[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13122-13131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary 
situation?


                           Amendment No. 799

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is No. 799, the 
Voinovich amendment.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is it in order to ask unanimous 
consent to lay aside the pending amendment for the purpose of speaking 
on an amendment that will be offered by Senator Martinez?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may ask that consent.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will certainly be willing to 
have my colleague from Florida speak. I ask unanimous consent that I 
speak after the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, who will offer the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 783

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 783.

[[Page 13123]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside. 
The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Martinez], for Mr. Nelson of 
     Florida, for himself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Boxer, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. 
     Burr, proposes an amendment numbered 783.

(Purpose: To strike the section providing for a comprehensive inventory 
       of outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas resources)

       Beginning on page 264, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 265, line 12.

  Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity that the 
chairman, Senator Domenici, the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, and 
other members have given me to work on this important piece of 
legislation.
  I came late to the work of this committee on this bill, having joined 
the Senate just this year. Much of the work had previously been done.
  As the chairman himself has said, this bill will make a real 
difference in America's energy landscape.
  I must tell my colleagues that I want to vote for this bill. I think 
it contains a lot of what this Nation needs.
  I have grave reservations about one particular provision that calls 
for an inventory of the resources off this Nation's outer continental 
shelf.
  It is for this reason that I rise today to oppose the inventory, 
offer an amendment to strike the inventory language, and ask for the 
support of my colleagues. The inventory language is opposed by both 
Senators from Florida and a number of coastal State Senators because it 
opens the door to the development of offshore drilling.
  In my State of Florida, such an inventory off our coastlines would 
take place entirely within a Federal moratorium that bans offshore 
drilling.
  I oppose the inventory because it encroaches on an area off of 
Florida's coast that we expect will remain under that drilling ban in 
perpetuity.
  My colleagues should be aware that this proposed inventory will cost 
in excess of a billion dollars and the result will tell us much of what 
we already know.
  I am asking my colleagues to strike the proposed inventory language 
contained in this bill and protect the rights of States that have no 
interest in drilling off their shores.
  This provision offered by my colleague, Mr. Senator Landrieu of 
Louisiana, proposes to require a ``seismic survey inventory'' of all 
outer continental shelf areas, including within sensitive coastal 
waters long-protected from all such invasive activities by the 24-year 
bipartisan congressional moratorium.
  I opposed this amendment in committee because it contains something 
we in Florida don't want and it opens the door to a number of problems, 
environmental problems, economic problems, and unnecessary challenges 
for our military.
  Why would we inventory an area where we are never going to drill?
  The inventory is a huge problem for Florida. It tantalizes pro-
drilling interests. It basically puts the State at risk.
  I have received assurances from my friends on the other side of this 
issue that States such as Florida, States that do not want drilling on 
their coast, will not have to do it. Fine. That is Florida's position.
  I can clearly state that we do not want drilling now, and I do not 
see a scenario anywhere on the horizon where we would change that 
position. So why, given our objection to drilling, would we spend the 
resources, more than a billion dollars, and damage the environment in 
the eastern planning zone to do this inventory? I would also say to my 
colleagues that an inventory is not a benign thing.
  Seismic surveys involve extensive acoustic disruption to marine 
ecosystems and fisheries. Recent scientific studies have documented 
previously-unknown impacts from the millions of high-intensity airgun 
impulses used in such inventories. These sudden, repetitive explosions 
bring about a potential for harm that is simply too great.
  Seismic surveys are an invasive procedure, inappropriate for 
sensitive marine areas and economically important fishing grounds.
  And if one looks at the cost of this inventory, the Minerals 
Management Service reports that using the most up-to-date technology to 
perform an inventory of this magnitude will cost between $75 million 
and $125 million for each frontier planning area. Nowhere in this 
legislation can I find a section that suggests how we recoup the cost 
of such an inventory.
  So I ask my colleagues to strike the inventory. Going forward will 
encroach upon our coastal waters, waters covered by a drilling ban, and 
would do little more than act as enticement to oil companies that want 
our drilling moratorium lifted.
  Last year, more than 74 million people visited Florida to enjoy its 
coastline, its wonderful climate, its excellent fishing. Families 
return year after year to their favorite vacation spots to relax under 
our brilliant blue skies, our powdery white beaches, and our crystal-
clear emerald waters.
  The people of Florida share a love and appreciation of the Atlantic 
Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, its coastal habitat and our wetlands, 
which make a very complex ecosystem, and also a very special place to 
live.
  I share these facts for one reason: The people of Florida are 
concerned their coastal waters are coming under increased pressure to 
exploit possible oil and gas resources. The people of Florida do not 
want that to happen. Floridians are adamantly opposed to oil and gas 
exploration off our coastal waters. We have very serious concerns that 
offshore exploration will weaken the protections we have built over 
these many years. The inventory is but a foot in the door; it seriously 
threatens marine wildlife and the coastal habitat off the coast of 
Florida.
  One other area of concern that perhaps has not been highlighted 
enough and I know my colleague from Florida shares my view, is that it 
has a tremendous impact on military uses of waters off Florida to 
conduct extensive training and testing. For whatever time it would take 
to conduct an inventory off our coastline, it would be the exact amount 
of time our military will be put at a disadvantage.
  We must afford our military the most and best training possible for 
battle preparedness. Vieques used to give our men and women that 
capability. Now that Vieques is closed, Florida's Panhandle plays an 
increasingly significant role. Oil and gas exploration would have the 
potential to halt that important work for an indefinite period of time.
  Here are just some of the current missions using our section of the 
Gulf: F-15 combat crew training; F-22 combat crew training; Navy cruise 
missile exercises; special forces training; carrier battle group 
training; composite and joint force training exercises; air-to-surface 
weapons testing; surface-to-air weapons testing; and mine warfare 
testing.
  Any military mind knows that it takes months to schedule training 
opportunities when joint operations are involved. If we were to 
continue on this path of mandating an inventory in Florida's waters, we 
could bring a halt to a number of important exercises.
  In fact, one of the main reasons the military uses this area so 
extensively is due to the protections currently in place. Here is what 
MG Michael Kostelnik, the base commander of Eglin Air Force Base, said 
in May of 2000:

       We continue to place the most severe restrictions in the 
     eastern portion of the proposed sale area where oil and gas 
     operations would be incompatible with military training and 
     testing operations.

  If we allow exploration there now, the military will suffer a setback 
in their training and preparedness.
  As many of my colleagues know, Senator Nelson and I are working 
together to engage a coalition of Senators to help beat back any 
efforts to encroach upon our coastal waters. I am proud to say in doing 
so I follow in the footsteps of our predecessors, former Senators 
Connie Mack and Bob Graham, and a bipartisan Florida delegation, in our 
firm opposition to drilling off our coasts.
  Let me again take a moment to praise Chairman Domenici and Ranking

[[Page 13124]]

Member Bingaman for putting together a comprehensive, bipartisan, and 
significant energy policy that is forward looking, forward thinking, 
and a road map of where we as a Nation need to go in order to address 
the challenges that confront us today.
  The problem is that this inventory language is a bad provision in a 
good bill. I cannot emphasize enough how damaging this will be to 
Florida, other coastal States, and our military training and testing 
operations in the Gulf. The inventory will have a chilling affect on 
all of these interests.
  The amendment I offer here tonight is simple in that it strikes the 
language requiring a ``seismic survey inventory'' of all outer 
continental shelf areas. I believe striking this language makes the 
overall bill stronger and I ask for my colleagues to support such an 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague 
from Florida, as we have introduced this amendment to strike the 
portion of the Energy bill that would set up an inventory on the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  I want to show how extensive this inventory is going to be. The Outer 
Continental Shelf is all of the west coast of the United States, the 
Pacific coast, the area in yellow off the coast of Washington, Oregon, 
and California. All of that area would be subject to the inventory. All 
of this area in the Gulf of Mexico is presently covered by the 
moratorium about which Senator Martinez and I fought very hard last 
week to get an agreement from the two leaders and managers of the bill 
that they would not come in and support any amendments that would offer 
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida.
  But look at the Outer Continental Shelf. It extends from Maine all 
the way down to Florida. We are talking about a huge area that would be 
inventoried. That sounds innocent enough, but let me tell you why I 
oppose it. I oppose it because it is unnecessary unless you are 
preparing to drill in areas off our coast that are currently subject to 
this moratorium; otherwise, why would we want to take an inventory if 
all of this Outer Continental Shelf is now under a moratorium so you 
cannot drill for oil and gas?
  I oppose it also because it is harmful to marine life and commercial 
fish, and the Minerals Management Service already conducts inventories 
of the economically recoverable oil and gas reserves on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, including moratoria areas, every 5 years. In fact, 
the MMS will complete its next inventory this summer. Its last 
inventory came out in the year 2000. If that is the case, why do we 
need another inventory? How is the inventory in this bill different 
from the one that is already in effect? Two words: seismic exploration.
  What is seismic exploration--in other words, what they call survey? 
It is an expensive, invasive, and harmful practice used by oil and gas 
companies to determine where to drill. Why doesn't MMS use seismic 
exploration currently to complete their inventory? Because it is too 
costly and it is considered a precursor to drilling.
  If you are not going to drill, you should not be spending hundreds of 
millions of dollars to tell you where to put the drill. MMS estimates 
that these surveys would cost between $75 million and $125 million for 
each of the planning areas. Remember, in the Outer Continental Shelf, 
there are nine planning areas. At $75 million to $125 million apiece 
for seismic exploration, that means we would be having MMS spend $675 
million to $1 billion to survey our moratorium areas, areas on our 
coastline that are under a moratorium until the year 2012, pursuant to 
a Presidential directive.
  Let me tell you a little bit about what seismic exploration and 
surveying is. Oil and gas companies use seismic air guns. They are 
long, submersible cannons that are towed behind boats in arrays, firing 
shots of compressed air into the water every 10 seconds. Interestingly, 
these air guns have replaced dynamite as the industry's primary method 
of exploration. But they create sound rivaling that of dynamite. A 
large seismic array can produce peak pressures of sound that are higher 
than virtually any other manmade source, save for explosives like 
dynamite--over 250 decibels.
  The oil and gas industry typically conducts several seismic surveys 
over the life of their offshore leases. They use these seismic surveys 
to determine the best placement of oil rigs and pipelines and to track 
fluid flows within the reservoirs. Seismic surveys are massive, 
covering vast areas of the ocean, with thousands of blasts going off 
every few seconds, in some cases over the course of days, weeks, 
months. The arrays towed by boats consist of 12 to 48 individual air 
guns, synchronized to create a simultaneous pulse of sound outputting a 
total of 3,000 to 8,000 cubic inches of air per shot. The sounds are so 
powerful because the array is attempting to generate echoes from each 
of several geologic boundary layers at the bottom of the ocean. Echoes 
produced by these seismic impulses are recorded, and they are analyzed 
by oil and gas companies to provide information on the subsurface 
geological features.
  The noise pollution from these tests can literally be heard across 
oceans. If the sea floor is hard and rocky, the noise might be heard 
for thousands of miles. And the sound can mask the calls of whales and 
other animals that rely on the acoustic environment to breed and 
survive. Scientists are documenting more and more problems associated 
with the seismic surveys. Whales, dolphins, fish, sea turtles, and 
squid have all been impacted adversely by the seismic activity. I sure 
would not want to be a scuba diver in the water with one of these 
seismic blasts going off.
  The 2004 International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee, one 
of the most well-respected bodies of whale biologists in the world, 
concluded that increased sound from seismic surveys was a ``cause for 
concern'' because there is a growing body of evidence that seismic 
pulses kill, injure, and disturb marine life.
  The impacts range from strandings to temporary or permanent hearing 
loss, to abandonment of habitat and disruption of vital behaviors such 
as mating and feeding.
  Studies have also shown substantial impacts on commercial species of 
fish. Fishermen, beware. One series of studies demonstrated that air 
guns caused extensive and apparently irreversible damage to the inner 
ears of snapper, and the snapper were several kilometers from the 
seismic surveys.
  The scientific community is not the one that is raising the alarm 
bells. Courts and governments are starting to realize the dangers posed 
by seismic exploration. In 2002, a California Federal court stopped a 
geologic research project in the Sea of Cortez, when two beaked whales 
were found dead with an undeniable link to the seismic activity.
  The Canadian Government slowed a geologic project off its west coast 
and is looking closely at an oil and gas seismic survey off Cape Breton 
as a result of dangers posed by the surveys.
  The Australian Government refused to issue permits for a survey near 
a marine park because the proponents of the survey could not prove it 
would not harm the marine park.
  And the Bermuda Government refused to issue a permit for seismic 
geologic surveys off its coast, citing concerns for impacts on marine 
mammals.
  Air gun activity associated with seismic surveys must be considered 
an invasive procedure, inappropriate for sensitive marine areas and 
economically important commercial fishing grounds.
  We have to continue to remember that the United States has 3 percent 
of the world's oil reserves.
  Yet the United States uses four times more oil than any other nation, 
according to the report from the National Commission on Energy Policy. 
According to Alan Greenspan in a speech he gave in April of this year, 
the 200 million personal vehicles currently on the U.S. highways 
consume 11 percent of the total world oil production. We cannot drill 
our way to energy independence.
  Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on harmful exploration in 
areas

[[Page 13125]]

whose economic livelihood depends on their fishing industry and their 
marine ecosystem could have devastating effects.
  For these reasons, I must oppose this invasive, duplicative, and 
harmful exploration on the moratoria areas on the Outer Continental 
Shelf.
  The bottom line is, if you have the Outer Continental Shelf under 
moratoria, why do we need to try to inventory all of that if you are 
not supposed to have any drilling under Presidential directive at least 
until the year 2012? Why go in with the risk to Mother Nature with this 
kind of seismic exploration?
  I yield to my colleague from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. If the Senator will yield, I wonder if in any part of 
this bill the Senator noticed any area that would denote how the $1 
billion, the cost of exploration, would be paid for?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is an excellent question. If you are 
going to do the seismic exploration which this bill would allow in the 
nine areas under the moratoria, it is going to cost between $650 
million and $1 billion. In a Congress that is so concerned about budget 
deficits to the tune of almost half a trillion a year, where are we 
going to get that kind of money?
  The Senator's point is well taken. I thank my colleague from Florida 
for making that point.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. A further question: It seems to me, when we have a 
moratoria, drilling is prohibited right now. To do this inventory in 
that particular area, it certainly seems to me to be a waste of 
taxpayer dollars since there is no prospect of drilling with the 
congressional and Presidential moratoriums in place.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. Since a President of 
the United States established this moratorium on the Outer Continental 
Shelf and it is to run to 2012, why do we need to be spending money on 
seismic surveying on an area that is off limits to drilling, which the 
moratorium has in place until the year 2012?
  I thank the Senator for joining to offer this amendment. I ask the 
Senate to consider helping continue to preserve the moratorium.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are on the eve of a turning point in 
the energy future of our country. As we move closer to voting on a 
comprehensive energy bill, we have a truly historic opportunity to 
transform the way we think about energy. We have an opportunity to make 
a decisive step away from dependence on foreign imports and fossil 
fuels and toward an independent future based on the abundant natural 
human and technological resources found right here within our borders.
  As we wean ourselves from the oil fields of the unstable Middle East 
and other parts of the world and rely increasingly on field crops and 
fuel cells produced in America's heartland, we will build an energy 
future that will make us more secure and a future of which we can be 
proud.
  This is the bottom line. When we talk about moving toward energy 
independence in this country, we are talking primarily about reducing 
America's dependence on imported oil. Petroleum accounts for more than 
85 percent of our energy imports. As everyone is acutely aware, much of 
the 85 percent comes from some of the world's most unstable and, in 
some cases, openly hostile countries.
  Today, rising global demand for petroleum is driving prices for 
gasoline and home heating oil to record levels. This year, China passed 
Japan as the world's second largest consumer of energy. China's use of 
oil is expected to grow exponentially over the next few years. So the 
focus of any national energy strategy must be to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil in a sustainable way and as rapidly as possible.
  By far, the largest use of petroleum in this country is in the 
transportation sector, and 97 percent of today's transportation fuel 
comes from petroleum. Thankfully, we know the solution. It is 
technologically feasible. We need to build vehicles that use less 
gasoline or no gasoline, and we need to make an aggressive transition 
to clean, renewable domestic fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and fuel 
cells.
  The goal is a future of vehicles powered by fuel cells. The hydrogen 
is used to create the electricity to turn the motors that turn the 
wheels. The power from the fuel cell comes from hydrogen that will be 
made by renewable resources such as wind, photovoltaic, and other forms 
of renewable energy.
  The biggest single step right now that we can take is to improve 
vehicle fuel economy. This bill takes a modest step in this direction, 
for example, by offering tax incentives for hybrid gas-electric 
vehicles, but we need improvements across the board, including raising 
the corporate average economy standard for vehicles.
  Another commonsense way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is to make 
greater use of clean and homegrown fuels. This bill has several 
provisions that take us in the right direction on this front, starting 
with the robust 8-billion-plus renewable fuel standard first proposed 
by Senator Lugar and I and overwhelmingly approved by this Senate last 
week.
  It is very disturbing that even with the price of ethanol well below 
that of gasoline, fuel blenders are still turning their backs on this 
cleaner, cheaper, homegrown alternative and turning instead to imports 
of refined gasoline.
  This chart illustrates that. Right now, going back to 5 years ago, 
there has been a steady increase in the imports of gasoline. This is 
weekly total gasoline imports--thousands of barrels per day. From April 
28 of 2000 until March of this year, gasoline imports increased 66 
percent. This is not oil, this is gasoline. This is oil that has been 
refined in some foreign country, put on a tanker, and shipped to this 
country. So right now, we are up to just about a million barrels a day. 
Think about that, that is just gasoline. Not too many people know that. 
Most people think we are just importing oil. We are importing about a 
million barrels a day of refined gasoline into this country. That is at 
the expense of American dollars and jobs. This is taking us in the 
wrong direction.
  A recent report by the Consumer Federation of America found consumers 
would be saving up to 8 cents a gallon at the pump if refiners were 
instead adding it to the gasoline at just 10-percent blends.
  My consumers in Iowa, right now, are saving as much as 10 cents per 
gallon on ethanol-blended fuels, for an average savings of at least 
$100 a year for a typical family.
  I believe Americans all across the country deserve the cost and clean 
air benefits that ethanol-blended fuels provide. It is imperative we 
insist on our strong 8-billion-gallon renewable fuels standard when 
this Energy bill goes to conference with the House.
  In addition to the renewable fuels standard, this bill in front of us 
includes tax incentives for alternative motor vehicles and fuels. This 
is very important. But we need to act more aggressively. For example, I 
believe we need to mandate that gasoline vehicles sold in this country 
be flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on E-85; that is, 85 percent 
ethanol or some other biofuel.
  Now, flexible-fuel vehicles only cost maybe, right now, between $100 
and $200 per vehicle. That is with just a small amount that are being 
made. If every vehicle was a flexible-fuel vehicle, the cost per 
vehicle would drop way below $100 per vehicle. The savings a consumer 
would get on that few dollars extra added to the sticker price of a car 
would be more than made up for, probably within the first year or so of 
buying flexible fuels.
  So I am saying, right now we do not have that many flexible-fuel 
vehicles. We need to mandate that cars sold in America--not made here, 
sold in America--be a flexible-fuel vehicle. You might say: Is that 
possible? Well, Brazil is planning on having all of its new cars 
flexible-fuel ready by 2008. I want to ask the question: If the 
Brazilians can do it, why can't we? If the Brazilians can do it, of 
course we can do it.

[[Page 13126]]

  Now, of course, consumers need access to the renewable fuels. So I am 
glad the bill in front of us includes incentives for the installation 
of flexible-fuel pumps at fueling stations. So now the bill has in it, 
as I said, incentives for installing flexible-fuel pumps at fuel 
stations. But we do not have a mandate to build flexible-fuel cars.
  Right now, there is a fuel savings credit that auto manufacturers get 
for making E-85 vehicles. It is called the CAFE credits. But it is on 
the assumption that these vehicles will run on E-85 at least half the 
time. In other words, an auto manufacturer gets the credits for 
building a flexible-fuel vehicle on the assumption the vehicle will use 
E-85 half the time.
  But the truth is, most people who own flexible-fuel vehicles do not 
even know it. So E-85 does not get used at all for that reason, and for 
the reason there are not many pumps out there. So we call this the 
dual-fuel loophole because carmakers get the credit for alternative 
fuels even if no alternative fuel is used. We should close that 
loophole now by tying CAFE credits to the amount of flexible fuel that 
is actually used, or by simply letting the credit expire.
  So what I am saying is we need a three-pronged approach. We have the 
incentives in the bill to add flexible-fuel pumps at fueling stations. 
Secondly, we need to provide these credits will go only--only--on the 
amount of flexible fuel that is actually used. Third, what I am saying 
is we actually need a mandate that cars sold in America be flexible 
fueled.
  Now, another important provision of the Energy bill extends the 
income tax credit for the production of biodiesel, another excellent 
renewable fuel. Biodiesel offers tremendous energy savings by providing 
3.5 times more energy than is used to produce it, and by offering 
improved air quality over traditional diesel.
  In addition to investment in today's biofuels, we also need a strong 
investment in the future of bio-based fuels and products of all kinds. 
New technology is making it possible to produce biofuels and a host of 
industrial and commercial products out of biomass; that is, 
agricultural material such as corn stalks and wheat straw and 
switchgrass and wood pulp and things like that--dedicated energy crops 
that together are expected to produce 10 times the current volume of 
ethanol at prices equal to or less than that of gasoline, and, again, 
with tremendous benefits to our environment and our rural economy.
  A recent study found that farmers can expect to earn an additional 
$35 per acre just by selling the excess biomass--the stalks and the 
straw--from traditional corn and wheat operations.
  Now, ethanol made from this residual biomass is expected to have near 
zero or even negative net carbon dioxide emissions. How can that be? If 
you are using it, you are burning it, burning the fuel in a car, you 
put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is true. But as these 
plants grow, they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere more than 
what is burned in the automobile. So biomass is a vital part of 
combating climate change.
  Now, the biorefineries that produce this ethanol will also give us 
bio-based products to supplement or replace everyday products now made 
from petroleum. I have a couple of posters that indicate that. Shipping 
materials, building construction materials, roofing materials, 
elastomeric-type roofing materials, paints, hand sanitizers, and even 
carpets are made from renewable resources, biodegradable resources. For 
home and automotive use, just think of all the plastic cups, all these 
containers made out of petroleum now. And there are lubricants, soy 
oil. Even rubber tires are made out of renewable resources which are 
biodegradable. All of these things can be made from the biorefineries 
that will be producing the ethanol and the biodiesel that we will use 
in transportation. Many of these products are on the market, not in the 
future but today.
  Tripling the use of bio-based products could add $20 billion in 
economic benefits just by the year 2010--5 years from now. Replacing 
the Nation's petrochemicals with bio-based equivalents would save some 
700 million barrels of petroleum a year. Just replacing plastics with 
bio-based counterparts would save another 100 million barrels or more. 
So there is great potential here. We need to get serious about 
supporting these bio-based products, and the Federal Government needs 
to take the lead.
  Now, I know we are talking about the Energy bill, and that is what I 
have been talking about. But I am just going to digress for a minute 
and talk about a provision that was in the farm bill that was passed in 
2002 because it has a lot to do with this Energy bill. Keep in mind 
what I have been saying is, by getting the biorefineries going and 
making more ethanol and biodiesel, we have byproducts that can also be 
made. As I mentioned, they are the plastic containers and the building 
materials and things like that. There is an important provision in the 
farm bill, section 9002, that we worked very hard to get in the farm 
bill, passed and signed by the President 3 years ago this month. 
Section 9002 requires all Government Departments and Agencies to give a 
purchasing preference to bio-based products. Now, here is the exact 
wording. This is section 9002. This is law. It has been the law for 3 
years:

       Each Federal agency . . . shall--

It does not say ``may''--

     shall, in making procurement decisions, give preference to 
     such items composed of the highest percentage of bio-based 
     products practicable . . . unless such items (A) are not 
     reasonably available; (B) fail to meet performance standards; 
     or (C) are available only at an unreasonable price.

  So price, performance, and availability--as long as it meets those 
three criteria, each Federal agency shall buy them. That is what it 
says, period.
  Think of all the plastic cups and forks used every day in the Senate 
cafeteria alone.
  Think of the Department of Defense, think about all of the plastic 
materials they use in serving the troops every day. Think of the 
millions of gallons of metal-working fluids, lubricants, and paint used 
by the Department of Defense. Yet 3 years after the passage of the farm 
bill, we still do not have a bio-based procurement program in place in 
the Federal Government. That has been there. It has been the law. And 
we are still not doing it. McDonald's can go buy plastic cups made out 
of renewable resources. Good for them. Why can't the Department of 
Defense? Why can't the Department of Interior that operates in our 
national parks? Why aren't they using more biodegradable materials? The 
law says they are supposed to, but they are not doing it because USDA 
has yet to issue the rules.
  Again, I bring that up because this is part and parcel of the Energy 
bill. This saves us energy because right now all this material is made 
from imported oil, or most of it. It could be made by homegrown 
products here in America. We need to have the Federal Government 
setting an example and leading the way in reducing dependence on 
products made from foreign oil. I am sorry to say that 3 years later we 
still are not doing it.
  We also need to invest in research and commercialization of bio-based 
fuels and products. That is why a few weeks ago, I, along with Senators 
Lugar, Obama, and Coleman, introduced the National Security and 
Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005. Our bill promotes targeted biomass 
research and development in order to expand the cost-effective use of 
bio-based fuels, products, and power. It provides incentives for the 
production of the first 1 billion gallons of biofuels from cellulosic 
biomass; that is, crop residues like corn stocks and wheat straw, or 
wood chips from lumber mills. It provides bioeconomy development grants 
to small bio-based businesses. It creates a new Assistant Secretary 
position at the Department of Agriculture to carry out energy and bio-
based initiatives.
  It requires the Capitol complex to lead by example by procuring bio-
based products. This bill has the support of a broad coalition of 
agricultural producers, clean energy and environment groups, and 
national security experts. I have a number of letters from these 
organizations supporting the bill.

[[Page 13127]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am excited about this new bill. I hope 
my colleagues will get behind it. In fact, we may be offering an 
amendment to the Energy bill that would take a small part of that and 
add it to the Energy bill. I hope we can get that done this week.
  America's dangerous dependence on fossil fuels extends beyond oil. 
Natural gas prices have skyrocketed, hurting everyone who uses gas to 
heat their home or fuel their appliances or to make fertilizer for our 
farmers. Americans now pay two to three times what Europeans pay for 
natural gas due to our ever-growing demand and limited availability. 
Farmers are hit hard. Our farmers rely on natural gas not only to heat 
homes and run much of their equipment but also for fertilizer in the 
fields. These impacts on farmers are severe and getting worse. We need 
an energy bill that looks for sensible ways to lower natural gas costs 
for all Americans. We need to look for environmentally sensitive ways 
to increase our supply.
  That is why I keep saying, the House put in a bill to drill for oil 
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but we all know that oil 
doesn't amount to anything. Most of that oil--I could be corrected--I 
believe all of that oil is going to go to Japan. It is a drop in the 
bucket compared to what we use. But what else they have in Alaska is a 
lot of natural gas, and we need to pipe that natural gas from Alaska 
down to the lower 48. That has been on the drawing boards in the past 
to get that natural gas down here. And for various and sundry reasons 
that I don't need to go into here, it has been held up.
  I call upon the Governor of Alaska to move expeditiously to reach the 
agreements that are necessary to get the natural gas pipeline 
constructed and built to deliver the natural gas down to the lower 48. 
They have been talking a lot about how they would pipe it down--they 
would liquefy it and then send it down to the west coast, or maybe to 
the Gulf States. That costs a lot of money when you liquefy natural 
gas, when we could build a pipeline that could be environmentally safe 
and bring that gas right down to the Midwest where it is needed, not 
only for the Midwest but for the upper part, the northern part of the 
United States. So we need to move ahead aggressively on that, and we 
are not doing it.
  We need to look for all environmentally sensitive ways to increase 
supply, and we need to look for solar and biomass and wind. I am glad 
so many colleagues from both sides of the aisle joined together in 
approving the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman requiring 10 
percent of this country's electricity to come from renewable resources 
by 2020. Wind power in particular has tremendous potential to provide 
clean, abundant energy in many parts of the country. Wind power 
generation can provide thousands of dollars in additional revenue to 
our farmers and ranchers and people in rural areas, while continuing to 
allow for crop production and grazing. Valuable incentives for wind 
power production exist in the section 45 wind production tax credit. 
However, development of this vital industry has been tied up by 
Congress's refusal to provide a long-term extension of this incentive.
  In 2004, when extension of the production tax credit was delayed, 
more than $2 billion in wind power investment was put on hold. I am 
pleased a 3-year extension of the production tax credit for wind has 
been included in this bill. We could do more, much more. It should be 
extended longer than that, but at least this minimal amount should 
provide developers the certainty they need to move ahead with wind 
power projects.
  We also need to make sure farmers and farmer co-ops can be full 
participants in wind power projects. The farm bill's energy title, 
section 906, is providing grants and loans to farmers and rural small 
businesses to install wind and other renewable energy systems on their 
property. It also supports energy-efficient improvements to farm and 
small business operations. This program has been a real success over 
the past several years. We expect it to grow substantially in the years 
ahead.
  I have also introduced a bill, S. 715, to help more farmers and other 
rural citizens become active investors in wind energy by removing 
restrictions that are in the production tax credit. This bill I am 
sponsoring includes a pass through of the wind production tax credit to 
cooperative members, just like the small ethanol producer credit pass 
through right now. This will provide another needed boost to rural 
America's wind power development. Right now, if a co-op builds an 
ethanol plant, they can get the production tax credits passed through 
to their members. If a co-op wants to build windmills, however, they 
can't pass it through to their members. Hopefully, we can lift this 
restriction, and we can do it on this Energy bill before us.
  Finally, we need to look to the longer term future, and we need to do 
it now by laying the groundwork. To deliver truly sustainable energy 
that will not add to climate change and global warming, that will not 
pollute the environment, we must invest in clean technologies. What I 
am talking about is hydrogen. It offers real potential for a clean, 
domestic, sustainable energy future. But only if it is produced from 
renewable resources. That is why we need to support research and 
demonstration of technologies to produce hydrogen from ethanol and 
other renewable resources. My bill, S. 373, the Renewable Hydrogen 
Transportation Act, would do just that, by funding the installation of 
an ethanol-to-hydrogen reformer, as well as the operation of hybrid 
electric vehicles converted to run on renewable hydrogen instead of 
gasoline.
  Making hydrogen from ethanol and other renewable fuels makes a lot of 
sense for transportation--one, because we can use the existing ethanol 
production and distribution network; two, because it could well be the 
least expensive renewable hydrogen option available. I appreciate the 
willingness of the chairman and the ranking member to work with me to 
put this modest, but meaningful, initiative in the bill.
  Again, to get to that sustainable future, we have to think about 
making hydrogen from renewable resources. You use the wind power. When 
the wind blows at night and you don't need all that electricity and you 
cannot store it, what do you do with it? You waste it. It is gone. But 
if you can use that wind at night to turn a turbine that makes 
electricity, and you can use that electricity to hydrolyze water--
remember the old chemistry experiment where you put positive and 
negative in water, and off of one comes oxygen and off of the other 
comes hydrogen. There are two atoms for oxygen for every atom of 
hydrogen. As long as those turbines are turning, we can make hydrogen. 
You can store hydrogen. You can save it. You can compress it. You can 
pipe it. So, therefore, at times when you don't need a lot of 
electrical power and the wind is blowing, you can make hydrogen. You 
can store it and take the hydrogen and put it through a fuel cell to 
make the electricity when you need it. The beauty of doing that is you 
only get one product--H2O, water. Nothing else. It doesn't 
pollute, doesn't add to global warming or anything. So that is the 
cycle that we need. Use the Sun, use the wind, hydropower, whatever is 
renewable, take that and make hydrogen, store it, compress it, put it 
through a fuel cell, and make the electricity, and the cycle starts all 
over again. I know a lot of this is some years down the pike. We cannot 
do it tomorrow. But we can start now by building assistance that will 
enable us to move to a renewable hydrogen-based economy in this 
country.
  Mr. President, let me close by thanking Senator Domenici and Senator 
Bingaman for the extraordinary job they have done during the past 
months and during floor consideration of the bill. The bipartisan 
cooperation we are seeing is due largely to their example and 
impressive leadership, and the entire Senate owes them a debt of 
gratitude for a job well done.

[[Page 13128]]

  Of course, we are not done yet. Hurdles remain. We are headed, 
though, toward concluding a strong, bipartisan bill that leads America 
decisively into the new world of clean, renewable, home-grown energy. 
When the time comes, we need to stand firm for the Senate provisions 
when we go to conference.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                     June 9, 2005.
     Re The National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 
         2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Lugar,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The National Corn Growers 
     Association (NCGA), the American Soybean Association (ASA), 
     and the Renewable Fuels Association are writing to express 
     our support for the National Security and Bioenergy 
     Investment Act of 2005. In particular, we strongly support 
     the increased procurement of biobased products by Federal 
     agencies and all Federal government contractors. Biobased 
     products represent a large potential growth market for corn 
     and soybean growers in areas such as plastics, solvents, 
     packaging and other consumer goods to provide markets for 
     U.S.-grown crops. The biobased product industry has already 
     started to grow, bringing new products to consumers, new 
     markets to growers and new investments to our communities.
       The procurement of biobased products promotes energy and 
     environmental security. Products made from corn and soybeans 
     could replace a variety of items currently produced from 
     petroleum, and aid in reducing dependence on imported oil. 
     Already the production of ethanol and biodiesel reduces 
     imports by more than 140 million barrels of oil. The 
     production of biobased products generates less greenhouse gas 
     than traditional petroleum-based items. There are also 
     tremendous opportunities for grower-owned processing 
     facilities and rural America and agriculture as a whole. New 
     jobs and investments will be brought into rural communities, 
     as new processing and manufacturing facilities move into 
     those communities to be near renewable feedstocks.
       NCGA, ASA and RFA applaud your continued efforts to promote 
     the use of biobased I products that will encourage the 
     development of new markets for corn and soybeans and 
     ultimately help to revitalize rural economies and the 
     agriculture industry as a whole. We have been avid supporters 
     of the biobased products industry, and we look forward to 
     working with you as you continue to provide vision and 
     direction for this emerging industry.
           Sincerely,
     Leon Corzine,
       President, National Corn Growers Association.
     Neal Bredehoeft,
       President, American Soybean Association.
     Bob Dinneen,
       President, Renewable Fuels Association.
                                  ____



                                 Governors' Ethanol Coalition,

                                                     June 9, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Richard Lugar,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Norm Coleman,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of the thirty members of the 
     Governors' Ethanol Coalition, we strongly support and endorse 
     the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005, 
     as well as your efforts to expand development of other 
     biofuels and co-products. The Governors' Ethanol Coalition is 
     pleased that this bill embodies the recommendations developed 
     by the Coalition in Ethanol From Biomass: America's 21st pi 
     Century Transportation Fuel. When signed into law, this act 
     will catalyze needed research, production, and use of 
     biofuels and bio-based products, thereby enhancing our 
     economic, environmental, and national security.
       The Coalition believes that the nation's dependency on 
     imported oil presents a huge risk to this country's future. 
     The combination of political tensions in major oil-producing 
     nations with growing oil demand from China and India is 
     seriously threatening our national security. Moreover, as we 
     import greater amounts of oil each year, we are draining more 
     and more of the wealth from our states.
       The key provisions contained in your bill bring focus and 
     resources to biomass-derived ethanol research and 
     commercialization efforts. The result, over time, will be the 
     replacement of significant amounts. of imported oil with 
     domestically produced fuels--improving our rural economies, 
     cleaning our air, and contributing to our national security. 
     Of particular importance is the bill's aim to broaden ethanol 
     production to include all regions of the nation so that many 
     more states will reap the benefits of biofuels.
       Again, thank you for inclusion of the Coalition's 
     recommendations in this landmark legislation. Please let us 
     know how the Coalition can help with the passage of this very 
     important legislation. The continued expansion of ethanol 
     production and use, particularly biomass-derived fuels, and 
     the accompanying economic growth and environmental benefits 
     for our states is essential to the nation's long-term 
     economic vitality and national security.
           Sincerely,
     Tim Pawlenty,
       Chair, Governor of Minnesota.
     Kathleen Sebelius,
       Vice Chair, Governor of Kansas.
                                  ____



                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2005.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The Natural Resources 
     Defense Council strongly supports the National Security and 
     Bioenergy Investment Act of2005, which you introduced today. 
     This important bill would expand and refine research, 
     development, demonstration and deployment efforts for the 
     production of energy from crops grown by farmers here in 
     America. The bill would also expand and improve the 
     Department of Agriculture's efforts to promote a biobased 
     economy, federal bio-energy and bioproduct purchasing 
     requirements, and federal educational efforts.
       The Research and Development (R&D) title of this bill 
     continues your tradition of leadership in this area by 
     updating the Biomass Research and Development Act of2000, 
     which you also crafted. This title will not only extend the 
     provisions of the original bill and greatly increase the 
     funding for these provisions, it will also refine the 
     direction of this funding. Taken together, these changes 
     maximize the impacts of R&D on the greatest challenges facing 
     cellulosic biofuels today.
       Your bill also creates extremely important production 
     incentives for the first one billion gallons of cellulosic 
     biofuels. The production incentives approach taken by the 
     bill a combination of fixed incentives per gallon at first, 
     switching over to a reverse auction will maximize the 
     development of cellulosic biofuels production while 
     minimizing the cost to taxpayers.
       In addition, the bill creates an Assistant Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Energy and Biobased Products. Coupled with 
     the bill's development grants, tax incentives, biobased 
     product procurement provisions, and educational program, the 
     bill would make a huge contribution to developing a 
     sustainable biobased economy, reducing our oil dependence and 
     improving our national security.
       The technologies advanced by this bill will undoubtedly 
     make important contributions to reducing our global warming 
     pollution and the air and water pollution that comes from our 
     dependence on fossil fuels. We are concerned, however, that 
     the eligibility provisions for forest biomass do not exclude 
     sensitive areas that need protecting, including roadless 
     areas, old growth forests, and other endangered forests, and 
     do not restrict eligibility to renewable sources or prohibit 
     possible conversion of native forests to plantations. We know 
     that you do not want to see this admirable legislation 
     applied in ways that exploit these features, and will be 
     happy to work with you in the future to take any steps needed 
     if abuses arise.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Karen Wayland,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                      Energy Future Coalition,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: On behalf of the Energy 
     Future Coalition, I am writing to commend your leadership and 
     vision in drafting the National Security and Bioenergy 
     Investment Act of 2005.
       In our judgment, America's growing dependence on foreign 
     oil endangers our national and economic security. We believe 
     the Federal government should undertake a major new 
     initiative to curtail U.S. oil consumption through improved 
     efficiency and the rapid development and deployment of 
     advanced biomass, alcohol and other available petroleum fuel 
     alternatives.
       With such a push, we believe domestic biofuels can cut the 
     nation's oil use by 25 percent by 2025, and substantial 
     further reductions are possible through efficiency gains from 
     advanced technologies. That is an ambitious goal, but it is 
     also an extraordinary opportunity for American leadership, 
     innovation, job creation, and economic growth.

[[Page 13129]]

       You took an important step forward by introducing S. 650, 
     the Fuels Security Act, incorporated into the Senate energy 
     bill during Committee markup. This legislation is another 
     important step, authorizing the additional research and 
     development and federal incentives needed to accelerate the 
     adoption of biobased fuels and coproducts. We are pleased to 
     support it.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Reid Detchon,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                       National Farmers Union,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2005.
     Hon. Richard Lugar,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lugar and Harkin: On behalf of the family 
     farming and ranching members of the National Farmers Union, 
     we are writing to express our strong support for your 
     bipartisan, National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 
     2005 legislation. The provisions within this act contain 
     crucial measures that will benefit not only rural, but all of 
     America.
       Importantly, your legislation would create an Assistant 
     Secretary for Energy and Biobased Products position at USDA, 
     which we feel would complement and reinforce initiatives 
     created by the energy section of the 2002 Farm Bill.
       We also applaud your proposals for promoting the usage of 
     biobased products within the U.S. government, which will 
     expand future development of these technologies. These 
     products, and their use, are an asset to the rural producers 
     of the commodities used in the production of these commonly 
     used items. Also, the more we increase the use of these 
     items, the better it will be environmentally for future 
     generations.
       We wholeheartedly support your legislation and look forward 
     to working with you to promote the expansion of biobased 
     products.
           Sincerely,
                                            David J. Frederickson,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                     Biotechnology


                                        Industry Organization,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2005.
     Senator Tom Harkin,
     Ranking Democratic Member,
     Senator Richard Lugar,
     Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The Biotechnology Industry 
     Organization (BIO) Industrial and Environmental Section fully 
     supports the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act 
     of 2005. We greatly appreciate your vision and initiative to 
     expand the Biomass Research and Development Act and to create 
     new incentives to produce biofuels and biobased products.
       America's growing dependence on foreign energy is eroding 
     our national security. We must take steps to drastically 
     increase production of domestic energy. As an active 
     participant in the Energy Future Coalition, BIO believes this 
     country needs a major new initiative to more aggressively 
     research, develop and deploy advanced biofuels technologies. 
     With sufficient government support, we can meet up to 25% of 
     our transportation fuel needs by converting farm crops and 
     crop residues to transportation fuel.
       The National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005 
     will boost the use of industrial biotechnology to produce 
     fuels and biobased products from renewable agricultural 
     feedstocks. With the use of new biotech tools, we can now 
     utilize millions of tons of crop residues, such as corn 
     stover and wheat straw, to produce sugars that can then be 
     converted to ethanol, chemicals and bio-based plastics. These 
     biotech tools can only be rapidly deployed if federal policy 
     makers take steps to help our innovative companies get over 
     the initial hurdles they face during the commercialization 
     phase of bioenergy production, and your bill will help get 
     that job done.
       We are pleased to endorse this visionary legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Brent Erickson,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                            Environmental Law & Policy Center,

                                        Chicago, IL, June 8, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Harkin and Lugar: The Environmental Law and 
     Policy Center (``ELPC'') is pleased to support the National 
     Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005, and we commend 
     you for your leadership and vision in introducing this 
     legislation. This bill would accelerate research, 
     development, demonstration and production efforts for energy 
     from farm crops in the United States, especially cellulosic 
     ethanol. It also will expand and prioritize the United States 
     Department of Agriculture's leadership responsibilities to 
     promote clean and sustainable energy development, and it will 
     increase procurement of biobased products.
       By significantly expanding the development and production 
     of clean energy ``cash crops,'' this legislation will improve 
     our environmental quality, stimulate significant rural 
     economic development, and strengthen our national energy 
     security. ELPC also appreciates that this legislation 
     reflects your longstanding support for farm-based sustainable 
     energy programs. ELPC strongly supported your successful 
     efforts to create the new Energy Title in the 2002 Farm Bill, 
     which established groundbreaking new federal incentives for 
     renewable energy and energy efficiency, while renewing 
     existing programs such as the Biomass Research and 
     Development Act of 2000.
       The National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005 
     is a natural complement to the 2002 Farm Bill Energy Title 
     programs, and it will help to strengthen support for the 
     right bioenergy production programs in the 2007 Farm Bill. 
     Accordingly, ELPC is pleased to support this legislation.
           Very truly yours,
                                                Howard A. Learner,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                            Institute for Local Self-Reliance,

                                                     June 6, 2005.
     Senator Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Tom Harkin: Congratulations on your bill, 
     National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005. It is 
     a breakthrough piece of legislation. Your well-conceived 
     bill, combining needed executive branch changes, welcome 
     increases in research and development funding and innovative 
     commercialization techniques, can move the use of plants as a 
     fuel and industrial material from the margins of the economy 
     to the mainstream. I urge everyone with an interest in our 
     environmental, agricultural and economic future to support 
     this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                     David Morris,
                                                   Vice President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 805

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Iowa for 
his being always thoughtful. We even want to produce ethanol plants and 
wind in New York. We just don't want to transport it over to Iowa. I am 
not from Iowa. In any case, I am not here to talk about that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
laid aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. SCHUMER. This is the sense of the Senate amendment on the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will temporarily set it aside, and then we will 
return to where we were. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I believe the amendment is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 805.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding management of 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower the burden of gasoline prices 
on the economy of the United States and circumvent the efforts of OPEC 
                       to reap windfall profits)

       On page 208, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF SPR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the prices of gasoline and crude oil have a direct and 
     substantial impact on the financial well-being of families of 
     the United States, the potential for national economic 
     recovery, and the economic security of the United States;
       (2) on June 13, 2005, crude oil prices closed at the 
     exceedingly high level of $55.62 per barrel, the price of 
     crude oil has remained above $50 per barrel since May 25, 
     2005, and the price of crude oil has exceeded $50 per barrel 
     for approximately \1/3\ of calendar year 2005;
       (3) on June 6, 2005, the Energy Information Administration 
     announced that the national price of gasoline, at $2.12 per 
     gallon, could reach even higher levels in the near future;
       (4) despite the severely high, sustained price of crude 
     oil--
       (A) the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 
     (referred to in this section as ``OPEC'') has refused to 
     adequately increase

[[Page 13130]]

     production to calm global oil markets and officially 
     abandoned its $22-$28 price target; and
       (B) officials of OPEC member nations have publicly 
     indicated support for maintaining oil prices of $40-$50 per 
     barrel;
       (5) the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (referred to in this 
     section as ``SPR'') was created to enhance the physical and 
     economic security of the United States;
       (6) the law allows the SPR to be used to provide relief 
     when oil and gasoline supply shortages cause economic 
     hardship;
       (7) the proper management of the resources of the SPR could 
     provide gasoline price relief to families of the United 
     States and provide the United States with a tool to 
     counterbalance OPEC supply management policies;
       (8) the Administration's policy of filling the SPR despite 
     the fact that the SPR is nearly full has exacerbated the 
     rising price of crude oil and record high retail price of 
     gasoline;
       (9) in order to combat high gasoline prices during the 
     summer and fall of 2000, President Clinton released 
     30,000,000 barrels of oil from the SPR, stabilizing the 
     retail price of gasoline;
       (10) increasing vertical integration has allowed--
       (A) the 5 largest oil companies in the United States to 
     control almost as much crude oil production as the Middle 
     Eastern members of OPEC, over \1/2\ of domestic refiner 
     capacity, and over 60 percent of the retail gasoline market; 
     and
       (B) Exxon/Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell Group, Conoco/
     Philips, and Chevron/Texaco to increase first quarter profits 
     of 2005 over first quarter profits of 2004 by 36 percent, for 
     total first quarter profits of over $25,000,000,000;
       (11) the Administration has failed to manage the SPR in a 
     manner that would provide gasoline price relief to working 
     families; and
       (12) the Administration has failed to adequately demand 
     that OPEC immediately increase oil production in order to 
     lower crude oil prices and safeguard the world economy.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should--
       (1) directly confront OPEC and challenge OPEC to 
     immediately increase oil production; and
       (2) direct the Federal Trade Commission and Attorney 
     General to exercise vigorous oversight over the oil markets 
     to protect the people of the United States from price gouging 
     and unfair practices at the gasoline pump.
       (c) Release of Oil From SPR.--
       (1) In general.--For the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act and ending on the date that is 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, 1,000,000 barrels of 
     oil per day shall be released from the SPR.
       (2) Additional release.--If necessary to lower the burden 
     of gasoline prices on the economy of the United States and to 
     circumvent the efforts of OPEC to reap windfall crude oil 
     profits, 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day shall be released 
     from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for an additional 30 
     days.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico for his 
grace, as usual. I will be brief as I make a statement on the 
amendment.
  I rise to offer this amendment, which will express the sense of the 
Senate that the Federal Government should take long, overdue action to 
curb the record-high gasoline prices that are plaguing American 
consumers at the pump. As my colleagues are well aware, for weeks, oil 
and gasoline prices have been placing an immense burden on working 
families and threatening our fragile economic recovery, and it is time 
that this body took action to protect our Nation's economic security 
from the sky-high oil prices and the whims of the OPEC cartel.
  This amendment would urge the administration to provide the American 
consumer with relief by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve through a swap program in order to increase the supply, quell 
the markets, and bring down prices at the pump. Of course, the other 
side of the swap is that we would buy back the oil when the price was 
lower and put it back in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is now 
just about full.
  Mr. President, what we are faced with here is simple market economics 
of supply and demand. If demand goes up, price goes up. If supply goes 
up, price goes down. At a time facing record-breaking gasoline prices, 
it is hard to believe that the Federal Government would be taking oil 
off the market and exacerbate the high energy costs to working 
families.
  The price of crude oil has remained at near record highs for over 
one-third of 2005, with oil having traded at over $50 a barrel since 
May 25. Just today, we saw the biggest jump yet, with oil closing at 
almost $60 a barrel. OPEC used to claim it was interested in helping to 
keep prices under $30 a barrel. That is when it went from a $22 to $28 
rate. It may be fun to double down in Las Vegas but not in the oil 
market, and certainly not at the gas pump.
  These prices have already burdened Americans in New York and in the 
rest of the Northeast. We get a double whammy because we have high home 
heating oil prices, as well as high gasoline prices because we depend 
on heating oil more than most parts of the country. Other parts are 
warmer or use more natural gas. I know these families were hoping for a 
quick spring so they could enjoy a brief respite from the high energy 
prices.
  Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case, as the increased burden of 
oil costs has just moved from the home to the highway. As Americans are 
beginning to plan for their road trips and summer vacations, the 
national price of gasoline has seemingly reached a new record high 
every week. Last week, the Energy Information Administration reported 
that prices had increased for the second straight week, to $2.13 for 
regular self-service. That is an increase of almost 49 cents from last 
year. Unfortunately, it could give way to even higher prices in the 
future.
  We know who is being hurt by these oil prices, and we know who is 
benefiting--OPEC. Last year, OPEC made $300 billion in oil revenue. 
They stand to gain much, much more if the price of oil stays as high as 
it is--stratospheric levels. In order to institutionalize the profits 
from these spikes, OPEC agreed to abandon their longstanding price 
target of $22 to $28 a barrel, as I mentioned before, and some of its 
members say they could be comfortable with oil remaining at $40 to $50 
permanently. I know who will not be comfortable--American families who 
depend on affordable oil to commute to work, heat their homes, and 
provide for their energy needs.
  Some of my colleagues may be asking: Didn't OPEC agree to increase 
production in March by 500,000 barrels a day?
  The reality is that OPEC's pledge to increase production on paper has 
not reduced prices at the pump. OPEC, after having cut production by 1 
million barrels in the face of rising oil prices--it is not that 
amazing--claimed that they would increase production by half the 
previous cut. While this would seem like a step in the right direction, 
the reality is they were already producing 700,000 barrels over their 
quota, so as a result this paper increase added no oil to U.S. markets.
  These are exactly the type of shell games that the OPEC cartel uses 
to take money out of Americans' pockets to put toward OPEC profits.
  We have to act to stop it. Once again, OPEC is talking about another 
500,000-barrel increase. We will see if they actually follow through.
  Instead of standing up to OPEC, what has this administration done? It 
has continued, incredibly enough, taking oil off the market and placing 
it in the SPR. This policy, which further tightens oil markets by 
taking much needed supplies out of commerce, is slated to take an 
average of almost 85,000 barrels per day off the market during the 
height of the driving season, between April and the end of August, 
despite the fact that the SPR is almost completely full.
  I understand that some of my colleagues think the SPR should never be 
touched, even to safeguard our economic security. I would argue that 
concerns to this degree do not properly balance America's physical 
security needs against its economic security needs. With the SPR almost 
full, we can easily reduce 30 million barrels through a swap and still 
have an effective safeguard against a physical supply disruption.
  Initiating a swap of oil from the SPR to increase the supply of oil 
is a proven way to reduce the price of gasoline and heating oil. In the 
fall of 2000, the Clinton administration announced a swap of 30 million 
barrels over 30 days, causing crude oil prices to quickly fall by over 
$6 a barrel and wholesale prices to fall 14 cents a gallon. Under a 
swap, the Federal Government could decide on a set quantity of oil to 
release from the

[[Page 13131]]

SPR and accept bids from private companies for the rights to that oil. 
The companies would then bid on how much oil they would be willing to 
return, in addition to the oil they would receive under the swap, to 
the SPR at a later date.
  The administration has had these tools in its hands and could have 
acted more quickly, earlier, to stand up for the American consumer, but 
it has not. Instead, despite repeated urgings from Members of this 
body, among others, it has steadfastly refused to intervene and to 
allow oil prices to soar. It has been good for oil companies, it has 
been good for OPEC and bad for the American consumer.
  This amendment says enough is enough and gives this body an 
opportunity to do what others have refused by hitting the breaks to 
stop runaway gasoline prices.
  An oil swap would result in a win-win situation where gasoline prices 
are lowered and long-term contributions to the SPR are augmented at no 
additional cost to the taxpayers. The SPR is intended to provide relief 
at times when American families are struggling to make ends meet. The 
time is now. The summer driving months are just beginning.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the pocketbooks of 
working families from OPEC profiteering by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we will not argue our case against the 
case of the Senator from New York yet. We will do that tomorrow. 
Suffice it to say we are talking about a reserve. It is there as a 
safety valve in the event something were to happen, and we will talk 
about the perils of that and why the amendment should not be adopted.
  For now, it looks as if we are lining up a number of amendments for 
tomorrow, including some amendments that should be in place with 
reference to global warming and some agreements and understanding 
regarding them. Later on, an amendment about the inventory of offshore 
assets, resources, will be discussed and when that amendment to strike 
will be taken up. So we might have some understanding by morning on a 
series of votes.
  For now, I do not think we are going to do anything else other than 
wrap up business, and we will take care of that in due course.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________