[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7873-S7877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I wish to 
offer--I will offer it later--relative to

[[Page S7874]]

the tax package that was just introduced relative to this Energy bill.
  Today, for those of us who live on the east coast, we would like to 
be able to buy ethanol at a reasonable price. In fact, we would like to 
be able to buy ethanol at all. The problem is, for ethanol to be 
shipped to the east coast, it has to go through pipelines. 
Transportation by truck or tank car is not viable, and thus ethanol, 
because of its components, cannot be shipped and is not stable in going 
through pipelines. So the east coast really does not have too many 
options for purchasing ethanol.
  One option is to buy it from the Caribbean countries that produce it 
or from Brazil. Unfortunately, there is a tariff in place on Brazilian 
ethanol which amounts to 54 cents a gallon. That is a tariff which 
those of us on the east coast are subjected to and the effect of which 
is the price of ethanol is arbitrarily overstated.
  This tariff was put in place quite a while ago and was put in during 
a period when the production of ethanol was not commercially viable 
because the cost of oil was still very low and when corn production was 
not oriented toward ethanol production. So this tariff was put in 
purely as a protective tariff for the purpose of allowing the corn 
industry in the Midwest to be successful in developing ethanol--at 
least that is the representation.
  However, that position no longer has viability. The simple fact is 
that the corn industry in the Midwest is doing extraordinarily well 
because not only is it still a major feedstock for most of the 
traditional animal use to which it is applied, but it is also being 
used aggressively for the production of ethanol. In fact, we are 
looking at about 7 billion gallons of ethanol being produced this year.
  Under this bill, for the purpose of gasoline replacement, it will be 
required that we have 36 billion gallons produced by the year 2022. So 
we are putting in place mandates which will absolutely require an 
expansion in the use of ethanol of dramatic proportions, which we 
should, and which will therefore raise the ship of the production of 
ethanol by the use of corn in the Midwest or sugar beets in the 
Northern Plains States as a form of producing ethanol. Therefore, they 
should not be concerned about the threat or the potential threat or the 
alleged threat of having ethanol come into this country from other 
producers in the Western Hemisphere, such as Brazil, because that is 
not going to affect their price and it is not going to affect their 
production capability.
  Secondly, we still have in place in this bill and under the 
agricultural bills which we passed in the Senate a $3 billion annual 
subsidy for corn production--a $3 billion annual subsidy. The irony is 
we are subsidizing a product which is now extraordinarily productive 
and which has great viability--corn production--and, in fact, the cost 
of which has gone up so much that we are hearing complaints from many 
of the various farm communities, such as cattle producers who need 
corn, because the price has gone up so much as a result of the demand 
for corn. But at the same time, we are making it virtually impossible, 
because of the protective attitude of the Midwest on the issue of corn 
production for ethanol, to bring into the Northeast and into the 
Eastern States ethanol at a viable price and at a competitive price.
  Our goal basically as an economy should be to get ourselves off oil, 
to move away from oil, and to move to ethanol production, which is the 
most efficient and cost competitive.
  So the Northeast and the Eastern States should be allowed to purchase 
ethanol from Brazil without this arbitrary tariff that was put in place 
many years ago and continues.
  In addition, if you just want to look at it on the basis of 
purchasing an overseas product--and some will argue this is just going 
to underwrite the foreign production of an energy source, ethanol, in 
Brazil--you can make that argument, but as a practical matter, if you 
make that argument, you have to ask yourself, would you rather buy 
ethanol from Brazil or oil from Venezuela because essentially the 
choice is just about that stark. You can buy your ethanol from Brazil 
or you can buy Venezuelan oil.
  By making Brazilian ethanol more competitive and taking off this 
arbitrary 54-cents-a-gallon increase, which people from the East have 
to pay, you will actually make ethanol a more viable product in the 
East and thus reduce our reliance, for example, on Venezuelan oil or, 
for that matter, Middle Eastern oil. I personally would rather be 
buying ethanol from a country such as Brazil than buying oil from the 
Middle East or from Venezuela.
  So the arguments for eliminating this tariff are myriad. They are 
that we should be purchasing ethanol at the most competitive price, 
that the Northeast and the East cannot purchase Midwestern ethanol 
anyway at a competitive value because it cannot be shipped by pipeline 
because it is so combustible.

  The original concept of protecting corn producers in the Midwest no 
longer has viability in light of the fact that we have mandated an 
ethanol usage in this country that is going to absorb just about every 
ounce of corn produced, and we see corn prices are already at 
extraordinarily high price and that has put a lot of pressure as a 
feedstock commodity on various other industries, such as cattle 
production; and that it makes no sense in light of the $3 billion 
subsidy which we already have in place for corn to require people in 
the Northeast--who are paying that subsidy, by the way, through their 
taxes--to also have to pay an inflated price for ethanol which is 
produced in Brazil. If we are going to choose to use overseas sources 
of energy, which we are going to have to on the east coast, at least 
for the foreseeable future, why wouldn't we choose ethanol produced in 
Brazil over oil produced in the Middle East or Venezuela?
  In addition, there is another argument, which is that if the Midwest 
is so concerned about having this tariff in place, they seem to be 
cutting off their nose to spite their face because the practical matter 
is that the more ethanol that is used on the east coast where the 
population of this country is concentrated to a large degree, the more 
the east coast will become dependent on ethanol, and when we get over 
this hurdle of moving ethanol through pipelines or other ways of moving 
it from the Midwest to suppliers and producers, we will see there is a 
demand that has been created, and at that point we will have a 
competitive commodity, one presumes, with the Brazilian ethanol.
  There is no logic to continuing this arbitrary tax on people from the 
Northeast and the East relative to the price on ethanol, a 54-cent-per-
gallon tax. It should be repealed, and therefore I will be offering an 
amendment to repeal this tariff.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska is recognized for 5 minutes.


         Thirtieth Anniversary of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this evening to acknowledge the 
30th anniversary of the first drop of oil passing through the Trans-
Alaska Oil Pipeline. This is truly an engineering marvel which is a 
central component of the transportation of oil from the largest single 
domestic source in America's history--Prudhoe Bay--to the rest of the 
United States, where it powers industry and provides jobs to this day.
  Alaska has been called a lot of different things, some not too 
complimentary, unfortunately. You may remember the term ``Seward's 
folly.'' This was after the United States approved the purchase of 
Alaska from Russia in 1867 which got the State of Alaska, the 
territory, for $7.2 million. ``Seward's folly'' was a reference to 
Secretary of State William Seward, who was an advocate for the 
purchase.
  Alaskans themselves dubbed it ``Seward's icebox,'' reflecting the 
sentiment Americans had toward our supposedly barren, dark, ice-covered 
land. But we soon recognized there was far more than just dark, barren, 
empty land. It was not an icebox but instead a lush, resource-rich, and 
stunningly beautiful land.
  Gold was discovered in the 1890s, and black gold, or oil, was 
discovered about 75 years later. While oil is often viewed in a 
negative context these days, the fact remains that this black gold has 
enabled America to grow into the economic power it is today.
  Alaskan oil, quite honestly, could not have been found in a more 
inconvenient place. Prudhoe Bay, which is

[[Page S7875]]

the location of the massive 1968 discovery, contained oil in ground 
that was permanently frozen up to 1,000 feet deep in the northernmost 
section of the State with three mountain ranges between it and the 
nearest ice-free port.
  Seven oil companies got together to discuss how they might move the 
oil to the lower 48 States. There were several options that were 
proposed at the time. One of them was a water route that would use 
large ice-breaking tankers--essentially plowing through the ice--to get 
the oil down to the lower 48 market. A second option was a water route 
using submarines. A combined land and water system with a Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline and shipments from a southern Alaskan port was the third 
option and the option that was considered to be most feasible for 
several different reasons from the technical, the economic, and the 
legal issues that surrounded it.

  The third option, this Trans-Alaska Pipeline, raised so many concerns 
and so many problems that for many it seemed an impossible task. The 
southern two-thirds of the proposed route was the most seismically 
active area in North America. This was the location of the very famous 
1964 earthquake centered out of Valdez. The southern portion also 
contains a very high avalanche threat. Permafrost, which is the 
permanently frozen ground, runs about half the length of that pipeline 
route. You will find permafrost in that area. These all presented an 
unprecedented engineering challenge. The pipe would have to span a 
distance greater than the distance between Oregon and Mexico or, to put 
it in perspective as to where we are here, it would be the equivalent 
distance of going from this Capitol in Washington, DC, all the way 
south to Orlando, FL. That is the distance our Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
covers today.
  Also, keep in mind we are not only talking about an incredibly long 
800-mile pipe, but it is a stretch of land that includes thousands of 
rivers, three mountain ranges, and we have air temperatures ranging 
from minus 80 degrees below in the wintertime to a positive 95 degrees 
in the summer. So the challenges that faced the Nation as they looked 
to this engineering feat were quite incredible.
  There were also political obstacles that were pretty steep. 
Environmental concerns, which, quite honestly, mirror the modern-day 
debate over oil development in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, resulted in a 50-50 Senate tie on the vote for the 
pipeline's approval. Vice President Spiro Agnew cast the tie-breaking 
affirmative vote in this Chamber about 34 years ago.
  It took 38 months, billions of the final $8 billion pricetag, and 
1,347 State and Federal permits later for the construction to begin on 
one of the most ambitious engineering endeavors in the history of the 
world. During construction, thousands of would-be job seekers flocked 
to Alaska, and those workers battled the cold in the winter that caused 
the equipment to freeze up, and in the summer they battled sunken bogs 
when digging the concrete supports that allow the pipeline to shift in 
order to deal with the temperature changes and the seismic activity. 
They solved problems such as installing the pipe in both Atigun Pass 
and Thompson Pass, incredibly steep terrain just outside the southern 
terminus in Valdez. The terrain is so steep there that workers had to 
be tethered to the peaks by cables to keep them from falling down the 
slopes.
  Mr. President, I think I have probably used my 5 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Along the way, those working on this pipeline made major engineering 
advances, learning how to insulate the pipe and how to keep the 
permafrost ground frozen so that the pipe didn't sink out of site. When 
the project was completed in 1977, 3 years after construction started, 
we had a new domestic supply of oil made available to the United 
States--the single largest domestic source it has ever had.
  On average, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline--we call it TAPS--now sees just 
over 800,000 barrels of oil pass through it each day. This is 231,000 
barrels per hour and 22,000 gallons per minute. So, in other words, in 
the time I have been standing to address you, Mr. President, it has 
transported about 100,000 gallons of crude.
  At peak production, TAPS provided the United States with about 2 
million barrels of oil a day, or 30 percent more than Saudi Arabia does 
today, and nearly as much oil as the entire Persian Gulf provides our 
country today. And Alaskan oil, unlike Middle Eastern oil, does not 
come from unstable regimes, does not hinder our foreign policy options 
by bonding us and our allies to such regimes, and is not at risk of 
being cut off due to instability. We have been a stable domestic 
supplier of the oil needs of the United States for over 30 years.
  The pipeline has turned out to be a much better deal than originally 
anticipated. The dire predictions of environmental disaster have been 
proven false. There have been minor spills, we acknowledge, but the 
environment and the wildlife have been unaffected by the Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline. Our caribou numbers have actually grown along the pipeline 
area, with estimates of up to sixfold in terms of the herd. Moose and 
bear have not been affected, and little oil has been added to the 
environment. All land spills have been completely cleaned up.
  Additionally, while Prudhoe Bay was originally forecast to contain 9 
billion barrels of recoverable oil, we will actually recover twice that 
much, about 18 billion barrels, by the time that field is depleted.
  We recognize the days of abundant Prudhoe Bay oil are dwindling. We 
have produced about 15 billion barrels of oil, leaving only about 3 
billion barrels remaining to recover. Output has fallen by more than 7 
percent a year recently. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, Prudhoe Bay production will be down to 270,000 barrels 
per day by 2030, a level so low that the pipeline likely will not be 
able to function in winter's cold and may become inoperable. That could 
``shut-in'' billions of barrels of future heavy oil deposits in the 
Greater Prudhoe Bay area and perhaps hamper oil recoveries from 
elsewhere in northern Alaska and the OCS off the State's coast.
  In the meantime, U.S. oil imports have grown to account for 58 
percent of our current net oil consumption. Twenty years from now, that 
number is forecasted to climb to 68 percent.
  So I ask my colleagues and the American people, as we remember today 
what Alaska and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system has given to our 
country, to consider also what Alaska could provide for America's 
future. The decision truly lies in the hands of Congress.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
turn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Employee Free Choice Act

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, historians who take a clear-eyed look at 
the last 30 years will tell you, and in particular economists will tell 
you, productivity has been rising, our economy has been expanding, and 
the workers responsible for our Nation's prosperity have not reaped 
anywhere near their share of the benefits which they have earned.
  In 2005, the real median household income in America was down almost 
3 percent from the median income in 2000. That is understanding that 
productivity has sharply increased among American workers. In Ohio, 
median income was down almost 10 percent. Meanwhile, the average CEO 
makes 411 times more than the average worker. As recently as 1990, the 
average CEO made 107 times more; so from 107 times more than the 
average worker in 1990 to now, 411 times more than the average worker.
  Let me explain it another way. In the Agriculture Committee a couple 
of months ago, a young woman in her mid-thirties, with a 9-year-old 
son, came and testified about food stamps. The average food stamp 
beneficiary in our country gets about $1 per meal per person. She and 
her son got about $6 a day for food stamps. She works full time at a 
$9-an-hour job. She has no health care benefits. She gets a food stamp 
benefit. She is president of the local PTA at her son's school. She 
volunteers to teach Sunday school. And

[[Page S7876]]

she is active in the Cub Scouts for her son. She works, as I said, full 
time, making $9 an hour, and gets a small food stamp benefit.
  She says at the beginning of the month she serves her son porkchops a 
couple of times, and as the month goes on she takes him to a fast food 
restaurant once or twice, but by the last couple of days of the month 
she sits at the kitchen table with her son and doesn't eat. Her son 
asks her what is wrong, and she says she's just not feeling well. She 
simply runs out of money at the end of the month. This is somebody 
playing by the rules.
  Later in the day, on the Banking Committee, a committee on which I 
sit with the Presiding Officer from New Jersey, Secretary Paulson was 
testifying, the Secretary of the Treasury, and I told him the story of 
this lady from Middletown, OH.
  He said: Senator, you have to understand we have had 2\1/2\, 3 
percent economic growth in the last year. Things in our country are 
going well.
  Yes, things are going well in terms of profits for corporations. 
Things are going well in terms of top executives. But too often they 
really aren't. Just look at this chart from 1946 to 1973. Economic 
opportunities for poor and working families grew. The incomes of the 
country's workers are divided. The lowest 20 percent, second lowest, 
middle, and then the top 20, top 40 percent, and the top 20 percent 
here. Families who worked hard and played by the rules had a real 
chance of getting ahead. You can see those from 1947 to 1973, the 
lowest 20 percent of our wage earners had the highest growth in income; 
those who made the most had the lowest. So we are seeing all boats 
rise--boats rising a little faster for those in the lowest incomes.
  Beginning in about 1973 and through to 2000, workers at the bottom 
and in the middle began to share less and less of the wealth they 
created. Even though their productivity was going up, their wealth 
didn't, their wages didn't. Economic growth flattened out for those 
same families. You can see there is still economic growth at the lowest 
20, 40, 60 percent, but the fastest growth in incomes was in the top 20 
percent. That was in 2000.
  As the economic pie got bigger, the slice for most Americans got 
smaller. Here you can see the most devastating news of all in the last 
4, 5, 6 years. The only people who had economic growth in this country 
were the top 1 percent. These are the five quintiles. The top 1 percent 
are the only ones who had economic growth, and those at the bottom fell 
the furthest and further behind.
  Historians will also say that in 2006 the middle class spoke up and 
sent a message to Congress demanding change. This Congress raised the 
minimum wage for the first time in a decade. This Congress is fighting 
for fair trade like never before. And I speak today, Mr. President, in 
support of the Employee Free Choice Act, which goes to the heart of the 
plight of working families to reap the benefits of the productivity 
they created, to provide a home and health care and pensions for 
themselves and a college education for their kids.
  The Employee Free Choice Act is a historic step for working families. 
It would give workers the right to organize so they can fight for fair 
wages and decent benefits. The efforts of labor organizers more than 
100 years ago finally led to the progress made seven decades ago with 
the signing of the Wagner Act. The rights that became law then ensured 
fair pay and decent working conditions.
  But more and more employers chose to flout the law by intimidating 
workers and suppressing union activities. All across Ohio, I talk with 
workers who have tried to form a union and who share with me the 
tactics taken by some employers--not all but some employers--to prevent 
workers from organizing.
  I talked with Bill Lawthorn from Macomb, OH. Bill and his coworkers 
wanted a union so workers would be treated with the respect and dignity 
all laborers deserve. They hoped with the union they would get fair and 
decent wages, a decent retirement plan, and decent health care 
benefits. According to Bill, the company responded with threats, with 
intimidation, and harassment.
  Bill said the company threatened to fire him even if the campaign for 
the union failed. The union lost the election, and the day after, Bill, 
in fact, was fired. Since then, various labor boards have held the 
company's actions were illegal. Bill has not been reinstated, though, 
or seen 1 cent of backpay, even though his firing was illegal. That is 
why we need the Employee Free Choice Act.
  Despite the struggle, despite doing odd jobs to pay the bills and 
relying on friends, family, and neighbors, Bill says, if he had the 
chance to do it all over again, he would do everything exactly the same 
because he knew he was right. It was the right thing to do, he said, 
and the Employee Free Choice Act is the right thing to do.
  In 2005 alone, 31,000 employees were awarded backpay by a very 
conservative pro-business National Labor Relations Board due to 
retaliatory firings and unfair labor practices. I repeat, 31,000 
employees were given backpay because, according to the National Labor 
Relations Board, they were fired illegally and unfairly.
  Many companies decide to fire union supporters. Even if employees 
later successfully prove their case, the penalties all too often are an 
insufficient deterrent. These practices must end. The Employee Free 
Choice Act is the first step.

  For the first time in our history, our sons and daughters do not have 
the opportunities their moms and dads had. A son, in 1994, earned 5 
percent higher wages than his dad did in 1964. You can see how wages 
went up in that generation. But in 2004, a son's wages were down 12 
percent from what his father made in 1974. You can see, too many kids 
are pessimistic about their futures.
  We cannot continue this course. Unions are an agent for change. 
History will show that this Congress responded to the ever-increasing 
gap between the haves and have-nots. Fair trade, fair wages and 
benefits, the right to join a union--all three are basic to a society 
where work is rewarded and worker intimidation is not tolerated. 
Majority Leader Reid is committed to moving forward on fair trade 
issues, on fair wages and fair benefits issues, as we already have, and 
equally importantly, the right to join a union.
  The Employee Free Choice Act is a major step for working families. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I first would like to express my 
appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Ohio for his advocacy 
for better trade policy for our country. I also appreciate his graphic 
illustration of what is happening in our country now, when sons are 
making less than their fathers.
  It is difficult to comprehend, but that is the position in which we 
find ourselves, so we need a better trade policy, and we certainly need 
to pass the card check and Employees Free Choice Act.
  I appreciate the statement of the Senator from Ohio and his constant 
advocacy for a better trade policy.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted in support of the NOPEC 
amendment to H.R. 6, which was offered by my colleague, Senator Herbert 
Kohl. The amendment seeks to prevent OPEC nations from continuing to 
conspire to limit the supply of oil and to drive up America's already 
exorbitant energy costs. While I recognize that this is not a perfect 
piece of legislation, and that it may require the addition of certain 
clarifying provisions to ascertain its applicability in particular 
circumstances, I believe that it is a fine first step toward finally 
holding OPEC accountable for its actions. The time is long overdue for 
America's working families to send OPEC the message that West 
Virginians in particular will no longer be content to sit quietly by 
the side of the road, watching OPEC drive our gas and home heating 
prices to ever higher levels. This amendment is meant to send a 
signal--a signal to OPEC nations that the American people are not going 
to take it anymore. We will no longer be held hostage to OPEC's self-
serving energy policies, which line their pockets, at the expense of 
our pocketbooks.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be very brief, but I do want to say 
that I have been in the Senate now for a number of years, with 
Republican leaders and Democratic leaders, Democratic majorities and 
Republican majorities,

[[Page S7877]]

and never have we had a situation like we have had this past 6 months. 
We have to move to cloture on virtually everything--everything. I am 
going to file, now, tonight, four cloture motions. Never have we had to 
do this before.
  It is common practice, and has been for all the time we have been a 
Senate, that, because you are dealing with the House, you are offering 
a substitute amendment that takes place with the Senate bill. Without 
going into a lot of detail, we rarely in the past had to file cloture 
on not only the substitute but also the underlying bill. We have to do 
it on virtually everything. We have never had to file cloture on every 
motion to proceed. That is what we are having to do now. It is a 
tremendous waste of the time of the Senate and of the country, but that 
is what we have to do. That is what I am going to do tonight.
  It is going to become apparent, and is to some people, and some 
writing is taking place on it now, that we had to file so many cloture 
motions. It is because we have on almost every occasion had to file 
cloture on everything. It is a struggle to get legislation here to the 
floor. The minority's goal, the Republicans' No. 1 goal, I guess, at 
this time is to see that we don't get anything done. But in spite of 
that, we have been able to get a lot done. It has been difficult. It 
has been slogging. It has been slow.
  We have a list of things we have been able to accomplish, with which 
I think the country should be very happy--minimum wage; we have been 
able to get disaster relief for farmers for the first time in 3 years; 
we passed a balanced budget amendment; we funded the Government with a 
continuing resolution. We have been able to do a number of things. 
There is no need to run through the entire list tonight other than to 
say it is too bad it has been so difficult to get those things done. We 
are very close to being able to finish the conference on the lobbying 
ethics reform; 9/11--I spoke to Senator Lieberman earlier this evening, 
that is basically all done.
  We have a difficult schedule. Why? Because of having to jump through 
every procedural hoop. It would be different if we were doing it 
because of people who didn't like immigration. I understand that. But 
we are doing it on everything we bring through the Senate.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Baucus tax 
     amendment No. 1704 to H.R. 6, the Energy bill.
         Max Baucus, Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad, Jeff Bingaman, 
           John Kerry, Blanche L. Lincoln, Charles Schumer, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Byron L. Dorgan, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, 
           Ken Salazar, Daniel K. Akaka, Daniel K. Inouye, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Harry Reid.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid 
     substitute amendment No. 1502 to Calendar No. 9, H.R. 6, the 
     Energy bill.
         Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, John Kerry, 
           Robert Menendez, Kent Conrad, Pat Leahy, Russell 
           Feingold, Jack Reed, Christopher Dodd, Ken Salazar, Joe 
           Biden, Frank R. Lautenberg, Daniel K. Inouye, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Byron L. Dorgan.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the first 
cloture motion I filed, the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII 
be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the one I just filed, I ask unanimous 
consent that the mandatory quorum call required under rule XXII be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 9, 
     H.R. 6, Comprehensive Energy legislation.
         Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, John Kerry, 
           Robert Menendez, Kent Conrad, Pat Leahy, Russell 
           Feingold, Jack Reed, Christopher Dodd, Ken Salazar, Joe 
           Biden, Frank R. Lautenberg, Daniel K. Inouye, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Byron L. Dorgan.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
required under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was going to ask, on a number of these 
matters, unanimous consent that we move forward on them. I am not going 
to do that tonight. I only appeal to my friends, the Republicans, that 
they take a look at this and find out if it is absolutely necessary 
that we have these cloture votes. If we follow through on all these, we 
will have to work both this weekend and part of the next weekend. I 
hope we do not have to do that. If it were productive time, it would be 
one thing, but it is basically a waste of time.

                          ____________________