[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 149 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8986-S8990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 6049

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we speak, the financial turmoil of this 
country is ongoing. One way we can help is create some jobs, and that 
is what this legislation regarding the tax extenders would do.
  We have waited for months for this legislation--months. It seems to 
me we should move forward. I am so disappointed that it has taken so 
long to get where we are. It has been months.
  Senators have worked for a long period of time. We had a problem 
early on about how we were going to pay for it. I admire and respect 
the work done by Senators Cantwell and Ensign. They have worked very 
hard. It was a bipartisan effort to move forward. We have Senators 
Baucus and Grassley who have worked very hard, joining with Senators 
Cantwell and Ensign to move this legislation forward. We have a program 
to do this.
  The longer we wait, the more difficult it is. We are in the waning 
hours of this legislative session, and there is going to be a lot of 
hue and cry that we not go home now. There is all this financial 
turmoil.

[[Page S8987]]

  I tell everyone here, we should try to complete our work. The 
committees have a right to meet, even if we are not in session. And if 
there is something they come up with that we need to do, the President 
can call us back within a matter of minutes.
  So let's try to get the work done that we know we have to get done 
now. The work we know we have to get done now is to get the tax 
extenders passed. We have to do something on energy that is nontax 
related, we have to do something on stimulus, and we have to do 
something on a CR. There are other issues we can work together to get 
done. But here it is Thursday afternoon. It is 2:30 in the afternoon.
  I am going to ask for consent. It is something I have discussed at 
length publicly. I have discussed it privately with the Republican 
leader. We want to get this done. I think that is a fair statement.
  It is never quite enough. There are some people who never can quite 
get enough. They want a little bit more. In the Senate, as it is set 
up, a person or two can wreak havoc with what is going on around here. 
I hope people understand that if we don't get this bill done, it is 
going to add to the financial catastrophe we are facing in our country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 6049, energy extenders, at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the 
Republican leader; that when the bill is considered, it be considered 
under the following limitations: that there be 60 minutes of general 
debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the leaders or 
their designees; that the only first-degree amendments in order be the 
following, with no other amendments in order and that they be subject 
to an affirmative 60-vote threshold, and that if the amendment achieves 
that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table; that if the amendment does not achieve that 
threshold, then it be withdrawn; that each amendment be subject to a 
debate limitation of 60 minutes equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form: Baucus-Grassley substitute amendment regarding energy tax 
extenders with offsets; Reid or designee perfecting amendment regarding 
AMT with offset; Baucus-Grassley perfecting amendment regarding tax 
extenders, amendment without full offset; that it be in order for 
Senator Conrad to raise a budget point of order against the amendment; 
that once the debate time has been used or yielded back, the motion to 
waive the applicable point of order be considered to have been made; 
further, that if the motion to waive is successful, then the amendment 
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that 
if the motion to waive is not successful, the amendment be withdrawn, 
and that Senator Conrad control up to 10 minutes of time during debate 
on this amendment; provided further, that regardless of the outcome of 
the vote with respect to the Baucus-Grassley substitute amendment, the 
Senate vote in relation to the remaining two amendments covered in this 
agreement; that the votes in relation to the above-listed amendments 
occur in the order listed after the use or yielding back of time; that 
upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time and 
the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if 
amended, with no intervening action or debate.
  I will say this before asking for acceptance of this consent request. 
It is Thursday afternoon at 2:30. This bill has to go to the House of 
Representatives. I had somewhat long conversations with the Republican 
leader. I think this is going to work out fine. The longer we wait, the 
more difficult time we are having getting this through all the hoops 
that need to be jumped. So I hope people will allow us to go forward 
with this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I share the 
majority leader's hope that we will be on a glidepath toward completion 
of the Senate's business on a timely basis. I largely support the 
provisions of this bill.
  We have been consulting with the Finance Committee chairman, Senator 
Baucus, and Senator Grassley, the ranking member, and in good 
consultation with the staff. The problem is that as proposed, my State, 
the State of Texas, where 2 million people are without power because of 
the devastation of Hurricane Ike, are being treated in a discriminatory 
manner under some of the provisions of this bill.
  I am hopeful--indeed, I am optimistic--that we can work through these 
issues. Our initial discussions have been very productive. I expect we 
will be able to reach some resolution, but we are not there yet.
  For that reason, I reluctantly object.
  Mr. REID. I ask through the Chair a question: When? That is the 
question. When is all this going to be worked out, if it is going to be 
worked out?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished majority 
leader, we have had productive meetings, as I said, with the Finance 
Committee staff and the Joint Tax staff. We are consulting now with the 
Governor of our State and with other officials who have 
responsibilities in the areas most affected by this devastating 
hurricane.
  We think after consultation, hopefully over the course of the 
afternoon, we can wrap this up. But it is going to take all of us 
working together to try to reach that resolution. I am hopeful we can 
get there, but we are not there yet.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will say this: I received a call from the 
Governor of Louisiana and the Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana. 
Everyone wants more. When is enough enough? We know Texas has been hit 
hard by this storm, and our hearts go out to the people without homes 
and without power. We understand that. But this is not the last train 
through this body. We are going to have a stimulus bill and a 
continuing resolution. Let's finish this bill. No one wants to leave 
Texas without the resources they need, but we need to complete this 
legislation now.
  I say, if I heard my friend right, they are going to have to work 
through the afternoon to do this? What do we do with the State of 
Louisiana? Do we have to wait now to match that, that they get their 
fair share, as comparing it to Texas? As I said, there is other 
business we have to complete before we leave. One of them is a 
continuing resolution.
  I say to my friend, if he doesn't get everything he wants on this 
bill, wait until then. We need to get this done; otherwise, we are 
going to be in a bottleneck, and there is no way in the world we can 
finish this work we have to do by a week from tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The objection is 
heard.
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from 
Nevada, this is a very legitimate concern that the Texas Senators have. 
They are working diligently, as the junior Senator from Texas 
indicated, with Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley.
  I support this bill; the majority leader supports this bill. It has 
broad bipartisan support. I assure my good friend the majority leader 
that there is not an effort here to try to slow down the passage of 
this extender package. But we would like to get it right, if we can, 
and this is a legitimate concern the Texas Senators have. I am 
convinced that they are working as rapidly as possible; that Senator 
Baucus and Senator Grassley are sympathetic to their concerns and, 
apparently, think they are legitimate concerns that could be addressed. 
So I would like to try to cheer up my good friend the majority leader 
that maybe progress is just around the corner.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I hope this can be worked out very 
quickly, and I applaud both the majority leader and the Republican 
leader for their efforts to get passed the renewable energy tax bill 
that Senator Cantwell and I have worked so hard on this entire year. I 
also want to thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for 
their work in putting this whole package together. We have been working 
the last couple of weeks trying to come up with a compromise and we are 
finally almost there.
  The Ensign-Cantwell Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act passed the Senate 
by a vote of 88 to 8 back in April. The bill was not paid for at that 
time, and the

[[Page S8988]]

House of Representatives did not want to see a bill like this enacted 
into law without it being paid for. So over the last couple of weeks, 
we have worked to make sure there was an offset and to make sure this 
offset was not going to be damaging to further exploration of other new 
energy. While producing more green energy, we do not want to hurt the 
production of other types of energy. So we worked hard to do that, and 
I think we have succeeded in this bill.
  This bill will create at least 440,000 permanent jobs just in the 
solar energy sector alone, and Senator Cantwell and I are very proud of 
this legislation. It is critical we get this passed before we leave 
town. We need to enact proper policies to help create more jobs all 
over the United States right now. The economy is in trouble, and this 
is a shot in the arm to the economy which also will produce more green 
power for the United States, makes us less dependent on foreign sources 
of energy, and it is the right thing to do.
  We want to join together to push this important legislation through, 
and obviously we have to work to make sure the House of Representatives 
takes up the bill and passes it in time to get to the President's desk. 
I am convinced the President will sign it.
  The renewable energy tax extenders will be combined with AMT relief 
and other business extenders that are important for our entire economy, 
especially to the high-tech sector of our economy.
  The American people are calling for bipartisanship. Senator Cantwell 
and I have joined together and have been working very hard to get the 
rest of the Senate, including the two leaders and the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, to go along with us. This is 
the time for bipartisanship to show that we are Americans first and 
that we can join together to accomplish important tasks.
  I hope we can go to this bill as quickly as possible, get it passed 
through the Senate and on to the House of Representatives, where I hope 
they will pass it. Then we can send this bill off to the President so 
we can see these renewable projects begin--these important projects on 
solar, on wind, on geothermal, on biofuels, and on so many other 
things.
  In my State, there are a lot of people who would like to add solar 
panels to their homes to help produce their own electricity. Current 
law just doesn't work effectively enough to incentivize that activity. 
The credits are not right. There is no predictability. Financially, it 
just doesn't pay off. With the bill we have on the floor, there would 
be a financial payoff to actually encourage homeowners to put solar 
panels on their homes where there are States, such as mine, that have a 
lot of sunshine.
  This is an important bill, and once again I thank my colleague from 
the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell. She has been absolutely 
fabulous to work with this on this, both she and her staff. I 
appreciate both our staffs. Jason Mulvihill on my staff, and Lauren 
Bazel and Amit Ronen on Senator Cantwell's staff, are working together 
on this so that hopefully we can get this bill done as soon as 
possible.
  I yield the floor so Senator Cantwell can make a few comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I do wish to be recognized, along with 
my colleague from Nevada, to talk about the importance of the passage 
of this legislation, and not just the extenders--which are good for not 
only the States of Washington and Nevada as it relates to sales tax and 
R&D tax credits and county payments and a whole variety of things--but 
most importantly these renewable energy credits, where we are trying to 
change the focus and the direction of our country by unleashing the 
power of the solar industry to help create about 400,000 new jobs for 
our country. So we do want to get to this package done.
  I thank the leaders as well, Senators Reid and McConnell, for trying 
to get this legislation on the floor. I hope we can get through this 
last hiccup and actually get this legislation before our colleagues and 
get it passed today--hopefully today--because I think that is how 
important it is to send out this message.
  I certainly thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for their 
perseverance in continuing to try to work through vote after vote on 
this so we could have a package.
  I want to say to the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, how much I 
appreciate his willingness to engage in this subject starting really 
the beginning of this year and for understanding what the opportunity 
was to look at renewable energy and to make sure the tax credits were 
more predictable and there was more long-term certainty for businesses 
so that we could take advantage of the manufacturing base that could be 
created in the United States. I certainly applaud him and his staff for 
their perseverance in trying to come up with a funding mechanism for 
this package of green energy tax credits in the last 2 weeks and coming 
up with a breakthrough on exactly how to pay for them.
  So we are at this momentous point now where the bipartisan efforts of 
working across the aisle have paid off. Frankly, I think we need more 
of that--working across the aisle--on some of these solutions so that 
we can actually move legislation. I hope we can come back in the next 
few hours and actually talk about some more of the specifics of this 
legislation because it is really breakthrough legislation.
  For the first time, we are giving an extension of the solar 
investment tax credit and fuel cell tax credit that will, I believe, 
change investment patterns in such a significant way that we will be 
reaping the benefits of that kind of generation of power to replace 
what we are currently doing on our grid today.
  We also have incentivizing new provisions for plug-in electric cars, 
which will help in that transition so that people understand our future 
source of energy and power for our transportation sector has a very 
bright future. We provide for tax breaks for participating in that 
transition and help them realize they will be able to drive for $1.00 a 
gallon in these plug-in electric cars instead of for $3.50 or $4 a 
gallon using fossil fuel.
  In this legislation there is over $10,000 in consumer tax breaks and 
credits on all sorts of things, from home improvements to making sure 
that consumers, particularly in the northeast part of our country, get 
a tax break for moving off of home heating oil and on to wood stoves 
that will help them reduce the cost in their heating bills in the 
future.
  There are a lot of breakthroughs in this legislation which I hope to 
get back to this afternoon. So I hope we can get our colleague from 
Texas to remove his objection and that we will be able to move forward 
on this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senators from 
Washington and Nevada not just for the product of their work but for 
the way they are working together. I think what the American people 
want to see the Senate focus more on the biggest issues facing our 
country and work across party lines to get a result.
  I was one of the few Senators earlier who voted against the Ensign-
Cantwell legislation because I thought it disproportionately favored 
one form of renewable energy. I think this is a great improvement over 
what had been done before, and I especially like the fact that solar 
has a chance to move up the line as a developing energy. It is not 
proven yet, it is not able yet to do all we hope it will do, but this 
should help. And the idea that we would use this vast reservoir of 
unused electricity we have at night around the country to plug in our 
cars, rather than spend money on gasoline that we send overseas to 
unfriendly people, is a very appealing idea.
  All those ideas have broad support on both sides of the aisle, and 
Senators Cantwell and Ensign have been persistent in their efforts to 
fashion a bipartisan result. So I congratulate them for what they have 
done, and I thank them for it. I feel confident, with the support of 
the majority and Republican leaders, that we will get to a result.
  My colleagues' work on this bill, and the majority leader and the 
Republican leader's work on this bill, to bring us toward a bipartisan 
result on one of the largest issues facing our country is in great 
contrast to some of what I

[[Page S8989]]

heard this morning from the Democratic side of the aisle about today's 
financial structure. What I heard was what I call kindergarten 
politics. It looked as if somebody had been down in the War Room with 
crayons and paper on the floor coming up with how do we score political 
points about the financial crisis in the country today, instead of 
saying: What can we do, working together, to reassure the American 
people we are going to take every step we need to take here to make 
certain we restore the vibrancy of our economy?
  I came to the Senate, not as a Senator but as a staff member, more 
than 40 years ago, and what was going through my mind is the way Lyndon 
Johnson and Everett Dirksen would have worked when Everett Dirksen was 
the Republican leader and Lyndon Johnson was the President. When it was 
important, they worked together, and they let the American people know 
that. So did President Kennedy and Senator Dirksen, when he was the 
Republican leader. So did Senator Mansfield, from the Democratic side 
of the aisle, and President Nixon, a Republican.
  I remember Senator Byrd telling me that both he and Senator Baker, 
the Democratic and Republican leaders when President Carter was here, 
changed their minds about the Panama Canal, and they cast controversial 
votes because they thought it was the right thing to do. We had a major 
issue before the country, and some in the country didn't like the 
result, but they respected the fact that Senators had the instinct to 
recognize that when something is important, threatening our country, 
that people expect us not to play kindergarten politics but to put that 
aside, leave it off the Senate floor, and come here and do our jobs.
  The same was true with President Reagan and Tip O'Neill, the Speaker 
of the House, who had very different points of view. But when Social 
Security was nearly broken, they worked together.
  Now we have a serious financial crisis facing our country, and what 
do we get from some of the Members of the other side of the aisle but a 
lot of kindergarten partisan politics, which should be left in the 
trash can somewhere. We even had the majority leader criticizing a 
former Republican Senator for something the majority leader himself 
voted for. Why was it even being discussed? Because somebody over in 
the kindergarten room wrote out a press release and handed it to 
somebody. So instead of seeing what we just saw on the Senate floor a 
few minutes ago, which was a Democratic and Republican Senator saying: 
Let's work together on energy, we saw something much different.
  From the Republican side of the aisle, we could come and say: Well, 
this whole financial crisis is caused fundamentally by a collapse in 
housing prices. And one of the greatest factors in that is the great 
housing institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When we brought up a 
bill to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all the Democrats voted no 
and all the Republicans voted yes. We could say that. We could say it 
was a Democratic President who stopped us from bringing in oil from 
Alaska 10 years ago, which today would have kept gas prices from going 
up. We could say it was a Democratic President who encouraged a lot of 
people to buy homes who didn't have the money to pay it back.
  But that is not what we should be doing here. We should put all that 
aside, and we should say to the President and say to the Speaker and 
say to each other: We have a serious financial crisis facing our 
country. What can we do, working together, to reassure the American 
people we are going to take any step we can to ensure the security of 
their savings accounts, the values of their homes, the security of 
their money markets, of their accounts? We can do that. We should do 
that. That is what most of us are elected to do, or we feel we are 
elected to do.
  So I was very disappointed to see so much of the partisan 
kindergarten-talk coming from the other side of the aisle this morning. 
I would much rather see the kind of action that the Senator from 
Washington and the Senator from Nevada have demonstrated throughout the 
year and did today, as did the majority leader and the Republican 
leader when they said: We are very close to having a renewable energy 
bill that meets the objections many have had. And that is one step we 
can take to deal with the problem of the high price of energy, because 
we need to, as we say, find more American energy as well as use less 
energy, including alternative and renewable energy.
  There is one other thing that we could do together and I would like 
to briefly outline it today. It was pointed out in an article in the 
Washington Post last week by Susan Hockfield, the President of MIT, one 
of our great research universities.
  I ask unanimous consent that her op-ed be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. She suggested that we should have a dramatic new 
investment, a new Federal investment in energy research and 
development; that our current spending for energy research and 
development had shrunk, in her words, ``almost to irrelevancy''; and 
that the $2 billion to $3 billion that the Federal Government is 
spending annually on energy R&D is less than half of what our largest 
pharmaceutical company spends on research each year.
  Yesterday, I had a visit from the President of Yale University who 
made the point that, since 1973, we have found as much oil as we have 
used. Mr. President, 1973 was the year we had the big oil shock. He 
pointed out the reason we were able to do that was because of extensive 
science and technology advances.
  Most of our wealth since World War II in this country has been 
created by our brainpower advantage, and we worked together as a Senate 
and as a Congress, with everyone taking credit, to pass legislation to 
help. We called it the America COMPETES Act--to help keep America's 
brainpower advantage so we can keep growing good jobs here.
  What the president of MIT and the president of Yale are saying, and 
most of our research universities would say and most of us know, is we 
need to keep pushing on science and technology. As we stand here today, 
thinking about how we deal with high gasoline prices and electricity 
prices that are increasing and the national security issues that arise 
from depending so much on other countries in the world for oil; and as 
we think about the financial markets and how over the long-term we 
strengthen our country so we are able to withstand any sort of jolt to 
the system--one of the most important things we should consider doing, 
and doing in a bipartisan way, is to make a dramatic new Federal 
investment in energy research and development. I may have more to say 
about that next week. It is a tremendous opportunity for the next 
President to take.
  Let me give an example of what I mean by it. In May, I went to the 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, along with Bart Gordon, the 
Democratic chairman of the House Science Committee. I proposed that the 
United States set as a goal putting our country on a path to clean 
energy independence within the next 5 years and do it in a way that we 
have done it before, with a new Manhattan Project for clean energy 
independence.
  The Manhattan Project was the project the United States launched 
during World War II to create the atom bomb before Germany did, because 
we were afraid that if Germany beat us in that, it would blackmail us 
in the same way many oil-producing countries are blackmailing us today. 
We succeeded in that. But we did it because we put a clear focus on it, 
we put an objective, we dedicated the money, we drafted companies, we 
assembled the best scientists in the world, and we won that race.
  We could do the same with energy. What I suggested in May was that we 
adopt seven grand challenges. First, of course, we ought to do what we 
already know how to do, which is to drill offshore and create more 
nuclear power. But then there are some things we don't know how to do, 
and most of the legislation we are considering--whether it is the 
legislation that Senators Ensign and Cantwell have proposed or the Gang 
of 20 legislation or the bill that Senator Bingaman and others might 
propose--does not do much for energy research and development.

[[Page S8990]]

  Energy research and development would be this, for example: To make, 
within the next 5 years, electric cars and trucks commonplace--which 
would mean research on advanced batteries; and to make solar energy 
competitive within the next 5 years with fossil fuels.
  Incentives will help with that. That is in the tax extenders bill 
that will be coming before the Senate. But in order to accomplish that, 
we need money for research and development.
  Among the other challenges, I suggested carbon capture and 
sequestration. We need to be able to use our coal plants and we need 
other ways of capturing carbon than taking it and putting it into the 
ground. We need it within 5 years as well.
  I see my time has come to an end. My point is the same. I like what 
Senators Ensign and Cantwell have been doing. I like the approach. I 
would like to see more of that rather than the finger-pointing and 
blame calling, and one of the areas in which I hope we will work is a 
dramatic new Federal investment in energy research and development.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2008]

                           Reimagining Energy

                          (By Susan Hockfield)

       Almost 70 years ago, as Germany invaded France, President 
     Franklin D. Roosevelt received an urgent visit from Vannevar 
     Bush, then chairman of the National Advisory Committee on 
     Aeronautics and formerly vice president and dean of 
     engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       Bush's message was simple: For America to win the war that 
     was to come, it had no choice but to make aggressive, focused 
     investments in basic science. The case was so compelling that 
     Roosevelt approved it in 10 minutes. From radar to the 
     Manhattan Project, the innovations that decision unleashed 
     produced the military tools that won the war.
       That same presidential decision launched the enduring 
     partnership between the federal government and research 
     universities, a partnership that has vastly enhanced 
     America's military capabilities and security, initiated many 
     important industries, produced countless medical advances and 
     spawned virtually all of the technologies that account for 
     our modern quality of life.
       Today, the United States is tangled in a triple knot: a 
     shaky economy, battered by volatile energy prices; world 
     politics weighed down by issues of energy consumption and 
     security; and mounting evidence of global climate change.
       Building on the wisdom of Vannevar Bush, I believe we can 
     address all three problems at once with dramatic new federal 
     investment in energy research and development. If one advance 
     could transform America's prospects, it would be ready 
     access, at scale, to a range of affordable, renewable, low-
     carbon energy technologies--from large-scale solar and wind 
     energy to safe nuclear power. Only one path will lead to such 
     transformative technologies: research. Yet federal funding 
     for energy research has dwindled to irrelevance. In 1980, 10 
     percent of federal research dollars went to energy. Today, 
     the share is 2 percent.
       Research investment by U.S. energy companies has mirrored 
     this drop. In 2004, it stood at $1.2 billion in today's 
     dollars. This might suit a cost-efficient, technologically 
     mature, fossil-fuel-based energy sector, but it is 
     insufficient for any industry that depends on innovation. 
     Pharmaceutical companies invest 18 percent of revenue in R&D. 
     Semiconductor firms invest 16 percent. Energy companies 
     invest less than one-quarter of 1 percent. With this pattern 
     of investment, we cannot expect an energy technology 
     revolution.
       While industry must support technology development, only 
     government can prime the research pump. Congress must lead.
       The potential gains--from the economy to global security to 
     the climate--are boundless. Other nations are also chasing 
     these technologies. We must be first to market with the most 
     innovative solutions. We must make sure that in the energy 
     technology markets of the future, we have the power to 
     invent, produce and sell--not the obligation to buy.
       How much should we invest? In 2006 the government spent 
     between $2.4 billion and $3.4 billion (less than half of the 
     annual R&D budget of our largest pharmaceutical company). 
     Many experts, including the Council on Competitiveness, 
     recommend that federal energy research spending climb to 
     twice or even 10 times current levels. In my view, the nation 
     should move promptly to triple current rates, then increase 
     funding further as the Energy Department builds its capacity 
     to convert basic research into marketable technologies.
       Vannevar Bush's insight was his appreciation of the value 
     of basic research in powering innovation. I believe that we 
     stand on the verge of a global energy technology revolution. 
     Will America lead it and reap the rewards? Or will we 
     surrender that advantage to other countries with clearer 
     vision? I believe we can chart a profoundly hopeful, 
     practical path to America's future--through rapid, sustained, 
     broad-based and intensive investment in basic energy 
     research.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent 
that my remarks be immediately followed by Senator Schumer of New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________