[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14429-14456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, 
     affordable, and reliable energy.


                   recognition of the majority leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning, following the opening 
statement of the two leaders, we will proceed to passage of the Energy 
bill. A lot of work has gone into this bill at this point, and this 
upcoming final passage vote is one further step toward a national 
energy policy. We look forward to a good conference with the House to 
produce a final Energy bill for the President to sign.
  Following that vote, we will resume consideration of the Interior 
appropriations bill. Pending to that bill are approximately 40 first-
degree amendments. The committee, over the course of the weekend and 
yesterday, had been reviewing those amendments and, hopefully, we can 
dispose of most of those amendments without rollcall votes. We will 
need to debate and vote on some of the pending amendments, and 
therefore we will have votes throughout the day. We would like to 
finish the Interior appropriations bill today, and I will be speaking 
shortly to the two managers with regard to progress that is being made.
  We will be recessing from 12:30 to 2:15 today. When we conclude the 
Interior bill, the Senate will begin the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill, and we will finish that bill prior to the start of 
the July 4 recess. In addition to funding the work of the Department of 
Homeland Security, that legislation begins the hard work of enhancing 
the security of our borders. We will complete action on this piece of 
border security legislation this week.
  It is also possible that the Senate could complete work on other 
appropriations bills beyond the two to which the minority leader and I 
have agreed. We will be working together with the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee to see what we can 
accomplish in addition to the Interior and Homeland Security 
appropriations bills.
  In addition, this morning, the Finance Committee is working on our 
free-trade agreement with several Central American countries. If the 
committee completes action on that, we would also take that up this 
week. Under the law, debate on the free-trade agreement would total no 
more than 20 hours equally divided, and we will do that later this 
week.
  As I mentioned last week, we will also consider any other available 
conference reports or legislative or executive items that are ready for 
action throughout the week--the highway conference report extension, a 
welfare extension, as well as a series of important nominations that 
could be resolved this week as well: Lester Crawford to run our Food 
and Drug Administration, Tom Dorr to serve in the Department of 
Agriculture, Gordon English to serve in the Department of Homeland 
Defense. All of these are possible for action before the recess.
  We are going to have a very busy final week and, I know, a productive 
week. We will be working through Friday. I want to announce to our 
colleagues once again, as I have before, that in all likelihood we will 
be voting on Friday, and intend to vote on Friday.
  In addition, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at 3:45 
today, to be followed by Senator Bunning, to be followed by Senator 
McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a 
question on the schedule?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, this is the time 
to vote on H.R. 6.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we be allowed to 
have the majority leader respond to a question.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. FRIST. I will be happy to respond.
  Mr. DORGAN. The majority leader suggested that perhaps CAFTA might be 
brought up later this week. As the majority leader knows, CAFTA is 
brought to us under something called fast-track procedures, No. 1, and 
No. 2, an expedited procedure by which, when it is brought to the 
floor, it is given 20 hours of debate. Some of us feel very strongly 
that fast track is wrong, but, nonetheless, that is the process.

[[Page 14430]]

  I ask the majority leader if he is intending to bring up CAFTA under 
fast track as the last order of business because the suggestion then 
would be you bump fast track up against the Fourth of July recess. I 
think that would mistreat a very serious issue.
  My hope is that the majority leader will not decide to make the CAFTA 
trade agreement the last order of the day in this week because, if so, 
that will suggest that there is a desire to truncate the debate, to 
shrink the 20 hours, and not have a thoughtful and full debate on a 
very important trade issue at a time when we have the largest trade 
deficit in the history of this country.
  My question would be, is there consideration to bringing up the 
Central American Free-Trade Agreement when we return from the Fourth of 
July recess?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as I mentioned, the Central American Free-
Trade Agreement is currently being addressed by the committee. That 
will be done today and possibly into tomorrow. Before we make any 
definitive scheduling beyond that, we will let it get through the 
committee. I will be talking to the Democratic leader. It is an issue 
that we could, through a fast-track mechanism, address before we leave 
for our July recess. No final decision has been made. I will be in 
discussion with the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Democratic leader seek 
recognition?
  Under the previous order, the hour of 9:45 having arrived, we will 
proceed to a vote on H.R. 6. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if, in regular order, would it be appropriate 
for the Senator from New Mexico and two Senators to speak for 3 minutes 
on the bill?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent that could be the 
order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we will soon vote this morning on final 
passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I hope and expect that my 
colleagues will vote overwhelmingly to pass it for a number of reasons, 
but I want to concentrate on two of the most significant.
  First, this bill is a huge step forward in our quest to enact 
policies that will ultimately move us away from our dependence on 
foreign sources of energy. There are no quick fixes for the predicament 
we have created for ourselves over the past 50 years.
  But Senator Bingaman and I, of all people, are keenly aware of the 
promise that research and development of new technologies holds for our 
future energy independence. He and I have had the good fortune to 
witness the tremendous accomplishments of the scientists at Los Alamos 
and Sandia over the years. We know that partnerships in science and 
technology between the government and the private sector can spur 
significant advancements in technologies we need for our future--a 
future where we become more productive, more efficient, less dependent 
on foreign sources, and more protective of our environment in the 
process.
  We have provided in this bill the opportunities for those 
partnerships as well as other incentives for the private sector to make 
the advances we need to have for our energy future.
  Secondly, this is a bipartisan product that deserves broad support. 
Senator Bingaman and I have worked together on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee for over 20 years.
  We have struggled through the issues we address in this bill for many 
years. Over the past six months, we have garnered the fruits of that 
association into this bipartisan bill to create what I believe is a 
fine product to get us started on solving our energy problems.
  This bill isn't perfect. No bill ever is. But Senator Bingaman and I 
believe it is a worthy product that deserves your support. We look 
forward to a speedy conference with the House of Representatives and 
hope to soon deliver a conference report to this body for passage.
  I also express my sincere thanks to my staff, as well as Senator 
Bingaman's staff, for their many, many days of long hours and hard work 
to make this bill a reality. They have been open to all of you and your 
staffs, and, I believe, have honestly attempted to address any issue 
Senators have brought to them.
  I especially want to thank Alex Flint, Staff Director, and Judy 
Pensabene, Chief Counsel, for managing this entire process. Other 
members of the staff who also lent their expertise and professionalism 
to the process are: Carole McGuire, Deputy Staff Director; Karen 
Billups, Deputy Chief Counsel; Counsels Kellie Donnelly, Lisa Epifani, 
and Frank Macchiarola; Professional staff members Dick Bouts, Kathryn 
Clay, Frank Gladics, Josh Johnson, John Peschke, and Clint Williamson; 
Mamie Funk, Communications Director, and Angela Harper, Deputy 
Communications Director; Colin Hayes, Legislative Aide; Carol Craft, 
Chief Clerk; Cherstyn Monson, Executive Assistant; and Staff Assistants 
David Marks, Amy Millett, and Steve Waskiewicz.
  Lastly, I sincerely thank the majority leader and his excellent staff 
for helping us shepherd this bill through the Senate.
  I believe today we will pass, for the first time in many years, a new 
policy for the United States with reference to our energy production, 
the energy needs of the future.
  I think this is a very good bill. I think it will provide us with a 
significant number of alternative energy supplies, all of which will be 
predicated upon the proposition that energy should be clean, the energy 
that we produce in the future; much of it should be renewable; that, 
indeed, we have conservation; that nuclear should become part of our 
arsenal; that, in addition, innovation will be the order of the day.
  Along with production of ethanol, the rest of the bill will produce 
jobs, jobs, jobs, and will secure jobs for our future.
  With reference to natural gas, one of our most significant and 
serious problems today, we hope that there will be a new and 
invigorated supply which will give us an opportunity to have prices for 
natural gas stabilize or even come down, without which we have a very 
difficult future for millions of jobs that are dependent upon natural 
gas or derivatives from natural gas.
  All in all, I think this is an exciting and good bill. I thank the 
Senate for its support, the leader for his support, Senator Bingaman 
for his support. This is truly the first major bill in a long time that 
is bipartisan in nature. That made it possible, and I am very proud to 
have been part of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bill before us is not perfect. It 
does not go as far I would have liked, or others may have liked, to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to improve our automobile fuel 
efficiency, or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  But it makes a good start. The bill puts the Senate on record, for 
the first time, as saying that global warming is a problem and that we 
need to take serious action to address it. The bill stops short of 
taking those actions itself, but it acknowledges the problem, and that 
is an important--indeed essential--step in the right direction.
  The bill also takes major steps toward increasing the amount of 
energy we use to make our electricity and to fuel our cars and trucks 
from renewable energy sources. It promotes the development and 
deployment of new energy technologies, improves energy efficiency, and 
modernizes our electricity laws. It was a good bill coming out of 
committee and it has been made better on the floor.
  Much of the credit for the bill goes to Chairman Domenici for the 
fair, open, and bipartisan process he used to draft the bill and 
shepherd it through the committee and on the floor. Not all issues were 
resolved the way he would have liked or I would have liked, but he

[[Page 14431]]

let the committee and the Senate work their will. It has resulted in a 
good bill.
  Special thanks must also go to the committee staff, both majority and 
minority, who put in long hours and hard work on the bill over the last 
several months. Everyone on the Democratic staff of the committee 
contributed to this effort: Bob Simon, Sam Fowler, Patty Beneke, Tara 
Billingsley, Jonathan Black, David Brooks, Michael Carr, Mike Connor, 
Deborah Estes, Amanda Goldman, Leon Lowery, Jennifer Michael, Scott 
Miller, Sreela Nandi, Dominic Saavedra, Al Stayman, Vicki Thorne, Bill 
Wicker and Mark Wilson. I especially wish to thank our Democratic staff 
director, Bob Simon. I would also like to single out Jonathan Epstein 
and James Dennis on my personal staff for their contributions to the 
bill.
  I would also like to acknowledge the constant and valuable help given 
to us by the Democratic cloakroom staff and the staff of the Democratic 
Leader.
  Our task now will be to keep our bipartisan bill from being 
undermined in conference. Twice before the Senate has sent an energy 
bill to conference, only to see it die in conference or on the floor. 
But I am confident that the third try is the charm.
  Again, I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership and bipartisan 
approach to this effort. I think we have come up with a bill which 
should enjoy good bipartisan support here on the Senate floor.
  There are obviously some provisions I wish were in the bill that are 
not. But I think we are going into conference with a good piece of 
legislation. I hope we are successful in persuading the House to agree 
with us on that. I do think we still have many hurdles to overcome, as 
we have learned from previous Congresses, but I am optimistic that this 
time we will succeed in completing action on an energy bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, energy policy is an important issue for 
America and one which my Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. 
Crafting an energy policy requires us to address important questions 
about, for example, the role of domestic production of energy resources 
versus foreign imports, the need to ensure adequate energy supplies 
while protecting the environment, the need for additional domestic 
efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the 
wisest use of our energy resources. Given the need for a sound national 
energy policy, a vote on an energy bill is a very serious matter and I 
do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. In my view, 
however, this bill does not achieve the correct balance on several 
important issues, which is why I will oppose it.
  The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that implementing the 
bill will cost $5.1 billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006-
2010 period. I am concerned that this estimate does not include the at 
least $10.1 billion in unpaid-for tax breaks. The $10.1 billion 
includes $5.7 billion in production tax credits and $4.4 billion in 
various subsidies to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries. Although I 
support the extension of the wind energy production tax credit and 
incentives for alternative fuels such as biodiesel, I am concerned that 
these tax expenditures are not offset. This billion dollar figure does 
not include the potential costs of the billions of dollars in loan 
guarantees provided in the bill, which could prove extremely costly to 
taxpayers. According to the CBO, loan default risk is ``well above 50 
percent'' leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. The oil, gas, coal, 
hydroelectric and nuclear industries are mature industries that do not 
need to be propped up by the taxpayers. I am also especially concerned 
about the tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry, which is already 
experiencing windfall profits as oil nears $60 a barrel.
  Even before the Senate added the tax title to the bill or any other 
amendments, CBO estimated that implementing the bill would cost $5.1 
billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006-2010 period. None of 
this spending is offset, or paid for. Our nation's budget position has 
deteriorated significantly over the past few years, in large part 
because of the massive tax cuts that were enacted. We now face years of 
projected budget deficits. The only way we will climb out of this 
deficit hole is to return to the fiscally responsible policies that 
helped put our nation on a sound fiscal footing in the 1990s, and that 
means making sure the bills we pass are paid for. Otherwise we are 
digging our deficit hole even deeper and adding to the massive debt 
already facing our children and grandchildren.
  In addition, this bill repeals the proconsumer Public Utility Holding 
Company Act, the Federal Government's most important mechanism to 
protect electricity consumers. The bill does include language from my 
colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, banning Enron-like energy 
trading schemes. I also welcome the addition of new language that gives 
the Federal Government more oversight of utility mergers. This 
language, however, in my opinion, does not adequately prevent utilities 
from using affiliate companies to out compete small businesses.
  That is why I joined with the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, in 
filing the consumer protection, fair competition, and financial 
integrity amendment. We believe that small businesses and consumers 
should be protected from abuses involving public utility companies' 
related businesses. We also share the belief that repeal of the Public 
Utility Holding Company Act in the underlying bill creates a serious 
regulatory void and market flaw that Congress should correct.
  Our amendment would have improved the bill by making clear the 
actions that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--or FERC--must 
take to ensure that deregulated holding companies do not outcompete our 
small businesses, damage their financial standing, and then pass the 
costs of bad investments to consumers.
  Our amendment was supported by a wide and impressive coalition of 
business, labor, financial, and consumer groups which include AARP, 
American Iron and Steel Institute, American Public Power Association, 
American Subcontractors Association, Associated Builders and 
Contractors, Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, ACA Financial 
Guaranty Corporation, Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty 
Corporation, Blue Point Re Limited, CIFG, IXIS Financial Guaranty, 
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Financial Security Assurance, 
MBIA Insurance Corporation, Radian Asset Assurance Inc., RAM 
Reinsurance Company, XL Capital Assurance, ELCON, International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Mechanical Contractors Association 
of America, National Electrical Contractors Association, Plumbing-
Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association, Public Citizen, 
Public Interest Research Group, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning 
Contractors' National Association, Small Business Legislative Council, 
and Wisconsin Public Power, Incorporated.
  My State of Wisconsin is acutely interested in and concerned about 
the repeal of PUHCA and about ongoing abuses involving the unregulated 
corporate affiliates of regulated utilities. I have also heard from 
contractors and other small businesses across the Nation who have been 
harmed by unfair competition by affiliates of public utilities.
  I am pleased this consumer protection amendment was a bipartisan 
effort. I believe we have broad support in this body and beyond for 
this amendment, which is why I was disappointed that we were not able 
to offer this amendment because of the threat of another amendment 
being offered that would eliminate the oversight provisions currently 
in the bill.
  I am pleased, however, that we were able to obtain assurances from 
the chair and ranking member that they would hold a hearing on abusive 
affiliate transactions. I also appreciate the ranking member's 
commitment to request a GAO investigation of the potential for abusive 
transactions involving affiliates of public utility companies.
  During debate on this important measure, I supported several efforts 
to improve the underlying bill and the bill contains many provisions 
that I

[[Page 14432]]

support. Specifically, I strongly supported the amendment offered by 
the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, No. 779. I am pleased that 
the Senate overwhelmingly passed this important measure. I support the 
national ban of methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, and the measures in 
the bill that increase the supply of ethanol. I am also pleased that 
the amendment includes language I drafted to consolidate the number of 
Federal reformulated gasoline blends. I have worked closely with 
Congressman Paul Ryan in an effort to reduce the number of Federal 
reformulated gasoline blends and increase gasoline supplies for 
consumers.
  In recent years, fuel supply shocks such as pipeline problems and 
refinery fires have contributed significantly to gasoline price spikes 
in southern Wisconsin. Chicago and southeast Wisconsin use a 
specialized blend of reformulated gasoline to meet Federal Clean Air 
Act requirements that is not used elsewhere in the country. When 
supplies of this type of gasoline run low, Wisconsin is unable to draw 
on supplies of gasoline from other areas. Consolidation of the number 
of boutique fuels will help Wisconsin and consumers across the country. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to ensure that the boutique fuels issue is adequately addressed in the 
energy bill conference report.
  I also supported Senator Bingaman's amendment to mandate a renewable 
portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to generate or purchase 
10 percent of the electricity they sell from renewable sources by 2020. 
The Senate has previously considered renewable portfolio standards of 
20 percent. We can do even better on renewable energy sources, but I am 
pleased that the Senate took a positive step forward on this important 
issue.
  I am also pleased with the many energy efficiency incentives and the 
reauthorization of the Energy Performance Savings Contracts Program. I 
also support the inclusion of mandatory electricity reliability 
standards to prevent blackouts.
  I supported the Cantwell energy security amendment, No. 784, because 
it would have helped to put America on the path towards independence 
from foreign oil. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent 
by 2025 will make our country stronger and safer. For years, the 
American economy has been subject to the whims of the Organization of 
Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, cartel. The amendment did not 
address which technology should be used to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil and does not mandate changes in fuel economy standards. The 
language is simple--it sets our goal and we have to figure out how to 
get there. We are a country of innovators. Whether it is wind, solar, 
biodiesel, or a technology we still have not dreamed of yet, we can--
and we must--break our addiction to foreign oil. This bold, aggressive 
amendment would have ensured that we meet our goal of real energy 
independence. I was disappointed that the Senate did not adopt this 
amendment.
  In sum, the American people deserve a more fiscally responsible 
energy policy than that is reflected in this bill, and I cannot vote in 
favor of it. This measure will need to be improved in conference to get 
my vote.
  Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I start by thanking Chairman Domenici 
and Senator Bingaman for all of their hard work on this bill. They said 
they were going to work to get a bipartisan bill and they accomplished 
their goal.
  Overall, however, I believe that this Energy bill will help the 
country meet its energy needs in a number of important ways.
  This bill provides strong consumer protections, aggressive energy 
efficiency standards, and a focus on new technologies to meet our 
energy needs in a more environmentally friendly manner.
  Additionally, the bill takes a step in the right direction to reduce 
our consumption of fossil fuels, especially natural gas. This is a 
major improvement over past Energy bills, which have done nothing to 
reduce our use of fossil fuels.
  As we learned during the Western energy crisis, Federal energy 
regulators did not have enough authority to prevent widespread market 
manipulation.
  Through the course of the crisis in California, the total cost of 
electricity soared from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and 
$26.7 billion in 2001. The abuse in our energy markets was pervasive 
and unlawful.
  So I am pleased to report that this bill includes provisions that I 
have sought over the past 4 years to strengthen consumer protections 
and hopefully prevent another energy crisis like the one we experienced 
in the West.
  These consumer protections include: a broad ban on manipulation in 
the energy markets; stronger criminal and civil penalties in the energy 
markets to provide stronger deterrents to violations of Federal energy 
laws; elimination of the unnecessary 60-day waiting period for refunds 
at FERC, which may cost Californians millions of dollars; new 
provisions to make the energy markets more transparent; and a ban on 
traders who manipulated the natural gas or the electricity markets from 
ever trading in energy markets again.
  I am also very pleased that Senators Grassley and Baucus included in 
the Energy bill much of the energy efficiency tax incentives that 
Senator Snowe and I sponsored.
  The simplest, most effective thing we could do today to reduce our 
electricity use would be to use more energy-efficient appliances, such 
as air conditioners, refrigerators, and clothes washers.
  We know that energy efficiency works. In California, efficiency 
programs have kept electricity consumption flat for the past 30 years, 
in contrast to the rest of the United States, where consumption 
increased 50 percent.
  During the Western energy crisis, California faced energy shortages 
and rolling blackouts, but it could have been much worse. Ultimately, 
the State was able to escape further blackouts because Californians 
made a major effort to conserve energy. This reduced demand for 
electricity and helped ease the crisis.
  By creating incentives to reduce demand, the energy efficiency tax 
incentives will help us avoid power shortages and blackouts in the 
future.
  In addition, encouraging more efficient technologies will also reduce 
pollution and save consumers billions of dollars in the long run.
  America cannot solve its energy challenges by simply adding more 
supplies. We must find ways to reduce demand for energy and create more 
efficient technologies. Including the energy efficiency tax incentives 
is a big step in the right direction.
  For all of those reasons, I am supporting this bill. However, I still 
have some major reservations about the legislation as it now stands. 
Among them are:
  Ethanol. The bill includes an 8 billion gallon mandate for ethanol 
when my State does not need it to meet clean air standards. I think 
this mandate is bad and costly public policy.
  LNG Siting. This bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
exclusive authority over siting LNG terminals. I believe States should 
have a strong voice in this process.
  Global Warming. Although we can already see the real effects of 
global warming, this bill takes no effective action to curb greenhouse 
gases.
  Outer Continental Shelf. This bill provides for an inventory of the 
resources off our shores. This is not necessary unless we plan on 
drilling, to which I remain very much opposed.
  Essentially, this bill takes no risks whatsoever to do the right 
thing. And though I will vote in favor of this bill, I would like to 
discuss these serious reservations that I have with it.
  I am extremely concerned about the bill's 8 billion gallon ethanol 
mandate.
  First, though, I would like to thank the committee for accepting an 
amendment I offered to protect California's air quality. It waives the 
requirement that California use ethanol in the summer months when it 
can end up polluting the air more than protecting it.

[[Page 14433]]

  Despite this win for California's air quality, I still have concerns 
about the impacts of mandating that refiners use 8 billion gallons of 
ethanol by 2012.
  President Bush has said over the past few months that this Energy 
bill will not do anything to reduce gas prices at the pump. I would 
like to add another note of caution: I hope this bill does not actually 
increase the price at the pump for consumers.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices in 
California have been anywhere between 4 and 8 cents higher since 
ethanol replaced MTBE in California's gasoline, starting in 2003.
  In May 2005, the Director of the Petroleum Division at the Energy 
Information Administration stated before the House Government Reform 
Committee that:

     . . . refiners lost production capability when replacing MTBE 
     with ethanol. This, along with continued demand growth, has 
     contributed to price pressures. From 2000 through 2002, 
     California retail gasoline prices averaged about 19 cents per 
     gallon more than the U.S. average gasoline price, but in 2003 
     as MTBE began to be removed, California prices averaged 27 
     cents per gallon higher than the U.S. average, and remained 
     at that level through 2004.

  So far this year, California's gasoline prices are at least 23 cents 
higher than the national average. To be clear, adding ethanol to our 
gasoline has increased the cost at the pump.
  In addition, when the 8 billion gallon mandate is fully implemented 
in 2012 it will only reduce U.S. oil consumption by one-half of 1 
percent.
  Since ethanol has a somewhat lower energy content than gasoline, more 
of it is required to travel the same distance. This results in a 
vehicle's fuel economy being approximately 3 percent lower with 
ethanol-blended gasoline.
  Further, this provision is both a mandate and a subsidy. Ethanol 
receives a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. An 8 billion gallon 
mandate means a $2 billion loss to the U.S. Treasury over today's 
receipts.
  I do not believe that we should be imposing this huge mandate at a 
time when there is already such a huge subsidy to the ethanol industry, 
and when the Nation has such huge budget deficits.
  We should have either the subsidy or the mandate, but not both.
  I also remain concerned about the provision in the bill that provides 
exclusive authority over siting onshore liquefied natural gas terminals 
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  Increased demand for natural gas means we need new natural gas 
supplies, and liquefied natural gas is one of the options available to 
us.
  States will be responsible for the safety of these facilities for a 
long time after they are sited. That is why it is so important to 
preserve the rights of the States to participate in the process to 
determine where these facilities should be located.
  For LNG facilities that are sited more than 3 miles offshore, the 
Governor has the right to approve or veto a project.
  Yet for facilities that are located onshore, in our busy ports and 
near our closely packed communities, States have less input.
  That is why I offered an amendment to provide Governors the same 
authority for siting onshore facilities that they already have for 
offshore facilities.
  To give a remote Federal agency control when States are concerned 
about the safety of residents near a proposed site is a mistake.
  I firmly believe that States should have the right to veto a project 
that could endanger the public safety of its citizens.
  I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for their efforts to address 
the growing and imminent problem of global warming.
  I strongly supported their amendment to cap greenhouse gas emissions 
at the year 2000 levels by 2010 and implement a market-based emissions 
cap and trade system.
  The United States has only 4 percent of the world's population, and 
yet we produce 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. As 
the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States has a 
duty to act.
  We have already begun to see the very real effects of global warming. 
The polar ice caps are shrinking, glaciers are melting, snowpacks are 
dwindling, and coastlines are falling away.
  If we do not act, these problems will only grow worse. California 
depends on the Sierra Nevada snowpack as its largest source of water. 
It is estimated that by the end of the century, the shrinking of this 
snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people--equal 
to all of the people in the Los Angeles Basin.
  Much of the world is already reducing their greenhouse gas emissions 
and they are counting on us to do the same.
  It is time that the United States--the world's largest contributor to 
climate change--stepped up and took responsibility for our actions and 
their impact on the world. Global warming is too serious a problem for 
us to keep ignoring it.
  Yet the Senate voted against the McCain-Lieberman amendment. We 
missed a big opportunity to do the right thing for our country and for 
the world.
  I am also concerned because the bill includes a provision that would 
allow the Department of Interior to conduct an inventory of the 
resources in the Outer Continental Shelf.
  I joined my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey to strip this 
provision from the bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was not agreed 
to.
  Why would we need to inventory the resources on the Outer Continental 
Shelf unless we intend to drill there? I believe this provision is the 
proverbial ``nose under the camel's tent.''
  I strongly oppose lifting the moratoria on drilling on the Outer 
Continental Shelf and my State is unified in its opposition as well. 
Our coast is too important to California's economy and to our quality 
of life.
  Despite soaring gas prices, this bill does not take any steps towards 
reducing our oil consumption, which could easily be done by holding 
SUVs and light trucks to the same fuel economy standards as passenger 
vehicles.
  SUVs have gained popularity to the point that they now make up more 
than half of new car sales in the United States. That is why I believe 
SUVs and light trucks should be held to the same fuel efficiency and 
safety standards as the smaller passenger cars they are replacing on 
our roads.
  This would both reduce our oil consumption and imports as well as 
curbing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In 
addition, increasing fuel economy in SUVs and light trucks would save 
owners hundreds of dollars each year at the gas pump.
  Consumers are concerned about high gas prices, yet we do next to 
nothing in the bill to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles so 
that they use less gasoline.
  Our dependence on oil is reaching critical levels. Crude oil is 
hitting record highs at nearly $60 per barrel this week and it is not 
going to fall any time soon.
  Crude oil is a global commodity and global oil demand is rising, 
especially in China and India.
  In the past 5 years, China's oil imports have doubled, and show no 
signs of slowing down. Chinese demand for oil is expected to double 
again by 2025, while its imports will quadruple to 60 percent of its 
total oil consumption.
  China is now the world's second biggest oil consumer, behind only the 
United States. And today we heard the news that China wants to buy an 
American oil company.
  In addition, India's oil needs are expected to grow rapidly in the 
coming years. Last year alone, India's oil consumption grew by 10 
percent.
  Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence 
on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.
  The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce 
demand. We must use our limited fuel supplies more wisely.
  That is why I am so disappointed that the Senate did not include any 
provisions to increase fuel economy in the bill.

[[Page 14434]]

  I am pleased that the chairman and ranking member were able to work 
together on a bill that does not roll back environmental protections, 
as the House bill does.
  I want to take a minute to point out the most egregious House 
provisions that I hope we will not see in a conference report. They 
include:
  Retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers despite the fact 
that the courts have already found that they make a defective product. 
This provision protects oil companies from having to pay billions of 
dollars to clean up the water supplies across the country that MTBE has 
contaminated.
  Even though I am supporting the Senate Energy bill, I will not 
hesitate to vote against the conference report if it includes MTBE 
liability protection.
  Allowing communities to get out of requirements to clean up their air 
if they claim that part of its problem is a result of transported air 
pollution. This provision severely weakens the Clean Air Act.
  Exempting the underground injection of chemicals during oil and gas 
development from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Weakening the ability of States to have a say in Federal activities 
that affect their coasts, including limiting appeals related to 
pipeline construction or offshore energy development under the Coastal 
Zone Management Act.
  Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
  Further, the House $8 billion tax package is completely lopsided in 
favor of oil and gas production--only 5 percent of the $8 billion goes 
toward incentives for renewable energy production.
  While I am pleased that the bill includes strong consumer protections 
that will hopefully prevent another energy crisis, incentives for 
energy efficiency, and promotes new energy technologies, I am 
disappointed that the bill does not do the right thing on global 
warming, ethanol, fuel economy, the Outer Continental Shelf, or LNG 
siting.
  And so, it is with reluctance that I cast my vote in favor of this 
Energy bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am supporting the energy bill before us 
today because I feel that it is a step forward in establishing a sound 
energy policy for our Nation. With oil prices soaring to over $60 per 
barrel, consumer gasoline prices continuing to rise, and the impacts of 
global climate change increasingly apparent, we need to move toward 
diversity of our energy supply and reduction of our dependence on oil.
  The bill before us today includes provisions that will increase the 
diversity of our Nation's fuel supply, encourage investment in 
infrastructure and alternative energy technologies, increase domestic 
energy production, take critical steps to improve the reliability of 
our electricity supply, and improve energy efficiency and conservation. 
This bill is not a perfect bill, but on balance it moves toward a sound 
energy policy that will lead the way to greater energy security and 
efficiency for the United States. It will increase our domestic energy 
supplies in a responsible manner, provide incentives to move toward 
more and diversified supply options, and provide consumers with 
affordable and reliable energy. When we consider energy policy, it is 
always a balance. Many factors must be taken into account--the 
environment, national security, our economy and jobs. Each and every 
vote on this bill required a balancing of these factors to determine 
what is best for Michigan and for our country.
  Our policies have long ignored the problem of U.S. dependence on 
foreign oil, and we remain as vulnerable to oil supply disruptions 
today as we have been for decades. Taking the steps necessary to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil is an important objective for this 
country. I have long supported a broad array of Federal efforts to meet 
that objective. I believe that we need a long-term, comprehensive 
energy plan, and I have long supported initiatives that will increase 
our domestic energy supplies in a responsible manner and provide 
consumers with affordable and reliable energy.
  There are provisions included in this bill that will help take 
important steps in this direction--particularly those provisions of 
this bill that address energy efficiency and renewable energy and will 
lead us toward greater uses of alternative fuels such as ethanol and 
biodiesel. I have also long advocated Federal efforts that will lead to 
revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technology that will help us 
reduce our oil consumption. We need a level of leadership similar to 
the effort of a previous generation to put a man on the moon. I believe 
we need our own ``moon shot'' in the area of automotive technology to 
develop alternatives to petroleum and to make more efficient use of all 
forms of energy.
  I am pleased that the bill before us today is a bipartisan bill and, 
as such, it is a significant improvement over what the Senate has 
considered in previous years. This proves that when we work together in 
a bipartisan fashion, not only is the process better but so is the 
resulting policy.
  The bill includes a wide range of energy efficiency provisions that 
will ensure that conservation and efficiency are a central component of 
our Nation's energy strategy. These provisions address Federal, State, 
and local energy efficiency programs, provide funding for important 
programs such as home weatherization, and establish efficiency 
standards for a wide variety of consumer and commercial products. 
Provisions of the bill will also ensure more efficient operation of 
Federal facilities, setting an important example by the Federal 
Government. The bill will also accelerate advances in energy-efficient 
appliance technologies by providing a tax credit for the production and 
sale of products such as super energy-efficient washing machines, 
refrigerators and dishwashers. Increasing the sale of these products 
will result in significant energy and water savings, thereby reducing 
dependency on foreign energy, reducing emissions and conserving water. 
Finally, because the tax credits apply only to U.S.-manufactured 
products, the bill can stabilize or increase American manufacturing 
jobs.
  This legislation also takes critical steps to improve the reliability 
of our electrical grid and promote electricity transmission 
infrastructure development. Our economy depends upon electric power, 
and, in some cases, electric power literally saves lives. Failures in 
the electric system interrupt many crucial activities. Our current 
industry-developed, voluntary standards for the reliability of the 
electrical grid have long been in need of improvement. That need for 
improvement was underscored painfully by the August 2003 blackout. 
There were two key lessons from the blackout--the need for strong 
regional transmission organizations to ensure that reliability 
standards are carried out and enforced, and the need for additional 
transmission upgrades to maintain reliability. I regret that it has 
taken 2 years to get to a consensus on these issues. Nonetheless, I am 
pleased that the provisions of this bill authorize the creation of an 
electricity reliability organization to establish mandatory and 
enforceable reliability standards, which is a critical and necessary 
step forward.
  The bill puts an increased emphasis on renewable energy technologies, 
such as wind and solar power. These technologies are becoming more 
economical every year. In fact, in some areas of the country these 
technologies are competitive with traditional fuels such as coal and 
natural gas. With this in mind, this bill includes a renewable 
portfolio standard, which requires sellers of electricity to obtain 10 
percent of their electric supply from renewable energy sources by the 
year 2020. Existing hydroelectric pumped storage facilities--such as 
the Ludington pumped storage facility in Michigan--are included in the 
definition of hydroelectric facilities, which will ensure that these 
reliable existing sources of renewable power are calculated in a 
utility's base generation and can continue to be utilized to full 
potential. Finally, to promote the use of renewable fuels, the bill 
also includes a requirement for refiners to use 8 billion gallons of 
ethanol or biofuels by 2012. Overall, the increased use of renewable

[[Page 14435]]

technologies will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lead to the 
creation of tens of thousands of new jobs.
  The bill also puts increased emphasis on diversity of supply and 
includes a broad range of provisions intended to encourage the use of 
new and cleaner technologies, particularly for power generation. Nearly 
60 percent of electricity generation in Michigan is generated from 
coal, which will remain a vital resource well into the future. Programs 
authorizing research in clean coal-based gasification and combustion 
technologies will ensure that the most advanced technologies are 
developed for power generation. Other provisions of the bill also 
encourage the use of innovative technologies for both power generation 
and other end-uses.
  Increased emphasis on diversity of fuel supply will help to take the 
pressure off of our tight natural gas supply, which is important for 
States such as Michigan with a large manufacturing base. Over the past 
6 years, the tight natural gas supply and volatile domestic prices have 
had significant impacts on the U.S. manufacturing sector, which depends 
on natural gas as both a fuel source and a feedstock and raw material 
for everything from fertilizer to automobile components. As domestic 
production of natural gas has declined, demand for natural gas has 
increased dramatically, particularly in the area of power generation. 
Today, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized 
world, and many companies have been forced to move their manufacturing 
operations offshore. More than two million manufacturing jobs have been 
lost to overseas operations in the 5 years since natural gas prices 
jumped from $2.00 per million Btu to more than $7.00 per million Btu.
  I am pleased that the Senate bill includes a significant research, 
development, demonstration and commercialization effort in the area of 
hydrogen and fuel cells. I believe that this program will help us make 
critical strides toward realizing the goal of putting hydrogen fuel 
cell vehicles on the road over the next 10 to 15 years.
  We need a significantly larger effort than anything on the drawing 
boards, and we need to put greater Federal resources into work on other 
breakthrough technologies--such as advanced hybrid technologies, 
advanced batteries, advanced clean diesel, and hybrid diesel 
technology. Federal Government investment is essential not only in 
research and development but also as a mechanism to push the market 
toward greater use and acceptance of advanced technologies. Expanding 
the requirements for the Federal Government to purchase advanced 
technology vehicles will help provide a market for advanced 
technologies.
  We also must have far greater tax incentives for advanced 
technologies than have been proposed to date. To that end, I had hoped 
to offer an amendment to the bill--along with Senators Bayh and 
Alexander--to provide more generous consumer tax credits for purchase 
of advanced technology vehicles and to provide an investment tax credit 
to manufacturers to help defray the cost of re-equipping or expanding 
existing facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles. The 
Finance title of this energy bill includes laudable incentives, but I 
believe we need more generous consumer tax credits for a wider variety 
of vehicles--including advanced clean diesel, as well as hybrid and 
fuel cell vehicles--to encourage consumers to make the investment in 
these technologies. I also believe that an investment credit on the 
manufacturing side is necessary to offset the high capital costs of 
such an investment. I hope that more significant tax incentives for a 
wide range of advanced vehicle technologies will be considered during 
the House-Senate energy conference.
  The Senate bill also includes an amendment I offered to have the 
National Academy of Sciences conduct a study and submit a budget 
roadmap to Congress on what level of effort and what types of actions 
will be required to transition to fuel cell vehicles and a hydrogen 
economy by 2020. If hydrogen is the right answer, we will need the 
equivalent of a moon shot to get there. We will need a significant 
Federal investment--well beyond anything we are doing today--in 
conjunction with private industry and academia to reach that goal. This 
study and roadmap will be an important step toward determining if that 
is the right path to follow.
  I am also pleased to have cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator 
Voinovich to authorize $200 million annually for 5 years to fund 
Federal and State grant and loan programs that will help us to replace 
older diesel technology with newer, cleaner diesel technology. Our 
friends in Europe have taken advantage of the opportunities that diesel 
offers for improving fuel economy and reducing oil dependence. We have 
not been able to do so here in the U.S. because of our concerns about 
tailpipe emissions. Initiatives such as those included in this 
amendment will help the U.S. to develop advanced diesel technology that 
will be able to meet our emissions standards in a cost-effective 
manner.
  Lastly, the Senate rejected resoundingly efforts to require 
significant and arbitrary increases in the corporate average fuel 
economy--CAFE--standards, adopting instead an amendment offered by 
Senator Bond and myself that offered a more balanced approach. Our 
approach requires an increase in both car and truck CAFE standards but 
it requires the Department of Transportation to set these standards 
looking at the maximum technological feasibility, taking into 
consideration a series of critical factors such as safety, the impact 
on manufacturing and jobs, and the lead-time required for developing 
new technologies. Other proposals offered in the Senate--but rejected--
would have hurt domestic manufacturers and the U.S. economy, without 
doing much for the environment.
  Gasoline prices have been extremely volatile over the past few years 
and are likely to stay high. Our demand for oil continues to increase 
while our supplies have remained about the same. To reduce the impact 
of high gasoline prices over the long-term, we need to reduce our 
consumption of oil by continuing to develop advanced vehicle 
technologies such as hybrids, advanced clean diesels, and fuel cells. 
In the short-term, however, I continue to be concerned about price 
fluctuations because gasoline prices can have a dramatic effect on not 
only the average consumer's wallet, but also the economy as a whole. 
During consideration of the energy bill, I supported an amendment 
offered by Senator Byrd designed to provide some relief to high gas 
prices, specifically for people who live in rural areas. This provision 
allows employers to provide tax-free commuter benefits to employees who 
live in a rural area and drive to work in an area that is not 
accessible by a transit system.
  I was also pleased to support an amendment to help small businesses 
and farmers deal with the high price of fuel. This amendment, offered 
by Senator Kerry, gives small farms and businesses access to low-
interest credit through disaster loan programs. These programs, through 
the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, will give much needed relief to these small businesspeople 
and small farmers who have been hurt by the price spikes in heating 
oil, natural gas, propane, gasoline and kerosene.
  Lastly, I supported an amendment offered by my colleague from 
Michigan, Senator Stabenow, requiring the Federal Trade Commission to 
conduct an investigation and provide a report to Congress on whether 
the increase in gasoline prices is the result of market manipulation or 
price gouging. In 2002, as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, I lead an investigation into how gas prices are set. 
Since that time, gas prices have continued to rise, and I believe a new 
investigation and report is warranted to hopefully result in some 
protection for consumers.
  I am pleased that this bill contains an amendment that I offered with 
Senator Collins to direct the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and 
use cost-effective procedures for filling the U.S. Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. The amendment requires DOE to consider

[[Page 14436]]

 the price of oil and other market factors when buying oil for the SPR 
and to take steps to minimize the program's cost to the taxpayer while 
maximizing our energy security. Since early 2002, DOE has been 
acquiring oil for the SPR without regard to the price or supply of oil. 
During this period the price of oil has been very high--often over $30 
per barrel--and the oil markets have been tight. Many experts have 
stated that filling the SPR during the tight oil markets over the past 
several years increased oil prices. With this amendment, the bill 
directs DOE to use some common sense when buying oil for the SPR.
  Any successful businessperson knows the saying, `Buy low, sell high.' 
It makes sense for buying oil as well as pork bellies.
  Finally, I want to mention an issue that was a source of strong 
debate in the Senate but which this bill does not adequately address: 
global warming. For years, almost all scientists have agreed that human 
actions are causing temperatures around the world to increase. Experts 
also agree that this global warming will lead to environmental problems 
and economic hardship, but there has been no consensus in the United 
States about what we should do to stop climate change.
  The threat is real and growing, and the longer we wait to reach a 
reasonable consensus, the more painful the solutions will be. I believe 
two major policy changes are needed at the federal level: support for a 
new, binding international treaty that includes all countries, and a 
massive new federal investment in research, development and 
commercialization of new technologies. Both of these steps would 
provide real environmental and economic benefits while being fair to 
American workers. The Senate considered several well-intentioned 
proposals on this issue, though I did not believe they would have taken 
us in a comprehensive direction. I supported a sense of the Senate 
resolution that acknowledges the problem and calls on the 
administration to work with the Congress to enact a comprehensive 
national program to address this issue.
  The energy bills considered by the Senate over the last couple of 
years have been doomed by a heavy-handed, partisan approach and by a 
conference committee that added many objectionable provisions before 
the bill came back to the Senate. We lost valuable time in putting us 
on the course toward a sounder energy policy. It is my sincere hope 
that the majority will pursue a different approach this year and 
produce a bill that will have strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two amendments 
that I filed concerning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydro 
relicensing process and its impact on Indian tribes.
  The two amendments were simple amendments that I had hoped to have 
included in a managers' package.
  As presently drafted, section 261 will authorize license applicants 
to have veto authority over the Secretary's decision on whether to 
accept alternative conditions. This will have substantial adverse 
effects on Indian reservations that are occupied by hydroelectric 
project facilities as well as fishery resources that the United States 
holds in trust for Indian tribes.
  The Federal Government has an obligation, a trust responsibility, to 
protect the resources and related property rights in them that we hold 
in trust for Indian tribes.
  A cornerstone of Federal Indian policy regarding tribal natural 
resources is that development of them will not occur without the 
consent of the tribe for which the United States holds the resources in 
trust.
  By injecting the judgment of a hydroelectric dam operator--whose 
interests may well be adverse to a tribe's--to override the Secretary's 
determination of the Federal trust responsibility for tribal resources 
affected by a license application seems to me to be a clear violation 
of our trust responsibility. In certain cases this could result in an 
applicant having a virtual veto over conditions relating to the 
protection of Indian lands and resources.
  Congress acted to create reservations to fulfill solemn obligations 
to Indian tribes and vested in the Secretary the special responsibility 
to be the repository of expertise in the management and protection of 
those reservations as well as fisheries in which many tribes reserved 
rights in their treaties with the United States--treaties that were 
ratified by this Senate.
  The tribal land and fishery resources that would be adversely 
affected by section 261 are vested property rights that the United 
States holds in trust. There is no justification for subordinating 
those rights to the activities and interests of a licensee in the 
manner provided for in this legislation.
  The Federal Government has continuously broken its promises to Indian 
tribes. Over the past 60 years or so, this has cost us, and the 
taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more for breaking 
those promises. And we continue to face additional liability in the 
billions of dollars for breaking other promises and violating our trust 
responsibility. This has got to stop.
  Justice Black once wrote at another critical juncture in the history 
of the Federal Power Act's relationship to tribal property rights: 
``Great nations, like great men, should keep their word.''
  Although I am disappointed that we may once again be violating our 
solemn obligation to the Indian tribes who have contributed so much to 
our great country, I note that Senator Domenici has assured me that he 
will continue to look at this matter.
  I call on my colleagues in the conference of this legislation to work 
to ensure revision of the language that is antithetical to tribal 
rights and longstanding Federal Indian policy.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, during the 2 weeks or so that we have been 
debating this Energy bill in the Senate, the price of crude oil has 
climbed to a record high of $60 a barrel. Gas is now up to $2.24 per 
gallon. The Saudis are pumping at near-full capacity, and their own oil 
minister says that the price of crude will probably stay at this level 
for the rest of the year.
  At this price, the United States is sending $650 million overseas 
every single day. That is $237 billion a year--much of it to the Middle 
East, a region we have seen torn by war and terror. It doesn't matter 
if these countries are budding democracies, despotic regimes with 
nuclear intentions, or havens for the madrasas that plant the seeds of 
terror in young minds, they get our money because we need their oil.
  As demand continues to skyrocket around the world, other countries 
have started to realize that guzzling oil is not a sustainable future. 
What's more, these countries have realized that by investing early in 
the energy-efficient technology that exists today, they can create 
millions of tomorrow's jobs and build their economies to rival ours.
  China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and it has 
got 200,000 hybrids on its roads. Japan's Toyota is doubling production 
of the popular Prius in order to sell 100,000 in the U.S. next year, 
and it is getting ready to open a brand new plant in China. Meanwhile, 
we are importing hydrogen fuel cells from Canada.
  These companies are running circles around their American 
counterparts. Ford is only making 20,000 Escape Hybrids this year, and 
GM's brand won't be on the market until 2007. As falling demand for 
gas-hungry SUVs has contributed to Standard and Poor reducing the bond 
rating of these companies to junk status, these giants of the car 
industry now find themselves in the shadow of companies and countries 
that realize the time has come to move away from an oil economy.
  So here we are. We have people paying record prices at the pump and 
America sending billions overseas to the world's most volatile region. 
We have countries such as China and India using energy technology to 
create jobs and wealth while our own businesses and workers fall 
further and further behind.
  And we have the Energy bill that is before us today.
  Now, this bill takes some small steps in the right direction. It will 
require utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from 
renewable sources. It will help us realize the promise of ethanol as a 
fuel alternative by requiring

[[Page 14437]]

8 billion gallons to be mixed with gasoline over the next few years, 
and by providing a tax credit for the construction of E85 stations all 
over America. It will provide funding for the clean coal technologies 
that will move America to use its most abundant fossil fuel in a 
cleaner, healthier way, including for low-emission transportation 
fuels. It will support the development of 500 mile-per-gallon 
automobile technology. And it will provide a good mix of tax incentives 
to move America towards more energy efficiency instead of simply 
rewarding the oil and gas industries, as the House bill does. The good 
that these proposals will do is reason enough to vote for this bill, 
and I will do so.
  But we shouldn't kid ourselves today. This isn't time to pat 
ourselves on the back and think we have put America on the path to 
energy independence. Experts say that this bill will reduce our foreign 
oil consumption by 3 percent. Three percent. Our own Department of 
Energy predicts that American demand will jump by 50 percent over the 
next 15 years. So 3 percent doesn't amount to much--and it certainly 
won't make a difference at the pump. Even President Bush admits this. 
We tried to pass an amendment that would have reduced our foreign oil 
dependence by 40 percent in 2025, but too many Senators said no.
  And so when you look at this energy crisis and realize that it is 
about so much more than energy, when you realize that our national 
security is at stake and that the global standing of our economy hangs 
in the balance, when you see prices continue to rise and other 
countries continue to innovate, you can't help but ask yourself, ``Is 
this the best America can do?'' The country that went to the Moon and 
conquered polio? The country that led the technological revolution of 
the 1990s?
  It would be one thing if the solutions to our dependence on foreign 
oil were pie-in-the-sky ideas that are years away. But the technology 
is right at our fingertips. Today, we could have told American car 
companies, we will help you produce more hybrid cars. We could have 
made sure there were more flexible fuel tanks in our cars. We could 
have addressed the big reason why car companies are hurting in this 
country--legacy health care costs. Had we taken all of these actions, 
we could have put America on the path to energy independence once and 
for all.
  We also could have addressed the fact that global warming is 
threatening us with higher temperatures, more drought, more wildfire, 
more flooding, and more erosion of our coastal communities. People who 
don't believe this can yell about it as loudly as they want, but it 
doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming scientific evidence 
proves this over and over again. We could have taken care of this 
problem now and left a better world to our children.
  With each passing day, the world is moving towards new technology and 
new sources of energy that will one day replace our current dependence 
on fossil fuels.
  And so America has a choice.
  We can continue to hang on to oil as our solution. We can keep 
passing Energy bills that nibble around the edges of the problem. We 
can hope that the Saudis will pump faster and that our drills will find 
more. And we can just sit on our hands and say that it is too hard to 
change the way things are and so we might as well not even try.
  Or we could realize that this issue of energy--this issue that at 
first glance seems like it is just about drilling or caribou or weird-
looking cars--actually affects so many aspects of our lives that 
finding a solution could be the great project of our time.
  It won't be easy and it won't be without sacrifice. Government can't 
make it happen on its own, but it does have a role in supporting the 
initiative that is already out there. Together, we can help make real 
the ideas and initiatives that are coming from scientists and students 
and farmers all across America.
  Abraham Lincoln, who first opened our National Academy of Sciences, 
once said that part of Government's mission is to add ``the fuel of 
interest to the fire of genius in the discovery of new and useful 
things.''
  Today, when it comes to discovering new and useful solutions to our 
energy crisis, the fire of genius burns strong in so many American 
innovators and optimists. But they're looking for leadership to provide 
the fuel that will light their way. This bill is a reasonable first 
step, but I know that we can do much, much better.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for several years now we have been 
debating a national energy policy. In 2002 and 2003, I voted against 
the Energy bills because I believed they were bad for California and 
emphasized expanding old, dirty sources of energy instead of investing 
in clean, renewable energy.
  Today's bill, however, is slightly better. It is more balanced and 
more protective of consumers. I will, therefore, vote for it.
  However, this is not a perfect bill, and it contains many provisions 
that I oppose. I am voting to move the process forward today, but if 
the bill returns to us from conference more like the House bill, I will 
have to vote against it.
  Let me begin with how this bill is better than previous bills. For 
the first time, we have an Energy bill that creates a Renewable 
Portfolio Standard, RPS. What that means is that utility companies will 
have to get 10 percent of their energy from renewable resources, such 
as wind and solar, by the year 2020. That is enough to supply 56 
million U.S. homes with electricity generated by renewable sources.
  There are a variety of other provisions in the bill that will 
encourage conservation, energy efficiency, and development and use of 
clean sources of energy. For example, there are $6.4 billion in tax 
breaks in the bill to provide incentives for alternative and renewable 
fuels. That includes something I have been advocating for several 
years--extending and strengthening the tax break for people who 
purchase hybrid cars. It also includes a tax deduction for energy-
efficient buildings, the production of energy-efficient appliances, and 
the expansion of the credit for environmentally friendly geothermal 
facilities.
  Unlike previous Energy bills, this bill actually contains some 
protections for consumers. We in California know all too well what 
happens when energy companies are allowed to manipulate the market and 
gouge consumers. This bill specifically prohibits manipulative 
practices in the electricity market, and it contains provisions for 
better accountability and more transparency so that consumers can know 
what is happening.
  Speaking of the electricity crisis in California, we are still 
waiting for the refunds that are owed to us. The Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, FERC, found that rates were unjust and 
unreasonable; they found that markets were manipulated. They have 
ordered some refunds, but California has yet to see a penny 4 years 
later. And FERC continues to drag its feet in ordering the full $8.9 
billion that is owed to my State.
  That is why I am pleased that this bill includes my amendment calling 
on FERC to conclude action on the refunds issue and requiring FERC, if 
it has not done so by the end of this year, to explain to Congress what 
exactly has been done and to spell out a timetable for the rest of the 
process. Californians deserve their refunds, and I hope my amendment 
will finally bring this matter to a conclusion.
  I am also glad the Senate approved an amendment Senators Dorgan and 
Stabenow and I offered that requires the Federal Trade Commission to 
investigate the possible manipulation of the price of gasoline. We are 
seeing unprecedented prices at the pump that cannot be completely 
explained by the rise in crude oil prices. Oil companies should not be 
making undeserved, windfall profits at the expense of consumers who, in 
many cases, have no alternative but to drive to work.
  While I oppose the ethanol mandate in this bill, I am pleased that 
the bill includes a proposal I originally offered with Senator Lugar to 
count each gallon of ethanol made from agricultural waste products as 
2.5 gallons toward

[[Page 14438]]

meeting the mandate. This will be a big help to both the farmers and 
consumers of California. I am also pleased that this bill contains my 
original proposal to provide grants for the construction of 
agricultural waste ethanol production facilities.
  As I mentioned, one of the bad things about this bill is the ethanol 
mandate. Even with the Feinstein provision to exempt California during 
the summer months, I am still concerned about what this mandate will 
mean for future gasoline prices in my State.
  I am also adamantly opposed to the provision of this bill that 
requires an inventory of energy resources in America's Outer 
Continental Shelf. This could easily lead to future oil and gas 
development in some coastal areas. And an ``inventory'' is not as 
innocuous as it sounds. It will be conducted with seismic airguns, 
which shoot sounds into the seafloor for mapping. These sounds can 
injure marine mammals and fish, possibly leading to beachings and 
reduced fish catches.
  The bill grants FERC the sole authority over the siting of liquefied 
natural gas terminals onshore, denying States the right to have a say 
in the decision.
  This bill lacks what is probably the surest way to reduce our 
crippling dependence on foreign oil--increasing mileage standards on 
automobiles. Raising the fuel economy of passenger automobiles to 40 
miles a gallon by 2016 would save about 95 billion gallons of oil by 
2016.
  Finally, I want to mention my disappointment at this bill's heavy 
reliance on nuclear energy at a time when we still have no solution for 
the nuclear waste problem and still have safety concerns about nuclear 
facilities. The bill reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act to put the 
taxpayers on the hook in case of an accident, and it provides tax 
incentives and loan guarantees to encourage the construction of more 
nuclear powerplants. This does not make sense. We are subsidizing and 
encouraging the production of more nuclear waste when we have no place 
to put it.
  As you can see, this is not a perfect bill. But, again, I will vote 
for it today in order to move the process forward and because it is 
better than the previous two Energy bills. I hope that the Senate 
conferees will fight to maintain the Senate's language during the 
conference. If they do not--if this bill returns to the Senate looking 
more like the backward-thinking House bill--I will have to vote against 
it.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I would like to express my gratitude to the 
managers of the energy bill, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, for their 
support of two amendments that I offered. I am proud that these 
amendments have been included in the legislation that the Senate will 
vote on today, and I believe that their enactment will help America 
increase its energy independence and transition our energy industry to 
full usage of 21st century technologies.
  The first adopted amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Lugar, 
provides $85 million to three universities for research and testing on 
developing Illinois basin coal into transportation fuels, including 
Fischer-Tropsch jet fuel, a type of low-emissions diesel that can be 
used in jets and diesel. The funds provided in this amendment will 
assist Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the 
University of Kentucky in upgrading existing facilities and 
constructing new facilities to conduct research and testing on this 
technology. It is critical that our Government invests in domestic 
fossil fuel supplies in an innovative manner, and this is a commonsense 
way to expand our coal industry in an environmentally friendly manner.
  The second adopted amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Bayh, 
provides $40 million for research on combined plug-in hybrid and 
flexible fuel vehicles. Today, we have the technology to produce both 
plug-in hybrid vehicles, which run partly on electricity rather than 
fuel, and flexible fuel vehicles, which run on a blend of 85 percent 
renewable fuel and 15 percent petroleum. But we don't yet have the 
technology to combine both technologies into the same car. If we could 
do this, there is the potential for developing a car that could get 500 
miles per gallon of gasoline. At a time when our country spends 
billions of dollars a year on importing foreign oil, it is imperative 
that we take meaningful, proactive steps that not only stem our future 
oil dependence but also reduce our reliance on overseas sources. My 
amendment would do just that by stimulating the commercialization of 
this technology at a cost of only 6 percent of our Nation's daily 
spending on foreign oil.
  Again, I thank the bill managers for their assistance with these 
amendments.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the following two articles on the 
potential of combined plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Newsweek, Mar. 7, 2005]


                     Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon

                          (By Fareed Zakaria)

       The most important statement made last week came not from 
     Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush but from Ali Naimi, Saudi 
     Arabia's shrewd oil minister. Naimi predicted that crude 
     prices would stay between $40 and $50 throughout 2005. For 
     the last two years OPEC's official target price has been $25. 
     Naimi's statement signals that Saudi Arabia now believes that 
     current high prices are not a momentary thing. An Asian oil-
     industry executive told me that he expects oil to hit $75 
     this decade.
       We are actually very close to a solution to the petroleum 
     problem. Tomorrow, President Bush could make the following 
     speech: ``We are all concerned that the industrialized world, 
     and increasingly the developing world, draw too much of their 
     energy from one product, petroleum, which comes 
     disproportionately from one volatile region, the Middle East. 
     This dependence has significant political and environmental 
     dangers for all of us. But there is now a solution, one that 
     the United States will pursue actively.
       ``It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a 
     combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with 
     petroleum as only one element among many. My administration 
     is going to put in place a series of policies that will 
     ensure that in 4-years, the average new American car will get 
     300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in this 
     period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles 
     per gallon. This revolution in energy use will reduce 
     dramatically our dependence on foreign oil and achieve path 
     breaking reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions, far below 
     the targets mentioned in the Kyoto accords. ``
       Ever since September 11, 2001, there have been many calls 
     for Manhattan Projects and Marshall Plans for research on 
     energy efficiency and alternate fuels. Beneath the din lies a 
     little-noticed reality-the solution is already with us. Over 
     the last 5-years, technology has matured in various fields, 
     most importantly in semiconductors, to make possible cars 
     that are as convenient and cheap as current ones, except that 
     they run on a combination of electricity and fuel. Hybrid 
     technology is the answer to the petroleum problem.
       You can already buy a hybrid car that runs on a battery and 
     petroleum. The next step is ``plug-in'' hybrids, with 
     powerful batteries that are recharged at night like laptops, 
     cell phones and iPods. Ford, Honda and Toyota already make 
     simple hybrids. Daimler Chrysler is introducing a plug-in 
     version soon. In many states in the American Middle West you 
     can buy a car that can use any petroleum, or ethanol, or 
     methanol--in any combination. Ford, for example, makes a 
     number of its models with ``flexible-fuel tanks.'' (Forty 
     percent of Brazil's new cars have flexible-fuel tanks.) Put 
     all this technology together and you get the car of the 
     future, a plug-in hybrid with a flexible-fuel tank.
       Here's the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless--and 
     independent--advocate of energy security). The current crop 
     of hybrid cars get around 50 miles per gallon. Make it a 
     plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace the conventional 
     fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a 
     combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or 
     methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of 
     gasoline. (You don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but 
     the crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And 
     ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline, so fuel 
     costs would drop dramatically.)
       If things are already moving, why does the government need 
     to do anything? Because this is not a pure free market. Large 
     companies--in the oil and automotive industry--have vested 
     interests in not changing much. There are transition costs--
     gas stations will need to be fitted to pump methanol and 
     ethanol (at a cost of $20,000 to $60,000 per station). New 
     technologies will empower new industries, few of which have 
     lobbies in Washington.
       Besides, the idea that the government should have nothing 
     to do with this problem

[[Page 14439]]

     is bizarre. It was military funding and spending that 
     produced much of the technology that makes hybrids possible. 
     (The military is actually leading the hybrid trend. All new 
     naval surface ships are now electric-powered, as are big 
     diesel locomotives and mining trucks.) And the West's 
     reliance on foreign oil is not cost-free. Luft estimates that 
     a government plan that could accelerate the move to a hybrid 
     transport system would cost $12 billion dollars. That is what 
     we spend in Iraq in about 3 months.
       Smart government intervention would include a combination 
     of targeted mandates, incentives and spending. And it does 
     not have to all happen at the federal level. New York City, 
     for example, could require that all its new taxis be hybrids 
     with flexible-fuel tanks. Now that's a Manhattan Project for 
     the 21st century.
                                  ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2005]

                    The 500-Mile-Per-Gallon Solution


 High-tech cars, Arctic drilling, new gas taxes: We must have the will 
                              to do it all

                             (By Max Boot)

       Soaring oil prices--crude is over $55 a barrel and unleaded 
     gasoline over $2 a gallon--are not much of an economic or 
     political issue. Yet.
       In absolute terms, today's prices are still half of the 
     1970s peaks, and the U.S. economy has become much less 
     dependent on petroleum since then. (Computers run on 
     electricity, not gasoline.) But imagine what would happen if 
     Al Qaeda were to hit the giant Ras Tanura terminal in Saudi 
     Arabia, where a tenth of global oil supplies are processed 
     every day. Prices could soar past $100 a barrel, and the U. 
     S. economy could go into a tailspin. As it is, high oil 
     prices provide money for Saudi Arabia to subsidize hate-
     spewing madrasas and for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
       Both Democrats and Republicans know this, but neither party 
     is serious about solving this growing crisis. Democrats who 
     couldn't tell the difference between a caribou and a cow 
     grandstand about the sanctity of the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge, even though 70 percent of Alaskans are happy to see a 
     bit of drilling in this remote tundra. Republicans, for their 
     part, pretend that tapping ANWR will somehow solve all of our 
     problems. If only. A government study finds that, with ANWR 
     on line, the U.S. will be able to reduce its dependence on 
     imported oil from 68 percent to 65 percent in 2025.
       How to do better? Biking to work or taking the train isn't 
     the answer. Even if Americans drive less, global oil demand 
     will surge because of breakneck growth in India and China. 
     The Middle East, home of two-thirds of the world's proven oil 
     reserves, will remain of vital strategic importance unless we 
     can develop alternative sources of automotive propulsion and 
     substantially decrease global, not just American, demand for 
     petroleum. An ambitious agenda to achieve those goals has 
     been produced by Set America Free, a group set up by R. James 
     Woolsey, Frank Gaffney and other national security hawks.
       They advocate using existing technologies--not pie-in-the-
     sky ideas like hydrogen fuel cells--to wean the auto industry 
     from its reliance on petroleum. Hybrid electric cars such as 
     the Toyota Prius, which run on both electric motors and gas 
     engines, already get more than 50 miles per gallon. Coming 
     soon are hybrids that can be plugged into a 120-volt outlet 
     to recharge like a cellphone. They'll get even better 
     mileage.
       Add in ``flexible fuel'' options that already allow many 
     cars to run on a combination of petroleum and fuels like 
     ethanol (derived from corn) and methanol (from natural gas or 
     coal), and you could build vehicles that could get--drum 
     roll, please--500 miles per gallon of gasoline. That's not 
     science fiction; that's achievable right now.
       Set America Free estimates that if we convert entirely to 
     flexible-fuel, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, U.S. 
     gasoline imports in 20 years will drop by two-thirds. As 
     important, because Americans are the world's biggest car 
     buyers, U.S. preferences would reshape the global automotive 
     industry. Carmakers would wind up shipping hybrid electrics 
     to Europe and Asia too. President Bush could hasten the 
     transition through an international agreement to move major 
     economies away from oil dependency. This would not only 
     reduce the Middle East's strategic importance but also help 
     reduce emissions to Kyoto-mandated levels.
       There is, of course, a catch. Moving to hybrid electric 
     cars won't be cheap. Automakers would have to retool their 
     wares, gas stations would have to add alcohol-fuel pumps, 
     parking lots would have to add electric outlets. Set America 
     Free puts the price tag at about $12 billion over the next 
     four years. It sounds like a lot of money, but it could 
     easily be financed by slightly raising U.S. gasoline taxes 
     (currently about 43 cents a gallon), which are much lower 
     than in Europe and Japan. Higher taxes could also be used to 
     encourage more domestic oil exploration and production, given 
     that petroleum will never be entirely eliminated as an energy 
     source.
       There are many untapped sources of gasoline in North 
     America, such as the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, and the 
     shale of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. But extracting oil from 
     such sources costs at least three times more than pumping it 
     out of the Arabian desert. Congress could make this more 
     economically feasible by imposing a higher tax on oil that 
     doesn't come from North America.
       Needless to say, this runs smack dab into Republican 
     orthodoxy that opposes new taxes and regulations, while the 
     prospect of more drilling raises the hackles of Democratic 
     environmentalists. Absent some political courage in both 
     parties, we will continue to be at OPEC's mercy.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 6, as 
amended by the Senate, the Energy bill. I want to explain in detail my 
reasons for supporting this legislation and highlight my serious 
concerns regarding the House-passed version of H.R. 6. I strongly 
oppose many of the provisions in the House-passed bill, and the Senate 
conferees should hold strongly to the Senate-version of this bill and 
reject the House legislation.
  Energy policy is an important issue for America and one my Vermont 
constituents take very seriously. The bill before us seeks to address 
important issues, such as the role of domestic production of energy 
resources versus foreign imports, the tradeoffs between the need for 
energy and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and the 
need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our 
energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given 
the importance of energy policy, this bill is a very serious matter. I 
do not take a decision to support such a bill lightly. Although this 
bill is not exactly as I would have written it, it begins to move this 
Nation toward a more balanced approach to our energy needs.
  During floor debate, the Senate modified the renewable fuels standard 
contained in the Energy Committee reported bill to more closely 
resemble legislation reported by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, S. 606. Specifically, the bill would repeal the Clean Air 
Act requirement for oxygenated gasoline, and phase out the use of the 
additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, in 4 years. It would 
require refiners to use biofuels, presumably mostly ethanol, in volumes 
of 8 billion gallons by 2012. This is a much more aggressive goal than 
the 108th Congress Senate-passed bill that I supported, which included 
a 5 billion gallon by 2012 mandate. It is my hope that such a 
significant commitment will begin to reduce our dependence upon foreign 
oil.
  I would like to share the history of the renewable fuels provisions 
included in this bill we are adopting today. I've long supported a more 
aggressive approach to replacing petroleum-based motor fuels with fuels 
made from domestic resources, including ethanol produced by farmers 
growing grains and fibers. I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman on 
their leadership on this important matter.
  Back in 1991, I introduced S. 716, the Replacement Fuels Act, to 
require gasoline refiners to replace increasing percentages of their 
product with domestically produced, nonpetroleum liquids. Many of us 
knew then that it was technologically possible, and now it seems that a 
majority has crossed that threshold of understanding.
  When I first introduced my Replacement Fuels Act, many did not take 
it seriously. The oil industry certainly did not. But I made the rounds 
with several of my colleagues to convince them of the benefits of such 
a program, including the national security benefits of weaning 
ourselves from our dependency on foreign oil. At the time, I argued 
that the costs to our military, in terms of personnel and dollars, of 
protecting the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf, and of attempting to 
quell the political unrest of the Middle East, were staggering then and 
only apt to grow larger.
  I recall meeting with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, now 
the chairman of the Energy Committee, in his office to discuss my bill. 
We agreed on the domestic benefits of moving in this direction--for our 
farmers; for our environment; for our national and domestic security. 
After considerable discussion, Senator Domenici agreed to cosponsor my 
bill.

[[Page 14440]]

  I made the rounds to other members of the Energy Committee for their 
advice and support. Many of those committee members who cosponsored my 
bill are still here today--Senators Bingaman, Burns, Craig and Conrad, 
Shelby and Akaka. Four other committee members, since retired, also 
were cosponsors, making a majority of the committee and ensuring 
committee approval. Other Members who cosponsored my bill and who are 
here today include Senators Grassley, Reid, and Warner.
  In the end, the bulk of the language of my Replacement Fuels Act was 
included as title V of Public Law 102-486 the Energy Policy Act of 
1992. Before final passage of that act, however, in every instance that 
``shall'' appeared in my bill, it was changed to ``may'' in the final 
law. In other words, it changed from a mandate to an option, and we've 
only made modest gains in the past dozen years, when we could have made 
bold progress.
  So, again, I commend Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their 
leadership to move us more aggressively toward domestic production of 
transportation fuels and away from our growing foreign dependence.
  I urge Senators and the public to take note of the Sense of the 
Senate on climate change successfully included in the bill due to the 
efforts of Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Specter, and many others. It 
says that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national 
program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions 
of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such 
emissions at a rate and in a manner that, one, will not significantly 
harm the United States economy; and, two, will encourage comparable 
action by other nations that are major trading partners and key 
contributors to global emissions. Such a program regarding air 
pollution and environmental policy is clearly in the jurisdiction of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am strongly committed 
to holding hearings and reporting implementing and bipartisan 
legislation from that committee, on which I serve as the ranking 
member, as soon as possible.
  During debate on the renewable fuels provisions, I agreed to modify 
the absolute deadline for EPA's long-awaited and long-delayed mobile 
source air toxics, MSAT, rule from July 2005 in Domenici amendment No. 
779 to July 2007. EPA is widely expected to promulgate a final rule 
well before that later date, but this provision provides additional 
certainty and protection. In addition, the provision as amended and 
included by Senator Inhofe in the last manager's package, will allow 
EPA to regulate more stringently than the 2001-2002 toxics emissions 
reductions baseline in the final MSAT rule.
  That more stringent rule will take the place of the baseline so long 
as it will achieve and maintain greater overall reductions in emissions 
of air toxics. Such reductions must occur in the same timeframe and 
result in overall reductions of each and every one of the air toxics 
emitted in the combustion of gasoline, when compared to the 2001-2002 
baseline. This provision should not be construed to permit EPA to count 
reductions of less toxic pollutants like aldehydes equal in effect or 
equivalent to reductions of more toxic pollutants like benzene. The 
intent of this provision is not to allow EPA to avoid toxics potency 
weighting or sensible risk analysis and exposure assessment in 
determining the meaning of ``overall reductions.'' This provision 
should also not be viewed as a vehicle for changes to the liability 
system for fuel additives. The Senate has spoken very strongly on this 
point, and the conferees should be aware that any new MTBE language 
addressing the issue of retroactive liability is likely to jeopardize 
passage of the conference report in the Senate.
  I am also pleased that the Senate included a 10-percent renewable 
portfolio standard in this bill. I have worked for more than 20 years 
to boost the percentage of renewable sources used to generate our 
Nation's electricity. While I believe we could be taking a much more 
aggressive step, we need to take a serious first step, and the 
provisions in this bill do just that. Though I understand that the 
House has concerns with adding an RPS, it is my hope that the conferees 
will acknowledge that, for many States, renewable energy can and should 
be a bigger energy source.
  I am pleased that the Senate has also chosen to promote renewable 
energy by accepting three amendments I offered to the bill during floor 
debate. It is my hope these modest provisions will be retained in 
conference. My first amendment will make significant reductions in 
energy use in the Capitol complex by requiring the Architect of the 
Capitol to review the possibility for energy savings in the Dirksen 
Building. The second two amendments expand the sources of grant 
financing available to utilities for projects involving renewables and 
efficiency. The Senate has agreed to add livestock methane, a promising 
source of energy in Vermont, as an energy source that is eligible to 
compete for grants under the Department of Energy's Renewable Energy 
Incentives Program. The Senate has also agreed to create a new $20-
million-per-year grant program for upgrade of electric transmission.
  As I mentioned, though, the bill is not perfect, and the conferees 
should carefully review several provisions. In title XIII there are a 
number of sections authorizing investigations that will recommend 
changes to environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental 
Protection Act. Unfortunately, in a number of these areas the 
Environmental Protection Agency, whose responsibility it is to ensure 
the air we breath and the water we drink is safe, is not involved in 
developing or approving these recommendations.
  While I proposed amendments to include the Environmental Protection 
Agency in these sections, not all of changes were adopted. The sections 
needing amending include: section 1306 Backup Fuel Capability Study; 
section 1309 Study of Feasibility and Effects of Reducing Use of Fuel 
for Automobiles; and section 1320, Natural Gas Supply Shortage Report. 
It is my belief that any studies that involve environmental compliance 
should include the involvement of the agency whose mission it is to 
oversee the implementation of these environmental laws.
  I am pleased that my Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, 
provisions were included as section 1545 of the final bill. The 
provisions will provide almost $100 million in tax incentives for 
recyclers over the next decade to preserve and expand our Nation's 
recycling infrastructure. The targeted 15 percent tax credit for 
equipment used in the processing and sorting of recyclable materials 
will increase quantity and quality of recyclable materials collected. 
This national investment is necessary to reverse the declining 
recycling rate of many consumer commodities, including aluminum, glass 
and plastic, which are near historic lows. It will also generate 
significant energy savings as increasing the U.S. recycling rate to 35 
percent will result in annual energy savings of 903 trillion Btus, 
enough to meet the energy needs of an additional 2.4 million homes.
  The Finance title includes an amendment that I authored to improve 
future Federal energy investment and policy decisions. It requires the 
Secretary of Treasury to contract with the National Academy of Sciences 
to complete a study and report to Congress on the health, 
environmental, security and infrastructure externalities associated 
with energy activities and how they may or may not be affecting 
revenues, the economy and trade. Such information will dramatically 
improve our ability to review the costs and benefits of energy 
legislation and tax policy changes.
  I am pleased that my amendment to section 1305, the coal bed methane 
study, was adopted. My amendment requires that as it studies the issue 
the Department of Energy consult with States and the Environmental 
Protection Agency on the impacts of coal bed natural gas production on 
surface water and ground water resources. This consultation should 
occur, especially before making recommendations to

[[Page 14441]]

Congress on changes to the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  This bill does a reasonable job in balancing support for traditional 
fossil fuels and nuclear power and renewable energy, but I am perplexed 
by provisions in the Energy bill that provide $1.82 billion in grants 
for oil, gas and coal industries. With oil hovering around $60 a barrel 
and gasoline prices at record highs, I question the wisdom of providing 
additional subsidies for oil and gas exploration and production. While 
Americans pay more at the pump, multinational oil companies continue to 
report record profits. The bill also waives royalty payments for oil 
companies drilling in Federal waters and rewards these already 
profitable companies while depleting the U.S. economy of $100 million 
over 10 years.
  The bill gives $1.8 billion to the dirtiest powerplants to build new 
coal powerplants, thereby giving them an economic advantage over 
powerplants that installed pollution control technologies. I am also 
concerned about provisions in the coal title that unfairly benefits 
mining companies with current leases on federal lands by doubling the 
acreage, 162 to 320 acres, of coal-leased lands; removing the 40-year 
limitation for leases; and doubling the time (from 10 to 20 years) 
current leaseholders can pay advanced royalties. These provisions will 
have the most significant impact on the Powder River Basin where three 
mining companies dominate current production. I question the wisdom in 
subsidizing these fossil fuel industries that will only continue to 
encourage our Nation's dependence upon these polluting and expensive 
energy sources.
  I also urge the conferees not to include the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank, LUST, reform provisions in the final bill. The Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee is actively considering these 
issues and has planned a hearing for July 2005. Our Committee's actions 
led the Senate to enact bipartisan comprehensive LUST reform 
legislation last Congress by unanimous consent. Adding LUST reform onto 
the Energy bill would needlessly bypass our legislative consideration 
and prevent this issue from getting the careful attention that it 
requires.
  The LUST provisions of the Senate's Energy bill, section 210, are 
problematic. Most significantly, the section raids the LUST Trust Fund 
and diverts dollars from their intended purpose--cleaning up 
contamination from leaking USTs. Without increasing the amount of money 
to be appropriated to the States, the provision expands the eligible 
uses of the LUST Trust Fund to pay for cleanup of spills from non-UST 
sources, such as pipelines, cars, and above ground storage tanks. In a 
letter to Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin on May 7, 2003, former EPA 
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman opposed these provisions because 
they ``would change the historical scope of the program, and could 
stress the Agency's ability to adequately address releases from USTs.''
  I am concerned because this section will go to conference with the 
House- passed LUST provisions that also contain significant flaws. The 
House provisions add a new periodic inspection requirement for USTs 
that is weaker than the 2-year minimum inspection frequency recommended 
by EPA and the 3-year minimum requirement recommended by the Government 
Accountability Office. For example, a tank last inspected in 1999 
wouldn't need to be inspected again for over a decade. In addition, the 
House delivery prohibition provisions may preempt existing authority in 
24 States. Finally, the provisions requiring secondary containment 
within 1,000 feet of existing community water systems includes an 
exemption that ignores prevention in favor of expensive cleanup.
  So we have our work cut out for us. Today, the Senate is passing a 
good bill that needs some work in conference, but not a substantial 
overhaul or weakening. To retain my support the conferees need to 
prevent substantial modifications to this bill, resist the addition of 
controversial items added in the House-version of H.R. 6, avoid 
substantive modification to core titles of the bill, limit adjustments 
to the bill's fiscal scope and cost, and consider additions of 
provisions to provide energy security.
  This is a good effort to develop energy legislation for America, 
which is a goal widely shared in both Houses of Congress. It is my hope 
that conferees seek this year to reach consensus on issues such as: 
national electricity reliability standards, the use of renewables, the 
phase out of methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, and production of 
suitable oxygenate replacements, and the fiscally responsible extension 
of needed energy tax provisions. With this bill I am supporting today 
we send them a good template to achieve that goal.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, H.R. 6, the Energy bill, is an effort to 
improve our Nation's energy supply and reliability, and for that it 
should be praised. Like any bill of its magnitude, the Energy bill 
includes a variety of good and bad provisions, and it has to be weighed 
for the relative good and bad it will do. I've come to the conclusion 
after careful study that the bad outweighs the good, particularly for 
the State of Arizona. And it is for that reason that I must vote no. 
This bill will likely raise the price of gasoline in Arizona, hurt our 
air quality, and raise the price of our electricity, all while 
increasing the Federal deficit with enormous subsidies, special 
projects, and tax breaks for everything from fish oil to luxury hybrid 
cars. I support the President in his efforts to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil, and I wish this bill did more to accomplish that goal.
  As I have said, some important provisions of this bill have much to 
recommend them. Unfortunately, the ethanol ``Renewable Energy'' title 
is not one of them. The ethanol provisions of the Energy bill are truly 
remarkable. They mandate that Americans use 8 billion gallons of 
ethanol annually by 2012. We use 3.4 billion gallons now. For what 
purpose, I ask, does Congress so egregiously manipulate the national 
market for vehicle fuel? No proof exists that the ethanol mandate will 
make our air cleaner. In fact, in Arizona, the State Department of 
Environmental Quality has found that ethanol use in the summer will 
degrade air quality, which will probably force areas in Arizona out of 
attainment with the Clean Air Act. Arizonans will suffer. California 
also expects that the summertime use of ethanol would harm air quality, 
but in the Senate bill, California is exempted from the summer mandate. 
If Arizona had the same exemption, then the ethanol mandate would still 
be expensive and unwarranted, but at least it would not actually cause 
physical harm.
  An ethanol mandate is not needed to keep the ethanol industry alive. 
That industry already receives a hefty amount of Federal largesse. CRS 
estimates that the ethanol and corn industries have received more than 
$40 billion in subsidies and tax incentives since 1996. I repeat, $40 
billion Yet, this bill not only mandates that we more than double our 
ethanol use, but provides even more subsidies for the industry. In the 
next 5 years, CBO estimates that the loan guarantee program by itself 
will cost $110 million, while CRS estimates that the tax incentives for 
ethanol will cost taxpayers $37.7 billion. Furthermore, according to 
the Energy Information Administration, a mandate of five billion 
gallons would cost between $6.7 and $8 billion a year--forcing 
Americans to pay more for gasoline. Not surprisingly, the 8 billion 
gallon mandate will cost even more.
  Professor David Pimentel, of the College of Agriculture and Life 
Sciences at Cornell, has studied ethanol. He is a true expert on the 
``corn-to-car'' fuel process. His verdict, in a recent study: ``Abusing 
our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process 
that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, 
subsidized food burning.'' It isn't efficient, and will impede the 
natural innovation in clean fuels that would occur with a competitive 
market, free of the government's manipulation.
  Ethanol is not the only mandate in the bill. This Energy bill also 
ignores state law and mandates a national one-

[[Page 14442]]

size-fits-all renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electricity. 
Currently, 19 States, including Arizona, and the District of Columbia 
have their own renewable standards. In Arizona, a State that gets its 
electricity mainly from coal, natural gas, and hydro facilities, our 
Corporation Commission has tailored the State's renewable standard to 
our unique circumstance as a desert State that receives a lot of 
sunshine, little wind, and has few other renewable resources. The 
current Arizona standard is 1.1 percent, of which 60 percent must come 
from solar energy. While solar energy is abundant in Arizona, it costs 
3-5 times more than conventional energy and 2-4 times more than other 
more cost effective renewable energy such as wind and geothermal--a 
fact that is reflected in the Arizona standard. The Arizona Corporation 
Commission has recently proposed raising the State's renewable standard 
and changing the mix of alternative sources that would be acceptable. 
This proposal, however, is part of an open, collaborative process. All 
stakeholders have had the chance to submit comments both supporting, 
opposing, and refining the change. The Corporation Commission will 
weigh the costs to Arizona ratepayers, and is more likely than the 
Congress to find a renewable standard that works for Arizona.
  Unfortunately, the Senate RPS requirement does not have Arizona 
ratepayers in mind. Utilities in Arizona will be forced, under this 
bill, to comply with both the State mandate and the Senate's RPS 
mandate that has different requirements. To meet the Senate's mandate, 
the bill punishes States that lack reasonably priced renewable 
resources such as wind and geothermal, hydroelectricity cannot be used 
under the Senate bill, by forcing them to go buy credits from wind-rich 
parts of the country or to buy those credits from the Federal 
Government for $ .015/kwh, adjusted for inflation. That means that if a 
State cannot find a renewable source that costs less than the 
conventional price of energy plus $.015/kwh, then it is cheaper to buy 
the government credit. Arizona simply does not have renewable resources 
that can compete with the Senate bill's $0.015/kwh RPS penalty. Paying 
the penalty will be more cost effective than producing solar energy or 
acquiring other renewable resources. The effective result will be a 
transfer of wealth from Arizonans to renewable-rich states or to the 
Federal Government. For my home State of Arizona, electricity rates 
will rise.
  A nationwide renewable portfolio standard is, therefore, not only 
duplicative in Arizona, it would raise consumers' electricity prices 
and create inequities among States. In simplest terms, an RPS mandate 
would require electric utilities to forego inexpensive conventional 
energy for more expensive renewable technologies or purchase renewable 
energy credits from the Federal Government. Either way, an RPS mandate 
will result in an expensive, hidden tax on electricity consumers.
  Now for the tax title. My overarching concern is that Congress 
continues to try to use special interest tax subsidies to set an 
industrial policy--failed strategy of ``Government knows best''--on the 
strongest and most dynamic economy in the developed world.
  I share the concerns of many of my colleagues that the budget deficit 
demonstrates a lack of wise stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The only 
way we will get the budget back into balance is to enact policies that 
support economic growth and spend taxpayer dollars with care.
  Almost exactly 2 years ago, Congress, working with President Bush, 
approved one of the most important and best-designed tax cuts in recent 
memory: the jobs and growth tax bill. Quite simply, it cut tax rates on 
income and on dividends and capital gains. We know from widely accepted 
economic studies--most recently from our 2004 Nobel-Prize winning 
economist, Dr. Prescott from Arizona State University--that high tax 
rates discourage work, savings and investment and that to encourage 
these favorable economic activities, the best thing we can do is keep 
tax rates low and get out of the way.
  When our economy is growing and businesses and individuals are making 
money they pay more in taxes, meaning the Government collects more 
revenue, even at lower rates--indeed, because of the lower rates. So 
far this year, Federal tax revenues are up significantly. From October 
1 through April 30, revenues climbed by $146 billion to a total of 
$1.216 trillion; an increase of 13.6 percent over a year earlier and 
four or five times the inflation rate. Income tax receipts are up $66 
billion, or 16 percent, to $547 billion. Corporate income tax receipts 
are rising even faster, up 48 percent to $134 billion.
  Capital gains tax revenue is set to exceed the Government forecasts 
by $14 billion this fiscal year and by $16 billion in fiscal year 06. 
Roughly $5 billion of the dividend tax cut has been recouped through 
higher than expected dividend payments. These are the kind of tax 
policies Congress ought to be pursuing. Instead, we are spending over 
$18 billion on tax subsidies for the energy industry--subsidies that 
will not generate economic growth and that will not make a dent in our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  The tax subsidies in this bill are exactly the wrong approach. 
Government should not try to force taxpayers into one favored type of 
investment by providing tax subsidies for that investment. If an 
investment is not economically viable without a Government subsidy, 
then perhaps it is not an activity that ought to be encouraged with 
taxpayer dollars. And if a technology is already viable without a 
taxpayer-financed subsidy, then we should not devote scarce resources 
to encourage what is already happening in the free market.
  My primary complaint has to do with the use of tax credits by the 
Government. The Federal Government uses tax credits to induce 
individuals or businesses to engage in favored activities. This can 
distort the market and cause individuals or businesses to undertake 
unproductive economic activity that they might not have done absent the 
inducement. Tax credits are really appropriations that are run through 
the Internal Revenue Code and are a way to give Federal subsidies, 
disguised as tax cuts, to favored constituencies. It is something we 
should do sparingly--very sparingly. While tax credits can be effective 
in encouraging activities we consider laudable for one reason or 
another, I believe that, as stewards of the taxpayers' money, we must 
only support those credits that provide broad benefit to all taxpayers 
and that are worth the revenue they will cost the Federal Treasury.
  I do not believe that any of the tax credits in the bill meet these 
tests. The bill extends and expands the credit provided in section 45 
of the Code. This credit is available on a per-kilowatt-hour basis for 
energy produced from wind, solar, closed-loop biomass, open-loop 
biomass, geothermal, small irrigation, and municipal solid waste. I 
believe that the credit for wind energy should have sunset several 
years ago. Wind energy has been provided this credit since 1992, and if 
it is not competitive after a decade of taxpayer subsidies, it will 
never be competitive. In 2001, the wind industry was in fact touting 
its great success and competitiveness with other forms of energy, but 
here we are extending the wind credit for 3 more years. I wager that we 
will still be paying for the ``temporary'' advantage being given to 
these new energy forms a decade from now.
  At best, we don't know whether the existing tax subsidies that this 
legislation extends work at all because we have never subjected them to 
a comprehensive review. At worst, we are simply funneling taxpayer 
dollars that could be better used by private individuals in the free 
market to favored constituencies. During the markup of the tax title in 
the Finance Committee, many of my colleagues on the Committee expressed 
sympathy with my concern that Congress passes a myriad of credits and 
incentives to encourage favored activities, but we never go back to see 
if the subsidies are working as intended. I am hoping that I can work 
with my colleagues who expressed these concerns to ask for a

[[Page 14443]]

Government Accountability Office study of the many subsidies and 
incentives included in this legislation to track their cost and 
effectiveness.
  One subsidy we ought to watch closely is the alternative fuel vehicle 
subsidy. As much as we all support the goal of cleaner air, we must be 
careful not to create more problems than we solve. In my own State of 
Arizona, an alternative fuels subsidy program had to be repealed when 
its many scandalous deficiencies were exposed. Nor has there been any 
evidence that the vehicles to which the subsidy applies aren't simply 
priced higher by the amount of the subsidy. I have serious questions 
about whether the incentives are necessary and whether it is 
appropriate to use the tax code to persuade taxpayers to purchase one 
type of vehicle over another.
  I know hybrid cars and alternative fuel cars are very popular, so 
Senators may hesitate to stand in the way of tax incentives for people 
to buy them. But I believe their very popularity argues that there is 
no need for the tax incentives. People are buying them today without 
being coaxed by the Federal Government. I hope we can agree to have the 
GAO study this new credit to determine how much the provision is really 
costing, how effective it is at encouraging the purchase of alternative 
fuel vehicles, and how long the credit will be needed.
  I have spoken of the ``bad'' in the bill, now I want to discuss what 
is ``good''. I have been particularly interested in the provisions in 
the electricity title that are designed to restructure our electricity 
markets. Some of my colleagues have been tempted to move immediately to 
completely unregulated electricity markets; others favored imposing a 
more stringent regulatory regime as a result of problems in California.
  Representing Arizona, I was well aware of the problems stemming from 
the California energy crisis but cannot agree with those who say the 
solution is to return to a command-and-control regulatory structure. I 
continue to believe that the most efficient way to allocate resources 
is through competitive markets. The bill encourages competitive markets 
while ensuring that safety and reliability are maintained. The 
reliability provisions of the electricity title will convert the 
current voluntary system of reliability procedures to a mandatory 
system that all utilities must follow, but that is sensitive to 
regional differences in the electricity grid. The electricity title 
also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. As we all 
know, our energy markets have evolved significantly since the era of 
the Great Depression. State regulators are smarter, more well equipped, 
and able to protect consumers from the ills that gave rise to the 
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 nearly 70 years ago.
  On the downside, the electricity title also contains unfortunate 
provisions that would grant the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) additional authority to regulate generation, natural gas 
utilities, and holding companies. Giving FERC new merger authority is 
going in the wrong direction. Utility mergers and acquisitions are 
already subject to multiple and overlapping reviews by FERC, SEC, DOJ, 
FTC, and the States. FERC uses exactly the same merger review 
guidelines as the antitrust agencies, DOJ and FTC--thus FERC performs 
essentially the same review those agencies already perform. There is no 
need to add new layers of review.
  I have often expressed my concern with what some industry officials 
have termed a jurisdictional reach by FERC into the delivery of power 
to retail customers. The service obligation amendment that I worked on 
with the chairman has been included in this package, and I believe it 
provides a commonsense way to promote competitive markets while 
preserving the reliability that retail electric consumers expect and 
deserve. In its actions governing access to transmission systems, FERC 
has not adequately ensured that the native load customers, for whom the 
system was constructed, can rely on the system to keep the lights on. 
The bill adds a new section 218 to the Federal Power Act to ensure that 
native load customers' rights to the system, including load growth, are 
protected.
  It is also worth noting that the Energy bill expands jurisdiction 
over those stakeholders in electric markets that were previously 
unregulated by the FERC. The ``FERC-lite'' provision that addresses the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's efforts to provide open access 
over all transmission facilities in the United States again, in my 
mind, strikes the right balance. It requires FERC to ensure that 
transmission owners--whether they are municipal utilities, power 
marketing administrations, or electric cooperatives--deliver power at 
terms that are not discriminatory or preferential. However, this 
provision is limited and does not give FERC the ability to begin 
regulating the rate-setting activities of these organizations. FERC-
lite does not confer further authority to FERC over public power 
systems. FERC cannot order structural or organizational changes in an 
unregulated transmitting utility to comply with this section. For 
example, if an integrated utility providing a bundled retail service 
operates transmission distribution and retail sales out of a single 
operational office, the Commission cannot require functional separation 
of transmission operations from retail sales operations.
  Gratifying, as well, is that the Senate bill has not pursued a 
command-and-control approach with respect to regional transmission 
organizations, or RTOs. I believe the best approach, which is captured 
in this bill, is for FERC to provide incentives to encourage membership 
in RTOs and independent system operators. As lawmakers, we need to be 
sensitive to the policy changes we propose and how the laws we draft 
will affect Wall Street and the markets, and we must make sure we 
promote the investments that are needed. This is a prime example of how 
the Energy bill has sought to advance policies to which the investment 
community can respond favorably.
  So, in conclusion, while this bill includes several meritorious 
provisions, especially the electricity title, I must vote against it 
because of the $ 18.4 billion in tax subsidies and the bill's 
irresponsible manipulation of the energy markets through an ethanol 
mandate and a national renewable portfolio standard. I hope that the 
conference of the House and the Senate is able to address these issues 
so that I can support this bill in the future.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, as we consider the possibilities and 
challenges that face our great Nation and the tremendous dependence we 
have on foreign sources of oil, every effort to reduce that dependence 
becomes a key point for consideration by the Congress. In addition, the 
growing demand for oil by China and India only intensifies the need for 
action. We must become less reliant on foreign sources of oil and 
natural gas from unstable parts of the world.
  I have been made aware that by reducing fuel consumption in the 
aviation sector through implementation of an idle reduction technology 
we would see fuel reductions in excess of 90 million barrels of 
petroleum each year after full implementation.
  Implementing this type of technology would also greatly reduce the 
associated mobile source emissions greatly benefiting our metropolitan 
areas facing EPA nonattainment and the losses associated this 
categorization. The airline industry and the general public would also 
benefit from such technology through reduced costs and environmental 
improvements.
  According to DOT, expenses for U.S. commercial airlines, fuel and oil 
expenses were equal to those of labor which has historically been the 
single largest expense for the carriers. By reducing the amount of fuel 
required through idle reduction technology, the U.S. commercial 
airlines could save well over $4 billion in fuel costs at today's fuel 
prices, a large percentage of the estimated losses for this year.
  Applying innovative technology applications in this manner will 
assist in reducing our overall dependence on foreign oil while 
providing other benefits as well.
  The Energy bill that has passed today includes support for research 
and

[[Page 14444]]

development for optimizing fuel efficiency for commercial aircrafts. 
This is an important step in the right direction for America's energy 
future.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are voting on the Energy bill, 
which provides Congress with a historic opportunity. We should seize 
this opportunity and ensure that as this legislation goes to 
conference, the NOPEC bill, S. 555, remains an essential part of the 
underlying legislation.
  America's fuel crisis continues to take hard-earned money from our 
families, farmers, and businesses. When President Bush took office, the 
price of 1 gallon of regular gasoline was about $1.45. Today, that same 
gallon will cost an American at the pump more than $2.20. And 
yesterday, our financial markets closed with the ominous and 
unprecedented news that a barrel of crude oil now sells for more than 
$60 per barrel. We know that these prices have a real impact--a major 
shipping carrier announced disappointing earnings last week in part due 
to the high price of fuel--and yet the administration has done nothing 
to address the situation.
  In the face of continued inaction from the White House, it is time 
for Congress to substitute action for talk. It is time for us to 
finally pass NOPEC as part of the larger Energy bill.
  We should have considered and passed this bill, S. 555, on its own. 
This bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee for a second time with 
overwhelming support earlier this year. I have repeatedly called for 
its consideration by the Senate over the last several months. It is 
long past time for the Congress to hold OPEC accountable for its 
anticompetitive behavior. This amendment will release the United States 
from being at the mercy of the OPEC cartel by making them subject to 
our antitrust laws. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal 
action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price 
fixing and other anticompetitive activities in this regard.
  The President's solution to high gasoline prices this summer is to 
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, pristine wilderness area, to 
oil drilling. But drilling in ANWR will not provide any new oil for at 
least 7 to 12 years and will take an environmental toll. ANWR drilling 
will do absolutely nothing to help working Americans who have sticker 
shock at the gas pump or who will be facing record-high home heating 
prices in a few months. The Bush administration admits that its energy 
policies include no immediate help for gas prices and no short-term 
solutions.
  The NOPEC bill is a unique element of this legislation. It can do 
something immediately to help relieve the situation we face every time 
we fill-up at the pump. We should insist that it be retained, enacted, 
and implemented. I hope that Republican leadership does not demand this 
provision be removed but that if it does, the Senate stands firm on 
behalf of the American people. We should not squander this opportunity 
to address the real concerns of the American public.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the Bond-Levin 
amendment regarding CAFE standards, and I want to explain my views in 
detail. Fuel efficiency is a critically important issue for our 
country, for my home State of Wisconsin, and for our future. I remain 
committed to the goal that significant improvements in automobile and 
light truck fuel efficiency can be achieved over an appropriate time 
frame. My vote for the Levin-Bond is entirely consistent with that 
goal.
  The Levin-Bond amendment seeks to renew the Department of 
Transportation's role in setting CAFE standards, acting through the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA. If Congress does 
not act to try to restore normalcy to the NHTSA process, we will keep 
having these fights which Congress attempts to either block or set CAFE 
standards, every 20 years or so, when the political will is sufficient 
to do so. NHTSA will never be able to carry out the normal process of 
reviewing and incrementally improving fuel efficiency for automobiles 
and light trucks, as Congress originally intended when it passed the 
CAFE law in the 1970s.
  Both interest groups battling over the CAFE issue, the auto 
manufacturers and the environmental community, have switched their 
positions in this debate on this bill over the past several years. The 
auto industry, which once wanted CAFE perpetually frozen with a rider 
to an appropriations bill, now supports the Levin amendment. The 
environmental community, which once opposed the rider and wanted NHTSA 
to act, now wants Congress to set the standard rather than NHTSA. With 
my vote, I am maintaining my consistent position on this issue.
  As I stated on the Senate floor in the debate on the CAFE rider on 
June 15, 2000, my vote was about ``Congress getting out of the way and 
letting a Federal agency meet the requirements of Federal law 
originally imposed by Congress.'' I supported removing the rider back 
in 2000 because I was concerned that Congress has for more than 5 years 
blocked NHTSA from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is 
a need to modify fuel economy standards.
  As I made clear in 2000, 2002, 2003 and many other previous debates 
on this issue, I have made no determination about what fuel economy 
standards should be, though I do think that an increase is possible. 
NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given model year, 
taking into account several factors; technological feasibility, 
economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as those for 
safety and environmental performance, the need to conserve energy, and 
the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. I want NHTSA 
to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make an 
objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. I expect NHTSA to 
consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental interests, 
auto manufacturers, and other interested citizens--in developing this 
rule. And, I expect NHTSA to act, and if it does not, this amendment 
requires Congress to act on a standard.
  In opposing the Levin-Bond amendment, some subscribe to the view that 
NHTSA has a particular agenda and will recommend weak standards. I do 
not support that view.
  NHTSA should be allowed to set this standard. Congress is not the 
best forum for understanding whether or not improvements in fuel 
economy can and should be made using existing technologies or whether 
emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. 
Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. 
I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of 
those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of 
reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution.
  In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers, indeed all 
consumers, have a wide range of new, more fuel efficient automobiles, 
SUVs, and trucks available to them, taking into account all appropriate 
energy, technological and economic factors. That balancing is required 
by the law. I expect NHTSA to proceed in a manner consistent with the 
law by fully considering all those factors, and this amendment ensures 
they do so.
  In supporting this amendment, I maintain the position that it is my 
job to ensure that the agency responsible for setting fuel economy be 
allowed to do its job. I expect it to be fair and neutral in that 
process, and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that 
their views are represented and that the regulatory process proceeds in 
a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits 
will support.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an important 
innovative in manufacturing related to America's needs for clean, 
reliable, and affordable energy that is important for national 
security, American jobs, and our competitiveness in the global 
marketplace.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we are fortunate to have a 
competitive manufacturing industry representing several sectors from 
pharmaceuticals to fire safety to paper products to refining. Virginia 
is also fortunate to

[[Page 14445]]

have a strong base of smaller, progressive companies that are producing 
products that help America achieve cleaner air standards and decrease 
our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  One such company advancing these priorities is Afton Chemical located 
in Richmond, VA. Founded in 1921, Afton is a full-service global 
petroleum additives supplier. It has a strong commitment to innovative 
technology and world-class research. It operates a state-of-the-art 
research facility in Richmond and a European research and test facility 
in Bracknell, Berkshire, England. It has manufacturing facilities 
worldwide.
  Afton develops, manufactures, blends, and delivers chemical additives 
that enhance the performance of petroleum products. One of these 
additives, MMT, is an organic-based fuel additive designed to boost 
octane levels in gasoline. MMT is used commercially in the United 
States and throughout the world. The product is added into fuel at very 
small concentrations.
  MMT provides refiners with an economical octane improver. MMT 
achieves emission reductions by lessening the degree to which a barrel 
of crude oil has to be processed to make a gallon of gasoline. Because 
less refining is needed, fewer emissions are emitted to the air. Those 
fewer emissions include greenhouse gas emissions. Because less refining 
per barrel of crude is needed, a barrel of oil goes a lot further; 
thereby increasing refinery capacity.
  In fact, refinery studies have shown that MMT, if used in all 
gasoline in the United States, would save up to 30 million barrels a 
year of crude oil, reducing our dependence on foreign oil. At today's 
crude oil prices, that is nearly $2 billion per year. Because refiners 
using MMT operate under less severe conditions, refinery emissions of 
greenhouse gases can also be reduced by millions of tons per year.
  Now, more than ever, with high gasoline prices and greater dependence 
on foreign oil from unstable countries, we need products that help 
conserve oil and result in more efficient refining of oil. Afton 
Chemical has made production of cleaner burning fuel additives a 
priority. And because of their efforts in this area, I applaud their 
efforts in increasing energy efficiencies.
  I am proud of all the companies in Virginia, like Afton, that are 
innovating to find solutions for more efficient, cleaner burning, and 
less toxic fuels for America's energy needs. Whether these companies 
are producing MMT or biodiesel made from home-grown Virginia soybeans, 
innovators from the Commonwealth are creating energy solutions to 
strengthen our national security, create new jobs and save current ones 
and most importantly, increase our competitiveness in the global 
marketplace.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I joined my colleagues in voting for 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which passed the Senate by a vote 85 to 
12. This legislation is not perfect, but it is a bipartisan framework 
that offers the basis of a comprehensive and balanced plan to address 
the energy needs of our country.
  This bill takes important steps in shifting our dependence away from 
foreign oil. It spurs the development of renewable sources--biodiesel, 
wind, solar, and geothermal. Importantly, the Senate-passed bill 
contains a national renewable portfolio standard, requiring utilities 
to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable 
energy sources by 2020. The legislation also requires that we quadruple 
the amount of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, used annually in 
gasoline. Furthermore, this bill advances conservation by promoting 
energy-efficient homes and appliances, fuel cell vehicles, hybrid 
vehicles, and alternative fuel vehicles.
  Among my greatest disappointments, however, is the Senate's failure 
to adopt the McCain-Lieberman climate stewardship amendment to 
establish an effective domestic program to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, and the Kerry-Biden resolution to return the United States 
to its leadership role in the global deliberations on climate change. 
We have to be creative and to recognize the many different ways we can 
begin to make real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with 
the goal of stabilizing the still-growing human impact on our climate. 
By not adopting these amendments, the Senate missed the chance to get 
back on the right side of history.
  Although I supported passage of this bill before us today, I have 
grave concerns about what may be brought back to the Senate after final 
negotiations with the House of Representatives. If certain provisions 
in the House-passed Energy bill, including those that permit leasing 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas development, are in 
the conference report, I will not support passage of the bill. If the 
conference report steals from these new investments in renewable energy 
and diverts even more taxpayer dollars to oil companies, when this week 
oil is at $60 a barrel, I will not support passage of the bill. We have 
seen comprehensive energy policy legislation doomed in the past when 
those negotiating the final bill have sacrificed the long-term 
interests that we all share for shortsighted special interests. I urge 
my colleagues to preserve the progress toward energy independence 
promised in the bipartisan bill passed today.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy bill. 
This country needs a coherent policy to meet the growing demand for 
energy that comes with economic growth. America needs a supply of 
affordable, reliable energy. We need an Energy bill that will give us 
lower prices, a cleaner environment, greater consumer protection and I 
believe this current version of the Senate Energy bill does just that.
  We in Congress have had an opportunity to craft a far-reaching and 
progressive energy policy for this country. I believe we owe it to the 
American people to put together a well balanced plan that meets the 
needs of everyone, consumers and industry alike, instead of playing 
favorites and leaving the taxpayers with the bill. Unlike the House 
version, I am pleased that the Senate version of the Energy bill does 
not give the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE liability protection 
from environmental lawsuits. In the past MTBE has been a very 
contentious issue in the Energy bill, but I am optimistic that the 
Senate and House can garner an agreement on the MTBE provision. .
  I support alternative energy development and I believe this 
legislation provides the necessary incentives for the development of 
alternative forms of energy. The bill protects the economic and 
environmental health of our country by encouraging the use of 
alternative power sources, including solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, 
geothermal, and other renewable energy resources. By including a ten 
percent Renewable Portfolio Standard for utilities, the Senate took a 
bold step toward the promotion of clean, sustainable energy. I have 
long believed that our Nation must implement a sensible national energy 
policy which emphasizes greater energy conservation and efficiency, as 
well as the development of renewable resources.
  Recent events in the Middle East, coupled with the environmental 
problems associated with the use of fossil fuels, have only increased 
the need for such a comprehensive policy. Simply put, we cannot 
continue to rely on imported oil to meet such a large part of our 
Nation's energy needs. This dependence places our economic security at 
great risk. At present, petroleum imports account for fully one-half of 
our national oil use and one-third of our trade deficit. In addition, 
the use of oil and other fossil fuels contributes to global climate 
change, air pollution, and acid rain. For these reasons I supported a 
strong ethanol mandate in the bill, to help improve our energy 
independence and help clean the environment.
  This legislation, which I voted for, is not the perfect answer for 
solving our energy problems in this county. Few pieces of legislation 
that we vote on are, but I believe this legislation takes the right 
steps in helping our country move toward a more self-sufficient and 
well balanced society for our energy needs.

[[Page 14446]]


  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, the provisions in the Energy bill will 
greatly improve the ability of electricity transmission operators to 
ensure the reliability of our grid, especially with the help of new 
technologies.
  I want to make the Department of Energy and Federal Government aware 
that there is a company in my State that currently provides independent 
real-time energy information. This company's patented technology 
collects power supply information using a network of remote, wireless 
devices to monitor multiple points on the transmission grid. This 
information is provided to utilities, Federal agencies, and others 
responsible for monitoring our critical energy infrastructure and the 
markets associated with that infrastructure. I applaud them for their 
ingenuity and efforts to further increase the reliability of our 
electricity transmission grid.
  It is my understanding that the Federal Government is looking at 
developing monitoring technology similar to the technology of other 
companies such as the one in my State and other States. I want to 
implore to the Department of Energy and other Federal Government 
agencies to not choke out these new innovations already being developed 
and deployed in the private marketplace. I ask that the Federal 
Government consider the new technologies already commercially deployed 
when examining the role the Federal Government should play when 
developing these new abilities.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the energy bill. I am 
pleased to say that I support this bill.
  The bill includes provisions that will help develop new energy 
sources and technologies, encourage conservation and increased energy 
efficiency, improve the reliability of our electricity system, and 
address the challenge of climate change. I think that it should go 
further in some respects--particularly in making us less dependent on 
foreign oil. But overall, it represents a step in the right direction.
  First, I want to discuss several provisions that I think are 
extremely important in helping us develop new energy sources and 
technologies. It is true that in the coming decades we will continue to 
rely heavily on traditional energy resources such as fossil fuels to 
heat and light our homes and power our cars. But there are new sources 
of energy and new energy technologies that offer great potential to 
help us meet many of these needs. We need to move beyond fossil fuels, 
and that goal must be a top priority of our national energy policy.
  Hydrogen fuels cells are clearly one of the energy technologies that 
offer great promise. I am extremely pleased that the bill includes the 
major provisions of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Act of 2005 
that I have worked on for years with Senator Dorgan. This ambitious 
legislation authorizes significant funding for hydrogen research and 
development and sets aggressive goals for the deployment of hydrogen 
technologies. The research and development components authorize $3.75 
billion over the next 5 years for work on hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen 
powered automobiles, and a nation-wide fueling infrastructure. But in 
addition to funding, the legislation sets ambitious goals for 
deployment of fuel cells in transportation: 100,000 hydrogen-fueled 
vehicles on the road in the United States by 2010, and 2.5 million on 
the road by 2020.
  I am also pleased that the bill includes significant provisions to 
promote the development of renewable energy. It includes an extension 
of the wind production tax credit, which is critical to the continued 
deployment of windmills to generate electricity in New York and across 
the country. In addition, I am extremely pleased that the Senate 
adopted an amendment that I cosponsored to put a renewable portfolio 
standard into place. Under the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, 
electricity producers will need to increase gradually the percentage 
generated from renewable sources to 10 percent by the year 2020. This 
is an important step forward, and I think it is critical that we retain 
this provision in conference.
  In addition, the bill includes provisions to help us continue to 
develop clean coal technology. Coal is by no means new, but it is 
incredibly abundant here in the United States, and needs to continue to 
be a cornerstone of our future energy policy. Continued investment in 
clean coal technology not only offers the promise of new, clean coal 
plants here in the United States; it also means the development of 
technology that we can export. To accomplish these goals, the bill 
includes a Clean Coal Power Initiative that will provide $200 million 
annually for clean coal research into coal-based gasification and 
combustion technologies.
  During Senate debate on the Energy bill, an amendment that 
establishes a renewable fuels standard was added to the bill. I 
strongly believe that ethanol has a role to play in helping to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil, and the renewable fuels amendment 
contains elements that I support. For example, the renewables fuels 
standard provides incentives for the development of cellulosic ethanol, 
something that has the potential to be produced economically in New 
York. In fact, there is an exciting project underway to convert an old 
Miller Brewery in upstate New York to produce ethanol. This project, 
which is slated to begin production in the next year, will start with 
corn as a feedstock, but ultimately plans to use local hardwoods as 
feedstock. After extracting sugars from the wood, the chips would then 
be available as a raw material to pulp and paper mills in the area. The 
renewable fuels amendment can help to move this technology and this 
project along.
  In spite of these and other positive aspects of the renewable fuels 
amendment, I could not support it as a whole because I believe it will 
lead to higher gasoline prices for New York consumers. In addition, I 
am concerned that unless measures are adopted to address the increased 
evaporative emissions caused by blending ethanol in gasoline, the 
amendment will make it more difficult for New York to reduce smog to 
meet the new federal health standards.
  In addition to provisions to promote new energy sources, the bill 
includes excellent conservation and energy efficiency measures, which 
are the fastest and most lasting way to reduce our energy consumption. 
For example, the bill sets new efficiency standards for appliances and 
projects such as commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers, battery chargers, distribution transformers and commercial 
clothes washers. According to the American Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy, these efficiency provisions, along with the others 
in the bill, will save 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 
reduce peak electric demand by 50,000 megawatts by the year 2020. This 
reduction in peak demand means that we will eliminate the need to build 
170 300 megawatt power plants. We need to retain these strong measures 
in conference.
  While the bill does not go as far as I would like in terms of 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil, it does contain a provision 
that would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels of oil per 
day by 2015. It is critical that we retain this provision in 
conference.
  As we approach the second anniversary of the August 2003 blackout, it 
is unbelievable to me that Congress has not yet adopted the top 
recommendation of the blackout task force--passing mandatory, 
enforceable reliability standards. I am pleased that this Energy bill 
contains these standards, but if the legislation stalls, then I will 
push for a stand-alone bill to put these standards in place, as I have 
in the past.
  The Energy bill also includes legislation that I recently introduced 
as cosponsored with Senator Voinovich. The legislation would create a 
grant program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promote 
the reduction of diesel emissions. The bill authorizes $1 billion over 
five years to help in the retrofitting and replacement of existing 
diesel engines. This program will help to reduce harmful fine 
particulate emissions in a cost-effective way. In fact, EPA estimates 
that diesel retrofits yield $13 of health for every $1 spent on them.

[[Page 14447]]

  Finally, I am pleased that the Senate is now on record in this 
legislation as supporting a mandatory program to start reducing the 
greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change. I 
think this represents a step forward for the Senate, and I hope that 
the Senate will follow this sense of the Senate amendment with the 
passage of legislation soon to put such a program in place.
  This is by no means a perfect bill. I have mentioned some of the 
things that I think are lacking. But on balance, I think this bill 
represents a major step forward. I am pleased to back it.
  However, as we pass this bill out of the Senate, I have to say that I 
am extremely wary of conference. I was dismayed that the Energy bill 
voted out by the House this year was even worse than what came out of 
the House last year. Again, it contains a liability waiver for the 
gasoline additive MTBE. MTBE has contaminated groundwater in New York 
and across the country. According to two new studies, commissioned by 
the American Water Works Association, AWWA, and the Association of 
Metropolitan Water Agencies, AMWA, the clean-up costs are likely to be 
in the range of $25-$33.2 billion and could be as high as $85 billion 
or more. If this provision is retained in conference, I will have no 
choice but to again oppose the Energy bill when it comes back from 
conference. In addition, I think it is critical that the many of the 
key features of the Senate bill--including the renewable portfolio 
standard and the strong energy efficiency provisions--be retained in 
conference.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
Senate Energy bill. I first want to commend and thank my colleagues, 
the Senators from New Mexico, for their hard work in getting this bill 
to the floor and ensuring fair debate on these important issues. They 
have worked tirelessly and in a bipartisan fashion to craft this bill 
and deserve our gratitude.
  This Nation needs an energy policy that steers us toward energy 
independence, innovation and conservation. Unfortunately, however, I 
believe the bill in the Senate does not embody a sound overall energy 
policy, and requires a no vote.
  The American people deserve an energy policy that truly reflects our 
national priorities and promotes energy independence. An effective 
energy policy must: reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil; address 
climate change in a meaningful way; promote energy efficiency through 
fuel efficiency; expand our use of renewable energy sources; and 
protect the United States Outer Continental Shelf from offshore 
drilling.
  Unfortunately, the bill we voted on today inadequately addresses 
these priorities.
  We need an aggressive strategy to wean this country off of its 
reliance on foreign sources of energy. But this bill does nothing to 
reduce this Nation's dependence on foreign oil, or provide any relief 
for the soaring prices at the gas pump. The bill includes an oil 
savings goal of only one million barrels per day by 2015, and does not 
even provide a mechanism for enforcement. This is unacceptable. It 
would take savings of three to five million barrels per day to truly 
reduce our energy dependence. I supported the amendment offered by 
Senator Cantwell to reduce imports of foreign oil by 40 percent over 
the next 20 years. Sadly, the majority of the Senate did not, and that 
amendment was not included in this bill.
  In addition, the bill includes an 8-billion gallon ethanol mandate 
that will actually increase gas prices for many Americans. The cost of 
living in New Jersey is already one of the highest in the Nation, and 
the ethanol mandate will essentially add a new gas tax for New Jersey's 
residents. Furthermore, although the bill includes a higher renewable 
fuel standard level, this will not necessarily lead to more energy 
security, as its proponents claim. Increasing these levels would not 
significantly reduce U.S. oil imports because each gallon of gasoline 
blended with ethanol to make gasohol has less energy in it than regular 
gasoline, requiring increased petroleum product imports to make up that 
energy loss. Producing ethanol also requires a significant amount of 
fossil fuel. Finally, a larger renewable fuel standard could force the 
expanded use of ethanol in areas, such as New Jersey, and hinder--
rather than help--state efforts to attain federal air quality 
standards.
  Instead of establishing a national ethanol mandate, we should reduce 
the Nation's consumption of oil. A simple and cost effective way of 
doing this, would be to raise CAFE standards. In fact, improving the 
fuel economy of passenger vehicles not only reduces our dependence on 
foreign oil, but cuts global warming emissions and saves consumers 
thousands of dollars annually at the gas pump. Americans currently 
consume a little over 20 million barrels of oil per day. Senator Durbin 
offered an amendment that would raise fuel economy standards from 27.5 
to 40 miles per gallon by 2017 for all passenger vehicles and include 
SUVs in the passenger vehicle category. The amendment would also 
increase the standards for pickup trucks and other nonpassenger 
vehicles from 21 miles per gallon to 27.5 miles per gallon. Raising 
these standards and closing the SUV loophole would save over 101 
billion gallons of oil by 2016.
  The Energy Information Administration projects that if we do nothing 
to raise CAFE standards, by 2020 Americans will be consuming 12 million 
barrels of oil per day for fuel use alone. If the Durbin amendment were 
passed, however, we would be saving 3 million barrels of oil per day or 
a reduction of 25 percent in gasoline consumption by the year 2020. 
Furthermore, if we had implemented the Durbin amendment in 2001, 
Americans would be saving $5 billion per year at the pump. This is an 
aggressive strategy that I feel is not only necessary, but long 
overdue.
  The Senate had an opportunity to make important choices with this 
bill, and if you do a cost-benefit analysis, it is clear the Senate has 
made many wrong choices. I supported stricter CAFE standards and more 
aggressive oil savings, yet these amendments were not included in the 
bill we voted on today.
  Instead, this bill does include a provision that I strongly opposed, 
the seismic inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf. I have been very 
clear about my opposition to any provision in this bill that will 
weaken the moratoria on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. As my 
colleagues know, I spent many hours on the Senate floor last week to 
ensure that no amendments were offered to weaken the moratoria. This 
step onto a slippery slope is only reemphasizing our dependency on oil 
and gas.
  It is important to note that New Jersey is a State that already does 
its part in supporting energy production and refining for the Nation. 
Along with traditional power plants, we have three nuclear power 
plants, support siting of an LNG terminal and are looking into 
alternative energy sources. And New Jersey is the East Coast hub for 
oil refining. New Jersey is doing its part. New Jersey recognizes the 
variety of ways to generate energy. It can be done without offshore 
drilling.
  Yet this bill includes a provision that would allow an inventory of 
all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer 
Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. It is a 
slippery slope toward drilling, which would devastate New Jersey's 
beautiful beaches as well as its coastal tourism industry, an industry 
that supports over 800,000 jobs and generates $5.5 billion in revenue. 
And the seismic explosions are themselves dangerous to the environment 
and our offshore fisheries.
  That is why I voted with my Florida colleagues and others to strike 
the inventory provision from the bill. But that amendment failed. That 
was the wrong choice. It makes no sense to sacrifice the economies and 
environmental sanctity of coastal States for what many energy analysts 
have said would not end the long-term trend of growing dependency on 
foreign oil. It is the wrong analysis, and the wrong decision and just 
one more example of how this Energy bill includes wrong choices.

[[Page 14448]]

  Another problem with the bill before us is that it fails to 
effectively address a crucial issue that is paramount to our health, 
our environment, our economy and our way of life--climate change. The 
science is increasingly clear that greenhouse gas emissions caused by 
human activity are changing the earth's climate. The rest of the 
industrialized world understands the danger of this problem. Unless 
Congress acts in a meaningful way, the effects of global warming may be 
devastating to the worldwide economy and environment. Recognition by 
the Senate that global warming is indeed a problem is a first step. 
However, we cannot stop here. I supported an amendment to ensure real, 
immediate action on global warming. This amendment would require a 
reduction in carbon dioxide emission levels to 2000 levels by the year 
2010. But, this important program is not included in this bill. This is 
a significant failure and misses the opportunity to address a problem 
that, without quick action, we will pass on to our children and 
grandchildren.
  Finally, the underlying bill gives the Federal Government too much 
authority over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals in their 
communities. I am very supportive of the proposed terminal in South 
Jersey, which is projected to provide energy to 4 to 5 million 
residences. Unfortunately, the State of Delaware has hampered the 
siting of this facility. These complications, however, do not justify 
ceding authority over New Jersey's choices about its energy supply to 
Washington. I am disappointed that the Senate failed to pass an 
amendment that would ensure States have authority over LNG terminal 
siting.
  As you can see, I have many concerns about this bill. But there are 
some provisions that are steps in the right direction. The Senate 
included an amendment, which I supported, that requires a 10 percent 
renewable portfolio standard. I am proud that New Jersey is one of the 
first States to adopt its own 20 percent portfolio standard, and I am 
pleased that the rest of the Nation will take a step to follow with 
this important effort to expand renewable energy sources. In addition, 
this bill includes important tax incentives that promote energy 
efficiency. I am especially pleased that I was able to secure 
provisions in the energy efficiency title that encourage the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development and the public housing authorities it 
oversees to increase energy efficiency in public housing projects.
  But these provisions are not enough to plug the weaknesses left in 
this bill. I voted this bill out of committee with the hopes that by 
bringing it to the Senate floor, my colleagues and I could greatly 
improve the bill. The committee markup was a fair and bipartisan 
process, and I was pleased to be a part of it. But if the goal is to 
create a comprehensive energy policy that will move this Nation in a 
direction of energy security and independence, then the bill we voted 
on today in the Senate will not achieve that goal. It is my hope that 
this bill will be improved in the conference committee, and I urge my 
colleagues to take these important issues into account as we move 
forward.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to say 
a few words about the Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6. While I did 
not support the bill for several reasons, I do acknowledge that the 
bill is, in many respects, better than the bill the Senate rejected in 
2003. I am pleased, for example, that the bill we are sending to 
conference does more to address the reliability of our electricity 
grid, contains a 10 percent renewable portfolio standard for 
electricity production, and does not include an unnecessary liability 
waiver for the MTBE industry.
  We all agree that reliable, affordable energy is critical to the 
economic well being of our Nation. And increasingly, our Nation's 
energy policy is central to our national security. As I considered how 
to vote on the energy bill, I asked myself three questions. First, 
would this bill take meaningful action to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil? Second, would the bill enhance homeland security? And 
third, is this $48 billion bill fiscally responsible and does it set 
the right priorities for our Nation?
  As for the first question, unfortunately, I find that this bill does 
not do nearly enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  Oil prices have recently soared to around $60 a barrel, a level that, 
even when adjusted for inflation, has not been seen in over 15 years. 
Imports of foreign oil are draining valuable economic resources out of 
our communities and Nation. The U.S. imports 4.5 billion barrels of oil 
per year. With prices up $20 a barrel over the past year, an increase 
that appears to be with us for the foreseeable future, we are 
experiencing an effective annual reduction in domestic income of $90 
billion. That is $90 billion that we could better invest in energy 
efficiency and renewable energy, as well as police, firefighters, 
workforce training, and education for our children.
  Over the next 10 years the world's daily energy demand will grow to 
nearly 100 million barrels. We will have to find an extra 50 million 
barrels of oil per day to meet that demand. The industry is already 
spending $200 billion a year to find oil, but even at that 
extraordinary level of investment, there are enormous difficulties in 
finding recoverable reserves to fill the gap between supply and demand. 
The United States has about 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. We 
simply cannot drill our way out of this crisis.
  Reducing our dependence on oil must be both a national energy and a 
national security priority. But that is not a high priority of this 
Energy bill. This bill fails to promote meaningful reductions in our 
oil dependence by casting aside a much-needed increase in CAFE 
standards for cars and by omitting Senator Cantwell's 40 percent oil 
savings amendment.
  According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, since 1975 the U.S. has 
doubled the economic activity wrung from each barrel of oil. Overall 
energy savings, worth about $365 billion in 2000 alone, are effectively 
the Nation's biggest and fastest-growing major energy source--
equivalent to three times our total oil imports. CAFE standards were a 
primary reason for these savings. We must make even greater strides in 
fuel efficiency if we want to move our country towards true energy 
independence.
  Gasoline consumption in the transportation sector represents about 44 
percent of total oil consumption in the United States each year. If one 
includes diesel fuel, that number jumps to 57 percent. To bring about 
any serious reduction in our dependence on foreign oil we must increase 
the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks through an increase in 
CAFE standards, as well as by promoting the use of hybrids and vehicles 
that use alternative fuels. In model year 2002, the average fuel 
economy for cars and light trucks was 20.4 miles per gallon--a 22-year 
low. Yet, if performance and weight had stayed constant since 1981, the 
average fuel economy would have improved 33 percent--enough to displace 
the amount of oil we import from the Persian Gulf 2.5 times over. Not 
only will raising CAFE standards improve our energy security, it will 
also ensure our economic security. China is putting in place fuel 
efficiency rules that will be significantly more stringent than those 
in the United States. The Chinese standards call for new cars, vans, 
and sport utility vehicles to get as much as two miles a gallon of fuel 
more in 2005 than the average required in the U.S. and about five miles 
more in 2008. And they plan to export these cars to the United States. 
We need to improve efficiency to remain competitive.
  For these reasons, I am an original cosponsor of S. 889, Senator 
Feinstein's bill to close the SUV loophole by gradually increasing fuel 
efficiency standards for SUVs to 27.5 miles per gallon--the same 
standard that now applies to passenger cars--by 2011. The legislation 
would also require that the average fuel economy of new vehicles 
purchased by the Federal Government be increased by three miles per 
gallon by 2008 and six miles per gallon by 2011. In addition, the bill 
would increase the weight range within which vehicles are bound by CAFE 
standards, making it harder for automotive manufacturers

[[Page 14449]]

to build SUVs too big to be regulated by CAFE standards. The 
legislation would save the United States 1 million barrels of oil a 
day; reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports by 10 percent; 
prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse 
gas and the biggest single cause of global warming--from entering the 
atmosphere each year; and save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds 
of dollars each year in gasoline costs. It is unfortunate that the 
Senate energy bill includes no provision to require increased CAFE 
standards so that we can make real progress in reducing our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  Moving to my second question: would this bill enhance our homeland 
security? Unfortunately, it would not.
  Consumption of natural gas is growing at a faster rate than for any 
other primary energy source and is growing in all sectors of the 
economy--families heat their homes with natural gas, businesses use 
natural gas to produce products, natural gas vehicles are becoming more 
common, and power producers generate cleaner energy with it. According 
to the Consumer Federation of America, since 2000, the toll of higher 
natural gas prices on consumers is an estimated $80 billion. Similar to 
oil, demand is growing faster than available supplies can be delivered 
and the tightening in supply is resulting in dramatic price volatility. 
One way to increase natural gas supply in the United States is through 
liquefied natural gas, known as LNG. Again, however, we would do well 
to learn from our lessons with oil. One-third of the world's proven 
reserves of natural gas are in the Middle East, nearly two-fifths are 
in Russia and its former satellites, and significant reserves exist in 
Nigeria and Algeria. Political stability and terrorism are very real 
threats to the reliability of natural gas from these countries.
  On the domestic front, the siting of liquefied natural gas, LNG, 
import terminals is an issue that has taken on critical importance for 
me and for the people of Rhode Island in recent months, as the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is now considering proposals by 
KeySpan Energy and Weaver's Cove Energy to establish LNG import 
terminals in Providence, RI and Fall River, MA, respectively.
  I recognize that natural gas is an important and growing component of 
New England and the Nation's energy supply, and that imported LNG 
offers a promising new supply source to complement our domestic natural 
gas supplies. In a post-September 11 world, however, we must consider 
the substantial safety and security risks associated with siting LNG 
marine terminals in urban communities and requiring LNG tankers to pass 
within close proximity to miles of densely populated coastline.
  That is the major problem with the current siting process and with 
the underlying bill before us. While States do have certain 
environmental permitting authorities delegated to them under Federal 
laws like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, States have no clear authority over the siting of LNG 
terminals in the one area that everyone is most concerned about: public 
safety and security.
  Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment that would have ensured 
that States have an authentic voice in the siting of LNG terminals by 
giving Governors the same authority to approve or disapprove onshore 
terminals that they now have over offshore terminals under the 
Deepwater Port Act. If a Governor has the right to say yes or no to an 
offshore LNG terminal, it only makes sense that he or she should have 
the same rights with respect to an LNG terminal located onshore or in 
State waters. The National Governors Association agreed and wrote in 
strong support of our amendment.
  I know that some of the opponents of this amendment say this is all 
about NIMBY, or ``Not in My Backyard,'' as if the issue is that our 
constituents would just rather not have to see these storage tanks and 
large vessels. But it is a much more serious and complicated matter 
than that.
  The Sandia National Laboratory released a report last December that 
said a terror attack on a tanker delivering LNG to a U.S. terminal 
could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings 
nearly a mile away. For the terminals proposed in New England, that 
means schools, libraries, and thousands of homes, all within the damage 
zone. We can argue about the odds of such an attack, but when new LNG 
terminals are already being developed nearby in the Canadian maritime 
provinces--an area with reliable pipeline access to New England--and 
the first U.S. offshore LNG facility recently began receiving 
deliveries, there is no justification for placing these terminals in 
the heart of our communities.
  I again want to emphasize that I recognize LNG's important role in 
the energy infrastructure of Rhode Island and the Nation, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to ensure reliable supplies of 
natural gas to our homes and businesses. I am disappointed that the 
Feinstein-Reed amendment was defeated, but our efforts have just begun. 
For now, I hope the 45 votes the amendment received will send a strong 
message to FERC that the agency should work more closely with Governors 
and the State environmental and first responder agencies that have 
firsthand knowledge of the geography and population of our States, so 
that we can bring more natural gas to our communities while minimizing 
the risk to our citizens.
  Finally, we must ask ourselves, is the $48 billion cost of this bill 
fiscally responsible given our growing national debt and cuts in 
funding for other priorities such as education, water infrastructure, 
and transit? For me, the answer is no.
  Over 11 years, this bill would provide $18.2 billion in energy tax 
incentives for electricity infrastructure, fossil fuels supply, energy 
efficiency, renewables, and vehicle and fuel incentives. I want to 
commend the Finance Committee for its work on the energy efficiency and 
renewable energy incentives in the bill. However, I am disappointed 
that the bill provides nearly $6 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, 
and coal, and in addition, provides tax credits for nuclear energy. 
These tax breaks are provided despite the fact that President Bush has 
repeatedly stated that we do not need tax breaks for the oil and gas 
industry given the high prices Americans are experiencing.
  Regrettably, this Energy bill also contains the Archer Daniels 
Midland ethanol mandate. In 2003, the United States consumed only 2.8 
billion gallons of ethanol. But starting in 2006, the Energy bill will 
require Americans to purchase 4 billion gallons of ethanol, then 8 
billion gallons by 2012, and then increasing amounts every year after 
2012 in perpetuity by a percentage equivalent to the proportion of 
ethanol in the entire U.S. gas supply. So in addition to the already 
high gas prices Americans are paying at the pump, they will now be 
charged a tax to unnecessarily subsidize the ethanol industry, which 
already benefits from an income tax credit of 51 cents per gallon of 
pure ethanol, as well as a 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported 
ethanol.
  The bill also provides loan guarantees for so-called innovative 
technologies, including nuclear power, a provision that would cost 
taxpayers $600 million. The legislation sets no limits on the number of 
projects, or the total principal that could be guaranteed for these 
speculative investments. As the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
points out, if a borrower defaults on a loan, the Department of Energy 
could take over a facility to recoup losses, or the Department could 
take over a loan and make payments on the loan for the borrower. To 
quote the CBO, ``Such payments could result in DOE effectively 
providing a direct loan with as much as a 100 percent subsidy rate--
essentially a grant--that could be used by the borrower to pay off its 
debt.'' Is this a responsible use of taxpayer dollars when we are 
dramatically cutting funding for education, clean water, and energy 
efficiency programs? In my opinion, the answer is no.
  I believe the American people deserve a better Energy bill from the 
Senate. They deserve a bill that takes seriously the need to reduce our 
dependency on foreign oil. They deserve a bill that

[[Page 14450]]

provides for both our national security and energy security. They 
deserve a bill that requires real reductions in the greenhouse gas 
emissions that cause global warming. They deserve a bill that reduces 
energy prices for consumers, not one that hands out unnecessary 
subsidies to industries. Unfortunately, if history is any indicator, 
this bill is going to get worse, not better, in conference with the 
House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to oppose the 
addition of MTBE liability waivers and any other onerous House 
provisions to the Energy bill. It is high time we gave the American 
people an Energy bill that deserves their full support.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that the Senate has once again 
produced an Energy bill that does not serve either the present or 
future energy needs of our Nation. The provisions in this bill will not 
make us less dependent on foreign oil, will not enhance the reliability 
of the Nation's electricity grid, will not effectively promote energy 
efficiency and technological innovation, will not reduce the price of 
energy to consumers over time, and will not address our significant 
contribution to the serious problem of global warming.
  While I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Energy 
Committee for the bipartisan process they have led throughout the 
debate, I cannot support the resulting bill. But I do want to 
acknowledge that compared to the last conference report on this issue, 
the measure before us is somewhat better in some respects and certainly 
more so than the recently passed House bill. For example, the Senate 
measure does include more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable 
technology, doesn't include an MTBE waiver or hand-outs to Hooters, and 
a few special interests were left behind, although not enough.
  However, when the price of gas reaches $3 a gallon, which some 
experts believe will occur within a year, and more manufacturing jobs 
are lost overseas due to soaring energy costs, and the next blackout 
occurs, and the wait lists for fuel-efficient cars grow even longer, 
and climatic changes increasingly affect American lives and 
livelihoods, the American public is surely going to judge that this 
Congress did not live up to the great challenge before it by passing a 
sound, far-reaching, national energy policy measure, despite the 
multiple years in the making. And, as we all know, Congress doesn't 
have any popularity points to squander at this time. But even more to 
the point is that we don't have the time to squander, now is the time 
we need to act to avoid disastrous economic and environmental 
consequences.
  I am not spinning a doomsday scenario here, most of my colleagues 
appreciate the uncomfortable fact that these are our present energy 
supply realities. That is why I believe a more appropriate title for 
this bill would be ``The Lost Energy and Economic Opportunity Act of 
2005.'' Opportunity lost because as a body we should have the vision 
and the political courage to craft national energy policy that 
addresses the serious energy problems before us with effective, 
identified solutions that put us on a new course--a more secure, 
reliable, and smarter course. Not the same tired path this bill treads, 
and spending an estimated $16 billion from the Federal Treasury to 
provide taxpayers' subsidies largely for wealthy energy producers and 
corporations.
  With the passage of this bill, we will have lost the historic 
opportunity to craft a national energy policy that relies on the market 
realities of high priced oil and gas instead of taxpayer subsidies to 
drive our country in the direction of energy efficiency, security, and 
independence, as well as global environmental stewardship. It doesn't 
make fiscal or common sense to provide billions of taxpayer subsidies 
to encourage the production of energy by companies that are already 
gaining tremendous riches at today's sky high oil and gas prices. But 
this bill does just that--it gives tens of billions of taxpayer dollars 
to the oil, gas, and coal industries. And if this was not sufficient, 
the bill provides an unlimited number of loan guarantees for the 
construction and operation of fossil fuel and nuclear projects far into 
the future. As such, no one can accurately assess how much this bill 
will end up costing American taxpayers. We can say with certainty that 
it is many times more expensive than the $6.7 billion that the 
Administration wanted and even much more costly than the House bill at 
$8 billion. The tax incentives alone in the Senate bill are estimated 
to be more than $14 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation. 
Remarkable generosity with scarce taxpayer funds.
  My colleagues supporting this bill contend that these taxpayer 
subsidies are necessary to increase domestic energy supplies and 
provide incentives for technological innovation. I believe that these 
subsidies largely amount to a multi-billion-dollar maintenance of the 
status quo which will only perpetuate and exacerbate our current 
national energy and environmental problems for the foreseeable future.
  Let me be clear. I understand the need to encourage the development 
and deployment of zero and low emission technologies. That is why 
Senator Lieberman and I added a comprehensive technology title to the 
Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act which we offered as an amendment 
last week. But the incentives provided in our legislation are different 
in many respects from those in the Energy bill.
  For example, we propose a cost-sharing program with industry for 
first-of-a-kind engineering designs of facilities using advanced coal 
gasification, nuclear, and solar technologies as well as large scale 
biofuel production. Subsequent users of the designs generated under the 
program would pay a ``royalty fee'' on a per facility basis which would 
be used to reimburse the overall costs of the program.
  Following the design phase, loans or loan guarantees would be allowed 
for the construction phase of the first facility utilizing advanced 
coal gasification, nuclear, solar, and large scale biofuel production 
technologies. These loans would be repaid at the end of the 
construction phase, and in the case of loan guarantees, the guarantees 
would terminate at the end of the construction phase. This is very 
different from the programs authorized under the base Energy bill which 
provides loan guarantees over the operational life of the facilities. 
The approach in the underlying bill leaves the taxpayers liable for a 
very long time, 30 years in some cases, as opposed to a construction 
period of maybe 5 years in our legislation. And in our bill, we 
envision all assistance would be funded through the revenues from the 
early auction of carbon allowances to industry rather than entirely 
from the taxpayers pockets as would be the case in the underlying bill.
  Instead of our approach, the American public is going to be saddled 
entirely with the expense of this bill, which is running on empty--
empty of new ideas--and further running up our deficit. The fuel we 
should be relying on to drive our national energy policy is American 
consumer demand. If we allowed consumer demand to drive our legislative 
actions, this bill would emphasize energy efficiency across all sectors 
of the economy and include a reasonable and progressive CAFE standard 
for SUVs and all other passenger vehicles. If it were up to American 
consumers, we wouldn't be imposing a meaningless 8 billion gallon 
ethanol mandate, but instead would be making it possible for people to 
obtain and operate their automobiles using clean and abundant biofuels 
that actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil and not just provide 
subsidies to the ethanol producers. If it were to the American public, 
we would not be repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, 
PUHCA, without replacing it with alternative protections for utility 
ratepayers, investors, and pension plans. Finally, if it were up to the 
American public, we would pass a bill that addresses global climate 
change: more than 75 percent of Americans believe that we need to 
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and participate with our allies and 
other countries in a united effort. And in the process of reducing 
emissions, we would also improve the

[[Page 14451]]

health of millions of Americans who suffer from asthma and other air 
quality-related conditions.
  If these kind of policies were to be found in this bill not only 
would it satisfy the majority of the American public but it would 
significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil while providing new 
jobs and financial benefits to the agricultural sector and a host of 
energy, technology, and service providers economy-wide. So why aren't 
we doing that in this bill? Why aren't we seizing the economic and 
environmental opportunities that are within our grasp, the available 
solutions to our current and future energy woes? There must be some 
good reason that we aren't giving the public what it wants but are 
giving special interests and rich corporations exactly what they want. 
I will leave that for the supporters of this bill to explain to the 
American public as we continue on our well-worn and convoluted energy 
path leading us no further than where we are right now. Only in the 
future, fuel prices will be higher, greenhouse gas emissions will be 
greater, and our economy, international relations, and environment will 
be in greater peril.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Senate 
energy bill that this body has passed today, on a resounding bipartisan 
vote of 85 to 12. For those of us on the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, this day has been long in coming. Today is another 
milestone in the effort to craft a new energy plan for America; 
legislation that has been swirling around Capitol Hill in one form or 
another for at least the last 4 years.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee for 
the skill and consideration they have shown in navigating a path 
forward for this legislation. It has taken a lot of work. But today's 
vote represents a concerted, bipartisan effort to find the compromises 
that can help move our nation forward on an energy strategy to meet the 
needs of a 21st century economy. The result has been a cleaner, more 
transparent process, and a cleaner energy plan for America.
  I will not stand before this body today and suggest that this 
legislation is the solution to all of the challenges we are facing--and 
will continue to face for decades to come--when it comes to our 
national energy security. There are provisions contained in this 
lengthy and complicated bill that I do not agree with; and there are 
areas where this legislation does not go nearly far enough, 
particularly when it comes to curbing our dangerous overdependence on 
foreign oil imports, and tackling the emerging threat of global climate 
change. However, I am supporting this legislation because it represents 
a modest improvement on the status quo; and because I believe that this 
legislation is the beginning--rather than the end--of the Senate's 
consideration of these issues.
  I have participated in this debate in the Energy Committee and on the 
Senate floor for the past 4 years, and I have listened intently to many 
of my colleagues and what they have had to say. I can tell you this: it 
seems to me that there is more agreement in this body today than at any 
other point in my memory as to the nature of the energy challenges we 
are facing as a nation, and the critical importance of addressing these 
problems if we want to ensure American competitiveness and economic 
security in the coming decades.
  Four years ago, I do not believe many of us were discussing the 
impact of foreign, state-owned oil companies on our energy security. 
Few of us had recognized the emergence of China and India and what 
those countries' growing thirst for petroleum could mean to the 
dynamics of world energy markets and the American economy. Many 
Senators were skeptical about the potential market transformation that 
could occur with new hybrid vehicle technologies. Four years ago, there 
was far less consensus about the promise of new biofuel technologies 
using an array of different crops and materials. These technologies are 
capable of transforming the U.S. renewable fuels business from a 
boutique industry dominated by corn-growers to a real, national 
industry capable of displacing significant amounts of imported 
petroleum.
  This Senate has come along way in four years--in thought, if not yet 
in deed. The fact the majority of Senators now recognize the need to 
address in a meaningful and binding way the threat of global climate 
change; and the fact that the majority of my colleagues now seem to 
recognize the perfect storm of economic and national security issues 
posed by our dependence on foreign oil are significant milestones. But 
I am disappointed that we do not yet have the same degree of unanimity 
on what to do about it.
  That is why this legislation--and the debate about this legislation's 
successes and failings--is just the beginning. Our national energy 
security is an issue with which this country and its leaders absolutely 
must continue to grapple. When it comes to our Nation's oil dependence, 
America can and must make more progress. We must acknowledge the 
realities of geology and the international marketplace. Given that the 
U.S. sits on just 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we 
cannot drill our way to energy independence. And when any policymaker 
looks at the distribution of where the rest of those oil reserves lie--
two-thirds of them in the Middle East--it becomes painfully obvious 
that the U.S. must step up and tackle this challenge head-on. Anything 
less jeopardizes our economic future and our national security.
  I fundamentally believe that securing our Nation's energy future is 
among the biggest challenge faced by our generation. It is a challenge 
by which future generations of Americans will measure us. We did not 
get the job done with this particular Energy bill when it comes to 
America's energy security and dependence on foreign oil. Nor did we 
finish the job when it comes to the issue of global climate change. So 
this year, next year and for the foreseeable future, this Senator will 
stand up and ask her colleagues to pay more than lip service to these 
issues. The spirited and thoughtful debate that has characterized our 
consideration of this bill must guide us as we move forward to tackle 
these challenges. I believe it can be done. It must be done. And this 
Senator stands ready to work with her colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to reach meaningful solutions to what are some of the most 
difficult economic security issues of our time.
  But as I said at the outset, I do believe that this legislation will 
move our Nation forward in a number of other important ways. A 
comprehensive Energy bill touches every sector of our economy. The 
nature of our existing energy infrastructure is complex and 
interdependent, yet regionally diverse. Moreover, a maze of 
interlocking Federal and State regulatory authorities guide the 
production and sale of energy supplies in this country. For all of 
these reasons, the task of crafting a ``comprehensive'' energy policy 
is a massive undertaking. But even as this legislation has failed to 
address certain issues to this Senator's satisfaction, we have taken a 
number of important steps forward.
  While we have not done nearly enough to address our economy's 
petroleum dependence--and hence, our dependence on foreign petroleum--
this bill does put in place the basics for creation of a robust, 
American biofuels industry that can someday displace significant 
portions of our energy imports. While agricultural producers across the 
U.S. have long touted the energy and economic security benefits of 
fostering a domestic biofuels production industry, this country has 
nevertheless lagged behind in developing the technologies that would 
make a national biofuels strategy a reality. For example, 90 percent of 
the ethanol production in the U.S. is derived from corn and is produced 
in just five Midwestern States. Meanwhile, other nations such as Brazil 
have taken the lead on producing biofuels from other crops, and in the 
process have diversified their economies and energy supplies, begun to 
minimize their dependence on foreign petroleum, and lowered prices for 
consumers.

[[Page 14452]]

  The key to growing this industry for the U.S. is investing in the 
demonstration and commercialization of new technologies that will make 
it possible to produce biofuels from a more diverse array of crops, 
including wheat straw and other biomass readily available in places 
like Washington State.
  The Senate Energy bill contains a number of provisions key to moving 
forward on a national biofuels strategy. Specifically, I was pleased to 
add a number of measures that will help spur biofuels production in the 
Pacific Northwest. Making ethanol and biodiesel from more diverse 
feedstocks--in more regions of the country--is essential to making 
biofuels a sustainable and cost-effective solution to our Nation's 
emerging energy needs.
  The Senate Energy bill contains a provision I authored to establish 
an ``Advanced Biofuel Technologies Program.'' The new program provides 
$550 million over 5 years to demonstrate technologies for production of 
ethanol and biodiesel. The measure directs the Secretary of Energy to 
work toward developing and demonstrating no fewer than four different 
conversion technologies for producing cellulosic-based ethanol; and 
five technologies for coproducing biodiesel and value-added 
bioproducts. In other words, it would provide Federal support for 
universities, private sector researchers and entrepreneurs who are 
striving to invent the next generation of biofuels technology, and help 
demonstrate them in real-world applications. The program also directs 
the Secretary to prioritize the demonstration of proj-
ects that will enhance the geographical diversity of alternative fuels 
production, and focus on developing technology related to feedstocks 
that represent 10 percent or less of our Nation's existing ethanol and 
biodiesel production--agricultural products like wheat straw, canola 
and mustard that are readily available in Washington State and 
throughout the Pacific Northwest.
  But in addition to pioneering the next generation of technologies, 
the Senate Energy bill would provide important market-based incentives 
for the very first producers of new sources of biofuel. The Senate bill 
is more ambitious that previous energy bills, as well as this year's 
House-passed version, in setting a target to produce 8 billion gallons 
of renewable fuel by 2012. But in addition, it contains my provision to 
more than double the incentives for refiners to use ethanol made from 
cellulosic sources such as wheat straw, and to ensure that by 2013 the 
U.S. is producing at least 250,000 gallons of ethanol from these new 
sources. These provisions are designed to help build a market for the 
very first producers of ethanol from nontraditional, noncorn sources--
an important way to help move the technology toward broader 
commercialization.
  The Senate Energy bill also recognizes that a national biofuels 
strategy is in the long-term energy security interests of the U.S., and 
provides Federal support for this emerging industry. First, the 
legislation authorizes Federal loan guarantees for the first cellulosic 
ethanol facilities that produce 15 million gallons of ethanol or more. 
Multiple sites in the Pacific Northwest are vying to be among the first 
in the U.S. to produce cellulosic ethanol. In addition, the bill would 
extend the biodiesel excise tax credit through 2010. Otherwise slated 
to expire in 2006, the tax credit is important to the very first 
refiners and distributors of biodiesel in Washington State, who are 
using this tax credit to lower costs to consumers at the pump. I 
believe all of these are valuable provisions that will contribute to 
our national energy security and put farmers across the country in the 
biofuels business.
  In addition to the renewable fuels standard, this legislation will 
diversify our Nation's energy supplies with the inclusion of a 
renewable portfolio standard that would require 10 percent of our 
electricity to come from sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. 
This legislation also extends the renewable production tax credit and 
the renewable energy production incentive program to support the drive 
to diversify our sources of electricity.
  I should also note that this legislation contains consensus 
reliability standards, to ensure mandatory rules are in place to govern 
operation of our electricity grid--an important provision that I have 
championed since I arrived in the Senate, and an effort that was 
initially begun by my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton.
  I was also pleased to have a role in crafting provisions to promote 
cutting-edge research and development in the area of ``smart grid'' 
technologies, which will build intelligence into our existing energy 
infrastructure in a way that improves both efficiency and reliability. 
This legislation also includes incentives for the adoption of existing 
technologies that can aid reliability such as ``smart meters,'' which 
give utilities and their customers real-time information about energy 
usage.
  This legislation also takes an important step to ensure that we are 
meeting the workforce needs of the electric utility sector. The 
National Science Foundation and energy industry interests have noted 
that as the baby boom sector of our workforce retires, a lack of 
training capacity will lead to a growing shortage of qualified 
engineers and innovators. Language that I worked to add to the bill in 
committee will ensure that the Energy and Labor Secretaries are closely 
monitoring our energy workforce, including the availability of power 
and transmission engineers, and will authorize the Federal Government 
to provide grants for appropriate workforce training investments. All 
of these reliability-related provisions will help ensure the stability 
of the electricity grid, which powers every sector of the American 
economy.
  While I am on the topic of electricity, I must mention some of what I 
believe are among the most notable achievements of this legislation. 
There are provisions of this bill that I have championed related to 
Enron and the market manipulation that occurred during the Western 
energy crisis, which I believe represent the first meaningful 
Congressional response to the massive public mugging that took place. 
Certainly, Congress enacted aggressive new accounting reforms in the 
wake of Enron's collapse. But we have not yet done the same when it 
comes to our Federal energy laws.
  I spoke at the outset about how the Senate has at least turned the 
corner in recognizing the problems posed by climate change and foreign 
oil dependence. Similarly, some of my colleagues may recall that, 4 
years ago, many at first didn't believe that any market manipulation 
had taken place in the West. But with the release of Enron's smoking 
gun memos outlining the manipulation schemes, additional audiotape 
evidence that has surfaced since then, the guilty pleas of energy 
traders who executed these schemes four years later, this Senate has 
reevaluated its position, based on facts that are now a matter of 
public record.
  I am optimistic about the notion that this Senate, in the foreseeable 
future, will get serious about addressing climate change and oil 
dependence because I have seen a sea change occur in the Senate on an 
energy issue before--in particular, on the issue of market manipulation 
and the need to protect our Nation's consumers against later-day 
Enrons. The Energy bill we passed today contained a number of important 
provisions to incorporate the lessons we learned from the Western 
energy crisis.
  First, it puts in place a broad statutory ban on all forms of market 
manipulation in our Nation's electricity and natural gas markets. 
Second, it gives Federal authorities the ability to ban traders and 
executives implicated in energy market manipulation schemes from 
participating in the utility industry.
  The Securities Exchange Commission has had this authority for decades 
and used it in some high-profile instances of individuals engaged in 
securities fraud. However, this authority does not currently exist in 
Federal energy law. Added unanimously as amendments during the Senate 
Energy Committee's markup of the bill, these provisions were inspired 
by recent court cases in which it is alleged that some of the same 
energy traders overheard on the

[[Page 14453]]

now-infamous Enron audiotapes have been implicated in subsequent market 
manipulation schemes in other regions of the country.
  Lastly, this legislation contains a provision of particular 
importance to my Washington State constituents. Section 1270 of this 
bill would prohibit a Federal bankruptcy court from forcing Washington 
State's Snohomish Public Utility District--PUD--and its customers to 
fork over another $122 million to Enron. Specifically, the provision 
prohibits the bankruptcy court from enforcing payments on power 
contracts that are unjust, unreasonable or contrary to the public 
interest. The provision was written to target manipulated power 
contracts between Enron and utilities in the West. The contracts were 
cancelled when the energy giant began its scandalous slide into 
bankruptcy. But once they were cancelled, Enron turned around and sued 
utilities for ``termination payments,'' seeking to collect profits on 
power that was never even delivered.
  While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--has been 
conducting its proceedings to provide remedies for the consumers harmed 
by market manipulation, Enron has nevertheless continued pursuing 
collection of these ``termination payments'' in bankruptcy court. In 
fact, the court has already ruled that other Enron victims--Nevada 
Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company--should have to pay 
these fees, which come to more than $330 million for the two Nevada 
utilities. The court went so far as to enjoin FERC from proceeding with 
its own specific inquiry into whether Enron is owed the termination 
payments in those cases.
  The provision included in this bill says very clearly to FERC, ``Do 
your job to protect consumers, and when you make a decision, that 
decision will stand.'' Interpreting our Nation's energy consumer 
protection laws is not the job of a bankruptcy judge. This 
responsibility lies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  I am aware that these provisions are in stark contrast to those 
included in the legislation passed by the House of Representatives. The 
House bill would ban only one type of manipulation scheme made infamous 
by Enron--roundtrip trading. It would do nothing to ban proven market 
manipulators from future employment in the energy business. And most 
inexplicably, it would actually give later-day Enrons a license to 
steal. It would lock in profits for would-be market manipulators under 
the guise of ``contract sanctity.'' I recognize that reconciling these 
issues with the House may be difficult. But when it comes to the deeds 
of Enron--and putting in place tough new laws to make sure such a wide-
ranging fraud is never again perpetrated against our Nation's 
consumers--I believe the Senate will have the American people firmly on 
our side.
  In addition to these very important provisions, I must also make a 
few comments on other matters of importance in this legislation's 
electricity title. I regret that during the course of the debate on 
this bill, there was not enough time to discuss more fully its 
treatment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act--PUHCA. It is 
important that this silence not be confused with disinterest. It is 
because of the consumer protections provisions included in the bill--
some that I have mentioned already--that this issue has not caused an 
uproar, as it has in the past.
  It was crucial to me that, in PUHCA's stead, this bill include the 
refinements and enhancements of FERC's merger review authority that 
were worked out by Senators Bingaman and Domenici. I must still state 
my profound uneasiness with the notion that we are repealing one of our 
Nation's fundamental consumer protection laws at a time when many of us 
are concerned about mergers and consolidation within the utility 
industry. And I remain concerned that we have not done enough to 
address the issue of cross-subsidization of unregulated affiliates by 
utilities that are owned by the same holding company.
  I ask my colleagues to remember: Enron was a company willing to turn 
a profit by any means necessary; but it was presented with a market and 
regulatory environment that presented innumerable opportunities for 
abuse. We have given FERC the tools in this bill to prevent those 
abuses; let's hope they take this responsibility seriously.
  The bill's repeal of PUHCA is predicted by some to usher in a new 
wave of utility mergers. Consolidation can be beneficial, but it can 
also foreclose competition, frustrate effective regulation and create 
inefficiencies. Let us hope that Federal and State regulators both take 
their responsibilities to protect consumers seriously.
  PUHCA repeal lifts diversification and investment bans that the 
leading financial rating agencies have determined were critical in 
protecting the financial health of utilities and preventing bad 
business investments. Let us hope that we don't regret this decision.
  Again, this bill requires steps to prevent cross-subsidization when 
utilities merge, but is silent on the need to prevent cross-
subsidization by those utilities that don't merge. Let us hope that 
consumers and independent competitors do not suffer from this decision.
  I sincerely hope history will prove this Senator's instincts and 
skepticism wrong on the topic of utility cross-subsidization and PUHCA 
repeal--because otherwise, it is American ratepayers and investors who 
will be paying the price. But as I said, it is the consumer protections 
in this bill today that have led me to view this as a reasonable 
compromise. In addition to the provisions I mentioned before, this 
legislation also includes improved language on market transparency, 
accountability standards for the Nation's Regional Transmission 
Organizations--RTOs--and the protection of transmission rights needed 
to serve consumers, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.
  Let me be perfectly clear: the provisions that I have mentioned, 
taken together, are the minimum needed in order to meet the needs of 
electric consumers. They were essential in earning the support of this 
Senator. Last Congress, one of the key factors that led to the defeat 
of the Energy bill was the failure of the conference report to protect 
electric consumers. While I believe we can and should do more, I 
commend both the Senators from New Mexico for their efforts. But their 
efforts will be wasted if the other body does not realize that these 
provisions are essential for final passage of an energy bill conference 
report.
  It is also important to note that the Senate legislation we have 
passed today avoids the gratuitous special interest deals in the House 
bill--such as giving groundwater polluting MTBE manufacturers a free 
ride on clean up liability. It moves forward without the rollbacks of 
the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act, 
and Safe Drinking Water Act that are included in the House legislation. 
The Senate has spoken out against these bad environmental policies and 
we stuck to those principles in this bill.
  We stuck to those principles and we worked across the aisle, in good 
faith at every turn. I hope the other body across the Capitol has paid 
some attention to this process. If leaders in the House are serious 
about delivering energy legislation to the President's desk for 
signature, then they will realize that a similar effort will be 
required during the conference on this legislation.
  Make no mistake: the Senate Energy bill is far from perfect. There 
are missed opportunities. There are provisions that I outright oppose, 
such as surveying for oil and gas areas on the Outer Continental Shelf 
that are protected by drilling moratoria, originally established by 
President George H.W. Bush. But there are many, many more provisions in 
this legislation that I wholeheartedly support.
  This bill positions the U.S. to make many of the right investments in 
energy research and development. It includes important measures to 
diversify both our domestic sources of biofuels and electricity. And it 
contains many important consumer protections for our Nation's energy 
ratepayers. In other words, the Senate Energy bill

[[Page 14454]]

contains many of the basics necessary for our Nation to start moving in 
the right direction. It is a modest step. Yet I believe we should take 
this step, if we are committed to moving our country--even more 
aggressively in the coming years--toward an energy policy that will 
sustain American competitiveness in a rapidly-evolving global economy.
  I thank my friends and colleagues who serve on the Senate Energy 
Committee, for the thoughtful and substantive consideration they gave a 
number of key aspects of this legislation. And again, my thanks to the 
chairman and ranking member for their leadership in navigating what 
were at times turbulent waters, with certain aspects of this bill. We 
will be counting on those navigational skills as this legislation moves 
toward conference with the House of Representatives.


                          domestic production

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I see that my good friend and 
colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa, has come to the floor. I want 
to thank Mr. Grassley for his hard work on the Energy Policy Tax 
Incentives Act of 2005. I commend my good friend and Senator Baucus for 
their efforts to complete this important section of the Energy bill.
  The Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 supports the development 
of energy production from renewable resources and complements the 
Energy bill that Senators Domenici and Bingaman have worked in a 
bipartisan fashion to put together. I agree with my colleagues that we 
must continue to seek alternative sources of energy; it is in the best 
interest of America.
  I would mention, however, that we must also continue to sustain 
domestic production of oil and gas. According to the National Petroleum 
Council's Natural Gas Study, a $10-billion-per-year investment over 20 
years will be needed in order to meet future natural gas needs. We 
cannot overlook the importance of developing our domestic oil and gas 
resources. Domestic production is a critical first step toward energy 
independence while alternative sources are more fully developed. I ask 
my colleague from Iowa if he would agree with me that U.S. imports of 
foreign energy are at unacceptable levels, and the need to develop our 
domestic resources is an important step toward energy independence.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I say to my colleague from Texas that I do agree that 
our dependence upon foreign sources of energy is dangerously high. It 
is a threat to our economic stability and national security. We cannot 
continue to rely on foreign imports for 60 percent of our supplies. We 
must utilize available domestic resources, and I believe the Energy 
bill before the Senate is a good step forward.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Finance Committee chairman. A central 
goal of the Energy bill is to enhance the production of U.S. energy 
sources, including oil and natural gas, and thus allow us to reduce our 
reliance on imported energy. To do that we need to make domestic oil 
and gas exploration projects cost competitive with those abroad. 
Allowing geological and geophysical expenditures to be amortized over 2 
years will help make U.S. projects more economical by reducing the 
administrative cost burdens to both taxpayers and the IRS. It will 
especially help small operators take more risks to find new sources of 
oil and gas. This provision has been in every Energy bill--House and 
Senate--over the past several years. It has enjoyed bipartisan support 
because it makes sense. These expenditures are similar to research and 
development expenditures paid by other industries. Research and 
development expenses are either currently expensed or they receive a 
tax credit. Shorter amortization of geological and geophysical 
expenditures, while not as generous a tax treatment as expensing or a 
credit, would help to equalize the tax treatment of similar 
expenditures for all industries.
  I would also raise the importance of similar tax treatment of delay 
rental payments. Congress needs to pass legislation to clarify that 
delay rental payments can be amortized over 2 years to enhance and 
preserve domestic oil and gas production. This is important for 
developers who cannot afford to run continuous operations on the 
properties they hold. The current uncertainty of how these costs are to 
be treated has led to costly litigation; prompt clarification will 
eliminate needless administrative burdens on taxpayers and the Internal 
Revenue Service.
  Unfortunately, these two provisions were not included in the Senate 
Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. They are both important 
provisions for a comprehensive Energy bill. I would ask my colleague if 
he would work with me to see that they are included in the final 
conference package.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I say to my colleague that I understand the importance 
of these provisions in a comprehensive Energy bill. I have supported 
these in the past and included them in our bill in the 108th Congress. 
I agree that sensible tax treatment that will promote the development 
of domestic oil and gas sources should be a part of the final bill. As 
we move forward to conference, we will work to include these two 
important provisions.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to thank Senator Grassley for his 
consideration and willingness to work with me.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. With its passage, America will begin to declare its 
independence from foreign sources of energy.
  A strong energy policy is crucial to America's economic security and 
national security. We must become less dependent on foreign sources of 
energy.
  In 1985, 75 percent of the crude oil used in American refineries was 
domestically produced. Only about 25 percent came from beyond our 
borders. But today, those proportions have been turned upside down: 
Only about 35 percent of crude oil used here is produced at home, and 
65 percent is imported from foreign countries.
  That precarious balance leaves our Nation's energy needs, and even 
our Nation's economic strength, in the hands of others. America can do 
better. Four years of debate is enough: I urge this Senate to pass this 
much-needed energy bill now.
  Kentucky has not escaped the ill effects of America's energy needs. 
Commercial natural gas prices in Kentucky rose by 53 percent from 2000 
to 2004. Gasoline prices in the Commonwealth, and throughout the entire 
Midwest region of the United States, have risen by 86 percent since 
2002. The same gallon of gas that cost $1.13 then costs Kentuckians a 
whopping $2.11 today. America's lack of a strong, focused energy policy 
has imposed a tax on all Kentucky drivers.
  This bill will provide that strong, focused energy policy. It will 
not make gasoline prices drop overnight. But it includes some simple, 
smart provisions that will provide cheaper, safer, and more plentiful 
energy for generations to come.
  Passing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will provide $2.9 billion in 
incentives for the development of clean coal technology and generation. 
America contains enough coal to meet our needs for the next 250 years, 
and Kentucky ranks third among the States in coal production. Coal 
provides over 50 percent of the electricity in America, and 97 percent 
of Kentucky's. We must take full advantage of such a cheap, abundant 
resource while also making sure we protect the environment.
  This bill will do that. It provides money to research technologies 
that will remove nearly all pollutants from coal-fired power plants. We 
will be able to continue using coal in an environmentally friendly way. 
That will benefit Kentucky, and America. The bill also includes $1.4 
billion in incentives for increased domestic oil and gas production. 
America hasn't seen a single new oil refinery since 1976. We need to 
build more now, and we can do so in an environmentally sensitive way.
  The bill includes $7.9 billion for the development of alternative 
fuels. We can unleash the American genius on creating or refining new 
and better sources of energy for the future, such as hydrogen, ethanol, 
and biodiesel.

[[Page 14455]]

One day, automobiles can run on hydrogen instead of gasoline--and 
instead of exhaust fumes, they would emit pure water. Ethanol, made 
from corn, can be mixed with gasoline to make a cleaner, more efficient 
fuel. Increased production of biodiesel would further reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  This bill also provides $278 million for more nuclear power 
facilities. Nuclear power is produced entirely here in America, and can 
create vast quantities of electricity. Nations such as France have long 
since realized the benefits of nuclear power. It is time America did 
the same. Nuclear power is safe and smart. It should be a major source 
of America's energy policy in the 21st century.
  Passage of this bill will also provide money for increased energy 
efficiency and conservation, and a renewable fuels standard that will 
increase our amount of renewable fuel in the fuel supply to 8 billion 
gallons by 2012.
  It is time America stopped outsourcing its energy production. The 
problems we face are simple to grasp--so simple that it is a wonder 
that Congress has waited this long to act. We must continue to use our 
primary source of energy, coal, while being sure to do so using 
environmentally safe technology. We must increase domestic oil and gas 
production, also using environmentally safe technology. We must develop 
cheap, safe, and clean alternative energy sources including nuclear 
energy. And we must increase energy efficiency and conservation.
  American know-how has made us the economic envy of the world. We can 
lead the way in technologically advanced methods to take great care 
with our environment, while still meeting our energy needs, as well. 
This bill will accomplish these goals.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on final passage 
of the Energy bill. I want to applaud my fellow Senators for their hard 
work and cooperation. Senator Pete Domenici deserves special 
recognition. Senator Domenici's expertise on energy issues is 
unparalleled in the United States Senate, as he has demonstrated for a 
number of years on both the Energy Committee and the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. His determination to 
produce a comprehensive national energy policy, and his hard work with 
his ranking member, Senator Bingaman, as well as the other members of 
his committee, is the reason why we stand here, today, on the cusp of 
final passage of a balanced, bipartisan energy bill. I congratulate 
Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman. I am confident that they will 
continue to work together in conference to deliver a strong Energy bill 
that will provide the clean, affordable energy we need to keep America 
moving forward.
  Anyone who has filled a tank of gas recently, or paid an electric 
bill, knows that we've reached a crisis point. Energy prices are 
skyrocketing. Suddenly, instead of the lowest natural gas prices in the 
industrialized world, we have the highest. Because of high natural gas 
prices, manufacturing and chemical jobs are moving overseas. Farmers 
are taking a pay cut. Consumers are paying too much to heat and cool 
their homes. Communities across the country are suffering. And as many 
as 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost because of soaring 
prices. All the while, we have grown dangerously reliant on foreign 
sources of energy. And some of those foreign sources do not have 
America's best interests at heart.
  In the 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. produced almost as much oil as 
we consumed. Imports were relatively small. But since then, U.S. oil 
production has been on the decline, while consumption has steadily 
increased. As a result, we've become more and more dependent on 
imported oil.
  As we remember all too well, in the early 1970's, large oil exporters 
in the Middle East adopted an oil embargo against many Western 
countries. This marked the first time that oil was used as a political 
weapon. At the time, the U.S. imported 35 percent of our oil needs. 
Since then, we have become much more dependent on foreign sources of 
oil and natural gas. We are more vulnerable than ever to the use of 
energy as a political weapon.
  In addition, many non-democratic countries and others maintain their 
hold on power through the redistribution of oil revenues. We see this 
happening in Venezuela. We currently import over one million barrels of 
oil a day from Venezuela. Meanwhile, its president, Hugo Chavez, 
actively opposes the United States, supports rogue states such as Cuba, 
and is working to destabilize Latin America. President Chavez maintains 
his political support with the aid of Venezuela's oil revenues. These 
revenues have also given him the ability to purchase arms and play a 
major role on the international stage.
  These dynamics are equally evident for energy suppliers in the Middle 
East. President Bush and many of my colleagues here in the Senate have 
correctly argued that the spread of democracy, human rights, and the 
rule of law is essential for peace and stability, and for victory in 
the War on Terrorism. But regimes in the Middle East have been able to 
use their oil revenues to hang on to power and maintain non-democratic 
political systems. As a result, the conditions that breed hatred, 
violence, and terrorism often go unaddressed, and the problems of 
terrorism persist.
  Passing the energy bill today will be a major step forward in 
addressing these serious national security challenges. It will also be 
a major step forward for our economic productivity and prosperity. The 
Energy bill promises to deliver exciting new technologies. Hydrogen 
fuel cells are one example. If just 20 percent of cars used fuel cell 
technology, we could cut oil imports by 1.5 million barrels every day.
  The Senate Energy bill authorizes $3.7 billion over 5 years to 
support hydrogen and fuel-cell research, as well as the infrastructure 
we need to move toward this goal.
  Last week, Senator Hatch and I had the opportunity to attend a 
hydrogen car demonstration here at the Capitol. The cars were stylish. 
They drove well. The technology is very promising. Hybrid cars are 
already gaining in popularity. Just this past week, Nissan announced 
that its first hybrid vehicle will be built at the Smyrna plant in 
Tennessee. This is one example of how technology can simultaneously 
promote conservation and efficiency, and boost the manufacturing 
sector.
  In addition, the Energy bill's conservation and energy efficiency 
provisions far exceed those of other energy bills considered by the 
Congress in recent years.
  According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 
the Senate Energy bill will save 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 
by 2020, equivalent to the current annual consumption of the whole 
state of New York. It will reduce peak electric demand by 50,000 
megawatts by 2020, the equivalent of 170 new power plants. And it will 
reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by the year 
2015.
  It encourages the use of home-grown renewable fuels such as ethanol 
and biodiesel, as well as wind and solar and geothermal energy. It 
provides incentives to facilitate the development of cutting edge 
technologies like coal gasification and advanced nuclear plants, which 
will produce clean, low-carbon energy to help address the issue of 
global climate change. And it will modernize and expand our Nation's 
electricity grid to enhance reliability and help prevent future 
blackouts.
  The Senate energy bill will help us both conserve more energy, and 
produce more energy. It will also help produce more jobs. It is 
estimated that the energy bill will save over two million jobs and 
create hundreds of thousands more. The ethanol provision, for example, 
is expected to generate 230,000 new jobs over the next 7 years. 
Incentives for wind generated energy are expected to create another 
100,000 jobs in the next 2. The investment in clean coal technology 
will create 62,1000 jobs, and 40,000 new jobs in the solar industry 
will come on line. These are good jobs, well paying, and right here at 
home.
  The energy bill is good for America, It will move our country toward 
a

[[Page 14456]]

more reliable supply of clean, affordable energy. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this comprehensive, forward leaning plan. Casting a vote 
for the Energy bill is a vote for a safer and more secure America.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is so much negative written in the 
press about all the infighting that goes on in the Senate, how we don't 
work together. We work together on a lot of things. We don't get much 
appreciation from the public for that because they see all the negative 
that the press conjures up. But here is an example of two Senators, 
both very experienced, both from the same State, who are in positions 
of prominence in that very important committee that brought the Energy 
bill here. They worked together.
  They had meetings where Senator Bingaman met with Republicans, 
Senator Domenici met with Democrats, and they crafted this bill. It 
wasn't a perfect bill, but there is not anything we do around here that 
is perfect. We did improve it and we had the opportunity to try to 
improve it even more. It was a free debate. And to indicate there was 
enough time on the debate, the cloture vote was overwhelming.
  Mr. President, I hope as we proceed through the conference process on 
this--and as the distinguished majority leader knows, we have set the 
example of how a conference should be conducted with the highway bill--
we are going to move forward on this and do everything we can in 
conference to sustain and uphold the position of the Senate.
  This is a good bill. I commend and applaud the two managers, Senator 
Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for doing an outstanding job and setting 
the example of what should be the future of all bills that come before 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), are absent attending 
a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--12

     Corzine
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Martinez
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Schumer
     Sununu
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Dodd
     Lieberman
     Sessions
  The bill (H.R. 6), as amended was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUNNING. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________