Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7582-S7625]
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 Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will report by title.
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.

Pending:

Reid amendment No. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.
Inhofe amendment No. 1505 (to amendment No. 1502), to
improve domestic fuels security.

Amendment No. 1505

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45
a.m. shall be for debate on amendment No. 1505, offered by the Senator
from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, with the time equally divided and controlled
between the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, and the Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer, or their designees.
Who yields time?
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Inhofe, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to talk about the Inhofe amendment,
which would increase the possibility that we could have increased
refining in the United States. Refining of oil

[[Page S7583]]

produces more gasoline, and more gasoline will bring down the price of
gasoline.
We can't have a serious discussion about energy without discussing
the fact that it has been more than 30 years since the last oil
refinery was built in the United States. There has to be a reason for
that. Although a number of our Nation's refiners have worked on
expansions, they simply can't keep up with the growing demand.
It is clear that something is wrong with a permitting process when it
is so burdensome it prevents the construction of that which is so vital
to our Nation. Because energy fuels our economy, we need to stop with
the rhetoric and take some real action.
I have to tell my colleagues that I have faith in America. I have
faith in the young people of America. I have faith in the inventors in
America, who are of all ages. I am aware of a company in Sheridan, WY,
named Big Horn Valve. They have been working on some refinery problems,
including leaks in refineries, and they came up with a valve that
doesn't have a knob that you turn on the outside of the pipe.
Everything is internal in the pipe, and it has a special venturi nozzle
in there that doesn't take up the entire inside of the pipe but can
still flow as much oil as a flow pipe. The way it works is to turn it
off magnetically; it twists and the two spots don't line up. Since it
is completely internal to the pipe, there can be no leakage. It is just
one small solution to some of the problems that can be solved.
I would mention that with the National Institutes of Health, we have
faith in the inventiveness of people. We doubled the budget for
research for the National Institutes of Health. I can tell my
colleagues that today we have 654 cancer treatments in clinical trials.
That is what happens when we incentivize people to come up with
solutions.
We need to do that with energy. We are in the midst of a huge energy
crisis. China recognizes it. China is buying every available fuel
source they can get their hands on. My colleagues probably saw where
they tried to buy a company in California. You have probably seen where
they bought supplies in Canada. They know the future of the economy is
requiring--requiring--energy, particularly fuel to transport things.
Senator Inhofe's amendment recognizes this fact, and it improves the
permitting process for new refineries. It establishes an opt-in program
for State Governors, requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to
coordinate all necessary permits for construction or expansion of
refineries. It provides participating States with technical and
financial resources to assist in permitting, and it establishes
deadlines for permit approval.
These vital changes will make it possible for new refineries to
finally be built. They make those changes in a way that is
environmentally sound. Opponents of this legislation suggest that is
not the case and that environmental laws will be pushed aside. Those
claims are false. The Environmental Council of States, which represents
State departments of environmental quality, clearly stated in a letter
that ``the Gas PRICE Act does not weaken environmental laws.'' That act
is the one that is in Senator Inhofe's amendment.
In addition to this, the council, along with the National Association
of Counties, acknowledged that the Gas PRICE Act streamlining
provisions are in compliance with State and local governments.
If this were the only positive section of the Gas PRICE Act, it would
be worthy of our support, but this legislation also addresses a second
aspect that I believe is missing from the underlying bill. That aspect
is the incentivizing of coal-to-liquids technologies.
As drafted, the legislation does nothing to advance the development
of coal-to-liquids plants. That is the overall bill, not the amendment.
As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Craig Thomas and
Jim Bunning worked hard to move this issue forward and offered an
amendment during the committee's consideration of the biofuels
legislation to set a blending requirement for coal-derived fuels at 21
billion gallons for the year 2022. Is it possible? Absolutely.
Unfortunately, this amendment failed by one vote, and so it wasn't
included in the bill.
The Gas PRICE Act addresses this vital issue by requiring the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a demonstration to assess
the use of Fischer-Tropsch, diesel and jet fuel, as an emission control
strategy. Furthermore, it provides incentives to the Economic
Development Administration to build coal-to-liquid refineries and
commercial scale cellulosic ethanol refineries at BRAC sites and on
Indian land.

These important steps will help jump-start an industry that will help
reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy barons. Coal is our
Nation's most abundant source. As I mentioned earlier, we have more
Btu's in my county in Wyoming alone than all of Saudi Arabia. Using
coal to produce diesel and jet fuel will take our energy security out
of the hands of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and others who seek to harm
our economic interests and put it back in the hands of American
citizens.
I am pleased Senator Inhofe has offered this important amendment. It
addresses two areas in which the legislation could be improved, and I
urge my colleagues to support this approach.
The two areas are to make it possible to actually expand the number
of refineries in the United States, and there are places in the United
States where those can be built, and safely built. I also think there
can be some inventions, such as I mentioned with Big Horn Valve, that
will make the refining process much more capable and also
environmentally better. But unless we can get rid of that single
construction of refineries, we are going to have shortages of gas twice
a year immediately, and more often in the future. I do have a lot of
confidence that there can be not only coal to liquids, but coal to
liquids with a little bit of invention can be done even better than
other kinds.
We need to worry about the natural gas supply for this country. A lot
of States are placing a huge emphasis on natural gas as the cleanest
fuel, and it is. But there is only one State that is producing more
natural gas than in previous years, and that is the State of Wyoming.
That will not go on forever. If we use it to produce electricity, we
are going to run out of natural gas. So those people across the country
who are using natural gas to heat their homes should be particularly
concerned.
I know one company was looking at having some peaking power for Rapid
City, SD, and they were going to do it with natural gas. But the board
of directors, as they looked at it, found out that the time they needed
the peaking power was in the middle of winter when it was cold because
people there use some electricity to heat with. But what they
discovered was that the amount of natural gas to provide peaking power
in winter in Rapid City would be an equivalent amount of gas to what
the whole city of Rapid City uses to heat homes during that same cold
spell.
A lot of natural gas has to be used if it is used to produce
electricity. We can invent better ways to do that. We can come up with
coal to liquids. We can increase our refineries. I hope we will find
ways to encourage that rather than discourage that if we are going to
truly have an energy policy.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I
ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, could the Chair give us the
parliamentary situation this morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently in a quorum call being
equally divided between the two sides.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is my understanding now there is how
much time remaining until the vote on the Inhofe amendment?

[[Page S7584]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is at 11:45. The Senator's side has
approximately 30 minutes remaining. The Republican side has
approximately 21 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to debate this Inhofe amendment
and, in the strongest possible terms, make a few points to my
colleagues.
When you strip it all away, this amendment is a giveaway--a giveaway
to energy companies at a time when they have never had it so good, at a
time when they have never made so much money. The CEOs are making $37
million a year; $16 million a year; Exxon, a $39 billion profit--
billion-dollar profit; Shell, a $25 billion profit; BP, a $22 billion
profit; Conoco-Phillips, $15.6 billion; and Chevron, over $17 billion.
The CEO, Lee Raymond, of ExxonMobile, received a $400 million severance
gift. Let me repeat that. One man received a $400 million severance
gift, and the Inhofe amendment wants to give these people more. The
Inhofe amendment wants to give these people more, even after, in the
2005 Energy bill, they already got their streamlined provisions. They
already got what they needed.
Let me tell my colleagues what the Inhofe amendment does. It gives to
those who have, and it gives to energy companies free public land--
public land that belongs to the taxpayers of America. It gives them
preference to get free public lands. Not only do they get the land
free, but in the case of Indian land, they get 110 percent of their
costs reimbursed to them. This is what we are doing in an Energy bill
that is supposed to be good to consumers.
The underlying bill has many provisions in it. All those provisions
are good for the American people, including fuel economy for our cars,
solar energy on the building of the Department of Energy. We hope we
will have a modest model project at the Capitol powerplant showing that
we can, in fact, reduce the carbon emissions of coal. These are
all bipartisan amendments.

Senator Inhofe tried to get a similar amendment to the one he is now
proposing through the committee. When he controlled the gavel, he
couldn't even get it out of the committee then, let alone now. So it
gives to the oil companies, when they were taken care of in the Energy
bill of 2005.
I am going to tell my colleagues what we did for them in 2005. The
2005 Energy bill has a provision, which is section 392, that allows
States to request EPA to work with them and enter into an agreement
under which EPA and the State will identify steps, including timelines
to streamline the consideration of Federal and State environmental
permits for a new refinery. Interestingly, even though this legislation
exists, EPA said before my committee in October--actually, it was
before Senator Inhofe's committee because he was chair at that time--
that no State had asked EPA to use that provision of the law. So they
got a streamlined procedure in 2005. They never took advantage of it.
Now, Senator Inhofe is giving them more streamlining procedures, and he
is exempting these energy companies from every single environmental law
that was signed into law by Republican Presidents and Democratic
Presidents.
Let me tell my colleagues the laws that are waived in the Inhofe
amendment. I say to the American people: Listen to this because if ever
we have unanimity about what is important to do for the health of our
people, it is when Republican and Democratic Members of the Congress
and Presidents sign these laws and pass these laws: The Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Those are a few examples of Federal laws which are cast asunder by
this amendment. Who gets the benefit? Not the American Lung
Association, which might, in fact, put in substantial precautions that
the air is clean, but they give it to the most polluting industries in
America: the refining and oil industries.
Senator Inhofe will say: Oh, we let the States pass these laws. We
say they have to pass substantially equivalent laws. That is not
defined. Why on Earth waive the laws that are the cornerstone of
America's environmental protection under both Republican and Democratic
Presidents? Why waive those laws? Do you think that little of America's
families?
In my State, 9,900 people die every year from lung-related disease.
And let's talk about some of the chemicals these refineries give off.
In 2005, refineries emitted over 68 million pounds of toxic
chemicals, 3.8 million pounds of known cancer-causing substances, 2.5
million pounds of toxins that damage the reproductive system, and 6.8
million pounds of toxins that harm the development of children.
In California, communities that border refineries and chemical plants
have high concentrations of childhood asthma. We should be working to
make the air cleaner, not worse.
Let me review what I have said so far. This amendment has a name, and
I am going to read you the name of this amendment. The title of this
amendment is the Gas Petroleum Refinery Improvement and Community
Empowerment Act. I ask, how is a community empowered by this amendment?
The idea is to allow these new energy plants to go on Federal land that
has been surplused. In California, we have had a lot of these lands,
and, by the way, some of them have been redeveloped in the most
wonderful way. Everybody is equal. There are no winners and losers.
Here we are picking a winner, and the winner is one of the most
polluting industries in America. They get the land free, and the
community is left without anything. The Federal Government gets no
money. That was the idea behind the Surplus Federal Lands Act. The
Federal Government should get some money from the private sector. Oh,
no, they get the land free, these energy companies. That is because
they are hurting so much. They are hurting so much that we are going to
give them the land free.
On Indian land, they get back 110 percent of their investment, so
they actually make money without a penny of cost. Whoever votes for
this amendment is voting for a giveaway of taxpayers' dollars. Whoever
votes for this amendment is voting for an open-ended cost that isn't
even stated in the bill.
Look at the last page of the bill, ``such funds as may be required.''
We know some of these energy plants will cost $4 billion for one plant.
Let's say there are 100 pieces of Federal land that could be
redeveloped. You do the math. We are busting the budget. You think the
Iraq war costs a lot? Take a look at this. And who does the money go
to? The same people who are charging us in California close to $4 a
gallon for gas.
So you can stand up here and talk about it all you want, but the
bottom line is, this is, in many ways, a socialistic bill, socialism:
give away land to big business, give them the cost of the building, in
some cases 110 percent reimbursement, waive all of the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act that protects the health and safety of our people,
and who are the most vulnerable? Our moms and dads, our grandmas and
grandpas, our children. Just ``Katy bar the door'' with the money. No
problem. Oh, it is as if we are somehow in the black today when we have
deep deficits today.
What an amendment to bring to the floor from my friend--my good
friend--Senator Inhofe. A similar amendment went down in the committee
when he had the gavel.
I say it is economic blackmail for communities that are losing a
military base. It chooses an energy project over any other project they
might want. I say to my colleagues, if they look at what these refiners
are making, how well they are doing, we don't need to give them any
more incentives.
I want to tell my colleagues a story about my State. Shell Oil owned
a refinery in Bakersfield, CA. We all supported that refinery. It made
2 percent of the gasoline for the cars in California. Shell Oil
announced they were shutting down the refinery. We begged them not to
shut it down. Here is what they said to us in writing: We are losing
money, and we are shutting it down because we can't find a buyer.
Lies, those were lies. How do I know that? Because we were fortunate
enough to have an attorney general of California, at that time it was
Bill Lokyer, who saw the books. The refinery was making a lot of money.
We believe Shell Oil wanted to shut it down because they wanted to
squeeze the supply--squeeze the supply. Guess what

[[Page S7585]]

else. When we caught them on that, they said: Oh, we are sorry, we made
a mistake; we still can't sell the refinery.
We found buyers for the refinery. The attorney general made sure they
advertised. They sold that refinery, and that refinery is up and
running.
So we are going to give away to refineries, to energy companies in
this bill--this amendment is all they could ever dream for. They don't
have to pay attention to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the
Safe Drinking Water Act. If my colleagues vote for this amendment, they
are voting to open the checkbook to hundreds and hundreds of billions
of dollars. It could be as high as a trillion dollars. Who knows how
many of these people will take advantage of this opportunity.
What do we get? We get sick kids because this will waive all these
environmental protections. And they are giving away to those who have.
I want to read again the amount of money some of these executives
have made. Valero Energy, the top executive in 2005, William Greehey,
took home $95.2 million. This is one person, folks--$95.2 million.
Occidental Petroleum chief Irani took home $81 million in 2006. Oh,
these poor people. Their businesses aren't doing good enough. We have
to give them more. We have to make life easier for them.
What about the people who pay at the pump? That is why the underlying
bill is so good because it has Maria Cantwell's antigouging law. By the
way, the President has said he doesn't like the antigouging law. He
might have to veto this entire bill. That shows you where people stand
around here. Republicans want to give away to the oil companies, to the
refiners, to the energy companies, and take away clean air protections
from the people, take away land from the taxpayers, taxpayers' money to
fund these projects. Count me out, and I hope count out the vast
majority of the people here.

You can put any face on it. One thing that gets me is how the
Republican side is supposed to be so fiscally responsible. Let's look
at the last page of this amendment. They will tell you now how much
they are going to pay for this bill. It is on the last page of this
amendment. Here it is: ``Subtitle E--Authorization of Appropriations.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this'' amendment.
What does that mean? I already told my colleagues it costs $4 billion
to build one of these energy plants--just one. It is 100 percent
Federal pay on Indian land plus 10 percent on top of it, and 88 percent
is the minimum number on Federal land that is not Indian land. You get
the land, you get the cost back to build the plant, you get to waive
all the environmental laws, and you get a streamlined process, which
they already have the ability to get under the 2005 Energy bill.
This is a big kiss to the oil companies and the energy companies.
This is a major hug. It would be better if we took this up on
Valentine's Day. Well, count me out. I hope there is a resounding
``no.'' We don't know the cost. It is not told in this amendment. We
don't know the impact on the people. It certainly is not told in this
amendment. It picks winners and losers on Federal land. It doesn't
protect our people.
Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the time be equally divided on that quorum
call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. We are not in a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in a quorum call.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I wish to speak, if I may, to the
amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. It is
important that in this whole debate on the bill that we talk about the
solutions that are important to this country's independence today on
foreign energy and the need to get away from that and become energy
independent and lessen our dependence on foreign energy and that we
also talk about actions we can take that will lower energy costs for
people in this country.
I appreciate the fact that the underlying bill has a number of
provisions in it that are good. There are provisions in the bill I will
be supporting. I have a series of amendments I will be offering that
will improve the availability of renewable energy in this country.
I also wish to speak in support of amendment No. 1505 because I
believe fundamentally it would greatly improve our Nation's stagnant
oil refining industry, boost the development of coal-to-liquid
technology, and accelerate the development of the next generation of
biofuels.
As to the underlying amendment talked about by my colleague from
California, first, there are no mandates in this bill. These are things
the State can do. They can opt into this. Obviously, the incentives in
this amendment do not go to oil companies, they go to State and local
governments.
Frankly, this is an important point, that this is directed to areas
that have been affected by base closures and also Indian reservations,
which in my State are desperately in need of economic development. This
is the type of economic development that will fit very well in a lot of
places in South Dakota that qualify.
It is important this amendment be adopted. It does address a critical
need in this country, and that is for more refinery capacity and the
need in a lot of places, areas affected by base closure and Indian
reservations, for economic development.
There are a lot of items this amendment would accomplish. It is
important to point out that over the past 30 years, the petroleum
industry has not added a single new oil refinery in the United States.
The American public, I think, would find it startling that the largest
petroleum consumer in the world hasn't seen one new refinery in the
past three decades, which has created a devastating bottleneck in the
delivery of transportation fuels to American consumers.
Fortunately, the Senate has an opportunity through this amendment to
address that issue which is squeezing very hard the wallets of hard-
working Americans across the country.
Amendment No. 1505, which is pending before the Senate, would enact
important measures to boost domestic refining capacity and provide
certainty for the industry and the public.
First, the amendment would set deadlines for refinery permit
approval. For too long, proposed refinery projects have met slow deaths
due to endless delays in the bureaucratic permit process.
Second, this amendment would provide States with much needed
technical and financial resources to assist in refinery permitting. The
process of refinery siting is time-consuming, complicated, and
financially straining on State budgets that are already stretched thin.
This amendment also protects States rights by giving individual
States the opportunity, as I said earlier, to opt in to a refinery
permitting program. Contrary to what the opponents are saying, there
are no mandates in this legislation. Participating States can
voluntarily request the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate
all permits for construction or expansion of a refinery.
The importance of expanding refinery capacity to provide affordable
and reliable supplies of transportation fuel cannot be overstated. I
want to show a chart of something that was printed in BusinessWeek on
May 3, 2007. This is what they said:

Because of high costs and a lack of public support,
refiners haven't built an entirely new plant since 1976.
While they have been expanding existing plants, the industry
isn't keeping pace with growing demand.

I would also like to show another chart of something that was printed
recently in the Wall Street Journal, and it said this:

The causes of higher gas prices include $65 per barrel oil
caused by rising global demand and geopolitical tensions; a
record high U.S. gasoline consumption of 380 million gallons
a day; and refined gasoline shortages caused by Congressional
rules and mandates.

Now, my constituents know this problem firsthand. Inadequate refining

[[Page S7586]]

capacity has a real impact at the local level, and I will give just a
little anecdotal evidence here from South Dakota.
For the past month and a half, several key gasoline terminals in my
home State of South Dakota were literally out of gasoline for multiple
days at a time. Widespread outages were reportedly caused by limited
supplies due to refinery shutdowns and routine repairs in other parts
of the country. The ripple effects of this gasoline supply disruption
were felt throughout the entire eastern part of my State. As the pipes
ran dry and terminals emptied, gasoline wholesalers were forced to
travel great distances and manage logistical bottlenecks at the few
pipeline terminals with available refined product. In the meantime,
gasoline prices soared at the retail level across South Dakota, and
consumers in my State were forced to pay more at the pump.
The recent events in South Dakota are a prime example of the need to
increase refining capacity in the United States. These events also
underscore the need to move beyond petroleum for our transportation
fuel needs.
The amendment offered by Senator Inhofe moves our country toward
greater energy independence by providing Economic Development
Administration grants for infrastructure improvements to accommodate
cellulosic ethanol refineries at Base Closure and Realignment
Commission sites and Indian lands.
As my fellow Senators are all well aware, the underlying bill
includes a renewable fuels standard of 36 billion gallons by the year
2022. In order to meet this goal, we need to enact policies that
dramatically increase the development and production of cellulosic
ethanol.
By providing EDA grants that support cellulosic ethanol production in
communities in need of economic development, amendment 1505 provides
targeted rural and economic development and places our biofuels
industry on course to reach the strengthened renewable fuels standard.
In addition to the EDA grants for cellulosic ethanol refinery
development, this amendment includes a first-of-its-kind provision that
may greatly enhance private sector investment in renewable fuels. This
amendment will begin to assess our Nation's renewable reserves of
biomass cellulosic ethanol feedstocks so that the public and energy
companies have a realistic understanding of total U.S. renewable
reserves. Energy companies' stock prices rise and fall depending on
their declared proven reserves. This process, which has been in place
since 1978, provides tremendous incentives for exploration, investment,
and development of new sources of traditional hydrocarbons.
This straightforward amendment builds upon these proven market
incentives by directing the Securities and Exchange Commission to
research and report to Congress on the establishment of a renewable
reserves classification system for cellulosic biofuels feedstocks in
the United States.
The idea of a renewable reserves classification system was first
discussed during an Agriculture Energy Subcommittee hearing I held in
Brookings, SD, earlier this year. An expert witness from Ceres, Inc.,
an industry leader in the development of transgenic switchgrass seed
for cellulosic ethanol production, testified that a standard means for
measuring renewable reserves on a per-barrel-of-oil basis would greatly
incentivize private sector investment in the next generation of
advanced biofuels.

The President of Ceres, Inc., Richard Hamilton, describes the
renewable classification system as:

An independent metric by which energy companies, and the
market, may measure renewable reserves in barrel-of-oil
equivalents just as they measure proved reserves today.

He continues by stating:

A renewable reserves classification system could well be
the catalyst America's traditional providers of liquid
transportation fuels require to invest in cellulosic biofuels
technology and may be the Federal Government's least
expensive way to hurry the cellulosic biofuels industry to
maturity.

Certainly a proposal that could result in such a dramatic advancement
in our biofuels industry is worthy of consideration by the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is certainly worthy for inclusion in a bill
that calls for a historic increase in renewable fuels production. If we
are serious about advanced biofuels production, we must consider
effective approaches, such as the amendment offered today by my
colleague from Oklahoma, that would boost the production of advanced
biofuels.
This amendment is important because, as I said earlier, it addresses
a critical problem and shortage that we have in America today; that is,
a lack of refinery capacity. We need more capacity. Now, frankly, it
would be great if the folks I represent in South Dakota could get to
their destinations by walking or riding bikes. Unfortunately, we have
long distances to cover in my State. We have to drive automobiles, and
we have to use fuel to power our automobiles. When you have a refinery
problem like we have in America today, that limits the amount of
gasoline that can be shipped through the pipeline to destinations in my
State, and that drives the cost of gasoline higher and higher. Because
of that shortage and because the wholesalers have to go to distant
places to get it, it adds to the cost of our economy, and that affects
the day-in and day-out lives of the people in my State of South Dakota
and across this country who have to get to their destinations, whether
it is to work or whether it is travel for recreation. The reality is
that we cannot continue to abide $3.50 or $4 a gallon for gasoline, and
we need to address what is causing that problem.
As I said earlier, I will be offering a number of amendments that
will increase and advance the production of biofuels energy in this
country because I believe so profoundly in its importance as part of
our energy supply. But this particular amendment is critical as well
because it addresses a fundamental problem that exists in America
today; that is, a lack of capacity, refinery capacity, to make sure
enough gasoline is making it to its destination, to places even as
remote as South Dakota, so that the people who drive across my State
can have access to affordable fuel to make sure they can get to the
places they need to get to, and that the lack of affordable fuel does
not choke our economy by continuing to force us to pay these exorbitant
prices for gasoline.
So I support the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, amendment
No. 1505, and I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to do so as well.
It is important for a lot of reasons--because it brings economic
development to areas that really need economic development, those areas
which have been affected by base closures and Indian reservations--and
because my State desperately needs that form of economic development
and job creation. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would inquire as to the time remaining
on both sides, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 9 minutes
remaining, and the Democratic side has approximately 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would like to go ahead and be
recognized for a few minutes, and I would ask that the Chair stop me
when there is 5 minutes remaining. I would like to remind the other
side that our protocol or system is that the author of the amendment
should conclude debate, so I would like to have the last 5 minutes.
First of all, I look at this and I listen to the arguments from the
junior Senator from California and I hear the same things over and over
again. Last night, we debated this at some length. Every time, she
would make a statement, and we would respond to the statement.
Let me just put a chart up here. I think it is important for people
to realize there are some choices. We are not willing to add to
refinery capacity here in the United States. We have here the refining
capacity and the growth of that refining capacity from other countries.
We have Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and
Venezuela. It is bad enough we are dependent upon foreign sources for
our ability to run this machine we call America, but these are not the
kinds of countries you want to depend on. I am sure Chavez is not real
excited about

[[Page S7587]]

helping us refine our oil into something that can be used for
transportation.
I would like to cover a couple of the things the junior Senator from
California has said, and I know what is going to happen: As soon as I
do this, she will come back and say the same things over again, because
we have heard these same arguments.
First of all, she says it is a disastrous amendment because it is a
taxpayer giveaway to the oil companies; we don't have to give away the
store to the oil companies. Well, the fact is that no money goes to any
oil companies or, in fact, to any corporations in any way whatsoever.
The only funding of the bill is financial and technical resources to a
State or tribal department of environmental quality or funds to an
economically distressed community affected by BRAC.
Let us keep in mind, when we talk about BRAC and Indian tribes, we
have a lot of BRAC sites, and I can remember Members standing on the
floor saying, during the base realignment and closure process: They are
going to be closing some of the military installations in my State.
Well, what is a logical thing you can do to replace the economic loss
of a closed facility? It is to put--if we can encourage the local
community to do it--a refinery there. You don't have to clean it up to
the same standards you would have to clean it up otherwise. It is a
logical thing. So those people who want coal-to-liquids and commercial-
scale cellulosic ethanol facilities can have them.
It does authorize the EPA to initiate a new emissions control
demonstration project, but it doesn't offer the oil companies anything.
The lack of sufficient refinery capacity in the United States is why
we are experiencing high prices today. I think it is inconceivable that
any Member of this body would come in and deny us, the United States,
the right to expand our refinery capacity to do something about the
supply problem we have and then turn around and say: Well, we don't
want to be dependent on foreign countries for our ability to run this
machine called America.
In this bill, in the underlying Energy bill, without this amendment,
we don't really address the problem today. We talk about the future,
and we talk about conservation. This is good, and we want to do this.
We talk about standards for automobiles and all that. But people in my
State of Oklahoma want to do something about the $3 a gallon for
gasoline right now that is there.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. With that, I retain the remainder of my time, and 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. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding there will be
equal time taken from each side in this case, so I would invite the
majority to come in and make their remarks and would appreciate it;
otherwise, I would be denied my opportunity to close debate on my
amendment.
In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call,
the time be taken from the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my role as a Senator, I will object.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I understand what is customary; I am
just saying that we are entitled to close debate.
Apparently, the Senator from California is not going to allow me to
close debate. So let me just say for a few minutes here that I was
going to go through every argument the Senator from California has
made.
For example, first of all, I already did the first one where she
talks about subsidizing oil companies. No corporation in America is
being subsidized by this. She said also, we don't want to become a
China, where they do not care about the people and how they suffer. We
don't want to go there. Politicians are prone to hyperbole, but the
junior Senator from California has reached a new level. Nowhere in this
bill or any other I would consider would I seek to make the United
States similar to China.

By the way, talking about China, one of the problems we are having
right now is that while we do not have the refining capacity, they do.
While we are not building generating plants, they are. While we have
gone 15 years without adding a new coal-fired generating plant in the
United States, China is cranking out one every 3 days.
The argument that was made was American families who want their
health protected do not want us to waive every single environmental law
that protects the quality of the air they breathe inside their bodies.
They also do not want to waive any single environmental law. We are not
doing that. We are not waiving any environmental laws with this bill.
Let me tell you something that is serious. I warn people right now,
this is going to be considered to be maybe the most significant vote in
the 2008 elections. For people to say we do not want America to have
refining capacity when we have a bill that will allow them to have the
refining capacity and increase the supply--the old theory of supply and
demand still works--those people who will vote against this will
forfeit your right to complain about the dependency on foreign oil.
This is going to be a major, maybe the major campaign issue of the 2008
cycle.
I suggest we spent a lot of time on this bill. We do not have any
money going to oil companies. We do allow the EDA to help communities
that want to set up refineries in their communities.
Let's keep in mind, this is not just oil refineries. We are talking
about oil refineries but also cellulosic biomass refineries, we are
talking about coal-to-liquid refineries--all refineries to give us the
availability of fuels for the transportation this country needs.
If we do not have that, the price of gas at the pump is going to
continue to go up. I suggest this is going to be the critical vote, in
terms of energy, for this entire legislative session. It is going to
come back to haunt a lot of people in 2008. I know the Democrats are
generally much more disciplined than the Republicans are. They will say
you have to vote against this amendment, make up things such as you are
helping oil companies, which you are not. Whatever the case is, the
bottom line is they are going to be taking away our ability to increase
the supply of gasoline to run our cars within America. This will be a
major issue in the 2008 campaigns. I encourage people to do something
about this problem and to vote for the Inhofe amendment expanding our
refining capacity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to use 3 minutes
from the time of the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly against
the Inhofe amendment. I do believe there are several substantial
problems with it. First of all, the underlying assumption is that the
reason we do not have enough refining capacity in this country is we
cannot find places to put refineries. That is not the reality. We have
had various hearings in the Energy Committee. The companies that are
engaged in refining oil into gasoline and other products are not short
of places to put those refineries. They look at a whole variety of
issues--the economics in particular--to determine whether to build new
refineries or expand refining capacity. It is not a failure to have a
BRAC military base or a failure to have an Indian reservation they can
put these on.
The other thing is location. They need to locate refineries where the
pipelines are. They need to locate refineries where the demand is.
Clearly, that is not contemplated as part of this as well.
Another part that concerns me greatly is the notion that we would be
making grants to support these projects which exceed the cost of the
projects. That strikes me as very unusual. In the underlying bill, we
do have some lien programs, where the Government will step in and
guarantee 80 percent of the loan that is required to build a project,
for example. We do not have anything similar to the provisions that are
in this bill, which say the Federal share

[[Page S7588]]

for an EDA grant, under this program, shall be 80 percent of the
project cost, assuming that the project is not on Indian land, and it
will be 100 percent of the project cost if it is on Indian land, and,
by the way, there can be an additional award in connection with the
grant to the recipient of an additional 10 percent on top of that.
How it benefits the American taxpayer to pay 110 percent of the cost
of one of these refineries I cannot see. So I think the amendment is
flawed in several respects.
Obviously, we all want to see additional refining capacity built. I
think what we need to be sure of is that the regulatory regime in place
is such that it encourages and provides an incentive for the companies
that are in the refining business to build that additional refining
capacity. It is not efficient to say we, the Federal Government, are
going to finance 100 percent of a project to an Indian tribe and they
are going to go into the refining business; or we, the Federal
Government, are going to provide 80 percent plus 10 percent, or 88
percent of the cost to some kind of local municipality and they are
going to go into the refining business. That is not going to happen.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of Senator Boxer's time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak against this amendment.
I have been listening to the debate. While I think it is very important
we move forward in our country on a new energy policy and new
direction, I think we must do so in a safe, responsible way. That is,
whatever we are doing, we need to keep our environmental laws and
processes in place: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe
Water Act, the Conservation Resource and Recovery Act--all the things
that are very important to our country and to our environment.
I think we are hearing a lot about refinery and refinery capacity. It
reminds me of the electricity crisis we had in the West, starting in
2000-2001, when everybody blamed it on the fact the environmental laws
stopped the ability to produce supply. When all was said and done, we
found out it wasn't that; in fact, it was actually the manipulation of
supply. So I think it is very important we move forward on new refinery
capacity. In fact, in the last several years, there have been almost
140, either built or in the process of being built, new ethanol
refineries. So they have had no trouble moving ahead, planning new
economic development, job creation, and alternative fuel that is going
to help deliver competition at the pump for fossil fuel.
In my State, a new biodiesel facility was undertaken and has been in
the development stages. I think they will actually be producing and
exporting that product sometime this year. They are going to produce
100 million gallons of biodiesel in this next year--20 years, 12
months. That is more capacity of biodiesel than was produced in the
whole United States from a variety of sources.
This is a very aggressive effort of building alternative fuel
refineries. Let's be honest, God only gave the United States 3 percent
of the world's oil reserves, so the notion that somehow we are going to
drill our way with fossil fuel to get off this foreign oil addiction is
not going to happen. But we do not have to throw out our environmental
laws to produce alternative fuel. We are in the process of doing
alternative fuel.
If someone wants to meet all the environmental standards and build a
new fossil fuel refinery, I am not opposed to that, but I want people
to be aware that this is what is at the heart of this amendment, to
throw out these environmental values that everybody else in America
wants to live by if they want to have economic development. Why should
the oil industry receive this particular privilege of waiving
environmental statutes, just to have that benefit?
Let's keep in mind that alternative fuels are making those
commitments, meeting those environmental standards, and have produced
140--either underway today or in the process, through the permit
process--to develop 140 new alternative fuel refineries. That is
progress in America and we should keep going. But we do not need this
amendment to do that.
I ask unanimous consent that there be 6 minutes equally divided for
debate, with Senator Inhofe controlling the final 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was confused about the time. If I may
make a parliamentary inquiry before my time proceeds: I thought I had 9
minutes left on my side; is that not the case?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator now has 6 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I have 6 minutes. OK. I hear you.
Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding there was a unanimous consent
agreement giving us 6 minutes equally divided, myself having the last
3; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an additional 3 minutes for each
side.
Mrs. BOXER. An additional 3, so I would have 6, you would have 3.
Mr. President, yesterday Senator Inhofe repeatedly quoted Senator
Feinstein in a way that suggested she supports his amendment. He kept
reiterating a statement she made about streamlining which had nothing
to do with this amendment.
Senator Feinstein has told me she opposes the Inhofe amendment. I
think it is important that I make that point.
All you have to do is look at the title of this amendment: The Gas
Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act. You ask
yourself: OK. What are we giving the gas petroleum refiners that they
do not have right now, that they did not get in the 2005 Energy bill,
when they got all kinds of streamlining and everything they wanted and
all kinds of money and all kinds of grants and the rest?
This is a giveaway to the people who are gouging us at the pump. That
is the first point. Yes, life will improve for gas petroleum refiners,
who have it very good.
Now, let's take the second part, the Community Empowerment Act. Your
communities and mine and the communities in Washington State and,
frankly, in Oklahoma and all over this country, I believe those
communities will be hurt by this bill because it says there will be a
giveaway to energy companies, a giveaway of taxpayer-owned land, former
BRAC land, former federally owned lands that are now in the BRAC
procedure.
A lot of communities want to sell these lands. They want to use these
lands for economic development. They have plans for these lands, and
yet this particular project of building an energy plant would take
precedence over local control. It is Federal control from Washington.
I call this a socialistic amendment. Why do I say it is a socialistic
amendment? It gives these big companies free land, and then it pays for
the building of their energy plants. Can you imagine this? I see the
chairman of the Budget Committee coming on the floor. I want to tell
him one thing about this amendment because yesterday he talked to us
Democrats in the Democratic caucus. I hope he doesn't mind if I say he
really told us to use caution on these amendments.
What are they going to cost? Let me read to my friends the last line
of this amendment: There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
are necessary to carry out this title and the amendments made. Now, we
found out today, by asking the industry, how much one of those plants
will cost.
The plant on Indian land--I know my friend is interested in that--
would be reimbursed or given or paid for 110 percent of the cost of the
plant in Federal tax dollars, $4 billion; the cheapest, $3 billion.
That is one plant, not paid for here.
So I call it a socialistic amendment. You get the Federal taxpayer
land, and then you get Federal taxpayer money to build your plant. And,
by the way, all big environmental laws are waived. How does that help a
community, Mr.

[[Page S7589]]

President? Picking a winner, telling them that priority has to be given
to these sorts of plants, and, by the way, in case communities were
concerned that the quality of the air might go down because they are
near a refinery, this bill conveniently takes care of that problem by
waiving the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
They say States can pass equivalent laws. But there is no reason that
we should do that in America today. We have one Clean Air Act, we have
one Safe Drinking Water Act, we have one Clean Water Act, and there is
a reason: Water travels, air travels.
Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents alike decided--and it
really started under Richard Nixon--that we must protect the air and
the water. This act gives everything away that taxpayers have,
including the protection of clean air, including their funding.
Now, this particular vote is very important for people who care about
clean air and clean water. I assume we all do. We all talk about it. We
all say it is important. In my home State I lose in excess of 9,000
people every year because of particulate matter. I will not allow--I
say this with all humility; it is not a show of power--something to get
through this Senate that would, in essence, make the air worse, the
drinking water worse. I cannot let this go while taking dollars out of
the pockets of hard-working Americans, to give to whom? The biggest
energy companies in the country.
Let me read to you what some of these companies made in the last
couple of years: Exxon, $39 billion; Shell, $25 billion; BP, $22
billion; Chevron, $17 billion; ConocoPhillips, $15.6 billion.
Some of these companies earned 21 percent more than the year before,
and, by the way, the year before that they earned 40 percent more.
Let's take a look at what some of the executives have earned. I would
ask how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Let's not give more to these people who are gouging us at
the pump. Vote no on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand that we have 3 minutes
remaining to close debate on my amendment.
I have a hard time keeping a straight face when the Senator from
California suggests I have a socialistic amendment. I would invite
anyone who is entertaining any kind of joy in that statement to look at
our record over the past many years. It is just humorous.
We have gone through listening to the same thing over and over and
over again. We went through this yesterday for hours at a time. The
Senator from California talks about subsidizing oil companies. Again,
not one cent goes to any oil company. If we want to empower cities and
communities to be able to take care of problems, maybe an economic
problem that is due to the fact that they had to close a military base
during the base realignment and closing process, we should be in a
position to help.
I never stated that Senator Feinstein--with endorsing this bill, she
will be a good Democrat and oppose it with her junior Senator. I will
say this. She said she recognizes we have a serious problem about
having a refining capacity in this country, and about--I will just read
it to you from her own press release: Today I urged Governor
Schwarzenegger to help streamline the refining permit process in an
effort to relieve gas prices in the State.
All right. She says we have to relieve gas prices by streamlining the
process. That is exactly what happens in this amendment. We want that
to happen. For anyone to suggest that there is anything in here that
would hurt the environment, here we have the Environmental Council
of States--that is all States--saying there is nothing in here that
will hurt the environment. It will actually help the environment.

The Senator also said the Clean Air Act is going to be damaged, when,
in fact, the underlying bill has language that would take the fuels
system out from under the EPA and the Clean Air Act and put it in the
President's power.
So we have all of these letters. Here is another one from Ceres, a
big company in California that is a company that needs to have refining
capacity. They do not touch oil. It is all cellulosic bioethanol. They
want to have this capacity.
So the environmentalists, many of them are very much for this. It is
a very strong bill. It goes right back to the initial argument of
supply and demand. We have got some good things in this bill that are
coming up. It is not affecting today's supply. All of the production in
the world is fine, but we are not going to be able to do anything with
that production unless we are able to refine it. That is exactly what
we are talking about now.
I honestly believe every argument the Senator from California has put
up we have responded to over and over and over again. She keeps coming
back with the same argument.
I believe anyone who votes against the Inhofe amendment to the Energy
bill should forfeit their right to complain about the dependency on
foreign oil between now and the next election. I will say this also. I
am glad to say this on the Senate floor because this way you cannot say
we did not tell you. This is going to be one of the major issues in the
upcoming 2008 election as to whether you want to increase our refining
capacity to lower the price of gas in the United States of America.
This is a chance to do it. I urge you to support the Inhofe amendment
to the Energy bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Cornyn and Senator Hutchinson be added as cosponsors of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. 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 clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent,
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--52

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Coburn
Hagel
Johnson
McCain
The amendment (No. 1505) was rejected.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Amendment No. 1537 to Amendment No. 1502

(Purpose: To provide for a renewable portfolio standard)

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senator Bingaman.

[[Page S7590]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Bingaman,
proposes an amendment numbered 1537 to amendment No. 1502.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.

Amendment No. 1538 to Amendment No. 1537

(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of a Federal clean portfolio
standard)

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send a
second-degree amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr.
Domenici, for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Graham, and Ms. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered
1538 to amendment No. 1537.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Reid of Nevada, Senator Salazar, and Senator Cardin be added as
cosponsors to my amendment that was recently sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania is
in the Chamber. I know he wishes to speak on another matter. I ask him
how long he will need to speak, and maybe we could defer to him to make
whatever statement he wanted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I intend to speak on an amendment which
has been filed and I thought would be offered at the present time, but
Senator Kohl, the principal sponsor, wishes to offer it tomorrow. But I
intend to speak on my amendment, and I would like 15 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I know Senator Reed from Rhode Island
also would like to speak for 15 minutes on the bill.
Mr. REED. Yes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, why don't we have that be the order
then: the Senator from Pennsylvania have 15 minutes on his amendment,
which is not pending but which he intends to offer later, and then
Senator Reed on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 1519

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on an amendment
which has been filed, amendment No. 1519, which has an impressive list
of sponsors: Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, Senator
Biden, Senator Coburn, Senator Feingold, Senator Snowe, Senator Durbin,
Senator Boxer, Senator Lieberman, Senator Schumer, Senator Sanders, and
myself.
The thrust of this amendment is to make the OPEC nations--which have
conspired to limit production--subject to our antitrust laws. What we
have, simply stated, are a group of oil-producing nations, that get
together that make agreements to limit production. Inevitably, by
limiting the production of oil, and thereby limiting supply, the price
goes up. The limited supply of oil is the major contributing factor to
high gasoline prices. It is high time we acted on this matter.
The Judiciary Committee has approved this legislation on four
occasions, most recently on May 22 of this year. In the 109th Congress,
the legislation was passed out of the Judiciary Committee in which I
was the chair, and it was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
but it did not survive conference.
Senator Kohl and I and the other sponsors intend to ask for a
rollcall vote, which I think a substantial number of Senators will vote
for the amendment. I hate to predict things in this body, but I think
the vote will be substantial, and I think that ought to carry very
substantial weight in conference.
The facts on the current price of gasoline are very troublesome. The
high price of oil drives up other prices. The statistics are worth
noting with particularity. The price of crude oil reached $65 a barrel
yesterday. Americans are paying an average of $3.06 for a gallon of
gasoline. Consumers are paying more for products because American
companies are paying more to run their factories, which require the
consumption of energy. Consumers are also paying more for products they
buy that have been shipped by train or truck from somewhere else. Plane
fares, bus tickets, cab fares often include significant fuel
surcharges.

Economists have estimates that for every $10 increase in the price of
oil, our economic growth falls by a half a percent. Our economy grew
only by 0.6 percent in the first quarter of this year--the slowest
growth rate since 2002. I believe a fair amount of that lag in economic
growth can be attributed to the high price of oil.
For decades, the OPEC members have conspired to manipulate oil prices
through production quotas that limit the number of barrels sold. OPEC
again appears to be poised to manipulate oil prices by limiting supply.
The Secretary General of OPEC, Abdullah al-Badri, recently threatened
to cut investment in new oil production in response to plans announced
by the United States and other Western countries to use more biofuels.
He warned that cutting investment in new production would cause oil
prices to ``go through the roof.''
Well, we do not have to tolerate threats of that sort. We have the
wherewithal to deal with this issue in a constructive way through the
antitrust laws.
Regrettably, the history of litigation in this field has allowed OPEC
nations to avoid antitrust liability by asserting the doctrine of
sovereign immunity. In the decision of International Association of
Machinists v. OPEC, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California held that OPEC activity was ``governmental activity'' rather
than ``commercial activity'' and therefore was not subject to the U.S.
antitrust laws.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal,
holding that the ``act of state'' doctrine precluded the court from
exercising jurisdiction in the case. The ``act of state'' doctrine
precludes a federal court from hearing a case that requires it to rule
on the legality of the sovereign acts of a foreign nation.
Well, those rulings are matters which can be changed by legislation.
The legislation to make this change, I submit, is fundamental and very
much in our national interest and ought to be undertaken.
The lawsuits would have to be initiated, under our proposed
legislation, by the Department of Justice. As a result, the
Administration would provide a check on when to initiate a suit,
avoiding diplomatic disputes. But it is a fact we have deferred too
long to the practices of Saudi Arabia and practices of the OPEC oil
nations out of fear of retribution, and we ought not to kowtow to them
anymore.
The possibility of subjecting the OPEC nations to antitrust liability
has long been an interest of mine. I wrote to President Clinton on
April 11, 2000, urging the administration to file suit in the Federal
court under the antitrust laws in an effort to overturn the previous
decisions, which I think were wrongly decided.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, then I wrote to President Bush on April
25, 2001, with a similar request, that litigation be initiated by the
administration to hold OPEC nations liable under the antitrust laws.
Again, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 2.)
Mr. SPECTER. We have the authority to change the laws. We have a
responsibility to protect American consumers from these predatory
practices, from these conspiracies in restraint of trade, these
cartels. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at the legislation.

[[Page S7591]]

As I noted earlier, the amendment will be formally offered tomorrow.
I thank the Chair, yield back the remainder of my time, and yield the
floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, April 11, 2000.
President William Jefferson Clinton,
The White House
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: In light of the very serious problems
caused by the recent increase in oil prices, we know you will
share our view that we should explore every possible
alternative to stop OPEC and other oil-producing states from
entering into agreements to restrict oil production in order
to drive up the price of oil.
This conduct is nothing more than an old-fashioned
conspiracy in restraint of trade which has long been
condemned under U.S. law, and which should be condemned under
international law.
After some considerable research, we suggest that serious
consideration be given to two potential lawsuits against OPEC
and the nations conspiring with it:
(1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust
law.
(2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the
Hague based, perhaps, upon an advisory opinion under ``the
general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,''
which includes prohibiting oil cartels from conspiring to
limit production and raise prices.
(1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust
law.
A case can be made that your Administration can sue OPEC in
Federal district court under U.S. antitrust law. OPEC is
clearly engaging in a ``conspiracy in restraint of trade'' in
violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1). The
Administration has the power to sue under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4
for injunctive relief to prevent such collusion.
In addition, the Administration should consider suing OPEC
for treble damages under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec.
15a), since OPEC's behavior has caused an ``injury'' to U.S.
``property.'' After all, the U.S. government is a major
consumer of petroleum products and must now pay higher prices
for these products. In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp, 442 U.S. 330
(1979), the Supreme Court held that the consumers who were
direct purchasers of certain hearing aides who alleged that
collusion among manufacturers had led to an increase in
prices had standing to sue those manufacturers under the
Clayton Act since ``a consumer deprived of money by reason of
allegedly anticompetitive conduct is injured in `property'
within the meaning of [the Clayton Act].'' Indirect
purchasers would appear to be precluded from suit, even in a
class action, under Illinois Brick v. Illinois 431 U.S. 720
(1977), but this would not bar the United States Government,
as a direct purchaser, from having the requisite standing.
One potential obstacle to such a suit is whether the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSIA'') provides OPEC, a
group of sovereign foreign nations, with immunity from suit
in U.S. courts. To date, there has been a ruling on this
issue in only one case. In International Association of
Machinists v. OPEC, 477 F. Supp. 553 (1979), the District
Court for the Central District of California held that the
nations which comprise OPEC were immune from suit in the
United States under the FSIA. We believe that this opinion
was wrongly decided and that other district courts, including
the D.C. District, can and should revisit the issue.
This decision in Int. Assoc. of Machinists turned on the
technical issue of whether or not the nations which comprise
OPEC are engaging in ``commercial activity'' or
``governmental activity'' when they cooperate to sell their
oil. If they are engaging in ``governmental activity,'' then
the FSIA shields them from suit in U.S. courts. If, however,
these nations are engaging in ``commercial activity,'' then
they are subject to suit in the U.S. The California District
Court held that OPEC activity is ``governmental activity.''
We disagree. It is certainly a governmental activity for a
nation to regulate the extraction of petroleum from its
territory by ensuring compliance with zoning, environmental
and other regulatory regimes. It is clearly a commercial
activity, however, for these nations to sit together and
collude to limit their oil production for the sole purpose of
increasing prices.
The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in
Int. Assoc. of Machinists in 1981 (649 F.2d 1354), but on the
basis of an entirely different legal principle. The 9th
Circuit held that the Court could not hear this case because
of the ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds that a U.S.
court will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute
which would require the court to judge the legality of the
sovereign act of a foreign state.
The 9th Circuit itself acknowledged in its Int. Assoc. of
Machinists opinion that ``The [act of state] doctrine does
not suggest a rigid rule of application,'' but rather
application of the rule will depend on the circumstances of
each case. The Court also noted that, ``A further
consideration is the availability of internationally-accepted
legal principles which would render the issues appropriate
for judicial disposition.'' The Court then quotes from the
Supreme Court's opinion in Banco Nacional de Cuba v.
Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964):
It should be apparent that the greater the degree of
codification or consensus concerning a particular area of
international law, the more appropriate it is for the
judiciary to render decisions regarding it, since the courts
can then focus on the application of an agreed principle to
circumstances of fact rather than on the sensitive task of
establishing a principle not inconsistent with the national
interest or with international justice.
Since the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in 1981, there
have been major developments in international law that impact
directly on the subject matter at issue. As we discuss in
greater detail below, the 1990's have witnessed a significant
increase in efforts to seek compliance with basic
international norms of behavior through international
courts and tribunals. In addition, there is strong
evidence of an emerging consensus in international law
that price fixing by cartels violates such international
norms. Accordingly, a court choosing to apply the act of
state doctrine to a dispute with OPEC today may very well
reach a different conclusion than the 9th Circuit reached
almost twenty years ago.
You should also examine whether the anticompetitive conduct
of the international oil cartel is being effectuated by
private companies who are subject to the enforcement of U.S.
antitrust laws (for example, former state oil companies that
have now been privatized) rather than sovereign foreign
states. If such private oil companies are determined to in
fact be participating in the anticompetitive conduct of the
oil cartel, then we would urge that these companies be named
as defendants in an antitrust lawsuit in addition to the OPEC
members.
(2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the
Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized
by civilized nations,'' which includes prohibiting oil
cartels from conspiring to limit production and raise prices.
In addition to such domestic antitrust actions, we believe
you should give serious consideration to bringing a case
against OPEC before the International Court of Justice (the
``ICJ'') at the Hague. You should consider both a direct suit
against the conspiring nations as well as a request for an
advisory opinion from the Court through the auspices of the
U.N. Security Council. The actions of OPEC in restraint of
trade violate ``the general principles of law recognized by
civilized nations.'' Under Article 38 of the Statute of the
ICJ, the Court is required to apply these ``general
principles'' when deciding cases before it.
This would clearly be a cutting-edge lawsuit, making new
law at the international level. But there have been exciting
developments in recent years which suggest that the ICJ would
be willing to move in this direction. In a number of
contexts, we have seen a greater respect for and adherence to
fundamental international principles and norms by the world
community. For example, we have seen the establishment of the
International Criminal Court in 1998, the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994, and the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993. Each of
these bodies has been active, handing down numerous
indictments and convictions against individuals who have
violated fundamental principles of human rights. For example,
as of December 1, 1999 the Yugoslavia tribunal alone had
handed down 91 public indictments.
Today, adherence to international principles has spread
from the tribunals in the Hague to individual nations around
the world. Recently, the exiled former dictator of Chad,
Hissene Habre, was indicted in Senegal on charges of torture
and barbarity stemming from his reign, where he allegedly
killed and tortured thousands. This case is similar to the
case brought against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet
by Spain on the basis of his alleged atrocities in Chile. At
the request of the Spanish government, Pinochet was detained
in London for months until an English court determined that
he was too ill to stand trial.
The emerging scope of international law was demonstrated in
an advisory opinion sought by the U.N. General Assembly in
1996 to declare illegal the use or threat to use nuclear
weapons. Such an issue would ordinarily be thought beyond the
scope of a judicial determination given the doctrines of
national sovereignty and the importance of nuclear weapons to
the defense of many nations. The ICJ ultimately ruled eight
to seven, however, that the use or threat to use nuclear
weapons ``would generally be contrary to the rules of
international law applicable in armed conflict, and in
particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.''
The fact that this issue was subject to a decision by the
ICJ, shows the rapidly expanding horizons of international
law.
While these emerging norms of international behavior have
tended to focus more on human rights than on economic
principles, there is one economic issue on which an
international consensus has emerged in recent years--the
illegitimacy of price fixing by cartels. For example, on
April 27, 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development issued an official ``Recommendation'' that all
twenty-nine member nations ``ensure that their competition
laws effectively halt and deter hard core cartels.'' The
recommendation defines ``hard core cartels'' as those which,
among other things, fix prices or establish output
restriction quotas. The Recommendation further instructs
member countries ``to cooperate with each other in enforcing
their laws against such cartels.''

[[Page S7592]]

On October 9, 1998, eleven Western Hemisphere countries
held the first ``Antitrust Summit of the Americas'' in Panama
City, Panama. At the close of the summit, all eleven
participants issued a joint communique in which they express
their intention ``to affirm their commitment to effective
enforcement of sound competition laws, particularly in
combating illegal price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market
allocation.'' The communique further expresses the intention
of these countries to ``cooperate with one another . . . to
maximize the efficacy and efficiency of the enforcement of
each country's competition laws.'' One of the countries
participating in this communique, Venezuela, is a member of
OPEC.
The behavior of OPEC and other oil-producing nations in
restraint of trade violates U.S. antitrust law and basic
international norms, and it is injuring the United States and
its citizens in a very real way. Consideration of such legal
action could provide an inducement to OPEC and other oil-
producing countries to raise production to head off such
litigation.
We hope that you will seriously consider judicial action to
put an end to such behavior.
Arlen Specter.
Herb Kohl.
Charles Schumer.
Mike DeWine.
Strom Thurmond.
Joe Biden.

Exhibit 2

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, April 25, 2001.
President George Walker Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: In light of the energy crisis and the
high prices of OPEC oil, we know you will share our view that
we must explore every possible alternative to stop OPEC and
other oil-producing states from entering into agreements to
restrict oil production in order to drive up the price of
oil.
This conduct is nothing more than an old-fashioned
conspiracy in restraint of trade which has long been
condemned under U.S. law, and which should be condemned under
international law.
After some research, we suggest that serious consideration
be given to two potential lawsuits against OPEC and the
nations conspiring with it:
(1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust
law.
(2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the
Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized
by civilized nations.''
(1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust
law.
A strong case can be made that your Administration can sue
OPEC in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust law. OPEC
is clearly engaging in a ``conspiracy in restraint of trade''
in violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1). The
Administration has the power to sue under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4
for injunctive relief to prevent such collusion.
In addition, the Administration has the power to sue OPEC
for treble damages under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec.
15a), since OPEC's behavior has caused an ``injury'' to U.S.
``property.'' After all, the U.S. government is a consumer of
petroleum products and must now pay higher prices for these
products. In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp, 442 U.S. 330 (1979),
the Supreme Court held that the consumers of certain hearing
aides who alleged that collusion among manufacturers had led
to an increase in prices had standing to sue those
manufacturers under the Clayton Act since ``a consumer
deprived of money by reason of allegedly anticompetitive
conduct is injured in `property' within the meaning of [the
Clayton Act].''
One issue that would be raised by such a suit is whether
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSIA'') provides
OPEC, a group of sovereign foreign nations, with immunity
from suit in U.S. courts. To date, only one Federal court,
the District Court for the Central District of California,
has reviewed this issue. In International Association of
Machinists v. OPEC, 477 F. Supp 553 (1979), the Court held
that the nations which comprise OPEC were immune from suit in
the United States under the FSIA. We believe that this
opinion was wrongly decided and that other district courts,
including the D.C. District, can and should revisit the
issue.
This decision in Int. Assoc. of Machinists turned on the
technical issue of whether or not the nations which comprise
OPEC are engaging in ``commercial activity'' or
``governmental activity'' when they cooperate to sell their
oil. If they are engaging in ``governmental activity,'' then
the FSIA shields them from suit in U.S. courts. If, however,
these nations are engaging in ``commercial activity,'' then
they are subject to suit in the U.S. The California District
Court held that OPEC activity is ``governmental activity.''
We disagree. It is certainly a governmental activity for a
nation to regulate the extraction of petroleum from its
territory by ensuring compliance with zoning, environmental
and other regulatory regimes. It is clearly a commercial
activity, however, for these nations to sit together and
collude to limit their oil production for the sole purpose of
increasing prices.
The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in
Int. Assoc. of Machinists in 1981 (649 F.2d 1354), but on the
basis of an entirely different legal principle. The 9th
Circuit held that the Court could not hear this case because
of the ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds that a U.S.
court will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute
which would require the court to judge the legality of the
sovereign act of a foreign state.
The 9th Circuit itself acknowledged in its Int. Assoc. of
Machinists opinion that ``The [act of state] doctrine does
not suggest a rigid rule of application,'' but rather
application of the rule will depend on the circumstances of
each case. The Court also noted that, ``A further
consideration is the availability of internationally-accepted
legal principles which would render the issues appropriate
for judicial disposition.'' The Court then quotes from the
Supreme Court's opinion in Banco National de Cuba v.
Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964):
It should be apparent that the greater the degree of
codification or consensus concerning a particular area of
international law, the more appropriate it is for the
judiciary to render decisions regarding it, since the courts
can then focus on the application of an agreed principle to
circumstances of fact rather than on the sensitive task of
establishing a principle not inconsistent with the national
interest or with international justice.
Since the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in 1981, there
have been major developments in international law that impact
directly on the subject matter at issue. As we discuss in
greater detail below, the 1990's have witnessed a significant
increase in efforts to seek compliance with basic
international norms of behavior through international courts
and tribunals. In addition, there is strong evidence of an
emerging consensus in international law that price fixing by
cartels violates such international norms. Accordingly, a
court choosing to apply the act of state doctrine to a
dispute with OPEC today may very well reach a different
conclusion than the 9th Circuit reached almost twenty
years ago.
(2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the
Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized
by civilized nations.''
In addition to such domestic antitrust actions, we believe
you should give serious consideration to bringing case
against OPEC before the International Court of Justice (the
``ICJ'') at the Hague. You should consider both a direct suit
against the conspiring nations as well as a request for an
advisory opinion from the Court through the auspices of the
U.N. Security Council. The actions of OPEC in restraint of
trade violate ``the general principles of law recognized by
civilized nations.'' Under Article 38 of the Statute of the
ICJ, the Court is required to apply these ``general
principles'' when deciding cases before it.
This would clearly be a cutting-edge lawsuit, making new
law at the international level. But there have been exciting
developments in recent years which suggest that the ICJ would
be willing to move in this direction. In a number of
contexts, we have seen a greater respect for and adherence to
fundamental international principles and norms by the world
community. For example, we have seen the establishment of the
International Criminal Court in 1998, the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994, and the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993. Each of
these bodies has been active, handing down numerous
indictments and convictions against individuals who have
violated fundamental principles of human rights.
Today, adherence to international principles has spread
from the tribunals in the Hague to individual nations around
the world. The exiled former dictator of Chad, Hissene Habre,
was indicted in Senegal on charges of torture and barbarity
stemming from his reign, where he allegedly killed and
tortured thousands. This case is similar to the case brought
against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet by Spain on
the basis of his alleged atrocities in Chile. At the request
of the Spanish government, Pinochet was detained in London
for months until an English court determined that he was too
ill to stand trial.
While these emerging norms of international behavior have
tended to focus more on human rights than on economic
principles, there is one economic issue on which an
international consensus has emerged in recent years--the
illegitimacy of price fixing by cartels. For example, on
April 27, 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development issued an official ``Recommendation'' that all
twenty-nine member nations ``ensure that their competition
laws effectively halt and deter hard core cartels.'' The
recommendation defines ``hard core cartels'' as those which,
among other things, fix prices or establish output
restriction quotas. The Recommendation further instructs
member countries ``to cooperate with each other in enforcing
their laws against such cartels.''
On October 9, 1998, eleven Western Hemisphere countries
held the first ``Antitrust Summit of the Americas'' in Panama
City, Panama. At the close of the summit, all eleven
participants issued a joint communique in which they express
their intention ``to affirm their commitment to effective
enforcement of sound competition laws, particularly in
combating illegal price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market
allocation.'' The communique further expresses the intention

[[Page S7593]]

of these countries to ``cooperate with one another . . . to
maximize the efficacy and efficiency of the enforcement of
each country's competition laws.''
The behavior of OPEC and other oil-producing nations in
restraint of trade violates U.S. antitrust law and basic
international norms, and it is injuring the United States and
its citizens in a very real way.
We hope that you will seriously consider judicial action to
put an end to such behavior.
Arlen Specter.
Charles Schumer.
Herb Kohl.
Strom Thurmond.
Mike DeWine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, energy is the lifeblood of our economy. It
is fundamental to powering our homes, businesses, manufacturing, and
the transportation of goods and services that are vital to America and
the world economy. But the fossil fuels our country currently relies on
are unsustainable. Our Nation's addiction to oil is threatening our
national security and dramatically changing the climate in which we
live.
Setting America on a course of greater energy self-reliance is one of
the most significant foreign policy, economic, and environmental
challenges we face as a Nation.
Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Inouye, and Stevens have put a great
deal of effort in developing this Energy bill, and it is an excellent
first step. The bill will improve our Nation's energy efficiency,
protect consumers from price gouging, increase vehicle economy
standards, and decrease our reliance on oil, especially from unstable
regions of the world.
President Bush admitted we are addicted to oil. But for the last 6
years, neither he nor the Congress was willing to take real action to
change that fact. I commend Senator Harry Reid for bringing this
legislation to the floor.
For the first time in 30 years, the Senate is now poised to pass
legislation to increase vehicle fuel standards. I commend particularly
Senators Feinstein and Durbin and Snowe for their work on this issue. I
was glad to be an original cosponsor of the ten-in-ten bill, which is
the basis of the bipartisan compromise in the legislation we are
considering today.
The debate about fuel economy standards should be over. We have the
technology to get well beyond 35 miles per gallon, and the American
public supports an increase in fuel efficiency standards. The time for
action is long overdue, and I hope my colleagues will resist efforts to
weaken these standards.
We have an opportunity to create a new energy future for the country.
That future would strengthen our national security by making us more
self-reliant and slow the impacts of global warming on our climate by
investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and biofuels. I do
not believe we can drill or mine our way to energy independence.
Increasing the importation of foreign oil and natural gas is not the
answer. Developing more nuclear power, given its price, legacy, cost,
and safety threats, remains very problematic. Investing in energy
efficiency and renewable energy is a win-win situation. These
investments offer short-term and long-term solutions to strengthen our
national security by reducing our energy consumption and making us less
reliant on oil from unstable regions of the world. It enhances our
economic competitiveness by creating American jobs in this new green
economy, and it will protect our environment by reducing our carbon
footprint.
Sixty percent of the oil consumed by Americans comes from abroad.
While Canada and Mexico are our top suppliers, OPEC nations hold the
cards in a global oil market, and a portion of the money we spend on
oil undoubtedly finds its way into the hands of unstable and unfriendly
regimes. Two-thirds of the global oil reserves are in the Middle East,
and more than 75 percent of global oil production is already in the
hands of state-controlled oil companies. With growing global demand and
limited remaining oil supply, many countries, including our allies and
trading partners, will compete with us for finite oil supplies as their
and our own economy rely more heavily on imports. This will inevitably
stress the delicate balance that exists among national interests in the
world, and it gives oil-rich nations disproportionate leverage in the
international arena. Al-Qaida and other terrorist networks have openly
called for and carried out attacks on oil infrastructure because they
know oil is the economic lifeline of industrial economies, especially
the United States.
Today, we have an opportunity to shift the balance of power around
the globe that is dictated by oil. Our first step is to strengthen our
national security by increasing CAFE standards.
Raising fuel economy standards is an essential insurance policy
against the risk of oil dependence and global warming, which pose vital
threats to our national security. Fuel economy standards have proven
effective at reducing our demand for oil, but they have been stagnant
for more than a decade, despite advances in vehicle technology. The
fact that our industrial competitors are increasing mileage standards
underscores how we have been lagging behind the world economy in terms
of technology, in terms of applying that technology through increasing
the standards for automobiles in our country. Achieving a 35-mile-per-
gallon fuel economy over the next decade, the equivalent of the 4-
percent-a-year improvement called for by President Bush, is achievable.
Beginning in 2011, this bill requires the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration to annually increase the nationwide average fleet
fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to achieve a standard
of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. By 2020, the bill would reduce
our Nation's oil dependence by approximately 1.3 million barrels per
day, and in that year alone will save consumers $26 billion, and global
warming emissions will be reduced by over 200 million metric tons.
These savings will continue to increase each year, year after year.
This is the best investment we can have, I believe, in both national
security and improved environmental quality, not just for us but for
the world.
Strong mileage standards will also make us more competitive.
According to the University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, U.S. automakers could increase revenues by $2 billion and
save between 15,000 and 35,000 jobs for autoworkers if we improve gas
mileage. Higher fuel efficiency standards will help U.S. automobile
manufacturers to better compete in the global marketplaces. The
pricetag of our oil dependence is also not sustainable. According to a
Department of Defense report:

The United States bears many costs associated with the
stability of the global oil market and infrastructure. The
cost--

According to this report--

of securing Persian Gulf sources alone comes to $44.4 billion
annually for the United States.

We are literally policing the world oil market for the benefit of the
world economy, with great cost in terms of dollars but also in terms of
the huge pressure on our military forces and their families.
We lose $25 billion from our economy every month, and oil imports now
account for nearly a third of the national trade deficit because of our
dependence on oil. The economy is exposed to oil price shocks and
supply disruptions, and families are feeling the pinch of oil prices.
High energy prices reduce consumer spending power and affect
businesses' bottom lines.
Millions of petrodollars are being exported out of U.S. cities and
counties to pay for energy with a real effect on local economic
vitality. In Rhode Island, my home State, gas prices have increased by
$1.50 per gallon, an increase of 99 percent, since 2001. Households in
Rhode Island are paying $1,430 more per year for gasoline than in 2001.
So for the State economy, this means that families, businesses, and
farmers in Rhode Island will spend $52.4 million more on gasoline in
June 2007 than they spent in January 2001, and $600 million more will
be spent on gasoline this year than was spent in 2001, if prices remain
at current levels. Rhode Island residents, farmers, and businesses are
on track to pay $1.2 billion for gasoline this year. That is an
extraordinary drain on the economy of my State and on States throughout
this great Nation.

If we have a policy that increases CAFE standards and energy
efficiency and makes sensible investments in renewable fuels, we will
have more funds

[[Page S7594]]

to invest in education, health care, public works, and business
development. My State, like so many States, is struggling with a budget
problem, a huge State budget problem. Some of that can be attributed
directly to the higher cost of fuels to run schools, to run buses, to
run the infrastructure of our State. We could take that money, save it,
and invest it in education, in schools, and not simply ship it overseas
through major international oil companies.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that improve
technologies for our homes, our businesses, and our vehicles must be
the ``first fuel'' in the race for secure, affordable, and clean
energy. Energy efficiency is the Nation's greatest energy resource. We
now save more energy each year from energy efficiency than we get from
any single energy source, including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear
power. We need to use energy in a way that saves money. It is much
cheaper to conserve energy and increase efficiency than to build
further energy infrastructure in the country.
The Senate bill contains important provisions to support energy
efficiency. First, it sets new energy benchmarks for appliances,
including residential boilers, dishwashers, clothes washers,
refrigerators, dehumidifiers, and electric motors. These seem like very
mundane, trivial items, but if we can make even small increases in
their efficiency, it has a huge macroeconomic effect on our society in
terms of demand for energy, and this legislation will help us do that
and point us in that direction. According to the American Council for
an Energy Efficient Economy, increasing these standards will give
consumers more than $12 billion in benefits, save more than 50 billion
kilowatt-hours per year in electricity, or enough to power 4.8 million
typical American households. The bill also strengthens energy
requirements for the Federal Government. Today, the Federal Government
spends more than $14 billion a year on energy. Increasing efficiency
will save energy and taxpayer dollars. That is something we have to
begin ourselves, leading by example at the Federal level.
The bill also increases the authorization level for the
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. The
State Energy Program improves the energy efficiency of schools,
hospitals, small businesses, farms, and industries to make our economy
more efficient.
The Weatherization Assistance Program helps low-income families, the
elderly, and the disabled by improving energy efficiency of low-income
housing. Weatherization can cut energy bills by 20 to 40 percent in
each assisted home. This represents savings that families can use to
pay for other necessities, while reducing the Nation's energy demand by
the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil each year. It lowers our
national demand for energy, helps individual families, which is another
win-win program we must support more vigorously.
The program weatherizes approximately 100,000 homes each year. Since
its inception, the program has weatherized over 5.6 million homes.
Weatherization has also grown an energy efficiency industry for
residential housing that, according to the Department of Energy,
employs 8,000 people who work in low-income weatherization alone. This
has been a great success. Again, lowering the cost to families,
lowering the national demand, and putting people to work is a good
formula for our economy today.
Unfortunately, the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2007 spending
plan cut funding to the weatherization program, and the administration,
unfortunately, has a situation in which efficiency funding has fallen
alarmingly since 2002. Adjusting for inflation, funding for energy
efficiency has been cut by one-third. We have to do better. In the face
of soaring prices, in the face of international threats posed by oil
powers, we are cutting programs that are efficient, effective, and help
families, and that is not only wrong, but it is terribly wrongheaded.
A strong renewable electricity standard is also needed to diversify
our fuel supply, clean our air, and better protect our consumers from
electricity price shocks. I am glad to join Senator Bingaman in
supporting an amendment to the bill to require a 15-percent renewable
electricity standard by 2020. This amendment will promote domestically
produced clean energy, reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, reduce
energy costs for American consumers and businesses, and create American
jobs.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 15-percent RES
would save the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors $16.3
billion in electricity and natural gas costs. These savings are
particularly critical for energy-intensive industries such as
manufacturing. The RES will also create jobs in manufacturing. A recent
study by the Apollo Alliance and the Urban Habitat found that renewable
electricity creates American manufacturing, construction, and
maintenance jobs. For every megawatt of solar photovoltaic electricity
generated, about 22 jobs are created, which is their projection.
Geothermal energy creates 10.5 jobs per megawatt, and wind energy
creates 6.4 jobs per megawatt. American energy-intensive industries
that are saving $5 billion through 2023 will be more competitive in the
global market. Using clean, domestically produced power will also help
stabilize prices, allowing businesses to more accurately budget for
energy costs. This RES, the proposal of Senator Bingaman, will also
lower U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 2 million tons per year
by 2020.
Finally, the RES is important to our national security. In July 2006,
the National Security Task Force on Energy published a report
recommending several measures to improve energy security in the 21st
century, including a national RES of 10 to 25 percent. Consumption of
natural gas is growing at a faster rate than for any other primary
energy source, and it is growing in all sectors of the economy.
Families heat their homes with natural gas, businesses use natural gas
to produce products, natural gas vehicles are becoming more common, and
power producers generate cleaner energy with natural gas. Similar to
oil, demand is growing faster than available supplies can be delivered,
and the tightening in supply and demand is resulting in dramatic price
volatility. One way to increase the natural gas supply in the United
States is through liquefied natural gas, known as LNG. Again, however,
we would do well to learn from our lessons with oil. One-third of the
world's proven reserves of natural gas are in the Middle East, nearly
two-fifths are in Russia and its former satellites, and Nigeria and
Algeria also have significant reserves.
Political stability and terrorism are very real threats to these
countries being a reliable source for natural gas. Russia is trying to
create an OPEC-style cartel for natural gas, which could manipulate
natural gas prices and supply, and that would be a very unfortunate
development.
For over 30 years, through four different administrations, Americans
have been promised that our Government would end the national security
threat created by our dependence on foreign oil. As a country, we need
to move in a new direction toward a clean and secure energy future.
This effort must include greater investment in energy efficiency, a
strong renewable electricity standard, and increased vehicle fuel
economy standards. Also, as we dramatically increase biofuel
production, we must ensure that it does not cause harm to the
environment and public health.
Energy security starts with using the fuels we have more efficiently.
Smart energy use is a resource not vulnerable to terrorism or world
politics, and I think this legislation is a step forward for smart
energy use. I commend Chairman Bingaman for his leadership.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Immigration

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to say a word this morning about a
column that was printed in the Washington Post this morning on the op-
ed page that was taking the majority leader of the Senate to task, and
doing so, I think, unfairly and certainly inaccurately.
The column criticizes the majority leader for saying the Senate's
time was ``too precious'' to expend on what would have been unlimited
debate on an unlimited number of Republican amendments to the
immigration bill.

[[Page S7595]]

The intent of this column in the newspaper is to say that the majority
leader was responsible for failing to allow consideration of the
immigration bill.
I don't know what Mr. Will, who wrote this column, was watching last
week. I know Paris Hilton was being taken back and forth between her
house and the sheriff's office and court and jail, apparently, and the
country must have been riveted on that story. But C-SPAN would have
availed a columnist of a pretty good look at what the Senate was doing,
and not just for last week but for 2 weeks the Senate dealt with the
subject of immigration.
I happen to come to a different conclusion on that subject than the
majority leader. I know who supports that legislation, and he has
supported that legislation. I watched the last day of consideration
when the majority leader came to the floor and offered a proposal where
each side would get four amendments. That was objected to. He then
proposed that each side would get three amendments. That was objected
to. Each side would get two amendments. That was objected to.
I don't have the foggiest idea why Mr. Will would write a column
suggesting somehow the majority leader was responsible for that not
going forward after 2 full weeks of debate and being blocked in every
circumstance of having additional amendments considered.
But what brought me to the Senate floor is not my support of
consideration or further consideration of the immigration bill, but the
charge that the majority leader was somehow responsible for scuttling
it. That is not the case, No. 1. And, No. 2, Mr. Will says in his
column that, in fact, it was taken off the floor in order to bring up
legislation that would quintuple the mandated use of corn-based
ethanol, apparently upset about the fact that we have an energy bill on
the floor at this point that would dramatically increase the use of
biofuels, corn-based ethanol and also cellulosic and other approaches
because we believe we need to find somehow, some way, some point,
someday to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
Over 60 percent of the oil we use in this country we obtain from
troubled parts of the world overseas--60 percent of it and it is
growing: the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, Venezuela, Iraq, and the list goes
on. If tomorrow, God forbid, somehow that source of oil would be shut
off to our economy, this economy, this American economy would be flat
on its back. We need to become less dependent on foreign sources of
oil. We use 70 percent of the oil we bring into this country in our
vehicles. We run them through the carburetors and fuel injectors of our
vehicles.
We are doing a lot with this legislation. We haven't had an increase
in the efficiency standards for vehicles for 25 years, and the auto
companies, I know, object to that. They objected to seatbelts. They
objected to airbags. They have given us better cupholders. They have
given us better music systems. They have given us keyless entry. But
they haven't in 25 years given us greater efficiency, and they should.
That is in the bill.
We also increase the supply of alternative energy with renewable
fuels called the biofuels, ethanol, corn-based ethanol; yes, cellulosic
ethanol, yes. If Mr. Will and others think that is irrelevant, they
miss the point. This country doesn't have a choice. We must find a
route to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
One approach, in my judgment, is to make the vehicles more efficient.
Another approach is to produce renewable fuels. I was the author of the
only standard that exists for renewable fuels, a 7.5-billion-gallon-a-
year standard. We did that 2 years ago. I think we are at 7.5 billion
gallons already. We were hoping to get there by 2012. Now we have a
bill that will take us to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels. As a
measurement, we use 145 billion gallons of fuel a year. We want to go
to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels that we can grow in our farm
fields, among other things.

It is easy to write a column, I guess. If the ink is inexpensive, you
can say anything you want. This is not an accurate reflection of two
things. No. 1, it is not an accurate reflection of the immigration
bill, and it is not an accurate reflection, in my judgment, of the
merits of biofuels to extend America's energy supply.
While I am up, I want to make one more point. There are others who
talked about the amendment I offered to the immigration bill suggesting
that somehow it would have been responsible for killing the bill. I
want to describe it very briefly.
The immigration bill was put together in a room by a group of people
who said: Here is what we think we should do to deal with immigration.
The proposal was put together in a room by some 14 Senators, which
meant that 86 others were not involved. So the product was brought to
the floor of the Senate, and we were told: If you have a different
idea, the group of 14 are going to oppose it. That group of 14, or
whatever it was, creating a grand compromise, they had a responsibility
to oppose anything that the rest of the 86 Members of the Senate
believed could add to or improve the bill.
Among other things, the bill provided a temporary worker provision
which said there are millions of people outside this country--400,000 a
year originally, 2 years on, 1 year back to their home country, 2 years
back, 1 year back to their home country, 2 years back a third time. My
colleague from New Mexico reduced that to 200,000 a year. But it was
ultimately the same circumstance. It would have been a massive number
of new people who don't now live here who would have come in and taken
jobs in this country. I did not support that guest worker program. I
believe at least we should sunset it after 5 years to evaluate the
consequences, what impact it has had on our country. Has it had an
impact of downward pressure on wages, which I think it will have, which
I don't support? Has it had an impact of bringing in a lot of
immigrants who will not leave afterward and, therefore, be here without
legal authorization? If so, should we consider that issue and how to
deal with it?
I think these are very complicated issues, and the guest worker
program should be sunsetted after 5 years. My amendment won by one
vote, and then it was as if the sky was falling. This is going to kill
the bill, they say. I don't agree with that at all. I just don't agree.
As I have indicated many times, they brought that out here suggesting
that anything that was done that would change it would kill the bill.
Again, it is the argument we hear all the time: the lose thread on the
cheap sweater; pull the thread, the arms fall off.
I come back to this point that I think the column today is unfair to
the majority leader. It unfairly suggests that he is the responsible
party for not moving forward on immigration. We spent 2 full weeks on
immigration. It wasn't incomplete because of anything the majority
leader did. He is the one who brought it to the floor in the first
place.
Second, it is unfortunate--certainly well within the columnist's
right, but unfortunate--to suggest that somehow renewable fuels cannot
play a significant part in this country's energy future. That is a
significant part of this bill. Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici,
myself, and many others have worked on renewable fuels for a long
while. We set a standard that I think is going to be very exciting for
this country to meet, and I think it will reduce our dependence on
foreign sources of oil, will make us much less dependent than we are
now, and I think it will advance this country's security and energy
interests.
I am pleased to be a part of that effort and support it and felt
especially that I ought to say a word in response to this column that I
think unfairly treats the issue of biofuels.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 1605
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of bold action on
energy policy for this country. I am pleased and indebted to the
chairman of the Energy Committee for his leadership. I think all of us
know our country faces serious energy challenges. The most pressing is
the fact that our Nation is far too dependent on foreign oil.

[[Page S7596]]

For example, we currently import roughly 60 percent of the oil we
consume. You can see that in 2006, 60 percent of our oil came from
imports; only 40 percent was domestic. Not only does this make us
increasingly dependent on the most unstable parts of the world, but it
is also leading to a financial hemorrhage. It is leading us to spend
hundreds of billions of dollars abroad that could otherwise be deployed
here at home.
Imported petroleum accounted for $272 billion of the U.S. trade
deficit over the last year, equal to 32 percent of our total trade
deficit--$272 billion that we spend in other countries that could have
been spent here at home. Imagine the difference in this country's
economy if we were spending $270 billion in America securing energy
here instead of shipping it to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela,
Nigeria, and all of the other countries from whom we buy foreign oil.
We know much of this oil is coming from the most unstable parts of
the world. That puts us at risk, not only at economic risk but at
national security risk. We must also recognize that other countries,
especially in the developing world, are going to consume growing
amounts of energy as well. In fact, the Energy Information
Administration projects world consumption of energy will increase 57
percent from 2004 to 2030.
This chart shows it well. This is the current consumption level. This
is what they project by 2030--a 57-percent increase. This growth in
demand for energy will mean higher prices for energy, increased price
volatility in the markets for oil, natural gas, uranium, and coal as
transportation and refining networks are pushed to capacity. Unless we
change course, we will become even more dependent on foreign energy
sources. In fact, we are told now that while we are 60 percent
dependent, we are headed for 75 percent dependence if we fail to act.
In short, our addiction to foreign oil threatens our economic future
and our national security. We need to take significant strides now to
develop other sources of energy, ones we can rely on to be there in the
future.
I have said many times to my colleagues, instead of continuing our
dependence on the Middle East, we need to look to the Midwest for
increased energy supplies, because it is in the Midwest where we grow
the feedstocks for ethanol and biodiesel, things that reduce our
dependence on foreign oil.
Fortunately, the United States has the domestic resources and the
ingenuity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our energy
challenges. That is why I introduced the BOLD Act last year, Breaking
Our Long-term Dependence. The BOLD Act would increase production of
renewable energy and alternatives fuels, offer incentives to reward
fuel savings and energy efficiency, increase research and development
funding for new technologies, promote responsible development of
domestic fossil fuel resources, and facilitate expansion and upgrades
to our Nation's electricity grid.
That is also one of the challenges facing us; we have gridlock on the
energy grid. When we produce additional energy in North Dakota, we
can't move it to the Chicago market because the capacity of the grid is
full--in Minnesota, in Wisconsin. So when we put on new capacity in
North Dakota through wind power, for example, where we have
extraordinary potential, we can't move it to the Chicago market where
it is needed because the grid itself is gridlocked.
I am pleased the bill before us contains many of the provisions or
similar provisions to what was in the BOLD Act I introduced last year.
The renewable fuels standard is an important step. My BOLD Act required
30 billion gallons of renewable fuel use by 2025. This bill requires 36
billion gallons by 2022. Renewable fuels have tremendous potential to
reduce our imports. By relying more on domestic crops to produce
ethanol and biodiesel, we can reduce fuel prices, support economic
development in rural areas, and improve our energy security.
This energy bill also takes steps to develop an infrastructure of
pipelines, rail lines, and trucks able to deliver increasing amounts of
renewable fuels to market. These steps will allow us to substitute
homegrown fuels for foreign oil, dramatically reducing our dependence
on imported oil.
Let me say that other countries have done this. Brazil is a perfect
example. You can see, in the green bars, that in 1973 we were 35
percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, we are 60 percent. Look at
Brazil. Brazil, in 1973, was 80 percent dependent on foreign oil. They
have reduced that last year to 5 percent--a dramatic change. How have
they done it? They have done it by promoting ethanol and biodiesel and
by promoting flexible fuel vehicles. That is a program for success.
Experts tell us the single most important thing we can do to reduce
our reliance on foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of our cars
and trucks. If our cars averaged 40 miles a gallon, we could save 2 to
3 million barrels of oil a day. In the short term, we clearly need to
increase fuel efficiency. In the longer term, we need to develop
alternative fuel technologies, such as plug-in hybrid and electric
drive vehicles. This bill helps advance a long-term solution to the
problem with research and development and demonstration programs for
electric drive transportation technology. The bill also includes loan
guarantees for facilities for the manufacture of parts for fuel-
efficient vehicles, including hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles.
We have abundant domestic sources of electricity, from a 250-year
supply of coal to rapidly developing renewable sources such as wind
energy. Let me say that my State is a leader in both. We have the
greatest wind energy potential in North Dakota of any State in the
Nation. I might add it is not because of our congressional delegation.
No, this is wind generated by a higher power.
I am glad I have been able to amuse the Chair.
North Dakota has those constant prevailing winds. Already, we have
seen hundreds of millions of dollars invested in wind energy, but much
more could be done. And, of course, we have extraordinary deposits of
coal as well. By plugging into these sources of energy to fuel our
transportation sector, we can dramatically reduce our dependence on
foreign oil.
This bill also establishes long overdue efficiency standards for
consumer appliances and industrial products, and promotes advanced
lighting technologies that will cut down on a major source of our
electricity load.
Lastly, I am encouraged by the strong provisions in this bill to
research, develop, and demonstrate our capacity to capture and store
carbon dioxide. The largest carbon sequestration project in the world
is going on in North Dakota, where the coal gasification plant that is
run by Basin Electric--we call it the Dakota gasification plant--is
shipping about half of the carbon dioxide it produces to Canada to
repressure the oil fields there. This is the largest carbon
sequestration project in the world. We are proud of it. We are
demonstrating that this can be done, and that is a winner on every
count. It reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it repressures
oil fields in Canada to get more production so we are less reliant on
more unstable sources. This is crucial work if we are to find the best
response to global climate change.
I look forward to taking up work in the Finance Committee next week
to craft bold and thoughtful tax provisions to complement and expand
upon the worthy objectives that are already in this bill. This bill
takes important steps to set us on a path toward energy independence.
Let me say it will be many years before we reach that objective, but we
must act boldly now to take these initial steps.
I wish to especially commend and thank the chairman of the Energy
Committee, Senator Bingaman, who has labored so hard and so long to
produce this legislation. Senator Bingaman has taken on some of the
toughest areas of energy policy. These are areas of real controversy,
and he has taken them on with real leadership. We are proud of him.
Senator Bingaman, I thank you for the legislation you have brought to
the floor and for the effort you and your staff have put into this
endeavor. It is important for our country. I believe, more broadly, it
is important for the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page S7597]]

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, let me thank my friend and
colleague from North Dakota for his kind words and for his strong
support for this legislation. He has been a leader on this whole set of
energy issues and proposed very strong legislation in the last Congress
on this very set of issues. We are hopefully moving ahead on some of
the policy recommendations and proposals he has made here in the Senate
in the last year or two. I congratulate him on that and look forward to
continuing to work with him.
We are now on what is called the renewable portfolio standard and the
renewable electricity standard amendment. This is an amendment I
offered. Senator Domenici has now offered a second-degree amendment to
it, which is really a substitute, which is really a very different
piece of legislation than the amendment I offered.
I thought I would take a few minutes. I know Senator Domenici will be
returning to the floor here in a few minutes, and he will want to speak
on his proposed substitute amendment. I thought I would take a few
minutes right now to describe the amendment I have offered on the
renewable portfolio standard.
In each of the last three Congresses, we passed a major energy bill
in the Senate. In each of those energy bills, we have included a
provision to require that a certain percentage of the electricity sold
by electric utilities throughout the Nation come from renewable energy
sources. That is the nature of the amendment I am offering again today.
The Senate has approved this proposition again and again.
In the 107th Congress, we included such a portfolio standard. That is
the phrase which has been used historically to describe this amendment,
a portfolio standard. It is really an electricity standard or
electricity requirement on utilities. But in the 107th Congress, we
included such a portfolio standard as part of the Energy bill, and
strong votes on the floor affirmed the Senate's determination that the
standard we proposed there should not be weakened.
In the 108th Congress, there was a letter signed by 53 Senators that
went to the chairs of the conference on the Energy bill. The Senate
conferees went on to approve the portfolio standard and sent it on to
the House as part of our bill.
In the 109th Congress, the same thing happened.
In all three cases, the House conferees rejected the proposal that
had been passed by the Senate. Now we have an opportunity to renew our
support for this proposal and to place it in a bill that hopefully can
garner strong bipartisan support and finally reach the President's
desk.
There are good reasons for the Senate to support this proposal. A
strong renewable portfolio standard is an essential component of any
comprehensive national energy policy. It is not just an important part
of such a strategy but an essential component of such a strategy.
The benefits are clear. This portfolio standard would reduce our
dependence on traditional polluting sources of electricity. It would
reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. It would reduce the
growing pressure on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of
electricity. It would reduce the price of natural gas. It would create
new jobs. It would make a start on reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions, and it would increase our energy security and enhance the
reliability of the electricity grid. Those are some of the benefits.
Mr. President, I failed at the beginning of my comments to ask
unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added as an original cosponsor
of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. This portfolio standard we have offered is a flexible,
market-driven approach to achieving all of the goals I have enunciated
here and to do so at a negligible cost to consumers. The proposal would
require retail sellers of electricity who sell more than 4 million
megawatt hours per year to provide 15 percent of that electricity from
renewable sources by the year 2020. The requirement would be ramped up.
There would be an increase in the requirement each year, in 3-year
increments to allow planning flexibility for those utilities.
The Secretary of Energy would be required to develop a system of
credit for renewable generation that could be traded or sold, again
making the program easier to comply with. Utilities could use new or
existing generation to comply with the program or they could comply
with the program by buying credits from someone who has produced more
renewable energy than they were required to produce. New renewable
producers could receive the credits to trade or to sell.
Let me just summarize at this point and interject. The way we have
drafted this, the flexibility is that an electric utility can comply
with the requirement--the requirement being to ensure that 15 percent
of the electricity they sell comes from renewable sources--in any of
four ways:

First, they can produce the electricity themselves. They could put in
a wind farm or a biomass facility or whatever and produce that energy
from renewable sources themselves.
Second, they could buy that energy from someone else who is producing
that renewable energy.
Third, they could buy credits from someone who has produced more
renewable energy than they themselves are required to have in order to
meet their requirements under the law.
Fourth, there is a compliance fee that they could pay the Secretary
of Energy if they are not able to do any of the previous three. That
would be at a rate of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. So the cost of the
program to utilities would be capped by allowing utilities to make this
alternative compliance payment of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is
adjusted for inflation. As long as the difference between the cost of
renewable generation and the cost of other generation resources is less
than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, the utility could buy or generate
renewables or buy credits in the open market. When it reaches or
exceeds that 2-cent price, the cap would kick in.
We also would create a program from the alternative compliance
payments so that, to the extent a utility chose to go ahead and just
pay the 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, those funds would go into a State
program for development of renewable energy in that State.
Congress has tried before to spur the development of renewables. In
1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. That bill
required utilities to buy renewables if the generators could meet the
avoided cost of the utilities. Cogeneration--the combined use of heat
and industrial processes for generation of electricity--was also
eligible. That program resulted in a huge growth in cogeneration. Over
half of the new generation that came on line in this country during the
1980s and the 1990s was from that resource. It did not, however, do
much for renewable generation. These technologies have remained at
about 2 percent of total electricity supply for several decades now.
We have a chart here which makes that point. This chart depicts
electricity generation by fuel during the period 1970 projected through
2025 in billions of kilowatt-hours.
You can see, from 1970 up to the current time, renewables is way down
toward the bottom. It is the second to the bottom line on that chart.
Then it stays flat going forward, unless we pass this legislation. This
legislation is intended to change these lines on this chart. That is
the entire purpose of the legislation.
Critics of the program claim that the cost of this would be too much,
that States are already requiring development of renewables, and that
some areas do not have readily available renewable resources. My
response is, I would point to a number of studies of this proposal that
have been done over the years.
In 2003, I asked the Energy Information Administration at the
Department of Energy to look at the effect the proposed renewable
standard at that time would have had. They found that the standard
would result in 350 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable generation
being constructed between 2008 and 2025; that is generation that would
not be constructed absent the passage of that provision. They found
that the cost would be minimal. The report indicated there would be an
increase in the cost of electricity by about one-tenth of a cent in
2025 over projected costs. When combined with the reduction in natural
gas prices which would

[[Page S7598]]

be caused by the renewable portfolio standard, the total aggregate cost
to consumers on their energy bills was projected to be less than one-
twentieth of 1 percent.
In 2005, again I asked the Energy Information Administration to
update the analysis, taking contemporary conditions into account. That
update found that the portfolio standard we were proposing then would
cause the prices of both electricity and natural gas to actually go
down, and the letter that outlines those results stated:

Cumulative residential expenses on electricity from 2005 to
2025 are $2.7 billion, that is 2/10th of a percent lower,
while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are
reduced by $2.9 billion, or one half of 1 percent. Cumulative
expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end use
sectors taken together will decrease by $22.6, again, one-
half of 1 percent.

That report also indicates that generation of electricity from
natural gas would be 5 percent lower with the RPS than it would be
without the RPS. It also projected that total electricity-sector
carbon-dioxide emissions would be reduced by 249 million metric tons
relative to the reference case.
This year, once again, I asked the Energy Information Administration
to analyze the proposal we now have before the Senate. This analysis
indicates that the renewable electricity standard or renewable
portfolio standard would result in a tripling of generation from
biomass, a 50-percent increase in wind generation, and a 500-percent
increase in solar generation. The net expenditures for energy by
consumers are projected to increase by three-tenths of 1 percent,
electricity prices are projected to increase by nine-tenths of 1
percent, while natural gas prices are slated to fall.
The renewable electricity standard would also be expected to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions by 6.7 percent, or 222 million metric tons in
2030.
These projections are not as optimistic as those we got 2 years ago
in the 2005 analysis. There are some different assumptions which they
used which explain the different conclusions. The first assumption was
that the reference case projects a much greater expansion of coal
generation than earlier projections. That was partly a result of the
higher natural gas price projected. Second, the study assumes tax
credits for renewables will, in fact, end next year, in 2008.
They are scheduled to expire next year. I think all or at least most
Members of the Senate believe we ought to extend those tax credits. I
hope we do so as part of our amending of this bill on the Senate floor
this week and next week. I know the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus
and Senator Grassley on the Finance Committee are working to develop a
package of tax extenders and provisions to expand the tax provisions
that are related to renewables.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the study--this is the study the
Energy Information Administration did for us this year. The study does
not assume any controls on carbon emissions anytime in the next 13
years. Frankly, I don't think that is a likely occurrence. I think this
Congress and this Government is going to come to a responsible position
with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and there are going to be
limits on carbon emissions imposed in this country, as they have been
imposed in many industrial countries around the world--the sooner the
better, from my perspective. But certainly that is going to happen long
before the end of the next 13 years.
The report acknowledges these assumptions but states that different
assumptions would result in lower costs for the renewable electricity
standard. There is, of course, considerable uncertainty regarding the
projected baseline electricity mix. Actual implementation of future
policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions could lead to a larger role
for natural gas in the generation mix.
This is a quote from the report we received this year. It says:

In such a scenario----

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

the projected impact of the 15 percent renewable portfolio
standard proposal would move toward those identified in the
2005 analysis.

In the tax title that is being developed by the Finance Committee to
accompany the bill, we are working to extend the production tax credit,
to extend the investment tax credits that are available for renewables.
We are also going to do something, I believe, to try to encourage
sequestering of carbon emissions.
I don't think anyone in this body believes Congress will fail to act
on this issue for the period of time that is built in for these
assumptions. If we assume what we believe is going to happen, we are
back with a projection of considerable consumer savings from the
renewable electricity standard, as we found in the 2005 report that
they did.
A recent report from Wood Mackenzie, which is a noted natural gas
industry analytic consulting firm, concluded that a 15-percent
renewable portfolio standard would result in a savings in variable
costs for electricity of $240 billion by 2026.
That is far more than offsetting the $134 billion increase in capital
expenditures. The study indicates that natural gas prices would be from
16 to 23 percent lower in their projection by 2026 as a result of
enactment of this provision. The study also projects that carbon
emissions from the power sector would be 10 percent lower in 2026 as a
result of this.
A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this
proposal would result in $16.4 billion in savings to consumers on
electricity and natural gas bills. It also reported a 7-percent
reduction in carbon emissions.
A number of other studies found positive results, even to the point
of reducing overall energy costs. In 2005, we had a hearing in the
energy committee. Senator Domenici was chairing the committee at the
time. It was on the issue of generation portfolios. Dr. Ryan Weiser, of
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, presented a report that
summarized the results of 15 studies of renewable portfolio standards,
much like the one I am offering.
All these studies found that a portfolio standard would reduce
natural gas prices; 12 of the 15 studies projected a net reduction in
overall energy bills for consumers as a result of the renewable
portfolio standard. In other words, we can save natural gas, we can
reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly, and we can save money
both on electricity bills and on natural gas bills from making this
move that this proposal contemplates.
Many have argued that States are already implementing renewable
portfolio standards so there is no need for a Federal program. It is
true States have taken the lead in pushing for more renewable
generation.
Twenty-three States currently have in development renewable
requirements. Almost all these standards are more aggressive than the
Federal standard I am proposing in the amendment I have sent to the
desk. New Mexico requires 16.2 percent by 2020. California requires 20
percent by 2017. Maine requires 30 percent by 2000. Minnesota requires
27.4 percent by 2025.
This will spur the growth of renewables in these regions. There is
one thing, however, that a State standard cannot do--it cannot drive a
national market for the technologies involved here. If some States have
renewable standards and others do not, it is impossible for a
national market to develop for renewable credits.

This credit trading system is the piece of our proposal that gives
the greatest flexibility for compliance. The credit trading system also
helps to reduce the cost of compliance by allowing credits for lower
cost renewables from one region to be bought by utilities in another
region.
Some argue this is a cost shift from the regions without renewable
resources to those that have renewable resources. I would argue it is a
way to spread the cost to all who are, in fact, benefitting. If States
do not have or choose not to develop renewable resources, they still
realize very real benefits in lower natural gas prices, lower
SO2 allowance costs, and low-cost carbon reductions. It is
only fair they share the slight increase in costs for generation of
electricity that, in fact, created the savings. The argument that many
States do not have, or many regions do not have renewable generation
resources has been made. It is true the best wind, geothermal, and
solar resources are concentrated in the West.
The entire country has extensive biomass potential. As Maine and
other Eastern States have shown, paper production and agricultural
processes are

[[Page S7599]]

available everywhere. We have a chart that makes that point. It shows,
up in the left-hand corner, biomass and biofuel resources; on the right
side, solar insolation resources; geothermal resources on the left-hand
side; and wind resources on the bottom right.
If Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and New Jersey and Maryland can
implement aggressive standards, then the standard we are calling for
can be implemented in all States. The chart from the Department of
Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab shows that virtually every State
has the biomass production potential to meet this target. Environmental
benefits are clear.
RPS would result, according to the Energy Information Administration,
in a 6.7-percent reduction in carbon emissions in the year 2030. That
is a reduction of 222 million tons in that area alone. RPS standards
also benefit the economy. It drives job growth. The Union of Concerned
Scientists says that wind turbine construction alone would result in
43,000 new jobs per year, on average.
An additional 11,200 cumulative long-term jobs will result from
subsequent operations and maintenance. There is another study by the
Regional Economics Application Laboratory for the Environment,
Environmental Law and Policy Center, that found that over 68,000 jobs
at 6.7 billion in economic output would result from the development of
the renewable energy capacity contemplated in this amendment.
According to the AFL-CIO, an estimated 8,092 jobs would be created
over a 10-year period for installation and O&M on wind power in Nevada
alone, and another 19,137 manufacturing jobs would be created.
Agricultural interests have begun to be aware of the potential and have
indicated their support.
Last month, the 21st Century Agricultural Policy Project, under the
guidance of former Senators Bob Dole and Tom Daschle, issued a report.
That report made recommendations to sustain the Nation's farm sector.
One of the key recommendations was that Congress pass a Federal
renewable portfolio standard. I do have executive summaries of those
reports. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record
following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. So support for RPS is strong throughout the Nation. A
poll recently by Melvin & Associates found that 70 percent of those
surveyed nationwide supported a 20-percent portfolio standard. That is
not what I am recommending. I am recommending 15 percent.
But these results were about the same in States as diverse as North
Dakota and Georgia and Missouri and Arizona. Environmental groups, from
the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, to the
industrial associations, to the renewable trade groups, to utilities
have all supported RPS. We recently received letters from a great many
organizations.
Let me indicate what these letters are. First, we have a letter to
Senators Reid, McConnell, Bingaman, and Domenici, signed by several
hundred organizations indicating their strong support for this proposal
that I have put before the Senate today.
I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Next I have a letter from Michael Wilson of FPL Group--
he is vice president for government affairs with FPL--saying: Please
consider this letter an endorsement in the renewable portfolio standard
amendment that you intend to offer.
I ask unanimous consent that be included in the Record following my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Next, a letter from the National Farmers Union directed
to Senators Reid, McConnell, Domenici, and myself, saying: On behalf of
the farm, ranch and rural members of National Farmers Union, we are
writing to urge you to support inclusion of a strong national renewable
portfolio standard in energy security legislation and oppose attempts
to weaken that when the Senate considers this issue in the coming days.
I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 4.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Finally, I have a letter from the American Wind Energy
Association indicating strong support for my amendment and concern and
opposition to the proposed substitute amendment that Senator Domenici
has offered under the title: Clean Portfolio Standard.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 5.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are moving ahead on this bill. This
is an important part of the legislation. I think all Senators have
known this was intended to be offered as an amendment on the floor. I
have certainly indicated that repeatedly over recent weeks and even
months. So as I say, it has been offered and passed in a somewhat
different forum, three previous Congresses in the Senate. I hope very
much that we can proceed to a good debate on this proposal and on the
proposal by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and then
have votes on those two proposals.
I know Senator Kerry also has a proposed second-degree amendment to
raise the percentage requirement from 15 percent to 20 percent. He
would like to have a chance to have the Senate consider that proposal
as well.
At this point, I think that gives a general overview of the amendment
and the reasons why I think the Senate should support it. I urge all my
colleagues to vote for the amendment. I will also want to address
Senator Domenici's amendment once he has had a chance to explain that.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

21ST CENTURY AGRICULTURE POLICY PROJECT

executive summary

America's farmers and ranchers face unprecedented
challenges and opportunities in the decades ahead.
Globalization, technological change, trade issues, federal
budget constraints, global warming, high energy costs, land-
development pressures, and increasing environmental and food
safety concerns are all likely to have a profound impact on
rural communities and on future prospects for sustaining a
prosperous and vibrant farm economy. At the same time, new
markets are opening to farmers that already are paying
enormous dividends. Investments in biofuels projects and wind
farms, as well as the generation of carbon credits, are
providing farmers and ranchers with new sources of income
that are transforming the rural American economy.
The 21st Century Agriculture Policy Project was motivated
by a recognition that rapidly changing landscape calls for a
more expansive and creative approach to national farm policy.
Sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center and chaired by the
two of us, who together have eight decades of experience at
the forefront of federal engagement with agriculture issues,
the Project was launched in March 2006. Its aim has been to
work directly with farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders
to forge bipartisan consensus around a new agenda for U.S.
farm policy in the 21st century. It is our intent to put
forward a series of recommendations that, taken together, can
be implemented at a net savings to the federal government
compared with the current Farm Bill. Specifically, our
recommendations assume that increased demand for biofuels
under an expanded renewable fuel standard will produce
substantial savings in existing agriculture support programs,
including elimination of the direct payment program, less
reliance on countercyclical and loan deficiency payments, and
more reliance on the marketplace.
Programs to sustain the nation's agricultural sector must
necessarily evolve to reflect emerging budget pressures and
new economic realities, while also being responsive to the
larger concerns and interests of American taxpayers,
consumers, and utility ratepayers. Indeed, as taxpayers,
consumers, and ratepayers themselves, farmers and ranchers
are best served by well-designed policies that achieve
equitable outcomes, do so in a fiscally responsible
manner, and are carefully targeted to achieve maximum
societal benefits at the lowest possible cost.
Fortunately, the input gathered through this project from
farmers and researchers points to promising opportunities
for reforming current policies in ways that are responsive
to broader public-interest objectives without in any sense
diminishing the federal government's longstanding
commitment to an economically secure agricultural base.
The recommendations advanced here reflect the view that
strategic investments in developing new

[[Page S7600]]

market opportunities and in helping agricultural producers
gain a larger stake in high-value-added enterprises can
reduce farmers' need for current safety net programs in
ways that are less susceptible to political uncertainty
and international trade rules and that are revenue-
neutral, in terms of overall federal spending. Four
overarching themes connect these recommendations:
Securing a robust, economically vibrant future for American
agriculture in the 21st century requires a more expansive and
creative approach to farm policy. A continued federal
commitment to the financial security and stability of the
nation's farm community is essential at a time when
globalization, technological change, environmental concerns,
high energy costs, international pressure to cut traditional
subsidies, and continued urbanization all pose new challenges
for agriculture. To help farmers respond effectively while
continuing to undergird U.S. competitiveness, federal policy
must evolve to encompass a broader set of issues and
successfully leverage multiple synergies.
An emphasis on new markets and on increasing farmers'
equity share in value-added enterprises provides the best
foundation for expanding opportunity in rural communities.
Biofuels, renewable energy like wind power, carbon
sequestration, and habitat preservation for recreation and
hunting are just some examples of agriculture-related
activities that can significantly augment and diversify
future sources of income for America's farm families.
Targeted policies are needed to increase farmers' stakes in
the new wealth generated by these emerging markets.
Increasing the role of America's farms in energy production
can be achieved at a net savings to the federal budget
because increased demand for corn and other crops to serve
the rapidly growing alternative-fuels market will naturally
reduce outlays for traditional ``safety net'' programs. New
economic research suggests that explosive growth in ethanol
production will lead to higher prices not only for corn, but
also for soybeans and wheat, as acreage now in these crops is
shifted to corn. These market shifts are expected to
dramatically reduce countercyclical and loan deficiency
payments for certain crops, potentially freeing billions of
dollars each year for farm programs that have broad political
support and that generate promising, and ultimately more
self-sustaining, economic opportunities in the long run.
Federal action to establish a mandatory program to limit
greenhouse gas emissions is sensible and will provide
agricultural producers with significant new market
opportunities. The agriculture sector is in a unique position
to lead in--and benefit from--efforts to address climate
change. Expanded demand for biofuels is an obvious example,
but ranch and farm lands are also well-suited for future
development of renewable electricity sources (e.g., wind and
solar power) and carbon sequestration.

summary of recommendations

Continue to provide economic stability through existing
countercyclical programs, while investing in market-based
opportunities for agriculture and addressing new sources of
financial insecurity through a permanent disaster program:
First, the core of the federal farm program must be a
strong countercyclical program based on the two
countercyclical elements of the current farm bill: (1) a
robust marketing loan program that treats all producers
equally and (2) a partially decoupled countercyclical
program. Individual farm benefits should be capped at
$250,000 per year and eligibility to obtain benefits through
more than one entity should be eliminated.
Second, Congress should eliminate the direct payment
program and redirect funds for this program--along with
savings generated by reduced countercyclical and LDP payments
for corn, wheat, and soybeans--to permanent disaster
assistance and promoting new income-generating opportunities
for farmers in markets such as biofuels, renewable
electricity, carbon sequestration, and conservation.
Third, Congress should establish a Value-Added Equity
Creation Program to provide farmers and ranchers with no-
interest revolving loans so that they can participate in
high-value agriculture-related business opportunities, such
as biofuels plants and wind projects. Producers should be
eligible to participate if their primary occupation is
farming and should be able to receive up to $100,000 in
interest-free loans for equity investments in qualifying
value-added enterprises (as certified by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA)).
Finally, in recent years, Congress has frequently passed
annual emergency spending bills to provide agricultural
producers with disaster assistance. While these measures have
provided important relief to farmers and ranchers, they have
been ad hoc in nature and off budget. As a result, Congress
may decide to establish a permanent disaster assistance
program, administered by USDA, to provide ranchers and
farmers with assistance for clearly defined disaster
conditions. If so, we recommend that Congress replace the
current system of ad hoc off-budget emergency supplemental
spending bills, make the permanent disaster assistance
program on-budget as part of the Farm Bill, and include a
reasonable benefit cap of $250,000 per farm or ranch in any
single year. If a reasonable benefits cap is imposed, net
federal outlays for disaster assistance should be reduced
compared with the current off-budget approach.
To promote biomass-based alternative liquid fuels, Congress
should:
Expand and extend the recently-adopted renewable fuels
standard (RFS) to reach at least 10 billion gallons per year
by 2010, 30 billion gallons per year by 2020, and 60 billion
gallons per year by 2030, as proposed in bipartisan
legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate. This step would
lead to expansion of biofuels markets beyond the E-10 market
and spur new investment in the next generation of advanced
biofuels technologies, such as cellulosic ethanol.
Promote the use of higher blends of ethanol in the existing
fleet of automobiles by instructing the Environmental
Protection Agency to conduct analysis of the viability of
using higher blends of ethanol (including E-15, E-20, E-30,
and E-40) in the existing fleet of automobiles by January 1,
2009.
Extend the existing volumetric ethanol excise tax credit
(VEETC) to 2020 while simultaneously restructuring this
program in ways that account for expected growth in corn
ethanol production under an expanded national RFS. After the
current tax incentive authorization expires in 2010, Congress
should look for ways to ensure that the cost of the tax
credit--in the context of other policies and expected ethanol
production volumes--remains acceptable, while ensuring that
new and innovative biofuels project are provided the support
they need to be successful. Among the criteria that
Congress should use to design the post-2010 biofuels tax
credits are:
1. Limiting the overall cost of the tax incentives to the
government;
2. Encouraging expansion of the industry by ensuring that
investments in new plants and recently-built plants can be
fully amortized;
3. Rewarding energy-efficient and low-carbon emitting
technologies;
4. Ensuring that pioneering processes, such as those that
convert cellulosic feedstocks like corn stover and
switchgrass to ethanol, are economically competitive with
fossil fuels;
5. Encouraging farmer ownership of ethanol plants;
6. Balancing domestic tax credits with an import duty of
similar size, so that U.S. taxpayers do not subsidize ethanol
imports to the detriment of American producers.
Extend the small producer renewable fuels tax credit beyond
2008 for plants that are at least 40 percent locally-owned
and for cellulosic ethanol plants. Consolidate all cellulosic
biofuels loan guarantee programs into a single program at
USDA and establish an energy security trust fund to provide
consistent funding for that program. Successfully
commercializing the production of ethanol and other fuels
from cellulosic (i.e., woody or fibrous) plant materials
would dramatically expand the potential contribution of
biofuels in terms of displacing current petroleum use and
associated carbon emissions. Implementing many existing loan
guarantee programs through three separate federal agencies
makes little sense. USDA has considerable experience in
implementing loan guarantee programs and expertise in
evaluating biofuels projects through its Office of Energy.
Therefore, Congress should consolidate all federal biofuels
grant and loan guarantee programs at USDA and establish a
national energy security trust fund to provide at least $1
billion per year in loan guarantees and grants to promote
necessary advances in production technology and bio-science.
Establish a demonstration cellulosic biofuels feedstock
program. Congress should establish a new set-aside program to
demonstrate how the cultivation and harvesting of cellulosic
feedstocks could be accomplished in an economically
attractive manner. Following the model of several existing
programs, the 2007 Farm Bill should provide a modest payment
to landowners who convert existing cropland to grow
cellulosic biofuel feedstocks for nearby cellulosic biofuels
plants in ways that improve wildlife habitat, reduce soil
erosion, and protect water quality. New lands to be set aside
under such a program should be capped at 500,000 acres for
the duration of the 2007 Farm Bill.
Establish policies to encourage a rapid increase in the
number of flexible fuel vehicles sold in the United States
and the installation of E-85 pumps and blender pumps at
gasoline stations. For example, we recommend extending the
existing tax credit for installing E-85 refueling stations
and redesigning it to provide relatively greater benefits in
the near-term to encourage more rapid deployment of E-85
infrastructure. We also recommend clarifying that blender
pumps be eligible for the tax credit, since in the long run
it will make more sense to install blender pumps that are
capable of dispensing a range of ethanol blended fuels.
Congress also should consider more attractive expensing and
accelerated depreciation options to encourage installation of
E-85 and blender pumps in lieu of tax credits.
To promote renewable electricity production and other
renewable energy projects on farms and ranches, Congress
should:
Establish a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS)
along with complementary policies to promote maximum
development of cost-effective renewable energy potential on
agricultural lands. Such policies to promote renewable energy
have been adopted by 21 states and the District of Columbia
and Congress should now take action to adopt a

[[Page S7601]]

portfolio requirement at the federal level. Moreover, federal
policies to promote renewable energy should encourage the
siting of new projects on farm or ranch lands wherever
possible. Given that the use of these lands would be far
preferable to new development in wilderness areas and would
simultaneously provide important economic benefits for rural
communities, an appropriate policy goal would be to satisfy
at least two-thirds of a national RPS with renewable energy
production on agricultural lands. In addition, a federal RPS
should be designated to complement and not pre-empt any state
requirements (which may be more ambitious) and should apply
equally to all large retail electricity providers. (To
simplify implementation requirements and to address supply
and price concerns, it may be appropriate to exclude rural
electric coops and small municipal utilities.)
Expand and strengthen existing programs outside the Farm
Bill that promote renewable energy development and related
technology advances. To provide investment certainty,
existing renewable-energy production tax credits (PTCs)
should be extended for ten years and funding for related
research, development, demonstration, and early deployment
efforts should be increased. In addition, such programs
should be modified so that incentives can be taken against
non-passive income. The Community Renewable Energy Bonds
(CREBs) program should be extended and expanded, with a
substantial sum set aside for rural electric cooperatives and
municipal utilities.
Establish a Rural Community Renewable Energy Bonds program
to provide a federal incentive for local private investment
in renewable energy to complement the PTC and CREBs programs.
This new initiative would be limited to projects of not more
than 40 MW; where at least 49 percent of the project is
owned by entities resident within 200 miles of the project
site.
Expand the capacity of the existing federal power
administration transmission system. The federal power
marketing administrations (PMAs) own and manage a vast
network of existing power lines, which should be
substantially expanded to provide the additional capacity
needed to tap cost-effective renewable energy resources.
Congress should direct the federal power administrations to
pursue this objective under a structure in which non-
benefiting PMA customers do not shoulder the cost and
preference is given for system investments that maximize
promising opportunities for renewable energy development on
agricultural lands. Priority should be placed on the
expansion of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission systems.
The PMAs also should be authorized and encouraged to enter
into partnerships with non-federal parties for the siting,
planning, and construction of transmission lines; the
participation of PMAs can streamline siting by avoiding
multiple state siting authorities.
The Department of Energy (DOE) should designate the
Heartland Transmission Corridors ``National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridors'' pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of
2005. Federal assistance in the form of an expanded role for
WAPA as a facilitator for planning and investment, and a 20
percent matching investment from the federal government would
go a long way toward addressing cost and siting hurdles,
encouraging state cooperation, and ensuring that needed
transmission system enhancements are implemented.
Congress should authorize $1 billion per year for five
years to provide tax-exempt bonds for the construction of
transmission facilities (or the expansion of existing
facilities) where such construction or expansion is cost-
effective and offers substantial public policy benefits in
terms of facilitating the development of clean, domestic
renewable resources. Under such a program, loans would be
provided by eligible government entities to qualified private
entities seeking to finance eligible transmission
infrastructure. Such bonds would assure the availability of
financing for transmission at significantly lower cost than
presently available in the market. They could be used both
for new transmission and for upgrades to existing facilities
(for example, to address transmission constraints in west
Texas and Minnesota, where substantial wind development
opportunities exist, or to access renewable energy projects
anticipated as a result of the Rocky Mountain Area
Transmission Study (RMATS) in the Western Interconnect. In
addition, current private use restrictions applicable to
projects that receive tax-exempt bonds should be reviewed to
assess whether they create unnecessary additional hurdles to
investment.
Explore further opportunities for an expanded federal role
in directly facilitating the implementation of, and providing
resources for, investments to enhance grid capacity and to
promote a more efficient, seamless, and reliable transmission
system nationwide.
Reauthorize and expand USDA's Energy Audit and Renewable
Energy Development Program under Section 9005 of the 2002
Farm Bill. This program to assist farmers, ranchers, and
rural small businesses in becoming more energy efficient and
in using renewable energy technology and resources has never
been funded. It should be reauthorized with a goal of
performing audits of 25 percent of all farms and ranches over
the time horizon covered by the next Farm Bill and funds
sufficient to achieve that goal should be appropriated in the
future.
Reauthorize and expand USDA's Rural Development Business
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (Section 9006
of the 2002 Farm Bill). This program currently provides a
modest number of grants--$23 million per year--to support
renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects. Future
funding should be scaled up over the next 5 years to at least
$500 million per year and the program should be expanded to
enable participating agencies to provide grants for
feasibility studies and loan guarantees for project
development. As long as feasibility studies are accurately
performed, the cost to the federal government of providing
loan guarantees for up to 75 percent of project costs should
be fairly small. In addition, Congress should consider
modifying the program to (1) increase loan guarantees for
cellulosic ethanol facilities to at least $100 million per
project, and $25 million for other projects, (2) create a
rebate program to streamline the application process for
smaller, standardized projects by reducing the paperwork
burden, and (3) expand eligible applicants to include
agricultural operations in non-rural areas (such as
greenhouses) and schools.
To promote markets for carbon sequestration and other cost-
effective greenhouse-gas mitigation measures on farm and
ranch lands, Congress should:
Establish a national, mandatory, market-based program to
reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions that provides
substantial market opportunities for cost-effective carbon
sequestration on farm and ranch lands. Specifically,
agricultural producers should have the opportunity to
participate fully in the carbon markets that will be created
under a greenhouse gas trading program. To facilitate this
participation, priority must be given to establishing robust,
well-defined protocols for measuring and verifying carbon
reductions achieved through terrestrial sequestration.
Establish tax incentives, such as federal tax refunds for
local and state property taxes, for farmers and ranchers who
enroll land in a carbon trading program that works in tandem
with entities that buy, sell and trade carbon credits.
Direct USDA to work with other state and federal agencies
on continued economic and technical research on different
options for sequestering carbon and on better methods of
documenting sequestration for market participation.
To advance widely supported environmental habitat-
preservation, and open-space objectives while creating
additional income-generating opportunities for farmers and
maximizing potential business opportunities related to
hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation,
Congress should:
Expand existing conservation programs:
1. Expand the Conservation Reserve Program at 40 million
acres;
2. Expand the Wetlands Reserve Program at 5 million acres,
with annual enrollment capped at 250,000 acres per year;
3. Expand the Grasslands Reserve Program at 5 million
acres, with annual enrollment capped at 500,000 acres per
year;
4. Increase funding for the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection
Program to at least $300 million per year.
5. Implement the Conservation Security Program on a
nationwide basis on all working lands.
Enact ``Open Fields Bill'' to provide $20 million per year
in federal funds to supplement state ``walk in'' programs
that give farmers and ranchers financial incentives to expand
public access to their lands.

Exhibit 2

Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Ranking Member, Energy & Natural Resources Committee.
Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Bingaman and Domenici: As a
diverse group of corporations, manufacturers, electric
utilities, renewable energy developers, labor organizations,
farm groups, faith-based organizations and environmental
advocates, we are writing to urge the Senate to include a
national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in energy
security legislation that may soon be considered by Congress.
An RPS is an essential component of a broader national energy
strategy, because it will held the nation to take full
advantage of the abundant domestic renewable resources
available for the generation of electricity.
An RPS is a market-based mechanism that requires electric
utilities to include a specific percentage of clean,
renewable energy in their generation portfolios, or to
purchase renewable energy credits from others. By
substantially increasing renewable electricity generation,
the RPS would enhance national energy security by
diversifying our sources of electric generation. At a time
when the United States is increasing energy imports, an RPS
would make America more energy self-reliant. The reduction in
the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity would also
limit fuel price volatility, which is important to both
industry and consumers. In fact, the U.S. Department of
Energy's own Energy Information Administration has found in
several studies that an RPS would actually cause natural gas
prices to decline.

[[Page S7602]]

Increasing the market share for renewable energy resources
would also have substantial environmental benefits. An RPS is
one of the most important and readily available approaches to
reducing greenhouse gases from the electricity generation
sector. In addition, an RPS also would help reduce
conventional pollutants including nitrogen oxide, sulfur
dioxide and mercury emissions.
Moreover, a national RPS will produce substantial economic
benefits. The additional investment in renewable electric
generation would create hundreds of thousands of well-paying
jobs. In addition, because many renewable resources are
located in remote areas, rural America will experience a
substantial economic boost.
We believe the time has come for Congress to move quickly
to enact national RPS legislation. The costs of inaction for
our environment, national security and economy are too high.
Although more than 20 states have adopted individual RPS
programs, the country will not realize the full potential for
renewable electricity without the adoption of a Federal
program to enhance the states' efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
GE, BP America, Inc., National Venture Capital Association,
Miasole, Wisconsin Power and Light, National Council of
Churches of Christ in the USA, Technet, APX, Inc., Alliant
Energy, Sempra Energy, Shell Wind Energy, Inc., Solar
Turbines, Inc., Business Council for Sustainable Energy,
Alliant Energy, Invenergy LLC, Owens Corning Composites
System Business, Leeco Steel, Clipper Wind Power, Inc.,
Google, United Steelworkers, Edison International, Pacific
Gas & Electric, Union for Reform Judaism, GT Solar, PPM
Energy, Inc., Avista Utilities, Horizon Wind Energy, Enel NA,
D.H. Blattner and Sons, Applied Materials, Inc., Greene
Engineers, Oregon Steel Mills, LM Glasfiber ND, Inc., Noble
Environmental Power, enXco, Interstate Power and Light,
National Audobon Society, American Wind Energy Association,
Blue Green Alliance, Big Crane & Rigging Company, Iberdrola
U.S.A., Natural Resources Defense Council.
DMI Industries, Union of Concerned Scientists, Lake
Superior Warehousing, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union,
Pennsylvania Interfaith Climate Campaign, Interfaith Power &
Light, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Western
Organization of Resource Council, ATS Wind Energy Services,
BioResource Consultants, Bosch Rexroth Corporation, Castle &
Cooke Resorts, Chermac Energy Corporation, Dominion Energy,
EFormative Options, Energy Unlimited, Enertech, Environmental
Stewardship & Planning, Eurus Energy America, FPC Services,
Generation Energy, Green Energy Technologies, Gro Wind I,
Highland New Wind Development, Knight & Carver, LAPP
Resources, Louis J. Manfredi Consulting, Mackinaw Power,
Mizuho Corporate Bank, Nordex USA, Old Mill Power Company,
Otech Engineering, Phoenix Contact, Renewable Energy
Consulting Services, San Gorgonio Farms, SIPCO (MLS
Electrosystem), TCI Renewables Limited, Tideland Signal,
Trinity Structural Towers, Varelube Systems, Wind Capital
Group, Wind Utility Consulting, WindLogics, Windsmith.
PowerWorks, Physicians for Social Responsibility, McNiff
Light Industry, Citizen's Utility Board, Great Southwestern
Construction, RES America, JPW Riggers, AES Wind Generation,
Suzlon Wind Energy, U.S. PIRG, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Atlantic Testing Laboratories, National
Environmental Trust, AWS Truewind, Big Stone Wind, CAB, Inc.,
Bluewater Wind, BQ Energy, Competitive Power Ventures,
Chinook Wind, EcoEnergy LLC, Electric Power Engineers,
Enerpro, FAW Foundry, Foresight Wind Energy, Excellent Energy
Solutions, General Compression, Hopwood, Greenwing Energy,
Hailo, HMH Energy Resources, Pandion Systems, ReEnergy,
Tamarack Energy, Mariah Power, Molded Fiber Glass Companies,
Oak Creek Energy Systems, Sierra Club, Padoma Wind Power,
Project Resources, RSMR Global Resources, Signal Wind Energy,
Sustainable Energy Strategies, The Conti Group, TMA, Inc.,
Oregon Rural Action, Venti Energy, Wind Turbine Tools,
Windland.
WindRose Power, Winergy Drive Systems, Winergy Power,
Appropriate Energy, Castaic Clay Products, Cannon Power,
TOWER Logistics, Energy Development and Construction Corp.,
Institute for Environmental Research and Education, RENEW
Wisconsin, Fallon County Disaster & Emergency Services,
Stevens County (KS) Economic Development, Dakota Resource
Council, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, West
Wind Wires, Interwest Energy Alliance, Concord Energy Policy
Group, Renewable Northwest Project, Friends Committee on
National Legislation, American Lung Association of the
Central States, Tompkins Renewable Energy Education Alliance,
Alaska Wilderness League, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Citizens
Campaign for the Environment, Grassroots Citizens of
Wisconsin, NH Sustainable Energy Association, Southwest
Wisconsin Progressives.
Cabazon Wind Energy, Zephyr Lake Energies, Hodge Foundry,
Commonwealth Capital Group, Mankato Area Environmentalists,
Clean Wisconsin, Missourians for Safe Energy, Oklahoma Wind
Power Initiative, OverSight Resources, Kansas Rural Center,
Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Greenpeace, Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy, Clean Power Now, RMT/WindConnect,
The Land Institute, Western Colorado Congress, Idaho Rural
Council, Clean Water Action, Coulee Progressives, League of
Conservation Voters, Penn Future, REACH for Tomorrow, The
Minster Machine Company.

Exhibit 3

FPL Group, Inc.,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: Please consider this letter an
endorsement of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
amendment you intend to offer during upcoming Senate
consideration of energy legislation.
As you may know, FPL Group, comprised of two major
subsidiaries, Florida Power & Light (FPL) and FPL Energy
(FPLE), is one of America's cleanest, most progressive energy
companies. Our commitment to the environment is manifested by
FPL's diverse generation mix and by FPLE's largely renewable
energy portfolio. FPLE operates two of the largest solar
projects in the world, over 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric
power, a number of geothermal projects and several biomass
plants. Additionally, FPLE is the world's largest generator
of wind power.
We appreciate your leadership on this important issue and
support your efforts to enact a fair and balanced RPS in
order to increase the amount of non-emitting electricity
generation in the United States.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Wilson,
Vice President, Governmental Affairs.

Exhibit 4

National Farmers Union,

June 11, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Ranking Member, Energy & Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Bingaman, and Domenici: On
behalf of the farm, ranch and rural members of National
Farmers Union (NFU), I am writing to urge you to support
inclusion of a strong national renewable portfolio standard
(RPS) in energy security legislation and oppose attempts to
weaken it when the Senate considers this issue in the coming
days.
Rural America has the greatest potential for generating
significant amounts of clean, renewable energy. A RPS that
ensures a growing percentage of electricity is produced from
renewable sources, like wind power, will provide long-term,
predictable demand that will allow the industry to attract
investment capital and rural America to harness wind energy
potential.
Passage of a robust RPS will significantly accelerate
efforts to enhance our energy security by diversifying our
sources of electricity and limiting our dependence on foreign
sources of energy. Additionally, a RPS would create new
economic opportunities in rural America. Local, community and
farmer-owned renewable energy development projects are key to
providing economic and social benefits, while providing an
economic base for further rural economic development. A
robust RPS would create hundreds of thousands of good paying
jobs, provide billions of dollars in new income to farmers
and ranchers and generate significant local tax revenues that
can be used to fund other important priorities.
NFU believes Congress should move quickly to enact national
RPS legislation and we urge you to support efforts to do so
during floor consideration of the Renewable Fuels, Consumer
Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.
Sincerely,
Tom Buis,
President.

Exhibit 5

American Wind Energy Association,

June 11, 2007.
Re Please Support Bingaman RPS Amendment, Oppose Domenici CPS
Amendment

Hon. Harry Reid,
Senate Majority Leader, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Minority Leader, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: As the full Senate begins consideration of
comprehensive energy legislation this week, the American Wind
Energy Association (AWEA) respectfully urges Senators to vote
in favor of the Bingaman renewable portfolio standard (RPS)
amendment and against the Domenici clean portfolio standard
(CPS) amendment.
In order for our nation to seriously address the challenges
of energy security and global climate change we need an
effective renewable electricity standard that will drive new
investment and job growth in the renewable energy sector. The
Bingaman RPS proposal

[[Page S7603]]

would assure crucial progress toward this vitally important
objective. Unfortunately, however, the Domenici CPS amendment
includes numerous exemptions and loopholes that would
undermine the effectiveness of the effort to promote
renewable energy.
A core weakness of the CPS proposal is its inclusion of
language that could allow virtually any form of electricity
generation to qualify as ``clean.'' The CPS amendment would
allow the Secretary of Energy to designate ``other clean
energy sources'' that could qualify for clean energy credits
without placing any parameters on such designations. In
addition, it is noteworthy that utilities would receive
credit for electricity generated from technology that
captures and stores carbon, but the amendment does not
specify that a utility must actually employ carbon capture
and storage to receive credits.
Also of concern is an important loophole in the CPS
amendment that would allow states to waive program
requirements. The CPS amendment would allow states with
existing requirements to opt out of the Federal requirements
based solely on the state's own determination that it has a
measure in place that is ``comparable to the overall goal''
of the Federal program. This vague standard is not further
defined. In contrast, the Bingaman RPS proposal would not
interfere with the ability of utilities to comply with state
RPS programs. The state opt-out provision in the CPS proposal
would lead to substantially reduced renewable energy
investment and employment.
Our nation's citizens overwhelmingly support increasing the
generation of electricity from renewable sources like wind,
biomass and solar power. The Bingaman RPS amendment would
meet this demand and put our nation on a path that increases
the role of clean domestic energy in meeting our electricity
needs. We urge its enactment without the addition of
weakening changes such as those included in the Domenici CPS
amendment.
Thank you for your time and attention to this vitally
important matter.
Sincerely,
Randy Swisher,
Executive Director.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Domenici will be to the Chamber in
a few moments and is preparing to speak to the second degree to the
Bingaman amendment the chairman has outlined. In doing so, I will touch
for a few moments on some of the differences between an RPS and a CPS
and some of the value of broadening the portfolio Senator Bingaman is
talking about to create greater advantages nationwide for a larger
amount of clean energy.
There is no question that RPS, as we know it, invented in the mid-
1990s as a concept, evolving now to 23 States having accepted some form
of an RPS standard, has a very strong bias for wind and biomass. It is
there. We subsidize wind today. The letter the Senator introduced from
the wind industry is reflective of the phenomenal subsidy they get and
the advantage they get.
We create a market niche for them with an RPS, and then we subsidize
them. Frankly, I am for that. Wind energy and the more of it we can
have is the right energy, along with all other forms.
What the Senator did not say was the Southeast is dramatically
disadvantaged because they don't have wind. As a result, they have to
go buy or be taxed to offset the differences. That is unfair. Many of
us believe it is unfair. We also believe RPS is not an obsolete
standard but an old one.
About 3 years ago, people looking at a broader portofolio of energy
said: We ought to expand the standard. Today's mantra in energy,
whether it is the Senators from New Mexico or this Senator, who is one
of the senior members of the Energy Committee, is: Clean. America will
not build new energy production unless it is clean. That is what RPS
was originally heading us toward--cleaner renewable energies. So why
shouldn't we expand that portfolio from wind and bio to some additional
new forms--new nuclear, very clean; new hydro, yes, but limited; coal
sequestration or carbon sequestration, clean; efficiencies, less use,
less demand. Shouldn't they also be in this new portfolio? I say yes.
America, when they understand it, would say yes.
Right now there is a niche market, a very narrow one, for limited use
in certain capacities and greater use in others. I see windmills coming
up across my State today. Why? Because we have wind, and they are
subsidized. There is an advantage to do so. But you don't see windmills
coming up in Florida and other places in the South because there is not
the kind of prevailing winds that sustain a 25- to 30-percent
production efficiency of these particular kinds of units.
Senator Domenici has just arrived. I will let him pick up the debate
because he has led with this issue. I have been a supporter of it and
have helped develop this issue. I believe it is time we modernize, move
to clean energy, and reward the utilities that produce clean energy. It
does not disadvantage an RPS. It simply expands and modernizes it into
the concept of energy we are looking for today in the American energy
portfolio.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I apologize to Senator Bingaman for not
hearing all of his speech. I was detained. They told me he had started.
I thought they would tell me a few minutes before. I had to drive from
downtown. I apologize for that.
Senator Bingaman and I have been doing our best to remain bipartisan.
But on this issue, I can't do that. He will go his way and I will go
mine. His amendment is on the bottom and my amendment is on top. I have
offered mine as a second-degree amendment to his. My recollection of
how we do this, when time has run out, unless other arrangements are
made--and they could be--mine would go first.
I thank the cosponsors. Senator Craig has just told us that he is a
cosponsor. He worked very hard. Clearly, you can see from the morning's
work that Senator Pete Domenici, ranking member of the committee, is
pretty lucky. He can step down and go out and leave things vacant for a
little while, and the man behind me, Larry Craig, will soon take over.
No one will know anything was missed. If anything, they will figure
things got better. He is very good at it, and I thank him for all the
help he has given me. Other cosponsors are Senators Bennett, Crapo,
Graham, and Murkowski.
I am saying there is a far better way to reach the goals Senator
Bingaman wants, and we don't have to harm so many States in doing it.
What we ought to know right up front is that you have to go ahead and
choose something. Senator Bingaman chose to put two or three things in
his. Before I am finished, I think I can convince you that everybody
who has looked at it says that in its application, it is predominantly
a wind amendment. It says a couple other things, but when you look at
it as to what is done, I am safe in calling our battle a battle between
wind in every State, forced upon them at the level of 15 percent of
what their utilities use in energy. Every single State will have to
have that by a time certain, whether they can do it or not. If they
can't do it, they will be penalized.
I want to take a quick look at this map. Here is a map that shows
what we are talking about. If you look at it, you see the United
States. You see the eastern seaboard is white. Then you see some inlets
of water. Then you see it is white again. That means there is not
enough wind in those areas to move the wind turbines enough for them to
be used to accomplish the goals of this bill. Then if you look out in
the western part, you see very big pieces of the West that are white,
all the way through this white versus blue and dark blue. The white is
what Senator Bingaman calls wind energy. It is clean, but it is wind. I
don't believe we should do it that way.
I have said, since you all want something, I am going to suggest that
you want clean--not his words, my words--a clean energy portfolio. If
it is clean and available, you ought to put it in so they can use it.
So you will find that is what I have done. The clean energy portfolio
standard provides a comprehensive, technology-neutral program to ensure
that clean energy will make up for an ever-increasing portion of our
Nation's electricity operation. The clean portfolio standard requires
electric utilities to produce a set percentage of electricity
from clean energy sources, ramping up to an enforceable goal of 20
percent by 2020. So it is 20 by 20, and it is a clean portfolio. Rather
than pick winners and losers--and I stress this--rather than pick
winners and losers between various clean technologies that are or will
be available in the future, the clean portfolio standard provides for
all sources of clean energy--including solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, landfill gas, hydropower, new nuclear power, and fuel

[[Page S7604]]

cell quality--under the program. The clean portfolio also provides
credit for innovative technologies that will allow future traditional
fuels to be burned in a way that captures and sequesters carbon
emissions. We are going to do that. Somebody is going to make that
breakthrough.

Our bill provides that they can come in. Credit is further provided
for reductions in electricity usage from programs that provide
efficiency and lower the amount of power that needs to be generated in
the first place.
Energy efficiency efforts such as demand response should be part of
the solution. Everybody tells us that demand response is a way that, by
managing it properly, you can get a very significant savings.
Finally, since we have faith in American engineers, the clean
portfolio standard encourages innovation by giving the Secretary of
Energy authority to provide credit for new clean technologies that may
just be a twinkle in the inventor's eye but which may revolutionize the
way we produce and use electricity. If that occurs during the time,
clearly it should be permitted to come in. It doesn't have to be here
yet. If it is invented in 5 years, we thank the Lord and put it in and
use it. We don't operate in stagnation and say: You are outside of our
window. You are clean, but you don't come in. We don't give you credit.
You go on with that same old wind technology.
I am going to invite my friend from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, to
come down and share again with us what he thinks about what he calls a
wind economy. I can't give that speech. I am not that good. But I sure
listen to him because I think he is right. I don't believe we want wind
as the test of providing an alternate renewable in every State in the
Union, even if there is insufficient wind. And we don't want those
States paying fines because they can't come in. I don't think Senator
Bingaman wants to pull out the States--I don't know how many it would
be, 10, 12, 13--and say: We aren't going to do anything there. I think
if he did, he couldn't call it national. But he certainly would gain a
lot of support if it was fair. To make it fair, you cannot impose the
same regulated wind requirement on States that have no wind and then
say: Let's vote on this bill. The bill should not be voted on in that
way. In fact, those States that have it that way ought to come down
here and say: We can't vote on this bill. It is so obviously wrong that
we should not do it.
Finally, since we have faith, we are going to expect innovation to be
offered to the Secretary of Energy while the years run. That
innovation, if it produces something, will come to us and be put into
the package we are talking about that will start taking away white and
turning it into blue because we put new technology into the area.
Unlike the RPS, the clean portfolio, the CPS, doesn't pick winners or
losers. Unlike the RPS, the clean portfolio standard recognizes that
regional differences in resources and geography mean that we can't
create a one-size-fits-all. That is what I believe. That is what I
believe the Senate is going to say. Why pick a one-shoe-fits-all, when
you can't get it in. You can't get any foot in on the white up here in
the north because you can't get that much in the foot. You can't create
one that will put it in and still have essentially what is in the
Bingaman amendment.
Take a look at the chart from the National Renewable Lab. It shows
where our Nation's wind resources are located. Wind has no application
in the Southeast. The resources simply are not available in an entire
region of the country.
We cannot ignore the reality that utilities in some regions cannot
meet the RPS mandate with the limited resources permitted because they
are located in regions that are not blessed with ample renewable
resources.
Wind power is the clear winner under an RPS. Advocates of the Federal
RPS call it the ``wind power legislation.'' They are right--the only
way to reach a 15-percent requirement from the limited number of
renewable resources permitted under the Bingaman amendment is from wind
power.
Wind is the clear winner in the RPS. This chart I have in the Chamber
is based on an estimate prepared by Global Energy Decisions. As you can
see, wind will be used overwhelmingly to attempt to meet the RPS
requirement. The Union of Concerned Scientists concurs, estimating that
two-thirds of the RPS requirements would likely be met by new wind
generation. I have told you that already, that it would be almost all
wind. Now I am telling you that scientific groups that analyzed it
agree with what I said.
The Federal Government has supported wind power development since
1992. I am not saying that is wrong. In fact, there will be much wind
produced under the Domenici amendment because much of the renewables
will be wind. It is that every State will not be required, and some
will not have any because they cannot produce any.
The Federal Government has been allowing a production tax credit
since we first adopted it in 1992. Since then, we have spent in excess
of $2 billion on wind power development--from R&D, to the tax credit,
to clean renewable energy bonds.
We have made a lot of progress in the past 15 years. In 2006,
installed wind power capacity was 11,600 megawatts--enough to power 3
million homes. The wind industry continues to grow. With a good
subsidy, we continue to give it to them. An additional 3,000 megawatts
is going to come on line by the end of 2007.
So we support wind power. Wind power is included in the clean
portfolio standard I offer today.
What is interesting is--you have to think ahead with me--the Bingaman
portfolio is almost all wind. How many years do we intend to support
wind with a subsidy so that this system will work? Without wind, it
will not work. It seems like right now, without a subsidy, it will not
work. I do not know what the scientists working on it say. Will it soon
not need any subsidy? They may say the subsidy can start going away. Or
how many years will it be they will have to have it? That puts me to
thinking whether you should have it at all.
Today, we have only Senator Bingaman's amendment and mine--both of
them. His has all wind, and we have some wind, so we are kind of
admitting we are going to keep it as long as we can and pay for it as
long as we can so we can have that kind of nationwide--or partially
nationwide--program.
For the one I suggest, the clean one, obviously, we use less wind and
will still be clean, and no States will pay any fines, no States will
be given any slips that they are entitled to money in the future.
The clean portfolio standard results in more clean energy actually
produced. It is not watered down. The clean portfolio standard would
impose a 20-percent standard--a full one-third higher--yet the
proponents of the RPS claimed this is a ``watered down'' program. What
is their complaint? That we allow a greater number of resources to
qualify for credits under this program?
It is true the clean portfolio standard allows the use of any
nonemitting source of power: including expanded hydropower, new nuclear
powerplants, fuel cells, clean coal technologies that capture and
sequester carbon, and energy efficiency to meet the 20-percent
standard.
Thus, the clean portfolio standard allows the use of a greater
variety of technologies to meet a higher standard. The goal of this
amendment is to provide a greater amount of clean energy from a greater
diversity of energy sources. Obviously, the clean portfolio standard
does this much better than the RPS proposal.
Mr. President and fellow Senators, the clean portfolio standard
allows States that develop their own portfolio standards to opt out of
the Federal program. Some are trying to label this provision as a
loophole. It is not. Instead, it is a recognition that States should be
afforded the right to develop their own clean portfolio approaches
without Federal interference. We should not penalize those States that
already have forged ahead by imposing an inconsistent Federal mandate.
The Federal RPS could cost billions. Here is an estimate prepared by
Global Energy Decisions. GED estimates which States can and cannot
comply with a Federal RPS. As shown on the chart, the orange States do
not have the necessary renewable resources to comply with an RPS. The
majority of the States--27--will not be able to meet the mandate.

[[Page S7605]]

Let's look at this another way--by population. This pie chart I have
in the Chamber represents those that will not be in compliance with a
15-percent renewable portfolio standard. About two-thirds of the U.S.
population--66 percent--will not be able to meet the new standard.
How will the States' inability to meet this new electricity mandate
impact consumers? It is going to cost billions.
I have another chart. According to the study prepared by Global
Energy Decisions, the cumulative costs to consumers to comply with the
RPS is $175 billion. The States hit the hardest are those in the
Southeast without access to wind power; Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and South
Carolina.
The EIA recently concluded a study on the 15-percent RPS mandate and
found it would cost consumers $21 billion. Obviously, that is still a
tremendous cost to pass on to the consumer. However, the EIA has used
some questionable assumptions in its analysis that have been rejected
not only by the utility industry but by all 10 Southeastern public
utility commissions--bipartisan watchdogs for the ratepayers.
With this amendment, we keep our eye on the ball. The true goal of
this legislation is an increase in the amount of electricity generated
by clean technologies, reducing the emissions in our environment.
Our goal is not to promote one or two or three specific technologies
over another. In fact, the only way to ensure that the cost to the
consumer is mitigated to the maximum extent is to avoid the temptation
to pick winners and losers between technologies that all move us toward
one goal.
To limit the number of qualifying resources to a handful of existing
technologies is to ignore the history of rapid acceleration of
scientific and technological development in this country.

Do the sponsors of the RPS truly believe that innovation is dead?
Only a handful of existing technologies qualify under the RPS. This
assumes there will be no breakthroughs in the way we produce
electricity for the next 23 years.
I believe the incentive of a clean portfolio standard, combined with
environmental concerns and rising prices for traditional fuels, will
produce an ideal climate for technological innovation.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is the best
way to do it. We will have more to say during the afternoon.
With that, I yield the floor and thank the Senate for the time I was
given and for listening.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is
recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I shall not take a great deal of time. I
simply rise to express my support for the amendment offered by the
senior Senator from New Mexico. He has thought the matter through very
carefully and described, I think, a hopeful approach, one that
recognizes technology in the energy business is constantly changing,
that opportunities are arising that we may not even think of now.
One area where I have shown an interest is tidal energy, and we are
in the infancy of finding out about that. We need to have an open-ended
opportunity to find alternative energy sources.
So with that, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership
on this issue and am happy to be a cosponsor of his amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make a few comments in response
to my colleague's statement and in opposition to his amendment, which
he has designated the clean energy portfolio standard. I think people
need to understand what his amendment provides, and let me try to
explain that.
This amendment purports to be significantly stronger than the 15-
percent requirement I have proposed as part of the renewable portfolio
standard I have sent to the desk. It actually, though, accomplishes
very little in driving the development of new technologies for
electricity supply.
The amendment talks about a target of 20 percent clean energy
resources by 2020, but when you look at it carefully, it is a recipe
for business as usual, given all the other things that are going on and
in the planning stages.
There are various reasons why I say that. First of all, it is very
clear from his amendment that existing nuclear power is subtracted from
the base against which the requirement is measured. Now, what does that
mean? What that means is that instead of taking 100 percent, you say:
OK. How much of our current electricity supply comes from nuclear
power? About 20 percent. You subtract that, and you are then left with
the remaining 80 percent; and that remaining 80 percent is what he
calculates his 20 percent against. So, in fact, 20 percent of 80
percent gets you down to 16 percent--rather than a 20-percent
requirement.
He also has a provision in here that says incremental nuclear power
is counted for full credit. Now, that means any new powerplant that is
built is new energy and helps to meet the requirement that would be
imposed by his amendment. Let me say, first of all, I worked very
closely with Senator Domenici in supporting additional incentives and
additional supports--subsidies, in fact--for the nuclear energy
industry in the 2005 Energy bill we passed. We put a variety of things
into law to encourage the construction of new nuclear powerplants in
this country. We put in regulatory risk insurance. We put in a
production tax credit, which I think was 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour
for the first 10 years you had one of these new nuclear powerplants in
production. We extended the Price Anderson Act. We had loan guarantees
for the construction of new nuclear plants--the first six, I believe.
We had a substantial increase in funding for nuclear research and
development, and we had a transfer to the Federal taxpayer of much of
the expenditure for safety and security that would otherwise have been
borne by the industry.

So there are a lot of things in there to support the nuclear power
industry. I still believe those are very good provisions, and I am in
no way backing away from those. But now my colleague has come to the
floor and said: OK, now let's give them another subsidy, another
incentive to build nuclear power by including them as one of the ways
you would meet the requirement of this clean energy portfolio standard.
As I am sure anybody who was paying attention to our discussion
yesterday would know, I believe Senator Domenici made this point very
strongly: Since we passed the 2005 bill, there has been a resurgence in
interest on the part of various companies that want to build new
nuclear powerplants. I think there are some 30 letters of intent
currently pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stating that
companies are looking seriously at filing applications for the
construction of new powerplants. So the expectation is that we are
going to have a lot of new nuclear powerplants constructed in this
country over the next decade, and I, frankly, hope we do because I
think that is an essential part of meeting our energy needs. But we do
not need to further incentivize that by including them as part of a
renewable or a clean energy portfolio standard as the Domenici
amendment would have us do.
He talks about how the amendment I have offered is strictly a wind
type of incentive; it is a program to encourage construction of more
wind energy.
That is directly contrary to what has been stated by the Energy
Information Administration. In their analysis, they concluded very
clearly that wind energy would be expected, under this amendment I have
offered, to increase 50 percent; that biomass energy production,
electricity production from biomass, which is already twice as large as
energy production from wind, would be expected to increase 300 percent
rather than 50 percent, as is the case with wind; and that energy
production from solar would be expected to increase 500 percent. So it
is clear to me that this is not just a wind energy amendment I have
proposed. Our amendment talks about meeting the requirements from solar
power, from wind power, from geothermal power, from biomass power, from
ocean.
The Senator from Utah was just on the Senate floor talking about his
support for the idea of energy from tidal waves. We have that included.
That is one of the new renewable energy

[[Page S7606]]

sources which we contemplate. Incremental hydro--so that if we have a
hydroelectric facility and one wants to increase the amount of power
from that facility, we count that against the requirement; landfill
gases as well. So I think all of that is included, and all of it would
be increased significantly.
Let me also talk about the issue of subsidies. I went through a list
of the various subsidies we provide in the 2005 bill for the nuclear
power industry, and I support every one of those. I think that was the
right thing to do. But let me just be clear that we have subsidies for
a great many types of energy sources, including tax deductions, loan
guarantees, liability insurance, and provisions for leasing of public
lands at below-market prices. Some, like the depletion allowance for
oil and gas, are permanent subsidies that are built into the Tax Code,
and I am not suggesting they need to be repealed. I am just pointing
out the largest subsidy--and I think any economist would make this
point and would agree with this point--the largest subsidy is an
invisible subsidy, the fact that the environmental impacts from use of
fossil fuels are nowhere reflected in the cost of those energy sources.
That is what has caused our problem with greenhouse gas emissions. That
is why--it does not cost anything to pump 100 tons of CO2 or
other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There is no cost to the
person who is producing their energy for those fossil fuels. There is a
cost to society, and we are beginning to understand what that cost is.
But the idea of a major impetus for the renewable portfolio standard I
have offered is that we would reduce dramatically these greenhouse gas
emissions and provide incentives for the development of these other
technologies. There are already incentives for the improvement in the
development or improved use of nuclear power for energy production,
and, as I say, I support those.
Let me also talk a little about this proposal that States can opt
out. First, let me mention that the Secretary can add others. I think
that is a very major loophole, for us to essentially say to the
Secretary of Energy: It is up to you; if you find something else that
you believe ought to be included in the way we meet essentially this 16
percent requirement, then add that in. I think the idea that States can
opt out is unfortunate, indeed. Obviously, many States have chosen to
put in place their own renewable portfolio standards. Nothing in my
amendment in any way overrides those States' proposals.
What we try to do with the proposal I put forward is to set a
national minimum. We say you should at least do this 15 percent. If you
want to do something else, have a go at it. If your laws provide for
something else, then so much the better. But we do not say to States:
You can opt out of any Federal requirement. I think to do so
essentially eliminates any coherence we might have in the system.
Let me conclude my comments at this point by saying that my own
reading of the proposal Senator Domenici has made here as a second-
degree amendment to mine is that it really gets us to the worst of all
locations in the debate or in our deliberations on this issue. It is a
Federal program that does not result in the generation of electricity
from clean energy sources beyond what otherwise would be expected to
happen at any rate. But it does require utilities to go through very
extensive efforts to track and buy and sell credits and comply with a
regulatory regime. The Government would have to establish a credit-
trading scheme, a tracking system, a monitoring system, regulations for
implementation--a whole panoply of Government machinery--but they would
do so in order to achieve a result that could have been achieved
without the implementation of the proposed amendments.
So I think it would be an unfortunate provision for us to adopt. I
hope my colleagues will agree with that and will vote against the
Domenici proposal and, of course, as I said earlier in the debate, a
vote in favor of the one I propose.

Let me conclude with that. I know my colleague may wish to speak some
more, and I know there are others coming to the floor intending to
speak as well, and there may be additional opportunities for me to add
to these comments as the afternoon progresses.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would say to Senator Bingaman that I
have nothing to say now for myself, but I did want to tell him there
are a couple of Senators coming shortly. I know about the time they are
coming. I don't want to speak before they come, but if Senator Bingaman
wants to proceed rapidly, we could do that. It will be 15 or 20 minutes
before they arrive.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Snowe from Maine be added as a cosponsor to the underlying amendment I
have sent to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will speak for a few moments. The Senator
from Tennessee is here and waiting for some charts to visit about the
issue that is before us, RPS versus CPS standards, that drive the
marketplace toward cleaner fuels, renewable fuels, and a variety of
different packages.
A few moments ago, I mentioned, when the Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Bingaman, produced a letter from the American Wind Energy Association,
that in part I believe CPS, based on their point of view, had been
somewhat mischaracterized by that letter. Now, here is someone who
supports wind. The Senator from Idaho strongly supports wind. We see
windmills, large windmills, going up across Idaho. The Senator from
Tennessee would come out there and say: Oops, there goes the landscape.
There goes the vista. The Senator from Idaho is a little concerned
about that, too, because some of those beautiful high plateaus of Idaho
are now being dotted with windmills.
At the same time, there is no question that wind remains a valuable
source, and we are subsidizing it and supporting it. But I don't think
we ought to bias the marketplace toward it entirely, and that is why
you now see a new standard offered as a second-degree amendment called
CPS, clean portfolio standard.
When I say that, let me make the point that is important, that I
think is critical. The American Wind Energy Association, when they
mischaracterized clean portfolio standard, did so in the following
ways: The proposed CPS clearly requires carbon capture and storage.
They say it does not. The word ``sequestration'' means carbon capture
and storage, and you don't get a credit for it until you do it. I think
that is clear. I think that was a mischaracterization. CPS clearly
states that any additional clean technologies beyond already
highlighted would require the Secretary of Energy to determine, if they
apply through a rulemaking process. In other words, no easy rides and
no opt-out.
We have 23 States that have some form of RPS, renewable portfolio
standard. They have done it on their own. The Senator from New Mexico
makes that point very clearly. There is a desire in our country today
to move us toward renewables and a cleaner portfolio standard, but
there is no opt-out in CPS. They come to the Secretary, and the
Secretary certifies that which they already have, if it fits within the
portfolio that is being proposed as a CPS. There is no State opt-out in
that provision. CPS allows the States with existing clean portfolio
programs to certify.
I think that is a very important and necessary statement to make. I
don't

[[Page S7607]]

see that as an opt-out, I see that as conforming, giving credits to,
and causing those who have already taken the initiative not to be
penalized. It is arguable that the RPS that is being proposed in the
Bingaman amendment would cause them to have to reshape or conform
because they are all a little different or they couldn't gain as much
credit under an RPS as they could a CPS. But that we don't know. What
we do know is, no State opts out.
We are now talking about a Federal standard against a myriad of State
standards in which 23 States have already established some form of
renewable portfolio. There is no uniformity in that 23-State standard,
so, as I said, it is very difficult to comply with the standard. CPS is
flexible enough, that it will not allow States to opt out.
Deduct nukes from the base. By adding nuclear--new nuclear--we will
have a much broader portfolio than I think Senator Bingaman's RPS.
Adding nuclear does not detract from the accomplishments of that bill.
It modernizes the bill. It brings us to where America's thoughts are
today, not where America's clean thoughts started in the mid-1990s.
Let's get modern.
Yes, there are a lot of interest groups that have vested interests in
the old standard. There are a lot of interest groups in this town and
around the Nation that move very slowly. They move the body politics of
their organizations slowly so they have to argue what was then instead
of what is now. What is now in the minds of the average American who
looks at new technology is: Is it clean? And if it is clean, it is
acceptable. If it isn't clean, it isn't.
Idaho is privileged at being right at the top of the States of the
Nation in nonemitting sources, clean air, and less carbon. We are very
proud of that--Vermont and Idaho. Last year, Idaho, a State that has
largely accepted production in all forms, said no to a coal-fired
plant. They said no because it wasn't as clean as they wanted it to be.
But if it were a plant that could sequester, if it were a plant that
were clean, and it was coal, why shouldn't it count today in a new
standard?
Why shouldn't the marketplace incentivize cleanliness--nonemitting
sources--instead of the old nonemitting sources of the past--wind and
biomass? But biomass, under current technologies, emits some
CO2. It is much cleaner than most, but depending on the
technology involved, is not a perfect form, if you will, compared to
wind. But it is renewable, so under that definition, while it is not as
clean as we would like it to be, and it will be in the future because
it is renewable, it fits into the old standard.
I think those are profound arguments that bring us to where we are
today. And I would like to say to the American Wind Energy Association:
You are not disadvantaged under CPS, but you are not exclusive to the
market. You have to share the riches of growth in a clean technology
with other forms as they come along. Yes, you will be subsidized, but
you will not have exclusivity.
I think for the West and for the marvelous open spaces and the vistas
of the West, that is not all a bad idea. While I promote wind, and wind
is now coming to Idaho, I don't think it ought to be exclusive in the
market. As I have said before, and the maps have been shown, why
disadvantage the Southeast? Why say to the Southeast you have to go buy
it because you can't produce it? Let's give them an opportunity to be
as clean as everyone else wants to be by giving them the advantages of
all that is necessary.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend
and colleague from Idaho. I would just direct a question to him and see
if I am confused or he is confused, or just where the confusion lies.
He says there is not authority in the Domenici proposal, the clean
energy proposal; that there is not authority for a State to opt out.
Here is the sentence on page 9 of that legislation. It says:

On submission by the Governor of a State to the Secretary--

That is the Secretary of Energy--

of a notification that the State has in effect, and is
enforcing, a State portfolio standard that substantially
contributes to the overall goals of the Federal clean
portfolio standard under this section, the State may elect
not to participate in the program under this section.

Now, that clearly states, as I understand it, that it is entirely up
to the State whether it chooses to participate in the program or
chooses not to participate in the program, and there is no discretion
on the part of the Secretary of Energy about it at all. There is no
certification required by the Secretary of Energy. There is no
requirement that the State program meet any particular standard other
than it contribute to the overall goals of the Federal standard.
To me, that means a State can opt out of the Federal program, unless
I am misreading it.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I can't argue whether the Senator is or is
not misreading. The intent is for the Secretary of DOE to certify that
the State meets those standards, and if the State meets the standard
that you and I would put forth, then why don't they have a chance to
stand down for a time? It is a question of meeting the standard, not
ignoring the standard.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Well, Mr. President, let me just reiterate that the
clear language of the statute states if the State determines that it
has a ``portfolio standard that substantially contributes to the
overall goals of the Federal clean portfolio standard, then the State
may elect not to participate in the program.''
To me, that is a clear opt-out for the State. There is no requirement
that anybody certify or anything else. If I were Governor of New
Mexico, I could type up a letter, send it off to the Secretary and say
we are opting out--include us out--and that clearly would let me out of
the program.
So I don't think the bill says what the Senator has indicated.
Mr. CRAIG. Well, if it doesn't, I am one who would change that. It is
clearly not my intent, nor I believe the intent of CPS, to allow States
to opt out. It is to broaden the portfolio standard, not to opt out
because I think, with 23 States now moving in that direction, there is
a recognition of the value of some of this. If there needs to be a
correction for your satisfaction as the chairman of the committee, I am
certainly one who is willing to make that. But it was my understanding
and my reading of the language that the Secretary of DOE has the right
to certify, and in certifying could allow based on the standard met an
opt-out.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my
friend. I would just say he is describing a provision in an amendment
that is not before us. I want to point that out to my colleagues.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we obviously have a disagreement as to what
is or is not. But I think we both agree on a principle that we have
just talked about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I think now would be a good time for a
former Governor to enter the discussion with my two distinguished
colleagues. I think the biggest compliment I have been paid in the
short time I have been a Senator was by some Washington insider who
said, ``Well, the problem with Lamar is he hasn't gotten over being
Governor yet.''
I have said to my constituents in Tennessee, ``If I ever do, it is
time to bring me home.''
As I listened to the discussion between the Senator from New Mexico
and the Senator from Idaho, I was greatly encouraged by the discussion
of the Senator from Idaho until the very last part. I think there
should be an opt-out. Why should there not be? What wisdom is there
here in Washington, DC that is not there in state and local government?
When I was in Tennessee, I thought I was at least as smart as the
Congress of the United States. I woke up every day trying to do what
was best for my State. I fought for better schools, clean water, clean
air, raising family incomes, paying teachers more. If I had to wait on
Washington to do it, we would never have done it. I knew of a lot of
people who flew to Washington and suddenly got smart, but I didn't
think they were smarter than we were.
On issues of clean air, we Tennesseans, for example, feel like we
care about it a lot. I live right next to the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. I grew up there. Five generations of my family are
buried there. We have a great big clean-air problem.

[[Page S7608]]

I might say, both Senators from New Mexico are two of the very finest
in our body in terms of their ability, intelligence, dedication, and
purposes. I happen to have a little disagreement on this issue with
Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, but let me go back to my point.
Growing up and living at the edge of the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park makes me very aware of clean air and the need for it,
which is why, 2 or 3 years ago, with Senator Carper, I began to work in
the Congress for stronger standards so we could do more in Tennessee.
That is why, as Governor of Tennessee, I pushed ahead for more and why,
as a citizen of Tennessee, I went to the Tennessee Valley Authority and
encouraged them to adopt standards that would get more of the sulfur
out of the air and more of the nitrogen out of the air. That is why I
have encouraged the Governor of Tennessee to go further than the
Federal Government is in getting mercury out of power plant emissions
into the air, 90 percent instead of 70 percent. That is why I have been
meeting with mayors and local county officials in Tennessee to clean
the air. We care about it in Tennessee.
It is not necessarily true that it takes wisdom from Washington to
cause us to want to have clean air or carbon-free air. Witness the fact
that we are already on the honor roll of states leading the way in
emissions-free electricity generation.
I see the Senator from Vermont, right in front of me, presiding. He
should be very proud of Vermont as his state is No. 1 in the country in
terms of carbon-free emissions. Vermont generates its electricity from
forms that are free of carbon emissions. I assume that among Senator
Bingaman's goals in the energy legislation before us is to encourage
carbon-free emissions so that we can deal with climate change. I happen
to be one of those who believe climate change is a problem and that
human beings are a big part of the problem. I am ready to help deal
with the problem.
But I think that we already are helping in Tennessee--that is my
point. In this case, we need Washington to recognize what States are
doing to solve this problem and not assume that a one-size-fits-all
idea which might be good for New Mexico, or which might be good for
North Dakota, also is good for Tennessee.
Tennessee is 16th in terms of carbon-free emissions. In other words,
we produce about 40 percent of our electricity today from nuclear power
and from hydroelectric power. All forms of power have their issues.
Hydroelectric power means you dam up rivers. Some people don't like
that. I have some problems with that, too, sometimes. With nuclear
power, we have to get rid of the waste, and we have not solved that
problem yet. But the one problem we have solved with hydro and nuclear
is that they are clean in terms of emission--no carbon, no mercury, no
sulfur, no nitrogen. That is 40 percent of the power in the Tennessee
Valley Authority region, and in the State of Tennessee.
I might say: I have a great idea. I am now in Washington. I am not
Governor anymore. I want to require everybody in America to have a 40-
percent emissions-free energy standard, and the way they should do it
is to have 33 percent nuclear power and 7 percent hydropower because
that is my idea. That is the way we do it. So, North Dakota, have at
it, start building nuclear plants, start damming up whatever river you
have left. I have an idea. That is the way you should it.
I wouldn't say that because I believe in federalism. I believe that a
lot of the best ideas come up from States toward the Federal
Government. I have noticed how, over time, California has led the
country in terms of clean air and clean water. I know Senator
Bingaman's bill would permit us to go further in some ways, but it does
not in other ways. What happens with the amendment from the Senator
from New Mexico is this: Even though we are on the honor roll in
Tennessee, and getting better--I mean, not only did the TVA just reopen
the Unit 1 reactor at the Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant, it is operating
today at 100 percent capacity.
I will say a little more in a minute, if my colleagues will tolerate
it.
The one wind farm we have in the whole Southeastern United States,
the Buffalo Mountain Project in Tennessee, operated 7 percent of the
time in August when we are all sitting on our porches, sweating and
fanning ourselves and wanting our air-conditioners on, so wind energy
doesn't help us in our part of the country. So we are at 40 percent
emissions-free electricity generation. So how about a 40-percent
portfolio standard for the whole country, with 33 percent nuclear power
and 7 percent hydropower?

That probably wouldn't be fair to North Dakota. It might not be fair
to some other States that have, as the brown color indicates on this
chart here, a good bit of wind. They can use wind. They like wind. They
don't mind having great big 300-, 400-, 500-foot white towers with
flashing red lights you can see for 20 miles. If they want to see them,
I guess that is their business. If they want them and it makes sense
out there, fine. That is their State. But no more would I impose our
formula for being clean on them than should they impose their formula
for being clean on us. That is the problem with the Bingaman amendment,
I respectfully suggest.
Here we are on the honor roll for being clean. We are getting better.
TVA is thinking we might open a second nuclear reactor, maybe a third
nuclear reactor. Maybe within 10 years--which in energy-producing time
is a short period of time--we would be up to 40 percent of nuclear
power, 7 or 8 percent of hydropower, and we might be in favor of making
everybody do a 47-percent renewable portfolio standard based on our
formula. We hope by that time that biomass, which is permitted under
the amendment from Senator Bingaman, as I understand it, will increase
in Tennessee. We have a great capacity, we believe, for biomass,
especially as fuel for cars.
The President of the University of Tennessee was here this morning--
Dr. Peterson--talking with me about a demonstration project they have,
about ethanol plants that are planned there. We are right in the center
of the nation's population. We have a lot of land. We have a good
agricultural base. Switchgrass could replace the tobacco income we used
to have in Tennessee. We used to have 60,000 to 80,000 farms with a
little independent income up in the mountains like you have in the
great northern kingdom of Vermont. That would be great for us, so we
hope biomass really works.
We like solar. I am the sponsor of the solar tax credit that passed
Congress 2 years ago. It is not enough, but I sponsored it. I got an
award from the solar industry for being for that renewable power. I
also worked with the Farm Bureau on renewable power called biomass. We
have the largest production plant for solar technology in America in
Memphis in the Sharp plant, producing the solar panels you put on your
roof. We hope all this works. We even hope there might be maybe a solar
thermal steam plant someday. It is not there today.
TVA needs 31,000 or 32,000 megawatts of power every year to provide
us with clean, reliable, inexpensive electricity, and the potential for
solar with the present technology, the TVA says, is less than a
Megawatt. The solar industry would say it is more. What if it is five
times more? What if it is 10 megawatts, or 20 megawatts? There is not
sufficient potential in the next 10 years for solar and wind in the
southeast--which I will show in a moment we have virtually none of--to
meet this idea.
So, what do we get to do? We get to pay a big tax, a great big tax.
What good does the tax do us? It comes out of our pockets. We send it
to Washington, and we never see it again. How much is it? It is $410
million a year, according to the Tennessee Valley Authority's
scientists, to meet Senator Bingaman's 15 percent renewable portfolio
standard. That is real money. By the end of the ramp-up time in the
Bingaman amendment, which is the year 2020, it would cost, according to
the Tennessee Valley Authority, which supplies Tennessee with
electricity, it would cost the ratepayers $410 million to do what, to
pay a tax to Washington, DC. It wouldn't clean our air. We are already
on the honor roll for emission-free electricity production. It would
just increase our cost. In fact, that money might come from money we
might otherwise spend to clean our air.

[[Page S7609]]

But here is what we could do with $410 million. We could give away
205 million $2 light bulbs and have the energy savings equivalent to
two nuclear power reactors, or it would be the equivalent of 3,700
great big wind turbines that would stretch along all the scenic ridge
lines in east Tennessee, and nobody would come to east Tennessee to
visit, to see our mountains. Most people who live there would go hide
under a rug so we wouldn't have to see these white towers with flashing
red lights that you can see from 10 or 12 miles away instead of the
mountains. We could pay the electric bill for every Tennessean for a
month and a half each year with $410 million or we could purchase a new
scrubber. We have some coal-fired powerplants. About 60 percent of our
electricity comes from coal. TVA has done a fairly good job of cleaning
up the air with that, but they have a long way to go. Sulfur scrubbers
are the main thing they need. They are very expensive, and we could put
a new one on every 9 months with $410 million cost per year. That is
what we could better do with $410 million rather than send it up here
to Washington, DC.
Here is a letter I got today from the mayor of Chattanooga, TN,
Harold DePriest--not the mayor, president and chief executive officer
of the power company in Chattanooga. I probably should let Senator
Corker read this letter since he used to be the mayor in Chattanooga.
But he says:

The Bingaman amendment, if enacted into law, would have an
enormous adverse economic impact on our community. It would
result in a two-cent per kilowatt-hour tax on all electric
kilowatt hours that are used in the Chattanooga EPB service
area. We have projected the cost burden that will be imposed
upon those in our service area during the years 2010 through
2020. It appears the local government, local schools, the
universities, businesses and all citizens (including those in
fixed incomes and having a difficult financial time as it is)
will have to pay the additional sum of more than $133,000,000
. . . over 10 years for their electrical service.

Those are the workers, and those are the businesses. When businesses
come to Tennessee--when Nissan comes or Saturn comes, when Eastman
thinks about staying--what is one of the things they want to know? Can
we get reliable, low-cost electric power? Today, we can say yes.
Every time we add an unnecessary charge on that rate, we drive jobs
out of Tennessee and we cause people who cannot afford their bills to
pay them.
I believe Senator Bingaman would say, and I will let him say it on
his own behalf, as we develop more renewable power or other forms of
power--I am a big subscriber to this--we bring down the price of
natural gas. I helped introduce a bill called the Natural Gas Price
Reduction Act, and I worked with Senators Bingaman and Domenici to try
to stimulate growth in other forms of power to bring down the price of
natural gas. So he is absolutely right. If we create new forms of
energy, we will have less reliance on natural gas, and we want less
reliance on natural gas. We don't want to be using natural gas to make
electricity.
As we say often: It is like burning the antiques to make a fire. So
he is right about that. Why shouldn't we say but one other form is
nuclear power. It is clean, it is reliable, and it is another form to
consider. And the more we have it, the less natural gas we have to use.
I also have a letter from Huntsville. This is in Alabama. I would not
want you to think I was only arguing on behalf of one State.
Huntsville, Alabama. ``Dear Senator Shelby,'' in this case. The letter
goes on to talk about the severe penalties and the extra costs and the
objection they have to this new tax.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point
the two letters.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

EPB,

Chattanooga, TN, June 13, 2007.
Re Energy Bill--S.B. 1419.

Hon. Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: I am writing out of concern for the
citizens of the greater Chattanooga area who receive their
electrical service from the Chattanooga Electric Power Board
(``Chattanooga EPB''). We understand that debate is presently
taking place on Energy Bill, S.B. 1419. We also understand
that Senator Bingaman will propose an amendment to the Energy
Bill that will, in our opinion, have severe financial
consequences upon the citizens of the greater Chattanooga
area, who are served by Chattanooga EPB in Hamilton County,
and parts of Bradley, Marion, Sequatchie, and Bledsoe
Counties.
We at Chattanooga EPB are asking that you do everything in
your power to oppose the Bingaman Amendment, and to encourage
your fellow Senators to also vote ``no'' with you to defeat
it. We do not oppose energy conservation or the use of
renewable resources. But the Bingaman Amendment is not the
right way to get it done.
The Bingaman Amendment, if enacted into law, would have an
enormous adverse financial impact upon our community. It
would result in a two-cent per kilowatt-hour tax on all
electric kilowatt hours that are used in the Chattanooga EPB
service area. We have projected the cost burden that will be
imposed upon those in our service area during the years 2010
through 2020. It appears that local government, local
schools, the universities, businesses, and all citizens
(including those in fixed incomes and have a difficult
financial time as it is) will have to pay the additional sum
of more than $133,000,000 (collectively as a group) over 10
years for their electrical service.
The frustrating part of the Bingaman Amendment, if enacted
into law, will be the injustice imposed upon our community.
There are several states that are blessed with plentiful
resources of renewable energy. These states would receive
favorable treatment under Senator Bingaman's Amendment,
whereas we in Tennessee and the TVA Region would not. We here
do not have the same abundant renewable resources available
to us. In effect, we are penalized, and penalized
significantly, simply because of geography.
One reason that Chattanooga EPB is in such a difficult
situation under the Bingaman Amendment, as contrasted with
utilities in some other parts of the country, is that the
amendment is directed at utilities that have their own
generation. Because the Tennessee Valley Authority supplies
all requirements needed to for the Chattanooga EPB service
area, and has an all-requirements contract with Chattanooga
EPB, it is impossible for Chattanooga EPB to meet the
requirements of the Senator Bingaman's renewal portfolio
standard (``RPS'') amendment to S.B. 1419. Senator Bingaman's
Amendment requires that utilities such as Chattanooga EPB
obtain 15 percent of energy sales from new renewable sources
by the year 2020. While Senator Bingaman's Amendment does
allow an option for Chattanooga to buy renewal ``credits''
from U.S. Department of Energy, it is at the two-cent per
kilowatt-hour rate in order to meet the RPS that the Bingaman
Amendment would dictate.
We would appreciate your exerting all efforts within your
power to defeat this horrific renewal energy ``tax''; and
that you oppose, argue against, vote against, and secure all
of the assistance that can be mustered from your fellow
Senators to see that this Amendment is not enacted into law.
I am available if there is any additional information that
we can supply to you in your efforts to help us.
Sincerely yours,
Harold E. DePriest,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
____

Huntsville Electric Utility Board,

June 12, 2007.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Shelby: The Senate is now debating an
amendment to the Energy Bill, specifically a Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) Amendment. This amendment requires
all electric systems that sell more than 4 million megawatt
hours of energy a year to generate specific percentages of
their load profile from renewable resources. By 2010,
Huntsville Utilities would have to have 3.75% of its load
coming from renewable generation sources (solar, wind, etc.);
by 2013, 7.5% of the load from renewable generation; by 2017,
11.25% and by 2020, 15% of load coming from renewable
generation.
Huntsville Utilities is under a long-term, 100% contract
with TVA and is prevented by contract from developing its own
resources and from purchasing any form of energy supply from
any other power supply vendor. Further, Congress would have
to pass laws that would allow Huntsville Utilities to use the
TVA transmission system to bring in power from other power
supply vendors.
Severe penalties are levied for not meeting the Renewable
Portfolio Standard. Penalties to Huntsville in 2010 would be
$4.2 million; in 2013, $8.8 million; in 2017, $14.1 million,
and in 2020, $19.8 million.
Huntsville Utilities depends on TVA to provide renewable
energy resources, since it is prohibited from generating our
own energy, or purchasing energy from other power providers
by the TVA contract.
Penalties in 2010 of $4.2 million for not meeting the
standard are nothing more than a tax on the citizens of
Huntsville. Huntsville Utilities is being placed in a no-win
situation if this standard passes.
Huntsville Utilities is a public power system which is non-
profit and receives all of its energy resources from TVA,
which is a public power generation and transmission provider
to its 158 captive customers. Huntsville Utilities needs to
be exempted from the provisions of the Renewable Portfolio
Standards (RPS). TVA needs to be the provider of

[[Page S7610]]

these renewable energy resources to its customers.
TVA's hydro and nuclear generation systems need to be used
as a replacement for solar and wind, since hydro and nuclear
energy generation are non-polluting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ronald W. Boles,
Vice Chairman.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see some other Senators on the floor.
I see Senator Domenici, Senator DeMint, and there are other Senators
here. But I want to wind up my comments in this way with a couple of
pictures to summarize the point.
It is a laudable goal to move us as rapidly as we can to renewable
energy. But we should allow the States to move in ways that fit those
States. So I think there should be an opt-out for States. I think
Tennessee should be able to say: We have a 40-percent clean power
standard, but it is nuclear and hydro. We are working hard on biomass.
As soon as we get that going, we will have 50 percent. But we do not
have sufficient wind resources not located in our scenic mountains. In
addition, wind is enormously subsidized. We will be getting more to
that this year.
Let's put up this chart.
TVA looked all around for a place to locate the first and only
utility scale wind energy project in the southeast. First they looked
down on Lookout Mountain. The people there spent 30 years restoring the
natural beauty to this historic location. They did not want to see a
400-foot tower they could see from the whole area up there. So they
finally put it on Buffalo Mountain, which is also a beautiful place.
Here is what it looks like. They had hoped the wind would blow so
that it would produce 35 to 38 percent of the turbines rated capacity.
It operates 19 to 24 percent of the time; 7 percent in August. What
most people miss with wind power is you use it or lose it. So if the
wind is not blowing, your air conditioner is off.
Even though you have these large wind towers all up and down every
ridge top in Tennessee, even if you had them, you would still need a
dependable powerplant. Wind turbines do not replace your base load.
Here is what it looks like in West Virginia, which is north of us. It
is a different point, but this makes strip mining look like a
decorative art. I mean this ruins, in my view, the tops of mountains.
Why would we insist on that with Federal requirements to have a State
that is already on the honor roll for clean power? There are other ways
to do this rather than raise our rates, raise our taxes, drive jobs
away, or ruin our landscape.
I appreciate the chance to talk about this. Wind already is highly
subsidized too. The best facts I have suggest we will be spending $11.5
billion between 2007 and 2016, already obligated in taxpayers' money,
to build these big wind turbines in Tennessee, which in Tennessee
operate 7 percent of the time in August. They do not produce much power
either. There are proposals on the Senate floor to extend the federal
subsidies for wind power.
So back to this wind project, TVA pays 6.5 cents for every kilowatt-
hour produced by this wind project. The taxpayers pay them another 2.9
cents, in effect, for the production tax credit; that is 9.4 cents for
each one here, and this would have the whole Southeast running around
looking for wind developers to buy further credits from. We should all
retire from the Senate and go in the business, it looks like, if that
is what we want to do.
But here is my main point, let's respect Federalism, let's honor
those States that are on the honor roll. Let's honor Senator Bingaman
for wanting to encourage renewable energy. But Senator Domenici, I
would respectfully say, has a better idea. He would allow new nuclear
power, for example, to be a part of the mix.
My final comment would be this: As climate change has become more of
a concern, and people say we are going to have to deal with it in this
generation, we have looked for ways to create large amounts of clean
energy. There are only two or three ways to do that.
The first is conservation and efficiency. We have barely scratched
the surface. But the second is nuclear power. Seventy percent of our
carbon-free electricity in America today is nuclear power. So why would
we exclude that from any standard that allegedly wants us to have
carbon-free energy? It does not make much sense to me.
I respectfully oppose the suggestion of the Senator from New Mexico,
Mr. Bingaman. I honor his service here. I honor his motives here. But I
think he has a solution looking for a problem. The problem is, we do
not have any wind in our part of the State, and a wind portfolio
standard simply does not work. It puts a big tax on us we do not need
to pay, do not want to pay, does not do us any good.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield 50 seconds of my time to
Senator DeMint.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. I will yield back to him
immediately.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would you yield 30 seconds to me? Would that be
acceptable to you?
Mr. VOINOVICH. That is fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Lamar Alexander, who
gave about a 20-minute speech or 25, whatever it was, that I truly
commend you on your understanding of both the problem and the attempted
solutions here and the differences between the Bingaman amendment and
mine. The way you present it is laudable. I thank you for that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, quickly, I wish to make a request of the
chairman. I understand the current amendment will not be finished until
tomorrow. I wanted to get one amendment pending. I ask unanimous
consent to send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do object. I believe we need to
complete action on the two pending amendments before we take up any
other amendments or have other amendments pending. Obviously he can
send anything he wants to the desk, but as far as calling up any
amendment for consideration, I would object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I understand Senator Salazar is waiting
here. I will not be long. I appreciate his patience.
First, I associate myself with the words of the Senator from
Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. I thought he did a fantastic job of outlining
why this proposed renewable portfolio standard is not in the best
interests of the United States of America. I strongly oppose it because
it has not taken into consideration the adverse effects on States that
depend heavily on coal, such as my home State of Ohio.
I also mention that we have looked at wind power for our utilities.
If they could use wind power they would be using it, because not only
would it be something that would be better taken by the citizens of
Ohio, but it also would associate them with being more green. They are
interested in doing that. But the fact is we do not have the
environment for that to occur. So I think even though this proposal is
well intentioned, and I share his concern about reducing greenhouse
gases, I believe his proposal will cause great economic distress for
minimal benefit.
What we need to do when we are looking at these things is ask, what
benefit are we going to get out of it, and what are the costs? Figure
it out. A one-size-fits-all Federal RPS mandate ignores the different
economic needs and resources of the individual States. There are
significant regional differences in availability, despite renewable
energy resources.
Even among the States that have an RPS, all have chosen to add
technologies that are not usually included in a Federal RPS. Because
many of the utilities will not be able to meet an RPS requirement
through their own generation, they will be required to purchase
renewable energy credits from some other company. Thus, a nationwide
RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers
to States with little or no renewable resources, such as Ohio, to the
Federal Government or to States where renewables happen to be more
abundant.
In my State of Ohio, we rely on coal. Eighty-eight percent of our
electric

[[Page S7611]]

generation comes from coal. It is estimated that the proposal would
increase retail electricity prices by 4.3 percent, a total of a $12.8
billion cost to consumers by 2030. The 4.3 percent may not seem like a
high increase to many, but to a family of four on a fixed income, this
is a huge increase. These families may have to make a decision between
paying their winter heating bills or putting food on the table for
their families.
I recall a couple of years ago, before the Environment and Public
Works Committee, Tom Mullen of Cleveland Catholic Charities described
the direct impacts of significant increases in energy prices on those
who were less fortunate. This is a quote. He said:

In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in
poverty and are in a family of a single family head of
household. These children will suffer further loss of basic
needs as their moms are forced to make choices of whether to
pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill or
see their child freeze; buy food or risk the availability of
a hunger center. These are not choices that any senior
citizen, child, or for that matter, person in America should
make.

So, in effect, if we pass this renewable portfolio, for people who
live in my State--and maybe I am being a little bit selfish about the
people I represent, but the fact is this is going to increase their
energy bills. For those who are poor, for those who are elderly and on
a fixed income, this is significant.
Another aspect which I think we forget about is Ohio is a
manufacturing State. We are on the economic fault line. I wish our
economy were as good as the rest of the States in this country. We have
the same problem Michigan has. Energy costs are a huge concern of our
manufacturers, who use 34 percent of the energy consumed in our
economy. Due in large part to increased energy prices, the United
States has lost more than 3.1 million manufacturing jobs since 2000,
and my State has lost nearly 220,000 jobs.
I will never forget in 2001 when we had the big spike in gas prices.
I believe that was the beginning of the recession in the State of Ohio.
Many of those small companies never recovered because, for example, in
my city, natural gas costs have gone up over 300 percent since 2000.
Think about that, the impact that has. Then you add another burden on
top of that. Rather than enacting an artificial RPS, which will
increase costs to our utilities and consumers, we need to be spending
this money on the development of technology to reduce our greenhouse
gases.
The cost of the RPS to utilities and ratepayers will be better spent
on funding the programs we authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
such as carbon sequestration and IGCC technology, which, as most of us
know, are not receiving the appropriate funding today.
It is clear we must get serious about partnerships and strategies
that maximize Federal funding. We have got to look at how much money we
are going to raise and where can we get the biggest return on our
dollars. I do not think RPS does that.
It is critical that policymakers work in conjunction with the
scientific community to develop policy solutions that are in the best
interests of our State and Nation. For instance, one area requires
further research to capture greenhouse gases and sequester carbon
dioxide so we can continue to rely on coal for energy. We are the Saudi
Arabia of coal. We have 250 years of that supply. For the past few
years I have called for a ``Second Declaration of Independence,''
independence from foreign sources of energy, for our Nation to take
real action toward stemming our exorbitantly high oil and natural gas
prices. Instead of considering them separately, we must harmonize our
energy, environment, and economic needs. This is an absolute must as we
consider any additional solutions to address global warming and other
environmental problems.
I have been here, this is my ninth year. I have been on the
Environment and Public Works Committee for 9 years. The problem in the
Senate and in the House is that the environmental, the energy, and the
economic people don't get together and put each other's shoes on and
figure out how we can work together to not only do a better job of
cleaning up the environment but utilizing the scarce dollars that are
available to make a difference.
This is an idea of the costs for Ohio. For example, American Electric
Power which, while I was Governor, put on a $650 million scrubber to
reduce their NOx and SOx, it is going to cost
them $3 billion between 2010 and 2030; First Energy, $3.18 billion to
$4.6 billion; Duke--this is also another provider of energy--$1.6
billion.
Let's take the Timken Company, the heart and soul of Camden, OH.
Their incremental cost of electricity under a 15-percent RPS will
exceed $20 million per year. They say:

We would not expect to recoup most of this increased cost
through price increases due to the global competition that we
face. Adoption of a mandatory RPS would clearly place The
Timken Company at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis our
foreign competitors, further eroding already slim profit
margins, and placing increasingly more jobs at risk.

We really ought to think about what we are doing here today. I don't
think what we want to do is advantage one area of the country by having
a cost increase in another part of the country and see a massive
shifting of resources. What we should do is look at the big picture and
figure out, as Senator Alexander pointed out, where do we put our money
where we can get the greatest return on our investment. I sincerely
believe this isn't the way to do it. Why would we want to do something
that will take a State such as Ohio, that is 80 percent reliant on
coal, and basically tell our utilities: Folks, you are going to have to
buy renewable energy from somebody else, pay the money out, and then
increase your rates, increase the rates to the folks in our inner
cities, when they could be taking that same money and putting more of
it into, for example, ISGC, the integrated gas-combined cycle. AEP is
going to build a 1,000-megawatt plant that is going to cost an enormous
amount of money. That is where they should be putting their money. They
should be putting their money into technology so that we can capture
carbon and sequester it.
Those are the things that would really make a difference. We are
fooling ourselves to say we are going to pass this legislation, and it
is going to make a big difference. I argue that it is going to make
little difference, and we could spend our money on things that are
going to make more of a difference in terms of cleaning up the
environment and dealing with some of the problems we all know this
country faces.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me start by thanking Senator
Bingaman, chairman of the committee, and Senator Domenici, ranking
member, for their fine work in producing the Energy bill before us
today. This energy legislation is important for our country as we move
toward energy independence. It is strong on alternative fuels. It is
strong on energy efficiency. Through the work of the Commerce
Committee, it has strong CAFE standards that will make all the
difference in the world in terms of how we use transportation fuels. It
also begins to do some important work with respect to carbon
sequestration. This is good legislation. The amendments and debates we
are having hopefully will build on that good legislation to get us to
the point where we can deliver to the President a good bill.
The President said in his State of the Union that one of the things
he wanted us to work on was moving forward to get rid of our addiction
to foreign oil. It is our hope that by working together in a bipartisan
fashion, as we did in the Energy Committee, we will be able to move
forward with respect to reaching that vision of energy independence for
the United States.
Let me say that I am here to speak in support of the Bingaman
proposal which I am cosponsoring on a renewable electricity standard
for the Nation. Let me at the outset say, we in the Congress, we in the
Nation should not be afraid. We should not be afraid of having a robust
renewable electrical standard, called an RES, a renewable portfolio
standard. There will be significant benefits that will help our
economies. It will help rural communities, it will help our
environment, if we have a robust national standard for renewable
electricity.
Some may say: How do you know that? I have heard my colleagues on the
other side of this amendment arguing that we don't need a national

[[Page S7612]]

standard because it will harm particular States or areas. There were
lots of people in my State in Colorado in 2004, just a short 2 years
ago, who made the same argument, that if we passed an RPS in my State
of Colorado in 2004, we would see a parade of horribles coming down the
pike.
Well, in 2004, the voters of Colorado decided on their own they were
going to take this measure to the voters of the State, and they passed
a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent by the year 2015. Because
Colorado's efforts have been so successful in the last 2 years, the
general assembly this year decided to double that standard to 20
percent by the year 2015. What had been the parade of horribles has not
been a parade of horribles in Colorado with respect to the RPS. It has
been a parade of celebration with respect to what we have been able to
accomplish on the ground.
Let me refer to two very significant economic facts and initiatives
within our State. One relates to wind. Two years ago, we had a very
small wind farm. It produced just a few megawatts of power. That was 2
years ago. Fast-forward to today. Because of the RPS, in Colorado,
today we now have four major wind farms in operation. We have two more
wind farms currently under construction. By the time we finish a year
from now, those wind farms will be producing 1,000 megawatts of
electricity.
Let's put that in a context so people can understand what we are
talking about with respect to 1,000 megawatts. One thousand megawatts
is about the equivalent of what we would produce with three coal-fired
powerplants. We were able to do that with the power of the wind in less
than 2 years.

What has been the benefit for Colorado? First and foremost, we are
contributing to the economy of our State because there were counties,
such as Weld, Logan and Prowers Counties that I refer to as forgotten
America because they have such limited opportunities out in those rural
communities that struggle on the vine every day. What has happened is
the RPS has injected a new economic vigor into those rural communities.
It is something about which the bankers, Democrats and Republicans
alike, are all very happy and excited. It is something about which the
school boards are very excited as well because it has brought
significant additional tax revenue into the coffers of some of the
rural school districts that suffer from not having enough money for
schools or for other public needs.
It also has made sure the people of Colorado understand that they are
contributing to the environmental security of our Nation. We are past
the debate in this Nation as to whether global warming is a reality.
The people in my State recognize they are making a significant
contribution to dealing with the issue of global warming because they
passed an RPS which has been a good RPS. In fact, it has been so good
in terms of acceptance by the people of Colorado, almost without a
whimper the requirement was doubled this year so that now we in
Colorado will be producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable
energy resources by the year 2015. That is not a long way away. We are
not talking 2050 or 2040. We are already at 2007. So within 8 years in
Colorado, we are going to be producing 20 percent of our energy from
renewable energy resources.
It is not just wind. I come from what is one of the most remote and
rural, poorest areas in the United States. The place is called the San
Luis Valley. It is a place where you have to struggle to make a living.
But it is a place also that is embracing the new ethic of renewable
energy, driven in large part by the renewable portfolio standard we
have in Colorado. Because of that RPS, the largest utility in our
State, Xcel, has broken ground on the largest solar utility generator
in the United States. That solar electrical utility farm, which is now
under construction in my native valley, is creating jobs for the people
of the valley. It is something we are very proud of.
With the advances being made in solar technology, there is no reason
in most of our States we would not be able to create a robust addition
for our electrical needs that actually is powered from the Sun.
Our experience in Colorado with respect to a renewable portfolio
standard, a renewable electrical standard, has been an absolutely
positive one. It was one that was approached with some trepidation a
few years ago. Today it is wholly embraced. I ask my colleagues in this
Chamber today to look at the RPS as something that, in fact, is a great
opportunity for the people of this country. If it worked for the State
of Colorado, it can also work for the rest of the Nation.
Let me also say that Colorado is not alone. If you look at a map of
the United States and look at all of the States that have passed a
renewable portfolio standard, they are from all parts of the country.
We now have at least 22 States that have adopted their own renewable
portfolio standard. So if we have 22 States plus the District of
Columbia that have already adopted a renewable portfolio standard, does
it not make sense, instead of having a patchwork of regulation from one
State to another, where you essentially have no RPS in one and a
different RPS in another, that we have a national standard? From my
point of view, it does.
The mechanism that has been set forth by Senator Bingaman in this
legislation will allow us to have that renewable portfolio standard and
also will allow us to take into account the different renewable
resources for electrical production that we have from State to State. I
am very hopeful that the RES before us will ultimately make it into
law.
Let me talk a little bit about the primary benefits I see from this
RES. The first is that it will bolster our renewable energy production
by creating certainty in renewable energy markets. With an RES,
producers, developers, and manufacturers know that there is a
guaranteed market for renewable electricity. They make long-term
investments in infrastructure and renewable energy development when
they know that certainty is there, and that is what this national RES
will provide. That added stability will result in a second major
benefit. That is an economic benefit both to consumers and to
communities that assist in production.
As I said, in my State consumers who have been participating in a
program that Xcel has provided on a voluntary wind energy program have
saved a total of $14 million in 2004 and in 2005. A 2005 study of the
Energy Information Administration found that a modest national
renewable energy standard of only 10 percent--only talking in 2005
about 10 percent by 2020--would result in savings to consumers of $22.6
billion.
We are going to do better than that here because our RES we are
proposing is 15 percent. Meanwhile, communities particularly rural
communities, thrive with new jobs, with new infrastructure, and a new
economy that is built on invention and investment.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that a national renewable
energy standard of 20 percent by 2020--we are not proposing that we be
that ambitious in this particular amendment--that a 20-percent by 2020
standard would spur $72.6 billion in new capital investment, with $16
billion in income to America's farmers and ranchers, and $5 billion in
new local tax revenues for rural communities. That is a terrific shot
in the arm for parts of our country that are dying for these kinds of
opportunities.
Thirdly, a national renewable electricity standard will enhance our
environmental security and take an important step toward reducing our
carbon emissions. If we were to pass a renewable electricity standard
of 20 percent by 2020, we would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by
more than 400 million tons a year--that is more than 400 million tons a
year. That would be equal to taking 71 million cars off of America's
roads or the planting of 104 million trees in our country.
We know an RES by itself will not solve the global warming problem,
but it is, in fact, a significant step in the right direction.
I want to, once again, thank Chairman Bingaman for his leadership on
this amendment. It is an important addition to this bill and a leap
ahead for our Nation's energy security.
It is, at the end of the day, an effort for all of us to embrace a
clean energy economy for the 21st century. A clean energy economy for
the 21st century is one of the imperative issues that we can grasp on,
we can discover on, on a

[[Page S7613]]

bipartisan basis, for America, and we can do it now in 2007. It is not
something for which we have to wait until 2010 or 2011. It is something
we can do now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed just for
a few minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota for her courtesy in allowing me to go forward.

White House Subpoenas

Mr. President, the reason I speak on this sort of stage--instead of
doing a press conference and calling every one of you about it--today I
have issued, on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee, subpoenas to
the White House in connection with our investigation into the firing of
U.S. attorneys around the country. I have spoken recently with Mr.
Fielding, the White House Counsel, and I have consulted with the
ranking Republican on the committee. Regrettably, to date, the White
House has not produced a single document nor allowed White House staff
to testify, despite our repeated requests for voluntary cooperation
over the last several months.
The White House's stonewalling of the congressional investigative
committees continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation.
Those who bear the brunt of this approach are the American people,
those dedicated professionals at the Department of Justice who have
tried to remain committed to effective law enforcement in spite of the
untoward political influences from this administration, and, thirdly,
the public's confidence in our justice system. That is why I believe we
have to do everything we can to overcome the administration's
stonewalling and get all the facts out on the table--get the facts out
so Republican Senators and Democratic Senators and the American people
can see what the facts are.
Actually, the White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot
stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents
and witnesses--or saying they might let witnesses testify behind closed
doors, with no transcript, no oath, which neither Republicans nor
Democrats would ever accept--but then simultaneously claim that nothing
improper ever happened. The involvement of the White House's political
operation in these matters, including former Political Director Sara
Taylor and her boss Karl Rove has been confirmed by information
gathered by congressional committees.
Some may hope to thwart our constitutional oversight efforts by
locking the doors and closing the curtains and hiding things in their
desks, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth.
The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Conyers, is likewise
issuing and serving subpoenas today. He makes the point that these
subpoenas are not merely requests for information; they are lawful
demands on behalf of the American people through their elected
representatives in Congress.
So we will issue and serve three subpoenas today--two seeking the
documents and testimony of Sara M. Taylor, the former Deputy Assistant
to the President and Director of Political Affairs, and another seeking
White House documents relevant to the panel's ongoing investigation.
Incidentally, Senator Specter and I had written to Ms. Taylor asking
for voluntary cooperation. We did this more than 2 months ago, on April
11, so there would not be any need for a subpoena. We asked for
voluntary cooperation. Well, that did not go very far.

As I noted in my cover letter to the new White House Counsel, Mr.
Fielding, I have sent him a half dozen previous letters during the past
3 months seeking voluntary cooperation from the White House with the
Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation into the mass firings and
replacements of U.S. attorneys and politicization at the Department of
Justice.
It is now clear from the evidence gathered by the investigating
committees that White House officials played a significant role in
originating, developing, coordinating, and implementing the plan and
the Justice Department's response to congressional inquiries about it.
Yet to date the White House has not produced a single document or
allowed even one White House official involved in these matters to be
interviewed.
It has been 2\1/2\ months since Republican and Democratic members of
the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected their take-it-or-leave-it offer
of off-the-record, backroom interviews with no followup. We said it was
unacceptable.
We have offered to try to work these things out. They have stayed the
course: Take it or leave it. Take it or leave it: a backroom, closed-
door meeting, with no transcript and no oath. Mr. President, I will
leave that one quickly. As I told the White House Counsel, I would be
subject to legislative malpractice if I were to ever accept on the part
of the Senate such an offer.
Ironically, Mr. Rove and the President have had no reluctance to
comment publicly that there was, in their view, no wrongdoing and
nothing improper. But they won't even tell us what they base that on.
They cannot have it both ways. Their continuous stonewalling leads to
the obvious conclusion they have something to hide. Because they
continue their refusal, I issued these subpoenas.
So we formally demanded--this is what it is--production of documents
in the possession, custody, or control of the White House related to
the committee's investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial
independence and the Department of Justice's politicization of the
hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys.
The documents compelled by the subpoena include documents related to
the administration's evaluation of and decision to dismiss former U.S.
attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. ``Bud'' Cummins, John McKay, Carol Lam,
Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves,
or any other U.S. attorney dismissed or considered for dismissal since
President Bush's reelection, the implementation of the dismissal and
replacement of the dismissed U.S. attorneys, and the selection,
discussion, and evaluation of possible replacements. They have yet to
be explained.
Among these documents are documents related to the involvement of
Karl Rove, Harriet E. Miers, William Kelley, J. Scott Jennings, Sara M.
Taylor, or any other current or former White House employees or
officials involved in the firings and replacements, as well as
documents related to the testimony of Justice Department officials to
Congress regarding this matter--part of the reason being: What did they
tell the Justice Department to say or, even more importantly, not to
say. Of course these would include the purportedly ``lost'' Karl Rove
e-mails that should have been retrieved by now and should now be
produced without further delay.
The distinguished Presiding Officer may remember when I said--at the
time when they said those were all lost and erased--Well, you could not
erase them. Of course they could be found. The White House dismissively
said to we computer experts up here: Of course they had been lost. Gee
whiz. Golly. Guess what. They seem to have been in a backup hard
drive--like the e-mails for all of us are, like everybody knew they
were, and notwithstanding the condescending, misleading statements of
the White House Press Secretary's Office. Of course the e-mails were
there.
I am just disappointed that now that it turns out they were not lost
like they claimed they were we still do not have them. We have to go to
subpoenas to obtain information needed by the committee to fulfill our
oversight responsibilities regarding the firings and the erosion of
independence at the Justice Department--probably the greatest crime
here. But the evidence so far--that White House officials were deeply
involved--leaves me no choice, in light of the administration's lack of
voluntary cooperation.
Mr. President, I thank, again, the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota for yielding. I know she was to go first. I yield the floor
to the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the man who
probably understands the necessity of subpoenas better than anybody
else in this body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from
Pennsylvania.

[[Page S7614]]

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Minnesota
for yielding. I know she yielded to Senator Leahy; and Senator Leahy,
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has made some comments which I
think I ought to supplement.
I believe when you have the subpoena issued for Ms. Sara Taylor, the
White House staff, it is appropriate at this time. A letter was sent to
Ms. Taylor on April 11 requesting testimony and documents, and there
has been no response.
It is my hope, as I have said at Judiciary Committee meetings,
executive sessions, that we will yet be able to work this out with Ms.
Taylor on a cooperative basis without any further controversy.
The enforcement mechanism of the subpoenas is very lengthy. The last
time it was undertaken, with the conflict between congressional
oversight and the White House, it took more than 2 years. That would
take us into 2009, after the election of a new President.
I think with respect to the subpoena to former White House Counsel
Harriet Miers, there again the request went out some time ago, and they
have not been forthcoming, and I think it is appropriate to proceed--
again, in a manner which looks toward conciliation, looks toward
resolving it without controversy.
I talked again today to White House Counsel Fred Fielding on the
question as to how we are going to obtain testimony from executive
branch officials who are high up in the White House, and the President
made a televised statement some time ago setting forth the acceptable
parameters from the President's point of view. After reflecting on it
and talking to members of the Judiciary Committee--both Democrats and
Republicans--I think that most of what the President wants can be
accommodated.
He does not want his officials, his employees, put under oath. My
preference would be to have an oath, but I would not insist on that
because the testimony would be subject to prosecution under the False
Statements Act, 18 United States Code 1001.
He does not want to have the sessions public. My preference again
would be to have them public, but I would not insist upon that.
He does not want to have the officials come before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, then before the House Judiciary Committee, and I
think we can accommodate that, having members of both committees--both
Democrats and Republicans--in a manageable group to obtain the
necessary information.
The one point where I think it is indispensable is that we obtain a
transcript. If you don't have a transcript, people walk out of the room
in perfectly good faith and have different versions as to what
happened. I think it is in the interest of all sides to have a
transcript. It is in the interest of congressional oversight so we have
it precise, so we can pursue questions and have them in black and white
and know where we stand. It is important for the people whose
depositions are being taken that it be written down, too, so nobody can
say they said something they didn't say because we know what they said
when it is transcribed. I am pleased to say to the distinguished
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Rhode Island who is nodding in the
affirmative, as a former U.S. attorney, attorney general, and one who
has had experience with transcripts, as has the chairman and I, it
needs to be written down.

I hope we can accommodate the competing interests here. There is no
doubt there are very important issues involved: The request for
resignations from the U.S. attorneys and the reasons why they were
replaced. There is no doubt the President has the authority to remove
all 93 U.S. attorneys without giving any reason. President Clinton did
that at the beginning of his term in 1993. I think it is equally clear
the President can't replace people for bad reasons. There is a
suggestion of pressure on the U.S. attorney from San Diego that she was
going after some of former Congressman Cunningham's associates, who is
serving an 8-year sentence, and that pressure was put on some other
U.S. attorney in some other direction for an improper purpose, and that
is an appropriate question for congressional oversight. We had a
lengthy and heated debate earlier this week on the resolution to say
the Senate has no confidence in the Attorney General. That was defeated
on procedural grounds.
But the issue of the operation of the Department of Justice is not
yet finished. This inquiry is very important. Next to the Department of
Defense, which defends the homeland and is our military defense, next
in line is the Department of Justice, which deals with terrorism, deals
with drugs, deals with violent crime and that department has to
function in the interests of the American people. And getting to the
bottom of this investigation is important for that purpose. So I wanted
to appear to make these brief comments, following the statement by the
distinguished Chairman. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, last Wednesday I came to the floor and
introduced legislation that would place the country on a path toward a
better energy future by requiring that 25 percent of our Nation's
energy, our Nation's electricity, come from renewable sources. This
made sense to me because this is what we do in Minnesota. As my
colleagues know, all good things come from Minnesota.
But today, Senator Bingaman has introduced an amendment requiring
that 15 percent of our Nation's electricity come from renewable
sources. I also support Senator Bingaman, and I am a cosponsor of
Senator Bingaman's 15 percent standard by 2020. That is because I
believe our country is headed down the wrong energy path, and we need
to take it in a new direction.
I can't tell my colleagues the number of times I hear from businesses
in my State, including manufacturing companies, about the high costs
and how they want to get some new possibilities and a new direction
with where their energy comes from. The money issue is one thing you
hear about from individual consumers, that you hear about from
businesses, but there is also the effect it is having on the
environment. Both the Presiding Officer and I serve on the Environment
Committee. We have heard countless accounts from scientists from all
over this country, from major CEOs of large businesses in this country,
about the change we are seeing in our climate and about the chance we
have to do something about it.
So I have to tell my colleagues, in my State I also hear from regular
people. I hear from hunters who see a change in the wetlands. I hear
from people on Leech Lake who say it takes a month later, a month
longer than usual to put their fish house out. I hear from kids wearing
little penguin buttons. I hear from city council members in
Lanesborough who are changing out their light bulbs. I hear from
venture capitalists in Minneapolis who want to get some standards in
place so they can invest in this new green technology. I hear from
people up in Grand Marais, MN, where I visited 2 weeks ago. This area
has had tragic fires. When we saw those fires going on in California,
they were also raging in northern Minnesota and up into Canada. Nearly
200 buildings were downed by this fire in our State--some of them
beautiful homes--homes that have been in families for years and years
and years, rustic cabins and businesses. Of course, the people who
gathered to meet with me had immediate problems. There was no phone
service to many of these places. Many of the lodges that rely on
tourism were having trouble even taking orders. But in the middle of
all this, with these scarred forests surrounding us, there were people
who wanted to talk about climate change, including ski resort owners
who had seen a dramatic drop in their profits when we have had less
snow and people who were very concerned about their businesses and the
future of this country.
So this standard is not only important for investing in our country
for more jobs and putting a renewable standard in place that will spur
investment, it is also important for our country's future and our
environment.
A strong renewable energy standard is good policy. Let's look at
where our electricity comes from. Currently, we have 52 percent coming
from coal. We have 15 percent coming from natural gas. We have 3
percent from petroleum,

[[Page S7615]]

20 percent from nuclear, 7 percent from hydro, and only 3 percent from
renewables. Compare this with countries such as Denmark, where they are
seeing something akin to 50 percent coming from renewables, and Great
Britain and other countries. What a strong renewable standard can do is
it can diversify our electricity sources so we are not so reliant on
energy sources such as natural gas that are vulnerable to periodic
shortages or other supply interruptions. A strong renewable energy
standard can also save the American consumer money. According to
studies, a 15-percent renewable electricity standard will save
consumers a total of $16.4 billion on their energy bills by the year
2030.

Let's look at some of the savings. What are we going to get if we put
in a national renewable electricity standard of the kind I have talked
about, which is up to 25 percent, and the kind that Senator Bingaman
and I have sponsored here today at 15 percent by 2020? We will get
355,000 new jobs, nearly twice as many as generating electricity from
fossil fuels; economic development, $72.6 billion in new capital
investment; $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural
landowners; $5 billion in new local tax revenues; consumer savings of
$49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills; a healthier
environment with reductions in global warming, as I discussed, equal to
taking nearly 71 million cars off the road; less air pollution, less
damage to land, and better use of our water.
I have seen it firsthand in my State, in southwestern Minnesota,
where there are wind turbines coming up everywhere. They have even
opened a bed and breakfast near Pipestone, MN, because they are so
excited about these wind turbines. If you were looking for a romantic
weekend and time away from your State of Rhode Island, you could
actually go down there and stay overnight and wake up in the morning
and look at a wind turbine. That is the package.
But the point is this: The people in that area are so excited about
the development and the potential manufacturing that is going on, that
they want people to come and see it. We also have individual homeowners
and school districts that are trying to figure out how they can put a
wind turbine up so they can bring that kind of homegrown renewable
energy into their places of business and into their homes.
A strong renewable energy standard is going to save us money, and it
is going to cause this kind of investment. It is going to open the door
to a new electricity industry that will bring thousands of jobs and
billions of dollars into our economy.
Over the last 20 years, America's renewable energy industry, and the
wind industry in particular, has achieved significant technological
advancements. The industries for solar and wind and biomass are
expanding at rates exceeding 30 percent annually. Now, some of this is
because the States--and I will talk about this in a minute--have shown
foresight and have been ahead of the game, but we need to do more. The
question is: Does the United States want to be a leader in creating new
green technologies in the new green industries of the future, or are we
going to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by?
Tom Friedman, who actually comes from Minnesota, wrote a cover story
for the New York Times Magazine about a month ago about the power of
green. He talked about a new green deal--not like the old New Deal; not
necessarily the kind of money we are talking about there, but that the
Government's role should be to set those standards and industry will
meet them. The Government's role should be to seed new research and to
promote green technology and direct us that way; otherwise, if we don't
do that, if we don't have the kind of 15 percent standard we are
talking about on a national level, I can tell you what is going to
happen because we are already seeing it happen. We no longer are the
world leader in two important clean energy fields. We rank third in
wind power production behind Denmark and Spain. We are third in
photovoltaic power installed behind Germany and Japan. Ironically,
these countries have surpassed us using our own technology. They used
the technology we developed in our country. We came up with the right
ideas, but we didn't capitalize on the innovations with adequate
policies to spur deployment. The Federal Government, in fact, has been
complacent. They have been watching the opportunities go by.
Now, this is not so of the States. I know Senator Salazar borrowed my
chart about an hour ago, but I like this chart because it shows the
progress that is going on across the country. You can see it is not
limited to one area. It is not limited. We have heard about what
California has done and how aggressive they are. I am always telling
the Senators from California it is great what you have done, but it is
important to talk about what is going on in the rest of the country.
You look at what is happening in my own State of Minnesota: 27.4
percent mandated renewable standards by 2025. We have what is happening
in New Hampshire: A 23.8 standard by 2025. We have Maine, which
actually has a standard and goal, as opposed to a standard, of 30
percent by 2000; Virginia, 12 percent by 2022; We have New Jersey,
which has been a leader in this area, at 22.5 percent by 2020. If you
go all the way out to Montana, you see a 15-percent standard by 2015;
if you go up to Washington, 15 percent by 2020. If these courageous
States are willing to do this with no direction from the Federal
Government, I think it is time for us to act.
It was Louis Brandeis, the judge, who once in one of his opinions
wrote about how the States are the laboratories of democracy. That is
what you see going on here. The States are the laboratories of
democracy, and you talk about how one courageous State can make a
decision to set policy and can be used as a laboratory for the rest of
the country. I don't think he ever meant, when he wrote that opinion,
that that should mean inaction by the Federal Government. In fact, it
should be the opposite. The States experiment, the States show, such as
our State has, you can put high standards in place, you can start
developing these industries, and it is a good thing.
It revitalizes our rural economy. It is cleaner for our environment.
It allows us to invest in new jobs. Now it is time--we have seen the
story across the country--for the Federal Government to act.
What I want to see when we vote on Senator Bingaman's amendment is a
bipartisan effort, bipartisan support for this kind of amendment.
Let me tell you what happened in our State. In February, the
Minnesota Legislature--it is a Democratic State senate, Republican
statehouse--passed nearly unanimously this 2025 standard. In fact, for
Xcel Energy, our biggest energy company, it is 30 percent. They passed
that nearly unanimously, a Democratic house, a Democratic senate, with
a number of Republicans, a majority voting for it, and then they sent
it to a Republican Governor, and that Republican Governor signed it
into law. It is considered the Nation's most aggressive standard for
promoting renewable energy in electricity production. I think
Minnesota's aggressive standard is a good example, but I also think the
bipartisan way in which it was set should be a model for Federal
action.
The courage we are seeing in States such as my own should be matched
by the courage in Washington. We should be prepared to act on a
national level, especially when the States and local communities are
showing us the way.
There is now an opportunity for the Federal Government to act, and
this Energy bill has many good things in it. I love the standards for
appliances, the standards for buildings. I like to call it ``building a
fridge to the 21st century.'' But I also would like to see some even
bolder action. That bolder action comes in many forms, but one that is
most important to me is putting this renewable standard into law.
We have everything we need. We just need to act. We have the
scientific know-how in this country. In my State, we are so proud of
the work that is going on at the University of Minnesota and the State
colleges across the State. It is going on everywhere.
We have the fields to grow the energy that will keep our Nation
moving, and we have the wind to propel our economy forward. The wind is
at our back, and it is time for us to move. It is time to act. The only
thing that is holding us back is complacency.

[[Page S7616]]

In my office in the lobby, I have a picture. It is a picture of
someone holding a world in their hands. The words on it read: The angel
shrugged, and she placed the world in the palm of our hand. She said if
we fail this time, it is a failure of imagination.
We in the Senate in the next 2 weeks have the opportunity to show
this country and the world that we have the imagination for a better
world and we have the imagination that we can start having our energy
and our electricity produced by the wind and the sun, that we have the
imagination that we can have a better environment.
This is the time to act, and I urge my colleagues to support the 15-
percent standard for renewable energy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to hear
the comments of my friend and colleague from Minnesota. She speaks of
wind in her State. It is fair to say that in certain parts of my fair
State of Alaska, we, too, have incredible winds that sometimes we feel
could power the entire Nation with the amount of wind energy we have.
In fact, sometimes the winds are too strong and we cannot keep wind
generation units up because the force of the winds is that intense. But
I do recognize that all States are not created equal in terms of their
ability to produce forms of renewable energy, such as wind.
I am a very strong supporter of renewable energy, really all forms of
renewable energy. Whether it is geothermal, ocean energy, wind, solar,
biofuels, all aspects of renewable are so important. I want to explain
this afternoon why I am supporting the clean portfolio standard over
the renewable portfolio standard and actually think that the clean
standard is the best for the environment and for the public.
Both of these proposals will encourage States to promote the most
forms possible of renewable energies, whether they be solar, wind,
geothermal, ocean, biomass. All are covered equally under both of the
proposals.
For my purposes and where I am really honing in is in the area of
hydropower, and this is one key area where the different proposals part
company.
Under the renewable portfolio standard, new hydropower does not count
toward meeting the production mandate, only incremental power. The
addition of turbines to existing facilities can count.
Under the clean portfolio standard, new hydropower, not the power
from dams that span the rivers, but all other forms of new hydropower,
such as power from small hydro projects and from lake taps, can count
toward that renewable requirement. That is a very important difference.
In my State of Alaska, we tap the mountain lakes, those that have few
fish. There is a hole that is literally drilled in the bottom. It runs
the water into turbines, and this produces the power. About 40 percent
of the power in urban Alaska comes from projects such as these. They
have zero environmental impact. They do not affect the stream flows.
They do not affect the fish runs.
So I have to look at the two different proposals and ask: How are we
treating hydro? How are we treating runs of the rivers, the lake taps?
How is that included in the proposals? I believe ignoring the potential
for hydropower where it can be done without emissions and without any
other environmental impact is a mistake and a needless mistake.
The clean portfolio standard also allows utilities to count not just
the incremental nuclear power and the power from the next generation of
nuclear, but it also allows you to count the power saved by energy
efficiency programs. This is an area we all want to encourage. We want
to encourage energy conservation and efficiency programs. This, I think
we will all agree, is a justifiable addition to the bill.
Some will argue that the amendment waters down Congress's commitment
to push renewable energy. I am just not buying into that argument. That
is not the case. By increasing the standard to 20 percent from the 15
percent starting in the year 2020, we have offset any reduction in
effort, but we have made the provisions more fair to all the States. As
I mentioned, all States are not equal in their ability to produce
renewable energy.

All State utilities can sponsor energy efficiency legislation. Most
States are able to move toward nuclear power. Most States have some
access to hydropower. Most States can benefit from landfill gases or
from some forms of biomass. And all States can utilize fuel cells to
reach a clean energy standard. But not all States have consistent wind
patterns, have cloudless energy potential or good geothermal or ocean
options.
I look at the State of Alaska, with our geography and with our
considerable landmass, considerable coastline, and say we are blessed
with incredible resources when it comes to renewable resources. We have
incredible geothermal potential. We have strings of volcanoes up the
Aleutian chain and even in our south central area. With a coastline the
size we have in Alaska, we have potential from ocean energy that is
unequaled anywhere else in the United States. We have, as I mentioned,
incredible wind potential, and we are seeing that particularly in our
coastal communities where we are able to put wind-generating units,
offsetting the cost of diesel, which is what currently powers far too
many of our communities in the State of Alaska.
My point is, we are blessed in Alaska with renewable energy options.
Those in perhaps the southeastern part of the United States have
already pointed out some of the very real concerns they have with a
renewable standard. In the Pacific Northwest, if we are not counting
any new hydro development, it makes one wonder: How will they be able
to achieve the standards that have been set forth in a renewable
portfolio standard if we cannot count the hydro?
I am concerned that we will move toward a one-size-fits-all solution.
It is something we are wise to avoid; otherwise, we have electricity
consumers in many of the States that will be better off by not having a
Federal mandate at all but continuing under this patchwork arrangement
of State renewable portfolio standards that are already being
formulated. For them, it may be better to stick with that patchwork
program than a Federal approach.
I have heard from the American Wind Power Association that the
provision in this amendment that allows the Secretary to certify other
clean energy sources to qualify in the future somehow creates a
loophole that will harm renewable energy progress. But given the
standards that are contained in the amendment, I don't believe this is
a problem. All the provision does is allow new technology to be
classified as renewable to benefit from the incentives this provision
creates without waiting for Congress to act, which we all know can be a
very lengthy process and one we really don't even want to count how
long that can be.
As a strong supporter of renewables and a really strong supporter of
wind energy, I am a huge proponent of wind energy. I am the sponsor in
this bill of a grant program to have the Federal Government help pay up
to 50 percent of the cost of renewable projects to help get the
renewables over the hump of the higher construction costs. I want to
work to encourage a rapid expansion of renewables. We need to increase
renewable use in this country tenfold. We are currently at 2 percent.
We need to get to 20 percent, and this is what is called for in the
clean portfolio standard. But I think we need to be careful about
narrowing the list of technologies so that we in the Government, we in
the Congress are not picking the winners and losers; that we allow wind
to compete with ocean energy, with geothermal energy; that we allow
hydropower to compete with the advantages of energy efficiency
programs.
We have to remember that if the Federal Government does not
generously finance renewable power projects, consumers will be paying
the bills for their construction through higher power rates. We have a
fine line to walk between promoting renewables and raising the cost of
electricity in some parts of this country too quickly and too high.
That program, if you will, will harm low-income families and the
competitiveness of the economy.
So while both proposals are admirable in very many respects--and I
commend the chairman of the Energy Committee for his hard work in this
area--I do believe the clean portfolio standard overall does a better
job and is more fair to States that have different abilities to meet
our renewable portfolio standard.

[[Page S7617]]

I urge my colleagues to study this, study it very carefully, and have
an open mind when they cast their vote on these provisions.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have made it a practice for the last--I
don't know how long it has been now, 12-plus years in the Senate--that
any time I see a major tax increase coming along, at least I want to
voice opposition, to get on record against it. That is what we are
talking about right now with the renewable portfolio standard that is
before us.
I support development of renewable energy resources, as do the
citizens of my State of Oklahoma. In fact, in 2006, Oklahoma was ranked
sixth in the Nation for wind energy capacity, surpassed only by Texas,
Minnesota, Iowa, California, and Washington State. Those are real
turbines lighting over 150,000 homes in Oklahoma without an RPS.
Let me emphasize, Oklahomans are developing wind energy without a
one-size-fits-all Federal mandate known as an RPS, renewable portfolio
standard.
Quite a number of years ago I spent a number of years as mayor of a
major American city. Its problems were not the ones you would think,
not crime in the streets, not prostitution. It was Federal mandates
that were not funded. This is exactly what we are looking at here.
Under this amendment, Oklahomans would pay an additional $6 billion
for their electricity. You might ask where would that money go? It
would go to perhaps the Federal Government to spend as it pleases, or
it would go to other States that are lucky enough to have the
particular energy sources that environmental groups decide today they
want.
How does this promote clean energy in Oklahoma? It does not. The
amendment cherry-picks technologies that have to be blessed by
environmental groups but ignores the real clean energy benefits of
nuclear power, hydro power, clean coal, and energy efficiency.
A kilowatt saved is a kilowatt earned. You can't get cleaner than
energy efficiency, but it doesn't comply with the amendment.
The RPS amendment is nothing more than a tax increase. It is a tax on
States that lack enough natural resources to meet the 15-percent
mandate. It is a tax on States that do not harness the particular
renewable technologies enshrined in this amendment, and it is a tax on
States that do not happen to have electricity transmission lines
located where the renewable resources are. The States, I believe, know
best on how to promote and manage the renewable resources unique to
their States without another Federal mandate.
We had this discussion this morning when I had my refinery amendment
up. I said there is this mentality in Washington that no decision is a
good decision unless that decision is made in Washington, DC. I think
that is what we are looking at here. This is an issue that should be
left to the States, not enacted in an RPS. The decision should not be
preempted, especially not when the cost is $6 billion.
I know a lot of people are thinking, in terms of the things we talk
about here in Washington, DC, $6 billion is not an astronomical amount.
But take a State with a population of the State of Oklahoma. A $6
billion tax increase is huge, particularly when you do not get anything
for it.
I hope we will oppose the amendment of Senator Bingaman on renewable
portfolio standards.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Bingaman
amendment relating to the renewable portfolio mandate. The Bingaman
amendment would impose a 15-percent portfolio requirement for a limited
number of so-called renewables by 2030. I oppose this amendment as I
have opposed such proposals in the past because it is an egregious
example of Federal command and control of the marketplace.
Renewables have been and will continue to be an important part of our
energy mix. Hydropower, solar, geothermal, wind, municipal solid waste
all make substantial contributions to our energy needs. These and the
other power types--nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas--succeed in the
market because they are cost-effective, not because the Federal
Government has required them to be bought.
Congress has long supported renewable energy. That is one thing--
Federal mandates are another. Fundamentally, I oppose Federal command
and control of the marketplace. I have no doubt that any requirement
that a particular percentage of electricity generation by renewables
can be met. During World War II, through a tremendous expenditure of
money and effort, we developed nuclear weapons when no one thought it
was possible. During the sixties, no one thought it was possible to
send a man to the Moon, but we did. A renewable portfolio mandate of
any percent, be it 15 percent as proposed here or even 50 percent, is
achievable--whether it be through actual generation of energy or
through the purchase of credits from the Federal Government. But at
what cost? What cost in terms of electricity rates to be paid by
American consumers, estimated at over $100 billion by 2030, at what
cost in terms of stifling technological advancement into other
alternative sources of energy? Over the past 20 years, renewable
technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, not because we ordered
industry to generate more renewable power but because we gave
incentives to generate new renewables. The Bingaman approach turns that
on its head. Under the Bingaman amendment, renewable producers will
gravitate to low cost, existing renewable sources. They will have no
incentive to innovate and bring their costs down. The power generated
will be sold almost regardless of cost.
The Bingaman amendment is nothing more than the Government deciding
which type of energy is politically in favor and which type is
politically out of favor. Right now, the wind industry is the big
political winner. It is lower in cost than most renewables, currently
gobbles up 95 percent of available tax credit, and has the largest
lobby for the Bingaman amendment.
Wind-generated power has significant environmental problems we need
to address. First, wind turbines take up lots of space to generate any
significant amount of energy, making them poor for urban environments
and problematic for landscape viewsheds, especially near our Nation's
national parks. They are also dangerous for wildlife. The National
Academy of Sciences stated in a report released this year that bats are
at considerable risk in the Southwestern United States and elsewhere,
where reliance on wind power has been growing. The wind-power turbines
generate sounds and, possibly, electromagnetic fields that lure the
acoustically sensitive creatures into the spinning blades. In addition,
local bird populations are also at risk. NAS also stated that local
bird populations, especially peregrine falcons and other raptors that
are attracted to windy areas where the generators are likely to exist,
are at risk and called for additional study. Raptors ``are lower in
abundance than many other bird species, have symbolic and emotional
value to many Americans, and are protected by federal and state laws.''
Besides these environmental impacts that must be looked at, the fact
is, wind just doesn't blow enough in most parts of the country for this
to be a viable source of energy for utilities across the country to
rely on.
I believe the kind of energy utilities use to generate electricity
should be based on the free market and consumer choice. If consumers
want to buy the kind of renewable energy mandated by the Bingaman
amendment, they are free to do so. Likewise, if they want to spend
their money on something else, they should be free to do that too.
Consumers are better able to decide what is in their own interest than
government. Why should a family of four struggling to meet its monthly
bills, to educate the kids, or help elderly parents be required--due to
Federal political correctness--to purchase high-priced energy instead
of meeting family obligations?

[[Page S7618]]

Over 20 States have already adopted their own renewable standards,
including my home State of Arizona. They each did so, presumably,
because those States decided it was in their citizens' best interests.
I have long believed that decisions affecting people's lives and
livelihoods should be made at levels of government that are closest to
the people, not by bureaucrats in Washington.
Let's look at the problems with a Federal renewable portfolio
mandate. First, as I said before, it picks certain politically favored
renewable energy types for special treatment, ignoring what States have
already decided to do on their own. The supporters of the amendment
will tell you that is not the case and that State programs can
continue, but that is only true if the State picked the same favorites
this amendment does. For instance, what about Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania took a look at its energy availability and determined that
coal to liquids made sense given its vast coal reserves. So coal to
liquids counts toward meeting its State RPS. Under the Bingaman
amendment, Pennsylvania would not be able to count this source toward
the Federal mandate, in effect gutting its State RPS program and
increasing the costs to consumers.
This example brings me to a basic problem with a Federal renewable
mandate. Some regions of the country are blessed with abundant
renewable resources, while others are not. The renewable mandate will
create stupendous transfers of wealth from renewable-poor States to
renewable-rich States. This means that consumers in New York City will
send their hard-earned dollars to wind generators in Minnesota. Think
about it. Consumers in New York City will pay for renewable electricity
they don't even get. That is not fair. If the purpose of the renewable
mandate is to lessen our dependence on foreign energy, there are better
ways: nuclear power, clean coal, and oil and gas from regions of the
United States that have been put off limits.
Let's face it, we have to have reliable sources of energy to meet the
ever increasing consumer demand for electricity. However, the primary
sources of energy that will be necessary to meet this mandate, wind and
solar, are intermittent sources. What happens when the wind doesn't
blow or the Sun doesn't shine? As we learned in economics 101, there is
no such thing as a free lunch; consumers will pay. They will pay for
the renewable energy and they will pay for the backup capacity that
will come from what we know are reliable sources of energy--nuclear,
coal and natural gas--to keep the lights on.
Mr. President, let me return to my fundamental concern about the
renewable mandate. The Bingaman amendment gives the Federal Government
the power to micromanage the marketplace with a one-size-fits-all
mandate; I want States to determine the best mix to meet their energy
needs and allow the free market to work. Thus, I will vote no on the
Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the renewable
portfolio standard offered by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. The
phrase ``renewable portfolio standard'' is a question most of us would
fail on the final exam. What does it mean? To try to put it in the most
simple terms, what we are trying to achieve here is the generation of
electricity through means which meet the needs of our families, our
businesses, and our economy, but create fewer environmental problems.
That is it--renewable fuel. By doing this, we are going to end up with
an environment which is kinder and cleaner for future generations.
Let's be very honest about this. Some of the people who oppose this
renewable portfolio standard do not believe we have an environmental
problem. They do not believe global warming exists. They do not believe
climate change is an issue. They do not believe pollution is a problem.
They can't understand why we are trying to change the way we generate
electricity. If that is your point of view, I can understand why you
would oppose the amendment of Senator Bingaman, because it seems like
much ado about nothing. Why would we be spending all this time, all
this effort, all this debate, and all this force in changing the way we
generate electricity if everything is fine the way it is?
I am not one of those persons. I believe we do face some serious
environmental challenges in the world today which, if they go
unresolved and unanswered, will change the Earth on which we live. In
fact, I think the process is underway. I do not think it is positive. I
think the evidence is abundant that as we become more industrial in the
world we live in, we have generated more smoke, more pollution, more
greenhouse gases, and it is changing the world in which we live.
Some people will say that is what we expect to hear from the
environmentalists, those extremists, those tree huggers. They have been
singing this song ever since Earth Day was first created. But you know
what is happening? There are some hard-headed businessmen coming to the
same conclusion. When I visit a major insurance company in my home
State of Illinois which has announced it is no longer going to write
property insurance on Gulf Coast States for fear of the violent storms
that are causing damage, it tells me this has gone beyond the musings
of some people in the green movement. It now has become an economic
reality, that the world is changing and in some respects not for the
better.
If we know that to be true, the obvious question is what will we do
about it? Listen to the debate on the floor, Senator after Senator
coming in saying this is too complicated. This is the big hand of
Government. It sounds like more taxes. It is going to force some
change, pick winners and losers, let's put this off to another day.
Let's get back to this next year or the year after.
I have heard that song before, over and over again. I do not believe
the American people sent us to Washington to put off addressing the
problems which we face in this Nation and this world today. We have to
tackle them. Some of them are controversial. Some of them may not be
popular back home. But we are sent here to make a decision. Even if the
decision is uncomfortable for some, we have to understand it is
important.
This renewable portfolio standard--a mouthful, if you will--requires
retail electric utilities to include 15 percent renewable energy in
their generation portfolios by the year 2020. We give a lot of
flexibility to the utilities about how to reach this goal. They can
generate this renewable electricity themselves--build wind farms or
solar facilities. Some people say maybe these wind farms won't work. I
did not know much about wind farms myself. What I read suggested my
home State of Illinois was just OK when it came to wind energy. But now
as I move around my State, I see big changes. In the Bloomington-Normal
area, central Illinois, the Twin Groves project, they are in the
process of building 240 wind turbines, huge turbines.
Sadly, they are made in Europe. I hope the day comes soon when more
are made in the United States. But they are coming here to generate,
with the wind blowing across the cornfields, electricity. It is a $700
million investment. It will generate enough electricity from these wind
turbines spread out among the cornfields to take care of the needs of
120,000 families in central Illinois. At the end of the day, there will
not be pollution added to the atmosphere. It will be natural wind power
turning the turbines, generating the electricity for the families and
businesses in that area. That is renewable electricity.
When it comes to solar power, I guess some people think that is a
vestige of some musings back in the 1950s and 1960s, but it is not.
Solar energy today is growing in its usage. You see it all over the
United States, little solar panels that are now collecting enough
energy to do little jobs. Then you take a look at the world scene and
look at a country such as Germany, not a country you might single out
as being a leader when it comes to solar energy. As a country, I doubt
it has much more sunshine than parts of the United States. But 20 years
ago the Germans made a commitment to solar energy and now that
commitment is paying off. By guaranteeing return on investment, more
and more solar panels are being installed and they are generating more
electrical power from the force and power of the Sun. We can do the
same.

[[Page S7619]]

How do you reach that goal, for more solar panels? You create
incentives. How do you create these incentives? The Bingaman amendment.
The Bingaman amendment says if you are an electrical power generating
company, we want 15 percent of the power you generate by the year 2020
to come from sources such as wind and solar panels.
What is that going to do? It is going to change the nature of the
solar power industry. There will be more companies, there will be more
compensation, there will be more research, there will be more
efficiency. When it is done, we will end up with the electricity we
need to lead the good lives we have without creating a mess in this
atmosphere that changes the climate and creates pollution, creates
problems such as asthma and lung disease. We will be moving in the
right direction instead of the wrong direction.
There will always be voices opposing this kind of change. It is too
much for some people. It is a vision of the world they cannot imagine.
It is addressing a problem which many of them do not even acknowledge
and that is why you run into resistance.
Some say it is a great idea, but America is not up to this challenge;
we can't generate the technology to meet this challenge. Come on. I
disagree. There has not been a time in our history when this Nation has
been challenged to achieve anything, from a man on the Moon to taming
the atom, that we have not risen to the challenge. We can do it here
and we must do it here. I believe in the creative genius of this
American system of government and this economy.
If you believe in it, a 15-percent renewable portfolio standard is
not a leap of faith. Of course, if the electric utilities do not have
their own generating capacity through solar panels or wind power or
other sources, they have an option under this to purchase credits from
other utilities that do.
This is a market-based mechanism that Senator Bingaman's amendment
addresses. It will drive competition into the renewable market without
picking winners. It is basically going to say: We have some goals we
have to meet; now who can do those best? Using the Energy Information
Administration's data, a national 15-percent renewable portfolio
standard would save American consumers $16 billion on their electric
and natural gas bills by the year 2030; commercial customers would save
$8 billion; industrial, $5 billion; residential, $3.3 billion.
A renewable portfolio standard will create jobs and income in rural
areas. I know this for a fact; that is where I come from. I come from
downstate Illinois, I have seen these wind farms, and they work. Each
large-scale wind turbine that goes on line generates $1.5 million in
economic activity and provides about $5,000 in lease payments per year
for 20 years or more to a farmer, rancher, or landowner.
If you drive south of Rockford, IL, and go through a little town
called Paw Paw, IL, that really was kind of disappearing on us, with a
little cafe or two and a little gas station, all of a sudden people are
paying attention. Why? Because they have about 20 wind turbines right
next to Paw Paw, IL.
I stopped my car and went over to the farmer who lives in the shadow
of these wind turbines. This man had a smile from ear to ear. He is
getting a monthly lease payment for them to put the wind turbines on
his property, and he has planted corn right next to these wind
turbines. He is getting the best of both worlds--the lease payment and
the production from his own land. He couldn't be prouder.
How did they end up putting those wind turbines in that tiny town? I
can tell you why they put them there. Because the mayor of the city of
Chicago, about 50 to 60 miles away, said to the utility company, the
electric company supplying electricity to the city government, that
they required--the city contract required a percentage of renewable
sources of electricity. So this electric power company decided they
needed to build some wind turbines. They built them, put them in Paw
Paw, IL. They are now feeding electricity into the grid instead of
burning coal or some other pollutant. They are trying to find a way to
generate electricity and not make the environmental situation worse. It
works. It is in smalltown America. It is in rural America, and it pays
off.
We have over 100 megawatts of wind energy in Illinois already. A
conservative estimate shows these turbines generate enough electricity
currently to power 22,500 homes; another 300 megawatts under
construction, and that would generate another 1,200 megawatts of
electricity. If all of those projects are completed, Illinois will be
generating enough electricity to power over 370,000 homes from this
wind energy.
Now, with a 15-percent renewable portfolio standard, America would
increase its total homegrown, clean, renewable power capacity 4\1/2\
times the present level. Senator Bingaman's amendment gives us 13 years
to reach that goal. It is not unrealistic. In fact, I think one might
argue we can do better. I hope we will.
Some States have already adopted standards far higher than what
Senator Bingaman is suggesting as a national standard. With the
abundance of renewable energy resources--the sun, the wind, the Earth
itself--the technical potential of major renewable technologies could
actually provide more than five times the electricity America needs.
There are limits of how much this potential can be used because of
competing land uses and costs, but there is more than enough to supply
15 percent, maybe even 20 percent.
Twenty-one States and the District of Colombia have already
established a renewable electricity standard. Illinois, for instance,
has a goal of 8 percent by 2013; New York, 24 percent by 2013;
Colorado, 16 percent by 2020.
By diversifying and decentralizing our energy infrastructure,
increased reliance on renewables provides environmental, fuel
diversity, national security, and economic development benefits for
everybody. Increasing renewable energy will reduce the risks to the
economy posed by an overreliance on a single source of new power
supply.
Additionally, the 15-percent national standard will reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by nearly 200 million metric tons per year by 2020--a
reduction of 7 percent below the business-as-usual level. That is the
equivalent--the Bingaman amendment is the equivalent of taking 32
million cars off the road.
Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration study found that a
20-percent renewable energy standard would reduce the cost to consumers
of meeting four pollutant reductions from powerplants by $4.5 billion
in 2010 and $31 billion in 2020, compared to meeting the emission
reductions without a renewable standard.
I support this amendment. I believe that diversifying our electricity
portfolio and encouraging the development of clean, renewable resources
provides economic and environmental benefits to our country.
I would say to those who are engaged in this debate: Do not bemoan
global warming, do not cry about climate change, do not say you really
are concerned about pollution if you cannot accept the challenge of the
Bingaman amendment. In the next 13 years, we can meet this goal. It is
a challenge to America which we can meet and exceed. I am confident we
will. In the process, we will find cleaner ways to generate
electricity. We will create less pollution for the people who live in
this country. We will end up with new technologies, new business
opportunities that demonstrate the strength of this great country in
which we live. We can meet this goal. We should not shrink away from
it.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership in bringing
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know how much longer we are
going to be here this evening. I have not been able to confer with
Senator Bingaman on the timing. But I do not think we are going to be
here very late. I am not sure--I mean, I am sure we are not going to
vote on either amendment this evening. Nonetheless, there are a couple
of Senators--at least one standing there--who have not talked today and
who want to.
I am going talk for a little bit. First, I want to say to everybody--
including the previous immediate speaker who spoke about what kind of
people we are who think we have something better than Senator
Bingaman--I want to say

[[Page S7620]]

that there is no animus between Senator Bingaman and Pete Domenici. We
are friends, and it is almost difficult when people are saying: You do
so many things together; how can you come up on opposite sides of this?
Well, I just studied it as best I could, and I came up with what I
thought was a better idea. We have to do that. That is what we are
elected for. New Mexicans ought to be wondering what is cooking, but
they also ought to know that he has an idea and I have a different idea
built on it, and that is all there is to it. One or the other or
neither will get adopted, and we will have a good exchange here on the
floor to see what is really happening.
I do want to say that anybody who comes to the floor and talks about
how much richer we are going to get by having a plan like Senator
Bingaman's, the mandate for each State--I have not seen any estimate of
the cost to the people of either Senator Bingaman's approach or mine. I
have seen one of Senator Bingaman's plans--two of them, and none of
them say you are going to make money; both of them say it is going to
cost a lot of money to the taxpayers. One says a lot more than the
other. So I guess they really don't know. EIA recently studied the 15-
percent RPS mandate and found that it would cost $21 billion. But there
was another one that was already done before that by Global Energy
Decisions, and they said the cumulative cost to consumers would
represent $175 billion over the 20-year life. But in both cases, they
said it was going to cost money.
So I don't think anybody is going to get all excited about a
statement down here on the floor that, among the many things, having a
mandate that every State be the same, have 15 percent, nobody is going
to get excited and stand up and jump here on the floor of the Senate
with the idea that this is a good way for each State to make money. It
is going to cost them money. It may be a great idea, and it may be
worth it.
But I am here tonight to suggest--and I also want to say that the
last speaker on the Democratic side, the Senator from Illinois, spoke
also about some of us as if we do not believe in wind energy. Well, let
me say, there are not too many Senators who came to the party here in
Washington in helping wind energy. There are not too many who helped
them more or came to help them sooner than this Senator. The Senate and
the House have been helping solar energy to a fare-thee-well. We will
continue to do that. But I can say to the wind industry that I have
helped you all the way through, and now I note that you are out
campaigning as hard as you can for this Bingaman proposal, this
proposal by Senator Bingaman, this mandate. When you look at it and
think about it, it is a mandate that we use more and more wind energy.
That is what it is.
Now, I am not at all sure we are right in assuming that across this
land the fundamental way to get things going right is for every State
to march to the tune of getting to 15 percent of solar energy in their
base. I am not sure that is the best thing for the United States. I
think maybe when it was dreamt up, nobody thought there were any other
alternatives. But there are, and certainly we are making a mistake in
saying it is going to be the language of the Bingaman bill or nothing
else when we already see that means wind for the next 20 years or more.
What I tried to say in mine was maybe there is something good about
pushing States to change. But I provided alternatives for
diversification.
I say to my friend from Montana, I do not know where you stand on a
nuclear powerplant. If you have never had one in your State, you are
not going to get one because they are building them right where they
were. So States that had them are going to get nuclear powerplants
within the next 10 years, many of them right where the existing
powerplants are. All the Senator from New Mexico, the senior Senator,
said was that if that is done during the lifetime of this program and
you put in a new nuclear powerplant, you ought to get credit for that.
And the only way I could think of was to call my portfolio the clean
energy portfolio. That is what is it. And when you look at it that
way--and I added to the availability of what is allowed, I added
nuclear and I added some other things that I truly believe we should
pursue with vigor, and I raised the ceiling to 20 instead of 15. Now,
when you look at it, you get a chance of one or the other.
The distinguished Senator, my colleague from New Mexico, thought it
was kind of unexpected that this bill had an opt-out and seemed to make
of it as if that was something very bad. Look, we are open and sincere
about our bill having an opt-out. When a State meets the goal, we see
no reason for them to stay in. We think they ought to be able to get
out. There is nothing that is naturally ideological or philosophical
about it; it just seems there is no reason to keep them in. We have
seen no good suggested from keeping them in, and so we think when they
get through and meet their goal, they ought to be able, if they want
to, to get out. If, in fact, they are already tied together because of
electric lines and the like, they will not destroy all of that. There
will still be relationships of those types which were built, and the
ones that are needed will stay on. They will be there for a long time.
Let me say in closing that one from the other side of the aisle need
not talk about those on this side of the aisle, including this Senator,
as if we don't understand what wind energy is and we don't have enough
dreams about solar energy. We understand both of them. We have funded
both of them. We have put the identical tax benefit on both, the same
as we have put on everything else.
Last year when we did them all, we gave them all a 27.5-percent tax
credit, from nuclear power all the way down to solar, bio, and
everything else. They all got the same. We had already begun funding
wind power. Again, I say to the nuclear industry, but for the Congress
of the United States, the truth is, there would be no wind industry,
because without the tax credits we gave to make wind energy work, there
would be no wind energy except in a few places. I am not saying that in
any way negative. I am for it. I don't know how many more years we will
have to give them this tax credit to push them over the hump, but I am
going to do that because I believe they ought to move ahead. We are
learning both sides of the wind energy delivery system. We are
beginning to see some negative aspects to it. It was all positive at
one time. Some people are reporting negative ones. Out in the country
where we used to raise cattle, certainly anybody who leases their land
is delighted. They make a lot more money out of wind turbines than they
do trying to graze cattle. There is no doubt about that. Some of those
cattlemen are extremely happy because they don't look like the old
windmills. They are much different. But they pay well, so they are
glad. They joined up with wind energy, those who are lobbying for them.
They got all the property owners who are getting paid. They joined
them. That is good. I don't know who is lobbying for the rest of the
kinds of energy we want to put in so we have diversity.
All this is is a vote to distinguish the two. If you want diversity
of clean energy, vote for Domenici. If you want to be tied rigidly by a
Federal statute to what is almost all wind, vote for Bingaman. If you
want to vote for letting those who have already met their goal opt out
if they want, vote for Domenici. If you want to say they have to stay
in, somebody ought to tell us all why and how long they should stay in,
but if they are going to have to stay in and be rigidly construed as to
what counts, then obviously, you have to vote for the Bingaman
amendment.
We will have more discussion because everybody is getting well
informed and asking questions. I don't know what is going to happen
immediately after this. I assume the distinguished Senator from Montana
will speak. He was next. I will be leaving and apologize in advance
that I would not get to hear his speech about this bill. Maybe someday
we can meet back up there in Montana on the campaign trail and he can
talk about Montana and I can talk about I don't know what. He can tell
me what to talk about. But it is good to be here with him on the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind words. I
appreciate that. I look forward to having him in ``big sky'' country
anytime he wants.
I rise in strong support of the Bingaman amendment. Change is
difficult, if

[[Page S7621]]

you are young, if you are old, and oftentimes change is difficult in
politics. But what we are talking about is a national energy policy, a
long-term national energy policy that people and investors and
consumers can depend upon. Within this national energy policy, there is
an amendment called the Bingaman amendment that deals with the
renewable energy standard.
Interestingly enough, back in 2005, in a former life when I was in
the Montana Senate, I carried a bill for a renewable energy standard in
Montana that increased the renewable energy portfolio by 15 percent by
2015. Let me tell you what happened there. The important parts of this
bill were 8 percent by 2008 renewable energy in the portfolio, 10
percent by 2010, and 15 percent by 2015. That was the bill that we
carried in the Montana legislature. What happened was, the first year
they met the 8 percent. They will meet the 10 percent by next year, 2
years ahead of schedule. It is predicted by 2011, the independent-owned
utilities will meet the 15-percent threshold, 4 years early.
The fact is, this amendment is not cutting edge. This amendment is
what is right for the country, renewable energy. Everybody talks about
wind. Wind is an important part of renewable energy. But geothermal is
also another one. We haven't even tapped into the geothermal resources
we have, and they are massive. That is a renewable energy. Biomass,
small bore timber, wood waste products, crop byproducts to help power
generators, that is renewable energy. Landfill gas is another one we
haven't tapped into, a renewable energy. Electricity created by solar,
by the Sun, is a renewable energy. Biofuels such as camelina, such as
biodiesel, powering generators, that is renewable energy.
Make no mistake about it, when we talk about renewable energy, it is
not just wind--although wind is an important factor--it is many
different avenues we can go down that suit some parts of the country
better than others. By the way, back in 2005, when we were dead last in
wind energy production, that little renewable portfolio standard bill
we passed took Montana from 50th to 15th in the Nation in renewable
energy production. We see transmission lines being built in the State,
something that wasn't done before. We saw a whole lot of wind
generators go up in rural Montana, where jobs are most needed, where
economic development is most needed, where we develop a tax base for
our schools and counties in those areas that have seen depopulation,
giving these areas hope.
What we are talking about is a long-term policy that will invest in
America's consumers and this country. In the process, it will result in
a 50-percent increase in wind generation, a 300-percent increase in
biomass generation, a 500-percent increase in solar power, and it will
reduce emissions by some 222 million tons per year by 2030. It is
cheap. It is clean. It is a solution for the climate change issue. It
diversifies our production as far as where the energy is produced. It
diversifies the energy portfolio which is critically important.
If the Members of this body want to help move this country forward,
help make this country energy independent and address the global
warming issue, I recommend a ``yes'' vote on the Bingaman amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield to the Senator from Iowa for whatever time he
wishes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Alternative Minimum Tax

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again, as a leader of our party on
the Finance Committee, I come to the floor to discuss one of the
important tax issues that must come before Congress. That is the
alternative minimum tax. I am sure many have noticed that the
alternative minimum tax is frequently the subject of my many speeches.
They may be wondering how long I intend to keep talking about it. The
simple answer is I intend to keep talking about it--meaning the
alternative minimum tax--until this Congress actually takes some
action. Instead of taking action, this Congress has done absolutely
nothing. The problem continues to get worse for millions of Americans
who will be caught by the alternative minimum tax and are now being
caught. It is this ``now being caught'' that I wish to emphasize,
because when I speak about those now being caught by this alternative
minimum tax, I am referring to those families who make estimated tax
payments and who will be making their second payment for this quarter
this Friday.
Last year, 2006, 4 million families were hit by the alternative
minimum tax. This was 4 million too many. Of course, it is considerably
better than what we know for the year we are in right now, when 23
million Americans, mostly middle class, will be hit by the alternative
minimum tax. The reason we are experiencing this large increase this
year is that in each of the last 6 years, Congress has passed
legislation that temporarily increased the amount of income exempt from
the alternative minimum tax. These temporary exemption increases have
prevented millions of middle-class Americans from falling prey to the
alternative minimum tax until now. While I have always fought for these
temporary exemptions, I believe the alternative minimum tax ought to be
permanently repealed because it was never meant to hit the middle
class--and it is hitting the middle class--and because the class of
people it was intended to hit, the superwealthy, are finding ways of
getting around what was thought to be a bright-light idea in 1969. It
is hitting maybe a few hundred people, finding that superrich class not
even paying the tax. So it isn't serving the purpose it was intended to
serve, and it will hit middle-class Americans who were never intended
to be hit by it by 23 million this year.
One reason I have previously given for permanent repeal is it may be
difficult for Congress to revisit the alternative minimum tax on a
temporary basis every year, as we have for each of the last 6 years.
From January 1 of this year until now, when the second quarterly
payment is going to be made, proves me right, because nothing has been
done. So the new Congress has yet to undertake any meaningful action on
the alternative minimum tax. Several proposals have been tossed around
by the other body, meaning the House of Representatives. I have
discussed a few of them in my earlier speeches. I generally find these
proposals lacking but completely agree with my colleagues that
something needs to be done, at least I seem to agree. Despite
assurances that the alternative minimum relief is an important issue,
nothing has actually been put forward as a serious legislative
solution.
This chart I am going to put up reflects how the alternative minimum
tax has been handled by this Congress so far. It is kind of a smoke-
and-mirrors example that I use because we have had numerous proposals
talked about, but that is all, just talk. An academic discussion is not
in any way a serious substitute for real action this Congress ought to
take, as tomorrow people making their quarterly payments will attest
to.
I have also come to realize the best way to learn about new proposals
that deal with the alternative minimum tax is not to check for the new
legislation in the Congressional Record but to check the daily
newspaper. In the course of reading the Washington Post last Friday, I
came across another trial balloon--I emphasize ``trial balloon''--for a
new idea about the alternative minimum tax that was printed in the
business section of the newspaper. A lot of people were out of town on
Friday, so I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled
``Democrats Seek Formula to Blunt Alternative Minimum Tax'' be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, June 8, 2007]

Democrats Seek Formula To Blunt AMT; One Plan Would Impose Surtax of
4.3% on Richest Households

(By Lori Montgomery)

House Democrats looking to spare millions of middle-class
families from the expensive bite of the alternative minimum
tax are considering adding a surcharge of 4 percent or more
to the tax bills of the nation's wealthiest households.
Under one version of the proposal, about 1 million families
would be hit with a 4.3 percent surtax on income over
$500,000, which

[[Page S7622]]

would raise enough money to permit Congress to abolish the
alternative minimum tax for millions of households earning
less than $250,000 a year, according to Democratic aides and
others familiar with the plan.
Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the House
subcommittee with primary responsibility for the AMT, said
that option would also lower AMT bills for families making
$250,000 to $500,000. And it would pay for reductions under
the regular income tax for married couples, children and the
working poor.
All told, the proposal would lower taxes for as many as 90
million households, and Neal said it has broad support among
House leaders and Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and
Means Committee. ``Everybody's on board,'' he said.
Neal has yet to release details of the plan, however, and
others inside and outside the committee say major pieces of
it are still in flux. Some Democrats say Neal's plan
stretches the definition of the middle class too far,
providing AMT relief to too many wealthy households. They
argue that the cutoff for families to be spared from the AMT
should be lower, at $200,000, $150,000 or even $75,000.
``There is consensus to make sure that we have some
responsible tax policy that will also treat taxpayers fairly.
No one ever expected to be caught in the AMT making 75
grand,'' said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a Ways and
Means Committee member whose Los Angeles district is
populated by working poor. ``We're trying to come up with a
fix that does right by the great majority of Americans who
fall into the middle class.''
The debate has focused attention on a different surtax
proposed by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the
Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. That plan
would eliminate the AMT and replace it with a 4 percent
surcharge on income over $200,000 for families and $100,000
for singles, cutting taxes for 22 million households and
raising them for more than 3 million.
``Our plan is as simple as can be. And only 2 percent of
the whole population would have to pay it,'' said Leonard E.
Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center. The plan has the
added benefit of abolishing the complicated AMT at all income
levels, Burman said, an approach some lawmakers find
attractive.
On the other hand, fewer families' taxes would be cut,
diminishing the ability of Democrats to capitalize on the
plan politically. Since they took control of Congress in
January, Democrats have made repealing or scaling back the
AMT a top priority in hope of establishing tax-cutting
credentials and seizing the issue from Republicans for the
2008 campaign.
The alternative minimum tax is a parallel tax structure
created in 1969 to nab 155 super-rich tax filers who had been
able to wipe out their tax bills using loopholes and
deductions. Under AMT rules, taxpayers must calculate their
taxes twice--once using normal deductions and tax rates and
once using special AMT deductions and rates--and pay the
higher figure.
Because the AMT was not indexed for inflation, its reach
has expanded annually, delivering a significant tax increase
this spring to an estimated 4 million households. The AMT
would have spread even more rapidly after President Bush's
tax cuts reduced taxpayers' normal bills, but Congress
enacted yearly ``patches'' to restrain its growth. The most
recent patch expired in December, and unless Congress acts,
the tax is projected to strike more than 23 million
households next spring, many of them earning as little as
$50,000 a year.
House Democrats want legislation to spare those households
while also lowering the bills of many current AMT payers. But
they face numerous obstacles. In the Senate, Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) favors AMT repeal but
considers it too ambitious for this year. Baucus has said
another year-long patch is more likely.
In the House, some Democrats argue that more time is needed
to explain the issue to the public. The vast majority of
households have yet to pay the AMT and may not fully
appreciate the value of eliminating the tax, while the
wealthy are sure to feel the bite of a new surtax.
``I don't think there's enough of an understanding right
now that you've got this tidal tax wave about to hit
everybody,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a Ways and
Means Committee member who is also chairman of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee. ``From a political
perspective, we need to lay the groundwork.''
Before the Memorial Day break, Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said he hoped to announce
an AMT proposal as soon as Congress returned to Washington.
But his timetable has slipped to late June, Democratic aides
said, with the issue set to go before the full House sometime
in July.
Republicans generally oppose new taxes on the wealthy,
saying they disproportionately affect small businesses, but
are waiting to hear more before deciding whether to work with
Democrats or offer their own plan to abolish the AMT.
``House Democrats are going to have to find their sea legs
on this issue fast,'' said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), the
senior Republican on the Ways and Means tax subcommittee.
``Folks seem to be launching a lot of trial balloons, and
it's all very festive. But I don't have enough really to
react to yet.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. The concept underlying the alternative minimum tax
fixes highlighted in this article in the Washington Post is that the
alternative minimum tax could be abolished for families and individuals
making less than a given amount, and that the resulting revenue loss
would then be offset by a surtax--I want to emphasize: creating a new
tax, a surtax--on what the article refers to as our ``nation's
wealthiest households.''
Now, when they use the term the ``nation's wealthiest households,''
remember that was the whole concept of the alternative minimum tax in
the first place, in 1969, to tax a few thousand people with this tax,
and now they are not even being hit by it.
I will bet you, you could have this surtax, and you are still going
to find people who can hire the best lawyers to avoid paying that tax.
When I say ``avoid paying that tax,'' I mean avoid paying that tax in a
legal way, not in a way that is extralegal.
There are two basic proposals that have been laid out in that
Washington Post article. One of them, put forward by a member of the
Ways and Means Committee of the other body, would use a 4.3 percent
surtax on income over $500,000 to offset the elimination of the
alternative minimum tax for people earning less than $250,000 a year.
Now, it is estimated in the article that the surtax of 4.3 percent
would affect about 1 million families. It is also suggested the
alternative minimum tax bills would be decreased for families earning
between $250,000 and $500,000 yearly as part of this option. Now, I am
not sure how individuals would be treated in this plan.
Interestingly, immediately after the insistence that this option
enjoys a great deal of support, the article notes that details of the
plan have yet to be released. In the tax world, the devil, of course,
is in the details. So I am curious as to exactly what it is that is
enjoying this broad political support.
I will note that Ways and Means members have now denounced--now
denounced--this label they have applied to this 4.3 percent tax. They
have denied the ``surtax'' label.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to prove what I said, that
an article from Tax Notes Today be printed in the Record. That is a
publication dated June 13, 2007.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Tax Analysts, Tax Notes Today, June 13, 2007]

Ways and Means Democrats Take Offense to Notion of Surtax

Both House Ways and Means Committee Chair Charles B.
Rangel, D-N.Y., and committee member Richard E. Neal, D-Mass.
have said that while their plan to reform the alternative
minimum tax will likely be paid for by increasing taxes on
the wealthiest taxpayers, claims that they plan to create a
``surtax'' on the rich are unfounded.
``We have not agreed to any surtax,'' Rangel told reporters
June 12. ``But that might be another way to say that we're
going to adjust the rates to make up for what we don't raise
in terms of all the loopholes and knocking out credits and
looking for this $340 billion [in the tax gap].''
Neal also objected to the notion of a surtax in comments to
Tax Analysts on June 11, although he did not completely rule
out the possibility of using the proposal when his plan is
finally introduced.
``Obviously we're going to ask 1 million people to help pay
for tax relief for 92 million people,'' Neal said.
The idea of a surtax to pay for the Democrats' AMT reform
proposal was first proposed in a May 23 Urban-Brookings Tax
Policy Center paper in which Len Burman and Greg Leiserson
argued that the AMT should be repealed and replaced with a
surtax of 4 percent on adjusted gross incomes above $100,000
for singles and above $200,000 for married couples. That
change would lead to a more progressive tax system and would
be approximately revenue neutral over 10 years, they said.
(For the paper, see Doc 2007-12677 or 2007 TNT 102-36.)
Although the details of the Democratic AMT plan have not
been released, subsequent media reports have claimed that
Ways and Means Democrats plan to employ a surtax in their
effort to comply with House ``pay as you go'' budget rules.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged
that the idea of a surtax is under consideration by the Ways
and Means leaders, but said he was unwilling to ``prejudge''
whether Democrats in the chamber would ultimately support
that proposal. He added.that pay-go rules will require
lawmakers to make difficult choices when it comes to
offsetting the costs of any AMT reform legislation.
``What we want to do is fix the AMT permanently and fix it
in a way that does not add to the deficit,'' Hoyer said. ``We
adopted pay-go. We believe in pay-go.''

[[Page S7623]]

Rangel and Neal have also repeatedly said that they are
committed to complying with pay-go rules, and Rangel said all
revenue-raising options are on the table.
``There's nothing we're not considering in terms of raising
revenue to take care of the AMT and expand the child
credits,'' said Rangel.
Rangel's committee is expected to mark up its AMT reform
legislation in July, with House floor consideration likely to
come the same month. The committee's AMT plan is expected to
exempt from the AMT taxpayers earning less than $250,000.
Those earning above $500,000 would see an increase in their
AMT liability, while taxpayers earning between $250,000 and
$500,000 would see a reduced AMT liability. Several other
proposals to benefit lower-income taxpayers--including
expansion of the earned income and child tax credits--are
also expected to be part of that proposal.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now, the other plan comes from our friends at the Tax
Policy Center. In a similar plan to the one I just discussed, a 4-
percent surtax would be charged to individuals with adjusted gross
incomes above $100,000 and couples with incomes above $200,000. The
surtax would apply to income above those thresholds, and the thresholds
would be indexed for inflation after the year 2007. Under this option,
the alternative minimum tax would be completely repealed.
To give an idea of how many people would be hit by this surtax,
according to IRS statistics of income, in the year 2004--the latest
year we have information available for--there were 1,427,197 returns
filed by singles reporting adjusted gross incomes of at least $100,000.
In the same year, married persons filing jointly numbered 2,569,288
returns reporting adjusted gross incomes above $200,000.
Mr. President, 2004 is the most recent year we have for this data. I
realize the proposal hits singles with incomes greater then $100,000
and my numbers would include someone with an income exactly at that
amount, but we can see the Tax Policy Center's plan would impact
roughly 4 million singles and joint filers. It would likely impact more
than that, since my numbers do not include heads of households or other
categories, but you get the idea, I hope, that a lot of people would
still be impacted.
Now, as I said before, I am glad people are thinking about the
alternative minimum tax and realize it is a very real problem out there
and, specifically, this year, for 23 million middle-income-tax people
who would not otherwise be hit. But as I have discussed more and more
of these proposals with you, I have started to see them--as my chart
indicates--as more smoke and mirrors than actual, real legislative
proposals.
For one thing, legislation is not introduced in a newspaper--even
from the prestigious Washington Post. I keep hearing about proposal
after proposal, but nothing is actually done. Everyone seems to agree
something needs to be done and needs to be done quickly, but the
discussion does not go further from that point.
I spoke about the alternative minimum tax at the beginning of this
Congress, in January and when the first quarterly payment was due. I am
here now that the second quarterly payment is due. I bet I will be here
when the third quarterly payment comes due, saying largely the same
thing I am saying right now.
Aside from the fact that Congress does not seem to be under any
pressure to actually take action, all of the proposals I have discussed
here share the same major flaw in that they seek to offset any revenues
not collected through reform or repeal of the alternative minimum tax.
Notice I said ``not collected.'' And I did not use the word ``lost.''
This distinction is important for the simple reason that the revenues
we do not collect as a result of alternative minimum tax relief are not
lost because the alternative minimum tax collects revenues that were
never supposed to be collected in the first place.
Let me emphasize that. We cannot talk about lost revenue because we
are talking about 23 million people being hit by the alternative
minimum tax who were never supposed to be hit by the tax in the first
place. The alternative minimum tax collects revenues it was never
supposed to collect in the first place. Originally conceived as a
mechanism to ensure high-income taxpayers were not able to completely
eliminate their tax liability, the alternative minimum tax has failed.
In 2004, IRS Commissioner Everson told the Finance Committee the same
percentage of taxpayers continues to pay no Federal income tax. So the
alternative minimum tax is not even working for those who were supposed
to pay it. This was originally created in that first year with just 155
taxpayers in mind. Of the two plans I discussed earlier, the one that
would impact the lower number of filers would still hit about 1 million
families. See how 155 has grown to 1 million families?
Finally, if we offset revenues not collected as a result of
alternative minimum tax repeal or reform, total Federal revenues are
projected to push through the 30-year historical average and then keep
going.
This chart I have in the Chamber, which is reproduced from the
nonpartisan--I want to emphasize ``nonpartisan''--Congressional Budget
Office's publication called ``The Long-Term Budget Outlook,'' issued in
December 2005, illustrates--as you can see by the red mark--the
ballooning of Federal revenues.
The alternative minimum tax is a completely failed policy that is
projected to bring in future revenues it was never designed to
collect--and 23 million people being hit this year by it. A large share
of that 23 million people being hit by it now in the second quarterly
estimate they are filing is absolute proof of people being hurt by a
tax that was never supposed to hit them in the first place.
Of course, the best solution to this mess would be S. 55, and that is
called the Individual Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal Act of 2007. It is
a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Baucus, the chairman of the
Finance Committee, and this Senator, along with Senators Crapo, Kyl,
and Schumer. Senators Lautenberg, Roberts, and Smith have also later
signed on as cosponsors.
While permanent repeal without offsetting is the best option, we
absolutely must do something to protect taxpayers immediately, even if
it involves a temporary solution such as an increase in the exemption
amount. Of course, if we do not do that, we are going to be in the same
fix next year, and I will be making the same points at that particular
time.
This Friday, taxpayers making quarterly payments are going to once
again discover the alternative minimum tax is neither the subject of an
academic seminar nor a future problem we can put off dealing with. It
is the real world for those taxpayers filing Friday. They are being hit
by it. The alternative minimum tax is a real problem right now, and if
this Congress is serious about tax fairness, we need to stand up and
take action on the alternative minimum tax.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak briefly. I know my
colleague, Senator Sanders, is in the Chamber and wishes to speak. I
will not delay him long.
Let me make three brief points with regard to Senator Domenici's
second-degree amendment. What that amendment does is it does three
things to the renewable portfolio standard I have sent to the desk.
First of all, it starts out by saying: Since it is a requirement that
you produce a certain percent of the power you are selling from
renewable sources, let's take the base amount of power you are selling
and redefine it so it is smaller. It does that by saying: OK, if you
are selling any power you produce from nuclear sources, that does not
count in the base. So that automatically eliminates 20 percent of the
electricity being sold in this country today.
It says: OK, that way, you can suggest to people we have a 20-percent
goal here--whereas the one I have sent to the desk is only 15 percent.
But you do not need to be a mathematician to realize that after you
take the 20 percent out, and you take 20 percent of 80 percent, then
you are getting down to 16 percent. So, essentially, there is some
smoke and mirrors going on there.
Second, they say: OK, let's redefine how you can meet that
requirement, that 16 percent requirement, which is what it, in fact,
is. They say: You can meet it by using any of the renewable sources the
Bingaman amendment allows for; and that is, biomass, solar,

[[Page S7624]]

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

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

If the governor of a State submits to the Secretary a
notification that the State has in effect and is enforcing a
State portfolio standard that substantially contributes to
the overall goals of the Federal clean portfolio standard
under this section, then the State may elect not to
participate in the Federal program.

So, essentially, it is an invitation to States to adopt something and
then opt out, which I think undermines what we are trying to
accomplish.
Essentially, the way I read the amendment by my colleague, his
second-degree amendment would basically say: Let's put together this
complicated trading system to keep track of what utilities are doing,
but, in fact, it is designed essentially to mirror what they are
already planning to do at any rate. It doesn't require them to do
anything different.
The amendment I have sent to the desk does require them to do some
things differently. They are going to have to actually start either
producing energy from renewable sources, buying energy that has been
produced from renewable sources by someone else, buying credits from
someone else who has produced more renewable energy than they, in fact,
needed, or pay a compliance fee to the Secretary of Energy. So we have
some real teeth in our provision.
Now, it is not as strong as some Senators would like. I know my
colleague, who is about to speak, will speak to that issue, and I know
Senator Kerry from Massachusetts feels very strongly that this is not a
strong enough requirement that I have suggested. But I would suggest to
anyone who is studying these issues, the proposal I have made is a
vastly stronger proposal than the one that my colleague, Senator
Domenici, has proposed as an alternative.
I urge my colleagues to study both amendments tonight and perhaps
tomorrow we can get a vote on both amendments. Also, I know Senator
Kerry would like an opportunity to propose that we have even a stronger
standard. I think he should be given that opportunity.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three letters--one from
Constellation Energy, one from a large group of environmental
organizations, and then another one from a separate group of
environmental organizations--be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Constellation Energy,

Baltimore, MD, June 13, 2007.
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Hart
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: Constellation Energy is a Fortune
200 competitive energy company based in Baltimore, Maryland.
We are the nation's leading supplier of competitive
electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and
one of the largest wholesales power sellers. We serve
approximately 57,000 megawatts of load on a daily basis,
which is equal to the amount of electricity consumed by the
State of California daily. Additionally, we are one of the
largest renewable energy credit suppliers in the northeast.
We believe that it is time to enact a nationwide, market-
based renewable portfolio standard and we support your
efforts to amend S. 1419, with your RPS amendment mandating a
15% standard by 2020. As you know, the State of Maryland also
has a renewable portfolio standard, which we supported. That
law also takes into account a market-based mechanism to
achieve its objectives. In addition to generating or
purchasing renewable energy in Maryland, electricity
providers have the option of complying with the standard by
making Alternative Compliance payments (ACP). The Maryland
law directs ACPs to be paid into the Maryland Renewable
Energy Fund, the purpose of which is, ``to encourage the
development of resources to generate renewable energy in the
State.'' The Maryland law goes on to say that, ``. . . the
Fund may be used only to make loans and grants to support the
creation of new . . . renewable sources in the State.''
We are somewhat concerned that your amendment may create a
situation where electricity providers and, by proxy, our
customers, may end up paying duplicatively for a separate
federal and state program because of uncertainty regarding
your definition of, ``direct associations with the generation
or purchase of renewable energy''.
We think this issue should be surmountable and would like
to work with you on this concern as your provision moves
through the legislative process.
Finally, we appreciate your long standing support of
nuclear power and want to continue our efforts to bring the
next generation of nuclear power plants to this country.
Sincerely,

Paul J. Allen,

Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs,
Constellation Energy Group.
____

June 13, 2007.

Vote Yes on the Bingaman Renewable Portfolio Standard, Vote No on the
Domenici Clean Portfolio Standard

Dear Senator: On behalf of our members and supporters
nationwide, we urge you to support the amendment by Senator
Bingaman to create a national Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS) in energy security legislation now being considered on
the Senate floor. Adopting a RPS would enhance national
energy security by diversifying our sources of electricity
generation and would also have substantial environmental
benefits, such as reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
We urge you to oppose the ``Clean Portfolio Standard''
amendment by Senator Domenici that allows new hydropower to
qualify as new renewable energy under a RPS. Existing
hydropower generation comprises about 7% of the nation's net
electricity production. The RPS should be reserved for
emerging technologies that need help to enter the
marketplace. Hydropower, a mature technology that has not
advanced significantly since the 19th century. Allowing new
hydropower into a RPS would usher in a new era of dam
building, destroying our nation's last remaining free-flowing
rivers and encourage developers to retrofit existing dams,
many of which have significant environmental impacts or pose
a threat to public safety.
While hydropower is an important source of energy, this
energy comes at a great cost to the health of our nation's
rivers and communities. Many hydropower plants pipe water
around entire sections of river leaving them dry, or worse,
constantly alternating between drought and floodlike
conditions. Hydropower turbines can chop fish into pieces,
and can even change the temperature and basic chemistry of
the water, harming fish and wildlife. Hydropower's impacts
have even caused the extinction of entire species.
We urge you to support the Bingaman Renewable Portfolio
Standard and oppose the Domenici Clean Portfolio Standard.
Sincerely,
American River, American Whitewater, Appalachian Mountian
Club, California Outdoors, California Sportfishing Protection
Alliance, California Trout, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing
Coalition, Coastal Conservation League, Columbia Riverkeeper,
Connecticut River Watershed Council.
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Foothill
Conservancy, Foothills Water Network, Friends of Butte Creek,
Friends of Living Oregon Waters, Friends of the Crooked
River, Friends of the River, Georgia River Network,
Hydropower Reform Coalition, Idaho Rivers United.
Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition, Missouri Coalition
for the Environment, New England FLOW, New York Rivers
United, Northwest Resource Information Center, Northwest
Sportfishing Industry Association, Oregon Wild, Republicans
for Environmental Protection, River Alliance of Wisconsin,
San Juan Citizens Alliance.
Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, The Lands Council, Trout
Unlimited, Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Utah Rivers
Council, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Washington Kayak
Club, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Western Carolina
Paddler.
____

June 13, 2007.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the undersigned organizations,
we urge you to support the Renewable Electricity Standard
(RES) to be offered by Senator Bingaman.
The Bingaman RES amendment would require utilities to
obtain at least 15 percent of their electricity from clean
renewable energy sources by 2020. A recent analysis by the
Union Concerned Scientists found that the Bingaman amendment
would save consumers $16.7 billion on their energy bills,
while reducing global warming emissions by the equivalent of
taking 41 million cars off the road. The standard will
diversify our energy supply with American-grown energy
resources create thousands of good new jobs, and generate
millions of dollars for farmers, ranchers, and local
communities.
We urge you to oppose the Domenici amendment.
The Domenici amendment would severely curtail our ability
to deploy clean renewable resources and stall investment in a
clean renewable future. Because it includes nonrenewables,
coupled with huge state and federal waivers, the Domenici
amendment

[[Page S7625]]

would fail to guarantee any of the benefits for consumers,
large energy users, and farmers and ranchers contained in the
Bingaman amendment
For example, the Domenici amendment would:
Waive requirements for state to participate in the program
if the governor found state programs to be ``substantially
contributing to the overall goal.'' This vague language could
stifle investment in renewables and cripple the federal
trading program that assures the lowest possible cost for
renewable energy.
Weaken renewable requirements by including non-renewables
such as nuclear power. These provisions would subtract all
existing nuclear generation from the utilities renewables
requirement, give utilities credits for already-planned and
economic capacity upgrades, provide a windfall for the
poorest performing nuclear plants of the last 3 years, and
give credits for building new nuclear power plants that are
already heavily subsidized in the 2005 Energy bill. These
nuclear bailouts and subsidies would reduce the potential
contribution of new renewable energy from the Bingaman
proposal.
Allow utilities to receive credits for ``an inherently low-
emission technology that captures and stores carbon'' without
defining what that technology might be or assuring how much,
if any, of the carbon actually gets stored, or how permanent
such storage is.
Allow DOE to designate ``other clean energy sources'' to
qualify for clean energy credits without any restrictions on
the Secretary.
Undercuts the development of new renewables by including
all ``new'' hydropower. This would encourage new dam
construction irrespective of the potential for significant
environmental impacts these facilities can have. The Domenici
amendment would reverse the compromise language in the
Bingaman amendment that would permit ``incremental'' hydro
power that encourages new hydropower generation while
protecting natural resources.
Includes electricity savings from energy efficiency and
demand-response programs, which will further erode the
national energy security, diversity, economic, and
environmental benefits of developing new renewable energy
sources. While we support a separate standard for energy
efficiency and demand-response, the Domenici amendment would
create a zero sum game between efficiency and renewable
energy by forcing them to compete under the same standard.
Overall, the combined effects of allowing nuclear,
efficiency, demand-response, as well as new hydro, and other
non renewable clean energy sources to qualify for the
standard-without any restrictions--would greatly reduce, and
potentially eliminate, the development of new renewable
energy sources and the corresponding economic and
environmental benefits.
We urge you to support the strong Bingaman RES amendment
and oppose weakening amendment such as the Domenici
amendment, as it would take us backwards, not forwards on
energy policy.
Sincerely,
EarthJustice, Environmental Law and Policy Center,
Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, National
Environmental Trust, Natural Resource Defense Council,
Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Union
of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research
Group, Western Organization of Resource Councils.

____________________