[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 97 (Friday, June 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7780-S7789]
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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will report 
by title.
  The 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.

       Reid (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1537 (to amendment No. 
     1502), to provide for a renewable portfolio standard.
       Klobuchar (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1573 (to amendment 
     No. 1537), to provide for a renewable portfolio standard.
       Bingaman (for Klobuchar) amendment No. 1557 (to amendment 
     No. 1502), to establish a national greenhouse gas registry.
       Kohl amendment No. 1519 (to amendment No. 1502), to amend 
     the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels 
     illegal.
       Kohl (for DeMint) amendment No. 1546 (to amendment 1502), 
     to provide that legislation that would increase the national 
     average fuel prices for automobiles is subject to a point of 
     order in the Senate.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1608 To Amendment No. 1502

  Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be 
temporarily laid aside so I may offer amendment No. 1608.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand this is all right with the 
other side, so we have no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. CORKER] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1608 to amendment No. 1502.

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

  (Purpose: To allow clean fuels to meet the renewable fuel standard)

       In section 102(1)(B)(v), strike ``and'' at the end.
       In section 102(1)(B)(vi), strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``; and''.
       At the end of section 102(1)(B), add the following:
       (vii) after December 31, 2015, any fuel that--

       (I) is not derived from crude oil; and
       (II) achieves--

       (aa) as compared to conventional gasoline, lifecycle 
     emission reductions of 2 or more air pollutants, including--
       (AA) sulfur dioxide;
       (BB) nitrogen oxides;
       (CC) carbon monoxide;
       (DD) particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 10 
     microns; and
       (EE) volatile organic compounds; and
       (bb) a 20-percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas 
     emissions compared to conventional gasoline.
       In section 102, redesignate paragraphs (3) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (8), respectively, and insert between 
     paragraphs (2) and (4) (as so redesignated) the following:
       (3) Clean fuel.--The term ``clean fuel'' means motor 
     vehicle fuel, boiler fuel, or home heating fuel that--
       (A) is not derived from crude oil;
       (B)(i) as compared to conventional gasoline, has lower 
     lifecycle emissions of 2 or more air pollutants, including--
       (I) sulfur dioxide;
       (II) nitrogen oxides;
       (III) carbon monoxide;
       (IV) particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 10 
     microns; and
       (V) volatile organic compounds; or
       (ii) achieves a 20-percent reduction in lifecycle 
     greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional gasoline; 
     and
       (C) has lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than 
     conventional gasoline.
       In section 102, strike paragraph (6) (as so redesignated) 
     and insert the following:
       (6) Renewable fuel.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``renewable fuel'' means motor 
     vehicle fuel, boiler fuel, or home heating fuel that is--
       (i) produced from renewable biomass; and
       (ii) used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel 
     present in a fuel or fuel mixture used to operate a motor 
     vehicle, boiler, or furnace.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``renewable fuel'' includes--
       (i) conventional biofuel;
       (ii) advanced biofuel; and
       (iii) clean fuel.
       In section 111(a)(1)(B)(i)(II), insert ``(other than clean 
     fuels)'' after ``renewable fuels''.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if we are serious about energy security 
and reducing our dependence on foreign oil and our consumption of 
gasoline, we have to, through our energy legislation, encourage a 
variety of fuels and technologies. Current law requires 5.4 billion 
gallons of renewable fuel in 2008, and 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. The 
underlying bill on the floor today increases the amount to 8.5 billion 
gallons in 2008 and 36 billion gallons by the year 2022.
  The underlying bill focuses on renewable fuels, including ethanol 
from corn and cellulosic ethanol, and I think that is outstanding. I am 
so proud the State of Tennessee is going to be playing a very large 
role in our country meeting those objectives.
  The amendment I am offering expands the renewable fuel standard by 
adding a clean fuel definition so any fuel meeting criteria may be a 
part of the 36 billion gallon mandate. It does not in any way strike or 
replace the underlying fuels that qualify.
  To qualify as a clean fuel under this amendment, a fuel must meet the 
following requirements: not be derived from crude oil, and achieve life 
cycle greenhouse gas emission reductions that are better than the life 
cycle greenhouse gas emissions of conventional gasoline.
  In addition, on top of what I just said, it must meet one of the 
following requirements: achieve a life cycle emission reduction 
compared with conventional gasoline of two or more criteria pollutants. 
Those pollutants include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon 
monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter with a 
diameter smaller than 10 microns; and achieve a life cycle greenhouse 
gas emission reduction of 20 percent compared to conventional gasoline.
  Under no circumstances per this amendment can a fuel qualify if its 
greenhouse gas emissions are not less than conventional gasoline and if 
it is derived from crude oil. In other words, crude oil products do not 
qualify and the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions have to be less 
than conventional gasoline.
  In addition, a clean fuel may participate in the advanced biofuels 
carve-out beginning in 2016 if it meets the follow requirements: not 
derived from crude oil, achieves a life cycle emission reduction 
compared to conventional gasoline of two or more criteria pollutants 
including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile 
organic compounds, and particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 
10 microns and, the other hurdle, achieves life cycle greenhouse gas 
emission reductions of 20 percent compared to conventional gasoline.
  We have a number of technologies that are being pursued today that 
could meet the solutions our country needs to pursue. While I am a 
tremendous fan of much of what is happening right now with ethanol--
again the

[[Page S7781]]

State of Tennessee playing a big role--we need to allow the 
entrepreneurs in our country to help us solve this problem of 
dependence on oil from foreign sources, especially those that are not 
friendly to our country. For that reason, ethanol should not be our 
only solution. What we should try to do as a body is not to pick 
winners and losers. What we should do is set standards and allow the 
market to meet those standards.
  We have, again, tremendous initiatives going throughout our country. 
What we need to do in the Senate is not to define too narrowly what we 
want to help us be less dependent on foreign oil. If we do that, we 
will continue to consume more and more gasoline. My amendment is 
focused on making sure we continue to pursue energy security, that we 
allow our gross domestic product to grow, and we harness that great 
entrepreneurialism that exists throughout our country; that we do 
everything we can to lower greenhouse gas emissions and other criteria 
pollutants that also create tremendous damage to people throughout our 
country. I think this amendment does that.
  I ask my fellow Senators to endorse this particular amendment.
  I notice at this point, after offering this amendment, there is an 
absence of a quorum, and I wish to set aside my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for a 
few moments in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     THE DEATH OF RUTH BELL GRAHAM

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to say a word about the 
passing yesterday of a great woman.
  As a child, Ruth Bell dreamed of surrendering her life to missionary 
work abroad. Then she gave up that dream so someone else could live it 
in her place. In this and in so many other quiet sacrifices, Ruth Bell 
Graham truly lived the life her husband preached.
  She inspired generations of men and women with her honest, wise, and 
faith-filled writings. And she inspired us again at the end by 
accepting with serenity the physical suffering of a long and painful 
illness.
  Her autobiography told the story of an ordinary woman struggling to 
raise a family while her famous husband wandered the world preaching to 
a thousand roaring crowds. But, as she said, ``I'd rather have a little 
bit of Bill than a lot of any other man.''
  Looking back last night on more than 60 years of marriage, Billy 
Graham remembered his wife with a thankful heart. ``I am so grateful to 
the Lord that he gave me Ruth,'' he said. As America says goodbye to 
the First Lady of Evangelical Christianity, we make those words our 
own.
  Like the Biblical heroine whose name she shared, Ruth Bell Graham 
followed her pilgrim's journey wherever it took her. As a mother, a 
counselor, and the indispensable confidant of the world's most famous 
preacher, she was always content to stay in the background. Her 
missionary field was her home. And in this, she was a powerful witness 
of the Gospel she loved.
  We are grateful for her faithfulness. And we mourn with the Graham 
family--Billy, Franklin, Nelson, Virginia, Anne, and Ruth--at the loss 
of this good and faithful servant.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending 
amendment aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1520 To Amendment No. 1502

  Mr. CARDIN. I call up amendment No. 1520 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1520 to amendment No. 1502.

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

   (Purpose: To promote the energy independence of the United States)

       At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 255. SUPPORT FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       It is the policy of the United States to provide support 
     for projects and activities to facilitate the energy 
     independence of the United States so as to ensure that all 
     but 10 percent of the energy needs of the United States are 
     supplied by domestic energy sources by calendar year 2017.

     SEC. 256. ENERGY POLICY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--There is established a commission, to be 
     known as the ``National Commission on Energy Independence'' 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Commission'').
       (2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, of whom--
       (A) 3 shall be appointed by the President;
       (B) 3 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (C) 3 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (D) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (E) 3 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (3) Co-chairpersons.--
       (A) In general.--The President shall designate 2 co-
     chairpersons from among the members of the Commission 
     appointed.
       (B) Political affiliation.--The co-chairpersons designated 
     under subparagraph (A) shall not both be affiliated with the 
     same political party.
       (4) Deadline for appointment.--Members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (5) Term; vacancies.--
       (A) Term.--A member of the Commission shall be appointed 
     for the life of the Commission.
       (B) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission--
       (i) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
       (ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       (b) Purpose.--The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive 
     review of the energy policy of the United States by--
       (1) reviewing relevant analyses of the current and long-
     term energy policy of, and conditions in, the United States;
       (2) identifying problems that may threaten the achievement 
     by the United States of long-term energy policy goals, 
     including energy independence;
       (3) analyzing potential solutions to problems that threaten 
     the long-term ability of the United States to achieve those 
     energy policy goals; and
       (4) providing recommendations that will ensure, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, that the energy policy goals of 
     the United States are achieved.
       (c) Report and Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each of 
     calendar years 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, the Commission 
     shall submit to Congress and the President a report on the 
     progress of United States in meeting the long-term energy 
     policy goal of energy independence, including a detailed 
     statement of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 
     of the Commission.
       (2) Legislative language.--If a recommendation submitted 
     under paragraph (1) involves legislative action, the report 
     shall include proposed legislative language to carry out the 
     action.
       (d) Commission Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Staff and director.--The Commission shall have a staff 
     headed by an Executive Director.
       (2) Staff appointment.--The Executive Director may appoint 
     such personnel as the Executive Director and the Commission 
     determine to be appropriate.
       (3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Commission, the Executive Director may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (4) Federal agencies.--
       (A) Detail of government employees.--
       (i) In general.--Upon the request of the Commission, the 
     head of any Federal agency may detail, without reimbursement, 
     any of the personnel of the Federal agency to the Commission 
     to assist in carrying out the duties of the Commission.
       (ii) Nature of detail.--Any detail of a Federal employee 
     under clause (i) shall not interrupt or otherwise affect the 
     civil service status or privileges of the Federal employee.
       (B) Technical assistance.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of a Federal agency shall provide such 
     technical assistance to the Commission as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (e) Resources.--

[[Page S7782]]

       (1) In general.--The Commission shall have reasonable 
     access to materials, resources, statistical data, and such 
     other information from Executive agencies as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Form of requests.--The co-chairpersons of the 
     Commission shall make requests for access described in 
     paragraph (1) in writing, as necessary.

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, so many of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle have come to this floor to talk about the need for this 
Nation to become energy independent. In fact, I think each Member of 
this body believes this country should be energy independent and can 
become energy independent. We need to be independent for many reasons.
  First and foremost is the issue of national security. We should not 
be dependent for oil upon some country halfway around the world that 
disagrees with our foreign policy, which affects what we can do 
internationally. We should be independent for national security 
reasons.
  We should also be energy independent for economic reasons. Yesterday 
in the Small Business Committee we held a hearing on the impact that 
increased gasoline prices are having on small businesses in our 
communities. It is having an impact on our entire economy. Again, the 
OPEC countries decide what the price of oil will be and it affects 
gasoline prices, energy prices, and our economy. We need to become 
energy independent for the economic security of America.
  Yes, we need to become energy independent for environment issues. 
Global climate change is a real danger to this country and we need to 
have an energy policy that will also make us friendlier toward our 
environment.
  For all these reasons we need to become energy independent. We are 
not today. We import from other countries over one-third of our energy 
needs in this country and, of course, a significant amount of that is 
oil. I believe we can become energy independent in 10 years. I think, 
if we have the national will and the energy policies, it can be 
accomplished.
  The amendment I sent before this body today sets as our goal 
producing 90 percent of our energy needs by the year 2017. Each of us 
has ideas as to how to achieve energy independence. There have been 
many good suggestions that have been brought forward by my colleagues. 
I have introduced legislation that would require the Federal Government 
to construct its buildings to LEED Silver standards. Buildings 
represent one-third of the energy use in this country. Mr. President, 
38 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions come from buildings. That, 
of course, is the major greenhouse gas. Federal buildings consume 40 
percent of the Federal Government's energy bill, $3.73 billion in 2002. 
The GSA is already using LEED standards in encouraging Federal 
construction, but all new Federal facilities should meet these new LEED 
Silver standards.
  I ask my colleagues to go down the road here a couple of miles to the 
new NOAA facility located in Suitland, MD, and see the type of 
construction we should be building that gives our Federal Government 
the necessary facility to conduct its business but also is one that 
will save us a considerable amount of energy.
  LEED-certified buildings use 32 percent less energy, 26 percent less 
natural gas, and 36 percent total less energy used. I mention that 
because that is just one way this Nation can move toward energy 
independence.
  We know we will be having a debate on the Senate floor next week on 
the CAFE standards, on the efficiencies of our automobile and light 
truck engines. Yes, efficiency can save us a lot of energy and can help 
make us energy independent.
  Let me mention another example, the automobile tires we use. If we 
used the right tires, we could save millions of barrels of gasoline 
every year. Public transit, I can tell you in my own State, the Purple 
Line is not only needed to get people from one place to the other in 
this region, it will save us considerable energy. Investment in public 
transit will help with efficiency in this country. We need to develop 
alternative and renewable energy sources. There are so many potentials.
  Solar power. We invented the ability to use solar power for energy. 
The technologies have come from America. BP Solar, which is located in 
Fredrick, MD, is a leading example of what we can do. But we do not use 
solar energy anywhere near as much as we should in this country.
  Wind is available, but we do not use that technology as much as we 
should. Cellulosic ethanol or gasoline is another major potential 
source for becoming energy independent.
  Biodiesel. We have a person from the eastern shore, Berlin, MD, who 
has a biodiesel plant. And that county, Worcester County, uses their 
fleet of diesel trucks and the biodiesel saving us energy. So 
alternatives and renewable sources can help us.
  We also need to fund new technology for developing clean-burning coal 
and the next generation of nuclear power and the use of hydrogen power. 
I mention that because these are the discussions we are having on the 
floor of this body, ways in which we can become energy independent by 
being more efficient in the use of energy, by developing alternative 
and renewable energy sources and putting our resources into research 
for the next generation of technology to meet our energy needs.
  So what does my amendment do? My amendment establishes a commission 
to monitor our program and to keep us on track to accomplish our goal, 
to be energy independent by 2017. It allows for midcourse adjustments 
by the commission, making recommendations on a 2-year cycle, so we can 
make those cycles of adjustments. We keep control, the Congress keeps 
control of the energy policies of the country. But we have a bipartisan 
way in which we can make sure we live up to our commitment to be energy 
independent in 10 years.
  If our constituents know we are going to accomplish this goal, they 
are going to be willing to do what is necessary so we achieve this 
energy independence. It maintains the responsibility of this body and 
the other body across the hall. It is our Apollo commitment. I have 
heard more Senators use that term, ``Apollo commitment.'' It is our 
Apollo commitment.
  It took us 10 years. We made that commitment to put a person on the 
Moon, and we succeeded. If we make the commitment today to be energy 
independent in 10 years, we can achieve that goal. That is what this 
amendment does. I hope it will not be a controversial amendment. I hope 
we can get it done so we put into this legislation our commitment to 
truly become energy independent.
  Mr. President, I have a second amendment I want to call up. I want to 
make sure there is--I know there is a protocol of alternating 
amendments. If there is no objection, I was going to ask unanimous 
consent--I see that the Senator from New Mexico is here.
  Let me make sure. I have a second amendment I wanted to call up. I 
know we are alternating.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will be ready with ours in just 1 minute. We will 
offer one. We would object.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, let me say to my friend from Maryland, if you 
will wait a minute, you do not even have to leave the floor. It will 
not take very long.
  Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside so I might 
call up the Thune amendment, which we have agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1609 to Amendment No. 1502

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1609 on 
behalf of Senator Thune and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Thune, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1609 to amendment No. 1502.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S7783]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide requirements for the designation of national 
               interest electric transmission corridors)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. CLEAN ENERGY CORRIDORS.

       Section 216 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(1) Not later than'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Report and designations.--
       ``(A) In general.--After considering alternatives and 
     recommendations from interested parties (including an 
     opportunity for comment from affected States), the Secretary 
     shall issue a report, based on the study conducted under 
     paragraph (1), in which the Secretary may designate as a 
     national interest electric transmission corridor any 
     geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission 
     capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects 
     consumers, including constraints or congestion that--
       ``(i) increases costs to consumers;
       ``(ii) limits resource options to serve load growth; or
       ``(iii) limits access to sources of clean energy, such as 
     wind, solar energy, geothermal energy, and biomass.
       ``(B) Additional designations.--In addition to the corridor 
     designations made under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may 
     designate additional corridors in accordance with that 
     subparagraph upon the application by an interested person, on 
     the condition that the Secretary provides for an opportunity 
     for notice and comment by interested persons and affected 
     States on the application.'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), the striking ``(3) The Secretary'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Consultation.--The Secretary''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``(4) In determining'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) Basis for determination.--In determining''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (E) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) the economic vitality and development of the 
     corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be 
     constrained by lack of adequate or reasonably priced 
     electricity;
       ``(B)(i) economic growth in the corridor, or the end 
     markets served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by 
     reliance on limited sources of energy; and
       ``(ii) a diversification of supply is warranted;
       ``(C) the energy independence of the United States would be 
     served by the designation;
       ``(D) the designation would be in the interest of national 
     energy policy; and
       ``(E) the designation would enhance national defense and 
     homeland security.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Rates and Recovery of Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall promulgate 
     regulations providing for the allocation and recovery of 
     costs prudently incurred by public utilities in building and 
     operating facilities authorized under this section for 
     transmission of electric energy generated from clean sources 
     (such as wind, solar energy, geothermal energy, and biomass).
       ``(2) Applicable provisions.--All rates approved under the 
     regulations promulgated under paragraph (1), including any 
     revisions to the regulations, shall be subject to the 
     requirements under sections 205 and 206 that all rates, 
     charges, terms, and conditions be just and reasonable and not 
     unduly discriminatory or preferential.''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, having presented the amendment, I now 
ask that the Thune amendment be set aside so the next amendment may be 
offered by the Senator from Maryland.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Whitehouse, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1610 to amendment No. 1502.

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

   (Purpose: To provide for the siting, construction, expansion, and 
             operation of liquefied natural gas terminals)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. SITING, CONSTRUCTION, EXPANSION, AND OPERATION OF 
                   LNG TERMINALS.

       Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the section designation and all that 
     follows through ``creation'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 10. OBSTRUCTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS; WHARVES AND 
                   PIERS; EXCAVATIONS AND FILLING IN.

       ``(a) In General.--The creation''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Siting, Construction, Expansion, and Operation of LNG 
     Terminals.--
       ``(1) Definition of affected state.--In this subsection, 
     the term `affected State' means, with respect to a liquefied 
     natural gas terminal that is the subject of an application 
     for an authorization under this section, a State that--
       ``(A) would be directly connected by a pipeline to the 
     liquefied natural gas terminal;
       ``(B) would be located within 15 miles of the liquefied 
     natural gas terminal; or
       ``(C) is designated as an affected State by the Secretary 
     due to a risk of damage to the coastal environment of the 
     affected State that is equal to or greater than the risk of 
     damage to the coastal environment of the State in which the 
     liquified natural gas terminal is proposed to be located.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not approve or 
     disapprove an application for an authorization under this 
     section for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation 
     of a liquefied natural gas terminal pursuant to this section 
     without the express concurrence of the Governor of each 
     affected State.''.

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this amendment I am introducing with 
Senators Mikulski, Dodd, Reed, Kennedy, Whitehouse, and Snowe would 
restore the authority of State and local governments to protect the 
environment and ensure public safety with respect to the siting of 
liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals within their States.
  This measure simply gives our States a say in whether these kinds of 
facilities should be built within their boundaries and, if so, the 
exact location.
  The amendment adds a provision to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 
Under that law, the Army Corps of Engineers, acting for the Secretary 
of the Army, is responsible for issuing permits to anyone who wants to 
build a structure in and above the waters of the United States. These 
are often called section 10 permits because that is where the provision 
is found in the Rivers and Harbors Act.
  Currently, the Army Corps issues all such permits. In the narrow 
conditions outlined in our amendment, the Corps would have to get the 
concurrence of the affected State before issuing a permit to build an 
LNG terminal. That is all, just work with the States. It is just 
federalism. That is what federalism is all about, the Federal 
Government working with the States. The States certainly have a direct 
interest on the siting of LNG plants.
  This amendment does not limit the Federal Regulatory Energy 
Commission, FERC. FERC will still be able to make its decisions 
regarding siting, construction, and operation of LNG facilities. FERC 
has that blanket authority. So be it. But the Army Corps of Engineers 
also has a say in whether such a facility can be built in the waters of 
the United States. Today we turn to the Corps for relief.
  In recent years, the LNG industry has proposed building dozens of new 
LNG terminals throughout the United States, as LNG's share of the 
natural gas market continues to grow rapidly. Many of these terminals 
are being planned near populated areas or environmentally sensitive 
coastal areas. We are simply seeking an opportunity for States to have 
a meaningful opportunity to take those safety and environmental issues 
into account.
  Maryland is already home of one of the six operating LNG terminals in 
the United States. This bill would have no effect whatsoever on that 
facility. In fact, that facility is generally welcomed by its host 
community and is supported by county and local elected officials. That 
is how it should be. Companies that want to build an LNG terminal 
should work with the local community and address all of the safety and 
security concerns. It can be done. We have the proof of it in the State 
of Maryland.
  This amendment is not designed to stop LNG terminals. It is solely to 
make sure that such projects are sited properly. Unfortunately, that is 
not always the case. AES Sparrows Point

[[Page S7784]]

LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express have proposed building a new terminal near 
a densely populated area of Baltimore. Our area congressional 
delegation, Senator Mikulski and I, Governor O'Malley, Baltimore County 
Executive Jim Smith, and local officials and community leaders believe 
this project poses unacceptable public safety, economic and 
environmental risks, and does not serve the public interest.
  Yet under current law, FERC now has exclusive authority to approve 
onshore LNG terminal siting applications. But these facilities still 
must obtain environmental permits, including a section 10 permit under 
the provisions of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
  It is vital, in my opinion, that State and local authorities and the 
public have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the 
decisionmaking process about where these plants are located. An 
accident or a terrorist act at an LNG terminal could have a devastating 
impact on the communities nearby, so they should have a voice in the 
siting.
  The amendment I am introducing today seeks to restore that authority 
and gives Governors some real clout. The proponents of building LNG 
terminals should have to negotiate in good faith with States and local 
communities if they want those communities to bear the risk associated 
with such operations.
  My amendment does not prohibit the construction of LNG terminals. It 
merely levels the playing field with regard to determining where they 
will be located. It is what federalism should be all about. We should 
respect that. This amendment moves us in that direction.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are on the Energy bill. It 
is expected that we are going to have a big fight out here, a political 
fight, regarding the question of miles per gallon--requirements for the 
manufactured automobiles, light trucks, and then what are medium-size 
and heavier trucks--what the miles per gallon requirements are going to 
be.
  A couple weeks ago, I was on an Intelligence Committee trip all 
through Africa. Needless to say, there is increasing al-Qaida presence 
in Africa. Indeed, an organization called AQIM--al-Qaida in the Islamic 
Maghreb--is a group that broke through the barriers of the Presidential 
palace in Algiers, Algeria, and a suicide bomber detonated a bomb right 
next to the Presidential palace, injuring and killing some people, 
doing damage to the Presidential palace, but the President was not 
harmed.
  What we have is an increasing threat not only to the peoples of 
Africa but to the interests of the United States. What is one of those 
interests? One of those interests is all the places from which we get 
oil. One of those places is the Niger River Delta in the country of 
Nigeria.
  I met with the new President of Nigeria. He had just been inaugurated 
some 5 days earlier, and I believe he understands the significant 
threat to Nigeria's oil production. Already a good portion of Nigeria's 
oil production is siphoned off by bandits and others who are using 
kidnappings, asking for ransom, tapping into the oil wells, siphoning 
off the oil and the gas to the point that they produce about 3 million 
barrels a day of oil, and yet what they are shipping is only about 2.4 
million barrels a day. So they are losing right there, off the bat, 
just to bandits, 600,000 barrels of oil a day, just in that one 
country.
  But that oil that is shipped is shipped to the United States. That 
oil represents 12 to 14 percent of America's daily consumption. What 
happens if the terrorists strike and a major part of that oil 
production is eliminated? Well, you can imagine what America would do 
if it suddenly had 12 to 14 percent less oil per day.
  Oh, by the way, that is not the only place where we are threatened. 
We are also threatened, indeed, by a fellow named Hugo Chavez, 
President of Venezuela. Venezuela sends us 12 to 14 percent of our 
daily consumption of oil. Of course, he has been making those threats 
as well. But that is little more of an idle threat, in this Senator's 
opinion, because of the vast infrastructure the Venezuelan oil company 
PDVSA has through their distribution outlets of Citgo gas stations here 
in America.
  All right, what does this have to do with the Energy bill? It has a 
lot to do with the Energy bill because one of the primary things we 
ought to be doing as a matter of Government policy is weaning ourselves 
from oil and particularly from foreign oil. What is one of the best 
ways to do that? It is to go to the place where most oil is consumed in 
America, and that is in the transportation sector. And where in the 
transportation sector is most of the oil consumed? It is in our 
personal vehicles.
  So if we really want to do something that would affect this ripple 
effect if al-Qaida struck in a number of very sensitive oil-producing 
places in Africa, then right here in this Senate, at this moment, 
considering the Energy bill, we better be serious about what we are 
doing for miles-per-gallon requirements.
  Now, it is almost inexcusable that back when we had the oil embargo 
in the early 1970s and we said we were going to do something about it, 
that then we went back to sleep. Then again we had another disruption 
of the oil flow in the late 1970s, and we went through the drill again, 
and we said we were going to do something about it, and we went back to 
sleep. All of those mileage standards we put into law kept being 
delayed and excused and sidelined, and here we are where we are, with 
American automobile companies being some of the worst in dragging their 
feet, so that higher mileage per gallon has not been achieved, and we 
find ourselves so dependent on oil and, indeed, so dependent on foreign 
oil to the tune of 60 percent of our daily consumption of oil is being 
imported from foreign shores.
  So what are we going to do about it? All right, the moment of truth 
is coming in a few days because we are going to have a chance to enact 
this bill and what it has in the bill, which is 35 miles per gallon by 
the year 2020--that is 13 years in the future--35 miles per gallon on 
cars and light trucks, and then there are some exceptions for medium-
size and heavier trucks.
  In 13 years, can America go from a standard of somewhere around 26 
miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon? If we have the technology to 
do some of the extraordinary things we have already done in 
technology--in energy, in defense, in so many things--do we have the 
capability, technologically, in 13 years to increase the fleet average 
to 35 miles per gallon? You bet we do. The question is, Do we have the 
political will? That is going to be the moment of truth.
  Now, there are going to be those who are going to come with a 
seductive alternative--Senator Levin, Senator Stabenow. Their seductive 
alternative is: Well, we will do the same number of miles per gallon, 
but we will stretch it out a little bit further. We will make it 2025 
instead of 2020.

  Do we have the political will to make the decision that the time is 
now to change our oil-consuming habits so we can lessen our dependence 
on oil, and specifically foreign oil?
  This Senator is going to offer an even tougher standard: 40 miles per 
gallon. We have the technology. Do we have the political will? I think 
it is going to be very hard to pass 40 miles per gallon. Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Bingaman, and others came up with what is in the 
bill now: 35 miles per gallon over the course of the next 13 years. I 
think it ought to be higher. I think we ought to be serious. I will 
tell my colleagues, if al-Qaida ever does strike and cut off that oil, 
this Senate will be in session and we will be exacting much higher 
standards, because the political will would be demanded at that point. 
Are we going to look over the horizon and see all of the pitfalls and 
avoid them by going ahead and enacting into law a stronger standard?
  I have had the privilege of representing my State of Florida for the 
past 7 years in the Senate, and I have tried, along with other 
Senators, particularly Senator Kerry, to enact

[[Page S7785]]

higher mileage per gallon standards on SUVs. We could never get the 
votes because there wasn't the political will. The clock is ticking and 
time is running out. It is going to happen because a lot of those 
oilfields scattered around the world--and I have given one example of 
Nigeria--are vulnerable to attack. The only way we are going to prevent 
those attacks is our intelligence apparatus, working with the 
intelligence services of other nations, to find out in advance so we 
can prevent it, because they can't defend it there. The military forces 
of those countries throughout the world are not sufficient to defend 
it. We are only going to prevent it by finding out about it through the 
gathering of intelligence. But our intelligence gathering can't be 100 
percent foolproof. So the likelihood is it is going to happen.
  Let's get prepared, I beg the Senate. We have dragged our feet. We 
have not produced more than about 39 votes in the past to increase 
miles per gallon standards on SUVs. Will we wake up, America? Will we 
have the will? It is coming, and it is going to come about next Tuesday 
or Wednesday when we vote on these amendments.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me congratulate my friend from 
Florida for his passionate statement on this imperative. As Abraham 
Lincoln might say, we are trying to give our Nation a new birth of 
freedom from the oil addiction that is very much compromising the 
national security of our Nation. Certainly how we deal with 
transportation fuels and move forward with higher standards and more 
efficient vehicles is something I hope this body has the political will 
to do through the underlying bill, which will move us to 35 miles per 
gallon within a reasonable time period. I very much appreciate his 
leadership on this effort and I look forward to joining him on this 
battle next week as we try to move forward.


                Amendment No. 1524 to Amendment No. 1502

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1524.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Obama, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lugar, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Casey, Mr. Ben 
     Nelson, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
     Tester, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Cochran, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1524 to amendment No. 1502.

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

                           Amendment No. 1524

   (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress relating to the use of 
                renewable resources to generate energy)

       On page 27, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 113. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO THE USE OF RENEWABLE 
                   RESOURCES TO GENERATE ENERGY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States has a quantity of renewable energy 
     resources that is sufficient to supply a significant portion 
     of the energy needs of the United States;
       (2) the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the 
     United States can help ensure a sustainable domestic energy 
     system;
       (3) accelerated development and use of renewable energy 
     technologies provide numerous benefits to the United States, 
     including improved national security, improved balance of 
     payments, healthier rural economies, improved environmental 
     quality, and abundant, reliable, and affordable energy for 
     all citizens of the United States;
       (4) the production of transportation fuels from renewable 
     energy would help the United States meet rapidly growing 
     domestic and global energy demands, reduce the dependence of 
     the United States on energy imported from volatile regions of 
     the world that are politically unstable, stabilize the cost 
     and availability of energy, and safeguard the economy and 
     security of the United States;
       (5) increased energy production from domestic renewable 
     resources would attract substantial new investments in energy 
     infrastructure, create economic growth, develop new jobs for 
     the citizens of the United States, and increase the income 
     for farm, ranch, and forestry jobs in the rural regions of 
     the United States;
       (6) increased use of renewable energy is practical and can 
     be cost effective with the implementation of supportive 
     policies and proper incentives to stimulate markets and 
     infrastructure; and
       (7) public policies aimed at enhancing renewable energy 
     production and accelerating technological improvements will 
     further reduce energy costs over time and increase market 
     demand.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that it 
     is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 
     1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the 
     United States should--
       (1) provide from renewable resources not less than 25 
     percent of the total energy consumed in the United States; 
     and
       (2) continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable 
     food, feed, and fiber.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the 25x'25 
resolution as an amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy bill. I am proud to be 
joined in this endeavor by a broad bipartisan group of Senators. They 
include Senators Grassley, Harkin, Lugar, Obama, Hagel, Clinton, 
Feingold, Casey, Nelson of Nebraska, Brownback, Kohl, Kerry, Johnson, 
Tester, Cantwell, Thune, and Cochran, all of whom are sponsors of S. 
Con. Res. 3, which we introduced earlier this year.
  Mr. President, 25x'25 is a critical vision for our energy future that 
will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil by building a new energy 
economy here at home. Our amendment establishes a national goal of 
producing 25 percent of America's energy from renewable sources, such 
as solar, wind, and biofuels, by 2025.
  The 25x'25 vision is widely endorsed, it is bold, and it is fully 
attainable. If implemented, it will dramatically improve our energy 
security, our economy, and our ability to protect the environment and 
combat global warming. 25x'25 complements the steps we are taking on 
the bill before us today which reflects the good work of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee and the other committees that have 
contributed so greatly to this bill.
  I am pleased that 17 of my colleagues in the Senate from both sides 
of the aisle are cosponsoring this resolution. In addition, the 25x'25 
vision has been endorsed by 22 current and former Governors and many 
State legislatures around the country.
  The Big Three auto manufacturers--Ford, Chrysler, and General 
Motors--are all behind 25x'25. So are many agricultural organizations, 
environmental groups, scientists, and businesses, ranging from the 
Farmers' Union and the Farm Bureau to the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, and companies such as John Deere.
  The breadth of support for the 25x'25 vision speaks to the 
extraordinary economic, environmental, and national security benefits 
that its achievement will yield. In all, nearly 400 organizations have 
embraced this vision and are working together on a plan to implement 
it.
  The amendment I am introducing makes the 25x'25 vision a policy goal 
for our Nation. It sets a challenging but realistic target for our 
legislative and budgetary work on energy. Our amendment says the 
ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the American people should be the 
engine for a new, clean energy economy for the 21st century.
  I urge every American to join with me and roughly 400 partner 
organizations that are part of 25x'25 to make this goal a reality. 
Results from a recent study conducted by the University of Tennessee 
show that reaching the 25x'25 goal is, indeed, achievable. The study 
also shows that 25x'25 would do the following: First, it would increase 
net farm income in America by $180 billion and, including multiplier 
effects, could result in $700 billion in economic activity annually for 
America. Secondly, it would create 5 million new jobs here at home by 
2025; and third, it would save as much as $15 billion in Government 
payments across America.
  America's working people can and should be at the center of our 
energy revolution. Farmers and ranchers in my native San Luis Valley, 
in Sterling, CO, and elsewhere, are already leading the way. They are 
building biodiesel plants and ethanol refineries that help power cars, 
tractors, and trucks. They are building wind turbines in Prowers County 
and biomass generators in Jackson County, and they are searching for 
new technologies that will allow them to make even greater 
contributions to our energy supply. These Americans understand we 
cannot continue to import 60 percent of our oil

[[Page S7786]]

from foreign countries, many of which are hostile to the United States. 
If we aim to be strong and secure in this world, we must have this kind 
of bold vision. They know we will have to build a clean energy economy 
for America if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  A clean energy economy will take root in our farms and in our fields. 
It will help revitalize a rural America that has been forgotten for far 
too long. It will spur our engineers to new developments and designs, 
and it will help establish the United States as a world leader in clean 
energy technologies. It is time for Congress to take a more active role 
in our clean energy future. Establishing a national goal of 25x'25 is 
an important first step.
  Americans understand we cannot continue to import 60 percent of our 
oil from foreign countries, many of which are hostile to the United 
States, if we aim to be strong and secure in the world. We must rid 
ourselves of this dependency and this addiction. They know we will have 
to build a clean energy economy if we are to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Today, with this amendment, we are articulating a common vision for 
our energy policy. It is a target that Governors, Senators, 
Representatives, State legislators, farmers, ranchers, business people, 
scientists, and automakers all wish to achieve. It is a target we can 
hit, particularly with the policies that are built into this bill.

  I ask my Democratic and Republican colleagues to support this 
amendment and to join the millions of Americans who are already working 
toward the 25x'25 goal.
  I want to make a comment about the imperative of the energy issue 
that is before the Senate today. When I look at the 21st century, I ask 
myself: What is it the people of my State, and what is it the people of 
America want me to do as their Senator, not only for our generation but 
for the next generation and generations to come? It seems to me the 
challenges of the 21st century are daunting challenges, major 
challenges, that face us. We can essentially put them into three, and 
they are all under an umbrella of security for this Nation and 
ultimately security for civilization.
  The first of those challenges is foreign policy: How can we in 
America move forward and try to put Humpty Dumpty together again when 
we see so much violence in the Middle East and other places around the 
world? How can we make sure the dream and vision of the generation of 
World War II is something we preserve? How can we say to our children 
and to our grandchildren that the world we are leaving to them is a 
safer and more secure world? Certainly that generation of World War II 
believed they had accomplished that, that they were leaving a world 
which was a much safer and a much more secure world for the generations 
that would come after them. Indeed, we have been the beneficiaries of 
their sacrifices. Over half a million Americans gave their lives to 
preserve freedom around the world in World War II, including members of 
my family who gave their lives on the soils of Europe. They had a 
vision of a more secure world.
  We have some major challenges in Iraq, as we witness the violence 
there, and when we see what is happening today in Lebanon where we are 
on the precipice of another civil war there, and when we see what is 
happening in Gaza and Israel where Hamas has now apparently taken over 
the Gaza Strip and the emergency that we see President Abbas has 
declared in the Gaza Strip.
  We have to somehow figure out this very challenging task of how we 
put the world back together again. How do we secure the vision the 
people of America want us to have, which is that we create a safer and 
more secure world for ourselves and for those generations who will come 
behind us?
  The second issue which, in my view, confronts America today and which 
is interrelated with some of the violence we see in the Middle East is 
energy. For far too long we have neglected this issue. I am proud of 
the fact that in 2005, this body came together in a bipartisan way and 
we opened a new chapter for energy in America. I am very proud of this 
bill today because it builds on that chapter that gets us to energy 
independence. We have to look at the failings of America under both 
Democratic and Republican administrations in the past. Jimmy Carter, 
Richard Nixon--Richard Nixon first--coined the term ``energy 
independence'' when OPEC was formed. President Jimmy Carter spoke to 
the Nation late one night back in the 1970s and said: We need to deal 
with energy with the same kind of moral imperative of war.
  Yet what happened in the 1980s and the 1990s? The low cost of fuel 
essentially allowed America to go to sleep at the switch. The 
consequence has been that instead of importing 30 percent of our oil as 
we were in 1970, today we import 60 percent of our oil. The consequence 
is we have compromised the national security of the United States.
  I have been on the border of Israel and Lebanon and looked down at 
the camps of Hamas and the daunting signs of Hezbollah where Hezbollah 
had captured at that time Israeli soldiers, and they were at that time 
daring Prime Minister Sharon to go into southern Lebanon.
  What is it that creates that kind of condition? What is it that 
allows Hezbollah to have over 37,000 rockets in their armory? What is 
it that allows the funding and the creation of a militia of more than 
10,000 militant soldiers within the Hezbollah organization? It is the 
oil. It is the oil revenue that is going into some countries in the 
Middle East, including Iran, that is directly funding those interests 
who are fighting the interests of America across the world.
  In fact, we have gotten to the position where those interests have 
become so powerful economically that now with the potential of Iran 
arming itself with nuclear capabilities, we should all be very 
concerned about the security not only of Israel but also of the Middle 
East and of our entire world.
  What does Iran with nuclear armaments mean to the national security 
of our world? It is a fact that it is our energy dependence, the 
glutton nature of our energy dependence on oil from those countries 
that has compromised our national security.
  So when we work on the energy issue of our country, we need to know 
we are working on an imperative of the 21st century. It is an 
imperative of the 21st century that we get ourselves rid of this 
addiction to foreign oil. That is why we see progressives and 
conservatives coming together, Democrats and Republicans coming 
together, to try to tackle this issue.
  Much of what we have in this legislation before the Senate comes from 
the efforts of the energy futures coalition that coined the term ``set 
America free.'' ``Set America free.'' Our passage of this legislation, 
hopefully this next week, will be part of that achievement where we as 
Senators will stand and we will say we have taken another bold step in 
this agenda of setting America free.
  A second issue that obviously confronts the people of America is 
health care. That is an issue for another day. That is an issue we will 
be dealing with as we look at health insurance for children and a whole 
host of other issues. But today and next week, we have an opportunity 
to deliver on one of the imperatives of the 21st century for the United 
States of America, and that imperative is that we move forward with 
courage and with boldness on the vision of energy independence.
  Our amendment today on 20x'25 is a critical part of that agenda 
because it sets forth a vision that is an achievable one that will get 
us to make sure we are producing 25 percent of our energy from 
renewable resources by the year 2025.
  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. SALAZAR. 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. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I understand the amendment I spoke about 
is acceptable to both sides. Therefore, I ask for a voice vote on the 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If not, 
the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1524.

[[Page S7787]]

  The amendment (No. 1524) was agreed to.
  Mr. SALAZAR. 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. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Immigration

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on a couple of issues 
dealing with the Energy bill this morning. We will be back on the 
Energy bill starting on Monday. Before I do, I wish to mention as well 
the Washington Post column by Robert Novak yesterday entitled 
``Dorgan's Poison Pill.'' Mr. Novak once again stops just about a page 
or two short of good research. He has the opportunity on the op-ed page 
of a major paper to make his case, and we are so seldom offered that 
same opportunity by the Washington Post that I thought I would at least 
use the floor of the Senate to describe accurately what Mr. Novak was 
trying to write about.
  He talks about an amendment I offered to the immigration bill. He 
calls it a ``poison pill'' in the title, and then he says: Dorgan 
pushed his ``killer amendment'' by voicing the Great Plains populism of 
his own State. That is sort of sniffing down your nose at the Great 
Plains populism that exists in some parts of this country.
  Let me describe what this amendment was. The immigration bill is a 
bill that is complicated, it is controversial, it is a very large bill, 
and it has a lot of moving parts to it. One part of the bill deals with 
the issue of bringing in guest workers--people who aren't now here, who 
are living elsewhere in other parts of the world--bringing them in to 
take American jobs.
  Now, I have great difficulty with the immigration bill as it is 
written. My feeling about immigration is we have a problem with illegal 
immigration. That is true, we certainly do, and we ought to try to 
address that problem. I think the first way and the thoughtful way to 
address that problem is to decide we are going to provide border 
security and border enforcement--just do first things first. First of 
all, provide border enforcement, and then we can do the other things.
  That is not what this bill does. This bill brings in about six or 
eight moving parts, and in order to sign up support for it--for 
example, in order to get the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to support it, 
they also include a temporary or guest worker program that says we have 
people who are not now in this country whom we want to bring into this 
country to take American jobs because we don't have enough American 
workers, they claim.
  In fact, they put together this Byzantine approach that says guest 
workers will come in, they will be able to bring their family with them 
and stay for 2 years. They have to go home for 1 year, take their 
family home, and then they can come back for 2 more years, then go home 
for 1 year and come back for 2 more years. So they can be here a total 
of 6 years, with 2 years gone, and their family with them their first 
or second tour. And by the way, no one knows whether they are going to 
go home once they get here. Who is going to keep track of people coming 
in three times in 6 years for 2-year periods each of the three 
occasions?
  I offered an amendment on that particular issue of guest and 
temporary workers who would come in to take these jobs. My amendment 
was very simple. It said: Let's sunset that provision after 5 years and 
try to understand what has happened as a result of it, what has 
happened to American workers as a result of bringing in all these 
temporary workers. Is there downward pressure on American wages? Has 
this hurt American workers? My guess is it will. What if 80 percent of 
the people who come in under the temporary worker program never leave? 
Then they are here as illegal immigrants. Maybe that ought to matter. 
Maybe we should sunset this in 5 years and take a look at it.
  That was my amendment. It passed by one vote on the floor of the 
Senate and is described by Mr. Novak as the ``poison pill,'' the 
``killer amendment.'' That is unbelievable. I know where he got the 
language. He got the language from my colleagues here who were part of 
the ``grand bargain''--a group of 14, I think it was, who went into a 
room, reached a grand bargain putting together this Byzantine 
immigration bill, brought it to the floor, and behaved as if they were 
the only people out of 100 Senators who had any ideas. There are 14 of 
us who have this idea, they believed, and anybody who offers amendments 
would not have an idea that would be worthy of improving it; therefore, 
we must resist and oppose all amendments.
  That is the way this immigration bill went on the floor of the 
Senate. But it was not a poison pill or a killer amendment or anything 
of the sort. It was a kind of commonsense approach to try to say: Why 
don't we do this the right way?
  Mr. Novak points to my colleague, Senator Kyl from Arizona, in his 
column. It is interesting. Mr. Kyl was part of the grand compromise 
and, of course, described my amendment, I think, as a ``poison pill.'' 
Mr. Kyl voted for the identical amendment 1 year ago. I offered the 
identical amendment 1 year ago, and Senator Kyl voted for it then.
  But those are just facts that Mr. Novak missed because, as I said, 
when you stop one page short of good research, you are not going to 
have the entire story.


                                 Energy

  Mr. President, let me now talk just a bit about the Energy bill. This 
is important.
  We live on this little old planet, we circle the Sun, and we have 
about 6.4 billion neighbors. We live in this little portion of the 
planet called the United States, and we have built an economy that is 
extraordinary. We have expanded the middle class, created an economic 
engine that is almost unparalleled on this Earth.
  In this planet we stick little straws and suck out oil. We suck out 
about 84 to 85 million barrels of oil every single day. One-fourth of 
that oil must come to the United States and be used here because we 
need it. We use one-fourth of all the oil every day that is pulled out 
of this earth, and 60 percent of the oil we use in this country comes 
from outside of our country. So we use one-fourth of the oil on the 
Earth every day, and over 60 percent of it comes from elsewhere. It 
comes from the Saudis--Saudi Arabia--Kuwait, Iraq, and Venezuela. Some 
troubled parts of the world--very troubled parts of the world--produce 
a substantial portion of the oil we need for our economy to work. If, 
God forbid, one morning we woke up and terrorists had interrupted the 
pipeline of oil to our country from troubled parts of the world, our 
economy would be flat on its back, and that is reason we have an energy 
bill on the floor of the Senate.
  I think this is the first time we have debated the Energy bill in 
which we have come to an intersection in understanding that energy and 
climate change are intertwined, energy and climate change meet at the 
same intersection.
  So we discuss all of these things. We discuss renewable electricity 
standards. Should we require that 15 percent of all electricity 
produced in this country be produced with renewable energy--wind 
energy, biomass, geothermal, solar energy? I believe the answer is yes. 
I feel very strongly about that. We will have a vote on that next week, 
and I think it will be very close.
  Standards that would increase the efficiency of automobiles, we will 
have a vote on that, and it will be very close. We haven't had a change 
in the CAFE standards for automobiles for 25 years--25 years. 
Everything else about an automobile has changed. There is more 
computing power in a new automobile than there was on the lunar landing 
that put Neil Armstrong on the surface of the Moon. There is more 
computing power in one new car than was in the lunar landing. 
Everything has changed--cup holders, music systems, keyless entry--
everything has changed about these vehicles except efficiency.
  My wife purchased an automobile some years ago. She purchased an 
automobile that had a certain mileage standard on the window sticker. 
After 10 years, she was going to buy another car, and she looked at the 
new version,

[[Page S7788]]

the new car version of exactly what she purchased 10 years earlier. The 
mileage standard on the new car, 10 years later, was identical to the 
mileage standard of the car she had purchased, identical. Everything 
about the car had changed--the color, the look, I am sure the springs, 
the suspension--almost everything was changed, and it has cup holders 
and a better music system and keyless entry.
  By the way, all those car companies opposed seatbelts and airbags and 
have always opposed CAFE standards.
  But the point is, regarding efficiency, nothing is changing. So the 
question is this: If we are consuming all of this oil--much of it from 
troubled parts of the world--because we have such an oil-intensive 
economy and we want to be less dependent on the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and 
others, and 70 percent of our oil is used in vehicles, then don't we 
have to insist that this change and that vehicles become more 
efficient?
  The automobile industry is doing full-page newspaper ads in my 
State--and I assume other States as well--telling people things about 
the proposal on the floor of the Senate that just aren't true--just not 
so. I think it was Will Rogers who said:

       It is not what he knows that bothers me so much, it's what 
     he says he knows for sure that just ain't so.

  Well, some of the advertising that is going on around the country is 
just wrong. They have these screaming ads saying somebody is going to 
take your pickup truck away. It is not true. The new CAFE standards--or 
any efficiency standards--aren't like the old ones where if you produce 
too many pickup trucks, you have to cut back on pickup trucks and 
produce far more subcompacts. That is not the case.
  These new approaches say that for every class of vehicle--and there 
are eight, including the big, heavy trucks--every class of vehicle must 
have efficiency. You must have increased efficiency for each class, not 
measured against another class. You must have increased efficiency in 
that class, and, yes, that includes pickup trucks. But those who are 
buying pickup trucks--and a lot of people are--ought to expect more 
efficiency. It is not a case where someone is going to say that you are 
not going to be able to find a pickup because we have to produce more 
subcompacts.
  In my part of the country, it does occasionally--only on rare 
occasions--get cold. In North Dakota, when a rancher is going out in 
late March, and there is a blizzard and the wind is blowing 40 miles an 
hour and the temperature is 30 below, and he or she is out checking on 
the calves because it is calving season and they are trying to figure 
out what is going on--they don't want to go out in 40-mile-an-hour 
winds, with temperatures 30 below; that rarely happens, but 
occasionally--they do not want to go out driving in a Chevette or some 
subcompact car trying to figure out where they are going to move in the 
pasture to find those cattle. They want a substantial vehicle. So they 
want four-wheel drives and pickup trucks, and I understand that. That 
is why this CAFE or this automobile efficiency standard has been 
changed and changed in the right way, requiring all classes of vehicles 
to be more efficient. We don't measure them against other classes. 
Every class is required to meet greater efficiency standards.
  So that will be debated next week. I know there are people who will 
come and oppose it because the automobile industry is taking a position 
of: Yesterday forever; let's just keep doing what we have been doing, 
and that will be just fine. It is not just fine as a matter of public 
policy for this country. This country needs a changed agenda with 
respect to energy, and part of that changed agenda is increased 
efficiency for automobiles and for vehicles.
  With respect to the renewable energy standard, the renewable 
electricity standard, I regret and I have said from time to time that 
my political party--we are not as good at developing titles and labels 
as the other party. No matter what they come up with, they are good. 
They come up with something that is probably going to even cause more 
pollution, and they call it Clear Skies. They come up with something 
that will cut down trees, and they call it Healthy Forests. They are 
good at labeling.
  We come up with something called renewable portfolio standard. We 
talk like twits. So we need to improve that. I call it homegrown energy 
or renewable electricity standards.
  Let me describe what that means. It means we produce a lot of 
electricity, and we use it. We get up in the morning and the first 
thing we do is turn on a switch and that switch makes all things 
possible for us. It allows you to get hot water from a hot water 
heater, it allows you to plug in an electric razor, allows you to have 
the lights in your bathroom as you get ready for work. All of these 
things happen, but it is not automatic. Somebody is out there producing 
electricity in a coal-fired generating plant perhaps, or a generating 
plant that is fueled by natural gas.
  What we are saying is, we want to set a standard of 15 percent of our 
electric energy to be produced with renewable energy. We now have 
unbelievable turbines that can take energy from the wind and turn it 
into electricity. Yes, you can advance your electricity issue with that 
or, an experiment I have in North Dakota that I am very excited about, 
you can take the energy from the wind, produce electricity, and with 
that electricity in the process of electrolysis, separate hydrogen from 
water and store hydrogen as a vehicle fuel; the wind to hydrogen, all 
renewable.
  You can do the same with respect to the renewable electricity 
standard by requiring that 15 percent of the electricity we produce 
comes from biomass, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal, and more. We 
should do that. I know it is a close vote. I know some oppose that. We 
should do that because it will advance this country's interests.
  I want to make one additional point. There are some who say: You are 
out here talking about increased efficiency standards, you talk about 
renewable electricity and so on--what about more production? In fact, I 
just had a person call me a few minutes ago who said the same thing. 
What about more production? I believe we ought to have more production 
of energy. I have supported, along with my colleague, Senator Craig 
from Idaho--bipartisan--the two of us have supported something called 
the SAFE Act, which proposes and calls for more production from that 
area offshore that has the greatest potential. No, it is not Alaska, 
not California; it is the gulf, the Gulf of Mexico that has the 
greatest potential.
  I was one who helped open lease 181, which was just opened. But I 
believe much more can be done to increase the potential on the Outer 
Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico. I support that. I filed an 
amendment--we have not called it up because I don't believe we have the 
votes for that--but Senator Craig and I are discussing that issue. I 
support increased production because I believe it is a necessary part 
of a balanced energy strategy.
  I think all of these issues are important. I know there are some who 
probably do not think the Energy bill is as important as it really is, 
but it is at the root of this country's future economic opportunity. 
This engine of ours, this economic engine of ours cannot and does not 
work without energy, and our energy policy has not been a particularly 
thoughtful policy. We waste a prodigious amount of energy in every way, 
every day. We can make buildings more efficient, we can make 
automobiles more efficient, we can make appliances more efficient. We 
should produce more. We should conserve more. There is so much we 
should do in energy policy.
  Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, who are the chair and ranking 
member of the Energy Committee--I am a senior member of that 
committee--but with their leadership they have put together a bill that 
is now on the Senate floor, and I think it will advance our interests. 
But we need to do a couple of things.
  No. 1, we need to support the CAFE standards. By the way, that comes 
from the Commerce Committee on which I serve. Senator Inouye and 
Senator Stevens are to be complimented for what we were able to do in 
the Commerce Committee with respect to CAFE standards. Senator Boxer 
and the leadership of the EPW committee has also contributed to this 
bill. But we need to have a 15-percent standard of renewable fuels 
coming with respect to the production of electricity, and we need to 
support the CAFE standards that have come from the Commerce Committee.

[[Page S7789]]

  I do not believe there are others who wish to speak. Let me do a 
couple of unanimous consents.

                          ____________________