[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 191 (Thursday, December 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15385-S15390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RENEWABLE FUELS, CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, each leader is 
permitted to use leader time prior to a vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture with respect to H.R. 6.


                   NHTSA Regulations on Fuel Economy

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support this bill and, in particular, the 
provisions that require the Department of Transportation, through the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, to set new fuel 
economy standards for vehicles that will reach an industry fleet wide 
level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 based on my understanding that 
these new Federal standards will not be undercut in the future by 
regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency regulating 
greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
  I believe that we have taken historic steps in this legislation by 
putting in place ambitious but achievable fuel economy standards that 
will reduce our Nation's fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. 
In this legislation, the Senate and House have come together and 
established the appropriate level of fuel economy standards and have 
directed NHTSA to implement that through new regulations. In this 
legislation, the Congress has agreed that the appropriate level of fuel 
economy to reach is 35 miles per gallon in 2020, or an increase of 10 
miles per gallon in 10 years.
  But it is essential to manufacturers that they are able to plan on 
the 35 miles per gallon standard in 2020. We must resolve now with the 
sponsors of this legislation in the Senate any ambiguity that could 
arise in the future when EPA issues new rules to regulate greenhouse 
gas emissions from vehicles pursuant to its authority under the Clean 
Air Act so that our manufacturers can have certainty. With that in 
mind, I want to clarify both Senator Inouye's and Senator Feinstein's 
understanding and interpretation of what the Congress is doing in this 
legislation and to clarify their agreement that we want all Federal 
regulations in this area to be consistent. We do not want to enact this 
legislation today only to find later that we have not been sufficiently 
diligent to avoid any conflicts in the future.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the Clean Air 
Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and to delegate 
that authority, as the agency deems appropriate, to the State of 
California. This authority was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme 
Court, and it is not our purpose today to attempt to change that 
authority or to undercut

[[Page S15386]]

the decision of the Supreme Court. We simply want to make clear that it 
is Congressional intent in this bill that, with respect to regulation 
of greenhouse gas emissions, any future regulations issued by the 
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions 
from vehicles be consistent with the Department of Transportation's new 
fuel economy regulations that will reach an industry fleet wide level 
by 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
  Does the Senator from California and original sponsor of this 
legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, agree with my view that the intent of this 
language is for EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from 
vehicles to be consistent with the direction of Congress in this 35 
miles per gallon in 2020 legislation and consistent with regulations 
issued by the Department of Transportation to implement this 
legislation?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, of course, we have worked hard to come together 
on this legislation directing NHTSA to issue new fuel economy 
regulations to reach an industry fleet wide level of 35 miles per 
gallon by 2020, and it is our intent in the bill before us that all 
Federal regulations in this area be consistent with our 35 miles per 
gallon in 2020 language.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for her clarification of her intent.
  Does the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the distinguished 
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, agree with my understanding of the 
intent of this bill that any regulations issued by the Environmental 
Protection Agency be consistent with the direction of Congress in this 
legislation and regulations issued by the Department of Transportation 
to implement this legislation?
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes. I. I agree that it is very important that all 
Federal regulations in this area be consistent and that we provide 
clear direction to the agency that has responsibility for setting fuel 
economy standards, the Department of Transportation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Mr. 
Inouye, for his clarification.


                           agency management

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have worked for many months with the 
Senior Senator from California and the original sponsor of this 
legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, to draft a sound policy to increase fuel 
economy standards in our country. I stated earlier today that ``all 
Federal regulations in this area be consistent.'' I wholly agree with 
that notion, in that these agencies have two different missions. The 
Department of Transportation has the responsibility for regulating fuel 
economy, and should enforce the Ten-in Ten Fuel Economy Act fully and 
vigorously to save oil in the automobile fleet. The Environmental 
Protection Agency has the responsibility to protect public health. 
These two missions can and should co-exist without one undermining the 
other. There are numerous examples in the executive branch where two or 
more agencies share responsibility over a particular issue. The Federal 
Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission both oversee 
telemarketing practices and the Do-Not-Call list.
  The FTC also shares jurisdiction over antitrust enforcement with the 
Department of Justice. Under the current CAFE system, the Department of 
Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency work together. 
DOT enforces the CAFE standards, and the EPA tests vehicles for 
compliance and fuel economy labels on cars. The President himself 
foresaw these agencies working together and issued an Executive Order 
on May 14, 2007, to coordinate the agencies on reducing automotive 
greenhouse gas emissions. The DOT and the EPA have separate missions 
that should be executed fully and responsibly. I believe it is 
important that we ensure that the agencies are properly managed by the 
executive branch, as has been done with several agencies with shared 
jurisdiction for decades. I plan on holding hearings next session to 
examine this issue fully.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, and I would like to clarify what I believe to be the intent 
of the legislation I sponsored to increase fuel economy standards in 
the United States.
  The legislation increasing the fuel economy standards of vehicles by 
10 miles per gallon over 10 years does not impact the authority to 
regulate tailpipe emissions of the EPA, California, or other States, 
under the Clean Air Act.
  The intent was to give NHTSA the ability to regulate fuel efficiency 
standards of vehicles, and increase the fleetwide average to at least 
35 miles per gallon by 2020.
  There was no intent in any way, shape, or form to negatively affect, 
or otherwise restrain, California or any other State's existing or 
future tailpipe emissions laws, or any future EPA authority on tailpipe 
emissions.
  The two issues are separate and distinct.
  As the Supreme Court correctly observed in Massachusetts v. EPA, the 
fact ``that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk 
its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with 
protecting the public's health and welfare, a statutory obligation 
wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency. The 
two obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think the two 
agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid 
inconsistency.''
  I agree with the Supreme Court's view of consistency. There is no 
reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their 
obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.
  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in 
Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Goldstone has reiterated this point in 
finding that if approved by EPA, California's standards are not 
preempted by the Energy Policy Conservation Act.
  Title I of the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007, H.R. 6, 
provides clear direction to the Department of Transportation, in 
consultation with the Department of Energy and the Environmental 
Protection Agency, to raise fuel economy standards.
  By taking this action, Congress is continuing DOT's existing 
authority to set vehicle fuel economy standards. Importantly, the 
separate authority and responsibility of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions under 
the Clean Air Act is in no manner affected by this legislation as 
plainly provided for in section 3 of the bill addressing the 
relationship of H.R. 6 to other laws.
  I fought for section 3. I have resisted all efforts to add 
legislative language requiring ``harmonization'' of these EPA and NHTSA 
standards. This language could have required that EPA standards adopted 
under section 202 of the Clean Air Act reduce only the air pollution 
emissions that would already result from NHTSA fuel economy standards, 
effectively making the NHTSA fuel economy standards a national ceiling 
for the reduction of pollution. Our legislation does not establish a 
NHTSA ceiling. It does not mention the Clean Air Act, so we certainly 
do not intend to strip EPA of its wholly separate mandate to protect 
the public health and welfare from air pollution.
  To be clear, Federal standards can avoid inconsistency according to 
the Supreme Court, while still fulfilling their separate mandates.


                             Energy Savings

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk to the chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee about energy savings in Federal 
buildings in H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
  Along with Senators Feingold, Burr, and Corker, I offered an 
amendment to H.R. 6 that would require the Federal Government to 
procure the most energy-efficient commercial water heating systems in 
new or renovated Federal buildings. This language was not incorporated 
into the final version of the legislation we will be voting on today.
  I would ask Chairman Bingaman if the energy savings in the Federal 
building sections of H.R. 6 apply to all building systems and 
technologies, not just lighting?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for his question. The Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires Federal agencies to 
reduce their energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015 and includes 
provisions requiring new and renovated buildings to adopt energy 
efficient systems and technologies in

[[Page S15387]]

order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Federal leadership in building 
performance and procurement standards in our Federal facilities and in 
commercial buildings generally is critically important in achieving our 
energy conservation goals. The energy savings requirements for our 
Nation's Federal facilities incorporated in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 are intended to apply to all building systems and 
technologies.
  Mr KOHL. I would like to thank the chairman for all of his help on 
this issue. Chairman Bingaman's leadership on energy efficiency and 
this Energy bill has been invaluable.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, they say that ADM William ``Bull'' Halsey, 
who commanded the Pacific Fleet in World War II, once said:

       There aren't any great men. There are just great challenges 
     that ordinary men like you and me are forced by circumstances 
     to meet.

  Today, the circumstances around energy policy provide us another set 
of challenges. Today, we will see whether we can rise to meet them.
  Prices for gasoline, heating oil, electricity, and natural gas have 
accelerated upward. Since the Senate last considered energy tax 
legislation in June, oil prices have soared by $30 a barrel. Energy 
costs have hit working families particularly hard.
  Nearly every week, the news reminds us of the fragility of our energy 
supply, whether it is trouble in South America or Africa or in the 
Middle East.
  As well, people have increasingly acknowledged the challenge 
presented by the link between energy use and global warming.
  To help address these challenges, I am pleased that the Senate will 
vote today on energy tax incentives designed to promote clean and 
sustainable energy.
  Energy tax policy is not new territory for the Finance Committee. In 
2005, the committee designed tax incentives for that year's major 
Energy bill. And last December, we enacted energy tax provisions as 
part of the end-of-the-year package.
  We are building on that strong foundation today with additional tax 
incentives. Most of those incentives were approved by a 19 to 5 vote in 
the Finance Committee this past June.
  We did not get 60 votes on the Senate floor in June. But the energy 
crisis has not subsided. And so we are back here today with an even 
stronger package of energy tax incentives.
  The energy tax proposal before us today continues our commitment to 
clean energy and renewable fuels. The amendment extends existing tax 
incentives for solar power, wind power, fuel cells, and energy-
efficient homes and buildings. And we provide more than $2 billion for 
renewable energy bonds.
  But we need to go further. And we do in this proposal. We advance 
three areas critical to our nation's energy future: cellulosic ethanol, 
hybrid cars, and coal sequestration.
  Ethanol made from corn has become familiar territory. Now cellulosic 
ethanol is the new frontier to explore. This bill proposes a production 
tax credit of up to $1.00 a gallon for up to 60 million gallons of 
cellulosic fuel produced from sawgrass, agricultural wastes, and other 
biomass.
  Hybrid cars provide a tremendous opportunity to make our 
transportation sector cleaner. A high-mileage car with no emissions is 
territory well worth exploring. Our proposal calls for a new $3,500 
credit for plug-in vehicles.
  America has vast reserves of coal. But we have concerns about global 
warming. It is thus imperative that when we use our coal, we need to 
try to prevent carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere.
  Our proposal would provide tax credits for capturing carbon dioxide 
emitted from industrial use of coal. The proposal also would provide 
accelerated depreciation for new dedicated pipelines used to transport 
CO2 from an industrial source to a geologic formation for 
permanent disposal. A proposal to encourage the construction of 
additional refinery capacity is also included.
  We do our work in a fiscally responsible way. Lower budget deficits 
help to keep interest rates low. That helps to make the economy more 
competitive. Paying as we go may be a tough task. But the proposal 
contains offsets that are fair and economically sound.
  We propose to simplify and improve the tax code by eliminating the 
distinction between ``foreign oil and gas extraction income'' and 
``foreign oil-related income.''
  We propose to withdraw the tax breaks under section 199 from the 
large oil companies. There is strong evidence that the boost from 
section 199 that the Senate envisioned when we enacted the JOBS Act in 
2004 has not been realized.
  We have heard from the major oil companies. But the majors collected 
over a half a trillion dollars in profits since 2001, and they are on 
track to collect up to a trillion dollars in profits over the next 10 
years. The Joint Economic Committee has assured us that these 
provisions will have no affect on consumer prices for gasoline and 
natural gas in the immediate future.
  The proposal before us today drops a severance tax on the production 
of crude oil and natural gas from the Outer Continental Shelf in the 
Gulf of Mexico. That severance tax was contained in the Senate Finance 
Committee-passed bill but is not in the proposal on which we will vote 
today.
  Here is the territory that we are in: Gas prices are well over $3. 
The price of a barrel of oil is hovering around $90 a barrel. And 
concern about global warming is growing.
  If we do not move forward today, Americans will look back and ask who 
blocked energy legislation. And they will be astonished. They are not 
going to understand how good policy designed to address one of the 
greatest challenges facing our country--some call it a crisis--was 
blocked by good Senators in December of 2007.
  The proposal before us today will address the challenge. It addresses 
today's energy policy circumstances. So I urge my colleagues to meet 
the challenge and vote in favor of this sound energy package.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to give my 
reasons for my vote against invoking cloture on H.R. 6, the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 which was sent to the Senate from 
the House of Representatives on December 6, 2007. It is regrettable 
that certain tactics and maneuvers prevented a formal conference and 
there was no accommodation for removal of controversial tax provisions 
which further complicated the negotiations. I am voting against cloture 
on energy bill, although I support many of the bill's provisions, 
because key commitments to at least one of my Republican colleagues 
were reportedly broken. Further, I understand the bill in its present 
form would likely draw a veto from the President.
  I would have preferred a conference report which did not include 
taxes on the oil and gas industries. Had there been a formal 
conference, those taxes might well have been left out of the conference 
report. It has been reported that the oil and gas industries took steps 
to oppose convening a conference. If so, they bear some responsibility 
for the inclusion of the taxes which might have been eliminated had 
there been a conference.
  This past summer, I supported the Senate-passed Energy bill, H.R. 6, 
which would have promoted oil savings by increasing our national 
average vehicle fuel economy; alleviated dependence on imported oil by 
increasing requirements for the use of biofuels and advanced biofuels; 
advanced the prospects for cleanly utilizing our Nation's abundant coal 
reserves by furthering research, development and demonstration of 
carbon capture and sequestration technology; and supported a reduction 
in our demand for energy by creating new efficiency benchmarks for 
appliances and authorizing research and development grants for more 
efficient building materials, processes and vehicle technology.
  Furthermore, though the Senate did not include a minimum requirement 
for the amount of electricity generated by renewable sources, I support 
such a measure as I have done in the past. On June 14, 2007, the Senate 
voted 56-39 to table an amendment that would have replaced a 15 percent 
by 2020 renewable energy standard with 20 percent by 2020 using 
alternative sources including coal and nuclear energy. This amendment 
was viewed as undermining a ``renewable'' standard, therefore I opposed 
the amendment. I am proud that Pennsylvania is leading the way in 
renewable energy use and development through its Advanced Energy 
Portfolio

[[Page S15388]]

Standard which requires that 18 percent of electricity in the 
Commonwealth be generated from clean and renewable sources by 2020.
  While it would have been preferable for the House and Senate to have 
been able to work in a bicameral, bipartisan manner to produce 
legislation that includes both stronger automobile efficiency and a 
renewable portfolio standard, that clearly did not happen in this 
instance. Therefore, I face a choice between procedural matters I 
dislike and policies I support. Many of my colleagues and I will oppose 
this bill based on the process used by the majority and the inclusion 
of controversial tax offset provisions. Had there been an opportunity 
for the two Houses and the two parties to come together, as is the 
common practice in Congress, to craft this important legislation 
governing our Nation's energy production and use, I am confident we 
could have come to consensus on these issues and I still believe this 
to be the case.
  This Nation has many challenges meeting today's energy needs, with 
the price of oil at $100 per barrel, OPEC manipulating the oil markets, 
and concerns related to the environment including climate change, all 
of which will be directly addressed by this bill's provisions. Too 
often in this Congress, we are faced with questionable procedures which 
have led to this situation of rancor and breakdown of the bicameral 
process. I urge the leaders of both parties and chambers to work 
together to improve this regrettable legislative environment and 
produce a bipartisan Energy bill.
  Considering the current veto threat over the bill, it is my hope that 
after this difficult vote we can amicably move forward to work with our 
colleagues in the House of Representatives and the President to enact 
these policy measures which are important for the energy future of the 
United States.
  As I stated in my introduction, I am troubled by reports from a 
Republican colleague that the legislation sent over by the House 
breached key commitments. It is difficult to know exactly what 
commitments were made, which were kept, and which may have been broken 
in multiple conversations with many parties. Therefore, in the interest 
of comity and improving the legislative process, I feel constrained to 
cast my vote against moving to this Energy bill, despite provisions I 
support.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the clock is about to run on the 2007 
congressional calendar. Our Democratic colleagues are about to show us 
once again how we can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, all 
because they insist on raising taxes.
  This time, the majority was on the verge of a real achievement with a 
bill that would increase the fuel efficiency standard for the first 
time in years, increase our use of clean, renewable fuels. They had a 
major accomplishment in their grasp, so why not take ``yes'' for an 
answer?
  Unfortunately, as on so many bills, they simply could not bring 
themselves to take the accomplishment without inserting an enormous tax 
hike--a tax hike that they knew would doom this legislation, that they 
knew would never be signed into law.
  There should be absolutely no question about who or what is 
responsible for the failure of this bill. We have been very clear that 
the twin millstones of the utility rate increases--the RPS provision 
and the massive tax hikes--would sink the bill. There was no ambiguity 
about it whatsoever. The majority had a week to remove them, and they 
took a good step this week when they agreed to remove one of the 
millstones but, inexplicably, they made the other milestone--the tax 
hike--even bigger. If the twin milestones were removed, this important 
bill would pass Congress this week--would pass the Senate in 2 days--
and be signed into law.
  By voting for this bill as written, it is a vote for a bill that will 
not become law. Voting for this bill as written is a vote for a bill 
that will not become law. Worse than that, it is a vote to block the 
rest of the Energy bill. It is a vote to block historic increases in 
fuel economy and an increase in renewable fuels.
  The majority seems determined to accomplish little this year, and 
they have helped ensure that with this bill. I believe it is time to 
quit playing games, get serious, and get rid of the veto bait so this 
legislation can become law.
  Make no mistake, if cloture is invoked with this massive tax hike 
still attached, it will have killed this bill. The majority will have 
traded an accomplishment for a tax hike and a veto.
  I strongly urge a vote against this $22 billion tax hike by opposing 
cloture, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my dear friend, the senior Senator from New 
Mexico, long time chair of the Budget Committee, long time chair of the 
Energy Committee--and I underline and underscore ``my friend''--said a 
few minutes ago this bill was bad because President Bush doesn't want 
certain provisions in it, bad because President Bush doesn't want them.
  We are the Congress of the United States. We can like things even 
though the President may not like them. That is our responsibility 
constitutionally. It is time for this Senate to vote as a third and 
equal branch of Government and do the right thing for one of the most 
pressing problems facing America and the world today--energy. ``Bad 
because the President doesn't want them.'' That is a direct quote.
  Without going into all the details, the fact that the President made 
the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the country by 
having Iraq invaded doesn't mean it is good.
  The fact that the President vetoed children's health insurance, 
giving insurance to 10 million children instead of the 4.5 million 
children, if we are fortunate enough to extend the bill, doesn't make 
it good because the President doesn't like it.
  Global warming, the President doesn't believe it exists and has 
refused to even acknowledge the words until a few days ago. Does that 
make it right? No, it doesn't.
  The President believes in certain interrogation techniques involving 
torture. Does that make them right? No.
  We, as a Congress, have to stand up and do what we think is right.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. REID. It is time to stop talking and putting America on a path to 
a cleaner, safer, and more affordable energy future. The Energy bill 
originally passed both the House and Senate with strong bipartisan 
majorities. Democrats and some Republicans agree we must pass this 
Energy bill for four main reasons: No. 1, we must take action that will 
help reduce the constantly rising price Americans pay for gasoline.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. REID. The last time I was in California, I saw one of the 
marquees, $4 a gallon. In Nevada, everyplace is more than $3 a gallon.
  Mr. BYRD. Shame.
  Mr. REID. No. 2, we must begin to break our country's addiction to 
oil. We are addicted to oil. Even President Bush said that. We will use 
21 million barrels of oil today. Almost 70 percent of it we import from 
foreign countries and most are led by tyrannical rulers, despots.
  No. 3, we must begin to reverse global warming. It is a crisis caused 
by our use of fossil fuel.
  And No. 4, we must invest in renewable energy. Why? It is good for 
the environment, and it creates lots of jobs. In Nevada alone, the tax 
portions of this bill will create thousands of jobs and countless--tens 
of thousands, hundreds of thousands--jobs throughout America.
  Last week, the Republican minority blocked this crucial bipartisan 
bill from passing. In order to ease these concerns, we have reluctantly 
removed the renewable electricity standard from the version of the bill 
now before us. The renewable electricity standard would have required, 
by the year 2020, 15 percent of our Nation's electricity come from 
renewable, environmentally sound sources.
  That sounds pretty reasonable, 15 percent by the year 2020. We had to 
take it out. Taking this step would reduce carbon emissions from 
powerplants by 126 million tons, reduce the cost of natural gas and 
electricity bills by between $13 billion and $18 billion, and create 
good, new American jobs.
  This is not the last we will hear of the renewable electricity 
standard. The

[[Page S15389]]

Senate has passed a similar bill before, and we will do it again. But 
in the spirit of compromise and in a genuine pursuit of progress, 
Democrats have reluctantly agreed to remove that important provision 
from the Energy bill. But that is not all.
  We also compromised by making changes to the energy tax title to 
accommodate the Republican minority. I would have preferred to make 
these tax credits permanent, certainly longer than 2 years.
  Unless my colleagues vote for this bill, they are not doing anything 
to help the production of electricity in our country by alternative 
means. They are doing nothing. The great entrepreneurial minds of our 
country need these tax credits. They need incentives to invest billions 
of dollars into renewable energy. They cannot do it without these tax 
credits. If they do not vote for this tax provision of this bill, they 
are doing nothing to change our addiction to oil. But this compromise 
will ensure that critical investments in clean and sustainable sources 
of energy will continue.
  We have business people looking at new solar, wind, and geothermal 
projects, and they will be spurred to action if we help them make their 
investment worthwhile.

  I hope we reach the 60-vote threshold and send this bill to the House 
and on to the President today. I hope many Republicans will recognize 
the importance of this bill for their States and their country.
  The White House is objecting to our provision requiring major oil and 
gas companies to part with a few dollars--a few dollars--of their 
billions of dollars of tax breaks they are scheduled to receive over 
the next 10 years.
  Let's be very clear. Our bill eliminates those tax breaks for these 
huge oil companies, international oil companies, an industry raking in 
record profits of half a trillion dollars in the last 6 years. Those 
are profits. We want to do our tax program so we can invest in clean 
energy.
  Democrats and Republicans alike should agree that even without the 
renewable electricity standard, we have an energy bill that reduces 
energy costs, begin to break our addiction to oil, and reverse the 
threat of global warming. This is still an important, historic bill. I 
am very happy to support it and ask my colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle to hear the call of the American people for lower energy 
costs, less oil consumption and a cleaner environment and send this 
historic bill to the President.
  I have been told there are Senators who have voted for our version of 
the bill--that is, CAFE and renewable fuels standard--who are 
considering voting against this bill because the President says he is 
going to veto this bill. That is not good enough. We have to flex our 
legislative muscles and do the right thing and not be stampeded because 
of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Democrats and Republicans have to heed 
that call. This could be the first step toward an energy revolution 
that starts in America and ripples throughout the world, but it can 
only start in the Senate today.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant journal 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, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     text with an amendment, with reference to H.R. 6, Energy.
         Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Ben Nelson, Dick Durbin, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Kent Conrad, Maria Cantwell, Ken 
           Salazar, Tom Carper, Joe Lieberman, Daniel K. Akaka, 
           Daniel K. Inouye, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark Pryor, 
           Dianne Feinstein, B.A. Mikulski, Sherrod Brown, Jim 
           Webb.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur with an amendment in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to the text of H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer 
Protection, and Energy Efficiency 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 425 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

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

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). On this vote, the 
yeas are 59, the nays are 40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen 
and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this was a good, hard-fought battle. I am 
disappointed we did not pick up one more vote, but I know how difficult 
it was for some of my Republican colleagues to vote the way they did, 
and I admire and appreciate that very much.
  We are going to finish this bill today, if at all possible. What we 
would like to do is go back to the farm bill for a while, and as soon 
as we get the path forward on this bill, we will come back. My 
intention is to eliminate the tax title, and we would vote, then, on a 
piece of legislation that deals with CAFE and deals with renewable 
fuel.
  Now, we, of course, really believe in the tax title, as I indicated 
in my speech before the vote, and hopefully we can work together to get 
that done. We all know we need to do renewable fuel, and really in a 
big way. I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle will work with us 
very early next year to get this done. It is extremely important.
  But everyone should understand, as disappointed as I am and as 
disappointed as people throughout the country are, what we are going to 
wind up with is still historic--the first increase in fuel efficiency 
standards in 32 years. And we have increased them significantly. There 
has been a push from everybody to change various portions of what we 
have left, and there may be a little bit of tinkering with some of it 
but very little of it.
  We are going to move forward as quickly as we can today to complete 
this legislation. If we have to file cloture on the rest of it, we will 
do that. If we do that, that will mean there will be a cloture vote on 
Saturday, just so everyone understands. Hopefully, this is the last 
weekend before we adjourn for the year, so I hope we don't have to do 
that. I hope we can have people working here together to maybe overcome 
some of the procedural hurdles we normally have to go through to move 
this legislation.
  Also, we are going to finish the farm bill this week. Today is 
Thursday, tomorrow is Friday, and the next day is Saturday. We are 
going to finish the farm bill. I had a conversation earlier this 
morning with the Democratic

[[Page S15390]]

manager of the bill, I didn't have a chance to speak to the Republican 
manager, but we would like to have all voting completed tonight or 
early--sometime before noon--tomorrow. If that is the case, we have a 
number of other issues that are extremely important that we want to try 
to get a handle on before we leave. We need to take a look at the 
intelligence authorization bill. That is a conference report which has 
been completed. We also have to do the Defense authorization conference 
report. We need to complete that.
  We have to take a hard look at FISA. It would be in the best 
interests of the Senate and this country if we could determine what the 
will of the Senate is on the domestic surveillance program. It expires 
on February 5. I hope prior to our coming back here in January that we 
have the Senate's position on that and we send it to the House before 
we leave here.
  Then, finally, it is kind of a moving target, but the spending bill 
we are going to get from the House--I have spoken to the Republican 
leader today. We are going to figure a way to go forward on that when 
we get it from the House. It appears at this time we will get it 
sometime Tuesday--maybe Monday but probably Tuesday.
  Then--there are no secrets here; I wish we could have a few more--we 
have to do the domestic spending, get that done. Also, as much as it 
pains me to say this, we have to do something about the supplemental 
appropriation for the President for the war in Iraq.
  Those are the main issues we have. With the little bit of time we 
have, there are a number of holds we are trying to work our way 
through. I had a good conversation with Senator Coburn yesterday and he 
has indicated a willingness to let us move some of those. I hope that 
in fact is the case. As much as I disagree with Senator Coburn on so 
many things, I have found him to be an absolute gentleman and someone 
who is a man of his word. He has different beliefs than I do. He is 
entitled to those. He does it because it is a matter of principle. That 
is obvious. From all I know about him, it is not because of political 
purposes but because it is something he believes in. I came to learn a 
long time ago that other people's beliefs are as important as mine.
  That is the track forward.

                          ____________________