoted market-based and cost-
     effective programs such as cap-and-trade as a solution to a 
     variety of environmental issues dating back to the 1990 Clean 
     Air Act Amendment.
       Environmental Defense commends you on your leadership in 
     cleaning up the existing diesel fleet. We look forward to 
     working with you and your staff to ensure the passage and 
     funding of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Krupp,
     President.
                                  ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 15, 2005.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: The Associated General Contractors 
     of America (AGC) thanks you for taking the lead in 
     introducing The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) to 
     provide assistance for owners to retrofit their diesel 
     powered equipment. The legislation would establish grant and 
     loan programs to achieve significant reduction in diesel 
     emissions. This initiative could prove to be extremely 
     beneficial to local areas attempting to come into compliance 
     with the Clean Air Act.
       The construction industry welcomes this legislation because 
     it will provide the needed assistance to help contractors 
     retrofit their off road equipment. Contractors use diesel 
     powered off road equipment to build projects that enhance our 
     environment and quality of life by improving transportation 
     system, water quality, offices, homes, navigation and other 
     vital infrastructure. This equipment tends to have a long 
     life, and therefore is in use for many years before it is 
     replaced.
       Reducing the emissions from the engines that power this 
     equipment is a costly undertaking and is particularly 
     burdensome for small businesses. Providing grants to aid 
     contractors with the expense of retrofitting is a highly cost 
     effective use of federal funds.
       AGC applauds your efforts in taking an incentive approach 
     to addressing environmental concerns. AGC urges that this 
     legislation be enacted quickly so that environmental benefits 
     can be achieved as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                              Stephen E. Sandherr,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                                                 Cummins Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: Cummins Inc. strongly supports the 
     Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, which establishes a 
     voluntary national retrofit program aimed at reducing 
     emissions from existing diesel engines, and congratulates you 
     on your efforts to bring the diesel industry and 
     environmental groups together on this effort.
       The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 recognizes the 
     clean air challenges ahead of us and puts in place a system 
     to help address them. In the near future, states must develop 
     plans to address particulate matter and ozone emission 
     reductions to meet the new air quality standards. A federally 
     sponsored voluntary diesel retrofit initiative is a great 
     tool to help states and communities meet these new air 
     quality standards. Your legislation recognizes that one size 
     does not fit all, and there are a number of technologies, 
     which can be implemented to modernize diesel fleets. The term 
     retrofit not only describes an after treatment exhaust device 
     used to reduce key vehicle emissions but also refers to 
     engine repair/rebuild, refuel, repower, and replacement.
       The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 represents a 
     sound use of tax payer dollars. Diesel retrofits have proven 
     to be one of the most cost-effective emissions reductions 
     strategies. Furthermore, another advantage to retrofits is 
     that reductions can be realized immediately after 
     installation and can be particularly important in 
     metropolitan areas where high volumes of heavy-duty trucks 
     are prevalent and/or where major construction projects are 
     underway for long periods of time.
       Finally, I, again, wanted to congratulate you on your 
     efforts to bring our industry together with the environmental 
     community on this legislation. This legislation is truly a 
     model on how to find solutions to environmental problems. It 
     is our hope that the process, which you put together to craft 
     this legislation, can be used to further address the older 
     fleets as well as advance efforts, which recognize the energy 
     efficiency and environmental benefits of clean diesel 
     technologies.
       Again, Cummins thanks you for your vision on these issues 
     and looks forward to working with you to pass this 
     legislation.
           Very truly yours,
     Mike Cross,
       Vice President, Cummins Inc. and General Manager, 
     Fleetguard Emission Solutions.
                                  ____



                                      Diesel Technology Forum,

                                      Frederick, MD, June 9, 2005.
     Hon. George Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: We would like to recognize and 
     thank you for your leadership in developing the Diesel 
     Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. We are especially encouraged 
     by the broad coalition of industry and environmental groups 
     from whom you have successfully sought not just cooperation, 
     but real collaboration in development and support of this 
     important legislation.
       As you know, the recent advancements in new clean diesel 
     technology have been substantial. New emissions control 
     devices such as particulate filters oxidation catalysts, and 
     other technologies will play an important role in the clean 
     diesel system of the future, allowing new commercial truck 
     engines to be over 90 percent lower in emissions than those 
     built just a dozen years ago. And, as we have learned over 
     the last 5 years, these technologies can also be applied to 
     some existing vehicles and equipment. Your legislation will 
     play an important role in helping to deploy more clean diesel 
     retrofit technologies to thousands of small businesses and 
     equipment owners who might otherwise not be able to afford 
     the upgrading of their equipment.
       Because of its unique combination of energy efficiency, 
     durability and reliability, diesel technology plays a 
     critical role in many industrial and transportation sectors, 
     powering two-thirds of all construction and farm equipment 
     and over 90 percent of highway trucks. Diesel technology has 
     played and will continue to play a vital role in key sectors 
     of our economy. Thanks to your legislation, diesel technology 
     will continue to serve these sectors and help assure this 
     country's continued clean air progress.
       We look forward to continuing to promoting a greater 
     awareness of the benefits of clean diesel retrofits and your 
     legislation.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Allen R. Schaeffer,

                                               Executive Director.

[[Page S6792]]

     
                                  ____
                                                     State of Ohio


                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                      Columbus, OH, June 15, 2005.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: It has been a great pleasure to 
     meet you and discuss air quality issues with you over these 
     last few months. Ohio's air quality has improved dramatically 
     over the last 30 years. However, as you are well aware, Ohio 
     faces a significant challenge in achieving compliance with 
     the new federal air quality standards for ozone and fine 
     particle matter. We have 33 counties that don't meet the more 
     stringent ozone standard, and all or part of 32 counties that 
     don't meet the more stringent particulate standard.
       Diesel emissions are part of the problem in both of those 
     scenarios. That is why I am so encouraged by your efforts to 
     develop bipartisan legislation to provide federal financial 
     assistance for a voluntary diesel retrofit initiative. In 
     many cases, lack of funding is the only thing keeping people 
     from using the cleaner technology that is available.
       As Ohio develops its clean air plans for ozone and 
     particulate matter, we need to consider every tool available 
     to us. A funding program to help reduce pollution from diesel 
     engines is a valuable tool.
       I look forward to the successful passage of your bill and 
     the clean air benefits it bring to Ohio and the nation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Joseph P. Koncelik,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                       Ohio Environmental Council,
                                      Columbus, OH, June 13, 2005.
     Subject: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.

     Hon. George Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: The Ohio Environmental Council 
     offers its hearty support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction 
     Act of 2005. This landmark legislation will help clean up one 
     of Ohio's and the nation's largest sources of dangerous air 
     pollution; diesel engines.
       From our initial meeting with you in April of 2004 to 
     discuss the impacts of diesel pollution, we have been 
     impressed by your leadership in addressing this significant 
     contributor to Ohio's, and the nation's, air quality 
     problems. As you know, approximately one-third of Ohio 
     counties are failing federal air quality standards for 
     ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Much of the 
     nation faces a similar burden with an estimated 65 million 
     people living in areas exceeding the fine particulate 
     standard and 111 million people living in areas exceeding the 
     8-hour ozone standard.
       Diesel engines contribute significantly to this problem 
     with on-road and off-road diesel engines accounting for 
     roughly one-half of the ozone contributing nitrogen oxide and 
     fine particulate mobile source emissions nationwide. 
     According to EPA, diesel exhaust also contains over 40 
     chemicals listed as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), some of 
     which are known or probable human carcinogens including 
     benzene and formaldehyde. Numerous studies have suggested 
     that diesel pollutants contribute to health effects such as 
     asthma attacks, reduced lung function, heart and lung 
     disease, cancer and even premature death.
       Fortunately, unlike many complex environmental problems 
     that have very complicated solutions, the clean-up of diesel 
     air pollution is easy. Technologies are available today to 
     retrofit existing diesel engines, reducing emissions from the 
     tailpipe by 20-90%--reductions realized immediately after 
     installation. In fact, due to EPA's Diesel Rules, starting in 
     2007 we will see the cleanest diesel engines ever coming off 
     production lines. Unfortunately, those rules do not address 
     the 11 million diesel engines in use today. In order to meet 
     EPA's goal to modernize 100% of these existing engines by 
     2014, states and fleets will need assistance.
       That is why the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 is 
     so imperative. It will establish an unprecedented $200 
     million annual national grant and loan program to assist 
     states, organizations and fleets in reducing emissions from 
     diesel engines. These efforts will serve to help counties in 
     complying with federal air standards as well as minimize the 
     health toll of diesel emissions on the public.
       I am proud to offer the Ohio Environmental Council's 
     support to you, Senator Voinovich, with the introduction of 
     the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Vicki L. Deisner,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                        Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission,

                                       Columbus, OH, June 14, 2005
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: Our membership, comprised of 41 
     local governments in central Ohio, has identified our ozone 
     and PM2.5 nonattainment status as one of the most daunting 
     challenges facing our region. Numerous health studies 
     demonstrate the negative health impacts of polluted air, 
     especially for asthmatic children and older adults with heart 
     disease. In addition to these, health impacts, failure to 
     clean up our air could inhibit business expansion and 
     investment in transportation.
       Freight transportation is one of the primary growth sectors 
     for central Ohio. Yet, we do not want growth at the expense 
     of a diminished quality of life for our residents. Therefore, 
     it is important that we do whatever we can to encourage 
     public and private on and off-road fleets to improve 
     emissions from existing diesel engines that will continue to 
     operate for many years.
       MORPC's Air Quality Committee is working diligently with a 
     broad coalition of local governments, manufacturers, 
     industry, health organizations, and environmental groups to 
     identify and implement cost effective ways to reduce nitrogen 
     oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions 
     that contribute to ozone and particle pollution in central 
     Ohio. We strongly support the introduction of the Diesel 
     Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 to provide federal funds to 
     spur local investment in voluntary diesel emission reduction 
     programs. This will be an invaluable tool to help us meet the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ambient air quality 
     standards.
       We look forward to working with you to continue to develop 
     support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. 
     Please let me know if we can be of any assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William C. Habig,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                         Clean Air Task Force,

                                        Boston, MA, June 16, 2005.
     Re Letter of support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 
         of 2005.

     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: The Clean Air Task Force is proud 
     to be one of the core members of a group of industry, 
     environmental and government representatives that worked 
     together on a collaborative effort to find ways of reducing 
     harmful emissions of air pollution from existing diesel 
     engines. We strongly support legislation that grew out of 
     that effort, the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act of 2005. We 
     thank you and your staff for your leadership on this 
     important issue.
       Heavy-duty diesel engines powering vehicles and equipment 
     such as long-haul trucks, buses, construction equipment, 
     logging and agricultural equipment, locomotives and marine 
     vessels produce a wide variety of dangerous air pollutants, 
     including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and air toxics. 
     These pollutants, emitted at ground level often in populated 
     areas, produce substantial harm to human health and the 
     environment, up to and including premature death.
       Recently, EPA has determined that 65 million people live in 
     areas where the air contains unhealthy levels of fine 
     particulate matter (PM2.5), areas that EPA has 
     thus classified as nonattainment for the PM2.5 
     NAAQS. In order for those areas to meet the attainment 
     requirements in the Clean Air Act, substantial reductions of 
     PM2.5 emissions will be required. The largest 
     local source of potential PM2.5 reductions in most 
     urban areas is the existing fleet of heavy-duty diesel 
     engines. Although EPA has promulgated regulations to 
     substantially reduce emissions from heavy duty highway and 
     nonroad diesels, many of these engines are long-lived and the 
     air quality benefits of EPA's new engine rules won't be fully 
     realized for more than two decades--a full generation away 
     and long past applicable NAAQS attainment deadlines.
       Fortunately, efficient and cost-effective means of 
     substantially reducing diesel emissions are readily available 
     today. For example, diesel particulate filters can reduce 
     diesel PM2.5 emissions by about 90% from many 
     heavy-duty diesel engines. Widespread use of such controls 
     could dramatically reduce harmful diesel emissions in our 
     cities and states, would save thousands of lives, produce 
     billions of dollars of societal benefits, and help states 
     meet their attainment obligations under the Clean Air Act.
       One of the primary barriers to the widespread installation 
     of diesel emission control technology is a lack of resources. 
     Many heavy-duty diesel fleets, such as buses, refuse trucks, 
     highway maintenance equipment, trains and ferries are owned 
     or operated by public agencies with limited resources.
       The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 will provide 
     $200 per year for the next 5 years to help fund reductions of 
     air pollution from in-use diesel engines, including those 
     operated by cash-strapped public agencies. This will produce 
     human health and environmental benefits far in excess of the 
     costs, and will provide timely assistance to many areas to 
     help them achieve EPA's health based air quality standards 
     for particulate matter and ozone.
       CATF urges your support of the Diesel Emissions Reductions 
     Act of 2005.
           Very truly yours,
                                              Conrad G. Schneider,
                                                Advocacy Director.

[[Page S6793]]

     
                                  ____
         State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 
           Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution 
           Control Officials,
                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and 
         Nuclear Safety, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Voinovich: On behalf of the State and 
     Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and 
     the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials 
     (ALAPCO)--the national associations of state and local air 
     pollution control agencies in 53 states and territories and 
     more than 165 metropolitan areas across the country--I am 
     pleased to offer support for the Diesel Emissions Reduction 
     Act of 2005 and to commend your leadership in introducing 
     this legislation and in working with a broad coalition of 
     diverse stakeholders to draft it.
       Emissions from dirty diesel engines pose serious threats to 
     public health and the environment. These emissions are not 
     only substantial contributors to unhealthful levels of ozone 
     and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), they cause or 
     exacerbate unacceptably high levels of toxic air pollution in 
     most areas of the country. Although our nation has taken 
     significant action to reduce emissions from new highway and 
     nonroad diesel engines, and additional federal measures are 
     planned to address new diesel marine and locomotive engines, 
     several critical opportunities remain for achieving further 
     reductions in diesel emissions. Chief among them is cleaning 
     up existing diesel engines by retrofitting these engines with 
     new emission control technologies. By authorizing funds for 
     grants and loans to states and other organizations for the 
     purpose of reducing emissions from diesel engines, the Diesel 
     Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 will help states and 
     localities achieve their air quality goals, including 
     attaining and maintaining health-based National Ambient Air 
     Quality Standards for ozone and PM2.5 and reducing 
     exposure to toxic air pollution.
       STAPPA and ALAPCO are pleased to support this bill and look 
     forward to working with you and other stakeholders as it 
     proceeds through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                S. William Becker,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                Union of Concerned Scientists,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2005.
       The Union of Concerned Scientists, and our 140,000 members 
     and activists nationwide, strongly support the Diesel 
     Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. This landmark legislation 
     will improve air quality across the country by providing $200 
     million in grants and loans to reduce pollution from diesel 
     vehicles and equipment.
       The exhaust from conventional diesel-powered engines may 
     cause or exacerbate serious health problems such as asthma, 
     bronchitis and cancer, and can even lead to premature death. 
     In addition to its public health toll, diesel exhaust exacts 
     enormous social costs, with escalating health care 
     expenditures, loss of work and school days, and the most 
     costly impact of all--the loss of human lives.
       Although standards for new diesel engines offer important 
     health benefits, they do not address the biggest polluters: 
     existing diesel engines. The bulk of diesel pollution now and 
     for the next decade or more come from engines already in use. 
     Fortunately, there are a wide range of readily available 
     cleanup technologies and strategies, including replacing 
     high-polluting engines and retrofitting with emissions 
     controls. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act will help get 
     diesel cleanup technologies off the shelf and onto today's 
     vehicles and equipment.
       USC is pleased to be part of a diverse coalition of 
     groups--including environmental and health groups, the diesel 
     industry, and public agencies--that is working 
     collaboratively on reduciug diesel pollution. This unique mix 
     of voices all agree that reducing pollution from diesel 
     engines is a public health priority, and that federal and 
     state funding is a key strategy to clean up diesel engines.
       The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act will accelerate the 
     public health benefits of the new engine emissions standards, 
     and will help Americans breathe easier.
           Sincerely,
     Patricia Monahan,
       Senior Analyst, Transportation Program.
                                  ____

                                                      Regional Air


                                     Pollution Control Agency,

                                        Dayton, OH, June 15, 2005.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and 
         Nuclear Safety, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: The Regional Air Pollution Control 
     Agency (RAPCA) would like to express our support for the 
     Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005. RAPCA is a six county 
     local air pollution control agency charged with protecting 
     the residents of the Dayton/Springfield area from the adverse 
     health impacts of air pollution. We would like to thank you 
     and your staff for offering this vital piece of legislation 
     which will greatly help the citizens of our area breathe 
     healthier air.
       Diesel emission reductions offer a significant opportunity 
     in the effort to clean the nation's air. Diesel emissions 
     represent approximately one-half of the nitrogen oxide and 
     particulate matter emissions from the mobile source sector 
     and numerous air toxics.
       Like many areas across the county, the Dayton/Springfield 
     area is nonattainment for both ozone and fine particulate 
     matter. RAPCA strongly believes that this bill provides a 
     unique opportunity to help the area attain these standards, 
     especially fine particulates, as well as reducing the health 
     risks associated with air toxics. Furthermore, many of the 
     diesel vehicles that would be affected by this bill operate 
     in the urban core, thus providing health benefits to many 
     individuals.
       Again we would like to express our sincere thanks to you 
     for offering the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, 
     which will help millions of Americans breathe easier.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John A. Paul,
     Supervisor.
                                  ____

                                                  Emission Control


                                       Technology Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.
     Hon. George Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Emission Control 
     Technology Association (ECTA), I would like to thank you for 
     introducing the Diesel Retrofit Reduction Act of 2005, and 
     advise you of our wholehearted support for this legislation. 
     If enacted, this legislation will help states to reduce 
     diesel engine emissions, thereby, strengthening the economy, 
     public health, and the environment.
       On-road heavy duty diesel vehicles and non-road diesel 
     vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the 
     nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) 
     mobile source emissions nationwide. These emissions 
     contribute to ozone formation, fine particulate matter, and 
     regional haze. With more than 167 million Americans living in 
     counties that do not achieve the National Ambient Air Quality 
     Standard (NAAQS) established by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, it is more important than ever that states and other 
     organizations are given the means to address this growing 
     problem. Clean diesel retrofits are a highly cost effective 
     means of reducing these emissions, costing approximately 
     $5,000 per ton equivalent of air pollution removed. The 
     Diesel Retrofit Reduction Act of 2005 will ease the growing 
     burden states are feeling as they strive to reach attainment 
     of these national standards, by providing them with grants 
     and loans for the purpose of reducing emissions from diesel 
     engines.
       There are several programs that demonstrate the 
     achievements made by clean diesel retrofits. A prime example 
     is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Retrofit 
     Program in San Francisco, California. As part of the MTC 
     program, more than 1,700 emission control systems were 
     installed on diesel buses. It is estimated that 2,500 pounds 
     of NOX and 300 pounds per day of particulates will 
     be eliminated as a result of the MTC transit bus retrofit 
     program. We are certain that the Diesel Retrofit Reduction 
     Act of 2005 will accomplish similar feats upon its passage.
       ECTA thanks you for authoring this important legislation 
     and for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to 
     working with you and your staff to ensure its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Timothy Regan,
                                                        President.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. The process for developing this legislation began last 
year when several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They 
informed me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions. 
On-road and non-road diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly 
one-half of the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source 
emissions nationwide.
  I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action 
with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a 
collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However, 
I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until 
2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11 
million existing engines have a long life. Diesel engines have a very 
long life.
  I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could 
address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan 
programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that are 
working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines.
  I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air 
quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program 
was needed to help the Nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment 
counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like 
Northeast Ohio.
  Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical 
Center

[[Page S6794]]

doctors--as recently as earlier this month--to discuss their Cincinnati 
Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results 
indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near 
highways because of emissions from diesel engines.
  It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then 
formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental, 
industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work was 
released last Thursday with the introduction of the Diesel Emissions 
Reduction Act of 2005.
  The amendment that I am offering today is the same as this bill. It 
would establish voluntary national and State-level grant and loan 
programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. The amendment 
would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some 
will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not 
enough--so probably it is the right number.
  We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is 
contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible 
as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective 
emissions reduction strategies. For example, let's compare the cost 
effectiveness of diesel retrofits versus current Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality program projects.
  We are talking about the per ton of Nitrogen Oxides reduced, cost on 
average. We are talking about 1 ton of nitrogen oxides and how much it 
costs to reduce them: $126,400 for alternative fuel buses; $66,700 for 
signal optimization; $19,500 for bike racks on buses; and $10,500 for 
vanpool programs.
  This is compared to $5,390 to repower construction equipment and 
$5,000 to retrofit a transit bus.
  The bottom line is that if we want to clean up our air to improve the 
environment and protect public health, diesel retrofits are one of the 
best uses of taxpayers' money.
  Furthermore, as a former Governor, I know firsthand that the new air 
quality standards are an unfunded mandate on our States and 
localities--and they need the Federal Government's help. We are going 
to find that out. Many Americans are not aware, because of the ozone 
and particulate standards that many communities are going to have a 
difficult time complying with these new ambient air standards.
  This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by 
encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines, 
substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and 
particulate matter.
  The amendment is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in 
several ways. First, 70 percent of the program would be administered by 
the EPA. The remaining 20 percent of the funding would be distributed 
to States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. Ten 
percent of the amendment's overall funding would be set aside as an 
incentive for state's to match the Federal dollars being provided.
  The hope is this amendment leverages additional public and private 
funding with the creation of State level programs throughout this 
country. The amendment would expand on very successful programs that 
now exist in Texas and California.
  Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is 
needed the most.
  Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the Federal program to 
be used on public fleets since we are talking about using public 
dollars.
  Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects that are the 
most cost effective and affect the most people.
  Lastly, the amendment includes provisions to help develop new 
technologies, encourage more action through nonfinancial incentives, 
and require EPA to reach out to stakeholders and report on the success 
of the program.
  EPA estimates this billion-dollar program would leverage an 
additional $500 million, leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion 
with the reduction of 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a 
quite substantial 13-1 cost-benefit ratio.
  The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan 
support and is needed desperately. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent 10 minutes 
be set aside prior to the vote on the amendment for sponsors to speak 
on its behalf.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Ohio a 
question about his amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if we could get copies of the amendment, 
Senator Domenici would be anxious to review it. I would, as well. It 
sounds very meritorious as described, but before actually agreeing to a 
unanimous consent as to the timing of the vote and the amount of time 
needed in anticipation of a vote, it would be better to get a copy at 
this point, if we could. That is just a suggestion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I withdraw the request for the 10 minutes until the 
ranking member has an opportunity to review the amendment, and we can 
discuss at that time how much time the Senator is willing to give.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. That will be very good. I appreciate that opportunity. 
We will be back in touch with the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will ask the Senator from Ohio a 
question. I walked in about two-thirds of the way through his remarks.
  Do I understand that this is legislation that helps reduce sulfur in 
the air by retrofitting diesel engines so they comply with the new EPA 
requirements for low sulfur?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Right. This is one of the most effective ways, 
actually, to reduce nitrogen oxide and also particulate matter. In my 
remarks I mentioned the study at the University of Cincinnati on 
children. The negative impact is amazing on children who live very 
close to freeways with this diesel fuel. Retrofitting would be the most 
cost-efficient way of dealing with that problem.
  This program fundamentally is a voluntary program. It is a program in 
which we encourage all of the States to participate. If they did, each 
State would get 2 percent of the money. If they didn't, those States 
that participated would benefit from this on a per capita basis, 30 
percent of the program allocated to them and 70 percent of it would be 
distributed by the Environmental Protection Agency based on submissions 
submitted and also on the basis of giving priority to public requests 
for this money.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Ohio. He has 
spent a long time in this session working on clean air legislation.
  As one Senator, I am extremely interested in that for our country. 
The Great Smoky Mountains--2 miles from where I live, and on the other 
side is the Senator from North Carolina, the Presiding Officer--is the 
most polluted National Park in America.
  Many of our counties are not in attainment. Our biggest problem is 
sulfur. But NOX is also a major problem. Of course, a major 
contributor is the big diesel trucks on the road.
  One of the President's greatest accomplishments in terms of sulfur is 
tighter restrictions on the fuel that will be used in these trucks. 
They also are major contributors to NOX, nitrogen oxide. My 
understanding from my visits and discussions with people who know about 
the big trucks is that the retrofitting of these older engines is not 
as good as a new engine, but it is a very substantial--70 or 80 percent 
as good as having a new engine.
  I look forward to reading the legislation. The Clean Energy Act that 
we are working on is not the Clean Air Act that the Senator spent so 
much time on, but clean energy is the solution to the clean air 
problem. I am glad the Senator is bringing this to our attention. I 
look forward to reading it. It looks like a welcome contribution.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. The administration 
should be complimented. The new diesel regulations will go into effect 
next year. The fact is, 11 million on- and off-road vehicles will still 
be on the road for many years to come. As the Senator pointed out 
regarding retrofitting,

[[Page S6795]]

we had a bus retrofit. We are talking about 85 percent reduction. The 
diesel fuel is fine, but if you do not have the retrofit, it will not 
give you the desired emissions control.


                           Amendment No. 800

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1936 to provide energy 
                tax incentives, and for other purposes)

  Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the leader, we have cleared the amendment 
at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside. I further ask that the Grassley-Baucus amendment No. 800 which 
is at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider 
be laid on the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 800) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly support the Finance Committee's 
energy tax language.
  Why are the incentives proposed in this language so important? First 
and foremost, they are important because of the energy challenges 
facing the Nation.
  Energy is critical to our Nation's economy and security. Our 
continuing dependence on foreign oil increasingly threatens our vital 
national interests.
  As the world's demand for oil continues to grow at a record pace, the 
world's oil producers strain to meet consumption. Today, OPEC is 
pumping close to full capacity. Even so, refined products remain 
scarce.
  The price of oil has soared to more than $55 a barrel. The price of 
gas at the pump is a daily reminder of the scarcity of energy. 
Increasing energy prices stifle economic growth.
  Folks in my home State of Montana are hit hard by rising energy 
prices. High gas prices particularly hurt folks who have to drive great 
distances. And high energy prices hurt small businesses, ranchers, and 
farmers by raising the costs of doing business.
  We can do more to provide reliable energy from domestic sources. That 
is our first challenge.
  Our next great energy challenge is to ensure safe, clean, and 
affordable energy from renewable resources. Energy produced from wind, 
water, sun, and waste holds great potential. But that energy cannot 
currently meet our national energy demands. Technology is helping to 
bridge the gap. But further development requires financial assistance.
  The energy tax incentives take an evenhanded approach to an array of 
promising technologies. We do not yet know which new technologies will 
prove to be the most effective. As we go forward and provide the needed 
incentives to develop these new technologies, we also need appropriate 
cost-benefit assessments to guide future investments.
  The energy tax language reflects the incentives endorsed by the 
Finance Committee last Thursday. These incentives make meaningful 
progress toward energy independence. They provide a balanced package of 
targeted incentives directed to renewable energy, traditional energy 
production, and energy efficiency.
  These incentives would encourage new energy production, especially 
production from renewable sources.
  They would encourage the development of new technology.
  And they would encourage energy efficiency and conservation.
  To encourage production, the tax language provides a uniform 10-year 
period for claiming production tax credits under section 45 of the Tax 
Code. This encourages production of electricity from all sources of 
renewable energy. It would not benefit one technology over another.
  In Judith Gap, MT, wind whips across the wheat plains. Wind is a 
great and promising resource in Montana. But future development of wind 
projects needs support, like that provided in the tax language.
  The tax language recognizes the value of coal and oil to our economy. 
It provides tax incentives for cleaner-burning coal and much-needed 
expansion of refinery capacity.
  The lack of refinery capacity is driving up the price of oil. And our 
lack of domestic capacity increases our vulnerabilities. A new refinery 
has not been built in the U.S. since 1976. The tax language would 
encourage the development of additional refinery capacity domestically 
by allowing the development costs to be expensed.
  The tax language also rewards energy conservation and efficiency, and 
encourages the use of clean-fuel vehicles and technologies. It provides 
an investment tax credit for recycling equipment. These incentives are 
environmentally responsible. They reduce pollution. And they improve 
people's health.
  The energy tax provisions would make meaningful progress toward 
energy independence. They are balanced and fair. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________