[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19075-19108]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Energy 
bill now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 6, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 6, an act to ensure 
     jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable 
     energy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask, is the bill under 
controlled time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the leader, I am going to ask consent 
regarding the stacking of votes. It has not been done. I ask unanimous 
consent that we now resume consideration of the energy conference 
report--which is the regular order--for the final remarks; I further 
ask consent that following that 30-minute period, the Senate proceed to 
votes in relation to the Interior conference report, Legislative Branch 
conference report, and the two votes in relation to the Energy 
conference report, as provided under the order, with 2 minutes equally 
divided between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have some remarks to make, about 10 
minutes of remarks. I want to commend Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan 
for their work on the Interior appropriations bill. When might I make 
those remarks?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, there is a 
unanimous consent agreement here that has the time allotted until we 
are finished with the Energy bill, and the votes thereon. That will not 
be a long time. But everybody knows we have 30 minutes right now for 
the Energy bill, and after that we will commence voting on three bills 
that are before us. I would think the Senate would want to stay to that 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, the Senator from 
West Virginia was granted a unanimous consent order that he would have 
5 minutes before the Interior conference report was voted on, which 
will take place after the 30 minutes allocated for final debate on H.R. 
6.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Please. Surely.
  Mr. BYRD. May I make a further inquiry? Then, I am correct in 
understanding the Chair to say that I will have 5 minutes prior to the 
vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. That vote will be on what?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Interior conference report.
  Mr. BYRD. The Interior conference report.
  Mr. President, with the indulgence of the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico, I ask unanimous consent that at that time I have 10 minutes 
rather than 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I see Senator Bingaman in the Chamber. 
He is going to proceed, first, with the allocation of some of the time 
on his side of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Nelson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member, Senator Domenici and Senator 
Bingaman. They made a statement on the floor of the Senate in a 
colloquy with this Senator when the Energy bill was on the floor, and 
those two Senators kept their word. It had to do with drilling off the 
coast of Florida. I have said to those Senators how much I appreciate 
what they, in fact, have done, under considerable pressure in the 
conference committee.
  I want them to know personally how appreciative I am that they held 
fast and prohibited, in the conference committee, for an issue to be 
injected that was neither in the House bill nor the Senate bill that 
would cause the drilling off the coast of Florida.
  Why is this important to us? This Senator has made this statement 
many times, but there is a new wrinkle that I wanted to explain to the 
Senate, not having to do with geology that shows that there is not much 
oil and gas off of Florida, not having to do with the delicate 
ecosystem, not having to do with the $50 billion-a-year tourism 
industry that depends on pristine beaches, but a reason for the 
preparation of our U.S. military in a time when we are at war.
  We have these ranges that are off the coast of Florida. Is it any 
wonder that, in fact, when Vieques was shut down off the coast of 
Puerto Rico, they sent most of that training off of the Gulf of Mexico, 
off the coast of Florida, because of this Joint Gulf Range Complex. It 
is joint with all branches of Government. It involves land-, sea-, and 
air-coordinated training. If drilling were allowed in what is known as 
lease sale 181, that is what would happen. Smack-dab in the middle of 
that restricted airspace, that training area that is 180,000 square 
miles in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Smack-dab in the middle of it 
would be the drilling for oil and gas. This portion in red was already 
agreed to back in 2001. This portion in the red hatch is the additional 
4 million acres that would be added smack-dab in the middle of our 
military training complex.
  The significance of it is that it has 724 square miles of additional 
land range. It has 3,200 square miles of airspace over adjacent land 
area. It has 17 miles of Government shoreline, with connected 
prohibited and restricted water areas. The combination of air, land, 
and water is the best location for the United States for extremely 
long-range precision weapons testing, such as the high-performance 
combat aircraft live-fire testing and training and large-scale complex 
joint training exercises and experimentation.
  Given the thrust of DOD's recent BRAC recommendations, there will be 
more testing, training, and operations in the eastern Gulf, not less. 
So oil drilling in the eastern Gulf, as proposed by the administration, 
is the greatest encroachment threat to the Nation's largest 
unrestricted air and sea space for weapons testing and combat training.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Oil drilling is not compatible with weapons 
testing and combat training. Military leaders have been fighting this 
for years. Yet here we go again. The encroachment this time is even 
more serious because we are at war. This Senator, on behalf of the 
people of Florida--and, I hope, on behalf of the U.S. military 
establishment--will continue to oppose this. I thank the chairman and 
the ranking member for their holding fast in the conference committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, to explain his motion.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I 
have a number of concerns about the

[[Page 19076]]

conference report we debated last night and that we will vote on today. 
I intend to raise a point of order that it violates the Budget Act. I 
do, however, want to recognize the hard work that Chairman Domenici and 
Ranking Member Bingaman have put into this process. We all know that 
they have spent many long days and late nights to reach this point. The 
bipartisan manner in which they work is a definite improvement over 
previous Energy bills. I applaud their efforts.
  Mr. President, Energy policy is an important issue for America and 
one which I can tell you 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 importance of ensuring adequate energy 
supplies while protecting the environment, the necessity for 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, the conference report we consider today does not achieve the 
correct balance on several important issues, which is why I have to 
oppose it.
  I have four fundamental concerns. This bill digs us deeper into a 
budget black hole. It fails to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. 
It rolls back important consumer protections. And finally, it 
undermines some of the fundamental environmental laws that our citizens 
rely upon.
  First, Mr. President, the costs of this conference report are 
staggering. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment 
will increase direct spending by $2.2 billion between 2006 and 2010, 
and by $1.6 billion between 2006 and 2015. Additionally, the CBO and 
the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that this bill will reduce 
revenues by $7.9 billion between 2005 and 2010 and by $12.3 billion 
from 2005 to 2015. On top of the direct spending, the conference report 
authorizes more than $66 billion in Federal spending, according to the 
watchdog groups The National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common 
Sense, and Citizens Against Government Waste. Our Nation's budget 
position obviously has deteriorated significantly over the past few 
years, in large part because of the massive tax cuts that were enacted, 
and 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 simply means that we have to be sure 
that the bills we pass are paid for. To do otherwise is to simply dig 
our deficit hole even deeper, thus adding to the massive debt already 
facing our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, second, the conference report we consider today will 
do nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. I cannot return to 
my home State of Wisconsin this weekend and say that I participated in 
a rushed effort to accept a 1,700-plus page conference report that will 
not do a thing to increase our oil independence. The conference did not 
accept the 10-percent renewable portfolio standard passed by the 
Senate, nor did it accept an amendment instructing the President to 
develop a plan to reduce U.S. oil dependence by 1 million barrels per 
day by 2015. I supported efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil when the Senate debated its bill, and I am extremely disappointed 
that the conference committee could not accept a reduction of 1 million 
barrels per day through 2015.
  Third, the bill rolls back important consumer protections. The 
conference committee retained repeal of the pro-consumer Public Utility 
Holding Company Act, important New Deal-era legislation which has 
protected electricity consumers. My State of Wisconsin is acutely 
interested and concerned about the repeal of PUHCA and about ongoing 
abuses involving the unregulated corporate affiliates of regulated 
utilities. In addition to hearing from Wisconsinites, I have heard from 
contractors and other small businesses across the Nation that have been 
harmed by this unfair competition by affiliates of public utilities. I 
must say that I don't understand how we can give the nuclear industry 
loan guarantees and over $2 billion in risk insurance, but we can't 
even give small businesses the assurance that unregulated affiliates of 
public utilities will not unfairly outcompete them.
  I do, however, recognize the efforts of the chairman and the ranking 
member to protect language providing the Federal Government more 
oversight of utility mergers, which is important and I support. I am 
grateful for their willingness to further look into my concerns on 
unfair competition by public utility affiliates.
  Fourth and finally, Mr. President, the energy conference report 
includes provisions that significantly weaken our commitment to the 
environment and to the health of U.S. citizens. Section 328 of the 
Energy conference report weakens the Clean Water Act by exempting 
certain oil and gas industry activities from compliance with both phase 
1 and phase 2 storm water programs and, in the process, rolls back 15 
years of protection. This is not an insignificant issue. Storm water 
runoff is a leading cause of impairment to our streams, rivers, and 
lakes.
  The bill also exempts hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, and by doing so, risks contaminating drinking water 
supplies. Over 95 percent of Wisconsin communities and about 75 percent 
of Wisconsin residents rely on groundwater for their supply of drinking 
water. Nationally, approximately half of the U.S. population obtains 
its drinking water from underground water sources, according to the 
Government Accountability Office. Wisconsin citizens and all U.S. 
citizens deserve more than exemptions that could threaten the water 
they drink.
  There are provisions of the bill that I fully support, and I am 
pleased that the conference committee included, but I can't support 
this conference report. According to estimates by the Congressional 
Budget Office, the Energy bill conference report includes direct 
spending of more than $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 period, exceeding 
the amount allocated by the budget resolution. I hope my colleagues 
will note this and will join me in sustaining a budget point of order.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending conference 
report violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point of order must come at the 
conclusion of debate.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will defer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has the Senator concluded?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I assume that Senator Bingaman has another person he 
would like to yield to. I will yield to one of his, Senator Cantwell or 
Senator Salazar.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ranking member has 2 minutes and 2 
seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In light of that, I know there are other Members, 
particularly on the Democratic side, who wish to speak. I believe 
Senator Domenici has some time to provide.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard 
work on this important legislation. We are here to talk about passing 
an Energy bill that is not a complete answer to all our energy needs. 
This is not the end of discussion about energy independence and getting 
off our overdependence on foreign oil, but it is an important first 
step. My colleagues need to understand that the provisions in this bill 
are nuts-and-bolts important for our energy economy, moving forward. As 
a Senator who supports this legislation, there are certain 
technologies, certain investments in this

[[Page 19077]]

legislation that I hope will win the day and will help us build a 
different kind of energy economy, based on newer technologies and 
energy supplies than the ones we have today. But this bill represents a 
compromise that was forged in the Senate and was fought hard for by my 
colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, when they went to 
conference.
  I am proud that it has an extension of renewable production tax 
credits so that our utilities can continue to invest in even more 
renewable energy; that for the first time it has a renewable clean 
energy bond section, so that local governments and public power can 
make greater investments in renewable energy; that it has an extension 
of the renewable energy production incentive program for public power; 
that there are efficiency provisions in the bill for appliances and 
other types of standards that will save 3.5 quads of energy.
  That is the same as building 85 powerplants. It has a hybrid vehicle 
incentive provision. It has a biodiesel incentive program. It 
reinstates the oil spill liability trust fund, which was going broke 
and which helps us clean up oil pollution, and taxes those who are the 
polluters. It has research on the smart grid technology that is going 
to get us more efficiency in our transmission system, and it has 
incremental steps to push the States toward better standards on net 
metering. For the Northwest, the electricity title in this legislation 
is clearly a victory, and I would say the efficiency title in this bill 
is also a victory.
  We are moving closer to the key tools we need to upgrade our 
transmission system. We will have many more debates about what this 
body can do, though, to continue to diversify off of foreign oil. But 
we should take the step today to secure that transmission system and 
get reliability standards in place, something this body has debated now 
for more than 5 years. After a Western blackout, after a New York 
blackout, after people in Ohio and Michigan have been affected, the 
least we can do is push this legislation to improve the security and 
reliability of our electricity grid.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation as a first step, a 
short stroke of success, and get about going back to the broader 
decisions we need to make truly start moving in the direction toward 
energy independence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I seek 5 minutes under the majority time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority time remaining is 11 minutes 44 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it not correct that the point of order is going to 
be made? Can that point of order be made so the Senator will not have 
to wait? Can it be made just before the vote on the Energy bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By consent, it can be made now.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Otherwise it will be made then?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator can make it just before the Energy bill 
vote and we have 2 minutes on each side then. So the Senator will not 
have to wait now on that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I appreciate that and I intend to make that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to support this Energy 
bill. I heard my colleague from Washington State speak beautifully and 
passionately about many of the important aspects of this bill. There 
are Members who can come to this floor and pick out one or two things 
they had hoped to get in that did not make it. We had a lot of 
arguments about this bill, a lot of debate, but overall it is very 
balanced legislation. It does look to the future, as well as holding on 
to some of the things in the past that have served us well.
  It seeks to increase independence of the United States of America so 
we can produce more energy on our shore, under our control, to not only 
help boost our economy, make our industries more competitive, but most 
importantly make this Nation more secure when it comes to international 
involvements. Americans want lower prices at the pump, but they want to 
know that this Congress is taking action to make them more secure 
nationally. By being more self-reliant, we can.
  Now, yes, we have to open up our shores to liquefied natural gas 
because our price is going through the roof, and unless we increase 
supply substantially and rather quickly, that price will remain high. 
It will put almost every industry in this country at a very serious 
disadvantage for international competition.
  As Senator Cantwell stated, it does give new protections for 
consumers from market manipulation. Senator Dorgan has led the fight 
with regard to hydrogen, with Senator Bingaman's help. It has opened up 
new frontiers for that. We have opened up new frontiers for renewable 
energy sources. As a Senator from an oil-and-gas-producing State, we do 
need to get beyond petroleum and this bill is helping us to do that.
  Under Senator Domenici's leadership, we are expanding in an 
extraordinary way the nuclear industry, which is going to help Japan, 
France, and others who have been leading the way. It is time for 
America to get with the program.
  In my last 1 minute, let me compliment these leaders. We have not had 
an energy bill for 13 years. For 5 years, we have literally been 
laboring mightily to get a bill. Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, 
Chairman Barton, and Mr. Dingell, ``the big four'' as they have been 
called, have worked tirelessly, their staffs have worked tirelessly, 
and I might say with the patience of Job. This bill is balanced because 
these two leaders said they were going to build a bill together for the 
future of our country. As a Senator on that committee, I am so proud of 
the honesty in which they built this bill, the openness in which they 
built this bill, and the fact that no deals, to my knowledge, were cut 
behind closed doors. It was all open and actually on television so 
people could see the results of this work.
  I commend that process to the Senate and the whole Congress and thank 
them for their extraordinary leadership and thank them, too, on behalf 
of the people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast States for recognizing 
the contribution we have made of offshore oil and gas drilling and to 
get a very robust coastal impact assistance program that is going to 
mean a great deal to us and to the wetlands of America.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
junior Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy 
bill. I start first by congratulating my colleagues, the two Senators 
from New Mexico, the Land of Enchantment, Mr. Domenici and Mr. 
Bingaman, for their leadership in helping us get together what has been 
a true bipartisan effort. I commend them both for the process as well 
as for the end result of this legislation.
  As I look at this legislation, it seems to me what we are embracing 
today is a vision for energy independence. I think Democrats and 
Republicans all agree what we need to do is to get to a point where 
this country gets rid of its overdependence on foreign oil. We need to 
do that for national security reasons, we need to do that for economic 
reasons for our country, and we also need to do it for environmental 
reasons.

[[Page 19078]]

  From my point of view, this legislation is based on four 
cornerstones. One of those cornerstones is conservation and efficiency. 
There are more important measures in this bill that deal with 
conservation and efficiency. It is a new ethic for the 21st century. 
Secondly, embracing renewable energies from the ethanol provisions to 
dealing with the development of cellulosic ethanol, this bill gets us 
on the right direction where America can grow its way toward energy 
independence. Third, technology, research and development, we have lots 
of resources in America we can use to make sure we are having the 
energy we need for our country. The new technology that includes coal 
gasification and other kinds of technologies will help us move in that 
direction. And finally, balanced development, we need to continue to 
develop our natural resources in this country.
  So from my point of view, this bill is a good bill and is moving us 
in the right direction. It is not a perfect bill and there are aspects 
of this bill some of us advocated for that we hoped would have been a 
part of this bill, but they are issues we can continue to work on. We 
can use this as a foundation from which to build. There is the issue of 
the renewable portfolio standard which was adopted by this Senate and 
we need to move forward continuing to try to address that issue in the 
way it has been addressed in my State. Finally, the issue of global 
warming and how we deal with that issue in the future is very 
important.
  With that, again I commend the Senators from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici 
and Mr. Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Obama be given 2 minutes and it not be included in the majority time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator from 
Illinois being granted 2 additional minutes beyond the time originally 
granted to both sides?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to commend the chief sponsors of 
this bill in the Senate, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, who I think 
have displayed the sort of statesmanship and civility in working out 
this difficult legislation that I think all of us expect from this 
body. I also want to indicate the degree to which this bill takes 
significant steps in the right direction on energy policy. It helps us 
realize the promise of ethanol as a fuel alternative by requiring 7.5 
billion gallons to be mixed with gasoline over the next few years. It 
provides a tax credit for the construction of E85 stations all over 
America--E85, a blend of ethanol and gasoline that can drastically 
increase fuel efficiency standards for our cars.
  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 more low emission transportation fuels, and it 
will support the development of what we hope ultimately will be a 500-
mile-per-gallon automobile technology.
  All of these things are wonderful and worthy of support. But I do 
have to say we have missed an opportunity and that is not the fault of 
the sponsors of this bill who have done yeoman's work. Rather, I think 
it is the timidity of all of us as a body in not addressing what has to 
be one of the most significant problems we face as a nation.
  The Department of Energy predicts that American demand for fossil 
fuels will jump 50 percent over the next 15 years. The Heritage 
Foundation says this bill will do virtually nothing to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil. Even President Bush and supporters of the 
bill in Congress concede as much.
  As we debate this bill today, the price of crude oil has surpassed a 
record high of $60 a barrel, and gas is now up to $2.28 per gallon. At 
this price, the United States is sending $650 million overseas every 
single day.
  As demand continues to skyrocket around the world, other countries 
have started to realize that guzzling oil is not a sustainable future. 
What is 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 
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. At the same 
time, Ford is only making 20,000 Escape Hybrids this year, and GM's 
brand won't be on the market until 2007.
  So here we are. People paying record prices at the pump and America 
sending billions overseas to the world's most volatile region. We have 
countries like 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.
  So I ask, 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. 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 accept and embrace the challenge of finding a solution to 
one of the most pressing problems of our time, our dependence on 
foreign oil. It will not be easy and it will not be without sacrifice. 
Government cannot make it happen on its own, but it does have a role in 
supporting the initiative that is already out there.
  I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have 
missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on 
the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, 
not the last, in our journey towards energy independence.
  I close by saying I hope we do not wait another 5 years before we 
work on the important issue of energy independence. I plan to support 
this bill because of the fine work that was done by the sponsors, but I 
would insist that in the next year or two we immediately address the 
issue of how we can wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I firmly believe our Nation needs a sound 
and balanced national energy plan, emphasizing a clean, reliable, 
sustainable, and affordable energy policy. Unfortunately, this bill 
fails to do that. The Senate sent a good energy bill to conference, and 
we got back a frog. This conference report fails to reduce our 
dependence on imported oil, fails to address the threat of global 
warming, fails to make much needed new investments in clean energy 
production and fails to provide any help to consumers that are 
suffering from record high gas prices.
  Specifically, this conference report does not include the Senate's 
mandatory oil savings clause, which would have reduced oil use by 1 
million barrels per day. The bill also deletes the renewable energy 
standard that would have required utilities to obtain at least 10 
percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Increasing 
the production of electricity from renewable energy sources will help 
improve the quality of our country's water and air. Instead of 
supporting the advancement of renewable energy technologies to create 
jobs and reduce pollution, we have a bill that gives oil, gas, ethanol, 
and nuclear companies enormous subsidies.
  In addition, the bill does not include any provisions to address 
global warning. I believe we have a responsibility to act now to curb 
greenhouse gases; thus, I was pleased the Senate bill

[[Page 19079]]

agreed on the need for mandatory programs to address greenhouse gases. 
Two major scientific reports released last fall warned that global 
warming is occurring more rapidly than previously known, and that the 
effects of such warming trends are widespread. In Vermont, we will also 
see ecological and economic consequences of these alarming trends. 
Vermonters working in our ski and maple syrup industries have already 
reported changes they have been forced to make in recent years to 
adjust to climate change. This bill's refusal to take any steps to 
combat global warming is not only disappointing, but dangerous to our 
future generations. One hundred years from now, it may turn out that 
global warming was the single most important problem that the United 
States almost totally ignored. At that stage I will not be able to say 
``I told you so,'' but some academic scholars might note my timely 
warmings. Indeed, when I was chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry Committee, I included a provision on the impacts of global 
warming in U.S. food production in the 1990 farm bill--15 years ago.
  The bill also contains a number of anti-environmental provisions that 
were not included in the Senate's bill. It threatens drinking water by 
allowing the underground injection of diesel fuel and other chemicals 
during oil and gas development and exempts oil and gas construction 
activities from the Clean Water Act. It also includes a seismic 
inventory of oil and gas resources in sensitive Outer Continental Shelf 
areas.
  In addition, I am disappointed that this Energy Bill doesn't take a 
single concrete step to address the high and rising cost of gasoline 
for American consumers. The Senate unanimously adopted my amendment to 
allow the Federal Government to take legal action against any foreign 
state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing and other 
anticompetitive activities. It is high time we say, ``no!'' to OPEC's 
illegal price fixing schemes. Yet, due to opposition from the Bush 
administration, under whose tenure the average price of gasoline has 
skyrocketed from $1.45 per gallon to more than $2.30 per gallon, this 
provision was deleted from the Energy bill conference report.
  This bill fails on almost every count. Yet, almost unbelievably, it 
could have gotten much worse. Under the leadership of my friend from 
New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, we were able to stop the House GOP 
leadership from letting MTBE polluters off the hook for contaminating 
our ground water and drinking water. I understand that the conferees 
came to an agreement which in no way impacts the rights of citizens and 
local governments to pursue all available State and Federal remedies 
where there is environmental harm and other injury that results from 
leakage of MTBE into the ground water. While I was concerned about any 
effort to alter the subject matter jurisdiction of these cases, I am 
relieved to learn that they did not do so in conference. I understand 
that nothing in the current language will alter the substantive law 
that courts currently apply in these cases and that they will apply to 
future claims.
  After a colloquy between conferees on the record, Representative 
Stupak did not offer his amendment clarifying their unanimous 
understanding of the relevant section. The amendment that he withheld 
would have simply added the phrase ``under applicable state or federal 
law'' to the permissive removal provision. I am told by Senator 
Bingaman that the conferees found this amendment unnecessary because it 
was clear to them, as it is to me, that the relevant language adopted 
does not change the substantive law that applies and it does not change 
the current law that applies in consideration of removal petitions.
  This administration and this Congress had a real opportunity to 
produce a bill that would lead the Nation towards balanced, 
sustainable, clean energy production. Instead, we have 1,700 pages 
worth of policies that will increase our dependence on fossil fuels, 
provide billions to wealthy energy corporations, and threaten 
environmental and public health. I do not see how my Republican 
colleagues can any longer justify their drastic cuts to vital social 
programs while pushing through this multibillion dollar legislation 
that does nothing to secure our energy future.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to today in support of the Energy 
bill and to provide some perspective on the conference report for H.R. 
6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  I have been in Congress since 1976, serving first in the House of 
Representatives, and since 1990 in the Senate. I have served with many 
outstanding Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Senators who have advanced 
my knowledge and appreciation for comprehensive energy policy in the 
long-term. I served with Representative Jim Lord, who was my mentor in 
the House when I first arrived. I saw him again just before I stepped 
into last Sunday's conference committee meeting in Rayburn. I served 
with my good friend and colleague, John Dingell, from Michigan, and I 
served with the dedicated and ever-insightful Congressman from 
Massachusetts, Ed Markey. Both of them have made enormous contributions 
to this year's energy bill, as have all the House Members.
  I have served on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
for more than 10 years. I was here when the Senate passed the last 
energy bill, the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That bill was a benchmark 
that established a range of energy efficiency, conservation, renewable 
energy, research and development, and regulatory frameworks for energy 
that are still in place today.
  My observation is that the compromise that we have now may be the 
best we can get in the next 5 to 10 years, given the regional nature of 
energy and the partisan nature of politics. Energy is an issue with 
regional, special interest, and State and local ``tugs'' and ``pulls'' 
unlike other national issues. The breadth of this energy bill is almost 
incomprehensible. An energy policy sounds simple, but it is a complex, 
interlocked patchwork of agreements, prohibitions and incentives.
  If we do nothing, we will be worse off than when we started. We will 
not advance energy conservation, efficiency, or production of 
alternative fuels if we do not pass the bill. I urge members to 
remember that we have spent over 5 years debating an energy bill and we 
have seen bills that are much, much worse. This bill represents a 
victory in many ways.
  It is victory of democratic process over regional politics. This bill 
was fully heard by the committee and fully debated and amended in the 
Senate. It was a bipartisan effort on which we spent 3 months exploring 
the topics making a comprehensive bill. We spent another 2 weeks 
debating and changing this bill in the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources. We accepted many amendments on the Democratic side. The 
Senate debated the bill for another 2 weeks, changing it and improving 
it again.
  I applaud the efforts of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, the chair 
and ranking member of the Energy Committee, for upholding the promise 
of the Senate energy bill in the conference discussions. They showed 
great leadership in holding firm to the Senate bill, rejecting House 
provisions that were unacceptable. Their staffs were determined to 
provide us an energy bill that did not include excessive spending or 
destructive environmental compromises.
  The energy conference report is not perfect, but its a good bill. I 
know the bill does not have provisions for fuel efficiency standards 
for cars, SUVs, and trucks, provisions which I supported in the 
Committee and on the floor. It does not have controls on carbon dioxide 
or standards for renewable electricity, although the latter was 
approved in the Senate.
  In many respects, these are small steps, but important ones, in the 
right direction to meet our energy challenges. It encourages cleaner 
alternative energy initiatives such as hydrogen, solar, wind, 
geothermal, and natural gas resources. It emphasizes greater use of 
renewables. It promotes greater efficiency in the way we currently use 
appliances, home heating

[[Page 19080]]

and cooling, with more stringent standards. It encourages more 
efficient cars, homes, and commercial appliances such as dishwashers. 
It strengthens the reliability of our electricity grid, encourages more 
transmission lines, and protects ratepayers from market abuses. These 
are things that are needed now, not in another 5 years when the 
composition of Congress or the White House might change.
  The bill does not go as far as I would have liked to address some of 
the biggest energy problems our Nation faces. It seems Congress cannot 
mobilize the political will to take the difficult steps needed to 
reduce our reliance on foreign oil, improve vehicle fuel efficiency or 
deal with global warming. I supported those amendments, both on the 
Senate floor and in conference committee deliberations, but we lost in 
fair votes in an open process.
  What we have before us, in the long run, is a bill that is balanced 
in terms of production of energy from a variety of sources and it uses 
appropriated funds and tax expenditures to encourage research, 
development, and production. There will always be detractors who can 
find problems with particular pieces of this far-reaching energy bill. 
The comprehensive bill is so broad that I do not believe it will ever 
satisfy the positions of every interest group. The bottom line is that 
this bill does not include the onerous provisions of an MTBE liability 
waiver, an ozone bump-up, and it does not include categorical waivers 
for NEPA for oil and gas developments.
  It does include many tax provisions to encourage alternative and 
renewable fuels, nuclear energy, and oil and gas industries. But the 
proportions allocated to the renewable sector, clean coal, and energy 
efficiency are greater than the tax credits and royalty relief for oil 
and gas, particularly when you consider that a large portion is for a 
refining capacity incentive, badly needed to increase the efficiency of 
oil and gas refineries. I greatly appreciate the efforts of Senators 
Grassley and Baucus, and their staffs, who bore the responsibility of 
crafting the finance portion of the bill under great pressure with 
grace and generosity.
  In this era of alarming Federal budget deficits and declining 
domestic discretionary spending, we have to look to tax incentives and 
loan guarantees to mobilize capital investment in new and cleaner 
energy. For the Nation to maintain our leadership in technology and 
engineering, we must spend money. Because of many circumstances, namely 
the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and future extensions of tax 
cuts, we do not have adequate funds to spend on this effort. The only 
place we can find revenue to encourage the adoption of new technologies 
is through tax incentives. To me, this is an innovative way to create 
opportunity out of hardship.
  The bill the Senate will consider today, on balance, improves our 
energy policy and deserves to be enacted. Enormous credit for the 
success of the conference and the development of the bill goes to my 
colleagues from New Mexico, Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, 
and their staff, who worked long and hard around the clock to bring 
this bill to fruition. Senator Domenici has taken a fresh look, from 
the beginning of the 109th Congress, and changed his entire approach to 
the energy bill. I greatly appreciate his orientation and his strategy 
working with his colleagues on this energy bill. I also extend my great 
appreciation to Chairman Joe Barton and Ranking Member John Dingell for 
their openness and willingness to work with members on the special 
needs of their States. Their leadership ensured that the conference was 
fair, open, and bipartisan from start to finish. I look forward to 
voting for this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.


     Clarification Of Section 1287 Of The Energy Policy Act Of 2005

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, would the gentleman from New Mexico yield 
to me for purposes of engaging in a colloquy?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman for that 
purpose.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the gentleman. Section 1287 of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 6 includes rulemaking authority for the 
Federal Trade Commission to adopt rules protecting the privacy of 
electric consumers in connection with their receipt of electric utility 
services. Am I correct in understanding that it was the conference 
committee's intent to grant the FTC rulemaking authority with respect 
to the information practices of ``traditional'' utility companies and 
not financial institutions regulated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The gentleman is correct. We did not intend to revisit 
issues regulated under the GLBA, or provide the Commission with 
rulemaking authority over financial institutions regulated under Gramm-
Leach-Bliley.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Am I further correct that it was not your intention that 
utility companies be restricted in their ability to report payment 
history information to consumer reporting agencies, as such information 
can be very beneficial to consumers, such as those consumers with 
``thin'' files at credit bureaus?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Am I further correct that it was not your intention that 
the FTC be given broad rulemaking authority with respect to the goods 
or services that can be offered to any utility customer, but rather the 
FTC has the authority to regulate the products or services offered by 
``traditional'' utility companies and not financial institutions 
regulated by the GLBA?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the gentleman for his clarifications.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the gentleman for bringing these issues to my 
attention.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to finish 
a very long journey in the quest to build a dynamic, comprehensive 
energy policy for the United States of America. I can say with pride 
that this Congress, through many trials and tribulations, has now 
performed admirably in its duty to the American people. This is a 
balanced energy bill that focuses as much on the future as it does the 
present. We have the opportunity with the passage of this legislation 
to safely produce more energy from more sources and with more 
infrastructure security then ever before.
  On June 21st, the Senate passed H.R. 6 which included the Energy 
Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. The tax provisions were a bipartisan 
product formulated with Senator Baucus, after consultation with many 
Members of the Senate.
  In my estimation, the energy policy tax incentives reflected in this 
conference agreement are a fair balance of the interests of the Members 
and effectively supports the development of energy production from 
renewable and environmentally beneficial sources.
  I would like to briefly describe these tax incentives that are 
included in the final energy Conference agreement.
  For years, I have worked to decrease our reliance on foreign sources 
of energy and accelerate and diversify domestic energy production. I 
believe public policy ought to promote renewable domestic production 
that uses renewable energy and fosters economic development.
  Specifically, the development of alternative energy sources should 
alleviate domestic energy shortages and insulate the United States from 
the Middle East-dominated oil supply. In addition, the development of 
renewable energy resources conserves existing natural resources and 
protects the environment.
  Finally, alternative energy development provides economic benefits to 
farmers, ranchers and forest landowners, such as those in Iowa who have 
launched efforts to diversify the State's economy and to find creative 
ways to extract a greater return from abundant natural resources.
  Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code currently provides a 
production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources 
including wind, biomass, and other renewables. The final Energy Tax 
Incentives Act extends the section 45 credit through the end of 2007.

[[Page 19081]]

  I have been a constant advocate of alternative energy sources. Since 
the inception 13 years ago of the wind energy tax credit, wind energy 
production has grown considerably. In addition, wind represents an 
affordable and inexhaustible source of domestically produced energy.
  Extending the wind energy tax credit until 2008 will support the 
tremendous continued development of this clean, renewable energy 
source.
  The conference agreement supports a maturing green energy source. 
Experts have established wind energy's valuable contributions to 
maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment. Every 10,000 
megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can reduce 
carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing the 
combustion of fossil fuels.
  In addition, this agreement helps to empower our rural communities to 
reap continued economic benefits. The installation of wind turbines has 
a stimulative economic effect because it requires significant capital 
investment which results in the creation of jobs and the injection of 
capital into often rural economic areas.
  In addition, for each wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive 
more than $2,000 per year for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's 
major wind farms currently pay more than $640,000 per year to 
landowners, and the development of 1,000 megawatts of capacity in 
California, for example, would result in annual payments of 
approximately $2 million to farm and forest landowners in that State.
  Environmentally friendly biomass energy production is a proven, 
effective technology that generates numerous waste management public 
benefits across the country.
  The biomass definition covers open loop biomass. Open loop biomass 
includes organic, nonhazardous materials such as sawdust, tree 
trimmings, agricultural byproducts and untreated construction debris.
  The development of a local industry to convert biomass to electricity 
has the potential to produce enormous economic benefits and electricity 
security for rural America.
  In addition, studies show that biomass crops could produce between $2 
and $5 billion in additional farm income for American farmers. As an 
example, over 450 tons of turkey and chicken litter are under contract 
to be sold for an electricity plant using poultry litter being built in 
Minnesota. This is a win-win. Not only do the farmers not have to pay 
to dispose of this stuff, they get paid to sell the litter. You could 
find similar examples throughout the Midwest and other farm regions 
across America.
  Finally, marginal farmland incapable of sustaining traditional yearly 
production is often capable of generating native grasses and organic 
materials that are ideal for biomass energy production. Turning tree 
trimmings and native grasses into energy provides an economic gain and 
serves an important public interest.
  I am very proud of a long history of supporting new alternative 
energy concepts in the production of electricity. The energy conference 
agreement continues that commitment.
  By using animal waste as an energy source, an American livestock 
producer can reduce or eliminate monthly energy purchases from electric 
and gas suppliers and provide excess energy for distribution to other 
members of the community.
  Swine and bovine energy is truly green electricity, as it also 
furthers environmental objectives.
  Specifically, anaerobic digestion of manure improves air quality 
because it eliminates as much as 90 percent of the odor from feedlots 
and improves soil and water quality by dramatically reducing problems 
with waste runoff. Maximizing farm resources in such a manner may prove 
essential to remain competitive in today's livestock market. In 
addition, the technology used to create the electricity results in the 
production of a fertilizer product that is of a higher quality than 
unprocessed animal waste.
  The Energy Tax Incentives Act is important to agriculture, rural 
economy and small business. It is also important for domestic supply 
and energy independence.
  Rural America can play an important part in energy independence and 
domestic supply. In addition to the production of electricity, this 
agreement includes additional tax incentives for the production of 
alternative fuels from renewable resources.
  We continue the small producers credit for the production of ethanol. 
We continue the incentive for the production of biodiesel. Biodiesel is 
a natural substitute for diesel fuel and can be made from almost all 
vegetable oils and animal fats. Modern science is allowing us to slowly 
substitute natural renewable agricultural sources for traditional 
petroleum. It gives us choices for the future and it can relieve the 
strain on the domestic oil production to fulfill those important needs 
that agricultural products cannot serve.
  Renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel will improve air quality, 
strengthen national security, reduce the trade deficit, decrease 
dependence on the Middle East for oil, and expand markets for 
agricultural products.
  This package is fiscally responsible. The conference report provides 
a net $11.5 billion in tax relief over 10 years. That figure aligns 
with the budget resolution. Over 5 years, the package loses only about 
$6.9 billion.
  The Energy conference agreement is a balanced package. I would like 
to note, with some satisfaction, that today we have performed the 
people's business in the way they want us to do business. This Energy 
Tax Incentives Act was crafted in a bipartisan, bicameral way on an 
important initiative, in a way that reflects the diversity of our views 
and the diversity of our Nation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman 
for insisting upon a more open, bipartisan conference than we have seen 
in a number of other important bills.
  Chairman Domenici deserves great credit for making sure that this 
conference report does not include some of the most egregious House 
provisions, particularly retroactive liability protection for MTBE 
producers and broad Clean Air Act exemptions.
  However, I am extremely concerned that this bill does nothing to 
address global warming and fuel economy standards. I believe that 
climate change is the most urgent energy-related problem of my 
lifetime.
  This bill refuses to accept responsibility or chart a course to deal 
with the United States' profligate use of emissions-producing energy 
sources.
  The United States is the largest consumer of energy, yet this bill 
does nothing to reduce our energy consumption. This bill deletes a very 
modest oil savings provision that would have required us to save 1 
million barrels of oil per day in 2015.
  Nor does it include a renewable portfolio standard that I would have 
required that 10 percent of the nation's electricity come from 
renewable resources by 2020. California will achieve a renewable 
portfolio standard of 20 percent by 2017. It is doable nationally.
  Climate change is the most important energy and environmental issue 
facing us today. The earth's temperatures are expected to rise between 
2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
  During the same time period, the American Southwest could see a rise 
of 14 degrees or more.
  Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and water supplies in 
the West are at severe risk.
  By not acting to aggressively reduce our emissions, we are putting 
California's water supplies at severe risk.
  California depends on the Sierra Nevada snowpack as its largest 
source of water. It is estimated that by the end of this century, the 
shrinking of the snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 
million people--equal to all of the people in the Los Angeles Basin.
  We must act now. Carbon dioxide emissions accumulate in the 
atmosphere--the more we emit, the worse the impacts on our environment. 
If we curb our emissions now, we may have a chance to limit the damage 
we are causing to our fragile ecosystem.

[[Page 19082]]

  Yet this bill does not include the Sense of the Senate on climate 
change that recognizes that climate change is being caused by man-made 
emissions, and that Congress must pass legislation that establishes a 
mandatory cap on emissions.
  The lack of action on climate change and fuel economy is an enormous 
deficit of the bill.
  Increasing fuel economy standards is the single most important step 
we can take to reduce our dependence on oil. We have the technology now 
to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles.
  GM, DaimlerChrysler and Honda have already developed something known 
as cylinder cut-off technology that provides the fuel efficiency 
similar to a vehicle with a smaller engine, but with all the power of a 
big engine. The auto manufacturers could use a more fuel efficient 
design, using lighter materials that increase fuel economy without 
sacrificing safety.
  The list goes on and on, yet the auto manufacturers will not act 
unless Congress forces them to. We are missing a huge opportunity to 
address the real problem that consumers are facing--rising gas prices. 
Those gas prices are not going to fall until or unless we reduce our 
demand for oil by increasing our fuel economy.
  I am also concerned about the following provisions in the bill:
  Ethanol--the bill has an egregious 7.5 billion gallon mandate for 
ethanol. My State does not need the fuel additive to meet clean air 
standards.
  I thank the conferees for retaining 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.
  However, I believe that this mandate will raise gas prices for 
Californians. So far, ethanol in California's gasoline has increased 
the cost of our gasoline by 4 to 8 cents per gallon.
  Further, the ethanol mandate maintains the 54 cent-per-gallon import 
duty that prevents oil producers from buying ethanol on the global 
market, or wherever it is cheapest.
  Moreover, ethanol receives a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. A 7.5 
billion gallon mandate means an almost $2 billion loss to the U.S. 
Treasury over today's receipts. I believe this mandate is an 
unnecessary giveaway.
  In addition, increasing the use of ethanol will not decrease our use 
of oil. When this mandate is fully implemented in 2012 it will only 
reduce U.S. oil consumption by less than one-half of one percent.
  I believe this is bad public policy and that it is an unnecessary, 
costly mandate that should not be in the energy bill.
  LNG Siting--this bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
exclusive authority over siting LNG terminals. There are three projects 
proposed in California. It seems to me that the location of these 
projects should be left up to the State, not to the Federal Government.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should ensure that the 
technicalities of natural gas delivery are taken care of, not where 
these facilities are located on the coastlines of our states.
  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.
  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.
  Environmental Rollbacks--the bill exempts the underground injection 
of chemicals during oil and gas development from regulation under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, and waives the storm water runoff Clean Water 
Act regulations for oil and gas construction sites.
  These are unnecessary environmental rollbacks that should not have 
been included in the Energy bill conference report.
  I reluctantly voted for the Energy bill when it was considered on the 
Senate floor. The reason I voted for it was because it included strong 
consumer protections, and great energy efficiency tax incentives that 
Senator Snowe and I have been pushing for the past several years.
  While I am pleased that the strong consumer protections are still 
included in the bill, I am extremely disappointed with the energy 
efficiency tax incentives.
  The tax incentives for energy efficiency in the Senate bill were the 
cornerstone of a sensible energy policy to address high natural gas 
prices, peak power reliability, and global warming. It would have saved 
over 180 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually in the year 
2025--some 10 percent of U.S. emissions for all purposes, while saving 
consumers over $100 billion annually.
  But the Energy bill conference report cut these incentives back by 
over two-thirds, leaving the Nation with only the skeleton of an 
effective energy efficiency tax program. While it is possible that this 
hobbled program could still work, it is so under-funded that it could 
also fail.
  The Senate bill provides performance-based incentives of up to $2,000 
for retrofits made to homes that would achieve a 50 percent energy 
savings, and applied to all types of homes, whether owner-occupied or 
renter-occupied, whether owned by families or by businesses, and 
whether the tenant or the landlord performs the retrofit.
  The conference report gutted this program--providing cost-based 
incentives limited to 10 percent of the cost of the retrofit, or a 
maximum of $500. This is problematic because nearly identical cost-
based tax incentives for home retrofits were tried in 1978. They cost 
the Treasury over $5 billion and not a single study has found that they 
produced any energy savings.
  The Senate bill also provided 4 years of eligibility for high 
technology air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters. The 
conference report cut this eligibility back to 2 years.
  This is a big problem because an equipment manufacturer has to make a 
large investment to mass-produce the efficient equipment.
  If that investment must be fully amortized over two years of 
incentivized sales, manufacturers may be unwilling or unable to make 
it.
  A 4-year amortization period would cause much more manufacturer 
interest and spur the energy efficiency that we want to promote with 
these tax credits.
  In other words, these energy efficiency tax credits may be 
meaningless when it comes time to implement them. That would be a 
terrible shame--energy efficiency has been a huge success in reducing 
California's demand for energy.
  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.
  Unfortunately, the conference report dramatically reduced the 
effectiveness of the most important step this nation could take to 
reduce our energy usage--incentivizing energy efficiency.
  By not including the oil savings amendment, the renewable portfolio 
standard, the Sense of the Senate on climate change, and by gutting the 
energy efficiency tax incentives, this bill preserves the status quo 
and does nothing to reduce our dependence on oil or on other fossil 
fuels.
  This bill will not solve our Nation's energy problems, lower gas 
prices, or reduce emissions. And while I thank Senators Domenici and 
Bingaman for the fair, open process by which they brought us this bill, 
I will cast my vote against the conference report.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference 
report on H.R. 6, the Comprehensive Energy Policy Act of 2005. I stand 
before my colleagues today with very mixed feelings about this 
legislation. This

[[Page 19083]]

conference report has many meaningful achievements and measures that 
can help provide this Nation, our researchers, and innovators, with the 
basic tools to start moving America forward toward a new energy 
strategy for the 21st century. Yet it is far from perfect. It sidesteps 
many of the most fundamental energy security challenges we face--
challenges like our dependence on foreign oil and global climate 
change, which grow more intractable the longer we wait to address them. 
It contains provisions that I simply do not support. It is certainly 
not the Energy bill that this Senator would write if I alone held the 
drafting pen--the kind of legislation that would put this Nation on a 
far more ambitious path toward greater energy security in the global 
economy. I know many of my colleagues feel exactly the same way.
  And yet I believe all Senators must clearly acknowledge that this 
legislation is in many ways superior to the Energy bill conference 
report we considered during the 108th Congress. And that is true in 
some very meaningful ways for my region, the Pacific Northwest.
  When the Senate, last month, approved its version of this 
legislation, I noted that I appreciated the skill and thoughtfulness 
with which the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, 
Senators Domenici and Bingaman, had navigated a path forward for this 
bill. I suggested at the time that they would need every bit of that 
skill in coming to resolution with the House of Representatives, on a 
piece of legislation worthy of this Senate's support. Frankly, I 
doubted very much that it could be done.
  But I stand here today ready to vote for this conference report--with 
reservations, of course--but in recognition of the fact that this 
legislation is probably better than many of us had reason to expect; 
and as good as the current political will of Congress would allow. For 
that, I give enormous credit to the chairman and ranking member. As a 
member of the Senate Energy Committee, I want to say that I have 
appreciated the bipartisan nature in which they have handled this bill 
from the outset. At every turn, they have treated this Senator--and her 
constituents' interests--with complete fairness. The process by which 
this legislation was assembled should serve as a model for this body.
  I want to talk briefly about what I view as some of the most 
important achievements of this legislation--particularly for my region 
and the great State of Washington. These are some of the basic tools 
that can help serve as building blocks to a more ambitious energy 
strategy for America.
  First and foremost, it is important to understand that the Pacific 
Northwest is a region completely unique when it comes to our energy 
system. More than 70 percent of the electricity production in 
Washington State is derived from hydroelectric sources--designed around 
our great river, the mighty Columbia. This was a system built as part 
of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to electrify the West. 
As a result, we are a region with a rich and diverse energy history, an 
uncommon collection of public and private institutions, a large Federal 
presence that starts with the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, and 
a diverse array of stakeholders rightly concerned about the river's 
multiple uses. I know all of my colleagues from the Northwest who sit 
on the Energy Committee--there are five of us, in fact--appreciate this 
tremendous heritage, our region's history of cost-based power, and the 
valuable asset that we inherited from our predecessors, great leaders 
like Senators Jackson, Hatfield, and Magnuson.
  That is why we worked hard, in a bipartisan manner at every turn, to 
safeguard the Northwest's system of cost-based power--the engine of our 
regional economy. That is why the electricity title of this legislation 
is so important to my region, and to the ratepayers of Washington 
State.
  I am proud this legislation specifically protects the Northwest's 
transmission system, by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, FERC, from converting the Bonneville Power Administration's 
existing system of cost-based, firm transmission contracts to a market-
based auction of financial transmission rights.
  Now, this auction of financial transmission rights was a central 
tenet of FERC's controversial and ill-fated standard market design, 
SMD, proposal. All of us from the Northwest were united in our 
opposition to SMD because we recognized right away that it was a scheme 
with the potential to result in tremendous amounts of cost- shifting 
onto our ratepayers, and to substantially undermine our cost-based 
system. The provision that protects the Northwest's existing system is 
thus an important achievement because it slams the door on any sort of 
future FERC-imposed proposal like standard market design. I would also 
note that the Senate-passed Energy bill would have slammed the door on 
SMD once and for all. This became unnecessary, however, when FERC's new 
chairman officially terminated the commission's SMD proceeding earlier 
this month. I think that was a very wise choice and think it speaks 
quite well of the commission's new leadership.
  Also important to my region are provisions that this bill does not 
contain. Specifically, this conference report omits the 
administration's legislative proposals--unveiled earlier this year--to 
hamstring BPA's ability to invest in regional infrastructure and upend 
Bonneville's system of cost-based power sales. The Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council has estimated the administration's proposal would 
raise regional power rates by $1.7 billion. That would translate to a 
$480-a-year rate hike for families in some of Washington's most rural 
communities. Again thanks to the bipartisan efforts of Northwest 
Senators, those legislative proposals were dead on arrival.
  When it comes to protecting Washington State consumers, I must also 
mention a number of other provisions. At long last, the bill 
establishes mandatory, enforceable reliability rules for operation of 
the Nation's transmission grid. This effort also began in the Pacific 
Northwest--after an August 1996 blackout resulting from two overloaded 
transmission lines near Portland, OR which caused a sweeping outage 
that knocked out power for up to 16 hours in 10 States, including 
Washington. As a result, both a DOE task force and the industry itself 
in 1997 recommended mandatory reliability rules for operating the 
transmission grid. The Senate first passed this legislation just over 5 
years ago, in an effort begun by my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton. 
It is legislation that I have championed since I have arrived in the 
Senate, an effort that gained more urgency with the Northeast blackouts 
of two summers ago; and I will be very pleased to see this measure 
through to the end.
  This bill also takes steps to respond to the disastrous western 
energy crisis, which extracted billions of dollars and hundreds of 
thousands of jobs from our regional economy. As I have recounted many 
times on this floor, the illegal and unethical practices of Enron and 
others sent Washington power rates through the roof. This Energy bill 
puts in place the first ever broad prohibition on manipulation of 
electricity and natural gas markets. These provisions are modeled on a 
measure that I have authored that has now passed the Senate twice, and 
I am pleased that they are included in this conference report--
particularly given the far inferior provisions contained in the House 
legislation, which would have in many ways gone in the entirely 
opposite direction.
  In light of the now-infamous audiotapes of Enron traders and others 
conspiring to gouge consumers, the legislation also gives Federal 
regulators new authority to ban unscrupulous energy traders and 
executives from employment in the utility industry. In addition, it 
substantially increases fines for energy companies that break the 
rules. And importantly for my constituents, this legislation prohibits 
a Federal bankruptcy court from enforcing fraudulent Enron power 
contracts, including $122 million the now-bankrupt energy giant is 
attempting to collect from Snohomish PUD. That would translate to more 
than $400 from the pockets of every family in Snohomish

[[Page 19084]]

County, WA, who have already seen their utility bills rise 
precipitously as a result of the western energy debacle.
  For all these provisions, I am tremendously grateful to the chairman 
and ranking member. I know they faced a steep uphill battle with the 
House in retaining these measures, and I applaud and thank them for 
their efforts in ensuring that the Senate positions prevailed.
  I should also mention the renewable fuels provisions of this bill, 
which I believe will help put Washington State farmers and 
entrepreneurs in the biofuels business. Today, production of biofuels 
is dominated by the midwestern region of the country, as traditional 
policies have supported corn- and soy-based fuel production and helped 
that technology gain maturity. However, the key to lowering costs and 
establishing a truly national strategy is to make an investment in new 
technologies that will diversify biofuels production in the United 
States.
  Researchers at Washington State University estimate that our State 
has the capacity to produce 200 million gallons of ethanol from wheat 
straw, and up to 1.2 billion gallons with technology improvements. 
Meanwhile, biodiesel is another emerging opportunity for Washington 
State farmers, using canola or yellow mustard. These crops are 
particularly well-suited to Washington State, providing high yields 
without irrigation.
  Around Spokane, it is estimated that 500,000 acres a year could be 
put into oil seed production, enough oil to produce 25 million gallons 
of biodiesel. Statewide, at least 2 million acres could be put into 
oilseed production for biodiesel.
  There are a number of very important provisions in this bill that 
will help my State capitalize on the promise of biofuels, including an 
Advanced Biofuel Technology Program I authored, to help demonstrate 
these new technologies; important market-based incentives for refiners 
to diversify the types of biofuels they use; and financial support in 
many forms for cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production.
  These are very important achievements that will help transform 
biofuels from a boutique regional industry to something that can become 
part of a truly national strategy to help supplant our Nation's 
petroleum imports--lowering costs and helping provide greater economic 
security to our farmers at the same time.
  But in addition to renewable fuels, we should acknowledge the 
provisions of this legislation promoting renewable electricity 
generation. Obviously, this legislation does not go as far as I would 
like. I vigorously support a renewable portfolio standard--even a more 
aggressive standard than what passed the Senate. It is unfortunate, 
indeed, that the House would not accept this provision, and those of us 
who strongly advocate it will continue to attempt to move the RPS 
forward.
  But this legislation does extend through the end of 2007 the existing 
production tax credit for renewable energy, such as wind resources. It 
is estimated that this credit can help save Washington State ratepayers 
$260 million over the next 10 years. As Northwest utilities add wind 
resources to help bolster regional power supplies, these investments 
are also helping fill the coffers of local communities. For example, a 
new wind project near Ellensburg, WA, has generated an additional $2 
million in revenue for Kittitas County. Similarly, wind energy is 
helping provide another source of income for Northwest farmers. Growers 
in Columbia County, WA, home to the new 150 Megawatt Hopkins Ridge wind 
project, receive about $5,000 per turbine located on their land. One 
farmer estimates the revenue generated by the project will equal the 
income generated by 250 acres of harvest.
  For the first time, the Energy bill creates clean renewable energy 
bonds, to support investment in renewable energy resources by 
governmental entities, including tribes, agencies such as BPA and other 
public power entities. I am also pleased that for 20 years the 
Renewable Energy Production Incentive, REPI, Program, which provides a 
direct payment to public power entities, which do not qualify for tax 
credits, for renewable electricity production. Eligible resources are 
expanded to include ocean energy. The REPI Program has already been 
used by multiple Washington State public utilities to make renewable 
energy investments.
  Washington State is also home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab, 
and for that reason, the research and development title of this 
legislation bears mentioning. The Energy bill conference report 
authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in research 
ongoing at the Pacific Northwest National Lab and Washington State 
universities, including systems biology research, distributed and smart 
energy technology research and development; bio- and nanotechnology 
related to the production of bioproducts; and advanced scientific 
computing.
  The Energy bill's ``personnel and training'' title is also worth 
noting, since it will help provide a skilled energy workforce for the 
21st century, as the energy industry braces for a critical shortage. 
Washington State is poised to help train the next generation of 
engineers and innovators in this area. The legislation requires the 
Secretaries of Energy and Labor to monitor workforce trends in the area 
of electric power and transmission engineers and identify critical 
national shortages of personnel. It also authorizes the Secretaries to 
establish a grants program of up to $20 million a year to enhance 
training--including distance-learning, such as the program now being 
pioneered at Gonzaga University--in electric power and transmission 
engineering fields. While fewer than 15 universities nationwide offer 
world-class, Ph.D.-level programs in power engineering, both Washington 
State University and the University of Washington offer strong programs 
in this area. In addition, Gonzaga University this year established a 
specialized masters of science degree and certification program in 
transmission and distribution engineering.
  This conference report also streamlines technology transfer rules for 
national labs such as PNNL, and extends the 20 percent R&D tax credit 
to energy research done by nonprofit consortiums involving small 
businesses, National Labs, and universities to promote interaction and 
collaboration between public and private researchers. The research and 
development and workforce provisions of this bill hold some of the most 
promise in putting in place the building blocks for a real, innovative 
energy strategy for the 21st century.
  Years in the making, the Energy bill also includes bipartisan reform 
of the hydroelectric relicensing process. The hydro provisions included 
in this legislation are designed to improve the accountability and 
quality of Federal agencies' decisions. At the same time, the 
compromise restores the rights of the public to participate in the 
process on equal footing with license applicants--provisions that have 
been missing in previous versions of the bill. Over the next 15 years, 
70 percent of Washington State's non-Federal hydro must go through the 
hydro relicensing process.
  Another provision of importance to my State is this legislation's 
reinstatement of the oil spill liability trust fund, OSLTF. Earlier 
this year, a Coast Guard report found that the OSLTF--which has been 
used to clean up spills in the Puget Sound--would run out of money by 
2009. The OSLTF was established in the 1990 Oil Pollution Control Act, 
and has been funded through a per-barrel fee on oil companies until it 
reached its statutory cap of $1 billion. The fund was designed to be 
maintained from interest on that original $1 billion, but increasing 
cleanup costs and low liability caps have eroded the principal amount. 
The Energy bill would reinstate the fee in April 2006 or thereafter, 
once the Secretary finds that the balance in the account falls below $2 
billion. The bill authorizes application of the fee through 2014.
  Lastly, I want to mention this legislation's provisions to provide 
energy assistance to some of our Nation's neediest families. The Energy 
bill would boost authorization for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, LIHEAP, from its traditional

[[Page 19085]]

level of $2 billion to $5.1 billion, for 2005-2007. LIHEAP funding is 
critical for some of Washington State's most vulnerable citizens. As a 
result of the western energy crisis, electricity rates have gone up 
more than 20 percent statewide while 72 percent of low-income families 
in Washington use electricity to heat their homes. And already, the 
105,000 Washingtonians with incomes below 50 percent of the Federal 
poverty level spend 34 percent of their entire annual pay on home 
energy bills. In recent years, less than 30 percent of Washington's 
eligible families have been able to receive energy assistance--as 
demand has for LIHEAP dollars has far outpaced their availability. More 
than doubling available LIHEAP funding would provide a much-needed 
boost to local organizations in Washington struggling to meet the needs 
of their communities.
  As my colleagues can see, this legislation is tremendously complex. I 
have listed many of the provisions important to my constituents. Of 
course, there are a number of other measures with which I simply 
disagree. Perhaps that is to be expected of a 1,700-page piece of 
legislation that touches every sector of the American economy. For 
example, the inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources 
is wrong-headed, and I oppose it. I would note, however, that in order 
for the inventory to move forward, it must be funded. I know this 
Senator believes any such inventory would constitute a tremendous waste 
of taxpayer funds, and the fight is far from over on this issue.
  Similarly, I oppose the liquefied natural gas provisions of this bill 
because I believe States and local communities need a bigger role in 
these decisions. Some of the nuclear provisions of this bill are 
particularly offensive, in that they create an inherent conflict of 
interest at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which should not be 
subject to the cross pressures of protecting public safety and the 
public interest, at the same time the commission is under fiscal 
pressure to unwisely accelerate its proceedings under the guise of some 
new form of ``risk insurance.''
  I oppose the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act rollbacks in 
this bill. The National Energy Policy Act provisions are similarly 
unnecessary. But I recognize that they are far less sweeping than those 
originally proposed by the House. If this Senator had her way, we would 
not be repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Yet I am at 
least comforted by the fact this legislation hews closely to the 
compromise on utility mergers reached by the Senate.
  Moreover, the tax package does not resemble the tax package I would 
have written. On this point, I agree with the President: The oil and 
gas industry does not need these incentives, given where prices are at 
today.
  I am not the first Senator to say it, and I won't be the last. This 
bill is not as I would have written it. It has the flaws that I have 
listed. It is also incomplete. It is a status quo bill when it comes to 
one of the most difficult challenges to our economic and national 
security faced by this generation: America's dangerous dependence on 
foreign oil. This bill does not address this festering problem. It will 
not provide relief to consumers at the gas pump. Any suggestion to the 
contrary would be simply false.
  It is clear to this Senator that if this body is truly serious about 
putting in place a framework that will allow the United States to 
compete in the global marketplace; a framework that will allow America 
to control its own destiny in the coming decades as it relates to our 
energy security, our work is not done. Tomorrow isn't soon enough to go 
back to the drawing board and get serious about our dependence on 
foreign oil. And this Senator will keep fighting to do just that. Our 
work on energy security has hardly begun--it is far from finished if we 
want to live up to our responsibilities to future generations of 
Americans. We must not leave to them a Nation crippled by its addiction 
to foreign sources of oil--an over-dependence that jeopardizes our 
economic future and national security.
  On the contrary, it is our responsibility to face up to a simple 
fact: The accidents of geology make it impossible for this Nation to 
drill its way to energy independence, since we are situated on just 3 
percent of the world's proven oil reserves. We must recognize that fact 
and read the economic indicators. We must consider emerging competitors 
such as China and India, and recognize the seismic shifts that are 
likely to occur in the dynamics of world energy markets.
  I firmly believe that future generations of Americans will measure us 
on how we choose to address the challenges of energy security and 
climate change. They are that vital to this Nation's security and our 
economic future.
  But this Senator also recognizes that the leadership of this Congress 
is not yet prepared to take that step; that my colleagues and I who 
believe so fundamentally in the importance of enhancing our oil 
security have more work to do to change the hearts and minds of our 
colleagues. The American people must also demand better leadership from 
their elected officials when it comes to energy security. And this 
Senator stands ready to work across the aisle to do what is necessary 
to make meaningful progress on these issues.
  This bill is not perfect. We have much more work to do to bolster our 
energy security, and this Senator is ready to roll up her sleeves and 
do it. But on the whole, this bill provides some basic building blocks 
toward a better energy future. For that reason, I will support the 
Energy bill conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Energy bill that 
the Senate will be voting on today. Unfortunately, I cannot support 
this bill.
  The bill does include some worthy provisions. For example, 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. It 
includes my Dirty Bomb Prevention Act of 2005, as well as a provision 
that I authored to require backup power for emergency sirens around the 
Indian Point nuclear powerplant. It extends and expands the wind 
production tax credit, and includes a provision to help us continue to 
develop and commercialize clean coal technology. It will push energy 
efficiency standards of air conditioners and other appliances forward. 
It will establish mandatory, enforceable reliability standards, 
something that I have been pushing for since the August 2003 blackout. 
And it includes a bill I introduced with Senator Voinovich to create a 
grant program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promote 
the reduction of diesel emissions.
  In spite of these positive measures, I oppose the bill for two 
reasons. First, it contains a number of highly objectionable 
provisions. Second, it simply ignores several of our most pressing 
energy challenges, such as our dependence on foreign oil.
  I won't list all of the problematic provisions here, but I want to 
highlight a couple of the most troubling. The bill includes billions in 
subsidies for mature energy industries, including oil and nuclear 
power. These are giveaways of taxpayer money that do nothing to move us 
toward the next generation of energy technologies. The bill accelerates 
the siting procedures for liquid natural gas terminals and weakens the 
State role in the process, something I am very concerned about, given 
the Broadwater proposal looming off the Long Island shores. As ranking 
member of the Water Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, I object to the provisions that exempt hydraulic fracturing 
from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act and exempt oil and gas 
construction sites from stormwater runoff regulations under the Clean 
Water Act. Despite a long-standing moratorium on oil drilling off most 
of the U.S. coast, including the New York coast, the bill authorizes an 
inventory of oil and gas resources there.
  None of these provisions should be in the bill. But the main reason 
that I must oppose this bill is that it simply doesn't address the most 
pressing and important energy challenges that we face. It is a missed 
opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,

[[Page 19086]]

spur the development of renewable resources, and address climate 
change.
  While the Senate-passed bill did not go as far as I would like in 
terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, it did contain a 
provision that would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels 
of oil per day by 2015. That was dropped in conference.
  The Senate bill had a modest provision to increase the percentage of 
electricity generated from renewable sources to 10 percent by the year 
2020. That, too, was dropped in conference.
  In addition, the Senate went on record as supporting a mandatory 
program to start reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are 
contributing to climate change. That is gone as well.
  So as I look at the bill as a whole, I see a major missed 
opportunity. By the President's own admission, this bill won't do 
anything to reduce gasoline prices, but we know for a fact that it will 
give billions in tax breaks to companies like Exxon Mobil. It doesn't 
do nearly enough to push the development and commercialization of 
clean, next-generation energy technologies, but it gives huge tax 
breaks to nuclear power, a technology that has been with us for 50 
years. And given what we now know about the looming threat of climate 
change, it makes no sense to make energy policy without integrating a 
cost-effective strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But that is 
exactly what this bill does.
  In short, this bill simply misses the mark. It ignores our biggest 
energy challenges, subsidizes mature energy industries like oil and 
nuclear, and rolls back our environmental laws. I know it will pass 
today, but I will not be voting for it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to share my views on the final 
Energy bill conference report now before us. I regret that I will be 
unable to support this legislation, and I will explain my substantive 
concerns about the bill in greater detail. But, first, I want to 
comment on the process that brought us to this point because the 
process has been very different than the last energy conference report.
  The last energy conference report to come before the Senate in the 
108th Congress contained more than 100 provisions in the jurisdiction 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee. In my role as the 
ranking member, I came to the floor to share with the Senate that the 
EPW Committee was not consulted in the development of any of those 
provisions.
  That closed-door process did not occur with this conference report, 
and I believe that was due to the efforts of Senators Domenici and 
Bingaman. Though neither Senator Inhofe nor I were conferees, we were 
apprized of conference discussions. Our staff reviewed and provided 
technical assistance on provisions. For example, we agreed to revise 
the House's nuclear title to incorporate three nuclear bills reported 
by the Environment and Public Works Committee. We also worked closely 
on the ethanol provisions, given their implications for the Clean Air 
Act.
  The Senators from New Mexico worked hard to limit the items in the 
conference report in the EPW Committee's jurisdiction. They faced a 
very uphill task. The House bill had many troubling environmental 
provisions that were strongly supported by House conferees. 
Unfortunately, though, many troubling environmental provisions were 
removed during conference negotiations, several provisions of concern 
to me and to several other Democratic members of the EPW Committee 
remain in the final conference report.
  I say all this to make clear to the Senate that I am not opposing 
this bill on process, but on policy. It contains bad environmental 
policy. It is a missed opportunity with respect to our energy policy. 
It contains the wrong fiscal priorities with $80 billion in giveaways 
to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries. And, for those reasons, 
I feel it is not the right energy policy for America today, and 
certainly not for the future.
  I am deeply concerned that the conference report before us does not 
represent the kind of forward looking, balanced energy policy that our 
Nation needs. It does not go far enough in reducing our country's 
reliance on imported oil. Provisions to set a goal to curb our Nation's 
oil use, overwhelmingly supported in the Senate, were defeated. 
Provisions in the Senate bill to set a national goal to obtain 10 
percent of our Nation's electricity from renewable sources were also 
stripped in the conference.
  I have spent my congressional career promoting the use of renewable 
energy in our country. This Nation has abundant renewable energy 
sources, from wind to animal methane to geothermal, in every State, and 
it is in our economic and environmental interest to use them. It is 
very disappointing to me, as we stand here on the threshold of passing 
an energy bill that will likely serve as our country's energy policy 
well into the next decade, that many of the same polluting coal-fired 
power plants that were operating when I came to Congress are still 
operating without modern pollution controls. Though this conference 
report takes an important step by asking the Federal agencies to get 
roughly 8 percent of their energy from renewable sources in 2020, this 
should have been an economy-wide goal.
  It also fails to substantively address many other important issues, 
such as climate change and the need to improve vehicle fuel economy to 
give consumers more affordable and less-polluting choices when they buy 
their family's next automobile.
  But worst of all, this bill seriously harms the environment. During 
the conference, along with the majority of Senate Environment Committee 
minority colleagues, I wrote the conferees listing six of what I 
believed to be the most troubling environmental provisions of the 
House-passed bill. Several remain in this bill.
  I am disappointed that the renewable fuels provisions in the 
conference report continue to differ significantly from the provisions 
that were reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee in the 
last three Congresses. The provisions that my committee reported were 
the ones contained in the energy legislation that the Senate passed 
this year and last year.
  Though we know methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, is 
environmentally harmful, the conference report does not phase out its 
use.
  The Senate bill would have phased out MTBE use nationwide over 4 
years. The conference report contains no such ban. In addition, 
critical language allowing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to 
pull future gasoline additives off the market if they caused water 
pollution problems was eliminated.
  The conferees have included language similar to a provision in the 
House-passed bill that exempts oil and gas exploration and production 
activities from the Clean Water Act storm water program.
  The Clean Water Act requires permits for storm water discharges 
associated with construction. The conference report changes the act to 
exempt oil and gas construction from these permits.
  The scope of the provision is extremely broad. Storm water runoff 
typically contains pollutants such as oil and grease, chemicals, 
nutrients, metals, bacteria, and particulates.
  According to EPA estimates, this change would exempt at least 30,000 
small oil and gas sites from clean water requirements. In addition, 
every construction site in the oil and gas industry larger than 5 acres 
are exempt from permit requirements. Some of those sites have held 
permits for 10 years or more. This is a terrible rollback of current 
law and an unneccessary one. These permits have not been hampering 
production by these drilling sites, but they do protect the fragile 
water resources around them.
  Section 327 of this conference report exempts the practice of 
hydraulic fracturing to extract coalbed methane from the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. This practice involves injecting a fluid under pressure into 
the ground in order to create fractures in rock and capture methane.
  The primary risk with hydraulic fracturing is drinking water 
contamination that occurs when fluids used to

[[Page 19087]]

fracture the rock remains in the ground and reach underground sources 
of drinking water. According to the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office, approximately half of the U.S. population obtains its drinking 
water from underground water sources. In rural areas, this percentage 
rises to 95 percent. In its June 2004 study, the EPA reported studies 
showing that 18-65 percent of injected chemicals can remain stranded in 
hydraulically fractured formations.
  This is wrong. The American people do not want enhanced energy 
production at the expense of the environment, particularly if it 
jeopardizes their drinking water wells.
  And, they also do not want enhanced energy production at the expense 
of their own pocketbook, especially in these times of high energy 
prices. This bill contains several very costly provisions that are more 
of a giveaway to energy companies than a guarantee of new energy for 
the American people. One of the most concerning of these are new 
provisions that provide risk insurance for the construction of six new 
nuclear power plants.
  Now, I agree that siting an energy project is a risky and time-
consuming investment. But this provision, in my view, goes too far. 
This provision would allow the Secretary of Energy to enter into a 
contract with private interests for the construction of six advanced 
nuclear reactors. Further, it authorizes the payment of costs to those 
private interests for delays in the full operation of these facilities.
  The payments are up to 100 percent of the delay costs, or a total of 
$500 million each for the first two facilities. The next four plants 
would get a payment of up to 50 percent of the delay costs, up to a 
total of $250 million for each facility. This is a total of $2 billion.
  The ``delays'' for which private interests can be compensated include 
the inability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to comply with 
schedules that it sets for the reviews and inspections of these 
facilities.
  If the NRC finishes its work on time, but the full operation of one 
of these facilities is delayed by parties exercising their democratic 
right to seek judicial review to ensure the safe operation of a nuclear 
facility in their community, the plant owners can be compensated while 
the case is litigated.
  Nuclear powerplants are large capital investments and risky 
investments. But so are other energy projects. Just ask anyone who 
drills for oil, sites a windmill, or seeks to deploy a new energy 
technology. We do not provide any other type of energy facility this 
type of guarantee. And what a guarantee, while the Federal Government 
processes your permit, or if the Federal Government gets sued, the 
taxpayers will pay you, not for generating energy but for doing 
nothing.
  This is an enormous Federal spending commitment, and one we really 
are not likely to be able to afford. The intent really is to put 
pressure on the NRC to approve these new reactors and get them on line. 
If that is our intent, we should do so without obligating taxpayers to 
pay for the appropriate process to get them sited and built.
  I also am disappointed that the recycling tax credit provisions I 
authored to preserve and expand America's recycling infrastructure were 
stripped from the final bill. In a bill that provides $14.5 billion in 
tax incentives for energy production, these modest provisions would 
have gone a long way to encourage energy savings and job creation 
through investment in state-of-the-art recycling technology.
  In conclusion I try not to support legislation that exploits our 
natural resources and pollutes our environment. This bill contains too 
many provisions that represent real departure from current 
environmental law and practice to garner my support. Other Senators who 
believe that we can obtain energy security for America while preserving 
our environment should vote no as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that some additional materials clarifying my 
views on several bill provisions in the jurisdiction of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Additional Views of Senator Jeffords on the Conference Report 
           Accompanying H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005

       Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as I indicated to the Senate 
     in my remarks, this conference report fails to properly 
     balance the need for energy exploration and production with 
     important environmental and conservation concerns. There are 
     a number of environmental provisions in this bill that were 
     either considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works 
     Committee or are in the jurisdiction of that Committee, on 
     which I serve as Ranking Member. Given that the conference 
     report contains no detailed statement by the conferees 
     regarding how these provisions are to be implemented by the 
     relevant federal agencies, I felt it important to provide 
     additional comment on these provisions to serve as 
     legislative history.


            MTBE and Motor Vehicle Fuels and Fuel Additives

       The conference report fails to ban methyl tertiary butyl 
     ether (MTBE), an important and constant element of the Senate 
     bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee 
     in the 109th Congress. While I am pleased that an MTBE 
     liability waiver is not included in this bill, I am concerned 
     that MTBE will continue to be used in gasoline, leak from 
     underground storage tanks and continue to pose significant 
     and costly drinking water problems.
       The elimination of the oxygen-content requirement for 
     reformulated gasoline and the new ethanol mandate (Section 
     1504) may result in oil companies reducing the amount of MTBE 
     used, but it is unlikely to eliminate its use entirely since 
     it was used as an octane enhancer and anti-knock agent by 
     petroleum refiners long before the Clean Air Act requirements 
     of 1990. The continued use of MTBE in gasoline means that 
     drinking water supplies will continue to be in jeopardy. 
     Therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency and state 
     regulatory agencies should continue with their efforts to ban 
     and limit the use of MTBE.
       I am pleased to see that the bill includes several 
     provisions from the bill, S. 606, which was reported out of 
     the Environment and Public Works Committee, that are intended 
     to protect public health and the environment. Perhaps most 
     important of these is the toxics anti-backsliding language to 
     ensure that the elimination of the oxygenate requirement and 
     the growing number of States' MTBE bans will not encourage 
     refiners to use toxic replacement materials. The baseline 
     against performance is judged is set at the average of the 
     years 2001 and 2002, though EPA has evidence of continued 
     improvement in toxics reduction performance in later years. 
     Thus, setting a baseline even a few years old may allow 
     refiners to backslide on performance and increase toxic air 
     emissions from fuels.
       For unknown reasons, the conferees failed to adopt an 
     important Senate provision that would prevent MTBE-like water 
     contamination problems from occurring in the future. As was 
     recommended in 1999, by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates 
     in Gasoline, the Senate provided EPA the clear authority 
     under the Clean Air Act to regulate fuels and fuel additives 
     due to their impact on water quality and resources. Sadly, we 
     will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past on into the 
     future, because the conferees have apparently not learned 
     enough from the $25-85 billion remediation costs facing 
     municipal and residential water systems around the country.
       Another Senate bill improvement to current law which was 
     retained in the conference report was making EPA regularly 
     require manufacturers registering fuels or fuel additives to 
     conduct tests publicly to determine public health and 
     environmental effects before registration and use. The report 
     also requires EPA within two years of enactment to conduct a 
     study of the effects on air and water and sensitive 
     subpopulations of fuel additives (Section 1505). Today there 
     are a dozen or so different types of fuel additives and 
     little is known about the toxicological effects of these 
     chemicals on human health and the environment. These studies 
     will help us better understand where MTBE and other fuel 
     additives have leaked and contaminated water resources and 
     how these chemicals are affecting our nation's water 
     resources.
       As in the Senate bill, the conference report provides that 
     EPA must update its complex emissions model to reflect 
     vehicles in the motor vehicle fleet from the 1990 baseline to 
     a more accurate 2007 fleet, and study the permeation effects 
     of increased ethanol use on evaporative emissions. 
     Unfortunately, in section 1513, the conferees opted for the 
     less protective House provision on blending and comingling.
       The Senate bill, consistent with the recommendations of the 
     Government Accountability Office June 2005 report on 
     ``Gasoline Markets,'' directs EPA to study the air quality 
     and public health impacts of reducing the number of fuel 
     formulations in the market, as well as looking the effects on 
     refiners and gasoline supply and price. This report is due in 
     mid-2008. The conferees wisely included this useful provision 
     in the report, which will provide the information necessary 
     for EPA, the States and Congress to eventually

[[Page 19088]]

     make sound judgments about reducing the number of fuel 
     formulations. However, the conference report also includes an 
     illogical and unnecessarily complex system in section 1541 
     for limiting the fuel formulations in advance of data to be 
     collected pursuant to the Senate report and the GAO 
     recommendation. That same section also provides unnecessarily 
     expansive and confusing waiver authority for the 
     Administrator to allow increases in pollution from fuels and 
     fuel additives.


                            Coal (Title IV)

       This bill authorizes $3 billion in grants and loans through 
     the Department of Energy and $2.9 billion in tax credits to 
     assist coal-fired power plant owners in installing more 
     modern pollution control equipment and to develop better 
     control technologies. Unfortunately, most of these funds are 
     not directed at truly advanced and significantly cleaner and 
     more efficient electricity generation from coal. As a result, 
     taxpayers will be heavily subsidizing only incremental 
     improvements, rather than the substantial and radical 
     improvements that need to be made in thermal efficiency to 
     combat global warming and in state-of-the art technology to 
     reduce other harmful air pollutants, like mercury, ozone, and 
     particulate matter. This Title will not prepare the United 
     States to live up to its responsibility to be a global leader 
     in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our heavily coal-
     based electricity-generating base.


       Underground Storage Tank Compliance (Title 15, Subtitle B)

       Leaking underground storage tanks present a significant 
     threat to drinking water supplies nationwide. EPA estimates 
     that there are approximately 150,000 leaking underground 
     storage tanks currently needing cleanup. While I feel that 
     the twenty-year old law needs more comprehensive changes, I 
     am pleased with many of the underground storage tank 
     provision included in this bill.
       This bill will for the first time set a mandatory 
     inspection frequency for all federally regulated underground 
     storage tanks. Unfortunately, this requirement falls short of 
     the every two-year inspection requirement unanimously 
     approved by the Senate in the 108th Congress. Instead, tanks 
     that were last inspected in 1999 may be able to evade re-
     inspection until 2010 or 2011. EPA believes tanks should be 
     inspected at least once every three years to minimize the 
     environmental damage caused by undetected leaks. I encourage 
     EPA and the states to meet the three-year inspection 
     frequency upon enactment of this legislation.
       I am pleased with the increased authorization provided from 
     the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund and 
     the flexibility given to EPA and the states to use the money 
     not just for cleanups but also for compliance activities. 
     Increased authorization is meaningless, however, unless the 
     President and Congress fulfill their responsibilities to 
     appropriate adequate resources to carry out these activities. 
     To ensure that adequate money is provided in the future, I 
     encourage EPA to work with the states to improve data 
     collection to demonstrate the public health and environmental 
     benefits of increased funding.
       The bill contains an important new provision to protect 
     groundwater by requiring secondary containment of new tanks 
     within 1,000 feet for a community water system or potable 
     drinking water well. I'm concerned, however, about an 
     exemption from this modest secondary containment provision 
     that allows owners and operators to install underground tanks 
     without secondary containment if the manufacturer and 
     installer of the new tank system maintain evidence of 
     financial responsibility to pay for cleaning up a potential 
     spill. This exemption foolishly emphasizes cleanup over leak 
     prevention. In addition, this financial responsibility 
     requirement is likely to lead to delayed cleanups while 
     owners, manufacturers and installers fight in court over who 
     is responsible for the leak.
       EPA and the states should work closely to encourage owners 
     and operators of underground storage tanks to opt for the 
     secondary containment of new underground storage tank systems 
     rather than face potential legal complications in the future 
     when the less protective systems leak. EPA should also work 
     with the states and owners and operators to identify whether 
     this provision results in litigation or delays cleanups and 
     to identify, address and share information about common 
     manufacturing and installation problems with the states and 
     other owners and operators.
       I also question the wisdom of limiting the secondary 
     containment requirement to systems within 1,000 feet of a 
     community water system or potable drinking water well as 
     leaks, especially MTBE, which quickly moves beyond 1,000 feet 
     radius of the facility. A broader provision requiring 
     secondary containment on all new tanks has proven very 
     effective in Vermont. EPA and the states should carefully 
     identify all potable drinking water sources in these areas 
     and monitor whether the 1,000 feet radius is adequate to 
     protect public health.


   Western Michigan (Title IX Research and Development--Section 996)

       Hidden as a demonstration project in the Research and 
     Development Title is a provision that provides an exemption 
     from any new specifically ozone-related requirement or 
     sanctions under the Clean Air Act for counties in 
     southwestern Michigan that have been designated as non-
     attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. These areas are not 
     given a free pass from any existing Federal or State 
     requirement or enforcement of such existing requirement, 
     including any that the counties may face as ozone maintenance 
     areas or as part of any conditions in the state's ozone 
     implementation plan in place at the time of enactment of this 
     Act. No pollution source in those counties is provided any 
     exemption of any kind from requirements or sanctions related 
     to any other pollutant except as it directly relates to 
     ozone.
       The two-year hiatus in enforcement or application of new 
     requirements is unwisely provided to several counties with 
     large populations that are contributing to or causing 
     nonattainment in areas downwind from those counties. This is 
     in direct contradiction to the purposes of the Clean Air Act, 
     particularly as amended in 1990, which recognize the need for 
     all states and areas to be sensitive to the transported 
     pollution that they inflict on downwind areas. The Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has 
     jurisdiction over matters such as this and on which I serve 
     as the ranking member, has never had a hearing on this 
     provision, nor would I have supported such a broad and poorly 
     drafted temporary exemption.
       I expect that in the ``demonstration'' project process over 
     the next two years, EPA and the Governor of Michigan will not 
     only assess the difficulties such areas may experience in 
     meeting the 8-hour ozone standard because of transported 
     ozone pollution, but also the extent of the downwind damage 
     and pollution caused by this ``demonstration'' project 
     exemption and the adequacy of the EPA's SIP review process 
     under section 110(a)(2). In addition, I would note for any 
     electric generating unit or any similar major stationary 
     source in these counties, that the ``demonstration'' period 
     designation does not permit evasion of existing New Source 
     Performance Standard requirements in these counties or any 
     other such programs.


    Refinery Revitalization (Title III Oil and Gas--Section 391/392)

       I refute the implication in the findings that environmental 
     regulations have limited the U.S. refining capacity. 
     Therefore, I find the Refining Revitalization provisions in 
     this bill to streamline environmental permitting unnecessary, 
     preferential treatment for the oil and gas industry.
       While it is true that 175 refineries closed in the last 22 
     years and no new refineries opened, it is also true that at 
     the same time refining capacity has grown steadily from 6.2 
     billion to 8.2 billion barrels per day. In fact, the Energy 
     Information Administration earlier this year projected that 
     refining capacity will increase and that refining costs are 
     expected to remain stable or decline.
       Despite industry attempts to cut costs and achieve greater 
     efficiencies through rampant mergers--over 2,600 oil 
     companies merged in the 1990s--low returns on investment 
     inhibited expansion in the refinery sector, not overly 
     burdensome environmental regulations.
       Proponents of streamlining environmental permitting argue 
     that a large number of closed or idle refineries seeking to 
     reopen are having difficulties obtaining environmental 
     permits. Yet, neither EPA nor the states currently have 
     permits pending to restart refineries.
       To address this perceived problem, this energy bill 
     encourages Governors to request that EPA and the state 
     regulatory agencies streamline environmental permitting by 
     accepting consolidated permit applications and tells EPA to 
     find ways to better coordinate among state and federal 
     agencies and to provide additional financial assistance, 
     without providing EPA and the states additional resources to 
     accomplish this task. I am also concerned that this focus on 
     refinery permitting without additional resources will be done 
     at the expense of other important environmental priorities. 
     Refineries are getting preferential treatment that other 
     energy sectors will not be getting and just another example 
     of how this bill is just a transfer of taxpayer dollars to 
     the wealthiest energy companies in the country.
       When submitting its budget for next year, EPA should 
     include a large enough request to ensure that adequate 
     resources will be available to conduct expedited review of 
     new and expanding refinery capacity in the United States. Due 
     to the serious environmental impacts these facilities have on 
     our nation's air and water, EPA and the States must ensure 
     that adequate resources are available at the Federal and 
     State level to conduct expedited, but comprehensive and 
     complete reviews to ensure that the American people are 
     protected from the hazards these facilities present.


                        Nuclear Title (Title VI)

       This title adopts the majority of the provisions of Senate 
     Environment and Public Works Committee reported nuclear bills 
     in the 109th Congress: the Nuclear Fees Reauthorization Act 
     of 2005 (S. 858), the Nuclear

[[Page 19089]]

     Safety and Security Act of 2005 (S. 864) and the Price 
     Anderson Amendments Act of 2005 (S. 865).
       In particular, Section 651 of the conference report 
     includes provisions of S. 864 that would regulate 
     accelerator-produced material, discrete sources of radium-
     226, and discrete sources of naturally occurring radioactive 
     material (NORM) under the Atomic Energy Act. The section does 
     so because these materials pose a ``dirty bomb'' risk. There 
     is wide agreement that radium, accelerator-produced materials 
     and naturally occurring radioactive materials could be used 
     in a dirty bomb and therefore should be regulated by the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Even so, some have raised 
     questions about why we need to address the disposal of these 
     materials in the conference report.
       The conference report addresses the waste disposal issue 
     because some of the materials which are not now regulated 
     under the Atomic Energy Act can currently be disposed of 
     under the authority of Acts such as the Resource Conservation 
     and Recovery Act, as long as their activity levels are 
     sufficiently low. Since the provisions agreed to by the 
     conferees place these materials under the jurisdiction of the 
     Atomic Energy Act, they would no longer be able to be 
     disposed of under the authority of Acts such as the Resource 
     Conservation and Recovery Act without the additional 
     provisions we included in the language.
       Though the conferees included this language, neither the 
     NRC nor the Environmental Protection Agency and the states 
     should conclude that the intent of the disposal provisions is 
     to expand or alter the waste disposal requirements associated 
     with these materials. This language is not intended to alter 
     current disposal practices in any way, but is rather intended 
     only to preserve the disposal options that are currently 
     available under existing authority for this material.
       In all discussions with the conferees, it was my intent 
     that these provisions to remain neutral on the issue of waste 
     disposal, and to ensure that there are no new restrictions 
     and no new authorities granted by this language. To make it 
     clear, these provisions would in no way result in granting 
     new authority for materials that are currently regulated 
     under the Atomic Energy Act to be disposed of in facilities 
     not licensed to accept radioactive waste by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission or an Agreement State under the Low 
     Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA).
       Bringing accelerator-produced material, discrete sources of 
     Radium-226, and discrete sources of naturally occurring 
     radioactive material (NORM) under the Atomic Energy Act 
     because they pose a dirty bomb risk, without making special 
     provision for their disposal, would mean that in accordance 
     with the LLRWPA, as amended, these materials would have to be 
     disposed of at low-level radioactive waste disposal 
     facilities licensed by either the NRC or an Agreement State. 
     Because of interstate import and export restrictions adopted 
     by compacts under the LLRWPA, bringing radium 226, 
     accelerator-produced materials and NORM under the 
     jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Act could eliminate for 
     generators in the majority of States a disposal capability 
     for these materials that is currently available to and being 
     used by generators across the nation. In addition, regulating 
     these materials under the Atomic Energy Act might result in 
     making any Act that excludes Atomic Energy Act material from 
     the Act's coverage (such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 
     popularly referred to as the Resource Conservation and 
     Recovery Act (RCRA)) inapplicable. These provisions are 
     intended only to preserve the disposal options that are 
     currently available under existing authority for this 
     material, such as those that are available under the 
     authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and 
     would not affect the disposal of Atomic Energy Act materials 
     not covered by this section.


               Hydraulic Fracturing Title III/Section 327

       By excluding hydraulic fracturing from the definition of 
     underground injection, Section 327 changes how the 
     Environmental Protection Agency can regulate this practice 
     under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Hydraulic fracturing 
     involves injecting diesel fuel or potentially hazardous 
     substances such as benzene, toluene, and MTBE underground to 
     fracture rock and release oil and gas. It is clear this 
     language allows the EPA to restrict the use of diesel as a 
     hydraulic fracturing fluid, and the agency should continue to 
     use its existing authorities under the Clean Water Act and 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act to reduce loadings of these 
     pollutants associated with these activities from reaching 
     surface and drinking water.
       Hydraulic fracturing has historically been performed in 
     very deep wells. Today, it is also used in coalbed methane 
     extraction that occurs at much shallower depths. This 
     practice leaves hazardous substances in the ground that leach 
     into groundwater and jeopardize drinking water. Groundwater 
     provides drinking water for half the U.S. population. In 
     rural areas, 95 percent of drinking water comes from 
     groundwater.
       More than 167,000 oil and gas-related injection wells are 
     currently regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and 
     pose no impediment to oil and gas production. As they 
     implement this regulation, EPA and the States should continue 
     to monitor these activities to ensure that drinking water 
     sources are protected and report to Congress and the public 
     all incidences where harmful chemicals from hydraulic 
     fracturing leach into drinking water sources.


                   Stormwater (Title III/Section 328)

       Title III of the conference report also changes how the 
     Environmental Protection Agency is able to regulate oil and 
     gas construction activities under the Phase I and Phase II of 
     the Clean Water Act Stormwater Program. Since 1990, the Phase 
     I Stormwater Program has required permit coverage for large 
     municipal separate stormwater systems and 11 categories of 
     industrial discharges, including large construction sites 
     disturbing five or more acres of land. In 2005, GAO reported 
     that over a one-year period, in three of the six largest oil 
     and gas producing states, 433 oil and gas construction 
     activities obtained Phase I Stormwater Permits. Some of those 
     sites have held permits for ten years or more.
       Phase II of the program, adopted in 1999, requires permits 
     for small municipal separate stormwater systems and 
     construction sites affecting one to five acres of land. EPA 
     extended the Phase II permitting deadline, originally March 
     10, 2003, to June 12, 2006 for just the oil and gas industry. 
     EPA's rationale was that it needed more time to complete its 
     legal and economic analysis of the rule.
       The water quality implications from exempting the oil and 
     gas industry from stormwater permitting are significant. Over 
     a short period of time, storm water runoff from construction 
     site activity can contribute more harmful pollutants, 
     including sediment, into rivers, lakes, and streams than had 
     been deposited over several decades. Sediment clouds water, 
     decreases photosynthetic activity, reduces the viability of 
     aquatic plants and animals; and can ultimately destroy 
     animals and their habitat. These permits have not been 
     hampering production by these drilling sites, but they do 
     protect the fragile water resources around them.
       The EPA should construe any exemption for oil and gas 
     construction activities contained in this conference report 
     as very limited. The agency should continue, as appropriate, 
     to require stormwater discharge permits for oil and gas 
     construction activities that are similar to those performed 
     at other construction sites such as the construction of 
     roads, clearing, grading, and excavating. The Clean Water Act 
     requires that construction sites of all types obtain 
     stormwater discharge permits. When oil and gas construction 
     activities are similar to other construction activities they 
     should continue to be regulated.
       Mr. President, it is my hope that I have clarified for my 
     colleagues how these provisions were developed and the effect 
     of these provisions on the environment. It is my hope that 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency will review and incorporate my statement as 
     they implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Energy bill 
conference report.
  For many years, I have supported passage of a comprehensive national 
energy policy. Such a policy is necessary to reduce our increasing 
dependence on foreign energy sources. A comprehensive energy policy 
will help lower energy prices in the long run. Furthermore, any far-
reaching bill will move us toward newer technologies that will keep our 
economy growing strong while making us more energy independent.
  Although not perfect, this Energy bill moves us in the right 
direction. It will expand our electricity transmission system and make 
it more reliable. The bill contains incentives for renewable energy, 
including the renewable energy production tax credit that I helped 
include. It will also spur an increase the production and use of 
domestic biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Because of this bill, 
our coal-burning plants will improve their efficiency and emit less 
pollution. Finally, the bill provides needed incentives to increase 
natural gas infrastructure, measures that will lead to lower prices for 
natural gas consumers in the long run.
  Equally important, this bill benefits North Dakota for a number of 
reasons. The transmission incentives will enable my State's power 
producers to export electricity to distant markets. In this way, 
transmission incentives benefit the lignite and wind energy sectors in 
my State. The clean coal production incentives will make it easier to 
build advanced clean coal power plants. The inclusion of the wind 
energy production tax credit will help North Dakota

[[Page 19090]]

realize its potential to be the biggest producer of wind energy in the 
country. The Renewable Fuels Standard and tax incentives for ethanol 
and biodiesel will aid my State's farm economy, create more jobs, and 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In addition, the bill will assist 
my state in developing exciting new technologies, such as coal-to-
liquid fuel plants.
  I believe we still have a lot of work to do in order to make our 
Nation less dependent on foreign energy. However, this bill takes 
positive steps to address our energy needs. As I just mentioned, this 
bill will provide significant benefits to my State.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I support the conference report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  I do so because this bill fails to move us beyond the status quo of 
today's energy situation. Congress rarely steps forward to address our 
Nation's energy policy, and I believe when we do so we should provide 
real direction that addresses real problems. Unfortunately, that is not 
the case here.
  I voted for the bill as reported by the Senate, but only narrowly. A 
few provisions in the Senate bill attempted to address our need to 
promote renewable energy resources and decrease our consumption of 
foreign oil. Those few forward-looking provisions have been dropped 
from this final bill, leaving me with little choice but to vote no for 
our failure to truly provide some new direction to our Nation's energy 
policy.
  Crafting comprehensive energy policy should offer the opportunity to 
address the most difficult issues facing our country. The bulk of this 
bill sidesteps those tough issues and in place of solutions it offers 
bandaids. Moving toward independence from foreign oil should be a top 
priority, but it is not addressed meaningfully.
  Climate change is a serious issue that Congress simply refuses to 
address. While some voluntary measures are included, these are simply 
not enough. We must have meaningful action if we are to protect our 
health, environment, and economy of our country.
  Gone from this bill is the renewable portfolio standard promoted by 
the Senate. The Senate's provision would have increased the penetration 
of alternative energy sources. This bill also fails to take adequate 
steps to develop conservation and efficiency technologies, and yet it 
offers substantial subsidies to the fossil fuels industry.
  This is not the bill I would have written, and this is no longer a 
bill I can support.
  There are sections of the bill that are positive. For example, I am 
pleased that the conference bill contains provisions protecting the 
Pacific Northwest's electricity system from unwarranted interference by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and protects Washington 
ratepayers from excessively high electricity rates. I am also pleased 
that the current bill contains a fair and balanced hydroelectric 
relicensing process and sets new grid reliability standards. I commend 
my colleague, Senator Cantwell, who championed Washington State 
interests.
  This bill in particular supports cutting edge research and 
development at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Washington 
State universities in the areas of smart energy, advanced scientific 
computing, and systems biology.
  I am equally pleased to see that the bill does not provide MTBE 
liability protections.
  As the world's leading energy consumer, the United States should lead 
by example and innovation. However, this bill stops short of taking 
commonsense measures that would truly reduce foreign oil dependence and 
mitigate the looming threat of climate change. To diversify energy 
sources in America, fossil fuel use must be offset by conservation, 
energy efficiency, and clean and renewable fuels.
  Yet proposals to set ambitious, yet achievable, targets for reduced 
oil imports, tighter fuel economies for cars and trucks were defeated. 
Instead, oil and gas companies will be allowed to scour our fragile 
coastlines for more oil and gas reserves. Furthermore, this bill awards 
multimillion dollar tax breaks to those same companies, which are 
reaping windfalls from record-high oil prices at the expense of 
Washington consumers, to continue us down the path of fossil fuels, 
which are a key contributor to climate change. This bill also rolls 
back significant clean water laws that keep our water safe to drink.
  Despite ample protections for Washington ratepayers, it is hard to 
ignore that this bill, this national energy blueprint, does absolutely 
nothing to improve energy security or reduce dependence on foreign oil. 
We need a national energy policy but one that acknowledges the needs 
for the future, sets a plan, and moves us forward, not a bill that 
delivers the status quo.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to pass the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, the most sweeping comprehensive Energy bill 
in over a decade. We need a comprehensive set of policies to attack the 
energy crunch facing Americans on multiple fronts.
  Electricity systems on the West Coast are strained as electrical 
transmission lines lack capacity and interconnection to move power 
throughout regions. The dependence of our economy on foreign sources of 
energy continues to climb unabated, with close to 60 percent of the oil 
used to power the economy originating from foreign ports and oil 
fields.
  As a Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and 
as Member of the conference committee charged with hammering out an 
agreement, I have steered my colleagues in the House and in the Senate 
to look toward the Heartland as a rich land ready to contribute to our 
energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 incorporates many of the 
ideas I have long championed to spring forward South Dakota and the 
Great Plains as a key future energy producer.
  First and foremost, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 establishes a 
robust Renewable Fuel Standard that will lessen imports of foreign 
sources of energy and encourage the use of clean-burning renewable 
fuels.
  Beginning in 2006, the Energy bill establishes a robust renewable 
fuels standard requiring refiners to blend 4 billion gallons of 
renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. That standard would be 
increased over the next several years until 2012, when refiners would 
be required to blend a total of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels.
  Just in South Dakota alone, over 8000 farm families are invested in 
ethanol facilities through direct deliveries of corn or in more 
indirect paths, such as equity shares. The Nation's economy will get a 
significant and positive boost from enactment of the RFS.
  There are several other provisions in the bill that bring South 
Dakota's strength to solving the Nation's energy challenges.
  Key tax incentives included in the final version of the Energy bill 
extend the tax credit for small ethanol producers and expand the 
eligibility of that credit to plants with an annual capacity of up to 
60 million gallons is a major victory.
  The conference report also provides incentives for bio-diesel. 
Ethanol is not the only renewable fuel that can be produced in the 
United States soybean-based bio-diesel holds great promise for use in 
the Nation's fuel supply.
  We focused also on tapping wind energy resources by extending for 2 
additional years the production tax credit for wind energy facilities. 
The production tax credit is a tool used by developers of wind energy 
projects, such as the wind energy farm near Highmore, SD.
  One final tax provision that I feel holds particular promise is the 
authorization of $800 million in tax credit bonds to finance the 
construction of renewable energy projects by not-for-profit utilities 
and rural electric cooperatives.
  I have heard from dozens of electric cooperative and municipal 
utilities that want to undertake the construction of wind energy 
projects. However, until this bill, these non-profit entities were 
excluded from some of the incentives provided for Investor-Owned 
Utilities pursuing similar renewable energy projects. Now, rural 
cooperatives

[[Page 19091]]

can finance, construct, and operate clean energy projects, such as wind 
turbines and geo-thermal facilities.
  The conference report does not include what I believe is an important 
provision to set benchmarks and targets for producing electricity from 
renewable energy resources. Like a renewable fuels standard, a 
renewable portfolio standard would not only reduce the use of fossil 
fuel sources, but increase economic activity in South Dakota through 
wind energy and biomass projects.
  A modest renewable portfolio standard of 5 or 10 percent is 
achievable and can be done without increasing retail electricity rates. 
The benefits of balancing traditional energy sources, such as coal, 
nuclear, and natural gas, with new technologies will reduce air 
emissions and spur the creation of jobs in developing energy technology 
sectors. I include clean coal technologies, such as Integrated 
Gasification Combined-Cycle as an emerging clean coal technology that 
along with wind and geothermal plants hold the promise of producing 
clean-burning electricity.
  As Congress and the States and cities move forward on addressing the 
energy challenges of the 21st Century, policy-makers and industry 
leaders can lose sight and leave behind developing renewable energy 
sources. As the Nation and world strain finite fossil fuel resources 
the need to bring on-line these technologies will only become more 
acute and practical.
  I intend to vote for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As a Member of 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am proud of the 
job we did in fashioning a bill that will make strong strides forward 
in tackling the disparate parts of energy supply, transmission, and 
distribution. The bill also holds strong promise for making South 
Dakota a substantial energy producer of clean energy and renewable 
fuels. I urge my colleagues to support the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I commend Senators Domenici and 
Bingaman for their efforts in securing an energy bill that retains many 
features important to the Senate. Had I been present for the final vote 
on the Senate bill 1 month ago, a vote I missed because of the passing 
of my mother, I would have voted ``yes'' because I believed that the 
Senate bill took positive early steps toward development of a 
comprehensive energy policy, including an important initiative for 
renewable energy development.
  I consulted urgently with Senator Bingaman during the House-Senate 
Conference on an issue that was put before the conferees by the House 
that would have undermined the Clean Air Act and worsened air pollution 
in Connecticut and a number of other States. Senator Bingaman was able 
to keep that proposal out of the conference report and I thank him for 
that. I learned, through that bit of first-hand experience, how hard 
both Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman worked to keep faith with 
the Senate in producing a conference report that reflected some of the 
Senate's chief concerns. For that I believe we owe them both a debt of 
gratitude.
  Senators Bingaman and Domenici are to be commended for recognizing 
the deep concerns that public officials across New England have about 
the LICAP proposal and for including a sense-of-the-Congress resolution 
in the bill directing FERC to reevaluate this proposal in light of 
their concerns. I note that the sense-of-the-Congress resolution 
specifically draws to FERC's attention the objections of all six of New 
England's governors--both Democrats and Republicans.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters, from those 
governors to the Chairman of FERC expressing their objections to LICAP, 
be inserted in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I cannot emphasize enough the need for FERC to 
reconsider this deeply flawed proposal--a proposal that would cost New 
England ratepayers more than $12 billion over the next 5 years. The 
governors rightly argue that there are much more cost-effective 
alternatives to achieving the goal of ensuring our region of the 
country has adequate electricity that FERC should consider. And I am 
pleased that conference report directs FERC to address the governors' 
objections and recommendations.
  While I am disappointed with many of the changes made in the final 
version of the bill emerging from conference, and feel that we are 
still far from developing the bold national energy policy we so 
urgently need, I am voting ``yes'' today because this bill at least 
starts the process of changing the status quo.
  Still, it is my strong hope that having addressed issues of 
conventional energy supply through this legislation, we will turn, in 
the very near future, our urgent attention to the most pressing 
issues--the clear and inextricable linkage between energy supply and 
national security, the resulting urgent need for aggressive development 
of a portfolio of alternative and renewable fuels and conservation 
strategies, and the need to take comprehensive steps to set mandatory 
caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Solving these problems--and soon--is 
a responsibility that we have to today's public as well as our children 
and grandchildren, an obligation that we will not have fulfilled when 
this legislation passes.
  When this bill becomes law, new energy efficiency standards for 
appliances will be put into place and businesses, homeowners and 
consumers will see a range of new incentives to invest in and adopt in 
their homes, factories and automobiles, clean technologies, such as 
fuel cells, solar energy, alternative fuel vehicles and hybrids. All 
this will be done without forcing the Senate and the States to accept a 
number of provisions that would have done damage to the environment and 
to the treasuries of State and local governments contending with 
groundwater contamination, from MTBE. Finally, the bill offers some 
hope that we will get at least a little bit further in developing some 
of the technologies that can help combat climate change. Again, it 
includes a sense-of-the-Congress resolution regarding LICAP, an issue 
now important to the State of Connecticut but potentially important to 
us all.
  There is also good news to be found in what this bill does not do. It 
does not include provisions for drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. It avoids rollbacks to the Clean Air Act, rollbacks 
harmful to not just the Northeast, but to all who live and work in 
areas downwind of pollution sources.
  Despite these positives, I am disappointed by the missed 
opportunities for setting a bold, forward-looking 21st century energy 
policy. Opportunities to establish a renewable portfolio standard. 
Opportunities to protect the Outer Continental Shelf fully from 
potential exploration and drilling. Opportunities to develop clear 
steps to reduce our dependence on oil. Opportunities to protect our 
drinking water from possible contamination by toxic hydraulic 
fracturing fluids. Opportunities to take our first real steps to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  I urge my colleagues to consider this a beginning, and to continue in 
earnest our work to reduce the dependence on oil that is so undermining 
of our national and economic security, to develop alternative and 
renewable energy sources as well as conservation techniques, and to 
address the problem of climate change with mandatory steps that are so 
clearly required, as clearly expressed in the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution passed by this body last month.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               The Commonwealth of


                                                Massachusetts,

                                        Boston, MA, June 24, 2005.
     Re ISO-New England LICAP Proposal, Docket No. ER 03-563, 
         NESCOE Petition, Docket No. EL04-112.

     Hon. Patrick Wood, III,
     Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Wood: As you know, Massachusetts has been 
     closely monitoring the proposal of ISO-New England (ISO-NE) 
     to develop and implement a locational capacity (LICAP) market 
     in the New England region. Recently, my New England 
     colleagues wrote to you on this important issue expressing

[[Page 19092]]

     their concerns, and I want to take this opportunity to do the 
     same.
       While Massachusetts shares the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission's (FERC) interest in an effective capacity 
     mechanism to secure an adequate supply of electricity to 
     serve our region, it is our view that the LICAP proposal is a 
     broader, more costly approach than is necessary to assure the 
     region's reliability. Cost estimates of the LICAP proposal 
     range from $10 to $13 billion across New England over the 
     next five years, or approximately a 25 percent increase in 
     the energy portion of the average ratepayer's electricity 
     bill--both residential and commercial customers. This figure 
     translates to approximately $6.4 billion over five years for 
     Massachusetts alone, which is simply unacceptable. This type 
     of rate shock will have a detrimental effect on Massachusetts 
     and the region's economy.
       Massachusetts strongly believes that the ISO-NE has 
     prematurely pursued the development of a LICAP market, rather 
     than first pursuing the development of other solutions that 
     may be less costly for our consumers. The ISO-NE is in the 
     process of developing a locational reserves market to address 
     specific, targeted operating reserve needs that would support 
     fewer required generators. The development of an appropriate 
     capacity market to address regional adequacy issues should be 
     viewed in the context of a regional market plan that 
     considers the existing locational energy market and the 
     development of the locational reserves market, in addition to 
     other contemplated mechanisms. If after the implementation of 
     more cost-effective solutions a resource adequacy issue 
     persists, a further intervention can be developed to solve 
     these problems, while minimizing consumer costs and market 
     disruption.
       Given the significant cost associated with this issue to 
     our region, it is important that the FERC consider the other 
     proposals currently under development that may in fact 
     provide a more cost effective solution, while ensuring the 
     adequacy of the region's electricity supply. As always, we 
     look forward to working with the FERC on these important 
     matters so that our consumers and businesses are well served 
     by these important policy initiatives.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Mitt Romney.
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                            New England Governors'


                                             Conference, Inc.,

                                        Boston, MA, June 23, 2005.
     Re ISO New England LICAP Proposal, Docket No. ER 03-563, 
         NESCOE Petition, Docket No. EL04-112.

     Hon. Patrick Wood, III,
     Chairman, Federal Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Wood: The New England states, through their 
     regulatory agencies, have been litigating the proposal of ISO 
     New England (ISO-NE) to develop and implement a specific type 
     of locational capacity market in the region (LICAP). We share 
     the Commission's interest in an effective capacity mechanism 
     to assure an adequate supply of resources to serve the 
     region's load. It is we governors, after all, on whom 
     citizens ultimately rely to provide for the public health and 
     safety. However, we do not believe that ISO-NE's LICAP 
     proposal is that mechanism. ISO-NE's proposal: (1) does not 
     provide any assurance that needed generation will be built in 
     the right place at the right time; (2) is not linked to any 
     long-term commitment from generators to provide energy; and 
     (3) is extremely expensive for the region. In short, ISO-NE's 
     LICAP is a costly scheme that offers little in terms of true 
     reliability benefits.
       The Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) recommended decision, 
     issued on June 15th, adopted the ISO's proposal and rejected 
     the arguments of state regulators with little or no 
     discussion of the rationale for rejecting the arguments and 
     despite extensive evidence provided in support of their 
     positions. As you can see, we have serious reservations about 
     the efficacy of the demand curve mechanism, we are alarmed by 
     the financial impact on our citizens and businesses, and we 
     are troubled by the process that was employed to arrive at 
     this result. Accordingly, we are obliged in the best 
     interests of our constituents to oppose this decision.
       Late last year we answered your invitation and presented a 
     proposal to you for a regional state committee (RSC). Per 
     your suggestion, we identified resource adequacy assurance as 
     a core area of policy leadership we would provide. Many 
     months have passed since we filed our proposal but the 
     Commission has yet to act on the matter. The purpose of this 
     letter is to urge you to defer action on ISO-NE's deeply 
     flawed LICAP proposal, to issue an order authorizing the RSC, 
     and to direct the RSC to develop a proposal that serves the 
     region.
       Deferring immediate action on ISO-NE's LICAP proposal will 
     not undermine system reliability. Short-term contractual 
     arrangements are available to ensure reliability in any sub-
     regional zone that may, during peak periods, require 
     additional support. In addition, New England currently has 
     adequate overall capacity and a surplus of generation in some 
     states.
       ISO-NE's LICAP proposal is only one of many capacity market 
     proposals that could assure long-term resource adequacy in 
     the region. The specific proposal before the Commission is 
     based on an administratively set pricing system that we fear 
     will set capacity charges too high. This fear appears well 
     grounded in light of estimates we have seen that show 
     increased costs in the vicinity of $10 billion for the 
     region's constituents over the next five years. In isolation 
     these numbers are disturbing enough but imposition of LICAP 
     charges of this magnitude on top of the increases we are 
     already experiencing in energy commodity prices will place 
     serious stress on our state economies. Indeed, in Maine alone 
     up to 1,500 jobs could be lost as a result of the decrease in 
     consumer spending resulting from LICAP price shock. In 
     Connecticut, there is a significant risk that large 
     industrial customers will relocate out of state due to the 
     projected massive price increase resulting from the LICAP 
     charge. Given these high cost estimates and the lack of any 
     assurance that new capacity will indeed be built, it is 
     essential to allow the states, through the regional state 
     committee, to fully consider all alternatives to the ISO-NE 
     proposal--something which has not been allowed in the current 
     proceeding.
       We write today not only to highlight the real world effects 
     that your decision in this case may have on our constituents. 
     As governors of the New England states, we also stand ready 
     to assist the Commission in developing a sensible approach to 
     New England's capacity needs through the vehicle you 
     identified as responsible for formulating resource adequacy 
     policy--namely the RSC. We, through the regional state 
     committee, are prepared to lead.
       We are hopeful that you will take our concerns to heart by 
     deferring action on this matter until you have permitted the 
     regional state committee to have the opportunity to propose a 
     more effective, less costly approach.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Donald L. Carcieri,
       Chairman, Rhode Island.
     Governor John Lynch,
       New Hampshire.
     Governor M. Jodi Rell,
       Connecticut.
     Governor James H. Douglas,
       Vermont.
     Governor John E. Baldacci,
       Maine.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the United States needs an energy plan 
that balances traditional sources of energy with alternative energy 
sources and conservation. The energy conference report is not a perfect 
bill, but it is the result of true bipartisan compromise that managed 
to put some of the most harmful provisions on the cutting room floor.
  On balance, I support this bill because it moves us towards a more 
stable, reliable electricity grid, protects our consumers, and includes 
much needed investments in renewable sources of energy.
  I am especially pleased that this bill strengthens the reliability of 
our electricity grid and protects ratepayers from market abuses, 
particularly in the wake of Enron and the massive blackouts that struck 
parts of the Midwest and Northeast 2 years ago. I am also pleased that 
the bill reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
LIHEAP. This program protects our most vulnerable citizens by assisting 
them with their heating and cooling bills.
  I am also pleased that the conference report does not contain many of 
the most harmful provisions that were included in this legislation in 
the past. The bill does not allow for drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. The bill also does not include provisions that 
would shield producers of gasoline additives from lawsuits. I strongly 
opposed these provisions in the past and am pleased they are not 
included in this bill.
  Unfortunately, the bill does contain some questionable environmental 
provisions. I am also disappointed that the bill does not include 
important provisions I supported in the Senate bill, particularly the 
renewable portfolio standard, steps to deal with global warming, and 
requirements that would have lessened our dependence on foreign oil.
  In the end, this is not the bill that the Democrats would have 
written. It doesn't address the most pressing issues facing our country 
today: sky-high gas prices, global warming, and our growing dependence 
on foreign oil. But the bill does take important steps

[[Page 19093]]

to strengthen the reliability of our electricity grid, protect 
consumers from market abuses, and move us towards greater use of 
renewable sources of energy. This is just the beginning of a serious 
debate that will continue in the halls of Congress and in communities 
all across the country in the days to come.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am supporting the conference report on 
the Energy bill. The conference report 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 steps to improve the 
reliability of our electricity supply, and improve energy efficiency 
and conservation. This conference report is far from perfect but on 
balance it moves toward a sounder energy policy that will lead the way 
to greater energy security and efficiency for the United States.
  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. 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 some positive provisions included in the conference report 
in this regard, particularly those provisions that address energy 
efficiency and will lead us toward greater use of advanced vehicle 
technologies and 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 in turn 
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.
  The conference report includes a wide-range of energy efficiency 
provisions that will make conservation and efficiency 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. I am particularly pleased that the conference report 
authorizes both the weatherization program and the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, at higher levels of funding than the 
Congress has provided in recent years.
  The conference report 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, and the need for 
improvement was underscored painfully by the August 2003 blackout. 
There were 2 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 legislate on these issues, but I am pleased that the 
conference report includes the steps necessary to ensure there will be 
mandatory and enforceable reliability standards.
  The conference report also puts increased emphasis on diversity of 
supply and includes a 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 conference 
report 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 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 2 million manufacturing jobs have been 
lost to overseas operations in the 5 years, in part no doubt because 
natural gas prices jumped from $2 per million Btu to more than $7 per 
million Btu.
  I am pleased that the conference report includes significant 
provisions from the Senate bill for 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. The conference 
report also includes an amendment I offered in the Senate 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.
  We also 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. Encouraging and supporting State and local efforts is 
also important in the effort to push these advanced technologies 
forward. Therefore, I am pleased the conference report includes the 
amendment offered by Senator Voinovich in the Senate 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. These initiatives will help the U.S. 
to develop advanced clean diesel technology, which can make a major 
contribution toward our meeting stricter emissions standards in a cost-
effective manner.
  Finally, the conference report also includes important tax incentives 
for advanced technology vehicles--including advanced clean diesel, as 
well as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles--that are critical to encourage 
consumers to make the investment in these technologies. I would have 
liked for the tax package to have included more generous tax credits 
for consumers and to have included an investment tax credit to 
manufacturers to help defray the cost of re-equipping or expanding 
existing facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles. The tax 
incentives included in the conference report are a modest first step. I 
will continue to press for an investment tax credit for manufacturing 
of advanced technology vehicles because I believe it is necessary to 
offset the high capital costs of such an investment and to ensure that 
these vehicles will be made in the U.S.

[[Page 19094]]

  I am pleased that the conference report includes an amendment that I 
offered in the Senate 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. This provision requires 
DOE to consider 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 provision, 
the conference report directs DOE to use some common sense when buying 
oil for the SPR.
  I am also pleased that the conference report provides at least a 
short-term approach to some air quality issues in West Michigan. 
Interstate pollution from upwind areas such as Chicago and Gary, has 
resulted in several Michigan counties being designated by the EPA as in 
nonattainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This 
interstate pollution not only has environmental and health 
ramifications, but also has economic development implications because 
nonattainment regions are required to comply with more stringent 
regulatory standards. The 2 year respite from these additional 
regulatory provisions for West Michigan counties whose air quality 
problems were caused by upwind sources will provide temporary 
regulatory relief. However, these counties are still burdened with air 
pollution they did not cause. I am hopeful that EPA's 2 year 
demonstration study of the long-range transport of ozone and ozone 
precursors required in the Energy bill will provide helpful information 
for addressing the source of the pollution and result in improved air 
quality for downwind areas. Until the source pollution is addressed, 
West Michigan will continue to be plagued by pollutants from upwind 
areas. I am hopeful that this study and 2 year delay in regulatory 
requirements will provide the motivation for addressing the broader 
problems of interstate air pollution.
  I am pleased that the conference report contains a ban on future 
drilling in the Great Lakes. Millions of people rely on the Great Lakes 
for drinking water, and it is simply irresponsible to risk 
contamination of this source of drinking water, tourism and recreation. 
Preventing future drilling does not jeopardize more than a minute 
amount of our energy supply, and the bill does that for a very good 
cause, which is the protection of one of the world's truly great 
natural assets, the source of about 20 percent of the world's fresh 
water.
  The conference report puts some increased emphasis on renewable 
energy technologies, such as wind, biomass, 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. However, I regret that 
the conference report deleted the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which I 
supported in the Senate bill that would have pushed the sellers of 
electricity to obtain 10 percent of their electric supply from 
renewable energy sources by the year 2020. I believe that these goals 
could have been met and that an increased use of renewable technologies 
will both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lead to the creation 
of tens of thousands of new jobs.
  I regret that the conference report does not include a comprehensive 
effort to adequately address the impact of global climate change. For 
years, almost all scientists have agreed that human actions are causing 
temperatures around the world to increase. Experts also agree that this 
global climate change 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. I regret that the conference 
report did not include such a modest provision.
  Finally, I am disappointed the provision allowing continued export of 
highly enriched uranium was included in the conference report. The 
amendment that Senator Kyl and Senator Schumer offered to strike this 
provision from the Senate passed bill was adopted by the Senate by 
rollcall vote. It is unfortunate that this provision, which is a 
special interest provision, granting relief to one Canadian company was 
reinserted in the final agreement. This provision undermines 
longstanding U.S. efforts to eliminate highly enriched uranium in 
commerce, and increases the possibility that highly enriched uranium 
could be stolen by terrorists and used in a nuclear weapon or 
radiological device.
  The energy bills considered by the Congress over the last couple of 
years have been doomed by a heavy-handed, partisan approach. We lost 
valuable time in putting us on the course toward a sounder energy 
policy. The conference committee pursued a different approach this 
year, and as a result, was able to produce a bill with bipartisan 
support, which, while far from perfect, on balance, is an improvement 
over current policy.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, for working together in a 
more open and bipartisan way in developing the bill we are considering 
today.
  While there are many provisions that should be in this bill but 
aren't and many other provisions in here that I don't agree with, this 
bill could have been worse. There are numerous extraneous and 
environmentally harmful provisions that were in previous energy bills 
but are not included here. I appreciate both of my colleagues' efforts 
to avoid those pitfalls and produce the Energy bill we are now 
considering.
  However, there remains one very large and glaring omission in this 
bill. While framed as a ``comprehensive national energy policy,'' this 
bill completely ignores the most important energy issues facing 
America, our growing dependence on foreign oil and the impact this 
dependence has on our economic security and national security.
  I have no doubt that our Republican colleagues will go home and hold 
press conferences claiming victory. They will say that they finally 
broke through the obstructionism and passed an energy bill that will 
reduce America's dependence on foreign oil; a bill that will make 
America more secure.
  I wish that were true--but it is not. This is not an energy policy 
for America in the 21st century. And that is very unfortunate.
  The price of a barrel of oil is above $60 and rising, gas prices are 
again reaching record highs, yet this bill offers no solution. In all 
of the pages of text, there is no meaningful program or plan to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil. There is no provision that increases 
fuel efficiency or promotes oil conservation. There is no provision to 
create a comprehensive, long-term program for the development of 
renewable, sustainable fuels.
  This bill could have been a roadmap to a new energy future in 
America, but instead it leaves us stuck in our current energy mess.
  Supporters of this bill will claim that it can reduce America's 
dependence on

[[Page 19095]]

foreign oil by increasing domestic oil production. But I would point 
out a well-known fact--the U.S. contains only 3 percent of the known 
global oil reserves in the entire world. No matter how much we drill 
here, we will never drill enough to meet our growing thirst for oil.
  As long as we continue to consume as much oil as we do today, without 
addressing the hard issues such as fuel economy standards, we will 
become more, not less, reliant on foreign oil. With global demand for 
oil steadily increasing, this continued dependence on imported oil 
could have devastating economic consequences.
  Today we import 58 percent of our oil. The Department of Energy's 
Energy Information Administration projects that the U.S. will import 68 
percent of our oil by 2025--more than \2/3\ of our oil consumption.
  Former CIA Director James Woolsey, Robert McFarlane, former President 
Reagan's National Security Adviser, and other national security experts 
have created a group they call the Set America Free Coalition. 
According to them, ``It is imperative that the nation's energy policy 
address the national security and economic impacts of growing oil 
dependence.''
  Imagine what would happen to the U.S. economy if there were a major 
disruption in oil supplies in a foreign producing country--perhaps in 
the Middle East. Can you imagine what could happen to our economy?
  I can. Thirty years ago, war in the Middle East caused oil prices in 
the U.S. to increase by 70 percent. Overnight, the price of oil rose 
from $3 per barrel to $5.11 per barrel. Just a few months later, oil 
prices more than doubled again to $11.65 per barrel.
  At the time of the 1970s oil embargo the U.S. imported less than a 
third of our oil. This embargo hit Americans hard, as many remember 
well. Back then, Congress recognized the economic impact of oil 
dependence and took steps to address oil consumption in America. Among 
other actions, Congress passed national fuel economy standards, raising 
passenger cars from an average 12.9 miles per gallon in 1973 to 27.5 
miles per gallon by 1985.
  Increasing fuel economy standards for cars is one of the most 
effective steps we can take to reduce oil dependence. Unfortunately, 
this Congress has rejected that goal.
  Listen to this, from an article published in BusinessWeek about a 
month ago:

       As Congress puts the final touches on a massive new energy 
     bill, lawmakers are about to blow it. That's because the bill 
     almost certainly won't include one policy initiative that 
     could seriously reduce America's dependence on foreign oil: A 
     government-mandated increase in the average fuel economy of 
     new cars, SUVs, light trucks and vans.

  BusinessWeek was right, Congress did blow it.
  Congress has blown it at a time when the National Academy of Sciences 
and many other energy and engineering experts tell us the technology is 
available today to reduce our need for oil by 3 million barrels per day 
by 2015.
  Not only is there no new fuel economy standard, the energy conferees 
even rejected a modest provision that would have reduced oil 
consumption by 1 million barrels per day by 2015--just 4 percent of the 
petroleum it is projected we will use by 2015.
  Incredibly, it is President Bush's stated policy to oppose any fuel 
savings measures.
  Does this make any sense?
  There is only one provision in this entire bill that may--may--reduce 
America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil: a renewable fuels 
provision that requires a doubling in ethanol production by 2012. This 
provision will reduce oil consumption by about 1 percent over the next 
7 years.
  But does this limited 1-percent reduction in imported oil over 7 
years represent the best we can do for America's energy security? 
Economic security? National security?
  Senate Democrats believe that Americans can do better than we are 
today.
  We offered a plan to reduce America's dependence on imported oil by 
40 percent by 2025. This goal was a realistic goal--with realistic 
changes in the way we use energy, advance the production and 
application of energy technology, and promote energy efficiency and 
conservation.
  Nearly half of the Members of this body voted for our plan.
  But big oil companies, car companies, and their allies in the White 
House and Congress rejected even setting a goal.
  How is it that the same administration that talks about sending a man 
to Mars does not have enough faith in American genius and American 
know-how to believe that our scientists and engineers can determine how 
to increase the fuel efficiency of our automobile fleet safely?
  Almost 3 months ago, I spoke to an auditorium of scientists at the 
Argonne National Energy lab--America's first national energy lab just 
outside of Chicago. The scientists there do not think that decreasing 
America's over-reliance on foreign oil is impossible. They think it is 
imperative.
  Instead of shoveling billions of dollars at oil and energy companies, 
we ought to be investing in the work of those and other scientists. 
Yet, the Republican leadership, from the White House on down, is 
cutting public investments in scientific research and providing 
billions of dollars in tax incentives to big oil companies that have 
been recording record profits.
  This bill takes much of the $11.5 billion in tax incentives that 
could have been used to develop renewable and alternative energy 
sources and instead gives it to big oil and energy companies.
  For instance, there are generous royalty payment relief provisions 
for energy companies that drill on Federal lands. A better bill would 
have maintained royalty payments and used these funds to extend the 
production tax credit for wind generation beyond the 2 years written in 
this bill. Unfortunately the 2-year extension will continue the boom 
and bust cycle we've witnessed in the investment of wind generation.
  The President himself says that oil and energy companies do not need 
tax cuts--but he will sign this bill anyway, even if they are included.
  Think about that: the upcoming reconciliation bill will contain $10 
billion in cuts in health care for the poor while this bill provides 
over $10 billion in tax breaks, mostly for big oil and energy 
companies.
  Talk about a Congress out of touch with America.
  And we will have to borrow the money to pay for those tax breaks and 
pay interest on that money too, so the true cost is even higher.
  This is a failure in leadership.
  From the day they took office, the Bush administration made passing a 
new national energy bill a top priority. The President put the Vice 
President in charge of getting the job done. We still don't know how 
much of this bill can be traced back to the Vice President's secret 
energy task force because the administration has gone to extraordinary 
lengths--all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--to keep all of its 
records about the task force secret.
  There are at least two things the big oil and energy companies wanted 
that are not in this bill.
  For 5 years, MTBE manufacturers prevented the passage of an energy 
bill by demanding that they be shielded from liability for groundwater 
contamination caused by their product. Thankfully, the liability waiver 
is not in this bill--so Americans won't have all the cleanup costs 
shifted onto the taxpayers.
  Oil companies also fought hard against increasing ethanol 
production--knowing that this renewable fuel would replace some of 
their products. The oil companies wanted only a token nod toward 
ethanol.
  Thankfully, this bill contains a renewable fuel standard that 
increases the use of domestically produced renewable fuels to 7.5 
billion gallons by 2012. This change will be good for America's 
economy, good for our energy security and good for Illinois farmers.
  Illinois farmers grow corn that provides 40 percent of the total 
ethanol consumed in the U.S. annually. They stand ready and eager to 
meet the new challenges in this bill.

[[Page 19096]]

  I believe the renewable fuels standard can lead to greater energy 
security for our Nation.
  I will vote for this bill for one reason. After 4 years of fighting 
this battle, it is clear we are not going to get an energy plan for the 
21st century as long as Texas oil men are in charge of the Federal 
Government. This is as good as we are going to get.
  It has been 13 years since the last time America passed a national 
energy plan. I can guarantee you, it will not be another 13 years 
before this plan is abandoned and replaced with a more visionary and 
responsible plan.
  We should have increased America's national and economic security by 
reducing our reliance on oil imported from Saudi Arabia and other 
politically volatile nations. We have the scientific ability to meet 
that challenge. Unfortunately, we lack the political leadership to do 
so.
  The price we will pay for this failure of leadership in rising gas 
prices and increased risk to our national economy and national security 
will far exceed the cost of the wasteful tax breaks this bill gives to 
big oil.
  This bill does not reduce gas prices at the pump, it does not reduce 
dependence on foreign oil, it does not address fuel efficiency and 
conservation, and it does not increase America's economic and national 
security. It is not an energy plan for the 21st century.
  And it is definitely not the end of the energy debate--only the 
beginning.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate is poised to pass the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 and send it to the President, Utahns should sit up 
and take notice, because our State is at the heart of this legislation. 
So many of the problems in our energy structure have solutions that can 
be found in Utah, whether it is the need for more clean coal, more 
clean geothermal energy, more natural gas, better hydroelectric, more 
refining capacity, or more major sources of domestic oil, Utah will 
play a major part in the solution.
  I want to talk more about some of these solutions, but first, let me 
take a moment to thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman of the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for leading us to this 
point. The Senate Finance Committee, on which I sit, has made a major 
contribution to the bill with its tax incentives title. Chairman 
Grassley and Senator Baucus deserve just as much praise for their 
outstanding coordination and hard work on that important part of this 
bill.
  As the ranking member of the Finance Committee and as a Conferee on 
this legislation, I was able to watch all 4 of these men work together 
under pressure, and I could not be more impressed with their leadership 
and the work their excellent staffs have provided to our nation at this 
critical time. Working together, they have given us what I consider to 
be one of the most important bills to be enacted in a long time.
  I have, at times, been criticized for reaching across the aisle to 
accomplish important policy goals. Some believe that compromise signals 
weakness. Well I just plain disagree, and after 4 years of failing to 
pass a major Energy bill with a simple majority, I think the Senate has 
proven that we stand the strongest when we stand together. And our 
energy situation calls for this type of leadership and strength.
  Over the last decade, American consumers have increased their demand 
for oil by 12 percent, but domestic oil production has grown by less 
than \1/2\ of 1 percent. Is it any wonder that we rely on foreign 
countries for more than half our oil needs? We import 56 percent of our 
oil today, and it is projected to be 68 percent within 20 years.
  On the larger scale, global demand for oil is growing at an 
unprecedented pace--about 2\1/2\ million barrels per day in 2004 alone. 
While global oil production is increasing, the discovery of new oil 
reserves is dropping off at an alarming rate. Moreover, trends indicate 
that the global thirst for petroleum will continue to grow, especially 
in Asia.
  If our Nation must rely on oil imports to meet our future energy 
needs, we are headed for trouble, because, unless something changes, a 
sufficient oil supply will not be there. We should keep in mind that 
the transportation sector in the U.S. accounts for nearly \2/3\ of all 
of our oil consumption, and that sector is 97 percent dependent on oil. 
It could not be more clear: if we want to improve our energy security, 
we must focus on our transportation sector, and we must focus on 
diversifying our transportation fuels.
  Recently, we heard President Bush call on our Nation to ``develop new 
ways to power our automobiles,'' and he spoke of his proposal to 
provide $2.5 billion over 10 years in tax incentives for the purchase 
of hybrid technologies. The President also called for a better 
alternative fuel infrastructure and the need to develop hydrogen fuel 
cell vehicles.
  As for these policies the President addressed, my legislation, S. 
971, the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car 
Technologies Act, or CLEAR ACT, is exactly where the rubber meets the 
road. The CLEAR ACT, now a part of this Energy bill, is the most 
comprehensive and effective plan put forward by Congress to accelerate 
the transformation of the automotive marketplace toward the widespread 
use of fuel cell vehicles. And it does so without any new Federal 
mandates. Rather, it offers powerful market incentives to promote the 
advances in technology, in our infrastructure, and in the alternative 
fuels that are necessary if fuel cells are to ever reach the mass 
market. With the CLEAR ACT we accomplish this goal, but in the 
meantime, we also get cleaner air, we reduce our dependency on foreign 
oil, and we help lead our Nation into the future.
  Historically, consumers have faced three basic obstacles to accepting 
the use of alternative fuels and advanced technologies. These are the 
higher cost of the vehicles, the lack of an infrastructure of 
alternative fueling stations, and the higher cost of alternative fuels. 
The CLEAR ACT will lower all three of these market barriers through the 
use of tax incentives.
  First, we provide a tax credit for the purchase of alternative fuels. 
Next we promote a new infrastructure of alternative fuel filling 
stations by extending an existing tax deduction for the purchase of the 
necessary equipment and providing a new tax credit for the cost of 
installing it.
  Finally we provide a Clear Act Credit to consumers who purchase 
alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. This includes fuel 
cell, hybrid electric, alternative fuel, and battery electric vehicles.
  All of the technologies promoted in the CLEAR ACT--whether they be 
battery or electric motor technologies or advances in fuel storage and 
alternative fuel infrastructure--lead us closer to the hydrogen fuel 
cell vehicle. I believe fuel cells are in our future. However, even if 
the widespread use of fuel cell vehicles never becomes a reality, 
advances in these other technologies provide a dramatic social benefit 
on their own.
  I have heard from some who question the need for incentives for 
hybrid vehicles when they are popular in some areas. It may be true 
that demand for these vehicles is high in a few regions. However, these 
high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives in place for 
the purchase of these vehicles. Where incentives are not in place, 
hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can indeed 
provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of alternative 
vehicles.
  With the CLEAR ACT, we are trying to provide that breakthrough on a 
national scale. And the numbers show that a breakthrough is desperately 
needed. It may be true that hybrid sales have doubled in the last 
couple of years, but they still represent a minuscule 0.48 percent of 
cars that were sold in 2004. So I am very pleased, Mr. President, that 
the energy bill will lead us into the future in this regard.
  We should also be using more clean alternatives when we generate 
another form of energy--electricity. I am very pleased that the Energy 
bill includes S. 1156, my legislation that extends and expands the 
production tax credit for

[[Page 19097]]

electricity from renewable sources, including geothermal. This is 
particularly important to my home State of Utah, which has vast 
potential for the creation of electricity from geothermal sources, 
along with other renewable energy sources, such as wind and biomass.
  While this production tax credit has been in the tax code for some 
time, it had an unfair feature that provided the tax credit for 10 
years for electricity produced from wind, but only for 5 years for 
electricity produced from most of the other renewable resources. This 
inequity has skewed investment in these resources unfairly and in a way 
that has not led to the best use of these national assets.
  I am happy to see that this provision has survived in conference. 
This should result in a better-balanced and higher output of 
electricity from all our renewable resources.
  And, I have highlighted just two among many important provisions in 
this bill that will promote the greater use of alternative and 
renewable sources of energy.
  We cannot escape the fact that our nation remains reliant on oil and 
gas, and we absolutely must increase our supply of these resources in a 
big way.
  It is a little known fact that the largest hydrocarbon resource in 
the world rests within the borders of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. I 
know it may be hard to believe, but energy experts agree that there is 
more recoverable oil in these 3 states than there is in all the Middle 
East. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that recoverable 
oil shale in the western United States exceeds 1 trillion barrels, but 
it is not counted among world reserves, because it is not yet 
commercially developed. If anyone is wondering what the significance is 
of that number, he or she should know that the world's oil reserves 
stand at just about 1.6 trillion barrels. That means we have almost as 
much unconventional oil in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming as the rest of 
the world's conventional oil combined.
  Companies have been waiting for the Federal government to recognize 
the potential of this resource and allow access to it. My legislation, 
S. 1111, the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Act, will do just 
that, and more.
  Some have been understandably hesitant to develop this resource. 
During the 1970s, there was a very large and expensive effort in 
western Colorado to develop oil shale there. When the price of oil 
dropped dramatically, though, the market for oil shale went bust and 
the region suffered an economic disaster.
  We need to remember that our past failure in this area was not 
necessarily a failure of technology, but was due to a dramatic slump in 
gas prices. We now have a different scenario. Today, the world is 
reaching peak oil production of conventional oil, and cheap oil prices 
are nowhere in sight.
  We have already seen that a shift in focus to unconventional fuels 
such as tar sands produce mind-boggling results. Only a few years ago, 
Alberta, Canada recognized the potential of its own tar sands deposits 
and set forth a policy to promote their development. As a result, 
Canada has increased its oil reserves by more than a factor of 10, 
going from a reserve of about 14 billion barrels to its current reserve 
of more than 176 billion barrels in a very short period. And just 
think--we are sitting on a similar resource of oil shale and tar sands 
in the United States.
  It is frustrating to learn that Utah imports about one-fourth of its 
oil from Canadian tar sands, even though we have our own very large 
resource of tar sands in our own state sitting undeveloped. I look 
forward to the day in the not-too-distant future, when Utah's oil shale 
and tar sands are developed to their potential. If it happens, and I 
believe that it will, Utah will become a world leader in oil 
production.
  But even if we do solve the oil importation issue, we still have 
another problem. Our Nation is so lacking in refining capacity for 
crude, that we are forced to import 10 percent of our refined fuel. We 
could produce all the domestic oil in the world, but until we can 
refine it, we cannot use it.
  It is clear that one of the reasons we currently have sharply higher 
gasoline prices is that we simply do not have enough refining capacity 
in this country. This is both a short-term and a longer-term concern 
for our economy and national security.
  Regrettably, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil supplies 
are simply too tight in America today. There is not a lot that can be 
done in the very near term to address the higher cost of fuel that is 
attributable to refining bottlenecks. However, ensuring the long-term 
viability of the U.S. refining industry should be at the very heart of 
a smart national energy policy.
  One of the major problems with our refining capacity is that industry 
profitability has been poor over the past several decades. This has 
contributed to the steady decline in the number of operating refineries 
in America from more than 300 in 1980 to less than 150 today. I am told 
the last major refinery to be built in America came on line in the 
1970s.
  Earlier this year, the National Petroleum Council reported that U.S. 
refining capacity growth was not keeping pace with demand growth, that 
poor historic returns in the refining sector was impeding further 
investment, and that major expenditures in new regulations were 
limiting the funds available for capacity expansions. This was bad news 
crying out for a solution.
  Another problem mentioned in the report is that the 10-year 
depreciation schedule prescribed by the current tax law for refining 
assets is much longer than the write-off periods for similar process 
equipment in other manufacturing industries. Also, the tax code does 
not contain any incentives to encourage new investment in refining 
capacity, which is an endeavor that carries high costs and risks.
  With these facts in mind, I introduced S. 1039, the Gas Price 
Reduction Through Increased Refinery Capacity Act of 2005. S. 1039 
would adjust the depreciation period for assets used in refining from 
10 years to 5 and would allow an immediate write-off of these assets if 
companies made an early and firm commitment to invest in new capacity 
within a relatively short time.
  I thank Senator Grassley for including the temporary refinery 
expensing provisions of S. 1039 in the Chairman's mark of the tax title 
to the Energy bill. This provision passed the Senate as part of the 
energy tax package. I am pleased the Conference Committee accepted this 
provision even though cost constraints forced us to limit the incentive 
to 50 percent expensing.
  This is the first provision passed by Congress in the past half 
century that gives the U.S. refining industry a specific tax incentive 
designed to spur investment in increased refining capacity. The 
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which represents 
virtually all U.S. refineries, has indicated this measure will help 
stimulate facility expansions and output. It is the only provision in 
the entire Energy bill that encourages refining capacity growth and 
increased gasoline, diesel and jet fuel supply for consumers. This 
provision alone should make a significant difference in fuel supplies.
  Utah is a major gas producer. But most of Utah's natural gas lies 
under our vast public lands. Utah has a large supply, but as you might 
guess, Federal red tape is the number one obstacle to supplying the 
country with the natural gas it demands.
  One example is the natural gas found within Utah's tar sands. 
Historically, extracting natural gas from tar sands has required a dual 
application requiring both a permit for gas extraction and mineral 
extraction. I introduced a bill that amends the Mineral Leasing Act to 
allow a company only going after the gas to forgo the permitting for 
mineral extraction, while fully leaving in place every relevant 
environmental law and regulation. This legislation, S. 53, was included 
in the energy bill.
  In another effort to create a lose-lose situation, the Department of 
the Interior recently published a rule that would tack on a new and 
expensive fee on new Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) for 
natural gas development. As members of the Conference Committee, 
Senator Craig Thomas and I joined forces to put an end to this fee for 
at least 10 years.

[[Page 19098]]

  We do not need another hurdle to obtaining gas from our public lands. 
The Federal government receives about $1.6 billion every year in 
royalties from gas production on public lands. With every new well in 
Utah, gas companies pay a generous royalty to Federal and State 
governments. It is simple math--in the long run, Utah and the Nation 
loses money when wells are stopped because of fees. We also suffer from 
the resulting slow down in the supply of natural gas.
  Finally, I was a proponent of an item in the Energy bill that reduces 
the depreciable lives of natural gas gathering and distribution lines. 
By being able to depreciate their equipment more quickly, companies are 
better able to invest in future production activity. This provision 
should help spur investment in more exploration and production of this 
clean and important fuel.
  As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the Energy Policy Act 
will have a very large impact on Utah, not only in positive economic 
growth and jobs, but also in the benefits of cheaper and cleaner energy 
costs for families and businesses. Again, I thank the leaders in the 
Senate who have brought us to this point, along with their counterparts 
in the House of Representatives. I think we have proven today, that 
Congress can respond to the needs of the nation and our citizens when 
we work together with that goal in mind.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 13 years have passed between the time 
Congress passed national energy legislation and the conference report 
we are taking up today. This conference report is not perfect, and it 
does not go as far as I would have hoped in terms of moving the U.S. 
down a different energy path. It does, however, include a number of 
positive elements, including several relating to coal and clean coal 
technologies that I have supported for a number of years. But, if we 
wait another 13 years and continue to ignore the looming energy threats 
that remain unaddressed, we may find ourselves woefully behind the rest 
of the world.
  If the U.S. is to remain competitive and keep pace with our growing 
energy demands, then we must take stock, as a Nation, of our energy 
security and make it a top national priority. We cannot achieve energy 
independence with continued incremental, piecemeal efforts. It is time 
to devote new innovation and ingenuity to energy policy and blaze a 
path forward. We need to be free of the chains of foreign oil. To do 
that, we must invest in the energy resources that we have here at home. 
Coal is at the heart of that effort.
  By encouraging the cleaner, more efficient use of coal in powerplants 
and other facilities, we help to ensure jobs in West Virginia's coal 
communities for many years to come. At the same time, we must find more 
ways to utilize coal as an energy source in the 21st century. West 
Virginians know that, for the United States to be free of our heavy 
reliance on Middle Eastern oil, we must make investments in coal, 
biomass, and other domestic, power-producing resources. We must be 
prepared to make the hard decisions to make energy security a national 
priority, not a mere afterthought.
  For many years, the Middle East has been a hotbed of tumult and 
strife. An underlying reason for our continued presence in this region 
is the protection of our oil lifeline. Unfortunately, even if the 
Congress passes this energy legislation, it will do little, if 
anything, to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. In fact, we will 
continue to become more dependent by the day. Instead of disentangling 
ourselves from this foreign oil dependency, we will be sinking our 
military and energy fortunes deeper and deeper into the sands of the 
Middle East.
  West Virginians and Americans everywhere should understand that there 
are some very good features of this conference report, but they should 
not be fooled. Our citizens will see little change in terms of gas 
prices or natural gas prices. There will likely be few changes in our 
production or use of energy. I fear the U.S. will continue to ride down 
the same rocky road for years to come.
  Regrettably, House Republicans also objected to including in the 
Energy conference report my commuter tax benefit to help rural workers 
who are paying exorbitant prices at the fuel pump. Big Oil, which is 
reaping huge windfalls from fuel prices this year, is denying modest 
relief to working Americans. This is but one of the many examples of 
how this bill sidesteps the difficult decisions that ultimately must be 
made to address energy costs, to reduce our reliance on foreign energy, 
to substantially improve our domestic energy supply and energy 
efficiency needs, and to deal with global climate change. We are doing 
little, if anything, to address seriously these critical challenges.
  I am delighted to support the inclusion of certain targeted tax 
incentives that will help promote the next generation of clean coal 
technologies. I have been working on these issues for more than 6 years 
and am delighted that the Congress has recognized their value. This 
would include, for the first time, $1.3 billion to help fund the 
deployment of the ``next generation'' of powerplants, including 
integrated gasification combined cycle and advanced combustion-based 
powerplants. There is also $350 million for a new program to accelerate 
the use of coal and other domestic resources at industrial gasification 
facilities. I note that several important coal research, development, 
and demonstration programs, especially the clean coal technology 
demonstration program, have been reauthorized and improved upon in this 
conference report.
  This legislation makes many promises to the country on energy policy. 
It makes promises to the men and women who pull the coal from the 
ground and to those who are finding ways to use that coal more cleanly 
and more efficiently. To make good on those promises, the 
administration must be willing to put financial support behind these 
initiatives. Will this administration do that? Is the President going 
to request the funding required in his budget to make the clean coal 
and other important energy programs a reality? In the end, the 
President will likely have a Rose Garden ceremony and press releases 
touting its accomplishments. But, given this administration's track 
record, is this energy bill simply a soapbox to stand on?
  The final legislation before us is only a way station on a long 
journey and more work remains ahead. This bill is not the whole answer. 
It is a start, and I am committed to continuing to work toward that 
goal. I want to thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their 
continued diligence and hard work in this endeavor. I applaud their 
efforts to ensure that the consideration of this legislation was open 
and bipartisan from start to finish. I will vote to support H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005.


                tax incentives for commercial buildings

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank you for your dedicated work 
in defending the Senate-passed Energy bill language in conference, 
particularly concerning the energy efficiency tax incentives. For the 
first time, there will be energy efficiency tax incentives for 
commercial buildings for each of the three energy-using systems of the 
building--the envelope, the heating, cooling and water heating system, 
and lighting. Each is eligible for one-third of the $1.80 per square 
foot tax incentive if it meets its share of the whole-building savings 
goal. This will apply to buildings that cut energy use by 50 percent, 
an ambitious but very important target as buildings account for 35 
percent of our Nation's energy usage, and commercial buildings are a 
large part of that percentage.
  My concern is that, because the eligibility period was cut back from 
the end of 2010 to just 2 years, this shorter window of effectiveness 
could undercut the program, since the time it takes to design and 
construct these large buildings and skyscrapers could take longer than 
the 2 years of eligibility. This is especially a concern as the 
incentives for commercial buildings is one of the fastest ways in the 
entire Energy bill that we can cut down the Nation's energy usage in 
the short term.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are committed to this as the correct policy for 
large

[[Page 19099]]

scale commercial projects. In addition, we are committed to seeing 
energy-efficient skyscrapers in the sky and recognize that these types 
of projects take years to design and build. We will continue to work 
with you to make this a long-term policy of the Tax Code.
  Ms. SNOWE. Again, your assistance is greatly appreciated and I look 
forward to working with you on this matter in the Finance Committee in 
the coming months.


           clarifications relating to the section 29(c)(1)(c)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to confinn that certain language 
in the Conference Report to the Energy bill, with respect to the 
Internal Revenue Service stopping the issuance of private letter 
rulings and other taxpayer-specific guidance regarding the section 29 
credit, actually refers to a solid fuel produced from coal and ``coal 
waste sludge,'' a waste product composed of tar decanter sludge and 
other byproducts of the coking process. This fuel is commonly referred 
to as ``steel industry fuel'' because it is a superior feedstock for 
the production of coke that is used by the domestic steel industry. 
Steel industry fuel provides significant energy benefits by recapturing 
the energy content of the coal waste sludge and significant 
environmental benefits because the Environmental Protection Agency 
classifies coal waste sludge as a hazardous waste unless it is 
processed with coal into a solid fuel product. The conference report 
expresses the conferees' understanding and belief that the Internal 
Revenue Service should consider issuing such rulings and guidance on an 
expedited basis to those taxpayers who had pending ruling requests at 
the time the moratorium was implemented. I would like to confirm the 
understanding and belief of the conferees that this language in the 
conference report actually refers to steel industry fuel and the 
requests for private letter rulings that the producers of steel 
industry fuel submitted in Fall 2000.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Yes, the distinguished Senator is 
correct. The conferees understand that there are requests for private 
letter rulings with respect to the process the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has described. Moreover, these requests were submitted in 
Fall 2000. The conferees expect that the Internal Revenue Service would 
consider issuing these rulings immediately, with due diligence, and 
without delay.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would also like to ask the distinguished Chairman of 
the Committee on Finance to confirm that steel industry fuel is a 
``qualified fuel'' that is eligible for the section 29 nonconventional 
fuel tax credit through 2007 when one, the production facility was 
placed in service after 1992 and before July 1, 1998, pursuant to a 
binding written contract--including a supply or service contract for 
the processing of coal waste sludge--and, two, the steel industry fuel 
is sold to an unrelated party.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Pennsylvania raises an important and 
time-sensitive question. When we considered the section 29 changes, the 
conferees were aware of the process described by the Senator. As the 
senior conferee for the Committee on Finance, I urge the Internal 
Revenue Service to consider that process as a qualified fuel that is 
eligible for the section 29 credit under such circumstances.
  Mr. SANTORIUM. I thank the distinguished chairman for these 
clarifications.


            clarifying section 703 of the Energy Policy Act

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, can I ask you to clarify something 
regarding Section 703? It is my understanding that by creating an 
alternative compliance mechanism that essentially we are creating a 
system that will allow more technologies to receive credit under the 
EPAct program without specifically naming them.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. So, for instance, neighborhood electric vehicles or low 
speed electric vehicles would now qualify under this program even 
though they are not specifically named?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the chairman and yield the floor.


                      foreign utility--section 203

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--Senator Domenici--in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that section 
1289 of the Domenici Energy Policy Act of 2005 could be interpreted as 
requiring FERC approval of certain foreign transactions wholly outside 
of the United States.
  I am a strong supporter of section 1289 because I believe it is 
vital, especially since we are repealing the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act, that FERC be given the authority it needs to protect U.S. 
consumers. In my opinion, section 1289 gives FERC the appropriate 
authority to ensure that utility mergers and acquisitions do not 
adversely impact consumers. I also think it is appropriate for FERC to 
be able to ensure that retail customers in the United States do not 
subsidize foreign acquisitions.
  However, Section 1289 could also be interpreted as requiring FERC 
approval of a holding company's acquisition of a foreign utility where 
the holding company has no retail customers in this country. A company 
that has a subsidiary that simply owns generation assets in the United 
States for wholesale electric sales is also defined as a holding 
company. As a result, that holding company's acquisition of an electric 
utility company operating entirely overseas could be interpreted as 
being subject to FERC's purview as a result of section 1289 of the bill 
we are considering today.
  Subjecting foreign utility acquisitions by holding companies without 
any U.S. retail customers to FERC oversight could potentially have a 
chilling effect on investment here in the United States. At a time that 
we are trying to encourage investment in U.S. generation, we may be 
dissuading investments coming into the United States if a foreign-based 
holding company believes its next transaction in Great Britain is going 
to be subject to a FERC merger review proceeding. Moreover, the 
``public interest'' test present in section 203 of the Federal Power 
Act does not readily fit the situation present with respect to foreign 
transactions.
  I note that section 1289 does give FERC the authority to, by 
rulemaking, identify types of transactions that will receive expedited 
Commission review. I certainly believe that the acquisition of a 
foreign utility company by a holding company with no retail customers 
in the United States should fall in that category. Other categories of 
foreign transactions that could possibly be interpreted as being 
covered by section 1289 also may fall into this category.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague--Senator 
Bingaman--that FERC, if it determines that certain foreign transactions 
are covered by the language of section 1289, should provide expedited 
review and approval to the acquisition of a foreign utility by a 
holding company that has no retail customers in the United States and 
other transactions that raise no significant U.S. consumer issues. 
These types of transactions don't require FERC's scrutiny in order to 
ensure that American consumers are adequately protected.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for 4 years, Congress has failed to enact 
a comprehensive Energy bill. Today, however, I am confident we can 
change that record.
  The conference committee has assembled a well-balanced package. It is 
right for America. We should send it to the President's desk.
  The House and the Senate gave the conferees a difficult task. The 
House and Senate Energy bills took two very different approaches to tax 
policy. The two bills had very little in common. Thus, we could not 
include everything in both bills without busting our budget.
  Most of the provisions in the House bill promoted investment in 
traditional energy infrastructure. It favored

[[Page 19100]]

pipelines, electricity lines, and oil and gas production.
  In contrast, the Senate bill--which I helped develop with my good 
friend Senator Grassley--advanced new technologies. It encouraged 
conservation efforts, improved energy efficiency, and expanded use of 
alternative fuels.
  Conference negotiations were hard fought. We made some tough 
decisions.
  But overall, the process was very positive. We kept within our 
budget, and we worked with a spirit of compromise and cooperation.
  The energy tax incentives that the conference has recommended take an 
evenhanded approach to an array of promising technologies.
  For example, the bill provides a uniform period for claiming 
production tax credits under section 45 of the Tax Code. This 
encourages production of electricity from all sources of renewable 
energy.
  The bill recognizes the value of coal and other traditional energy 
sources to our economy. It provides investment tax credits for clean-
burning coal facilities and projects. It provides substantial tax 
incentives to facilitate much needed expansion of refinery capacity. 
And it promotes expansion of American energy delivery systems.
  The bill recognizes the need for a diverse energy portfolio, it 
fosters energy production from wind or coal in Montana to geothermal 
sources in California, and it will help create jobs by promoting 
domestic energy production.
  The bill also rewards energy conservation and efficiency. It includes 
incentives for energy-efficient homes, alternative fuel vehicles, and 
development of fuel cell technology. These incentives are 
environmentally responsible they reduce pollution, and they help 
improve people's health.
  These energy tax incentives are good for America. They will promote 
the delivery of reliable, affordable energy to consumers. They will 
help to create jobs through domestic energy production, and they make 
meaningful progress toward energy independence.
  I am proud of the bipartisan effort that produced the conference 
agreement. I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Energy bill 
conference report.
  For many years, I have supported passage of a comprehensive national 
energy policy. Such a policy is necessary to reduce our increasing 
dependence on foreign energy sources. A comprehensive energy policy 
will help lower energy prices in the long run. Furthermore, any far-
reaching bill will move us toward newer technologies that will keep our 
economy growing strong while making us more energy independent.
  Although not perfect, this energy bill moves us in the right 
direction. It will expand our electricity transmission system and make 
it more reliable. The bill contains incentives for renewable energy, 
including the renewable energy production tax credit that I helped 
include. It will also spur an increase in the production and use of 
domestic biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Because of this bill, 
our coal-burning plants will improve their efficiency and emit less 
pollution. Finally, the bill provides needed incentives to increase 
natural gas infrastructure, measures that will lead to lower prices for 
natural gas consumers in the long run.
  Equally important, this bill benefits North Dakota for a number of 
reasons. The transmission incentives will enable my State's power 
producers to export electricity to distant markets. In this way, 
transmission incentives benefit the lignite and wind energy sectors in 
my State. The clean coal production incentives will make it easier to 
build advanced clean coal powerplants. The inclusion of the wind energy 
production tax credit will help North Dakota realize its potential to 
be the biggest producer of wind energy in the country. The Renewable 
Fuels Standard and tax incentives for ethanol and biodiesel will aid my 
State's farm economy, create more jobs, and reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. In addition, the bill will assist my State in developing 
exciting new technologies, such as coal-to-liquid fuel plants.
  I believe we still have a lot of work to do in order to make our 
Nation less dependent on foreign energy. However, this bill takes 
positive steps to address our energy needs. As I just mentioned, this 
bill will provide significant benefits to my State.
  For these reasons, I support the conference report.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Shelby and Senator 
Sarbanes for their hard work on H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA). I 
know how much time, effort and energy went into completing that bill 
and I commend the chairman and ranking member. I especially appreciate 
their willingness to work with me to get language included in the bill 
in support of a full funding grant agreement for the New Jersey Trans-
Hudson Midtown Corridor.
  The New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project entails 
construction of a 5-mile commuter rail extension from Secaucus, NJ to a 
new station in midtown Manhattan. The centerpiece of the project is a 
new trans-Hudson rail tunnel. This project will benefit transit riders 
from the New York and New Jersey region and will relieve congestion on 
the existing tunnels for intercity rail riders of the Northeast 
corridor, the Nation's busiest passenger railroad. A recent economic 
impact analysis indicates that the entire project will create 44,000 
new jobs and increase gross regional product by $10 billion. The 
project's estimated cost is approximately $5 billion.
  The Federal contribution would be matched by comparable local 
contributions from the State of New Jersey and the Port Authority of 
New York and New Jersey. New York's Governor Pataki, who along with New 
Jersey's Governor Codey controls the Port Authority governance, 
recently declared his support of this project--bolstering prospects for 
future funding from the Port Authority for local share. In addition, 
the State of New Jersey will soon be reauthorizing its transportation 
trust fund, which will provide New Jersey with the funding capacity for 
its own contribution to the project.
  Currently, the project is undergoing environmental review, which 
should be completed in 2006. It is expected that preliminary 
engineering will start in fall 2005 and construction will begin in 
2007.
  The language in the SAFETEA bill will be a significant boost to this 
project. I would like to take a moment to clarify the intent of a 
couple of points in that provision in the bill. First of all, it is the 
intent of the language to include the funding expended for the New 
Jersey Transit river line and the bi-level railroad cars New Jersey 
Transit purchased for its lines as part of the non-Federal contribution 
for the New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project.
  Second, the language says that the Secretary of Transportation must 
give ``strong consideration'' to the Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor 
project when it comes time to awarding a full funding grant agreement, 
since it will be a crucial link for the Northeast corridor and benefit 
the region's mobility, security, economy and environment. The term 
``strong consideration'' indicates that the New Jersey Trans-Hudson 
Midtown Corridor project is a high priority for the Secretary and 
encourages the Secretary to award a full funding grant agreement 
provided it meets the FTA's New Starts criteria. I appreciate the 
opportunity to clarify these important points, and I look forward to 
further progress on the tunnel project.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am afraid that the heralded passage of 
this energy bill against years of failure by the Congress to legislate 
a comprehensive energy policy has created a false sense of 
accomplishment in Washington today. As my colleagues are well aware, 
oil prices are hovering near the infamous $60 per barrel mark; the 
greenhouse effect is beginning to have a substantial measurable impact 
on the global climate; and American families are being gouged at the 
pump while their tax dollars are carelessly spent on Federal subsides 
for big oil and gas companies. As leaders, we cannot claim that we have 
successfully addressed these real-life challenges by enacting

[[Page 19101]]

this latest incarnation of special interest influence in policymaking.
  I do want to acknowledge the work of the Senate conferees for keeping 
out a few of the most objectionable provisions that prevented passage 
of the bill during the last Congress, particularly the MTBE liability 
waiver and the proposed drilling in ANWR. They took the right action in 
preventing the inclusion of those provisions. Unfortunately, after all 
the time and effort spent on this issue during the past several years, 
when it comes to solving America's pressing energy problems, this bill 
simply does not go far enough. It will not reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil, it won't assure the growing threat of global warming is 
addressed in a meaningful way, and it wont effectively reduce the price 
of gasoline at the pump.
  The estimated cost of this energy bill has ballooned far beyond the 
original $6.7 billion in the President's proposal. The conference 
agreement provides an estimated $14.5 billion in corporate subsidies 
and tax credits. And the tax package provides more than twice as many 
incentives to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries as it does to 
energy efficiency and renewable energy--a significant change from the 
Senate-passed bill.
  Indeed, big oil, coal and gas companies seem to be disproportionally 
favored under this bill as most of the tax breaks going to traditional 
industries. Only about 36 percent of the estimated tax package would go 
to renewable energy and cleaner burning vehicles. Even then, some of 
the programs to promote renewable energy and alternative fuels are 
questionable. A loan guarantee program that would cover up to 80 
percent of the cost of developing new energy technologies was scored at 
$3.75 billion for the first 5 years. These loans carry a 20- to 60-
percent risk of default according to the CBO, and after the 5 years 
there are no limits on the amount of loans that can be guaranteed, thus 
leaving the taxpayer to cover the losses when such endeavors fail. 
Perhaps more alarming, the estimated costs of the bill are estimates at 
best, and don't take into account some of the hidden costs associated 
with program authorizations and future tax credit extensions.
  And then there is the ambiguous realm of alternative fuels for 
vehicles. Rather than addressing the gas mileage interests of 
consumers, this energy conference report would boost ethanol production 
by requiring 7.5 billion gallons of the corn-derived fuel be added to 
the domestic gasoline supply by 2012. This is double the current 
ethanol mandate and while it will be a boon for the ethanol producers, 
it will have a negligible effect on oil imports. While I fully 
recognize and support efforts to promote clean energy sources, the 
costs also need to be weighed against any presumed benefits. And at 
this juncture, the beneficiaries are still the producers, not the 
consumers and not the environment.
  Let me mention some of the more ``interesting'' provisions in the 
conference report:
  Section 134. Energy Efficiency Public Information Initiative. 
Authorizes a total of $400 million, $90 million for Fiscal Years 2006 
through 2010, for the Secretary of Energy to carry out a national 
consumer information program to encourage energy efficiency through 
disseminating information to the American public addressing, among 
other things, the importance of proper tire maintenance. I am fully 
aware that it is important to rotate your tires, and to take other 
actions to preserve energy, but do we really need to spend almost half 
a billion on such a campaign?
  Section 138. Intermittent Escalator Study. Requires the GSA to study 
the advantages and disadvantages of employing intermittent escalators 
in the United States. I can't imagine many of my colleagues would 
support removing ``Senators Only'' features in the Capitol Complex and 
be content to wait for an elevator to intermittently show up, but maybe 
the rest of the American public is more patient.
  Section 207. Installation of Photovoltaic System. Authorizes $20 
million for the GSA to install a photovoltaic system, as set forth in 
the Sun Wall Design Project, for the Department of Energy headquarters 
building. Of all the sunny places in this country where solar power is 
viable, the Energy Department Building in DC would not be the first 
place that comes to mind.
  Section 208. Sugar Cane Ethanol Program. Establishes a new $36 
million program under EPA that is limited to sugar producers in the 
States of Florida, Louisiana, Texans and Hawaii for 3 years.
  Section 224. Royalties and Near-Term Production Incentives. Under 
this section, all monies received by the U.S. on all lands except for 
the State of Alaska, from sales, bonuses, rentals and royalties on 
leased Federal lands or geothermal resources shall be paid into the 
Treasury of the U.S. and a percentage of such funding is then partially 
redistributed to the State within the boundaries of which the revenues 
were generated. But in the case of Alaska, seems that they will get to 
keep all of the monies generated.
  Section 237. Intermountain West Geothermal Consortium. Establishes an 
Intermountain West Geothermal Consortium that focuses on building 
collaborative efforts among universities in the State of Idaho, other 
regional universities, State agencies and the Idaho National 
Laboratory, must be hosted and managed by Boise State University, and 
have a directed appointed by the Boise State University. Why do we need 
a federal law to promote collaboration at Boise State?
  Section 244. Alaska State Jurisdiction Over Small Hydroelectric 
Projects. Amends the Federal Power Act with respect to certain 
authorities for the State of Alaska, allowing the State to completely 
ignore any recommendations received from the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State fish and 
wildlife agencies concerning conditions for the protection, mitigation, 
and enhancement of fish and wildlife in constructing small 
hydroelectric projects.
  Section 245. Flint Creek Hydroelectric Project, located in Granite 
and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana. The bill basically extends the 
project's permit for an additional 3 years. And, notwithstanding other 
laws and regulations regarding payment to the U.S. for the use of 
Federal lands, such payments surrounding this project would be 
specified in the bill. I can only assume this payment is less than what 
would otherwise be required.
  Section 354. Enhanced Oil and Natural Gas Production Through Carbon 
Dioxide Injection. Establishes a $3 million demonstration program 
solely for 10 projects in the Willistin Basin in North Dakota and 
Montana and 1 project in the Cook Inlet Basin in Alaska.
  Section 356. Denali Commission. Authorizes $55 million annually for 
fiscal years 2006-2015 for a seven-member commission created in 1998 
comprised entirely of Alaska interests to support Alaska interests. 
This funding would be used to carry out energy programs.
  Section 365. Pilot Project to Improve Federal Permit Coordination. 
Establishes a pilot that only the States of Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, 
Utah, and New Mexico can participate in.
  Section 412. Loan to Place Alaska Clean Coal Technology Facility in 
Service. This section authorizes a direct Federal loan for up to $80 
million for a plant near Healy, Alaska. One of the few protections 
under this section for the American taxpayer is extremely lax. It 
states that prior to providing the loan, the Secretary determine that 
``there is a reasonable prospect that the borrower will repay the 
principal and interest on the loan.'' That sure doesn't sound like the 
type of stringent criteria and risk assessment that would be weighed by 
many lending institutions that I am aware of. And why does this 
particular facility merit a Federal loan over other clean energy 
technologies?
  Section 416. Electron Scrubbing Demonstration. Directs the Secretary 
to use $5 million to initiate, through the Chicago operations office, a 
project to demonstrate the viability of high-energy electron scrubbing 
technology on commercial-scale electrical generation using high-sulfur 
coal.

[[Page 19102]]

  Section 628. Decommissioning Pilot Program. This section authorizes 
$16 million for a pilot program to commission and decontaminate the 
sodium cooled fast breeder experimental test site reactor located in 
northwest Arkansas.
  Section 755. Conserve by Bicycling Program. Provides $6.2 million to 
establish a pilot program to be known as the ``Conserve by Bicycling 
Program'' and study the feasibility of converting motor vehicle trips 
to bicycle trips, including whether such factors make bicycle riding 
feasible: weather, land use and traffic patterns, the carrying capacity 
of bicycles and bicycle infrastructure. I find it difficult to support 
spending $6.2 million to encourage Americans to ride bicycles when we 
are running a deficit of $368 billion this year and a 10-year projected 
deficit of $1.35 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Section 756. Reduction of Engine Idling. Authorizes $139.5 million to 
study the environmental impact of engine idling from heavy-duty 
vehicles and locomotives at truck stops, ports of entry, rest areas and 
private terminals. Is there any doubt that engine idling may be 
contributing to air quality problems? Do we need to expend almost $140 
million on such a study? It might be cheaper to pay the truckers and 
engineers to shut off their engines.
  Section 955. Department of Energy Civilian Nuclear Infrastructure and 
Facilities. Requires the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for 
facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory to avoid duplicative 
efforts at other national laboratories and establish or consider plans 
to establish or convert various areas into user facilities.
  Section 980. Spallation Neutron Source. Requires the Secretary 
develop an operational plan for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 
Oak Ridge, TN, to ensure the facility is employed to its full 
capability. It further authorizes the Spallation Neutron Source Project 
at Oak Ridge at $1,411,700,000 for total project costs.
  Section 997. Arctic Engineering Research Center. It directs the 
Secretary of Transportation to provide annual grants, worth $18 million 
total, to ``a university research center to be headquartered in 
Fairbanks''--that must be the University of Alaska-Fairbanks according 
to its Web site--to establish and operate a university research center 
to research improved performance of roads, bridges, residential, 
commercial, and industrial structures in the Arctic region.
  Section 1511. Renewable Fuel. The section authorizes a total of $12 
milliom--$4 million for 3 years--for a resource center to further 
develop bioconversion technology at the Center for Biomass-Based Energy 
at the Mississippi State University and the Oklahoma State University.
  Section 1811. Coal Bed Methane Study. Directs the DOE and EPA to 
collaborate with the NAS on a study on the effect of coalbed natural 
gas production on surface and ground water aquifers in Montana, 
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah.
  Now that we know a little about some of the provisions contained in 
the conference agreement, let's talk about one very important issue 
that is not addressed--an issue of worldwide significance: global 
warming.
  Earlier this month, the leaders of the G8 nations met and issued an 
agreement with respect to climate change. The agreement among the G8 
nation states that: ``We will act with resolve and urgency now to meet 
our shared and multiple objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 
[.]''
  This agreement followed the joint statement that was issued in June 
in which the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and national academies 
from other G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, China, and India, 
which concluded that: ``The scientific understanding of climate change 
is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It 
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can 
take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net 
global greenhouse gas emissions.''
  It is very disappointing that the climate change provisions in the 
conference report fail to address the necessary commitment for taking 
urgent actions and making substantial reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  The conference report requires the Department of Energy to develop 
greenhouse gas intensity technologies and strategies. Such requirements 
are a waste of time and effort as we already know that using the 
greenhouse gas intensity does not work. How do we know it doesn't work? 
We know because the Department of Energy has shown us and because 
climate change science tells us that the climate system does not 
respond to greenhouse gas intensity, but rather to greenhouse gas 
concentration levels in the atmosphere.
  Recently, the Energy Information Administration at the Department of 
Energy released a statement indicating that preliminary data for the 
year 2004 revealed that energy-related carbon emission intensity fell 
by 2.6 percent, while energy-related carbon dioxide emissions grew by 
1.7 percent. This is an early reality check for those who argue that we 
can control greenhouse gas emissions by only controlling carbon 
emission intensity.
  Again this clearly shows how our efforts to address climate change 
are misfocused and without substance. If we continue down this path, 
the $5 billion per year that we are currently investing in the climate 
change science and technology programs will not provide the return on 
investments that the American people deserve.
  Furthermore, if you look at any credible scientific report on climate 
change, it speaks of the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate 
system, not the impact of greenhouse gas intensity. In all the hearings 
that we have held in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee over the past few years, I don't recall a single scientist 
indicating that if we control our greenhouse gas intensity, then we can 
mitigate the impacts of climate change.
  If we are to address climate change consistent with the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution passed by this body just over a month ago, then we 
must pursue solutions that will truly have an impact on the climate 
system, not those that are no more than ``smoke and mirrors.'' Of 
course, the conferees failed to agree to even include the modest 
resolution in the final conference agreement.
  If it weren't for the pressing need to show the American public that 
we are acting in at least some way to address our Nation's energy 
problems--action that every person is reminded of every time they pay 
yet a higher price at the pump--I doubt many of my colleagues would be 
so rushed to pass this bill. Quite frankly, it seems as though the 
Congress is grasping at straws to address our energy quandary, 
unwilling or unable to use the foresight necessary to plan for a future 
America that is less reliant on foreign oil, cleaner under renewable 
energy generation, or leading in cutting-edge energy efficiency 
technology. And in our failure, the American people will be 
disappointed.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy 
bill conference agreement. The final version of this legislation is 
imperfect, but it takes important steps forward in addressing some of 
this Nation's energy problems. This bill will strengthen electric 
reliability, further develop our renewable energy resources, and 
improve energy efficiency.
  I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Domenici and ranking 
member Bingaman for their long and arduous work on this subject. We 
have now been working on comprehensive energy legislation for nearly 5 
years, under three different Congresses and three different Energy 
Committee chairmen. I know it has been a very difficult path. I express 
my sincere appreciation to Chairman Domenici for his dedication, 
leadership, and willingness to accommodate a great diversity of views 
on the subject of energy policy.
  I am very pleased that the Energy bill provides nearly $3 billion for 
wind, biomass, and other renewable energy sources. This credit could 
help a major wind energy development project move

[[Page 19103]]

forward in Aroostook County and will help Maine's forest products 
industry by providing an important revenue stream for waste forest 
products. Developing Maine's wind and biomass resources creates jobs in 
rural areas, provides additional revenue to farmers and struggling 
industries, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and helps diversify our 
energy supply. While I am disappointed that the bill does not contain 
the provision which I authored, along with Senator Bingaman, to require 
that 10 percent of our electricity come from renewable energy sources 
by the year 2020, the bill nevertheless makes important strides forward 
in developing our renewable energy resources.
  This bill will also help improve our electricity reliability by 
creating new standards for the national electric transmission grid and 
creating incentives to spur the creation of a stronger and more robust 
grid. This bill also provides for improved market transparency, the 
first ever broad prohibition on market manipulation and filing false 
information, and new consumer protections for utility customers.
  I am also pleased by a number of provisions included in the bill to 
help spur greater energy efficiency. Consumers will be able to take 
advantage of tax credits for hybrid cars, solar water heaters, and 
energy efficient improvements to existing homes. Additional tax credits 
will spur energy-efficient appliances and alternative fueled vehicles, 
which will not only reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions but also 
reduce oil imports. In addition, a number of new Federal programs and 
15 new product standards will reduce natural gas use in 2020 by 1.1 
trillion cubic feet, and reduce peak electric demand by an amount 
equivalent to that produced by 85 power plants. All of these programs 
will not only help protect the environment, but also help consumers 
save money on their energy bills.
  Several other provisions bear mentioning. I am pleased that the final 
legislation retains the amendment which Senator Levin and I offered 
regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This amendment requires the 
Department of Energy to develop procedures for using the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve in such a way as to reduce the impact on taxpayers 
and energy consumers, while maximizing oil supplies and improving U.S. 
energy security. This amendment will help mitigate the impact of the 
Department of Energy's misguided policies on the Nation's gasoline 
prices.
  I am also pleased that the bill includes language regarding ISO New 
England's misguided Locational Installed Capacity plan, also known as 
LICAP. This language requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
to very carefully weigh the concerns of Maine and other New England 
States regarding this proposal. I am very concerned that the LICAP 
proposal would unnecessarily raise electricity rates in Maine, and I 
urge FERC to consider this issue very carefully.
  While I believe the bill makes important progress in some areas, I am 
extremely concerned that this bill fails to stop our growing and 
increasingly dangerous reliance on foreign oil. Regretfully, a 
provision requiring that we save 1 million barrels of oil per day by 
2015 was dropped from the bill. This provision, which I co-authored, 
was included in the Senate-passed bill, but removed by the House. In 
addition, I am disappointed that the bill does not require any increase 
in fuel economy standards for automobiles. Although the energy 
efficiency provisions for hybrid automobiles and alternative fuel 
vehicles are important steps forward, they are not enough. Four years 
ago I released a report predicting that crude oil prices would hit $60 
per barrel by the year 2010 unless we took aggressive action to 
increase our energy efficiency and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. 
Without greater energy efficiency measures, I am concerned that prices 
are likely to go even higher.
  I am also concerned by a provision in the bill that would allow for 
an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental 
Shelf, OCS. I am strongly opposed to oil exploration on restricted 
areas of the OCS, and I believe this inventory is pointless since this 
Congress has no intention of allowing drilling in these areas.
  I would note that this bill is much improved over the 2003 conference 
report which I could not in good conscience support. First, I am 
pleased that this legislation does not include a very harmful liability 
waiver for the manufacturers of MTBE. MTBE is a noxious chemical which 
has polluted drinking water supplies in Maine and many other States. I 
saw no justification for allowing the manufacturers to be let off the 
hook in terms of cleaning up this chemical, and I am grateful to 
Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman for refusing to give in 
to those advocating for the waiver.
  I am also very pleased with the improvements to the electricity title 
in this bill. The electricity provisions in this bill are good for the 
Northeast and have the potential to promote competitive markets which 
are more efficient, more reliable, and lower priced than we have now. I 
am pleased that the Carper-Collins provision to promote combined heat 
and power was retained in the bill.
  While the legislation before us does not address our dangerous 
reliance on foreign oil, it nevertheless takes important steps to 
increase our use of renewable energy, improve energy efficiency, and 
strengthen our electricity grid. While I am disappointed at some of the 
things that were included in the bill as well as many things that were 
not included, I nevertheless believe that the bill is a step in the 
right direction. Given our extremely high energy prices and an even 
more dire energy crisis looming just over the horizon, I believe we 
simply cannot afford to block needed improvements out of fear that they 
do not go far enough, and I therefore intend to vote in favor of this 
legislation. However, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation 
as a first step, and to again address these issues next year and the 
year after, until we finally begin to reduce our reliance on foreign 
oil and provide a secure energy future for the United States.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, after 4 years, the Senate is on the verge 
of passing a comprehensive Energy bill. This important legislation will 
lessen America's reliance on foreign sources of energy, boost renewable 
resources, and provide reliable energy for the nation.
  Putting this legislation together and keeping it within budget 
constraints took hard work and perseverance. First, I thank the 
chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, respectively. They 
provided excellent leadership, and I know their staff stayed up many a 
sleepless night. They played an important role developing this bill.
  I also thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the 
Finance Committee, for his commitment to taking a balanced approach to 
energy tax policy.
  Let me take a moment and speak about the hard work of the Finance 
Committee staff. The House and Senate bills took two very different 
approaches to tax policy. Conference negotiations were hard fought. We 
made some tough decisions. But we got it done within budget limits 
largely because we worked with a spirit of compromise and cooperation.
  I also thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate the 
cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan 
Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, and Nick Wyatt.
  I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate 
Legislative Counsel for their service.
  I thank Chairman Bill Thomas and his staff for their hard work, 
cooperation and continuing willingness to work with us through the 
difficult negotiations that produced this important legislation.
  I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, 
including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Ryan Abraham, and 
Wendy Carey. I especially want to thank Matt Jones. He is the tax 
counsel on our staff who has worked for years on the tax legislation in 
this bill. His hard work and perseverance on this legislation went 
above and beyond the call of

[[Page 19104]]

duty. I owe him a deep debt of gratitude. I also thank our dedicated 
fellows, Mary Baker, Jorlie Cruz, Cuong Huynh, Richard Litsey, Stuart 
Sirkin, and Brian Townsend.
  Finally, I thank our hard-working interns: Rob Grayson, Jacob 
Kuipers, Heather O'Loughlin, Andrea Porter, Ashley Sparano, Julie 
Straus, Danny Shervin, Katherine Bitz, Drew Blewett, Adam Elkington, 
Julie Golder, and Paul Turner.
  This legislation was a team effort that really paid off.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to announce my support for the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005. I want to thank Chairmen Grassley and 
Domenici and Senators Baucus and Bingaman for working with me to 
include renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions in the bill 
that are important to my home State of Arkansas.
  Some may say this bill is not perfect, but I believe it is a step 
forward toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing 
the use of renewable resources in this country. This bill makes an 
effort to address energy concerns in every sector of this industry. In 
Arkansas, we have investor-owned utilities and co-operatives. This bill 
will help both of these providers serve their customers in a more 
efficient and reliable manner.
  And while this bill may not go as far as some would like in the 
direction of renewable energy, there are many provisions in this 
package which will help the United States begin the long process of 
eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. I look forward to the 
further growth and development of the biodiesel industry that will be 
spurred by the extension of the production tax credit provided in the 
bill that I have fought for during my time in the Senate.
  Another provision of which I am particularly proud relates to the 
cleanup of the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, a 
decommissioned nuclear reactor near the community of Strickler, AR, in 
the northwest corner of my State. The site is contaminated with 
residual radiation, liquid sodium, lead, asbestos, mercury, PCBs, and 
other environmental contaminants and explosive chemicals. The Federal 
Government helped create these contaminants and should pay to help 
clean them up. This is great news for northwest Arkansas, because this 
site has threatened public health and the environment there for too 
long.
  Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both the Finance and 
Energy Committee, majority and minority, for all of their help in 
crafting this bill. Elizabeth Paris and Matt Jones have been patient 
and helpful with any idea or request I have come to them with. Sam 
Fowler and Lisa Epifani have been equally accessible when I had 
questions or concerns on the nontax portion of the bill. I would also 
like to take this opportunity to thank Todd Wooten of my staff who has 
done an incredible job of helping ensure my priorities for Arkansas 
were included in the final bill. This body would be nothing without the 
tireless work of our staff, and I wanted to make sure they knew how 
much I appreciate their hard work.
  In conclusion, our current global situation shows us how important it 
is that we take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We all 
know this bill is not a comprehensive solution, but a step in the right 
direction. We must continue to look toward more useful and progressive 
technology that brings us to our goal.
  Much more work needs to be done if we ever expect this country to 
lose its dependence on fossil fuel and foreign sources of energy, and I 
urge my colleagues to continue to work hard until we achieve this goal.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Energy 
bill conference report.
  I have spoken on this floor many times before on Energy bills. I hope 
the bill before us is the last one I come to the floor to speak on for 
a long time.
  While not perfect, this is a good bipartisan bill.
  I want to thank Chairmen Domenici and Grassley and Ranking Members 
Bingaman and Baucus for working hard in a bipartisan manner to produce 
the bill before us.
  This Energy bill strikes a balance between conservation and 
production.
  And while passing an Energy bill might not help energy prices in the 
short term, it will make a difference over the long term by affecting 
how much our energy costs increase. This bill's increased domestic 
energy production, coupled with increased conservation provisions, will 
slow the astronomical price increases we have seen lately.
  Without a new national Energy policy, though, there is not much we 
can do about the rising energy prices.
  Many oil producers are working at full capacity.
  And with China and India starting to increase their demands for oil, 
the world's oil supply will continue to decrease while prices continue 
to increase.
  This means that we cannot just try and conserve our way out of any 
kind of energy problem.
  We have to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and do a better job of 
taking care of our own energy needs.
  The bill contains some good policy provisions.
  It includes electricity provisions that are a good start to help 
update our electricity grid.
  America has outgrown its electricity system and some changes need to 
be made to it.
  One of the provisions included in the bill is PUCHA repeal, which 
will go a long way in helping our electricity system meet increasing 
demands.
  The bill also makes strides to increase the reliability of the 
electricity grid.
  We also desperately need new transmission lines built, and I hope 
that the provisions in this bill will ensure that this happens.
  It also contains an incentives title which will encourage the design 
and deployment of innovative technology to increase energy supply and 
also protect the environment. These incentives cover projects such as 
clean coal, electric transmission and generation, and fuel efficient 
vehicles.
  I am glad that the Senate Energy bill contains clean coal provisions 
which I wrote to help increase domestic energy production while also 
improving environmental protection.
  Coal is an important part of our energy plans. It's cheap and 
plentiful, and we don't have to go far to get it.
  For my home State, this means more jobs and a cleaner place to live. 
Clean coal technology is estimated to create 62,000 jobs nationwide and 
cut emissions from coal drastically.
  The Energy bill encourages research and development of clean coal 
technology by authorizing over $1 billion for the Department of Energy 
to conduct programs to advance new technology that will significantly 
reduce emissions and increase efficiency of turning coal into 
electricity.
  Almost $2 billion will be used for the clean coal power initiative, 
where the Department of Energy will work with industry to advance 
efficiency, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness of new 
clean coal technologies.
  And $3 billion will be used to help coal companies comply with 
emission regulations by providing funding for pollution control 
equipment.
  The energy tax package also contains tax credits for companies to 
implement clean coal technology.
  The bill provides $1.6 billion in tax credits for investment in clean 
coal facilities. It also provides over $1 billion in tax credits for 
amortization of pollution control equipment to help clean up the 
emission from existing coal facilities.
  Coal plays an important role in our economy, providing over 50 
percent of the energy needed for our Nation's energy.
  The 21st economy is going to require increased amounts of reliable, 
clean, and affordable electricity to keep our nation running.
  With research advances, we have the know-how to better balance 
conservation with the need for increased production.
  I think this bill makes a good start in ensuring that coal remains a 
viable

[[Page 19105]]

energy source that can provide cheap power to consumers.
  And the other tax provisions from the Finance Committee will do a 
good job to promote conservation and energy efficiency further by 
encouraging the use of cleaner burning fuels.
  I am pleased the bill contains ethanol and biodiesel tax credits. 
These expanded tax credits will further encourage the use of these 
alternative fuels to help increase domestic production and lessen our 
dependence on foreign oil. This also is good for farmers and is good 
for jobs.
  We have deliberated and discussed for far too long the need for 
America to follow a sensible, long-term energy strategy.
  I am glad the Senate acted to pass an Energy bill.
  This is good for our environment, economy, and national security.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote against this energy bill 
because it does not do enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
through the promotion of alternative forms of energy or by encouraging 
energy efficiency.
  I was very disappointed that the conference committee eliminated the 
Senate's renewable portfolio standard, under which utilities would have 
provided 10 percent of their total sales from renewable resources by 
2020. In addition, the conference also eliminated the Senate provision 
that called on the President to find ways to reduce oil use by 1 
million barrels per day by 2025, as well as the provision promoting 
hybrids for use in Federal, State, and other vehicle fleets.
  I am also very concerned about an authorization for an inventory of 
energy resources in America's Outer Continental Shelf, which is 
damaging in itself and may lead to future oil and gas development in 
some coastal areas.
  Overall, this bill is very imbalanced. The bill provides $5.7 billion 
in tax incentives over 10 years for the fossil fuel industry and $1.5 
billion in subsidies and tax breaks for the nuclear industry. Compare 
this to tax incentives for renewable electricity, alternative vehicles 
and fuels, energy efficiency, and energy conservation, which were cut 
from $11.4 billion in the Senate bill to $5.8 billion in the final 
bill.
  With all of these bad provisions, I am pleased that a few good 
provisions survived, such as my amendment calling on the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to conclude action on energy crisis refunds by 
the end of the year or report to Congress explaining what it has done 
and specifying a timetable for the rest of their process.
  I am also pleased that this energy bill will exempt California from 
the proposed new ethanol mandate during the summer months, when ethanol 
usage in gasoline can increase air pollution, and that it included my 
original proposal to encourage the production of ethanol from 
agricultural waste.
  Republicans removed many provisions from the Senate bill that would 
have put us on a more energy-efficient path, and unfortunately we were 
left with a bill that does not offer the sound and innovative policies 
we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect the 
environment, and improve our energy and fuel efficiency.
  Ms. SNOWE. I rise today not only to cast my support for the 
conference report to H.R. 6, an energy bill that touches on nearly 
every aspect of domestic energy production, consumption, and savings, 
but especially to compliment Energy and Natural Resources chair, 
Senator Domenici, for once again showing what a truly superb leader he 
is. He and Senator Grassley, chair of the Finance Committee, have been 
successful in reaching bipartisan agreement on comprehensive energy 
legislation--something that we have not been able to do since 1992, 
even though we have actively attempted to do so in the last three 
Congresses.
  I would have written a more ambitious bill that would have more 
aggressively reduced our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, but this 
is an improvement over the status quo. What this legislation does 
include is essential energy efficiency and conservation tax incentives 
that will make our Nation's energy policy more balanced. As a Nation, 
we must recognize that we must do more than just produce our way out of 
an energy crisis, we have an obligation to consume less as well.
  For instance, by improving fuel economy standards of our cars and 
trucks, we could have saved our Nation 1 million barrels of oil a day, 
as Senator Feinstein and I have attempted to do for these last several 
years. Also, by keeping Senator Bingaman's provisions for Climate 
Change and Renewable Portfolio Standards in the conference report, we 
would have had a much stronger bill to address our future energy, 
environmental, and economic needs. But this bipartisan energy 
legislation is a reflection of what was possible. These important 
issues will not go away, we will be addressing them another day--and in 
the not-too-distant-future, I will predict.
  While the report came out of conference far from perfect, the 
question we need to ask ourselves at the end of the day is, Does the 
legislation begin to take the Nation forward for responsible energy 
policy to help decrease our dependence on foreign oil from the most 
volatile areas of the globe as we begin the 21st century? And this bill 
does take at least that small step forward, especially for provisions I 
believe in--greater energy efficiencies and energy from renewable 
sources that begin to wean the Nation off of its thirst for oil.
  For instance, I am extremely pleased that I could secure $1.7 billion 
through the energy efficiency and conservation provisions from my 
original bills, the Efficient Energy Through Certified Technologies and 
Electricity Reliability, or EFFECTER, Act of 2005. I would like to 
express thanks for assistance over the past 5 years in drafting these 
energy efficiency tax incentives to Dr. David B. Goldstein of NRDC, a 
2002 MacArthur fellowship winner who has worked on energy efficiency 
and energy policy since the early 1970s, both domestically and 
internationally.
  Also provided are tax incentives from the Lieberman-Snowe fuel cell 
bill that provide a 30-percent business energy credit for the purchase 
of qualified fuel cell power plants for businesses, along with a 10-
percent credit for the purchase of stationary microturbine power 
plants. A fuel cell is a device that uses any hydrogen-rich fuel, such 
as natural gas, methane, or propane, to generate electricity and 
thermal energy through an electrochemical process. Since no combustion 
is involved, fuel cells produce almost no air pollution and reduce 
emissions of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas blamed for 
climate change. The tax incentive will accelerate commercialization of 
a wide range of fuel cell technologies for a distributed source of 
power.
  As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked with 
Chairman Grassley to also secure $2.7 billion in alternative energy 
production tax credits in this energy legislation. Included for the 
first time is a tax credit for biomass, which is extremely important to 
those who work at our Maine biomass plants, which provide good paying 
jobs in rural areas all over Maine. In addition, the tax credit 
extension for wind power is essential for wind projects in Maine, for 
instance the one planned in Mars Hill. This legislation will decrease 
the project's costs by 30 percent.
  Also included in H.R. 6 is the permanent authorization of the 
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve that was established in 2000. The 
NHOR holds 2 million barrels of emergency fuel stocks stored at 
commercial tank farms that would give Northeast consumers adequate 
supplies for approximately 10 days, the time required for ships to 
carry heating oil from the Gulf of Mexico to New York Harbor. The 
reserve is essential for cold winter States like Maine--especially at a 
time when fuel prices continue to be sky high. While we are in the 
midst of a very warm summer, our winters are never that far off, and 
this provision ensures that emergency fuel stocks are made available in 
times of need.
  And speaking of cold weather, the conference report reauthorizes the 
Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, or LIHEAP, until 2007, and 
reauthorizes State weatherization grant

[[Page 19106]]

and energy programs at $2.1 billion through fiscal year 2008. I cannot 
emphasize strongly enough how important these programs are to my State 
of Maine where winters come early and can stay well past the start of 
spring.
  There is an extension 5 years for my original legislation, the 
National Oilheat Research Act; NORA which expired in February.
  Also, the conference report puts in place enforceable electricity 
reliability standards that were included in my EFFECTER Act and other 
bills that would further improvements in the electricity grid at a time 
that the surging demand continues to stress the Nation's power grid. 
One only needs to recall that in August 2003, a big Northeast blackout 
disrupted service to 50 million people, and 2 years earlier, soaring 
prices and isolated blackouts rolled across California.
  One of the International Climate Change Taskforce, ICCT 
recommendations, for which I am a cochair with the Right Honorable 
Stephen Byers of the United Kingdom, called for incentives for 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IGCC, a process that allows 
CO2 to be extracted for storage more easily and at less cost 
than from conventional coal-burning plants. Clean coal technology helps 
to address climate change by capturing CO2 rather than 
allowing it to be released into the atmosphere and has immediate 
benefits health benefits in terms of reduced emissions of toxic 
pollutants that cause respiratory and cardiovascular illness. The bill 
provides a 20-percent credit for clean coal power plants for IGCC 
plants while other advanced clean-coal projects get the 15-percent 
credit.
  There disappointments to me in this bill, most certainly, as they 
could affect my State. In particular was the vote loss that would have 
given States equal say on the siting of Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, 
siting decisions, but the language in H.R. 6 has been enhanced to give 
the States a more consultative role, even though FERC still has 
exclusive jurisdiction. A pre-NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 
filing process is included in the bill so the FERC will have to work 
with States on problems before moving any projects forward. Also 
included is a cost-sharing provision calling for both the industry and 
communities to share the cost for emergency response plans. Originally, 
only the communities had to pay for these plans.
  I will continue to work to ensure that States have greater authority 
over LNG siting decisions. I believe this is clearly a States rights 
issue--and given how contentious these decisions are, it only makes 
sense to have State input into the process. As I have said before, this 
is a Liquified Natural Gas facility siting we are talking about, not a 
Wal-Mart.
  Another issue I plan to actively work on with my colleagues from 
other coastal States is the deletion of a provision that calls for an 
inventory of oil reserves off the Outer Continental Shelf. I believe 
those of us from coastal States did everything in our power to strip 
this potentially environmentally dangerous provision out of the Energy 
bill. Our amendment during Senate consideration of the Energy bill--
despite our best efforts--failed. We did everything we could to have 
this provision removed--we presented our case to our colleagues and had 
a fair up-or-down vote. It is a terrible policy that imperils our 
fragile coastal ecosystems and fisheries around Georges Bank, a 
veritable nursery for sea life.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a step forward as we begin the 
21st century and great energy needs that will have to be met, and we 
continue to craft national energy policy--we have only begun to do so 
with many steps ahead of us to take.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to finish 
a very long journey in the quest to build a dynamic, comprehensive 
energy policy for the United States of America. I can say with pride 
that this Congress, through many trials and tribulations has now 
performed admirably in its duty to the American people. This is a 
balanced energy bill that focuses as much on the future as it does the 
present. We have the opportunity with the passage of this legislation 
to safely produce more energy from more sources and with more 
infrastructure security then ever before.
  Among the many people whose hard work has made the difference, I must 
first thank the chairmen and ranking members of all the appropriating 
committees that have been involved in this process.
  Credit must also go to all members of my staff, who spent many hours 
sifting through the nuts and bolts of this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark 
Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Kurt Kovarik, John Good, and 
Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them.
  As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his 
staff was imperative. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, 
Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth, Matt Jones, and 
Ryan Abraham.
  I also want to mention George K. Yin, the chief of staff of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation and his staff, especially the fuel fraud and 
energy team of Tom Barthold, John Navratil, Deirdre James, Roger 
Colinvaux, Allen Littman, Gray Fontenot, and Gary Bornholdt as well as 
the always invaluable assistance of Mark Mathiesen, Jim Fransen and 
Mark McGunagle of Senate legislative counsel.
  This conference agreement is infused with the spirit of bipartisan 
and bicameral cooperation. It is my commitment that spirit will be 
influential to the entire ongoing legislative process.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are about to vote on final passage of 
the most comprehensive energy bill in decades.
  After years of careful and patient negotiation, we have before us an 
energy plan that promises to make America safer and more secure, and 
our energy supply cleaner and more reliable.
  It is a forward-looking plan. And it is a plan that will increase 
both our economic and national security.
  Anyone who has been to the gas pump, or turned on their AC for some 
relief from the current heat wave, knows that energy prices are 
skyrocketing.
  Suddenly, instead of the lowest energy 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 be comfortable in their own homes. Small businesses are 
struggling to pay their bills.
  Communities across the country are suffering. And as many as 2.7 
million manufacturing jobs have been lost.
  All the while, we have grown dangerously reliant on foreign sources 
of energy. And some of those foreign sources do not have our 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 have become more and more dependent on 
imported oil.
  Twenty years ago, 75 percent of crude oil used in American refineries 
came from American sources. Only 25 percent came from abroad.
  Today, that equation is nearly reversed. We have become dangerously 
dependent on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. As a result, 
America is more vulnerable than ever to the use of energy as a 
political weapon.
  Many nondemocratic and corrupt governments maintain their hold on 
power by spending the oil profits they earn from selling to us.
  We see this happening in Venezuela, We currently import over 1 
million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela. Meanwhile, its dictatorial 
President, Hugo Chavez, actively opposes the Umted States, supports 
rogue states such as Cuba, and is destabilizing Latin America.
  Many of these same dynamics are also at work in the Middle East. 
Nondemocratic regimes in the Middle East are using their oil revenues 
to tighten their grip on the reins of power.

[[Page 19107]]

  As a result, the conditions that breed hatred, violence, and terror 
have been allowed to fester and spread terror all over the world. 
London, Madrid, Russia, Bali, Iraq, and, of course, the United States 
have all suffered terribly at the hands of the terrorists.
  Passing the energy bill today will be a major step forward in 
addressing these serious national security challenges by putting us on 
a path to energy independence.
  It will also be a major step forward for our economic productivity 
and prosperity.
  The energy bill promises to deliver exciting new technologies to 
increase our efficiency and lessen our dependence, 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 energy bill authorizes $3.7 billion to support hydrogen and fuel 
cell research and the infrastructure we need to move toward this goal.
  Last month, 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 was very promising.
  Hybrid cars are already gaining in popularity. Nissan recently 
announced that its first hybrvehicle will be built at their plant in 
Smyrna, TN.
  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 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.
  This bill encourages the use of home-grown renewable fuels such as 
ethanol and biodiesel, as well as wind and solar and geothermal energy.
  The ethanol mandate will require fuel manufacturers to use 7.5 
billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline by 2012. This provision alone 
will reduce oil consumption by 80,000 barrels of oil a day by 2012; 
create over a quarter of a million new jobs; increase U.S. household 
income by $43 billion; all adding $200 billion to the GDP between 2005 
and 2012.
  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.
  This change in particular is long overdue. We are once again seeing 
the strain on our aging electrical grid as people turn up the AC to 
deal with the current heat wave.
  In fact, the Tennessee Valley Authority reported that yesterday's 
demand for electricity reached an all-time record level of almost 
32,000 mega-
watts, breaking a record that had been set just the day before.
  The 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 2 million jobs 
and create hundreds of thousands more.
  As I mentioned, the ethanol provision is expected to generate over 
230,000 new jobs.
  Incentives for wind-generated energy are expected to create another 
100,000 jobs.
  The investment in clean coal technology will create 62,000 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 more reliable supply of clean, affordable energy.
  I thank my colleagues for the hard work and leadership. Special 
recognition goes to the Energy Committee chairman, Senator Domenici, 
and his ranking member, Senator Bingaman.
  Senator Domenici's expertise on energy issues is unparalleled in the 
U.S. Senate, as he has demonstrated for a number of years on both the 
Energy Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.
  His determination to produce a comprehensive national energy policy, 
and his hard work with Senator Bingaman, as well as members of the 
Energy Committee, is the reason why we stand here, today, on the cusp 
of final passage of a balanced, bipartisan Energy bill.
  And finally, special recognition goes to President Bush for his 
unwavering commitment to delivering an energy plan for the 21st 
century.
  He came into office determined to deliver an energy plan that makes 
America safer and more secure. And soon he will have a bill to sign 
into law that does just that.
  Every day we are working hard to deliver meaningful solutions to the 
American people. The Energy bill promises to keep America moving 
forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, with regard to this bill, I want to 
acknowledge, of course, all of the very complimentary statements many 
colleagues have made about the good work Senator Domenici and I did on 
this bill. Clearly, I have myself complimented Senator Domenici for his 
leadership in this regard many times. The fact is this bill is the 
result of much good work by many Members, much good work by the staffs 
of our committee and the staffs of many Members individually, and work 
that has occurred over a very long period of time. So I think some of 
the relief some of us are feeling as a result of seeing this finally 
come to completion is because of the multiple years that have gone into 
this effort to get a bill we could agree upon.
  Every time a bill, particularly a bill of this size and 
comprehensiveness, comes to the Senate floor, it requires a balancing 
of those provisions which are positive and constructive with those that 
are less so, and in some cases are negative. I feel very strongly that 
the positive outweighs the negative in this bill. There are many 
provisions that will move us in the right direction.
  My colleagues have been alluding to those this morning in many of 
their statements and there are things we need to come back and try to 
correct in the future, and we will have that opportunity. There are 
issues we were unable to address in this bill that we will hopefully be 
able to address in the coming months that I think also need to be 
mentioned. All of the discussion has been useful. All of the good work, 
particularly of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee members, has 
been appreciated.
  I again appreciate very much the process that has been followed in 
getting us to this point. I compliment all colleagues, and I yield the 
floor. I know Senator Domenici wishes to make a final statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that a list of staff men and 
women who helped put this conference together be printed in the Record. 
I commend them.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows: 

       Judy Pensabene, Karen Billups, Dick Bouts, Kathryn Clay, 
     Kellie Donnelly, Lisa Epifani, Marnie Funk, Frank Gladics, 
     Angela Harper, Colin Hayes, Frank Macchiarola, John Peschke, 
     and Clint Williamson.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this bill will produce more jobs for our 
country, more secure jobs, and we will be using cleaner energy in the 
future. This will happen across America, and it will happen in the 
State of Wisconsin.
  Also, I would like to say to everyone here, our electrical system 
will be safer and more sound. We may very well have nuclear powerplants 
built anew for the first time in years. Renewable energy will be 
advanced and enhanced

[[Page 19108]]

dramatically. Some do not believe ethanol will be a significant 
contributor to less dependence on foreign oil. They are mistaken. We 
will, within the next 7 or 8 years, make a major contribution to jobs, 
stability of the agricultural community, and the production of ethanol 
as a substitute for gasoline.
  In addition, we will enhance our supply of natural gas, thus 
stabilizing the price, which is one of the most significant things for 
America's future. If we cannot do that and the reverse happens, we will 
export hundreds of thousands of jobs. While everyone thinks that the 
only problem is gasoline, the problem is far bigger than gasoline 
prices tomorrow morning; it is what will be the state of energy 5 and 
10 years from now in the United States.
  I can tell my colleagues, we will be safer, we will have more jobs, 
we will have an electric system that is safe and sound. We will have 
diversity of energy sources and supplies built in our country, spending 
our money, creating jobs, and much more.
  Frankly, it is very easy to criticize a bill of this magnitude, and 
it is very easy to say we did not solve everything.
  I close by saying there is criticism that we did not do anything to 
alleviate our great dependence on crude oil. I think we did. Hybrid 
cars are accentuated and pushed ahead by tax credits. I just explained 
ethanol. But if anybody thinks right now we can pass in the Congress a 
bill to substantially change the American way of using automobiles, I 
ask them to stand up, and we will put it on the Senate floor next week 
and see if they can do it. We cannot order Americans to buy smaller 
cars, little tiny cars, and we cannot order them to stop buying cars. 
That will happen. It is going to happen, and we are going to have more 
efficient ones clearly in short order in this country, but we cannot do 
everything in this bill. We have done a great deal.
  My compliments to Senator Bingaman. I am glad this was a totally 
bipartisan bill, totally open in every respect. I think we have proved 
that on a major, contentious bill, we can have open, above-board, total 
participation by any Senator who wants to participate. In conference, 
the same with the press of having all of the amendments and everything 
we do so they can do what they would like with the American people and 
yet get an agreed-upon bill.
  That is a pretty good accomplishment on the part of Senator Bingaman, 
myself, as the leaders in the Senate, and Congressman Barton and 
Congressman Dingell in the House.
  I yield the floor and thank the Senate for permitting me to produce 
this bill.

                          ____________________