[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 93 (Monday, June 11, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7426-S7432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007--
                           MOTION TO PROCEED.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:30 
p.m. having passed, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion 
to proceed to H.R. 6, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on 
     foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative 
     energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, 
     developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic 
     Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in 
     alternative energy, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 4:30 
p.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be 
allowed to equally divide a full hour, which was our plan this 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Some of that time may be yielded back, but I didn't 
want to cut off anyone who wishes to speak on this issue before we go 
to a vote.
  Mr. President, today we begin consideration of energy legislation in 
the Senate. Later today, we will be voting to take up legislation that 
will make a meaningful and bipartisan contribution to charting a new 
direction for America's energy policy.
  There is a growing consensus among Federal, State, and local 
policymakers across the ideological spectrum, also from corporate 
leaders and the American public in general, that our Nation needs to 
move faster and needs to go farther to secure its energy future.
  America's family farmers and businesses look no further than the 
prices that are posted at the corner gas station to see the vivid and 
daily indicators of the economic perils inherent in maintaining the 
status quo. In fact, they have watched as gas prices have stayed at 
more than $3 per gallon for well over a month.
  Our national security experts cite the geopolitical implications and 
the foreign policy challenges presented by the rise of State-owned 
energy companies and by our own growing dependence on oil imports. In 
2005, the United States imported roughly 60 percent of the petroleum 
that we consumed. Without decisive action, that figure is expected to 
approach 70 percent over the next two decades, with more than 35 
percent of that increase expected to come from member nations of OPEC 
or the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
  Meanwhile, economists take note of our energy policy's fiscal 
implications as well related to America's global competitiveness. In 
2005 and 2006, our dependence on petroleum imports combined with rising 
prices to add an estimated $120 billion to our Nation's trade deficit.
  There is no doubt there is a compelling case for action, but there is 
also something more fundamental that is embedded in the American 
consciousness that is animating the national call for a new direction 
in our energy policy.
  President Franklin Roosevelt once observed:

       The creed of our democracy is that liberty is acquired and 
     kept by men and women who are strong and self- reliant.

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

[[Page S7427]]

stronger economy, to create the high-paying jobs of the 21st century, 
and the opportunity, of course, to lower our energy costs.
  No single political party has a monopoly on these ideas. Rather, 
these ideas are broadly shared by Members of the Senate on both sides 
of the political aisle. The shared will to make progress in securing 
America's energy future is what has brought us to this point today. 
Later this afternoon, we will vote on a motion to proceed to 
legislation that represents the bipartisan efforts of four committees 
in the Senate--the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the 
Foreign Relations Committee. If we are successful in bringing the 
measure before the Senate, I believe by the time the debate is 
concluded, we will also have the recommendations of a fifth committee, 
the Senate Finance Committee, to add to this legislation.
  Suffice it to say there has been a tremendous amount of bipartisan 
legislative effort on display in bringing this measure forward. Since 
the outset of the 110th Congress, the Senate has held more than 50 
hearings on energy and climate-related issues. That is at least one 
hearing held every other day that we have been in session. As it 
relates to what we have been able to accomplish in the Senate Energy 
Committee, let me at the outset thank Senator Domenici, the ranking 
member on the committee, for the goodwill and the diligence he has 
demonstrated at every step in this effort.
  On the second day of the 110th Congress, we jointly announced an all-
day conference related to biofuels policy. This conference drew 
submissions and suggestions from more than 100 stakeholders. During 
that all-day session, attended by nearly every member of our committee, 
we heard from about 30 experts, who gave us suggestions that formed the 
intellectual basis for the committee's work in the important area of 
renewable fuels. After that, we held more than 15 energy policy-related 
hearings, including 8 oversight and legislative sessions, specifically 
tailored to take testimony on the issues at the core of our 
legislation. Those issues, in addition to biofuels, were energy 
efficiency and, second, carbon capture and storage.
  As a result of this process, Senator Domenici and I were able to 
circulate a bipartisan proposal to the committee for markup. After a 
session at which we adopted almost 30 amendments from members on both 
sides of the dais, the Energy Committee reported legislation with a 
substantial bipartisan margin of 20 to 3. On the whole, I think what we 
were able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time is 
something all members of our committee can be proud of.
  As I mentioned, the legislation touches on three key topics related 
to our energy future. First, it boosts domestic renewable fuel 
supplies. It does so in a manner that will reduce life cycle greenhouse 
gas emissions and spur regional diversity of biofuels production and 
infrastructure.
  The second thing the bill that came out of the Energy Committee does 
is it proposes to enhance economywide energy efficiency in a way that 
will reduce our Nation's imports of foreign oil and provide significant 
savings to consumers.
  The third item we addressed is that we will invest in the carbon 
capture and storage technologies that will help us to cut back on the 
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
  I think it would be helpful to describe for my colleagues some of 
these issues in a little more detail.
  First, on the topic of biofuels, there is no question that in recent 
years many factors have sharpened public focus on the search for viable 
alternatives to conventional petroleum-based fuels. I have already 
described many of those factors, including increased world oil prices, 
concerns regarding import dependence, and the environmental effects of 
vehicle emissions.
  Biofuels, which is a term that includes both ethanol and biodiesel, 
can be derived from an array of crops and other biological materials 
that are available throughout our Nation. Since the 1970s, all cars and 
light trucks with gasoline engines built for the U.S. market have been 
able to run on ethanol blends of up to 10 percent. That is E10. A 
smaller yet increasing number of vehicles that is now estimated at 
about 6 million on American roads today can run on fuel comprised of 85 
percent ethanol or E85. Meanwhile, existing diesel engines can run on 
biodiesel in any concentration. Due to concerns about quality 
standards, however, manufacturers may not honor warranties for engines 
running on biodiesel blends in excess of 5 percent, that is B5, or 20 
percent, which is B20.
  There is little question that passage of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 was a watershed event for the Nation's biofuels industry. 
Establishing the first Federal renewable fuel standard, the RFS, 
created an escalating requirement for the amount of biofuels blended in 
U.S. gasoline, starting with 4 billion gallons in 2006, and 
accelerating to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012.
  However, less than 2 years after that Energy Policy Act was signed by 
President Bush, increased use of biofuels is already surpassing the 
original RFS targets, with 5 billion gallons added to U.S. gasoline in 
2006. Another 6 billion gallons of production capacity is expected to 
go into operation by 2009, bringing total domestic production capacity 
to approximately 11.7 billion gallons. According to the Energy 
Information Administration's 2007 Annual Energy Outlook:

       the market potential for biofuel blends--that is B10, B5, 
     and B20--remains significantly larger than the current 
     production levels and will continue to absorb the biofuel 
     supply for the foreseeable future.

  Yet as the Energy Committee began developing its legislation, it was 
obvious significant challenges remained if biofuels are to become a 
cornerstone of U.S. efforts to improve our energy self-sufficiency. 
Today, approximately 98 percent of domestic ethanol production is 
derived from cornstarch, and that creates upward pressure on commodity 
prices, restricting production to regions of the country where corn is 
grown, and posing challenges to efficient distribution of the fuel.
  Diversifying feedstocks to include a broader array of renewable 
biomass can promote regional diversity in biofuels production and 
distribution, spreading economic benefits to rural communities across 
the country and relieving pressure on corn commodity prices. In 
addition, it can lead to greater efficiency in the fuel production 
process and help save on fossil fuel emissions.

  Another issue key to making biofuels a significant factor in 
displacing domestic petroleum use relates to existing infrastructure 
challenges. Of the nearly 170,000 vehicle fueling stations in the 
United States, only 1 percent carried E85 or biodiesel in 2006. 
Consumers must have access to these fuels if they are to become a 
viable alternative.
  To address these various challenges, the Energy Committee's 
legislation increases and extends the existing RFS to 36 billion 
gallons in 2022, with specific incentives for the production of 
biofuels from new sources of renewable biomass. Taken together, these 
provisions will help provide market certainty to both the existing 
ethanol industry and to the next generation of advanced biofuels 
producers.
  In addition, our legislation provides resources to help break down 
infrastructure barriers to renewable fuel distribution, and it invests 
in research into the basic scientific challenges associated with the 
use of promising new feedstocks.
  Altogether, the Energy Information Administration has estimated the 
legislation's biofuels provisions can help reduce America's petroleum 
imports by a million barrels per day, an important contribution to 
improving our Nation's energy security.
  The second major topic of the Energy Committee's reported legislation 
is energy efficiency. The obvious goal of these provisions is to use 
existing resources more efficiently, which promises to further enhance 
U.S. self-sufficiency and provide environmental benefits and, of 
course, save consumers money.
  Improving efficiency in transportation remains one of the most 
important and vexing energy challenges facing this Nation. Consumption 
of liquid fuels is currently projected to grow by more than 6 million 
barrels per day,

[[Page S7428]]

from 2005 to 2030, with 5.8 million barrels per day attributable to 
transportation. So as fuel consumption increases, so too do U.S. 
imports, a key concern for both the economy and our national security.
  The Senate Commerce Committee has reported legislation that will 
increase corporate average fuel economy standards for the first time in 
many years, and this legislation is also included in the bill we will 
vote on later this afternoon. The Commerce Committee's chairman and 
vice chairman are to be congratulated on finding a way forward on this 
very difficult issue.
  As such, I am pleased to say the provisions reported by the Energy 
Committee also support the goal of reducing the transportation sector's 
consumption of liquid fuels in general, and gasoline in particular. Our 
provisions establish an escalating goal for reducing U.S. gasoline 
consumption, starting with 20 percent in 2017. That is enough to reduce 
world oil prices more than $2.50 per barrel under current EIA 
assumptions.
  This national goal ramps up to 45 percent in 2030, which is the 
equivalent of 5.6 million barrels of oil per day. That is more than 
twice the amount of oil the United States imported from the Persian 
Gulf in 2005.
  To complement these initiatives, the legislation also makes 
investments in advanced vehicle technology development, basic science 
related to energy storage, and public education about how consumers can 
help reduce their own petroleum consumption.
  In addition to the transportation sector, efficiency is a resource we 
can better deploy in end uses throughout the U.S. economy. For example, 
lighting and common household appliances can account for as much as 
two-thirds of an average American family's electricity bills. By 
improving a number of appliance efficiency standards and streamlining 
and strengthening the Department of Energy's existing program, 
consumers stand to collect $12 billion in benefits as a result of 
provisions included in this underlying bill.
  In fact, altogether, the bill's appliance efficiency provisions will 
save at least 50 billion kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power 
roughly 4.8 million typical U.S. households. It will save 17 trillion 
Btus of natural gas per year, or enough to heat about a quarter million 
typical U.S. homes, and it will conserve at least 560 million gallons 
of water per day, or 1.3 percent of daily potable water usage around 
this Nation. These savings result from provisions which establish the 
first ever Federal water conservation standards for clothes washers and 
dishwashers.
  Finally, on the topic of efficiency: The legislation recognizes the 
Federal Government itself represents the Nation's largest energy 
consumer and can play a key role in bringing new technologies to 
market. The Federal Government has an obligation to lead by example, 
and in doing so we can save taxpayers money.
  For example, even as the Government has reduced its energy 
consumption, saving 2.5 percent from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 
2005, Federal energy costs nevertheless increased 24.1 percent or $14.5 
billion. Clearly, rising energy prices have an impact on the Federal 
budget, just as they have an impact on the budgets for families and on 
the budgets for businesses across America.
  To capture additional savings, this legislation strengthens Federal 
energy requirements from lighting procurement, to petroleum 
displacement, to energy management strategies across Federal 
buildings. As a result, leading efficiency groups have estimated that 
the legislation's provisions in this area can save 60 trillion Btu's of 
energy, 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and almost $4 billion 
of taxpayer money between now and 2015.

  A final issue touched on by the NRC committee's reported legislation 
relates to carbon capture and storage or carbon sequestration. While 
scientific and technological challenges remain, carbon sequestration 
holds particular promise related to the potentially large amounts of 
carbon dioxide emitted from the use of fossil fuels. Electric 
generating plants may be the most likely initial candidates for 
implementing carbon sequestration.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Secretary of Energy to 
carry out research and development on technologies designed to capture 
carbon dioxide, specifically with respect to combustion-based energy 
systems. However, given the critical nature of these efforts, the need 
to demonstrate emerging methodologies, and the potential to apply them 
to a wider variety of energy technologies, our legislation strengthens 
and further expands this research.
  In summary, I believe the Energy Committee has produced legislation 
that will help us move forward expeditiously with groundbreaking 
research on carbon sequestration that is key to addressing global 
warming, will help spur diverse domestic renewable fuels production, 
and it will promote energy efficiency throughout our economy.
  These efforts, of course, by our committee, have been further 
complemented by good bipartisan work of the other Senate committees I 
mentioned. Taken together, these bipartisan measures form the backbone 
of a national strategy that meet at least three complementary goals: 
boosting U.S. energy self-sufficiency, driving American leadership in 
clean alternative energy, and putting us on a trajectory to address the 
threat of global warming.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to proceed to 
energy legislation which we will have later this afternoon.
  I know my colleague, Senator Domenici, wishes to speak, giving his 
views on the pending legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry before my friend yields: How much 
time do we have on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 8\1/2\ minutes remaining 
on the Democratic side.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was hoping to get 5 minutes to speak.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. As soon as Senator Domenici has concluded his 
statement, I am glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. I will be 
glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, would it be possible to have my 
colleagues yield 3\1/2\ minutes, following Senator Boxer's statement on 
our side?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield the remaining 3\1/2\ minutes on this 
side to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from California, 
would she like to speak now and then I will speak after her? I have all 
my time. I would just as well accommodate you. You are going to speak 5 
minutes, and the Senator, would you like to speak 3\1/2\, then, and 
then I will use mine at the end?
  Mr. SALAZAR. That would be fine with me.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask it be ordered that that time be 
allotted now and the time for the Senator from New Mexico follows that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The time allocation will be as stated.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from California.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here to say this is a very important 
moment in the Senate. We are moving toward a change in our Nation's 
energy policy. Clearly, this day has taken a long time to come.
  Obviously, the bills included in the leader's package, Senator Reid's 
package, are not the be-all and end-all of everything we have to do. 
But it is a significant step forward. As I said the day I was fortunate 
enough to gain the gavel of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee--and the Senator who is presiding knows this--as soon as we 
had the votes we would move forward with good legislation.
  I think Senator Bingaman has certainly had that same attitude, to 
begin moving and getting bills to the floor. I was very pleased when 
Senator Reid agreed that we could have a group of bills put together 
which would be a real confidence builder so the people know we are 
working.
  As Senator Bingaman said, we have three committees represented in 
this

[[Page S7429]]

particular piece of legislation. The committees that participated in 
this, as Senator Bingaman said, are the Energy Committee, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Commerce Committee. How 
fortunate am I to sit on two of the three committees. I wish I sat on 
all three--this is such an important issue--but I am so pleased to be 
able to sit on both the Environment Committee, of which I am the Chair, 
and the Commerce Committee.
  We all know global warming is a looming problem for us. We all should 
know at this point. The Environment Committee has held at least 12 
hearings on the subject, at which the Presiding Officer was present--I 
think at almost all of them. We know the Federal Government is lagging 
behind on global warming; that is, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
We are lagging behind Europe. We are lagging behind the mayors of this 
country and many States, including my State of California, where there 
has been a bipartisan move forward on reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions.

  The contribution the Environment Committee has made to this bill is 
to do that, it is to essentially make the Federal Government a model of 
energy efficiency and of lessening the carbon footprint we are making.
  I am very proud of that. Every single one of the bills that is in 
this package passed the Environment committee with overwhelming 
support. Only one had a few against it at the end, but almost all of 
them were virtually unanimous.
  We started off taking a look at Federal Government buildings, and we 
realized we are way behind the times in terms of the way we use energy. 
Since our committee has jurisdiction over these buildings, we decided 
to say that from now on, we are going to make sure we can save money 
for taxpayers by reducing the energy costs in Federal Government 
buildings. Not only that, but we set up a very important grant program 
which will give matching grants to local governments so for their 
buildings they can have help making them energy efficient.
  I do not know if my colleagues are aware of this, but in America 39 
percent of global warming emissions are attributed to buildings. If the 
Federal Government takes the lead and we help all governments make 
their buildings energy efficient, we are moving forward.
  We also passed a very good compromise bill by Senators Lautenberg and 
Warner on new buildings, the green buildings legislation. We also 
passed a bill on a Capitol powerplant, kind of a model project to see 
what we can do from the carbon coming out of that coal-fired plant. We 
are excited about that. We passed a bill that would make the energy 
building, the Department of Energy building, a solar building.
  Wrapping it up I see my time is up. We are very happy to partake in 
this bill. We think we are finally moving forward on global warming in 
a small but deliberative way to set the stage, by making the Federal 
Government the leader, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  I thank Senator Bingaman for the time and I believe Senator Salazar 
is next.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me, first of all, congratulate 
Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, the chairman and ranking member 
of the Energy Committee, for their great work and their leadership. I 
think the legislation they have brought to the floor today, along with 
the legislation from the other jurisdictions in the Senate, exemplifies 
the working relationship we have seen from the Energy Committee over 
the last 2 years. The 2005 Energy Policy Act could not have been passed 
without the bipartisan leadership exhibited by Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Domenici. For that, I am grateful to be a part of their 
committee.
  Let me say to all our colleagues, we should definitely vote yes on 
the motion to proceed, as we embark on this journey of looking at 
energy independence for our Nation. The drivers for energy 
independence, in my mind, are stark and clear. It is fundamentally one 
of the very most important issues that face our Nation today. First and 
foremost, the driver of national security compels us to get rid of the 
addiction we currently have to foreign oil. When one looks at what is 
happening in Lebanon and the funding of the Hezbollah organization that 
continues to create havoc in that part of the world, it is a stark 
reminder to us that for too long, America has slept while our enemies 
have fueled themselves with the dollars that come from the very high 
price of oil from places such as Iraq. Our country today is dependent 
on us being able to grasp that concept of national security.
  That is why in this Senate Chamber you will see it is not only 
Democrats who are going to be working on this energy legislation but it 
is Republicans working on this legislation, because the issue of energy 
independence is not a Democratic agenda or Republican agenda, it is an 
agenda that is essential to the future security of America.
  I am hopeful, as we move forward with this legislation, we will grasp 
the fact that we are taking some significant steps forward. First, the 
biofuels increased by moving forward with a renewable fuel standard 
will mean we will be quintupling the amount of energy we expect we can 
produce from biofuels. Second, the major initiative with respect to 
energy efficiency is something we ought to embrace. That is low-hanging 
fruit for all of us in America as we deal with energy independence. 
Third, we take major steps with carbon sequestration and move forward 
on the debate on global warming, which is essential to our country; and 
finally, looking at other issues, such as CAFE standards, will help us 
get down the road. I urge all my colleagues to join us in this historic 
endeavor as we march forward toward energy independence in our Nation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I first say to Senator Bingaman, I 
enjoyed his remarks and summary of where we are and where we have been. 
Most of that trip has been together; part of it with you on the 
majority and part of it me on the majority. In combination, there is 
some pretty good legislation. People may still say they want more, but 
when you have a system such as we have in America, you have to have two 
bodies, the Senate and House, agree. We have debate, they have a Rules 
Committee. Then you go to conference and, think of it, how those two, 
the House and Senate, naturally disagree. Right? We have to get all 
that in agreement before we have a bill that goes to the President. 
Then he has to sign it.
  We are lucky. The very first one we did, the big bill, probably the 
best piece of legislation in modern times to cause America to produce 
more energy, what energy we could, and to do it in a manner that was 
frugal, with reference to environmental damage, was the first one and 
the President did us a great favor. He came to our State to sign it, as 
you recall. It was the first major piece of legislation. I think that 
was great on his part, a very good gesture, because the two Senators 
were from New Mexico and it was the first big bill and it was one he 
signed with relish--which means, even as to the executive branch, it 
was not too far off the mark.
  Before I get to my statement, I am going to say there is one thing 
that did not go right. In your remarks, Senator, you mentioned a couple 
of times how we in the first bill had promoted technology because it 
was obvious to everyone that, so long as America lived in a world with 
cheap oil, the power of those who would invent and would use new 
technology in the field of energy was minimized when gasoline was 50 
cents at the pump, because there was no broad incentive to do something 
about it.

  But about the time we got to our major bill, it was quite clear that 
we no longer were even major players on the international oil scene. 
They could almost do with us what they wanted because we were way too 
dependent. They grew more and more, and that made those who do not like 
America less and less concerned about the economics of them having a 
monopoly, so to speak. Toying around with the country that is an open 
economic society is a big difference. They can really wreak havoc.
  But when we did our bill, we put in a provision, a kind of catch-all. 
I remember working on it, and I remember you

[[Page S7430]]

questioning it. Then after a while we agreed, and it was the section 
that provided for loan guarantees and other incentives for the 
technologies we mentioned in this bill as being most important for 
America's future.
  You and I remember one of those that happened was nuclear. We even 
had to work hard on a different kind of incentive for nuclear, and we 
got it in. It was a new kind of insurance for the first few who built 
theirs, that they get an insurance policy from the Federal Government 
so as to permit them to expedite the building of that very complicated, 
energy-producing nuclear powerplant.
  But the administration, because somebody in high places does not like 
loan guarantees--there are all kinds of loan guarantees in government 
and in this world. But somehow somebody said: You know, we don't like 
them. And the Department of Energy does not do them, if you can 
imagine.
  So the Department of Energy has not been doing loan guarantees. Who 
cares. There are loan guarantees all over the Government. The 
Department of Agriculture has billions of dollars in loan guarantees. I 
don't think we are going broke. They are paid back. It is just that the 
guarantees are given in a manner that permits those who use them to get 
money where they otherwise would not.
  Well, we did not do that yet in that first bill. I think we still--
you and I--owe the citizens of our country another push, and maybe we 
ought to check into it and give one more push to the administration to 
see how we can enhance the promotion of loan guarantees by the 
administration because there should be, for all kinds of products that 
need a lot of money for experimentation, and for many other 
technologies, there should be a very big pot of loan guarantees. Not 
$300, $400 million, there ought to be more, a few billion, so that they 
can do the work, draw their money on new ideas, and get on with helping 
us make that step from a society that was almost totally roped in by 
oil and gas and nothing else, into a society with a great divergence of 
energies.
  That is the way we are going in the legislation. The bill before us 
continues that momentum. So I speak today as we prepare to consider 
energy legislation on the floor of the Senate to provide the proper 
context of this bill. I think it would be instructive to reflect, as I 
have just done, upon the recent accomplishments of Congress.
  I have already indicated to you about 2 years ago the President 
signed the Energy Policy Act of 2004. Senator Bingaman from my home 
State, this sweeping law was the most comprehensive energy policy 
enacted in decades.
  I have watched with pride--and this has not been mentioned enough 
because it is hard to do. But I have watched with pride that in just 2 
years, this long-term policy has already begun to show great positive 
impact in the short term. The Energy Policy Act is brightening our 
Nation's nuclear renaissance. Already over 30 nuclear powerplants are 
in the works. Imagine that. We went more than two decades without a 
single one applying, and we have now over 30, with a number of them way 
up near the top of the clearance scale where we will be seeing them 
cleared for the beginning of construction soon.
  I am sure many of us will go to that and say it is high time, and we 
were pleased to be part of it. Now, if operational, these plants will 
provide enough electricity for nearly 30 million American homes, while 
displacing about 270 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.
  Just think of that. Think of how much we would have to do to displace 
that much carbon dioxide if it was produced, and we had to get rid of 
it after it was produced, in a coal-burning powerplant or some other 
plant in the process of ignition-produced CO2.
  This is safe, clean, affordable, and reliable large-scale energy for 
our Nation. That is why earlier this year the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission approved two early site permits for new reactors in Illinois 
and Mississippi.
  As we try to reduce our dependence on foreign energy and address the 
issue of the global climate change, it becomes imperative for our 
energy and environmental security that we keep the momentum going on 
nuclear energy in this country.
  On coal technologies, clean coal technologies, the policies set forth 
in the Energy bill of 2005 have resulted in bringing 159 new coal-based 
facilities to various planning stages. Over the next 5 years, the 
United States will add an estimated 60,000 miners to the American 
workforce. Just think of that, Mr. President. Everybody has been 
wondering if we are going to have enough jobs, enough jobs for our 
people, because they are looking at the economy of yesteryear, not of 
tomorrow.
  Coal miners, instead of being out of work, we will be looking for 
people to join the corps of coal miners in this country as we produce 
more coal because we are going to learn how to use it clean in our 
country as we seek to avoid this total dependance upon crude oil and 
natural gas.
  This past week, the Departments of Treasury and Energy together 
announced new instructions for applying tax credits for advanced coal 
and gasification projects. In total, three Energy bill tax credits will 
provide over $1.5 billion to help advance energy projects and capture 
and sequester carbon dioxide. These are already being done and the 
credits have been given under the laws which were written in this 
thoughtful process of developing legislation over the past 2 years.
  This bill also put in place mechanisms to ensure a secure, reliable 
electricity grid for our Nation, and helped transform our agricultural 
bill into an Energy bill--we already know that--providing rural America 
literally thousands of jobs and billions in new capital investment 
dollars to help bring clean fuel to our Nation's gas tanks.
  In the area of biofuels, the 2005 bill created a solid foundation for 
these significant policies set forth in the bill, as we will consider 
this shortly on the Senate floor. As a result of the Energy bill of 
2005, we revitalized a renewable fuel industry in America through the 
first ever renewable fuel standard and production tax credit. We all 
wondered when that would come. It is done.

  There are now 114 biorefineries nationwide, with the capacity to 
produce 5.5 billion gallons of ethanol a year. That is all because of 
the act that we passed in 2005 that we keep referring to that we worked 
here in this body, on a bipartisan basis, and then went to the House 
the same way, and then had the President join us with great joy in 
signing it in our State.
  Additionally, ethanol refinery construction and expansion currently 
in the works has enough combined capacity to have an additional 6 
billion gallons of ethanol. The biofuels policy included in the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 has helped create approximately 10,000 American jobs 
across many sectors of our Nation's economy. I think sometimes we 
wonder why the economy did so well. Maybe we should look around and say 
maybe the money spent on energy facilities across this land, because of 
this act, had something to do with keeping the employment up and 
keeping the growth up. I am not sure of that, but I just throw it out.
  Indeed, that act of 2005 could have been called a jobs act, could 
have been called a jobs-producing act, a diversification act, providing 
jobs that were never there before. Ethanol production and demand are 
setting records in America as we seek renewable fuel to power our cars 
that we drive.
  The bill reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
this year, with a strong bipartisan vote, we responded to that call for 
sustainability and to provide a path for the emergence of cellulosic 
ethanol. That is what we are here to work on today.
  That will mean we will be able to produce much more cellulosic 
ethanol, which will do the same thing as ethanol except it will make us 
able to produce far more since we can add the cellulosic to the ethanol 
that comes from corn, and what a machine we will have to produce 
gasoline for our cars.
  In the 2005 Energy bill, we addressed almost every conceivable area 
of energy policy--from coal to nuclear to electricity transmission, to 
oil and gas, hydrogen to biofuels. We did this with a majority of both 
parties in the Senate, embracing this forward-thinking policy for 
America.
  This wasn't even a close vote. In each case it was substantially more 
than 60 votes, a bipartisan vote, almost equal from each side on each 
of the important bills. There have been two already. This one will be 
the third.

[[Page S7431]]

  Simply put, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has already helped to 
strengthen our energy security and to grow our Nation's economy. More 
importantly, if implemented effectively, the larger impacts of this 
great bipartisan legislation will be felt for decades in this country.
  As we prepare to debate on the floor of the Senate today, we are 
going to consider a bill smaller in scope and less bold in its version. 
Nevertheless, this bill represents bipartisan work spanning four 
committees of the Senate. There are a lot of good policies in this 
bill. However, I believe there must be a full and fair debate on this 
bill and a complete amendment process to ensure that the work we will 
do in the Senate and for the American people on energy policy will be 
complete. Anything short of that will be a departure from the example 
of the 2005 act.
  The bill we expect to soon consider provides for a biofuels mandate 
with the potential to displace 20 percent of the growth in gasoline 
that we use in this country by 2020. This addition of 36 billion 
gallons of biofuels a year will see the majority of its content come 
from cellulosic ethanol, a sharp and important move away from corn-
based ethanol in our fuel mix.
  We consider this an energy-efficient measure that if properly 
implemented has the potential to provide important efficiencies in 
vehicles, buildings, homes, and businesses to save the American 
consumer more than $12 billion annually. This is one part of our energy 
policy that goes unnoticed, the one I have just described, important 
efficiencies. And I do say to our majority, who was my minority member 
when we started, that he has led the effort in this part of the changes 
in the energy policy, those that would make us more efficient.
  He described today in his speech how much efficiency will come just 
from washing machines and dishwashers. I am not ashamed to talk on the 
floor about dishwashers. Some people say we shouldn't talk about 
dishwashers. Why shouldn't we, when it saves a huge amount of energy? I 
remember when I got a dishwasher. I got a laundry board as a gift from 
a constituent because I had helped with REA that went up the mountain 
and took electricity up there. So she came down to me at the foot of 
the mountain and said: Here is your washboard. I don't need it anymore; 
I got electricity. I just bought a washing machine. I am thanking you 
by giving you the washboard. She didn't have efficiency; that was all 
brawn, right?
  Anyway, this bill will save us a lot of energy on those two items 
that we need and use to make our lives better.
  On fuel economy, the Senate stands poised to address vehicle fuel 
efficiency. One way to help reduce our dependency is by reforming our 
CAFE standards for the vehicles we drive. Everybody should know the 
Commerce Committee did that and, by act of our leader and the floor 
procedures, that is on this bill. So if people want to do something 
about CAFE, it is pending. Once this bill is made pending, it is the 
subject matter before the Senate, the CAFE standards, which will compel 
automobile companies to do better than they have in terms of miles per 
gallon. We have never gone as far as the Commerce Committee did, so it 
ought to make for a few hot speeches here on the floor. I don't know 
when they will come, but sooner or later they will because the CAFE 
standards for vehicles we drive will be changed.
  I have only one page remaining. I don't need to use all my time, 
especially when some Senators have had to wait. I will close by saying 
to Senators who are not paying attention and to staffs watching for 
their Senators, we are not going to be on this bill very much longer 
today. If you want to come down and speak, I have a little bit of time. 
I can give you some. But I think we are going to start yielding to 
other Senators, I assume, and move on. I haven't talked to Senator 
Bingaman on that.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve that time 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. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of 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. I yield back the remainder of my time. I say to the 
Senator from New York, I was just trying to find out if there were more 
people on my side.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in the coming weeks the Senate will debate 
our national energy policy. An important part of that debate will 
involve tax and other incentives to encourage development of our 
abundant domestic energy resources. This debate will affect the lives 
of every American.
  During that debate we must find a way to encourage greater use of 
renewable energy sources, advanced clean coal technologies in the 
generation of electricity, and accelerate efforts to move that clean 
energy to markets by building large transmission projects. Furthermore, 
we need to find alternative ways to produce energy, such as through 
fuel cells and other distributed generation.
  For too many years, Congress has sent mixed messages about the 
importance of energy independence, security, diversity, and 
reliability, especially in the area of renewable and distributed energy 
and the opportunity for using advanced clean coal technology. The 
Congress has lacked the commitment, or perhaps understanding, about the 
major role that renewable energy and clean coal can play in helping our 
Nation meet its future electricity demands without seriously impacting 
the environment.
  This is despite the fact that policymakers have been told repeatedly 
by energy developers that certainty about the availability of 
incentives is absolutely essential before they can commit the capital 
needed to move forward on a major energy project. Yet Congress has 
passed energy incentives that, in many cases, are available for as a 
little as one year or two.
  In my judgment, the hood ornament for this start-and-stop, boom-and-
bust energy policy is the tax credit for facilities that produce 
electricity from wind and other renewable resources. This credit has 
been extended for short periods five times, and shamefully has been 
allowed to expire three times, since it was enacted in 1992. The Tax 
Code is replete with other energy tax incentives that Congress made 
available for just a year or two, and that will expire before their 
full benefit can be realized.
  It is imperative that we provide a clear signal to the marketplace 
that we are committed to the development of renewable sources of energy 
and advanced clean coal technologies. That is why I introduced the 
Clean Energy Production Tax Incentives Act to make these incentives 
available for 10 years.
  The vast majority of energy facilities and infrastructure are owned, 
developed, and operated by the private sector. We must work closely 
with industry and other stakeholders to provide incentives so that 
these steps can be taken. For example, I am very supportive of a whole 
range of clean energy technologies and resources. North Dakota 
epitomizes that with its coal, oil, gas, wind and other renewable 
resources. We can and must utilize them now and into the future. If we 
want secure, clean, and reliable energy resources in the future, we 
must work with the private sector to help achieve our goals. This bill 
has the support of National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the 
North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, Xcel Energy, 
Basin Electric Power Cooperative, the American Wind Energy Association, 
and Otter Tail Power Company.
  I also believe we must advance our energy interests in a fiscally 
responsible manner. The costs of the clean energy tax incentive 
investments in this legislation would be offset by closing

[[Page S7432]]

down tax loopholes that allow profitable U.S. multinational companies 
to avoid paying their fair share.
  Over the years, I have heard a few clear messages from the investment 
community, Federal and State regulators, energy industry, and 
environmental and local community interests. It must be clean so that 
we are incentivizing an environmentally sustainable energy option. We 
need to send the right market signals with duration, with a sustained 
commitment, and with certainty so that the best investment decisions 
are made.
  I believe this legislation is an important step in that direction.

                          ____________________