Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 101 (Thursday, June 21, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 101 (Thursday, June 21, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8166-S8221]
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. Will the Senator suspend to allow
the Senate to report pending business.
Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of
H.R. 6, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

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.
Corker amendment No. 1608 (to amendment No. 1502), to allow
clean fuels to meet the renewable fuel standard.
Cardin modified amendment No. 1520 (to amendment No. 1502),
to promote the energy independence of the United States.
Collins amendment No. 1615 (to amendment No. 1502), to
provide for the development and coordination of a
comprehensive and integrated U.S. research program that
assists the people of the United States and the world to
understand, assess, and predict human-induced and natural
processes of abrupt climate change.
Baucus amendment No. 1704 (to amendment No. 1502), to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for energy
advancement and investment.
Kyl-Lott modified amendment No. 1733 (to amendment No.
1704), to provide a condition precedent for the effective
date of the revenue raisers.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 70 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in
relation to amendment No. 1733, offered by the Senator from Arizona,
Mr. Kyl, and the motion to invoke cloture on amendment No. 1704,
offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Amendment No. 1733

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, resuming debate on the amendment which I
offered, the amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that
notwithstanding the tax increases, $28.6 billion in tax increases in
the amendment pending on the floor, they shall not take effect unless
the Secretary of Energy certifies that those tax increases will not
increase retail gasoline prices or the reliance of the United States on
foreign sources of energy.
The point of the amendment is to make it clear that sometimes tax
increases on business can be passed on to consumers. If that happens in
this case, we are going to see higher gasoline prices at the pump, not
lower prices. One of the concerns many of us have with the underlying
bill is it doesn't produce any new energy. Yet it spends $28.5 billion.
To make up for that spending, it taxes an additional $28.6 billion.
Somebody has to end up paying that tax. Most people in America know
that when you put a tax on a business, that gets passed on to the
consumers who buy the product--in this case, gasoline. So instead of
reducing gasoline prices, this bill, if the underlying amendment
passes, is going to add to the cost of gasoline.
Yesterday I mentioned a Heritage Foundation study that confirmed that
what I was saying was not simply my opinion but the facts as a result
of a study that the Heritage Foundation had done. I would like to
expand on that a little bit because we actually have the figures for
two States, the State of the chairman of the committee, Montana, and my
State of Arizona, to illustrate the point.
The study projects that gas prices in Montana, for example, in May
averaged at $3.17 per gallon. They would be $3.48 per gallon next year
as a result of the Energy bill before the Senate. A Montana taxpayer
would see spending on gasoline increase by $1,632.95 next year, as a
result of the bill.
In Arizona, we are paying about $3.09 per gallon. That would go up to
$3.40 next year as a result of this bill, so Arizona taxpayers will see
spending on gasoline increase by $1,140.51 next year as a result of
this Energy bill. That is a huge increase in consumers' payment for
gasoline. When we realize that for many people driving is not a luxury,
it is a requirement--to get to work or perform work--it is clear we are
costing the American consumer a huge amount of money that is important
for our economy and for them to make a living. That is an unintended
consequence of the tax increases embodied in this bill but real
nevertheless.
What we are saying is, if that is the result of tax increases, then
those tax increases would not go into effect. I think that is an
important principle for us to establish.
I would like to respond to a couple of points made by opponents of my
amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee argued the tax
increases in the underlying bill are simply loophole closers, but that
is not true. The largest tax increase in the bill is a brandnew tax. It
is not a loophole closer, it is a new 13-percent tax on new oil
production in the Gulf of Mexico. How is that going to help bring down
gasoline prices? I suggest it is not. It will help to raise prices.
The second largest tax increase in the bill raises the corporate tax
rate. That is not a loophole closer either, it is simply needed to pay
for the other costs of the bill, so it was a ready source of revenue
that they decided to tap.
This is a raise in the corporate tax rate for oil and gas companies,
which would then make it higher on those companies than others in
manufacturing--something we were trying to promote when we passed the
bill 2 years ago.

[[Page S8167]]

Raising the corporate tax rate is obviously not a loophole closer. I
suggest when you raise marginal tax rates, you either get less
production or higher prices--more likely, both--not good results from
raising taxes.
Finally, the Senator from Oregon argued yesterday that with oil over
$55 a barrel, oil companies should not need incentives to drill for new
oil and gas. I certainly agree with that; they do not need any new
incentives to drill for oil and gas. I have always been against those
kinds of targeted incentives or taxpayer subsidies for any form of
energy. But imposing a new tax or raising the corporate rate is not the
same thing as repealing targeted incentives, which is what we should be
doing. Moreover, with oil over $60 a barrel right now, renewable energy
companies should not need any further taxpayer subsidies either. The
market is providing all the incentives necessary to produce hybrid cars
and advanced fuels.
These tax increases are not necessary. They are going to be
counterproductive to our economic growth. They are going to hurt our
producers vis-a-vis foreign producers, they are going to further
increase our dependence on foreign oil and, most importantly, they are
going to raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for American consumers.
All my amendment says is if that happens, then these tax increases
should not go into effect. If it doesn't have that effect, then the tax
increases would go into effect.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Baucus
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against cloture.
There are only two things wrong with the Baucus amendment: One, it
raises taxes in the wrong places; and, secondly, it spends these taxes
on the wrong policies. I want to make two points upfront before I start
my remarks.
When we speak of American big oil, let me remind people that
America's five big oil companies hold less reserves than Hugo Chavez,
the state-owned company of Hugo Chavez in his country.
My second point is, very seldom does the United States tax businesses
that are in competition overseas. Let me repeat that. We in America
hardly ever tax American businesses that are in competition overseas.
Of course, that is exactly what we have done here, and what is going to
happen is not going to be good. It is not going to help the American
consumer one bit.
There are only two things, as I indicated, that are wrong with the
Baucus amendment. I would repeat: It raises taxes in the wrong places,
and then it spends them on the wrong policies.
I cast this vote, and I think it is an informed vote based on my
experience. It is with a deep sense of responsibility to do what is
right, with a keen interest and understanding of energy policy, because
I have been forced to work on it with many who know a lot about it.
With a real appreciation of the importance of this vote, I will oppose
cloture.
The tax provisions in this bill will increase the cost of gasoline at
the pump for Americans, increase electricity bills for families, and
work severe hardship on our natural gas supply. Additionally, this
amendment could seriously harm our economy. The Federal Reserve
Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently noted that: A significant increase in
energy prices can simultaneously slow the economy, and raise inflation.
I cannot vote for that consequence. I urge that my colleagues not do
so either. I do not cast this vote lightly, and I arrive at the
decision after a great deal of reflection. There are many good and
important provisions contained in this amendment. In the area of
renewable energy, while there may be questions about how long certain
tax credits should be extended, there should be no doubt that in the
past I have supported renewable energy.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with Senator Bingaman, we passed
the largest tax incentives for renewable energy, a variety of renewable
energies, than we ever have in American history. My friend and
colleague Senator Alexander has often referred to the bill that we
passed as the ``Clean Energy Act.'' He is right. In 2005, in the Energy
Policy Act we provided renewable energy production tax credits,
automobile tax credits, and we can keep going. We provided tax credits
for energy efficient improvements, biodiesel, and for ethanol. We
included tax credits for installing alternative refueling property, tax
credits for the installation of solar. The world demanded cleaner
energy, and the Energy Policy Act answered the call.
Between 2004 and 2006, global private capital investment in clean
energy rose from around $30 billion to $60 billion a year. It rose
because we set the framework into law, and it was invested on the
private side. In the public market and in venture capital and in
private equity, in corporate research, development, and demonstration,
and government research and development and asset financing, the answer
has been the same. Both the private and public sector are excited about
the future of clean energy, and they are busy, under our 2005 act,
investing heavily in it.
The weakness is in the amendment I am talking about. Without
question, some of the tax incentives in this bill could have a positive
impact on the landscape of American energy future. To deny that would
be to debate unfairly the merits of this amendment.
Cellulosic ethanol production credits, plug-in hybrid vehicle
credits, and clean coal energy bonds are smart financial incentives,
and those tax policies complement many of the goals we have sought to
achieve in the previous legislation. I think that is good.
Supporting the great things that we accomplished together in the
Energy bill 2 years ago made us all feel good. However, the tax
incentives in this bill focus on too narrow a field of energy policy.
The Finance Committee has reported this amendment with a pricetag of
$32.1 billion, a very large tax increase. In a few minutes I will speak
about the troubling revenue-raising proposals in this amendment.
But, first, I ask myself and I ask others, so our people would get a
feeling of what $32.1 billion is, what it can be better used for or
what it might be used for in the American economy if it were free to be
invested or other things bought with it: $32.1 billion would purchase
15 biorefineries, 16,000 barrels-per-day coal-to-liquid refineries, 5
gasoline refineries, and 4 nuclear powerplants, 10 bio-energy research
centers, and 500 miles of transmission lines.

Now, I am not suggesting we would buy them with this bill, but I am
suggesting that everyone should know the huge size of this tax, taken
out of the economy, and what it would invest in similar dollars, that
it could invest in the American economy. I just told you what they
were.
We could use this money for commercial demonstrations in oil shale,
fund demonstrations for energy from coal using IGCC, and we all know we
must do that. We do not have any money to do them, and we are having
difficulty getting loans from the Government, and here we are taking
$32 billion and not providing anything for these kinds of investments
that we must do if we are going to keep pace with China, which is going
full speed ahead with all of those things, including nuclear power, and
nuclear powerplants in this country. We must get there also.
But in the meantime, we are taking an awful lot of revenue flow out
of the economy, right away from the energy companies that know how to
invest it, where to invest it, how to pick up reserves, and how to keep
the price of oil as much within bounds as the world market will permit.
Without question, the revenue-raising proposals in the amendment will
increases the cost of exploring for and producing our Nation's oil and
gas and natural gas. As a result, Americans will pay higher prices for
gasoline at the pump, and we will suffer increased electricity costs as
our Nation's natural gas supply is weakened. We will pay higher prices,
obviously, for natural gas.
The excise tax on oil and gas exploration increases taxes $10 billion
over 10 years on producers on our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf.
Frankly, I believe that entire tax is wrong. We should not be taxing
the most productive--the places where more money is being put for
exploration than anywhere else, the Outer Continental

[[Page S8168]]

Shelf. Yet one-third of the taxes here come from imposing a fee, a very
high fee, on the Outer Continental Shelf. Who would have thought it?
The place in America where we have a chance of producing, we have
imposed a heavy tax. Proponents of this amendment claim these tax
provisions only affect the five largest U.S. oil and gas companies. Not
true. But I have already told you who they are and what they represent
in the world markets.
In fact, there are 40 lessee companies. Nearly 75 percent of all
entities leasing on the OCS hold leases that would be subject to a 13-
percent punitive tax. I hardly thought I would see that on the floor of
the Senate. Yet here it is, bragged about as a very big source of money
that we can do other things with, without regard to the prices the
American people are going to pay in the increased prices for oil and
gas coming from the shelf.
This is the lifeblood of our domestic oil and gas production. It
makes absolutely no sense to advocate for independence from foreign
oil, and then turn right around and raise taxes on our domestic
companies that are producing America's oil and natural gas. It will
mean higher prices for consumers.
Oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf amounts to
approximately 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, and 12\1/2\ billion
cubic feet of natural gas. Annually, this production equals
approximately 600 million barrels of oil per year and 4.7 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas per year.
Now, that is good. They are doing fine. So why don't we put a tax on
them of 13.5 surtax? It makes no sense. The price will go up,
production will come down. These amounts produce 30 percent of our
domestic oil production per year, and 23 percent of our domestic
natural gas. Placing a punitive tax on this production is serious
business backed by very serious facts, and I say serious consequences.
Activities on the OCS provide an average of over $6 billion a year in
revenue to the Treasury. In the future the offshore will be even more
important. The Minerals Management Service estimates about 60 percent
of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be
contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States are
located where? Where might you guess? In the Outer Continental Shelf,
upon which we are going to place a very stiff, very high tax.
Furthermore, the intent of the OCS excise tax and the effect of this
tax is crystal clear. The provision charges 13 percent of the removal
price of taxable crude oil and natural gas, with a credit available to
those who have price thresholds on their oil and natural gas leases. In
plain English, this amendment seeks to legislatively breach valid
contracts from 1998 and 1999, because the Clinton administration failed
to include a term in these agreements.
In other words, there was no fault of the companies. The Clinton
administration either made a mistake or did not want to put the fee on;
it just didn't happen. So for those 2 years, we have royalty leases
with no royalty thresholds.
Congress cannot rewrite contracts after the fact merely because we do
not like the contracts or the results. I predict when we are all
finished, the courts of the land are going to say: This part of this
tax is illegal and unconstitutional, and out the window will go a very
large portion of this tax because the rights are clearly there. We have
to think about it and think about what we are doing.
I do not like the idea of the United States of America going back on
its contracts. It sounds and looks and smells like some foreign
country. But we are close to doing it here in the name of some new
answer, and at the same time saying it is going to yield revenues for
us to use for various things in this bill.
As we consider this amendment, the Senate should be on notice that
legal precedent would not be on our side. The U.S. Supreme Court and
Federal circuit court precedents suggest that the Government cannot
avoid the obligations of its contracts by using its taxing power to
take back benefits it has given up pursuant to an agreement. I suggest
to the Senate that a Federal court will recognize this tax for what it
is and, therefore, this $10 billion we are counting on in this bill
will be lost.
The Department of the Interior has already testified before
Congress expressing its concern about protracted litigation over this
issue and the potential for a loss of billions in revenue as well as
the delay of oil and gas production.

There are 2 other provisions among the revenue raising proposals that
are very troubling. One provision would amend the Job Creation Act of
2004, which created tax relief for more than 200,000 U.S. corporations
and businesses. This proposal increases taxes by almost $10 billion
over 10 years.
Instead of the Jobs Creation Act, we could call this provision the
Jobs Destruction Act.
Finally, the increase in taxes by the U.S. Government on American
companies competing overseas--through the foreign oil tax provision--
increases taxes $3.1 billion over 10 years.
This amendment also attacks American interests and cedes control to
foreign interests. It says we would rather buy energy from the likes of
Hugo Chavez in Venezuela than produce it ourselves.
To put the proper context on this, Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian
state-owned oil company, has nearly 3 times more daily output per
million barrels per day than the largest U.S. oil company and holds
nearly 10 times the oil and natural gas reserves.
To make it more difficult for American companies to compete overseas
for this global commodity at a time when oil prices are nearly $70 per
barrel is simply wrong. The Senate should reject this political
expediency that will hurt American businesses, and the American
consumer.
I began my remarks by conveying to this Senate the seriousness with
which I cast this vote.
In my judgment, this amendment will have significant negative
consequences on America's energy security. The Baucus amendment will
increase the cost of producing oil and gas in America and will
undermine the ability of American businesses to compete against state-
owned oil companies run by foreign governments. The result for our
Nation will be a greater reliance on crude oil from hostile regions of
the world and an increase in the price of gasoline for the American
people.
That is an unacceptable consequence and not what the American people
expect of us.
For the reasons that I have stated, I must vote no on the motion to
invoke cloture on the Baucus amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding.
I come to the floor to oppose the tax that has been proposed and is
now before us brought by the Finance Committee.
It is very easy politically to stick it to the big boys, and that is
the political game which is being played out on the floor of the Senate
as we speak. Stick it to the big boys. OK, we are going to stick it to
the big boys, $32.1 billion worth of taxes. What will it do for us?
Will it change the price at the gas pump today? No. In fact, we have
just heard the Senator from New Mexico say it could possibly raise the
price of gas in the long term. Hasn't this Senate heard the plea of the
American consumer over the last 6 months about $3 gas? Don't we get it
today or do we just want to play petrol politics? That is what the
Finance Committee has done; they have played petrol politics. They are
sticking it to the big boys, and they are going to put it in the green
machine. The green machine may yield some energy in the future, but it
sure isn't going to change the price at the gas pump tomorrow or the
next day or next week or next year. If they argue in disagreement with
me, my answer is simple: Prove it. Prove that you will change the price
at the pump. Or will the big boys simply try to pass it through to the
consumer? We will find out, won't we, if this bill passes. That is why
I am going to have to oppose cloture on the Baucus provision of taxes,
the petrol politics of this issue.
Let me show you the petrol politics of the real issue. Here is where
the reserves in the world exist today. Here are the big boys of
America--Exxon,

[[Page S8169]]

Chevron, Marathon. Do we really think if we stick it to these three and
more we will change the world? No. The world today from the standpoint
of energy is controlled over here on the left-hand side of the chart.
It is controlled by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and so on down the line.
They control the known reserves. They control the world's oil supply.
They are the big boys. We are not sticking it to them. In fact, we are
handing them a golden leaf. We are saying: You control the world oil
supply, and we are dependent upon you for 60 percent of our supply. But
we are going to penalize our producers because of the petrol politics
of this issue.
There is another petrol game being played out. Petrol politics is
being played out on the floor of the Senate, but petrol nationalism is
being played out by these companies and countries of known reserve.
Every one of these producers controls their supply; their nation's
government and their nation's government's companies control the supply
of oil. They can turn the valve on or off. Every time they do, the
American consumer ultimately pays more. That is called petrol
nationalism. I believe when we talk about the war of energy today, that
is what we are involved in. We are involved in a war on who can produce
energy and can we become energy secure so that we don't have to be
dependent upon Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran.
We know what is happening in that area of the world today, the
phenomenal instability. Not only do these nations play petrol
nationalism, they also play with something else: They have the weapon
of mass disruption. Let me repeat that. These nations hold the weapon
of mass disruption. You change the price at the pump a couple of
dollars because you turn the valve off in these countries, and you hit
this economy like a freight train.
What are we going to do today? We are going to tax it a little more.
That is all this Congress really knows how to do, is tax. They don't
know how to produce. We don't produce. We get out of the way of
production. We encourage production, but this bill will not produce one
barrel of oil. ExxonMobil will produce a barrel of oil. Chevron will.
Marathon will. The rest of these countries will. But we don't. We are
now stepping in the way of that production. We are now penalizing that
production.
The senior Senator from New Mexico talked about where the greatest
reserves of America lie today--offshore. Yet we are saying: If you want
to play out there, if you want to go out, find it, drill, we are going
to tax you. We are going to penalize you instead of encourage you and
incentivize you to discover, to bring it to the wellhead and to bring
it to America's shores and to refine it for the American consumer.
Anybody in a reasonable way who doesn't want to play the political
game being played out on the floor as we speak--petrol politics--needs
to vote no on cloture.
If the American consumer thinks these companies are going to pay the
$32.1 billion in taxes, they have it wrong. They are going to pay it at
the pump. The Baucus bill pumps tax dollars out of the back pocket of
the American consumer. It does not allow oil to be pumped out of the
ground. It does not allow us to hold a stronger political position in
the world of petrol nationalism. That is the debate we are going
through right now. It is about windmills. It is about cellulosic. It is
about all the things I like. But it really isn't. It is antiproduction.
It is anticonsumer. It is anti-American to deny our Nation's economy
access to the world energy supply. That is what we are doing. Let's
allow Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran to grab us by the gas nozzle and
jerk us around every time they choose. This tax package suggests that
could start again tomorrow because we are not going to get ourselves
back into the business of production.
I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very interesting series of
statements we have heard in the last 15 minutes, half hour, statements
basically trying to lead Americans to believe that this Finance
Committee tax package, as well as the provisions of the tax package to
pay for incentives so we can wean ourselves away from OPEC, away from
all these countries, is going to result somehow in some cataclysmic
event; namely, gasoline prices are going to go up, according to
statements we have heard. We have also heard that we are going to
reduce domestic exploration and development of American oil companies;
we are putting ourselves in the hands of foreign countries. The fact
is, the exact opposite is the case. These statements are amazing. It is
good political rhetoric, but it has nothing to do with the facts.
First, it is more important that people understand that the amendment
offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, basically delegates to
the Secretary of Energy whether $30 billion worth of tax provisions
will be enacted. I am astounded that anybody in the Senate wants to
delegate that decision to the Secretary of Energy instead of the U.S.
Congress deciding whether the tax needs to be imposed.
The Kyl amendment basically says that unless the Energy Secretary can
determine that the effect of this will not increase the price of
gasoline at the pump, that he, the Energy Secretary, or she, the Energy
Secretary--whoever the Energy Secretary is--will automatically be
forced to rescind the pay-fors in this bill. That is astounding. It is
basically delegating to the Energy Secretary a policy which should be
made by the Congress, and that is a huge dereliction of responsibility.
I am appalled that anybody would dare suggest it. But that is a fact.
Second, if we look at the whole bill, the Finance Committee package
in the Energy bill and also the Kyl amendment, several things are
striking. The first is the major underlying Finance Committee bill is
designed to accomplish the objective that the Senator from Idaho is
complaining about. The Senator from Idaho is complaining that this
amendment transfers power to Venezuela or to Saudi Arabia, other
countries. The whole point of this bill is the exact opposite. It is to
wean ourselves away from OPEC, wean ourselves away from those
countries, so that we Americans are in a better position to determine
our own destiny, in a better position to get more energy production
here in America.
How do we do that? The committee bill does that through all kinds of
incentives. It reduces taxes in lots of different ways for alternative
energy, renewable energy, cellulosic development, encouraging more
American clean coal technology so we can tap into our vast reserves of
coal. It has lots of ways we could help America be more self-sufficient
and wean ourselves away from these very high gasoline prices we are
forced to pay partly because OPEC is forcing us to pay those prices;
the truth is, partly because the major oil companies are charging
whatever the market will bear. That is why they are charging such high
prices to the American consumer. What evidence do I have of that? It is
very simple and direct.
I was stunned because of the candor of the CEO of ExxonMobil when he
made this statement. This was last year at a Judiciary Committee
hearing. I was not there; I was watching on C-SPAN. At that hearing,
the exchange was essentially between the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr.
Kohl, and the CEO of Exxon. I think Senator Kohl asked the question.
This was an open hearing.
He said: Sir, why are gasoline prices so high now?
The answer: Well, Exxon has to pay more because OPEC is charging us
more. So we to have pay more, and we transfer those price increases
down to the American consumer.
The Senator from Wisconsin asked the head of ExxonMobil: Explain this
to me, please. At the same time, your profits have exploded. They have
gone up about $35 billion this year. Your profits have expanded.
Senator Kohl said: I am a businessman. Ordinarily, if my costs go up,
my profits go down. Please explain to me why you would say your costs
are going up because OPEC is charging you more and yet your profits are
going way up. Why?
His answer was very illustrative of the point here. He said, in all
candor: Senator, my responsibility is not to the American consumer; my
responsibility is to my stockholders. I will charge whatever the market
will bear because I have a duty to protect my stockholders and get
whatever I can for my stockholders. I am going to charge whatever I
can.

[[Page S8170]]

That is why profits are so high, because Americans can't put milk in
their car or their truck. They can't put in water. They have to put in
diesel fuel or gasoline. Americans are stuck. The majors are passing on
through their distribution system these very high gasoline prices
because they can get away with it and because it fattens profits and
because they are beholden to stockholders, not the American consumers.
What about these provisions which the Senator from Arizona wants to
strike. There are three of them. It is very simple, and there is a
reason why they are there and why they will not have the disastrous
effect the Senator from Arizona claims.
The first one is to rescind a tax break we gave to the five major oil
companies back in 2004. It is called section 199.
We gave that tax break, frankly, to all American domestic
manufacturers, including the oil companies. It was as a response to a
WTO ruling a year or two earlier which said our American tax laws--
which gave incentives for American products to be exported--were WTO
illegal. So we came up with a backup plan. The backup plan was
basically section 199 in the code, enacted in the 2004 Jobs Act, which
says, OK, we will give an extra little break to domestic production in
the United States. If they export the products, fine; if they do not,
that is fine. We will still give them a break. That is what that is.
What has happened to domestic oil production in the United States
since that was enacted in 2004? Well, one would think it probably
increased a little bit because the major oil companies get a little tax
break. The fact is, the exact opposite has happened.
Let me quote a couple statistics. In 2004, when that provision was
put in effect, domestic production was about 170 million barrels a
month. It was 170 million barrels a month in 2004. Well, you would
think it would go up because of that tax break for domestic production.
Oh, no, that is not what happened. It actually went down. It is down to
about 160 million barrels.
Look at the price of oil. Back in 2004, the price of oil was $40 a
barrel. Now it is about $65 a barrel. Well, gee, you would think--that
is more money in the oil companies' coffers--they would want to use
that for more exploration, more development. No. Again, there is less
domestic production, even with the price of oil so high over that
period of time and even though they have had a tax break. I might add,
too, the price of gasoline at the pump back then was about $2 a gallon.
Today, it is above $3 a gallon. So that did not help.
So, gee, we thought: We will take that away. It did not help, so we
will take it away. So, therefore, it seems to me it is not going to
cause an increase in the price of gasoline at the pump.
I might say, the statistics cited by the Senator from Arizona are
based on the Heritage Foundation. I am not going to get into the
question of who financed that study--I have an idea who financed that
study; and, therefore, it drove the results they would like to get--but
that is the same organization that said Iraqi oil is going to pay for
Iraq reconstruction too. They were dead wrong then, and they are dead
wrong now. They are an organization which, frankly, I think is not the
most objective, independent organization in the world. That is the
first one. That is why we made that first change.
The second provision in the Finance Committee bill the Senator's
amendment wants to strike is a loophole closer. We are trying to close
a loophole. The Joint Committee on Taxation said--that is a bipartisan
organization, the Joint Committee on Taxation, which serves both the
House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats--their independent
study shows there is a big loophole the major oil companies take with
respect to foreign tax breaks in this area; that is, ordinarily a
company gets to reduce its income taxes in the amount of the foreign
taxes that company pays to a foreign country.
Now, the law is different between exploration costs and distribution
downstream costs. The companies game the system. They offset one
against the other. Joint Tax saw this big loophole. Let's close it.
That is the second provision. Also, I do not see how anybody could
argue against that. It is a big loophole closer. It makes the Tax Code
more fair.
Then we get to the third provision. This is the so-called
confiscatory excise tax on the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico.
Let's be honest. First of all, the President of the United States,
himself, believes there is insufficient revenue paid to Uncle Sam on
these OCS leases. The best evidence: The President of the United
States, himself, has enacted a 6\2/3\-percent royalty on all new leases
in the gulf. He thinks they are not paying enough. He has increased the
current royalty--it was 12 percent. The bill has a 13-percent severance
tax. The President, himself, has enacted a whole new higher royalty
provision on new leases in the gulf. He thinks they are undertaxed.
Right now it is about a 12-percent royalty. This provision in our
Finance Committee bill says a 13-percent severance tax.
Clearly, Congress has the power to enact a tax. The royalties paid by
any company are credited against the 13 percent, and so it is a net
lower than what the President thinks the amount should be in revenue
paid by the oil and gas companies in the gulf.
I might also say the General Accounting Office has done a study of
how much America taxes oil and gas compared with how other countries
tax oil and gas. What is the result of the GAO study? The result of the
GAO study is we Americans basically tax oil and gas less than other
jurisdictions around the world--or other States. The State of Alaska is
taxing more. Other countries tax more now. We Americans are pretty easy
and soft compared to other countries on how much we tax oil and gas
revenues.

So this argument that somehow, oh, my gosh, America is going to tax
oil and gas companies with these provisions--that it is confiscatory;
they are going to go overseas--it is just nonsense. It is just total
nonsense because, already, oil and gas revenue in the United States is
not taxed as much as it is in other jurisdictions. It seems to me,
therefore, it is not unfair to enact this provision.
The main point is if the Kyl amendment passes, then the Finance
Committee tax title of this bill is dead because we are not paying for
it, effectively. That is because the Energy Secretary, under the Kyl
amendment, probably would rule that maybe prices might go up at the
pump, given the politics of it all, and that means we do not have a
bill anymore.
Therefore, I urge Senators to say: OK, let's do what is right. Let's
start to wean ourselves from OPEC. Let's start to give some incentives
to American domestic producers of alternative fuels, renewable fuels,
and have more conservation measures to help America again take control
of our own destiny.
This is not a perfect bill. Nothing is perfect. But it is a good
bill. It is a very good bill. It helps put America back on track, helps
America turn the corner toward more energy independence, and enhances
our national security so we are less reliant upon OPEC, less reliant
upon those countries to which some Senators say this bill gives a
break. It does not. This bill does the exact opposite. It helps America
become America again.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address why we should have
cloture on this bill to get to finality--and that is going to take 60
votes--and why you should not support the Kyl amendment.
In the debate on some of this bill, particularly in committee, we had
the issue of, well, we are taxing oil companies to promote renewable
fuels; that this is an industrial policy, and it is bad for Congress to
be involved in industrial policy. Basically, I agree.
But, remember, throughout the history of this country, Congress has
been involved in a lot of industrial policy. There would not be a
farmstead today that would have electricity if we did not have rural
electric cooperatives. Railroads would have a monopoly on hauling
things if we did not have river improvements so that barges could work
as well. Railroads would still be hauling most of our commerce if we
had not built an interstate system. Airports and airlines are all about
the Government promoting competition.
Also, we are involved in where we are, taxing the oil industry to get
a renewable energy industry started--as we

[[Page S8171]]

have been for 20 years now just with ethanol, and expanding it beyond
ethanol, but we would not have an ethanol industry today if we had not
had tax incentives over the last few years. There will be, someday--
just like we are saying to the oil companies today: You got your start
because of tax policy, a lot of tax benefits, because the oil industry
was infant at one time and needed to get started. The same thing is
true of alternative energy. If we do not give some tax incentives to
get alternative energy--and I mean beyond ethanol: biodiesel, wind
energy, things that maybe we do not even have on our mind today--we are
talking a little bit about cellulosic ethanol, but it is around the
corner yet--we are not going to develop these industries to the strong
capability they need to be when there is less and less and less
transportation provided by petroleum products.
So I think we ought to look at the reality of how a gigantic oil
industry got started in the United States--through tax incentives. We
are talking about tax incentives to get alternative energy started.
That is why I hope you will abide by the decisions the Committee on
Finance made to have these situations where there is some tax on oil
companies for the benefit of tax credits for alternative energy.
I hope you also appreciate the fact that maybe a lot of us would like
to have the tax incentives without offsets, but we are in an
environment of pay-go. We are not in a reconciliation situation. We are
in a situation where we have to provide the necessary offsets in order
to get this legislation through.
So I hope you will think of the history of where we have been with
tax policies to promote an industry that is out there now. I hope you
will understand that God only made so much fossil fuel and there has to
be a follow-on if we are going to have the growth of our economy.
I would like to state this one last point that I have heard the
President of the United States make many times when I have been to the
White House in the Oval Office to talk energy. The President has said
many times that with these high prices of oil the way they are, we do
not need any more incentives for the oil companies to get more energy.
The President has been a friend of alternative energy, most often
expressing his support of ethanol, but a supporter of alternative
energy, and I hope he is in support of this legislation as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor because I think the Senator's time
is about up. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New
Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I
want to publicly state what I have stated several times in the last few
days, and that is my appreciation to Senator Baucus and Senator
Grassley for their leadership in putting this tax package together that
has been reported favorably by the Finance Committee on which I am
privileged to serve.
Let me speak, briefly, about the Kyl amendment and then talk about
the tax package more generally and why we should vote to invoke cloture
on this tax package and proceed.
On the Kyl amendment, my first concern is the obvious one: that
adoption of the Kyl amendment would be totally irresponsible as a
fiscal matter. The Kyl amendment says ``notwithstanding any other
provision of the subtitle,'' the subtitle being those provisions that
raise revenue to pay for this. We are in a pay-go situation in the
Senate under our budgetary arrangements, so if we are going to provide
tax credits and tax benefits to some parts of the economy, we need to
pay for that. We need to find some way to obtain the revenue. The way
the committee has found is to reduce the tax benefits that some other
parts of the economy are enjoying today.
So Senator Kyl's amendment says ``notwithstanding the provisions
of''--the provisions in the tax package that raise revenue--none of
this shall ``take effect unless the Secretary of Energy'' positively
decides, that is, ``certifies that such amendments shall not increase
gasoline retail prices and the reliance of the United States on foreign
sources of energy.''
So, essentially, we are saying it is up to the Secretary of Energy
whether we pay for this set of tax provisions. I do not think it is
responsible for this Congress to take that position. I mean it is
great, and I know everybody likes to be able to go home and say: I
didn't oppose the production tax credit extension which is in the bill,
I didn't oppose the investment tax credit for solar energy which is in
the bill, I didn't oppose the provisions that would incentivize more
biofuels production; all I opposed was the idea that we should pay for
them. I don't think that is a responsible position for us to take.

On the general tax package and the cloture issue, let me say, the
arguments I have heard are three. Some have argued this is going to
reduce production; some have argued it is going to increase the price
of gas; some have argued this is going to hurt the energy companies.
Let me address each of those points briefly.
On reducing production, I don't think this is going to reduce
domestic production of oil and gas. I think Senator Baucus made the
point very clearly that the two big items that are being used to pay
for this tax package are this section 199 provision, which was not even
in the law until 2004. We are taking that away as it applies to certain
large companies.
Then, of course, the severance tax provision. Let me talk a minute
about that. I wasn't here last evening when Senator Bunning was
speaking, but I noticed he referred to it as Senator Bingaman's
``scheme'' in his comments last night. The severance tax proposal is
not that; it is a 13-percent tax which would apply prospectively; there
is nothing retrospective about it. It is prospective. It applies to all
production of oil and gas that occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf
and in the Gulf of Mexico. It is designed so it will not be unduly
burdensome on any company that is producing in the Gulf of Mexico. I
think we have done a good job in accomplishing that. It does not
abrogate contracts. It is a forward-looking tax provision which I think
is eminently reasonable.
It would raise some revenue that is sorely needed if we are going to
extend these tax provisions, including the production tax credit, the
investment tax credit, and the other provisions that are in this bill.
I feel very strongly that we should keep it in place, and it is an
appropriate way for this Congress to proceed.
The second argument we heard was if we adopt this, we are going to
see an increase in the price of gas. The truth is we all know the price
of oil is determined on the world market. Our producers produce
something like 5 percent of the oil that goes into the world market. So
the idea that for us to raise some revenue here is going to affect the
price of gas at the pump is not true. If the world price of oil goes
up, we wind up paying more at the pump; if the world price of oil goes
down, we wind up paying less at the pump. I think American consumers
have watched that occur year after year and they understand that is the
circumstance.
The other argument is this is going to hurt our energy companies,
that this is an undue burden on them. When you look at the reality, the
reported profits of the top five integrated oil and gas producers last
year were over $111 billion. I don't begrudge them that, but that is 1
year, and that is 5 companies. If profits continue at somewhere in that
range, we can reasonably expect very conservatively that producers--
large producers of oil and gas--will have over the next 10 years over
$1 trillion in profits.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 7 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. So we have $1 trillion of profits over the next 10
years. This package calls for raising $27 billion over the next 10
years. So that is something in the range of 2.5 percent of profits, a
much smaller percentage of revenues, of total revenues. So I point out
that is not an undue burden on

[[Page S8172]]

anyone, and I think all of these screams that this is the end of the
world for the oil and gas industry are not founded on any kind of basis
in fact.
I think the whole purpose here is to do some very good things in the
Tax Code, which I compliment the Senator from Montana and the Senator
from Iowa for proposing, and to do so by--under our pay-go rules, find
revenue where it will reduce production at the very least, and I think
they have done an excellent job in accomplishing that.
I urge my colleagues to support the tax package and vote for cloture
on the tax package when it comes up for a vote following the Kyl
amendment, and obviously I urge all Members to oppose the Kyl
amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much thank the chairman of the
Energy Committee who I think has put together a very good energy bill.
I thank him very much for his instructive comments here. They are very
helpful.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when oil was $55 a barrel, President Bush
said oil companies don't need taxpayer subsidies to drill. Oil is now
just under $70 a barrel, and certainly oil companies truly don't need
taxpayer subsidies to drill for oil.
The Finance Committee amendment begins to reverse decades of policies
that equated what was good for the major oil companies was good for
America, and that oil companies would get us cheap and plentiful energy
supplies here in America. The reality is, if you go to the gas pump
today, you see gas is not cheap. If you look at the impact of a
refinery fire or a pipeline problem or a cold snap and the impact on
heating oil prices, you see energy is not plentiful. If you look at the
growing level of oil imports from countries around the world that don't
have our best interests at heart, you will see that what has been good
for the major oil companies has not been good for the well-being of the
citizens of America.
The Kyl amendment is just the latest in a long line of arguments that
has been advanced on the theory that we ought to keep subsidizing the
oil industry or energy prices will go up, oil imports will go up, and
America will be less secure.
The fact is our people and our country have now experienced the
results of past policies based on the idea that we ought to send
billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to the major companies.
It is time to end those subsidies. It is time to stop the major oil
companies from fleecing taxpayers when they drill for oil on public
lands, and it is time to embrace the very different vision of a more
positive energy future, largely constructed by the chairman of the
Finance Committee and the chairman of the Energy Committee.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kyl amendment and to support
the work of the Finance Committee.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
discuss my opposition to a few of the provisions in the Finance
Committee-passed energy tax package. Before I begin, I would like to
take a moment to thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for
their work on this amendment. I know they have exerted an incredible
amount of energy to get this legislation to the floor so that we can
debate it as part of this Energy bill.
The package we are debating includes a number of important
provisions. It includes additional funding for clean renewable energy
bonds, which are important to rural electric cooperatives who seek to
build clean generation. It includes accelerated depreciation for carbon
dioxide pipelines, which will encourage more carbon sequestration. It
also includes a carbon capture credit that will make it more economical
for some carbon dioxide to be used in enhanced oil recovery and for
some carbon dioxide to be sequestered. These are important provisions,
and I am pleased to see them included in this package.
Although that is the case, I have grave concerns about the impact of
this tax package. I am specifically concerned about its impact on
consumers. When taken as a whole, I believe that the package will lead
to increased gas prices and will have a detrimental impact on our
country's quest to become energy independent by discouraging domestic
energy production.
The amendment contains approximately $28.6 billion in ``revenue
raisers'' over the next 10 years. The phrase ``revenue raisers'' is
Washington speak for tax increases, and I find it hard to believe that
we can increase taxes by $28.6 billion and have no impact on the price
of gasoline at the pump for the average American. Businesses are in
business to make money, and when we increase their taxes, they pass
that increase along to the consumer.
It is not ExxonMobil or Shell or BP that will pay for these tax
increases. It is the senior citizen on a fixed income who fills up her
station wagon. It is the soccer mom who drives her children to school.
This tax title is not punishing the companies. It is punishing the
American people who rely on energy to fuel their daily lives.
Specifically, I am concerned that three provisions of this bill will
increase gas prices and will discourage energy production at a time
when our Nation's supply does not meet our Nation's demand. Last week,
I joined a number of my colleagues in a letter to the Senate Finance
Committee that urged the committee not to repeal the section 199
manufacturing deduction, and I am disappointed to note that this was
included. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that the repeal of the
section 199 deduction will raise $9.43 billion over a 10-year period.
That is $9.43 billion that will be passed along to the American people.
I am also disappointed that the legislation includes a new 13-percent
severance tax for oil produced in the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. The
OCS represents one of America's greatest energy sources, and raising
taxes on those who hope to produce in the OCS will most certainly not
encourage the domestic energy production that we all believe is so
important.
Finally, I am concerned that this legislation changes what is known
as the foreign tax credit. This change, which amounts to double
taxation, will increase taxes by $3.2 billion over the next 10 years.
Someone has to pay for that tax increase, and I am concerned that it
will be the American people.
While I appreciate the work of my colleagues, at the end of the day,
I am extremely concerned that this legislation will slow domestic
energy production and increase the prices paid by consumers. There are
a number of good provisions in this bill that I do support. However, at
the end of the day, raising taxes is not the way to increase energy
production and decrease energy prices. I would urge my colleagues to
oppose cloture on this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 4\1/2\ minutes
and the Senator from Arizona has 8 minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would be happy to take half of my time
right now and then let the Senator from Montana close, and I will close
after that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the arguments
that have been made. First, I do appreciate the candor of both the
Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Iowa. Rather than arguing
that these tax increases are loophole closers, as has been suggested,
they candidly acknowledge the reason for the tax increases is to pay
for the costs of the bill. As the Senator from Iowa said, we want to
avoid offsets, but we can't. We have to pay for the costs of the bill.
So, so much for the argument that these tax increases are loophole
closers. They are, very plainly, necessary to pay for the cost of the
bill, so they are tax increases. I appreciate that.
Another bit of candor: The Senator from Montana quoting--or
paraphrasing, anyway--the former chairman of Exxon Oil Company,
essentially argued that it is OK to add these taxes on oil companies
because they make too much money, and they make too much profit, so we
are justified in taxing them.
I am not going to argue with that theory. If they make too much
money,

[[Page S8173]]

we are going to tax them, if that is the argument for imposing these
new taxes. All I say is as long as it doesn't raise the price of
gasoline for American consumers, then I guess the question would be:
Who cares? But if they do raise the cost of gasoline for American
consumers, then I think we should care. That is all this amendment
does. It says: If it doesn't raise the cost of gasoline, go ahead and
impose the tax. If these oil companies are making too much money, go
ahead and tax them. But if the result of it is not just to hurt the oil
companies but to hurt the American consumer, then Congress says: Wait a
minute; not so fast. We are not going to allow that to happen. That is
all this amendment does. So we don't say you can't tax. What we say is,
you can't tax if it has a negative impact on the American consumer.
Now, there was a question about the Heritage study. I noticed there
was no attack on the numbers, no refutation of the numbers, just: Well,
who paid for the study? I don't know who paid for the study. I presume
Heritage paid for the study. It is their study. What does it say and
why is it such a burr under the saddle of those who oppose my
amendment? Well, it found that the tax provisions in this bill, setting
aside the other mandates, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents
per gallon over the next 8 years, and taking all of the provisions of
the bill together, it can increase the price of regular unleaded gas
from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon in the year 2016, over the next
10 years. That is a 104-percent increase.
If that is the case, even if it is only half that much, it is a huge
hit to the American consumer and we shouldn't even be thinking about
that kind of a hit on the American consumer.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a
letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America. It
is dated June 20, 2007.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, June 20, 2007.
To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector, and region, supports the
Kyl amendment, to H.R. 6, the ``Renewable Fuels, Consumer
Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.''
This amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to
certify that the tax provisions included in H.R. 6 will not
lead to increased reliance on foreign oil or higher gasoline
prices for American consumers.
The Chamber strongly opposes the tax title of this bill
because it contains many proposals that amount to little more
than a modern-day Windfall Profits Tax. When that tax
increase was enacted in 1980, it resulted in higher prices
for consumers, long waits at gasoline lines, and increased
consumption of foreign oil.
The economic reality is that oil and gas are necessities
for the nation's economic growth and well being. Even
assuming the development of viable alternatives and increased
efficiency, the U.S. will continue to rely on these
traditional energy sources. It is imperative that the Senate
ensure that the American consumer not be saddled with higher
prices due to the consequences of the tax changes included in
H.R. 6.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. KYL. This is a letter from R. Bruce Josten, who makes the point
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the tax increases in the bill
and supports the amendment which I offer, which would condition that
tax increase on not hurting American consumers.
He says:

This amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to
certify that the tax provisions included in H.R. 6 will not
lead to increased reliance on foreign oil or higher gasoline
prices for American consumers.

As a result, they support the amendment, and I believe they will key
it as a key vote.
He goes on to say:

The Chamber strongly opposes the tax title of this bill
because it contains many proposals that amount to little more
than a modern-day Windfall Profits Tax. When that tax was
enacted in 1980, it resulted in higher prices for consumers,
long waits at gasoline lines, and increased consumption of
foreign oil.

That is what we are concerned about here. If the tax increases don't
have that effect, then nobody has to worry about it. But if they do
have that effect on the American consumers, they would not go into
effect.
My penultimate point is the argument that we have to do something to
wean ourselves from OPEC, so what do we do? We slap a new 13-percent
tax on the production of new oil. How does that help wean us from OPEC?
What it does is to say to the producers of oil: You go out and find
some, and by the way, if you do, we are going to hit you with a new
tax. This is a perverse incentive, not a proper incentive.
Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cornyn as
a cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
Americans For Tax Reform I expect will also key vote the Kyl-Lott
amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 4 minutes 20
seconds.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes and--how many seconds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten seconds.
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2 minutes 10 seconds to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana and the
Senator from New Mexico for all of the work they have done.
I think the argument we are hearing today is we should have trust in
the oil companies and that ExxonMobil and their friends are staying up
nights and days worrying about high gas prices in the best interests of
the American people. If anyone believes that, I think we have some good
bridges to sell you right now.
The truth is the oil companies are ripping off the American people.
This moment in American history is a time that our country needs to
radically change the way it does energy, and the Finance Committee, in
a bipartisan way, and the Energy Committee, in a bipartisan way, are
making some very clear statements.
What they are saying is that global warming is a huge problem for
this Nation today, and if we do not get a handle on it, that problem
will only intensify in years to come.
What we must begin to do, and what this legislation is making clear,
is that we have to break our dependency on fossil fuel, we have to move
to energy efficiency, we have to move toward sustainable energy, and in
that process not only can we substantially lower greenhouse gas
emissions but we can also create millions of good-paying jobs for the
American people.
As the chairman of the Energy Committee made clear a moment ago, the
oil companies, year after year, are making recordbreaking profits. I
for one do not stay up nights worrying about ExxonMobil, when a few
years ago they were able to provide a $400 million retirement package
to their former CEO.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for yielding me the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will take the remaining 2 minutes. This
whole debate boils down to something pretty simple and basic; that is,
do we as Americans want to begin to become more self-sufficient in our
energy production? Do we want to be less reliant on OPEC? Do we want to
give incentives to new clean energy industries to develop in America--
not just renewables and alternatives but also clean coal technologies
and other ways to help America be more self-sufficient?
Congress, for many years, has provided some very significant tax
incentives to the oil and gas industry to help America be strong, to
make sure we as Americans have a strong industrial base and a strong
energy base to fuel our industries. That was probably the right thing
to do over the years from 1926, and the various provisions that have
helped America. I think the time has come for us to give incentives to
other industries, alternative energy, renewable fuels, clean coal
technologies, cellulosic, and so forth--the same kinds of incentives
that the oil

[[Page S8174]]

and gas industry have enjoyed for decades and decades.
We are not taking away these incentives from the oil and gas industry
at all. We are just saying the time has come for us to give incentives
to make America more self-sufficient in the production of energy. This
bill helps accomplish that result, and the way we do that is very fair
and balanced. It will not have the horrible results that are claimed
here. I urge our colleagues to begin to take--we will still have huge
breaks for the oil and gas, but we give help on the margin to new
independent energy sources in America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in closing the debate on this amendment, I
will respond to the point that both the Senator from Vermont and the
chairman have just made, and that is the need to promote renewable
energy and to give incentives to those producers. That is a fine
sentiment, but my amendment has nothing to do with that. My amendment
doesn't affect these incentives one iota. It doesn't speak to them at
all. So that is a straw man, just as it is a straw man to argue that we
ought to have the right to sock it to the oil companies because they
are making huge profits. I am not arguing that proposition. In fact,
yesterday, I offered an amendment to eliminate a real loophole in one
of those subsidies that one oil company is going to be taking advantage
of, and both of the Senators whom I mentioned voted to support that
subsidy. I voted to eliminate it.
I am not trying to protect the oil companies, obviously. I am trying
to protect the American consumer. My amendment says if the American
consumer comes out OK, tax the oil companies. My amendment says if the
American consumers are going to lose, then we say no, and then there
are unintended consequences to these sentiments of socking it to the
oil companies, creating subsidies for renewable energy producers and so
on, fine. But if it adversely affects American consumers and increases
our dependency upon foreign oil, then does anybody argue that we should
do this? Wouldn't they instead try to find another way to achieve the
objective? I think the answer is yes.
My amendment says: Do what you want to do here, but if it adversely
affects the American consumer or increases our dependence on foreign
oil, that is where we say no, we need to find another way to do this.
My amendment doesn't affect the underlying subsidies and doesn't say
that you cannot impose additional taxes. These arguments are straw men.
All I say is, if the American consumers end up being the losers, as
they sometimes have been with our tax policies, if these are the
unintended consequences and we become more dependent upon foreign oil,
then we say no. That is all this amendment does.
I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I hope they
will support my amendment. We are going to vote on it right now, but
first I think the chairman wants to raise a point of order. I yield the
floor at this time for him to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs in relation to the
amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a letter to Senator Bingaman regarding a study by professors
of law John Leshy and Brian Gray.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

University of California,

Hastings College of the Law,

San Francisco, CA, June 18, 2007.
Re proposed severance tax on oil and gas production in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and
Infrastructure, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: At your request, we have examined
your proposal for a severance tax on production from federal
oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico with an eye toward
potential constitutional takings and breach of contract
issues. We also have reviewed the June 14, 2007, memorandum
from the Congressional Research Service on this subject.
We are thoroughly familiar with the legal issues posed.
Professor Leshy teaches them as part of his law school course
in Federal Lands and Resources Law. In fact, he includes a
section on these takings and contracts issues in the standard
law text that he co-authors on the subject: Federal Public
Land and Resources Law, 6th Ed., 2007 (which will appear next
month). Professor Gray has litigated several cases that
involved similar takings and breach of contract questions,
including Madera Irrigation District v. Hancock, 985 F.2d
1397 (9th Cir. 1993); and Peterson v. Department of the
Interior, 899 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1990). He also has written
several articles on the subject and teaches these materials
in his own courses.
In our judgment, the argument that this proposal raises a
serious takings issue has a steep uphill climb. The Supreme
Court has long been reluctant (for good reason) to give much
scrutiny to takings arguments in the context of federal tax
proposals. See, e.g., Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist.,
239 U.S. 254, 264-65 (1915) (special tax assessment not a
taking ``unless the exaction is a flagrant abuse. and by
reason of its arbitrary character is mere confiscation of
particular property''); Cole v. LaGrange, 113 U.S. 1, 8 1885)
(``the taking of property by taxation requires no other
compensation than the taxpayer receives in being protected by
the government to the support of which he contributes'');
County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691, 703 (1880)
(``neither is taxation for a public purpose, however great,
the taking of private property for public use, in the sense
of the Constitution'').
Even if a court were to apply the basic Penn Central
takings analysis to the proposed severance tax, we believe
the proposal would easily satisfy that test. The tax is for
an important public purpose: funding of clean energy tax
initiatives, including renewable energy, energy efficiency,
and other clean energy programs. The proposed 13 percent
royalty is modest and would leave the lessees significant net
revenue from the production of oil and natural gas. And the
tax, of course, would not physically encroach on the
companies' property. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v.
New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 123-28 (1978); cj. Lingle v.
Chevron U.S.A., 544 U.S. 528, 538-40 (2005) (confirming the
Penn Central standards as the general takings test).
The contract question is slightly more complicated, because
the severance tax proposal contains a provision that allows
lessees to credit against the severance tax the royalties
they pay on oil and gas production from their federal leases.
While companies with leases that require them to pay less
royalty to the United States than other lessees might argue
that the credit provision effectively rewrites their leases,
we believe this argument also would not withstand careful
legal scrutiny.
The proposed legislation does not target these leases.
Rather, it is aimed at a generic category of activity--Gulf
of Mexico OCS production--to serve a general and important
public policy--viz. raising revenue for green energy tax
initiatives. In our judgment; the severance tax therefore
falls within the standard government contract principle,
recognized for more than a century by the United States
Supreme Court, that protects ``public and general'' acts by
Congress from breach of contract claims.
In Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982),
for example. the Court upheld the application of a severance
tax on oil and natural gas production to long-term leases.
The lessees claimed that the tax effectively increased the
royalties on oil and gas production set forth in their
contracts with the Tribe. The Supreme Court rejected this
claim inter alia on the ground that ``Contractual
arrangements remain subject to subsequent legislation by the
presiding sovereign. Even where the contract at issue
requires payment of a royalty for a license or franchise
issued by the governmental entity, the government's power to
tax remains unless it `has been specifically surrendered in
terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation.' ''
Id. at 147-48 (citations omitted); see also Bowen v. Public
Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41
(1986). In United States v. Winstar, 518 U.S. 839 (1996), the
Court modified this principle of contract interpretation in
suits for damages--allowing certain government contractors to
sue for breach of contract on the ground that a new law
altered the terms of performance of their existing contracts
with the United States. The Court maintained the sovereign
acts/unmistakable waiver doctrine in cases involving new
taxes however, because the consequence of refunding tax
payments in the form of damages would be to nullify the tax.
In the Court's words: ``The application of the doctrine will
therefore differ according to the different kinds of
obligations the Government may assume and the consequences of
enforcing them. At one end of the wide spectrum are claims
for enforcement of contractual obligations that could not be
recognized without effectively limiting sovereign authority,
such as a claim for rebate under an agreement for a tax
exemption. Granting a rebate, like enjoining enforcement,
would simply block the exercise of the taxing power, and the
unmistakability doctrine would have to be satisfied.''
Id. at 994 (citation omitted).
There is nothing in the existing OCS leases that purport to
waive or to limit Congress' sovereign taxing authority.
Accordingly, we conclude that existing lessees that are not
presently paying royalties for deep water oil and natural gas
production would be unlikely successfully to challenge the
proposed severance tax on grounds of breach of contract.

[[Page S8175]]

Please let us know if we may be of any additional
assistance.
Sincerely yours,
John D. Leshy,
Harry D. Sunderland, Distinguished Professor of Law.

Brian E. Gray,
Professor of Law.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a pay-go point of order that the
pending Kyl amendment would worsen the deficit, in violation of section
201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2008.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable points of
order with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on
the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

YEAS--38

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

NAYS--55

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

NOT VOTING--6

Boxer
Brownback
Coburn
Johnson
McCain
Sessions
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 38, the nays are
55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.

tribute to senator frank lautenberg

Mr. REID. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, a record was broken.
Senator Frank Lautenberg has passed Senator Clifford Case's record for
the most votes cast by a Senator from the State of New Jersey.
Senator Lautenberg's career can't possibly be summed up, though, on
numbers alone. I have had the good fortune of serving with this man in
the Senate since I came here. Sometimes the term ``American Dream'' is
thrown around, and probably a bit too much, but if there were ever a
Member of this body who exemplifies the American Dream, it is Frank
Lautenberg, the Senator from New Jersey.
Frank Lautenberg was born without privilege to immigrant parents. He
served his country bravely in World War II and put himself through
Columbia University on the GI bill. He is an example of what the GI
Bill of Rights did for America.
Frank Lautenberg achieved great personal success in the business
world, but he wanted to do more than be a successful businessman. And
he was a successful businessman, both in reputation and in the ability
to make money in our great free enterprise system. He was an exemplar
of that.
He decided he would seek public service, and, very unusually, he shot
for the top. He ran for the Senate--and ran and ran and ran--and was
elected in 1982. Senator Lautenberg's legislative record is fantastic.
It is terrific. He has been a titan here.
Guns and crime: Author of the Domestic Violence Ban, and sponsored
countless laws to make neighborhoods safer.
Health and safety: He led the fight regarding drunk driving by
toughening Federal laws and penalties relating thereto in the States.
The environment: I had the good fortune of serving with him on the
Environment Committee from the first day I arrived in the Senate, and I
do say to Frank, and he knows this, that as a result of his having a
very short retirement, voluntarily, I was fortunate enough to be able
to become the chairman of that committee twice. Had he been here, he
would have been the chairman on those two occasions.
But no one, and I say it without any reservation, has a better
environmental record in the history of our country than Frank
Lautenberg. He sponsored countless laws to reduce pollution; clean up
Superfund sites. One of the real battles of the Senate in recent years
was the battle he and the ranking member had--and the chairman, they
went back and forth--as to what would happen regarding the Superfund in
the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has followed that like
no one else has ever followed it.
He has promoted recycling by legislation. He has done legislation to
protect our drinking water. Very importantly, he has ensured the
public's right to know about environmental hazards in our communities.
For me, personally, the legislative accolade that I wish to give him
relates to what he did regarding smoking cigarettes. I have five
children, and traveling back and forth to Nevada as we have done, one
of my boys was terribly affected by cigarette smoke. They tried
something where you could only smoke in certain parts of the airplane,
but that didn't work. If you are allergic to cigarette smoke, that
didn't work. And my boy, Key, suffered as a result of people smoking in
those airplanes.
When Frank Lautenberg took on this battle, people actually made fun
of him--why would he take on the tobacco industry; and if he did, did
he mind losing? Well, he lost a few battles, but he won the war, and my
boy is extremely happy he did win that war. Today they do not even have
ashtrays on commercial airlines anymore.
The list is longer than I can possibly enumerate of his legislative
accomplishments, but one of the things that is not a legislative
accomplishment that I so admire about Frank Lautenberg is his sense of
humor. There is a story he tells, and he tells a number of stories, and
I would go around and ask him, would you tell your story again, and he
would tell it just as good as the last time. The one reason I so admire
his humor is he reminds me of Red Skelton, because even though he has
retold those jokes many times, in my presence, he laughed harder each
time at his own jokes.
Suffice to say, when the day has come, and it will come, when
historians write about Senator Frank Lautenberg, he will be hailed as a
great legislator for the State of New Jersey, a legend in the Senate,
and a foremost legislator of great repute standing up for the health,
safety, and welfare of every single American, not just those from New
Jersey.
His record-breaking vote is reason enough to honor him, but his
tremendous record is an accomplishment that will endure for many
generations to come. Congratulations, Frank.
(Applause.)

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
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,

[[Page S8176]]

Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Harry Reid.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on amendment No. 1704, offered by Mr. Baucus of Montana, to
H.R. 6, a bill 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, shall
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), are necessarily
absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Sessions) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 36, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

YEAS--57

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

NAYS--36

Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Reid
Shelby
Stevens
Sununu
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--6

Boxer
Brownback
Coburn
Johnson
McCain
Sessions
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are
36. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of Senators?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.

Honoring Senator Robert C. Byrd on His 18,000th Vote

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the man seated behind me, Robert Byrd, just
voted for the 18,000th time, more than any other Senator in history.
Let me tell a couple of things that are important to me about my
relationship with this unusually brilliant man.
I had returned from Nevada to Washington. I was a new Senator. I
asked Senator Byrd what he had done that weekend--he was standing back
here. He said: I have been studying the Roman Empire. I am reading, for
the third time, Gibbon's ``The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.''
He said: What did you do? I was a little chagrined. I said: Well, I
grabbed a little pocketbook out of my library at home. It was ``The
Adventures of Robinson Crusoe.''
He looked--we all know Senator Byrd when he is thinking about
something. He rolled his head back, and he looked up and he said:

Robinson Crusoe, let's see. How long was he on that island?
Twenty-eight years, two months, two weeks, and five days.

I looked at him like: What are you talking about? I just read the
book. I didn't know how long he had been there. So I went home that
night and looked. Senator Byrd was right. Robinson Crusoe had been on
that island 28 years, 2 months, 2 weeks, and 5 days. I bet he hadn't
read the book in 45 or 50 years, but he remembered that.
All of us will remember how he disliked the line-item veto. He came
to the Senate floor once a week for 10 weeks and gave a lecture on the
evils of the line-item veto. But he did it in a unique way because it
was all about the fall of the Roman Empire. His thesis was that the
Roman Empire fell because the executive took power away from the
legislative branch of government. He gave 10 lectures, every lecture
lasting exactly 1 hour.
There is not a professor who teaches Roman history who could give the
detailed lecture on the Roman Empire that Senator Byrd did, but he gave
it. It was so good. At the University of Las Vegas they had a political
science department, and they took those lectures and turned them into a
course, a graduate course.
What was quite remarkable is he did it without a note. He just walked
out here and gave his lecture. As we know, he referred to the Emperors
and how long they were there and the battles that took place and the
times they took place.
I said: Senator Byrd, tell me how you do that without a note.
He looked at me and said, ``I memorized what I was going to say.'' So
he gave 10 hours of lectures, and every word of it he memorized.
I could tell stories about this man for a long time. Let me just tell
one more. I was a fairly new Senator. Some of the Senators may be
listening to this who went on this little trip we took to West
Virginia. He invited the British parliamentarians to meet with us, a
few Senators, in the hills of West Virginia. It was beautiful. They had
bluegrass music there. It was a festive occasion for a relatively small
number of British parliamentarians and Senators. He even sang.
I can still remember him singing: ``There's More Pretty Girls Than
One.'' Senator Byrd sang that. But the music stopped, and he said: OK,
if anybody hears anything that I have said that is wrong, I have given
a little notebook and pencil. You write it down and we'll talk about it
later.
He proceeded to tell us and the British parliamentarians about the
reign of the British monarchs, starting from the beginning. Remember,
he has no notes, he is just standing there, starting from the
beginning. If it was necessary, he would spell the name of the monarch.
Every one of them he gave the years they reigned. If it was something
interesting that happened during their reign, he would tell us about
it. It took him about 1 hour and 20 minutes to do this.
The British parliamentarians were dumbfounded. Here is this American
Senator telling them far more than they knew about their own country.
This man has been such an inspiration to all of us, with his mind,
this incredible mind. I just finished reading Walter Isakson's
``Einstein''--a wonderful book, 528 pages, that talks about this
brilliant genius. I did not know and I did not have the opportunity to
meet Albert Einstein, but I had the opportunity to meet this genius. He
has an unparalleled knowledge of the Rules of the Senate. He has a
reverence for this institution that is unsurpassed. One of the things
that I think is so important is that he believes in the Constitution. I
have here with me--the other one is worn out, but I have here, with a
very nice inscription that I prize--I have it with me virtually every
day--signed by the Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd.
These gifts he has been given by the Almighty bring to my mind words
from Ralph Waldo Emerson in his ``Essays on Self-Reliance,'' which was
10,000 words long. Now, Senator Byrd, if he were familiar with this,
would recite it. I cannot. I can't give you 10,000 words, but I am
going to give you the last paragraph of this brilliant essay by Ralph
Waldo Emerson, which I think talks about who this man is.

Use all that is called Fortune.
Most men gamble with her, and gain all, and lose all, as
her wheel rolls.
But do thou leave as unlawful these winnings, and deal with
Cause and Effect,

[[Page S8177]]

the chancellors of God. In the Will work and acquire, and
thou hast chained the wheel of Chance, and shalt sit
hereafter out of fear from her rotations.
A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your
sick, or the return of your absent friend, or some other
favorable event raises your spirits, and you think good days
are preparing for you.
Do not believe it. Nothing can bring you peace but
yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of
principles.

So said Ralph Waldo Emerson. I congratulate the Senator from West
Virginia, Robert Byrd, for accomplishing all he has done as a Member of
the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, of all the many milestones along the
way of the extraordinary career of Senator Robert Byrd--and, by the
way, we have celebrated a few of those on the floor of the Senate since
I have been here, as he achieves more and more distinction by setting
more and more records about Senate service, I am always reminded that
Senator Byrd said his greatest accomplishment was his extraordinary
marriage to Erma for a longer period of time than many Americans live.
I would suspect that if Senator Byrd were to list his most important
achievement, it would be his incredible, successful marriage to his
beloved Erma.
Mr. President, let me add, on behalf of those on this side of the
aisle, our congratulations to the distinguished senior Senator from
West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing
deadline be extended until 2 p.m. for second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 1502, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to
H.R. 6, a bill to reduce our Nation's dependence 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, shall
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Sessions) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 32, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

YEAS--61

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--32

Alexander
Allard
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lott
McCaskill
McConnell
Pryor
Roberts
Shelby
Stabenow
Vitter
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--6

Boxer
Brownback
Coburn
Johnson
McCain
Sessions
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are
32. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are all partisans here, but I really do
believe this vote we just took is going to change the complexion of the
Senate. The American people are upset at us--Democrats and
Republicans--because we are not getting things done. We have to get
over that.
I so appreciate Democrats and Republicans doing what is good for the
country on this vote. There are still things with this bill I do not
particularly like. There are things my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle do not like. But we have to start legislating. I really do
say--and I repeat--I think this could be the beginning of our being
able to legislate.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw that suggestion so the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia can be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, be allowed to follow the statement by
Senator Byrd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.

18,000th Rollcall Vote

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, each Senator--every Senator--has a
responsibility to vote. The people of West Virginia expect me to do the
job they sent me here to do, and I am doing it. This 18,000th rollcall
vote is a testament to their faith in me and to my work for them.
I love this Senate. I love it dearly. I love the Senate for its
rules. I love the Senate for its precedents. I love the Senate for the
difference it can make in people's lives.
The Senate was viewed by the Framers as a place where mature wisdom
would reside. The Senate was intended to serve as a check on both the
House of Representatives and the Executive. The longer terms, the older
age requirements, the special functions delegated to the Senate
regarding treaties, appointments, impeachment--all of these are
indicative of the intent by the Framers to have the Senate be the
stabilizer, the fence, the check on attempts at tyranny, and the calmer
political passions. Partisanship was not viewed as necessary or
constructive in that day in time so long ago, nor, may I say, is total
devotion to partisanship constructive in this day in time or in any day
in time.
I have served in this Chamber for nearly five decades--nearly 50
years. Times have changed. The world has changed. But our
responsibilities, our duties, as Senators have not changed. We have a
responsibility, a duty, to the people to make our country a better
place. The people send us here to do a job. They do not send us here to
score political points or to advance our personal agenda.
If I could have one wish as I cast this 18,000th vote, it could be
that the Senate could put aside the political games, roll up our
sleeves, and get back to

[[Page S8178]]

work for the great people of this great country of America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, the Senate is trying to come up
with an energy bill. I know Senators have been working very hard on all
sides of the aisle to come up with consensus legislation we can
support, and I really do support them. I wish to particularly call to
the attention of the Senate the efforts of Senators Pryor and Levin and
Stabenow to try to come up with a compromise on the CAFE. But we are
now where we are. We are at a very important juncture in our history.
You know me. I am a blue-collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with
the blue-collar American. I spent most of my life in a blue-collar
neighborhood. When Bethlehem Steel went on strike, my dad gave those
workers credit. When UAW was having a hard time, my father and mother
tried to smooth the way by helping them in the grocery store. My career
and my public service is one of deep commitment to the working people.
So when automobile manufacturers told me they could not meet the
increased CAFE standards, I listened. I listened year after year, and
now I have listened for more than 20 years. When they told me they
needed more time, I agreed. When they told me an increase in CAFE
standards was unattainable with existing technology, I voted against
the increase to give more time so we could come up with attainable and
existing technology.
But 20 years have gone by since the last increase in fuel efficiency
standards. I was here when we voted for those CAFE standards. Now,
after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change--not any
kind of change--a smart change, a feasible change, an affordable
change. That is why I support the Energy bill that is before us. I
support the framework that has been generally presented by Senator
Feinstein of California. I know that American automobile manufacturers
and their workers are true patriots. They want what is best for our
Nation. They have faced challenges before and they have met them and I
believe they will face these challenges now. I believe they want to
build vehicles that are safer and more energy efficient.

The time has now come to increase fuel efficiency standards. We need
a national effort. We need a national standard. It is time for our
automobile industry to make the changes because they need to be able to
do that to help their own industry survive and also for the interest of
the Nation.
I believe our world and our Nation is facing a crisis. When you look
at the increased gas prices at the pump, it is hurting every single one
of us. When you talk to families, you learn it now costs $90 to fill up
a minivan. A commuter who has no other way to get to work than an
automobile is now paying more to get to work than they are for their
food bill in certain areas. As the Presiding Officer knows, small
businesses need those vans to make those deliveries, whether they own a
flower shop, whether they are a heating and air-conditioning guy,
whether they are a plumber or whether they are the person delivering
pharmaceuticals to nursing homes. In my own State right now, the
watermen, those fishermen are out on the Chesapeake Bay trying to
harvest ever-diminishing crabs with ever-increasing fuel prices.
It is time to conserve our energy resources and to deal with the
crisis we are facing. We know that energy and gasoline and petroleum
products are in limited supply and are going up. We know that America's
dependence on foreign oil presents a very serious national security
challenge.
I am on the Intelligence Committee, and I know what these
transnational threats are. I know that energy independence is
absolutely crucial to fighting the global war against terrorism. If we
follow the money, we know that every time we are putting money into the
tank, we are putting money into the pockets of the petro jihadists,
those petro jihadists who are trying to undermine us everywhere around
the world. They are undermining and attacking our troops in Iraq. They
are funding Hezbollah so they can attack Israel; Hugo Chavez, shake,
rattling, and rolling in Latin America. Do we want our money going to
the petro jihadists who want to plot and destroy not only American
lives but the American way of life? I don't want to support al-Qaida by
buying more gasoline than I have to, but this is what Iran, Venezuela,
and others are doing.
We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that is one of
the most important ways we can as the public is by fighting the war
against terrorism. There are 150,000 men and women fighting in Iraq
today. The temperature is 110 degrees. We already have lost 14 more
military. While we are doing that, though, there are 300 million of us
who don't have to share in the sacrifice of the battle in Iraq, but we
can share in that sacrifice if we embrace energy conservation and are
serious about it. At the same time, we know there is a dangerous
increase in the climate crisis that affects the life of our planet. It,
too, is a national security issue because, make no mistake, the climate
crisis will affect our food supply and will create a climate in which
infectious disease will grow and natural disasters will increase.
What can we do about it? How can we sign up to have a safer America,
a safer planet? Well, I believe the most sensible foundation of an
energy plan must begin with conservation. We have to make better use of
what we have in our homes, in our businesses, in our cars, and in our
airplanes. We also need incentives for new renewable energy and energy-
efficient technologies that we can use in our homes and in our
businesses and an increase in fuel efficiency standards for our
vehicles on the road and our vehicles in the air.
Now, in considering any fuel efficiency standard, otherwise known as
CAFE, I come back to where I began: My heart and soul lies with the
American worker, so I believe anything we do must preserve American
jobs, but it also must achieve real savings in oil consumption. It also
has to be realizable and achievable. That means a real technological
ability to accomplish it. That means a reasonable lead time to adjust
our production.
I also believe we have to create incentives to enable companies to
achieve those goals. I don't believe in an industrial policy where we
pick winners and losers, but if we are going to pick a winning energy
policy, we have to provide some type of help to the industry to help
them get where we need for them to go.
In the 1950s, when part of the world saw the Iron Curtain come down
and they went into communism, many against their own will, such as
Poland, Latvia, and Estonia, there was a whole other world that chose
to go with what they called a Socialist tendency. We saw industrial
democracies such as England, France, and Canada develop a national
health system. We said: Oh, no, we are Americans. We don't want to go
that way. We don't want to have a national health system. So we said to
the private sector: Provide health care, provide pensions, and we will
support that. So our American manufacturing base went to a defined
benefit. They did provide health care. They did provide pensions. Now,
they should not be penalized for it. Yet you look at the fact that our
American manufacturers and our automobile industry itself does carry
the legacy cost of health care; we asked them to do it and they did do
it. General Motors provides more health care than the VA system. They
provide more health care than some countries around the world. They
have legacy costs to retirees. So if we are going to make the move in
CAFE, we have to acknowledge that issue and how that impacts their
competitiveness.
Let's put our thinking caps on. Let's not only help one industry.
Maybe this is the time to motivate us to get serious about having
universal health care and a real prescription drug benefit so we don't
dump it on the private sector to do.
I also know, when we look at this in terms of preserving jobs, we
need to also make sure that the technology is achievable, and I believe
it is. I believe also there are certain waivers in this bill that help
them achieve--that deal with the fact that if they cannot increase some
of these standards, the mandates can be waived. But you don't get an
energy policy by mandates alone. We can't mandate and regulate our way
out of this.
I am going to vote to raise fuel efficiency standards, only because I
am so convinced it is in our national security

[[Page S8179]]

interests. But I do not want to ignore the economic impact that this is
going to have on the automobile industry. We can't just mandate and we
can't just regulate. So I say to my colleagues, if we are going to go
energy, then let's go to health care. If we are going to go energy,
then let's fix the prescription drug benefit and don't talk about
vetoes and filibusters. Let's now work in our national interests. Let's
now work for our manufacturing base.

Out-of-control health care costs mean that companies are less able to
be innovative and invest in technology. Our current President likes to
talk a lot about relieving the tax burden, but to our business
community, the cost of health care is a tax because we have not gotten
serious about how to provide affordable health care, both to the people
who want to buy it and businesses who want to provide it. So let's get
rid of that health care tax on American business and come up with
universal health care. Last year we made some progress in helping
manufacturers meet their pension obligations, and we can do it in
health care.
The time has come to raise the CAFE standards, but the time has come
also to put our thinking caps on, to be an innovation society, and to
come up with new ideas for efficiency, new technologies for energy
efficiency, new composite materials to make cars lighter but keep them
safe, and at the same time to seriously come to grips with health care.
This is not an easy vote for me. I am telling you, this is not an
easy vote for me. I have always, for 20 years, stood with colleagues
such as Senators Levin and Stabenow. I stand with them now. But I also
know that if the American automobile industry is going to survive and
that if we are going to deal with the petro jihadists, we need to get
serious about fuel efficiency. Let's get serious about the legislation.
Let's get serious about health care. Let's be serious about the
American workers, and let's get the job done the people want us to do.
So today, I know we voted for cloture on the bill, but we have to
continue to speak up on what we need to do to make us a safer country,
but to keep a stronger economy, and for God's sake, could we start to
be smarter about it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if
in morning business, the time to be charged to the time allotted for
cloture. I will probably take up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Employee Free Choice Act

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the first thing I want to do is take a
minute to publicly thank the majority leader for the kindness he
extended to me earlier when he announced the fact that I have cast the
second-highest number of votes of any Senator from the State of New
Jersey.
Mr. President, I am as surprised as anybody in this Chamber that this
event took place and that kind of longevity has been extended to me by
the people of New Jersey. I now enter the middle of my 23rd year in the
Senate and I want to continue to serve. But that is a discussion for
another time.
The majority leader was very generous in his comments about me.
Coming from a person who has provided so much by way of leadership and
contribution to the country as Harry Reid, it is a touching experience.
We are busy, but Senator Reid took time out of the business of the day
to note the fact that I had achieved that record.
The biggest surprise of all is, for me, the fact that I have been in
this Chamber as long as I have been. I spent 30 years building a
company with a couple of colleagues.
That is the legend of America--what can happen even if you are born
poor but you have some assistance. I wore the uniform of this country
proudly during World War II. I was a beneficiary of the GI Bill of
Rights. That is how they defined the educational opportunity that was
given.
Mr. President, my surprise--my awe, if I may--was that I was able to
go to Columbia University, a distinguished educational facility, which
was something I never dreamed possible because of the humble roots that
my family had. They gave me values--nothing of value but values. My
parents' admonition throughout my life was to always be honest, always
tell the truth, always work hard, and remember one thing, son: There
are people as poor as we are. As difficult as it is at times, there are
always people less fortunate.
My grandmother had a little bank in the house, which we shared with
her many times, in which we would put small coins, to be used for--I
cannot say charity but for others who were less fortunate.
So I stand in this Chamber at this moment, and I want to talk about
something related to roots--to my roots. My father and my mother
struggled to make a living. My father worked in the silk mills of
Paterson, NJ, a textile city. Others like my dad and mother were
brought to this country by their parents, hoping for an opportunity to
make a living and to have some degree of opportunity.
My father worked in the silk mill with a dear friend of his who was
later very active in union organization. My father made a plea to his
foreman for a holiday off. It was an important religious holiday. He
wasn't looking for any pay, Heaven forbid. He just wanted to have the
time off for observance of the holiday. He and his very close friend
asked the foreman if it would be all right if they took the day off for
the observance of the holiday, which was the week following. The reply
was very quick: Oh, sure, you can take the day off, but don't come back
to work here anymore. With that, you can imagine the view of my father
and his friend not being able to continue a job that was scarce and
difficult to get. So they waited, hat in hand.
In those days, people would wear hats to work in common labor at a
mill. They described that, hat in hand, the two of them nervously
waited for the owner of the company to come by. They would not let them
go into the owner's office. Heaven forbid, that is no place for people
like you. But the owner was a kind, generous man. When he walked out,
they stopped him and explained that they desperately wanted to take the
holiday off, but they needed their jobs. The owner was a kind,
sympathetic person, and he said: Take the time off, and you are going
to be paid for that holiday.
That was the beginning days of union representation in this country--
very active, very confrontational, very difficult, and sometimes
violent. But my father saw and his friend saw that they had to have a
better way to do things than stand hat in hand and beg for a day off.
Fortunately, they found a kind man who listened and gave them the day
off. But the experience was searing, and they never forgot that working
people had to have representation.

Both of them then became active in union organization. Those were
difficult days. We have all heard stories about employees who wanted
some representation, wanted a voice in how they were paid, wanted a
voice in what conditions were like.
My father worked in a mill. My father was a health faddist even in
those days. He took very good care of himself. He was a man with
muscles. He would go to the gym, and he would lift weights. He belonged
to the local Y. He never smoked, was light on coffee, and no liquor. He
died when he was 43 years old. He contracted cancer when he was 42. The
cause was almost undeterminable, but they realized that there were
materials they used when they worked with the silk to keep the silk
brittle and to keep the machinery working that ultimately caused my
father's cancer. His brother died at age 56 also from cancer. Their
father died at age 52 also from cancer induced by the environment at
the factory in which they worked.
The fact is that people who work in places like this should have a
voice--and we see disparities, such as taking 10 years to raise the
minimum wage.
It is time to give unions, to give working people a chance to have a
voice in their work or their opportunity to take care of their
families, or the opportunity, as my father said, to

[[Page S8180]]

hold your head high, be proud, be proud you are a worker, be proud you
are contributing something to your country.
What we see now is distressing, which is why we are discussing
freedom of choice for workers, to give them a chance have their voice
heard without having to go through a hassle about whether they are
organized. I have seen what happens. I ran a very big company. When I
left the company, it had 16,000 employees. Today it has 40,000
employees, a company I started with 2 other poor kids from the
neighborhood. We were always very conscious of our responsibility to
our employees. That is why the company was so successful. It had the
longest growth of any company in American history of 10 percent or more
on the bottom line.
We had a case in New Jersey where a bus driver was fired for being a
union supporter and giving testimony to the National Labor Relations
Board. Even as we gather here, we see that employers are still using
all kinds of tactics to harass, threaten, or fire workers who try to
exercise their right to form a union. Ninety-two percent of employers
make their employees sit through one-sided, anti-union presentations,
according to a study by Cornell University.
The Cornell study also said that 78 percent of employers have
supervisors hold repeated closed-door, one-on-one meetings with workers
to intimidate them to oppose the union.
I don't think those kinds of tactics are appropriate. Decent jobs are
ever more scarce in this country as we ship so many jobs abroad, as
technology--and I come from the computer business; I know something
about technology--as technology takes jobs away from people whose only
skills are manual skills, and they need a way to make a living. You
don't have to be a new immigrant to need a job where you use your
hands, use your body, or use your strength to make a living. But these
jobs are going further and further afield because of the technology.
We should not allow employers to prevent workers from having a
greater voice in their workplace on issues of pay and benefits and
working conditions.
We can improve this situation by passing the Employee Free Choice Act
to protect workers and to protect their rights--again I use the
expression--hold their heads high, know they can provide for their
families, know they don't have to apologize to their kids for having to
work as hard as so many do, two jobs in many cases.
The bill that is in front of us will let employees select a union if
a majority signs cards saying they want representation. They don't want
to take over the ownership of the company. They don't want to deprive
senior executives from making their salaries or their benefits. When we
see what is happening in America today, there is a frightening specter
out there, and I talk as someone who came from the corporate boardroom.
I can be accused of being a tree hugger because I care about the
environment. I can be accused of other things. But I can't be accused
of not understanding what it is like to run a business, a successful
business.
If people want representation, when we see that there are people in
this country making $1.8 billion for a single year's work, and many
others earning $240 million or more. The salaries are adequate enough,
as they said in an article in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago,
that if you took the combined wages of people who made $240 million or
more in the year, you could pay 80,000 school teachers in the city of
New York for 3 years.
There are disparities, and what has to happen is that people who work
for a living have to understand their work, their effort, their
contribution to the country. We have Tom Brokaw here for lunch right
now. He wrote a book, ``The Greatest Generation.'' What was it? It was
working people who made the contribution. It was working people who on
D-Day--I didn't arrive in Europe on D-Day; I arrived a little bit
later--those who were there, those who were the heroes, those who saved
their companions, working people. They are entitled to be heard.
Workers cannot be hassled or harassed to be kept from expressing
their interests in a union. This bill says employees can select a union
as soon as a majority signs a card saying they want representation.
Current law allows for this majority signup, but only at the employer's
discretion. The employer can instead demand an election and use that
time before that election to scare workers away from joining a union.

The Employee Free Choice Act will protect and enhance the right of
workers to join a union, and there is good reason for some to choose a
union. As President Bush helps the wealthy get wealthier, helps the
corporations develop ever more earnings, I see nothing wrong with that
as long as there is a fairness, an equity. When a company such as
ExxonMobil earns almost $40 billion in a year, and Americans pull up to
the pump and very often they are giving away a significant part of
their purchasing power at that gasoline pump, we have to be sure we
don't totally demoralize the working people of this country.
Union wages can help low- and middle-wage workers earn their way to
new opportunities and financial stability. Everybody knows it costs
more to live these days. It costs more to send a kid to college. It
costs more to get health care. It costs more for gasoline. It costs
more for mortgages. It costs more for everything.
We have to make sure that the people who work for a living, who do
the building, who do the lifting, are able to make a living.
When it comes to wages, union wages are almost 30 percent higher than
nonunion wages, and union workers are almost twice as likely to have
employer-sponsored health benefits.
In 2005, 1.3 million New Jersey residents were uninsured for health.
That is 300,000 more residents than 5 years ago. Union membership can
make a huge difference to them and their families. Hard-working
Americans deserve these benefits. We need the Employee Free Choice Act
so workers can express themselves without intimidation. They have to be
certified if they make that kind of choice. But we also want employers
to be accountable when they violate the law. This bill will strengthen
penalties for employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act
so that employers are deterred from breaking the law.
Workers deserve an atmosphere where they can choose a union without
intimidation or coercion. They need a strong law to allow them to make
their own choice without interference from management. The Employee
Free Choice Act is that law. It will give employees a stronger voice in
shaping the workplace and will help employees earn more money,
benefits, and improve their futures.
I am proud to support this bill for New Jersey's and America's
current union members and for those who want to unionize.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Permit people to make their
choice and make it freely and not have to be worried about intimidation
or harassment. If you want to join a union, simple: Fill out a card.
Why should they be deprived from doing so for their future? I don't
think they should be.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Heroes of Charleston

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, my colleagues have been very kind to me
in passing on their condolences from the people of their States
regarding Charleston. I publicly acknowledge all the kindness they have
shown to me and Senator DeMint regarding the loss of the firefighters
in South Carolina. It was a huge blow to the community of Charleston.
Nine very brave souls lost their lives trying to protect their fellow
citizens. Senator Kennedy spoke very eloquently of the life of a
firefighter. Senator Dodd and so many people have offered their
condolences.

[[Page S8181]]

There will be a memorial service tomorrow in Charleston. I will be
going with other members of the delegation, and we will have a
resolution before the Senate tomorrow honoring these heroes.
I learned, talking with Senators Kennedy and Kerry, that there were
six or seven firefighters lost in Worcester, MA, not that long ago. I
have been told the Charleston fire was the largest loss of life among
firefighters since 9/11.
Those who have been to Charleston, SC, know what a wonderful,
beautiful community it is. It is one of the most open, welcoming
communities in the country. To the families, we grieve with you. We can
only imagine the pain you are going through. I hope you do realize you
have so many people in your corner saying prayers for your well-being
and deeply appreciative of the sacrifice your loved ones made.
It is human nature for most people to run away from fires. Only
firemen run into them. Thank God people are willing to do that, go off
and serve in the military, be policemen, EMTs, many of the other jobs
that require self-preservation to take a backseat to the common good.
Self-preservation is a strong instinct. I know parents would do
anything for their children, and that is a very understandable emotion,
taking care of your loved ones and your family. That probably trumps
self-preservation--most of the time, anyway. Doing it for somebody you
don't know makes you a hero. When you are willing to give your life,
risk your life for someone you don't know, that is where the term
``hero'' applies.
To the families who have lost loved ones, I do hope you have some
comfort knowing that what your loved one was doing was so important. In
this case, there was a belief that a civilian was left in the warehouse
unaccounted for, so the firemen went back in to look for this person.
Unfortunately, the worst happened. The building collapsed on them, and
there was a tremendous tragedy.
There are so many ways to thank firemen, and I am very inadequate in
that regard.
Similar to most young kids, I thought being a fireman was about the
top of the pyramid. It seemed like the neatest job in the world. But as
you get older, you realize how dangerous it is. It is one of those
occupations, such as being a policeman or other occupations--but
particularly firemen--that every day is a real risk you take.
To the people of Charleston, SC: I know you are banded together. I
know you are mourning together. You have the wishes of this body. All
the Senators--Republicans and Democrats--very much have you in their
prayers.
To the families: Tomorrow will be a difficult day. It will be a very
touching day. It will be a day of remembrance and mourning. It will
also be a day of celebration, celebrating the lives of those brave
firefighters who represent the best of my State and the best of
humanity.
I would like to end this statement with the understanding that there
is nothing we can do to replace your loss. But we can and we will be
there by your side as you move forward.
God bless.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending
amendments are either nongermane or are drafted improperly and are out
of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the majority leader may
make a combined point of order against the pending amendments.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendments fall.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the pending business the Reid
substitute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Amendment No. 1792, as Modified

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
No. 1792 be called up and modified by amendment No. 1843.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) proposes an amendment
numbered 1792, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:
On page 239, beginning with line 16, strike through line 5
on page 277 and insert the following:

TITLE V--CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy
Act''.

SEC. 502. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILES AND
CERTAIN OTHER VEHICLES.

(a) Increased Standards.--Section 32902 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``NON-PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES.--'' in
subsection (a) and inserting ``PRESCRIPTION OF STANDARDS BY
REGULATION.--'';
(2) by striking ``(except passenger automobiles)'' in
subsection (a); and
(3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Standards for Automobiles and Certain Other
Vehicles.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall prescribe average fuel economy
standards for--
``(A) automobiles manufactured by manufacturers in each
model year beginning with model year 2011 in accordance with
subsection (c); and
``(B) commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles in accordance with subsection (k).
``(2) Fuel economy target for automobiles.--
``(A) Automobile fuel economy average for model years 2011
through 2020.--The Secretary shall prescribe average fuel
economy standards for automobiles in each model year
beginning with model year 2011 to achieve a combined fuel
economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per
gallon for the fleet of automobiles manufactured or sold in
the United States. The average fuel economy standards
prescribed by the Secretary shall be the maximum feasible
average fuel economy standards for model years 2011 through
2019.
``(B) Automobile fuel economy average for model years 2021
through 2030.--For model years 2021 through 2030, the average
fuel economy required to be attained by the fleet of
automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States shall
be the maximum feasible average fuel economy standard for the
fleet.
``(C) Progress toward standard required.--In prescribing
average fuel economy standards under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall prescribe annual fuel economy standard
increases that increase the applicable average fuel economy
standard ratably beginning with model year 2011 and ending
with model year 2020.''.
(b) Fuel Economy Target for Commercial Medium-Duty and
Heavy-Duty On-Highway Vehicles.--Section 32902 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:
``(k) Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Highway
Vehicles.--
``(1) Study.--No later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, the Secretary
of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, shall examine the fuel efficiency of commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and determine--
``(A) the appropriate test procedures and methodologies for
measuring commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicle fuel efficiency;
``(B) the appropriate metric for measuring and expressing
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle fuel
efficiency performance, taking into consideration, among
other things, the work performed by such on-highway vehicles
and types of operations in which they are used;
``(C) the range of factors, including, without limitation,
design, functionality, use, duty cycle, infrastructure, and
total overall energy consumption and operating costs that
effect commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
fuel efficiency; and
``(D) such other factors and conditions that could have an
impact on a program to improve commercial medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicle fuel efficiency.
``(2) Rulemaking.--No later than 24 months after completion
of the study required by paragraph (1), the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, by
regulation, shall determine in a rulemaking procedure how to
implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program designed to
achieve the maximum feasible improvement, and shall adopt
appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy
standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.
``(3) Lead-time; regulatory stability.--Any commercial
medium- and heavy-duty

[[Page S8182]]

on-highway vehicle fuel efficiency regulatory program adopted
pursuant to this subsection shall provide no less than 4 full
model years of regulatory lead-time and 3 full model years of
regulatory stability.
``(4) Commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
defined.--In this subsection, the term `commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle' means an on-highway
vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500
pounds, and that, in the case of a vehicle with a gross
vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds, is not an
automobile.''.
(c) Authority of Secretary.--Section 32902 of title 49,
United States Code, as amended by subsection (b), is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(l) Authority of the Secretary.--
``(1) Vehicle attributes; model years covered.--The
Secretary shall--
``(A) prescribe by regulation average fuel economy
standards for automobiles based on vehicle attributes related
to fuel economy and to express the standards in the form of a
mathematical function; and
``(B) issue regulations under this title prescribing
average fuel economy standards for 1 or more model years.
``(2) Prohibition of uniform percentage increase.--When the
Secretary prescribes a standard, or prescribes an amendment
under this section that changes a standard, the standard may
not be expressed as a uniform percentage increase from the
fuel-economy performance of attribute classes or categories
already achieved in a model year by a manufacturer.''.

SEC. 503. AMENDING FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

(a) In General.--Section 32902(c) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Amending Fuel Economy Standards.--Notwithstanding
subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary of Transportation--
``(1) may prescribe a standard higher than that required
under subsection (b); or
``(2) may prescribe an average fuel economy standard for
automobiles that is the maximum feasible level for the model
year, despite being lower than the standard required under
subsection (b), if the Secretary determines, based on clear
and convincing evidence, that the average fuel economy
standard prescribed in accordance with subsections (a) and
(b) for automobiles in that model year is shown not to be
cost-effective.''.
(b) Feasibility Criteria.--Section 32902(f) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Decisions on Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy.--
``(1) In general.--When deciding maximum feasible average
fuel economy under this section, the Secretary shall
consider--
``(A) economic practicability;
``(B) the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the
Government on fuel economy;
``(C) environmental impacts; and
``(D) the need of the United States to conserve energy.
``(2) Limitations.--In setting any standard under
subsection (b), (c), or (d), the Secretary shall ensure that
each standard is the highest standard that--
``(A) is technologically achievable;
``(B) can be achieved without materially reducing the
overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the
United States;
``(C) is not less than the standard for that class of
vehicles from any prior year; and
``(D) is cost-effective.
``(3) Cost-effective defined.--In this subsection, the term
`cost-effective' means that the value to the United States of
reduced fuel use from a proposed fuel economy standard is
greater than or equal to the cost to the United States of
such standard. In determining cost-effectiveness, the
Secretary shall give priority to those technologies and
packages of technologies that offer the largest reduction in
fuel use relative to their costs.
``(4) Factors for consideration by secretary in determining
cost-effectiveness.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and may
consult with such other departments and agencies as the
Secretary deems appropriate, and shall consider in the
analysis the following factors:
``(A) Economic security.
``(B) The impact of the oil or energy intensity of the
United States economy on the sensitivity of the economy to
oil and other fuel price changes, including the magnitude of
gross domestic product losses in response to short term price
shocks or long term price increases.
``(C) National security, including the impact of United
States payments for oil and other fuel imports on political,
economic, and military developments in unstable or unfriendly
oil-exporting countries.
``(D) The uninternalized costs of pipeline and storage oil
seepage, and for risk of oil spills from production,
handling, and transport, and related landscape damage.
``(E) The emissions of pollutants including greenhouse
gases over the lifecycle of the fuel and the resulting costs
to human health, the economy, and the environment.
``(F) Such additional factors as the Secretary deems
relevant.
``(5) Minimum valuation.--When considering the value to
consumers of a gallon of gasoline saved, the Secretary of
Transportation shall use as a minimum value the greater of--
``(A) the average value of gasoline prices projected by the
Energy Information Administration over the period covered by
the standard; or
``(B) the average value of gasoline prices for the 5-year
period immediately preceding the year in which the standard
is established.''.
(c) Consultation Requirement.--Section 32902(i) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency'' after
``Energy''.
(d) Comments.--Section 32902(j) of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting ``(1) Before
issuing a notice proposing to prescribe or amend an average
fuel economy standard under subsection (b), (c), or (g) of
this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall give the
Secretary of Energy and Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency at least 30 days after the receipt of the
notice during which the Secretary of Energy and Administrator
may, if the Secretary of Energy or Administrator concludes
that the proposed standard would adversely affect the
conservation goals of the Secretary of Energy or
environmental protection goals of the Administrator, provide
written comments to the Secretary of Transportation about the
impact of the standard on those goals. To the extent the
Secretary of Transportation does not revise a proposed
standard to take into account comments of the Secretary of
Energy or Administrator on any adverse impact of the
standard, the Secretary of Transportation shall include those
comments in the notice.''; and
(2) by inserting ``and the Administrator'' after ``Energy''
each place it appears in paragraph (2).
(e) Alternative Fuel Economy Standards for Low Volume
Manufacturers and New Entrants.--Section 32902(d) of title
49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Alternative Average Fuel Economy Standard.--
``(1) In general.--Upon the application of an eligible
manufacturer, the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe
an alternative average fuel economy standard for automobiles
manufactured by that manufacturer if the Secretary determines
that--
``(A) the applicable standard prescribed under subsection
(a), (b), or (c) is more stringent than the maximum feasible
average fuel economy level that manufacturer can achieve; and
``(B) the alternative average fuel economy standard
prescribed under this subsection is the maximum feasible
average fuel economy level that manufacturer can achieve.
``(2) Application of alternative standard.--The Secretary
may provide for the application of an alternative average
fuel economy standard prescribed under paragraph (1) to--
``(A) the manufacturer that applied for the alternative
average fuel economy standard;
``(B) all automobiles to which this subsection applies; or
``(C) classes of automobiles manufactured by eligible
manufacturers.
``(3) Importers.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an
importer registered under section 30141(c) may not be
exempted as a manufacturer under paragraph (1) for an
automobile that the importer--
``(A) imports; or
``(B) brings into compliance with applicable motor vehicle
safety standards prescribed under chapter 301 for an
individual described in section 30142.
``(4) Application.--The Secretary of Transportation may
prescribe the contents of an application for an alternative
average fuel economy standard.
``(5) Eligible manufacturer defined.--In this section, the
term `eligible manufacturer' means a manufacturer that--
``(A) is not owned in whole or in part by another
manufacturer that sold greater than 0.5 percent of the number
of automobiles sold in the United States in the model year
prior to the model year to which the application relates;
``(B) sold in the United States fewer than 0.4 percent of
the number of automobiles sold in the United States in the
model year that is 2 years before the model year to which the
application relates; and
``(C) will sell in the United States fewer than 0.4 percent
of the automobiles sold in the United States for the model
year for which the alternative average fuel economy standard
will apply.
``(6) Limitation.--For purposes of this subsection,
notwithstanding section 32901(a)(4), the term `automobile
manufactured by a manufacturer' includes every automobile
manufactuered by a person that controls, is controlled by, or
is under common control with the manufacturer.
(f) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 32902(d) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears.
(2) Section 32902(g) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by striking ``subsection (a) or (d)'' each place it
appears in paragraph (1) and inserting ``subsection (b), (c),
or (d)''; and
(B) striking ``(and submit the amendment to Congress when
required under subsection (c)(2) of this section)'' in
paragraph (2).

[[Page S8183]]

SEC. 504. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 32901(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) except as provided in section 32908 of this title,
`automobile' means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by
fuel, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use
on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at not more
than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, except--
``(A) a vehicle operated only on a rail line;
``(B) a vehicle manufactured by 2 or more manufacturers in
different stages and less than 10,000 of which are
manufactured per year; or
``(C) a work truck.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(17) `work truck' means an automobile that the Secretary
determines by regulation--
``(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight; and
``(B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as defined in
section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations).''.
(b) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary of
Transportation--
(1) shall issue proposed regulations implementing the
amendments made by subsection (a) not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) shall issue final regulations implementing the
amendments not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Effective Date.--Regulations prescribed under
subsection (b) shall apply beginning with model year 2010.

SEC. 505. ENSURING SAFETY OF AUTOMOBILES.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 301 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 30129. Vehicle compatibility standard

``(a) Standards.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
issue a motor vehicle safety standard to reduce automobile
incompatibility. The standard shall address characteristics
necessary to ensure better management of crash forces in
multiple vehicle frontal and side impact crashes between
different types, sizes, and weights of automobiles with a
gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less in order to
decrease occupant deaths and injuries.
``(b) Consumer Information.--The Secretary shall develop
and implement a public information side and frontal
compatibility crash test program with vehicle ratings based
on risks to occupants, risks to other motorists, and combined
risks by vehicle make and model.''.
(b) Rulemaking Deadlines.--
(1) Rulemaking.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
issue--
(A) a notice of a proposed rulemaking under section 30129
of title 49, United States Code, not later than January 1,
2012; and
(B) a final rule under such section not later than December
31, 2014.
(2) Effective date of requirements.--Any requirement
imposed under the final rule issued under paragraph (1) shall
become fully effective not later than September 1, 2018.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
301 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 30128 the following:

``30129. Vehicle compatibility standard''.

SEC. 506. CREDIT TRADING PROGRAM.

Section 32903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears;
(2) by striking ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title'' each
place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a), (c), or (d)
of section 32902'';
(3) by striking ``3 consecutive model years'' in subsection
(a)(2) and inserting ``5 consecutive model years'';
(4) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``clause (1) of this
subsection,'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
(5) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Credit Trading Among Manufacturers.--The Secretary of
Transportation may establish, by regulation, a corporate
average fuel economy credit trading program to allow
manufacturers whose automobiles exceed the average fuel
economy standards prescribed under section 32902 to earn
credits to be sold to manufacturers whose automobiles fail to
achieve the prescribed standards such that the total oil
savings associated with manufacturers that exceed the
prescribed standards are preserved when transferring credits
to manufacturers that fail to achieve the prescribed
standards.''.

SEC. 507. LABELS FOR FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS.

Section 32908 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) of subsection (b)(1)
as subparagraph (H) and inserting after subparagraph (E) the
following:
``(F) a label (or a logo imprinted on a label required by
this paragraph) that--
``(i) reflects an automobile's performance on the basis of
criteria developed by the Administrator to reflect the fuel
economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions consequences
of operating the automobile over its likely useful life;
``(ii) permits consumers to compare performance results
under clause (i) among all automobiles; and
``(iii) is designed to encourage the manufacture and sale
of automobiles that meet or exceed applicable fuel economy
standards under section 32902.
``(G) a fuelstar under paragraph (5).''; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
``(4) Green Label Program.--
``(A) Marketing analysis.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, the
Administrator shall implement a consumer education program
and execute marketing strategies to improve consumer
understanding of automobile performance described in
paragraph (1)(F).
``(B) Eligibility.--Not later than 3 years after the date
described in subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall issue
requirements for the label or logo required under paragraph
(1)(F) to ensure that an automobile is not eligible for the
label or logo unless it--
``(i) meets or exceeds the applicable fuel economy
standard; or
``(ii) will have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over
the useful life of the vehicle of all vehicles in the vehicle
attribute class to which it belongs in that model year.
``(5) Fuelstar Program.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program,
to be known as the `Fuelstar Program', under which stars
shall be imprinted on or attached to the label required by
paragraph (1).
``(B) Green stars.--Under the Fuelstar Program, a
manufacturer may include on the label maintained on an
automobile under paragraph (1)--
``(i) 1 green star for any automobile that meets the
average fuel economy standard for the model year under
section 32902; and
``(ii) 1 additional green star for each 2 miles per gallon
by which the automobile exceeds such standard.
``(C) Gold stars.--Under the Fuelstar Program, a
manufacturer may include a gold star on the label maintained
on an automobile under paragraph (1) if the automobile
attains a fuel economy of at least 50 miles per gallon.''.

SEC. 508. CONTINUED APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING STANDARDS.

Nothing in this title, or the amendments made by this
title, shall be construed to affect the application of
section 32902 of title 49, United States Code, to passenger
automobiles or non-passenger automobiles manufactured before
model year 2011.

SEC. 509. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDIES.

(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
execute an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to
develop a report evaluating vehicle fuel economy standards,
including--
(1) an assessment of automotive technologies and costs to
reflect developments since the Academy's 2002 report
evaluating the corporate average fuel economy standards was
conducted;
(2) an analysis of existing and potential technologies that
may be used practically to improve automobile and medium-duty
and heavy-duty truck fuel economy;
(3) an analysis of how such technologies may be practically
integrated into the automotive and medium-duty and heavy-duty
truck manufacturing process; and
(4) an assessment of how such technologies may be used to
meet the new fuel economy standards under chapter 329 of
title 49, United States Code, as amended by this title.
(b) Quinquennial Updates.--After submitting the initial
report, the Academy shall update the report at 5 year
intervals thereafter through 2025.
(c) Report.--The Academy shall submit the report to the
Secretary, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Energy and Commerce, with its findings and recommendations no
later than 18 months after the date on which the Secretary
executes the agreement with the Academy.

SEC. 510. STANDARDS FOR EXECUTIVE AGENCY AUTOMOBILES.

(a) In General.--Section 32917 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 32917. Standards for Executive agency automobiles

``(a) Fuel Efficiency.--The head of an Executive agency
shall ensure that each new automobile procured by the
Executive agency is as fuel efficient as practicable.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Executive agency.--The term `Executive agency' has
the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5.
``(2) New automobile.--The term `new automobile', with
respect to the fleet of automobiles of an executive agency,
means an automobile that is leased for at least 60
consecutive days or bought, by or for the Executive agency,
after September 30, 2008. The term does not include any
vehicle designed for combat-related missions, law enforcement
work, or emergency rescue work.''.
(b) Report.--The Administrator of the General Services
Administration shall develop a report describing and
evaluating the efforts of the heads of the Executive agencies
to comply with section 32917 of title 49, United States Code,
for fiscal year 2009. The Administrator shall submit the
report to Congress no later than December 31, 2009.

SEC. 511. INCREASING CONSUMER AWARENESS OF FLEXIBLE FUEL
AUTOMOBILES.

Section 32908 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Increasing Consumer Awareness of Flexible Fuel
Automobiles.--(1) The Secretary of Energy, in consultation
with the

[[Page S8184]]

Secretary of Transportation, shall prescribe regulations that
require the manufacturer of automobiles distributed in
interstate commerce for sale in the United States--
``(A) to prominently display a permanent badge or emblem on
the quarter panel or tailgate of each such automobile that
indicates such vehicle is capable of operating on alternative
fuel; and
``(B) to include information in the owner's manual of each
such automobile information that describes--
``(i) the capability of the automobile to operate using
alternative fuel;
``(ii) the benefits of using alternative fuel, including
the renewable nature, and the environmental benefits of using
alternative fuel; and
``(C) to contain a fuel tank cap that is clearly labeled to
inform consumers that the automobile is capable of operating
on alternative fuel.
``(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall collaborate
with automobile retailers to develop voluntary methods for
providing prospective purchasers of automobiles with
information regarding the benefits of using alternative fuel
in automobiles, including--
``(A) the renewable nature of alternative fuel; and
``(B) the environmental benefits of using alternative
fuel.''.

SEC. 512. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ACCURACY OF FUEL ECONOMY
LABELING PROCEDURES.

Beginning in December, 2009, and not less often than every
5 years thereafter, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, shall--
(1) reevaluate the fuel economy labeling procedures
described in the final rule published in the Federal Register
on December 27, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 77,872; 40 C.F.R. parts 86
and 600) to determine whether changes in the factors used to
establish the labeling procedures warrant a revision of that
process; and
(2) submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce that describes the results
of the reevaluation process.

SEC. 513. TIRE FUEL EFFICIENCY CONSUMER INFORMATION.

(a) In General.--Chapter 301 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 30123 the
following new section:

``Sec. 30123A. Tire fuel efficiency consumer information

``(a) Rulemaking.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, the
Secretary of Transportation shall, after notice and
opportunity for comment, promulgate rules establishing a
national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program
for tires designed for use on motor vehicles to educate
consumers about the effect of tires on automobile fuel
efficiency.
``(2) Items included in rule.--The rulemaking shall
include--
``(A) a national tire fuel efficiency rating system for
motor vehicle tires to assist consumers in making more
educated tire purchasing decisions;
``(B) requirements for providing information to consumers,
including information at the point of sale and other
potential information dissemination methods, including the
Internet;
``(C) specifications for test methods for manufacturers to
use in assessing and rating tires to avoid variation among
test equipment and manufacturers; and
``(D) a national tire maintenance consumer education
program including, information on tire inflation pressure,
alignment, rotation, and tread wear to maximize fuel
efficiency.
``(3) Applicability.--This section shall not apply to tires
excluded from coverage under section 575.104(c)(2) of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on date of
enactment of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act.
``(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency on the means of conveying
tire fuel efficiency consumer information.
``(c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall conduct
periodic assessments of the rules promulgated under this
section to determine the utility of such rules to consumers,
the level of cooperation by industry, and the contribution to
national goals pertaining to energy consumption. The
Secretary shall transmit periodic reports detailing the
findings of such assessments to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce.
``(d) Tire Marking.--The Secretary shall not require
permanent labeling of any kind on a tire for the purpose of
tire fuel efficiency information.
``(e) Preemption.--When a requirement under this section is
in effect, a State or political subdivision of a State may
adopt or enforce a law or regulation on tire fuel efficiency
consumer information only if the law or regulation is
identical to that requirement. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to preempt a State or political subdivision of a
State from regulating the fuel efficiency of tires not
otherwise preempted under this chapter.''.
(b) Enforcement.--Section 30165(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Section 30123a.--Any person who fails to comply with
the national tire fuel efficiency consumer information
program under section 30123A is liable to the United States
Government for a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for
each violation.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
301 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 30123 the following:

``30123A. Tire fuel efficiency consumer information''.

SEC. 514. ADVANCED BATTERY INITIATIVE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall establish and
carry out an Advanced Battery Initiative in accordance with
this section to support research, development, demonstration,
and commercial application of battery technologies.
(b) Industry Alliance.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
competitively select an Industry Alliance to represent
participants who are private, for-profit firms headquartered
in the United States, the primary business of which is the
manufacturing of batteries.
(c) Research.--
(1) Grants.--The Secretary shall carry out research
activities of the Initiative through competitively-awarded
grants to--
(A) researchers, including Industry Alliance participants;
(B) small businesses;
(C) National Laboratories; and
(D) institutions of higher education.
(2) Industry alliance.--The Secretary shall annually
solicit from the Industry Alliance--
(A) comments to identify advanced battery technology and
battery systems needs relevant to--
(i) electric drive technology; and
(ii) other applications the Secretary deems appropriate;
(B) an assessment of the progress of research activities of
the Initiative; and
(C) assistance in annually updating advanced battery
technology and battery systems roadmaps.
(d) Availability to the Public.--The information and
roadmaps developed under this section shall be available to
the public.
(e) Preference.--In making awards under this subsection,
the Secretary shall give preference to participants in the
Industry Alliance.
(f) Cost Sharing.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall require cost sharing in accordance with
section 120(b) of title 23, United States Code.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

SEC. 515. BIODIESEL STANDARDS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of Energy, shall promulgate
regulations to ensure that all diesel-equivalent fuels
derived from renewable biomass that are introduced into
interstate commerce are tested and certified to comply with
appropriate American Society for Testing and Materials
standards.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Biodiesel.--
(A) In general.--The term ``biodiesel'' means the monoalkyl
esters of long chain fatty acids derived from plant or animal
matter that meet--
(i) the registration requirements for fuels and fuel
additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency
under section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545); and
(ii) the requirements of the American Society of Testing
and Materials D6751.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``biodiesel'' includes esters
described in subparagraph (A) derived from--
(i) animal waste, including poultry fat, poultry waste, and
other waste material; and
(ii) municipal solid waste, sludge, and oil derived from
wastewater or the treatment of wastewater.
(2) Biodiesel blend.--The term ``biodiesel blend'' means a
mixture of biodiesel and diesel fuel, including--
(A) a blend of biodiesel and diesel fuel approximately 5
percent of the content of which is biodiesel (commonly known
as ``B5''); and
(B) a blend of biodiesel and diesel fuel approximately 20
percent of the content of which is biodiesel (commonly known
as ``B20'').

SEC. 516. USE OF CIVIL PENALTIES FOR RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.

Section 32912 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(e) Use of Civil Penalties.--For fiscal year 2008 and
each fiscal year thereafter, from the total amount deposited
in the general fund of the Treasury during the preceding
fiscal year from fines, penalties, and other funds obtained
through enforcement actions conducted pursuant to this
section (including funds obtained under consent decrees), the
Secretary of the Treasury, subject to the availability of
appropriations, shall--
``(1) transfer 50 percent of such total amount to the
account providing appropriations to the Secretary of
Transportation for the administration of this chapter, which

[[Page S8185]]

shall be used by the Secretary to carry out a program of
research and development into fuel saving automotive
technologies and to support rulemaking under this chapter;
and
``(2) transfer 50 percent of such total amount to the
Energy Security Fund established by section 517(a) of the
Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act.''.

SEC. 517. ENERGY SECURITY FUND AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL GRANT
PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury a
fund, to be known as the ``Energy Security Fund'' (referred
to in this section as the ``Fund''), consisting of--
(A) amounts transferred to the Fund under section
32912(e)(2) of title 49, United States Code; and
(B) amounts credited to the Fund under paragraph (2)(C).
(2) Investment of amounts.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
in interest-bearing obligations of the United States such
portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals.
(B) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
(C) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to, and form a part of, the Fund in
accordance with section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(3) Use of amounts in fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be
made available to the Secretary of Energy, subject to the
availability of appropriations, to carry out the grant
program under subsection (b).
(b) Alternative Fuels Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, acting
through the Clean Cities Program of the Department of Energy,
shall establish and carry out a program under which the
Secretary shall provide grants to expand the availability to
consumers of alternative fuels (as defined in section
32901(a) of title 49, United States Code).
(2) Eligibility.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
any entity that is eligible to receive assistance under the
Clean Cities Program shall be eligible to receive a grant
under this subsection.
(B) Exceptions.--
(i) Certain oil companies.--A large, vertically-integrated
oil company shall not be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection.
(ii) Prohibition of dual benefits.--An entity that receives
any other Federal funds for the construction or expansion of
alternative refueling infrastructure shall not be eligible to
receive a grant under this subsection for the construction or
expansion of the same alternative refueling infrastructure.
(C) Ensuring compliance.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
promulgate regulations to ensure that, before receiving a
grant under this subsection, an eligible entity meets
applicable standards relating to the installation,
construction, and expansion of infrastructure necessary to
increase the availability to consumers of alternative fuels
(as defined in section 32901(a) of title 49, United States
Code).
(3) Maximum amount.--
(A) Grants.--The amount of a grant provided under this
subsection shall not exceed $30,000.
(B) Amount per station.--An eligible entity shall receive
not more than $90,000 under this subsection for any station
of the eligible entity during a fiscal year.
(4) Use of funds.--
(A) In general.--A grant provided under this subsection
shall be used for the construction or expansion of
alternative fueling infrastructure.
(B) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 3 percent of
the amount of a grant provided under this subsection shall be
used for administrative expenses.

SEC. 518. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2021 to carry out the provisions of chapter 329 of
title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 519. APPLICATION WITH CLEAN AIR ACT.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to conflict with
the authority provided by sections 202 and 209 of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 and 7543, respectively).

SEC. 520. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE ACTION PLAN.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall,
establish and implement an action plan which takes into
consideration the availability cost effectiveness of
alternative fuels, which will ensure that, beginning with
model year 2015, the percentage of new automobiles for sale
in the United States that are alternative fuel automobiles is
not less than 50 percent.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Alternative fuel automobile.--The term ``alternative
fuel automobile'' means the following but not limited to--
(A) a new advanced lean burn technology motor vehicle (as
defined in section 30B(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) that achieves at least 125 percent of the model year
2002 city fuel economy;
(B) an alternative fueled automobile;
(C) a flexible fuel automobile;
(D) a new qualified fuel cell motor vehicle (as defined in
section 30B(e)(4) of such Code).
(E) a new qualified hybrid motor vehicle (as defined in
section 30B(d)(3) of such Code);
(F) a plug-in hybrid automobile;
(G) an electric automobile;
(H) a hydrogen internal combustion engine automobile; and
(I) any other automobile that uses substantially new
technology and achieves at least 175 percent of the model
year 2002 city fuel economy, as determined by the Secretary
of Transportation, by regulation.
(2) Other terms.--Any term used in this section that is
defined in section 32901 of title 49, United States Code, has
the meaning given that term in that section.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the fuel economy compromise that I filed
yesterday, as now amended, is a step toward addressing our energy
crisis. I thank my dear friend chairman Inouye and his staff for
working across the aisle to ensure a bipartisan measure. I support the
notion articulated by the President in his State of the Union Address
that we need to modernize the Nation's fuel economy program, and save a
significant amount of fuel over the next decade. I believe the
provision we now consider would effectuate that policy goal in a
thoughtful and functional way.
Once again, our Nation stands at a crossroads in our history. The
United States faces an energy crisis, but we find ourselves trapped in
a vicious cycle which will only make its consequences more severe.
While our Nation is blessed with enormous natural resource potential,
inconsistent government policies discourage their exploration and
development. As a direct result, the amount of oil imported each year
is increasing, and our Federal lands, including those in my home State
of Alaska, are being withdrawn from oil and gas development and
exploration. These policies have been--and will continue to be
detrimental to our national security and long-term environmental
economic health. The time has come for those of us in Congress, as the
custodians of the public trust, to make the difficult energy policy
decisions that will serve to benefit future generations.
Those who advocate a one-approach-fixes-all solution are misleading
the American public. The only way our Nation will achieve energy
independence is through a combination of initiatives. Conservation,
domestic production, and the development of alternative sources of
energy are all parts of the broader solution. The end to our crisis
lies in the balance between them, and the advancement of each will also
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One initiative without the others will
simply not be enough to achieve our energy objective.
The fuel economy provisions of this bill would enhance conservation.
The measure would remove the legal ambiguity that for years has
inhibited the Secretary of Transportation from raising fuel economy
standards for passenger cars, and mandate significant fuel economy
increases for both passenger cars and light trucks.
By providing authority to increase standards for passenger vehicles,
and challenging automobile makers to invest toward the achievement of a
specific fuel economy target, this amendment would provide consumers
with fuel savings at the pump, limit our Nation's dependence on foreign
oil, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I am fully aware of the aggressiveness of the target standard set
forth in this bill and the challenges involved with reaching the fuel
economy standard for the domestic vehicle fleet. And I thank Chairman
Inouye for agreeing to allow regulatory flexibility in the event that
the targets set forth by this legislation are not feasible. But the
overall charge to the auto industry set forth in this measure is not
unfamiliar to the industry during times of geopolitical instability. In
fact, the CAFE program was born out of very similar circumstances in
1973, during the Arab oil embargo. At the time, our Nation recognized
that it was in our national interest to reduce our dependence on
foreign sources of oil by demanding better fuel economy from our
automobiles. History has now repeated itself and a combination of
events, including the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and geopolitical
unrest, has precipitated once again the need for difficult energy
conservation determinations.

[[Page S8186]]

Mr. President, the terrorist attacks waged on this country on
September 11, 2001, and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East have
brought into focus the need to reduce our dependence on all foreign
oil. The United States imports almost 11 million barrels of crude oil
every day, compared with only 5 million produced here at home. And more
than 2 million imported barrels arrive from the Persian Gulf each day.
Domestic consumption has increased since 1993 from 17 million to 21
million barrels per day. The savings achieved by increasing fuel
economy standards for the entire domestic passenger vehicle fleet is an
essential component of our comprehensive strategy to increase our
energy independence and national security.

But any change to fuel economy standards requires the careful balance
of many factors, including national security, consumer preference,
domestic employment, as well as the need for powerful and durable
vehicles in rural America, including my home State of Alaska. While the
fuel economy provisions in this amendment would set aggressive goals,
they would also provide the Secretary the authority to balance these
market and national security considerations, and to make the
appropriate and necessary fuel economy increases.
By significantly improving fuel economy in our passenger vehicle
fleet, we will inherently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the
cause of global climate change has yet to be fully determined, its
speed and impacts are more evident in Alaska than anywhere in the
country.
Many believe global climate change is attributable partly to manmade
activities. Temperatures are rising in the Arctic region at more than
twice the rate of the rest of the world, according to the 2004 Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment, and many impacts in Alaska such as erosion
and flooding exacerbated by climate change require immediate attention
and planning of responses.
Mr. President, our Nation needs a new energy paradigm. The 21st
century will be the proving ground for our commitment to achieve both
energy independence and a clean, sustainable environment. The fuel
economy provisions in the amendment address conservation and are
intended as an aggressive first step of a more holistic energy policy.
The current energy crisis cannot be resolved through conservation
alone, and we cannot suspend the law of supply and demand while we
anticipate alternative technologies and energy sources. I remain
steadfast in my belief that allowing for the development of our
domestic resources, particularly in my State of Alaska, is an essential
component of a successful energy policy.
While my colleagues in the past have narrowly defeated efforts to
effectuate that calling, I will not give up on advancing the need for
such production. The development of our domestic resources would
generate billions of dollars for the Federal Government, which could
aid in our quest for alternative sources of energy if we use this new
revenue to invest in research efforts and infrastructure development.
Mr. President, I ask for action on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
The amendment (No. 1792), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the managers of the bill, Senators Bingaman
and Domenici, are now going to try to see if there are amendments that
can be called up, so that a quorum call will be entered into.
Hopefully, we can have other amendments in this matter as soon as
possible.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the sponsors of the amendment
that has just been adopted be myself, Senator Inouye, Senator
Feinstein, Senator Lott, Senator Kerry, Senator Carper, Senator Hagel,
Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, Senator Alexander, Senator Cantwell,
Senator Corker, Senator Dole, Senator Craig, and Senator Sununu, in
that order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in this downtime, the managers are working.
At this time, what we are trying to do is clear amendments. There are a
number of amendments that have been filed, some of which are germane.
We are working to see if we can clear amendments without a lot of
determination at this time as to whether they are germane or not.
Managers are working on this real hard and speaking to the individual
Senators and staffs.
Senator Domenici has been notified of this situation. Senator Craig
is here from the committee representing the minority at this time. We
hope they can expedite the clearing of some of these amendments, and
then we will make a determination after that to see if there are any
other votes we have to have on some of these germane amendments.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the leader yield?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on behalf of our colleagues, is it possible
at this time for the leader to give us some timeframe as it relates to
the packaging and possible activity this evening and into tomorrow?
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from Idaho very much. I say to my dear
friend from a neighboring State of Nevada, we are trying--and I have
had a number of conversations this afternoon with the Republican
leader--to see if we can expedite the time. It is very possible that we
could move forward on this legislation and not have to work the weekend
because a lot of the weekend would be spent just standing around.
If we can accomplish what we need to do without a lot of standing
around time, we would be better off, and then we can move early next
week to finish the debate on immigration. We have a limited number of
items left to do. We have to finish the germane amendments. I have
already indicated the managers are willing even to take a look at some
nongermane amendments. We need to finish the germane amendments, and we
have to have cloture on the bill if, in fact, that is required.
Sometimes it isn't. Most of the time it isn't. I said that earlier. And
then we would have final passage on the bill. Then we would have 20
minutes on card check. That is the time for the vote. There would be no
debate on that. I have a strong suspicion that cloture will not be
invoked on that legislation. Following that, we would move to
immigration.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the leader.
Mr. REID. One of the proposals, I say to my friend, was to start
immigration on Monday and maybe some other odds and ends around here on
this matter. The other proposal Senator McConnell and I have talked
about is starting everything Tuesday morning. We would arrive at the
same end time. It would just be we wouldn't have to be in session with
people standing around guarding to make sure somebody isn't going to do
something when the quorum call is on. We could wind up at the same
place and accomplish just as much. That doesn't take away how difficult
it is going to be once we get on immigration.
There are meetings being held on that today and progress is even
being made.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
I withhold for a minute. We are going to be in a quorum call. If
someone wants to give a speech for 10 minutes, recognizing they will
speak as in morning business just for that 10-minute period, that would
certainly be appropriate. But we are not going to do any

[[Page S8187]]

business on this bill until the managers give us some direction.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the floor is available
for some discussion while we are waiting for the managers to work on
amendments and perhaps clear amendments, and I wanted to take a few
minutes along with my colleague Senator Craig to talk about some
information in a piece of legislation we have previously introduced
called the SAFE Energy Act, Security and Fuel Efficiency Energy Act.
That legislation represents legislation trying to reduce the oil
intensity of the American economy. The calculation of where we are with
respect to oil in this country is that we are dangerously dependent on
foreign sources of oil, dangerously dependent on oil that comes from
very troubled parts of the world--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq,
Venezuela, and more. That dependence now is over 60 percent. In other
words, over 60 percent of the oil we need to run this country's economy
comes from other parts of the world, much of it very troubled.
If, God forbid, tomorrow a terrorist were to interrupt the supply of
oil coming to this country, our economy would be flat on its back. So
how do we reduce the oil intensity in this country? Well, you do a lot
of things. I mentioned that 60 percent plus of our oil comes from
outside of our country. About 70 percent of the oil we use in this
country is used in vehicles. So while 60 percent comes from other
countries, 70 percent is running through a carburetor or fuel injector
to make our vehicle fleet go, and we are in a hopeless pursuit of
becoming less dependent on foreign sources of energy if we don't make
our vehicle fleet more efficient.
So that is one. You have to make your vehicle fleet more efficient.
We have just passed a piece of legislation that moves in that
direction. But you need a lot of things: You need efficiency, you need
conservation, you need renewable energy, you need additional production
of energy; yes, even fossil fuels, but done in an environmentally
acceptable way. So conservation.
We misuse, we waste, an enormous amount of energy in this country.
The cheapest form of energy available to us is through conservation.
There is no question about that. Efficiency. Almost everything we do in
this country, from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed
at night, we are using all kinds of appliances that require energy. We
flip on a switch and a light bulb turns on. We plug in a razor and
shave and use electricity. We jump in the shower and that water is
heated by electricity or perhaps natural gas. But the fact is
everything we do can be made more efficient.
There are strange terms, such as SEER 13 standards for air
conditioners. Some don't know what that means. I know it is kind of an
arcane language, talking about SEER 13 standards, but it means much
more efficient air conditioners. We fought for a long time about that
and finally got a SEER 13 standard, and it is going to use much less
electricity and be much more efficient.
So conservation, efficiency, renewables. The bill on the floor of the
Senate is a significant piece of legislation dealing with renewable
energy, solar energy, biomass, wind energy, and then the biofuels,
including ethanol, biodiesel, and all of these issues that deal with
renewable energy. That is another significant step toward being less
dependent on foreign sources of oil. Conservation, efficiency,
renewables.
But there is another piece that has received too little notice, in my
judgment, too little notice on the floor of the Senate, and that is
additional production. We are going to use additional coal. As chairman
of the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee that funds those
energy accounts, we are going to use clean power and clean coal
technology to, I hope one of these days, be able to have a coal-fired
electric generating plant that is a zero-emission coal-fired electric
generating plant. I believe we can get there through technology and
better science. We have all these issues we are working on.
With respect to fossil fuel, coal, oil, and natural gas, we need to
find additional ways to produce additional quantities of oil here as
well. As I look at this issue, and my colleague Senator Craig and I
have evaluated this issue, there are quantities of oil offshore--yes,
in Alaska and on the west coast, in the gulf--and the largest quantity
is in the Gulf of Mexico. We know we have passed some legislation in
the last 2 years, within the last year and a half or so, opening up
what is called lease 181. It was modified, through the work of the
Senators from Florida and others, in a way that was acceptable to them.
We opened up a portion of the Gulf of Mexico for additional
production. Senator Craig and I believe there are additional tracts and
significant tracts that can be open for additional production of oil,
oil and natural gas, and that such production can be done without
destruction of our environment. That production can be done by
expanding the supply, which must be part of the answer to addressing
this energy problem we have.
The oil intensity in our country makes us dangerously dependent on
foreign sources of oil, and so as we look at how we deal with that, we
deal with it in a lot of ways, but one of those ways must, in my
judgment, include some additional production with proper and certain
environmental protections. That can be done. That should be done, in my
judgment.
Now, Senator Craig and I understand that portion of the plan we
introduced here in the Senate that deals with offshore production is
controversial. We understand when you try to do something such as
that, people come to the floor and put up a pretty vigorous fight. I
might say the Presiding Officer, being from Florida, has been very
active and very aggressive in protecting his State's interests, and
very effective at protecting his State's interests. Both Senators from
Florida have been active and involved in that. We understand that.

We also understand it is not likely at this point that we have the
votes here in the Senate at this moment to expand the kind of
production we wish to expand in the Gulf of Mexico, but that doesn't
mean we shouldn't be discussing and considering how at some point in
the future we access those significant additional quantities of oil and
natural gas our country needs, and how we access them with the kind of
certain protections for our economy and our environment that would be
necessary to accompany that.
That is why Senator Craig and I introduced a piece of legislation
that has this production side to it, and we feel it has not been much
discussed on the floor of the Senate. Everything else has been--
conservation, efficiency, renewables--all of which I support, all of
which I am excited about, all of which I think advance this country's
interest, but the production side has not been discussed in as
significant a way as I believe it should. So I wanted to simply take
this moment to say that the proposal offered by my colleague from Idaho
and myself is one that believes that whether it is now or in the
future, the construct of how we put together a comprehensive energy
plan to reduce the dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of
oil must include some additional production, and the most likely place,
with the greatest potential, if you look at all of the potential areas,
is in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. President, I yield the floor so my colleague from Idaho can
express himself as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from North Dakota
for a very succinct presentation about the reality of why we have spent
the last couple of weeks debating energy in the Senate.
There is another reality check that I think most Americans fail to
understand when it comes to why they are paying $3-plus at the pump,
and that reality is that clearly demand in this country has outstripped
supply by a significant amount. We have increasingly, since the 1950s,
begun to have to

[[Page S8188]]

go elsewhere than just in and around our country to meet the
hydrocarbon or the crude oil needs of our refiners and, ultimately, the
gasoline needs of our consumers. As that dependency has grown on
foreign sources of energy, I would argue that America became
increasingly less secure.
Now, I am one who in the 1980s, and probably the early 1990s, thought
it would be just production, production, and more production. I have
changed. I have spent a lot of time looking at the energy equation of
our country over the last couple of decades and said, no, you have to
do a variety of different things.
Production is important. Our President said we are hooked on
hydrocarbons. We are ``gasaholics,'' if you will. We are and we will be
for an extended period of time. We have been there a long while. We
have a multi, multibillion dollar infrastructure that supplies that
energy out to the suburban access points, and you don't change those
overnight. You don't change the technology that ultimately gets you
there, but you do change. And America must change.
Some say you don't need anymore production, you can go to efficiency,
you can go to new technology, and that alone will change the equation
fast enough to save America's consumers and the economy.
I disagree with that. I think we are going to go there. In fact, the
Senate by a voice vote a few moments ago passed a new efficiency
standard for automobiles that I support. I am a Senator who has never
supported that in the 27 years I have been in the Senate. So while I
may be asking the Presiding Officer from Florida to change a little bit
as it relates to the resources that are offshore Florida because I now
know the technologies can bring those resources out without damaging
the environment, here is a Senator who has changed also because I do
believe that when you get to a fleet that burns less fuel, you are
going to get to an America that needs less hydrocarbons over time.
That is why the Senator from North Dakota and I introduced
legislation earlier this year that talked about conservation, and it
talked about innovation, but it also talked about production and the
reality of having to get more production out of our own resources
instead of relying on one of the most unstable, riskiest areas of the
world to gain that production.
If the world were at total peace today and the world's oil supplies
were managed by companies and not countries, my guess is crude would
not be at $60-plus a barrel. It would be at $40-plus a barrel and the
American consumer would probably be paying a dollar less at the pump.
But that is not reality. Reality is reflected at the pump and therein
lies one of our greatest problems.
Earlier in the day, we had a great debate about a tax bill, to tax
the oil companies by about $30 billion. Somehow that was going to
change the equation; it was going to make the world a safer and better
place. It was not going to change the price at the pump, not one dime.
In fact it had the potential of taking it up.
Here is the reason why. It did not change this equation. What is this
equation? These are the known reserves of oil on the globe. Here are
the big boys, as we think of them--the big companies. Here is Exxon and
here is the British Petroleum and here is Texaco and over here is
Marathon.
You can hardly see them on the chart. They don't own the world's oil
supply. They manage and own very little of it.
Who owns it? Hugo Chavez, Venezuela--who would love to jerk this
country around by its tail--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq. I have named some
of the most unstable areas of the world. They own the oil today. We
need it because we are dependent on it, because we have done very
little about it. That is why the Senator from North Dakota and I said
we have to go where the oil is in our country, and the oil is not
onshore anymore. The oil is not onshore. It is offshore. We know it is,
and we know there is a substantial supply of it. But we have allowed
States to put on moratoria and establish a political environment that
denies the Federal Government access to its own resources, so the
taxpayers of Idaho are paying a higher price for gasoline, in part,
because the State of California--the Senator from California is here,
the State of Florida, and other States have said you can't drill off
our shore. No. No. Even though in California, with the old leases, they
are still drilling in the State waters--not drilling but producing--the
ghost of Santa Barbara is long gone. There are some who still like to
talk about it, but my guess is these young folks sitting around here
tonight, who are our pages, don't even remember Santa Barbara or the
oilspill that resulted from the catastrophe of a wellhead blowing off
offshore years ago.
The reason you don't is because it doesn't happen anymore. The
technology of today, the safety of today, the regulations of today have
changed the equation.
The Senator from North Dakota talked about a compromise the Senator
from Florida worked with us on this past year. This is lease sale 181,
where there may be millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic
feet of gas. We don't know. There is a pretty good idea it is there and
it can be produced and pushed into the current infrastructure and
America, for a moment in time, will be a little bit more energy secure.
What I am proposing and what many are talking about is what about
this area? What about the rest of the eastern gulf? Ought we not be
talking about that? Looking at it? Understanding what is there, if
technology allows us to produce?
Here is where America's oil is being produced today, in the Gulf of
Mexico. We are finding more and more out there as the technologies
improve and as we can get deeper into the waters. That is reality.
There are those who will give a lot of different arguments about why
you should not do it. But I will argue you can do it and that the oil
is there and America ought to know about it and they ought to be asking
why we are not going there but, instead, why are we increasingly
dependent upon foreign nations for our source of oil?
It is a reasonable question to ask. Right now, America has grown
increasingly angry because of the price it is paying at the pump.
People are not accustomed to using their disposable income for the
price of energy as we know it today. That is not what we have done in
an economy such as ours. But that is where we are today.
Here is what happens when we rely on other countries to produce our
energy for us. We are at war with terrorism today around the globe.
This is the French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen in October 6 of
2002, when an al-Qaida suicide boat hit it and set it afire. Here is
the vulnerability of all of our oil moving on water. I suggest the
ecological problems resulting from this are greater than from any
drilling that could occur offshore America today because we expose
ourselves to a high risk by the shipment of oil on our ocean surfaces
around the world.
That is why I think it is important that we keep talking and allowing
America to understand we are not without oil and not without oil
reserves. The progressive and environmentally sound development of them
over time will help us in this period of transition that will take
several decades to move to flex-fueled cars--hydrogen cars, electric
cars, all of the kinds of things we think America wants and that in
public policy and incentivizing the marketplace we are moving America
toward.
It will not happen overnight. In that period of time, while it is
happening, America remains extremely vulnerable. Our economy is at
risk. There is no question about it. What I have said is this picture
demonstrates something that ought to be repeated and repeated again:
The weapon of mass ``disruption'' in this country is an al-Qaida
suicide boat hitting the side of an oil tanker, time and time again.
That is the weapon of mass disruption. The high risk involved, the
driving up of the oil prices, the movement of gas by $2 or $3 a gallon
in this economy creates havoc everywhere. Certainly, in my State of
Idaho it creates tremendous problems.

It is important that I and other Senators recognize that you do not
conserve your way out of an energy crisis. You do not innovate your way
out of an energy crisis. You do not produce your way out. You do all
three.
I am going to continue to work while I am in the Senate to encourage
this

[[Page S8189]]

Senate in public policy to do all three. I think it is in the best
interests of America, our economy, and our national security that we do
so. As an American today, I am not only frustrated, I am sometimes
angered and embarrassed that we, through public policy, have allowed
our country to become so dependent on other parts of the world.
Great nations should not allow that to happen, but we have. Then we
make excuses all around us why we can't produce. Petropolitics is a
fascinating thing. America gets it. The consumer understands it, and
the consumer will grow increasingly angry when they understand that
public policy doesn't allow the marketplace to do what it can do best
in an environmentally sound way, to provide our country with the kind
of energy it needs.
Again, as we debate this bill on the floor and finalize it, my guess
is we will do a lot about conservation, we will do a lot about
innovation, but we will do little to nothing about production. In the
next 5 to 6 years, production is where it is. As we work on innovation,
as we move technology from the laboratory to the street to commercial
use, production still remains critically important.
I call upon my colleagues to stand up and be counted in all three of
these areas. It is important for our country. It is important for our
economy. Without question, it is important for our national security.
The rest of the world should not tell America what its foreign policy
is or will be based on their willingness or lack thereof to produce the
oil supply our economy needs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate works in strange ways. I
think there is no question about that. Some of us were upstairs holding
a press conference on the fact that we had come together around a
substitute amendment, and Senator Kerry, who had participated, came
back up and said the amendment was agreed to.
For me, I began this in 1993, so it has been a very long time.
Senator Snowe and I have worked, first, for the SUV loophole closer and
then for this ten-over-ten bill for 6 years now. So it was adopted by
the Senate, and there are some people I would like to thank.
I would like to begin thanking Senator Snowe, who has been the
cosponsor of this legislation--10 miles improvement in mileage
efficiency over 10 years--since we started; the chairman of the
committee, Senator Inouye; the ranking member, Senator Stevens; Senator
Carper, who was so helpful all the way along; Senator Dorgan, who had
one part of the legislation, who agreed to a change and came into the
compromise; Senator Kerry, who worked very hard with Senator Cantwell
on the flex-fuel part of this; Senator Lott, Senator Corker; Senator
Klobuchar; and many others. You, Mr. President, we thank you for being
a cosponsor of this compromise effort as well.
We have pushed the rock for so long I think it is hard to feel
anything once the rock goes over the hill. But the amendment was
adopted and it is in the base bill. For this, we are very grateful.
I would quickly like to say what this agreement does. It increases
the fleetwide average fuel economy for all cars, SUVs, and light trucks
by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years or from 25 miles per gallon to 35
miles per gallon by model year 2020.
Second, it requires the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, which we call NHTSA, to establish an attribute-based
system that sets mileage standards based on size, weight or type of
vehicle. This is important because it creates a level playing field for
all automobiles.
From 2011 to 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible and
ratchet these standards up, making steady progress to meet the 35-
miles-per-gallon fleetwide average by 2020. The fleetwide average must
be met unless NHTSA determines, based on clear and convincing evidence,
that a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide average would not be cost effective
for the Nation.
From 2021 to 2030, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the
maximum feasible and ratchet even these standards up at a reasonable
rate.
In addition, the agreement establishes a credit system that NHTSA
would design, run, and operate. This would allow automakers to buy
credits if you exceed the standard, and essentially sell those credits
to those who cannot make the standards in a given year. So the credit
trading program gives an automaker a financial incentive to exceed the
standard.
It can bank its credits also for up to 5 years. That is insurance if
it falls below the standard in a later year. If an automaker cannot
meet the standard in a given year, it can purchase credits, use banked
credits or borrow from projected surpluses in future years.
This provision was strongly recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences in 2002. In part of the negotiation we negotiated with the two
Senators from Michigan, both distinguished Senators, Ms. Stabenow and
Mr. Levin. And I want to say this: There are no two Senators from any
single State that I have seen fight harder for their State's industries
than Senator Stabenow and Senator Levin. We could not reach an
accommodation. Those of us who have watched this fight for CAFE
standards and participated in it for the last 13 years, I have just
found, for me, the automobile industry has never responded. They have
fought everything we have proposed every time. When this happens, when
an industry is not forthcoming and does not come to you and say: Look,
I cannot support this, but I can support that, could you make some
changes, just something--instead, it is a stone wall. It is: No, it
does not work in this agreement, the arena, with those of us who feel
strongly.
I come from a huge State. We have two nonattainment pollution areas,
the central valley of California and the Los Angeles area. We are
having a huge problem meeting the attainment standards. If we do not,
it can stop everything dead.
Therefore, this, which reduces pollution, which reduces carbon
dioxide, reduces global warming gases, and saves oil to the tune of 1.2
million barrels a day, is something that is going to happen when you
try, try, try year after year and decade after decade.
I am very sorry we could not make an accommodation with these two
Senators. But those of us who have worked on this felt so strongly that
after all these years, 23 years, where Detroit has said: No, no, no,
the time had come to say: Yes, yes, yes.
I, for one, want to help with leap-ahead technology. I, for one, want
to help with financing, wherever I can, to make it possible. I believe
I speak for all of the cosponsors of this bill. I believe we all want
to help. So I hope the next step these Senators will take is to say:
Here is a bill that we want to help on, that will provide the leap-
ahead technology, and here is something that would help financially the
American automakers meet these standards.
We who have worked on this, we who asked in the early 1990s--I was
the one who asked for the National Academy of Sciences study. They took
a period of years to do it. We have read it. I think those of us who
have been at that for so long gave up any hope that we could work with
the automakers. We do not believe this will stifle the American auto
industry. We believe the technology is now available, we believe it is
cost effective to use this technology. It is not just based on reducing
weight; there are new materials, new engineering strategies, new types
of engines that can be employed.
I want to summarize by saying with this amendment, 206 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide will not be pumped into the air in 2020; between
345 million metric tons and 428 million metric tons by 2025. We
estimate savings for consumers at the pump, at $3-a-gallon gasoline, to
be $55.6 billion in 2020, and $93 billion to $116 billion by 2025. As I
said, oil savings of 1.2 million barrels per day, or 438 million
barrels per year in 2020, and between 2 and 2\1/2\ million barrels per
day by 2025. That is about what we import from the Middle East.
I thank everybody who participated. There are some of those Senators
on the floor. I want to particularly thank Senator Cantwell for her
efforts on flex fuel. She is extraordinarily knowledgeable. She is also
determined. She

[[Page S8190]]

perseveres. Her amendment was added as a modification to the amendment
that passed.
I thank Senator Carper for his steadfast help. The Senator from
Delaware has been there every step of the way, in every meeting.
Most of all, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee. What can
I say about this chairman? Well, I can begin by saying how lucky we are
to have you, Dan Inouye. You run a fine committee. We are so grateful
for your leadership in this matter. I do not believe it would have
happened had you not, A, been chairman of the committee; B, been
committed to this legislation; C, wanted us to come together and find a
solution. You were so right, because we did come together, and the
solution happened quicker than any of us might guess.

I also want to, if I might, thank your staff. David Strickland is a
technological wizard on this. He also has the dedication. He is sitting
here today. I know he has worked very long hours. But we are very
grateful for his help.
Mr. Chairman, I say thank you very much.
I would be remiss if I did not thank my staff, particularly John
Watts, who has been with us for some time, as my environmental counsel,
and has worked on this issue; and Matthew Nelson, who is new to our
staff, but came in and got his feet wet very fast. I am very grateful
to both of them as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bill Nelson as
a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I know others want to speak. This is one of the great
days in the Senate. When you work on something for a long time, and you
find yourself cut out year after year, you are determined you are going
to persevere to find new ways to do it, and for Senator Snowe and for
me, it is a very special day. I thank everyone for making it possible
for all of us in the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. CARPER. While Senator Feinstein is still on the floor, I would
tell her: In my life, as I have had a chance to meet great leaders in
this country and in other places, other countries, in all walks of
life, I have taken over the years to asking those leaders: To what do
you attribute your success--whether they happen to be a leader in
business or academia or government. More often than not they say to me,
among other things, I work hard. They also say: I don't give up. I
don't give up.
I say to my colleague Senator Feinstein, to my colleague Olympia
Snowe: You do not give up. And we are going to be a better country, a
country less dependent on foreign oil because of those efforts, a
country with a cleaner environment, a country and a world less
threatened by global warming because of your efforts.
If we are smart, we will pull together and find ways to make sure
this legislation, rather than being the death knell for the auto
industry in this country, can be like a second wind and help to restore
us to the kind of vigor we once enjoyed.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your kindness in giving so many
other people credit. I echo Senator Feinstein's comments with respect
to our staffs, committee staff, and there are a bunch of them sitting
back here. David and the first team are back here. I want to say you
have done a remarkable job.
I have been in the Senate for 7 years. This is my first year on the
Commerce Committee. I have never seen staff as helpful, Democratic and
Republicans, like one team working together, and Beth Osborne, who
works on my personal staff, continues to rave about the great support
we get from the committee staff. I think they key off Senator Inouye,
our chairman, and Senator Stevens, the senior Republican. It is a
wonderful kind of relationship, the way this place ought to work. When
it does, we get the kind of results I hope we are going to get with
respect to fuel efficiency for our cars, trucks, and vans.
I believe it was Thomas Edison who said, and I am going to paraphrase
Thomas Edison, that: Sometimes people miss opportunity. And they miss
opportunity because it comes wearing overalls and looks a lot like
work.
There is opportunity in the legislation we are prepared, I believe,
to pass with respect to fuel efficiencies for our cars, trucks, and
vans. I think there is an opportunity here for the U.S. domestic auto
industry. We have to help make sure that opportunity is not missed.
We have all seen the Home Depot commercials where the folks from Home
Depot say: You can do this; we can help. And with respect to meeting
the goal of 35-miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency standards for cars and
trucks by 2020, that is an aggressive goal. But for the auto industry,
Ford, GM, and Chrysler, it is important for us to be there to help them
to meet that goal. If you look closely at the legislation we are
preparing to pass here in the next--maybe tonight, maybe in the next
day or two--if you look at the legislation, there is a variety of ways
where we do help. I will mention a few of those now, if I might.
One of those is the infusion of Federal dollars in research and
development with respect to new battery technology. The coolest car I
saw at the Detroit auto show in January of this year was a Chevrolet.
It is called a Chevrolet Volt. It is a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid
vehicle. The mileage it will get is probably close to 75, 80, 90 miles
per gallon. You plug it in your garage at night, go out the next day,
drive 40 miles or so on the battery, push on the brakes, and recharge
the battery. But also it comes with an auxiliary battery unit. It can
be biocell, it could be flex-fuel diesel, it could be flex-fuel ethanol
powered, internal combustion engine, recharging the battery and getting
this remarkable fuel economy from what I call an elegant solution.
That is the kind of creativity we have in this country; not just
Chevrolet, not just Ford, not just Chrysler, but all of us together,
working together. It is a wonderful concept, as that car is. It is not
going to be a reality in 2010 or 2011 or 2012 if we don't have the next
generation lithium ion battery to be able to plug in the garage at
night and provide the kind of charge to carry us 30, 40 miles the next
day, plug it in at work, and on and on.
We have an opportunity, I think we have an obligation as the Federal
Government, to make sure tax dollars are appropriately spent. Fifty
million dollars a year at least for the next 5 years goes to help fund
the technologies so that vehicle and other flex-fuel plug-in hybrid
vehicles can be built and get us, if not ahead of the rest of the
world, at least at the starting line with them as we begin this next
part of the race, the competitive race for market share in the world.
One way we can help within the Federal Government is through our R&D
investment. A second way we can help is by using our Federal purchasing
power to commercialize these new technologies as they come to market.
We do that in this legislation in one way, by calling for the
development of major steps toward a game plan as early as 2009 for the
Federal Government to use its purchasing power to buy new technology,
highly energy-efficient vehicles.
In the underlying language of this bill, it actually says that 70
percent, up to 70 percent of the vehicles that GSA, General Services
Administration, purchases on the civilian side for the Federal
Government have to be highly energy efficient, next-generation kind of
technology--70 percent.
In a week or two we are going to take up legislation on the
reauthorization of the Defense bill. If we are smart, we will put a
similar kind of requirement in there for the defense side of our
Government to do what we are preparing to do in this legislation for
the civilian side of our Government in terms of purchasing power, to
say to the Department of Defense, when they go to the marketplace and
they are buying cars, trucks, and vans, and they buy a lot of them, to
make sure that early in the next decade maybe 70 percent of what we are
purchasing on the defense side is these new technology energy-
efficient, low-emission vehicles.
That is a smart thing to do. That is the second thing we can do, use
the Federal Government's purchasing power to commercialize new
technologies.
The third thing we can do is make sure our tax policy marries up with
the goals we are setting for more highly energy-efficient, low-emission
vehicles.

[[Page S8191]]

In 2005, we passed legislation that said when people buy hybrid-powered
vehicles, they can earn a tax credit from about $300 to up to $3,500.
That tax credit brings down the cost of the energy-efficient hybrid
vehicles and encourages people to buy them. Unfortunately, most of the
hybrids people are buying these days happen to be built in other
countries. That is going to change very soon, as GM product comes on
the market. Chrysler product comes on the market early next year, and
we will have the opportunity to buy not just hybrid vehicles built in
other countries but a lot of hybrids built here. We have a Tax Code
that is set to infuse and encourage American consumers to buy those
vehicles as soon as they hit the road.
There is also a provision in the 2005 Energy bill that incentivizes
consumers to buy low-emission, highly efficient diesel-powered
vehicles. The full effect of that will not be felt until 2009. But
Chrysler, in a partnership with DaimlerChrysler, is beginning to bring
to the roads a highly energy-efficient, far lower emission diesel that
increases performance by 40 percent or more in terms of fuel
efficiency. It reduces the emission of bad stuff, including
CO2, into the air. Beginning in 2009, when emissions really
go down on diesel, the tax policy is there to incentivize folks to buy
those vehicles. That is a smart thing to do.
The fourth area we tried to work into this legislation--and we need
to do more--deals with the kind of infrastructure we have for folks who
buy fuel cell-powered vehicles in this decade and the next. We don't
have a hybrid highway. It is not as if you can take your fuel cell
vehicle and go to the corner gas station and fill up, even in this city
or its neighboring States. We in the Federal Government have an
obligation, particularly if we want to encourage people to get into
fuel cell-powered vehicles, hydrogen-powered vehicles, to make sure the
infrastructure is there so people can fill up. The same is true with
biodiesel, ethanol. It is no good for us to have vehicles run on
biodiesel or ethanol if there is no place to fill up. We tried, in the
context of this legislation, to fix that problem.
I am sure our present Presiding Officer remembers when we were trying
to get folks to buy unleaded cars powered by unleaded gas. Finally, we
said: Every gas station has to have at least one pump where you can get
unleaded gas. We made it a mandate. Today it is hard to find a gas pump
that has leaded gas. But it took a while to do that. We need a similar
kind of approach with respect to biofuels and ethanol, not that they
would supplant completely the petroleum products--that is not going to
happen any time soon--but to make sure people have the fuel to meet the
kinds of needs of their vehicles.
Those are four things we can do in the context of this legislation.
We are going to find ways to do more. The best way to do that is to ask
the auto industry: How can we help? We want you to meet these goals. We
realize you think they are maybe difficult to achieve, some would say
impossible to achieve. I don't think so.
This is the United States of America. This is the Nation which
invented cars. This is the Nation which invented airplanes. This is the
Nation which invented televisions and CD players. This is the Nation
which invented the Internet, computers. This is the Nation which
unleashed the power of the atom. This is the Nation which put a man on
the Moon, did it in less than 10 years, when we said we were going to
do it. This is the United States of America. We are creative, hard
working. We are smart. If we are really smart, we will find a way to
make this new approach to fuel efficiency for our cars, trucks, and
vans work; to make it work for the domestic auto companies as well as
for others who come to our shores; to make it work for the shareholders
and for their employees; and, most importantly, to make it work for our
Nation so that we will have reduced our dependence on foreign oil,
reduced the amount of harmful emissions put into the air, and made this
country a little better place to live.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator
Feinstein for her quest over a number of years and thank all of our
colleagues on the Commerce Committee, Members and staff, for bringing
this possibility about. It came about as a result of the other side not
having the votes. All they had to get was 41 votes. Fortunately, that
did not occur. It allowed us to come together and massage the bill a
little bit more with these amendments. Thus, we get the end result.
This Senator has filed an amendment for 40 miles per gallon. It
simply wasn't practical. We weren't going to have the votes for that
because we were trying hard enough to get the votes for 35 miles a
gallon in 13 years, in 2020, and then with the compromises that were
made, instead of thereafter being at a 4-percent increase in miles per
gallon per year, which would compound, leaving it to NHTSA, with the
criteria of what is practically feasible. That is a reasonable
compromise.
Then totally apart from that, on a separate issue, flex-fuel
vehicles, wherever we can encourage that, it is certainly to our
advantage because the more we can have a fuel that is something other
than derived from oil, the better off we are. If we have the vehicles
that use E85, then the question is, Do we have the gas stations that
have the ethanol distributed to them in order to get E85? We have to
start working on that. As a matter of fact, in my State of Florida, we
have one company that is seriously thinking about ethanol plants all
over the State so that it could then have the ability to get the
ethanol distributed to the gas stations.
While the chairman of the Commerce Committee is here, I wanted to
say, in handing out all of these congratulations, under his leadership,
under his tutoring, under his mentoring, and under his encouragement,
he has allowed the committee to come forth with this work product that
is a signal achievement. Now if we can get the Energy bill passed on
final passage and then if we can survive the process, if the House can
pass an energy bill, in conference committee, then, of course, if we
can survive not having a veto by the President, this is all doable now
because we are where we are thanks to the leadership of the chairman of
the Commerce Committee.

I wanted to make another comment on another subject in response to my
colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Craig from Idaho. Senator Craig
puts up a chart there as if all the oil in the United States is in the
Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. That is not what the geology says. To
the contrary, over the last 50 years where they have drilled, they have
come up with a number of dry holes.
That was why last year this Senator was willing to compromise for
those who wanted a lease sale called 181 that basically had boiled down
to about 2 million acres, to be able to expand that to 8.3 million
acres but to keep it away from the coastline of Florida, where we
happen to have a $50 billion-a-year tourism industry that depends on
pristine beaches, but equally as important, that kept it away from the
military mission line, which is the edge of the largest testing and
training area in the world for our military. It is there where we are
doing significant testing of weapons systems and new sophisticated
technology, often with live ordnance. Over and over, the Secretary of
Defense has issued letters and said: You can't drill in this area
because oil rigs are incompatible with live fire and testing of live
ordnance on new weapons systems.
Senator Craig in his comments would have us believe the answer is
drill, drill, drill. By his chart, he was suggesting drilling off the
coast of Florida. That simply is not true. It is interesting that he
said that at the very time in which we are on this Energy bill through
which we are now doing something about lessening the consumption of oil
by the amendment we just adopted, an amendment that goes to the very
heart of where we consume most of our oil, and that is in the
transportation sector. Where in transportation is it most consumed? It
is in our personal vehicles. Thus, we are doing something about that
tonight.
I wanted to add these comments while we are still on the Energy bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8192]]

Employee Free Choice Act

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Employee Free
Choice Act, S. 1041. This bill was introduced by our esteemed
colleague, Senator Kennedy, along with myself and 45 other Members of
the Senate.
This bill takes the long overdue step of returning to workers a
measure of negotiating power and ensuring that workers have a free
choice and fair chance to form a union. Everyone needs an agent, and
for too long workers have not had an agent in the Congress or, in many
cases, in the workplace.

The bargain this country has promised workers--that if you work hard,
you will get ahead--is broken. Hard-working Americans are losing
ground. Real wages are lower today than in 1973, despite the fact that
productivity has risen over 80 percent. The benefits of rising
productivity are going to the richest members of our society. CEO
compensation today is 420 times what it is for our workers. Medical
costs have skyrocketed. Good manufacturing jobs are being sent
overseas. Many workers are squeezed between the impact of corporate
outsourcing on the one hand and wage-depressing effects of immigration
on the other. In Virginia, real median hourly wages fell by 3.6 percent
just in the past 2 years. Hundreds of thousands of Virginians, just
like millions of Americans, have no health insurance.
As I heard so often during my campaign for the Senate last year and
what I continue to hear since I took office, our workers are under
tremendous pressure. Only 38 percent of the public says their families
are getting ahead financially, and less than one-third believes the
next generation of Americans is going to be better off than this
generation.
Our unions have historically provided a ladder for workers to get
ahead. According to a national survey by Peter Hart Research, 60
million Americans report, right now, they would join a union if they
could. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that workers who belong
to unions earn 30 percent more than their nonunion counterparts and are
63 percent more likely to have employer-provided health care.
Unfortunately, many workers who try to form unions in this country
are being blocked by employers. In an analysis of union organizing
drives in Chicago, the University of Illinois found that 30 percent of
employers tended to fire prounion workers, that 82 percent of employers
hired consultants to fight union organization drives, and that 78
percent of employers required supervisors to deliver antiunion messages
to their workers. Union membership in this country is now at an alltime
low, just comprising 12 percent of our workforce.
The ability to form a union should not require heroic efforts. Yet
American workers all too often face employer coercion and run the risk
of losing their livelihoods simply because they want to organize their
workplace in accordance with existing law. Hard-working Americans
should have the freedom to make their own choice about whether to join
a union, and they should be able to make that choice freely and fairly.
The best opportunity for hard-working Americans to get ahead is to join
their coworkers and negotiate in one way or another for better wages
and benefits.
We can help workers improve their bargaining position. The National
Labor Relations Act already permits workers to form unions through
majority signup. In fact, more workers join unions through majority
signup than through National Labor Relations Board elections. Employees
of Cingular Wireless joined the Communications Workers of America
following a majority signup that was supported by the company.
This bill makes the much needed change of allowing workers to form
unions by majority signup where employers oppose the union. This bill
also levels the playing field for workers by strengthening penalties
against employers that coerce or intimidate employees. The fundamental
sense of fairness that runs so deep in our Nation's character demands
that we take this step on behalf of our working men and women.
Let us measure our success in the Senate by the number of hard-
working Americans we bring back to the table, the number of families
with health care, the number of workers with pensions and fair wages,
and the number of children who are able to go to college. Passing the
Employee Free Choice Act puts us on the road to achieving this type of
success.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise tonight because we are on the
precipice of passing new energy legislation--new energy legislation
that will point our country in a new direction, on an energy strategy
that is about cleaner, renewable alternative fuel, and, yes, on
research and development, on many other ways that will help us, as
Americans, be energy leaders again.
It is exciting to be here tonight on the Senate floor as new
legislation is being adopted that does change the direction in ways my
colleagues have been fighting for many years and many of the staff who
are behind me have been fighting for much of their legislative careers
on the Hill. But we are here tonight because Senator Reid, early this
year, asked six different committees to come up with energy legislation
and point our country in a new direction. He asked each of those
committees to put those proposals on the Senate floor by passing them
out in a bipartisan fashion, and those committees have done so.
Now, while we have not gotten all those packages together, we do have
a proposal before us that would save the United States 20 percent on
the oil consumption of today. That is a great goal. It does it in two
fundamental ways: by making sure we produce alternative fuel--and what
is before us tonight is 36 billion gallons of alternative fuel, mostly
done by advanced technologies of cellulosic that will be a much bigger
reduction of CO2 emissions than corn-based ethanol, and that
is a huge direction change--and the amendment of the Senator from
California to make sure we have fuel-efficient cars.
For the first time in decades, we are passing legislation that will
allow Americans to get more out of a tank of gas. In fact, with this
new standard for fuel efficiency, Americans, when they fill up their
tank, will be able to go anywhere from 100 to 150 more miles on that
tank of gas when these fuel efficiency standards are fully implemented.
Because we are also including a flex-fuel provision, we are giving
Americans a chance to have their automobiles run on two different fuel
choices: fossil fuel or new advanced green renewable fuels that will be
a great reduction of CO2 and carbon emissions and will help
in the reduction of demand for gasoline and thereby help lower the
price of gasoline. This is exactly what America wants us to do in a new
energy direction.
We should also emphasize that the underlying bill tonight also has
protections for consumers on price gouging and to make sure the Federal
Trade Commission stops any manipulative practices. It also has a
provision that the Federal Government do its job as one of the leading
energy consumers in America. It says they have to use 30 percent less
electricity and 20 percent less fuel.
Now, while I would like to see the provisions the Finance Committee
passed that literally take the incentives which have been given to the
fossil fuel industry in the past--take those and apply those to
renewable technologies--we will have to wait another day for that
battle to occur.
I certainly join my colleagues in wanting to see more of our
electricity grid supplied with green energy technology, to incentivize
solar, to incentivize wind. I believe this is one of the best ways we
can keep our electricity costs down in the future. Right now, we are
too dependent on natural gas, for which we have seen a 70-percent
increase in the last several years. Natural gas, which is also used in
fertilizer as a product, is putting pressure on our electricity grid
prices. We do not want to be just dependent on natural gas and coal for
electricity generation.
So coming back to this renewable standard and getting more of our
national grid to rely on clean energy is very important to help
consumers keep down price in the future. But those two provisions, we
will have to come back to. We were not able to reach agreement on
those.

[[Page S8193]]

But in this landmark legislation, we are going to give Americans more
for their tank of gas by passing fuel efficiency and passing the
opportunity to fill up their gas tank with something other than fossil
fuel. Driving down the price of fossil fuel is a great accomplishment.
We would not have gotten here if it was not for the chairman of the
Commerce Committee and the ranking member, Senators Inouye and Stevens,
who worked very hard to make sure this was bipartisan legislation, as
did Senator Snowe, working with Senator Feinstein, making sure this
legislation made it the full way through the process.
While this is only the Senate taking action tonight, we are clearly
turning our country in a new direction. This is a greener energy bill
than the Senate has passed before but rightly so because the 2005 bill
did set us on a course of making sure we were investing in
alternatives. The fact that we were putting a downpayment on those
alternatives has led to job creation, not just in my State, Washington
State, but throughout the country. But it is time for us to accelerate
that, to bring job opportunities to Americans across the country, by
making sure these new technologies are implemented. We are well poised
to do that tonight.
I hope my colleagues understand the significance of this new energy
direction. I thank all of the chairs of the various committees who have
worked hard on a bipartisan basis--the Finance Committee, the EPW
Committee, the Energy Committee, the Commerce Committee, and even the
Homeland Security Committee--in making sure our Federal Government is
more energy efficient. This is a great time for us to continue the
bipartisan effort in working not just across the aisle but working with
the House of Representatives in making sure this energy legislation
passes as soon as possible.
Again, I applaud the great work of my colleague, Senator Feinstein,
for her perseverance over at least 10 years in trying to close the
loopholes that have existed in CAFE, the car efficiency standards, by
making sure the loopholes for SUVs were closed. Even though she did not
win that battle, she persevered tonight to make sure this new
efficiency standard, applied across the Nation, can bring real savings
to American consumers.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Crisis in Darfur

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the last several months, I have come
to the floor on a weekly--a regular basis--to remind my colleagues
about the crisis in Darfur. I would like to highlight two recent
developments. Last week, the regime in Sudan finally agreed, after
months of international pressure, to accept a joint African Union-
United Nations peacekeeping force for the Darfur region.
If my colleagues will recall, this is a region where our Government
has declared a genocide. We know at least 200,000 people, maybe 400,000
people, have been brutally murdered, over 1 million have been
displaced, and the killing and displacement, the raping and the
pillaging continues.
For years after the declaration of this genocide, many people around
the world have lamented this tragic state of affairs, but so little has
been done. We have tried through the United Nations to send a
peacekeeping force to protect innocent people from the jingaweit
militia force that is killing on a wanton basis, but we have been
unsuccessful. There has been resistance from the Sudanese Government in
Khartoum. Unfortunately, a lot of lip service has been made, but very
little attention has been paid to resolving this issue.
Last week the Sudanese said they would accept a joint African Union-
United Nations peacekeeping force for that region. Well, the Government
of Sudan has agreed to allow 17,000 to 19,000 troops. That is a good
sign, or at least good words.
Let's not forget the Sudanese regime has agreed to similar plans in
the past, only to renege on its promises and allow the suffering and
killing to continue. It is critical at this moment in time that the
Bush administration and our allies continue to pressure the Sudanese to
take actions beyond their words. Darfur has been on the agenda for the
European Union summit this week, and the Chinese Government made
positive statements as well. I encourage the Bush administration to
keep pressuring all of our allies and the United Nations to act.
Next week there is a prime opportunity. Secretary of State Rice has
just announced plans to attend an international meeting in France that
will focus on the crisis in Darfur. Representatives from the Chinese
Government and other places have committed to join her. I urge the Bush
administration to use this opportunity to ensure that the global
community continues to act on this crisis and to fully support the
rapid and full deployment of U.N. forces to Darfur. Only a unified
message from the international community will succeed in convincing the
Sudanese Government to meet its obligations. Only then will the crisis
begin to come to an end. This crisis must end immediately.
I have said on this floor many times that as a young college student,
I found it hard to understand how the Holocaust could occur and people
would know of it and not try to stop it. Now I understand. This
genocide in Darfur was declared by our Government years ago and little
or nothing has been done.
Last week, the United Nations World Food Programme did launch a
highly complex operation to try to bring in emergency food supplies to
the over 2,600 refugees from Darfur who recently crossed into the
remote northeast corner of the Central African Republic. The Director
of the World Food Programme and the Central African Republic, Jean-
Charles Dei, said the following:

These people are in one of the least accessible regions in
the world, but they need help now. This is just the latest
example of how the conflict in Darfur has a destabilizing
effect across the region.

It is certainly positive that food is on the way to these starving
refugees, but the need for this airlift is symbolic of how bad the
crisis has become and how destabilizing the situation is becoming for
the whole region.
The United States and civilized nations around the world who
acknowledge this genocide and this humanitarian disaster must act.
What can we do in the Senate? As a start, we can pass the Sudan
Disclosure and Enforcement Act. I introduced it 2 weeks ago with
bipartisan support, and after consultation with the Bush
administration. The act provides the administration and all Americans
with more resources and information so that we can use our investments
as individuals and as institutions to strike a nonviolent blow for
peace in Darfur. It creates real financial consequences for those
companies that bear some complicity in the bloodshed by supporting the
murderous Sudanese regime of Khartoum. Most important, it requires
members of the administration and the relevant congressional committees
to meet in about 3 months' time to reassess the steps that are being
taken to end the crisis and decide what we should do beyond them.
To repeat what the bill does for the benefit of my colleagues who are
considering supporting it, here is a summary.
First, it expresses the sense of the Congress that the international
community should continue to bring pressure against the Government of
Sudan to convince that region that the world will not allow this crisis
to continue.
Second, it authorizes greater resources for the Office of Foreign
Assets Control within the Department of Treasury to strengthen its
capabilities of tracking Sudanese economic activity and pursuing
sanctions violations.
Third, it requires more detailed SEC disclosures by U.S.-listed
companies that operate in the Sudanese petroleum sector so that
investors can make informed decisions regarding divestment from these
companies.
I might add that during the course of researching this issue, I
learned that my own company that I have had my family mutual fund
investments with

[[Page S8194]]

for 20 years sadly was one of the largest--it was a company with one of
the largest holdings in Petrochina, the Chinese oil company whose
parent company does the most business in Sudan. I contacted this major
company, asked them if they were going to change their policy, and they
said no. I then removed my investments from that company. I am in the
process of making sure they are all transferred to another company. It
is a small thing, and it probably won't make a big difference to
anyone, but I feel better that at least I am trying to do a small
part--and I hope others will too--to ask important questions, whether
your brokerage house, your mutual fund has holdings in Petrochina,
which is this Chinese oil company whose parent is the major oil company
in Sudan whose revenues support this Government.

Fourth, this bill dramatically increases civil and criminal penalties
for violating American economic sanctions to create a true deterrent
against transacting with barred Sudanese companies.
Fifth, it requires the administration to report on the effectiveness
of current sanctions and recommend additional steps to Congress to end
the crisis.
I look forward to working with Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut,
the chairman of the Banking Committee, to send this to the President
for his signature.
I will repeat again what President Bush said in April:

You who have survived evil know that the only way to defeat
it is to look it in the face and not back down. It is evil we
are now seeing in Sudan--

President Bush said--

and we're not going to back down.

I completely agree with President Bush's remarks. The African Union
and the United Nations forces should be on the way soon, but we still
must do more. Every Member of Congress and everyone interested in doing
something meaningful to end this genocide must take action and not
allow this to continue.
The President once said he didn't want the moral burden of this
genocide on his conscience, on his watch. The President's watch is
coming to a close. It is time for those of conscience and those who
care not only in our Government, but around the world, to act to spare
those who are victims of this genocide in Darfur.
I yield the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today to speak on the successful
adoption, moments ago, of the Stevens Amendment, which I have
cosponsored. Its incorporation into the underlying bill clears the way
for passage of the most significant fuel efficiency legislation the
Senate has seriously considered in decades. If this legislation is
eventually adopted by the full Congress, it will be the first time
since 1975 that effective fuel efficiency legislation will have been
enacted.
First of all, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator
Dianne Feinstein, for her unrivaled leadership on the issue of fuel
economy standards. We have worked together for 6 years to bolster CAFE
standards and her commitment and passion for implementing critical and
long-overdue changes has only grown. Our efforts have culminated this
year in the introduction of the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which is
the key component of the underlying energy bill that currently sits
before the Senate. All of us in this fight can be deeply appreciative
of her voice and her tireless advocacy.
I also want to express my deepest appreciation to Senator Ted
Stevens, the author of this amendment, who has shown strong resolve on
this issue by working to forge a compromise in the face of obstacles
that often seemed insurmountable. I likewise want to thank and commend
he chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Inouye, who has been
instrumental both as an original cosponsor of the ``Ten in Ten'' bill
and in deftly shepherding this bill through his committee and on the
floor. Both gentlemen have again demonstrated that compromise is
possible in this body and, without their bridge building, this day
would not have been possible.
Likewise, I want to recognize the principled leadership of Senators
Lott, Carper, Alexander, Dorgan, Kerry, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Craig, all
of whom have been critical in arriving at the consensus fuel efficiency
legislation which we have before us today.
The Senate now stands at a landmark moment. Thirty-two years have
passed since Congress last took action on fuel economy standards,
dating all the way back to 1975. It has been an entire generation since
we said that--as a Nation--we can and must do better when it comes to
saving fuel, saving money at the pump, and saving our environment.
We have a lot of catching up to do. From 1985--the last time fuel
economy standards were administratively increased for passenger
vehicles--not by Congress, mind you, but administratively--oil imports
have increased substantially from 4.3 million barrels a day to 13.8
million barrels a day, while our efficiency standards have virtually
been stagnant. Indeed, over the past 25 years, fuel economy standards
in the ``light truck'' category have only increased by a measly 4.7
miles per gallon--that's an average of two-tenths of a gallon
improvement every year.
Let me repeat that--it's taken a quarter of a century to wring a
grand total of an additional 4.7 miles per gallon out of light trucks--
which currently include SUVs--for a current average of just 22.2 mpg.
Meanwhile, think about this--in that same period of time since 1982, we
have gone from land-lines to cell phones, from record players to CDs to
Ipods, from big mainframe computers to minuscule handhelds, from
encyclopedias to the Internet. So are we really to believe that over
the next 10 years we can't manage an average of 10 additional miles per
gallon of gasoline across America's entire fleet of passenger vehicles?
Indeed, as a Nation built on innovation, built on the ``can-do''
spirit, we ought to be asking ourselves exactly how it is we couldn't
have done better already--never mind questioning if we can do better in
the future.
That's why Senator Feinstein and I introduced legislation 6 years ago
to close the SUV loophole, whereby SUVs were exempt from increased fuel
efficiency requirements because they were classified as light trucks.
It's also the reason we introduced this year a bipartisan measure to
raise the average fuel economy standards for all vehicles, including
SUVs, from a combined 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by
model year 2020.
As I will explain more in-depth, this legislation was carefully
crafted to reflect not what we wish we could achieve, but what we know
we can actually achieve. And I'm pleased that mandate was embraced and
passed in the Senate Commerce Committee; now, it is vital that this
provision in the underlying bill be preserved.
Now, we have heard mischaracterizations of this measure--there have
been omissions when it comes to describing this bill from those who
oppose this measure--so let me just begin by stating plainly what this
bill will do. Let me repeat, it requires that the average fuel economy
standard for all vehicles under 8,500 pounds reach 35 miles per gallon
by model year 2020. This bill has no such requirement for vehicles over
8,500 pounds.
With respect to those vehicles, we allow the Secretary of EPA and
Energy to determine an appropriate fuel efficiency improvement program.
Again, there are no specific mandates for vehicles over 8,500 pounds--
just a direction that the standards are set at the maximum feasible
level--we assign no numerical goal.
Furthermore, we preserve the separate standard for fuel efficiency or
the existing light truck category until 2011--recognizing that our
manufacturers already have these vehicles in the works for the next
three model years and it would be impossible, as a practical matter,
for them to reengineer those vehicles at this juncture.
After 2011, there will no longer be separate categories for light
trucks and passenger vehicles, as the legislation switches to a fleet-
wide standard based

[[Page S8195]]

on vehicle attributes such as weight, as I just described. The world
has already adopted this system because it is the most efficient
framework. In fact, Taiwan, Japan, China, and South Korea have all
established an attribute-based system that is either based on size of
the engine or the weight of the vehicle. Now, the U.S. Congress must
expand the framework of our attribute-based system to a structure that
does not distinguish between passenger cars and light trucks but that
does create an efficient and logical system.
And let me emphasize, this is a change that automakers themselves
have sought, because it provides them greater flexibility and choices
across product lines to achieve the overall goal of a fleet-wide fuel
efficiency standard.
And let me elaborate on that point. Not only will manufacturers no
longer have to contend with specific CAFE targets for specific vehicle
segments, they won't even have to meet a specific target for their
specific company. So how do we achieve the goal? That will be up to
NHTSA to determine--not Congress--which is yet another change that the
auto industry has sought.
In other words, the industry has asked that the arbitrary and
artificial lines between vehicle categories be eliminated; this bill
does so. Even the alternative amendment filed by my friend and
colleague, the junior Senator from Arkansas, also incorporates our
``attribute-based'' approach precisely because that's what the industry
is seeking. The industry has also asked that the experts--and not
Congress--determine specifically how fuel economy standards are met,
and by placing those decisions in the hands of NHTSA this bill does so
on that score as well.
The bottom line is, our bill provides our car companies with the
flexibility they require. It doesn't place a mandate on vehicles over
8,500 pounds. It absolutely will not mean the end of light trucks. That
is a red herring, Mr. President, and as I will detail in a few moments,
the experts tell us that an additional 10 miles per gallon in 10 years
over the entire American fleet of passenger vehicles is achievable.
Of course, there are some who argue that Congress shouldn't even be
in the business of setting these fuel economy requirements. Well, first
of all, let's look back at what happened the last time Congress became
involved.
In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis, Congress delivered a long-term
significant increase in CAFE standards, which the New York Times has
labeled as the most successful energy-saving measure this country has
ever seen. The congressional challenge in 1975 worked to reduce our
Nation's demand for energy. Does anyone seriously believe that the fuel
economy for America's vehicles would have improved by 40 percent from
1978 to 1985--just a seven year period--if Congress hadn't stepped in?
And just imagine where we'd be today if our energy independence efforts
hadn't been dormant for the past 22 years.
Moreover, there should be no question of the critical national
security component to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Every
day, we import 2.1 million barrels of oil from the Persian Gulf. Every
day, our rising gas prices shift billions of dollars from the American
consumer to authoritarian governments in some of the most volatile
regions of the world. Reflecting the critical involvement of energy
security in our national security, an organization called the Energy
Security Leadership Council has formed in an effort to advance a
fundamental shift of our national energy policy.
The Energy Security Leadership Council is a nonpartisan organization
that aims to build bipartisan support for policies to reduce our
Nation's dependence on foreign oil and improve our energy security. The
Council is cochaired by Frederick W. Smith, chairman, president, and
CEO of FedEx Corporation, and Retired General P.X. Kelley, the 8th
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. The Membership consists of
generals, admirals, and a former Secretary of the Navy. These are
prominent, experienced, and highly credible leaders who understand the
consequences of a reliance of foreign oil. The Energy Security
Leadership Council has recommended for increasing fuel economy
standards, and has endorsed this bill before us. They understand that
our Nation must finally curtail our energy demand from these volatile
regions.

Mr. Smith testified just last week before the Senate Small Business
Committee on the impact of rising gas prices. Noting that most oil
shipments pass through a handful of maritime chokepoints such as the
Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, Mr. Smith observed that ``a mere 4
percent shortfall in global daily oil supplies could push the price of
oil to more than $120 per barrel.'' What's the solution? According to
the Energy Security Leadership Council, it is the bill before us today.
Mr. Smith testified that ``the Senate has made great strides . . .
through bipartisan support for'' the Ten-in-Ten bill. Mr. Smith further
applauded our bill's use of an attribute-based system, noting that
``[t]his focus on attributes will also ensure that Americans will still
be able to purchase different types of vehicles that cater to different
transportation needs.'' He concluded, ``This is truly path-breaking
legislation that merits broad support.''
Similarly, General Kelly has recently articulated, ``Current events
only serve to confirm the unacceptable security risks created by our
extraordinary level of oil dependence. Significantly, reducing the
projected growth in U.S. oil consumption must become a compelling
national priority.'' We ought to heed General Kelly's assessment and
protect American security. I ask my colleagues, since when should
Congress excuse itself from issues of vital national security?
As the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report stated, the trade-
offs on these vital matters ``rightly reside with elected officials''.
Furthermore, they also conclude that it is ``appropriate for the
Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected
to result from market forces alone.'' So we ought to get beyond the
question of the proper role for Congress in this debate. We have an
indispensable and undeniable role to play.
Now, there are some who are concerned that we will inadvertently
limit consumer choice, and let me say emphatically that we address
those concerns.
From 1978 to 1985 vehicles did not disappear from the road and during
that period we witnessed a 40 percent increase in fuel economy. In
fact, I would argue the American consumer finally had the opportunity
to purchase the more fuel efficient cars they wish they had years
earlier.
But most importantly, let me reiterate this bill before the Senate
does not mandate a certain fuel economy for any specific type of
vehicle. Rather, it ensures that all of America's vehicles improve, in
the aggregate, to the 35 mile per gallon standard while leaving the
specifics on how to attain that requirement to the experts at the
Department of Transportation and, specifically, the National Highway
and Traffic Safety Administration. As a result, the engineers and
economists at NHTSA are empowered to ensure that we accomplish the oil
savings in the most efficient mechanism. And what does this mean for
consumer choice?
Because the bill doesn't mandate particular fuel economy targets for
any specific category of passenger vehicle, there is greater
flexibility in how the 35 mpg mandate can be reached. For example, the
Secretary of Transportation may decide that pick-up trucks can't
realistically achieve any substantial gains, but other segments have
that capacity. Manufacturers will have greater latitude in how they
contribute to the attainment of the overall target of 35 mpg. So this
bill will not remove any vehicles from the road, but it will abate the
sting at the pump.
Our approach in this bill also addresses another concern we share--
that increased fuel efficiency doesn't translate to unaffordable
sticker prices on America's new vehicles. Figuring in the cost-savings
based on $1.50 per gallon of gas, the 2002 NAS study outlined that any
initial cost in additional technology that saves gasoline would be
recovered over the life of the vehicle.
Of course, with fuel costs now more than double that amount, it's
logical to assume the savings on fuel costs of more efficient vehicles
will be even greater. In fact, even at $2.00 per gallon, the net
consumer savings would be $20 billion in 2020. In short, as the
Congressional Research Service summarizes the NAS report, it
``concluded

[[Page S8196]]

that it was possible to achieve more than a 40 percent improvement in
light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10 to 15 year period at costs
that would be recoverable over the lifetime of ownership.''
If there's any doubt about the importance of this, just take a look
at the example of the impact of fuel economy--or the current lack
thereof--on Pottle Transportation, based in Bangor, ME.
Owner Barry Pottle stated this past year that their fuel economy has
drifted from between 4 miles per gallon to 7 miles per gallon in the 25
years that he has led his company. I have a chart which indicates the
gallons of consumption over a year for one vehicle and the
corresponding cost as a result of current diesel prices. The aggregate
cost over a year just for an increase of 2 miles per gallon is a
staggering $20,000 for each truck. This bill will finally consider
these heavy trucks in the fuel economy framework for the very first
time in history. As indicated from Pottle Transportation, it is
perfectly clear that these fuel economy increases will result in
substantial dividends for America's small businesses.
The fact is that the current system does not provide fuel efficient
vehicles on the market for large commercial and heavy duty trucks
greater than 8,500 pounds. Just last week before the Senate Small
Business Committee, Janet Myhre of Chuckals a company that distributes
office products, stated that ``fuel cost impact each and every
transaction that our organization manages and is the third largest
expense item on our financial statement.''
Ms. Myhre was then asked if the company had considered switching to
more efficient vehicles or alternative vehicles for their delivery
trucks to minimize fuel costs. Ms. Myhre responded that Chuckals had
investigated the market and found that there were ``no commercial
options'' available for these vehicles. The market has not provided
companies with the options of utilizing fuel efficient vehicles and for
the sake of our Nation's small businesses, this Congress must begin to
increase standards for vehicles over 8,500 pounds.
Still others have argued that this bill would place our domestic
automobile manufacturers at an unacceptable disadvantage, but that is
simply not the case it would be regrettable to view this debate in
terms of fuel efficiency versus the future of our auto industry. When
did energy independence and the strength of our domestic companies
become mutually exclusive?
For those who say our proposal is unrealistic and unreachable, the
National Academy of Sciences reported 5 years ago that it is feasible
to reach a 40 percent increase in fuel economy in 15 years--and that is
with existing technology. Relatively simple improvements such as hybrid
technologies, variable valve engines, high strength steel and aluminum,
and continuously variable transmissions are all advancements the
experts say could be implemented now.
So do we really want to argue we don't have the technological
wherewithal to make our vehicles travel more miles per gallon? Is it
really the American Way to say, ``We can't do that?'' To the contrary,
we should have already witnessed progress in these areas. If we had,
perhaps our auto makers would be in better financial shape today. In
fact, I certainly wish it were an American automaker who had recently
announced surpassing the one million mark in sales of hybrids. In fact,
in 2006, Toyota's Prius was the company's third best-selling passenger
car. So someone out there must want to buy more efficient vehicles.
Talk about providing consumer choice, if anything consumers will have
more choices for more cost-effective cars and SUVs and light trucks.
Indeed, there are auto company business models that have demonstrated
that consumers value fuel economy. In testimony before the House Energy
and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on March 14 of
this year, Toyota's North American president, James Press, remarked,
``2007 marks the 10th year of the Prius, our first hybrid. I am happy
to say the introduction of Prius was a sound business decision.''
Furthermore, let me reiterate, we do not mandate any fuel economy
increase for any specific model or any specific car company. Rather, we
crafted the legislation so that the entirety of America's passenger
fleet--cars, light trucks, and SUVs--must increase from an average of
25.2 miles per gallon now to an average of 35 miles per gallon by the
year 2020. What we don't mandate is how exactly we get there.
Right now, each company is required to meet a corporate average fuel
economy. Currently those standards are 22.2 miles per gallon for light
trucks and 27.5 for passenger vehicles. However, the problem with fuel
economy standards does not reside in one company; it exists throughout
the entire transportation sector. As a result, we initiated a fleet-
wide solution rather than a piece-meal, company-by-company approach. In
fact, the corporate average fuel economy standard actually ceases to
exist under this bill; rather, it focuses results for the entire
industry--a fleet wide average as opposed to a corporate average. This
is a much broader and more flexible framework that will help domestic
automakers.

Indeed, some opponents have maintained that any legislation must not
be ``discriminatory against our companies,'' and that the ``numbers
should be set. . .by experts who understand what can and cannot be done
from a technology standpoint.'' Well, we couldn't agree more--and, once
again, this is exactly what our initiative accomplishes by leaving the
details to the experts at NHTSA.
Our bill ensures that NHTSA will establish a mathematical function
that alters fuel economy requirements based on attributes, like weight.
Because I agree that companies that focus on larger vehicles should not
be unfairly punished, we have provided maximum latitude to preserve our
domestic manufacturers, foster consumer choice, and improve fuel
economy.
The bottom line is, this measure navigates the narrow waters between
doing less than we should, and more than we realistically can. In
contrast, the amendment advanced by opponents of this legislation would
only raise standards to an estimated fleetwide average of 30.6 by 2020.
Furthermore, their proposal retains rigid categories for cars and light
trucks and assigns different efficiency targets for each--36 miles per
gallon by 2022 for cars, and 30 miles per gallon by 2025 for trucks.
But if you calculate for the entire U.S. fleet overall, accounting for
the number of vehicles in each category estimated to be on the road at
that time, you arrive at 30.6 miles per gallon by 2020 under this
amendment.
In other words, the proposal advanced by my colleague from Arkansas
is a 5 mpg increase in 10 years, while our proposal is 10 miles per
gallon in 10 years. And at the end of the day, the amendment would
save, at best, merely 400,000 barrels of oil a day in 2020--accounting
for just 3 percent of our daily import of oil--a mere drop in the
bucket. So the ramifications between the proposals are significant,
with ours saving 1.3 million barrels each day by 2020. Furthermore, in
roughly 2023 this bill will save 2.1 million barrels of oil each day--
the equivalent to what we are currently importing from the Persian
Gulf.
Mr. President. This is clearly not a time for timidity. The current
gas prices in Presque Isle, ME, right now is $3.13; in Arkansas, $2.99;
in North Dakota, $3.14. These prices have and are continuing to raise
transportation costs and the price of goods and services. Lower-income
families and small businesses are financially strained beyond their
capacity. It's been estimated that every time oil prices increase 10
percent, 150,000 Americans lose their job.
And the critical relevance to our environment is unambiguous, with
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report this year
dispelling any doubt about the reality of human induced climate change,
and the reality that while the U.S. represents 4.6 percent of the
world's population, we emit 23 percent of the planet's CO2.
Our legislation would remove 358 million metric tons of global warming
emissions in 2025 alone. This is nearly the same amount that India's
entire economy current emits. As the Washington Post stated just
yesterday in advocating for this bill, ``There's a climate crisis
brewing, and the transportation sector, which accounts for 33 percent
of global warming pollution, must do its part to combat.''
Mr. President, shouldn't we be leaving a better legacy than that?

[[Page S8197]]

Shouldn't we be striving to challenge and harness the innovative and
entrepreneurial spirit that built America to the greatest extent
possible, rather than settling for less? Just look at where our Nation
has come with cell phones. This technological revolution has occurred,
while our fuel economy standards have stagnated. We can do better. The
underlying bill does do better while providing an achievable solution.
I applaud today's result and look forward to continuing to push for
full adoption of this legislation into law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the compromise
amendment that has been offered by Senator Stevens. I appreciate the
hard work and the long hours expended by the proponents of this
amendment to craft an approach that bridges the significant differences
on this issue. I commend all who were involved for their good work,
their diligent work.
This amendment is a good start, and I intend to support it. I also
believe we can and should do more to improve the fuel efficiency of our
cars and our trucks. With this bill, we have a great opportunity to
finally end a 20-year stalemate and accomplish something that will
benefit all of us--require our cars to go further on a tank of gas.
This is the moment. The window is open, and I believe a bold approach
is needed to achieve a major reduction in our Nation's dependence on
foreign oil and the emission of greenhouse gases. A bold approach is
what made all of the difference almost three decades ago when Congress
first established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, program.
At the time, auto executives protested, much as they protest today,
saying there is no way to increase fuel economy without making cars
smaller. One company predicted Americans would all be driving
subcompact cars as a result of CAFE. Anyone can see today that some of
our SUVs are the size of about three or four subcompacts put together.
The fact is, CAFE worked. It nearly doubled the average gas mileage
of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 miles per gallon in
1985. The increase in fuel economy saves us almost 3 million barrels of
oil per day and prevents the emission of over 1 million tons of carbon
dioxide per day.
But our oil dependence has only gotten worse, and that is why we need
a major improvement in fuel economy standards. Americans are now paying
more than $3 a gallon for gas. We are importing 60 percent of our oil,
much of it from the Middle East. Osama bin Laden has identified this
dependence as a weakness, urging his supporters to ``focus your
operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this
will cause [the Americans] to die off.''
The environmental effects of our oil dependence are also severe. The
oil used in transportation accounts for a third of our Nation's
emissions of greenhouse gases. Just in the last few months, we heard
from a panel of top climate change experts from around the world that
global warming is a certainty and that most of the temperature increase
is likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
All this, and yet the CAFE standards have not changed in 20 years.
This deadlock deepens our dependence on foreign oil and impedes our
efforts to address global climate change. Since 1985, efforts to raise
the CAFE standards have been blocked by opponents who argued Congress
does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an
inflexible congressional mandate would result in a sacrifice of safety.
I am confident we could achieve higher fuel efficiency standards, and
we could do this in a cost-effective manner without sacrificing safety.
According to a recent report by the International Council on Clean
Transportation, technologies exist today that can improve light-duty
vehicle fuel economy by up to 50 percent over the next 10 years without
any sacrifice in safety, through improvements in engines,
transmissions, aerodynamics, and tires. Fuel savings would be more than
enough to cover the cost of these improvements when gas is at $3 per
gallon.
Last year, I first joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith,
Bingaman, Harkin, Coleman, and Durbin to introduce the Fuel Economy
Reform Act. This bill set a new course by establishing regular,
continual, and incremental progress on fuel economy standards,
targeting a 4-percent annual increase but preserving some flexibility
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine how
to meet those targets.
I also believe we should look for ways to help automakers meet higher
CAFE standards. The Health Care for Hybrids Act that I introduced is an
example of how we can offer constructive assistance. This bill would
establish a voluntary program in which automakers could choose to
receive Federal financial assistance toward their retiree health care
costs in return for investing the savings into developing fuel-
efficient vehicles. This proposal could jump-start the industry's
efforts to develop new technology, improve the competitiveness of U.S.
automakers in the growing market for hybrid vehicles, and help auto
workers to get the health care they have been promised.
Today's agreement makes long overdue progress on weaning America off
our dependence on foreign oil and fighting climate change. It is an
important step forward but bolder action will be necessary if we want
to solve the dual problem facing our country.
I will support this bill and this increase in fuel efficiency
standards.
Again, I commend all those who have worked so diligently to move this
amendment forward. I do have to say, though, that I regret we have
missed an opportunity to do more today. I will continue to work in the
months to come to see if we can make some further progress on this
front.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Employee Free Choice Act

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor on two very
important issues, issues that really do go to the heart of the kind of
economy and future that our Nation will have. One is the Employee Free
Choice Act, which we will be voting on in the next day or two, and the
other is the very important Energy bill that we have been debating.
With respect to the Employee Free Choice Act, for me, this is about
preserving, supporting, and growing the American middle class. The
middle class is the backbone of the American economy, and our unions
are the backbone of the American middle class. It is time we passed
into law the Employee Free Choice Act to give unions a level playing
field so they can organize for fair wages, safe working conditions, and
the hard-won rights and responsibilities that American workers demand
and deserve.
This is a moment of profound challenge for our country. There is a
deep sense of concern that I have certainly heard and listened to as I
have traveled throughout America. Americans know they cannot win in the
global economy unless the middle class wins, but there is a feeling
that some people are betting against the American middle class. Some
people have assumed that in a global economy one of the changes that
will have to be made is that the middle class will have to shrink; that
inequity is inevitable; that globalization is a harsh phenomenon that
we have to accept. Well, I do not, and our families are right to be
concerned.
In 2005 all income gains went to the top 10 percent of households.
The vast majority of people--the other 90 percent--saw their incomes
decline. Health care costs are up, gas prices are

[[Page S8198]]

up, the cost of college is up, and for 6 straight years worker
productivity, which means how hard people work--because American
workers are the hardest working people in the world--has gone up. But
wages have either been stagnant or falling. 2005 was the first year
since the Great Depression that average personal savings were negative
for a whole year. There is a sense that we are losing something in
America; that basic bargain that allowed our country to succeed: if you
work hard, you and your family can reach the middle class. You can have
that American dream.
So it is not surprising that we are seeing the weakening of the
American middle class at the same time we see unions under assault. In
the early years of the National Labor Relations Act, the majority sign-
up procedure was the presumptively valid way in which employees could
choose a union. Over the years, however, culminating in the 1960s, a
number of decisions shifted us to a new regime, a regime where
employers can choose to require their employees to vote for unions
through a one-sided election process, dominated by employers, in order
to secure collective bargaining rights. Some employers even began to
make efforts to push unions out of the workplace.
Just consider these comparative facts: In the 1950s, companies
illegally fired or punished during organizing campaigns, or they
otherwise violated National Labor Relations Act rights, fewer than
1,000 employees. The number increased to 6,000 workers in 1969. And
now, today, it is 31,000 workers who have been illegally fired or
otherwise punished for wanting to exercise a fundamental right, one
that we believe people should be able to exercise not only here in our
country but around the world. As the number of labor violations have
increased, we have seen it become harder and harder for workers to
organize.
In 1956, unions represented 35 percent of the private workforce. The
number today is only 7 percent. Our middle class, which unions helped
to build in the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, and the 1960s is suffering
as a result. Studies show that the decline in union membership has been
responsible for at least 20 percent of the rise in income inequality
over the last three decades. I think it is probably much more than
that, but that is what we can quantify.
It is time, therefore, that we modernize labor laws that are stacked
against working people and stacked against their right to unionize.
Right now, employers have unlimited access to employees in one-sided
union representation elections. Employers are given every opportunity
to dissuade workers in mandatory one-to-one meetings. They can delay
votes for years. There are no fines or penalties or sanctions if an
employer illegally fires or discriminates against a worker for
collective bargaining.
At most, the worker is reinstated with backpay, an award that is, on
average, so small that many employers regard it as a cost of doing
business. Finally, 32 percent of workers who choose to unionize, still
do not have a contract after a year of making that choice.
The system is broken. It is not only our collective bargaining and
unionization system, it is our economy as it affects our middle class.
Our country needs reforms that will bring balance to our labor laws,
and our workers need the opportunity to unite with their coworkers to
obtain the protections and benefits of America's labor movement.
Union wages are 20 percent higher than nonunion wages. Union members
are almost twice as likely to be covered by health insurance and to
participate in employer-provided retirement plans.
Unions improve safety conditions. For example, deaths in nonunion
mines are almost twice as likely as deaths in mines where the workers
are union members.
Unions certainly provide opportunities for women and minorities.
Women in unions earn an extra $179 per week. African Americans in
unions earn an extra $187 per week. Latinos in unions earn an extra
$217 per week. Nonunion employees benefit from the efforts of the
unions to seek benefits and protections. That is why it is so important
we pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
It is long past time to enact real financial penalties against those
employers who illegally fire or retaliate against workers during an
organizing campaign. It is long past time to allow employees to decide
if they want to use majority sign-up to organize.
Finally, it is long past time to allow either employers or employees
to request mediation if they are unable to negotiate a contract after
90 days of collective bargaining.
These changes will finally give employers an incentive to bargain in
good faith and to avoid situations where years, and even decades, can
pass without a bargaining agreement.
I believe in the basic bargain. I believe that unions help keep that
bargain for America's working people. I hope this Congress will uphold
its end of that basic bargain; that this Congress will pass the
Employee Free Choice Act; that the Senate will join the House, which
has done so, to give employees the real, fair chance to garner the
protections and benefits of unions and to give unions the opportunity
to help bring workers into the middle class.
That is part of the equation; to respect and protect the rights of
those in the workplace and to give them the opportunity to unionize.
The other part of the equation is to have good jobs, good jobs with
rising incomes. We need a source of new, good jobs in America. That is
why this Energy bill is so important. Much of the debate about the
Energy bill has been, rightly so, about the need to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil--which I agree with 100 percent; the need to
begin, finally, to address seriously global warming--which I think is
way overdue.
But there has not been enough talk about why this Energy bill is
critical to the economy of the United States in the way it will help to
create millions of new jobs. As the Presiding Officer knows, he and I
offered an amendment, which we are pleased the managers accepted, to
provide incentives for training and equipping and preparing the
workforce to do what are called green-collar jobs. These are jobs that
can't be outsourced, by and large. If we finally get serious--and I
hope we will get back to visit some of the financial incentives that
need to be in this bill that unfortunately we were unable to include--
we will begin to join other countries that have gotten smart about
this.
Germany gets a lot of its electricity now generated by solar--you
know, panels on the roofs of residences and offices. The last time I
checked, Germany was not a tropical climate, but they have taken
advantage of government-incentives to move the market toward using
solar.
Denmark is also moving toward more wind energy. The United Kingdom,
which went into Kyoto when our country left it, has created tens of
thousands of new jobs weatherizing homes, installing new energy
technology such as solar, such as wind. We could do this many times
over. We believe we could create millions of new, good-paying jobs for
hard-working Americans.
Every so often we have to regenerate our job creation in America.
During the 1990s, we had a lot of new jobs that were related to telecom
and information technology. We saw the creation of 22 million new jobs
between 1993 and 2001. We saw more people lifted out of poverty than at
any time in our country's history. We saw shared prosperity--not what
we are seeing today, where the bulk of the benefits go to a very small
sliver of us.
This Energy bill is about jobs, it is about creating new, good-paying
jobs for hard-working Americans. What I am looking at when I think of
the Employee Free Choice Act and when I think of this Energy bill is
how we get back into balance, how we get back to where the economy
works for everybody, where the market is not stacked against those who
are not already privileged, where unions can once again be a vehicle
for people moving into and staying in the middle class and, comparably,
where we can have a new source of jobs.
We also have to recognize how we have to look at the jobs that are
already in the economy and how the Energy bill will affect them. I am
hopeful we will think seriously about lifting the health care costs off
a lot of our labor-intensive, energy-intensive, capital-intensive
industries in America, such as the automobile industry, because
laboring under the costs of

[[Page S8199]]

health care is an uncompetitive position for them in the global
economy.
There is a lot to be done. I wish to be sure that as we look at the
economy and begin to try to get it back into that balance that works
best for America, that we vote for the Employee Free Choice Act, which
is a way of giving employees the choice to have a better life for
themselves and their families. There is a lot to be done in our
country. I am very optimistic we can begin tackling our challenges. But
so much of what we have to do to create the framework for our people to
have that better future has to come from this Chamber.
Let's look at the future together. Let's make decisions that will
give the tools to our people to show they are the best workers and the
most competitive and productive people in the world, to unleash that
dynamism in the American economy, and to demonstrate clearly that we
stand with the American middle class.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in this body we are on the brink of
something that is momentous, and that is significant energy legislation
to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels. The bill before us will
break new ground. We will have fuel efficiency standards increased for
the first time since 1975. This is the result of compromise, of
principled compromise that advances the cause of reducing our
dependence on foreign fuel.
Last year I introduced the BOLD act, Breaking Our Long-term
Dependence. That was perhaps the most comprehensive energy legislation
introduced in this body all last year. It had many provisions, many
provisions to encourage further development of ethanol and biodiesel
and wind energy and solar energy--all the renewables. But more than
that, it had provisions to expand domestic production of oil and gas in
a responsible way; also providing clean coal incentives because, after
all, over 50 percent of our electricity in this country comes from
coal. That is not going to fundamentally change anytime soon. So we
have to take measures to increase the environmentally friendly aspects
of coal usage and to improve our ability to produce and use that
resource in a clean way.
While I am delighted we are on the brink of passing something
significant and the beginning of something that could be much bigger, I
am very disappointed the provisions that passed the Senate Finance
Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan vote did not get the 60 votes
required to advance. Those provisions would have also taken us in a new
direction, and they contained many of the provisions contained in the
BOLD Act that I introduced last year.
Those provisions shifted our incentives away from fossil fuels
because, with the high price of fossil fuels, incentives aren't
required there. Instead, we took money that had previously gone to
fossil fuels and shifted the funds to renewables and conservation--
again, in a vote that passed on a bipartisan basis, a very strong vote
out of the Senate Finance Committee.
Let me say there are some who have argued it costs too much money to
have those incentives for renewables and for conservation. It is true,
that bill costs $28.6 billion over the next 10 years--$28.6 billion
over the next 10 years. But we are going to spend, over that same
period, $3,000 billion on imported oil. In fact, that is probably a
low-side estimate because last year alone we spent over $270 billion
importing foreign oil, much of it from the least stable parts of the
world.
Yes, $28 billion is a lot of money over 10 years. But $3,000 billion
on imported oil dwarfs it. It is over 100 times as much. Isn't it a
good investment to spend 1 percent of what we are going to spend
importing foreign oil to develop our own resources in this country? How
much better would it be for a President of the United States, instead
of depending on the Middle East, to be able to look to the Midwest of
this country to help grow our way out of this crisis by using ethanol
and biodiesel? Instead of sending $270 billion to places that are
unfavorable to us, to spend $270 billion right here in America--how
different would our country look if that money, instead of going
abroad, was staying at home?
No one should think we are not going to have another possibility on
the legislation that came out of the Finance Committee. There will be
another opportunity. We will have a chance in the House of
Representatives, in the conference committee, to add back those
provisions that passed on a strong majority vote, not only in the
Finance Committee but on the floor of the Senate.
We didn't have a supermajority, we didn't have the 60 votes. We had
57. Of course the leader changed his vote to be on the prevailing side
so he could move to reconsider. We are missing another Senator because
of a family obligation and, of course, we are missing our colleague,
Senator Johnson, because of his illness. But Senator Johnson will be
back, and the Senator who was missing because of a family obligation
will be back. And Senator Reid will switch his vote. Then we will have
the 60 votes necessary.
No one should be under any illusion that we are not going to take
this opportunity to strengthen our country and to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil because we will have that additional opportunity and the
votes will be here and we will have a comprehensive energy package to
take to the Nation.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder, while the Senator is still
standing, if I could ask him a question. I was standing someplace where
I caught an echo on your last 2 or 3 minutes. Could you maybe repeat
it, because it hit my ear wrong. I did not quite get it. What did you
talk about when it went to the House and came back and what?
Mr. CONRAD. What I am saying is there will be another opportunity to
vote on the package that came out of the Finance Committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. When is that? When you come back from the House?
Mr. CONRAD. When we come back from conference committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. The same people who voted here will vote again then,
will they not? Are you expecting some Senators to leave in the meantime
from this side?
Mr. CONRAD. No. It is unfortunate the Senator did not hear my
remarks. I made it very clear in the remarks what I think will happen.
We were missing one Senator because of a family obligation, missing
another Senator because of illness. Senator Reid, of course, changed
his vote to be on the prevailing side. That will provide the 60 votes
required.
Mr. DOMENICI. I see.
Mr. CONRAD. I think with the passage of time, I say to my colleague
and friend, we will have more votes as people think about the
consequences of the failure to get a stronger package; that there is
time now to work out an agreement to add votes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I see. Well, it would be good if you would add to that
there might be a little opportunity to work together on that, too, you
know. If you get a few people a little anxious, you might find you
could not get cloture again. That could happen.
Mr. CONRAD. It could. I prefer to be an optimist. I prefer to think
of the extraordinary vote we had out of the Finance Committee, a
bipartisan vote, very strong, and the fact that we have more than a
majority here with votes missing. Those votes are going to come back.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. I hope. I believe before this year is out, we will have a
chance to have a more comprehensive package than the one we will be
able to move on this floor in the next several days. I believe it will
be a package that will enjoy strong bipartisan support, just as the
package did that came out of the Finance Committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. Well, you are inviting some of us not to approve
anything tonight, to have another cloture, and you have nothing going
to conference.
Mr. CONRAD. Well, that would be a tragedy for the Nation, and those
who

[[Page S8200]]

would engage in that tactic, I think, would pay the consequences.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you know, you and I have been here long enough
that we go through these tragedies every now and then. But they get
worked out. Then as long as you do not try to defy reality--there were
a lot of people who didn't want this to happen; a lot of people did.
That is the Senate. Now we will see.
Mr. CONRAD. That is the great thing about our country. Some people do
not want to advance on the question of reducing our dependence; some
want to stay stuck where we have been; others want to move forward. I
believe those who want to move forward are ultimately going to prevail.
Mr. DOMENICI. So do I.
Mr. CONRAD. That is a good thing for this country. I welcome this
debate, because I think the American people think it is long overdue
that we make this advance, and it is to the credit of this body that we
are prepared to move forward tonight.
Mr. DOMENICI. Well, there is no doubt in my mind we are going to move
ahead. We have had some terrific movement ahead in the past 3\1/2\, 4
years. Some of us who are questioning how you think it is going to
happen have been part of that over the last couple of years. We are
not--nobody is going to sit here and say: There is one way, only one
group of Senators knows how to do this. We did our share in this pretty
good bill you voted for a couple of years ago. Had we implemented the
provisions of that with financing that went with it, we would already
be a long way toward the development of both supply and conservation;
supply of the type you want, and supply of the type some others want.
We would already have that going. Instead, we do not, because we
haven't financed it. We should have. You were with us on the financing.
It should have happened.
Mr. CONRAD. I say to my colleague and my friend, I was proud to
support that bill. I was proud of the leadership shown by the Senator
from New Mexico on that legislation. I am proud of the leadership shown
by the Senators from New Mexico on this bill. I just think, at the end
of the day, we are going to have even stronger legislation before we
complete our work this year. That was the point I was making in my
earlier remarks. Look, we all know the genius of this body is that
there are those who agree and those who disagree; those who favor,
those who oppose. Tonight we can celebrate together. We are making
progress. That is important for the country, but more needs to be done.

I don't think any Senator would leave here tonight saying this
legislation alone is all we can do. We can do more this year, and we
should.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I oftentimes laugh. It is either Iowa, or
Ohio, or Idaho. The other side of that equation with the late Craig
Thomas, I am Larry Craig, Craig Thomas. His wife is Susan, my wife is
Suzanne. It was not at all unusual that sometimes we would get mixed
up. People would come to my office looking for Craig Thomas, and would
find out they needed to be on the other side of a mountain range and
out across a rather wide expanse of land toward Casper, Wyoming,
instead of Boise, Idaho.
But I understand. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I will be brief. We are very close, I believe, toward the final
passage of an energy bill that many of us have spent a good deal of
time with.
I want to thank a few folks who have spent a lot more time with this
issue than I or than the principals on it. Cory McDaniel on my staff,
legislative LA for energy, who has spent a great deal of time over the
last good many months as we have fashioned the SAFE Act, as we have
fashioned a clean portfolio standard versus a renewable portfolio
standard, I thank Cory for that effort.
I also thank Frank Macciarola, the minority staff director, and Bob
Simon, the majority staff director. We worked closely with them as we
have worked our way through this issue. Sam Fowler, counsel for the
majority, and Judy Pensabene, minority counsel, have all been very
helpful.
I have worked closely with Senator Dorgan and his staff. Franz
Wuerfmannsdobler and Nate Hill on his staff have been very helpful;
also Colin Jones, a fellow from the National Lab in Idaho on my staff,
and Darren Parker, a research assistant, have been extremely helpful. A
couple of interns, J.C. Dunkelberger and Brian Riga, have been very
helpful throughout all of this effort.
I think those of us who have been in the Senate a long time know this
work gets done certainly by us in some instances but by our staff in
most instances. They spend a lot of time, they develop a level of
expertise in working with us on some of these issues.
I thank these men and woman for their assistance in a complicated
process. I hope we can finish and produce a work product that will come
back to us in a reasonable form that many of us can support.
I am frustrated we are potentially moving a bill out of the Senate
that does not have any production. It is all about the future and the
outyears. I do not think America worries about the outyears when they
go to a pump and pay $3 and 10 or 15 or 20 cents a gallon. They worry
about tomorrow and next year and the next year. That is what I think
all of us have voiced in this debate.
Somehow it is not right anymore to drill holes in the ground and pull
out oil and refine it. I do believe that still fits into the equation
and will for several decades to come, as we move to flex fuel, as we
move to hybrids, as we move to hydrogen, as we move to electricity, as
we are, and as we will continue to, and we must.
But in the meantime, it is a reality that this Nation has to continue
to produce. As loudly as I and some on the other side have spoken about
it, the Senate collectively does not want to seem to go there anymore.
My guess is the American consumer, tragically enough, is going to pay
the price. I hope that ultimately we do get some more production built
into this legislation or other public policy as we move down the road
because it is the reality of where we are. While we work our way away
from it and take this great economy and start shifting it and moving it
around to new economies in the field of energy, it takes a great deal
of investment that the private sector will make, and it takes the kinds
of incentives, and it takes a substantial amount of time that I do not
think is as reflected in this policy as I would hope, and as I have
hoped it would be.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak tonight as
we get close to the point hopefully of passing an energy bill here in
the Senate.
I first acknowledge the leadership of both Senator Bingaman and
Senator Domenici. When we look at where we are today on energy, much of
it started, the bipartisan cooperation, between Senator Bingaman and
Senator Domenici, in the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. I know
there have been critics of that act, but it was a creation that was put
out in a bipartisan fashion, a significant step forward on energy.
This legislation that came out of the Energy Committee, which is
included in the bill which we are about to vote on, in large part is a
very good step forward in terms of trying to address the goals we had
in that particular legislation.
I also congratulate both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I think
when you think about the people who have made such a mark, an imprint
on the Senate today and on our country, two of our national heroes are
Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye. I never get tired of hearing the story of
Senator Inouye and his service to our country. Every time I see him and
I remember his great contribution and sacrifice to our country, I
remember those are the greatest of the greatest generation, and
certainly both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye embody that
greatness.
I also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee
for their great work. As a member of the Finance Committee, we worked
very hard to come up with legislation that would help us move forward
in dealing with the reality of getting energy independence.
While I am disappointed that part of the package is not included as
we move

[[Page S8201]]

forward toward final passage here, it nonetheless represented the best
of our thinking about how we could invest in this new imperative of
America, and gets us to a new energy future for the 21st century.
I also thank the rest of my colleagues who were involved in some of
the discussions that have been underway today. Let my say that from my
point of view, there is no more important issue we must deal with here
in Washington, here in the Congress, than the issue of energy.
If we look at the big issues of our time in the 21st century, I think
in my mind there are three issues we have to deal with. We have to deal
with the issue of foreign relations and how we put the world back
together again and restore America's greatness in the world.
We also need to make sure we embark on a new clean energy future for
the 21st century.
We also need to deal with other issues that are very difficult, the
enormous challenge that we face with the health care in America today.
That issue is bankrupting America's families and America's businesses
day by day. So how we move forward with those three issues is very
important.
But tonight we are at the doorstep of taking a significant step
forward on one of those huge issues; that is, the issue of energy and
moving forward to establishing a clean energy future.
Now, when I often talk about energy, I think back to what happened in
the early 1970s and through the 1970s with both President Nixon and
President Jimmy Carter, where President Nixon declared the need for us
to be energy independent, and coined that term.
Then following him, President Carter spoke about energy independence
as being something that was the moral equivalent of war. Well, the fact
is that in those days the driver for those statements and the coining
of that term came from the economic volatility that was caused by the
formation of OPEC and their ability to be able to influence the world
markets on oil.
I think today we have three inescapable forces that drive us to look
at the clean energy future as the imperative of the 21st century. Those
inescapable forces are, first and foremost, our national security. When
we see what is happening in the Middle East with Hezbollah and in
Lebanon with Hamas in the Gaza, you know that terrorist organizations
such as those are being funded by the very oil that is being consumed
by the free world.
So for us to become energy independent is our way of making sure we
are not held hostage to those kinds of organizations, to the oil barons
and sheiks of this world. It is an imperative we do that from a
national security point of view.
Secondly, I think it is now beyond argument in our world today that
the issue of global warming is here, and we will have some debate that
will come on down the road with respect to how we address the issue of
global warming here in America and across the world.
It is inescapable that we must do something about global warming if
we are to save civilization for our children and grandchildren and save
this planet we have been given the humble privilege of inhabiting. That
is an inescapable force that will drive us to a clean energy future in
the 21st century.
Last is the economic opportunity and dealing with the economic
volatility that happens when you are hostage to someone who controls
supplies such as OPEC can today. The economic opportunity is one that
you already see happening throughout our great Nation.
In my State of Colorado, where 2 years ago, before passage of the
2005 act, there was really nothing going on in terms of renewable
energy, we have totally turned that around. We have now ethanol plants
in places such as Fort Morgan and Yuma. We have a number of other
ethanol plants springing up in Windsor and Devon, down in the southern
part of the State, places which were part of the forgotten rural
America which had been hanging on by a shoestring just to keep their
communities alive. There is a new breath of activity, a new breath of
hope and opportunity and optimism in rural America, in large part
because we believe we can grow our way to energy independence.
I believe strongly we are headed in the right track with the
legislation that has been put forward. I am hopeful that we will move
forward and conclude our effort on this energy legislation tonight.
I want to go back for a minute and reflect upon the legislation that
came out of the Energy Committee which was led in a remarkable fashion
by Senator Bingaman, with the support of Senator Domenici. It was a
bipartisan effort that focused on three major issues, all of which are
included in the underlying legislation.
The first of those was moving forward with alternative fuels. If you
think about what we have done with the renewable fuels standard, we
will be quintupling the amount of energy we create from biofuels. We
will be opening a new chapter with cellulosic ethanol that will make
the biofuels targets a reality.
Secondly, the efficiency measures are important to make sure we stop
wasting the energy we consume. When we look at what the experts tell
us, from the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Lab,
we know we waste 60 percent of the energy that is consumed in America
today. Therefore, the lowest hanging fruit for all of us is to move
forward with efficiency measures. We are doing that in the part of the
legislation that was created in the Energy Committee. We also are doing
it very much with the CAFE standards, the fuel efficiency standards
that were negotiated today with the leadership of Senators Stevens and
Inouye, Senator Feinstein, and many others who were involved. That will
help us achieve the oil savings targets and goals we have set forth in
this legislation.
Finally, we take some movement forward in terms of dealing with the
issue of carbon by making sure that we are dealing with carbon
sequestration mapping in the United States and that we develop the way
forward in terms of how we sequester carbon. There has been debate
about coal. Not everybody agrees on how we ought to move forward with
respect to coal. I believe it is important that we look at coal as a
possible resource because it currently generates about 50 percent of
our electricity today and it is the most abundant resource we have in
this country. We have enough coal resources for the next 200 years of
energy for America's use. Coal is to the United States what oil is to
Saudi Arabia. So it is important that we not turn a blind eye and say
we are a nation that is not going to look at all at coal.
Some of the new technologies we have with respect to IGCC--the
creation of electricity in a way that can help us with the hybrid plug-
ins--will open a whole new chapter today and build on the 2005 act.
That will all be very important. Carbon sequestration needs to be a
part of the equation. We know there are formations throughout this
country where, in fact, we can sequester carbon. The technology is not
all that complex. The enhanced oil recovery efforts and the technology
we have with EOR is technology that has been used in the oilfields for
decades. We know there are formations out there where we can, in fact,
store carbon. So we can find ways of utilizing this abundant fuel we
have in the United States to help us fuel the energy needs of the
country.
In addition to the many Members who have worked on making this a
possibility--and I hope we do get the 60 votes we need--there have been
a lot of people on many staffs on both the majority side and the
minority side who have worked to make this happen. I thank each and
every one of them for getting us to the point we are today. I know the
countless hours and nights and days they have spent working on this
issue. Without them, we would not be where we are tonight.
I thank the people in my office who have been working hard on this
legislation for a long time, both in the Energy Committee and in the
Finance Committee. I say thank you to Steve Black, who has been an
enormous player on the energy issue, in 2005 as well as today; Matt
Lee-Ashley, Suzanne Wells in my office, Grant Leslie, and Sam Mitchell,
who have done an enormous job pulling all of this together.
This is a major step we are about ready to take. I look forward to
being a part of the celebration when we get this all done, hopefully in
the not too distant future before we go into the wee hours of tomorrow
morning.

[[Page S8202]]

Efficiency Title

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the Energy
Committee, its chairman and ranking member, in crafting this bill.
However, I have concerns about some aspects of the efficiency title
specifically as they relate to regional standards for heating and
cooling products and the possibility of more than one energy standard
such as SEER or EER being applied to these products. I sincerely hope
that we can work on resolving these issues following the passage of
this legislation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to work with my colleague from Arkansas to
improve this bill, and will work with her on this issue following the
passage of this legislation.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I appreciate the chairman's good-faith commitment to
work with us on this issue. I raised these concerns when this bill was
being discussed in the Energy Committee, and I continue to have
reservations about how the language, as written, can be implemented.

rps

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, through
the President, if he is in agreement with me on a matter of some
importance. I offered an amendment last week to require that 15 percent
of the electricity sold in the Nation come from renewable energy
resources by the year 2020. We have not been able to get an agreement
to have a vote on this amendment, or on other forms of it that might
have provided more flexibility to States in meeting the goals of the
amendment. We would have been agreeable to accepting a supermajority
threshold for passage of the amendment. We still could not reach
agreement. That implies, to me, that opponents of the measure believe
that 60 or more Senators support the amendment. I believe that they may
be correct in assuming so.
This amendment would have been as significant an amendment as we
could have added to the bill. Such a standard would increase the
generation of renewables in the Nation from something over 2 percent to
a much greater share of our generation supply. We have tried again and
again to provide, in law, mechanisms to allow renewable energy
technologies to take the place in the market that they deserve. The
Senate has passed similar amendments three times. This provision would
result in cleaner electricity generation, be the source of extensive
creation of new jobs, enhance our energy security, lower the price of
natural gas, and could even result in lower electricity prices.
Given the importance of this provision of the Nation, and the clear,
strong support for it in the Senate, I would ask if it is the intention
of the majority leader, should we conclude business on the Energy Bill
without passing it, to seek another vehicle for the passage of the
renewable electricity standard?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would answer the chairman of the Energy
Committee, who has done great work in managing this complicated energy
bill, that I agree with him as to the importance of this amendment to
the Nation, and on the broad support that it enjoys in the Senate.
There is little that we could do in the electricity sector that would
bring more benefits--in terms of consumer savings, reducing natural gas
demand, and slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. We have
sought in this bill to broaden the range of energy resources that we
depend on for motor fuels to include renewable resources. We must do
the same for our electricity supply. I share his strong belief that
enactment of a national renewable electricity standard is critical for
the Nation's efforts to become more energy independent and to reduce
the risks of global warming, as well as create new jobs in the clean
energy industry. I promise to work with him to see that proposal gets
fair consideration, a vote and, if at all possible, enacted into law
this Congress.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, right now, people are at gas stations
across America, filling up cars and trucks to get to work, take their
kids to school, and run their errands.
In May of 2002, a gallon of gas cost $1.40. Today that same gallon of
gas costs $3.22. In just 5 years, the price of gas has more than
doubled.
Gas isn't the only energy cost that has spiked in the last 5 years.
In New Jersey, individuals, families, and businesses are paying 25
percent more for electricity than they were just 5 years ago. These
high prices are hurting our families--families whose budgets are
already stretched thin.
We also know that our energy policies are hurting our environment.
The emissions from our cars and trucks, electric utilities, and
factories are causing global warming--a fact recently verified by a
United Nations Panel on Climate Change. The energy bill before us marks
the first serious attempt in years to address our energy crisis.
First, it takes a measured but appropriate approach to improving CAFE
standards governing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks. Right
now, Japan leads the world in fuel efficiency. Many of their cars and
trucks get more than 40 miles per gallon. The United States is far
behind. Our passenger cars have been stuck at CAFE standards of 27.5
miles per gallon since 1990--and our light trucks get just 21.6 miles
per gallon. We must do better, and with this bill, we will.
Our energy bill calls for increasing fuel efficiency to 35 miles per
gallon by the year 2020. As we improve our fuel efficiency, we decrease
both the amount of gas Americans have to pay for and the greenhouse
gases our cars emit. But despite what many think, greenhouse gases
don't only come from cars and trucks. Buildings have a significant
impact on the environment and on the health of every American--
accounting for nearly 40 percent of America's greenhouse gases. The
Federal Government is the largest owner and renter of buildings in the
Nation and is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the
world.
In addition, poorly designed schools can cause the air inside to be
unhealthy. This poor air quality increases childhood asthma.
More than 67 percent of schools have a design problem that
contributes to asthma. For those reasons, I introduced the High
Performance Green Buildings Act, which is now included in the Energy
bill. This legislation focuses on making our Federal buildings
``green'' and improving the environmental and health impacts of our
schools. I worked with our former colleague, Senator Jeffords, on this
bill in the past--and the language now in the Energy bill represents a
collaborative effort between myself, Senator Boxer, and Senators Snowe
and Warner.
In comparison to standard buildings, the average green building has
better air quality, uses 30 percent less energy, and results in nearly
40 percent fewer emissions. Green buildings also have smaller electric
bills, which saves owners and tenants on their bottom lines.
The Federal Government must lead by example and achieve those results
for its buildings. Accordingly, my green buildings bill will direct the
General Services Administration to use a green building certification
that all Federal buildings should achieve. It also provides grants and
voluntary guidelines for schools to lessen their environmental
impacts--and improve the health of the students, teachers, and staff
inside them.
Finally, the bill calls for demonstration projects to show the public
that green buildings are environmentally sound, benefit people's
health, and are both cost-effective and practical.
The States are doing their part. New Jersey and 21 other States have
already signed bills similar to my legislation. Many private companies
are doing their part as well. For example, Bank of America is building
a new highrise office tower in Manhattan--a building that will be
entirely green. It is time for the Federal Government to do its part.
We need a solution to our energy problems: one that protects the
American pocketbook, improves our CAFE standards, reduces our
dependence on foreign oil, and promotes green building. This energy
bill will be an important step forward toward achieving these goals.st

amendment no. 1792

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1792,
filed by Senators Stevens, Snowe, Alexander, and Carper, and
cosponsored by Senators Feinstein and Kerry, among others. This
bipartisan compromise reflects the input of Members, industry,

[[Page S8203]]

and consumers, and is good policy for our Nation.
I particularly wish to congratulate Senator Dianne Feinstein for her
dedicated efforts over the years to update our Nation's fuel economy
standards. The success of the amendment today is a tribute to her
tenacious and skilled advocacy.
At every step of the legislative process following the introduction
of S. 357, the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, by Senators Feinstein and
Olympia Snowe, the authors and cosponsors of S. 357 and members of the
Senate Commerce Committee have worked together in a bipartisan manner
to address the concerns of the automotive industry. In particular, this
group worked hard to ensure that automakers will not face a significant
burden when meeting the first improvements to fuel economy standards in
more than 30 years.
I am pleased that Members from both sides of the aisle continued to
work together to produce the amendment adopted today. While addressing
a number of the concerns raised by automakers regarding the Feinstein-
Snowe Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act as reported by the Commerce
Committee, the amendment preserves the core goals and fuel savings of
Ten in Ten.
The amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation to increase
fuel economy for automobiles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, as in Ten
in Ten. But in the years that follow from 2021 to 2030, the Secretary
shall increase fuel economy at a maximum feasible rate instead of at a
pace of 4 percent per annum.
If we have a breakthrough in battery technology, then 4 percent per
year may well be too low. If there are unforeseen problems, 4 percent
may be too high. The amendment will allow the Secretary to set an
appropriate standard in the future.
The Kerry-Cantwell second degree amendment to the Stevens-Carper-
Feinstein-Snowe-Kerry amendment also directs the Secretary to establish
and implement an action plan to ensure that 50 percent of the vehicles
for sale in 2015 are alternative fuel automobiles. We must encourage
manufacturers to improve their fleets' fuel economy by exploring new
technologies and producing alternative fuel vehicles. I commend
Senators Kerry and Cantwell for developing this compromise amendment
that addresses this important goal.
By adopting the bipartisan compromise amendment and H.R. 6 as
amended, we will place the country on a path toward reducing our
Nation's dependence on foreign oil, protecting the environment, and
helping consumers deal with rising gas prices.
Finally, I wish to express my appreciation for the excellent efforts
of the dedicated staff on the Senate Commerce Committee including David
Strickland, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Ken Nahigian, Mia Petrini, and Jason
Bomberg.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the pending energy
bill and the future of energy in the U.S. I commend Chairman Bingaman
for crafting this compromise bill and bringing it before the full
Senate for consideration. Like many of us, he recognizes that the
energy crisis we face will be long-term and life-altering, and that we
must enlist all Americans, and the cooperation of governments
worldwide, to solve it.
Let's be honest. We have only gotten to this critical point because
we have put off for too long momentous energy decisions. In fact, the
main answer to our energy dilemma from the party across the aisle while
they were in power in Congress was the 2005 energy bill, a scandalous
mix of billions in drilling subsidies and other giveaways to big oil
companies which even some of them admitted were unnecessary. That
effort was doomed from the start: While we consume 25 percent of the
world's oil, we only hold 3 percent of its reserves--so we can't, we
never could, drill our way out of the problem. The results of that bill
in the last 2 years haven't been surprising: skyrocketing oil and gas
prices; no slackening of demand; increased U.S. dependence on foreign
oil; underfunding of renewable energy initiatives; and slashed
conservation funding. This bill takes us in a much better direction,
with progressive new policies. And that is critical. If we are to
address honestly the threat posed by America's addiction to carbon-
based fossil fuels, and especially imported oil, it is long past time
to move in a better direction, and to make some difficult choices.
We have known for a long time about the three-fold threat--to our
national security, our economic vitality, and our environmental
health--posed by our over-reliance on foreign oil. To our national
security, because we now import about 60 percent of our oil from some
of the most politically unstable regions of the world, governed by
authoritarian regimes, some serving as breeding grounds for terror. To
our economic vitality, through high gasoline prices, rising home
heating costs, and electricity price spikes which strain family
budgets, burden businesses, and make our Nation less competitive. To
our environmental health, due to smog, climate change, increased asthma
risks, cancer and other diseases caused or exacerbated by pollution. We
continue on this path to our peril. A better way forward is to embark
now on a course of dramatic change in our energy policies, including
setting clear long-term goals and enforceable benchmarks; backing our
rhetoric on conservation, renewable energy and other initiatives with
real funding; scaling back wasteful oil industry subsidies, and
including all Americans in energy conservation efforts. If we do it
right, Middle East imports will decline and vital U.S. interests will
be made less vulnerable; our air will be cleaner; new jobs in the
renewable sector will be created, our rural communities will be
revitalized through energy innovation, and our relationships with
allies and overall position in the world will be strengthened.
Our over-reliance on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East,
makes us vulnerable to price spikes, supply disruptions, and market
uncertainty. We also, sadly, pay for the privilege of propping up
authoritarian regimes that use oil reserves to bolster their own power,
insulate themselves from demands for political and economic
liberalization, and protect themselves from the need to improve their
human rights records--what NYT columnist Tom Friedman calls ``petro-
authoritarianism.'' This is why the government of Iran can suppress its
own people; it's why Russia can crush Chechnya and intimidate its
neighbors; it's why China, a major owner of Sudan's main oil
consortium, can continue to block effective U.N. action on Darfur. We
are effectively financing them to do it through our oil purchases.
And we have been doing this for decades. I was first elected to
Congress in 1974, in the wake of an energy crisis prompted by an OPEC
oil embargo. It was a summer of gas lines and shortages, of steps large
and small taken to address the problem. And now here we are, fighting
another uphill battle to enact a good energy bill, which contains an
important set of incremental steps to address these problems. I would
like us to go much farther than this bill does. But at least with its
passage we would finally be headed in the right direction.
I think almost everyone in this Chamber would agree that the future
of energy in this country, to the maximum extent possible, should be
clean, green, domestic, and renewable. We know that our dependence on
foreign oil leaves us vulnerable, increases our trade deficit, and
creates volatility in energy prices and hardships for American
consumers and businesses. We know that emissions from fossil-fuel fired
powerplants cause unnecessary illnesses and deaths. And we know that
our emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global climate change,
which is leading to higher sea levels, melting glaciers, shifting
ecosystems, and ocean acidification.

Our national energy policy must be retooled to address those threats
directly, and to encourage the development and deployment of
technologies that will encourage the use of clean, domestic, renewable
energy. This bill, modest as it is, does that, I applaud Senators
Stevens, Inouye, Feinstein, and others for crafting a compromise on
fuel economy standards, though we must recognize that it is a
compromise: the new fuel economy standards contained in this bill do
not do enough to achieve the full potential of current technologies to
increase fuel efficiency. Even so, setting the CAFE target at 35 miles
per gallon by 2020, is

[[Page S8204]]

an important advance for a Congress that has not managed to increase
standards at all for over 20 years. There was no increase in fuel
economy standards to blame for the decline in American auto
manufacturers' market share from 73 percent in 1986 to 55 percent in
2006; the future strength or weakness of those manufacturers will
depend far more on the extent to which they transform themselves by
taking advantage of new green vehicle technologies in the coming years.
The same arguments we have heard for many years--that the technology is
unavailable to enable these higher standards, that they will make cars
less safe, that we will hurt our own manufacturers--are the ones made
in the late 1970's; they are no more true now than they were then.
We have spent much of this debate on a few contentious issues, but
there are many significant provisions in the bill that have not been as
widely discussed, including creating research and demonstration
programs for carbon capture and sequestration, substantially increasing
appliance efficiency standards, and making the Federal Government a
leader in the use of renewable energy and green construction. Moreover,
this legislation puts the Senate on record in our support of engagement
with other countries, especially those in the Western Hemisphere, to
better coordinate energy security and assure diverse and reliable
energy supplies. While it is not perfect, it is a step in the right
direction.
Mr. President, let me say a final word about the elephant in the
room, which we have scarcely acknowledged thus far in this debate about
energy policy: climate change. Climate and energy policy are
inextricable--any energy policy we adopt will have an enormous impact
on the climate. I recognize that this body is not yet ready to adopt a
comprehensive measure to substantially limit emissions of greenhouse
gases, or to take the bold step of imposing some form of a
comprehensive corporate carbon tax. If we were honest with the American
people, that is the kind of bold step we would take to help resolve our
energy dilemma.
The truth is that, on energy and climate issues, Americans are ahead
of their political leaders. They understand the serious, long-term
cumulative threat climate change poses to their children and
grandchildren; they're willing to make tough choices to address it.
They understand that cleaner energy is possible; they know that fuel-
efficient vehicles and appliances are within reach--but they're worried
that American manufacturers are falling behind. Americans
overwhelmingly support the development of alternative energy, higher
mileage standards, hybrid vehicles, and incentives to produce and
install more energy efficient appliances. They see the potential for
savings generated by energy-efficient technologies, both for their
families and for a more efficient, more effective use of their tax
dollars by government. And they want change. They understand that the
threats of climate change are not geographically remote or far off in
time; they are real and urgent. I hope that the day when we can take up
and pass tough new controls on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases arrives soon. But however we address emissions and efficiency,
conservation, bio-fuels, fuel economy, and other important provisions,
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to start us on the road
towards a future of clean, domestic, and renewable energy.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support the Energy
bill that we are voting on tonight. I will vote against cloture on the
bill and against final passage. There are many good provisions of this
bill--particularly in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable
fuels--but at its core, the bill contains CAFE provisions that will
needlessly harm the American auto industry.
I believe we had a real opportunity to make significant strides in
improving fuel economy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and
doing it in a sensible way that would support American manufacturing
and American workers. Instead, the bill before the Senate tonight has
chosen the path that is most likely to harm our workers by combining
trucks with cars for new standards that are overly aggressive and
unachievable and may have a particularly harmful effect on those
manufacturers who produce a high percentage of light trucks and produce
small cars in America.
America has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, over
200,000 jobs in the automotive sector. Our companies face enormous
competition in the global marketplace without support from the U.S.
Government. Our companies are not competing against companies overseas
they are competing against other governments that strongly support
their manufacturing sectors with currency manipulation and trade
barriers against our products. American companies must compete against
those who are protected from import competition by their government,
have cheap labor costs, do not pay health insurance and legacy costs,
or do not have to meet our strict environmental standards. Our
manufacturers can compete with anyone on a level playing field but
right now that field is tilted against them.
Tonight, we are choosing to follow a path that will continue that
uneven playing field for our manufacturers through our own regulatory
process--no other countries would do that to its companies. The
proponents of these provisions--a combined car-truck standard of 35
miles per gallon by 2020 claim that these standards will be easy to
meet with new advanced technology and suggest that these fuel economy
numbers are supported by the National Academy of Sciences. But that is
simply not true. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, in its 2002
report that is frequently cited, specifically stated that the
conclusions it drew about technologies should not be interpreted as
fuel economy recommendations.
There was a better way. An amendment sponsored by Senator Pryor that
I cosponsored, along with Senators Bond, Voinovich, Stabenow and
McCaskill, offered that alternative approach. Our amendment would have
taken bold steps forward to improve fuel economy, reduce our dependence
on foreign oil, and protect the environment. We did that in our
amendment by establishing aggressive, yet achievable, new and different
fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks and by setting clear
interim milestones for reaching these new standards.
Our amendment would have required a thirty-percent increase in fuel
economy standards for cars by 2022 and a thirty-five-percent increase
in standards for trucks by 2025, and our amendment would have provided
certainty that these standards will be met. It also would have provided
the predictability needed by our auto companies to plan ahead and
utilize new advanced technology to the maximum extent possible. Our
amendment would have provided the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, NHTSA--the agency that would set these standards--tools
necessary to establish the standards in a sensible way that would have
ensured the standards would be at the maximum feasible level, even if
that level proved to be higher than the number included in this
amendment. To ensure that the technology would be available to meet
these standards, our amendment also would have provided a significant
new infusion of Federal dollars to support advanced technology
research, development, and demonstration programs across a wide
spectrum of technologies--from advanced batteries and lightweight
materials to advanced clean diesel, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fuel
cells. Our amendment also would have put more advanced technology out
on the road immediately by requiring each auto manufacturer to make a
certain percentage of their new vehicles either flexible fuel vehicles
or advanced technology vehicles--increasing to 50 percent of their
fleets by 2015.
To be sure, meeting the new fuel economy standards under our
amendment would have been a stretch and a challenge for all of our
country's auto manufacturers--both our traditional American
manufacturers, who built the foundation of the auto industry in this
country, as well as manufacturers such as Toyota, Mazda, and
Mitsubishi. But it would not have pushed our companies to the breaking
point, as I fear the provisions of this legislation will do.
So I cannot support this bill tonight, and I regret that we did not
take a different path. I was encouraged that the Commerce Committee
leaders were

[[Page S8205]]

willing to take some of our suggestions and make some improvements in
their bill. Through our negotiations, we received a few significant
concessions. Specifically, the standards in the final bill are for the
industry as a whole and not standards to be met company by company,
ending a procedure which has discriminated against the domestic
industry. The bill also makes clear that NHTSA is required to set
standards according to an attribute based system that will look at the
different attributes of cars and trucks, and make clear that the fuel
economy standards after 2020 will be set at the maximum feasible level
rather than requiring an arbitrary and unrealistic increase of four
percent annually and was true with the Commerce Committee bill.
I believe that we can reduce our dependence on oil, reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the overall fuel economy of our
vehicles on the road while supporting our American manufacturers in the
global market place. To do that, we need a major public-private
partnership and major investments in leap-ahead energy technologies,
including advanced technology vehicles. We need a huge infusion of
resources and a commitment from both the private sector and the Federal
government to support efforts to reach these important goals. At a
minimum, we cannot have our government act in ways that will unfairly
disadvantage our American manufacturers against their global
competitors.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the improvements to vehicle efficiency that are included in
H.R. 6. It is time for us to make reasonable, achievable, and
meaningful increases to the corporate average fuel economy standards.
In the past 2 weeks I have spoken repeatedly about the national
security, economic security, and environmental security implications of
the energy debate that we are holding. The converging and growing risks
of our overdependence on foreign oil are well understood among
Americans, who see the impacts of our failed energy policy on a daily
basis.
At the gas station, consumers see prices spike at OPEC's whim or with
the threat of supply disruptions in countries like Venezuela or
Nigeria. In their businesses, Americans feel the pain of soaring oil
prices--fuel prices for farmers are so high that some do not know if
they will be able to complete the harvest in the fall. And in their
land, air, and natural surroundings, Americans are beginning to
understand the impacts that global warming could have over the coming
decades.
This week we have already made significant progress in our quest to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not only is the underlying bill
an important step forward, but we have passed several amendments that
strengthen the foundations of a new, clean energy economy for the
United States.
So far we have increased the oil savings targets in this bill by 50
percent, so that by 2016, we are saving as much oil as we are currently
importing from the Middle East. We have passed provisions from the
DRIVE Act that will bring high-efficiency vehicles, such as plug-in
hybrids, to consumers. And we set a goal of producing 25 percent of our
energy from renewable sources by 2025. These are important improvements
that will accelerate the pace at which we are moving toward energy
independence.
Today, though, I want to talk more specifically about a provision of
this bill that has been a point of intense debate for some time.
Vehicle efficiency standards in this country have been stagnant for too
long. Although our vehicle manufacturers have made impressive
improvements to the safety, strength, and power of our vehicles, the
average fuel economy of new cars and trucks was actually lower in 2006
than it was 20 years ago. Passenger cars sold in the U.S. only get
around 27.5 miles per gallon on average.
The result? American consumers and businesses are suffering
disproportionately from $3-a-gasoline. $50 and $80 visits to the gas
station are now the norm, and transportation costs are taking a growing
slice out of family budgets.
People who live in rural areas are hit the hardest by low fuel-
efficiency standards. They drive around 15 percent more miles than
people who live in cities, they rarely have the choice of using public
transit, and they use work vehicles, like pickups, that get fewer miles
to the gallon. As a result, gas bills in rural households have risen
almost $1,300 in the past 5 years.
The question of how to improve vehicle efficiency standards is not an
easy one, and is not to be taken lightly. But today the path forward is
clearer than it has been in some time. Not only is the need for
improved efficiency evident, but we have the technological know-how to
make these changes to our vehicle-fleet in a safe and cost-effective
manner.
The bill before us raises the CAFE standards for cars and light
trucks to 35 mpg by 2020. This is a reasonable and appropriate goal for
efficiency. The bill also gives manufacturers tremendous flexibility to
meet the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
NHTSA, will have the ability to set a national fleet-wide average fuel
economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020 that will be tailored to the weight,
size, type of use and towing capabilities of each car type. Under this
flexible system, the standards for light trucks will likely be
significantly lower than the standards for passenger cars, and
standards will vary for passenger cars: smaller cars will have higher
standards than larger cars.
The bill also includes an important exemption for work-trucks between
8,500 and 10,000 pounds--these are the trucks that are essential to the
daily operations of farmers, ranchers, and small business owners.
The CAFE standards in this bill are achievable by incorporating a
group of modest, proven conventional technologies into vehicles. The
technologies would add about $1,100 to the price of an average vehicle
in 2019, an investment that would be recovered in less than 3 years of
driving, assuming that gasoline costs $2.00 per gallon. Over the
lifetime of the vehicle the owner would save a total of more than
$3,600 in gasoline costs.
And the technologies are only getting better. Our national labs and
universities are making breakthroughs in research that will allow us to
make even greater advances in fuel efficiency. At the Colorado School
of Mines, for example, researchers are developing a way to cast metal
alloy composite materials for high strength, lightweight vehicle parts.
This technology will reduce the weight of vehicle components by as much
as 60 percent without compromising vehicle performance, cost, or
safety.
While I am a champion for the responsible development of our domestic
energy supplies and I firmly believe that we need to make smart
investments in a renewable energy economy, improving efficiency is the
cheapest, cleanest and quickest way for us to extend our energy
supplies, get a handle on rising gas prices, and reduce our dependence
on foreign oil.
I am proud of the responsible, bipartisan approach we have taken to
improving vehicle standards. I want to again thank Senator Bingaman and
Senator Domenici for their leadership on this bill and I look forward
to passing it as soon as possible.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. First of all, Mr. President, the distinguished Republican
leader and I apologize to everyone.
However, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 p.m. tonight the
substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill be read a third time, and
the Senate vote on cloture on H.R. 6; that if cloture is invoked, the
Senate vote immediately on passage of the bill with the preceding all
occurring without any intervening action or debate; further, that the
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 800 occur at 11:30 a.m.
on Tuesday, June 26; that if cloture is invoked, the motion be agreed
to and the Senate vote immediately on cloture on the motion to proceed
to S. 1639, the immigration bill; that if cloture is invoked, the
motion be agreed to; and further that if cloture is invoked on S. 1639,
it be in order upon the disposition of all postcloture debate time
there be

[[Page S8206]]

20 minutes equally divided for debate only on a motion to waive the
Budget Act in response to a budget point of order against the bill made
by Senator Jeff Sessions or his designee; further, that on Wednesday,
if the Senate is considering the immigration bill, Senator Sessions be
recognized for debate only for up to 2 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. I would just like a few minutes to look at the language.
Mr. REID. I renew my consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, and they are concerned about some ability to get in
conference the cloture motion; that is, the tax aspects of the Energy
bill that was defeated. It is not part of this matter we are working on
now. As I told my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, if he
could figure out a way to do it, he should let me know. I want everyone
to cool their jets. The Republican leader and I have had a pretty good
agreement on matters that pass this body, as to what goes to
conference.
Now, we have preconferenced--we don't need to run through the things
we have preconferenced, but I think the Republican leader will tell
everyone here that I have been on the level with him, and I intend to
be on this matter. So if anyone is concerned about some trick to put
this energy tax package in the bill in conference, they need to tell me
how to do it because I don't know how. It takes three cloture votes for
me to get to conference. I have been through that. They are procedural
votes. Although I wish I had the magic wand to tell a lot of you how to
vote on the procedural votes, I haven't been too successful so far.
So everyone just relax on that issue. I don't know what more I can
say. I have told the Republican leader personally about that. That is
how I feel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what I assume my good friend, the
majority leader, is talking about is that there are three
filibusterable motions prior to going to conference. What he is
suggesting here is, in fact, the case, which is that rather than simply
going to conference without any discussion of what might come out of
conference, the matter could be discussed in some detail before we go
to conference. I know that is what my good friend, the majority leader,
was talking about.
Our concern, of course, was that Senator Conrad said, right here on
the floor of the Senate tonight--I won't read it word for word, but
these are direct quotes from the floor of the Senate tonight--that was
the game plan, to simply put the tax component, which was defeated
earlier today, back in the measure. That created a considerable amount
of angst on this side of the aisle for obvious reasons. There was
substantial opposition to this massive tax increase which would have
been added to the bill.
So we will have a lengthy discussion before going to conference. Let
me just say, as one of the States that does not find much to applaud in
the bill in any event, there are ample reasons for voting against
cloture. I certainly am going to vote against cloture and would hope
that a number of our colleagues, sufficient to deny cloture, would have
a similar vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend the Republican leader, I
hope we would proceed on the basis--I gave a little speech here earlier
today, after cloture was invoked, talking about a new day having
arrived. I hope people would vote the way they have in the past on this
issue earlier today. It would be a real bad day for this Congress now,
after the progress we have made, not to pass this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendments Nos. 1639; 1677; 1798; 1698; 1568, As Modified; 1569; 1597,
As Modified; 1624; 1764, As Modified; 1799; 1602; 1660; 1513, As
Modified; 1683; 1729, As Modified; 1675; 1687, As Modified; 1688; 1689;
1525, As Modified; 1567, As Modified; 1717; 1710; 1759, As Modified;
1797, As Modified; 1702; 1706, As Modified; 1595, As Modified; 1676, As
Modified; 1679, As Modified; 1615, As Modified; 1520, As Modified;
1700, As Modified; and 1724, En Bloc

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to consider en bloc the list of cleared amendments at the desk
that have been approved by Senator Domenici and his staff and myself
and my staff, that they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments and
cleared them on our side. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 1639

(Purpose: To make certain technical edits to title III)

On page 180, line 7, insert ``and storage'' before ``of
carbon''.
On page 180, line 11, strike ``the compression'' and insert
``advanced compression''.
On page 180, line 18, strike ``and''.
Beginning on page 180, strike line 19 and all that follows
through page 181, line 9, and insert the following:
``(v) research and development of new and improved
technologies for--

``(I) carbon use, including recycling and reuse of carbon
dioxide; and
``(II) the containment of carbon dioxide in the form of
solid materials or products derived from a gasification
technology that does not involve geologic containment or
injection; and

``(vi) research and development of new and improved
technologies for oxygen separation from air.
On page 181, line 10, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
On page 182, line 2, strike ``and''.
On page182, line 4, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
On page 182, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
``(vii) coal-bed methane recovery.
On page 183, line 8, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
On page 183, line 12, insert ``involving at least 1,000,000
tons of carbon dioxide per year'' after ``tests''.
On page 183, line 14, insert ``collect and'' before
``validate''.
On page 184, line 1, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
On page 184, line 7, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
On page 184, line 11, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(6)''.
On page 186, strike lines 18 through 20 and insert the
following:
(6) the work done to develop the Carbon Sequestration Atlas
of the United States and Canada that was completed by the
Department of Energy.
On page 189, strike lines 14 through 18 and insert the
following:
(A) In general.--On completion of the assessment, the
Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior shall
incorporate the results of the assessment using--
(i) the NatCarb database, to the maximum extent
practicable; or
(ii) a new database developed by the Secretary of Energy,
as the Secretary of Energy determines to be necessary.
On page 190, line 25, strike ``or''.
On page 191, line 2, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
On page 191, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(G) manufacture biofuels.
On page 191, strike lines 10 through 15 and insert the
following:
(2) Scope of award.--An award under this section shall be
only for the portion of the project that--
(A) carries out the large-scale capture (including
purification and compression) of carbon dioxide;
(B) provides for the cost of transportation and injection
of carbon dioxide; and
(C) incorporates a comprehensive measurement, monitoring,
and validation program.
On page 192, line 7, insert ``carbon dioxide by volume''
after ``95 percent''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1677

On page 7, line 11, insert ``(including landfill gas and
sewage waste treatment gas)'' after ``biogas''.
On page 7, strike lines 13 through 16 and insert the
following:
biomass;
(vi) butanol or other alcohols produced through the
conversion of organic matter from renewable biomass; and
(vii) other fuel derived from cellulosic biomass.

[[Page S8207]]

On page 9, line 13, strike ``, boiler fuel,''.
On page 9, line 20, strike ``, boiler,''.
On page 10, lines 17 and 18, strike ``motor vehicle fuel,
home heating oil, and boiler fuel'' and insert ``motor
vehicle fuel and home heating oil''.
On page 11, line 11, strike ``built'' and insert ``that
commence operations''.
On page 44, lines 4 and 5, strike ``local biorefineries''
and insert ``local biorefineries, including by portable
processing equipment''.
On page 44, lines 13 and 14, strike ``local biorefineries''
and insert ``local biorefineries, including by portable
processing equipment''.
On page 47, strike lines 9 through 15 and insert the
following:
(1) Quality regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the President shall promulgate
regulations to ensure that each diesel-equivalent fuel
derived from renewable biomass and introduced into interstate
commerce is tested and certified to comply with applicable
standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials.

AMENDMENT NO. 1798

Beginning on page 79, strike line 8 and all that follows
through page 80, line 4, and insert the following:
``(6) Energy conservation standard.--
``(A) In general.--The term `energy conservation standard'
means 1 or more performance standards that--
``(i) for covered products (excluding clothes washers,
dishwashers, showerheads, faucets, water closets, and
urinals), prescribe a minimum level of energy efficiency or a
maximum quantity of energy use, determined in accordance with
test procedures prescribed under section 323;
``(ii) for showerheads, faucets, water closets, and
urinals, prescribe a minimum level of water efficiency or a
maximum quantity of water use, determined in accordance with
test procedures prescribed under section 323; and
``(iii) for clothes washers and dishwashers--

``(I) prescribe a minimum level of energy efficiency or a
maximum quantity of energy use, determined in accordance with
test procedures prescribed under section 323; and
``(II) may include a minimum level of water efficiency or a
maximum quantity of water use, determined in accordance with
those test procedures.

``(B) Inclusions.--The term `energy conservation standard'
includes--
``(i) 1 or more design requirements, if the requirements
were established--

``(I) on or before the date of enactment of this subclause;
or
``(II) as part of a consensus agreement under section
325(hh); and

``(ii) any other requirements that the Secretary may
prescribe under section 325(r).
``(C) Exclusion.--The term `energy conservation standard'
does not include a performance standard for a component of a
finished covered product, unless regulation of the component
is authorized or established pursuant to this title.''.
Beginning on page 87, strike line 16 and all that follows
through page 90, line 25, and insert the following:

SEC. 224. EXPEDITED RULEMAKINGS.

(a) Procedure for Prescribing New or Amended Standards.--
Section 325(p) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Direct final rules.--
``(A) In general.--On receipt of a statement that is
submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States,
and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary,
and contains recommendations with respect to an energy or
water conservation standard--
``(i) if the Secretary determines that the recommended
standard contained in the statement is in accordance with
subsection (o) or section 342(a)(6)(B), as applicable, the
Secretary may issue a final rule that establishes an energy
or water conservation standard and is published
simultaneously with a notice of proposed rulemaking that
proposes a new or amended energy or water conservation
standard that is identical to the standard established in the
final rule to establish the recommended standard (referred to
in this paragraph as a `direct final rule'); or
``(ii) if the Secretary determines that a direct final rule
cannot be issued based on the statement, the Secretary shall
publish a notice of the determination, together with an
explanation of the reasons for the determination.
``(B) Public comment.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) solicit public comment with respect to each direct
final rule issued by the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(i);
and
``(ii) publish a response to each comment so received.
``(C) Withdrawal of direct final rules.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date
on which a direct final rule issued under subparagraph (A)(i)
is published in the Federal Register, the Secretary shall
withdraw the direct final rule if--

``(I) the Secretary receives 1 or more adverse public
comments relating to the direct final rule under subparagraph
(B)(i); and
``(II) based on the complete rulemaking record relating to
the direct final rule, the Secretary tentatively determines
that the adverse public comments are relevant under
subsection (o), section 342(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable
law.

``(ii) Action on withdrawal.--On withdrawal of a direct
final rule under clause (i), the Secretary shall--

``(I) proceed with the notice of proposed rulemaking
published simultaneously with the direct final rule as
described in subparagraph (A)(i); and
``(II) publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the
direct final rule was withdrawn.

``(iii) Treatment of withdrawn direct final rules.--A
direct final rule that is withdrawn under clause (i) shall
not be considered to be a final rule for purposes of
subsection (o).
``(D) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph
authorizes the Secretary to issue a direct final rule based
solely on receipt of more than 1 statement containing
recommended standards relating to the direct final rule.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 345(b)(1) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1)) is amended
in the first sentence by inserting ``section 325(p)(5),''
after ``The provisions of''.
Beginning on page 91, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 95, line 25, and insert the following:
(b) Energy Conservation Standards.--Section 325(m) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) is
amended--
(1) by designating the first and second sentences as
paragraphs (1) and (4), respectively;
(2) by striking paragraph (1) (as so designated) and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--After issuance of the last final rules
required for a product under this part, the Secretary shall,
not later than 5 years after the date of issuance of a final
rule establishing or amending a standard or determining not
to amend a standard, publish a final rule to determine
whether standards for the product should or should not be
amended based on the criteria in subsection (n)(2).
``(2) Analysis.--Prior to publication of the determination,
the Secretary shall publish a notice of availability
describing the analysis of the Department and provide
opportunity for written comment.
``(3) Final rule.--Not later than 3 years after a positive
determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
publish a final rule amending the standard for the
product.''; and
(3) in paragraph (4) (as so designated), by striking ``(4)
An'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Application of amendment.--An''.
(c) Standards.--Section 342(a)(6) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)) is amended by
striking ``(6)(A)(i)'' and all that follows through the end
of subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(6) Amended energy efficiency standards.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Analysis of potential energy savings.--If ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to any small commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment, large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged
terminal heat pumps, warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers,
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, or
unfired hot water storage tanks, not later than 180 days
after the amendment of the standard, the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register for public comment an
analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy
efficiency standards.
``(ii) Amended uniform national standard for products.--

``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II),
not later than 18 months after the date of publication of the
amendment to the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for a product
described in clause (i), the Secretary shall establish an
amended uniform national standard for the product at the
minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1.
``(II) More stringent standard.--Subclause (I) shall not
apply if the Secretary determines, by rule published in the
Federal Register, and supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that adoption of a uniform national standard more
stringent than the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for the
product would result in significant additional conservation
of energy and is technologically feasible and economically
justified.

``(iii) Rule.--If the Secretary makes a determination
described in clause (ii)(II) for a product described in
clause (i), not later than 30 months after the date of
publication of the amendment to the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1
for the product, the Secretary shall issue the rule
establishing the amended standard.''.
Beginning on page 96, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 98, line 13, and insert the following:

SEC. 226. ENERGY EFFICIENCY LABELING FOR CONSUMER ELECTRONIC
PRODUCTS.

(a) In General.--Section 324(a) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``(H) Labeling requirements.--

[[Page S8208]]

``(i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) through (iv),
not later than 18 months after the date of issuance of
applicable Department of Energy testing procedures, the
Commission, in consultation with the Secretary and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (acting
through the Energy Star program), shall, by regulation,
promulgate labeling or other disclosure requirements for the
energy use of--

``(I) televisions;
``(II) personal computers;
``(III) cable or satellite set-top boxes;
``(IV) stand-alone digital video recorder boxes; and
``(V) personal computer monitors.

``(ii) Alternate testing procedures.--In the absence of
applicable testing procedures described in clause (i) for
products described in subclauses (I) through (V) of that
clause, the Commission may by regulation promulgate labeling
requirements for a consumer product category described in
clause (i) if the Commission--

``(I) identifies adequate non-Department of Energy testing
procedures for those products; and
``(II) determines that labeling of those products is likely
to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.

``(iii) Deadline and requirements for labeling.--

``(I) Deadline.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
promulgation of any requirements under clause (i) or (ii),
the Commission shall require labeling of electronic products
described in clause (i).
``(II) Requirements.--The requirements promulgated under
clause (i) or (ii) may include specific requirements for each
electronic product to be labeled with respect to the
placement, size, and content of Energy Guide labels.

``(iv) Determination of feasibility.--Clause (i) or (ii)
shall not apply in any case in which the Commission
determines that labeling in accordance with this subsection--

``(I) is not technologically or economically feasible; or
``(II) is not likely to assist consumers in making
purchasing decisions.''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Authority to include additional product categories.--
The Commission may require labeling in accordance with this
subsection for any consumer product not specified in this
subsection or section 322 if the Commission determines that
labeling for the product is likely to assist consumers in
making purchasing decisions.''.
(b) Content of Label.--Section 324(c) of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6924(c)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(9) Discretionary application.--The Commission may apply
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of this subsection to
the labeling of any product covered by paragraph (2)(H) or
(6) of subsection (a).''.
On page 157, line 5, strike ``and if'' and insert the
following: ``the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
or the Secretary of Agriculture make a determination that the
revised codes do not negatively affect the availability or
affordability of new construction of assisted housing and
single family and multifamily residential housing (other than
manufactured homes) subject to mortgages insured under the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or insured,
guaranteed, or made by the Secretary of Agriculture under
title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.),
respectively, and''.
On page 106, line 23, strike ``2012'' and insert ``2015''.
On page 106, line 24, strike ``2012'' and insert ``2015''.
On page 107, line 3, strike ``2012'' and insert ``2015''.
On page 147, line 20, strike ``from a public utility
service''.
On page 166, line 15, insert ``, Indian tribal,'' after
``State''.
On page 166, line 18, insert ``of Indian tribes or'' after
``activities''.
On page 166, line 21, insert ``, Indian tribes,'' after
``States''.
On page 167, line 12, insert ``, indian tribes,'' after
``States''.
On page 167, line 17, strike ``70'' and insert ``68''.
On page 167, line 18, strike ``and''.
On page 167, line 19, strike ``30'' and insert ``28''.
On page 167, line 19, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 167, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(iii) 4 percent to Indian tribes.
On page 169, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
``(D) Distribution to indian tribes.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a formula
for the distribution of amounts under subparagraph (A)(iii)
to eligible Indian tribes, taking into account any factors
that the Secretary determines to be appropriate, including
the residential and daytime population of the eligible Indian
tribes.
``(ii) Criteria.--Amounts shall be distributed to eligible
Indian tribes under clause (i) only if the eligible Indian
tribes meet the criteria for distribution established by the
Secretary for Indian tribes.
On page 170, line 1, strike ``(B)(ii) or (C)(ii)'' and
insert ``(B)(ii), (C)(ii), or (D)(ii)''.
On page 170, lines 10 and 11, strike ``(B)(ii) or (C)(ii)''
and insert ``(B)(ii), (C)(ii), or (D)(ii)''.
On page 171, line 7, insert ``tribal,'' after ``State,''.
On page 171, line 20, insert ``, Indian tribes,'' after
``States''.
On page 171, line 24, insert ``Indian tribe,'' after
``State,''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1698

(Purpose: To modify the definition of renewable biomass)

In section 102(4), strike subparagraph (A) and insert the
following:
(A) nonmerchantable materials or precommercial thinnings
that--
(i) are byproducts of preventive treatments, such as trees,
wood, brush, thinnings, chips, and slash, that are removed--

(I) to reduce hazardous fuels;
(II) to reduce or contain disease or insect infestation; or
(III) to restore forest health;

(ii) would not otherwise be used for higher-value products;
and
(iii) are harvested from National Forest System land or
public land (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702))--

(I) where permitted by law; and
(II) in accordance with--

(aa) applicable land management plans; and
(bb) the requirements for old-growth maintenance,
restoration, and management direction of paragraphs (2), (3),
and (4) of subsection (e) and the requirements for large-tree
retention of subsection (f) of section 102 of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6512); or

AMENDMENT NO. 1568, AS MODIFIED

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. COORDINATION OF PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGES.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.
(2) Planned refinery outage.--
(A) In general.--The term ``planned refinery outage'' means
a removal, scheduled before the date on which the removal
occurs, of a refinery, or any unit of a refinery, from
service for maintenance, repair, or modification.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``planned refinery outage'' does
not include any necessary and unplanned removal of a
refinery, or any unit of a refinery, from service as a result
of a component failure, safety hazard, emergency, or action
reasonably anticipated to be necessary to prevent such
events.
(3) Refined petroleum product.--The term ``refined
petroleum product'' means any gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel
oil, lubricating oil, liquid petroleum gas, or other
petroleum distillate that is produced through the refining or
processing of crude oil or an oil derived from tar sands,
shale, or coal.
(4) Refinery.--The term ``refinery'' means a facility used
in the production of a refined petroleum product through
distillation, cracking, or any other process.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Review and Analysis of Available Information.--The
Administrator shall, on an ongoing basis--
(1) review information on planned refinery outages that is
available from commercial reporting services;
(2) analyze that information to determine whether the
scheduling of a planned refinery outage may nationally or
regionally affect the price or supply of any refined
petroleum product by--
(A) decreasing the production of the refined petroleum
product; and
(B) causing or contributing to a retail or wholesale supply
shortage or disruption;
(3) not less frequently than twice each year, submit to the
Secretary a report describing the results of the review and
analysis under paragraphs (1) and (2); and
(4) specifically alert the Secretary of any planned
refinery outage that the Administrator determines may
nationally or regionally affect the price or supply of a
refined petroleum product.
(c) Action by Secretary.--On a determination by the
Secretary, based on a report or alert under paragraph (3) or
(4) of subsection (b), that a planned refinery outage may
affect the price or supply of a refined petroleum product,
the Secretary shall make available to refinery operators
information on planned refinery outages to encourage
reductions of the quantity of refinery capacity that is out
of service at any time.
(d) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall alter any
existing legal obligation or responsibility of a refinery
operator, or create any legal right of action, nor shall this
section authorize the Secretary--
(1) to prohibit a refinery operator from conducting a
planned refinery outage; or
(2) to require a refinery operator to continue to operate a
refinery.

AMENDMENT NO. 1569

(Purpose: To provide an alternate sulfur dioxide removal measurement
for certain coal gasification project goals)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE.

Section 402(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(42 U.S.C. 15962(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking
subclause (I) and inserting the following:

``(I)(aa) to remove at least 99 percent of sulfur dioxide;
or

[[Page S8209]]

``(bb) to emit not more than 0.04 pound SO2 per
million Btu, based on a 30-day average;''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1597, AS MODIFIED

On page 22, strike lines 1 through 17.
Beginning on page 56, line 17, strike through line 4 of
page 59.
On page 277, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. ------. STUDY OF THE ADEQUACY OF TRANSPORTATION OF
DOMESTICALLY-PRODUCED RENEWABLE FUEL BY
RAILROADS AND OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation and the
Secretary of Energy shall jointly conduct a study of the
adequacy of transportation of domestically-produced renewable
fuels by railroad and other modes of transportation as
designated by the Secretaries.
(2) Components.--In conducting the study under paragraph
(1), the Secretaries shall--
(A) consider the adequacy of existing railroad and other
transportation infrastructure, equipment, service and
capacity to move the necessary quantities of domestically-
produced renewable fuel within the timeframes required by
section 111;
(B)(i) consider the projected costs of moving the
domestically-produced renewable fuel by railroad and other
modes transportation; and
(ii) consider the impact of the projected costs on the
marketability of the domestically-produced renewable fuel;
(C) identify current and potential impediments to the
reliable transportation of adequate supplies of domestically-
produced renewable fuel at reasonable prices, including
practices currently utilized by domestic producers, shippers,
and receivers of renewable fuels;
(D) consider whether inadequate competition exists within
and between modes of transportation for the transportation of
domestically-produced renewable fuel and, if such inadequate
competition exists, whether such inadequate competition leads
to an unfair price for the transportation of domestically-
produced renewable fuel or unacceptable service for
transportation of domestically-produced renewable fuel;
(E) consider whether Federal agencies have adequate legal
authority to address instances of inadequate competition when
inadequate competition is found to prevent domestic producers
for renewable fuels from obtaining a fair and reasonable
transportation price or acceptable service for the
transportation of domestically-produced renewable fuels;
(F) consider whether Federal agencies have adequate legal
authority to address railroad and transportation service
problems that may be resulting in inadequate supplies of
domestically-produced renewable fuel in any area of the
United States;
(G) consider what transportation infrastructure capital
expenditures may be necessary to ensure the reliable
transportation of adequate supplies of domestically-produced
renewable fuel at reasonable prices within the United States
and which public and private entities should be responsible
for making such expenditures; and
(K) provide recommendations on ways to facilitate the
reliable transportation of adequate supplies of domestically-
produced renewable fuel at reasonable prices.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall jointly submit
to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives a report that describes the results of the
study conducted under subsection (a).

AMENDMENT NO. 1624

(Purpose: To expand the scope of the applied research program on energy
storage systems to include flow batteries)

On page 127, line 5, insert ``(including flow batteries)''
after ``batteries''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1764, AS MODIFIED

At the end of title II, add the following:

Subtitle G--Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion

SEC. 281. DEFINITION OF MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE
ENERGY.

(a) In General.--In this subtitle, the term ``marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy'' means electrical energy
from--
(1) waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and
tidal areas;
(2) free flowing water in rivers, lakes, and streams;
(3) free flowing water in man-made channels, including
projects that utilize nonmechanical structures to accelerate
the flow of water for electric power production purposes; and
(4) differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal
energy conversion).
(b) Exclusion.--Except as provided in subsection (a)(3),
the term ``marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy'' does
not include energy from any source that uses a dam,
diversionary structure, or impoundment for electric power
purposes.

SEC. 282. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Program.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior,
shall establish a program of marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy research, including--
(1) developing and demonstrating marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy technologies;
(2) reducing the manufacturing and operation costs of
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies;
(3) increasing the reliability and survivability of marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy facilities;
(4) integrating marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
into electric grids;
(5) identifying opportunities for cross fertilization and
development of economies of scale between offshore wind and
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy sources;
(6) identifying, in conjunction with the Secretary of
Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, the potential
environmental impacts of marine and hydrokinetic renewable
energy technologies and measures to minimize or prevent
adverse impacts, and technologies and other means available
for monitoring and determining environmental impacts;
(7) identifying, in conjunction with the Commandant of the
United States Coast Guard, the potential navigational impacts
of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies and
measures to minimize or prevent adverse impacts;
(8) standards development, demonstration, and technology
transfer for advanced systems engineering and system
integration methods to identify critical interfaces; and
(9) providing public information and opportunity for public
comment concerning all technologies.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior,
shall provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a
report that addresses--
(1) the potential environmental impacts of hydrokinetic
renewable energy technologies in free-flowing water in
rivers, lakes, and streams;
(2) the means by which to minimize or prevent any adverse
environmental impacts;
(3) the potential role of monitoring and adaptive
management in addressing any adverse environmental impacts;
and
(4) the necessary components of such an adaptive management
program.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2017.

SEC. 283. NATIONAL OCEAN ENERGY RESEARCH CENTERS.

(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations under subsection (e), the Secretary shall
establish not less than 1, and not more than 6, national
ocean energy research centers at institutions of higher
education for the purpose of conducting research,
development, demonstration, and testing of ocean energy
technologies and associated equipment.
(b) Evaluations.--Each Center shall (in consultation with
developers, utilities, and manufacturers) conduct evaluations
of technologies and equipment described in subsection (a).
(c) Location.--In establishing centers under this section,
the Secretary shall locate the centers in coastal regions of
the United State in a manner that, to the maximum extent
practicable, is geographically dispersed.
(d) Coordination.--Prior to carrying out any activity under
this section in waters subject to the juridiction of the
United States, the Secretary shall identify, in conjunction
with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
Interior, the potential environmental impacts of such
activity and measures to minimize or prevent adverse impacts.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.

Amendment No. 1799

(Purpose: To reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from the Capitol power
plant)

On page 192, after line 21, add the following:

SEC. 305. CAPITOL POWER PLANT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

The first section of the Act of March 4, 1911 (2 U.S.C.
2162; 36 Stat. 1414, chapter 285), is amended in the seventh
undesignated paragraph (relating to the Capitol power plant),
under the heading ``Public buildings'', under the heading
``Under the Department of the Interior''--
(1) by striking ``ninety thousand dollars:'' and inserting
``$90,000.''; and
(2) by striking ``Provided, That hereafter the'' and all
that follows through the end of the proviso and inserting the
following:
``(a) Designation.--The heating, lighting, and power plant
constructed under the terms of the Act approved April 28,
1904 (33 Stat. 479, chapter 1762), shall be known as the
`Capitol power plant', and all vacancies occurring in the
force operating that plant and the substations in connection
with the plant shall be filled by the Architect of the
Capitol, with the approval of the commission in control of
the House Office Building appointed under the first section
of the Act of March 4, 1907 (2 U.S.C. 2001).
``(b) Capitol Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Demonstration Program.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:

[[Page S8210]]

``(A) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(B) Carbon dioxide energy efficiency.--The term `carbon
dioxide energy efficiency', with respect to a project, means
the quantity of electricity used to power equipment for
carbon dioxide capture and storage or use.
``(C) Program.--The term `program' means the competitive
grant demonstration program established under paragraph
(2)(B).
``(2) Establishment of program.--
``(A) Feasibility study.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Architect of the
Capitol, in cooperation with the Administrator, shall
complete a feasibility study evaluating the available methods
to proceed with the project and program established under
this section, taking into consideration--
``(i) the availability of carbon capture technologies;
``(ii) energy conservation and carbon reduction strategies;
and
``(iii) security of operations at the Capitol power plant.
``(B) Competitive grant program.--The Architect of the
Capitol, in cooperation with the Administrator, shall
establish a competitive grant demonstration program under
which the Architect of the Capitol shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations, provide to eligible entities,
as determined by the Architect of the Capitol, in cooperation
with the Administrator, grants to carry out projects to
demonstrate, during the 2-year period beginning on the date
of enactment of this subsection, the capture and storage or
use of carbon dioxide emitted from the Capitol power plant as
a result of burning coal.
``(3) Requirements.--
``(A) Provision of grants.--
``(i) In general.--The Architect of the Capitol, in
cooperation with the Administrator, shall provide the grants
under the program on a competitive basis.
``(ii) Factors for consideration.--In providing grants
under the program, the Architect of the Capitol, in
cooperation with the Administrator, shall take into
consideration--

``(I) the practicability of conversion by the proposed
project of carbon dioxide into useful products, such as
transportation fuel;
``(II) the carbon dioxide energy efficiency of the proposed
project; and
``(III) whether the proposed project is able to reduce more
than 1 air pollutant regulated under this Act.

``(B) Requirements for entities.--An entity that receives a
grant under the program shall--
``(i) use to carry out the project of the entity a
technology designed to reduce or eliminate emission of carbon
dioxide that is in existence on the date of enactment of this
subsection that has been used--

``(I) by not less than 3 other facilities (including a
coal-fired power plant); and
``(II) on a scale of not less than 5 times the size of the
proposed project of the entity at the Capitol power plant;
and

``(ii) carry out the project of the entity in consultation
with, and with the concurrence of, the Architect of the
Capitol and the Administrator.
``(C) Consistency with capitol power plant modifications.--
The Architect of the Capitol may require changes to a project
under the program that are necessary to carry out any
modifications to be made to the Capitol power plant.
``(4) Incentive.--In addition to the grant under this
subsection, the Architect of the Capitol may provide to an
entity that receives such a grant an incentive award in an
amount equal to not more than $50,000, of which--
``(A) $15,000 shall be provided after the project of the
entity has sustained operation for a period of 100 days, as
determined by the Architect of the Capitol;
``(B) $15,000 shall be provided after the project of the
entity has sustained operation for a period of 200 days, as
determined by the Architect of the Capitol; and
``(C) $20,000 shall be provided after the project of the
entity has sustained operation for a period of 300 days, as
determined by the Architect of the Capitol.
``(5) Termination.--The program shall terminate on the date
that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection.
``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the program $3,000,000.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1602

(Purpose: To provide transitional assistance for farmers who plant
dedicated energy crops for a local cellulosic refinery)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS WHO PLANT
DEDICATED ENERGY CROPS FOR A LOCAL CELLULOSIC
REFINERY.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Cellulosic crop.--The term ``cellulosic crop'' means a
tree or grass that is grown specifically--
(A) to provide raw materials (including feedstocks) for
conversion to liquid transportation fuels or chemicals
through biochemical or thermochemical processes; or
(B) for energy generation through combustion, pyrolysis, or
cofiring.
(2) Cellulosic refiner.--The term ``cellulosic refiner''
means the owner or operator of a cellulosic refinery.
(3) Cellulosic refinery.--The term ``cellulosic refinery''
means a refinery that processes a cellulosic crop.
(4) Qualified cellulosic crop.--The term ``qualified
cellulosic crop'' means, with respect to an agricultural
producer, a cellulosic crop that is--
(A) the subject of a contract or memorandum of
understanding between the producer and a cellulosic refiner,
under which the producer is obligated to sell the crop to the
cellulosic refiner by a certain date; and
(B) produced not more than 70 miles from a cellulosic
refinery owned or operated by the cellulosic refiner.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(b) Transitional Assistance Payments.--The Secretary shall
make transitional assistance payments to an agricultural
producer during the first year in which the producer devotes
land to the production of a qualified cellulosic crop.
(c) Amount of Payment.--
(1) Determined by formula.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall devise a formula to be used to calculate the
amount of a payment to be made to an agricultural producer
under this section, based on the opportunity cost (as
determined in accordance with such standard as the Secretary
may establish, taking into consideration land rental rates
and other applicable costs) incurred by the producer during
the first year in which the producer devotes land to the
production of the qualified cellulosic crop.
(2) Limitation.--The total of the amount paid to a producer
under this section shall not exceed an amount equal to 25
percent of the amounts made available under subsection (e)
for the applicable fiscal year.
(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
carry out this section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $4,088,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, to remain available
until expended.

AMENDMENT NO. 1660

(Purpose: To modify sections to provide for the use of geothermal heat
pumps)

Strike sections 402 through 404 and insert the following:

SEC. 402. COST-EFFECTIVE AND GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP TECHNOLOGY
ACCELERATION PROGRAM.

(a) Definition of Administrator.--In this section, the term
``Administrator'' means the Administrator of General
Services.
(b) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a
program to accelerate the use of more cost-effective
technologies and practices and geothermal heat pumps at GSA
facilities.
(2) Requirements.--The program established under this
subsection shall--
(A) ensure centralized responsibility for the coordination
of cost reduction-related and geothermal heat pump-related
recommendations, practices, and activities of all relevant
Federal agencies;
(B) provide technical assistance and operational guidance
to applicable tenants to achieve the goal identified in
subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii); and
(C) establish methods to track the success of Federal
departments and agencies with respect to that goal.
(c) Accelerated Use of Technologies.--
(1) Review.--
(A) In general.--As part of the program under this section,
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall conduct a review of--
(i) current use of cost-effective lighting technologies and
geothermal heat pumps in GSA facilities; and
(ii) the availability to managers of GSA facilities of
cost-effective lighting technologies and geothermal heat
pumps.
(B) Requirements.--The review under subparagraph (A)
shall--
(i) examine the use of cost-effective lighting
technologies, geothermal heat pumps, and other cost-effective
technologies and practices by Federal agencies in GSA
facilities; and
(ii) as prepared in consultation with the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, identify cost-effective
lighting technology and geothermal heat pump technology
standards that could be used for all types of GSA facilities.
(2) Replacement.--
(A) In general.--As part of the program under this section,
not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall establish, using available
appropriations, a cost-effective lighting technology and
geothermal heat pump technology acceleration program to
achieve maximum feasible replacement of existing lighting,
heating, cooling technologies with cost-effective lighting
technologies and geothermal heat pump technologies in each
GSA facility.
(B) Acceleration plan timetable.--
(i) In general.--To implement the program established under
subparagraph (A), not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a
timetable, including milestones for specific activities
needed to replace existing lighting, heating, cooling
technologies with cost-effective lighting technologies and
geothermal heat pump technologies, to the maximum extent
feasible (including at the maximum rate feasible), at each
GSA facility.

[[Page S8211]]

(ii) Goal.--The goal of the timetable under clause (i)
shall be to complete, using available appropriations, maximum
feasible replacement of existing lighting, heating, and
cooling technologies with cost-effective lighting
technologies and geothermal heat pump technologies by not
later than the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) GSA Facility Technologies and Practices.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and
annually thereafter, the Administrator shall--
(1) ensure that a manager responsible for accelerating the
use of cost-effective technologies and practices and
geothermal heat pump technologies is designated for each GSA
facility; and
(2) submit to Congress a plan, to be implemented to the
maximum extent feasible (including at the maximum rate
feasible) using available appropriations, by not later than
the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, that--
(A) with respect to cost-effective technologies and
practices--
(i) identifies the specific activities needed to achieve a
20-percent reduction in operational costs through the
application of cost-effective technologies and practices from
2003 levels at GSA facilities by not later than 5 years after
the date of enactment of this Act;
(ii) describes activities required and carried out to
estimate the funds necessary to achieve the reduction
described in clause (i);
(B) includes an estimate of the funds necessary to carry
out this section;
(C) describes the status of the implementation of cost-
effective technologies and practices and geothermal heat pump
technologies and practices at GSA facilities, including--
(i) the extent to which programs, including the program
established under subsection (b), are being carried out in
accordance with this subtitle; and
(ii) the status of funding requests and appropriations for
those programs;
(D) identifies within the planning, budgeting, and
construction processes, all types of GSA facility-related
procedures that inhibit new and existing GSA facilities from
implementing cost-effective technologies or geothermal heat
pump technologies;
(E) recommends language for uniform standards for use by
Federal agencies in implementing cost-effective technologies
and practices and geothermal heat pump technologies and
practices;
(F) in coordination with the Office of Management and
Budget, reviews the budget process for capital programs with
respect to alternatives for--
(i) permitting Federal agencies to retain all identified
savings accrued as a result of the use of cost-effective
technologies and geothermal heat pump technologies; and
(ii) identifying short- and long-term cost savings that
accrue from the use of cost-effective technologies and
practices and geothermal heat pump technologies and
practices;
(G)(i) with respect to geothermal heat pump technologies,
achieves substantial operational cost savings through the
application of the technologies; and
(ii) with respect to cost-effective technologies and
practices, achieves cost savings through the application of
cost-effective technologies and practices sufficient to pay
the incremental additional costs of installing the cost-
effective technologies and practices by not later than the
date that is 5 years after the date of installation; and
(H) includes recommendations to address each of the
matters, and a plan for implementation of each
recommendation, described in subparagraphs (A) through (G).
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section, to remain available until expended.

SEC. 403. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEMONSTRATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

(a) Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the
``Administrator'') shall establish a demonstration program
under which the Administrator shall provide competitive
grants to assist local governments (such as municipalities
and counties), with respect to local government buildings--
(A) to deploy cost-effective technologies and practices;
and
(B) to achieve operational cost savings, through the
application of cost-effective technologies and practices, as
verified by the Administrator.
(2) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of an
activity carried out using a grant provided under this
section shall be 40 percent.
(B) Waiver of non-federal share.--The Administrator may
waive up to 100 percent of the local share of the cost of any
grant under this section should the Administrator determine
that the community is economically distressed, pursuant to
objective economic criteria established by the Administrator
in published guidelines.
(3) Maximum amount.--The amount of a grant provided under
this subsection shall not exceed $1,000,000.
(b) Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue
guidelines to implement the grant program established under
subsection (a).
(2) Requirements.--The guidelines under paragraph (1) shall
establish--
(A) standards for monitoring and verification of
operational cost savings through the application of cost-
effective technologies and practices reported by grantees
under this section;
(B) standards for grantees to implement training programs,
and to provide technical assistance and education, relating
to the retrofit of buildings using cost-effective
technologies and practices; and
(C) a requirement that each local government that receives
a grant under this section shall achieve facility-wide cost
savings, through renovation of existing local government
buildings using cost-effective technologies and practices, of
at least 40 percent as compared to the baseline operational
costs of the buildings before the renovation (as calculated
assuming a 3-year, weather-normalized average).
(c) Compliance With State and Local Law.--Nothing in this
section or any program carried out using a grant provided
under this section supersedes or otherwise affects any State
or local law, to the extent that the State or local law
contains a requirement that is more stringent than the
relevant requirement of this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
(e) Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide annual
reports to Congress on cost savings achieved and actions
taken and recommendations made under this section, and any
recommendations for further action.
(2) Final report.--The Administrator shall issue a final
report at the conclusion of the program, including findings,
a summary of total cost savings achieved, and recommendations
for further action.
(f) Termination.--The program under this section shall
terminate on September 30, 2012.

SEC. 404. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Cost-effective lighting technology.--
(A) In general.--The term ``cost-effective lighting
technology'' means a lighting technology that--
(i) will result in substantial operational cost savings by
ensuring an installed consumption of not more than 1 watt per
square foot; or
(ii) is contained in a list under--

(I) section 553 of Public Law 95-619 (42 U.S.C. 8259b); and
(II) Federal acquisition regulation 23-203.

(B) Inclusions.--The term ``cost-effective lighting
technology'' includes--
(i) lamps;
(ii) ballasts;
(iii) luminaires;
(iv) lighting controls;
(v) daylighting; and
(vi) early use of other highly cost-effective lighting
technologies.
(2) Cost-effective technologies and practices.--The term
``cost-effective technologies and practices'' means a
technology or practice that--
(A) will result in substantial operational cost savings by
reducing utility costs; and
(B) complies with the provisions of section 553 of Public
Law 95-619 (42 U.S.C. 8259b) and Federal acquisition
regulation 23-203.
(3) Operational cost savings.--
(A) In general.--The term ``operational cost savings''
means a reduction in end-use operational costs through the
application of cost-effective technologies and practices or
geothermal heat pumps, including a reduction in electricity
consumption relative to consumption by the same customer or
at the same facility in a given year, as defined in
guidelines promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to
section 403(b), that achieves cost savings sufficient to pay
the incremental additional costs of using cost-effective
technologies and practices or geothermal heat pumps by not
later than--
(i) for cost-effective technologies and practices, the date
that is 5 years after the date of installation; and
(ii) for geothermal heat pumps, as soon as practical after
the date of installation of the applicable geothermal heat
pump.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``operational cost savings''
includes savings achieved at a facility as a result of--
(i) the installation or use of cost-effective technologies
and practices; or
(ii) the planting of vegetation that shades the facility
and reduces the heating, cooling, or lighting needs of the
facility.
(C) Exclusion.--The term ``operational cost savings'' does
not include savings from measures that would likely be
adopted in the absence of cost-effective technology and
practices programs, as determined by the Administrator.
(4) Geothermal heat pump.--The term ``geothermal heat
pump'' means any heating or air conditioning technology
that--
(A) uses the ground or ground water as a thermal energy
source to heat, or as a thermal energy sink to cool, a
building; and
(B) meets the requirements of the Energy Star program of
the Environmental Protection Agency applicable to geothermal
heat pumps on the date of purchase of the technology.
(5) GSA facility.--
(A) In general.--The term ``GSA facility'' means any
building, structure, or facility, in

[[Page S8212]]

whole or in part (including the associated support systems of
the building, structure, or facility) that--
(i) is constructed (including facilities constructed for
lease), renovated, or purchased, in whole or in part, by the
Administrator for use by the Federal Government; or
(ii) is leased, in whole or in part, by the Administrator
for use by the Federal Government--

(I) except as provided in subclause (II), for a term of not
less than 5 years; or
(II) for a term of less than 5 years, if the Administrator
determines that use of cost-effective technologies and
practices would result in the payback of expenses.

(B) Inclusion.--The term ``GSA facility'' includes any
group of buildings, structures, or facilities described in
subparagraph (A) (including the associated energy-consuming
support systems of the buildings, structures, and
facilities).
(C) Exemption.--The Administrator may exempt from the
definition of ``GSA facility'' under this paragraph a
building, structure, or facility that meets the requirements
of section 543(c) of Public Law 95-619 (42 U.S.C. 8253(c)).

AMENDMENT NO. 1513, AS MODIFIED

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. ADMINISTRATION.

Section 106 of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15
U.S.C. 720d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Administration.--
``(1) Personnel appointments.--
``(A) In general.--The Federal Coordinator may appoint and
terminate such personnel as the Federal Coordinator
determines to be appropriate.
``(B) Authority of federal coordinator.--Personnel
appointed by the Federal Coordinator under subparagraph (A)
shall be appointed without regard to the provisions of title
5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service.
``(2) Compensation.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), personnel
appointed by the Federal Coordinator under paragraph (1)(A)
shall be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States
Code (relating to classification and General Schedule pay
rates).
``(B) Maximum level of compensation.--The rate of pay for
personnel appointed by the Federal Coordinator under
paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed the maximum level of rate
payable for level III of the Executive Schedule.
``(C) Applicability of section 5941.--Section 5941 of title
5, United States Code, shall apply to personnel appointed by
the Federal Coordinator under paragraph (1)(A).
``(3) Temporary services.--
``(A) In general.--The Federal Coordinator may procure
temporary and intermittent services in accordance with
section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
``(B) Maximum level of compensation.--The level of
compensation of an individual employed on a temporary or
intermittent basis under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed
the maximum level of rate payable for level III of the
Executive Schedule.
``(4) Fees, charges, and commissions.--
``(A) In general.--The Federal Coordinator shall have the
authority to establish, change, and abolish reasonable filing
and service fees, charges, and commissions, require deposits
of payments, and provide refunds as provided to the Secretary
of the Interior in section 304 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734), except that the
authority shall be with respect to the duties of the Federal
Coordinator, as delineated in the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
Act (15 U.S.C. 720 et seq.), as amended.
``(B) Authority of secretary of the interior.--Subparagraph
(A) shall not affect the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior to establish, change, and abolish reasonable filing
and service fees, charges, and commissions, require deposits
of payments, and provide refunds under section 304 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1734).
``(C) Use of funds.--The Federal Coordinator is authorized
to use, without further appropriation, amounts collected
under subparagraph (A) to carry out this section.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1683

(Purpose: To implement the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for
Nuclear Damage)

At the end of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 7__. CONVENTION ON SUPPLEMENTARY COMPENSATION FOR
NUCLEAR DAMAGE CONTINGENT COST ALLOCATION.

(a) Findings and Purpose.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2210) (commonly known as the ``Price-Anderson Act'')--
(i) provides a predictable legal framework necessary for
nuclear projects; and
(ii) ensures prompt and equitable compensation in the event
of a nuclear incident in the United States;
(B) section 170 of that Act, in effect, provides operators
of nuclear powerplants with insurance for damage arising out
of a nuclear incident and funds the insurance primarily
through the assessment of a retrospective premium from each
operator after the occurrence of a nuclear incident;
(C) the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for
Nuclear Damage, done at Vienna on September 12, 1997, will
establish a global system--
(i) to provide a predictable legal framework necessary for
nuclear energy projects; and
(ii) to ensure prompt and equitable compensation in the
event of a nuclear incident;
(D) the Convention benefits United States nuclear suppliers
that face potentially unlimited liability for a nuclear
incidents outside the coverage of section 170 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) by replacing a
potentially open-ended liability with a predictable liability
regime that, in effect, provides nuclear suppliers with
insurance for damage arising out of such an incident;
(E) the Convention also benefits United States nuclear
facility operators that may be publicly liable for a Price-
Anderson incident by providing an additional early source for
a Price-Anderson incident by providing an additional early
source of funds to compensate damage arising out of the
Price-Anderson incident;
(F) the combined operation of the Convention, section 170
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210), and this
section will augment the quantity of assured funds available
for victims in a wider variety of nuclear incidents while
reducing the potential liability of United States suppliers
without increasing potential costs to United States
operators;
(G) the cost of those benefits is the obligation of the
United States to contribute to the supplementary compensation
fund established by the Convention;
(H) any such contribution should be funded in a manner that
neither upsets settled expectations based on the liability
regime established under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) nor shifts to Federal taxpayers
liability risks for nuclear incidents at foreign
installations;
(I) with respect to a Price-Anderson incident, funds
already available under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) should be used; and
(J) with respect to a nuclear incident outside the United
States not covered by section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210), a retrospective premium should be
prorated among nuclear suppliers relieved from potential
liability for which insurance is not available.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to allocate
the contingent costs associated with participation by the
United States in the international nuclear liability
compensation system established by the Convention on
Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, done at Vienna
on September 12, 1997--
(A) with respect to a Price-Anderson incident, by using
funds made available under section 170 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) to cover the contingent costs in
a manner that neither increases the burdens nor decreases the
benefits under section 170 of that Act; and
(B) with respect to a covered incident outside the United
States that is not a Price-Anderson incident, by allocating
the contingent costs equitably, on the basis of risk, among
the class of nuclear suppliers relieved by the Convention
from the risk of potential liability resulting from any
covered incident outside the United States.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
(2) Contingent cost.--The term ``contingent cost'' means
the cost to the United States in the event of a covered
incident the amount of which is equal to the amount of funds
the United States is obligated to make available under
paragraph 1(b) of Article III of the Convention.
(3) Convention.--The term ``Convention'' means the
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage,
done at Vienna on September 12, 1997.
(4) Covered incident.--The term ``covered incident'' means
a nuclear incident the occurrence of which results in a
request for funds pursuant to Article VII of the Convention.
(5) Covered installation.--The term ``covered
installation'' means a nuclear installation at which the
occurrence of a nuclear incident could result in a request
for funds under Article VII of the Convention.
(6) Covered person.--
(A) In general.--The term ``covered person'' means--
(i) a United States person; and
(ii) an individual or entity (including an agency or
instrumentality of a foreign country) that--

(I) is located in the United States; or
(II) carries out an activity in the United States.

(B) Exclusions.--The term ``covered person'' does not
include--
(i) the United States; or
(ii) any agency or instrumentality of the United States.
(7) Nuclear supplier.--The term ``nuclear supplier'' means
a covered person (or a successor in interest of a covered
person) that--
(A) supplies facilities, equipment, fuel, services, or
technology pertaining to the design, construction, operation,
or decommissioning of a covered installation; or
(B) transports nuclear materials that could result in a
covered incident.
(8) Price-anderson incident.--The term ``Price-Anderson
incident'' means a covered incident for which section 170 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) would

[[Page S8213]]

make funds available to compensate for public liability (as
defined in section 11 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2014)).
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(10) United states.--
(A) In general.--The term ``United States'' has the meaning
given the term in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2014).
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``United States'' includes--
(i) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
(ii) any other territory or possession of the United
States;
(iii) the Canal Zone; and
(iv) the waters of the United States territorial sea under
Presidential Proclamation Number 5928, dated December 27,
1988 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note).
(11) United states person.--The term ``United States
person'' means--
(A) any individual who is a resident, national, or citizen
of the United States (other than an individual residing
outside of the United States and employed by a person who is
not a United States person); and
(B) any corporation, partnership, association, joint stock
company, business trust, unincorporated organization, or sole
proprietorship that is organized under the laws of the United
States.
(c) Use of Price-Anderson Funds.--
(1) In general.--Funds made available under section 170 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) shall be used
to cover the contingent cost resulting from any Price-
Anderson incident.
(2) Effect.--The use of funds pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall not reduce the limitation on public liability
established under section 170 e. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)).
(d) Effect on Amount of Public Liability.--
(1) In general.--Funds made available to the United States
under Article VII of the Convention with respect to a Price-
Anderson incident shall be used to satisfy public liability
resulting from the Price-Anderson incident.
(2) Amount.--The amount of public liability allowable under
section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210)
relating to a Price-Anderson incident under paragraph (1)
shall be increased by an amount equal to the difference
between--
(A) the amount of funds made available for the Price-
Anderson incident under Article VII of the Convention; and
(B) the amount of funds used under subsection (c) to cover
the contingent cost resulting from the Price-Anderson
incident.
(e) Retrospective Risk Pooling Program.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each
nuclear supplier shall participate in a retrospective risk
pooling program in accordance with this section to cover the
contingent cost resulting from a covered incident outside the
United States that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
(2) Deferred payment.--
(A) In general.--The obligation of a nuclear supplier to
participate in the retrospective risk pooling program shall
be deferred until the United States is called on to provide
funds pursuant to Article VII of the Convention with respect
to a covered incident that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
(B) Amount of deferred payment.--The amount of a deferred
payment of a nuclear supplier under subparagraph (A) shall be
based on the risk-informed assessment formula determined
under subparagraph (C).
(C) Risk-informed assessment formula.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Secretary shall, by regulation, determine the risk-informed
assessment formula for the allocation among nuclear suppliers
of the contingent cost resulting from a covered incident that
is not a Price-Anderson incident, taking into account risk
factors such as--

(I) the nature and intended purpose of the goods and
services supplied by each nuclear supplier to each covered
installation outside the United States;
(II) the quantity of the goods and services supplied by
each nuclear supplier to each covered installation outside
the United States;
(III) the hazards associated with the supplied goods and
services if the goods and services fail to achieve the
intended purposes;
(IV) the hazards associated with the covered installation
outside the United States to which the goods and services are
supplied;
(V) the legal, regulatory, and financial infrastructure
associated with the covered installation outside the United
States to which the goods and services are supplied; and
(VI) the hazards associated with particular forms of
transportation.

(ii) Factors for consideration.--In determining the
formula, the Secretary may--

(I) exclude--

(aa) goods and services with negligible risk;
(bb) classes of goods and services not intended
specifically for use in a nuclear installation;
(cc) a nuclear supplier with a de minimis share of the
contingent cost; and
(dd) a nuclear supplier no longer in existence for which
there is no identifiable successor; and

(II) establish the period on which the risk assessment is
based.

(iii) Application.--In applying the formula, the Secretary
shall not consider any covered installation or transportation
for which funds would be available under section 170 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210).
(iv) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act and every 5 years thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on whether
there is a need for continuation or amendment of this
section, taking into account the effects of the
implementation of the Convention on the United States nuclear
industry and suppliers.
(f) Reporting.--
(1) Collection of information.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may collect information
necessary for developing and implementing the formula for
calculating the deferred payment of a nuclear supplier under
subsection (e)(2).
(B) Provision of information.--Each nuclear supplier and
other appropriate persons shall make available to the
Secretary such information, reports, records, documents, and
other data as the Secretary determines, by regulation, to be
necessary or appropriate to develop and implement the formula
under subsection (e)(2)(C).
(2) Private insurance.--The Secretary shall make available
to nuclear suppliers, and insurers of nuclear suppliers,
information to support the voluntary establishment and
maintenance of private insurance against any risk for which
nuclear suppliers may be required to pay deferred payments
under this section.
(g) Effect on Liability.--Nothing in any other law
(including regulations) limits liability for a covered
incident to an amount equal to less than the amount
prescribed in paragraph 1(a) of Article IV of the Convention,
unless the law--
(1) specifically refers to this section; and
(2) explicitly repeals, alters, amends, modifies, impairs,
displaces, or supersedes the effect of this subsection.
(h) Payments to and by the United States.--
(1) Action by nuclear suppliers.--
(A) Notification.--In the case of a request for funds under
Article VII of the Convention resulting from a covered
incident that is not a Price-Anderson incident, the Secretary
shall notify each nuclear supplier of the amount of the
deferred payment required to be made by the nuclear supplier.
(B) Payments.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), not
later than 60 days after receipt of a notification under
subparagraph (A), a nuclear supplier shall pay to the general
fund of the Treasury the deferred payment of the nuclear
supplier required under subparagraph (A).
(ii) Annual payments.--A nuclear supplier may elect to
prorate payment of the deferred payment required under
subparagraph (A) in 5 equal annual payments (including
interest on the unpaid balance at the prime rate prevailing
at the time the first payment is due).
(C) Vouchers.--A nuclear supplier shall submit payment
certification vouchers to the Secretary of the Treasury in
accordance with section 3325 of title 31, United States Code.
(2) Use of funds.--
(A) In general.--Amounts paid into the Treasury under
paragraph (1) shall be available to the Secretary of the
Treasury, without further appropriation and without fiscal
year limitation, for the purpose of making the contributions
of public funds required to be made by the United States
under the Convention.
(B) Action by secretary of treasury.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall pay the contribution required under the
Convention to the court of competent jurisdiction under
Article XIII of the Convention with respect to the applicable
covered incident.
(3) Failure to pay.--If a nuclear supplier fails to make a
payment required under this subsection, the Secretary may
take appropriate action to recover from the nuclear
supplier--
(A) the amount of the payment due from the nuclear
supplier;
(B) any applicable interest on the payment; and
(C) a penalty of not more than twice the amount of the
deferred payment due from the nuclear supplier.
(i) Limitation on Judicial Review; Cause of Action.--
(1) Limitation on judicial review.--
(A) In general.--In any civil action arising under the
Convention over which Article XIII of the Convention grants
jurisdiction to the courts of the United States, any appeal
or review by writ of mandamus or otherwise with respect to a
nuclear incident that is not a Price-Anderson incident shall
be in accordance with chapter 83 of title 28, United States
Code, except that the appeal or review shall occur in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
(B) Supreme court jurisdiction.--Nothing in this paragraph
affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United
States under chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code.
(2) Cause of action.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in any civil
action arising under the Convention over which Article XIII
of the Convention grants jurisdiction to the courts of the
United States, in addition to any

[[Page S8214]]

other cause of action that may exist, an individual or entity
shall have a cause of action against the operator to recover
for nuclear damage suffered by the individual or entity.
(B) Requirement.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply only if the
individual or entity seeks a remedy for nuclear damage (as
defined in Article I of the Convention) that was caused by a
nuclear incident (as defined in Article I of the Convention)
that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
(C) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph limits,
modifies, extinguishes, or otherwise affects any cause of
action that would have existed in the absence of enactment of
this paragraph.
(j) Right of Recourse.--This section does not provide to an
operator of a covered installation any right of recourse
under the Convention.
(k) Protection of Sensitive United States Information.--
Nothing in the Convention or this section requires the
disclosure of--
(1) any data that, at any time, was Restricted Data (as
defined in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2014));
(2) information relating to intelligence sources or methods
protected by section 102A(i) of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-1(i)); or
(3) national security information classified under
Executive Order 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note; relating to
classified national security information) (or a successor
regulation).
(l) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary or the Commission, as
appropriate, may prescribe regulations to carry out section
170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) and
this section.
(2) Requirement.--Rules prescribed under this subsection
shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that--
(A) the implementation of section 170 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) and this section is consistent
and equitable; and
(B) the financial and operational burden on a Commission
licensee in complying with section 170 of that Act is not
greater as a result of the enactment of this section.
(3) Applicability of provision.--Section 553 of title 5,
United States Code, shall apply with respect to the
promulgation of regulations under this subsection.
(4) Effect of subsection.--The authority provided under
this subsection is in addition to, and does not impair or
otherwise affect, any other authority of the Secretary or the
Commission to prescribe regulations.
(m) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on the date
of enactment of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 1729, AS MODIFIED

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. OFFSHORE RENEWABLE ENERGY.

(a) Leases, Easements, or Rights-of-Way for Energy and
Related Purposes.--Section 8(p) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``Secretary of the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating'' the following: ``, the
Secretary of Commerce,'';
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Competitive or noncompetitive basis.--Any lease,
easement, or right-of-way under paragraph (1) shall be issued
on a competitive basis, unless--
``(A) the lease, easement, or right-of-way relates to a
project that meets the criteria established under section
388(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (43 U.S.C. 1337 note;
Public Law 109-58);
``(B) the lease, easement, or right-of-way--
``(i) is for the placement and operation of a
meteorological or marine data collection facility; and
``(ii) has a term of not more than 5 years; or
``(C) the Secretary determines, after providing public
notice of a proposed lease, easement, or right-of-way, that
no competitive interest exists.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Clarification.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission shall not have authority to
approve or license a wave or current energy project on the
Outer Continental Shelf under part I of the Federal Power Act
(16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.)
``(B) Transmission of power.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
affect any authority of the Commission with respect to the
transmission of power generated from a project described in
subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Consideration of Certain Requests for Authorization.--
In considering a request for authorization of a project
pending before the Commission on the Outer Continental Shelf
as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior shall rely, to the maximum extent practicable, on
the materials submitted to the Commission before that date.
(c) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section or an
amendment made by this section requires the resubmission of
any document that was previously submitted, or the
reauthorization of any action that was previously authorized,
with respect to a project on the Outer Continental Shelf for
which a preliminary permit was issued by the Commission
before the date of enactment of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 1675

(Purpose: To provide for a study on the effect of laws limiting the
siting of privately owned electric distribution wires on the
development of combined heat and power facilities)

At the end, add the following:

TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 801. STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF PRIVATE WIRE LAWS ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF COMBINED HEAT AND POWER
FACILITIES.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
States and other appropriate entities, shall conduct a study
of the laws (including regulations) affecting the siting of
privately owned electric distribution wires on and across
public rights-of-way.
(2) Requirements.--The study under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) an evaluation of--
(i) the purposes of the laws; and
(ii) the effect the laws have on the development of
combined heat and power facilities;
(B) a determination of whether a change in the laws would
have any operating, reliability, cost, or other impacts on
electric utilities and the customers of the electric
utilities; and
(C) an assessment of--
(i) whether privately owned electric distribution wires
would result in duplicative facilities; and
(ii) whether duplicative facilities are necessary or
desirable.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report that describes the results of the study conducted
under subsection (a).

AMENDMENT NO. 1687, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Department of
Energy should be the lead United States Government agency in charge of
formulating and coordinating the national energy security policy of the
United States)

On page 293, line 6, insert the following:
(4) the Department of Energy should be designated as the
lead United States Government agency in charge of formulating
and coordinating the national energy security policy of the
United States, and in furtherance of these goals, there
should be established within the Department of Energy an
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Security whose
responsibilities should include--
(A) directing the development of the national energy
security strategy of the United States;
(B) coordinating the national energy security policy of the
United States with the Department of Defense, the Department
of State, and the National Security Council, as appropriate,
to address the impact of, and integrate national security and
foreign policy on, the national energy security policy of the
United States;
(C) monitoring international and domestic energy
developments to gauge their impact on the national energy
security policy of the United States and implementing changes
in such policy as necessary to maintain the national security
and energy security of the United States;
(D) identifying foreign sources of energy critical to the
national energy security of the United States and developing
strategies in conjunction with the Department of State for
ensuring United States access to critical foreign energy
resources;
(E) developing strategies for reducing United States
dependence on foreign sources of energy, including demand
reduction, efficiency improvement, and development of
alternative and new sources of domestic energy; and
(F) developing strategies in conjunction with the
Department of State for working with major international
producers and consumers, including China, Russia, the
European Union, and Africa, to minimize politicization of
global energy resources while ensuring access through global
energy markets.

AMENDMENT NO. 1688

(Purpose: To require the President to submit to Congress an annual
national energy security strategy report)

On page 313, strike lines 20 and 21 and insert the
following:

SEC. 707. ANNUAL NATIONAL ENERGY SECURITY STRATEGY REPORT.

(a) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), on the date on
which the President submits to Congress the budget for the
following fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, the President shall submit to Congress a
comprehensive report on the national energy security of the
United States.
(2) New presidents.--In addition to the reports required
under paragraph (1), the President shall submit a
comprehensive report on the national energy security of the
United States by not later than 150 days after the date on
which the President assumes the office of President after a
presidential election.
(b) Contents.--Each report under this section shall
describe the national energy security strategy of the United
States, including a comprehensive description of--
(1) the worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the
United States that are vital

[[Page S8215]]

to the national energy security of the United States;
(2) the foreign policy, worldwide commitments, and national
defense capabilities of the United States necessary--
(A) to deter political manipulation of world energy
resources; and
(B) to implement the national energy security strategy of
the United States;
(3) the proposed short-term and long-term uses of the
political, economic, military, and other authorities of the
United States--
(A) to protect or promote energy security; and
(B) to achieve the goals and objectives described in
paragraph (1);
(4) the adequacy of the capabilities of the United States
to protect the national energy security of the United States,
including an evaluation of the balance among the capabilities
of all elements of the national authority of the United
States to support the implementation of the national energy
security strategy; and
(5) such other information as the President determines to
be necessary to inform Congress on matters relating to the
national energy security of the United States.
(c) Classified and Unclassified Form.--Each national energy
security strategy report shall be submitted to Congress in--
(1) a classified form; and
(2) an unclassified form.

SEC. 708. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

AMENDMENT NO. 1689

(Purpose: To amend the National Security Act of 1947 to add the
Secretary of Energy to the National Security Council in recognition of
the role energy and energy security issues play in the United States
national security)

After section 706, insert the following:

SEC. 707. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION.

Section 101(a) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 402(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) the Secretary of Energy;''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1525, AS MODIFIED

On page 161, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 269. STANDARD RELATING TO SOLAR HOT WATER HEATERS.

Section 305(a)(3)(A) of the Energy Conservation and
Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6834(a)(3)(A)) (as amended by
section 266) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)(III), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) if life-cycle cost-effective, as compared to other
reasonably available technologies, not less than 30 percent
of the hot water demand for each new or substantially
modified Federal building be met through the installation and
use of solar hot water heaters.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1567, AS MODIFIED

On page 133, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

SEC. 246. COMMERCIAL INSULATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Advanced insulation.--The term ``advanced insulation''
means insulation that has an R value of not less than R35 per
inch.
(2) Covered refrigeration unit.--The term ``covered
refrigeration unit'' means any--
(A) commercial refrigerated truck;
(B) commercial refrigerated trailer; and
(C) commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-
freezer described in section 342(c) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)).
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report that includes an evaluation of--
(1) the state of technological advancement of advanced
insulation; and
(2) the projected amount of cost savings that would be
generated by implementing advanced insulation into covered
refrigeration units.
(c) Demonstration Program.--
(1) Establishment.--If the Secretary determines in the
report described in subsection (b) that the implementation of
advanced insulation into covered refrigeration units would
generate an economically justifiable amount of cost savings,
the Secretary, in cooperation with manufacturers of covered
refrigeration units, shall establish a demonstration program
under which the Secretary shall demonstrate the cost-
effectiveness of advanced insulation.
(2) Disclosure.--Section 623 of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 13293) may apply to any project carried out
under this subsection.
(3) Cost-sharing.--Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) shall apply to any project carried out
under this subsection.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the funds
authorized under section 911(b) of Public Law 109-58, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, such sums shall be allocated to
carry out this program.

AMENDMENT NO. 1717

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Director of the Minerals Management Service, to conduct a study to
assess each offshore wind resource located in the region of the eastern
outer Continental Shelf)

On page 59, after line 21, add the following:

SEC. 151. STUDY OF OFFSHORE WIND RESOURCES.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible
institution'' means a college or university that--
(A) as of the date of enactment of this Act, has an
offshore wind power research program; and
(B) is located in a region of the United States that is in
reasonable proximity to the eastern outer Continental Shelf,
as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Minerals
Management Service.
(b) Study.--The Secretary, in cooperation with an eligible
institution, as selected by the Secretary, shall conduct a
study to assess each offshore wind resource located in the
region of the eastern outer Continental Shelf.
(c) Report.--Upon completion of the study under subsection
(b), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that
includes--
(1) a description of--
(A) the locations and total power generation resources of
the best offshore wind resources located in the region of the
eastern outer Continental Shelf, as determined by the
Secretary;
(B) based on conflicting zones relating to any
infrastructure that, as of the date of enactment of this Act,
is located in close proximity to any offshore wind resource,
the likely exclusion zones of each offshore wind resource
described in subparagraph (A);
(C) the relationship of the temporal variation of each
offshore wind resource described in subparagraph (A) with--
(i) any other offshore wind resource; and
(ii) with loads and corresponding system operator markets;
(D) the geological compatibility of each offshore wind
resource described in subparagraph (A) with any potential
technology relating to sea floor towers; and
(E) with respect to each area in which an offshore wind
resource described in subparagraph (A) is located, the
relationship of the authority under any coastal management
plan of the State in which the area is located with the
Federal Government; and
(2) recommendations on the manner by which to handle
offshore wind intermittence.
(d) Incorporation of Study.--Effective beginning on the
date on which the Secretary completes the study under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall incorporate the findings
included in the report under subsection (c) into the planning
process documents for any wind energy lease sale--
(1) relating to any offshore wind resource located in any
appropriate area of the outer Continental Shelf, as
determined by the Secretary; and
(2) that is completed on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(e) Effect.--Nothing in this section--
(1) delays any final regulation to be promulgated by the
Secretary of the Interior to carry out section 8(p) of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)); or
(2) limits the authority of the Secretary to lease any
offshore wind resource located in any appropriate area of the
outer Continental Shelf, as determined by the Secretary.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

AMENDMENT NO. 1710

(Purpose: To clarify the purposes of the energy and environmental block
grant program)

On page 166, strike lines 17 through 19, and insert the
following:
``(1) to reduce fossil fuel emissions created as a result
of activities within the boundaries of the States or units of
local government in an environmentally sustainable way that,
to the maximum extent practicable, maximizes benefits for
local and regional communities;

AMENDMENT NO. 1759, AS MODIFIED

On page 192, after line 21, add the following:

SEC. 305. ASSESSMENT OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND METHANE AND
NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM TERRESTRIAL
ECOSYSTEMS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Adaptation strategy.--The term ``adaptation strategy''
means a land use and management strategy that can be used to
increase the sequestration capabilities of any terrestrial
ecosystem.
(2) Assessment.--The term ``assessment'' means the national
assessment authorized under subsection (b).
(3) Covered greenhouse gas.--The term ``covered greenhouse
gas'' means carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane gas.
(4) Native plant species.--The term ``native plant
species'' means any noninvasive, naturally occurring plant
species within a terrestrial ecosystem.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
(A) land of the National Forest System (as defined in
section 11(a) of the Forest and

[[Page S8216]]

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1609(a))) administered by the Secretary of Agriculture,
acting through the Chief of the Forest Service; and
(B) public lands (as defined in Section 103 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)), the
surface of which is administered by the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management.
(7) Terrestrial ecosystem.--
(A) In general.--The term ``terrestrial ecosystem'' means
any ecological and surficial geological system on Federal
land.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``terrestrial ecosystem''
includes--
(i) forest land;
(ii) grassland; and
(iii) freshwater aquatic ecosystems.
(b) Authorization of Assessment.--Not later than 2 years
after the date on which the final methodology is published
under subsection (f)(3)(D), the Secretary shall complete a
national assessment of--
(1) the quantity of carbon stored in and released from
terrestrial ecosystems; including from man-caused and natural
fires; and
(2) the annual flux of covered greenhouse gases in and out
of terrestrial ecosystems.
(c) Components.--In conducting the assessment under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
(1) determine the processes that control the flux of
covered greenhouse gases in and out of each terrestrial
ecosystem;
(2) estimate the technical and economic potential for
increasing carbon sequestration in natural and managed
terrestrial ecosystems through management activities or
restoration activities in each terrestrial ecosystem;
(3) develop near-term and long-term adaptation strategies
or mitigation strategies that can be employed--
(A) to enhance the sequestration of carbon in each
terrestrial ecosystem;
(B) to reduce emissions of covered greenhouse gases; and
(C) to adapt to climate change; and
(4) estimate annual carbon sequestration capacity of
terrestrial ecosystems under a range of policies in support
of management activities to optimize sequestration.
(d) Use of Native Plant Species.--In developing restoration
activities under subsection (c)(2) and management strategies
and adaptation strategies under subsection (c)(3), the
Secretary shall emphasize the use of native plant species
(including mixtures of many native plant species) for
sequestering covered greenhouse gas in each terrestrial
ecosystem.
(e) Consultation.--In conducting the assessment under
subsection (b) and developing the methodology under
subsection (f), the Secretary shall consult with--
(1) the Secretary of Energy;
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(3) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(4) the heads of other relevant agencies;
(5) consortia based at institutions of higher education and
with research corporations; and
(6) Federal forest and grassland managers.
(f) Methodology.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a
methodology for conducting the assessment.
(2) Requirements.--The methodology developed under
paragraph (1)--
(A) shall--
(i) determine the method for measuring, monitoring,
quantifying, and monetizing covered greenhouse gas emissions
and reductions, including methods for allocating and managing
offsets or credits; and
(ii) estimate the total capacity of each terrestrial
ecosystem to--

(I) sequester carbon; and
(II) reduce emissions of covered greenhouse gases; and

(B) may employ economic and other systems models, analyses,
and estimations, to be developed in consultation with each of
the individuals described in subsection (e).
(3) External review and publication.--On completion of a
proposed methodology, the Secretary shall--
(A) publish the proposed methodology;
(B) at least 60 days before the date on which the final
methodology is published, solicit comments from--
(i) the public; and
(ii) heads of affected Federal and State agencies;
(C) establish a panel to review the proposed methodology
published under subparagraph (A) and any comments received
under subparagraph (B), to be composed of members--
(i) with expertise in the matters described in subsections
(c) and (d); and
(ii) that are, as appropriate, representatives of Federal
agencies, institutions of higher education, nongovernmental
organizations, State organizations, industry, and
international organizations; and
(D) on completion of the review under subparagraph (C),
publish in the Federal register the revised final
methodology.
(g) Estimate; Review.--The Secretary shall--
(1) based on the assessment, prescribe the data,
information, and analysis needed to establish a
scientifically sound estimate of--
(A) the carbon sequestration capacity of relevant
terrestrial ecosystems;
(B) a national inventory of covered greenhouse gas sources
that is consistent with the inventory prepared by the
Environmental Protection Agency entitled the ``Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005''; and
(C) the willingness of covered greenhouse gas emitters to
pay to sequester the covered greenhouse gases emitted by the
applicable emitters in designated terrestrial ecosystems; and
(2) not later than 180 days after the date on which the
assessment is completed, submit to the heads of applicable
Federal agencies and the appropriate committees of Congress a
report that describes the results of the assessment.
(h) Data and Report Availability.--On completion of the
assessment, the Secretary shall incorporate the results of
the assessment into a web-accessible database for public use.

amendment no. 1797, as modified

On page 141, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 255. SMART GRID SYSTEM REPORT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), shall,
after consulting with any interested individual or entity as
appropriate, no later than one year after enactment, report
to Congress concerning the status of smart grid deployments
nationwide and any regulatory or government barriers to
continued deployment

SEC. 256. SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION.

(a) Power Grid Digital Information Technology.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and other appropriate agencies, electric
utilities, the States, and other stakeholders, shall carry
out a program--
(1) to develop advanced techniques for measuring peak: load
reductions and energy-efficiency savings from smart metering,
demand response, distributed generation, and electricity
storage systems;
(2) to investigate means for demand response, distributed
generation, and storage to provide ancillary services;
(3) to conduct research to advance the use of wide-area
measurement and control networks, including data mining,
visualization, advanced computing, and secure and dependable
communications in a highly-distributed environment;
(4) to test new reliability technologies in a grid control
room environment against a representative set of local outage
and wide area blackout scenarios;
(5) to investigate the feasibility of a transition to time-
of-use and real-time electricity pricing;
(6) to develop algorithms for use in electric transmission
system software applications;
(7) to promote the use of underutilized electricity
generation capacity in any substitution of electricity for
liquid fuels in the transportation system of the United
States; and
(8) in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, to propose interconnection protocols to enable
electric utilities to access electricity stored in vehicles
to help meet peak demand loads.
(b) Smart Grid Regional Demonstration Initiative.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a smart grid
regional demonstration initiative (referred to in this
subsection as the ``Initiative'') composed of demonstration
projects specifically focused on advanced technologies for
use in power grid sensing, communications, analysis, and
power flow control. The Secretary shall seek to leverage
existing smart grid deployments.
(2) Goals.--The goals of the Initiative shall be--
(A) to demonstrate the potential benefits of concentrated
investments in advanced grid technologies on a regional grid;
(B) to facilitate the commercial transition from the
current power transmission and distribution system
technologies to advanced technologies;
(C) to facilitate the integration of advanced technologies
in existing electric networks to improve system performance,
power flow control, and reliability;
(D) to demonstrate protocols and standards that allow for
the measurement and validation of the energy savings and
fossil fuel gas emission reductions associated with the
installation and use of energy efficiency and demand response
technologies and practices; and
(E) to investigate differences in each region and
regulatory environment regarding best practices in
implementing smart grid technologies.
(3) Demonstration projects.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out the Initiative, the
Secretary shall carry out smart grid demonstration projects
in up to 5 electricity control areas, including rural areas
and at least 1 area in which the majority of generation and
transmission assets are controlled by a tax-exempt entity.
(B) Cooperation.--A demonstration project under
subparagraph (A) shall be carried out in cooperation with the
electric utility that owns the grid facilities in the
electricity control area in which the demonstration project
is carried out.
(C) Federal share of cost of technology investments.--The
Secretary shall provide to an electric utility described in
subparagraph (B) financial assistance for use in paying an
amount equal to not more than 50 percent of the cost of
qualifying advanced grid technology investments made by the
electric utility to carry out a demonstration project.

[[Page S8217]]

(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(A) to carry out subsection (a), such sums as are necessary
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012; and
(B) to carry out subsection (b), $100,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

SEC. 257. SMART GRID INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK.

(a) Interoperability Framework.--The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as the
``Commission''), in cooperation with other relevant federal
agencies, shall coordinate with smart grid stakeholders to
develop protocols for the establishment of a flexible
framework for the connection of smart grid devices and
systems that would align policy, business, and technology
approaches in a manner that would enable all electric
resources, including demand-side resources, to contribute to
an efficient, reliable electricity network.
(c) Scope of Framework.--The framework developed under
subsection (b) shall be designed--
(1) to accommodate traditional, centralized generation and
transmission resources and consumer distributed resources,
including distributed generation, renewable generation,
energy storage, energy efficiency, and demand response and
enabling devices and systems;
(2) to be flexible to incorporate--
(A) regional and organizational differences; and
(B) technological innovations; and
(3) to consider voluntary uniform standards for certain
classes of mass-produced electric appliances and equipment
for homes and businesses that enable customers, at their
election and consistent with applicable state and federal
laws, and are manufactured with the ability to respond to
electric grid emergencies and demand response signals by
curtailing all, or a portion of, the electrical power
consumed by the appliances or equipment in response to an
emergency or demand response signal, including through--
(A) load reduction to reduce total electrical demand;
(B) adjustment of load to provide grid ancillary services;
and
(C) in the event of a reliability crisis that threatens an
outage, short-term load shedding to help preserve the
stability of the grid.
(4) Such voluntary standards should incorporate appropriate
manufacturer lead time.

SEC. 258. STATE CONSIDERATION OF SMART GRID.

Section 111 (d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(16) Consideration of smart grid investments.--Each State
shall consider requiring that, prior to undertaking
investments in nonadvanced grid technologies, an electric
utility of the State demonstrate to the State that the
electric utility considered an investment in a qualified
smart grid system based on appropriate factors, including--
``(i) total costs;
``(ii) cost-effectiveness;
``(iii) improved reliability;
``(iv) security;
``(v) system performance; and
``(vi) societal benefit.
``(B) Rate recovery.--Each State shall consider authorizing
each electric utility of the State to recover from ratepayers
any capital, operating expenditure, or other costs of the
electric utility relating to the deployment of a qualified
smart grid system, including a reasonable rate of return on
the capital expenditures of the electric utility for the
deployment of the qualified smart grid system.
``(e) Obsolete equipment.--Each State shall consider
authorizing any electric utility or other party of the State
to deploy a qualified smart grid system to recover in a
timely manner the remaining book-value costs of any equipment
rendered obsolete by the deployment of the qualified smart
grid system, based on the remaining depreciable life of the
obsolete equipment.
``(17) Smart grid consumer information.--

AMENDMENT NO. 1702

(Purpose: To authorize loans for renewable energy systems and energy
efficiency projects under the Express Loan Program of the Small Busines
Administration)

On page 161, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 269. EXPRESS LOANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY.

Section 7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(31)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Express loans for renewable energy and energy
efficiency.--
``(i) Definitions.--In this subparagraph--

``(I) the term `biomass'--

``(aa) means any organic material that is available on a
renewable or recurring basis, including--
``(AA) agricultural crops;
``(BB) trees grown for energy production;
``(CC) wood waste and wood residues;
``(DD) plants (including aquatic plants and grasses);
``(EE) residues;
``(FF) fibers;
``(GG) animal wastes and other waste materials; and
``(HH) fats, oils, and greases (including recycled fats,
oils, and greases); and
``(bb) does not include--
``(AA) paper that is commonly recycled; or
``(BB) unsegregated solid waste;

``(II) the term `energy efficiency project' means the
installation or upgrading of equipment that results in a
significant reduction in energy usage; and
``(III) the term `renewable energy system' means a system
of energy derived from--

``(aa) a wind, solar, biomass (including biodiesel), or
geothermal source; or
``(bb) hydrogen derived from biomass or water using an
energy source described in item (aa).
``(ii) Loans.--Loans may be made under the `Express Loan
Program' for the purpose of--

``(I) purchasing a renewable energy system; or
``(II) an energy efficiency project for an existing
business.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1706, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To establish a small business energy efficiency program, and
for other purposes)

On page 161, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 269. SMALL BUSINESS ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean
the Small Business Administration and the Administrator
thereof, respectively;
(2) the term ``association'' means the association of small
business development centers established under section
21(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648(a)(3)(A));
(3) the term ``disability'' has the meaning given that term
in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12102);
(4) the term ``electric utility'' has the meaning given
that term in section 3 of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2602);
(5) the term ``on-bill financing'' means a low interest or
no interest financing agreement between a small business
concern and an electric utility for the purchase or
installation of equipment, under which the regularly
scheduled payment of that small business concern to that
electric utility is not reduced by the amount of the
reduction in cost attributable to the new equipment and that
amount is credited to the electric utility, until the cost of
the purchase or installation is repaid;
(6) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given that term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636);
(7) the term ``small business development center'' means a
small business development center described in section 21 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648);
(8) the term ``telecommuting'' means the use of
telecommunications to perform work functions under
circumstances which reduce or eliminate the need to commute;
and
(9) the term ``veteran'' has the meaning given that term in
section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
(b) Implementation of Small Business Energy Efficiency
Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate
final rules establishing the Government-wide program
authorized under subsection (d) of section 337 of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6307) that ensure
compliance with that subsection by not later than 6 months
after such date of enactment.
(2) Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish a
detailed plan regarding how the Administrator will--
(A) assist small business concerns in becoming more energy
efficient; and
(B) build on the Energy Star for Small Business Program of
the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(3) Assistant administrator for small business energy
policy.--
(A) In general.--There is in the Administration an
Assistant Administrator for Small Business Energy Policy, who
shall be appointed by, and report to, the Administrator.
(B) Duties.--The Assistant Administrator for Small Business
Energy Policy shall--
(i) oversee and administer the requirements under this
subsection and section 337(d) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6307(d)); and
(ii) promote energy efficiency efforts for small business
concerns and reduce energy costs of small business concerns.
(4) Reports.--The Administrator shall submit to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives an annual report on the progress of the
Administrator in encouraging small business concerns to
become more energy efficient, including data on the rate of
use of the Small Business Energy Clearinghouse established
under section 337(d)(4) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6307(d)(4)).
(c) Small Business Energy Efficiency.--
(1) Authority.--The Administrator shall establish a Small
Business Energy Efficiency Pilot Program (in this subsection
referred to as the ``Efficiency Pilot Program'') to provide
energy efficiency assistance to small business concerns
through small business development centers.
(2) Small business development centers.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out the Efficiency Pilot
Program, the Administrator

[[Page S8218]]

shall enter into agreements with small business development
centers under which such centers shall--
(i) provide access to information and resources on energy
efficiency practices, including on-bill financing options;
(ii) conduct training and educational activities;
(iii) offer confidential, free, one-on-one, in-depth energy
audits to the owners and operators of small business concerns
regarding energy efficiency practices;
(iv) give referrals to certified professionals and other
providers of energy efficiency assistance who meet such
standards for educational, technical, and professional
competency as the Administrator shall establish; and
(v) act as a facilitator between small business concerns,
electric utilities, lenders, and the Administration to
facilitate on-bill financing arrangements.
(B) Reports.--Each small business development center
participating in the Efficiency Pilot Program shall submit to
the Administrator and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency an annual report that includes--
(i) a summary of the energy efficiency assistance provided
by that center under the Efficiency Pilot Program;
(ii) the number of small business concerns assisted by that
center under the Efficiency Pilot Program;
(iii) statistics on the total amount of energy saved as a
result of assistance provided by that center under the
Efficiency Pilot Program; and
(iv) any additional information determined necessary by the
Administrator, in consultation with the association.
(C) Reports to congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date on which all reports under subparagraph (B) relating to
a year are submitted, the Administrator shall submit to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives a report summarizing the information
regarding the Efficiency Pilot Program submitted by small
business development centers participating in that program.
(3) Eligibility.--A small business development center shall
be eligible to participate in the Efficiency Pilot Program
only if that center is certified under section 21(k)(2) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(k)(2)).
(4) Selection of participating state programs.--
(A) Groupings.--
(i) Selection of programs.--The Administrator shall select
the small business development center programs of 2 States
from each of the groupings of States described in clauses
(ii) through (xi) to participate in the pilot program
established under this subsection.
(ii) Group 1.--Group 1 shall consist of Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode
Island.
(iii) Group 2.--Group 2 shall consist of New York, New
Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
(iv) Group 3.--Group 3 shall consist of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, the District of Columbia,
and Delaware.
(v) Group 4.--Group 4 shall consist of Georgia, Alabama,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida,
Kentucky, and Tennessee.
(vi) Group 5.--Group 5 shall consist of Illinois, Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
(vii) Group 6.--Group 6 shall consist of Texas, New Mexico,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
(viii) Group 7.--Group 7 shall consist of Missouri, Iowa,
Nebraska, and Kansas.
(ix) Group 8.--Group 8 shall consist of Colorado, Wyoming,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Utah.
(x) Group 9.--Group 9 shall consist of California, Guam,
American Samoa, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona.
(xi) Group 10.--Group 10 shall consist of Washington,
Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon.
(5) Matching requirement.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 21(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648(a)(4)) shall apply to assistance made available under the
Efficiency Pilot Program.
(6) Grant amounts.--Each small business development center
selected to participate in the Efficiency Pilot Program under
paragraph (4) shall be eligible to receive a grant in an
amount equal to--
(A) not less than $100,000 in each fiscal year; and
(B) not more than $300,000 in each fiscal year.
(7) Evaluation and report.--The Comptroller General of the
United States shall--
(A) not later than 30 months after the date of disbursement
of the first grant under the Efficiency Pilot Program,
initiate an evaluation of that pilot program; and
(B) not later than 6 months after the date of the
initiation of the evaluation under subparagraph (A), submit
to the Administrator, the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship of the Senate, and the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives, a report
containing--
(i) the results of the evaluation; and
(ii) any recommendations regarding whether the Efficiency
Pilot Program, with or without modification, should be
extended to include the participation of all small business
development centers.
(8) Guarantee.--The Administrator may guarantee the timely
payment of a loan made to a small business concern through an
on-bill financing agreement on such terms and conditions as
the Administrator shall establish through a formal rule
making, after providing notice and an opportunity for
comment.
(9) Authorization of appropriations.--
(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from such sums as are already authorized under section 21 of
the Small Business Act to carry out this subsection--
(i) $5,000,000 for the first fiscal year beginning after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) $5,000,000 for each of the 3 fiscal years following
the fiscal year described in clause (i).
(B) Limitation on use of other funds.--The Administrator
may carry out the Efficiency Pilot Program only with amounts
appropriated in advance specifically to carry out this
subsection.
(10) Termination.--The authority under this subsection
shall terminate 4 years after the date of disbursement of the
first grant under the Efficiency Pilot Program.
(d) Small Business Telecommuting.--
(1) Pilot program.--
(A) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the
Administrator shall conduct, in not more than 5 of the
regions of the Administration, a pilot program to provide
information regarding telecommuting to employers that are
small business concerns and to encourage such employers to
offer telecommuting options to employees (in this subsection
referred to as the ``Telecommuting Pilot Program'').
(B) Special outreach to individuals with disabilities.--In
carrying out the Telecommuting Pilot Program, the
Administrator shall make a concerted effort to provide
information to--
(i) small business concerns owned by or employing
individuals with disabilities, particularly veterans who are
individuals with disabilities;
(ii) Federal, State, and local agencies having knowledge
and expertise in assisting individuals with disabilities,
including veterans who are individuals with disabilities; and
(iii) any group or organization, the primary purpose of
which is to aid individuals with disabilities or veterans who
are individuals with disabilities.
(C) Permissible activities.--In carrying out the
Telecommuting Pilot Program, the Administrator may--
(i) produce educational materials and conduct presentations
designed to raise awareness in the small business community
of the benefits and the ease of telecommuting;
(ii) conduct outreach--

(I) to small business concerns that are considering
offering telecommuting options; and
(II) as provided in subparagraph (B); and

(iii) acquire telecommuting technologies and equipment to
be used for demonstration purposes.
(D) Selection of regions.--In determining which regions
will participate in the Telecommuting Pilot Program, the
Administrator shall give priority consideration to regions in
which Federal agencies and private-sector employers have
demonstrated a strong regional commitment to telecommuting.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date on which funds are first appropriated to carry out this
subsection, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives a
report containing the results of an evaluation of the
Telecommuting Pilot Program and any recommendations regarding
whether the pilot program, with or without modification,
should be extended to include the participation of all
regions of the Administration.
(3) Termination.--The Telecommuting Pilot Program shall
terminate 4 years after the date on which funds are first
appropriated to carry out this subsection.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Administration $5,000,000 to carry
out this subsection.
(e) Encouraging Innovation in Energy Efficiency.--Section 9
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(z) Encouraging Innovation in Energy Efficiency.--
``(1) Federal agency energy-related priority.--In carrying
out its duties under this section to SBIR and STTR
solicitations by Federal agencies, the Administrator shall--
``(A) ensure that such agencies give high priority to small
business concerns that participate in or conduct energy
efficiency or renewable energy system research and
development projects; and
``(B) include in the annual report to Congress under
subsection (b)(7) a determination of whether the priority
described in subparagraph (A) is being carried out.
``(2) Consultation required.--The Administrator shall
consult with the heads of other Federal agencies and
departments in determining whether priority has been given to
small business concerns that participate in or conduct energy
efficiency or renewable energy system research and
development projects, as required by this section.

[[Page S8219]]

``(3) Guidelines.--The Administrator shall, as soon as is
practicable after the date of enactment of this subsection,
issue guidelines and directives to assist Federal agencies in
meeting the requirements of this section.
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the term `biomass'--
``(i) means any organic material that is available on a
renewable or recurring basis, including--

``(I) agricultural crops;
``(II) trees grown for energy production;
``(III) wood waste and wood residues;
``(IV) plants (including aquatic plants and grasses);
``(V) residues;
``(VI) fibers;
``(VII) animal wastes and other waste materials; and
``(VIII) fats, oils, and greases (including recycled fats,
oils, and greases); and

``(ii) does not include--

``(I) paper that is commonly recycled; or
``(II) unsegregated solid waste;

``(B) the term `energy efficiency project' means the
installation or upgrading of equipment that results in a
significant reduction in energy usage; and
``(C) the term `renewable energy system' means a system of
energy derived from--
``(i) a wind, solar, biomass (including biodiesel), or
geothermal source; or
``(ii) hydrogen derived from biomass or water using an
energy source described in clause (i).''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1595, AS MODIFIED

On page 122, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
(e) Set Aside for Small Automobile Manufacturers and
Component Suppliers.--
(1) Definition of covered firm.--In this subsection, the
term ``covered firm'' means a firm that--
(A) employs less than 500 individuals; and
(B) manufactures automobiles or components of automobiles.
(2) Set aside.--Of the amount of funds that are used to
provide awards for each fiscal year under this section, the
Secretary shall use not less than 30 percent of the amount to
provide awards to covered firms or consortia led by a covered
firm.

AMENDMENT NO. 1676, AS MODIFIED

On page 161, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 26_. RENEWABLE ENERGY INNOVATION MANUFACTURING
PARTNERSHIP.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall carry out a
program, to be known as the Renewable Energy Innovation
Manufacturing Partnership Program (referred to in this
section as the ``Program''), to make assistance awards to
eligible entities for use in carrying out research,
development, and demonstration relating to the manufacturing
of renewable energy technologies.
(b) Solicitation.--To carry out the Program, the Secretary
shall annually conduct a competitive solicitation for
assistance awards for an eligible project described in
subsection (e).
(c) Program Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are--
(1) to develop, or aid in the development of, advanced
manufacturing processes, materials, and infrastructure;
(2) to increase the domestic production of renewable energy
technology and components; and
(3) to better coordinate Federal, State, and private
resources to meet regional and national renewable energy
goals through advanced manufacturing partnerships.
(d) Eligible Entities.--An entity shall be eligible to
receive an assistance award under the Program to carry out an
eligible project described in subsection (e) if the entity is
composed of--
(1) 1 or more public or private nonprofit institutions or
national laboratories engaged in research, development,
demonstration, or technology transfer, that would participate
substantially in the project; and
(2) 1 or more private entities engaged in the manufacturing
or development of renewable energy system components
(including solar energy, wind energy, biomass, geothermal
energy, energy storage, or fuel cells).
(e) Eligible Projects.--An eligible entity may use an
assistance award provided under this section to carry out a
project relating to--
(1) the conduct of studies of market opportunities for
component manufacturing of renewable energy systems;
(2) the conduct of multiyear applied research, development,
demonstration, and deployment projects for advanced
manufacturing processes, materials, and infrastructure for
renewable energy systems; and
(3) other similar ventures, as approved by the Secretary,
that promote advanced manufacturing of renewable
technologies.
(f) Criteria and Guidelines.--The Secretary shall establish
criteria and guidelines for the submission, evaluation, and
funding of proposed projects under the Program.
(g) Cost Sharing.--Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) shall apply to a project carried out
under this section.
(h) Disclosure.--Section 623 of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 13293) shall apply to a project carried out
under this subsection.
(i) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Secretary should ensure that small businesses
engaged in renewable manufacturing be considered for loan
guarantees authorized under title XVII of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq.).
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated out of funds already authorized to carry
out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2013, to remain available until expended.

AMENDMENT NO. 1679, AS MODIFIED

On page 26, strike lines 19 through 21 and insert the
following:
(j) Study of Impact of Renewable Fuel Standard.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which
the Academy shall conduct a study to assess the impact of the
requirements described in subsection (a)(2) on each industry
relating to the production of feed grains, livestock, food,
and energy.
(2) Participation.--In conducting the study under paragraph
(1), the National Academy of Sciences shall seek the
participation, and consider the input, of--
(A) producers of feed grains;
(B) producers of livestock, poultry, and pork products;
(C) producers of food and food products;
(D) producers of energy;
(E) individuals and entities interested in issues relating
to conservation, the environment, and nutrition; and
(F) users of renewable fuels.
(3) Considerations.--In conducting the study, the National
Academy of Sciences shall consider--
(A) the likely impact on domestic animal agriculture
feedstocks that, in any crop year, are significantly below
current projections; and
(B) policy options to alleviate the impact on domestic
animal agriculture feedstocks that are significantly below
current projections.
(4) Components.--The study shall include--
(A) a description of the conditions under which the
requirements described in subsection (a)(2) should be
suspended or reduced to prevent adverse impacts to domestic
animal agriculture feedstocks described in paragraph (3)(B);
and
(B) recommendations for the means by which the Federal
Government could prevent or minimize adverse economic
hardships and impacts.
(5) Deadline for completion of study.--Not later than 270
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report that describes the results
of the study.
(6) Periodic reviews.--
(A) In general.--To allow for the appropriate adjustment of
the requirements described in subsection (a)(2), the
Secretary shall conduct periodic reviews of--
(i) existing technologies;
(ii) the feasibility of achieving compliance with the
requirements; and
(iii) the impacts of the requirements described in
subsection (a)(2) on each individual and entity described in
paragraph (2).
(k) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this section, this section takes effect on the
date on which the National Academies of Science completes the
study under subsection (j).

amendment no. 1615, as modified

At the end of title III, insert the following:

SEC. 305. ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall establish within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and shall carry out, a program of scientific
research on abrupt climate change.
(b) Purposes of Program.--The purposes of the program are
as follows:
(1) To develop a global array of terrestrial and
oceanographic indicators of paleo-climate in order to
sufficiently identify and describe past instances of abrupt
climate change.
(2) To improve understanding of thresholds and
nonlinearities in geophysical systems related to the
mechanisms of abrupt climate change.
(3) To incorporate such mechanisms into advanced
geophysical models of climate change.
(4) To test the output of such models against an improved
global array of records of past abrupt climate changes.
(c) Abrupt Climate Change Defined.--In this section, the
term ``abrupt climate change'' means a change in the climate
that occurs so rapidly or unexpectedly that human or natural
systems have difficulty adapting to the climate as changed.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of such sums
previously authorized, there is authorized to be appropriated
to the Department of Commerce for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2014, to remain available until expended, such sums
as are necessary, not to exceed $10,000,000, to carry out the
research program required under this section.

amendment no. 1520, as modified

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.

[[Page S8220]]

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 consensus 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.--
(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.

amendment no. 1700, as modified

At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following:

SEC. 13_. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN SUPPORT OF LOW-CARBON
FUELS.

(a) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that, in
order to achieve maximum reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, enhance national security, and ensure the
protection of wildlife habitat, biodiversity, water quality,
air quality, and rural and regional economies throughout the
lifecycle of each low-carbon fuel, it is necessary and
desirable to undertake a combination of basic and applied
research, as well as technology development and
demonstration, involving the colleges and universities of the
United States, in partnership with the Federal Government,
State governments, and the private sector.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for
research support to facilitate the development of sustainable
markets and technologies to produce and use woody biomass and
other low-carbon fuels for the production of thermal and
electric energy, biofuels, and bioproducts.
(c) Definition of Fuel Emission Baseline.--In this section,
the term ``fuel emission baseline'' means the average
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy of the
fossil fuel component of conventional transportation fuels in
commerce in the United States in calendar year 2008, as
determined by the President.
(d) Grant Program.--The President shall establish a program
to provide to eligible entities (as identified by the
President) grants for use in--
(1) providing financial support for not more than 4 nor
less than 6 demonstration facilities that--
(A) use woody biomass to deploy advanced technologies for
production of thermal and electric energy, biofuels, and
bioproducts; and
(B) are targeted at regional feedstocks and markets;
(2) conducting targeted research for the development of
cellulosic ethanol and other liquid fuels from woody or other
biomass that may be used in transportation or stationary
applications, such as industrial processes or industrial,
commercial, and residential heating;
(3) conducting research into the best scientifically-based
and periodically-updated methods of assessing and certifying
the impacts of each low-carbon fuel with respect to--
(A) the reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of
each fuel as compared to--
(i) the fuel emission baseline; and
(ii) the greenhouse gas emissions of other sectors, such as
the agricultural, industrial, and manufacturing sectors;
(B) the contribution of the fuel toward enhancing the
energy security of the United States by displacing imported
petroleum and petroleum products;
(C) any impacts of the fuel on wildlife habitat,
biodiversity, water quality, and air quality; and
(D) any effect of the fuel with respect to rural and
regional economies;
(4) conducting research to determine to what extent the use
of low-carbon fuels in the transportation sector would impact
greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors, such as the
agricultural, industrial, and manufacturing sectors;
(5) conducting research for the development of the supply
infrastructure that may provide renewable biomass feedstocks
in a consistent, predictable, and environmentally-sustainable
manner;
(6) conducting research for the development of supply
infrastructure that may provide renewable low-carbon fuels in
a consistent, predictable, and environmentally-sustainable
manner; and
(7) conducting policy research on the global movement of
low-carbon fuels in a consistent, predictable, and
environmentally-sustainable manner.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the funding
authorized under section 122, there are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(3) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
(4) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
(5) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

amendment no. 1724

(Purpose: To modify the deadline by which the President is required to
approve or disapprove a certain State petition)

On page 21, line 17, strike ``90'' and insert ``30''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1502,
as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1502), as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
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 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.

[[Page S8221]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
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, shall
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 32, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

YEAS--62

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--32

Allard
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lott
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Pryor
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Vitter
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--5

Boxer
Brownback
Coburn
Johnson
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are
32. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Under the previous order, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 27, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

YEAS--65

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--27

Allard
Bennett
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Enzi
Graham
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lott
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Roberts
Stabenow
Vitter
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--7

Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Coburn
Johnson
McCain
Shelby
The bill (H.R. 6), as amended, was passed, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, due to a family obligation, Senator Boxer
was unable to attend today's session. Had she been present for the vote
to invoke cloture on the Baucus energy tax package, she would have cast
a vote of ``aye''. She would have also cast a vote of ``aye'' on the
motion to invoke cloture on the Reid substitute, cloture on the
underlying bill, and on final passage of H.R. 6.

____________________