Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 94 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7513-S7535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15
having arrived, the motion to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6 is
agreed to and the motion to reconsider is considered as having been
made and laid on the table.
Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative 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. The majority leader is recognized.

Amendment No. 1502

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 1502 at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1502.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, June 11, 2007,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss
one of the provisions of this Energy bill that is now before the
Senate. This is the provision that would increase the fuel efficiency
of our Nation's fleet of vehicles. These provisions were approved by
the Commerce Committee with substantial bipartisan support. They are
known as the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act.
I come to the floor in place of Chairman Inouye, who is ill today and
has asked me if I would mind describing the provisions of this
legislation, and, of course, I am delighted to do that. The legislation
is supported by a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators
Stevens, Snowe, Dorgan, Collins, Durbin, Boxer, Cantwell, Carper,
Klobuchar, and Kerry.
The basic premise of the legislation is to increase the fuel economy
of cars, SUVs, and light trucks by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years--
that is the ``10 over 10''--and to do this by 2020. But the bill does
do more than that. It continues beyond 2020 and increases fuel
efficiency by 4 percent a year through 2030. This is with the addition
of the Dorgan legislation which the Commerce Committee added to Senator
Snowe's, Senator Inouye's and my 10-over-10 bill in the Commerce
Committee.
Some would have liked this legislation to go further, perhaps to 40
miles per gallon or more. Others do not want any significant increases.
But I think this legislation strikes the right balance, and it sets
forward a significant, achievable standard for the future.
It would be the first major fuel efficiency increase in the past 25
years. Can you believe it? With all the talk and all the discussion in
the past 25 years, nothing has been done to increase fuel efficiency. I
have been working on this legislation in one form or another--first, it
was with Senator Snowe as an SUV loophole closer. We have been doing
this for more than a decade now.
But the simple truth is that today the technology exists to
accomplish the goals of this legislation. It can be done without
reducing safety and with significant benefit to our economy and our
environment. It does so in a way that gives auto manufacturers the
flexibility and the time they need. I hope they listen to this because
I think they have a misimpression of the bill. This is not according to
just us, but it is according to the experts--the National Academy of
Sciences, the International Council on Clean Transportation, and
experts at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. So it is time to
break the logjam.
We all know our Nation faces stark energy challenges. Gas prices have
risen to above $3 a gallon--more than doubling in the past 5 years.
Global warming is real, it is happening, and it is having an impact on
the world around us. The United States needs to address the
transportation sector's emissions of carbon dioxide. Transportation, in
2004, accounted for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. With a
war in Iraq and tense relations with Iran, we need to move away from
our dependence on foreign oil. Through this legislation, we believe we
can have a significant impact in each of those areas.
By 2025, increases for cars and light-duty trucks would save 2.1
million barrels of oil per day. That is nearly the amount of oil
imported daily from the Persian Gulf, so it would be a savings, by
2025, of about what we import each day now. That is consequential. It
would reduce carbon dioxide emissions--which is the primary global
warming gas--18 percent from anticipated levels in 2025. That is the
equivalent of taking 60 million cars off the road in a year. And--and
this is a big ``and''--it would save the consumer, the driver, the
family, a net $69 billion at the gas pump. That is based on a $3.08 a
gallon gas price. That is the recent average price nationwide. So with
gas costing $3.08 a gallon, the net consumer savings--if this bill were
in place--would be $69 billion. This would mean, if you go to the
individual or the individual family, it is a savings of $700 to $1,000
a year for families with children, depending on the price of gas. So
the time has come to act.

Now, here is what the measure would do. I hope people will listen. It
would set achievable fuel economy standards for all vehicles,
increasing fleetwide average fuel economy for all cars, SUVs, and
trucks by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years--or from 25 to 35 miles per
gallon by model year 2020. So 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and it
is 2007 today. It would provide for an additional 4-percent annual
increase after that until 2030. It would require the Department of
Transportation to improve the fuel economy of medium and heavy-duty
trucks over a 20-year period--not tomorrow, not today but over a 20-
year period--for the first time in history addressing this particular
area of concern.
America, do something about your heavy trucks, and over the next 20
years try to see if you can't make them more fuel efficient.
The key to this bill is it changes the way automakers are allowed to
meet these standards in fairly substantial ways. I wish to describe
them.
The provision provides the time and the flexibility needed for
automakers, we believe, to meet these standards. This is where Detroit
does not listen. We believe--we sincerely believe--it creates a level
playing field for all automakers. Let me describe how.
Under the existing CAFE system, each automaker must meet a 27.5
miles-per-gallon standard for their particular fleet of cars. This
current system disadvantages American companies that build larger cars
with lower gas mileage. So we admit the present system disadvantages
American automobile makers.
But under the newly proposed system contained in this bill, the
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration would have broad
discretion to divide vehicles into classes based on their attributes,
such as size. So a small car in a small-car class is evaluated against
other small cars--not a small car evaluated against a Navigator or a
Cadillac but class-by-class evaluations. This requirement would no
longer apply to each automaker. This is additional flexibility.
Different automakers will meet different standards, depending upon the
mix of cars they choose to make.
From 2011 to 2019, the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum
feasible

[[Page S7514]]

and ratchet these standards up at a reasonable rate.
By 2020, the total average must meet the 35 miles per gallon--the
total average. Some cars will be below it, and some will be above it--
as long as the total average meets the standard. This gives Detroit the
flexibility they say they need. I do not know why they will not
understand it.
This effectively gives the automakers 13 years to get the job done,
and it means fuel economy will increase across all classes--from the
smallest sedans to the largest SUVs. It may be different by the class,
but, nonetheless, it would increase, so that the average fuel economy
would be 35 miles per gallon. At the same time, the measure establishes
a credit trading program under the direction of the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration, known as NHTSA. NHTSA would
design, run, and operate this credit trading program.
The provision was strongly recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences in 2002. It would give an automaker a financial incentive to
exceed the standards. If it does, it could sell credits to another
automaker and profit from having a more fuel-efficient fleet. So that
an automaker that makes a car that attains 37 miles a gallon can sell
that differential to someone who cannot quite make it.
It would also allow the banking of these credits for up to 5 years--
insurance if a company falls below the standard in a later year. If an
automaker cannot meet the standards in a given year, they can purchase
these credits, use bank credits, or borrow from projected surpluses
from future years. So the bottom line is this is a practical, workable
system which ensures substantial increases in fuel efficiency. Quite
frankly, it is a major improvement over the current system, which has a
much more rigid approach.

I want to say something. In all the time I have been working on this
legislation, nobody from the automaker community has ever come to me to
say: Look, we like this, but we don't like this. If you just changed it
this way, it would appeal to us.
We have bent over backward to try to accommodate a bill to meet what
for the past years--every time this comes up on the floor, I hear them
argue: You can't evaluate small cars against big cars. Well, we don't
do that in this bill.
Another thing we have done--and this was pursuant to Senator Stevens'
request and interest in the committee--this measure provides an off-
ramp in 2020 in the unlikely event that there are substantial
unforeseen costs.
The measure would give NHTSA the authority to set a standard lower or
higher than the 35 miles per gallon in 2020. The authority could be
invoked only if a thorough review of the costs of putting new
technologies in our automotive fleet exceeds the agency's best estimate
of the value to the Nation of setting the standard at this level. So
that is the off-ramp. There can be an evaluation, a kind of cost-
benefit look at the situation, and there would have to be clear and
convincing evidence that the costs exceed the benefits. Obviously, we
wanted to make it somewhat difficult--not a rollover so everybody could
get out of it--somewhat difficult.
NHTSA would have to take into consideration billions of dollars in
fuel savings, national security implications of reducing our dependence
on foreign oil, the effect of global warming and air pollution, and, on
the other side of the scale, additional costs to manufacturers and
consumers. Given all of the clear and meaningful benefits, we believe
automakers can and will be able to meet these standards, actually with
little difficulty, but the provisions give NHTSA discretion in the
event it becomes clear automakers cannot meet the standards down the
road.
So that is what the bill does. The fact is, this legislation is past
due. Our Nation has seen gas prices skyrocket over the past 5 years. It
now costs $50, $60, or $70 to fill up a tank with gas. In my State of
California, this is a big deal. People often have to use at least 2
tankfuls of gasoline, so instead of a tank at $20, if it is a tank at
$70, instead of 4 times 20, which is $80, it is 4 times $70, just to
drive to work.
In the long term, a key to reducing gas prices is to reduce demand
for gasoline. By increasing fuel efficiency, we can reduce consumption
and thereby reduce demand. Americans understand this. That is why, in
poll after poll, the American people overwhelmingly support increased
fuel efficiency. A poll published in April of this year by the New York
Times and CBS shows that more than 90 percent of Americans favor
legislation for acquiring more fuel efficient vehicles. Ninety percent.
That is amazing. People want more fuel-efficient vehicles. A poll
commissioned by the National Environmental Trust shows that more than
80 percent of truck owners favor higher fuel economy standards. That
was done between April 28 and May 1 of this year. These results are
consistent all across ideologic and geographic divides. Simply put,
Americans by large majorities want improved mileage on their
automobiles.
Now, some question whether the standards in this legislation are
achievable. You have only to look at what other nations are doing to
see that, in fact, they are. Canada has proposed raising its fuel
economy standard to 32 miles per gallon by 2010--32 miles per gallon by
2010. Australia's fuel efficiency averages 29 miles per gallon and is
expected to rise to 34 miles per gallon by 2010. Europe's fuel
efficiency currently exceeds 40 miles per gallon, and that is expected
to increase over the next few years. Japan's fuel efficiency averages
46.3 miles per gallon and is expected to rise to 48 miles per gallon by
2010. Even China will have a new vehicle fleet averaging 37 miles per
gallon--not in 10 years, not in 5 years, but next year. So these
standards have to be met by American automobile manufacturers
manufacturing in China next year. They will have to meet 37 miles per
gallon.
In the United States, it is 25 miles per gallon. This is really
unacceptable. These higher standards are being met abroad by the same
automakers who claim it is impossible to do it here in the United
States. This includes BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors,
Porsche, Volkswagen, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota. All have
agreed to push fuel economy well above 40 miles per gallon in Europe
but say they cannot achieve these standards in the United States. Does
that make sense to anybody in this body? I think not. Does it make
sense to anyone in America? I think not.
Now, also, the simple truth is that the technology exists to achieve
a 35-mile-per-gallon standard by 2020. Existing technology can do it.
So as Detroit complains it can't do this or it can't do that, the
National Academy of Sciences says it can.
This is what they tell us:

We can increase the fuel economy--

This is what they say can be done, the National Academy of Sciences--

of mid-sized SUVs to 34 miles per gallon with existing
technology, large cars to 39 miles per gallon with existing
technology, minivans to nearly 37 miles per gallon with
existing technology, and large pickups to nearly 30 miles per
gallon with existing technology. When you average all of this
together, you will find that the fleet could achieve 37 miles
per gallon, 2 miles more than this measure envisions.

This is a conservative estimate. The National Academy of Sciences
study measured cost-effectiveness based on $1.50 per gallon as opposed
to today's $3 per gallon. So now you can see how conservative it is.
The academy didn't consider hybrids and other emerging technologies
such as the popular Toyota Prius, just the standard American
automobiles. So it is quite possible that even greater increases in
fuel economy could be achieved.
Now, how can this all be done? By using existing technology and
simple design improvements. Let me give my colleagues some of the
things for which the technology already exists: better aerodynamics,
alternater improvements, engine friction reduction, using more
efficient transmissions, electric power steering, electric water pump,
reduced engine friction, and using only engine cylinders that are
necessary. These changes still could be made to great effect.

A 2006 study by the Canadian Government concluded that the cost-
effective technologies identified by the 2002 National Academy of
Sciences report remain available and more cost-effective than ever. Our
current fleet is more powerful, accelerates more quickly, and brakes
more effectively. But with all of these advances, there is one critical
design feature we have not improved at all in 25 years: Today's cars
get the lowest number of miles to the

[[Page S7515]]

gallon since 1988. That is 20 years ago--the lowest number of miles to
the gallon since 1988. This has to change.
I would say to all of those who want to fight this because they think
it is too strong and because Detroit objects to it that the handwriting
has been on the wall for a long time and Detroit has not come in and
made a suggestion. All of this scientific evidence indicates that
Detroit can meet these standards, that the technology exists to meet
these standards, that they are doing it in other countries but for some
reason they have buffaloed the Congress of the United States into
believing you can do it in China, you can do it in Europe, but you
can't do it in the greatest economic power on Earth--the United States
of America.
Some also say we can't increase fuel economy without reducing safety,
but this also is simply not true. A recent study by groups, including
the International Council on Clean Transportation, has concluded that
no tradeoff--no tradeoff--is required between fuel economy and vehicle
safety. The conclusion of this report is consistent with the conclusion
of numerous other studies. Let me quote directly from the report:

Vehicle fuel economy can be increased without affecting
safety, and vice versa.

That is on page 2 of their report.

Advanced materials allow vehicles to be both bigger and
lighter, providing multiple ways to improve safety and fuel
economy without sacrificing functionality. Fuel economy can
be dramatically improved without compromising safety. Safety
can be bolstered without sacrificing fuel economy.

That is on page 17 of their study.
There is technology in place today to be used to increase safety
without sacrificing fuel economy. Let me just give my colleagues a few
examples: seatbelt reminders, window curtain airbags, lower bumpers,
electronic stability control, improved body structure, seatbelts that
tighten if a vehicle were to roll over. It seems to me that is such a
simple thing, that if automobile manufacturers wanted to improve
safety, they would do that.
We saw what happened to a former colleague of ours who was not
wearing a seatbelt. Nobody can challenge that seatbelts don't make one
of the biggest safety improvements in the history of the automobile.
When the Governor's crash took place, everybody else essentially was OK
in the car except for Governor Corzine, and he didn't have his seatbelt
on. If anything is clear evidence of the safety of seatbelts, this is
it. So safety can be improved without an effect on fuel economy.
This legislation includes a provision that will help improve safety.
It directs the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to
issue a rule that seeks to reduce incompatibility between SUVs and
passenger vehicles. This could be done through measures which ensure
that bumpers hit bumpers in the event of an accident. I just saw this
coming to work today, where a Sedan had rear-ended an SUV, and you saw
the difference because of the inequality of the bumpers. This happened
just a few blocks away.
In response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Ford assembly plant
in Richmond, CA, switched from making cars to assembling Jeeps, tanks,
and armored cars. By July 1942, just 6 months after the bombing, the
Richmond Tank Depot and the women who worked there were supplying our
Armed Forces with the best military hardware in the world.
Technology, paired with American ingenuity and hard work, helped us
prevail in that struggle and has been a key ingredient of America's
unprecedented wealth and security.
Today, we face a much different threat. It is the threat of our
Nation's addiction to fossil fuels--to oil--and what that will do to
our economy, to our environment, and to our foreign policy if we don't
change our ways.
These are serious questions and they deserve a serious response.
Increasing fuel economy is not a silver bullet. I am the first one to
say that. It won't solve problems by itself. However, it is a major
piece of the puzzle. We have the best universities in the world, the
strongest financial system, and the best workers. We can do this. We
can make these improvements. We can lead the way. We have only to find
the political will.
I am very proud the bill before us now contains this legislation. I
believe, as I have tried to describe--and I apologize for the length of
this statement--that it is compatible with the needs of Detroit; that
the legislation is drafted to respond to those needs by the class-to-
class comparison, to avoid what always has been in every discussion on
this floor the greatest threat to Detroit, which is to compare a small
car to a large car and, therefore, make it difficult for them to
manufacture large cars. This will not do that. I hope it will be voted
on.
I very much thank the Chair. I know Senator Snowe was going to come
to the floor and, hopefully, she will.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Amendment No. 1505 to Amendment No. 1502

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 1505 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 1505.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I want to explain this amendment, but
first I will yield to the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank Senator Inhofe for yielding to
me. I am going to take a very few minutes. I have not had a second
round on this. I assume both of us will. I have to leave the floor
shortly for another meeting. I will stay here up to the last minute. I
want to make a couple statements about the bill, as introduced, and
what it does in terms of the transportation, gasoline, and diesel
consumption in the country.
We have just had the Senator from California explain an amendment
that is no longer an amendment; it is in this bill. The Senator
expressed in a very profound way, in a very lengthy explanation, this
provision which the Senator from California originated. But we must
understand that, today, it comes to us from the Commerce Committee,
wherein the Feinstein proposal is encapsulated in the bill that was
managed in committee by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens.
I believe Senator Feinstein would join us in giving our appreciation
and thanks to the Commerce Committee for the courage they showed. They
met to try to help us put together a bill that would address the energy
problems of our country and, obviously, immediately we ran into
provisions of the law, or matters of law, that had to be changed, which
were not part of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The big one out there is what do we do about CAFE standards. What
happened before is we had a big hoopla on that, and we will probably
still have it, so the Senator from California ought to be ready.
Obviously, even though she did not amend, it is in the bill. Those who
don't like it will offer an amendment to the bill striking or modifying
that provision of the CAFE standards of America that is in the bill.
Over all these years, we have been going back and forth, never
getting anything done--until this year. Clearly, this bill before us,
which took the CAFE standards and finally said we are going to adopt
the changes recommended in the Feinstein bill, which have been bantered
around--we are going to adopt it in the language of the Commerce
Committee and send it over to the leader, and it will be incorporated
in the bill. So when the bill comes over, it has whatever was done in
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to save our consumption of
gasoline and related products. It has the CAFE standards and a couple
of other provisions. I want to say that I believe the bill before us
includes the CAFE standards we have spoken of, which were put in the
bill by the Commerce Committee, headed by Senators Stevens and Inouye.
In addition to that, which is by itself one of the biggest
modifications of our

[[Page S7516]]

gasoline usage in this country and, obviously, it has a ways to go
because it might not clear the Senate later today, or tomorrow, or
whenever we figure out that the Senators who want their amendments
finally come up. But as before us, this is the largest transportation
savings of fuel in history. CAFE standards all by themselves would have
been a very big achievement. Everybody knows that. That is in the bill.
So there is one.
Secondly, we adopted just about what the President spoke of in his
State of the Union Address with reference to biofuels and a new
standard for those set forth in the 2005 Energy bill; that is, the big
bill. We started down the path of biofuels, but all we had in there was
corn-produced biofuels. What we have done in this bill is mandated 21
billion gallons which has to come from cellulosic ethanol by 2022. So
the total biofuel required in our bill is 36 billion gallons. Let's
hope--I think it will--that we will produce the little, tiny, remaining
technology breakthrough, which we are putting everything in, and if
that works, we will be on our way to the breakthrough that will permit
us to use the cellulosic ethanol I have been speaking of. That will
permit us to reach this new high standard of 36 billion gallons.

Remember, we get the CAFE standards, which have been explained, which
reduce the amount of gas and diesel used, and then we have this
gigantic breakthrough that we expect, and this tremendous amount of
fuel that will come from biomass, which I stated to you was 36 billion
gallons. Then this bill has a giant set of mandated efficiencies,
increases in efficiencies, the biggest we have ever had. In fact, $12
billion will be saved by our consumers from the efficiency provisions,
the big items you buy at your hardware store or big chain store, the
items you use in your kitchen and that you wash your clothes with--
those big items have the new efficiency standards, and we have been
toying with them for years. Senator Bingaman has been trying to get
them done. They are in this bill.
People might still take them out in the next week, but I don't think
so. I think this bill will stay as it is. It is bipartisan. The
provisions I am talking about, so far, came out of the Committee
bipartisan. CAFE did not come out of our committee, but it came out of
Commerce bipartisan, with a very huge majority.
I am pleased that right away when we finish that, we get on with the
next thing the bill ought to have in it, and that is some new
production. That brings the Senator from Oklahoma in, who has been for
a long time trying to get us to do something about the refining
situation in our country. I am not even totally familiar with the
Senator's amendment. He has given it to us and submitted it to the
Senate. Senator Bingaman and his staff are looking at it. We will be
looking at it. I don't know when we will vote on it. With his
permission, I assumed he would not be upset if we set it aside and go
on to some other work and then call it up in due course in the Senate.
We will do that after the Senator is finished. We don't think we are
going to vote on it right away because we have to study it, and the
Senator would not have wanted it otherwise. Senator Bingaman wants to
look at it.
There is another matter that was also in this Commerce bill. It has
been packaged. We have Energy matters, Commerce matters, and I note
that Senator Cantwell is standing on the floor. She had something to do
with an amendment in the Commerce Committee that has to do with trying
to--if there is gouging taking place out there in the hinterland of
America, this amendment she and I will talk about when we are finished
with Senator Inhofe's amendment will tell everybody what is in the bill
about antigouging that the distinguished Senator worked on. It is
mostly hers. Others might have added something, but we will talk about
it, so that we put together what will be the package we can all
understand--that is, the Energy and Commerce package, plus whatever
else came in through the Environment and Public Works Committee--a
smaller portion. Put all that together and it is a pretty good bill.
With that, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Oklahoma for
having given me a chance to speak.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reclaiming my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate having had the opportunity
to yield to the Senator from New Mexico for his explanation. I think it
is very important that we understand there are a lot of good things we
are looking at in this bill. But he so accurately points out that the
big problem we have today--not 10 years from now--is supply. We need to
do something about the supply. The bill doesn't adequately address
that.
The amendment I have called up, No. 1505, is essentially the same
amendment we considered in my Environment and Public Works Committee
during the years I served as chairman. It is one of these things where
it is very difficult to figure out why anyone could vote against it,
because it is permissive, it allows States to do things; it doesn't
mandate.
I was pleased to hear the majority leader recognizing that the United
States has become too reliant on foreign sources of energy.
Unfortunately, the majority's bill presently doesn't improve the
situation. Indeed, it could actually worsen it. The fact is that
Americans are paying more at the pump because we don't have the
domestic capacity to refine the fuels consumers demand. So we are
talking about two ways to resolve the problem of supply. One is
production, and the other is you can have all the production in the
world, but if you don't have the refining capacity, you cannot get it
refined and into use.
Some Members' answer is more hybrids than SUVs, but that ignores the
profound impact high fuel prices have on our economy. According to the
Department of Labor's recent numbers, about 3 percent of the Nation's
inflation is directly attributed to high fuel prices. That means
whether your constituent drives a gas guzzler, a hybrid, rides a
bicycle, or walks, they are paying the same for high fuel prices.
In order to lower those prices, we have two options. We can increase
the capacity at home or import more from abroad. The LA Times wrote in
May 25, 2007, that ``gas supplies are tight because the United States
lacks refining capacity, and every time a refinery shuts down for
maintenance, or because of an accident, prices rise. Americans are
starving for affordable energy, and the majority's bill tells them to
go on a diet. That is good. We want to have these things to help with
our consumption. But the Energy bill really does nothing today in terms
of taking care of the supply problem we have.

The good news is it is not too late to do something to improve the
situation. It is in that good faith to improve the energy security
position of our country that we are offering the Gas Price Act. The
lack of domestic refining capacity is not new to many Members, the
public, or even to the Federal Reserve. In May of 2005, Chairman Alan
Greenspan stated:

The status of world refining capacity has become worrisome
and the industry is straining to meet markets which are
increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet
ever more stringent environmental requirements.

While chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I
held a series of hearings to look into this issue. The very same month
I held one of those hearings, the senior Senator from California, who
was on the Senate floor speaking a moment ago, Mrs. Feinstein, made
this statement in a letter to the Governor of California. It says:

I can see where the cumbersome permitting process, with
uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and
implement projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed
and predictability of the permitting process, and believe
that this will allow business and government to focus on
their limited resources on actions that most benefit the
environment.

That is the statement Senator Feinstein made in a letter to Governor
Schwarzenegger. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.
The amendment that Senator Thune and I are offering today will
improve the energy security of the United States, and it will do so in
complete compliance with environmental laws and in concert with State
interests.
In her letter to Governor Schwarzenegger, the senior Senator

[[Page S7517]]

from California was correct in recognizing much of the permitting
decisions are by States and not by the Federal Government. That is why
we work very hard to recognize the importance of State and local groups
in making those decisions.
The Environmental Council of States, which represents State
departments of environmental quality, said as much. Keep in mind, this
is the council that represents all the different State departments of
environmental quality, as well as noting that the Gas Price Act does
not weaken the environmental laws.
Similarly, the National Association of Counties stated:

It goes a long way in addressing the concerns of local
governments during a refinery siting, ranging from the
importance of considering local needs, concerns, and honoring
a county's land use authority.

It is important to point this out because it seems that time and time
again, some of the Members of this body hide behind the vague concerns
over the environment in defending their failure to improve U.S. energy
security. After working with a variety of stakeholders, this bill
achieves both goals. It increases energy while preserving local
governments and environmental quality.
The fact is, like it or not, the United States needs to increase its
domestic refining capacity if we are to solve the economic struggles
facing every family.
The amendment we are offering today redefines and broadens our
understanding of a refinery to be a domestic fuels facility. Oil has
and will continue to have a role in the U.S. economy, but the future of
our domestic transportation fuel system must also include new sources,
such as the ultraclean synfuels derived from coal and cellulosic
ethanol derived from homegrown grasses and biomass.
Expanding the existing domestic fuels facilities or constructing new
ones is a maze of environmental permitting challenges. This is what the
Senator from California was talking about a few minutes ago in trying
to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to streamline this permitting
process.
This amendment provides a Governor with the option of requiring the
Federal EPA to provide the State with financial and technical resources
to accomplish the job and establishes a certain permitting process for
all parties. The public demands increasing supplies for transportation
fuel, but they also expect that fuel to be good for their health and
for the environment.
To that end, the amendment requires the EPA to establish a
demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch diesel and jet fuel
as an emission-control strategy. Initial tests found that Fischer-
Tropsch diesel significantly reduces criterion pollutants over
conventional fuels and could easily be transported with existing
infrastructure.
It should be noted that the ongoing tests at Tinker Air Force Base in
my home State of Oklahoma found that Fischer-Tropsch, or coal-to-liquid
aircraft fuel, reduced particulates 47 to 90 percent and completely
eliminated the SOX emissions over fuels that are used today.

I might add, this is a technology that is here. It needs to be
improved upon. We are currently flying a B-52 that has eight engines
using this type of fuel.
Good concepts in Washington are bad ideas if no one wants them at
home. As a former mayor of Tulsa, I am a strong believer in local and
State control. This is something that is controversial in Washington.
There are a lot of people in this body who don't think any decision is
a good decision unless it is made in Washington. I am the opposite. I
feel closer to the people. They should be more involved, and that is
why we structured it the way we did.
The Federal Government should provide incentives rather than mandates
on local communities. Increasing clean domestic fuel supplies is in the
Nation's security interest, but those facilities can also provide high-
paying jobs to people in towns in need.
Our amendment provides financial incentives to the two most
economically distressed communities in the Nation, towns affected by
BRAC and Indian tribes, to consider building both liquids and
commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities. Here we are talking
about people who have gone through the BRAC process, people who have in
their States facilities that were military facilities that were closed
during the base realignment and closure process.
I am very proud my State of Oklahoma is the leader in the development
of the energy crops for cellulosic biofuel. The key now is to promote
investment, and nothing would speed the rapid expansion of the
cellulosic biofuels industry more than investments by the Nation's
traditional providers of liquid transportation fuels.
We have in the State of Oklahoma the Noble Foundation, Oklahoma State
University, and Oklahoma University--all very much involved in the
development of cellulosic biofuels. It is a technology that is coming.
We know it is. I guess what we need to do is understand, while it is
coming, we still need to run this great machine called America.
Many integrated oil companies have formed and substantially expanded
their biofuels divisions within the past year to prepare for the
eventuality of cross-competitive cellulosity biofuels. Oil companies
invest in exploration because their stock prices are affected by their
declared proven reserves. Creating a definition of renewable reserves
would create a similar incentive for them to invest in cellulosic
biofuels.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to
accelerate the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands. Given
the country's interest in developing renewable alternatives to fossil
fuel, it is logical that the SEC would develop criteria in cooperation
with biomass feedstock sources in its hierarchy at the same time.
This is Congress's least expensive way to jump-start the cellulosic
biofuels industry. Increasing capacity to produce clean fuels at home
is critical in making America more secure. Passing the Gas Price Act
would be a material and substantive action toward this majority's
stated goal of energy independence. To vote against it underscores
something altogether. They like higher gas prices at the pump.
What we are talking about is something that is permissive. It allows
States to opt out, if they want, and it streamlines the permitting
process. It requires EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use
of Fischer-Tropsch diesel and jet fuels. It will help in our refining
capacity, if we are talking about refineries for petroleum or
refineries for biofuels or any other kinds of refineries.
To have a comprehensive Energy bill, we need to do what we have done,
what we have already done in this bill, but the problem is here today,
as was pointed out by the Senator from New Mexico. We have a supply
problem, and that supply problem is here and now. The gas price
amendment to expand our refining capacity would dramatically and
immediately relieve that problem.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. Again, there are two supply problems--one in production
and one in refining capacity.
I will be glad to yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I told Senator Bingaman that I have to
leave the floor for about 20 to 25 minutes, and I need somebody here.
Mr. INHOFE. I will be happy to do it. Let me repeat what I told
Senator Bingaman privately. I have no intention of bringing up this
amendment for a vote now. We will set this amendment aside for other
amendments and then hopefully we will have several lined up tomorrow. I
think tomorrow we will start these votes.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I wanted to tell the Senator. Madam
President, can the Senator from Oklahoma stay in my stead?
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I will stay in his stead.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I know there are others waiting to
speak. I don't want to delay the proceedings greatly, but I do have
some concerns. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the
amendment sponsor, if I can.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, I am glad to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. Because there is so much concern about this amendment

[[Page S7518]]

from within this committee and others, I would like to have a vote on
this amendment. I don't want to take a lot of time. But I am wondering
if my friend will propound some type of unanimous consent request so
that the Senators on the floor can respond to the presentation by
Senator Inhofe, but then give him time. I just think it might make for
a more even flow.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me respond. I think the simpler
thing would be to have the Senator from California, who is the chair of
the committee of jurisdiction, go ahead with any statement she wants,
and I will withhold my questions at this point. I know there are others
wishing to talk about CAFE standards.
The Senator from Oklahoma has indicated a willingness to set his
amendment aside. He is not pushing for a vote at this time. Why doesn't
the Senator from California go ahead and speak in response to the
amendment at this point, and then perhaps we can have the other
Senators who want to talk about CAFE standards talk about that issue,
and we will see what other amendments we can also line up.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, of course, I support Senator Inhofe's
right to offer this amendment, but, to me, it is a disastrous amendment
because it is a taxpayer giveaway to the oil companies. And I will
explain why it is a total taxpayer giveaway to the oil companies that
are making more money now than ever in history.
It doesn't do one thing to expand energy supply--not one thing. It
shortcuts many environmental laws, which I will not go into at this
time, but if we get further time, I will do that. It shortcuts many
environmental laws that protect the air quality which is so important
to our families. In California, 9,900 people every year die of
particulate matter in their lungs. We cannot afford to say we are going
to forget about air quality. That is a disaster. We don't want to
become a China where they don't care about their people and their
people suffer. We don't want to go there.
In the Energy bill in 2005, oil companies got a huge break, and it
was made very attractive for them to open new refineries. My staff
informs me that not one company has taken advantage of this break. So
there is nothing that I think suggests that even going as far as
Senator Inhofe goes, which is a total giveaway, will result in
increased energy supply.
This bill never made it out of our committee when the Senator was
chairman. It was never offered in the committee since I have been
chairman. And if it were to be offered, it would go down.
Let me tell a story about Bakersfield, CA, where Shell Oil owned a
refinery. We were all saying how important it was to continue the
production of gasoline. In California, 2 percent of our gasoline supply
came from this particular refinery.
Guess what. Shell Oil announces they are shutting down the refinery.
We were stunned, and we said: Why?
They said: We are not making a profit.
Guess what we found out. They were making a huge profit.
Then they said: We can't find a buyer.
We said: Really?
We went to the attorney general. We said: Can you help us?
He got involved. At that time, it was Bill Lockyer. Guess what.
Somebody stepped forward to purchase the refinery.
Shell Oil wanted to shut down the refinery because they wanted to
manipulate the supply. It is as simple as that--more money in their
pocket, vertical integration. These are the people we want to reward
with the Inhofe amendment? I think not. I think quite the opposite. I
think we ought to agree to Senator Cantwell's antigouging amendment. I
think we would want automatic investigations by the FTC. That is what I
think we would need.
I wish to address some other aspects of this bill. As I understand
it, there is an aspect of this bill which I want to make sure my
colleagues understand before they come to vote on it, if, in fact, we
have a vote. When I say this is a taxpayer giveaway, I mean what I say.
There are expedited permits, waiver of all kinds of environmental laws,
there is access to Federal lands, free. I say to my friend from New
Mexico, can you imagine any other industry that gets free access to
Federal lands? Not only do they not have to pay for the land, but they
get 88 percent of the costs of the refinery if they are on Federal land
and 100 percent reimbursement if they are on Indian land. What a
situation--at a time when oil company profits are going through the
roof and CEOs are coming before us and putting their heads down as we
look at the amount of bonuses they are getting--into the tens of
millions of dollars. This is the time to give them Federal land for
refineries, which they have shown they are not interested in building?
Waive all environmental laws to the detriment of the health and safety
of America's families? Reimburse them for 88 to 100 percent of the cost
of building their plant? What a deal. If people vote for this, I have a
little piece of land in a very rocky part of California I could sell
you. This makes no sense at this time.
I say to my colleagues, it is very important that we have supply. I
am supporting this new fuels mandate. I see wonderful opportunities in
the area of cellulosics that I think are fantastic, very exciting. I am
willing to invest in research so we can use coal in a clean way. These
things are all exciting. This is an opportunity for business. We don't
have to give away the store to the oil companies to build these
refineries when, again, I have experience that tells me they are
actually shutting down refineries.
In California, the case in point is the Shell oil refinery in
Bakersfield, one of the biggest scandals we had there, with nontruths
coming after nontruths.
``We don't really want to close it down, but we have to because it is
not profitable.'' Oh, yes, it turned out it was profitable. They just
want to manipulate the supply.
``We can't find a buyer, we are looking high and low and can't find a
buyer.'' In 3 weeks, the attorney general found them a buyer.
Here is the point about this Energy bill which Senator Bingaman is
managing. It is the product of three or four different committees, and
the bills that are included in the majority leader's package are bills
that came out of committee. They have gone through the committee. They
have been debated, they have been discussed, and they have been voted
out. This particular plan of my friend's--he has every right to offer
his amendment. I defend his right to offer it. But it never passed our
committee even when the Republicans were in control. It certainly would
not pass out of committee today. It is a taxpayer giveaway with
absolutely no proof that refineries would be built.
I stand so strongly against this bill, on behalf of the American
taxpayer as well as in behalf of the American families who want their
health protected and do not want us to waive every single environmental
law that protects the quality of the air they breathe inside their
bodies.
I yield the floor. I will be back to respond to the comments of my
good friend from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond.
I am not sure what bill the Senator from California is talking about.
She didn't really describe this bill at all. Let's go through very
quickly her four points, if the Senator from California would like to
listen.
First of all, the EDA portion provides grants to local communities,
not oil companies. This is not grants going to oil companies. Maybe the
Senator from California has not gotten emotional in experiencing what
has happened when there are BRAC closings and some of the bases have
had to close. But when that happens, the EDA does have the function,
and the EDA in this case can provide grants if local communities apply
for these grants. If they do not want to apply for them, they do not
have to do it. The fund seeks to promote development of future fuels,
coal to liquids, cellulosic biomass, not just oil.
This is not the same amendment, I might add, as we tried to pass
unsuccessfully by a one-vote margin in the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
Second, this idea that there is a rollback in environmental laws--the
association representing the environmental

[[Page S7519]]

concerns of every State, the Environmental Council of States, clearly
states this will not do any such thing. Here is the Environmental
Council of the States. Every State belongs to this, including
California. It says in here:

This bill does not weaken the standards and allows each
State to choose its best course on most of the matters
detailed in the bill.

So there you have it. On this matter, the organization that
represents all the environmental groups is strongly supporting this.

Will do nothing to increase energy independence? The reason the
United States is vulnerable, in a vulnerable position, is because we
don't have an adequate supply to meet the demand. Supply--that is what
I have been talking about since we started talking here. Reducing
demand is only one part of the equation. We want to reduce demand. We
also want to increase supply.
I would say probably the most damaging thing that has been stated by
the junior Senator--here is a quote by the senior Senator from
California. When she talks about streamlining permitting, yes, that is
one of the big problems. So I used a quote by Senator Feinstein in a
letter to Governor Schwarzenegger. I will read it again because I think
maybe the junior Senator wasn't in the Chamber when I talked about
this. This is a quote out of the letter:

I can see where a cumbersome permitting process, with
uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and
implement projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed
and predictability of the permitting process, and believe
that this will allow business and government to focus their
limited resources on actions that most benefit the
environment.

That is exactly what we want to do. That is a very acute observation
by the senior Senator from California.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I was not aware that Senator Feinstein
was supporting your amendment. Is that what you are suggesting?
Mr. INHOFE. This is a quote. Would you like me to read it again?
Mrs. BOXER. I would like you to read it again.
Mr. INHOFE. I will read it again.
Mrs. BOXER. I would really like that because you are implying that
she supports your amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. No, no; I am saying she is concerned about the permitting
process.
Mrs. BOXER. We all are. That doesn't mean we support your amendment.
Go ahead, read it again.
Mr. INHOFE. ``I can see where a cumbersome permitting process, with
uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and implement
projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed and predictability
of the permitting process, and believe that this will allow business
and government to focus their limited resources on actions that most
benefit the environment.''
This is exactly what this bill does. We have a section in here that
allows States, if they want to do it--and there is nothing wrong with
allowing States to do what they see is in their best interests. I agree
with Senator Feinstein that this would allow States to overcome this
cumbersome permitting process, as she states in her statement.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, if I might say, I appreciate hearing
that. It has nothing to do with this particular amendment, which,
basically, is a giveaway to the energy companies at a time when they
are making a fortune.
We have a Federal Clean Air Act. We have it for a reason: Air goes
from one State to another, one region to another. That is what we have.
It is a Federal Clean Air Act. This was passed under Republican and
Democratic administrations, over and over again. This is what the
people want.
Do they want streamlining of permits? Yes. We all do. I was a county
supervisor. I did a lot of my work streamlining permits. That doesn't
mean backing off on protecting the people you represent and making sure
you have an adequate timeframe to ascertain what are the pollutants
that are going to come out of the smokestacks here. What are the
diseases that could follow if these pollutants get into the lungs of
the people?
This is an amendment which hides behind the word ``streamlining.''
But what it really does, it waives environmental laws.
Yes, I know a lot about this particular amendment. I have to say, the
Senator from Oklahoma talks about these local redevelopment
authorities--you could have 10 people from oil companies on those
redevelopment authorities. You could. So you cannot stand here and tell
me this is protective of the public interest.
We have an amendment which has been offered as some kind of a fix to
the lack of refineries. You take a look at our refineries. I think the
Senator from Washington is aware of this. They remind us a lot of the
problems we had with Enron. They keep taking power offline, shutting
down the refineries for so-called maintenance, at higher and higher
levels. And when Shell Oil had a chance to expand a refinery or keep it
going, they chose to shut it down.
My friend doesn't think the refinery companies, I guess, are making
enough money. They are making record profits. He wants to give them
land for nothing. He says it goes to a redevelopment agency. Yet there
is no protection for the public there. At the end of the day, these
companies are getting it for free, whether they are getting it from the
Federal Government directly to them or the Federal Government through a
redevelopment agency. Environmental laws are waived. People in this
country will not be protected. It is a backdoor way to repeal part of
the Clean Air Act at a time when people are dying of particulate
matter.
Now, if you are on Indian land, you get that land, and you get
reimbursed 100 percent for the plant. So my friend can get up and say:
I didn't read it. And he could read me a quote from my friend, Senator
Feinstein, who, as far as I know, is not supporting his amendment. I
mean, it is a very tricky thing. I can hold up a statement from Senator
Domenici and say: Look at this statement.
I can hold up a statement from every Republican from a speech they
made saying how important it is that the people be protected from lung
cancer. That has nothing to do with this amendment. It is a good
debating tactic, but at the end of the day this amendment failed in the
Environment Committee when the Senator from Oklahoma had the gavel, and
this amendment would clearly have failed in the committee when I was
holding the gavel.
So the fact is, what we are trying to do in this particular
legislation is gather around amendments that have been voted out of
committee in a bipartisan fashion, that were not contentious, like this
one; that are not argumentative, like this one; and that are very
unclear and are going in uncharted waters, like this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond again. The distinguished junior Senator
from California can say over and over and over again as many times as
she wants that it is giving money to oil companies. It is not.
Specifically, the EDA portion provides grants to local communities if
they want them. If the local community doesn't want them, they don't
have to have them.
At this point in the Record I want to have printed a letter from the
EDA that says:

No for-profit entity is eligible to receive EDA assistance.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration,
Washington. DC, October 21, 2005.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Chair, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inhofe: This letter responds to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works' request on October 19, 2005
for clarification on the Economic Development
Administration's (``EDA'') mission and entities that are
eligible to receive EDA assistance, as well as additional
information on EDA's past involvement in base realignment and
closure (``BRAC'') rounds.
EDA's mission is to lead the federal economic development
agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing
American regions for growth and success in the worldwide
economy. To implement this mission, EDA is directed by its
authorizing statute, the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965, as amended (``PWEDA''), to foster
economic growth by ``empowering local and regional
communities experiencing chronic high unemployment and low
per capita income to develop

[[Page S7520]]

private sector business and attract increased private capital
investment'' (Section 2(a)(3)(C) of PWEDA).
EDA is authorized to provide assistance only to an
``eligible recipient,'' as that term is defined in PWEDA. An
``eligible recipient'' means a(n) (l) economic development
district; (2) Indian tribe; (3) State, including a special
purpose unit of a State or local government engaged in
economic or infrastructure development activities; (4) city
or other political subdivision of a State; (5) institution of
higher education; or (6) public or private non-profit
organization or association acting in cooperation with
officials of a political subdivision of a State (Section
3(4)(A) of PWEDA). No for-profit entity is eligible to
receive EDA assistance with one exception: EDA may provide a
grant to a for-profit entity under its Training, Research and
Technical Assistance program (Section 3(4)(B) of PWEDA).
However, this relatively small program is not applicable to
the provision of EDA assistance for the reuse of former
military installations.
For the most recent BRAC round, beginning in FY 1994,
Congress (Commerce-Justice-State appropriators) began adding
a Defense Economic Adjustment line item to EDA's annual
appropriations. In FY 1994, EDA received $80 million in
defense economic adjustment funding. The high-water mark of
this round came in FY 1995, with BRAC '95 underway, in which
EDA received an appropriation of $125 million in defense
economic adjustment funding that was subsequently slightly
reduced due to an across-the-board rescission that year.
Defense economic adjustment appropriations then slowly
declined through FY 2001. The table below depicts actual
EDA Defense Economic Adjustment appropriations (after any
rescissions or adjustments) for the most recent BRAC
round.

[Dollars in millions, after rescissions, if any]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Economic
Fiscal year Adjustment
appropriation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994................................................ $80
1995................................................ 120
1996................................................ 90
1997................................................ 90
1998................................................ 89
1999................................................ 84.8
2000................................................ 77.3
2001................................................ 31.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defense Economic Adjustment appropriations have been
allocated among EDA's six (6) regional offices based on a
variety of factors, including the number of major
installation closures located within the regional office's
designated region, the number of military and civilian
personnel dislocations resulting from base realignments, the
number of affected defense installation contractors (not
relevant to the current round), and the relative economic
distress level of the affected area.
Each fiscal year, EDA's regional offices have awarded
assistance to BRAC-affected communities based on the policies
and procedures in place at the time of each award. These
policies and procedures are published in the Federal Register
each year in EDA's Federal Funding Opportunity (``FFO'')
notice. The FFO also specifies EDA's Funding Priorities for
the funding available during that fiscal year. Funding
Priorities include such items as investing in transportation,
communications, or other sector-specific infrastructure
enhancements. In no instance has any one funding priority
utilized all of a regional office's defense economic
adjustment allocation. Rather, investments are made across
different priority areas based on the needs of the local and
regional economy.
EDA Defense Economic Adjustment investments made during the
most recent BRAC round, covering the period from FY 1994
through FY 2001, are depicted in the enclosed tables. As
requested, the tables include the investment recipient,
location, EDA grant dollars, and jobs and private investment
realized when available.
Thank you for this opportunity to explain EDA's mission and
its policies and procedures related to BRAC, and to provide
additional information on EDA's past BRAC-related
investments.
If you have any additional questions, please do not
hesitate to contact David T. Murray, EDA's Director of
Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 482-2900.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Erulkar,
Chief Counsel.

Mr. INHOFE. Then, also, the permitting process is a small part of
this amendment, but it is a very important part. It is a part that we
have, subtitle A, about 4 pages, talking about trying to make the
permitting process more streamlined. And that is where I used the
statement from Senator Feinstein, who certainly agrees when she says: I
can see where a cumbersome permitting process with uncertain outcomes
would make it difficult to plan and implement projects.
Well, that is just one of the many things that we are trying to
correct with this bill. Again, I have responded to all of the other
statements that were made. I would repeat in terms of the environment,
I am going to go ahead and submit for the Record at this point, along
with the letter on the EDAs, a letter from the Environmental Council of
the States, when they state very specifically: The bill does not weaken
the standards and allows each State to choose its best course for most
matters.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Environmental Council

of the States,

Washington, DC, October 25, 2005.
Re S. 1772 Gas PRICE Act.

Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inhofe and Senator Jeffords: I am writing to
provide comments on behalf of the Environmental Council of
the States (ECOS) on the above bill. ECOS is the national,
non-partisan association of the States' environmental agency
leadership.
We appreciate the Senate's desire to address the
shortcomings of the nation's refinery processes exposed by
the recent hurricanes and hope our comments assist you.
States implement most of the federal environmental statutes
on behalf of the federal government, including most programs
that regulate the nation's refmeries. These include the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. States issue most of the environmental
permits pursuant to these Acts, as well as conducting the
inspections, monitoring and enforcement.
While each State's opinions may vary over the details of
the bill, we can agree that the bill takes an approach that
we would like to see in more legislation. I speak here of the
``opt-in'' feature.
In this approach, the Governor of each State decides
whether the benefits the bill provides are appropriate for
the State. This includes the streamlined permits approach,
the judicial review of such arrangements (Title II), and the
fuels waiver (Title IV). Some concern remains about the
special fuels provisions. We appreciate that within Title IV
a state would be held harmless under section 110 to account
for the emissions from a waiver granted by the Administrator
at the request of that State. We would not expect such
emissions to significantly contribute to another state's air
quality issues, but would note that the protection afforded
should be limited to that extent.
ECOS has long emphasized the need for the flexibility that
allows each State to tailor its environmental programs
according to its needs. This bill does not weaken the
standards and allows each State to choose its best course on
most of the matters detailed in the bill.
Our primary reservation is that the bill, if passed, not be
conferenced with the recent Gasoline Security Act of 2005,
passed by the House.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Hallock,
President.

Mr. INHOFE. I think there is a basic, as I said before, problem in
disagreement on the floor of this body when there are a lot of people
who do not think that decisions, good decisions, are made unless they
are made in Washington, DC.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I just have one last response. I don't
know how many of my colleagues ever sat on a redevelopment agency. I
happen to have done so when I was on county board of supervisors. And
it is disingenuous to say it is the redevelopment agency that gets the
benefit. The redevelopment agency is the conduit to the private sector,
and that is where the benefit goes.
Now, in many cases it is totally fine. When I sat on the
redevelopment entity, it was because we had a very run-down part of our
county that needed support. And so whatever it was we could give to
them, any benefit in the Tax Code, et cetera, that is what we did.
But how about this? The benefit goes to the particular businesses now
that are making record profits. I would tell you, the American people
looking at this debate are going to say: Why aren't you protecting us
from price gouging like Senator Cantwell suggests? That is the bill
that is in the package, not this bill which essentially says we are
taking away clean air protection, we are going to have 50 different
standards here, 50 different permit processes. What a nightmare. We are
giving away the money of the taxpayers to the biggest corporations in
America that are making the most money ever--not only giving them the
land but paying them back for all of their costs.

[[Page S7521]]

To me, to put this in this package will doom this package. I just
hope if and when this does come up for a vote, there will be a
resounding no. It was voted down in the committee, and it ought to be
voted down on the floor of the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would observe that the junior Senator
from California is not going to support my amendment. However, I would
also observe that you can't keep saying the same thing over and over
and over again and make it true.
We have quoted the Environmental Council of the States. They all say
there is nothing in here that is going to be damaging to the
environment. Anyway, it is my understanding that I am going to be
willing to set this aside for other amendments, so we can perhaps get
in the queue and have several votes tomorrow, whenever the appropriate
time is.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wanted to follow my colleague, Senator
Boxer, to talk just a bit about the automobile efficiency standards
that are in this bill. I played a role in the Commerce Committee in
helping to write a portion of that.
Before I do that, let me say it is often the case that a piece of
legislation brought to the floor of the Senate dealing with an
important issue is described as something that is very significant,
earthshaking. And in most cases it does not turn out to be quite that
significant.
My dad once told me: Never buy something from someone who is out of
breath. There is always kind of a breathless quality to reform packages
that are brought to the floor of the Senate. I must say, however, that
I think what we have on the floor of the Senate, perhaps with some
amendments, is a significant change with respect to an issue that we
should address; that is, energy.
Let me talk about the automobile efficiency issues and the issues of
renewable fuels and renewable energy. Now, I noted that the OPEC
countries have weighed in the last few days. This is dated June 7. It
says: OPEC--that is the cartel--those are the countries that have
formed a cartel. They produce a substantial portion of our country's
energy, the world's energy. About 40 percent of global oil production
comes from the eight OPEC countries.
Here is what OPEC says. OPEC, on Tuesday, warned Western countries
that their effort to develop biofuels as an alternative energy source
to combat climate change risks driving the price of oil, ``through the
roof.''
The Secretary General of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries said: The powerful cartel was considering cutting its
investment in new oil production in response to moves by the developed
world to use more biofuels.
So let me say again what this is. This is the OPEC cartel, which, of
course, would be illegal in our country, getting together and saying to
the United States: If you begin to produce more biofuels, ethanol and
so on, we may well cut our production of oil, which would have the
capability of then putting upward pressure on oil and gas prices;
almost certainly it would do that. An interesting and I think also
disturbing message from the OPEC countries.
But this underscores why we need an Energy bill. I mean we are held
hostage by a group of people sitting in a room, called OPEC ministers,
deciding how much they are going to produce, at what price they want to
produce it. They close the door, make judgments in secret in a secret
cartel that would be illegal in this country. They say to us: Oh, by
the way, if you want to get out of this box that you are in, by
producing more of the energy yourself in the form of renewable fuels,
good luck. By the way, tough luck, because we may well decrease our own
production.
Well, if I might just point out that this bill itself, it has some
titles. Let me read the titles of the bill. I am sure my colleagues
have done that: Title 1, Biofuels for Energy Security, it is a very
important title; title 2, Energy Efficiency, there is substantial
energy to be gained in the efficiency standards; title 3, Carbon
Capture, Storage, Research and Development; title 4, Cost-Effective,
Environmentally Sustainable Public Buildings. All of this is important.
With respect to the biofuels, I was thinking as I was sitting here,
about a young guy who came up to me one night. He was about 21 years
old. He came up to me at a community meeting in North Dakota and said:
I just came in from the west coast. I drove a pickup truck from the
west coast on vegetable oil. He was fueling his pickup truck using
vegetable oil.
Here is a kid that is working for alternative fuels groups out on the
west coast someplace with stars in their eyes and dreams about finding
alternative fuels that work.
I said: Well, how does it work when you use vegetable oil?
He had modified his engine in his pickup truck and drove across the
Northern Tier using vegetable oil. He said: It worked great until they
got to Montana, by the way, no offense to the Montanans here. He said
it worked great until we got to Montana when it got kind of cold. Then
the viscosity of that vegetable oil thickened up and they could not
quite use it for a while.

But the point is, there are a lot of people doing inventive,
interesting, fascinating things fueling their vehicles, creating
modifications to vehicles. We are talking about creating a very
substantial and aggressive standard for what are called biofuels,
particularly ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, and so on.
Now, my colleague from California talked about automobile efficiency,
and the automobile efficiency standards that we have created. Let me
make the point first that there has been no change in 25 years to these
standards. None. I have actually been persuaded in years past by those
who say: Well, let's have NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic and
Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation, develop
these new standards.
The fact is, that is an excuse for doing nothing. It is pretty
evident to me now that nothing will happen if that is what we continue
to do. So we, as a Congress, on a bipartisan basis, have said: We need
more efficiency with respect to our vehicles.
We use about 145 billion gallons of fuel a year in this country, 145
billion gallons of fuel. If we blended every gallon with ethanol, that
would be a market of 14\1/2\ billion gallons of ethanol. We have
created a renewable fuel standard of 7\1/2\ billion gallons of ethanol
by 2012. I was one of the authors of that just a couple of years ago.
We are going to exceed that very quickly. We are probably at that level
now, and going to be at 10 billion gallons in 2 or 3 years.
So now we are going to go to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels.
The OPEC countries say: Oh, this is awful. The roof is going to come
in. We may decrease production of oil if you decide you are going to
move in another direction.
Even as we do that, believing that with 70 percent of the oil that we
import into this country being used in vehicles. And, understanding
then we must make the vehicles more efficient if we are going to become
less dependent on the OPEC countries and less dependent on foreign
sources of oil from whom we now get over 60 percent of our oil, then we
have a CAFE standard in this bill.
Now here is the result of the CAFE or the automobile efficiency
standard in my State's newspapers, and I assume others by the auto
industry. This is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. They are
putting full-page ads in the newspapers, and they are also doing direct
mail to constituents: Say no to extreme fuel economy increases. Make
sure you don't pass these increased automobile efficiency standards.
Well, that is what they have been saying for 25 years, and nothing
has changed. I have told this story repeatedly, and I will again
because I think it is important. The first car I purchased as a young
boy in high school was a 1924 Model T Ford for $25. It had been sitting
in a grainery for decades. A guy sold it to me for $25. I spent 2 years
trying to get it to run.
I restored that old Model T Ford. What I discovered was you put
gasoline in a 1924 Model T Ford exactly the

[[Page S7522]]

same way you put gasoline in a 2007 Ford. Everything else about the
vehicle has changed. Everything. There is more computing power in a
2007 brand new car than there was on the lunar lander that put the
astronauts on the moon. Everything about these vehicles has changed
except you still have to stick a gas hose in the tank and start
pumping.
We did that in the 1924 model car, and you do it today in a 2007
model car. I would like to see us move and pole-vault to a new future.
I happen to believe we ought to move to a hydrogen fuel cell future,
where you have twice the efficiency of power to the wheel and put water
out the tailpipe.
What a wonderful thing that would be. And hydrogen, of course, is
ubiquitous. It is everywhere. You can take wind energy, produce
electricity from the wind, use the electricity through the process of
electrolysis, separate hydrogen from water, store hydrogen for vehicle
transportation.
There are so many things we can do, but let's start, let's at least
start, with the current vehicle fleet, saying to the automakers that we
intend and expect you to produce more efficient automobiles.
The CAFE standards we have created that are in this legislation are
called ten-in-ten. It is not unreasonable to believe that we should
expect greater efficiency in these vehicles. Yes, we know the
improvements that have been made in vehicles: better cupholders, more
adept sound systems, all of the wonderful things that come with all of
these new cars. But what about more efficiency? Nothing has changed.
A friend of mine looked at an identical vehicle they purchased 10
years prior. They loved the vehicle. So 10 years later they are ready
for a new vehicle. They looked at the sticker on the window and
discovered that in 10 years, the efficiency of that vehicle had not
changed by 1 mile per gallon, not 1.
That describes the failure. We ought to certainly expect better than
that.
Let me say also, in addition to supporting the automobile efficiency
standards we will be voting on--standards that are bipartisan,
standards that are reasonable, standards that have an off ramp so if
they are not achievable, the industry will not have to meet them--they
will have to demonstrate they are not capable scientifically of doing
so.
In addition to that issue, which is so important, I wish to mention
the issue of fossil fuels. We are, in fact, going to use fossil fuels
in our future--coal, oil, and natural gas. I am a big supporter of
renewable energy sources and renewable fuels. I believe that strongly.
Whether it is wind, biomass, geothermal, renewable fuels, all of those
are critically important. We will continue to use fossil fuels. It is
important to me that we find ways to unlock opportunities to continue
to use coal in a way that doesn't degrade the environment.
We have now finally come to an intersection. That intersection
includes energy policy and climate change. We need to find a way,
through clean coal technology and other issues--I will be working on
that in the appropriations subcommittee which I chair--to continue to
use those resources, particularly coal.
My colleagues have included, with my support, the efficiency titles
of this legislation which are very important. Everything we do every
day, from turning on a light switch to using appliances, everything we
do every day and in every way uses energy. There are dramatic advances
in lighting and dramatic savings to be had with respect to lighting
standards in this bill. We fought for a long while about an obscure
term called SEER 13 standards for air conditioners. We fought tooth and
nail. The requirement for SEER 13 standards on air conditioners is very
important and will require us to build fewer new energy plants because
of the savings and the conservation that comes from that efficiency
standard.
There is a lot to commend in this legislation. The next important
step will be an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman that I will
cosponsor with others called the renewable energy standard which will
require 15 percent of our electric energy to come from renewable
energy. That is an important standard and one I hope the Congress will
embrace and support.
I am going to be speaking on other amendments as well. I again
commend Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici. We have a good start. I
come from not only the Energy Committee but Senator Stevens and Senator
Inouye on the Commerce Committee on which I serve, Senator Boxer and
Senator Inhofe and others who have worked on this legislation. We are
off to a start that can be a very important policy change and a new
direction for the country in energy policy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut

Amendment No. 1508 to Amendment No. 1502

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, before the Senator from North Dakota
leaves the floor, I would like to clarify something he said. He
indicated his first car was a 1924 model car. I wanted to clarify that
he did not purchase it in 1924.
Having done so, I now call up amendment No. 1508.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for Mr. Bayh,
for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Coleman, Mr.
Salazar, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Reed, and Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment
numbered 1508 to amendment No. 1502.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the publication and implementation of an
action plan to reduce the quantity of oil used annually in the United
States)

Strike section 251 and insert the following:

SEC. 251. OIL SAVINGS PLAN AND REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Oil Savings Target and Action Plan.--Not later than 270
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget (referred to in this
section as the ``Director'') shall publish in the Federal
Register an action plan consisting of--
(1) a list of requirements proposed or to be proposed
pursuant to subsection (b) that are authorized to be issued
under law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and
this Act, that will be sufficient, when taken together, to
save from the baseline determined under subsection (e)--
(A) 2,500,000 barrels of oil per day on average during
calendar year 2016;
(B) 7,000,000 barrels of oil per day on average during
calendar year 2026; and
(C) 10,000,000 barrels per day on average during calendar
year 2031; and
(2) a Federal Government-wide analysis demonstrating--
(A) the expected oil savings from the baseline to be
accomplished by each requirement; and
(B) that all such requirements, taken together, will
achieve the oil savings specified in this subsection.
(b) Standards and Requirements.--
(1) In general.--On or before the date of publication of
the action plan under subsection (a), the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the head of any other agency the President
determines appropriate shall each propose, or issue a notice
of intent to propose, regulations establishing each standard
or other requirement listed in the action plan that is under
the jurisdiction of the respective agency using authorities
described in paragraph (2).
(2) Authorities.--The head of each agency described in
paragraph (1) shall use to carry out this subsection--
(A) any authority in existence on the date of enactment of
this Act (including regulations); and
(B) any new authority provided under this Act (including an
amendment made by this Act).
(3) Final regulations.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the head of each agency
described in paragraph (1) shall promulgate final versions of
the regulations required under this subsection.
(4) Content of regulations.--Each proposed and final
regulation promulgated under this subsection shall--
(A) be sufficient to achieve at least the oil savings
resulting from the regulation under the action plan published
under subsection (a); and
(B) be accompanied by an analysis by the applicable agency
demonstrating that the regulation will achieve the oil
savings from the baseline determined under subsection (e).
(c) Initial Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall--
(A) publish in the Federal Register a Federal Government-
wide analysis of--
(i) the oil savings achieved from the baseline established
under subsection (e); and

[[Page S7523]]

(ii) the expected oil savings under the standards and
requirements of this Act (and amendments made by this Act);
and
(B) determine whether oil savings will meet the targets
established under subsection (a).
(2) Insufficient oil savings.--If the oil savings are less
than the targets established under subsection (a),
simultaneously with the analysis required under paragraph
(1)--
(A) the Director shall publish a revised action plan that
is sufficient to achieve the targets; and
(B) the head of each agency referred to in subsection
(b)(1) shall propose new or revised regulations that are
sufficient to achieve the targets under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3), respectively, of subsection (b).
(3) Final regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date on which regulations are proposed under paragraph
(2)(B), the head of each agency referred to in subsection
(b)(1) shall promulgate final versions of those regulations
that comply with subsection (b)(1).
(d) Review and Update of Action Plan.--
(1) Review.--Not later than January 1, 2011, and every 3
years thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress, and
publish, a report that--
(A) evaluates the progress achieved in implementing the oil
savings targets established under subsection (a);
(B) analyzes the expected oil savings under the standards
and requirements established under this Act and the
amendments made by this Act; and
(C)(i) analyzes the potential to achieve oil savings that
are in addition to the savings required by subsection (a);
and
(ii) if the President determines that it is in the national
interest, establishes a higher oil savings target for
calendar year 2017 or any subsequent calendar year.
(2) Insufficient oil savings.--If the oil savings are less
than the targets established under subsection (a),
simultaneously with the report required under paragraph (1)--
(A) the Director shall publish a revised action plan that
is sufficient to achieve the targets; and
(B) the head of each agency referred to in subsection
(b)(1) shall propose new or revised regulations that are
sufficient to achieve the targets under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3), respectively, of subsection (b).
(3) Final regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date on which regulations are proposed under paragraph
(2)(B), the head of each agency referred to in subsection
(b)(1) shall promulgate final versions of those regulations
that comply with subsection (b)(1).
(e) Baseline and Analysis Requirements.--In performing the
analyses and promulgating proposed or final regulations to
establish standards and other requirements necessary to
achieve the oil savings required by this section, the
Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
head of any other agency the President determines to be
appropriate shall--
(1) determine oil savings as the projected reduction in oil
consumption from the baseline established by the reference
case contained in the report of the Energy Information
Administration entitled ``Annual Energy Outlook 2005'';
(2) determine the oil savings projections required on an
annual basis for each of calendar years 2009 through 2026;
and
(3) account for any overlap among the standards and other
requirements to ensure that the projected oil savings from
all the promulgated standards and requirements, taken
together, are as accurate as practicable.
(f) Nonregulatory Measures.--The action plan required under
subsection (a) and the revised action plans required under
subsections (c) and (d) shall include--
(1) a projection of the barrels of oil displaced by
efficiency and sources of energy other than oil, including
biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen; and
(2) a projection of the barrels of oil saved through
enactment of this Act and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 15801 et seq.).

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for not more than 7 minutes on this amendment and then
Senator Salazar be allowed to speak for up to 7 minutes also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this is the amendment I spoke about
during morning business. I am proud to cosponsor it with Senator
Salazar, as well as Senators Bayh, Brownback, Coleman, Feinstein,
Lincoln, Cantwell, Kerry, Dodd, Collins, Kohl, and Reed of Rhode
Island. It is a broadly bipartisan group.
This amendment would replace section 251 in the underlying bill which
is the topic of our interest today. Section 251 in the bill sets forth
gasoline savings targets as part of our move to help make America
energy independent. We instead would put in title I of the DRIVE Act,
which many of us introduced earlier this year, which sets oil savings
plan requirements that are more ambitious and appropriately so.
We all know America is a nation addicted to oil and that addiction is
hurting us and our people in many ways. It is saddling consumers with
high gas and oil and other fuel prices. It is compromising our foreign
policy. It is diminishing the quality of our environment. It is leaving
our economy and our very national security subject to political
instability in faraway places and to the malicious whims of foreign
leaders of oil-producing nations, such as Ahmadinejad of Iran and
Chavez of Venezuela. The only real and permanent solution to this
problem is to substantially reduce the amount of oil consumed by our
transportation sector, which consumes virtually all the oil, certainly
the greater part of it, we consume as a nation.
The underlying bill before the Senate, managed by the chairman and
ranking member of the Energy Committee but containing parts that came
out of the Commerce Committee, the Environment and Public Works
Committee I am honored to serve on, under the leadership of Senator
Boxer, is a very admirable and responsive piece of legislation, a real
act of leadership by this Congress, a bipartisan act of leadership.
This is an institution, after the problems we had last week with the
immigration bill, that desperately needs to show the American people
and ourselves we can work across party lines to get things done, to
solve problems that are real and present every day in the lives of our
citizens. There are few one could say that would be more true of that
than the energy crisis and challenge.
The savings targets in section 251 of the underlying bill are
expressed in terms of American gasoline consumption and reduction of
it, not oil consumption. The problem is gasoline usage can be reduced
by increasing the use of diesel, but diesel is also made from oil, and
oil is the substance to which we are addicted, with all the negative
consequences I have described. So reducing oil consumption, in the
opinion of those of us who are sponsoring this amendment, should be the
express goal of the Senate bill's transportation provisions because oil
dependence is what hurts us, is what drains the budgets of America's
families and businesses. It hurts our national economy. It compromises
our environment and undermines the independence of our foreign policy.
This amendment would make that crucial correction from goals reducing
gasoline consumption in the underlying bill to goals reducing oil
consumption.
The gasoline savings goal in H.R. 6 amounts to a 20-percent reduction
in projected oil consumption by 2030, if we try to transfer it to oil.
The oil savings requirement in this amendment would amount to a 35-
percent reduction in projected oil consumption by 2030. That is
significant and would go a long way toward solving the problems we have
talked about. I believe there is broad bipartisan support in the Senate
for these stronger targets. Indeed, the fuel economy and renewable
fuels provisions already found elsewhere in H.R. 6 will themselves go a
long way toward achieving the stronger targets.
The DRIVE Act, which is the earlier legislation 26 of us introduced,
its title I comprises our amendment to H.R. 6. It would direct the
executive branch to identify, within 9 months and then within 18
months, and to publish Federal requirements that will achieve the
following real and significant goals: A consistent reduction in U.S.
oil consumption by 2016, a 7-million-barrel-per-day reduction by 2026,
and a 10 million barrel per-day reduction by 2031. Today we consume
somewhat over 20 million barrels of oil per day. That would be
significant to cut 10 million barrels off our oil consumption by 2031.
The measure would also direct the Office of Management and Budget to
publish an analysis identifying the oil savings projected to be
achieved by each requirement to be created and demonstrating that the
listed measures will, in the aggregate, achieve the overall specified
oil savings. So we are setting goals, and we are asking the executive
branch to come up with programs to show how existing statutory
authority and regulatory authority they have can be used to achieve
these goals which will make America much more energy independent or, in
fact, to come back and say to us: We need more authority, some new
statute to achieve these goals we have set.

[[Page S7524]]

The cosponsors of this amendment believe we need targets that will
keep the pressure on our Government and on all of us to use the
authorities Congress has provided to achieve the robust oil savings
America and its people need. The DRIVE Act, which is the act from which
this title I amendment is taken, has 26 cosponsors in the Senate, a
broadly bipartisan group reflective of every section of the country and
every ideology represented in the Congress. It shows there is a
consensus of demand for change in savings in oil consumption. That is
exactly what this amendment would do.
I urge my colleagues to adopt it overwhelmingly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I first acknowledge my good friend from
Connecticut for his good work on the DRIVE Act over the last several
years. It is no coincidence that he and a number of bipartisan Senators
have been leading the effort to make sure we set America free. In fact,
the coalition that helped in writing the legislation Senator Lieberman
spoke about calls itself the Set America Free Coalition. It includes
conservatives such as C. Boyden Gray and progressives such as former
Senator Tim Wirth, who have come together and recognized that setting
America free from our addiction to foreign oil is an imperative for the
United States in the 21st century.
Similar to the good work that gets done in this Chamber, this is
bipartisan legislation. This amendment also has the cosponsorship of
Senators Brownback, Coleman, Lincoln, Cantwell, Kerry, Dodd, Collins,
Kohl, and Reed of Rhode Island, and others. It is a good amendment that
reflects the bipartisan composition of this body.
Let me say why I believe this ambitious set of goals for the United
States is important. It is irrefutable that today about 66 percent of
the oil being used in America comes from abroad. Of the oil we are
importing from those foreign countries, 41 percent of it comes from
underneath the sands or lands of hostile regimes. So that national
security implication is we need to get off the pipeline to those
hostile regimes that today essentially allows them to fund the war on
terror against the United States and the free world.

The legislation we have before us with this amendment reflects the
American dream of a more energy-secure future, with fewer oil imports
and a strong renewable energy economy here at home.
We need to set high goals for oil savings because we know we can, in
fact, meet them if we set them high--in the same way we set high
standards in the 1960s, when President Kennedy said we would be
launching an initiative that would get a man to the moon within 10
years, and we were able to do that; in the same way President Roosevelt
said we would be able to move forward and develop the Manhattan
Project, and we were able to do so within 4 years.
That is the same kind of vision and the same kind of boldness we need
to have with respect to oil savings in America today. The amendment we
have brought before this body today--which is the embodiment of the oil
savings provision of the DRIVE Act--in fact, has that kind of boldness,
that kind of courage within it. I, therefore, strongly encourage my
colleagues in the Senate to support the amendment we have brought
before you.
Let me, once again, say this amendment is broadly supported by both
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. I hope it is one of those
amendments that can be adopted by our Chamber.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 1515 to Amendment No. 1502

(Purpose: To establish an energy efficiency and renewable energy worker
training program)

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment and call up my amendment which is at the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I would like to talk to the Senator.
We are still on the amendment. What are you asking? That we set it
aside for what purpose?
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to offer an amendment to create
a workforce for sustainable energy and energy efficiency. We are
building on what was in the bill originally. We have boilerplate
language.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: We have set
aside only one amendment to proceed with another thus far; that is, the
amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma was set aside; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, now he is asking that be done again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is also correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask the Senator, how long do you
think you would be before we could return to the regular order?
Mr. SANDERS. Fifteen minutes or so.
Mr. DOMENICI. One-five?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not wish to restrict you. You talk long similar to
myself. Would you rather have 20 or 25 minutes?
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, 15 or 20. I think I can do it in 15.
Mr. DOMENICI. Twenty minutes is all right by me.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
There being no objection, the pending amendment will be set aside and
the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment
numbered 1515 to amendment No. 1502.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. SANDERS. Let me thank my friend from New Mexico for the
opportunity to go forward.
Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, and Senator Biden.
Our amendment would strike section 277 of the Senate substitute,
which is very broad language directing the Secretary of Labor to work
with the Secretary of Energy to develop workforce training for the
energy efficiency and renewable energy sectors, and replace it with a
clearer directive regarding workforce development in those same areas.
Before I get too far along in the description of the amendment, I
would like to thank Senators Bingaman and Domenici for including
section 277 in the underlying bill. I think we all recognize the need
to provide more workforce training in the areas of energy efficiency
and renewable energy if we are to truly meet the challenge in front of
us.
The amendment I offer today simply builds upon the language already
included in the legislation we are considering, and so I hope it will
receive the resounding support of this body. In other words, we had
boilerplate language already in it, and we have built upon that. Up to
this point, we have had strong bipartisan support.
This amendment would create a sustainable, comprehensive public
program to provide quality training for jobs created through renewable
energy and energy efficiency initiatives--an area of our economy that
is in tremendous need of expansion to meet the demand for a skilled
workforce in these sectors.
Fundamentally, the amendment would do two basic things: One, expand
our Nation's capacity to identify and track the new jobs and skills
associated with the growing clean energy technology sector; secondly,
develop national and State training programs to address skill shortages
that have already begun to impair the expansion of clean energy and
efficiency technologies.
More specifically, the amendment would authorize funding for national
and State research on labor market trends in the energy efficiency and
renewable energy sectors. Additionally, the amendment would provide
competitive grants for national and State

[[Page S7525]]

training programs in the renewable energy and energy efficiency areas.
Entities eligible for grants are nonprofit partnerships that include
equal participation of industry and labor groups, and there is explicit
encouragement for the development of partnerships with other
organizations such as community-based organizations, educational
institutions, small businesses, cooperatives, State and local veterans
agencies, and veterans service organizations.
Some of the target populations for the training programs include
those who are veterans of the Armed Forces, those affected by national
energy or environmental policies, those displaced by economic
globalization, and those seeking pathways out of poverty and into
economic self-sufficiency. The eligible industries include the energy-
efficient building, construction, and retrofits industry; the renewable
electric power industry; the energy-efficient and advanced drive train
vehicle industry; the biofuels industry; and the deconstruction and
materials use industries.
Some may ask whether we even have reason to believe we need training
to increase the number of workers skilled in the areas targeted by this
amendment. The answer is a resounding yes. We know the lack of trained
workers is a significant barrier to the growth of the renewable and
energy efficiency industries.
A 2006 study from the National Renewable Energy Lab identified the
shortage of skills and training as a leading nontechnical barrier to
renewable energy and energy efficiency growth. This same study
identified a number of critical unmet training needs, including lack of
reliable installation, maintenance, and inspection services, the
shortage of key technical and manufacturing skills, and failure of the
educational system to provide adequate training in new technologies.
All of those issues are addressed in this amendment. I can tell you
from talking to the people on the ground, there is a real shortage of
trained workers in these areas. In Vermont, if a family wants to
retrofit and weatherize their home, it could take a very long time to
make it happen because there are simply not enough workers out there
trained to do the work. The same thing goes for installation of solar
panels or wind turbines.
The widespread adoption of these technologies is being stopped in its
tracks because we simply do not have enough people to do the jobs. But
instead of talking about a study or listening to my experience from
Vermont, let me actually offer testimonials from some of those who are
most familiar with the need for the workforce development concepts I am
proposing.
Let me quote Tim Michels, from Energy Solutions, Incorporated, from
St. Louis, MO:

We have been saving energy for institutions for over 30
years. We typically find that we can reduce energy use 25+
percent with less than a 4 year payback, so it is very
economical and we have lots of case studies to prove it. The
limiting factor to our growth as an industry is lack of
qualified professionals to perform the analyses.

That is what we are trying to do: find the workers to do those types
of efforts.
Lisa Mortensen, the CEO of Community Fuels, of Encinitas, CA, states:

Currently, we are constructing a 7.5 million gallon per
year biodiesel plant at Port of Stockton, California. As a
renewable energy start-up we have an intimate understanding
of the need for a high quality workforce. Skills in
mechanical operations, industrial hygiene and safety, quality
control and a wider understanding of energy production are
essential to a quality workforce. These skills are not easily
learned. With funding opportunities like the one proposed,
our company could work with local training institutions to
help develop a workforce prepared for the changing U.S.
landscape.

Christopher O'Brien, vice president for strategy & government
relations, Sharp Electronics Corporation, of Mayway, NJ, writes:

Sharp Corporation is the world's leading producer of solar
photovoltaic equipment and has been the No. 1 producer since
2000. Sharp's solar manufacturing plant in Memphis is the
largest solar panel manufacturing facility in the U.S., with
annual production capacity of 64 Megawatts, comprised of
almost 400,000 solar panels. The 200 solar production workers
in Memphis are represented by IBEW Local 474. Sharp supports
the proposal for increased Federal funding for worker
training in solar and other renewable energy and energy
efficiency industries. . . . We have since 2003 trained and
certified over 1,681 workers. Additional Federal funding
support would help to accelerate the pace of this training
and would assure Sharp and other solar manufacturers that
there will be a reliable and professionally trained pool of
workers to deliver and install solar energy systems on
customers' homes and commercial buildings. . . .

Those are a few--just a few--of the testimonials that have come
across my desk as I have worked on this amendment, but I do think they
do a good job of making this issue real for those of us in the Senate.
Now, my colleagues may wonder why we need a specific program for
training in energy efficiency and renewables. The answer is simple:
While the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries use many
skills that can be transferred from other industries, specific,
additional skills are often needed to take maximum advantage of the
newer energy technologies.
For instance, investments in training of building maintenance workers
and building superintendents and engineers can improve the operation of
today's heating and cooling systems by as much as 10 percent in large
public and commercial buildings, according to the National Association
of Energy Services Companies. Such training could save millions of
dollars per year in energy costs in larger public or commercial
buildings, not to mention reduce the emission of pollutants that add to
global warming. Let me quote from two business leaders about the need
for specific training in these areas.
Erik Larson, from Indie Energy, of Evanston, IL:

We are the first company in the Chicago area to develop
geothermal systems for commercial and residential
developments using in-house vertical drilling. . . . We
recognized right away that the skill sets required for a
geothermal operation were not available in current labor
markets.

Robert de Grasse, senior vice president of technical standards,
AIMCO--America's largest owner of apartment complexes--of Denver, CO,
writes:

I personally support the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Worker Training Program. AIMCO is expecting that
properly trained maintenance technicians will have
significant and measurable benefits; in particular with HVAC
systems and electric motors. Energy User News described the
energy and financial savings on HVAC for community colleges
in California was estimated from 6 percent to 19 percent of a
typical community college's energy bill; a direct result of
technical training.

There is no doubt in my mind this amendment could make a tremendous
difference in our ability to implement concrete, on-the-ground
strategies that help to address our energy challenges. Ensuring we have
a workforce trained in the skills needed to implement bold energy
efficiency and renewable energy policies will go a long way.
Before I yield the floor, I would like to read the long list of some
of the organizations that support the Sanders-Clinton-Kerry-Biden
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that letters from the following
groups be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

NAESCO,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2007.
Re business leaders urge vote for Sanders-Clinton amendment
to promote workforce training for a new energy economy.

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: As a business association representing
leading companies working to build a new clean energy
economy, we strongly urge you to vote ``yes'' on an amendment
to the Energy Savings Act of 2007 (SB 1321) that will be
vital to our nation's energy security and to the fight
against global warming. Offered by Senators Sanders and
Clinton, the Amendment would establish an Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy Workforce Training Program at the
Department of Labor to ensure our country trains the
workforce needed to ensure continued robust growth of a new,
clean energy industry.
NAESCO's current membership of about 85 organizations
includes firms involved in the design, manufacture, financing
and installation of energy efficiency and renewable energy
equipment and the provision of energy efficiency and
renewable energy services in the private and public sectors.
NAESCO members deliver about $4 billion of energy efficiency
projects each year. NAESCO numbers among its members some of
the most prominent companies in the world in the HVAC and
energy control equipment business, including Honeywell,
Johnson Controls, Siemens, Trane and TAC/Tour Andover. Our
members also include many of the nation's largest utilities:
Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, New York
Power

[[Page S7526]]

Authority, and TU Electric & Gas. In addition, ESCO members
include affiliates of ConEdison, Pepco Energy Services,
Constellation, PP&L, DMJM Harris and Direct Energy. Prominent
national and regional independent members include Custom
Energy, NORESCO, Onsite Energy, EnergySolve, Ameresco, UCONS,
Chevron Energy Solutions, Synergy Companies, Wendel Energy
Services, WESCO and Energy Systems Group. NAESCO member
companies have been delivering energy efficiency projects to
residential, commercial, institutional and industrial
customers across the country for the past twenty years.
The companies we represent are developing and deploying a
wide range of innovative clean energy technologies, utilizing
domestic biomass, wind, solar energy, geothermal power, fuel
cells, energy efficient technologies and services, and much,
much more. By 2025, these technologies could provide electric
power equal to half of all the electricity that our country
uses today. By 2030, our industries could replace 30% to 40%
of the petroleum our country now imports. By doing so, our
industries could make a significant contribution to curbing
global warming pollution, enhancing our nation's energy
security, and creating up to 5 million new jobs by 2025.
However, to achieve these goals, we must find enough
qualified, trained people to design, manufacture, install,
operate, and maintain a host of innovative renewable energy
and energy efficient technologies. Across the country, our
companies experience workforce shortages as one of the key
barriers to growth. Indeed, a recent literature review from
the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) identified the
shortage of skills and training as a leading non-technical
barrier to renewable energy and energy efficiency growth.
We believe that the $100 million dollars authorized by the
Sanders-Clinton Amendment is urgently needed to develop
national and state skill training programs that will prepare
workers technically for our emerging industries, as well as
to analyze market trends and demonstrate best practices.
While the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries
use many skills that can be transferred from other sectors,
in many other cases, our companies require specific, new
skills to take maximum advantage of the newer energy
technologies. By establishing a pilot program specifically
geared toward the renewable energy and efficiency industries,
the Sanders-Clinton Amendment would enable us to build the
workforce our industries need to achieve their maximum
potential.
Our companies stand ready to help our country with new
energy technologies that will make us all more secure, curb
the threat of global warming, and create economic opportunity
for millions of working Americans. We urge you to vote
``yes'' on the Clinton-Sanders Amendment as a crucial step
toward achieving these vital objectives.
Sincerely,
Donald D. Gilligan,
President.
____

Center for American

Progress Action Fund,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2007.
Senator Bernard Sanders,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Senator Hillary Clinton,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Sanders and Clinton: I write to express my
strong support for the proposed Sanders-Clinton Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program that
will be offered as an amendment to the upcoming energy bill,
and to encourage other Senators to join in support of this
provision as co-sponsors. This is a critically important
energy and jobs measure that will help to ensure both
America's future energy and economic security.
As our nation confronts the twin challenges of our
escalating energy dependence and a mounting climate crisis,
we are presented by a remarkable opportunity to meet these
pressing demands with new more efficient and ever cleaner
sources of energy. This ``energy opportunity'' represents a
chance to rebuild our communities, to better train our
workers, and to reinvest in the basic infrastructure of the
nation. This amendment takes a significant step forward in
meeting the practical need to ensure that American firms and
workers have the cutting edge skills to participate in the
growing market for clean and efficient energy, and to capture
the jobs of the future.
Even as wind and solar energy experience explosive annual
growth rates, the utility industry is facing retirement of
half its workers within the decade, while the National
Renewable Energy Lab has identified a shortage of skilled
workers as a major barrier to deployment of renewable and
efficient energy. This amendment strategically invests
$100,000,000 dollars into a more robust labor market and
skills training that will prepare up to 30,000 workers to
jump start these booming industries that America invented.
This is a smart investment in a safer, more prosperous, and
more competitive U.S. economy.
By enhancing the workforce investment system, and working
with state governments, non-profit community groups, and both
labor and management, this amendment offers an efficient path
forward for the American economy. Targeting workers displaced
by shifting energy policies, enhanced skills for returning
veterans, pathways out of poverty for those most in need of
work, and a reliable labor market for both small business and
heavy industry represents a sound investment in the future.
This amendment will help build a state of the art economy and
expand markets for renewable energy, good jobs in
construction and building trades, and job security for the
U.S. auto industry. Thank you for your leadership on this
issue. The Center for American Progress Action Fund salutes
your vision, and offers its full support for this important
measure.
Sincerely,
John D. Podesta,
President and CEO.
____

June 11, 2007.
Re support the Sanders-Clinton amendment on worker training
for the clean energy economy.

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: As representatives of the environmental,
energy efficiency, and clean energy advocacy communities, we
urge you to vote for an amendment to the Renewable Fuels,
Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 (S.
1419) that will train working Americans for high-skilled jobs
in the emerging, clean energy economy. Sponsored by Senators
Sanders and Clinton, the amendment would create an Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Workforce Training Program at
the Department of Labor to train workers in the skills our
country needs to make the most of new investments in clean,
renewable energy and energy-saving technologies.
As Congress advances programs to enhance our energy
security and address global warming, workforce shortages have
emerged as one of the top barriers to the new energy economy.
Indeed, a 2006 study from the National Renewable Energy Lab
identified a shortage of skills and training as a leading
barrier to renewable energy and energy efficiency growth.
The program established by the Sanders-Clinton Amendment
would help ensure that our nation develops the best models
for training workers in the new skills required to properly
manufacture, install, maintain, and operate clean energy
technologies. Grant funding under the program could, for
instance, train wind-industry workers in such new skills as
turbine siting, airfoil repair, and weather patterns that
affect turbine performance. Investments in training of
building maintenance workers, superintendents, and engineers
could improve the operations of sophisticated heating and
cooling systems by as much as 10 percent, saving millions in
energy costs each year in large public, industrial, or
commercial buildings.
Of crucial importance, the Sanders-Clinton amendment
provides working Americans with a clear pathway to earn a
family-supporting livelihood in the emerging, new energy
economy. We enthusiastically embrace this amendment for
signaling that America is, at last, ready to replace the old
debate of ``jobs vs. the environment'' by investing in ``jobs
for the environment.''
Thank you for considering our request to co-sponsor this
vital amendment. If you have any questions about this
legislation, please feel free to contact Jessica Maher in
Sen. Sanders' office.
Sincerely,
Kateri Callahan,
President, Alliance to Save Energy.
Bill Prindle,
Acting Executive Director, American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy.
David Zwick,
President, Clean Water Action.
Vawter Parker,
Executive Director, Earthjustice.
Frances Beinecke,
President, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Joan Claybrook,
President, Public Citizen.
Carl Pope,
Executive Director, Sierra Club
Kevin Knobloch,
President, Union of Concerned Scientists.
____

June 11, 2007.
Re business leaders urge vote for Sanders-Clinton amendment
to promote workforce training for a new energy economy.

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: As business associations representing
hundreds of leading companies working to build a new clean
energy economy, we strongly urge you to vote ``yes'' on an
amendment to the Energy Savings Act of 2007 (SB 1321) that
will be vital to our nation's energy security and to the
fight against global warming. Offered by Senators Sanders and
Clinton, the Amendment would establish an Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy Workforce Training Program at the
Department of Labor to ensure our country trains the
workforce needed to ensure continued robust growth of a new,
clean energy industry.

[[Page S7527]]

The companies we represent are developing and deploying a
wide range of innovative clean energy technologies, utilizing
domestic biomass, wind, solar energy, geothermal power, fuel
cells, energy efficient technologies and services, and much,
much more. By 2025, these technologies could provide electric
power equal to half of all the electricity that our country
uses today. By 2030, our industries could replace 30% to 40%
of the petroleum our country now imports. By doing so, our
industries could make a significant contribution to curbing
global warming pollution, enhancing our nation's energy
security, and creating up to 5 million new jobs by 2025.
However, to achieve these goals, we must find enough
qualified, trained people to design, manufacture, install,
operate, and maintain a host of innovative renewable energy
and energy efficient technologies. Across the country, our
companies experience workforce shortages as one of the key
barriers to growth. Indeed, a recent literature review from
the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) identified the
shortage of skills and training as a leading non-technical
barrier to renewable energy and energy efficiency growth.
We believe that the $100 million dollars authorized by the
Sanders-Clinton Amendment is urgently needed to develop
national and state skill training programs that will prepare
workers for our emerging industries, analyze market trends,
and demonstrate best practices. While the renewable energy
and energy efficiency industries use many skills that can be
transferred from other sectors, in many other cases, our
companies require specific, new skills to take maximum
advantage of the newer energy technologies. By establishing a
pilot program specifically geared toward the renewable energy
and efficiency industries, the Sanders-Clinton Amendment
would enable us to build the workforce our industries need to
achieve their maximum potential.
Our companies stand ready to help our country with new
energy technologies that will make us all more secure, curb
the threat of global warming, and create economic opportunity
for millions of working Americans. We urge you to vote
``yes'' on the Clinton-Sanders Amendment as a crucial step
toward achieving these vital objectives.
Sincerely,
Bradley D. Collins,
Executive Director, American Solar Energy Society.
Randall Swisher,
President, American Wind Energy Association.
Donald Gilligan,
President, National Association of Energy Service
Companies.
Robert Dinneen,
President Renewable Fuels Association.
Rhone Resch,
President, Solar Energy Industries Association.
____

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2007.
Dear Senator: I am writing to request your support for an
amendment to be offered by Sen. Sanders to S. 1419 the
``Energy Savings Act of 2007.''
The Sanders amendment would establish the Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train workers
for good-paying jobs in clean energy design, manufacturing,
installation, construction, operation, and maintenance. This
program would help U.S. workers get good jobs in an industry
expected to experience rapid growth as our nation refits and
rebuilds its energy infrastructure, and would help the U.S.
economy take advantage of emerging environmental
technologies.
To ensure that the benefits from new investments in our
national energy infrastructure are distributed equitably, the
Sanders amendment would give priority to partnerships that
train veterans, workers displaced by globalization or
environmental policies, and disadvantaged workers and
communities. In addition, to allow for the delivery of
training unique to specialized geographic and industry needs,
the Sanders amendment balances grants between national,
regional, and state workforce development programs.
As Congress considers legislation designed to reduce our
country's reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels, we
believe it should also invest in the domestic workforce.
American workers should have every opportunity to acquire the
skills necessary for job opportunities that will be created
by new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy
industries.
The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to support and cosponsor the
Sanders amendment. To become a cosponsor, please call Jessica
Maher in Sen. Sanders' office. If you have any other
questions or need any further information, please contact
David Mallino in the AFL-CIO's Department of Legislation.
Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director,
Department of Legislation.
____

June 5, 2007.
Re co-sponsor the Sanders-Clinton amendment on workforce
development for the new energy economy
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: I write to urge you to co-sponsor an
amendment that Senators Sanders and Clinton will offer during
the upcoming debate on S. 1419, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer
Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, that would
help America develop the specialized workforce skills needed
to ensure robust growth of the renewable energy and energy
efficiency industries. The Sanders-Clinton Amendment would
establish an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Workforce
Training Program to be administered by the Department of
Labor (DOL) in coordination with the Department of Energy.
The purpose of this initiative is twofold--to expand our
nation's capacity to identify and track the new jobs and
skills associated with the growing energy technology sector
and to develop national and state skill training programs
that will demonstrate best practices in addressing skill
shortages that have already begun to impair the expansion of
energy technologies that are crucial to national security,
economic competitiveness, and curbing global warming.
Industries eligible for training services under the program
would include: energy-efficient building, construction, and
retrofits; renewable electric power; advanced automotive
drive trains; advanced bio-fuels; and the deconstruction and
materials use industries.
As Congress advances programs to enhance our energy
security and address global warming, workforce shortages are
emerging in the utilities sector that could stymie growth of
the renewable energy and efficiency industries. According to
the American Public Power Association, half of current
utility workers will retire within the next decade. However,
our nation is not training enough new workers to fill their
places. For instance, the number of high school graduates
with technical training has declined by 35 percent over the
last decade.
Already, the renewable and energy efficiency industries are
feeling the pinch. A 2006 study from the National Renewable
Energy Lab (NREL) identified the shortage of skills and
training as a leading non-technical barrier to renewable
energy and energy efficiency growth. In particular, the NREL
study identified a number of critical unmet training needs,
including lack of reliable installation, maintenance, and
inspection services, the shortage of key technical and
manufacturing skills, and failure of the educational system
to provide adequate training in new technologies.
Leading companies in the renewable energy and efficiency
sector experience lack of skilled workers as a key business
constraint. According to Steve Cowell, CEO and Chairman, of
Conservation Services Group (CSG), a leading provider of
building efficiency and renewable energy services, ``the
growth of the industry is constrained by the challenges of
finding experienced, trained people. . . . CSG has identified
this issue as our . . . industry's most significant
constraint on growth.''
The program established by the Sanders-Clinton Amendment
would help ensure that our nation has the best models for
training workers in the many new skills required to properly
manufacture, install, maintain, and operate clean energy
technologies. For instance, grant funding provided under the
amendment could train workers in such substantial new skills
as wind turbine siting, airfoils and composite repair, and
weather patterns that affect turbine performance.
While the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries
use many skills that can be transferred from other
industries, specific, targeted skill enhancements are often
needed to take maximum advantage of the newer energy
technologies. For instance, investments in training of
building maintenance workers and building superintendents and
engineers can improve the operations of today's sophisticated
heating and cooling systems by as much as 10 percent in large
public and commercial buildings, according to the National
Association of Energy Services Companies. Such training could
save millions of dollars per year in energy costs in larger
public or commercial buildings.
The Sanders-Clinton amendment is unique among many of the
new energy polices that Congress will consider for providing
a pathway for working Americans to earn a family-supporting
livelihood in our new energy economy. This Amendment honors
the sacrifice of our veterans by including them among groups
targeted for training. In addition, the Amendment helps to
tap the full range of our nation's human capital by offering
training opportunities to those displaced by national energy
and environmental policy, economic globalization, individuals
seeking pathways out of poverty, formerly incarcerated,
adjudicated and non-violent offenders who seek to play a
constructive role in society, and incumbent workers in the
energy field needing to update their skills.
The $100 million authorized by the Sanders-Clinton
Amendment is needed to implement programs of sufficient size
and scale to achieve the dual goals described previously--
enhanced labor market information as well as national and
state demonstration training programs. The Amendment would
authorize up to $40 million in grants on a competitive basis
under a National Training Partnerships program and up to $40
million in grants to states to implement labor exchange and

[[Page S7528]]

training programs. Preference would be given to states that
show leadership in promoting renewable energy, energy
efficiency, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Eligible entities would include non-profit organizations that
are composed of partnerships between industry and labor,
taking advantage of established programs in order to ensure
the highest-quality training possible. The Sanders-Clinton
amendment also provides funding for national and State
industry-wide research, labor market information, and labor
exchange programs.
Using the average costs of attending a community college,
we estimate that funding would be sufficient to train between
20,000 and 30,000 workers per year. These numbers represent
just a small fraction of the 3 million workers that would be
needed, according to our own estimates, if the country
launched an ambitious ten-year Apollo-like effort to build a
new energy future. However, we believe it is prudent to begin
with a pilot program on the scale proposed by Senator Sanders
to ensure we fully understand the kinds of training needed
and future workforce trends before investing in a larger
effort.
Worker training, we believe, will be crucial to the wider
market penetration of innovative renewable energy and energy
efficient technologies. With passage of the Sanders-Clinton
Amendment, businesses can, for instance, have greater
confidence that an expensive solar array or geothermal heat
pump will be properly installed, reducing the perceived risks
of investing in relatively unfamiliar technologies. As skills
improve, costs will come down. That will, in turn, pave the
way toward making renewables and efficiency a core component
of our country's energy mix.
Thank you for considering our request to co-sponsor this
vital amendment. If you have any questions about this
legislation, please feel free to contact Jessica Maher in
Senator Sanders' office or Dan Seligman, Apollo's National
Campaign Director.
Sincerely,
Jerome Ringo,
President, Apollo Alliance.

Mr. SANDERS. Some of those groups are the Apollo Alliance; the
Renewable Fuels Association; Wider Opportunities for Women; the Union
of Concerned Scientists; the AFL-CIO; the National Association of
Energy Service Companies, which includes many businesses and utilities
that we all have heard of--Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Trane, and
Pacific Gas & Electric, to name a few--the Sierra Club; the Alliance to
Save Energy; the Solar Energy Industries Association; Clean Water
Action; the American Wind Energy Association; Earthjustice; the
American Solar Energy Society; the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy; Public Citizen; the Center for American Progress
Action Fund; and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
To conclude, this amendment has widespread support from the business
community and from organized labor. It has support from the
environmental community. What it says is if we are going to go forward
in a bold way, breaking our dependence on fossil fuels, moving to
energy efficiency, moving to sustainable energy, we are going to need a
skilled workforce to help us move in that direction. I have always
believed as we move to sustainable energy and energy efficiency, we
have the capability of creating millions of new, good-paying jobs. This
amendment is terribly important if, in fact, we are going to be able to
do that.
I yield the floor and ask for support of this amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I have conferred with my colleague and
we are willing to accept the amendment offered by the Senator from
Vermont, the one he presented to the Members, the one that is currently
pending. Perhaps my colleague wants to speak to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, we have reviewed the amendment, and
actually we have similar activity already prescribed for in the bill.
This modifies some, changes some, adds in other places, but all of it
is authorizing to the extent that it expands--it is pretty much the
kind of thing the bill contemplated. So we have no objection on our
side.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate those comments, and the
Senator from California who chairs the Environment and Public Works
Committee indicates it is acceptable to her committee as well. So at
this point, I think the Senate is ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1515) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President and fellow Senators, I need now to
bother you with a few minutes of time, because some very good Senators
have come to the floor to speak in favor of a proposal that was brought
to the floor by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, and he was
joined by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. Between the two, they
mentioned and enumerated a number of Senators who favored this--good
Senators here who favor this proposal that was brought to the Senate's
attention, as it was a freestanding amendment that has been floating
around the Senate for quite some time as something that maybe we should
consider. Now, it sounds good. Senators who spoke about it spoke
eloquently about it, but I would suggest that maybe, just maybe, these
goals in this amendment were necessary yesterday--maybe yesterday,
Senator Bingaman--I am not sure, but maybe.
But I encourage my colleagues to look to the underlying bill and
compare it to the goals that are set forth in that amendment. We don't
need the goals, because we have already--the amendment they offer sets
goals and then directs the administration to figure out how to get
where they are supposed to go. I think that is sort of like
outsourcing. That is outsourcing of the legislature duties and
responsibilities to the executive, and then praising the bill because
it tells the executive they have to reach these goals and save all of
this oil. Well, if it were that easy, ever since we found out we were
greatly dependent upon foreign oil, it would have been a cinch. There
would have been nothing to it. We could have come to the floor and said
we have an answer.
We want a dream. We want a dream, and the dream is a two-sentence
bill that says the executive branch of Government shall have OMB
proceed to direct goals that will get us to the point where we are no
longer dependent. What a dream they could say that is. I am kind of
paraphrasing my wonderful friend from Colorado who talked about the
dream, that this was a dream to achieve big things. But you see, this
is merely saying to the executive branch: You do what we ought to do,
and when you do it, or if you do it, we are going to take credit today,
because we told you to get OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, or
somebody in your branch of the Government, to set the goals and then
tell us how to do it, and then do it.

Let me get back to why we don't need it, if we ever needed it. I
would have made this same argument in any event, but I want to say
yesterday it was a little more relevant. My colleagues understand we
have a bill before us, and we the Congress set goals on gasoline
savings and then we set the policies that will attain the goals. They
are tough, hard goals. They are not saying to the President: You reach
these goals. We reach the goals. In fact, we will vote on this bill and
when we do, if we do, and if we have enough courage, we will be voting
on changing the automobile standards in a big way. For the first time
in decades, we will have changed the standards for automobiles, for new
automobiles, and made the automobile manufacturers make cars every year
less dependent, more efficient so they use less gasoline.
But we don't say: Executive branch, You do it. Set the goals. And
aren't we happy we dreamed big and we said to you, you set the goals
for CAFE standards. We didn't say that. We said: Here, we changed them.
And if anybody wants to vote to change the CAFE standards, they are
already changed in this bill. If you want to change the CAFE standards
and save a huge number of barrels, since they are talking

[[Page S7529]]

about barrels, a huge number of barrels of crude oil, because all the
gasoline for the most part comes from that, you will achieve those
savings by voting for this bill. You don't have to vote for an
amendment that says to the President: You set the goals, Mr. President,
and then you achieve them. And, boy, when that gets done, we will have
made a real dream come true.
Now, I figure we should stop dreaming. We dreamed so much on energy
and we have been working so hard that today, for the first time in the
transportation section, the section of our law that is transportation
oriented, we took one big bite out of the use of transportation fuel,
and we did not need the amendment I am opposing that was brought here
today and that the distinguished Senators from Colorado and Connecticut
and others spoke in favor of. We don't need it anymore, because we
don't need anybody else setting the goals. We achieved the goals
ourselves right in the bill.
In 1972, President Nixon set the goal of being energy independent by
1980. We were about 30 percent dependent on foreign oil at that time.
Today, unfortunately, we are 60 percent reliant upon foreign oil. That
tells me goals are not enough. We need action. Interestingly enough,
this bill that they offer an amendment to is the action. It is the
action per se. We have not had any action that makes us less reliant,
substantially less reliant, as does this bill. By adoption of the
changes in the laws that apply to new cars, we have dramatically
reduced what Americans are going to spend on gasoline and diesel fuel
in the forthcoming years because we have changed the law and have
caused that to happen in a very good way. But we haven't asked anybody
to do it for us. We haven't said: Mr. President, would you find in your
administration somebody who could set these goals and achieve them?
Boy, we have told you how to do it. We have set them very high so we
can go home and tell the American people how high we have set the goals
and how much we achieved. But we did nothing in the amendment. We did
nothing; we just asked the White House to do it.
I know a lot of people have endorsed a bill that does this, that has
these goals that asks the President to ask the OMB to achieve the
goals, and we have everybody on it. We have people in ordinary life who
are great citizens. We have former Senators, former members of White
House staff. They all joined this bill. But the bill was nothing more
than a set of goals, and it said the White House should go out and
achieve them. It was sort of saying: We would like to be President, but
we are not. Since we are not, we are going to adopt this amendment and
it is going to tell the President that is what he ought to do. But I
say that once again, the amendment, which I am going to call the
Salazar amendment for a moment, would require the administration to
develop a plan to reduce oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels of oil
per day during the calendar year 2016, ramping up to 10 million barrels
per day during calendar year 2031. But the bill we are considering
already includes an ambitious gasoline savings goal. It goes on to
achieve the goal. The bill itself achieves the goal by changing the
law. Senators are going to be voting--not the President--to get it
done. The bill we are considering already includes ambitious savings.
The bill sets gasoline savings at 20 percent by calendar year 2017, 35
percent by calendar year 2025, and 45 percent by calendar year 2030.
Now, we did not ask the President to ask staff to come up with a goal
and then today brag on the goal because the President is going to do
it. What we did in this bill is we adopted these goals and then changed
the law to achieve them.
As you know, we changed the law to achieve the savings, by changing
the law on new automobiles and other things in this bill. These goals
are consistent with what the President articulated in the State of the
Union Address. But we didn't wait around to see how he was going to do
it and let him call the shots and then brag that he set the goals. We
did it ourselves. The President's Twenty in Ten Initiative calls for a
reduction in gasoline usage by 20 percent in 10 years, or by 2017.
This bill not only includes these gasoline savings goals but
establishes the programs that will put us on track to meet them. In
particular, the bill includes an ambitious renewable fuel standard that
will displace foreign oil with homegrown renewable fuel.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Then we set the
policies that attain the goals we are trying to achieve. Outsourcing
our authority--we outsource it to the White House in the amendment that
was put before us--Senator Lieberman first brought it up. I don't know
who takes credit as its author. Perhaps it is the distinguished Senator
from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, but we all know which three or four
Senators first came up with it.
I wish to talk for a moment about this. On the biofuels part of the
bill, we save 2.5 million barrels per day by 2017--I have converted
some of this to barrels so they won't wonder what we are doing--4.5
million barrels per day by 2025, and 6.5 million barrels per day by
2030. This is just the renewable fuels section. If we add the CAFE
standards from the bill, we probably will exceed these goals in
practice by passing this bill.
This amendment is unnecessary. The amendment offered by Senator
Salazar and others here today is unnecessary because we, as a matter of
fact, already adopted law changes. We will be the ones who were
courageous and did the work. We are not going to just set goals and put
numbers there and say, now we have done our job, and say to the
President, you go do it, and then come to the Senate and say, won't it
be great. We set these goals, and the President will do it.
I don't believe that is the way we are going to do that. If that was
the way we were going to do it--I told you about Richard Nixon and how
far we were already substantially indebted to the world, 20 percent
dependent. We were all trying to get a balanced budget in terms of the
energy consumption. He wanted to have a zero difference. He wanted to
make everything work, where we didn't have any excess use of oil, and
he announced that. But, you see, he was President. He could have done
whatever he wanted that was legal. He must have found that the
President cannot do it. He didn't achieve it. The Congress tried but
could not achieve it with him, and nobody could do it very easily.
We have been doing very well when you consider what we did in the
bill we passed 2 years ago, the Energy bill, plus the two things which
are in this bill which are gigantic, the likes of which we have never
done--the CAFE change, which is giant. You heard the effects from
Senator Feinstein. That is not set in stone. That is adopting the
changes in CAFE standards, big changes. And then we did the dramatic
thing the President recommended in terms of moving ahead with ethanol
and beyond ethanol to the kind of cellulosic ethanol, which is going to
be truly a magnificent substitute for the oil we are using. But we are
not setting a goal; we are going to do it. The bill will do it. By the
time we are finished, the bill will achieve almost as much as the
Salazar amendment requested in goals.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I want to get it clear in the Record
who this amendment belongs to. It was introduced by Senator Bayh some
time ago. It had as sponsors Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Coleman,
Salazar, Cantwell, Kerry, Dodd, and Kohl. The amendment was also
proposed by Senator Reid. I now have it straight that these were the
Senators on this amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the
Bayh amendment No. 1508 that is rooted in one of the most basic
responsibilities we have as Members of this body,

[[Page S7530]]

and that is to preserve the security of the American people. For over a
year, I have been working with a bipartisan group of Senators,
including Senator Bayh, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, and
Senator Salazar, on a plan that will create oil savings for this
Nation.
By the way, the bill before us does that. Senator Domenici is right.
Congress needs to do the hard work, there is no question about that.
This bill has already been strengthened, and there have been provisions
with CAFE that will add to the strength of this bill.
The approach we are offering is a more aggressive approach than the
savings target in the bill. It is a more aggressive approach than CAFE
or other oil savings that we see.
We offer this amendment today to replace the gasoline savings goal in
H.R. 6, the underlying legislation we are now considering, with title I
of what we call the DRIVE Act, which we have offered as an amendment.
It would direct the executive branch of our Government to identify
within 9 months and to publish within 18 months Federal requirements
that will achieve a 2.5-million-barrel-per-day reduction of U.S. oil
consumption by 2016, which is the amount of oil that we currently
import from the Middle East. The amendment goes on to achieve a 7-
million-barrel-per-day reduction by 2026, and a 10-million-barrel-per-
day reduction by 2031. That is about 50 percent of the per-day oil
consumption in the United States today.
The amendment would also direct the Office of Management and Budget
to publish an analysis to ensure the Government's action plan will
achieve the oil savings targets, and the amendment will hold the
Government accountable by including specific requirements to the
executive branch to evaluate, review, and update the plan.
The question that is probably on the minds of most Americans is, Can
we do this? Is America up to the challenge? Can we summon the
leadership and resources for a task of this magnitude? The simple
answer for us as Americans is: We can because we must.
The handwriting is on the wall. Failure to address our energy
dependence will mean a future for our kids which is less prosperous,
less safe, and less free.
We should be motivated not by fear, however. We need to dream of the
better America we can build.
This bill before us does that. It moves us in that direction. This
amendment moves us more aggressively in that direction. It makes sure
the Federal Government has all the tools at its disposal, the tools
that the underlying text provides.
The American people will make it possible. For every voice of concern
I hear about foreign oil dependence, I hear about another instance of
Americans' innovative spirit. All I have to do is look at my home State
of Minnesota where entrepreneurs are inventing new renewable fuel
processes, hydraulic-powered vehicles, new revolutionary energy-saving
technologies, the list goes on and on.
The DRIVE Act, upon which this amendment is based, includes a
blueprint of a plan for oil independence that centers on three
principles: energy conservation, vehicle technology, and renewable
fuels. H.R. 6, the underlying text, has included many components of our
plan, and, again, I give great credit to both the chairman of the
committee, Senator Bingaman, and the ranking member, my friend, Senator
Domenici, for the work they have done and all that they have pulled
together to help America lessen its dependence on foreign oil. We need
an oil savings target that is bold. We need one that will hold
Government accountable to achieving cuts to our foreign oil dependence.
We have the tools, but now we need the leadership. We need to give
the leadership direction, and that is what this amendment does. This
amendment would express that leadership in terms of what we think is a
more relevant standard, one that focuses on our problem--oil
consumption. The underlying bill will reduce gasoline use, but it is
possible it could result in an increase in diesel which is, of course,
made from oil. So our amendment, which is based on oil reduction, is,
in our opinion, the more appropriate goal for this law, and that is why
we are offering this amendment to H.R. 6.
The gasoline savings goal currently in H.R. 6 amounts to about a 20-
percent reduction projected oil consumption by 2030, 23 years from now.
But the oil savings in our amendment amounts to a 35-percent reduction
in projected oil consumption in 2030. That is a significantly greater
reduction, and I believe it is one we can achieve if we set the goal as
high as it should be--high enough to cut our dependence on foreign oil
and free America from dependence on the oil of tyrants. We put
petrodollars--oil is a malleable product. We may not buy directly from
Iran, but the fact is, the addiction we have to foreign oil puts
petrodollars in the pockets of thugs and tyrants such as Chavez in
Venezuela and Ahmadinejad in Iran.
The reality is that 97 percent of transportation in the United States
is fueled by oil we buy from a unified global oil market. Saudi Arabia
holds 20 percent of the world's oil reserves, Iran 10 percent, and
Venezuela holds 6 percent of the world's oil reserves. It is time to
stop funding Hugo Chavez and start sending that money to America's
entrepreneurs.
Madam President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bipartisan oil savings amendment. Again, I applaud the chair and the
ranking member, the Senators from New Mexico. They have strengthened
this bill. There will be a CAFE piece that we know will achieve greater
savings. But, clearly, what we are doing is about oil consumption not
just about gasoline. I think we should set the higher standards. If we
tell Americans this is the goal we have to reach, they will get it
done, and we will benefit from it.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, we probably are going to enter into an
agreement to have a vote this evening, but I didn't want the good
Senator to leave the floor without me making three points.
I do not seek now to have an argument about his approach. I will do
that before the vote when we set that up. But when the Senator from
Minnesota talks about a goal of saving oil and the bill before us has
savings of gasoline, I just wonder if he knows that most of the crude
oil goes to gasoline in the United States. That is a fact, isn't it?
Most of the crude oil we import, that we bring into our country to go
to refineries, is turned into gasoline and used by automobiles.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, most of the fuel we consume, I think
over 60 percent, is gasoline. But the issue is dependence. Our concern
is not just about gas. It is about oil, oil dependence. So we push a
little further on the large issue.
I certainly agree with my distinguished colleague from Mexico that
gasoline is a major part of what we are consuming.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am going to yield the floor in a
moment. I just want to say, if my colleague thinks carefully, the
amendment that was offered that was spoken to by my good friend sets
goals to be achieved by the White House, by the executive department.
We have a bill before us that I am so proud of because for the first
time, we did it right. We put in the bill the kinds of law changes that
will save gasoline and oil because we change the law. We don't have to
ask the President to find ways; we did it. When Senators vote for it,
they will not be voting for a goal that asks the President to do
something. They will be voting for a change in the law that makes cars
more efficient in the future if produced and used in the American
market.
That same bill will save tremendous amounts of electricity and
whatever is used with electricity because we are going to become so
much more efficient on appliances and the like.
And, third, there will be some enormous savings because we are going
to make gasoline from something other than crude oil and other than by
making it out of corn. We are going to make it out of switchgrass and
other products that are part of the biomass approach.
I am proud that just those three will do more than we have ever done,
and we won't be asking a President to set goals to achieve, which a
President has never been able to do. If they could, they would do it
without us asking them. We are doing it in this bill.

[[Page S7531]]

I yield the floor and will return when we have a vote on this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, first, I thank my friend from
Minnesota, Senator Coleman, who has been very active in the
construction of the so-called DRIVE Act. I thank him for his
cosponsorship of this amendment. I appreciate very much this is a
bipartisan measure.
I say to Senator Domenici, if I may, I wish to respond to his
statement. The aim of this amendment is to build on--and I mentioned
this earlier in my statement--all the extraordinary steps forward that
are in the bill that has come out of the Energy Committee and the
Commerce Committee.
In other words, we are trying to do basically a couple of things with
this amendment. One, it is true we are moving from the goal in the bill
that just says gasoline to oil so that it includes all oil usage in the
country.
Second, basically, we are saying to the executive branch that over
the time ahead, here are some national goals we are setting. You have
authority in law, and if this bill passes--thanks to the work that
Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman have done, and our friends on the
Commerce Committee--the Government will have more authority. Put all
those authorities together in a package and tell us how you are going
to use those authorities to achieve the real goals in this bill.
So this is not in any way intended to undermine the very progressive
steps in the committee's proposal, H.R. 6. It is intended to put a
requirement on this administration and following administrations to
make sure that all the authorities they have in the law are used to
achieve these goals. If they don't feel they can do it with the
authorities they have, they can come back to us and ask for more.
I yield to my friend from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I second what my colleague has said. I
applaud the underlying work on this bill. It is progressive. It is
going to make a difference.
What we are doing is simply building on that foundation and
understanding that the issue of oil dependence is about oil dependence,
and if we can move the ball forward, if we can give some specific tools
to the administration--Congress is going to do the hard work. The
Senator from New Mexico has done the heavy lifting. This is a very
broad-based bill. There is a lot in this bill. I believe this amendment
certainly has some responsibilities, and the executive branch needs to
be part of the solution. I believe it is appropriate for Congress to
give them this kind of direction. We will all benefit. But it certainly
builds on a very steady foundation that the Senator from New Mexico has
put forth, and I applaud him for doing that.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I will add, unless Senator Domenici
wishes to speak, I will suggest the absence of a quorum but not quite
yet.
Senator Coleman has a good point. We are supporting the bill. It is a
very significant step forward coming out of the committees. Again, I
thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici for their bipartisan
leadership on this bill. This amendment sets good, significant goals
for savings of oil consumption by America over the next 23 years.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
until 5:45 today be for debate with respect to amendment No. 1508 and
the time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form and no
second-degree amendment be in order prior to the vote and that at 5:45
p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, without
further intervening action or debate.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, what were the last two
lines?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment,
without further intervening action or debate, at 5:45.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have half the time?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes, you do.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, if there is no one here to speak
directly to the amendment at this point, I would like to speak to the
bill under this unanimous consent request. I will yield if someone
comes to the floor to speak directly to the amendment, No. 1508.
This week in the Senate we are considering an energy bill, the
Renewable Fuels Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.
This legislation is built upon a goal we believe in, the goal to move
America in a new energy direction which will enhance our national
security and strengthen our economy while protecting the Earth on which
we live.
This new energy direction calls upon the strength of America:
innovation, ingenuity, creativity. We are calling for improvements in
energy efficiency, development of cleaner alternative fuels, investment
in research and development for new technology, improvements to fuel
economy, and stronger consumer protection.
If we do not take steps to use our energy resources more wisely and
instead continue on the path we have followed, we threaten our Nation's
future, we risk our economic security, and we fail to protect our
country and our children from the growing threats of global warming. If
we continue on the path from where we have been, we will be left behind
as others around the world who recognize the growing demand for energy
make their own advancements in harnessing renewable resources and
improving energy efficiency. We will fall behind as a nation and,
instead of being leaders of innovation, we will be followers, reliant
on others.
Business as usual will not improve our economy or make our Nation
more secure. A new energy direction for our country will create jobs
and grow our economy. Here are some facts, for a moment, to put it in
perspective.
Every day, we consume 20.8 million barrels of oil, 14,000 barrels per
minute, over 10,000 gallons per second--25 percent of all the oil
produced in the world consumed here in the United States. Over 60
percent of the oil we use is imported. This figure may grow to 70
percent over the next two decades, with about half of the increase
coming from members of the OPEC oil cartel, many with whom we have
relationships that are shaky at best. The thirst for oil costs us $291
billion annually on oil imports, with 38 percent of this money going to
OPEC.
In 2006, the top five integrated oil companies made $119 billion in
profits. Making money is not a bad thing, but that is a recordbreaker.
Since 2005, when the Senate last considered energy policy, gasoline
prices have gone up 45 percent. Since the election of this President,
gasoline prices in America have doubled. In my State, 2 years ago, we
paid $2.19 a gallon. Today, the average is $3.35; in Chicago, $3.50.
The cheapest gasoline I could find 10 days ago in Chicago, $3.75 a
gallon. In the past 5 years, we have witnessed a 136-percent increase
in gas prices and an 83-percent increase in diesel fuel prices. Think
about the added shipping costs, manufacturing costs, and agricultural
costs associated with this.
Three factors are at work here: the industry's failure to reinvest
enough of their profits to expand refinery capacity, the increasing
global demand for world oil resources, and our failure to reduce
consumption. In order to help reduce our dependence on imported oil and
break us from these ever-increasing costs, this bill calls for
strengthening renewable fuel standards.
A century ago, Henry Ford's Model T was the first flex-fuel vehicle.
It could run on both gasoline and ethanol. Ford knew that fuel could be
found in many places, even fermented.
Here we are today, a century later, encouraging the production of
bio-based renewable fuels in order to displace a portion of our
petroleum thirst. This Energy bill calls for an increase in the
domestic production of clean, renewable fuels to 8.5 billion gallons in
2012 and 36 billion in 2022. It specifically calls for an increase in
advanced biofuels, those not derived solely from corn. This provision
would save 1.4 million barrels of oil a day and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Another provision in this bill will save us 1.5 million
barrels of oil a day and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For the first time in 30 years, this bill raises fuel economy
standards for cars and trucks to 35 miles a gallon by

[[Page S7532]]

the year 2020. I offered an amendment 2 years ago that would have
called for these higher fuel economy standards. The Senate was not
ready for that amendment. I think America was. My amendment did not
pass, but it was a starting point for the legislation we have today.
Title V of this bill reflects a true bipartisan compromise and
addresses many concerns about CAFE standards. It authorizes NHTSA to
establish tailored fuel economy standards based on vehicle size and
weight, which removes the disparity between large-car manufacturers and
those that produce smaller vehicles.
I would like to say a word about this. I still hear that many of the
American automobile companies oppose these CAFE standards. It is truly
unfortunate. The time for debate has come and gone. Unfortunately, some
of the leaders of these companies have failed to make the right
decisions about the products they sell in America. They have failed to
invest in the kind of technology that would have brought us better
miles per gallon with safe cars, cars that serve our families and the
needs of our economy. They failed to do this. Sadly, other automobile
companies have not failed. They have stepped in with more fuel-
efficient cars that are now extremely popular. There are long waiting
lines for hybrid vehicles and other cars that have real fuel economy.
It is a sad day for Detroit, and I feel bad for an industry which once
used to lead the world, and I feel even worse for the workers who were
not part of these management decisions which unfortunately brought them
to this moment today, decisions which resulted in cars and trucks that
are being sold that do not serve the needs of America and its future as
they should.

Now we have to change. We really have to move beyond this. We have to
urge Detroit to move beyond their current thinking. Instead of just
selling us more of last year's model, bring us fuel efficiency, bring
us fuel economy so we can save money at the gas pumps and stop pumping
all of these greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, destroying
the climate on our planet.
Two years ago, BusinessWeek published a story that said:

As Congress puts the final touches on a massive new energy
bill, lawmakers are about to blow it. That's because the bill
. . . almost certainly won't include . . . a government-
mandated increase in average fuel economy.

That was 2 years ago. That is when I offered my amendment. That is
when it failed. We cannot fail again. If we fail again, shame on this
Congress, shame on the Members who will not look to the reality of our
future, which is with more fuel economy and fewer emissions from
vehicles.
We also need to move for energy efficiency in so many different
areas--in the appliances we use and the machinery we build, certainly
in the cars and trucks we drive. We have to realize our reliance on
foreign oil does not make us safer but, in fact, weaker in a world of
real danger. We need to reduce our demand for foreign oil and increase
domestic sources so we do not find ourselves drawn into countries
around the world primarily because we depend so much on the energy from
that country or that region. We have seen it happen over and over
again.
A New York Times article from April 20 cited a report issued by 11
retired admirals and generals. This report argued that climate change
could be a ``threat multiplier'' in already fragile parts of the world.
Rising sea levels could threaten the livelihoods of a billion people
living within 45 miles of Asia's coastlines; in Africa, recurring heat
waves, causing widespread shortages of food and water. So our
dependence on foreign oil and the energy we consume not only sends more
American dollars abroad, sometimes to countries that do not share our
values, but it tends to change the world we live in, change it in ways
that destabilize us and make the world less safe.
We want innovation to be the driver of our future, not oil. We want
more American jobs, a stronger economy, and a cleaner environment. We
want a secure future for America.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, since I last had the opportunity to
speak, a unanimous consent was entered to vote on the amendment, No.
1508, which has been introduced by the occupant of the chair, Senator
Salazar, by Senator Bayh, Senator Coleman, Senator Brownback--who is,
unfortunately, not here today but is a cosponsor--myself, and others.
I do wish to say that this bill sets strong targets for a reduction
of oil consumption by America and the American people and American
businesses. It does so by way of breaking what we all agree is a
harmful dependence we have.
I wish to make clear that the underlying bill as proposed by the
committee includes targets. So we are not doing something different by
having a target; we are just saying the target ought to be to reduce
oil consumption, not just gasoline consumption, as the underlying bill
indicates.
That is because we all know the problem we have in America is an
addiction to oil. It is oil dependence, not just gasoline dependence.
It is all of the various uses of oil we have. To get a bit technical,
if we only talk about reducing gasoline consumption, that might be
accomplished by greater use of diesel, but diesel comes from oil. So we
would not, even if we went to diesel, decrease our dependence on
foreign oil. So we think this is building on not just the targets in
the bill but building on all of the good work for energy conservation
and energy efficiency in the bill. It would strengthen the bill.
The targets are a bit more ambitious and would, by our calculations,
reduce American consumption of oil by 35 percent from what it would
otherwise be in the year 2030. That is substantial.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that the
time be charged equally to both sides during any ensuing quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, let me say, we are
getting close to the end of a good day on the bill. This is a three-
part bill that came to us from the Energy, Natural Resources Committee,
the Commerce Committee, and the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Then the majority leader put them together, and I was very proud to be
able to come to the floor and tell the Senators and the American people
what an outstanding bill this was. We had not heard much from anybody,
and people were not quite sure what happened. But people kept saying:
We had an energy bill. Well, we can, at the end of the first day, say
we still have it. It has not been changed any. We accepted one
amendment. It was an authorizing amendment, and it enlarged upon some
pieces of the bill. But essentially it is intact.
And, lo and behold, without this amendment that is before us, which I
urge the Senate not pass, that they not vote for it--it is harmless,
but I do not think we ought to pass it. I wish to tell you all why. To
do that I have to talk a little bit about the bill, because the bill
changes the law. If all of the things in this bill get adopted, we will
save huge amounts of crude oil and gasoline.
The other side keeps mentioning that the bill saves more gasoline and
not enough crude oil. But I guarantee you that if we could get the kind
of savings that could be forthcoming from transportation fuels, America
would be safe, America would be happy, and we would not be dependent,
because we would be using much less crude oil also.
So there is no difference. They are almost the same. Nonetheless, the
truth of the matter is that never in the history of the Congress have
we saved so

[[Page S7533]]

much gasoline--that is the thing that moves transportation in America:
diesel fuel, transportation, and related products. Never have we
changed America so much in terms of how much of that fuel we would use.
What fuel? The fuel everybody says makes us more and more dependent,
the transportation fuel. Right.
Now, what happened is we did not adopt a bill in the Energy Committee
or the Commerce Committee, headed by the Senator from Hawaii and
Senator Stevens from Alaska. Those bills that produced that came from
these committees and are actually changes in the law.
Let's talk right off and say the biggest change is the CAFE
standards. The Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction, had the
courage and the guts to adopt a long-standing amendment sponsored by
the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and it had been regularly
known as the bill that changes the CAFE standards. We adopted it. It is
in here. The changes we have been yearning for are here. We adopted
them, and they are now before us. We don't have to ask anybody to make
the changes that will cause the biggest single savings in
transportation fuels that we ever did.

Then right on top of that, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
adopted a huge multiyear program to use more ethanol but ethanol that
would not be produced by corn but, rather, by switchgrass and come out
of that whole area we are now researching and just almost over the
hurdle in terms of a new kind of production of ethanol. When you add
the two together, it is the biggest reduction in transportation fuel we
will ever get.
I wanted to make the point that we did not set any goals; we did not
adopt any targets; we did not ask the President to find any savings. We
asked the President to sign a bill that will make the savings because
we change the law.
When oil savings amendments were offered in the past, people would
say this was a hidden CAFE standard. They were correct. When you direct
the executive branch to save oil in such a dramatic way, one of the
only ways you can do it and reach that goal is to change the CAFE
standards. So whenever you were telling the President to make these
savings, everybody would say: In transportation, the only way you can
do it is to change the CAFE standards. Isn't that interesting? But we
didn't do that here today. We changed the CAFE standards and saved oil
and gasoline over the next 30 years, calculated as it is in the bill,
because we got that done.
We don't need a hidden CAFE in this bill, which essentially is the
only way you could get to your targets in oil is to do something to
transportation consumption, and that means you would have to do
something with the so-called hidden CAFE standards that would be
incorporated in your suggested targets. In the bill we have, there are
real increases in the CAFE standards that are adopted and they were
articulated by Senator Feinstein and talked about at length. Perhaps
when we pass this amendment asking the President to save oil, perhaps
when we do that--and I know my good friend, the occupant of the Chair,
thinks that amendment I am talking about is a great thing because it
sets targets and let's us dream, as he says, but I think all the
President would have to do, if we adopt and sent to him the Bayh
amendment--that is properly the name of it because he was the first
name on this many months ago--I would venture to say, without fear or
trepidation, if we had the bill we have before us today, Senator Bayh
wouldn't be introducing this amendment with these kinds of targets,
because he would look down and say: The biggest target for crude oil
that is used in gasoline is already done because they have changed the
CAFE standards. They don't need another target.
If we continue this way and we adopt the Bayh amendment, then when
the President signs our bill, he can send it back to us and say: This
is my plan, to do what you asked me to do, because in this bill we have
already accomplished the things you were talking about.
Let me say, there isn't any rancor. I am not trying to belittle
anybody. The truth is, when you have to set targets and tell the
President to achieve the targets, you have accomplished nothing.
Because if that is the way you could have saved crude oil in the past,
every President would have done it himself, would have taken us out of
this crisis by doing just what your targets say, go out and find them
and do them. But you can't do them. You have to have Congress. You have
to change laws.
I want to sit down for a moment and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, if I could ask a question of my friend and
colleague from New Mexico, I am informed that the time on our side of
the aisle has expired. Is it possible I could prevail upon him to
request 2 minutes, perhaps?
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes 57
seconds. The Senator from Indiana has 1 minute 33 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. What do you want, five total?
Mr. BAYH. If I go beyond three, it will have been an imposition.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will say five.
Mr. BAYH. I thank the, Senator. I appreciate that very much.
I want to begin by complimenting you for the excellent work you and
Senator Bingaman have demonstrated on this bill. I know it is a matter
of great concern to you and, frankly, I am pleased to see your
cooperation from your State can cross party aisles just as mine with
Senator Lugar crosses the party aisle in my own State.
I thank all of our colleagues, starting with Senator Lieberman for
his hard work and leadership. I thank Senator Salazar, who occupies the
Presiding Officer's chair today; Senator Brownback, who could not be
with us. He is in the process of returning to the floor but is
supportive and helpful. I thank Senator Collins, Senator Norm Coleman,
and all others who have been instrumental. Our leadership group on this
bill extends from Senator Brownback to Senator Kerry. It includes
Democrats, Republicans, and even independent Democrats, suggesting the
breadth of our support and, more importantly, the justice of our cause.

I don't speak often on the floor. Frankly, I don't find utility in it
that often. But the magnitude of this issue is important to our Nation.
Its importance to our Nation compelled me to come here today to speak
on behalf of this amendment. It is a friendly amendment designed to
improve what is a good work product in the underlying bill. We offer
this amendment for several reasons.
First, because the issue of oil dependency is one of the defining
challenges of our time. Our ability to grapple with this issue will
affect our Nation in profound ways. It will affect finances, our
economy, our environment and, most importantly, the quality of the
world that one day we will leave to our children.
Unfortunately, today we are not doing nearly enough to meet this
challenge. We can and must do better. This is brought into stark
reality when you realize that since the attack on 9/11, we import more
oil to this country today than we did on that day. Clearly we must do
better. The expected consumption of petroleum is projected to increase
from 20 million barrels per day this year to 26.8 million barrels per
day in 2030. This is unacceptable. We have gathered here today to do
something about it, to move us as far and as fast as we can to reduce
this dependency on imported petroleum.
This is affecting the quality of Americans' daily lives. I was
looking at some statistics before coming to the floor. American
consumers in the first 6 months of 2006 spent $38 billion more on
gasoline than they did in 2005, and $57 billion more than they did in
2004. This is an alarming trend that we don't need to bring to the
attention of anyone who is filling up at the pump. Clearly we have to
do something about this. Our amendment is designed to be robust and
aggressive in doing so.
We have worked with a coalition of 26 of our colleagues to form the
DRIVE Act. It spans the ideological spectrum. Our goal is to reduce oil
imports by 2.5 million barrels per day over the next 10 years, an
equivalent of everything we currently import from the Middle East.
Along with the authors of this bill, we propose that we move America in
a

[[Page S7534]]

better direction to find a better future for our children and create a
legacy of which we can be proud. I believe we can do that in material
ways, getting there further and faster than the underlying bill
envisions.
Our approach targets oil, petroleum, not just gasoline. Gasoline is
an important subset of the challenge. But dependency on oil and
particularly imported oil gets to the heart of the challenge facing our
country. That is what our amendment does. We propose an additional
reduction of 3.8 million barrels per day, a further reduction in our
dependency of 15 percent, a material step in improving our situation.
Finally, we hold the administration accountable, requiring the Office
of Management and Budget to work with the Departments of Energy and
Transportation to come up with a specific plan, not just a goal but a
specific plan with concrete steps to achieve that goal and to revisit
that plan, to evaluate its effectiveness every 3 years, to make sure we
do more than pass this amendment or pass this legislation but, in fact,
we translate this legislation into concrete results for the American
people.
Let me conclude by saying this is a good bill. It begins to take us
in the right direction. But now is the time to do something more than
just good steps. Now is the time to take bold, transforming steps to
meet the challenges, particularly one of the defining challenges of our
time. Now is the time to invest in American ingenuity, to build an
American future that is more prosperous, more healthy, and more secure.
Now is the time to forge a legacy that will enable our grandchildren
one distant day to say that we were both good stewards of our Nation
and, most importantly, good stewards of their future.
That is what this bill will accomplish. That is what this amendment
will accomplish. That is why I urge colleagues to vote in support of
the amendment.
I yield the floor and thank the Senator from New Mexico for his
indulgence. He has been very kind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that was an eloquent statement and I
want to acknowledge it. But I want to make sure those who are worried
about America's energy crisis know a mere statement, whether it be
verbal or written down on a piece of paper, that says we ought to
achieve this doesn't achieve anything. Or we in the Senate think our
goal should to be save 3.5 million barrels of oil and then say how
proud we are that we are going to achieve this great goal; that doesn't
do anything. All you have is, if you have a bunch of targets and goals
and they are high and they are big, you can say: We are a better
dreamer than the other side, because we have these great dreams about
how much we should save and what our target should be. But think for a
minute, what do they accomplish?
The truth is, the underlying bill, for a change, saves on crude oil
consumption and gasoline, because we have changed the CAFE standards
permanently. As anybody in here remembers, every time we were talking
about saving large quantities of gasoline, if we could just change the
CAFE standards. Remember? Well, we changed them. The biggest way to
save on gasoline is to change them. We changed them. We don't need a
target in the bill that says we should save on gasoline. Maybe you
should say by changing the CAFE standards, but the President can't
change the CAFE standards. Only we can, and we did.
They have some auspicious goals, some magnificent targets. They can
speak eloquently about what will be required to do them. But the point
is, they don't save one single penny's worth of gasoline. They don't
achieve 10 cents' worth of savings. They are merely goals, things we
wish to do. I guarantee you that the bill they are attaching this
amendment to for a change will truly save by changing the CAFE
standards permanently. By changing the standard for ethanol and the
second generation of ethanol, we will save more on gasoline and then on
crude oil, which it comes from, than we have ever done before. So we
don't need an amendment to a terrific bill. The bill is something we
can be very proud of. Three committees participated. They did it
bipartisanly.
Now we have bold and high words about what the President should do
because it says the President shall find ways to achieve these
goals. That is essentially the plan: Mr. President, we have these
goals. Mr. President, you go talk to OMB and you achieve them.

That is it. I do not believe anybody thinks that will work. But I
would say, if it passes, I do not know what it does, and I do not know
what we would do with it because I do not know how you get any savings
from that kind of proposal.
But I kind of know where we are. A lot of Senators and non-Senators
got together before we were here with this bill and decided they would
introduce a bill that sounded good, that set high goals, and they did.
Then we come along with a bill that actually does it, and they want to
amend it to get in on the action, which I do not believe would
accomplish much.
I compliment the Senators for the way they have worked, and in
particular Senator Bayh, whom we do not see very much, but I see him a
lot, and I am pleased always to see him. I say to the Senator, I thank
you for the way you have responded.
I wish to say again, I don't believe with the bill we need your bill.
With the bill that is underlying, we do not need another bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1508.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 30, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

YEAS--63

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--30

Allard
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Shelby
Stevens
Vitter
Warner

NOT VOTING--6

Brownback
Coburn
Dodd
Johnson
McCain
Obama
The amendment (No. 1508) was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me propound a unanimous consent
agreement with regard to tomorrow morning.
I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, June 13, when the Senate
resumes consideration of H.R. 6, the time between the end of morning
business and 11:45 a.m. be for debate with respect to the Inhofe
amendment No.

[[Page S7535]]

1505, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote,
and that the time be equally divided and controlled between the Senator
from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer,
or their designees; and that at 11:45, the Senate proceed to vote in
relation to the amendment without further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, last Wednesday I came to the floor and
introduced legislation that would place the country in a new direction,
a path toward a better energy future, by requiring that 25 percent of
electricity be provided by renewable sources in this country. For me,
this is not that radical an idea, since my State, the State of
Minnesota, just enacted this plan this past year. It was brought into
law by an overwhelming majority, a bipartisan majority in a Democratic-
controlled legislature, and signed into law by a Republican Governor.
In fact, it is even higher for Xcel Energy, which is our largest
electricity company. They are bound to a 30-percent standard. In fact,
the CEO of that company came and sat in my office and told me that he
felt they could meet that standard without increasing rates.
Part of this is that Minnesota has been on the front end of
renewables. We have done it with fuel, with biodiesel, and with
ethanol--in fact, we have about a third of this country's ethanol that
comes right in our State. And we have done it with wind. We have so
many wind turbines right now down in southeastern Minnesota, in the
Pipestone area, that they have actually opened a bed and breakfast. If
you are looking for an interesting weekend, you can go to the bed and
breakfast in Pipestone, MN, and wake up in the morning and look at a
wind turbine.
But this is serious stuff. I was proud to introduce that 25-by-25
standard, but I also want to say that I support the standard the
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, is introducing in the next few
days, and that is a 15 percent by 2020 standard.
Our current path has led us to record-high electricity and natural
gas prices. These prices are not only hurting ordinary families, but
they are also hurting businesses that see their own costs going up
dramatically. The growth of energy-intensive industries, such as
manufacturing, is actually being stunted due to skyrocketing energy
costs. We already know the negative impact this situation is having on
the environment. It is clear that we need a new direction, that we
cannot continue down the energy path we are on anymore. A strong
renewable energy policy is good for this country.
Currently, I will say, we do not have a diversified electricity
portfolio. Mr. President, 52 percent of our electricity comes from
coal, 20 percent is generated using nuclear power, 15 percent natural
gas, 7 percent hydro, and only 2.5 percent from renewable energy. A
strong renewable electricity standard can actually diversify our energy
sources so we are not so reliant on one energy source, such as natural
gas, that could be vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply
interruptions.
A strong renewable energy standard can also save the American
consumer money. According to several studies, a 15-percent renewable
electricity standard will save consumers a total of $16.4 billion on
their energy bills by the year 2030. An aggressive national standard
will also open the door to a new electricity industry that will bring
in thousands of jobs and pump billions of dollars into our economy.
Over the last 20 years, America's renewable energy industries, and
the wind industry in particular, have achieved significant
technological advancements. The industries for solar, wind, and biomass
energy systems are expanding at rates exceeding 30 percent annually,
and the clean energy revolution is still in its infancy. So the
question is, Does the United States want to be a leader in creating new
green technologies and the new green industries in the future? Are we
going to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by?
We are no longer the world leader in two important energy fields. We
rank third now in wind production between Denmark and Spain. We are
also third in solar power installed, behind Germany and Japan.
Ironically, these countries surpassed us by using technology that was
actually developed in our own country. We came up with the right ideas,
but we didn't have a plan or the standards in place to adequately fund
the deployment of these technologies. That is because the Federal
Government has been complacent and let the States take the lead. That
is good in some ways. The States, as Justice Brandeis noted, are the
laboratories of democracy. He always talked about, in that one opinion,
how an individual State can have the courage to experiment and bring us
new ideas on a national basis. But I don't think he ever meant this
should mean inaction by the Federal Government. Sadly, that is what has
been happening.
Twenty-two States now throughout the country have already
demonstrated the value of establishing renewable electricity standards.
As I mentioned, Minnesota has been one of the most aggressive with its
25-by-25 standard.
The way that bipartisan standard was set, with a Democratic
legislature and a Republican Governor, should be a model for national
action. The courage that we have seen in the States must be matched by
courage in Washington. We have an opportunity in the next 2 weeks for
the Federal Government to act. It is time for the Federal Government to
begin moving toward an aggressive national standard on power with State
standards.
We have everything we need, we just need to act. I have talked to
many investors and businesspeople, and part of the issue is we never
think in the long term in government. We don't set these standards out
because when you set those standards out, the money is going to follow
in terms of investment. But they think the standard is going to change
or maybe we just set it for the next 2 years instead of setting it out
as Senator Bingaman has suggested in his amendment for the year 2020,
when we get stronger investment confidence in what we are going to be
doing in this country and the new direction in which we are going to be
headed in this country.
We have the fields to grow the energy that will keep our Nation
moving, and we have the wind energy to propel our economy forward right
here in the United States. We have the science, we have the
universities, we have the technological know-how. We always believe in
science.
In my State, we brought the world the Post-it note and the pacemaker.
We have always been on the front end in science. That is why the people
who are committed to a strong, renewable standard in our State are not
just limited to the people who might be investing in it. It is students
at the university who see the potential. It is kids who wear little
buttons about ``save our penguins.'' It is the city council down in
Lanesboro, MN, that recently changed out all of their lightbulbs
because they are concerned about climate change. It is farmers who are
putting up wind turbines in their backyard because they know it is
going to save them money. It is school districts that say: Maybe I will
get a wind turbine. It is governments across this land, with mayors and
city councils that are installing solar energy, that see the future and
see this new direction.
It is our job in the next 2 weeks to lead the new direction. And that
is why I support a strong renewable standard. That is why I urge my
fellow Senators to support the amendment, which I am already
cosponsoring, for a 15-percent renewable standard for electricity in
this country. We have to start now.

____________________