[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 187 (Friday, December 7, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15004-S15009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a 
message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 6.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the message from the House of Representatives on 
H.R. 6.
  The Acting President pro tempore laid before the Senate the 
amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (H.R. 6) 
entitled ``An Act 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,'' with 
amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                             cloture motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments to 
     H.R. 6, comprehensive energy legislation.
         Jeff Bingaman, Max Baucus, Blanche L. Lincoln, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Jon Tester, Robert Menendez, Jack Reed, Tom 
           Harkin, Mark Pryor, Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Dick 
           Durbin, Maria Cantwell, Byron L. Dorgan, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Kent Conrad, Bill Nelson.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the mandatory quorum be waived.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might say, first, to my side of the 
aisle, and any of those who are on our side, if you want to speak, just 
let me know. I have no reason to need all the time. If any of you would 
like to speak, I will be glad to yield.
  With that out of the way, let me say it wasn't many months ago when 
this Senator believed, as a bill passed the U.S. Senate and went its 
way to the House, that because of some very courageous Senators we had 
finally reached a point where we could tame that voracious lion that 
was eating up all the oil that we could import in transportation, in 
automobiles, trucks, diesel trucks, and the like. We know that was the 
biggest guzzler of imported fuel oil that America had.
  A committee on which I did not serve--nor did my chairman, Senator 
Bingaman serve on, although we were putting a bill together--the 
Committee on Commerce, headed by Senator Inouye and the ranking member, 
Senator Stevens, with Senators such as Trent Lott on it--they had a lot 
of courage. They decided to put on our bill as part of an energy bill 
the first major change in the fleet automobile standards for the United 
States. What courage that took and how happy many of us were that 
committee had finally done that.
  Couple that with what had been done in the other committees in the 
Senate, including that which was done by the Energy Committee itself, 
and we put together a very exciting bill. It went to the U.S. House of 
Representatives as a bill that contained the provision I just spoke of. 
It contained a very large provision, a major provision--what I would 
call the ethanol 2 provision to save ethanol for the future, so it 
would not continue to have trouble, and then build on the next 15 years 
a major gigantic bill for further ethanol to be produced from other 
than corn. That bill was a giant bill, and it went to the House with 
some other small pieces. But no taxes were in that bill, and the 
proposal that we would mandate all of the States to have 15 percent of 
their electricity produced from alternative fuels was not in the bill.
  It went to the House and there it sat. Senator Bingaman and I thought 
we were negotiating with the House over the months under a proposal 
that said the two of us represent the Senate, and we will sit down with 
the House Members and see, since we cannot have a conference--there was 
no way to get a conference on our bills because of objection in the 
Senate--we would sit down together and produce a bill based upon the 
bill that had left the Senate and clearly some of the things that had 
been done in the House. It was pretty clear we could get a great bill 
out of that and would have the same basic format that I just described.
  After talking it through and getting to the point where we were ready 
to go, the House decided to go its own way and leave us standing. Then 
they used our bill which we had sent them, that was built around an 
Inouye bill--they used that to put together a bill that came through 
the House yesterday and is before us today.
  The first thing that went awry is a Senator like myself, 35 years in 
the Senate--I had never been dealt with this way ever before in my time 
in the Senate, where I was asked to do something by a committee, we 
were in the process of doing it, and then a committee backs out and 
uses the work that was done by the working group, including this 
Senator, to produce a new bill.
  That new bill is before us today, and it contains taxes which the 
President says he will veto--and he sent us the message. The message is 
here: If those taxes are on this bill when it arrives at his desk, all 
our work will have been for naught. If the provision for mandatory 
electric alternatives, the 15 percent mandated across the land, or 15 
minus 4, as it sometimes is used--the President said if that is in 
there he will veto the bill. So we could waste our time or we could do 
something meaningful. Today we are starting down a

[[Page S15005]]

path, trying to do something meaningful.
  We worked very hard to see if we can't gather up more than 40 
Senators who will vote with us so we will not impose cloture on this 
message. I say to my fellow Senators, please understand, there is no 
bill before us. It is a message, and there is a very big difference 
between a bill and a message. I had almost forgotten about it because I 
don't think I managed a message very many times in 35 years. But a 
message has a lot of nuances to it that are different: the number of 
amendments, the frequency that you can have amendments, and a whole lot 
of things.
  Senators will wake up next week and find that many amendments they 
would try to offer are shut out because of the number of amendments you 
can offer because of the rules that apply to messages. I want them all 
to understand I am not promising anybody they can get amendments in if 
they win this vote today on my side. We will have to follow the rules 
and see what we can do. But we stand this close to getting the most 
important Energy bill, from the standpoint of conservation of crude oil 
products--gasoline, for instance, and diesel fuel--we stand just the 
distance between Senator Bingaman and me away from getting that kind of 
bill.
  What we must do is not fly in the face of reality. Reality says you 
cannot put taxes on this bill. The Senate already defeated the taxes 
that were on this bill. We all remember that day. We voted and took the 
taxes out of the Energy bill that Senator Bingaman and I were operating 
under. The taxes went.
  In addition, we did not put on that bill what is now being called the 
alternative energy tax or some such thing. What it means is the 
electric utilities across the land out in the future are going to have 
to use 15 percent alternative fuel to coal. That is tough. That is a 
tough one to do. If that is on the bill, because it is harmful to the 
economy, a one-shoe-fits-all philosophy should not work, will not work. 
The President of the United States, through his operatives, has told us 
he will veto the bill.
  Senators, I hope you vote with us and do not impose cloture. Then I 
hope the majority leader and the minority leader and Senator Bingaman 
and Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens and myself, and whoever otherwise 
properly fits, will sit down together and work this out as to how we 
modify this bill that is before us--which is not a good bill now, but 
it can be turned into a great bill with some work--could be sent back 
to the House, and in no time we could tell the American people we have 
finally done something extraordinary for them.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 17\1/2\ minutes of which 
10 is reserved for the leader.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak first in support of this 
bill and going forward with cloture. I acknowledge the procedure we 
have gone through to get to this point has not been ideal. Clearly, 
when we were unable to get agreement to appoint a conference in the 
Senate, it became clear we were going to have to use a very awkward 
procedure. That is what has happened. But the substance of what is 
before us contains a substantial amount of very good public policy. 
These are policies we have tried very hard to enact for a very long 
time. On the whole, I believe this bill represents significant forward 
progress.
  Let me mention a few of the things the bill does that I think are 
very worthwhile. First, the legislation brings about major improvements 
in vehicle fuel efficiency. My colleague, Senator Domenici, referred to 
that and clearly that is a centerpiece of this legislation, the 
improvements of corporate average fuel economy standards.
  In addition to this hard-won compromise on CAFE, the bill will 
increase the production and use of biofuels with a particular emphasis 
on biofuels from cellulosic feedstock. That also is something the 
President spoke to us about in the State of the Union speech that many 
of us support, and it is a strong part of this legislation.
  So I think the combination of improvements in CAFE standards and 
increases in production and use of biofuels are efforts we have had 
underway for a long time, and I believe it is important for us to 
continue with those efforts.
  The bill also, beyond those two items, will boost energy efficiency 
on an economywide basis. It has numerous provisions improving 
efficiency standards for household appliances. It has provisions to 
establish efficiency standards for lightbulbs, for lighting fixtures, 
efficiency provisions related to building construction, which is very 
important throughout the country, requirements for greater efficiency 
savings from the Federal Government across the board. All of that is 
positive.
  The legislation also makes significant contributions in the area of 
renewable energy technologies. It would increase our commitment to 
research and development of these renewable energy sources. It would 
help to demonstrate and commercialize the carbon capture and storage 
technologies.
  It helps us by putting in place extensions of important tax 
incentives to increase both energy efficiency and more production of 
energy from renewable sources. And it will, as my colleagues pointed 
out, require electric utilities to produce 11 percent of their energy 
from renewable sources by 2020.
  I know that is a controversial provision in this bill. I know there 
is a great concern on the part of some Members here. Frankly, I do not 
share most of that concern. The Senate has passed a renewable 
electricity standard three different times. In the last three 
Congresses, we have passed such a provision with strong majorities in 
each case.
  It has now passed the House of Representatives two times. It seems 
strange to me to say that this should be a showstopper; this should be 
something we need to suggest a possible veto about.
  I could go through the arguments at great length, but let me just 
point out this is not a 15-percent requirement as it has been 
advertised and described by many; it is an 11-percent requirement, and 
the additional 4 percent that makes up the 15 percent can be achieved 
through energy savings, efficiency savings. Clearly, that is 
preferable. It also is substantially less ambitious in the first few 
years than what we were considering in the Senate before and, in fact, 
what we have passed through the Senate before.
  So this is a provision I think Members can support. It is one that 
can give us lower greenhouse gas emissions, thousands of new jobs, 
cleaner air, and greater energy efficiency. It can do all of that at a 
low cost and perhaps even a savings to consumers because many studies 
have shown that the adoption of an electricity standard such as this, a 
renewable electricity standard, will have the effect of reducing the 
price of natural gas. It will take pressure off the price of natural 
gas and thereby reduce the price of natural gas. So we should pass that 
provision as part of this legislation.
  The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has estimated 
that when you total up all of those provisions I have elaborated here, 
the legislation before us would reduce U.S. energy use by almost 8 
percent in 2030 compared to current Department of Energy forecasts. In 
doing so, these added efficiencies would reduce projected carbon 
dioxide emissions by 10 percent and save consumers more than $450 
billion by 2030.
  On balance, I believe the energy legislation we have before us 
deserves the support of my colleagues. It is not perfect in every 
respect. Legislation of this size and complexity obviously cannot be. 
However, it represents an opportunity to make significant steps forward 
in a number of key areas of energy policy. With the passage of this 
legislation, we can reduce our dependance on oil, we can increase our 
consumption of homegrown fuels, we can provide substantial savings to 
consumers, and we can create many new jobs. I think it is a real step 
forward, also, in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 40 seconds 
remaining.


         loan program for advanced vehicle technology vehicles

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
Majority leader, Senator Reid. I do so

[[Page S15006]]

to discuss a critical measure that will help keep jobs in the United 
States and give a major boost to the domestic production of energy-
efficient vehicles.
  As my colleagues know, the pending energy bill has a 40-percent 
increase in CAFE standards for vehicles sold in the U.S. This is by far 
the largest mandate on any industry in this bill.
  In addition to this mandate, I am pleased to have led the effort 
working with Congressman Dingell, Senator Bingaman, and others, to 
include a new program in the bill that would provide $25 billion in 
low-interest direct loans to the auto industry to help them retool 
facilities to produce energy-efficient vehicles to comply with the very 
challenging CAFE standards in the bill.
  I believe that this loan program is only fair since we are asking the 
auto industry to spend approximately $80 billion in new capital 
investment to comply with the new CAFE title.
  As many of my colleagues know, establishing a loan program of this 
type is a two-step process. The first part, setting up the program, has 
been accomplished. The second part, however, providing the resources to 
back the loans, has not yet been done.
  So I rise to ask Senator Reid, as you complete negotiations on a 
final energy bill, will you give me your assurance that you will 
provide the resources necessary to fund the loan program that is 
authorized in the current energy bill?
  Mr. Reid. Mr. President, no one works harder on behalf of her 
constituents than Senator Stabenow. She is a real leader in keeping 
manufacturing jobs in the United States.
  Mr. President, I give the Senator from Michigan my word that I will 
work with her and the Appropriations and Finance Committees to find and 
provide the resources that would fully implement this loan program.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank Senator Reid for his assurances and all of his 
leadership on the energy bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion 
to concur in the House amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and 
Security Act, because I believe we need to move forward to address our 
Nation's continued dependence on imported oil, increase our energy 
independence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  The House amendment to H.R. 6 is a significant improvement over the 
bill the Senate passed in June. H.R. 6 will require new vehicle fuel 
economy standards that will be challenging for auto manufacturers. 
Reaching a fuel economy level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is 
ambitious, but unlike the Senate passed bill, the provisions of this 
amendment provide greater flexibility and predictability for auto 
manufacturers in meeting those standards. The CAFE provisions of this 
amendment are not perfect, and I believe that additional improvements 
could be made. But this amendment includes positive language on some 
important issues to the auto manufacturers and their workers by 
requiring separate car and truck standards, preserving domestic jobs 
with an antibacksliding provision, and extending flexible fuel credits 
until 2014. Significantly, this amendment also maintains a key reform 
obtained during Senate consideration of the bill. By setting standards 
based on vehicle size rather than having a fleetwide average for each 
company, we will end the many years of discriminatory impacts on 
domestic manufacturers imposed by the existing CAFE system.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act. In particular, title I, otherwise known 
as the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, would mandate an increase in 
automobile fuel economy to a nationwide fleet average of 35 miles per 
gallon by 2020. This is the first statutory increase in fuel economy 
standards for cars since 1975. In addition, the Department of 
Transportation would adopt fuel economy standards for medium and heavy 
duty commercial vehicles for the first time.
  With the cost of oil at approximately $90 per barrel, reducing our 
dependence on oil is of vital importance to our national security, 
economic stability, and consumer welfare. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy 
Act is a major step forward toward achieving these goals. In addition, 
the act would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 
demonstrate to the world that America is a leader in fighting global 
warming.
  Legislation of this magnitude could have only been achieved through 
the hard work of a coalition of Members. In this case, without Senators 
Feinstein, Stevens, Snowe, Kerry, Dorgan, Lott, Carper, Boxer, Durbin, 
Alexander, Corker, and Cantwell, the agreement would not have been 
reached.
  In particular, I wish to congratulate Senator Feinstein on her 
efforts in developing this bill. Her dedication over the years has led 
us to an agreement that very few thought possible. I would also like to 
praise the efforts of my good friend Senator Stevens, who was 
instrumental in forging the compromise before us. His work in the 
Commerce Committee, on the Senate floor, and in negotiations with the 
House reflects his commitment to working in a bipartisan fashion.
  Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid recognized the importance of 
the issue and have made fuel economy a major focus of the Energy bill. 
I thank them for their support and dedication.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Dingell and Senators Levin and 
Stabenow for their hard work and willingness to achieve an agreement 
that aggressively improves fuel economy while protecting the domestic 
automobile manufacturing base and U.S. workers. Their leadership, 
honesty, and technical expertise have been invaluable. The American 
automaker and autoworker have no better advocates.
  Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to all the hard-
working members of the staff who worked to make this historical 
legislation a reality. In particular, I would like to commend David 
Strickland, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Mia Petrini, and Jared Bomberg of my 
Commerce Committee staff for a job well done.
  The importance of this legislation cannot be underestimated.
  During the Arab oil embargo in 1973, Americans suffered the first 
devastating effects of our addiction to oil. Our vulnerability to 
curtailments in supply became apparent. While waiting in long lines at 
gas stations, we felt the immediate need for conservation, alternative 
energy sources, and more efficient use of energy, especially in the 
transportation sector. Born out of this embargo, Congress put in place 
a fuel economy program that nearly doubled the gas mileage of cars from 
1975 to 1985.
  Today's agreement marks historic progress. It is the first of its 
kind since 1975 and is a major step toward addressing our Nation's 
energy needs. Title I of the bill will save approximately 1.1 million 
barrels of oil per day in 2020--equal to one-half of what we currently 
import daily from the Persian Gulf. By the year 2020, the legislation 
will save consumers approximately $22 billion at the pump and prevent 
approximately 200 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from 
polluting our environment each year.
  A diverse group of constituencies support the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy 
Act, from environmentalists to automotive workers and automakers. While 
it sets forth aggressive standards, the act also recognizes the 
challenges faced by the auto industry and ensures that those concerns 
will be addressed. For one, it provides flexibility to the automotive 
industry. The sponsors of these fuel economy provisions have worked 
together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that automakers have the 
tools they need to meet the requirements enumerated in the act.
  The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to create two fuel economy curves, one for passenger 
cars and one for light trucks. This change from the Senate--passed bill 
provides the certainty that American automakers, auto workers, and car 
dealers requested, but the act still requires that the combined car and 
light truck fleet meet a fuel economy standard of at least 35 miles per 
gallon by 2020.
  The act also provides automakers with the option of earning flexible 
fuel credits at a tapering rate set to expire in 2019. These credits 
will incentivize the production of millions of flexible fuel capable 
vehicles while assisting automakers in achieving the target of 35 miles 
per gallon by 2020.
  Passage of this bill will ensure that our Nation's energy priorities 
start moving in the right direction. Higher fuel economy standards will 
wean the

[[Page S15007]]

country of its oil addiction, put billions of dollars of savings back 
into our domestic economy and significantly reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  Our actions today will improve national security, create jobs, help 
consumers, and protect the environment. At times, it is the 
Government's responsibility to balance conflicting interests. Today, I 
believe we found that balance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
speak on the leader time for up to 3 minutes. That would come off 
Senator Reid's time. When Senator McConnell comes, I will yield to him 
at that time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this is a great moment for the 
Senate. I was hoping that we could, in fact, get 60 votes for this 
particular version of the Energy bill. It does not appear likely that 
will happen for reasons I am sure Senator Domenici has stated.
  I think the bill, as it is before us, deserves to get 60 votes, 
deserves to get 80 votes, deserves to get 100 votes, because at a time 
of very high prices of oil, gas at the pump going toward $4 in my 
State, heating oil going up at a rapid rate, affecting people mostly in 
the Northeast and other areas, we should take bold action.
  I wish to say to Senator Bingaman in particular how grateful I am for 
the work he has put into this measure. I am sure Senator Domenici did 
as well, but I had to work very closely with Senator Bingaman and his 
staff and my staff. This has been very difficult. I also wish to say 
that Speaker Pelosi showed her amazing skill working with John Dingell 
and others over in the House to get this bill to where it is today. The 
American people are very clear with us: They want action on the issues 
that impact them every single day. And this is one.
  I want to say that the other day--and you know this well, Mr. 
President, because you are on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee--we voted out a very strong bill, a very strong bill to deal 
with the problem of global warming. One of the great things about 
dealing with global warming is that the cure for global warming is 
going to mean less reliance on foreign oil, alternative fuels, and the 
rest. We are clearly taking action in this Senate to move to solve the 
problems that face us.
  I see Senator McConnell is here, and I will conclude in 30 seconds.
  I hope we will have strong support for this bill. We have many 
provisions in here that were voted unanimously out of the Environment 
Committee, including green buildings and DOE solar wall and many other 
energy efficiencies in our Government buildings that I think are going 
to work well for the taxpayers, and finally doing something about CAFE 
standards--very important. So congratulations to everyone who worked so 
hard getting to this point. I hope we can get 60 votes. If we don't, I 
hope we can certainly get 60 votes for the next try.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is a difference between passing a 
bill and actually making laws. The bill before us is a prime example. 
The majority started with a bipartisan agreement that can be passed in 
both Houses and signed by the President; in other words, it could 
actually become law. It chose, instead, to add the twin milestones of 
utility rate hikes and massive tax increases. The end result is that 
the House passed a bill, but it will not become law. So there is a 
clear difference between making a partisan point and having an 
accomplishment. I hope at the end of this process, as it unfolds here 
before Christmas, we will actually make law.
  Again, we can look at the current bill as an example. Rather than 
take the elements of the bill that had near universal support and have 
an accomplishment on behalf of their constituents, the majority chose 
instead to make a partisan point.
  Now, I understand that the House is a different place, that the 
Speaker rules, as the Senate majority leader put it Wednesday, ``with 
an iron fist.'' While she can muscle bills through the House on a 
party-line vote, it does not work that way over here. We have shown 
that all year on numerous political votes the majority has put on the 
floor. We have shown that already this week on the AMT. When the 
majority tried the ``my way or the highway'' approach, the bill failed. 
When they worked with us on a bill that could pass, we succeeded by a 
vote of 88 to 5. That I would call success. The same is true of the 
farm bill. When the leadership of the majority tried to dictate to the 
minority what amendments we could offer, the Senate spun its wheels and 
got nowhere. But when the majority worked with us, the result was a 
mutually beneficial agreement that will soon lead to an accomplishment 
that both sides can be proud of.
  But the bill we are voting on today is a massive tax hike and a 
utility rate increase for consumers across the Southeast. It is not a 
serious attempt to make law, and it is not a serious attempt at an 
accomplishment. It is a partisan bill that must be improved or set 
aside.
  So let's not waste even more time rehashing the lessons of the past 
11 months. If you are serious about an accomplishment, let's fix this 
bill. Walking away from a bipartisan deal in favor of raising taxes and 
raising utility rates, as the House majority has done, will not make a 
law. But working with us to find common ground to increase the use of 
renewable fuels and raise fuel economy standards to historic levels 
without costing American jobs is something that would enjoy widespread 
support. I stand ready to work with all our colleagues on a realistic 
bipartisan bill, but I will vote no on this partisan tax increase and 
this rate increase for consumers and urge our colleagues to do the 
same.

  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur with the House on the 
message they have sent us.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is now pending.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have worked very hard this year to 
accomplish goals. But it takes a lot of work because everything we have 
done has been after having filed cloture on sometimes multiple 
occasions, trying to terminate debate on the other side. My friend, the 
distinguished Republican leader, said, finally, we did the right thing 
on the farm bill. The only reason we were able to get agreement on the 
farm bill is because cloture likely would have been invoked this 
morning. The farm and ranching communities in America are up in arms 
that the Republicans have stalled the farm bill for months. I am 
satisfied where we are. It has been difficult to get where we are. We 
will work through the farm bill and finish it. But for people to 
indicate it was the result of how we handled the legislation that has 
taken so long to get there is without foundation.
  This bill, the Energy bill, the vote we are going to take in a few 
minutes is a historic vote. We hear words all the time in the Senate 
about ``landmark'' and ``historic.'' These words are often used but 
occasionally appropriately. Now is the time to talk about historic. 
This is a historic vote. This Energy and Security Act will finally put 
America on the right track to solve our grave and growing energy 
crisis. No superlative is too strong to express how important this is 
to our country's future and, to a certain extent, the world's future, 
because we are the ones polluting the air more than any other nation in 
the world, by far. Today, America consumes 21 million barrels of oil; 
tomorrow, 21 million barrels plus a few more. It is not going down; it 
is going up. Most of this oil comes from very unstable regions of the 
world.
  What did President Chavez say from Venezuela during the height of his 
recent constitutional crisis? He said: We will cut off oil supply to 
the United States.
  Think about that. We are dependent on this tyrant for our oil. But he 
is not

[[Page S15008]]

the only tyrant we are depending on for oil. The most tyrannical 
governments in the world today exist in the Middle East, countries we 
ask for oil. Some say the war in the Middle East that is going on now 
is based on oil. I don't necessarily believe that, but people who do 
are not in any way without foundation and reason.
  With the 21 million barrels of oil a day going to these nations that 
have these despotic governments, we send as a nation at least a billion 
dollars every day overseas to pay for our oil addiction. Those 21 
million barrels we will use today and those we will use tomorrow have 
created a three-pronged crisis that threatens our economy. On my last 
trip to California, I saw prices on the pumps of more than $4 for a 
gallon of gasoline. Our national security, the example I gave for the 
dictator of Venezuela, is that affecting our security? Of course, it 
does. That is only one example. Our environment, does it affect our 
environment using 21 million barrels of oil a day, 65 percent of which 
is imported from these individuals and governments I talked about? What 
does this do to our environment? It pollutes it.
  The cost of the pollution in our environment is affecting us from a 
health perspective. In June, the Senate took action to begin reversing 
these threats. We passed the Energy bill with a bipartisan vote of 65. 
It was a good vote. But the House has done even better than we did. 
They have sent their version to us with a strong majority. I urge all 
my colleagues to concur with the House bill and send this critical 
legislation to President Bush. As I have indicated, with gas prices all 
over the country, with a gallon of gasoline being more than $3 and 
working Americans spending more than ever to make their commute to 
work, the time to act is not tomorrow. It is now. With home heating 
prices at record highs and the cold winter months now upon us, the time 
to act is now. With the threat of global warming growing by the day--
and that is why there are more than 10,000 people assembled in Bali as 
we speak to talk about the global warming that is taking place--the 
time to act is now.
  I so appreciate the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and the work they are doing in that committee on the 
bipartisan measure reported out of that committee this week, Lieberman-
Warner, led by the committee chair, Senator Boxer, to report out a 
global warming bill. The first global warming bill that meets the needs 
of our world was reported out of that committee this week. Now this 
bill adds to that. I appreciate very much the work of the chairmen who 
worked to get the bill out of the Senate and who worked to get the 
measure from the House to us: Senator Bingaman, Energy and Natural 
Resources; Senator Inouye, Commerce; Senator Boxer, Environment and 
Public Works. That is the bill we have before us.
  The bill tackles each of the supply challenges by addressing both 
sides of the crisis--consumption and supply. On the consumption side, 
it increases fuel efficiency of cars and trucks for the first time in 
30 years to 35 miles per gallon. That is significant. Think about it. 
What was America like with its automobiles 30 years ago? Think back to 
1976. Cars didn't come with airbags. They were just getting cassette 
players. We had advanced past the invention of the eight-track stereo. 
We now have cassette players. The closest thing you could buy to the 
Global Positioning System we now have on a lot of vehicles was a map. 
You went to a service station and most of the time they gave you that 
map. You would look at the map. My wife, we used to joke, she was the 
navigator as we proceeded with the kids in the backseat yelling and 
screaming. That is how we found our way. The navigator was my wife. 
That is not the way it is now.
  Things have changed in those 30 years. Today we have cars that were, 
in the past, science fiction, a hybrid electric car. My wife has one. 
It runs on a big battery and it runs on gasoline. She loves her car, 
but it is new. She bought it a few months ago. Ethanol cars, cars 
burning fuel produced from corn and other products, and electric cars, 
total electric cars--these things will add to the ability of Americans 
to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
  But this bill we have now, with increasing the CAFE standards, will 
save American families at least $1,000 a year at the gas pump. For our 
country, it will save a total of $22 billion by 2020, $22 billion a 
year. It will also reduce greenhouse gases by the equivalent--listen to 
this--of taking 28 million cars and trucks off the road. We take 28 
million cars and trucks off the road by passing this legislation. That 
is pretty good. It will also reduce greenhouse gases in other ways. 
This increase to 35 miles per gallon is supported by the environmental 
community. Of course, it is.
  If my time has expired, I will use leader time now.
  The increase to 35 miles per gallon is supported by the environmental 
community. Of course, it is. But it is now supported by the automobile 
industry. As a result of that, the vote time will be extended, Mr. 
President. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I got a letter in my office this week from 
Ron Gettekfubger, president of the United Auto Workers Association, 
saying: Thanks for your work on the Energy bill. The automobile 
workers, Detroit favors this legislation. The environmental community, 
the unions, and the automobile industry, a pretty good deal. That 
wasn't the way it was a short time ago. That is the way it is now. The 
environmentalists support it because it will make our air cleaner and 
take one step on the long road to stem the tide of global warming. The 
automobile industry supports it because they know they can do it, and 
they know it will make them more competitive. It will make the American 
automobile industry more competitive.
  It also saves Americans hundreds of billions of dollars through other 
things, new energy efficiency standards for appliances, lighting, and 
buildings. If you have a washing machine that consumes 40 gallons of 
water and another that does a good job with 10, we should save those 30 
gallons. That is the principle we are working on. If one light bulb 
lasts as long as three light bulbs, we ought to save that electricity. 
It is common sense, and that is what this legislation does. But 
consumption is half the battle.
  On the supply side, this Energy bill requires, for the first time, 
that 15 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources. That 
doesn't sound like anything that is too big of a hill to climb. What is 
more, this renewable energy portfolio rewards innovation by allowing 
States--lots of States but, for example, Nevada--that have already 
taken the initiative and are national leaders on alternative energy to 
sell their excess product to other States. I have heard some complain: 
Nevada has more wind and more Sun and more geothermal than other 
States. The news last week was, we are now, off the coast of Florida, 
going to be producing electricity with the current, with waves. Nevada 
doesn't have any currents or waves. So it all balances out. That is 
what this is all about. It rewards innovation. That is what America has 
been about since we were founded. This legislation makes an 
unprecedented commitment to American-grown biofuels by increasing the 
renewable fuels standard to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022, which 
will not just reduce our addiction to oil but create American jobs as 
well. It repeals billions and billions of dollars in tax giveaways to 
big oil that exports product from overseas and invests it instead in 
tax incentives to produce clean, renewable energy right here at home.
  All across America, businesses, entrepreneurs, and local governments 
are taking the lead to solve this energy crisis. On my last trip to 
Silicon Valley, the discussion with these geniuses was on two topics: 
health care and energy. The great minds of America are focusing on 
this. They need some incentives. You can't invest unless there are some 
incentives in this new field. All they want is a tax credit here, a tax 
credit there. They deserve that. With these great minds, they will take 
us much further than we can imagine.
  In California, for example, a professor is working on a new 
technology that can manufacture fuel out of simple plant material in 
any industrial park in America. In Pennsylvania, Amish farmers are 
charging their

[[Page S15009]]

buggy batteries with solar power. In Nevada, local governments are 
using solar energy at water pumping stations to move water uphill, 
something that in the past would have required tremendous nonrenewable 
power. That kind of innovation is exactly what America does best. But 
as of right now, the Federal Government is lagging, not leading. This 
must change, and today it can.

  Our energy crisis will not be solved overnight, but this bill that is 
now before us is a crucial big, big first step. So let's take that step 
together. To do so, we cannot let procedural disputes get in the way of 
this much needed bill.
  My Republican colleagues objected to this bill before going to 
conference. I wish we could have gone to conference. But that is their 
right. Even without a conference, we worked with Republicans, 
consulting on and sharing proposed language. And that is an 
understatement. Many provisions were removed and modified at the 
request of Republican Senate and House Members.
  We have acted on this bill in good faith. Now it is time for 
Republicans and Democrats to put politics aside and unite behind a bill 
that will deliver a cleaner, safer energy future for all of America.
  Mr. President, after this vote, there will be no more votes today. 
The next vote will be Tuesday morning. I have spoken to Senators Harkin 
and Chambliss. They are going to work on the farm bill this afternoon 
to try to have some amendments offered. I would hope those people who 
want to have 1 of the 20 amendments on each side will start offering 
these amendments. We are going to move through and finish the farm bill 
before we leave here, and we can complete some of that work today, and 
also Monday afternoon.
  On Monday, as I have just indicated, there will be no votes, but we 
are going to come in Monday afternoon and work on the farm bill. We 
will get back to this bill on Tuesday. I will be conferring with the 
distinguished Republican leader and other Republicans to decide how we 
are going to proceed. I have an idea, but I want to make sure they are 
in tune with what we are doing.
  I appreciate everyone's cooperation yesterday, and I hope we have a 
productive day today.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant 
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture 
motion, which the clerk will state.
  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 motion to 
     concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments to 
     H.R. 6, comprehensive energy legislation.
         Jeff Bingaman, Max Baucus, Blanche L. Lincoln, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Jon Tester, Robert Menendez, Jack Reed, Tom 
           Harkin, Mark Pryor, Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Dick 
           Durbin, Maria Cantwell, Byron L. Dorgan, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Kent Conrad, Bill Nelson.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments to 
H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 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. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Martinez), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 416 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Ensign
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the 
nays are 42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this doesn't mark the end of this bill. 
This marks the beginning of completing a process in the Senate so we 
will have a bill that can be signed and that will be an excellent bill 
for the American people. That means we have to go to work in trying to 
fix some of the problems the House bill has generated for us.
  First of all, we are talking about ethanol II, the successor to the 
ethanol bill we passed, which includes a very hopeful future for wheat 
and the kinds of things that are going to go into the thing that 
follows ethanol. We cannot accomplish them, it seems to us, with what 
they have in this bill. We have to look at that and see what we can do 
to fix it. In addition, we have to do something about both taxes and 
the mandatory 15 percent that is required for electric generation in 
this bill. We have to look at that and others.
  I hope this sends a signal so Senator Bingaman and I--he as chairman 
and I as ranking member--can work with everybody who has concerns and 
put together an amendment we can offer that sends this bill back to the 
House, corrected and fixed, where it can become law and where it is 
more to the accomplishment of what we expected when we passed the bill 
in the Senate.
  I note the presence of Senator Bingaman. I hope he concurs. Our 
staffs ought to go to work and have something by Monday, I hope.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do think we can make some changes that 
would make this bill acceptable to a vast majority of Senators. I look 
forward to working on that along with my colleague. I know the majority 
leader intends to revisit this issue as soon as this next week, 
perhaps.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. If I may, I will add a comment to what the chairman 
said. I voted against cloture this morning, but I am most certainly 
willing to come to a compromise on some of the issues and get an 
agreement between the two sides, and I look forward to working over the 
weekend to that end.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I add that I appreciate Senator Bingaman 
for his fair and good leadership. Particularly, I thank Senator 
Domenici, who understood the problems some of us have had in our region 
with the high cost of electricity that would occur if this bill were to 
pass as it came back from the House.
  I do think the legislation has a lot of good things in it. Hopefully, 
we can work forward in a way that we can pass it because we have a need 
to be more energy independent, and we need to create more energy in a 
cleaner way. I thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici. I am 
optimistic we will reach that agreement.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii is 
recognized.




                          ____________________