[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15569-15614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on 
     foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative 
     energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, 
     developing greater efficiency,

[[Page 15570]]

     and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables 
     Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1505 (to amendment No. 1502), to 
     improve domestic fuels security.


                           Amendment No. 1505

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45 
a.m. shall be for debate on amendment No. 1505, offered by the Senator 
from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, with the time equally divided and controlled 
between the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, and the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Inhofe, I yield 
myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to talk about the Inhofe amendment, 
which would increase the possibility that we could have increased 
refining in the United States. Refining of oil produces more gasoline, 
and more gasoline will bring down the price of gasoline.
  We can't have a serious discussion about energy without discussing 
the fact that it has been more than 30 years since the last oil 
refinery was built in the United States. There has to be a reason for 
that. Although a number of our Nation's refiners have worked on 
expansions, they simply can't keep up with the growing demand.
  It is clear that something is wrong with a permitting process when it 
is so burdensome it prevents the construction of that which is so vital 
to our Nation. Because energy fuels our economy, we need to stop with 
the rhetoric and take some real action.
  I have to tell my colleagues that I have faith in America. I have 
faith in the young people of America. I have faith in the inventors in 
America, who are of all ages. I am aware of a company in Sheridan, WY, 
named Big Horn Valve. They have been working on some refinery problems, 
including leaks in refineries, and they came up with a valve that 
doesn't have a knob that you turn on the outside of the pipe. 
Everything is internal in the pipe, and it has a special venturi nozzle 
in there that doesn't take up the entire inside of the pipe but can 
still flow as much oil as a flow pipe. The way it works is to turn it 
off magnetically; it twists and the two spots don't line up. Since it 
is completely internal to the pipe, there can be no leakage. It is just 
one small solution to some of the problems that can be solved.
  I would mention that with the National Institutes of Health, we have 
faith in the inventiveness of people. We doubled the budget for 
research for the National Institutes of Health. I can tell my 
colleagues that today we have 654 cancer treatments in clinical trials. 
That is what happens when we incentivize people to come up with 
solutions.
  We need to do that with energy. We are in the midst of a huge energy 
crisis. China recognizes it. China is buying every available fuel 
source they can get their hands on. My colleagues probably saw where 
they tried to buy a company in California. You have probably seen where 
they bought supplies in Canada. They know the future of the economy is 
requiring--requiring--energy, particularly fuel to transport things.
  Senator Inhofe's amendment recognizes this fact, and it improves the 
permitting process for new refineries. It establishes an opt-in program 
for State Governors, requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to 
coordinate all necessary permits for construction or expansion of 
refineries. It provides participating States with technical and 
financial resources to assist in permitting, and it establishes 
deadlines for permit approval.
  These vital changes will make it possible for new refineries to 
finally be built. They make those changes in a way that is 
environmentally sound. Opponents of this legislation suggest that is 
not the case and that environmental laws will be pushed aside. Those 
claims are false. The Environmental Council of States, which represents 
State departments of environmental quality, clearly stated in a letter 
that ``the Gas PRICE Act does not weaken environmental laws.'' That act 
is the one that is in Senator Inhofe's amendment.
  In addition to this, the council, along with the National Association 
of Counties, acknowledged that the Gas PRICE Act streamlining 
provisions are in compliance with State and local governments.
  If this were the only positive section of the Gas PRICE Act, it would 
be worthy of our support, but this legislation also addresses a second 
aspect that I believe is missing from the underlying bill. That aspect 
is the incentivizing of coal-to-liquids technologies.
  As drafted, the legislation does nothing to advance the development 
of coal-to-liquids plants. That is the overall bill, not the amendment. 
As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Craig Thomas and 
Jim Bunning worked hard to move this issue forward and offered an 
amendment during the committee's consideration of the biofuels 
legislation to set a blending requirement for coal-derived fuels at 21 
billion gallons for the year 2022. Is it possible? Absolutely. 
Unfortunately, this amendment failed by one vote, and so it wasn't 
included in the bill.
  The Gas PRICE Act addresses this vital issue by requiring the 
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a demonstration to assess 
the use of Fischer-Tropsch, diesel and jet fuel, as an emission control 
strategy. Furthermore, it provides incentives to the Economic 
Development Administration to build coal-to-liquid refineries and 
commercial scale cellulosic ethanol refineries at BRAC sites and on 
Indian land.
  These important steps will help jump-start an industry that will help 
reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy barons. Coal is our 
Nation's most abundant source. As I mentioned earlier, we have more 
Btu's in my county in Wyoming alone than all of Saudi Arabia. Using 
coal to produce diesel and jet fuel will take our energy security out 
of the hands of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and others who seek to harm 
our economic interests and put it back in the hands of American 
citizens.
  I am pleased Senator Inhofe has offered this important amendment. It 
addresses two areas in which the legislation could be improved, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this approach.
  The two areas are to make it possible to actually expand the number 
of refineries in the United States, and there are places in the United 
States where those can be built, and safely built. I also think there 
can be some inventions, such as I mentioned with Big Horn Valve, that 
will make the refining process much more capable and also 
environmentally better. But unless we can get rid of that single 
construction of refineries, we are going to have shortages of gas twice 
a year immediately, and more often in the future. I do have a lot of 
confidence that there can be not only coal to liquids, but coal to 
liquids with a little bit of invention can be done even better than 
other kinds.
  We need to worry about the natural gas supply for this country. A lot 
of States are placing a huge emphasis on natural gas as the cleanest 
fuel, and it is. But there is only one State that is producing more 
natural gas than in previous years, and that is the State of Wyoming. 
That will not go on forever. If we use it to produce electricity, we 
are going to run out of natural gas. So those people across the country 
who are using natural gas to heat their homes should be particularly 
concerned.
  I know one company was looking at having some peaking power for Rapid 
City, SD, and they were going to do it with natural gas. But the board 
of directors, as they looked at it, found out that the time they needed 
the peaking power was in the middle of winter when it was cold because 
people there use some electricity to heat with. But what they 
discovered was that the amount of natural gas to provide peaking power 
in winter in Rapid City would be an equivalent amount of gas to what 
the whole city of Rapid City

[[Page 15571]]

uses to heat homes during that same cold spell.
  A lot of natural gas has to be used if it is used to produce 
electricity. We can invent better ways to do that. We can come up with 
coal to liquids. We can increase our refineries. I hope we will find 
ways to encourage that rather than discourage that if we are going to 
truly have an energy policy.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, could the Chair give us the 
parliamentary situation this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently in a quorum call being 
equally divided between the two sides.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is my understanding now there is how 
much time remaining until the vote on the Inhofe amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is at 11:45. The Senator's side has 
approximately 30 minutes remaining. The Republican side has 
approximately 21 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to debate this Inhofe amendment 
and, in the strongest possible terms, make a few points to my 
colleagues.
  When you strip it all away, this amendment is a giveaway--a giveaway 
to energy companies at a time when they have never had it so good, at a 
time when they have never made so much money. The CEOs are making $37 
million a year; $16 million a year; Exxon, a $39 billion profit--
billion-dollar profit; Shell, a $25 billion profit; BP, a $22 billion 
profit; Conoco-Phillips, $15.6 billion; and Chevron, over $17 billion. 
The CEO, Lee Raymond, of ExxonMobil, received a $400 million severance 
gift. Let me repeat that. One man received a $400 million severance 
gift, and the Inhofe amendment wants to give these people more. The 
Inhofe amendment wants to give these people more, even after, in the 
2005 Energy bill, they already got their streamlined provisions. They 
already got what they needed.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the Inhofe amendment does. It gives to 
those who have, and it gives to energy companies free public land--
public land that belongs to the taxpayers of America. It gives them 
preference to get free public lands. Not only do they get the land 
free, but in the case of Indian land, they get 110 percent of their 
costs reimbursed to them. This is what we are doing in an Energy bill 
that is supposed to be good to consumers.
  The underlying bill has many provisions in it. All those provisions 
are good for the American people, including fuel economy for our cars, 
solar energy on the building of the Department of Energy. We hope we 
will have a modest model project at the Capitol powerplant showing that 
we can, in fact, reduce the carbon emissions of coal. These are all 
bipartisan amendments.
  Senator Inhofe tried to get a similar amendment to the one he is now 
proposing through the committee. When he controlled the gavel, he 
couldn't even get it out of the committee then, let alone now. So it 
gives to the oil companies, when they were taken care of in the Energy 
bill of 2005.
  I am going to tell my colleagues what we did for them in 2005. The 
2005 Energy bill has a provision, which is section 392, that allows 
States to request EPA to work with them and enter into an agreement 
under which EPA and the State will identify steps, including timelines 
to streamline the consideration of Federal and State environmental 
permits for a new refinery. Interestingly, even though this legislation 
exists, EPA said before my committee in October--actually, it was 
before Senator Inhofe's committee because he was chair at that time--
that no State had asked EPA to use that provision of the law. So they 
got a streamlined procedure in 2005. They never took advantage of it. 
Now, Senator Inhofe is giving them more streamlining procedures, and he 
is exempting these energy companies from every single environmental law 
that was signed into law by Republican Presidents and Democratic 
Presidents.
  Let me tell my colleagues the laws that are waived in the Inhofe 
amendment. I say to the American people: Listen to this because if ever 
we have unanimity about what is important to do for the health of our 
people, it is when Republican and Democratic Members of the Congress 
and Presidents sign these laws and pass these laws: The Clean Air Act, 
the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the 
National Environmental Policy Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Those are a few examples of Federal laws which are cast asunder by 
this amendment. Who gets the benefit? Not the American Lung 
Association, which might, in fact, put in substantial precautions that 
the air is clean, but they give it to the most polluting industries in 
America: the refining and oil industries.
  Senator Inhofe will say: Oh, we let the States pass these laws. We 
say they have to pass substantially equivalent laws. That is not 
defined. Why on Earth waive the laws that are the cornerstone of 
America's environmental protection under both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents? Why waive those laws? Do you think that little of America's 
families?
  In my State, 9,900 people die every year from lung-related disease. 
And let's talk about some of the chemicals these refineries give off.
  In 2005, refineries emitted over 68 million pounds of toxic 
chemicals, 3.8 million pounds of known cancer-causing substances, 2.5 
million pounds of toxins that damage the reproductive system, and 6.8 
million pounds of toxins that harm the development of children.
  In California, communities that border refineries and chemical plants 
have high concentrations of childhood asthma. We should be working to 
make the air cleaner, not worse.
  Let me review what I have said so far. This amendment has a name, and 
I am going to read you the name of this amendment. The title of this 
amendment is the Gas Petroleum Refinery Improvement and Community 
Empowerment Act. I ask, how is a community empowered by this amendment? 
The idea is to allow these new energy plants to go on Federal land that 
has been surplused. In California, we have had a lot of these lands, 
and, by the way, some of them have been redeveloped in the most 
wonderful way. Everybody is equal. There are no winners and losers. 
Here we are picking a winner, and the winner is one of the most 
polluting industries in America. They get the land free, and the 
community is left without anything. The Federal Government gets no 
money. That was the idea behind the Surplus Federal Lands Act. The 
Federal Government should get some money from the private sector. Oh, 
no, they get the land free, these energy companies. That is because 
they are hurting so much. They are hurting so much that we are going to 
give them the land free.
  On Indian land, they get back 110 percent of their investment, so 
they actually make money without a penny of cost. Whoever votes for 
this amendment is voting for a giveaway of taxpayers' dollars. Whoever 
votes for this amendment is voting for an open-ended cost that isn't 
even stated in the bill.
  Look at the last page of the bill, ``such funds as may be required.'' 
We know some of these energy plants will cost $4 billion for one plant. 
Let's say there are 100 pieces of Federal land that could be 
redeveloped. You do the math. We are busting the budget. You think the 
Iraq war costs a lot? Take a look at this. And who does the money go 
to? The same people who are charging us in California close to $4 a 
gallon for gas.
  So you can stand up here and talk about it all you want, but the 
bottom

[[Page 15572]]

line is, this is, in many ways, a socialistic bill, socialism: give 
away land to big business, give them the cost of the building, in some 
cases 110 percent reimbursement, waive all of the Clean Air Act, the 
Clean Water Act that protects the health and safety of our people, and 
who are the most vulnerable? Our moms and dads, our grandmas and 
grandpas, our children. Just ``Katy bar the door'' with the money. No 
problem. Oh, it is as if we are somehow in the black today when we have 
deep deficits today.
  What an amendment to bring to the floor from my friend--my good 
friend--Senator Inhofe. A similar amendment went down in the committee 
when he had the gavel.
  I say it is economic blackmail for communities that are losing a 
military base. It chooses an energy project over any other project they 
might want. I say to my colleagues, if they look at what these refiners 
are making, how well they are doing, we don't need to give them any 
more incentives.
  I want to tell my colleagues a story about my State. Shell Oil owned 
a refinery in Bakersfield, CA. We all supported that refinery. It made 
2 percent of the gasoline for the cars in California. Shell Oil 
announced they were shutting down the refinery. We begged them not to 
shut it down. Here is what they said to us in writing: We are losing 
money, and we are shutting it down because we can't find a buyer.
  Lies, those were lies. How do I know that? Because we were fortunate 
enough to have an attorney general of California, at that time it was 
Bill Lokyer, who saw the books. The refinery was making a lot of money. 
We believe Shell Oil wanted to shut it down because they wanted to 
squeeze the supply--squeeze the supply. Guess what else. When we caught 
them on that, they said: Oh, we are sorry, we made a mistake; we still 
can't sell the refinery.
  We found buyers for the refinery. The attorney general made sure they 
advertised. They sold that refinery, and that refinery is up and 
running.
  So we are going to give away to refineries, to energy companies in 
this bill--this amendment is all they could ever dream for. They don't 
have to pay attention to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. If my colleagues vote for this amendment, they 
are voting to open the checkbook to hundreds and hundreds of billions 
of dollars. It could be as high as a trillion dollars. Who knows how 
many of these people will take advantage of this opportunity.
  What do we get? We get sick kids because this will waive all these 
environmental protections. And they are giving away to those who have.
  I want to read again the amount of money some of these executives 
have made. Valero Energy, the top executive in 2005, William Greehey, 
took home $95.2 million. This is one person, folks--$95.2 million. 
Occidental Petroleum chief Irani took home $81 million in 2006. Oh, 
these poor people. Their businesses aren't doing good enough. We have 
to give them more. We have to make life easier for them.
  What about the people who pay at the pump? That is why the underlying 
bill is so good because it has Maria Cantwell's antigouging law. By the 
way, the President has said he doesn't like the antigouging law. He 
might have to veto this entire bill. That shows you where people stand 
around here. Republicans want to give away to the oil companies, to the 
refiners, to the energy companies, and take away clean air protections 
from the people, take away land from the taxpayers, taxpayers' money to 
fund these projects. Count me out, and I hope count out the vast 
majority of the people here.
  You can put any face on it. One thing that gets me is how the 
Republican side is supposed to be so fiscally responsible. Let's look 
at the last page of this amendment. They will tell you now how much 
they are going to pay for this bill. It is on the last page of this 
amendment. Here it is: ``Subtitle E--Authorization of Appropriations. 
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
carry out this'' amendment.
  What does that mean? I already told my colleagues it costs $4 billion 
to build one of these energy plants--just one. It is 100 percent 
Federal pay on Indian land plus 10 percent on top of it, and 88 percent 
is the minimum number on Federal land that is not Indian land. You get 
the land, you get the cost back to build the plant, you get to waive 
all the environmental laws, and you get a streamlined process, which 
they already have the ability to get under the 2005 Energy bill.
  This is a big kiss to the oil companies and the energy companies. 
This is a major hug. It would be better if we took this up on 
Valentine's Day. Well, count me out. I hope there is a resounding 
``no.'' We don't know the cost. It is not told in this amendment. We 
don't know the impact on the people. It certainly is not told in this 
amendment. It picks winners and losers on Federal land. It doesn't 
protect our people.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the time be equally divided on that quorum 
call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. We are not in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in a quorum call.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I wish to speak, if I may, to the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. It is 
important that in this whole debate on the bill that we talk about the 
solutions that are important to this country's independence today on 
foreign energy and the need to get away from that and become energy 
independent and lessen our dependence on foreign energy and that we 
also talk about actions we can take that will lower energy costs for 
people in this country.
  I appreciate the fact that the underlying bill has a number of 
provisions in it that are good. There are provisions in the bill I will 
be supporting. I have a series of amendments I will be offering that 
will improve the availability of renewable energy in this country.
  I also wish to speak in support of amendment No. 1505 because I 
believe fundamentally it would greatly improve our Nation's stagnant 
oil refining industry, boost the development of coal-to-liquid 
technology, and accelerate the development of the next generation of 
biofuels.
  As to the underlying amendment talked about by my colleague from 
California, first, there are no mandates in this bill. These are things 
the State can do. They can opt into this. Obviously, the incentives in 
this amendment do not go to oil companies, they go to State and local 
governments.
  Frankly, this is an important point, that this is directed to areas 
that have been affected by base closures and also Indian reservations, 
which in my State are desperately in need of economic development. This 
is the type of economic development that will fit very well in a lot of 
places in South Dakota that qualify.
  It is important this amendment be adopted. It does address a critical 
need in this country, and that is for more refinery capacity and the 
need in a lot of places, areas affected by base closure and Indian 
reservations, for economic development.
  There are a lot of items this amendment would accomplish. It is 
important to point out that over the past 30 years, the petroleum 
industry has not added a single new oil refinery in the United States. 
The American public, I think, would find it startling that the largest 
petroleum consumer in the world hasn't seen one new refinery in the 
past three decades, which has created a devastating bottleneck in the 
delivery of transportation fuels to American consumers.
  Fortunately, the Senate has an opportunity through this amendment to

[[Page 15573]]

address that issue which is squeezing very hard the wallets of hard-
working Americans across the country.
  Amendment No. 1505, which is pending before the Senate, would enact 
important measures to boost domestic refining capacity and provide 
certainty for the industry and the public.
  First, the amendment would set deadlines for refinery permit 
approval. For too long, proposed refinery projects have met slow deaths 
due to endless delays in the bureaucratic permit process.
  Second, this amendment would provide States with much needed 
technical and financial resources to assist in refinery permitting. The 
process of refinery siting is time-consuming, complicated, and 
financially straining on State budgets that are already stretched thin.
  This amendment also protects States rights by giving individual 
States the opportunity, as I said earlier, to opt in to a refinery 
permitting program. Contrary to what the opponents are saying, there 
are no mandates in this legislation. Participating States can 
voluntarily request the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate 
all permits for construction or expansion of a refinery.
  The importance of expanding refinery capacity to provide affordable 
and reliable supplies of transportation fuel cannot be overstated. I 
want to show a chart of something that was printed in BusinessWeek on 
May 3, 2007. This is what they said:

       Because of high costs and a lack of public support, 
     refiners haven't built an entirely new plant since 1976. 
     While they have been expanding existing plants, the industry 
     isn't keeping pace with growing demand.

  I would also like to show another chart of something that was printed 
recently in the Wall Street Journal, and it said this:

       The causes of higher gas prices include $65 per barrel oil 
     caused by rising global demand and geopolitical tensions; a 
     record high U.S. gasoline consumption of 380 million gallons 
     a day; and refined gasoline shortages caused by Congressional 
     rules and mandates.

  Now, my constituents know this problem firsthand. Inadequate refining 
capacity has a real impact at the local level, and I will give just a 
little anecdotal evidence here from South Dakota.
  For the past month and a half, several key gasoline terminals in my 
home State of South Dakota were literally out of gasoline for multiple 
days at a time. Widespread outages were reportedly caused by limited 
supplies due to refinery shutdowns and routine repairs in other parts 
of the country. The ripple effects of this gasoline supply disruption 
were felt throughout the entire eastern part of my State. As the pipes 
ran dry and terminals emptied, gasoline wholesalers were forced to 
travel great distances and manage logistical bottlenecks at the few 
pipeline terminals with available refined product. In the meantime, 
gasoline prices soared at the retail level across South Dakota, and 
consumers in my State were forced to pay more at the pump.
  The recent events in South Dakota are a prime example of the need to 
increase refining capacity in the United States. These events also 
underscore the need to move beyond petroleum for our transportation 
fuel needs.
  The amendment offered by Senator Inhofe moves our country toward 
greater energy independence by providing Economic Development 
Administration grants for infrastructure improvements to accommodate 
cellulosic ethanol refineries at Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission sites and Indian lands.
  As my fellow Senators are all well aware, the underlying bill 
includes a renewable fuels standard of 36 billion gallons by the year 
2022. In order to meet this goal, we need to enact policies that 
dramatically increase the development and production of cellulosic 
ethanol.
  By providing EDA grants that support cellulosic ethanol production in 
communities in need of economic development, amendment 1505 provides 
targeted rural and economic development and places our biofuels 
industry on course to reach the strengthened renewable fuels standard.
  In addition to the EDA grants for cellulosic ethanol refinery 
development, this amendment includes a first-of-its-kind provision that 
may greatly enhance private sector investment in renewable fuels. This 
amendment will begin to assess our Nation's renewable reserves of 
biomass cellulosic ethanol feedstocks so that the public and energy 
companies have a realistic understanding of total U.S. renewable 
reserves. Energy companies' stock prices rise and fall depending on 
their declared proven reserves. This process, which has been in place 
since 1978, provides tremendous incentives for exploration, investment, 
and development of new sources of traditional hydrocarbons.
  This straightforward amendment builds upon these proven market 
incentives by directing the Securities and Exchange Commission to 
research and report to Congress on the establishment of a renewable 
reserves classification system for cellulosic biofuels feedstocks in 
the United States.
  The idea of a renewable reserves classification system was first 
discussed during an Agriculture Energy Subcommittee hearing I held in 
Brookings, SD, earlier this year. An expert witness from Ceres, Inc., 
an industry leader in the development of transgenic switchgrass seed 
for cellulosic ethanol production, testified that a standard means for 
measuring renewable reserves on a per-barrel-of-oil basis would greatly 
incentivize private sector investment in the next generation of 
advanced biofuels.
  The President of Ceres, Inc., Richard Hamilton, describes the 
renewable classification system as:

       An independent metric by which energy companies, and the 
     market, may measure renewable reserves in barrel-of-oil 
     equivalents just as they measure proved reserves today.

  He continues by stating:

       A renewable reserves classification system could well be 
     the catalyst America's traditional providers of liquid 
     transportation fuels require to invest in cellulosic biofuels 
     technology and may be the Federal Government's least 
     expensive way to hurry the cellulosic biofuels industry to 
     maturity.

  Certainly a proposal that could result in such a dramatic advancement 
in our biofuels industry is worthy of consideration by the Securities 
and Exchange Commission and is certainly worthy for inclusion in a bill 
that calls for a historic increase in renewable fuels production. If we 
are serious about advanced biofuels production, we must consider 
effective approaches, such as the amendment offered today by my 
colleague from Oklahoma, that would boost the production of advanced 
biofuels.
  This amendment is important because, as I said earlier, it addresses 
a critical problem and shortage that we have in America today; that is, 
a lack of refinery capacity. We need more capacity. Now, frankly, it 
would be great if the folks I represent in South Dakota could get to 
their destinations by walking or riding bikes. Unfortunately, we have 
long distances to cover in my State. We have to drive automobiles, and 
we have to use fuel to power our automobiles. When you have a refinery 
problem like we have in America today, that limits the amount of 
gasoline that can be shipped through the pipeline to destinations in my 
State, and that drives the cost of gasoline higher and higher. Because 
of that shortage and because the wholesalers have to go to distant 
places to get it, it adds to the cost of our economy, and that affects 
the day-in and day-out lives of the people in my State of South Dakota 
and across this country who have to get to their destinations, whether 
it is to work or whether it is travel for recreation. The reality is 
that we cannot continue to abide $3.50 or $4 a gallon for gasoline, and 
we need to address what is causing that problem.
  As I said earlier, I will be offering a number of amendments that 
will increase and advance the production of biofuels energy in this 
country because I believe so profoundly in its importance as part of 
our energy supply. But this particular amendment is critical as well 
because it addresses a fundamental problem that exists in America 
today; that is, a lack of capacity, refinery capacity, to make sure 
enough gasoline is making it to its destination, to

[[Page 15574]]

places even as remote as South Dakota, so that the people who drive 
across my State can have access to affordable fuel to make sure they 
can get to the places they need to get to, and that the lack of 
affordable fuel does not choke our economy by continuing to force us to 
pay these exorbitant prices for gasoline.
  So I support the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, amendment 
No. 1505, and I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to do so as well. 
It is important for a lot of reasons--because it brings economic 
development to areas that really need economic development, those areas 
which have been affected by base closures and Indian reservations--and 
because my State desperately needs that form of economic development 
and job creation. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would inquire as to the time remaining 
on both sides, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 9 minutes 
remaining, and the Democratic side has approximately 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would like to go ahead and be 
recognized for a few minutes, and I would ask that the Chair stop me 
when there is 5 minutes remaining. I would like to remind the other 
side that our protocol or system is that the author of the amendment 
should conclude debate, so I would like to have the last 5 minutes.
  First of all, I look at this and I listen to the arguments from the 
junior Senator from California and I hear the same things over and over 
again. Last night, we debated this at some length. Every time, she 
would make a statement, and we would respond to the statement.
  Let me just put a chart up here. I think it is important for people 
to realize there are some choices. We are not willing to add to 
refinery capacity here in the United States. We have here the refining 
capacity and the growth of that refining capacity from other countries. 
We have Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and 
Venezuela. It is bad enough we are dependent upon foreign sources for 
our ability to run this machine we call America, but these are not the 
kinds of countries you want to depend on. I am sure Chavez is not real 
excited about helping us refine our oil into something that can be used 
for transportation.
  I would like to cover a couple of the things the junior Senator from 
California has said, and I know what is going to happen: As soon as I 
do this, she will come back and say the same things over again, because 
we have heard these same arguments.
  First of all, she says it is a disastrous amendment because it is a 
taxpayer giveaway to the oil companies; we don't have to give away the 
store to the oil companies. Well, the fact is that no money goes to any 
oil companies or, in fact, to any corporations in any way whatsoever. 
The only funding of the bill is financial and technical resources to a 
State or tribal department of environmental quality or funds to an 
economically distressed community affected by BRAC.
  Let us keep in mind, when we talk about BRAC and Indian tribes, we 
have a lot of BRAC sites, and I can remember Members standing on the 
floor saying, during the base realignment and closure process: They are 
going to be closing some of the military installations in my State. 
Well, what is a logical thing you can do to replace the economic loss 
of a closed facility? It is to put--if we can encourage the local 
community to do it--a refinery there. You don't have to clean it up to 
the same standards you would have to clean it up otherwise. It is a 
logical thing. So those people who want coal-to-liquids and commercial-
scale cellulosic ethanol facilities can have them.
  It does authorize the EPA to initiate a new emissions control 
demonstration project, but it doesn't offer the oil companies anything.
  The lack of sufficient refinery capacity in the United States is why 
we are experiencing high prices today. I think it is inconceivable that 
any Member of this body would come in and deny us, the United States, 
the right to expand our refinery capacity to do something about the 
supply problem we have and then turn around and say: Well, we don't 
want to be dependent on foreign countries for our ability to run this 
machine called America.
  In this bill, in the underlying Energy bill, without this amendment, 
we don't really address the problem today. We talk about the future, 
and we talk about conservation. This is good, and we want to do this. 
We talk about standards for automobiles and all that. But people in my 
State of Oklahoma want to do something about the $3 a gallon for 
gasoline right now that is there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. With that, I retain the remainder of my time, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding there will be 
equal time taken from each side in this case, so I would invite the 
majority to come in and make their remarks and would appreciate it; 
otherwise, I would be denied my opportunity to close debate on my 
amendment.
  In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call, 
the time be taken from the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my role as a Senator, I will object.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I understand what is customary; I am 
just saying that we are entitled to close debate.
  Apparently, the Senator from California is not going to allow me to 
close debate. So let me just say for a few minutes here that I was 
going to go through every argument the Senator from California has 
made.
  For example, first of all, I already did the first one where she 
talks about subsidizing oil companies. No corporation in America is 
being subsidized by this. She said also, we don't want to become a 
China, where they do not care about the people and how they suffer. We 
don't want to go there. Politicians are prone to hyperbole, but the 
junior Senator from California has reached a new level. Nowhere in this 
bill or any other I would consider would I seek to make the United 
States similar to China.
  By the way, talking about China, one of the problems we are having 
right now is that while we do not have the refining capacity, they do. 
While we are not building generating plants, they are. While we have 
gone 15 years without adding a new coal-fired generating plant in the 
United States, China is cranking out one every 3 days.
  The argument that was made was American families who want their 
health protected do not want us to waive every single environmental law 
that protects the quality of the air they breathe inside their bodies. 
They also do not want to waive any single environmental law. We are not 
doing that. We are not waiving any environmental laws with this bill.
  Let me tell you something that is serious. I warn people right now, 
this is going to be considered to be maybe the most significant vote in 
the 2008 elections. For people to say we do not want America to have 
refining capacity when we have a bill that will allow them to have the 
refining capacity and increase the supply--the old theory of supply and 
demand still works--those people who will vote against this will 
forfeit your right to complain about the dependency on foreign oil. 
This is going to be a major, maybe the major campaign issue of the 2008 
cycle.
  I suggest we spend a lot of time on this bill. We do not have any 
money going to oil companies. We do allow the EDA to help communities 
that want to set up refineries in their communities.
  Let's keep in mind, this is not just oil refineries. We are talking 
about oil refineries but also cellulosic biomass refineries, we are 
talking about coal-to-liquid refineries--all refineries to

[[Page 15575]]

give us the availability of fuels for the transportation this country 
needs.
  If we do not have that, the price of gas at the pump is going to 
continue to go up. I suggest this is going to be the critical vote, in 
terms of energy, for this entire legislative session. It is going to 
come back to haunt a lot of people in 2008. I know the Democrats are 
generally much more disciplined than the Republicans are. They will say 
you have to vote against this amendment, make up things such as you are 
helping oil companies, which you are not. Whatever the case is, the 
bottom line is they are going to be taking away our ability to increase 
the supply of gasoline to run our cars within America. This will be a 
major issue in the 2008 campaigns. I encourage people to do something 
about this problem and to vote for the Inhofe amendment expanding our 
refining capacity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to use 3 minutes 
from the time of the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly against 
the Inhofe amendment. I do believe there are several substantial 
problems with it. First of all, the underlying assumption is that the 
reason we do not have enough refining capacity in this country is we 
cannot find places to put refineries. That is not the reality. We have 
had various hearings in the Energy Committee. The companies that are 
engaged in refining oil into gasoline and other products are not short 
of places to put those refineries. They look at a whole variety of 
issues--the economics in particular--to determine whether to build new 
refineries or expand refining capacity. It is not a failure to have a 
BRAC military base or a failure to have an Indian reservation they can 
put these on.
  The other thing is location. They need to locate refineries where the 
pipelines are. They need to locate refineries where the demand is. 
Clearly, that is not contemplated as part of this as well.
  Another part that concerns me greatly is the notion that we would be 
making grants to support these projects which exceed the cost of the 
projects. That strikes me as very unusual. In the underlying bill, we 
do have some lien programs, where the Government will step in and 
guarantee 80 percent of the loan that is required to build a project, 
for example. We do not have anything similar to the provisions that are 
in this bill, which say the Federal share for an EDA grant, under this 
program, shall be 80 percent of the project cost, assuming that the 
project is not on Indian land, and it will be 100 percent of the 
project cost if it is on Indian land, and, by the way, there can be an 
additional award in connection with the grant to the recipient of an 
additional 10 percent on top of that.
  How it benefits the American taxpayer to pay 110 percent of the cost 
of one of these refineries I cannot see. So I think the amendment is 
flawed in several respects.
  Obviously, we all want to see additional refining capacity built. I 
think what we need to be sure of is that the regulatory regime in place 
is such that it encourages and provides an incentive for the companies 
that are in the refining business to build that additional refining 
capacity. It is not efficient to say we, the Federal Government, are 
going to finance 100 percent of a project to an Indian tribe and they 
are going to go into the refining business; or we, the Federal 
Government, are going to provide 80 percent plus 10 percent, or 88 
percent of the cost to some kind of local municipality and they are 
going to go into the refining business. That is not going to happen.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of Senator Boxer's time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak against this amendment. 
I have been listening to the debate. While I think it is very important 
we move forward in our country on a new energy policy and new 
direction, I think we must do so in a safe, responsible way. That is, 
whatever we are doing, we need to keep our environmental laws and 
processes in place: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe 
Water Act, the Conservation Resource and Recovery Act--all the things 
that are very important to our country and to our environment.
  I think we are hearing a lot about refinery and refinery capacity. It 
reminds me of the electricity crisis we had in the West, starting in 
2000-2001, when everybody blamed it on the fact the environmental laws 
stopped the ability to produce supply. When all was said and done, we 
found out it wasn't that; in fact, it was actually the manipulation of 
supply. So I think it is very important we move forward on new refinery 
capacity. In fact, in the last several years, there have been almost 
140, either built or in the process of being built, new ethanol 
refineries. So they have had no trouble moving ahead, planning new 
economic development, job creation, and alternative fuel that is going 
to help deliver competition at the pump for fossil fuel.
  In my State, a new biodiesel facility was undertaken and has been in 
the development stages. I think they will actually be producing and 
exporting that product sometime this year. They are going to produce 
100 million gallons of biodiesel in this next year--20 years, 12 
months. That is more capacity of biodiesel than was produced in the 
whole United States from a variety of sources.
  This is a very aggressive effort of building alternative fuel 
refineries. Let's be honest, God only gave the United States 3 percent 
of the world's oil reserves, so the notion that somehow we are going to 
drill our way with fossil fuel to get off this foreign oil addiction is 
not going to happen. But we do not have to throw out our environmental 
laws to produce alternative fuel. We are in the process of doing 
alternative fuel.
  If someone wants to meet all the environmental standards and build a 
new fossil fuel refinery, I am not opposed to that, but I want people 
to be aware that this is what is at the heart of this amendment, to 
throw out these environmental values that everybody else in America 
wants to live by if they want to have economic development. Why should 
the oil industry receive this particular privilege of waiving 
environmental statutes, just to have that benefit?
  Let's keep in mind that alternative fuels are making those 
commitments, meeting those environmental standards, and have produced 
140--either underway today or in the process, through the permit 
process--to develop 140 new alternative fuel refineries. That is 
progress in America and we should keep going. But we do not need this 
amendment to do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 6 minutes equally divided for 
debate, with Senator Inhofe controlling the final 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was confused about the time. If I may 
make a parliamentary inquiry before my time proceeds: I thought I had 9 
minutes left on my side; is that not the case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator now has 6 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have 6 minutes. OK. I hear you.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding there was a unanimous consent 
agreement giving us 6 minutes equally divided, myself having the last 
3; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an additional 3 minutes for each 
side.
  Mrs. BOXER. An additional 3, so I would have 6, you would have 3.

[[Page 15576]]

  Mr. President, yesterday Senator Inhofe repeatedly quoted Senator 
Feinstein in a way that suggested she supports his amendment. He kept 
reiterating a statement she made about streamlining which had nothing 
to do with this amendment.
  Senator Feinstein has told me she opposes the Inhofe amendment. I 
think it is important that I make that point.
  All you have to do is look at the title of this amendment: The Gas 
Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act. You ask 
yourself: OK. What are we giving the gas petroleum refiners that they 
do not have right now, that they did not get in the 2005 Energy bill, 
when they got all kinds of streamlining and everything they wanted and 
all kinds of money and all kinds of grants and the rest?
  This is a giveaway to the people who are gouging us at the pump. That 
is the first point. Yes, life will improve for gas petroleum refiners, 
who have it very good.
  Now, let's take the second part, the Community Empowerment Act. Your 
communities and mine and the communities in Washington State and, 
frankly, in Oklahoma and all over this country, I believe those 
communities will be hurt by this bill because it says there will be a 
giveaway to energy companies, a giveaway of taxpayer-owned land, former 
BRAC land, former federally owned lands that are now in the BRAC 
procedure.
  A lot of communities want to sell these lands. They want to use these 
lands for economic development. They have plans for these lands, and 
yet this particular project of building an energy plant would take 
precedence over local control. It is Federal control from Washington.
  I call this a socialistic amendment. Why do I say it is a socialistic 
amendment? It gives these big companies free land, and then it pays for 
the building of their energy plants. Can you imagine this? I see the 
chairman of the Budget Committee coming on the floor. I want to tell 
him one thing about this amendment because yesterday he talked to us 
Democrats in the Democratic caucus. I hope he doesn't mind if I say he 
really told us to use caution on these amendments.
  What are they going to cost? Let me read to my friends the last line 
of this amendment: There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
are necessary to carry out this title and the amendments made. Now, we 
found out today, by asking the industry, how much one of those plants 
will cost.
  The plant on Indian land--I know my friend is interested in that--
would be reimbursed or given or paid for 110 percent of the cost of the 
plant in Federal tax dollars, $4 billion; the cheapest, $3 billion. 
That is one plant, not paid for here.
  So I call it a socialistic amendment. You get the Federal taxpayer 
land, and then you get Federal taxpayer money to build your plant. And, 
by the way, all big environmental laws are waived. How does that help a 
community, Mr. President? Picking a winner, telling them that priority 
has to be given to these sorts of plants, and, by the way, in case 
communities were concerned that the quality of the air might go down 
because they are near a refinery, this bill conveniently takes care of 
that problem by waiving the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  They say States can pass equivalent laws. But there is no reason that 
we should do that in America today. We have one Clean Air Act, we have 
one Safe Drinking Water Act, we have one Clean Water Act, and there is 
a reason: Water travels, air travels.
  Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents alike decided--and it 
really started under Richard Nixon--that we must protect the air and 
the water. This act gives everything away that taxpayers have, 
including the protection of clean air, including their funding.
  Now, this particular vote is very important for people who care about 
clean air and clean water. I assume we all do. We all talk about it. We 
all say it is important. In my home State I lose in excess of 9,000 
people every year because of particulate matter. I will not allow--I 
say this with all humility; it is not a show of power--something to get 
through this Senate that would, in essence, make the air worse, the 
drinking water worse. I cannot let this go while taking dollars out of 
the pockets of hard-working Americans, to give to whom? The biggest 
energy companies in the country.
  Let me read to you what some of these companies made in the last 
couple of years: Exxon, $39 billion; Shell, $25 billion; BP, $22 
billion; Chevron, $17 billion; ConocoPhillips, $15.6 billion.
  Some of these companies earned 21 percent more than the year before, 
and, by the way, the year before that they earned 40 percent more.
  Let's take a look at what some of the executives have earned. I would 
ask how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let's not give more to these people who are gouging us at 
the pump. Vote no on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand that we have 3 minutes 
remaining to close debate on my amendment.
  I have a hard time keeping a straight face when the Senator from 
California suggests I have a socialistic amendment. I would invite 
anyone who is entertaining any kind of joy in that statement to look at 
our record over the past many years. It is just humorous.
  We have gone through listening to the same thing over and over and 
over again. We went through this yesterday for hours at a time. The 
Senator from California talks about subsidizing oil companies. Again, 
not one cent goes to any oil company. If we want to empower cities and 
communities to be able to take care of problems, maybe an economic 
problem that is due to the fact that they had to close a military base 
during the base realignment and closing process, we should be in a 
position to help.
  I never stated that Senator Feinstein--with endorsing this bill, she 
will be a good Democrat and oppose it with her junior Senator. I will 
say this. She said she recognizes we have a serious problem about 
having a refining capacity in this country, and about--I will just read 
it to you from her own press release: Today I urged Governor 
Schwarzenegger to help streamline the refining permit process in an 
effort to relieve gas prices in the State.
  All right. She says we have to relieve gas prices by streamlining the 
process. That is exactly what happens in this amendment. We want that 
to happen. For anyone to suggest that there is anything in here that 
would hurt the environment, here we have the Environmental Council of 
States--that is all States--saying there is nothing in here that will 
hurt the environment. It will actually help the environment.
  The Senator also said the Clean Air Act is going to be damaged, when, 
in fact, the underlying bill has language that would take the fuels 
system out from under the EPA and the Clean Air Act and put it in the 
President's power.
  So we have all of these letters. Here is another one from Ceres, a 
big company in California that is a company that needs to have refining 
capacity. They do not touch oil. It is all cellulosic bioethanol. They 
want to have this capacity.
  So the environmentalists, many of them are very much for this. It is 
a very strong bill. It goes right back to the initial argument of 
supply and demand. We have got some good things in this bill that are 
coming up. It is not affecting today's supply. All of the production in 
the world is fine, but we are not going to be able to do anything with 
that production unless we are able to refine it. That is exactly what 
we are talking about now.
  I honestly believe every argument the Senator from California has put 
up we have responded to over and over and over again. She keeps coming 
back with the same argument.
  I believe anyone who votes against the Inhofe amendment to the Energy 
bill should forfeit their right to complain about the dependency on 
foreign oil between now and the next election. I will say this also. I 
am glad to say this on the Senate floor because this way you cannot say 
we did not tell you. This is going to be one of the

[[Page 15577]]

major issues in the upcoming 2008 election as to whether you want to 
increase our refining capacity to lower the price of gas in the United 
States of America. This is a chance to do it. I urge you to support the 
Inhofe amendment to the Energy bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Cornyn and Senator Hutchinson be added as cosponsors of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent,
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coburn
     Hagel
     Johnson
     McCain
  The amendment (No. 1505) was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1537 to Amendment No. 1502

        (Purpose: To provide for a renewable portfolio standard)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1537 to amendment No. 1502.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


                Amendment No. 1538 to Amendment No. 1537

(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of a Federal clean portfolio 
                               standard)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send a 
second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Domenici, for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
     Graham, and Ms. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1538 to amendment No. 1537.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Reid of Nevada, Senator Salazar, and Senator Cardin be added as 
cosponsors to my amendment that was recently sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
in the Chamber. I know he wishes to speak on another matter. I ask him 
how long he will need to speak, and maybe we could defer to him to make 
whatever statement he wanted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I intend to speak on an amendment which 
has been filed and I thought would be offered at the present time, but 
Senator Kohl, the principal sponsor, wishes to offer it tomorrow. But I 
intend to speak on my amendment, and I would like 15 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I know Senator Reed from Rhode Island 
also would like to speak for 15 minutes on the bill.
  Mr. REED. Yes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, why don't we have that be the order 
then: the Senator from Pennsylvania have 15 minutes on his amendment, 
which is not pending but which he intends to offer later, and then 
Senator Reed on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 1519

  Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on an amendment 
which has been filed, amendment No. 1519, which has an impressive list 
of sponsors: Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, Senator 
Biden, Senator Coburn, Senator Feingold, Senator Snowe, Senator Durbin, 
Senator Boxer, Senator Lieberman, Senator Schumer, Senator Sanders, and 
myself.
  The thrust of this amendment is to make the OPEC nations--which have 
conspired to limit production--subject to our antitrust laws. What we 
have, simply stated, are a group of oil-producing nations, that get 
together that make agreements to limit production. Inevitably, by 
limiting the production of oil, and thereby limiting supply, the price 
goes up. The limited supply of oil is the major contributing factor to 
high gasoline prices. It is high time we acted on this matter.
  The Judiciary Committee has approved this legislation on four 
occasions, most recently on May 22 of this year. In the 109th Congress, 
the legislation was passed out of the Judiciary Committee in which I 
was the chair, and it was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
but it did not survive conference.
  Senator Kohl and I and the other sponsors intend to ask for a 
rollcall vote, which I think a substantial number of Senators will vote 
for the amendment. I hate to predict things in this body, but I think 
the vote will be substantial, and I think that ought to carry very 
substantial weight in conference.
  The facts on the current price of gasoline are very troublesome. The 
high price of oil drives up other prices. The statistics are worth 
noting with particularity. The price of crude oil reached $65 a barrel 
yesterday. Americans are paying an average of $3.06 for a gallon of 
gasoline. Consumers are paying more for products because American 
companies are paying more to run their factories, which require the 
consumption of energy. Consumers are also paying more for products they 
buy that have been shipped by train or truck from somewhere else. Plane 
fares, bus tickets, cab fares often include significant fuel 
surcharges.
  Economists have estimates that for every $10 increase in the price of 
oil, our economic growth falls by a half a percent. Our economy grew 
only by 0.6 percent in the first quarter of this year--the slowest 
growth rate since 2002. I believe a fair amount of that lag in economic 
growth can be attributed to the high price of oil.

[[Page 15578]]

  For decades, the OPEC members have conspired to manipulate oil prices 
through production quotas that limit the number of barrels sold. OPEC 
again appears to be poised to manipulate oil prices by limiting supply.
  The Secretary General of OPEC, Abdullah al-Badri, recently threatened 
to cut investment in new oil production in response to plans announced 
by the United States and other Western countries to use more biofuels. 
He warned that cutting investment in new production would cause oil 
prices to ``go through the roof.''
  Well, we do not have to tolerate threats of that sort. We have the 
wherewithal to deal with this issue in a constructive way through the 
antitrust laws.
  Regrettably, the history of litigation in this field has allowed OPEC 
nations to avoid antitrust liability by asserting the doctrine of 
sovereign immunity. In the decision of International Association of 
Machinists v. OPEC, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 
California held that OPEC activity was ``governmental activity'' rather 
than ``commercial activity'' and therefore was not subject to the U.S. 
antitrust laws.
  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, 
holding that the ``act of state'' doctrine precluded the court from 
exercising jurisdiction in the case. The ``act of state'' doctrine 
precludes a federal court from hearing a case that requires it to rule 
on the legality of the sovereign acts of a foreign nation.
  Well, those rulings are matters which can be changed by legislation. 
The legislation to make this change, I submit, is fundamental and very 
much in our national interest and ought to be undertaken.
  The lawsuits would have to be initiated, under our proposed 
legislation, by the Department of Justice. As a result, the 
Administration would provide a check on when to initiate a suit, 
avoiding diplomatic disputes. But it is a fact we have deferred too 
long to the practices of Saudi Arabia and practices of the OPEC oil 
nations out of fear of retribution, and we ought not to kowtow to them 
anymore.
  The possibility of subjecting the OPEC nations to antitrust liability 
has long been an interest of mine. I wrote to President Clinton on 
April 11, 2000, urging the administration to file suit in the Federal 
court under the antitrust laws in an effort to overturn the previous 
decisions, which I think were wrongly decided.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, then I wrote to President Bush on April 
25, 2001, with a similar request, that litigation be initiated by the 
administration to hold OPEC nations liable under the antitrust laws.
  Again, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. SPECTER. We have the authority to change the laws. We have a 
responsibility to protect American consumers from these predatory 
practices, from these conspiracies in restraint of trade, these 
cartels. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at the legislation.
  As I noted earlier, the amendment will be formally offered tomorrow.
  I thank the Chair, yield back the remainder of my time, and yield the 
floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 2000.
     President William Jefferson Clinton,
     The White House
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In light of the very serious problems 
     caused by the recent increase in oil prices, we know you will 
     share our view that we should explore every possible 
     alternative to stop OPEC and other oil-producing states from 
     entering into agreements to restrict oil production in order 
     to drive up the price of oil.
       This conduct is nothing more than an old-fashioned 
     conspiracy in restraint of trade which has long been 
     condemned under U.S. law, and which should be condemned under 
     international law.
       After some considerable research, we suggest that serious 
     consideration be given to two potential lawsuits against OPEC 
     and the nations conspiring with it:
       (1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust 
     law.
       (2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the 
     Hague based, perhaps, upon an advisory opinion under ``the 
     general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,'' 
     which includes prohibiting oil cartels from conspiring to 
     limit production and raise prices.
       (1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust 
     law.
       A case can be made that your Administration can sue OPEC in 
     Federal district court under U.S. antitrust law. OPEC is 
     clearly engaging in a ``conspiracy in restraint of trade'' in 
     violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1). The 
     Administration has the power to sue under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4 
     for injunctive relief to prevent such collusion.
       In addition, the Administration should consider suing OPEC 
     for treble damages under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 
     15a), since OPEC's behavior has caused an ``injury'' to U.S. 
     ``property.'' After all, the U.S. government is a major 
     consumer of petroleum products and must now pay higher prices 
     for these products. In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp, 442 U.S. 330 
     (1979), the Supreme Court held that the consumers who were 
     direct purchasers of certain hearing aides who alleged that 
     collusion among manufacturers had led to an increase in 
     prices had standing to sue those manufacturers under the 
     Clayton Act since ``a consumer deprived of money by reason of 
     allegedly anticompetitive conduct is injured in `property' 
     within the meaning of [the Clayton Act].'' Indirect 
     purchasers would appear to be precluded from suit, even in a 
     class action, under Illinois Brick v. Illinois 431 U.S. 720 
     (1977), but this would not bar the United States Government, 
     as a direct purchaser, from having the requisite standing.
       One potential obstacle to such a suit is whether the 
     Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSIA'') provides OPEC, a 
     group of sovereign foreign nations, with immunity from suit 
     in U.S. courts. To date, there has been a ruling on this 
     issue in only one case. In International Association of 
     Machinists v. OPEC, 477 F. Supp. 553 (1979), the District 
     Court for the Central District of California held that the 
     nations which comprise OPEC were immune from suit in the 
     United States under the FSIA. We believe that this opinion 
     was wrongly decided and that other district courts, including 
     the D.C. District, can and should revisit the issue.
       This decision in Int. Assoc. of Machinists turned on the 
     technical issue of whether or not the nations which comprise 
     OPEC are engaging in ``commercial activity'' or 
     ``governmental activity'' when they cooperate to sell their 
     oil. If they are engaging in ``governmental activity,'' then 
     the FSIA shields them from suit in U.S. courts. If, however, 
     these nations are engaging in ``commercial activity,'' then 
     they are subject to suit in the U.S. The California District 
     Court held that OPEC activity is ``governmental activity.'' 
     We disagree. It is certainly a governmental activity for a 
     nation to regulate the extraction of petroleum from its 
     territory by ensuring compliance with zoning, environmental 
     and other regulatory regimes. It is clearly a commercial 
     activity, however, for these nations to sit together and 
     collude to limit their oil production for the sole purpose of 
     increasing prices.
       The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in 
     Int. Assoc. of Machinists in 1981 (649 F.2d 1354), but on the 
     basis of an entirely different legal principle. The 9th 
     Circuit held that the Court could not hear this case because 
     of the ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds that a U.S. 
     court will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute 
     which would require the court to judge the legality of the 
     sovereign act of a foreign state.
       The 9th Circuit itself acknowledged in its Int. Assoc. of 
     Machinists opinion that ``The [act of state] doctrine does 
     not suggest a rigid rule of application,'' but rather 
     application of the rule will depend on the circumstances of 
     each case. The Court also noted that, ``A further 
     consideration is the availability of internationally-accepted 
     legal principles which would render the issues appropriate 
     for judicial disposition.'' The Court then quotes from the 
     Supreme Court's opinion in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. 
     Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964):
       It should be apparent that the greater the degree of 
     codification or consensus concerning a particular area of 
     international law, the more appropriate it is for the 
     judiciary to render decisions regarding it, since the courts 
     can then focus on the application of an agreed principle to 
     circumstances of fact rather than on the sensitive task of 
     establishing a principle not inconsistent with the national 
     interest or with international justice.
       Since the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in 1981, there 
     have been major developments in international law that impact 
     directly on the subject matter at issue. As we discuss in 
     greater detail below, the 1990's have witnessed a significant 
     increase in efforts to

[[Page 15579]]

     seek compliance with basic international norms of behavior 
     through international courts and tribunals. In addition, 
     there is strong evidence of an emerging consensus in 
     international law that price fixing by cartels violates such 
     international norms. Accordingly, a court choosing to apply 
     the act of state doctrine to a dispute with OPEC today may 
     very well reach a different conclusion than the 9th Circuit 
     reached almost twenty years ago.
       You should also examine whether the anticompetitive conduct 
     of the international oil cartel is being effectuated by 
     private companies who are subject to the enforcement of U.S. 
     antitrust laws (for example, former state oil companies that 
     have now been privatized) rather than sovereign foreign 
     states. If such private oil companies are determined to in 
     fact be participating in the anticompetitive conduct of the 
     oil cartel, then we would urge that these companies be named 
     as defendants in an antitrust lawsuit in addition to the OPEC 
     members.
       (2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the 
     Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized 
     by civilized nations,'' which includes prohibiting oil 
     cartels from conspiring to limit production and raise prices.
       In addition to such domestic antitrust actions, we believe 
     you should give serious consideration to bringing a case 
     against OPEC before the International Court of Justice (the 
     ``ICJ'') at the Hague. You should consider both a direct suit 
     against the conspiring nations as well as a request for an 
     advisory opinion from the Court through the auspices of the 
     U.N. Security Council. The actions of OPEC in restraint of 
     trade violate ``the general principles of law recognized by 
     civilized nations.'' Under Article 38 of the Statute of the 
     ICJ, the Court is required to apply these ``general 
     principles'' when deciding cases before it.
       This would clearly be a cutting-edge lawsuit, making new 
     law at the international level. But there have been exciting 
     developments in recent years which suggest that the ICJ would 
     be willing to move in this direction. In a number of 
     contexts, we have seen a greater respect for and adherence to 
     fundamental international principles and norms by the world 
     community. For example, we have seen the establishment of the 
     International Criminal Court in 1998, the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994, and the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993. Each of 
     these bodies has been active, handing down numerous 
     indictments and convictions against individuals who have 
     violated fundamental principles of human rights. For example, 
     as of December 1, 1999 the Yugoslavia tribunal alone had 
     handed down 91 public indictments.
       Today, adherence to international principles has spread 
     from the tribunals in the Hague to individual nations around 
     the world. Recently, the exiled former dictator of Chad, 
     Hissene Habre, was indicted in Senegal on charges of torture 
     and barbarity stemming from his reign, where he allegedly 
     killed and tortured thousands. This case is similar to the 
     case brought against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet 
     by Spain on the basis of his alleged atrocities in Chile. At 
     the request of the Spanish government, Pinochet was detained 
     in London for months until an English court determined that 
     he was too ill to stand trial.
       The emerging scope of international law was demonstrated in 
     an advisory opinion sought by the U.N. General Assembly in 
     1996 to declare illegal the use or threat to use nuclear 
     weapons. Such an issue would ordinarily be thought beyond the 
     scope of a judicial determination given the doctrines of 
     national sovereignty and the importance of nuclear weapons to 
     the defense of many nations. The ICJ ultimately ruled eight 
     to seven, however, that the use or threat to use nuclear 
     weapons ``would generally be contrary to the rules of 
     international law applicable in armed conflict, and in 
     particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.'' 
     The fact that this issue was subject to a decision by the 
     ICJ, shows the rapidly expanding horizons of international 
     law.
       While these emerging norms of international behavior have 
     tended to focus more on human rights than on economic 
     principles, there is one economic issue on which an 
     international consensus has emerged in recent years--the 
     illegitimacy of price fixing by cartels. For example, on 
     April 27, 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development issued an official ``Recommendation'' that all 
     twenty-nine member nations ``ensure that their competition 
     laws effectively halt and deter hard core cartels.'' The 
     recommendation defines ``hard core cartels'' as those which, 
     among other things, fix prices or establish output 
     restriction quotas. The Recommendation further instructs 
     member countries ``to cooperate with each other in enforcing 
     their laws against such cartels.''
       On October 9, 1998, eleven Western Hemisphere countries 
     held the first ``Antitrust Summit of the Americas'' in Panama 
     City, Panama. At the close of the summit, all eleven 
     participants issued a joint communique in which they express 
     their intention ``to affirm their commitment to effective 
     enforcement of sound competition laws, particularly in 
     combating illegal price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market 
     allocation.'' The communique further expresses the intention 
     of these countries to ``cooperate with one another . . . to 
     maximize the efficacy and efficiency of the enforcement of 
     each country's competition laws.'' One of the countries 
     participating in this communique, Venezuela, is a member of 
     OPEC.
       The behavior of OPEC and other oil-producing nations in 
     restraint of trade violates U.S. antitrust law and basic 
     international norms, and it is injuring the United States and 
     its citizens in a very real way. Consideration of such legal 
     action could provide an inducement to OPEC and other oil-
     producing countries to raise production to head off such 
     litigation.
       We hope that you will seriously consider judicial action to 
     put an end to such behavior.
     Arlen Specter.
     Herb Kohl.
     Charles Schumer.
     Mike DeWine.
     Strom Thurmond.
     Joe Biden.
                                 ______
                                 

                               Exhibit 2


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2001.
     President George Walker Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In light of the energy crisis and the 
     high prices of OPEC oil, we know you will share our view that 
     we must explore every possible alternative to stop OPEC and 
     other oil-producing states from entering into agreements to 
     restrict oil production in order to drive up the price of 
     oil.
       This conduct is nothing more than an old-fashioned 
     conspiracy in restraint of trade which has long been 
     condemned under U.S. law, and which should be condemned under 
     international law.
       After some research, we suggest that serious consideration 
     be given to two potential lawsuits against OPEC and the 
     nations conspiring with it:
       (1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust 
     law.
       (2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the 
     Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized 
     by civilized nations.''
       (1) A suit in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust 
     law.
       A strong case can be made that your Administration can sue 
     OPEC in Federal district court under U.S. antitrust law. OPEC 
     is clearly engaging in a ``conspiracy in restraint of trade'' 
     in violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1). The 
     Administration has the power to sue under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4 
     for injunctive relief to prevent such collusion.
       In addition, the Administration has the power to sue OPEC 
     for treble damages under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 
     15a), since OPEC's behavior has caused an ``injury'' to U.S. 
     ``property.'' After all, the U.S. government is a consumer of 
     petroleum products and must now pay higher prices for these 
     products. In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp, 442 U.S. 330 (1979), 
     the Supreme Court held that the consumers of certain hearing 
     aides who alleged that collusion among manufacturers had led 
     to an increase in prices had standing to sue those 
     manufacturers under the Clayton Act since ``a consumer 
     deprived of money by reason of allegedly anticompetitive 
     conduct is injured in `property' within the meaning of [the 
     Clayton Act].''
       One issue that would be raised by such a suit is whether 
     the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSIA'') provides 
     OPEC, a group of sovereign foreign nations, with immunity 
     from suit in U.S. courts. To date, only one Federal court, 
     the District Court for the Central District of California, 
     has reviewed this issue. In International Association of 
     Machinists v. OPEC, 477 F. Supp 553 (1979), the Court held 
     that the nations which comprise OPEC were immune from suit in 
     the United States under the FSIA. We believe that this 
     opinion was wrongly decided and that other district courts, 
     including the D.C. District, can and should revisit the 
     issue.
       This decision in Int. Assoc. of Machinists turned on the 
     technical issue of whether or not the nations which comprise 
     OPEC are engaging in ``commercial activity'' or 
     ``governmental activity'' when they cooperate to sell their 
     oil. If they are engaging in ``governmental activity,'' then 
     the FSIA shields them from suit in U.S. courts. If, however, 
     these nations are engaging in ``commercial activity,'' then 
     they are subject to suit in the U.S. The California District 
     Court held that OPEC activity is ``governmental activity.'' 
     We disagree. It is certainly a governmental activity for a 
     nation to regulate the extraction of petroleum from its 
     territory by ensuring compliance with zoning, environmental 
     and other regulatory regimes. It is clearly a commercial 
     activity, however, for these nations to sit together and 
     collude to limit their oil production for the sole purpose of 
     increasing prices.
       The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in 
     Int. Assoc. of Machinists in 1981 (649 F.2d 1354), but on the 
     basis of an entirely different legal principle. The 9th 
     Circuit held that the Court could not hear this

[[Page 15580]]

     case because of the ``act of state'' doctrine, which holds 
     that a U.S. court will not adjudicate a politically sensitive 
     dispute which would require the court to judge the legality 
     of the sovereign act of a foreign state.
       The 9th Circuit itself acknowledged in its Int. Assoc. of 
     Machinists opinion that ``The [act of state] doctrine does 
     not suggest a rigid rule of application,'' but rather 
     application of the rule will depend on the circumstances of 
     each case. The Court also noted that, ``A further 
     consideration is the availability of internationally-accepted 
     legal principles which would render the issues appropriate 
     for judicial disposition.'' The Court then quotes from the 
     Supreme Court's opinion in Banco National de Cuba v. 
     Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964):
       It should be apparent that the greater the degree of 
     codification or consensus concerning a particular area of 
     international law, the more appropriate it is for the 
     judiciary to render decisions regarding it, since the courts 
     can then focus on the application of an agreed principle to 
     circumstances of fact rather than on the sensitive task of 
     establishing a principle not inconsistent with the national 
     interest or with international justice.
       Since the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in 1981, there 
     have been major developments in international law that impact 
     directly on the subject matter at issue. As we discuss in 
     greater detail below, the 1990's have witnessed a significant 
     increase in efforts to seek compliance with basic 
     international norms of behavior through international courts 
     and tribunals. In addition, there is strong evidence of an 
     emerging consensus in international law that price fixing by 
     cartels violates such international norms. Accordingly, a 
     court choosing to apply the act of state doctrine to a 
     dispute with OPEC today may very well reach a different 
     conclusion than the 9th Circuit reached almost twenty years 
     ago.
       (2) A suit in the International Court of Justice at the 
     Hague based upon ``the general principles of law recognized 
     by civilized nations.''
       In addition to such domestic antitrust actions, we believe 
     you should give serious consideration to bringing case 
     against OPEC before the International Court of Justice (the 
     ``ICJ'') at the Hague. You should consider both a direct suit 
     against the conspiring nations as well as a request for an 
     advisory opinion from the Court through the auspices of the 
     U.N. Security Council. The actions of OPEC in restraint of 
     trade violate ``the general principles of law recognized by 
     civilized nations.'' Under Article 38 of the Statute of the 
     ICJ, the Court is required to apply these ``general 
     principles'' when deciding cases before it.
       This would clearly be a cutting-edge lawsuit, making new 
     law at the international level. But there have been exciting 
     developments in recent years which suggest that the ICJ would 
     be willing to move in this direction. In a number of 
     contexts, we have seen a greater respect for and adherence to 
     fundamental international principles and norms by the world 
     community. For example, we have seen the establishment of the 
     International Criminal Court in 1998, the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994, and the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993. Each of 
     these bodies has been active, handing down numerous 
     indictments and convictions against individuals who have 
     violated fundamental principles of human rights.
       Today, adherence to international principles has spread 
     from the tribunals in the Hague to individual nations around 
     the world. The exiled former dictator of Chad, Hissene Habre, 
     was indicted in Senegal on charges of torture and barbarity 
     stemming from his reign, where he allegedly killed and 
     tortured thousands. This case is similar to the case brought 
     against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet by Spain on 
     the basis of his alleged atrocities in Chile. At the request 
     of the Spanish government, Pinochet was detained in London 
     for months until an English court determined that he was too 
     ill to stand trial.
       While these emerging norms of international behavior have 
     tended to focus more on human rights than on economic 
     principles, there is one economic issue on which an 
     international consensus has emerged in recent years--the 
     illegitimacy of price fixing by cartels. For example, on 
     April 27, 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development issued an official ``Recommendation'' that all 
     twenty-nine member nations ``ensure that their competition 
     laws effectively halt and deter hard core cartels.'' The 
     recommendation defines ``hard core cartels'' as those which, 
     among other things, fix prices or establish output 
     restriction quotas. The Recommendation further instructs 
     member countries ``to cooperate with each other in enforcing 
     their laws against such cartels.''
       On October 9, 1998, eleven Western Hemisphere countries 
     held the first ``Antitrust Summit of the Americas'' in Panama 
     City, Panama. At the close of the summit, all eleven 
     participants issued a joint communique in which they express 
     their intention ``to affirm their commitment to effective 
     enforcement of sound competition laws, particularly in 
     combating illegal price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market 
     allocation.'' The communique further expresses the intention 
     of these countries to ``cooperate with one another . . . to 
     maximize the efficacy and efficiency of the enforcement of 
     each country's competition laws.''
       The behavior of OPEC and other oil-producing nations in 
     restraint of trade violates U.S. antitrust law and basic 
     international norms, and it is injuring the United States and 
     its citizens in a very real way.
       We hope that you will seriously consider judicial action to 
     put an end to such behavior.
     Arlen Specter.
     Charles Schumer.
     Herb Kohl.
     Strom Thurmond.
     Mike DeWine.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, energy is the lifeblood of our economy. It 
is fundamental to powering our homes, businesses, manufacturing, and 
the transportation of goods and services that are vital to America and 
the world economy. But the fossil fuels our country currently relies on 
are unsustainable. Our Nation's addiction to oil is threatening our 
national security and dramatically changing the climate in which we 
live.
  Setting America on a course of greater energy self-reliance is one of 
the most significant foreign policy, economic, and environmental 
challenges we face as a Nation.
  Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Inouye, and Stevens have put a great 
deal of effort in developing this Energy bill, and it is an excellent 
first step. The bill will improve our Nation's energy efficiency, 
protect consumers from price gouging, increase vehicle economy 
standards, and decrease our reliance on oil, especially from unstable 
regions of the world.
  President Bush admitted we are addicted to oil. But for the last 6 
years, neither he nor the Congress was willing to take real action to 
change that fact. I commend Senator Harry Reid for bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  For the first time in 30 years, the Senate is now poised to pass 
legislation to increase vehicle fuel standards. I commend particularly 
Senators Feinstein and Durbin and Snowe for their work on this issue. I 
was glad to be an original cosponsor of the ten-in-ten bill, which is 
the basis of the bipartisan compromise in the legislation we are 
considering today.
  The debate about fuel economy standards should be over. We have the 
technology to get well beyond 35 miles per gallon, and the American 
public supports an increase in fuel efficiency standards. The time for 
action is long overdue, and I hope my colleagues will resist efforts to 
weaken these standards.
  We have an opportunity to create a new energy future for the country. 
That future would strengthen our national security by making us more 
self-reliant and slow the impacts of global warming on our climate by 
investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and biofuels. I do 
not believe we can drill or mine our way to energy independence. 
Increasing the importation of foreign oil and natural gas is not the 
answer. Developing more nuclear power, given its price, legacy, cost, 
and safety threats, remains very problematic. Investing in energy 
efficiency and renewable energy is a win-win situation. These 
investments offer short-term and long-term solutions to strengthen our 
national security by reducing our energy consumption and making us less 
reliant on oil from unstable regions of the world. It enhances our 
economic competitiveness by creating American jobs in this new green 
economy, and it will protect our environment by reducing our carbon 
footprint.
  Sixty percent of the oil consumed by Americans comes from abroad. 
While Canada and Mexico are our top suppliers, OPEC nations hold the 
cards in a global oil market, and a portion of the money we spend on 
oil undoubtedly finds its way into the hands of unstable and unfriendly 
regimes. Two-thirds of the global oil reserves are in the Middle East, 
and more than 75 percent of global oil production is already in the 
hands of state-controlled oil companies. With growing global demand and 
limited remaining oil supply, many countries, including our allies and

[[Page 15581]]

trading partners, will compete with us for finite oil supplies as their 
and our own economy rely more heavily on imports. This will inevitably 
stress the delicate balance that exists among national interests in the 
world, and it gives oil-rich nations disproportionate leverage in the 
international arena. Al-Qaida and other terrorist networks have openly 
called for and carried out attacks on oil infrastructure because they 
know oil is the economic lifeline of industrial economies, especially 
the United States.
  Today, we have an opportunity to shift the balance of power around 
the globe that is dictated by oil. Our first step is to strengthen our 
national security by increasing CAFE standards.
  Raising fuel economy standards is an essential insurance policy 
against the risk of oil dependence and global warming, which pose vital 
threats to our national security. Fuel economy standards have proven 
effective at reducing our demand for oil, but they have been stagnant 
for more than a decade, despite advances in vehicle technology. The 
fact that our industrial competitors are increasing mileage standards 
underscores how we have been lagging behind the world economy in terms 
of technology, in terms of applying that technology through increasing 
the standards for automobiles in our country. Achieving a 35-mile-per-
gallon fuel economy over the next decade, the equivalent of the 4-
percent-a-year improvement called for by President Bush, is achievable. 
Beginning in 2011, this bill requires the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration to annually increase the nationwide average fleet 
fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to achieve a standard 
of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. By 2020, the bill would reduce 
our Nation's oil dependence by approximately 1.3 million barrels per 
day, and in that year alone will save consumers $26 billion, and global 
warming emissions will be reduced by over 200 million metric tons. 
These savings will continue to increase each year, year after year.
  This is the best investment we can have, I believe, in both national 
security and improved environmental quality, not just for us but for 
the world.
  Strong mileage standards will also make us more competitive. 
According to the University of Michigan Transportation Research 
Institute, U.S. automakers could increase revenues by $2 billion and 
save between 15,000 and 35,000 jobs for autoworkers if we improve gas 
mileage. Higher fuel efficiency standards will help U.S. automobile 
manufacturers to better compete in the global marketplaces. The 
pricetag of our oil dependence is also not sustainable. According to a 
Department of Defense report:

       The United States bears many costs associated with the 
     stability of the global oil market and infrastructure. The 
     cost--

  According to this report--

     of securing Persian Gulf sources alone comes to $44.4 billion 
     annually for the United States.

  We are literally policing the world oil market for the benefit of the 
world economy, with great cost in terms of dollars but also in terms of 
the huge pressure on our military forces and their families.
  We lose $25 billion from our economy every month, and oil imports now 
account for nearly a third of the national trade deficit because of our 
dependence on oil. The economy is exposed to oil price shocks and 
supply disruptions, and families are feeling the pinch of oil prices. 
High energy prices reduce consumer spending power and affect 
businesses' bottom lines.
  Millions of petrodollars are being exported out of U.S. cities and 
counties to pay for energy with a real effect on local economic 
vitality. In Rhode Island, my home State, gas prices have increased by 
$1.50 per gallon, an increase of 99 percent, since 2001. Households in 
Rhode Island are paying $1,430 more per year for gasoline than in 2001. 
So for the State economy, this means that families, businesses, and 
farmers in Rhode Island will spend $52.4 million more on gasoline in 
June 2007 than they spent in January 2001, and $600 million more will 
be spent on gasoline this year than was spent in 2001, if prices remain 
at current levels. Rhode Island residents, farmers, and businesses are 
on track to pay $1.2 billion for gasoline this year. That is an 
extraordinary drain on the economy of my State and on States throughout 
this great Nation.
  If we have a policy that increases CAFE standards and energy 
efficiency and makes sensible investments in renewable fuels, we will 
have more funds to invest in education, health care, public works, and 
business development. My State, like so many States, is struggling with 
a budget problem, a huge State budget problem. Some of that can be 
attributed directly to the higher cost of fuels to run schools, to run 
buses, to run the infrastructure of our State. We could take that 
money, save it, and invest it in education, in schools, and not simply 
ship it overseas through major international oil companies.
  Energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that improve 
technologies for our homes, our businesses, and our vehicles must be 
the ``first fuel'' in the race for secure, affordable, and clean 
energy. Energy efficiency is the Nation's greatest energy resource. We 
now save more energy each year from energy efficiency than we get from 
any single energy source, including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear 
power. We need to use energy in a way that saves money. It is much 
cheaper to conserve energy and increase efficiency than to build 
further energy infrastructure in the country.
  The Senate bill contains important provisions to support energy 
efficiency. First, it sets new energy benchmarks for appliances, 
including residential boilers, dishwashers, clothes washers, 
refrigerators, dehumidifiers, and electric motors. These seem like very 
mundane, trivial items, but if we can make even small increases in 
their efficiency, it has a huge macroeconomic effect on our society in 
terms of demand for energy, and this legislation will help us do that 
and point us in that direction. According to the American Council for 
an Energy Efficient Economy, increasing these standards will give 
consumers more than $12 billion in benefits, save more than 50 billion 
kilowatt-hours per year in electricity, or enough to power 4.8 million 
typical American households. The bill also strengthens energy 
requirements for the Federal Government. Today, the Federal Government 
spends more than $14 billion a year on energy. Increasing efficiency 
will save energy and taxpayer dollars. That is something we have to 
begin ourselves, leading by example at the Federal level.
  The bill also increases the authorization level for the 
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. The 
State Energy Program improves the energy efficiency of schools, 
hospitals, small businesses, farms, and industries to make our economy 
more efficient.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program helps low-income families, the 
elderly, and the disabled by improving energy efficiency of low-income 
housing. Weatherization can cut energy bills by 20 to 40 percent in 
each assisted home. This represents savings that families can use to 
pay for other necessities, while reducing the Nation's energy demand by 
the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil each year. It lowers our 
national demand for energy, helps individual families, which is another 
win-win program we must support more vigorously.
  The program weatherizes approximately 100,000 homes each year. Since 
its inception, the program has weatherized over 5.6 million homes. 
Weatherization has also grown an energy efficiency industry for 
residential housing that, according to the Department of Energy, 
employs 8,000 people who work in low-income weatherization alone. This 
has been a great success. Again, lowering the cost to families, 
lowering the national demand, and putting people to work is a good 
formula for our economy today.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2007 spending 
plan cut funding to the weatherization program, and the administration, 
unfortunately, has a situation in which efficiency funding has fallen 
alarmingly since 2002. Adjusting for inflation, funding for energy 
efficiency has been cut by one-third. We have to do better.

[[Page 15582]]

In the face of soaring prices, in the face of international threats 
posed by oil powers, we are cutting programs that are efficient, 
effective, and help families, and that is not only wrong, but it is 
terribly wrongheaded.
  A strong renewable electricity standard is also needed to diversify 
our fuel supply, clean our air, and better protect our consumers from 
electricity price shocks. I am glad to join Senator Bingaman in 
supporting an amendment to the bill to require a 15-percent renewable 
electricity standard by 2020. This amendment will promote domestically 
produced clean energy, reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, reduce 
energy costs for American consumers and businesses, and create American 
jobs.
  According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 15-percent RES 
would save the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors $16.3 
billion in electricity and natural gas costs. These savings are 
particularly critical for energy-intensive industries such as 
manufacturing. The RES will also create jobs in manufacturing. A recent 
study by the Apollo Alliance and the Urban Habitat found that renewable 
electricity creates American manufacturing, construction, and 
maintenance jobs. For every megawatt of solar photovoltaic electricity 
generated, about 22 jobs are created, which is their projection. 
Geothermal energy creates 10.5 jobs per megawatt, and wind energy 
creates 6.4 jobs per megawatt. American energy-intensive industries 
that are saving $5 billion through 2023 will be more competitive in the 
global market. Using clean, domestically produced power will also help 
stabilize prices, allowing businesses to more accurately budget for 
energy costs. This RES, the proposal of Senator Bingaman, will also 
lower U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 2 million tons per year 
by 2020.
  Finally, the RES is important to our national security. In July 2006, 
the National Security Task Force on Energy published a report 
recommending several measures to improve energy security in the 21st 
century, including a national RES of 10 to 25 percent. Consumption of 
natural gas is growing at a faster rate than for any other primary 
energy source, and it is growing in all sectors of the economy. 
Families heat their homes with natural gas, businesses use natural gas 
to produce products, natural gas vehicles are becoming more common, and 
power producers generate cleaner energy with natural gas. Similar to 
oil, demand is growing faster than available supplies can be delivered, 
and the tightening in supply and demand is resulting in dramatic price 
volatility. One way to increase the natural gas supply in the United 
States is through liquefied natural gas, known as LNG. Again, however, 
we would do well to learn from our lessons with oil. One-third of the 
world's proven reserves of natural gas are in the Middle East, nearly 
two-fifths are in Russia and its former satellites, and Nigeria and 
Algeria also have significant reserves.
  Political stability and terrorism are very real threats to these 
countries being a reliable source for natural gas. Russia is trying to 
create an OPEC-style cartel for natural gas, which could manipulate 
natural gas prices and supply, and that would be a very unfortunate 
development.
  For over 30 years, through four different administrations, Americans 
have been promised that our Government would end the national security 
threat created by our dependence on foreign oil. As a country, we need 
to move in a new direction toward a clean and secure energy future. 
This effort must include greater investment in energy efficiency, a 
strong renewable electricity standard, and increased vehicle fuel 
economy standards. Also, as we dramatically increase biofuel 
production, we must ensure that it does not cause harm to the 
environment and public health.
  Energy security starts with using the fuels we have more efficiently. 
Smart energy use is a resource not vulnerable to terrorism or world 
politics, and I think this legislation is a step forward for smart 
energy use. I commend Chairman Bingaman for his leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                              Immigration

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to say a word this morning about a 
column that was printed in the Washington Post this morning on the op-
ed page that was taking the majority leader of the Senate to task, and 
doing so, I think, unfairly and certainly inaccurately.
  The column criticizes the majority leader for saying the Senate's 
time was ``too precious'' to expend on what would have been unlimited 
debate on an unlimited number of Republican amendments to the 
immigration bill. The intent of this column in the newspaper is to say 
that the majority leader was responsible for failing to allow 
consideration of the immigration bill.
  I don't know what Mr. Will, who wrote this column, was watching last 
week. I know Paris Hilton was being taken back and forth between her 
house and the sheriff's office and court and jail, apparently, and the 
country must have been riveted on that story. But C-SPAN would have 
availed a columnist of a pretty good look at what the Senate was doing, 
and not just for last week but for 2 weeks the Senate dealt with the 
subject of immigration.
  I happen to come to a different conclusion on that subject than the 
majority leader. I know who supports that legislation, and he has 
supported that legislation. I watched the last day of consideration 
when the majority leader came to the floor and offered a proposal where 
each side would get four amendments. That was objected to. He then 
proposed that each side would get three amendments. That was objected 
to. Each side would get two amendments. That was objected to.
  I don't have the foggiest idea why Mr. Will would write a column 
suggesting somehow the majority leader was responsible for that not 
going forward after 2 full weeks of debate and being blocked in every 
circumstance of having additional amendments considered.
  But what brought me to the Senate floor is not my support of 
consideration or further consideration of the immigration bill, but the 
charge that the majority leader was somehow responsible for scuttling 
it. That is not the case, No. 1. And, No. 2, Mr. Will says in his 
column that, in fact, it was taken off the floor in order to bring up 
legislation that would quintuple the mandated use of corn-based 
ethanol, apparently upset about the fact that we have an energy bill on 
the floor at this point that would dramatically increase the use of 
biofuels, corn-based ethanol and also cellulosic and other approaches 
because we believe we need to find somehow, some way, some point, 
someday to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  Over 60 percent of the oil we use in this country we obtain from 
troubled parts of the world overseas--60 percent of it and it is 
growing: the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, Venezuela, Iraq, and the list goes 
on. If tomorrow, God forbid, somehow that source of oil would be shut 
off to our economy, this economy, this American economy would be flat 
on its back. We need to become less dependent on foreign sources of 
oil. We use 70 percent of the oil we bring into this country in our 
vehicles. We run them through the carburetors and fuel injectors of our 
vehicles.
  We are doing a lot with this legislation. We haven't had an increase 
in the efficiency standards for vehicles for 25 years, and the auto 
companies, I know, object to that. They objected to seatbelts. They 
objected to airbags. They have given us better cupholders. They have 
given us better music systems. They have given us keyless entry. But 
they haven't in 25 years given us greater efficiency, and they should. 
That is in the bill.
  We also increase the supply of alternative energy with renewable 
fuels called the biofuels, ethanol, corn-based ethanol; yes, cellulosic 
ethanol, yes. If Mr. Will and others think that is irrelevant, they 
miss the point. This country doesn't have a choice. We must find a 
route to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  One approach, in my judgment, is to make the vehicles more efficient. 
Another approach is to produce renewable

[[Page 15583]]

fuels. I was the author of the only standard that exists for renewable 
fuels, a 7.5-billion-gallon-a-year standard. We did that 2 years ago. I 
think we are at 7.5 billion gallons already. We were hoping to get 
there by 2012. Now we have a bill that will take us to 36 billion 
gallons of renewable fuels. As a measurement, we use 145 billion 
gallons of fuel a year. We want to go to 36 billion gallons of 
renewable fuels that we can grow in our farm fields, among other 
things.
  It is easy to write a column, I guess. If the ink is inexpensive, you 
can say anything you want. This is not an accurate reflection of two 
things. No. 1, it is not an accurate reflection of the immigration 
bill, and it is not an accurate reflection, in my judgment, of the 
merits of biofuels to extend America's energy supply.
  While I am up, I want to make one more point. There are others who 
talked about the amendment I offered to the immigration bill suggesting 
that somehow it would have been responsible for killing the bill. I 
want to describe it very briefly.
  The immigration bill was put together in a room by a group of people 
who said: Here is what we think we should do to deal with immigration. 
The proposal was put together in a room by some 14 Senators, which 
meant that 86 others were not involved. So the product was brought to 
the floor of the Senate, and we were told: If you have a different 
idea, the group of 14 are going to oppose it. That group of 14, or 
whatever it was, creating a grand compromise, they had a responsibility 
to oppose anything that the rest of the 86 Members of the Senate 
believed could add to or improve the bill.
  Among other things, the bill provided a temporary worker provision 
which said there are millions of people outside this country--400,000 a 
year originally, 2 years on, 1 year back to their home country, 2 years 
back, 1 year back to their home country, 2 years back a third time. My 
colleague from New Mexico reduced that to 200,000 a year. But it was 
ultimately the same circumstance. It would have been a massive number 
of new people who don't now live here who would have come in and taken 
jobs in this country. I did not support that guest worker program. I 
believe at least we should sunset it after 5 years to evaluate the 
consequences, what impact it has had on our country. Has it had an 
impact of downward pressure on wages, which I think it will have, which 
I don't support? Has it had an impact of bringing in a lot of 
immigrants who will not leave afterward and, therefore, be here without 
legal authorization? If so, should we consider that issue and how to 
deal with it?
  I think these are very complicated issues, and the guest worker 
program should be sunsetted after 5 years. My amendment won by one 
vote, and then it was as if the sky was falling. This is going to kill 
the bill, they say. I don't agree with that at all. I just don't agree.
  As I have indicated many times, they brought that out here suggesting 
that anything that was done that would change it would kill the bill. 
Again, it is the argument we hear all the time: the lose thread on the 
cheap sweater; pull the thread, the arms fall off.
  I come back to this point that I think the column today is unfair to 
the majority leader. It unfairly suggests that he is the responsible 
party for not moving forward on immigration. We spent 2 full weeks on 
immigration. It wasn't incomplete because of anything the majority 
leader did. He is the one who brought it to the floor in the first 
place.
  Second, it is unfortunate--certainly well within the columnist's 
right, but unfortunate--to suggest that somehow renewable fuels cannot 
play a significant part in this country's energy future. That is a 
significant part of this bill. Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, 
myself, and many others have worked on renewable fuels for a long 
while. We set a standard that I think is going to be very exciting for 
this country to meet, and I think it will reduce our dependence on 
foreign sources of oil, will make us much less dependent than we are 
now, and I think it will advance this country's security and energy 
interests.
  I am pleased to be a part of that effort and support it and felt 
especially that I ought to say a word in response to this column that I 
think unfairly treats the issue of biofuels.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 1605 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of bold action on 
energy policy for this country. I am pleased and indebted to the 
chairman of the Energy Committee for his leadership. I think all of us 
know our country faces serious energy challenges. The most pressing is 
the fact that our Nation is far too dependent on foreign oil.
  For example, we currently import roughly 60 percent of the oil we 
consume. You can see that in 2006, 60 percent of our oil came from 
imports; only 40 percent was domestic. Not only does this make us 
increasingly dependent on the most unstable parts of the world, but it 
is also leading to a financial hemorrhage. It is leading us to spend 
hundreds of billions of dollars abroad that could otherwise be deployed 
here at home.
  Imported petroleum accounted for $272 billion of the U.S. trade 
deficit over the last year, equal to 32 percent of our total trade 
deficit--$272 billion that we spend in other countries that could have 
been spent here at home. Imagine the difference in this country's 
economy if we were spending $270 billion in America securing energy 
here instead of shipping it to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, 
Nigeria, and all of the other countries from whom we buy foreign oil.
  We know much of this oil is coming from the most unstable parts of 
the world. That puts us at risk, not only at economic risk but at 
national security risk. We must also recognize that other countries, 
especially in the developing world, are going to consume growing 
amounts of energy as well. In fact, the Energy Information 
Administration projects world consumption of energy will increase 57 
percent from 2004 to 2030.
  This chart shows it well. This is the current consumption level. This 
is what they project by 2030--a 57-percent increase. This growth in 
demand for energy will mean higher prices for energy, increased price 
volatility in the markets for oil, natural gas, uranium, and coal as 
transportation and refining networks are pushed to capacity. Unless we 
change course, we will become even more dependent on foreign energy 
sources. In fact, we are told now that while we are 60 percent 
dependent, we are headed for 75 percent dependence if we fail to act. 
In short, our addiction to foreign oil threatens our economic future 
and our national security. We need to take significant strides now to 
develop other sources of energy, ones we can rely on to be there in the 
future.
  I have said many times to my colleagues, instead of continuing our 
dependence on the Middle East, we need to look to the Midwest for 
increased energy supplies, because it is in the Midwest where we grow 
the feedstocks for ethanol and biodiesel, things that reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Fortunately, the United States has the domestic resources and the 
ingenuity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our energy 
challenges. That is why I introduced the BOLD Act last year, Breaking 
Our Long-term Dependence. The BOLD Act would increase production of 
renewable energy and alternatives fuels, offer incentives to reward 
fuel savings and energy efficiency, increase research and development 
funding for new technologies, promote responsible development of 
domestic fossil fuel resources, and facilitate expansion and upgrades 
to our Nation's electricity grid.
  That is also one of the challenges facing us; we have gridlock on the 
energy grid. When we produce additional energy in North Dakota, we 
can't move it to the Chicago market because the capacity of the grid is 
full--in Minnesota,

[[Page 15584]]

in Wisconsin. So when we put on new capacity in North Dakota through 
wind power, for example, where we have extraordinary potential, we 
can't move it to the Chicago market where it is needed because the grid 
itself is gridlocked.
  I am pleased the bill before us contains many of the provisions or 
similar provisions to what was in the BOLD Act I introduced last year. 
The renewable fuels standard is an important step. My BOLD Act required 
30 billion gallons of renewable fuel use by 2025. This bill requires 36 
billion gallons by 2022. Renewable fuels have tremendous potential to 
reduce our imports. By relying more on domestic crops to produce 
ethanol and biodiesel, we can reduce fuel prices, support economic 
development in rural areas, and improve our energy security.
  This energy bill also takes steps to develop an infrastructure of 
pipelines, rail lines, and trucks able to deliver increasing amounts of 
renewable fuels to market. These steps will allow us to substitute 
homegrown fuels for foreign oil, dramatically reducing our dependence 
on imported oil.
  Let me say that other countries have done this. Brazil is a perfect 
example. You can see, in the green bars, that in 1973 we were 35 
percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, we are 60 percent. Look at 
Brazil. Brazil, in 1973, was 80 percent dependent on foreign oil. They 
have reduced that last year to 5 percent--a dramatic change. How have 
they done it? They have done it by promoting ethanol and biodiesel and 
by promoting flexible fuel vehicles. That is a program for success.
  Experts tell us the single most important thing we can do to reduce 
our reliance on foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of our cars 
and trucks. If our cars averaged 40 miles a gallon, we could save 2 to 
3 million barrels of oil a day. In the short term, we clearly need to 
increase fuel efficiency. In the longer term, we need to develop 
alternative fuel technologies, such as plug-in hybrid and electric 
drive vehicles. This bill helps advance a long-term solution to the 
problem with research and development and demonstration programs for 
electric drive transportation technology. The bill also includes loan 
guarantees for facilities for the manufacture of parts for fuel-
efficient vehicles, including hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles.
  We have abundant domestic sources of electricity, from a 250-year 
supply of coal to rapidly developing renewable sources such as wind 
energy. Let me say that my State is a leader in both. We have the 
greatest wind energy potential in North Dakota of any State in the 
Nation. I might add it is not because of our congressional delegation. 
No, this is wind generated by a higher power.
  I am glad I have been able to amuse the Chair.
  North Dakota has those constant prevailing winds. Already, we have 
seen hundreds of millions of dollars invested in wind energy, but much 
more could be done. And, of course, we have extraordinary deposits of 
coal as well. By plugging into these sources of energy to fuel our 
transportation sector, we can dramatically reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  This bill also establishes long overdue efficiency standards for 
consumer appliances and industrial products, and promotes advanced 
lighting technologies that will cut down on a major source of our 
electricity load.
  Lastly, I am encouraged by the strong provisions in this bill to 
research, develop, and demonstrate our capacity to capture and store 
carbon dioxide. The largest carbon sequestration project in the world 
is going on in North Dakota, where the coal gasification plant that is 
run by Basin Electric--we call it the Dakota gasification plant--is 
shipping about half of the carbon dioxide it produces to Canada to 
repressure the oil fields there. This is the largest carbon 
sequestration project in the world. We are proud of it. We are 
demonstrating that this can be done, and that is a winner on every 
count. It reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it repressures 
oil fields in Canada to get more production so we are less reliant on 
more unstable sources. This is crucial work if we are to find the best 
response to global climate change.
  I look forward to taking up work in the Finance Committee next week 
to craft bold and thoughtful tax provisions to complement and expand 
upon the worthy objectives that are already in this bill. This bill 
takes important steps to set us on a path toward energy independence. 
Let me say it will be many years before we reach that objective, but we 
must act boldly now to take these initial steps.
  I wish to especially commend and thank the chairman of the Energy 
Committee, Senator Bingaman, who has labored so hard and so long to 
produce this legislation. Senator Bingaman has taken on some of the 
toughest areas of energy policy. These are areas of real controversy, 
and he has taken them on with real leadership. We are proud of him.
  Senator Bingaman, I thank you for the legislation you have brought to 
the floor and for the effort you and your staff have put into this 
endeavor. It is important for our country. I believe, more broadly, it 
is important for the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, let me thank my friend and 
colleague from North Dakota for his kind words and for his strong 
support for this legislation. He has been a leader on this whole set of 
energy issues and proposed very strong legislation in the last Congress 
on this very set of issues. We are hopefully moving ahead on some of 
the policy recommendations and proposals he has made here in the Senate 
in the last year or two. I congratulate him on that and look forward to 
continuing to work with him.
  We are now on what is called the renewable portfolio standard and the 
renewable electricity standard amendment. This is an amendment I 
offered. Senator Domenici has now offered a second-degree amendment to 
it, which is really a substitute, which is really a very different 
piece of legislation than the amendment I offered.
  I thought I would take a few minutes. I know Senator Domenici will be 
returning to the floor here in a few minutes, and he will want to speak 
on his proposed substitute amendment. I thought I would take a few 
minutes right now to describe the amendment I have offered on the 
renewable portfolio standard.
  In each of the last three Congresses, we passed a major energy bill 
in the Senate. In each of those energy bills, we have included a 
provision to require that a certain percentage of the electricity sold 
by electric utilities throughout the Nation come from renewable energy 
sources. That is the nature of the amendment I am offering again today. 
The Senate has approved this proposition again and again.
  In the 107th Congress, we included such a portfolio standard. That is 
the phrase which has been used historically to describe this amendment, 
a portfolio standard. It is really an electricity standard or 
electricity requirement on utilities. But in the 107th Congress, we 
included such a portfolio standard as part of the Energy bill, and 
strong votes on the floor affirmed the Senate's determination that the 
standard we proposed there should not be weakened.
  In the 108th Congress, there was a letter signed by 53 Senators that 
went to the chairs of the conference on the Energy bill. The Senate 
conferees went on to approve the portfolio standard and sent it on to 
the House as part of our bill.
  In the 109th Congress, the same thing happened.
  In all three cases, the House conferees rejected the proposal that 
had been passed by the Senate. Now we have an opportunity to renew our 
support for this proposal and to place it in a bill that hopefully can 
garner strong bipartisan support and finally reach the President's 
desk.
  There are good reasons for the Senate to support this proposal. A 
strong renewable portfolio standard is an essential component of any 
comprehensive national energy policy. It is not just an important part 
of such a strategy but an essential component of such a strategy.

[[Page 15585]]

  The benefits are clear. This portfolio standard would reduce our 
dependence on traditional polluting sources of electricity. It would 
reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. It would reduce the 
growing pressure on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of 
electricity. It would reduce the price of natural gas. It would create 
new jobs. It would make a start on reducing our greenhouse gas 
emissions, and it would increase our energy security and enhance the 
reliability of the electricity grid. Those are some of the benefits.
  Mr. President, I failed at the beginning of my comments to ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added as an original cosponsor 
of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. This portfolio standard we have offered is a flexible, 
market-driven approach to achieving all of the goals I have enunciated 
here and to do so at a negligible cost to consumers. The proposal would 
require retail sellers of electricity who sell more than 4 million 
megawatt hours per year to provide 15 percent of that electricity from 
renewable sources by the year 2020. The requirement would be ramped up. 
There would be an increase in the requirement each year, in 3-year 
increments to allow planning flexibility for those utilities.
  The Secretary of Energy would be required to develop a system of 
credit for renewable generation that could be traded or sold, again 
making the program easier to comply with. Utilities could use new or 
existing generation to comply with the program or they could comply 
with the program by buying credits from someone who has produced more 
renewable energy than they were required to produce. New renewable 
producers could receive the credits to trade or to sell.
  Let me just summarize at this point and interject. The way we have 
drafted this, the flexibility is that an electric utility can comply 
with the requirement--the requirement being to ensure that 15 percent 
of the electricity they sell comes from renewable sources--in any of 
four ways:
  First, they can produce the electricity themselves. They could put in 
a wind farm or a biomass facility or whatever and produce that energy 
from renewable sources themselves.
  Second, they could buy that energy from someone else who is producing 
that renewable energy.
  Third, they could buy credits from someone who has produced more 
renewable energy than they themselves are required to have in order to 
meet their requirements under the law.
  Fourth, there is a compliance fee that they could pay the Secretary 
of Energy if they are not able to do any of the previous three. That 
would be at a rate of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. So the cost of the 
program to utilities would be capped by allowing utilities to make this 
alternative compliance payment of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is 
adjusted for inflation. As long as the difference between the cost of 
renewable generation and the cost of other generation resources is less 
than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, the utility could buy or generate 
renewables or buy credits in the open market. When it reaches or 
exceeds that 2-cent price, the cap would kick in.
  We also would create a program from the alternative compliance 
payments so that, to the extent a utility chose to go ahead and just 
pay the 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, those funds would go into a State 
program for development of renewable energy in that State.
  Congress has tried before to spur the development of renewables. In 
1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. That bill 
required utilities to buy renewables if the generators could meet the 
avoided cost of the utilities. Cogeneration--the combined use of heat 
and industrial processes for generation of electricity--was also 
eligible. That program resulted in a huge growth in cogeneration. Over 
half of the new generation that came on line in this country during the 
1980s and the 1990s was from that resource. It did not, however, do 
much for renewable generation. These technologies have remained at 
about 2 percent of total electricity supply for several decades now.
  We have a chart here which makes that point. This chart depicts 
electricity generation by fuel during the period 1970 projected through 
2025 in billions of kilowatt-hours.
  You can see, from 1970 up to the current time, renewables is way down 
toward the bottom. It is the second to the bottom line on that chart. 
Then it stays flat going forward, unless we pass this legislation. This 
legislation is intended to change these lines on this chart. That is 
the entire purpose of the legislation.
  Critics of the program claim that the cost of this would be too much, 
that States are already requiring development of renewables, and that 
some areas do not have readily available renewable resources. My 
response is, I would point to a number of studies of this proposal that 
have been done over the years.
  In 2003, I asked the Energy Information Administration at the 
Department of Energy to look at the effect the proposed renewable 
standard at that time would have had. They found that the standard 
would result in 350 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable generation 
being constructed between 2008 and 2025; that is generation that would 
not be constructed absent the passage of that provision. They found 
that the cost would be minimal. The report indicated there would be an 
increase in the cost of electricity by about one-tenth of a cent in 
2025 over projected costs. When combined with the reduction in natural 
gas prices which would be caused by the renewable portfolio standard, 
the total aggregate cost to consumers on their energy bills was 
projected to be less than one-twentieth of 1 percent.
  In 2005, again I asked the Energy Information Administration to 
update the analysis, taking contemporary conditions into account. That 
update found that the portfolio standard we were proposing then would 
cause the prices of both electricity and natural gas to actually go 
down, and the letter that outlines those results stated:

       Cumulative residential expenses on electricity from 2005 to 
     2025 are $2.7 billion, that is 2/10th of a percent lower, 
     while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are 
     reduced by $2.9 billion, or one half of 1 percent. Cumulative 
     expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end use 
     sectors taken together will decrease by $22.6, again, one-
     half of 1 percent.

  That report also indicates that generation of electricity from 
natural gas would be 5 percent lower with the RPS than it would be 
without the RPS. It also projected that total electricity-sector 
carbon-dioxide emissions would be reduced by 249 million metric tons 
relative to the reference case.
  This year, once again, I asked the Energy Information Administration 
to analyze the proposal we now have before the Senate. This analysis 
indicates that the renewable electricity standard or renewable 
portfolio standard would result in a tripling of generation from 
biomass, a 50-percent increase in wind generation, and a 500-percent 
increase in solar generation. The net expenditures for energy by 
consumers are projected to increase by three-tenths of 1 percent, 
electricity prices are projected to increase by nine-tenths of 1 
percent, while natural gas prices are slated to fall.
  The renewable electricity standard would also be expected to reduce 
carbon dioxide emissions by 6.7 percent, or 222 million metric tons in 
2030.
  These projections are not as optimistic as those we got 2 years ago 
in the 2005 analysis. There are some different assumptions which they 
used which explain the different conclusions. The first assumption was 
that the reference case projects a much greater expansion of coal 
generation than earlier projections. That was partly a result of the 
higher natural gas price projected. Second, the study assumes tax 
credits for renewables will, in fact, end next year, in 2008.
  They are scheduled to expire next year. I think all or at least most 
Members of the Senate believe we ought to extend those tax credits. I 
hope we do so as part of our amending of this bill on the Senate floor 
this week and next week. I know the Finance Committee,

[[Page 15586]]

Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley on the Finance Committee are 
working to develop a package of tax extenders and provisions to expand 
the tax provisions that are related to renewables.
  Third, and perhaps most importantly, the study--this is the study the 
Energy Information Administration did for us this year. The study does 
not assume any controls on carbon emissions anytime in the next 13 
years. Frankly, I don't think that is a likely occurrence. I think this 
Congress and this Government is going to come to a responsible position 
with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and there are going to be 
limits on carbon emissions imposed in this country, as they have been 
imposed in many industrial countries around the world--the sooner the 
better, from my perspective. But certainly that is going to happen long 
before the end of the next 13 years.
  The report acknowledges these assumptions but states that different 
assumptions would result in lower costs for the renewable electricity 
standard. There is, of course, considerable uncertainty regarding the 
projected baseline electricity mix. Actual implementation of future 
policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions could lead to a larger role 
for natural gas in the generation mix.
  This is a quote from the report we received this year. It says:

       In such a scenario----

  That is where natural gas has a larger role in the generation mix----

     the projected impact of the 15 percent renewable portfolio 
     standard proposal would move toward those identified in the 
     2005 analysis.

  In the tax title that is being developed by the Finance Committee to 
accompany the bill, we are working to extend the production tax credit, 
to extend the investment tax credits that are available for renewables. 
We are also going to do something, I believe, to try to encourage 
sequestering of carbon emissions.
  I don't think anyone in this body believes Congress will fail to act 
on this issue for the period of time that is built in for these 
assumptions. If we assume what we believe is going to happen, we are 
back with a projection of considerable consumer savings from the 
renewable electricity standard, as we found in the 2005 report that 
they did.
  A recent report from Wood Mackenzie, which is a noted natural gas 
industry analytic consulting firm, concluded that a 15-percent 
renewable portfolio standard would result in a savings in variable 
costs for electricity of $240 billion by 2026.
  That is far more than offsetting the $134 billion increase in capital 
expenditures. The study indicates that natural gas prices would be from 
16 to 23 percent lower in their projection by 2026 as a result of 
enactment of this provision. The study also projects that carbon 
emissions from the power sector would be 10 percent lower in 2026 as a 
result of this.
  A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this 
proposal would result in $16.4 billion in savings to consumers on 
electricity and natural gas bills. It also reported a 7-percent 
reduction in carbon emissions.
  A number of other studies found positive results, even to the point 
of reducing overall energy costs. In 2005, we had a hearing in the 
energy committee. Senator Domenici was chairing the committee at the 
time. It was on the issue of generation portfolios. Dr. Ryan Weiser, of 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, presented a report that 
summarized the results of 15 studies of renewable portfolio standards, 
much like the one I am offering.
  All these studies found that a portfolio standard would reduce 
natural gas prices; 12 of the 15 studies projected a net reduction in 
overall energy bills for consumers as a result of the renewable 
portfolio standard. In other words, we can save natural gas, we can 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly, and we can save money 
both on electricity bills and on natural gas bills from making this 
move that this proposal contemplates.
  Many have argued that States are already implementing renewable 
portfolio standards so there is no need for a Federal program. It is 
true States have taken the lead in pushing for more renewable 
generation.
  Twenty-three States currently have in development renewable 
requirements. Almost all these standards are more aggressive than the 
Federal standard I am proposing in the amendment I have sent to the 
desk. New Mexico requires 16.2 percent by 2020. California requires 20 
percent by 2017. Maine requires 30 percent by 2000. Minnesota requires 
27.4 percent by 2025.
  This will spur the growth of renewables in these regions. There is 
one thing, however, that a State standard cannot do--it cannot drive a 
national market for the technologies involved here. If some States have 
renewable standards and others do not, it is impossible for a national 
market to develop for renewable credits.
  This credit trading system is the piece of our proposal that gives 
the greatest flexibility for compliance. The credit trading system also 
helps to reduce the cost of compliance by allowing credits for lower 
cost renewables from one region to be bought by utilities in another 
region.
  Some argue this is a cost shift from the regions without renewable 
resources to those that have renewable resources. I would argue it is a 
way to spread the cost to all who are, in fact, benefitting. If States 
do not have or choose not to develop renewable resources, they still 
realize very real benefits in lower natural gas prices, lower 
SO2 allowance costs, and low-cost carbon reductions. It is 
only fair they share the slight increase in costs for generation of 
electricity that, in fact, created the savings. The argument that many 
States do not have, or many regions do not have renewable generation 
resources has been made. It is true the best wind, geothermal, and 
solar resources are concentrated in the West.
  The entire country has extensive biomass potential. As Maine and 
other Eastern States have shown, paper production and agricultural 
processes are available everywhere. We have a chart that makes that 
point. It shows, up in the left-hand corner, biomass and biofuel 
resources; on the right side, solar insolation resources; geothermal 
resources on the left-hand side; and wind resources on the bottom 
right.
  If Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and New Jersey and Maryland can 
implement aggressive standards, then the standard we are calling for 
can be implemented in all States. The chart from the Department of 
Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab shows that virtually every State 
has the biomass production potential to meet this target. Environmental 
benefits are clear.
  RPS would result, according to the Energy Information Administration, 
in a 6.7-percent reduction in carbon emissions in the year 2030. That 
is a reduction of 222 million tons in that area alone. RPS standards 
also benefit the economy. It drives job growth. The Union of Concerned 
Scientists says that wind turbine construction alone would result in 
43,000 new jobs per year, on average.
  An additional 11,200 cumulative long-term jobs will result from 
subsequent operations and maintenance. There is another study by the 
Regional Economics Application Laboratory for the Environment, 
Environmental Law and Policy Center, that found that over 68,000 jobs 
at 6.7 billion in economic output would result from the development of 
the renewable energy capacity contemplated in this amendment.
  According to the AFL-CIO, an estimated 8,092 jobs would be created 
over a 10-year period for installation and O&M on wind power in Nevada 
alone, and another 19,137 manufacturing jobs would be created. 
Agricultural interests have begun to be aware of the potential and have 
indicated their support.
  Last month, the 21st Century Agricultural Policy Project, under the 
guidance of former Senators Bob Dole and Tom Daschle, issued a report. 
That report made recommendations to sustain the Nation's farm sector. 
One of the key recommendations was that Congress pass a Federal 
renewable portfolio standard. I do have executive summaries of those 
reports. I ask

[[Page 15587]]

unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. So support for RPS is strong throughout the Nation. A 
poll recently by Melvin & Associates found that 70 percent of those 
surveyed nationwide supported a 20-percent portfolio standard. That is 
not what I am recommending. I am recommending 15 percent.
  But these results were about the same in States as diverse as North 
Dakota and Georgia and Missouri and Arizona. Environmental groups, from 
the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, to the 
industrial associations, to the renewable trade groups, to utilities 
have all supported RPS. We recently received letters from a great many 
organizations.
  Let me indicate what these letters are. First, we have a letter to 
Senators Reid, McConnell, Bingaman, and Domenici, signed by several 
hundred organizations indicating their strong support for this proposal 
that I have put before the Senate today.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Next I have a letter from Michael Wilson of FPL Group--
he is vice president for government affairs with FPL--saying: Please 
consider this letter an endorsement in the renewable portfolio standard 
amendment that you intend to offer.
  I ask unanimous consent that be included in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Next, a letter from the National Farmers Union directed 
to Senators Reid, McConnell, Domenici, and myself, saying: On behalf of 
the farm, ranch and rural members of National Farmers Union, we are 
writing to urge you to support inclusion of a strong national renewable 
portfolio standard in energy security legislation and oppose attempts 
to weaken that when the Senate considers this issue in the coming days.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 4.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Finally, I have a letter from the American Wind Energy 
Association indicating strong support for my amendment and concern and 
opposition to the proposed substitute amendment that Senator Domenici 
has offered under the title: Clean Portfolio Standard.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 5.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are moving ahead on this bill. This 
is an important part of the legislation. I think all Senators have 
known this was intended to be offered as an amendment on the floor. I 
have certainly indicated that repeatedly over recent weeks and even 
months. So as I say, it has been offered and passed in a somewhat 
different forum, three previous Congresses in the Senate. I hope very 
much that we can proceed to a good debate on this proposal and on the 
proposal by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and then 
have votes on those two proposals.
  I know Senator Kerry also has a proposed second-degree amendment to 
raise the percentage requirement from 15 percent to 20 percent. He 
would like to have a chance to have the Senate consider that proposal 
as well.
  At this point, I think that gives a general overview of the amendment 
and the reasons why I think the Senate should support it. I urge all my 
colleagues to vote for the amendment. I will also want to address 
Senator Domenici's amendment once he has had a chance to explain that.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                21ST CENTURY AGRICULTURE POLICY PROJECT


                           executive summary

       America's farmers and ranchers face unprecedented 
     challenges and opportunities in the decades ahead. 
     Globalization, technological change, trade issues, federal 
     budget constraints, global warming, high energy costs, land-
     development pressures, and increasing environmental and food 
     safety concerns are all likely to have a profound impact on 
     rural communities and on future prospects for sustaining a 
     prosperous and vibrant farm economy. At the same time, new 
     markets are opening to farmers that already are paying 
     enormous dividends. Investments in biofuels projects and wind 
     farms, as well as the generation of carbon credits, are 
     providing farmers and ranchers with new sources of income 
     that are transforming the rural American economy.
       The 21st Century Agriculture Policy Project was motivated 
     by a recognition that rapidly changing landscape calls for a 
     more expansive and creative approach to national farm policy. 
     Sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center and chaired by the 
     two of us, who together have eight decades of experience at 
     the forefront of federal engagement with agriculture issues, 
     the Project was launched in March 2006. Its aim has been to 
     work directly with farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders 
     to forge bipartisan consensus around a new agenda for U.S. 
     farm policy in the 21st century. It is our intent to put 
     forward a series of recommendations that, taken together, can 
     be implemented at a net savings to the federal government 
     compared with the current Farm Bill. Specifically, our 
     recommendations assume that increased demand for biofuels 
     under an expanded renewable fuel standard will produce 
     substantial savings in existing agriculture support programs, 
     including elimination of the direct payment program, less 
     reliance on countercyclical and loan deficiency payments, and 
     more reliance on the marketplace.
       Programs to sustain the nation's agricultural sector must 
     necessarily evolve to reflect emerging budget pressures and 
     new economic realities, while also being responsive to the 
     larger concerns and interests of American taxpayers, 
     consumers, and utility ratepayers. Indeed, as taxpayers, 
     consumers, and ratepayers themselves, farmers and ranchers 
     are best served by well-designed policies that achieve 
     equitable outcomes, do so in a fiscally responsible manner, 
     and are carefully targeted to achieve maximum societal 
     benefits at the lowest possible cost. Fortunately, the input 
     gathered through this project from farmers and researchers 
     points to promising opportunities for reforming current 
     policies in ways that are responsive to broader public-
     interest objectives without in any sense diminishing the 
     federal government's longstanding commitment to an 
     economically secure agricultural base. The recommendations 
     advanced here reflect the view that strategic investments in 
     developing new market opportunities and in helping 
     agricultural producers gain a larger stake in high-value-
     added enterprises can reduce farmers' need for current safety 
     net programs in ways that are less susceptible to political 
     uncertainty and international trade rules and that are 
     revenue-neutral, in terms of overall federal spending. Four 
     overarching themes connect these recommendations:
       Securing a robust, economically vibrant future for American 
     agriculture in the 21st century requires a more expansive and 
     creative approach to farm policy. A continued federal 
     commitment to the financial security and stability of the 
     nation's farm community is essential at a time when 
     globalization, technological change, environmental concerns, 
     high energy costs, international pressure to cut traditional 
     subsidies, and continued urbanization all pose new challenges 
     for agriculture. To help farmers respond effectively while 
     continuing to undergird U.S. competitiveness, federal policy 
     must evolve to encompass a broader set of issues and 
     successfully leverage multiple synergies.
       An emphasis on new markets and on increasing farmers' 
     equity share in value-added enterprises provides the best 
     foundation for expanding opportunity in rural communities. 
     Biofuels, renewable energy like wind power, carbon 
     sequestration, and habitat preservation for recreation and 
     hunting are just some examples of agriculture-related 
     activities that can significantly augment and diversify 
     future sources of income for America's farm families. 
     Targeted policies are needed to increase farmers' stakes in 
     the new wealth generated by these emerging markets.
       Increasing the role of America's farms in energy production 
     can be achieved at a net savings to the federal budget 
     because increased demand for corn and other crops to serve 
     the rapidly growing alternative-fuels market will naturally 
     reduce outlays for traditional ``safety net'' programs. New 
     economic research suggests that explosive growth in ethanol 
     production will lead to higher prices not only for corn, but 
     also for soybeans and wheat, as acreage now in these crops is 
     shifted to corn. These market shifts are expected to 
     dramatically reduce countercyclical and loan deficiency 
     payments for certain crops, potentially freeing billions of 
     dollars each year for farm programs that have broad political 
     support and that generate promising, and ultimately more 
     self-

[[Page 15588]]

     sustaining, economic opportunities in the long run.
       Federal action to establish a mandatory program to limit 
     greenhouse gas emissions is sensible and will provide 
     agricultural producers with significant new market 
     opportunities. The agriculture sector is in a unique position 
     to lead in--and benefit from--efforts to address climate 
     change. Expanded demand for biofuels is an obvious example, 
     but ranch and farm lands are also well-suited for future 
     development of renewable electricity sources (e.g., wind and 
     solar power) and carbon sequestration.


                       summary of recommendations

       Continue to provide economic stability through existing 
     countercyclical programs, while investing in market-based 
     opportunities for agriculture and addressing new sources of 
     financial insecurity through a permanent disaster program:
       First, the core of the federal farm program must be a 
     strong countercyclical program based on the two 
     countercyclical elements of the current farm bill: (1) a 
     robust marketing loan program that treats all producers 
     equally and (2) a partially decoupled countercyclical 
     program. Individual farm benefits should be capped at 
     $250,000 per year and eligibility to obtain benefits through 
     more than one entity should be eliminated.
       Second, Congress should eliminate the direct payment 
     program and redirect funds for this program--along with 
     savings generated by reduced countercyclical and LDP payments 
     for corn, wheat, and soybeans--to permanent disaster 
     assistance and promoting new income-generating opportunities 
     for farmers in markets such as biofuels, renewable 
     electricity, carbon sequestration, and conservation.
       Third, Congress should establish a Value-Added Equity 
     Creation Program to provide farmers and ranchers with no-
     interest revolving loans so that they can participate in 
     high-value agriculture-related business opportunities, such 
     as biofuels plants and wind projects. Producers should be 
     eligible to participate if their primary occupation is 
     farming and should be able to receive up to $100,000 in 
     interest-free loans for equity investments in qualifying 
     value-added enterprises (as certified by the U.S. Department 
     of Agriculture (USDA)).
       Finally, in recent years, Congress has frequently passed 
     annual emergency spending bills to provide agricultural 
     producers with disaster assistance. While these measures have 
     provided important relief to farmers and ranchers, they have 
     been ad hoc in nature and off budget. As a result, Congress 
     may decide to establish a permanent disaster assistance 
     program, administered by USDA, to provide ranchers and 
     farmers with assistance for clearly defined disaster 
     conditions. If so, we recommend that Congress replace the 
     current system of ad hoc off-budget emergency supplemental 
     spending bills, make the permanent disaster assistance 
     program on-budget as part of the Farm Bill, and include a 
     reasonable benefit cap of $250,000 per farm or ranch in any 
     single year. If a reasonable benefits cap is imposed, net 
     federal outlays for disaster assistance should be reduced 
     compared with the current off-budget approach.
       To promote biomass-based alternative liquid fuels, Congress 
     should:
       Expand and extend the recently-adopted renewable fuels 
     standard (RFS) to reach at least 10 billion gallons per year 
     by 2010, 30 billion gallons per year by 2020, and 60 billion 
     gallons per year by 2030, as proposed in bipartisan 
     legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate. This step would 
     lead to expansion of biofuels markets beyond the E-10 market 
     and spur new investment in the next generation of advanced 
     biofuels technologies, such as cellulosic ethanol.
       Promote the use of higher blends of ethanol in the existing 
     fleet of automobiles by instructing the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to conduct analysis of the viability of 
     using higher blends of ethanol (including E-15, E-20, E-30, 
     and E-40) in the existing fleet of automobiles by January 1, 
     2009.
       Extend the existing volumetric ethanol excise tax credit 
     (VEETC) to 2020 while simultaneously restructuring this 
     program in ways that account for expected growth in corn 
     ethanol production under an expanded national RFS. After the 
     current tax incentive authorization expires in 2010, Congress 
     should look for ways to ensure that the cost of the tax 
     credit--in the context of other policies and expected ethanol 
     production volumes--remains acceptable, while ensuring that 
     new and innovative biofuels project are provided the support 
     they need to be successful. Among the criteria that Congress 
     should use to design the post-2010 biofuels tax credits are:
       1. Limiting the overall cost of the tax incentives to the 
     government;
       2. Encouraging expansion of the industry by ensuring that 
     investments in new plants and recently-built plants can be 
     fully amortized;
       3. Rewarding energy-efficient and low-carbon emitting 
     technologies;
       4. Ensuring that pioneering processes, such as those that 
     convert cellulosic feedstocks like corn stover and 
     switchgrass to ethanol, are economically competitive with 
     fossil fuels;
       5. Encouraging farmer ownership of ethanol plants;
       6. Balancing domestic tax credits with an import duty of 
     similar size, so that U.S. taxpayers do not subsidize ethanol 
     imports to the detriment of American producers.
       Extend the small producer renewable fuels tax credit beyond 
     2008 for plants that are at least 40 percent locally-owned 
     and for cellulosic ethanol plants. Consolidate all cellulosic 
     biofuels loan guarantee programs into a single program at 
     USDA and establish an energy security trust fund to provide 
     consistent funding for that program. Successfully 
     commercializing the production of ethanol and other fuels 
     from cellulosic (i.e., woody or fibrous) plant materials 
     would dramatically expand the potential contribution of 
     biofuels in terms of displacing current petroleum use and 
     associated carbon emissions. Implementing many existing loan 
     guarantee programs through three separate federal agencies 
     makes little sense. USDA has considerable experience in 
     implementing loan guarantee programs and expertise in 
     evaluating biofuels projects through its Office of Energy. 
     Therefore, Congress should consolidate all federal biofuels 
     grant and loan guarantee programs at USDA and establish a 
     national energy security trust fund to provide at least $1 
     billion per year in loan guarantees and grants to promote 
     necessary advances in production technology and bio-science.
       Establish a demonstration cellulosic biofuels feedstock 
     program. Congress should establish a new set-aside program to 
     demonstrate how the cultivation and harvesting of cellulosic 
     feedstocks could be accomplished in an economically 
     attractive manner. Following the model of several existing 
     programs, the 2007 Farm Bill should provide a modest payment 
     to landowners who convert existing cropland to grow 
     cellulosic biofuel feedstocks for nearby cellulosic biofuels 
     plants in ways that improve wildlife habitat, reduce soil 
     erosion, and protect water quality. New lands to be set aside 
     under such a program should be capped at 500,000 acres for 
     the duration of the 2007 Farm Bill.
       Establish policies to encourage a rapid increase in the 
     number of flexible fuel vehicles sold in the United States 
     and the installation of E-85 pumps and blender pumps at 
     gasoline stations. For example, we recommend extending the 
     existing tax credit for installing E-85 refueling stations 
     and redesigning it to provide relatively greater benefits in 
     the near-term to encourage more rapid deployment of E-85 
     infrastructure. We also recommend clarifying that blender 
     pumps be eligible for the tax credit, since in the long run 
     it will make more sense to install blender pumps that are 
     capable of dispensing a range of ethanol blended fuels. 
     Congress also should consider more attractive expensing and 
     accelerated depreciation options to encourage installation of 
     E-85 and blender pumps in lieu of tax credits.
       To promote renewable electricity production and other 
     renewable energy projects on farms and ranches, Congress 
     should:
       Establish a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) 
     along with complementary policies to promote maximum 
     development of cost-effective renewable energy potential on 
     agricultural lands. Such policies to promote renewable energy 
     have been adopted by 21 states and the District of Columbia 
     and Congress should now take action to adopt a portfolio 
     requirement at the federal level. Moreover, federal policies 
     to promote renewable energy should encourage the siting of 
     new projects on farm or ranch lands wherever possible. Given 
     that the use of these lands would be far preferable to new 
     development in wilderness areas and would simultaneously 
     provide important economic benefits for rural communities, an 
     appropriate policy goal would be to satisfy at least two-
     thirds of a national RPS with renewable energy production on 
     agricultural lands. In addition, a federal RPS should be 
     designated to complement and not pre-empt any state 
     requirements (which may be more ambitious) and should apply 
     equally to all large retail electricity providers. (To 
     simplify implementation requirements and to address supply 
     and price concerns, it may be appropriate to exclude rural 
     electric coops and small municipal utilities.)
       Expand and strengthen existing programs outside the Farm 
     Bill that promote renewable energy development and related 
     technology advances. To provide investment certainty, 
     existing renewable-energy production tax credits (PTCs) 
     should be extended for ten years and funding for related 
     research, development, demonstration, and early deployment 
     efforts should be increased. In addition, such programs 
     should be modified so that incentives can be taken against 
     non-passive income. The Community Renewable Energy Bonds 
     (CREBs) program should be extended and expanded, with a 
     substantial sum set aside for rural electric cooperatives and 
     municipal utilities.
       Establish a Rural Community Renewable Energy Bonds program 
     to provide a federal incentive for local private investment 
     in renewable energy to complement the PTC and CREBs programs. 
     This new initiative would be limited to projects of not more 
     than 40 MW; where at least 49 percent of the project is owned 
     by entities resident within 200 miles of the project site.

[[Page 15589]]

       Expand the capacity of the existing federal power 
     administration transmission system. The federal power 
     marketing administrations (PMAs) own and manage a vast 
     network of existing power lines, which should be 
     substantially expanded to provide the additional capacity 
     needed to tap cost-effective renewable energy resources. 
     Congress should direct the federal power administrations to 
     pursue this objective under a structure in which non-
     benefiting PMA customers do not shoulder the cost and 
     preference is given for system investments that maximize 
     promising opportunities for renewable energy development on 
     agricultural lands. Priority should be placed on the 
     expansion of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and 
     Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission systems. 
     The PMAs also should be authorized and encouraged to enter 
     into partnerships with non-federal parties for the siting, 
     planning, and construction of transmission lines; the 
     participation of PMAs can streamline siting by avoiding 
     multiple state siting authorities.
       The Department of Energy (DOE) should designate the 
     Heartland Transmission Corridors ``National Interest Electric 
     Transmission Corridors'' pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 
     2005. Federal assistance in the form of an expanded role for 
     WAPA as a facilitator for planning and investment, and a 20 
     percent matching investment from the federal government would 
     go a long way toward addressing cost and siting hurdles, 
     encouraging state cooperation, and ensuring that needed 
     transmission system enhancements are implemented.
       Congress should authorize $1 billion per year for five 
     years to provide tax-exempt bonds for the construction of 
     transmission facilities (or the expansion of existing 
     facilities) where such construction or expansion is cost-
     effective and offers substantial public policy benefits in 
     terms of facilitating the development of clean, domestic 
     renewable resources. Under such a program, loans would be 
     provided by eligible government entities to qualified private 
     entities seeking to finance eligible transmission 
     infrastructure. Such bonds would assure the availability of 
     financing for transmission at significantly lower cost than 
     presently available in the market. They could be used both 
     for new transmission and for upgrades to existing facilities 
     (for example, to address transmission constraints in west 
     Texas and Minnesota, where substantial wind development 
     opportunities exist, or to access renewable energy projects 
     anticipated as a result of the Rocky Mountain Area 
     Transmission Study (RMATS) in the Western Interconnect. In 
     addition, current private use restrictions applicable to 
     projects that receive tax-exempt bonds should be reviewed to 
     assess whether they create unnecessary additional hurdles to 
     investment.
       Explore further opportunities for an expanded federal role 
     in directly facilitating the implementation of, and providing 
     resources for, investments to enhance grid capacity and to 
     promote a more efficient, seamless, and reliable transmission 
     system nationwide.
       Reauthorize and expand USDA's Energy Audit and Renewable 
     Energy Development Program under Section 9005 of the 2002 
     Farm Bill. This program to assist farmers, ranchers, and 
     rural small businesses in becoming more energy efficient and 
     in using renewable energy technology and resources has never 
     been funded. It should be reauthorized with a goal of 
     performing audits of 25 percent of all farms and ranches over 
     the time horizon covered by the next Farm Bill and funds 
     sufficient to achieve that goal should be appropriated in the 
     future.
       Reauthorize and expand USDA's Rural Development Business 
     Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (Section 9006 
     of the 2002 Farm Bill). This program currently provides a 
     modest number of grants--$23 million per year--to support 
     renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects. Future 
     funding should be scaled up over the next 5 years to at least 
     $500 million per year and the program should be expanded to 
     enable participating agencies to provide grants for 
     feasibility studies and loan guarantees for project 
     development. As long as feasibility studies are accurately 
     performed, the cost to the federal government of providing 
     loan guarantees for up to 75 percent of project costs should 
     be fairly small. In addition, Congress should consider 
     modifying the program to (1) increase loan guarantees for 
     cellulosic ethanol facilities to at least $100 million per 
     project, and $25 million for other projects, (2) create a 
     rebate program to streamline the application process for 
     smaller, standardized projects by reducing the paperwork 
     burden, and (3) expand eligible applicants to include 
     agricultural operations in non-rural areas (such as 
     greenhouses) and schools.
       To promote markets for carbon sequestration and other cost-
     effective greenhouse-gas mitigation measures on farm and 
     ranch lands, Congress should:
       Establish a national, mandatory, market-based program to 
     reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions that provides 
     substantial market opportunities for cost-effective carbon 
     sequestration on farm and ranch lands. Specifically, 
     agricultural producers should have the opportunity to 
     participate fully in the carbon markets that will be created 
     under a greenhouse gas trading program. To facilitate this 
     participation, priority must be given to establishing robust, 
     well-defined protocols for measuring and verifying carbon 
     reductions achieved through terrestrial sequestration.
       Establish tax incentives, such as federal tax refunds for 
     local and state property taxes, for farmers and ranchers who 
     enroll land in a carbon trading program that works in tandem 
     with entities that buy, sell and trade carbon credits.
       Direct USDA to work with other state and federal agencies 
     on continued economic and technical research on different 
     options for sequestering carbon and on better methods of 
     documenting sequestration for market participation.
       To advance widely supported environmental habitat-
     preservation, and open-space objectives while creating 
     additional income-generating opportunities for farmers and 
     maximizing potential business opportunities related to 
     hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation, 
     Congress should:
       Expand existing conservation programs:
       1. Expand the Conservation Reserve Program at 40 million 
     acres;
       2. Expand the Wetlands Reserve Program at 5 million acres, 
     with annual enrollment capped at 250,000 acres per year;
       3. Expand the Grasslands Reserve Program at 5 million 
     acres, with annual enrollment capped at 500,000 acres per 
     year;
       4. Increase funding for the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 
     Program to at least $300 million per year.
       5. Implement the Conservation Security Program on a 
     nationwide basis on all working lands.
       Enact ``Open Fields Bill'' to provide $20 million per year 
     in federal funds to supplement state ``walk in'' programs 
     that give farmers and ranchers financial incentives to expand 
     public access to their lands.

                               Exhibit 2

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Ranking Member, Energy & Natural Resources Committee.
       Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Bingaman and Domenici: As a 
     diverse group of corporations, manufacturers, electric 
     utilities, renewable energy developers, labor organizations, 
     farm groups, faith-based organizations and environmental 
     advocates, we are writing to urge the Senate to include a 
     national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in energy 
     security legislation that may soon be considered by Congress. 
     An RPS is an essential component of a broader national energy 
     strategy, because it will held the nation to take full 
     advantage of the abundant domestic renewable resources 
     available for the generation of electricity.
       An RPS is a market-based mechanism that requires electric 
     utilities to include a specific percentage of clean, 
     renewable energy in their generation portfolios, or to 
     purchase renewable energy credits from others. By 
     substantially increasing renewable electricity generation, 
     the RPS would enhance national energy security by 
     diversifying our sources of electric generation. At a time 
     when the United States is increasing energy imports, an RPS 
     would make America more energy self-reliant. The reduction in 
     the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity would also 
     limit fuel price volatility, which is important to both 
     industry and consumers. In fact, the U.S. Department of 
     Energy's own Energy Information Administration has found in 
     several studies that an RPS would actually cause natural gas 
     prices to decline.
       Increasing the market share for renewable energy resources 
     would also have substantial environmental benefits. An RPS is 
     one of the most important and readily available approaches to 
     reducing greenhouse gases from the electricity generation 
     sector. In addition, an RPS also would help reduce 
     conventional pollutants including nitrogen oxide, sulfur 
     dioxide and mercury emissions.
       Moreover, a national RPS will produce substantial economic 
     benefits. The additional investment in renewable electric 
     generation would create hundreds of thousands of well-paying 
     jobs. In addition, because many renewable resources are 
     located in remote areas, rural America will experience a 
     substantial economic boost.
       We believe the time has come for Congress to move quickly 
     to enact national RPS legislation. The costs of inaction for 
     our environment, national security and economy are too high. 
     Although more than 20 states have adopted individual RPS 
     programs, the country will not realize the full potential for 
     renewable electricity without the adoption of a Federal 
     program to enhance the states' efforts.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
           Sincerely,
       GE, BP America, Inc., National Venture Capital Association, 
     Miasole, Wisconsin Power and Light, National Council of 
     Churches of Christ in the USA, Technet, APX, Inc., Alliant 
     Energy, Sempra Energy,

[[Page 15590]]

     Shell Wind Energy, Inc., Solar Turbines, Inc., Business 
     Council for Sustainable Energy, Alliant Energy, Invenergy 
     LLC, Owens Corning Composites System Business, Leeco Steel, 
     Clipper Wind Power, Inc., Google, United Steelworkers, Edison 
     International, Pacific Gas & Electric, Union for Reform 
     Judaism, GT Solar, PPM Energy, Inc., Avista Utilities, 
     Horizon Wind Energy, Enel NA, D.H. Blattner and Sons, Applied 
     Materials, Inc., Greene Engineers, Oregon Steel Mills, LM 
     Glasfiber ND, Inc., Noble Environmental Power, enXco, 
     Interstate Power and Light, National Audobon Society, 
     American Wind Energy Association, Blue Green Alliance, Big 
     Crane & Rigging Company, Iberdrola U.S.A., Natural Resources 
     Defense Council.
       DMI Industries, Union of Concerned Scientists, Lake 
     Superior Warehousing, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, 
     Pennsylvania Interfaith Climate Campaign, Interfaith Power & 
     Light, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Western 
     Organization of Resource Council, ATS Wind Energy Services, 
     BioResource Consultants, Bosch Rexroth Corporation, Castle & 
     Cooke Resorts, Chermac Energy Corporation, Dominion Energy, 
     EFormative Options, Energy Unlimited, Enertech, Environmental 
     Stewardship & Planning, Eurus Energy America, FPC Services, 
     Generation Energy, Green Energy Technologies, Gro Wind I, 
     Highland New Wind Development, Knight & Carver, LAPP 
     Resources, Louis J. Manfredi Consulting, Mackinaw Power, 
     Mizuho Corporate Bank, Nordex USA, Old Mill Power Company, 
     Otech Engineering, Phoenix Contact, Renewable Energy 
     Consulting Services, San Gorgonio Farms, SIPCO (MLS 
     Electrosystem), TCI Renewables Limited, Tideland Signal, 
     Trinity Structural Towers, Varelube Systems, Wind Capital 
     Group, Wind Utility Consulting, WindLogics, Windsmith.
       PowerWorks, Physicians for Social Responsibility, McNiff 
     Light Industry, Citizen's Utility Board, Great Southwestern 
     Construction, RES America, JPW Riggers, AES Wind Generation, 
     Suzlon Wind Energy, U.S. PIRG, University of Alaska, 
     Fairbanks, Atlantic Testing Laboratories, National 
     Environmental Trust, AWS Truewind, Big Stone Wind, CAB, Inc., 
     Bluewater Wind, BQ Energy, Competitive Power Ventures, 
     Chinook Wind, EcoEnergy LLC, Electric Power Engineers, 
     Enerpro, FAW Foundry, Foresight Wind Energy, Excellent Energy 
     Solutions, General Compression, Hopwood, Greenwing Energy, 
     Hailo, HMH Energy Resources, Pandion Systems, ReEnergy, 
     Tamarack Energy, Mariah Power, Molded Fiber Glass Companies, 
     Oak Creek Energy Systems, Sierra Club, Padoma Wind Power, 
     Project Resources, RSMR Global Resources, Signal Wind Energy, 
     Sustainable Energy Strategies, The Conti Group, TMA, Inc., 
     Oregon Rural Action, Venti Energy, Wind Turbine Tools, 
     Windland.
       WindRose Power, Winergy Drive Systems, Winergy Power, 
     Appropriate Energy, Castaic Clay Products, Cannon Power, 
     TOWER Logistics, Energy Development and Construction Corp., 
     Institute for Environmental Research and Education, RENEW 
     Wisconsin, Fallon County Disaster & Emergency Services, 
     Stevens County (KS) Economic Development, Dakota Resource 
     Council, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, West 
     Wind Wires, Interwest Energy Alliance, Concord Energy Policy 
     Group, Renewable Northwest Project, Friends Committee on 
     National Legislation, American Lung Association of the 
     Central States, Tompkins Renewable Energy Education Alliance, 
     Alaska Wilderness League, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Citizens 
     Campaign for the Environment, Grassroots Citizens of 
     Wisconsin, NH Sustainable Energy Association, Southwest 
     Wisconsin Progressives.
       Cabazon Wind Energy, Zephyr Lake Energies, Hodge Foundry, 
     Commonwealth Capital Group, Mankato Area Environmentalists, 
     Clean Wisconsin, Missourians for Safe Energy, Oklahoma Wind 
     Power Initiative, OverSight Resources, Kansas Rural Center, 
     Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Greenpeace, Southern 
     Alliance for Clean Energy, Clean Power Now, RMT/WindConnect, 
     The Land Institute, Western Colorado Congress, Idaho Rural 
     Council, Clean Water Action, Coulee Progressives, League of 
     Conservation Voters, Penn Future, REACH for Tomorrow, The 
     Minster Machine Company.

                               Exhibit 3


                                              FPL Group, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 2007.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: Please consider this letter an 
     endorsement of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) 
     amendment you intend to offer during upcoming Senate 
     consideration of energy legislation.
       As you may know, FPL Group, comprised of two major 
     subsidiaries, Florida Power & Light (FPL) and FPL Energy 
     (FPLE), is one of America's cleanest, most progressive energy 
     companies. Our commitment to the environment is manifested by 
     FPL's diverse generation mix and by FPLE's largely renewable 
     energy portfolio. FPLE operates two of the largest solar 
     projects in the world, over 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric 
     power, a number of geothermal projects and several biomass 
     plants. Additionally, FPLE is the world's largest generator 
     of wind power.
       We appreciate your leadership on this important issue and 
     support your efforts to enact a fair and balanced RPS in 
     order to increase the amount of non-emitting electricity 
     generation in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael M. Wilson,
                             Vice President, Governmental Affairs.

                               Exhibit 4


                                       National Farmers Union,

                                                    June 11, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Ranking Member, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Bingaman, and Domenici: On 
     behalf of the farm, ranch and rural members of National 
     Farmers Union (NFU), I am writing to urge you to support 
     inclusion of a strong national renewable portfolio standard 
     (RPS) in energy security legislation and oppose attempts to 
     weaken it when the Senate considers this issue in the coming 
     days.
       Rural America has the greatest potential for generating 
     significant amounts of clean, renewable energy. A RPS that 
     ensures a growing percentage of electricity is produced from 
     renewable sources, like wind power, will provide long-term, 
     predictable demand that will allow the industry to attract 
     investment capital and rural America to harness wind energy 
     potential.
       Passage of a robust RPS will significantly accelerate 
     efforts to enhance our energy security by diversifying our 
     sources of electricity and limiting our dependence on foreign 
     sources of energy. Additionally, a RPS would create new 
     economic opportunities in rural America. Local, community and 
     farmer-owned renewable energy development projects are key to 
     providing economic and social benefits, while providing an 
     economic base for further rural economic development. A 
     robust RPS would create hundreds of thousands of good paying 
     jobs, provide billions of dollars in new income to farmers 
     and ranchers and generate significant local tax revenues that 
     can be used to fund other important priorities.
       NFU believes Congress should move quickly to enact national 
     RPS legislation and we urge you to support efforts to do so 
     during floor consideration of the Renewable Fuels, Consumer 
     Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Tom Buis,
                                                        President.

                               Exhibit 5


                             American Wind Energy Association,

                                                    June 11, 2007.
     Re Please Support Bingaman RPS Amendment, Oppose Domenici CPS 
         Amendment

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: As the full Senate begins consideration of 
     comprehensive energy legislation this week, the American Wind 
     Energy Association (AWEA) respectfully urges Senators to vote 
     in favor of the Bingaman renewable portfolio standard (RPS) 
     amendment and against the Domenici clean portfolio standard 
     (CPS) amendment.
       In order for our nation to seriously address the challenges 
     of energy security and global climate change we need an 
     effective renewable electricity standard that will drive new 
     investment and job growth in the renewable energy sector. The 
     Bingaman RPS proposal would assure crucial progress toward 
     this vitally important objective. Unfortunately, however, the 
     Domenici CPS amendment includes numerous exemptions and 
     loopholes that would undermine the effectiveness of the 
     effort to promote renewable energy.
       A core weakness of the CPS proposal is its inclusion of 
     language that could allow virtually any form of electricity 
     generation to qualify as ``clean.'' The CPS amendment would 
     allow the Secretary of Energy to designate ``other clean 
     energy sources'' that could qualify for clean energy credits 
     without placing any parameters on such designations. In 
     addition, it is noteworthy that utilities would receive 
     credit for electricity generated from technology that 
     captures and stores carbon, but the amendment does not 
     specify that a utility must actually employ carbon capture 
     and storage to receive credits.
       Also of concern is an important loophole in the CPS 
     amendment that would allow states to waive program 
     requirements. The CPS amendment would allow states with 
     existing requirements to opt out of the Federal requirements 
     based solely on the state's own determination that it has a 
     measure in place that is ``comparable to the overall goal'' 
     of the Federal program. This vague standard is not further 
     defined. In contrast, the Bingaman RPS proposal would not 
     interfere with

[[Page 15591]]

     the ability of utilities to comply with state RPS programs. 
     The state opt-out provision in the CPS proposal would lead to 
     substantially reduced renewable energy investment and 
     employment.
       Our nation's citizens overwhelmingly support increasing the 
     generation of electricity from renewable sources like wind, 
     biomass and solar power. The Bingaman RPS amendment would 
     meet this demand and put our nation on a path that increases 
     the role of clean domestic energy in meeting our electricity 
     needs. We urge its enactment without the addition of 
     weakening changes such as those included in the Domenici CPS 
     amendment.
       Thank you for your time and attention to this vitally 
     important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Randy Swisher,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Domenici will be to the Chamber in 
a few moments and is preparing to speak to the second degree to the 
Bingaman amendment the chairman has outlined. In doing so, I will touch 
for a few moments on some of the differences between an RPS and a CPS 
and some of the value of broadening the portfolio Senator Bingaman is 
talking about to create greater advantages nationwide for a larger 
amount of clean energy.
  There is no question that RPS, as we know it, invented in the mid-
1990s as a concept, evolving now to 23 States having accepted some form 
of an RPS standard, has a very strong bias for wind and biomass. It is 
there. We subsidize wind today. The letter the Senator introduced from 
the wind industry is reflective of the phenomenal subsidy they get and 
the advantage they get.
  We create a market niche for them with an RPS, and then we subsidize 
them. Frankly, I am for that. Wind energy and the more of it we can 
have is the right energy, along with all other forms.
  What the Senator did not say was the Southeast is dramatically 
disadvantaged because they don't have wind. As a result, they have to 
go buy or be taxed to offset the differences. That is unfair. Many of 
us believe it is unfair. We also believe RPS is not an obsolete 
standard but an old one.
  About 3 years ago, people looking at a broader portofolio of energy 
said: We ought to expand the standard. Today's mantra in energy, 
whether it is the Senators from New Mexico or this Senator, who is one 
of the senior members of the Energy Committee, is: Clean. America will 
not build new energy production unless it is clean. That is what RPS 
was originally heading us toward--cleaner renewable energies. So why 
shouldn't we expand that portfolio from wind and bio to some additional 
new forms--new nuclear, very clean; new hydro, yes, but limited; coal 
sequestration or carbon sequestration, clean; efficiencies, less use, 
less demand. Shouldn't they also be in this new portfolio? I say yes. 
America, when they understand it, would say yes.
  Right now there is a niche market, a very narrow one, for limited use 
in certain capacities and greater use in others. I see windmills coming 
up across my State today. Why? Because we have wind, and they are 
subsidized. There is an advantage to do so. But you don't see windmills 
coming up in Florida and other places in the South because there is not 
the kind of prevailing winds that sustain a 25- to 30-percent 
production efficiency of these particular kinds of units.
  Senator Domenici has just arrived. I will let him pick up the debate 
because he has led with this issue. I have been a supporter of it and 
have helped develop this issue. I believe it is time we modernize, move 
to clean energy, and reward the utilities that produce clean energy. It 
does not disadvantage an RPS. It simply expands and modernizes it into 
the concept of energy we are looking for today in the American energy 
portfolio.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I apologize to Senator Bingaman for not 
hearing all of his speech. I was detained. They told me he had started. 
I thought they would tell me a few minutes before. I had to drive from 
downtown. I apologize for that.
  Senator Bingaman and I have been doing our best to remain bipartisan. 
But on this issue, I can't do that. He will go his way and I will go 
mine. His amendment is on the bottom and my amendment is on top. I have 
offered mine as a second-degree amendment to his. My recollection of 
how we do this, when time has run out, unless other arrangements are 
made--and they could be--mine would go first.
  I thank the cosponsors. Senator Craig has just told us that he is a 
cosponsor. He worked very hard. Clearly, you can see from the morning's 
work that Senator Pete Domenici, ranking member of the committee, is 
pretty lucky. He can step down and go out and leave things vacant for a 
little while, and the man behind me, Larry Craig, will soon take over. 
No one will know anything was missed. If anything, they will figure 
things got better. He is very good at it, and I thank him for all the 
help he has given me. Other cosponsors are Senators Bennett, Crapo, 
Graham, and Murkowski.
  I am saying there is a far better way to reach the goals Senator 
Bingaman wants, and we don't have to harm so many States in doing it. 
What we ought to know right up front is that you have to go ahead and 
choose something. Senator Bingaman chose to put two or three things in 
his. Before I am finished, I think I can convince you that everybody 
who has looked at it says that in its application, it is predominantly 
a wind amendment. It says a couple other things, but when you look at 
it as to what is done, I am safe in calling our battle a battle between 
wind in every State, forced upon them at the level of 15 percent of 
what their utilities use in energy. Every single State will have to 
have that by a time certain, whether they can do it or not. If they 
can't do it, they will be penalized.
  I want to take a quick look at this map. Here is a map that shows 
what we are talking about. If you look at it, you see the United 
States. You see the eastern seaboard is white. Then you see some inlets 
of water. Then you see it is white again. That means there is not 
enough wind in those areas to move the wind turbines enough for them to 
be used to accomplish the goals of this bill. Then if you look out in 
the western part, you see very big pieces of the West that are white, 
all the way through this white versus blue and dark blue. The white is 
what Senator Bingaman calls wind energy. It is clean, but it is wind. I 
don't believe we should do it that way.
  I have said, since you all want something, I am going to suggest that 
you want clean--not his words, my words--a clean energy portfolio. If 
it is clean and available, you ought to put it in so they can use it. 
So you will find that is what I have done. The clean energy portfolio 
standard provides a comprehensive, technology-neutral program to ensure 
that clean energy will make up for an ever-increasing portion of our 
Nation's electricity operation. The clean portfolio standard requires 
electric utilities to produce a set percentage of electricity from 
clean energy sources, ramping up to an enforceable goal of 20 percent 
by 2020. So it is 20 by 20, and it is a clean portfolio. Rather than 
pick winners and losers--and I stress this--rather than pick winners 
and losers between various clean technologies that are or will be 
available in the future, the clean portfolio standard provides for all 
sources of clean energy--including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, 
landfill gas, hydropower, new nuclear power, and fuel cell quality--
under the program. The clean portfolio also provides credit for 
innovative technologies that will allow future traditional fuels to be 
burned in a way that captures and sequesters carbon emissions. We are 
going to do that. Somebody is going to make that breakthrough.
  Our bill provides that they can come in. Credit is further provided 
for reductions in electricity usage from programs that provide 
efficiency and lower the amount of power that needs to be generated in 
the first place.
  Energy efficiency efforts such as demand response should be part of 
the solution. Everybody tells us that demand response is a way that, by 
managing it

[[Page 15592]]

properly, you can get a very significant savings.
  Finally, since we have faith in American engineers, the clean 
portfolio standard encourages innovation by giving the Secretary of 
Energy authority to provide credit for new clean technologies that may 
just be a twinkle in the inventor's eye but which may revolutionize the 
way we produce and use electricity. If that occurs during the time, 
clearly it should be permitted to come in. It doesn't have to be here 
yet. If it is invented in 5 years, we thank the Lord and put it in and 
use it. We don't operate in stagnation and say: You are outside of our 
window. You are clean, but you don't come in. We don't give you credit. 
You go on with that same old wind technology.
  I am going to invite my friend from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, to 
come down and share again with us what he thinks about what he calls a 
wind economy. I can't give that speech. I am not that good. But I sure 
listen to him because I think he is right. I don't believe we want wind 
as the test of providing an alternate renewable in every State in the 
Union, even if there is insufficient wind. And we don't want those 
States paying fines because they can't come in. I don't think Senator 
Bingaman wants to pull out the States--I don't know how many it would 
be, 10, 12, 13--and say: We aren't going to do anything there. I think 
if he did, he couldn't call it national. But he certainly would gain a 
lot of support if it was fair. To make it fair, you cannot impose the 
same regulated wind requirement on States that have no wind and then 
say: Let's vote on this bill. The bill should not be voted on in that 
way. In fact, those States that have it that way ought to come down 
here and say: We can't vote on this bill. It is so obviously wrong that 
we should not do it.
  Finally, since we have faith, we are going to expect innovation to be 
offered to the Secretary of Energy while the years run. That 
innovation, if it produces something, will come to us and be put into 
the package we are talking about that will start taking away white and 
turning it into blue because we put new technology into the area.
  Unlike the RPS, the clean portfolio, the CPS, doesn't pick winners or 
losers. Unlike the RPS, the clean portfolio standard recognizes that 
regional differences in resources and geography mean that we can't 
create a one-size-fits-all. That is what I believe. That is what I 
believe the Senate is going to say. Why pick a one-shoe-fits-all, when 
you can't get it in. You can't get any foot in on the white up here in 
the north because you can't get that much in the foot. You can't create 
one that will put it in and still have essentially what is in the 
Bingaman amendment.
  Take a look at the chart from the National Renewable Lab. It shows 
where our Nation's wind resources are located. Wind has no application 
in the Southeast. The resources simply are not available in an entire 
region of the country.
  We cannot ignore the reality that utilities in some regions cannot 
meet the RPS mandate with the limited resources permitted because they 
are located in regions that are not blessed with ample renewable 
resources.
  Wind power is the clear winner under an RPS. Advocates of the Federal 
RPS call it the ``wind power legislation.'' They are right--the only 
way to reach a 15-percent requirement from the limited number of 
renewable resources permitted under the Bingaman amendment is from wind 
power.
  Wind is the clear winner in the RPS. This chart I have in the Chamber 
is based on an estimate prepared by Global Energy Decisions. As you can 
see, wind will be used overwhelmingly to attempt to meet the RPS 
requirement. The Union of Concerned Scientists concurs, estimating that 
two-thirds of the RPS requirements would likely be met by new wind 
generation. I have told you that already, that it would be almost all 
wind. Now I am telling you that scientific groups that analyzed it 
agree with what I said.
  The Federal Government has supported wind power development since 
1992. I am not saying that is wrong. In fact, there will be much wind 
produced under the Domenici amendment because much of the renewables 
will be wind. It is that every State will not be required, and some 
will not have any because they cannot produce any.
  The Federal Government has been allowing a production tax credit 
since we first adopted it in 1992. Since then, we have spent in excess 
of $2 billion on wind power development--from R&D, to the tax credit, 
to clean renewable energy bonds.
  We have made a lot of progress in the past 15 years. In 2006, 
installed wind power capacity was 11,600 megawatts--enough to power 3 
million homes. The wind industry continues to grow. With a good 
subsidy, we continue to give it to them. An additional 3,000 megawatts 
is going to come on line by the end of 2007.
  So we support wind power. Wind power is included in the clean 
portfolio standard I offer today.
  What is interesting is--you have to think ahead with me--the Bingaman 
portfolio is almost all wind. How many years do we intend to support 
wind with a subsidy so that this system will work? Without wind, it 
will not work. It seems like right now, without a subsidy, it will not 
work. I do not know what the scientists working on it say. Will it soon 
not need any subsidy? They may say the subsidy can start going away. Or 
how many years will it be they will have to have it? That puts me to 
thinking whether you should have it at all.
  Today, we have only Senator Bingaman's amendment and mine--both of 
them. His has all wind, and we have some wind, so we are kind of 
admitting we are going to keep it as long as we can and pay for it as 
long as we can so we can have that kind of nationwide--or partially 
nationwide--program.
  For the one I suggest, the clean one, obviously, we use less wind and 
will still be clean, and no States will pay any fines, no States will 
be given any slips that they are entitled to money in the future.
  The clean portfolio standard results in more clean energy actually 
produced. It is not watered down. The clean portfolio standard would 
impose a 20-percent standard--a full one-third higher--yet the 
proponents of the RPS claimed this is a ``watered down'' program. What 
is their complaint? That we allow a greater number of resources to 
qualify for credits under this program?
  It is true the clean portfolio standard allows the use of any 
nonemitting source of power: including expanded hydropower, new nuclear 
powerplants, fuel cells, clean coal technologies that capture and 
sequester carbon, and energy efficiency to meet the 20-percent 
standard.
  Thus, the clean portfolio standard allows the use of a greater 
variety of technologies to meet a higher standard. The goal of this 
amendment is to provide a greater amount of clean energy from a greater 
diversity of energy sources. Obviously, the clean portfolio standard 
does this much better than the RPS proposal.
  Mr. President and fellow Senators, the clean portfolio standard 
allows States that develop their own portfolio standards to opt out of 
the Federal program. Some are trying to label this provision as a 
loophole. It is not. Instead, it is a recognition that States should be 
afforded the right to develop their own clean portfolio approaches 
without Federal interference. We should not penalize those States that 
already have forged ahead by imposing an inconsistent Federal mandate.
  The Federal RPS could cost billions. Here is an estimate prepared by 
Global Energy Decisions. GED estimates which States can and cannot 
comply with a Federal RPS. As shown on the chart, the orange States do 
not have the necessary renewable resources to comply with an RPS. The 
majority of the States--27--will not be able to meet the mandate.
  Let's look at this another way--by population. This pie chart I have 
in the Chamber represents those that will not be in compliance with a 
15-percent renewable portfolio standard. About two-thirds of the U.S. 
population--66 percent--will not be able to meet the new standard.

[[Page 15593]]

  How will the States' inability to meet this new electricity mandate 
impact consumers? It is going to cost billions.
  I have another chart. According to the study prepared by Global 
Energy Decisions, the cumulative costs to consumers to comply with the 
RPS is $175 billion. The States hit the hardest are those in the 
Southeast without access to wind power; Florida, Georgia, North 
Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and South 
Carolina.
  The EIA recently concluded a study on the 15-percent RPS mandate and 
found it would cost consumers $21 billion. Obviously, that is still a 
tremendous cost to pass on to the consumer. However, the EIA has used 
some questionable assumptions in its analysis that have been rejected 
not only by the utility industry but by all 10 Southeastern public 
utility commissions--bipartisan watchdogs for the ratepayers.
  With this amendment, we keep our eye on the ball. The true goal of 
this legislation is an increase in the amount of electricity generated 
by clean technologies, reducing the emissions in our environment.
  Our goal is not to promote one or two or three specific technologies 
over another. In fact, the only way to ensure that the cost to the 
consumer is mitigated to the maximum extent is to avoid the temptation 
to pick winners and losers between technologies that all move us toward 
one goal.
  To limit the number of qualifying resources to a handful of existing 
technologies is to ignore the history of rapid acceleration of 
scientific and technological development in this country.
  Do the sponsors of the RPS truly believe that innovation is dead? 
Only a handful of existing technologies qualify under the RPS. This 
assumes there will be no breakthroughs in the way we produce 
electricity for the next 23 years.
  I believe the incentive of a clean portfolio standard, combined with 
environmental concerns and rising prices for traditional fuels, will 
produce an ideal climate for technological innovation.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is the best 
way to do it. We will have more to say during the afternoon.
  With that, I yield the floor and thank the Senate for the time I was 
given and for listening.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I shall not take a great deal of time. I 
simply rise to express my support for the amendment offered by the 
senior Senator from New Mexico. He has thought the matter through very 
carefully and described, I think, a hopeful approach, one that 
recognizes technology in the energy business is constantly changing, 
that opportunities are arising that we may not even think of now.
  One area where I have shown an interest is tidal energy, and we are 
in the infancy of finding out about that. We need to have an open-ended 
opportunity to find alternative energy sources.
  So with that, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership 
on this issue and am happy to be a cosponsor of his amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make a few comments in response 
to my colleague's statement and in opposition to his amendment, which 
he has designated the clean energy portfolio standard. I think people 
need to understand what his amendment provides, and let me try to 
explain that.
  This amendment purports to be significantly stronger than the 15-
percent requirement I have proposed as part of the renewable portfolio 
standard I have sent to the desk. It actually, though, accomplishes 
very little in driving the development of new technologies for 
electricity supply.
  The amendment talks about a target of 20 percent clean energy 
resources by 2020, but when you look at it carefully, it is a recipe 
for business as usual, given all the other things that are going on and 
in the planning stages.
  There are various reasons why I say that. First of all, it is very 
clear from his amendment that existing nuclear power is subtracted from 
the base against which the requirement is measured. Now, what does that 
mean? What that means is that instead of taking 100 percent, you say: 
OK. How much of our current electricity supply comes from nuclear 
power? About 20 percent. You subtract that, and you are then left with 
the remaining 80 percent; and that remaining 80 percent is what he 
calculates his 20 percent against. So, in fact, 20 percent of 80 
percent gets you down to 16 percent--rather than a 20-percent 
requirement.
  He also has a provision in here that says incremental nuclear power 
is counted for full credit. Now, that means any new powerplant that is 
built is new energy and helps to meet the requirement that would be 
imposed by his amendment. Let me say, first of all, I worked very 
closely with Senator Domenici in supporting additional incentives and 
additional supports--subsidies, in fact--for the nuclear energy 
industry in the 2005 Energy bill we passed. We put a variety of things 
into law to encourage the construction of new nuclear powerplants in 
this country. We put in regulatory risk insurance. We put in a 
production tax credit, which I think was 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour 
for the first 10 years you had one of these new nuclear powerplants in 
production. We extended the Price Anderson Act. We had loan guarantees 
for the construction of new nuclear plants--the first six, I believe. 
We had a substantial increase in funding for nuclear research and 
development, and we had a transfer to the Federal taxpayer of much of 
the expenditure for safety and security that would otherwise have been 
borne by the industry.
  So there are a lot of things in there to support the nuclear power 
industry. I still believe those are very good provisions, and I am in 
no way backing away from those. But now my colleague has come to the 
floor and said: OK, now let's give them another subsidy, another 
incentive to build nuclear power by including them as one of the ways 
you would meet the requirement of this clean energy portfolio standard.
  As I am sure anybody who was paying attention to our discussion 
yesterday would know, I believe Senator Domenici made this point very 
strongly: Since we passed the 2005 bill, there has been a resurgence in 
interest on the part of various companies that want to build new 
nuclear powerplants. I think there are some 30 letters of intent 
currently pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stating that 
companies are looking seriously at filing applications for the 
construction of new powerplants. So the expectation is that we are 
going to have a lot of new nuclear powerplants constructed in this 
country over the next decade, and I, frankly, hope we do because I 
think that is an essential part of meeting our energy needs. But we do 
not need to further incentivize that by including them as part of a 
renewable or a clean energy portfolio standard as the Domenici 
amendment would have us do.
  He talks about how the amendment I have offered is strictly a wind 
type of incentive; it is a program to encourage construction of more 
wind energy.
  That is directly contrary to what has been stated by the Energy 
Information Administration. In their analysis, they concluded very 
clearly that wind energy would be expected, under this amendment I have 
offered, to increase 50 percent; that biomass energy production, 
electricity production from biomass, which is already twice as large as 
energy production from wind, would be expected to increase 300 percent 
rather than 50 percent, as is the case with wind; and that energy 
production from solar would be expected to increase 500 percent. So it 
is clear to me that this is not just a wind energy amendment I have 
proposed. Our amendment talks about meeting the requirements from solar 
power, from wind power, from geothermal power, from biomass power, from 
ocean.
  The Senator from Utah was just on the Senate floor talking about his 
support for the idea of energy from tidal waves. We have that included. 
That is

[[Page 15594]]

one of the new renewable energy sources which we contemplate. 
Incremental hydro--so that if we have a hydroelectric facility and one 
wants to increase the amount of power from that facility, we count that 
against the requirement; landfill gases as well. So I think all of that 
is included, and all of it would be increased significantly.
  Let me also talk about the issue of subsidies. I went through a list 
of the various subsidies we provide in the 2005 bill for the nuclear 
power industry, and I support every one of those. I think that was the 
right thing to do. But let me just be clear that we have subsidies for 
a great many types of energy sources, including tax deductions, loan 
guarantees, liability insurance, and provisions for leasing of public 
lands at below-market prices. Some, like the depletion allowance for 
oil and gas, are permanent subsidies that are built into the Tax Code, 
and I am not suggesting they need to be repealed. I am just pointing 
out the largest subsidy--and I think any economist would make this 
point and would agree with this point--the largest subsidy is an 
invisible subsidy, the fact that the environmental impacts from use of 
fossil fuels are nowhere reflected in the cost of those energy sources. 
That is what has caused our problem with greenhouse gas emissions. That 
is why--it does not cost anything to pump 100 tons of CO2 or 
other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There is no cost to the 
person who is producing their energy for those fossil fuels. There is a 
cost to society, and we are beginning to understand what that cost is. 
But the idea of a major impetus for the renewable portfolio standard I 
have offered is that we would reduce dramatically these greenhouse gas 
emissions and provide incentives for the development of these other 
technologies. There are already incentives for the improvement in the 
development or improved use of nuclear power for energy production, 
and, as I say, I support those.
  Let me also talk a little about this proposal that States can opt 
out. First, let me mention that the Secretary can add others. I think 
that is a very major loophole, for us to essentially say to the 
Secretary of Energy: It is up to you; if you find something else that 
you believe ought to be included in the way we meet essentially this 16 
percent requirement, then add that in. I think the idea that States can 
opt out is unfortunate, indeed. Obviously, many States have chosen to 
put in place their own renewable portfolio standards. Nothing in my 
amendment in any way overrides those States' proposals.
  What we try to do with the proposal I put forward is to set a 
national minimum. We say you should at least do this 15 percent. If you 
want to do something else, have a go at it. If your laws provide for 
something else, then so much the better. But we do not say to States: 
You can opt out of any Federal requirement. I think to do so 
essentially eliminates any coherence we might have in the system.
  Let me conclude my comments at this point by saying that my own 
reading of the proposal Senator Domenici has made here as a second-
degree amendment to mine is that it really gets us to the worst of all 
locations in the debate or in our deliberations on this issue. It is a 
Federal program that does not result in the generation of electricity 
from clean energy sources beyond what otherwise would be expected to 
happen at any rate. But it does require utilities to go through very 
extensive efforts to track and buy and sell credits and comply with a 
regulatory regime. The Government would have to establish a credit-
trading scheme, a tracking system, a monitoring system, regulations for 
implementation--a whole panoply of Government machinery--but they would 
do so in order to achieve a result that could have been achieved 
without the implementation of the proposed amendments.
  So I think it would be an unfortunate provision for us to adopt. I 
hope my colleagues will agree with that and will vote against the 
Domenici proposal and, of course, as I said earlier in the debate, a 
vote in favor of the one I propose.
  Let me conclude with that. I know my colleague may wish to speak some 
more, and I know there are others coming to the floor intending to 
speak as well, and there may be additional opportunities for me to add 
to these comments as the afternoon progresses.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would say to Senator Bingaman that I 
have nothing to say now for myself, but I did want to tell him there 
are a couple of Senators coming shortly. I know about the time they are 
coming. I don't want to speak before they come, but if Senator Bingaman 
wants to proceed rapidly, we could do that. It will be 15 or 20 minutes 
before they arrive.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Snowe from Maine be added as a cosponsor to the underlying amendment I 
have sent to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will speak for a few moments. The Senator 
from Tennessee is here and waiting for some charts to visit about the 
issue that is before us, RPS versus CPS standards, that drive the 
marketplace toward cleaner fuels, renewable fuels, and a variety of 
different packages.
  A few moments ago, I mentioned, when the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Bingaman, produced a letter from the American Wind Energy Association, 
that in part I believe CPS, based on their point of view, had been 
somewhat mischaracterized by that letter. Now, here is someone who 
supports wind. The Senator from Idaho strongly supports wind. We see 
windmills, large windmills, going up across Idaho. The Senator from 
Tennessee would come out there and say: Oops, there goes the landscape. 
There goes the vista. The Senator from Idaho is a little concerned 
about that, too, because some of those beautiful high plateaus of Idaho 
are now being dotted with windmills.
  At the same time, there is no question that wind remains a valuable 
source, and we are subsidizing it and supporting it. But I don't think 
we ought to bias the marketplace toward it entirely, and that is why 
you now see a new standard offered as a second-degree amendment called 
CPS, clean portfolio standard.
  When I say that, let me make the point that is important, that I 
think is critical. The American Wind Energy Association, when they 
mischaracterized clean portfolio standard, did so in the following 
ways: The proposed CPS clearly requires carbon capture and storage. 
They say it does not. The word ``sequestration'' means carbon capture 
and storage, and you don't get a credit for it until you do it. I think 
that is clear. I think that was a mischaracterization. CPS clearly 
states that any additional clean technologies beyond already 
highlighted would require the Secretary of Energy to determine, if they 
apply through a rulemaking process. In other words, no easy rides and 
no opt-out.
  We have 23 States that have some form of RPS, renewable portfolio 
standard. They have done it on their own. The Senator from New Mexico 
makes that point very clearly. There is a desire in our country today 
to move us toward renewables and a cleaner portfolio standard, but 
there is no opt-

[[Page 15595]]

out in CPS. They come to the Secretary, and the Secretary certifies 
that which they already have, if it fits within the portfolio that is 
being proposed as a CPS. There is no State opt-out in that provision. 
CPS allows the States with existing clean portfolio programs to 
certify.
  I think that is a very important and necessary statement to make. I 
don't see that as an opt-out, I see that as conforming, giving credits 
to, and causing those who have already taken the initiative not to be 
penalized. It is arguable that the RPS that is being proposed in the 
Bingaman amendment would cause them to have to reshape or conform 
because they are all a little different or they couldn't gain as much 
credit under an RPS as they could a CPS. But that we don't know. What 
we do know is, no State opts out.
  We are now talking about a Federal standard against a myriad of State 
standards in which 23 States have already established some form of 
renewable portfolio. There is no uniformity in that 23-State standard, 
so, as I said, it is very difficult to comply with the standard. CPS is 
flexible enough, that it will not allow States to opt out.
  Deduct nukes from the base. By adding nuclear--new nuclear--we will 
have a much broader portfolio than I think Senator Bingaman's RPS. 
Adding nuclear does not detract from the accomplishments of that bill. 
It modernizes the bill. It brings us to where America's thoughts are 
today, not where America's clean thoughts started in the mid-1990s. 
Let's get modern.
  Yes, there are a lot of interest groups that have vested interests in 
the old standard. There are a lot of interest groups in this town and 
around the Nation that move very slowly. They move the body politics of 
their organizations slowly so they have to argue what was then instead 
of what is now. What is now in the minds of the average American who 
looks at new technology is: Is it clean? And if it is clean, it is 
acceptable. If it isn't clean, it isn't.
  Idaho is privileged at being right at the top of the States of the 
Nation in nonemitting sources, clean air, and less carbon. We are very 
proud of that--Vermont and Idaho. Last year, Idaho, a State that has 
largely accepted production in all forms, said no to a coal-fired 
plant. They said no because it wasn't as clean as they wanted it to be. 
But if it were a plant that could sequester, if it were a plant that 
were clean, and it was coal, why shouldn't it count today in a new 
standard?
  Why shouldn't the marketplace incentivize cleanliness--nonemitting 
sources--instead of the old nonemitting sources of the past--wind and 
biomass? But biomass, under current technologies, emits some 
CO2. It is much cleaner than most, but depending on the 
technology involved, is not a perfect form, if you will, compared to 
wind. But it is renewable, so under that definition, while it is not as 
clean as we would like it to be, and it will be in the future because 
it is renewable, it fits into the old standard.
  I think those are profound arguments that bring us to where we are 
today. And I would like to say to the American Wind Energy Association: 
You are not disadvantaged under CPS, but you are not exclusive to the 
market. You have to share the riches of growth in a clean technology 
with other forms as they come along. Yes, you will be subsidized, but 
you will not have exclusivity.
  I think for the West and for the marvelous open spaces and the vistas 
of the West, that is not all a bad idea. While I promote wind, and wind 
is now coming to Idaho, I don't think it ought to be exclusive in the 
market. As I have said before, and the maps have been shown, why 
disadvantage the Southeast? Why say to the Southeast you have to go buy 
it because you can't produce it? Let's give them an opportunity to be 
as clean as everyone else wants to be by giving them the advantages of 
all that is necessary.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend 
and colleague from Idaho. I would just direct a question to him and see 
if I am confused or he is confused, or just where the confusion lies. 
He says there is not authority in the Domenici proposal, the clean 
energy proposal; that there is not authority for a State to opt out. 
Here is the sentence on page 9 of that legislation. It says:

       On submission by the Governor of a State to the Secretary--

  That is the Secretary of Energy--

     of a notification that the State has in effect, and is 
     enforcing, a State portfolio standard that substantially 
     contributes to the overall goals of the Federal clean 
     portfolio standard under this section, the State may elect 
     not to participate in the program under this section.

  Now, that clearly states, as I understand it, that it is entirely up 
to the State whether it chooses to participate in the program or 
chooses not to participate in the program, and there is no discretion 
on the part of the Secretary of Energy about it at all. There is no 
certification required by the Secretary of Energy. There is no 
requirement that the State program meet any particular standard other 
than it contribute to the overall goals of the Federal standard.
  To me, that means a State can opt out of the Federal program, unless 
I am misreading it.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I can't argue whether the Senator is or is 
not misreading. The intent is for the Secretary of DOE to certify that 
the State meets those standards, and if the State meets the standard 
that you and I would put forth, then why don't they have a chance to 
stand down for a time? It is a question of meeting the standard, not 
ignoring the standard.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Well, Mr. President, let me just reiterate that the 
clear language of the statute states if the State determines that it 
has a ``portfolio standard that substantially contributes to the 
overall goals of the Federal clean portfolio standard, then the State 
may elect not to participate in the program.''
  To me, that is a clear opt-out for the State. There is no requirement 
that anybody certify or anything else. If I were Governor of New 
Mexico, I could type up a letter, send it off to the Secretary and say 
we are opting out--include us out--and that clearly would let me out of 
the program.
  So I don't think the bill says what the Senator has indicated.
  Mr. CRAIG. Well, if it doesn't, I am one who would change that. It is 
clearly not my intent, nor I believe the intent of CPS, to allow States 
to opt out. It is to broaden the portfolio standard, not to opt out 
because I think, with 23 States now moving in that direction, there is 
a recognition of the value of some of this. If there needs to be a 
correction for your satisfaction as the chairman of the committee, I am 
certainly one who is willing to make that. But it was my understanding 
and my reading of the language that the Secretary of DOE has the right 
to certify, and in certifying could allow based on the standard met an 
opt-out.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my 
friend. I would just say he is describing a provision in an amendment 
that is not before us. I want to point that out to my colleagues.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we obviously have a disagreement as to what 
is or is not. But I think we both agree on a principle that we have 
just talked about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I think now would be a good time for a 
former Governor to enter the discussion with my two distinguished 
colleagues. I think the biggest compliment I have been paid in the 
short time I have been a Senator was by some Washington insider who 
said, ``Well, the problem with Lamar is he hasn't gotten over being 
Governor yet.''
  I have said to my constituents in Tennessee, ``If I ever do, it is 
time to bring me home.''
  As I listened to the discussion between the Senator from New Mexico 
and the Senator from Idaho, I was greatly encouraged by the discussion 
of the Senator from Idaho until the very last part. I think there 
should be an opt-out. Why should there not be? What wisdom is there 
here in Washington, DC that is not there in state and local government?

[[Page 15596]]

  When I was in Tennessee, I thought I was at least as smart as the 
Congress of the United States. I woke up every day trying to do what 
was best for my State. I fought for better schools, clean water, clean 
air, raising family incomes, paying teachers more. If I had to wait on 
Washington to do it, we would never have done it. I knew of a lot of 
people who flew to Washington and suddenly got smart, but I didn't 
think they were smarter than we were.
  On issues of clean air, we Tennesseans, for example, feel like we 
care about it a lot. I live right next to the Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park. I grew up there. Five generations of my family are 
buried there. We have a great big clean-air problem.
  I might say, both Senators from New Mexico are two of the very finest 
in our body in terms of their ability, intelligence, dedication, and 
purposes. I happen to have a little disagreement on this issue with 
Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, but let me go back to my point.
  Growing up and living at the edge of the Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park makes me very aware of clean air and the need for it, 
which is why, 2 or 3 years ago, with Senator Carper, I began to work in 
the Congress for stronger standards so we could do more in Tennessee. 
That is why, as Governor of Tennessee, I pushed ahead for more and why, 
as a citizen of Tennessee, I went to the Tennessee Valley Authority and 
encouraged them to adopt standards that would get more of the sulfur 
out of the air and more of the nitrogen out of the air. That is why I 
have encouraged the Governor of Tennessee to go further than the 
Federal Government is in getting mercury out of power plant emissions 
into the air, 90 percent instead of 70 percent. That is why I have been 
meeting with mayors and local county officials in Tennessee to clean 
the air. We care about it in Tennessee.
  It is not necessarily true that it takes wisdom from Washington to 
cause us to want to have clean air or carbon-free air. Witness the fact 
that we are already on the honor roll of states leading the way in 
emissions-free electricity generation.
  I see the Senator from Vermont, right in front of me, presiding. He 
should be very proud of Vermont as his state is No. 1 in the country in 
terms of carbon-free emissions. Vermont generates its electricity from 
forms that are free of carbon emissions. I assume that among Senator 
Bingaman's goals in the energy legislation before us is to encourage 
carbon-free emissions so that we can deal with climate change. I happen 
to be one of those who believe climate change is a problem and that 
human beings are a big part of the problem. I am ready to help deal 
with the problem.
  But I think that we already are helping in Tennessee--that is my 
point. In this case, we need Washington to recognize what States are 
doing to solve this problem and not assume that a one-size-fits-all 
idea which might be good for New Mexico, or which might be good for 
North Dakota, also is good for Tennessee.
  Tennessee is 16th in terms of carbon-free emissions. In other words, 
we produce about 40 percent of our electricity today from nuclear power 
and from hydroelectric power. All forms of power have their issues. 
Hydroelectric power means you dam up rivers. Some people don't like 
that. I have some problems with that, too, sometimes. With nuclear 
power, we have to get rid of the waste, and we have not solved that 
problem yet. But the one problem we have solved with hydro and nuclear 
is that they are clean in terms of emission--no carbon, no mercury, no 
sulfur, no nitrogen. That is 40 percent of the power in the Tennessee 
Valley Authority region, and in the State of Tennessee.
  I might say: I have a great idea. I am now in Washington. I am not 
Governor anymore. I want to require everybody in America to have a 40-
percent emissions-free energy standard, and the way they should do it 
is to have 33 percent nuclear power and 7 percent hydropower because 
that is my idea. That is the way we do it. So, North Dakota, have at 
it, start building nuclear plants, start damming up whatever river you 
have left. I have an idea. That is the way you should it.
  I wouldn't say that because I believe in federalism. I believe that a 
lot of the best ideas come up from States toward the Federal 
Government. I have noticed how, over time, California has led the 
country in terms of clean air and clean water. I know Senator 
Bingaman's bill would permit us to go further in some ways, but it does 
not in other ways. What happens with the amendment from the Senator 
from New Mexico is this: Even though we are on the honor roll in 
Tennessee, and getting better--I mean, not only did the TVA just reopen 
the Unit 1 reactor at the Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant, it is operating 
today at 100 percent capacity.
  I will say a little more in a minute, if my colleagues will tolerate 
it.
  The one wind farm we have in the whole Southeastern United States, 
the Buffalo Mountain Project in Tennessee, operated 7 percent of the 
time in August when we are all sitting on our porches, sweating and 
fanning ourselves and wanting our air-conditioners on, so wind energy 
doesn't help us in our part of the country. So we are at 40 percent 
emissions-free electricity generation. So how about a 40-percent 
portfolio standard for the whole country, with 33 percent nuclear power 
and 7 percent hydropower?
  That probably wouldn't be fair to North Dakota. It might not be fair 
to some other States that have, as the brown color indicates on this 
chart here, a good bit of wind. They can use wind. They like wind. They 
don't mind having great big 300-, 400-, 500-foot white towers with 
flashing red lights you can see for 20 miles. If they want to see them, 
I guess that is their business. If they want them and it makes sense 
out there, fine. That is their State. But no more would I impose our 
formula for being clean on them than should they impose their formula 
for being clean on us. That is the problem with the Bingaman amendment, 
I respectfully suggest.
  Here we are on the honor roll for being clean. We are getting better. 
TVA is thinking we might open a second nuclear reactor, maybe a third 
nuclear reactor. Maybe within 10 years--which in energy-producing time 
is a short period of time--we would be up to 40 percent of nuclear 
power, 7 or 8 percent of hydropower, and we might be in favor of making 
everybody do a 47-percent renewable portfolio standard based on our 
formula. We hope by that time that biomass, which is permitted under 
the amendment from Senator Bingaman, as I understand it, will increase 
in Tennessee. We have a great capacity, we believe, for biomass, 
especially as fuel for cars.
  The President of the University of Tennessee was here this morning--
Dr. Peterson--talking with me about a demonstration project they have, 
about ethanol plants that are planned there. We are right in the center 
of the nation's population. We have a lot of land. We have a good 
agricultural base. Switchgrass could replace the tobacco income we used 
to have in Tennessee. We used to have 60,000 to 80,000 farms with a 
little independent income up in the mountains like you have in the 
great northern kingdom of Vermont. That would be great for us, so we 
hope biomass really works.
  We like solar. I am the sponsor of the solar tax credit that passed 
Congress 2 years ago. It is not enough, but I sponsored it. I got an 
award from the solar industry for being for that renewable power. I 
also worked with the Farm Bureau on renewable power called biomass. We 
have the largest production plant for solar technology in America in 
Memphis in the Sharp plant, producing the solar panels you put on your 
roof. We hope all this works. We even hope there might be maybe a solar 
thermal steam plant someday. It is not there today.
  TVA needs 31,000 or 32,000 megawatts of power every year to provide 
us with clean, reliable, inexpensive electricity, and the potential for 
solar with the present technology, the TVA says, is less than a 
Megawatt. The solar industry would say it is more. What if it is five 
times more? What if it is 10 megawatts, or 20 megawatts? There is not 
sufficient potential in the next 10

[[Page 15597]]

years for solar and wind in the southeast--which I will show in a 
moment we have virtually none of--to meet this idea.
  So, what do we get to do? We get to pay a big tax, a great big tax. 
What good does the tax do us? It comes out of our pockets. We send it 
to Washington, and we never see it again. How much is it? It is $410 
million a year, according to the Tennessee Valley Authority's 
scientists, to meet Senator Bingaman's 15 percent renewable portfolio 
standard. That is real money. By the end of the ramp-up time in the 
Bingaman amendment, which is the year 2020, it would cost, according to 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, which supplies Tennessee with 
electricity, it would cost the ratepayers $410 million to do what, to 
pay a tax to Washington, DC. It wouldn't clean our air. We are already 
on the honor roll for emission-free electricity production. It would 
just increase our cost. In fact, that money might come from money we 
might otherwise spend to clean our air.
  But here is what we could do with $410 million. We could give away 
205 million $2 light bulbs and have the energy savings equivalent to 
two nuclear power reactors, or it would be the equivalent of 3,700 
great big wind turbines that would stretch along all the scenic ridge 
lines in east Tennessee, and nobody would come to east Tennessee to 
visit, to see our mountains. Most people who live there would go hide 
under a rug so we wouldn't have to see these white towers with flashing 
red lights that you can see from 10 or 12 miles away instead of the 
mountains. We could pay the electric bill for every Tennessean for a 
month and a half each year with $410 million or we could purchase a new 
scrubber. We have some coal-fired powerplants. About 60 percent of our 
electricity comes from coal. TVA has done a fairly good job of cleaning 
up the air with that, but they have a long way to go. Sulfur scrubbers 
are the main thing they need. They are very expensive, and we could put 
a new one on every 9 months with $410 million cost per year. That is 
what we could better do with $410 million rather than send it up here 
to Washington, DC.
  Here is a letter I got today from the mayor of Chattanooga, TN, 
Harold DePriest--not the mayor, president and chief executive officer 
of the power company in Chattanooga. I probably should let Senator 
Corker read this letter since he used to be the mayor in Chattanooga. 
But he says:

       The Bingaman amendment, if enacted into law, would have an 
     enormous adverse economic impact on our community. It would 
     result in a two-cent per kilowatt-hour tax on all electric 
     kilowatt hours that are used in the Chattanooga EPB service 
     area. We have projected the cost burden that will be imposed 
     upon those in our service area during the years 2010 through 
     2020. It appears the local government, local schools, the 
     universities, businesses and all citizens (including those in 
     fixed incomes and having a difficult financial time as it is) 
     will have to pay the additional sum of more than $133,000,000 
     . . . over 10 years for their electrical service.

  Those are the workers, and those are the businesses. When businesses 
come to Tennessee--when Nissan comes or Saturn comes, when Eastman 
thinks about staying--what is one of the things they want to know? Can 
we get reliable, low-cost electric power? Today, we can say yes.
  Every time we add an unnecessary charge on that rate, we drive jobs 
out of Tennessee and we cause people who cannot afford their bills to 
pay them.
  I believe Senator Bingaman would say, and I will let him say it on 
his own behalf, as we develop more renewable power or other forms of 
power--I am a big subscriber to this--we bring down the price of 
natural gas. I helped introduce a bill called the Natural Gas Price 
Reduction Act, and I worked with Senators Bingaman and Domenici to try 
to stimulate growth in other forms of power to bring down the price of 
natural gas. So he is absolutely right. If we create new forms of 
energy, we will have less reliance on natural gas, and we want less 
reliance on natural gas. We don't want to be using natural gas to make 
electricity.
  As we say often: It is like burning the antiques to make a fire. So 
he is right about that. Why shouldn't we say but one other form is 
nuclear power. It is clean, it is reliable, and it is another form to 
consider. And the more we have it, the less natural gas we have to use.
  I also have a letter from Huntsville. This is in Alabama. I would not 
want you to think I was only arguing on behalf of one State. 
Huntsville, Alabama. ``Dear Senator Shelby,'' in this case. The letter 
goes on to talk about the severe penalties and the extra costs and the 
objection they have to this new tax.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point 
the two letters.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                          EPB,

                                   Chattanooga, TN, June 13, 2007.
     Re Energy Bill--S.B. 1419.

     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Alexander: I am writing out of concern for the 
     citizens of the greater Chattanooga area who receive their 
     electrical service from the Chattanooga Electric Power Board 
     (``Chattanooga EPB''). We understand that debate is presently 
     taking place on Energy Bill, S.B. 1419. We also understand 
     that Senator Bingaman will propose an amendment to the Energy 
     Bill that will, in our opinion, have severe financial 
     consequences upon the citizens of the greater Chattanooga 
     area, who are served by Chattanooga EPB in Hamilton County, 
     and parts of Bradley, Marion, Sequatchie, and Bledsoe 
     Counties.
       We at Chattanooga EPB are asking that you do everything in 
     your power to oppose the Bingaman Amendment, and to encourage 
     your fellow Senators to also vote ``no'' with you to defeat 
     it. We do not oppose energy conservation or the use of 
     renewable resources. But the Bingaman Amendment is not the 
     right way to get it done.
       The Bingaman Amendment, if enacted into law, would have an 
     enormous adverse financial impact upon our community. It 
     would result in a two-cent per kilowatt-hour tax on all 
     electric kilowatt hours that are used in the Chattanooga EPB 
     service area. We have projected the cost burden that will be 
     imposed upon those in our service area during the years 2010 
     through 2020. It appears that local government, local 
     schools, the universities, businesses, and all citizens 
     (including those in fixed incomes and have a difficult 
     financial time as it is) will have to pay the additional sum 
     of more than $133,000,000 (collectively as a group) over 10 
     years for their electrical service.
       The frustrating part of the Bingaman Amendment, if enacted 
     into law, will be the injustice imposed upon our community. 
     There are several states that are blessed with plentiful 
     resources of renewable energy. These states would receive 
     favorable treatment under Senator Bingaman's Amendment, 
     whereas we in Tennessee and the TVA Region would not. We here 
     do not have the same abundant renewable resources available 
     to us. In effect, we are penalized, and penalized 
     significantly, simply because of geography.
       One reason that Chattanooga EPB is in such a difficult 
     situation under the Bingaman Amendment, as contrasted with 
     utilities in some other parts of the country, is that the 
     amendment is directed at utilities that have their own 
     generation. Because the Tennessee Valley Authority supplies 
     all requirements needed to for the Chattanooga EPB service 
     area, and has an all-requirements contract with Chattanooga 
     EPB, it is impossible for Chattanooga EPB to meet the 
     requirements of the Senator Bingaman's renewal portfolio 
     standard (``RPS'') amendment to S.B. 1419. Senator Bingaman's 
     Amendment requires that utilities such as Chattanooga EPB 
     obtain 15 percent of energy sales from new renewable sources 
     by the year 2020. While Senator Bingaman's Amendment does 
     allow an option for Chattanooga to buy renewal ``credits'' 
     from U.S. Department of Energy, it is at the two-cent per 
     kilowatt-hour rate in order to meet the RPS that the Bingaman 
     Amendment would dictate.
       We would appreciate your exerting all efforts within your 
     power to defeat this horrific renewal energy ``tax''; and 
     that you oppose, argue against, vote against, and secure all 
     of the assistance that can be mustered from your fellow 
     Senators to see that this Amendment is not enacted into law.
       I am available if there is any additional information that 
     we can supply to you in your efforts to help us.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Harold E. DePriest,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                            Huntsville Electric Utility Board,

                                                    June 12, 2007.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Shelby: The Senate is now debating an 
     amendment to the Energy Bill, specifically a Renewable 
     Portfolio Standard (RPS) Amendment. This amendment requires 
     all electric systems that sell more

[[Page 15598]]

     than 4 million megawatt hours of energy a year to generate 
     specific percentages of their load profile from renewable 
     resources. By 2010, Huntsville Utilities would have to have 
     3.75% of its load coming from renewable generation sources 
     (solar, wind, etc.); by 2013, 7.5% of the load from renewable 
     generation; by 2017, 11.25% and by 2020, 15% of load coming 
     from renewable generation.
       Huntsville Utilities is under a long-term, 100% contract 
     with TVA and is prevented by contract from developing its own 
     resources and from purchasing any form of energy supply from 
     any other power supply vendor. Further, Congress would have 
     to pass laws that would allow Huntsville Utilities to use the 
     TVA transmission system to bring in power from other power 
     supply vendors.
       Severe penalties are levied for not meeting the Renewable 
     Portfolio Standard. Penalties to Huntsville in 2010 would be 
     $4.2 million; in 2013, $8.8 million; in 2017, $14.1 million, 
     and in 2020, $19.8 million.
       Huntsville Utilities depends on TVA to provide renewable 
     energy resources, since it is prohibited from generating our 
     own energy, or purchasing energy from other power providers 
     by the TVA contract.
       Penalties in 2010 of $4.2 million for not meeting the 
     standard are nothing more than a tax on the citizens of 
     Huntsville. Huntsville Utilities is being placed in a no-win 
     situation if this standard passes.
       Huntsville Utilities is a public power system which is non-
     profit and receives all of its energy resources from TVA, 
     which is a public power generation and transmission provider 
     to its 158 captive customers. Huntsville Utilities needs to 
     be exempted from the provisions of the Renewable Portfolio 
     Standards (RPS). TVA needs to be the provider of these 
     renewable energy resources to its customers.
       TVA's hydro and nuclear generation systems need to be used 
     as a replacement for solar and wind, since hydro and nuclear 
     energy generation are non-polluting.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ronald W. Boles,
                                                    Vice Chairman.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see some other Senators on the floor. 
I see Senator Domenici, Senator DeMint, and there are other Senators 
here. But I want to wind up my comments in this way with a couple of 
pictures to summarize the point.
  It is a laudable goal to move us as rapidly as we can to renewable 
energy. But we should allow the States to move in ways that fit those 
States. So I think there should be an opt-out for States. I think 
Tennessee should be able to say: We have a 40-percent clean power 
standard, but it is nuclear and hydro. We are working hard on biomass. 
As soon as we get that going, we will have 50 percent. But we do not 
have sufficient wind resources not located in our scenic mountains. In 
addition, wind is enormously subsidized. We will be getting more to 
that this year.
  Let's put up this chart.
  TVA looked all around for a place to locate the first and only 
utility scale wind energy project in the southeast. First they looked 
down on Lookout Mountain. The people there spent 30 years restoring the 
natural beauty to this historic location. They did not want to see a 
400-foot tower they could see from the whole area up there. So they 
finally put it on Buffalo Mountain, which is also a beautiful place.
  Here is what it looks like. They had hoped the wind would blow so 
that it would produce 35 to 38 percent of the turbines rated capacity. 
It operates 19 to 24 percent of the time; 7 percent in August. What 
most people miss with wind power is you use it or lose it. So if the 
wind is not blowing, your air conditioner is off.
  Even though you have these large wind towers all up and down every 
ridge top in Tennessee, even if you had them, you would still need a 
dependable powerplant. Wind turbines do not replace your base load.
  Here is what it looks like in West Virginia, which is north of us. It 
is a different point, but this makes strip mining look like a 
decorative art. I mean this ruins, in my view, the tops of mountains.
  Why would we insist on that with Federal requirements to have a State 
that is already on the honor roll for clean power? There are other ways 
to do this rather than raise our rates, raise our taxes, drive jobs 
away, or ruin our landscape.
  I appreciate the chance to talk about this. Wind already is highly 
subsidized too. The best facts I have suggest we will be spending $11.5 
billion between 2007 and 2016, already obligated in taxpayers' money, 
to build these big wind turbines in Tennessee, which in Tennessee 
operate 7 percent of the time in August. They do not produce much power 
either. There are proposals on the Senate floor to extend the federal 
subsidies for wind power.
  So back to this wind project, TVA pays 6.5 cents for every kilowatt-
hour produced by this wind project. The taxpayers pay them another 2.9 
cents, in effect, for the production tax credit; that is 9.4 cents for 
each one here, and this would have the whole Southeast running around 
looking for wind developers to buy further credits from. We should all 
retire from the Senate and go in the business, it looks like, if that 
is what we want to do.
  But here is my main point, let's respect Federalism, let's honor 
those States that are on the honor roll. Let's honor Senator Bingaman 
for wanting to encourage renewable energy. But Senator Domenici, I 
would respectfully say, has a better idea. He would allow new nuclear 
power, for example, to be a part of the mix.
  My final comment would be this: As climate change has become more of 
a concern, and people say we are going to have to deal with it in this 
generation, we have looked for ways to create large amounts of clean 
energy. There are only two or three ways to do that.
  The first is conservation and efficiency. We have barely scratched 
the surface. But the second is nuclear power. Seventy percent of our 
carbon-free electricity in America today is nuclear power. So why would 
we exclude that from any standard that allegedly wants us to have 
carbon-free energy? It does not make much sense to me.
  I respectfully oppose the suggestion of the Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Bingaman. I honor his service here. I honor his motives here. But I 
think he has a solution looking for a problem. The problem is, we do 
not have any wind in our part of the State, and a wind portfolio 
standard simply does not work. It puts a big tax on us we do not need 
to pay, do not want to pay, does not do us any good.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield 50 seconds of my time to 
Senator DeMint.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. I will yield back to him 
immediately.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would you yield 30 seconds to me? Would that be 
acceptable to you?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Lamar Alexander, who 
gave about a 20-minute speech or 25, whatever it was, that I truly 
commend you on your understanding of both the problem and the attempted 
solutions here and the differences between the Bingaman amendment and 
mine. The way you present it is laudable. I thank you for that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, quickly, I wish to make a request of the 
chairman. I understand the current amendment will not be finished until 
tomorrow. I wanted to get one amendment pending. I ask unanimous 
consent to send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do object. I believe we need to 
complete action on the two pending amendments before we take up any 
other amendments or have other amendments pending. Obviously he can 
send anything he wants to the desk, but as far as calling up any 
amendment for consideration, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I understand Senator Salazar is waiting 
here. I will not be long. I appreciate his patience.
  First, I associate myself with the words of the Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. I thought he did a fantastic job of outlining 
why this proposed renewable portfolio standard is not in the best 
interests of the United States of America. I strongly oppose it because 
it has not taken into consideration the adverse effects on States that

[[Page 15599]]

depend heavily on coal, such as my home State of Ohio.
  I also mention that we have looked at wind power for our utilities. 
If they could use wind power they would be using it, because not only 
would it be something that would be better taken by the citizens of 
Ohio, but it also would associate them with being more green. They are 
interested in doing that. But the fact is we do not have the 
environment for that to occur. So I think even though this proposal is 
well intentioned, and I share his concern about reducing greenhouse 
gases, I believe his proposal will cause great economic distress for 
minimal benefit.
  What we need to do when we are looking at these things is ask, what 
benefit are we going to get out of it, and what are the costs? Figure 
it out. A one-size-fits-all Federal RPS mandate ignores the different 
economic needs and resources of the individual States. There are 
significant regional differences in availability, despite renewable 
energy resources.
  Even among the States that have an RPS, all have chosen to add 
technologies that are not usually included in a Federal RPS. Because 
many of the utilities will not be able to meet an RPS requirement 
through their own generation, they will be required to purchase 
renewable energy credits from some other company. Thus, a nationwide 
RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers 
to States with little or no renewable resources, such as Ohio, to the 
Federal Government or to States where renewables happen to be more 
abundant.
  In my State of Ohio, we rely on coal. Eighty-eight percent of our 
electric generation comes from coal. It is estimated that the proposal 
would increase retail electricity prices by 4.3 percent, a total of a 
$12.8 billion cost to consumers by 2030. The 4.3 percent may not seem 
like a high increase to many, but to a family of four on a fixed 
income, this is a huge increase. These families may have to make a 
decision between paying their winter heating bills or putting food on 
the table for their families.
  I recall a couple of years ago, before the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, Tom Mullen of Cleveland Catholic Charities described 
the direct impacts of significant increases in energy prices on those 
who were less fortunate. This is a quote. He said:

       In Cleveland, over one-fourth of all children live in 
     poverty and are in a family of a single family head of 
     household. These children will suffer further loss of basic 
     needs as their moms are forced to make choices of whether to 
     pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill or 
     see their child freeze; buy food or risk the availability of 
     a hunger center. These are not choices that any senior 
     citizen, child, or for that matter, person in America should 
     make.

  So, in effect, if we pass this renewable portfolio, for people who 
live in my State--and maybe I am being a little bit selfish about the 
people I represent, but the fact is this is going to increase their 
energy bills. For those who are poor, for those who are elderly and on 
a fixed income, this is significant.
  Another aspect which I think we forget about is Ohio is a 
manufacturing State. We are on the economic fault line. I wish our 
economy were as good as the rest of the States in this country. We have 
the same problem Michigan has. Energy costs are a huge concern of our 
manufacturers, who use 34 percent of the energy consumed in our 
economy. Due in large part to increased energy prices, the United 
States has lost more than 3.1 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, 
and my State has lost nearly 220,000 jobs.
  I will never forget in 2001 when we had the big spike in gas prices. 
I believe that was the beginning of the recession in the State of Ohio. 
Many of those small companies never recovered because, for example, in 
my city, natural gas costs have gone up over 300 percent since 2000. 
Think about that, the impact that has. Then you add another burden on 
top of that. Rather than enacting an artificial RPS, which will 
increase costs to our utilities and consumers, we need to be spending 
this money on the development of technology to reduce our greenhouse 
gases.
  The cost of the RPS to utilities and ratepayers will be better spent 
on funding the programs we authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
such as carbon sequestration and IGCC technology, which, as most of us 
know, are not receiving the appropriate funding today.
  It is clear we must get serious about partnerships and strategies 
that maximize Federal funding. We have got to look at how much money we 
are going to raise and where can we get the biggest return on our 
dollars. I do not think RPS does that.
  It is critical that policymakers work in conjunction with the 
scientific community to develop policy solutions that are in the best 
interests of our State and Nation. For instance, one area requires 
further research to capture greenhouse gases and sequester carbon 
dioxide so we can continue to rely on coal for energy. We are the Saudi 
Arabia of coal. We have 250 years of that supply. For the past few 
years I have called for a ``Second Declaration of Independence,'' 
independence from foreign sources of energy, for our Nation to take 
real action toward stemming our exorbitantly high oil and natural gas 
prices. Instead of considering them separately, we must harmonize our 
energy, environment, and economic needs. This is an absolute must as we 
consider any additional solutions to address global warming and other 
environmental problems.
  I have been here, this is my ninth year. I have been on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee for 9 years. The problem in the 
Senate and in the House is that the environmental, the energy, and the 
economic people don't get together and put each other's shoes on and 
figure out how we can work together to not only do a better job of 
cleaning up the environment but utilizing the scarce dollars that are 
available to make a difference.
  This is an idea of the costs for Ohio. For example, American Electric 
Power which, while I was Governor, put on a $650 million scrubber to 
reduce their NOx and SOx, it is going to cost 
them $3 billion between 2010 and 2030; First Energy, $3.18 billion to 
$4.6 billion; Duke--this is also another provider of energy--$1.6 
billion.
  Let's take the Timken Company, the heart and soul of Camden, OH. 
Their incremental cost of electricity under a 15-percent RPS will 
exceed $20 million per year. They say:

       We would not expect to recoup most of this increased cost 
     through price increases due to the global competition that we 
     face. Adoption of a mandatory RPS would clearly place The 
     Timken Company at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis our 
     foreign competitors, further eroding already slim profit 
     margins, and placing increasingly more jobs at risk.

  We really ought to think about what we are doing here today. I don't 
think what we want to do is advantage one area of the country by having 
a cost increase in another part of the country and see a massive 
shifting of resources. What we should do is look at the big picture and 
figure out, as Senator Alexander pointed out, where do we put our money 
where we can get the greatest return on our investment. I sincerely 
believe this isn't the way to do it. Why would we want to do something 
that will take a State such as Ohio, that is 80 percent reliant on 
coal, and basically tell our utilities: Folks, you are going to have to 
buy renewable energy from somebody else, pay the money out, and then 
increase your rates, increase the rates to the folks in our inner 
cities, when they could be taking that same money and putting more of 
it into, for example, ISGC, the integrated gas-combined cycle. AEP is 
going to build a 1,000-megawatt plant that is going to cost an enormous 
amount of money. That is where they should be putting their money. They 
should be putting their money into technology so that we can capture 
carbon and sequester it.
  Those are the things that would really make a difference. We are 
fooling ourselves to say we are going to pass this legislation, and it 
is going to make a big difference. I argue that it is going to make 
little difference, and we could spend our money on things that are 
going to make more of a difference in terms of cleaning up the 
environment and dealing with some of the problems we all know this 
country faces.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

[[Page 15600]]


  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me start by thanking Senator 
Bingaman, chairman of the committee, and Senator Domenici, ranking 
member, for their fine work in producing the Energy bill before us 
today. This energy legislation is important for our country as we move 
toward energy independence. It is strong on alternative fuels. It is 
strong on energy efficiency. Through the work of the Commerce 
Committee, it has strong CAFE standards that will make all the 
difference in the world in terms of how we use transportation fuels. It 
also begins to do some important work with respect to carbon 
sequestration. This is good legislation. The amendments and debates we 
are having hopefully will build on that good legislation to get us to 
the point where we can deliver to the President a good bill.
  The President said in his State of the Union that one of the things 
he wanted us to work on was moving forward to get rid of our addiction 
to foreign oil. It is our hope that by working together in a bipartisan 
fashion, as we did in the Energy Committee, we will be able to move 
forward with respect to reaching that vision of energy independence for 
the United States.
  Let me say that I am here to speak in support of the Bingaman 
proposal which I am cosponsoring on a renewable electricity standard 
for the Nation. Let me at the outset say, we in the Congress, we in the 
Nation should not be afraid. We should not be afraid of having a robust 
renewable electrical standard, called an RES, a renewable portfolio 
standard. There will be significant benefits that will help our 
economies. It will help rural communities, it will help our 
environment, if we have a robust national standard for renewable 
electricity.
  Some may say: How do you know that? I have heard my colleagues on the 
other side of this amendment arguing that we don't need a national 
standard because it will harm particular States or areas. There were 
lots of people in my State in Colorado in 2004, just a short 2 years 
ago, who made the same argument, that if we passed an RPS in my State 
of Colorado in 2004, we would see a parade of horribles coming down the 
pike.
  Well, in 2004, the voters of Colorado decided on their own they were 
going to take this measure to the voters of the State, and they passed 
a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent by the year 2015. Because 
Colorado's efforts have been so successful in the last 2 years, the 
general assembly this year decided to double that standard to 20 
percent by the year 2015. What had been the parade of horribles has not 
been a parade of horribles in Colorado with respect to the RPS. It has 
been a parade of celebration with respect to what we have been able to 
accomplish on the ground.
  Let me refer to two very significant economic facts and initiatives 
within our State. One relates to wind. Two years ago, we had a very 
small wind farm. It produced just a few megawatts of power. That was 2 
years ago. Fast-forward to today. Because of the RPS, in Colorado, 
today we now have four major wind farms in operation. We have two more 
wind farms currently under construction. By the time we finish a year 
from now, those wind farms will be producing 1,000 megawatts of 
electricity.
  Let's put that in a context so people can understand what we are 
talking about with respect to 1,000 megawatts. One thousand megawatts 
is about the equivalent of what we would produce with three coal-fired 
powerplants. We were able to do that with the power of the wind in less 
than 2 years.
  What has been the benefit for Colorado? First and foremost, we are 
contributing to the economy of our State because there were counties, 
such as Weld, Logan and Prowers Counties that I refer to as forgotten 
America because they have such limited opportunities out in those rural 
communities that struggle on the vine every day. What has happened is 
the RPS has injected a new economic vigor into those rural communities. 
It is something about which the bankers, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, are all very happy and excited. It is something about which the 
school boards are very excited as well because it has brought 
significant additional tax revenue into the coffers of some of the 
rural school districts that suffer from not having enough money for 
schools or for other public needs.
  It also has made sure the people of Colorado understand that they are 
contributing to the environmental security of our Nation. We are past 
the debate in this Nation as to whether global warming is a reality. 
The people in my State recognize they are making a significant 
contribution to dealing with the issue of global warming because they 
passed an RPS which has been a good RPS. In fact, it has been so good 
in terms of acceptance by the people of Colorado, almost without a 
whimper the requirement was doubled this year so that now we in 
Colorado will be producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable 
energy resources by the year 2015. That is not a long way away. We are 
not talking 2050 or 2040. We are already at 2007. So within 8 years in 
Colorado, we are going to be producing 20 percent of our energy from 
renewable energy resources.
  It is not just wind. I come from what is one of the most remote and 
rural, poorest areas in the United States. The place is called the San 
Luis Valley. It is a place where you have to struggle to make a living. 
But it is a place also that is embracing the new ethic of renewable 
energy, driven in large part by the renewable portfolio standard we 
have in Colorado. Because of that RPS, the largest utility in our 
State, Xcel, has broken ground on the largest solar utility generator 
in the United States. That solar electrical utility farm, which is now 
under construction in my native valley, is creating jobs for the people 
of the valley. It is something we are very proud of.
  With the advances being made in solar technology, there is no reason 
in most of our States we would not be able to create a robust addition 
for our electrical needs that actually is powered from the Sun.
  Our experience in Colorado with respect to a renewable portfolio 
standard, a renewable electrical standard, has been an absolutely 
positive one. It was one that was approached with some trepidation a 
few years ago. Today it is wholly embraced. I ask my colleagues in this 
Chamber today to look at the RPS as something that, in fact, is a great 
opportunity for the people of this country. If it worked for the State 
of Colorado, it can also work for the rest of the Nation.
  Let me also say that Colorado is not alone. If you look at a map of 
the United States and look at all of the States that have passed a 
renewable portfolio standard, they are from all parts of the country. 
We now have at least 22 States that have adopted their own renewable 
portfolio standard. So if we have 22 States plus the District of 
Columbia that have already adopted a renewable portfolio standard, does 
it not make sense, instead of having a patchwork of regulation from one 
State to another, where you essentially have no RPS in one and a 
different RPS in another, that we have a national standard? From my 
point of view, it does.
  The mechanism that has been set forth by Senator Bingaman in this 
legislation will allow us to have that renewable portfolio standard and 
also will allow us to take into account the different renewable 
resources for electrical production that we have from State to State. I 
am very hopeful that the RES before us will ultimately make it into 
law.
  Let me talk a little bit about the primary benefits I see from this 
RES. The first is that it will bolster our renewable energy production 
by creating certainty in renewable energy markets. With an RES, 
producers, developers, and manufacturers know that there is a 
guaranteed market for renewable electricity. They make long-term 
investments in infrastructure and renewable energy development when 
they know that certainty is there, and that is what this national RES 
will provide. That added stability will result in a second major 
benefit. That is an economic benefit both to consumers and to 
communities that assist in production.

[[Page 15601]]

  As I said, in my State consumers who have been participating in a 
program that Xcel has provided on a voluntary wind energy program have 
saved a total of $14 million in 2004 and in 2005. A 2005 study of the 
Energy Information Administration found that a modest national 
renewable energy standard of only 10 percent--only talking in 2005 
about 10 percent by 2020--would result in savings to consumers of $22.6 
billion.
  We are going to do better than that here because our RES we are 
proposing is 15 percent. Meanwhile, communities particularly rural 
communities, thrive with new jobs, with new infrastructure, and a new 
economy that is built on invention and investment.
  The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that a national renewable 
energy standard of 20 percent by 2020--we are not proposing that we be 
that ambitious in this particular amendment--that a 20-percent by 2020 
standard would spur $72.6 billion in new capital investment, with $16 
billion in income to America's farmers and ranchers, and $5 billion in 
new local tax revenues for rural communities. That is a terrific shot 
in the arm for parts of our country that are dying for these kinds of 
opportunities.
  Thirdly, a national renewable electricity standard will enhance our 
environmental security and take an important step toward reducing our 
carbon emissions. If we were to pass a renewable electricity standard 
of 20 percent by 2020, we would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 
more than 400 million tons a year--that is more than 400 million tons a 
year. That would be equal to taking 71 million cars off of America's 
roads or the planting of 104 million trees in our country.
  We know an RES by itself will not solve the global warming problem, 
but it is, in fact, a significant step in the right direction.
  I want to, once again, thank Chairman Bingaman for his leadership on 
this amendment. It is an important addition to this bill and a leap 
ahead for our Nation's energy security.
  It is, at the end of the day, an effort for all of us to embrace a 
clean energy economy for the 21st century. A clean energy economy for 
the 21st century is one of the imperative issues that we can grasp on, 
we can discover on, on a bipartisan basis, for America, and we can do 
it now in 2007. It is not something for which we have to wait until 
2010 or 2011. It is something we can do now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed just for 
a few minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota for her courtesy in allowing me to go forward.


                         White House Subpoenas

  Mr. President, the reason I speak on this sort of stage--instead of 
doing a press conference and calling every one of you about it--today I 
have issued, on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee, subpoenas to 
the White House in connection with our investigation into the firing of 
U.S. attorneys around the country. I have spoken recently with Mr. 
Fielding, the White House Counsel, and I have consulted with the 
ranking Republican on the committee. Regrettably, to date, the White 
House has not produced a single document nor allowed White House staff 
to testify, despite our repeated requests for voluntary cooperation 
over the last several months.
  The White House's stonewalling of the congressional investigative 
committees continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation. 
Those who bear the brunt of this approach are the American people, 
those dedicated professionals at the Department of Justice who have 
tried to remain committed to effective law enforcement in spite of the 
untoward political influences from this administration, and, thirdly, 
the public's confidence in our justice system. That is why I believe we 
have to do everything we can to overcome the administration's 
stonewalling and get all the facts out on the table--get the facts out 
so Republican Senators and Democratic Senators and the American people 
can see what the facts are.
  Actually, the White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot 
stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents 
and witnesses--or saying they might let witnesses testify behind closed 
doors, with no transcript, no oath, which neither Republicans nor 
Democrats would ever accept--but then simultaneously claim that nothing 
improper ever happened. The involvement of the White House's political 
operation in these matters, including former Political Director Sara 
Taylor and her boss Karl Rove has been confirmed by information 
gathered by congressional committees.
  Some may hope to thwart our constitutional oversight efforts by 
locking the doors and closing the curtains and hiding things in their 
desks, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth.
  The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Conyers, is likewise 
issuing and serving subpoenas today. He makes the point that these 
subpoenas are not merely requests for information; they are lawful 
demands on behalf of the American people through their elected 
representatives in Congress.
  So we will issue and serve three subpoenas today--two seeking the 
documents and testimony of Sara M. Taylor, the former Deputy Assistant 
to the President and Director of Political Affairs, and another seeking 
White House documents relevant to the panel's ongoing investigation.
  Incidentally, Senator Specter and I had written to Ms. Taylor asking 
for voluntary cooperation. We did this more than 2 months ago, on April 
11, so there would not be any need for a subpoena. We asked for 
voluntary cooperation. Well, that did not go very far.
  As I noted in my cover letter to the new White House Counsel, Mr. 
Fielding, I have sent him a half dozen previous letters during the past 
3 months seeking voluntary cooperation from the White House with the 
Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation into the mass firings and 
replacements of U.S. attorneys and politicization at the Department of 
Justice.
  It is now clear from the evidence gathered by the investigating 
committees that White House officials played a significant role in 
originating, developing, coordinating, and implementing the plan and 
the Justice Department's response to congressional inquiries about it. 
Yet to date the White House has not produced a single document or 
allowed even one White House official involved in these matters to be 
interviewed.
  It has been 2\1/2\ months since Republican and Democratic members of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected their take-it-or-leave-it offer 
of off-the-record, backroom interviews with no followup. We said it was 
unacceptable.
  We have offered to try to work these things out. They have stayed the 
course: Take it or leave it. Take it or leave it: a backroom, closed-
door meeting, with no transcript and no oath. Mr. President, I will 
leave that one quickly. As I told the White House Counsel, I would be 
subject to legislative malpractice if I were to ever accept on the part 
of the Senate such an offer.
  Ironically, Mr. Rove and the President have had no reluctance to 
comment publicly that there was, in their view, no wrongdoing and 
nothing improper. But they won't even tell us what they base that on. 
They cannot have it both ways. Their continuous stonewalling leads to 
the obvious conclusion they have something to hide. Because they 
continue their refusal, I issued these subpoenas.
  So we formally demanded--this is what it is--production of documents 
in the possession, custody, or control of the White House related to 
the committee's investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial 
independence and the Department of Justice's politicization of the 
hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys.
  The documents compelled by the subpoena include documents related to 
the administration's evaluation of and decision to dismiss former U.S. 
attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. ``Bud'' Cummins,

[[Page 15602]]

John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, 
Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. attorney dismissed or 
considered for dismissal since President Bush's reelection, the 
implementation of the dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. 
attorneys, and the selection, discussion, and evaluation of possible 
replacements. They have yet to be explained.
  Among these documents are documents related to the involvement of 
Karl Rove, Harriet E. Miers, William Kelley, J. Scott Jennings, Sara M. 
Taylor, or any other current or former White House employees or 
officials involved in the firings and replacements, as well as 
documents related to the testimony of Justice Department officials to 
Congress regarding this matter--part of the reason being: What did they 
tell the Justice Department to say or, even more importantly, not to 
say. Of course these would include the purportedly ``lost'' Karl Rove 
e-mails that should have been retrieved by now and should now be 
produced without further delay.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer may remember when I said--at the 
time when they said those were all lost and erased--Well, you could not 
erase them. Of course they could be found. The White House dismissively 
said to we computer experts up here: Of course they had been lost. Gee 
whiz. Golly. Guess what. They seem to have been in a backup hard 
drive--like the e-mails for all of us are, like everybody knew they 
were, and notwithstanding the condescending, misleading statements of 
the White House Press Secretary's Office. Of course the e-mails were 
there.
  I am just disappointed that now that it turns out they were not lost 
like they claimed they were we still do not have them. We have to go to 
subpoenas to obtain information needed by the committee to fulfill our 
oversight responsibilities regarding the firings and the erosion of 
independence at the Justice Department--probably the greatest crime 
here. But the evidence so far--that White House officials were deeply 
involved--leaves me no choice, in light of the administration's lack of 
voluntary cooperation.
  Mr. President, I thank, again, the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota for yielding. I know she was to go first. I yield the floor 
to the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the man who 
probably understands the necessity of subpoenas better than anybody 
else in this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Minnesota 
for yielding. I know she yielded to Senator Leahy; and Senator Leahy, 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has made some comments which I 
think I ought to supplement.
  I believe when you have the subpoena issued for Ms. Sara Taylor, the 
White House staff, it is appropriate at this time. A letter was sent to 
Ms. Taylor on April 11 requesting testimony and documents, and there 
has been no response.
  It is my hope, as I have said at Judiciary Committee meetings, 
executive sessions, that we will yet be able to work this out with Ms. 
Taylor on a cooperative basis without any further controversy.
  The enforcement mechanism of the subpoenas is very lengthy. The last 
time it was undertaken, with the conflict between congressional 
oversight and the White House, it took more than 2 years. That would 
take us into 2009, after the election of a new President.
  I think with respect to the subpoena to former White House Counsel 
Harriet Miers, there again the request went out some time ago, and they 
have not been forthcoming, and I think it is appropriate to proceed--
again, in a manner which looks toward conciliation, looks toward 
resolving it without controversy.
  I talked again today to White House Counsel Fred Fielding on the 
question as to how we are going to obtain testimony from executive 
branch officials who are high up in the White House, and the President 
made a televised statement some time ago setting forth the acceptable 
parameters from the President's point of view. After reflecting on it 
and talking to members of the Judiciary Committee--both Democrats and 
Republicans--I think that most of what the President wants can be 
accommodated.
  He does not want his officials, his employees, put under oath. My 
preference would be to have an oath, but I would not insist on that 
because the testimony would be subject to prosecution under the False 
Statements Act, 18 United States Code 1001.
  He does not want to have the sessions public. My preference again 
would be to have them public, but I would not insist upon that.
  He does not want to have the officials come before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, then before the House Judiciary Committee, and I 
think we can accommodate that, having members of both committees--both 
Democrats and Republicans--in a manageable group to obtain the 
necessary information.
  The one point where I think it is indispensable is that we obtain a 
transcript. If you don't have a transcript, people walk out of the room 
in perfectly good faith and have different versions as to what 
happened. I think it is in the interest of all sides to have a 
transcript. It is in the interest of congressional oversight so we have 
it precise, so we can pursue questions and have them in black and white 
and know where we stand. It is important for the people whose 
depositions are being taken that it be written down, too, so nobody can 
say they said something they didn't say because we know what they said 
when it is transcribed. I am pleased to say to the distinguished 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Rhode Island who is nodding in the 
affirmative, as a former U.S. attorney, attorney general, and one who 
has had experience with transcripts, as has the chairman and I, it 
needs to be written down.
  I hope we can accommodate the competing interests here. There is no 
doubt there are very important issues involved: The request for 
resignations from the U.S. attorneys and the reasons why they were 
replaced. There is no doubt the President has the authority to remove 
all 93 U.S. attorneys without giving any reason. President Clinton did 
that at the beginning of his term in 1993. I think it is equally clear 
the President can't replace people for bad reasons. There is a 
suggestion of pressure on the U.S. attorney from San Diego that she was 
going after some of former Congressman Cunningham's associates, who is 
serving an 8-year sentence, and that pressure was put on some other 
U.S. attorney in some other direction for an improper purpose, and that 
is an appropriate question for congressional oversight. We had a 
lengthy and heated debate earlier this week on the resolution to say 
the Senate has no confidence in the Attorney General. That was defeated 
on procedural grounds.
  But the issue of the operation of the Department of Justice is not 
yet finished. This inquiry is very important. Next to the Department of 
Defense, which defends the homeland and is our military defense, next 
in line is the Department of Justice, which deals with terrorism, deals 
with drugs, deals with violent crime and that department has to 
function in the interests of the American people. And getting to the 
bottom of this investigation is important for that purpose. So I wanted 
to appear to make these brief comments, following the statement by the 
distinguished Chairman. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, last Wednesday I came to the floor and 
introduced legislation that would place the country on a path toward a 
better energy future by requiring that 25 percent of our Nation's 
energy, our Nation's electricity, come from renewable sources. This 
made sense to me because this is what we do in Minnesota. As my 
colleagues know, all good things come from Minnesota.
  But today, Senator Bingaman has introduced an amendment requiring 
that

[[Page 15603]]

15 percent of our Nation's electricity come from renewable sources. I 
also support Senator Bingaman, and I am a cosponsor of Senator 
Bingaman's 15 percent standard by 2020. That is because I believe our 
country is headed down the wrong energy path, and we need to take it in 
a new direction.
  I can't tell my colleagues the number of times I hear from businesses 
in my State, including manufacturing companies, about the high costs 
and how they want to get some new possibilities and a new direction 
with where their energy comes from. The money issue is one thing you 
hear about from individual consumers, that you hear about from 
businesses, but there is also the effect it is having on the 
environment. Both the Presiding Officer and I serve on the Environment 
Committee. We have heard countless accounts from scientists from all 
over this country, from major CEOs of large businesses in this country, 
about the change we are seeing in our climate and about the chance we 
have to do something about it.
  So I have to tell my colleagues, in my State I also hear from regular 
people. I hear from hunters who see a change in the wetlands. I hear 
from people on Leech Lake who say it takes a month later, a month 
longer than usual to put their fish house out. I hear from kids wearing 
little penguin buttons. I hear from city council members in 
Lanesborough who are changing out their light bulbs. I hear from 
venture capitalists in Minneapolis who want to get some standards in 
place so they can invest in this new green technology. I hear from 
people up in Grand Marais, MN, where I visited 2 weeks ago. This area 
has had tragic fires. When we saw those fires going on in California, 
they were also raging in northern Minnesota and up into Canada. Nearly 
200 buildings were downed by this fire in our State--some of them 
beautiful homes--homes that have been in families for years and years 
and years, rustic cabins and businesses. Of course, the people who 
gathered to meet with me had immediate problems. There was no phone 
service to many of these places. Many of the lodges that rely on 
tourism were having trouble even taking orders. But in the middle of 
all this, with these scarred forests surrounding us, there were people 
who wanted to talk about climate change, including ski resort owners 
who had seen a dramatic drop in their profits when we have had less 
snow and people who were very concerned about their businesses and the 
future of this country.
  So this standard is not only important for investing in our country 
for more jobs and putting a renewable standard in place that will spur 
investment, it is also important for our country's future and our 
environment.
  A strong renewable energy standard is good policy. Let's look at 
where our electricity comes from. Currently, we have 52 percent coming 
from coal. We have 15 percent coming from natural gas. We have 3 
percent from petroleum, 20 percent from nuclear, 7 percent from hydro, 
and only 3 percent from renewables. Compare this with countries such as 
Denmark, where they are seeing something akin to 50 percent coming from 
renewables, and Great Britain and other countries. What a strong 
renewable standard can do is it can diversify our electricity sources 
so we are not so reliant on energy sources such as natural gas that are 
vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply interruptions. A 
strong renewable energy standard can also save the American consumer 
money. According to studies, a 15-percent renewable electricity 
standard will save consumers a total of $16.4 billion on their energy 
bills by the year 2030.
  Let's look at some of the savings. What are we going to get if we put 
in a national renewable electricity standard of the kind I have talked 
about, which is up to 25 percent, and the kind that Senator Bingaman 
and I have sponsored here today at 15 percent by 2020? We will get 
355,000 new jobs, nearly twice as many as generating electricity from 
fossil fuels; economic development, $72.6 billion in new capital 
investment; $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural 
landowners; $5 billion in new local tax revenues; consumer savings of 
$49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills; a healthier 
environment with reductions in global warming, as I discussed, equal to 
taking nearly 71 million cars off the road; less air pollution, less 
damage to land, and better use of our water.
  I have seen it firsthand in my State, in southwestern Minnesota, 
where there are wind turbines coming up everywhere. They have even 
opened a bed and breakfast near Pipestone, MN, because they are so 
excited about these wind turbines. If you were looking for a romantic 
weekend and time away from your State of Rhode Island, you could 
actually go down there and stay overnight and wake up in the morning 
and look at a wind turbine. That is the package.
  But the point is this: The people in that area are so excited about 
the development and the potential manufacturing that is going on, that 
they want people to come and see it. We also have individual homeowners 
and school districts that are trying to figure out how they can put a 
wind turbine up so they can bring that kind of homegrown renewable 
energy into their places of business and into their homes.
  A strong renewable energy standard is going to save us money, and it 
is going to cause this kind of investment. It is going to open the door 
to a new electricity industry that will bring thousands of jobs and 
billions of dollars into our economy.
  Over the last 20 years, America's renewable energy industry, and the 
wind industry in particular, has achieved significant technological 
advancements. The industries for solar and wind and biomass are 
expanding at rates exceeding 30 percent annually. Now, some of this is 
because the States--and I will talk about this in a minute--have shown 
foresight and have been ahead of the game, but we need to do more. The 
question is: Does the United States want to be a leader in creating new 
green technologies in the new green industries of the future, or are we 
going to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by?
  Tom Friedman, who actually comes from Minnesota, wrote a cover story 
for the New York Times Magazine about a month ago about the power of 
green. He talked about a new green deal--not like the old New Deal; not 
necessarily the kind of money we are talking about there, but that the 
Government's role should be to set those standards and industry will 
meet them. The Government's role should be to seed new research and to 
promote green technology and direct us that way; otherwise, if we don't 
do that, if we don't have the kind of 15 percent standard we are 
talking about on a national level, I can tell you what is going to 
happen because we are already seeing it happen. We no longer are the 
world leader in two important clean energy fields. We rank third in 
wind power production behind Denmark and Spain. We are third in 
photovoltaic power installed behind Germany and Japan. Ironically, 
these countries have surpassed us using our own technology. They used 
the technology we developed in our country. We came up with the right 
ideas, but we didn't capitalize on the innovations with adequate 
policies to spur deployment. The Federal Government, in fact, has been 
complacent. They have been watching the opportunities go by.
  Now, this is not so of the States. I know Senator Salazar borrowed my 
chart about an hour ago, but I like this chart because it shows the 
progress that is going on across the country. You can see it is not 
limited to one area. It is not limited. We have heard about what 
California has done and how aggressive they are. I am always telling 
the Senators from California it is great what you have done, but it is 
important to talk about what is going on in the rest of the country.
  You look at what is happening in my own State of Minnesota: 27.4 
percent mandated renewable standards by 2025. We have what is happening 
in New Hampshire: A 23.8 standard by 2025. We have Maine, which 
actually has a standard and goal, as opposed to a standard, of 30 
percent by 2000; Virginia, 12 percent by 2022; We have New Jersey, 
which has been a leader in this area, at 22.5 percent by 2020. If you 
go

[[Page 15604]]

all the way out to Montana, you see a 15-percent standard by 2015; if 
you go up to Washington, 15 percent by 2020. If these courageous States 
are willing to do this with no direction from the Federal Government, I 
think it is time for us to act.
  It was Louis Brandeis, the judge, who once in one of his opinions 
wrote about how the States are the laboratories of democracy. That is 
what you see going on here. The States are the laboratories of 
democracy, and you talk about how one courageous State can make a 
decision to set policy and can be used as a laboratory for the rest of 
the country. I don't think he ever meant, when he wrote that opinion, 
that that should mean inaction by the Federal Government. In fact, it 
should be the opposite. The States experiment, the States show, such as 
our State has, you can put high standards in place, you can start 
developing these industries, and it is a good thing.
  It revitalizes our rural economy. It is cleaner for our environment. 
It allows us to invest in new jobs. Now it is time--we have seen the 
story across the country--for the Federal Government to act.
  What I want to see when we vote on Senator Bingaman's amendment is a 
bipartisan effort, bipartisan support for this kind of amendment.
  Let me tell you what happened in our State. In February, the 
Minnesota Legislature--it is a Democratic State senate, Republican 
statehouse--passed nearly unanimously this 2025 standard. In fact, for 
Xcel Energy, our biggest energy company, it is 30 percent. They passed 
that nearly unanimously, a Democratic house, a Democratic senate, with 
a number of Republicans, a majority voting for it, and then they sent 
it to a Republican Governor, and that Republican Governor signed it 
into law. It is considered the Nation's most aggressive standard for 
promoting renewable energy in electricity production. I think 
Minnesota's aggressive standard is a good example, but I also think the 
bipartisan way in which it was set should be a model for Federal 
action.
  The courage we are seeing in States such as my own should be matched 
by the courage in Washington. We should be prepared to act on a 
national level, especially when the States and local communities are 
showing us the way.
  There is now an opportunity for the Federal Government to act, and 
this Energy bill has many good things in it. I love the standards for 
appliances, the standards for buildings. I like to call it ``building a 
fridge to the 21st century.'' But I also would like to see some even 
bolder action. That bolder action comes in many forms, but one that is 
most important to me is putting this renewable standard into law.
  We have everything we need. We just need to act. We have the 
scientific know-how in this country. In my State, we are so proud of 
the work that is going on at the University of Minnesota and the State 
colleges across the State. It is going on everywhere.
  We have the fields to grow the energy that will keep our Nation 
moving, and we have the wind to propel our economy forward. The wind is 
at our back, and it is time for us to move. It is time to act. The only 
thing that is holding us back is complacency.
  In my office in the lobby, I have a picture. It is a picture of 
someone holding a world in their hands. The words on it read: The angel 
shrugged, and she placed the world in the palm of our hand. She said if 
we fail this time, it is a failure of imagination.
  We in the Senate in the next 2 weeks have the opportunity to show 
this country and the world that we have the imagination for a better 
world and we have the imagination that we can start having our energy 
and our electricity produced by the wind and the sun, that we have the 
imagination that we can have a better environment.
  This is the time to act, and I urge my colleagues to support the 15-
percent standard for renewable energy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to hear 
the comments of my friend and colleague from Minnesota. She speaks of 
wind in her State. It is fair to say that in certain parts of my fair 
State of Alaska, we, too, have incredible winds that sometimes we feel 
could power the entire Nation with the amount of wind energy we have. 
In fact, sometimes the winds are too strong and we cannot keep wind 
generation units up because the force of the winds is that intense. But 
I do recognize that all States are not created equal in terms of their 
ability to produce forms of renewable energy, such as wind.
  I am a very strong supporter of renewable energy, really all forms of 
renewable energy. Whether it is geothermal, ocean energy, wind, solar, 
biofuels, all aspects of renewable are so important. I want to explain 
this afternoon why I am supporting the clean portfolio standard over 
the renewable portfolio standard and actually think that the clean 
standard is the best for the environment and for the public.
  Both of these proposals will encourage States to promote the most 
forms possible of renewable energies, whether they be solar, wind, 
geothermal, ocean, biomass. All are covered equally under both of the 
proposals.
  For my purposes and where I am really honing in is in the area of 
hydropower, and this is one key area where the different proposals part 
company.
  Under the renewable portfolio standard, new hydropower does not count 
toward meeting the production mandate, only incremental power. The 
addition of turbines to existing facilities can count.
  Under the clean portfolio standard, new hydropower, not the power 
from dams that span the rivers, but all other forms of new hydropower, 
such as power from small hydro projects and from lake taps, can count 
toward that renewable requirement. That is a very important difference.
  In my State of Alaska, we tap the mountain lakes, those that have few 
fish. There is a hole that is literally drilled in the bottom. It runs 
the water into turbines, and this produces the power. About 40 percent 
of the power in urban Alaska comes from projects such as these. They 
have zero environmental impact. They do not affect the stream flows. 
They do not affect the fish runs.
  So I have to look at the two different proposals and ask: How are we 
treating hydro? How are we treating runs of the rivers, the lake taps? 
How is that included in the proposals? I believe ignoring the potential 
for hydropower where it can be done without emissions and without any 
other environmental impact is a mistake and a needless mistake.
  The clean portfolio standard also allows utilities to count not just 
the incremental nuclear power and the power from the next generation of 
nuclear, but it also allows you to count the power saved by energy 
efficiency programs. This is an area we all want to encourage. We want 
to encourage energy conservation and efficiency programs. This, I think 
we will all agree, is a justifiable addition to the bill.
  Some will argue that the amendment waters down Congress's commitment 
to push renewable energy. I am just not buying into that argument. That 
is not the case. By increasing the standard to 20 percent from the 15 
percent starting in the year 2020, we have offset any reduction in 
effort, but we have made the provisions more fair to all the States. As 
I mentioned, all States are not equal in their ability to produce 
renewable energy.
  All State utilities can sponsor energy efficiency legislation. Most 
States are able to move toward nuclear power. Most States have some 
access to hydropower. Most States can benefit from landfill gases or 
from some forms of biomass. And all States can utilize fuel cells to 
reach a clean energy standard. But not all States have consistent wind 
patterns, have cloudless energy potential or good geothermal or ocean 
options.
  I look at the State of Alaska, with our geography and with our 
considerable landmass, considerable coastline, and say we are blessed 
with incredible resources when it comes to renewable resources. We have 
incredible geothermal potential. We have strings of volcanoes up the 
Aleutian chain and even in our south central area. With a

[[Page 15605]]

coastline the size we have in Alaska, we have potential from ocean 
energy that is unequaled anywhere else in the United States. We have, 
as I mentioned, incredible wind potential, and we are seeing that 
particularly in our coastal communities where we are able to put wind-
generating units, offsetting the cost of diesel, which is what 
currently powers far too many of our communities in the State of 
Alaska.
  My point is, we are blessed in Alaska with renewable energy options. 
Those in perhaps the southeastern part of the United States have 
already pointed out some of the very real concerns they have with a 
renewable standard. In the Pacific Northwest, if we are not counting 
any new hydro development, it makes one wonder: How will they be able 
to achieve the standards that have been set forth in a renewable 
portfolio standard if we cannot count the hydro?
  I am concerned that we will move toward a one-size-fits-all solution. 
It is something we are wise to avoid; otherwise, we have electricity 
consumers in many of the States that will be better off by not having a 
Federal mandate at all but continuing under this patchwork arrangement 
of State renewable portfolio standards that are already being 
formulated. For them, it may be better to stick with that patchwork 
program than a Federal approach.
  I have heard from the American Wind Power Association that the 
provision in this amendment that allows the Secretary to certify other 
clean energy sources to qualify in the future somehow creates a 
loophole that will harm renewable energy progress. But given the 
standards that are contained in the amendment, I don't believe this is 
a problem. All the provision does is allow new technology to be 
classified as renewable to benefit from the incentives this provision 
creates without waiting for Congress to act, which we all know can be a 
very lengthy process and one we really don't even want to count how 
long that can be.
  As a strong supporter of renewables and a really strong supporter of 
wind energy, I am a huge proponent of wind energy. I am the sponsor in 
this bill of a grant program to have the Federal Government help pay up 
to 50 percent of the cost of renewable projects to help get the 
renewables over the hump of the higher construction costs. I want to 
work to encourage a rapid expansion of renewables. We need to increase 
renewable use in this country tenfold. We are currently at 2 percent. 
We need to get to 20 percent, and this is what is called for in the 
clean portfolio standard. But I think we need to be careful about 
narrowing the list of technologies so that we in the Government, we in 
the Congress are not picking the winners and losers; that we allow wind 
to compete with ocean energy, with geothermal energy; that we allow 
hydropower to compete with the advantages of energy efficiency 
programs.
  We have to remember that if the Federal Government does not 
generously finance renewable power projects, consumers will be paying 
the bills for their construction through higher power rates. We have a 
fine line to walk between promoting renewables and raising the cost of 
electricity in some parts of this country too quickly and too high. 
That program, if you will, will harm low-income families and the 
competitiveness of the economy.
  So while both proposals are admirable in very many respects--and I 
commend the chairman of the Energy Committee for his hard work in this 
area--I do believe the clean portfolio standard overall does a better 
job and is more fair to States that have different abilities to meet 
our renewable portfolio standard.
  I urge my colleagues to study this, study it very carefully, and have 
an open mind when they cast their vote on these provisions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have made it a practice for the last--I 
don't know how long it has been now, 12-plus years in the Senate--that 
any time I see a major tax increase coming along, at least I want to 
voice opposition, to get on record against it. That is what we are 
talking about right now with the renewable portfolio standard that is 
before us.
  I support development of renewable energy resources, as do the 
citizens of my State of Oklahoma. In fact, in 2006, Oklahoma was ranked 
sixth in the Nation for wind energy capacity, surpassed only by Texas, 
Minnesota, Iowa, California, and Washington State. Those are real 
turbines lighting over 150,000 homes in Oklahoma without an RPS.
  Let me emphasize, Oklahomans are developing wind energy without a 
one-size-fits-all Federal mandate known as an RPS, renewable portfolio 
standard.
  Quite a number of years ago I spent a number of years as mayor of a 
major American city. Its problems were not the ones you would think, 
not crime in the streets, not prostitution. It was Federal mandates 
that were not funded. This is exactly what we are looking at here.
  Under this amendment, Oklahomans would pay an additional $6 billion 
for their electricity. You might ask where would that money go? It 
would go to perhaps the Federal Government to spend as it pleases, or 
it would go to other States that are lucky enough to have the 
particular energy sources that environmental groups decide today they 
want.
  How does this promote clean energy in Oklahoma? It does not. The 
amendment cherry-picks technologies that have to be blessed by 
environmental groups but ignores the real clean energy benefits of 
nuclear power, hydro power, clean coal, and energy efficiency.
  A kilowatt saved is a kilowatt earned. You can't get cleaner than 
energy efficiency, but it doesn't comply with the amendment.
  The RPS amendment is nothing more than a tax increase. It is a tax on 
States that lack enough natural resources to meet the 15-percent 
mandate. It is a tax on States that do not harness the particular 
renewable technologies enshrined in this amendment, and it is a tax on 
States that do not happen to have electricity transmission lines 
located where the renewable resources are. The States, I believe, know 
best on how to promote and manage the renewable resources unique to 
their States without another Federal mandate.
  We had this discussion this morning when I had my refinery amendment 
up. I said there is this mentality in Washington that no decision is a 
good decision unless that decision is made in Washington, DC. I think 
that is what we are looking at here. This is an issue that should be 
left to the States, not enacted in an RPS. The decision should not be 
preempted, especially not when the cost is $6 billion.
  I know a lot of people are thinking, in terms of the things we talk 
about here in Washington, DC, $6 billion is not an astronomical amount. 
But take a State with a population of the State of Oklahoma. A $6 
billion tax increase is huge, particularly when you do not get anything 
for it.
  I hope we will oppose the amendment of Senator Bingaman on renewable 
portfolio standards.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Bingaman 
amendment relating to the renewable portfolio mandate. The Bingaman 
amendment would impose a 15-percent portfolio requirement for a limited 
number of so-called renewables by 2030. I oppose this amendment as I 
have opposed such proposals in the past because it is an egregious 
example of Federal command and control of the marketplace.
  Renewables have been and will continue to be an important part of our 
energy mix. Hydropower, solar, geothermal, wind, municipal solid waste 
all make substantial contributions to our energy needs. These and the 
other power types--nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas--succeed in the 
market because they are cost-effective, not because the Federal 
Government has required them to be bought.

[[Page 15606]]

  Congress has long supported renewable energy. That is one thing--
Federal mandates are another. Fundamentally, I oppose Federal command 
and control of the marketplace. I have no doubt that any requirement 
that a particular percentage of electricity generation by renewables 
can be met. During World War II, through a tremendous expenditure of 
money and effort, we developed nuclear weapons when no one thought it 
was possible. During the sixties, no one thought it was possible to 
send a man to the Moon, but we did. A renewable portfolio mandate of 
any percent, be it 15 percent as proposed here or even 50 percent, is 
achievable--whether it be through actual generation of energy or 
through the purchase of credits from the Federal Government. But at 
what cost? What cost in terms of electricity rates to be paid by 
American consumers, estimated at over $100 billion by 2030, at what 
cost in terms of stifling technological advancement into other 
alternative sources of energy? Over the past 20 years, renewable 
technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, not because we ordered 
industry to generate more renewable power but because we gave 
incentives to generate new renewables. The Bingaman approach turns that 
on its head. Under the Bingaman amendment, renewable producers will 
gravitate to low cost, existing renewable sources. They will have no 
incentive to innovate and bring their costs down. The power generated 
will be sold almost regardless of cost.
  The Bingaman amendment is nothing more than the Government deciding 
which type of energy is politically in favor and which type is 
politically out of favor. Right now, the wind industry is the big 
political winner. It is lower in cost than most renewables, currently 
gobbles up 95 percent of available tax credit, and has the largest 
lobby for the Bingaman amendment.
  Wind-generated power has significant environmental problems we need 
to address. First, wind turbines take up lots of space to generate any 
significant amount of energy, making them poor for urban environments 
and problematic for landscape viewsheds, especially near our Nation's 
national parks. They are also dangerous for wildlife. The National 
Academy of Sciences stated in a report released this year that bats are 
at considerable risk in the Southwestern United States and elsewhere, 
where reliance on wind power has been growing. The wind-power turbines 
generate sounds and, possibly, electromagnetic fields that lure the 
acoustically sensitive creatures into the spinning blades. In addition, 
local bird populations are also at risk. NAS also stated that local 
bird populations, especially peregrine falcons and other raptors that 
are attracted to windy areas where the generators are likely to exist, 
are at risk and called for additional study. Raptors ``are lower in 
abundance than many other bird species, have symbolic and emotional 
value to many Americans, and are protected by federal and state laws.'' 
Besides these environmental impacts that must be looked at, the fact 
is, wind just doesn't blow enough in most parts of the country for this 
to be a viable source of energy for utilities across the country to 
rely on.
  I believe the kind of energy utilities use to generate electricity 
should be based on the free market and consumer choice. If consumers 
want to buy the kind of renewable energy mandated by the Bingaman 
amendment, they are free to do so. Likewise, if they want to spend 
their money on something else, they should be free to do that too. 
Consumers are better able to decide what is in their own interest than 
government. Why should a family of four struggling to meet its monthly 
bills, to educate the kids, or help elderly parents be required--due to 
Federal political correctness--to purchase high-priced energy instead 
of meeting family obligations?
  Over 20 States have already adopted their own renewable standards, 
including my home State of Arizona. They each did so, presumably, 
because those States decided it was in their citizens' best interests. 
I have long believed that decisions affecting people's lives and 
livelihoods should be made at levels of government that are closest to 
the people, not by bureaucrats in Washington.
  Let's look at the problems with a Federal renewable portfolio 
mandate. First, as I said before, it picks certain politically favored 
renewable energy types for special treatment, ignoring what States have 
already decided to do on their own. The supporters of the amendment 
will tell you that is not the case and that State programs can 
continue, but that is only true if the State picked the same favorites 
this amendment does. For instance, what about Pennsylvania? 
Pennsylvania took a look at its energy availability and determined that 
coal to liquids made sense given its vast coal reserves. So coal to 
liquids counts toward meeting its State RPS. Under the Bingaman 
amendment, Pennsylvania would not be able to count this source toward 
the Federal mandate, in effect gutting its State RPS program and 
increasing the costs to consumers.
  This example brings me to a basic problem with a Federal renewable 
mandate. Some regions of the country are blessed with abundant 
renewable resources, while others are not. The renewable mandate will 
create stupendous transfers of wealth from renewable-poor States to 
renewable-rich States. This means that consumers in New York City will 
send their hard-earned dollars to wind generators in Minnesota. Think 
about it. Consumers in New York City will pay for renewable electricity 
they don't even get. That is not fair. If the purpose of the renewable 
mandate is to lessen our dependence on foreign energy, there are better 
ways: nuclear power, clean coal, and oil and gas from regions of the 
United States that have been put off limits.
  Let's face it, we have to have reliable sources of energy to meet the 
ever increasing consumer demand for electricity. However, the primary 
sources of energy that will be necessary to meet this mandate, wind and 
solar, are intermittent sources. What happens when the wind doesn't 
blow or the Sun doesn't shine? As we learned in economics 101, there is 
no such thing as a free lunch; consumers will pay. They will pay for 
the renewable energy and they will pay for the backup capacity that 
will come from what we know are reliable sources of energy--nuclear, 
coal and natural gas--to keep the lights on.
  Mr. President, let me return to my fundamental concern about the 
renewable mandate. The Bingaman amendment gives the Federal Government 
the power to micromanage the marketplace with a one-size-fits-all 
mandate; I want States to determine the best mix to meet their energy 
needs and allow the free market to work. Thus, I will vote no on the 
Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the renewable 
portfolio standard offered by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. The 
phrase ``renewable portfolio standard'' is a question most of us would 
fail on the final exam. What does it mean? To try to put it in the most 
simple terms, what we are trying to achieve here is the generation of 
electricity through means which meet the needs of our families, our 
businesses, and our economy, but create fewer environmental problems. 
That is it--renewable fuel. By doing this, we are going to end up with 
an environment which is kinder and cleaner for future generations.
  Let's be very honest about this. Some of the people who oppose this 
renewable portfolio standard do not believe we have an environmental 
problem. They do not believe global warming exists. They do not believe 
climate change is an issue. They do not believe pollution is a problem. 
They can't understand why we are trying to change the way we generate 
electricity. If that is your point of view, I can understand why you 
would oppose the amendment of Senator Bingaman, because it seems like 
much ado about nothing. Why would we be spending all this time, all 
this effort, all this debate, and all this force in changing the way we 
generate electricity if everything is fine the way it is?
  I am not one of those persons. I believe we do face some serious 
environmental challenges in the world today

[[Page 15607]]

which, if they go unresolved and unanswered, will change the Earth on 
which we live. In fact, I think the process is underway. I do not think 
it is positive. I think the evidence is abundant that as we become more 
industrial in the world we live in, we have generated more smoke, more 
pollution, more greenhouse gases, and it is changing the world in which 
we live.
  Some people will say that is what we expect to hear from the 
environmentalists, those extremists, those tree huggers. They have been 
singing this song ever since Earth Day was first created. But you know 
what is happening? There are some hard-headed businessmen coming to the 
same conclusion. When I visit a major insurance company in my home 
State of Illinois which has announced it is no longer going to write 
property insurance on Gulf Coast States for fear of the violent storms 
that are causing damage, it tells me this has gone beyond the musings 
of some people in the green movement. It now has become an economic 
reality, that the world is changing and in some respects not for the 
better.
  If we know that to be true, the obvious question is what will we do 
about it? Listen to the debate on the floor, Senator after Senator 
coming in saying this is too complicated. This is the big hand of 
Government. It sounds like more taxes. It is going to force some 
change, pick winners and losers, let's put this off to another day. 
Let's get back to this next year or the year after.
  I have heard that song before, over and over again. I do not believe 
the American people sent us to Washington to put off addressing the 
problems which we face in this Nation and this world today. We have to 
tackle them. Some of them are controversial. Some of them may not be 
popular back home. But we are sent here to make a decision. Even if the 
decision is uncomfortable for some, we have to understand it is 
important.
  This renewable portfolio standard--a mouthful, if you will--requires 
retail electric utilities to include 15 percent renewable energy in 
their generation portfolios by the year 2020. We give a lot of 
flexibility to the utilities about how to reach this goal. They can 
generate this renewable electricity themselves--build wind farms or 
solar facilities. Some people say maybe these wind farms won't work. I 
did not know much about wind farms myself. What I read suggested my 
home State of Illinois was just OK when it came to wind energy. But now 
as I move around my State, I see big changes. In the Bloomington-Normal 
area, central Illinois, the Twin Groves project, they are in the 
process of building 240 wind turbines, huge turbines.
  Sadly, they are made in Europe. I hope the day comes soon when more 
are made in the United States. But they are coming here to generate, 
with the wind blowing across the cornfields, electricity. It is a $700 
million investment. It will generate enough electricity from these wind 
turbines spread out among the cornfields to take care of the needs of 
120,000 families in central Illinois. At the end of the day, there will 
not be pollution added to the atmosphere. It will be natural wind power 
turning the turbines, generating the electricity for the families and 
businesses in that area. That is renewable electricity.
  When it comes to solar power, I guess some people think that is a 
vestige of some musings back in the 1950s and 1960s, but it is not. 
Solar energy today is growing in its usage. You see it all over the 
United States, little solar panels that are now collecting enough 
energy to do little jobs. Then you take a look at the world scene and 
look at a country such as Germany, not a country you might single out 
as being a leader when it comes to solar energy. As a country, I doubt 
it has much more sunshine than parts of the United States. But 20 years 
ago the Germans made a commitment to solar energy and now that 
commitment is paying off. By guaranteeing return on investment, more 
and more solar panels are being installed and they are generating more 
electrical power from the force and power of the Sun. We can do the 
same.
  How do you reach that goal, for more solar panels? You create 
incentives. How do you create these incentives? The Bingaman amendment. 
The Bingaman amendment says if you are an electrical power generating 
company, we want 15 percent of the power you generate by the year 2020 
to come from sources such as wind and solar panels.
  What is that going to do? It is going to change the nature of the 
solar power industry. There will be more companies, there will be more 
compensation, there will be more research, there will be more 
efficiency. When it is done, we will end up with the electricity we 
need to lead the good lives we have without creating a mess in this 
atmosphere that changes the climate and creates pollution, creates 
problems such as asthma and lung disease. We will be moving in the 
right direction instead of the wrong direction.
  There will always be voices opposing this kind of change. It is too 
much for some people. It is a vision of the world they cannot imagine. 
It is addressing a problem which many of them do not even acknowledge 
and that is why you run into resistance.
  Some say it is a great idea, but America is not up to this challenge; 
we can't generate the technology to meet this challenge. Come on. I 
disagree. There has not been a time in our history when this Nation has 
been challenged to achieve anything, from a man on the Moon to taming 
the atom, that we have not risen to the challenge. We can do it here 
and we must do it here. I believe in the creative genius of this 
American system of government and this economy.
  If you believe in it, a 15-percent renewable portfolio standard is 
not a leap of faith. Of course, if the electric utilities do not have 
their own generating capacity through solar panels or wind power or 
other sources, they have an option under this to purchase credits from 
other utilities that do.
  This is a market-based mechanism that Senator Bingaman's amendment 
addresses. It will drive competition into the renewable market without 
picking winners. It is basically going to say: We have some goals we 
have to meet; now who can do those best? Using the Energy Information 
Administration's data, a national 15-percent renewable portfolio 
standard would save American consumers $16 billion on their electric 
and natural gas bills by the year 2030; commercial customers would save 
$8 billion; industrial, $5 billion; residential, $3.3 billion.
  A renewable portfolio standard will create jobs and income in rural 
areas. I know this for a fact; that is where I come from. I come from 
downstate Illinois, I have seen these wind farms, and they work. Each 
large-scale wind turbine that goes on line generates $1.5 million in 
economic activity and provides about $5,000 in lease payments per year 
for 20 years or more to a farmer, rancher, or landowner.
  If you drive south of Rockford, IL, and go through a little town 
called Paw Paw, IL, that really was kind of disappearing on us, with a 
little cafe or two and a little gas station, all of a sudden people are 
paying attention. Why? Because they have about 20 wind turbines right 
next to Paw Paw, IL.
  I stopped my car and went over to the farmer who lives in the shadow 
of these wind turbines. This man had a smile from ear to ear. He is 
getting a monthly lease payment for them to put the wind turbines on 
his property, and he has planted corn right next to these wind 
turbines. He is getting the best of both worlds--the lease payment and 
the production from his own land. He couldn't be prouder.
  How did they end up putting those wind turbines in that tiny town? I 
can tell you why they put them there. Because the mayor of the city of 
Chicago, about 50 to 60 miles away, said to the utility company, the 
electric company supplying electricity to the city government, that 
they required--the city contract required a percentage of renewable 
sources of electricity. So this electric power company decided they 
needed to build some wind turbines. They built them, put them in Paw 
Paw, IL. They are now feeding electricity into the grid instead of 
burning coal or some other pollutant. They are

[[Page 15608]]

trying to find a way to generate electricity and not make the 
environmental situation worse. It works. It is in smalltown America. It 
is in rural America, and it pays off.
  We have over 100 megawatts of wind energy in Illinois already. A 
conservative estimate shows these turbines generate enough electricity 
currently to power 22,500 homes; another 300 megawatts under 
construction, and that would generate another 1,200 megawatts of 
electricity. If all of those projects are completed, Illinois will be 
generating enough electricity to power over 370,000 homes from this 
wind energy.
  Now, with a 15-percent renewable portfolio standard, America would 
increase its total homegrown, clean, renewable power capacity 4\1/2\ 
times the present level. Senator Bingaman's amendment gives us 13 years 
to reach that goal. It is not unrealistic. In fact, I think one might 
argue we can do better. I hope we will.
  Some States have already adopted standards far higher than what 
Senator Bingaman is suggesting as a national standard. With the 
abundance of renewable energy resources--the sun, the wind, the Earth 
itself--the technical potential of major renewable technologies could 
actually provide more than five times the electricity America needs.
  There are limits of how much this potential can be used because of 
competing land uses and costs, but there is more than enough to supply 
15 percent, maybe even 20 percent.
  Twenty-one States and the District of Colombia have already 
established a renewable electricity standard. Illinois, for instance, 
has a goal of 8 percent by 2013; New York, 24 percent by 2013; 
Colorado, 16 percent by 2020.
  By diversifying and decentralizing our energy infrastructure, 
increased reliance on renewables provides environmental, fuel 
diversity, national security, and economic development benefits for 
everybody. Increasing renewable energy will reduce the risks to the 
economy posed by an overreliance on a single source of new power 
supply.
  Additionally, the 15-percent national standard will reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions by nearly 200 million metric tons per year by 2020--a 
reduction of 7 percent below the business-as-usual level. That is the 
equivalent--the Bingaman amendment is the equivalent of taking 32 
million cars off the road.
  Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration study found that a 
20-percent renewable energy standard would reduce the cost to consumers 
of meeting four pollutant reductions from powerplants by $4.5 billion 
in 2010 and $31 billion in 2020, compared to meeting the emission 
reductions without a renewable standard.
  I support this amendment. I believe that diversifying our electricity 
portfolio and encouraging the development of clean, renewable resources 
provides economic and environmental benefits to our country.
  I would say to those who are engaged in this debate: Do not bemoan 
global warming, do not cry about climate change, do not say you really 
are concerned about pollution if you cannot accept the challenge of the 
Bingaman amendment. In the next 13 years, we can meet this goal. It is 
a challenge to America which we can meet and exceed. I am confident we 
will. In the process, we will find cleaner ways to generate 
electricity. We will create less pollution for the people who live in 
this country. We will end up with new technologies, new business 
opportunities that demonstrate the strength of this great country in 
which we live. We can meet this goal. We should not shrink away from 
it.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership in bringing 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know how much longer we are 
going to be here this evening. I have not been able to confer with 
Senator Bingaman on the timing. But I do not think we are going to be 
here very late. I am not sure--I mean, I am sure we are not going to 
vote on either amendment this evening. Nonetheless, there are a couple 
of Senators--at least one standing there--who have not talked today and 
who want to.
  I am going talk for a little bit. First, I want to say to everybody--
including the previous immediate speaker who spoke about what kind of 
people we are who think we have something better than Senator 
Bingaman--I want to say that there is no animus between Senator 
Bingaman and Pete Domenici. We are friends, and it is almost difficult 
when people are saying: You do so many things together; how can you 
come up on opposite sides of this? Well, I just studied it as best I 
could, and I came up with what I thought was a better idea. We have to 
do that. That is what we are elected for. New Mexicans ought to be 
wondering what is cooking, but they also ought to know that he has an 
idea and I have a different idea built on it, and that is all there is 
to it. One or the other or neither will get adopted, and we will have a 
good exchange here on the floor to see what is really happening.
  I do want to say that anybody who comes to the floor and talks about 
how much richer we are going to get by having a plan like Senator 
Bingaman's, the mandate for each State--I have not seen any estimate of 
the cost to the people of either Senator Bingaman's approach or mine. I 
have seen one of Senator Bingaman's plans--two of them, and none of 
them say you are going to make money; both of them say it is going to 
cost a lot of money to the taxpayers. One says a lot more than the 
other. So I guess they really don't know. EIA recently studied the 15-
percent RPS mandate and found that it would cost $21 billion. But there 
was another one that was already done before that by Global Energy 
Decisions, and they said the cumulative cost to consumers would 
represent $175 billion over the 20-year life. But in both cases, they 
said it was going to cost money.
  So I don't think anybody is going to get all excited about a 
statement down here on the floor that, among the many things, having a 
mandate that every State be the same, have 15 percent, nobody is going 
to get excited and stand up and jump here on the floor of the Senate 
with the idea that this is a good way for each State to make money. It 
is going to cost them money. It may be a great idea, and it may be 
worth it.
  But I am here tonight to suggest--and I also want to say that the 
last speaker on the Democratic side, the Senator from Illinois, spoke 
also about some of us as if we do not believe in wind energy. Well, let 
me say, there are not too many Senators who came to the party here in 
Washington in helping wind energy. There are not too many who helped 
them more or came to help them sooner than this Senator. The Senate and 
the House have been helping solar energy to a fare-thee-well. We will 
continue to do that. But I can say to the wind industry that I have 
helped you all the way through, and now I note that you are out 
campaigning as hard as you can for this Bingaman proposal, this 
proposal by Senator Bingaman, this mandate. When you look at it and 
think about it, it is a mandate that we use more and more wind energy. 
That is what it is.
  Now, I am not at all sure we are right in assuming that across this 
land the fundamental way to get things going right is for every State 
to march to the tune of getting to 15 percent of solar energy in their 
base. I am not sure that is the best thing for the United States. I 
think maybe when it was dreamt up, nobody thought there were any other 
alternatives. But there are, and certainly we are making a mistake in 
saying it is going to be the language of the Bingaman bill or nothing 
else when we already see that means wind for the next 20 years or more.
  What I tried to say in mine was maybe there is something good about 
pushing States to change. But I provided alternatives for 
diversification.
  I say to my friend from Montana, I do not know where you stand on a 
nuclear powerplant. If you have never had one in your State, you are 
not going to get one because they are building them right where they 
were. So States that had them are going to get nuclear powerplants 
within the next 10 years,

[[Page 15609]]

many of them right where the existing powerplants are. All the Senator 
from New Mexico, the senior Senator, said was that if that is done 
during the lifetime of this program and you put in a new nuclear 
powerplant, you ought to get credit for that. And the only way I could 
think of was to call my portfolio the clean energy portfolio. That is 
what is it. And when you look at it that way--and I added to the 
availability of what is allowed, I added nuclear and I added some other 
things that I truly believe we should pursue with vigor, and I raised 
the ceiling to 20 instead of 15. Now, when you look at it, you get a 
chance of one or the other.
  The distinguished Senator, my colleague from New Mexico, thought it 
was kind of unexpected that this bill had an opt-out and seemed to make 
of it as if that was something very bad. Look, we are open and sincere 
about our bill having an opt-out. When a State meets the goal, we see 
no reason for them to stay in. We think they ought to be able to get 
out. There is nothing that is naturally ideological or philosophical 
about it; it just seems there is no reason to keep them in. We have 
seen no good suggested from keeping them in, and so we think when they 
get through and meet their goal, they ought to be able, if they want 
to, to get out. If, in fact, they are already tied together because of 
electric lines and the like, they will not destroy all of that. There 
will still be relationships of those types which were built, and the 
ones that are needed will stay on. They will be there for a long time.
  Let me say in closing that one from the other side of the aisle need 
not talk about those on this side of the aisle, including this Senator, 
as if we don't understand what wind energy is and we don't have enough 
dreams about solar energy. We understand both of them. We have funded 
both of them. We have put the identical tax benefit on both, the same 
as we have put on everything else.
  Last year when we did them all, we gave them all a 27.5-percent tax 
credit, from nuclear power all the way down to solar, bio, and 
everything else. They all got the same. We had already begun funding 
wind power. Again, I say to the nuclear industry, but for the Congress 
of the United States, the truth is, there would be no wind industry, 
because without the tax credits we gave to make wind energy work, there 
would be no wind energy except in a few places. I am not saying that in 
any way negative. I am for it. I don't know how many more years we will 
have to give them this tax credit to push them over the hump, but I am 
going to do that because I believe they ought to move ahead. We are 
learning both sides of the wind energy delivery system. We are 
beginning to see some negative aspects to it. It was all positive at 
one time. Some people are reporting negative ones. Out in the country 
where we used to raise cattle, certainly anybody who leases their land 
is delighted. They make a lot more money out of wind turbines than they 
do trying to graze cattle. There is no doubt about that. Some of those 
cattlemen are extremely happy because they don't look like the old 
windmills. They are much different. But they pay well, so they are 
glad. They joined up with wind energy, those who are lobbying for them. 
They got all the property owners who are getting paid. They joined 
them. That is good. I don't know who is lobbying for the rest of the 
kinds of energy we want to put in so we have diversity.
  All this is is a vote to distinguish the two. If you want diversity 
of clean energy, vote for Domenici. If you want to be tied rigidly by a 
Federal statute to what is almost all wind, vote for Bingaman. If you 
want to vote for letting those who have already met their goal opt out 
if they want, vote for Domenici. If you want to say they have to stay 
in, somebody ought to tell us all why and how long they should stay in, 
but if they are going to have to stay in and be rigidly construed as to 
what counts, then obviously, you have to vote for the Bingaman 
amendment.
  We will have more discussion because everybody is getting well 
informed and asking questions. I don't know what is going to happen 
immediately after this. I assume the distinguished Senator from Montana 
will speak. He was next. I will be leaving and apologize in advance 
that I would not get to hear his speech about this bill. Maybe someday 
we can meet back up there in Montana on the campaign trail and he can 
talk about Montana and I can talk about I don't know what. He can tell 
me what to talk about. But it is good to be here with him on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind words. I 
appreciate that. I look forward to having him in ``big sky'' country 
anytime he wants.
  I rise in strong support of the Bingaman amendment. Change is 
difficult, if you are young, if you are old, and oftentimes change is 
difficult in politics. But what we are talking about is a national 
energy policy, a long-term national energy policy that people and 
investors and consumers can depend upon. Within this national energy 
policy, there is an amendment called the Bingaman amendment that deals 
with the renewable energy standard.
  Interestingly enough, back in 2005, in a former life when I was in 
the Montana Senate, I carried a bill for a renewable energy standard in 
Montana that increased the renewable energy portfolio by 15 percent by 
2015. Let me tell you what happened there. The important parts of this 
bill were 8 percent by 2008 renewable energy in the portfolio, 10 
percent by 2010, and 15 percent by 2015. That was the bill that we 
carried in the Montana legislature. What happened was, the first year 
they met the 8 percent. They will meet the 10 percent by next year, 2 
years ahead of schedule. It is predicted by 2011, the independent-owned 
utilities will meet the 15-percent threshold, 4 years early.
  The fact is, this amendment is not cutting edge. This amendment is 
what is right for the country, renewable energy. Everybody talks about 
wind. Wind is an important part of renewable energy. But geothermal is 
also another one. We haven't even tapped into the geothermal resources 
we have, and they are massive. That is a renewable energy. Biomass, 
small bore timber, wood waste products, crop byproducts to help power 
generators, that is renewable energy. Landfill gas is another one we 
haven't tapped into, a renewable energy. Electricity created by solar, 
by the Sun, is a renewable energy. Biofuels such as camelina, such as 
biodiesel, powering generators, that is renewable energy.
  Make no mistake about it, when we talk about renewable energy, it is 
not just wind--although wind is an important factor--it is many 
different avenues we can go down that suit some parts of the country 
better than others. By the way, back in 2005, when we were dead last in 
wind energy production, that little renewable portfolio standard bill 
we passed took Montana from 50th to 15th in the Nation in renewable 
energy production. We see transmission lines being built in the State, 
something that wasn't done before. We saw a whole lot of wind 
generators go up in rural Montana, where jobs are most needed, where 
economic development is most needed, where we develop a tax base for 
our schools and counties in those areas that have seen depopulation, 
giving these areas hope.
  What we are talking about is a long-term policy that will invest in 
America's consumers and this country. In the process, it will result in 
a 50-percent increase in wind generation, a 300-percent increase in 
biomass generation, a 500-percent increase in solar power, and it will 
reduce emissions by some 222 million tons per year by 2030. It is 
cheap. It is clean. It is a solution for the climate change issue. It 
diversifies our production as far as where the energy is produced. It 
diversifies the energy portfolio which is critically important.
  If the Members of this body want to help move this country forward, 
help make this country energy independent and address the global 
warming issue, I recommend a ``yes'' vote on the Bingaman amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page 15610]]


  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield to the Senator from Iowa for whatever time he 
wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Alternative Minimum Tax

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again, as a leader of our party on 
the Finance Committee, I come to the floor to discuss one of the 
important tax issues that must come before Congress. That is the 
alternative minimum tax. I am sure many have noticed that the 
alternative minimum tax is frequently the subject of my many speeches. 
They may be wondering how long I intend to keep talking about it. The 
simple answer is I intend to keep talking about it--meaning the 
alternative minimum tax--until this Congress actually takes some 
action. Instead of taking action, this Congress has done absolutely 
nothing. The problem continues to get worse for millions of Americans 
who will be caught by the alternative minimum tax and are now being 
caught. It is this ``now being caught'' that I wish to emphasize, 
because when I speak about those now being caught by this alternative 
minimum tax, I am referring to those families who make estimated tax 
payments and who will be making their second payment for this quarter 
this Friday.
  Last year, 2006, 4 million families were hit by the alternative 
minimum tax. This was 4 million too many. Of course, it is considerably 
better than what we know for the year we are in right now, when 23 
million Americans, mostly middle class, will be hit by the alternative 
minimum tax. The reason we are experiencing this large increase this 
year is that in each of the last 6 years, Congress has passed 
legislation that temporarily increased the amount of income exempt from 
the alternative minimum tax. These temporary exemption increases have 
prevented millions of middle-class Americans from falling prey to the 
alternative minimum tax until now. While I have always fought for these 
temporary exemptions, I believe the alternative minimum tax ought to be 
permanently repealed because it was never meant to hit the middle 
class--and it is hitting the middle class--and because the class of 
people it was intended to hit, the superwealthy, are finding ways of 
getting around what was thought to be a bright-light idea in 1969. It 
is hitting maybe a few hundred people, finding that superrich class not 
even paying the tax. So it isn't serving the purpose it was intended to 
serve, and it will hit middle-class Americans who were never intended 
to be hit by it by 23 million this year.
  One reason I have previously given for permanent repeal is it may be 
difficult for Congress to revisit the alternative minimum tax on a 
temporary basis every year, as we have for each of the last 6 years. 
From January 1 of this year until now, when the second quarterly 
payment is going to be made, proves me right, because nothing has been 
done. So the new Congress has yet to undertake any meaningful action on 
the alternative minimum tax. Several proposals have been tossed around 
by the other body, meaning the House of Representatives. I have 
discussed a few of them in my earlier speeches. I generally find these 
proposals lacking but completely agree with my colleagues that 
something needs to be done, at least I seem to agree. Despite 
assurances that the alternative minimum relief is an important issue, 
nothing has actually been put forward as a serious legislative 
solution.
  This chart I am going to put up reflects how the alternative minimum 
tax has been handled by this Congress so far. It is kind of a smoke-
and-mirrors example that I use because we have had numerous proposals 
talked about, but that is all, just talk. An academic discussion is not 
in any way a serious substitute for real action this Congress ought to 
take, as tomorrow people making their quarterly payments will attest 
to.
  I have also come to realize the best way to learn about new proposals 
that deal with the alternative minimum tax is not to check for the new 
legislation in the Congressional Record but to check the daily 
newspaper. In the course of reading the Washington Post last Friday, I 
came across another trial balloon--I emphasize ``trial balloon''--for a 
new idea about the alternative minimum tax that was printed in the 
business section of the newspaper. A lot of people were out of town on 
Friday, so I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled 
``Democrats Seek Formula to Blunt Alternative Minimum Tax'' be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 8, 2007]

 Democrats Seek Formula To Blunt AMT; One Plan Would Impose Surtax of 
                       4.3% on Richest Households

                          (By Lori Montgomery)

       House Democrats looking to spare millions of middle-class 
     families from the expensive bite of the alternative minimum 
     tax are considering adding a surcharge of 4 percent or more 
     to the tax bills of the nation's wealthiest households.
       Under one version of the proposal, about 1 million families 
     would be hit with a 4.3 percent surtax on income over 
     $500,000, which would raise enough money to permit Congress 
     to abolish the alternative minimum tax for millions of 
     households earning less than $250,000 a year, according to 
     Democratic aides and others familiar with the plan.
       Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the House 
     subcommittee with primary responsibility for the AMT, said 
     that option would also lower AMT bills for families making 
     $250,000 to $500,000. And it would pay for reductions under 
     the regular income tax for married couples, children and the 
     working poor.
       All told, the proposal would lower taxes for as many as 90 
     million households, and Neal said it has broad support among 
     House leaders and Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and 
     Means Committee. ``Everybody's on board,'' he said.
       Neal has yet to release details of the plan, however, and 
     others inside and outside the committee say major pieces of 
     it are still in flux. Some Democrats say Neal's plan 
     stretches the definition of the middle class too far, 
     providing AMT relief to too many wealthy households. They 
     argue that the cutoff for families to be spared from the AMT 
     should be lower, at $200,000, $150,000 or even $75,000.
       ``There is consensus to make sure that we have some 
     responsible tax policy that will also treat taxpayers fairly. 
     No one ever expected to be caught in the AMT making 75 
     grand,'' said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a Ways and 
     Means Committee member whose Los Angeles district is 
     populated by working poor. ``We're trying to come up with a 
     fix that does right by the great majority of Americans who 
     fall into the middle class.''
       The debate has focused attention on a different surtax 
     proposed by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the 
     Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. That plan 
     would eliminate the AMT and replace it with a 4 percent 
     surcharge on income over $200,000 for families and $100,000 
     for singles, cutting taxes for 22 million households and 
     raising them for more than 3 million.
       ``Our plan is as simple as can be. And only 2 percent of 
     the whole population would have to pay it,'' said Leonard E. 
     Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center. The plan has the 
     added benefit of abolishing the complicated AMT at all income 
     levels, Burman said, an approach some lawmakers find 
     attractive.
       On the other hand, fewer families' taxes would be cut, 
     diminishing the ability of Democrats to capitalize on the 
     plan politically. Since they took control of Congress in 
     January, Democrats have made repealing or scaling back the 
     AMT a top priority in hope of establishing tax-cutting 
     credentials and seizing the issue from Republicans for the 
     2008 campaign.
       The alternative minimum tax is a parallel tax structure 
     created in 1969 to nab 155 super-rich tax filers who had been 
     able to wipe out their tax bills using loopholes and 
     deductions. Under AMT rules, taxpayers must calculate their 
     taxes twice--once using normal deductions and tax rates and 
     once using special AMT deductions and rates--and pay the 
     higher figure.
       Because the AMT was not indexed for inflation, its reach 
     has expanded annually, delivering a significant tax increase 
     this spring to an estimated 4 million households. The AMT 
     would have spread even more rapidly after President Bush's 
     tax cuts reduced taxpayers' normal bills, but Congress 
     enacted yearly ``patches'' to restrain its growth. The most 
     recent patch expired in December, and unless Congress acts, 
     the tax is projected to strike more than 23 million 
     households next spring, many of them earning as little as 
     $50,000 a year.
       House Democrats want legislation to spare those households 
     while also lowering the bills of many current AMT payers. But 
     they face numerous obstacles. In the Senate, Finance 
     Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) favors AMT repeal but 
     considers it too ambitious for this year. Baucus has said 
     another year-long patch is more likely.

[[Page 15611]]

       In the House, some Democrats argue that more time is needed 
     to explain the issue to the public. The vast majority of 
     households have yet to pay the AMT and may not fully 
     appreciate the value of eliminating the tax, while the 
     wealthy are sure to feel the bite of a new surtax.
       ``I don't think there's enough of an understanding right 
     now that you've got this tidal tax wave about to hit 
     everybody,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a Ways and 
     Means Committee member who is also chairman of the Democratic 
     Congressional Campaign Committee. ``From a political 
     perspective, we need to lay the groundwork.''
       Before the Memorial Day break, Ways and Means Committee 
     Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said he hoped to announce 
     an AMT proposal as soon as Congress returned to Washington. 
     But his timetable has slipped to late June, Democratic aides 
     said, with the issue set to go before the full House sometime 
     in July.
       Republicans generally oppose new taxes on the wealthy, 
     saying they disproportionately affect small businesses, but 
     are waiting to hear more before deciding whether to work with 
     Democrats or offer their own plan to abolish the AMT.
       ``House Democrats are going to have to find their sea legs 
     on this issue fast,'' said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), the 
     senior Republican on the Ways and Means tax subcommittee. 
     ``Folks seem to be launching a lot of trial balloons, and 
     it's all very festive. But I don't have enough really to 
     react to yet.''

  Mr. GRASSLEY. The concept underlying the alternative minimum tax 
fixes highlighted in this article in the Washington Post is that the 
alternative minimum tax could be abolished for families and individuals 
making less than a given amount, and that the resulting revenue loss 
would then be offset by a surtax--I want to emphasize: creating a new 
tax, a surtax--on what the article refers to as our ``nation's 
wealthiest households.''
  Now, when they use the term the ``nation's wealthiest households,'' 
remember that was the whole concept of the alternative minimum tax in 
the first place, in 1969, to tax a few thousand people with this tax, 
and now they are not even being hit by it.
  I will bet you, you could have this surtax, and you are still going 
to find people who can hire the best lawyers to avoid paying that tax. 
When I say ``avoid paying that tax,'' I mean avoid paying that tax in a 
legal way, not in a way that is extralegal.
  There are two basic proposals that have been laid out in that 
Washington Post article. One of them, put forward by a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee of the other body, would use a 4.3 percent 
surtax on income over $500,000 to offset the elimination of the 
alternative minimum tax for people earning less than $250,000 a year.
  Now, it is estimated in the article that the surtax of 4.3 percent 
would affect about 1 million families. It is also suggested the 
alternative minimum tax bills would be decreased for families earning 
between $250,000 and $500,000 yearly as part of this option. Now, I am 
not sure how individuals would be treated in this plan.
  Interestingly, immediately after the insistence that this option 
enjoys a great deal of support, the article notes that details of the 
plan have yet to be released. In the tax world, the devil, of course, 
is in the details. So I am curious as to exactly what it is that is 
enjoying this broad political support.
  I will note that Ways and Means members have now denounced--now 
denounced--this label they have applied to this 4.3 percent tax. They 
have denied the ``surtax'' label.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to prove what I said, that 
an article from Tax Notes Today be printed in the Record. That is a 
publication dated June 13, 2007.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From Tax Analysts, Tax Notes Today, June 13, 2007]

       Ways and Means Democrats Take Offense to Notion of Surtax

       Both House Ways and Means Committee Chair Charles B. 
     Rangel, D-N.Y., and committee member Richard E. Neal, D-Mass. 
     have said that while their plan to reform the alternative 
     minimum tax will likely be paid for by increasing taxes on 
     the wealthiest taxpayers, claims that they plan to create a 
     ``surtax'' on the rich are unfounded.
       ``We have not agreed to any surtax,'' Rangel told reporters 
     June 12. ``But that might be another way to say that we're 
     going to adjust the rates to make up for what we don't raise 
     in terms of all the loopholes and knocking out credits and 
     looking for this $340 billion [in the tax gap].''
       Neal also objected to the notion of a surtax in comments to 
     Tax Analysts on June 11, although he did not completely rule 
     out the possibility of using the proposal when his plan is 
     finally introduced.
       ``Obviously we're going to ask 1 million people to help pay 
     for tax relief for 92 million people,'' Neal said.
       The idea of a surtax to pay for the Democrats' AMT reform 
     proposal was first proposed in a May 23 Urban-Brookings Tax 
     Policy Center paper in which Len Burman and Greg Leiserson 
     argued that the AMT should be repealed and replaced with a 
     surtax of 4 percent on adjusted gross incomes above $100,000 
     for singles and above $200,000 for married couples. That 
     change would lead to a more progressive tax system and would 
     be approximately revenue neutral over 10 years, they said. 
     (For the paper, see Doc 2007-12677 or 2007 TNT 102-36.)
       Although the details of the Democratic AMT plan have not 
     been released, subsequent media reports have claimed that 
     Ways and Means Democrats plan to employ a surtax in their 
     effort to comply with House ``pay as you go'' budget rules.
       House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged 
     that the idea of a surtax is under consideration by the Ways 
     and Means leaders, but said he was unwilling to ``prejudge'' 
     whether Democrats in the chamber would ultimately support 
     that proposal. He added that pay-go rules will require 
     lawmakers to make difficult choices when it comes to 
     offsetting the costs of any AMT reform legislation.
       ``What we want to do is fix the AMT permanently and fix it 
     in a way that does not add to the deficit,'' Hoyer said. ``We 
     adopted pay-go. We believe in pay-go.''
       Rangel and Neal have also repeatedly said that they are 
     committed to complying with pay-go rules, and Rangel said all 
     revenue-raising options are on the table.
       ``There's nothing we're not considering in terms of raising 
     revenue to take care of the AMT and expand the child 
     credits,'' said Rangel.
       Rangel's committee is expected to mark up its AMT reform 
     legislation in July, with House floor consideration likely to 
     come the same month. The committee's AMT plan is expected to 
     exempt from the AMT taxpayers earning less than $250,000. 
     Those earning above $500,000 would see an increase in their 
     AMT liability, while taxpayers earning between $250,000 and 
     $500,000 would see a reduced AMT liability. Several other 
     proposals to benefit lower-income taxpayers--including 
     expansion of the earned income and child tax credits--are 
     also expected to be part of that proposal.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Now, the other plan comes from our friends at the Tax 
Policy Center. In a similar plan to the one I just discussed, a 4-
percent surtax would be charged to individuals with adjusted gross 
incomes above $100,000 and couples with incomes above $200,000. The 
surtax would apply to income above those thresholds, and the thresholds 
would be indexed for inflation after the year 2007. Under this option, 
the alternative minimum tax would be completely repealed.
  To give an idea of how many people would be hit by this surtax, 
according to IRS statistics of income, in the year 2004--the latest 
year we have information available for--there were 1,427,197 returns 
filed by singles reporting adjusted gross incomes of at least $100,000. 
In the same year, married persons filing jointly numbered 2,569,288 
returns reporting adjusted gross incomes above $200,000.
  Mr. President, 2004 is the most recent year we have for this data. I 
realize the proposal hits singles with incomes greater then $100,000 
and my numbers would include someone with an income exactly at that 
amount, but we can see the Tax Policy Center's plan would impact 
roughly 4 million singles and joint filers. It would likely impact more 
than that, since my numbers do not include heads of households or other 
categories, but you get the idea, I hope, that a lot of people would 
still be impacted.
  Now, as I said before, I am glad people are thinking about the 
alternative minimum tax and realize it is a very real problem out there 
and, specifically, this year, for 23 million middle-income-tax people 
who would not otherwise be hit. But as I have discussed more and more 
of these proposals with you, I have started to see them--as my chart 
indicates--as more smoke and mirrors than actual, real legislative 
proposals.
  For one thing, legislation is not introduced in a newspaper--even 
from the prestigious Washington Post. I

[[Page 15612]]

keep hearing about proposal after proposal, but nothing is actually 
done. Everyone seems to agree something needs to be done and needs to 
be done quickly, but the discussion does not go further from that 
point.
  I spoke about the alternative minimum tax at the beginning of this 
Congress, in January and when the first quarterly payment was due. I am 
here now that the second quarterly payment is due. I bet I will be here 
when the third quarterly payment comes due, saying largely the same 
thing I am saying right now.
  Aside from the fact that Congress does not seem to be under any 
pressure to actually take action, all of the proposals I have discussed 
here share the same major flaw in that they seek to offset any revenues 
not collected through reform or repeal of the alternative minimum tax. 
Notice I said ``not collected.'' And I did not use the word ``lost.'' 
This distinction is important for the simple reason that the revenues 
we do not collect as a result of alternative minimum tax relief are not 
lost because the alternative minimum tax collects revenues that were 
never supposed to be collected in the first place.
  Let me emphasize that. We cannot talk about lost revenue because we 
are talking about 23 million people being hit by the alternative 
minimum tax who were never supposed to be hit by the tax in the first 
place. The alternative minimum tax collects revenues it was never 
supposed to collect in the first place. Originally conceived as a 
mechanism to ensure high-income taxpayers were not able to completely 
eliminate their tax liability, the alternative minimum tax has failed.
  In 2004, IRS Commissioner Everson told the Finance Committee the same 
percentage of taxpayers continues to pay no Federal income tax. So the 
alternative minimum tax is not even working for those who were supposed 
to pay it. This was originally created in that first year with just 155 
taxpayers in mind. Of the two plans I discussed earlier, the one that 
would impact the lower number of filers would still hit about 1 million 
families. See how 155 has grown to 1 million families?
  Finally, if we offset revenues not collected as a result of 
alternative minimum tax repeal or reform, total Federal revenues are 
projected to push through the 30-year historical average and then keep 
going.
  This chart I have in the Chamber, which is reproduced from the 
nonpartisan--I want to emphasize ``nonpartisan''--Congressional Budget 
Office's publication called ``The Long-Term Budget Outlook,'' issued in 
December 2005, illustrates--as you can see by the red mark--the 
ballooning of Federal revenues.
  The alternative minimum tax is a completely failed policy that is 
projected to bring in future revenues it was never designed to 
collect--and 23 million people being hit this year by it. A large share 
of that 23 million people being hit by it now in the second quarterly 
estimate they are filing is absolute proof of people being hurt by a 
tax that was never supposed to hit them in the first place.
  Of course, the best solution to this mess would be S. 55, and that is 
called the Individual Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal Act of 2007. It is 
a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Baucus, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, and this Senator, along with Senators Crapo, Kyl, 
and Schumer. Senators Lautenberg, Roberts, and Smith have also later 
signed on as cosponsors.
  While permanent repeal without offsetting is the best option, we 
absolutely must do something to protect taxpayers immediately, even if 
it involves a temporary solution such as an increase in the exemption 
amount. Of course, if we do not do that, we are going to be in the same 
fix next year, and I will be making the same points at that particular 
time.
  This Friday, taxpayers making quarterly payments are going to once 
again discover the alternative minimum tax is neither the subject of an 
academic seminar nor a future problem we can put off dealing with. It 
is the real world for those taxpayers filing Friday. They are being hit 
by it. The alternative minimum tax is a real problem right now, and if 
this Congress is serious about tax fairness, we need to stand up and 
take action on the alternative minimum tax.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak briefly. I know my 
colleague, Senator Sanders, is in the Chamber and wishes to speak. I 
will not delay him long.
  Let me make three brief points with regard to Senator Domenici's 
second-degree amendment. What that amendment does is it does three 
things to the renewable portfolio standard I have sent to the desk.
  First of all, it starts out by saying: Since it is a requirement that 
you produce a certain percent of the power you are selling from 
renewable sources, let's take the base amount of power you are selling 
and redefine it so it is smaller. It does that by saying: OK, if you 
are selling any power you produce from nuclear sources, that does not 
count in the base. So that automatically eliminates 20 percent of the 
electricity being sold in this country today.
  It says: OK, that way, you can suggest to people we have a 20-percent 
goal here--whereas the one I have sent to the desk is only 15 percent. 
But you do not need to be a mathematician to realize that after you 
take the 20 percent out, and you take 20 percent of 80 percent, then 
you are getting down to 16 percent. So, essentially, there is some 
smoke and mirrors going on there.
  Second, they say: OK, let's redefine how you can meet that 
requirement, that 16 percent requirement, which is what it, in fact, 
is. They say: You can meet it by using any of the renewable sources the 
Bingaman amendment allows for; and that is, biomass, solar, wind, 
geothermal, tidal energy. Those are all options. In addition, if you 
want to build another nuclear plant, that counts. If you want to 
improve energy efficiency, that counts. If you want to adopt some 
demand response programs to reduce demand, that counts against your 
requirement. If you want to use the capture and storage technology, 
that counts. The Secretary is given authority to identify other things 
that could count, too, which are unspecified in the bill.
  So, essentially, what you wind up--and then the final thing it does 
with our amendment is it says: If you are a State that has some kind of 
program, and you think it is pursuing the same--I will read the exact 
language. It says:

       If the governor of a State submits to the Secretary a 
     notification that the State has in effect and is enforcing a 
     State portfolio standard that substantially contributes to 
     the overall goals of the Federal clean portfolio standard 
     under this section, then the State may elect not to 
     participate in the Federal program.

  So, essentially, it is an invitation to States to adopt something and 
then opt out, which I think undermines what we are trying to 
accomplish.
  Essentially, the way I read the amendment by my colleague, his 
second-degree amendment would basically say: Let's put together this 
complicated trading system to keep track of what utilities are doing, 
but, in fact, it is designed essentially to mirror what they are 
already planning to do at any rate. It doesn't require them to do 
anything different.
  The amendment I have sent to the desk does require them to do some 
things differently. They are going to have to actually start either 
producing energy from renewable sources, buying energy that has been 
produced from renewable sources by someone else, buying credits from 
someone else who has produced more renewable energy than they, in fact, 
needed, or pay a compliance fee to the Secretary of Energy. So we have 
some real teeth in our provision.
  Now, it is not as strong as some Senators would like. I know my 
colleague, who is about to speak, will speak to that issue, and I know 
Senator Kerry from Massachusetts feels very strongly that this is not a 
strong enough requirement that I have suggested. But I would suggest to 
anyone who is studying these issues, the proposal I have

[[Page 15613]]

made is a vastly stronger proposal than the one that my colleague, 
Senator Domenici, has proposed as an alternative.
  I urge my colleagues to study both amendments tonight and perhaps 
tomorrow we can get a vote on both amendments. Also, I know Senator 
Kerry would like an opportunity to propose that we have even a stronger 
standard. I think he should be given that opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three letters--one from 
Constellation Energy, one from a large group of environmental 
organizations, and then another one from a separate group of 
environmental organizations--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Constellation Energy,

                                     Baltimore, MD, June 13, 2007.
     Senator Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: Constellation Energy is a Fortune 
     200 competitive energy company based in Baltimore, Maryland. 
     We are the nation's leading supplier of competitive 
     electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and 
     one of the largest wholesales power sellers. We serve 
     approximately 57,000 megawatts of load on a daily basis, 
     which is equal to the amount of electricity consumed by the 
     State of California daily. Additionally, we are one of the 
     largest renewable energy credit suppliers in the northeast.
       We believe that it is time to enact a nationwide, market-
     based renewable portfolio standard and we support your 
     efforts to amend S. 1419, with your RPS amendment mandating a 
     15% standard by 2020. As you know, the State of Maryland also 
     has a renewable portfolio standard, which we supported. That 
     law also takes into account a market-based mechanism to 
     achieve its objectives. In addition to generating or 
     purchasing renewable energy in Maryland, electricity 
     providers have the option of complying with the standard by 
     making Alternative Compliance payments (ACP). The Maryland 
     law directs ACPs to be paid into the Maryland Renewable 
     Energy Fund, the purpose of which is, ``to encourage the 
     development of resources to generate renewable energy in the 
     State.'' The Maryland law goes on to say that, ``. . . the 
     Fund may be used only to make loans and grants to support the 
     creation of new . . . renewable sources in the State.''
       We are somewhat concerned that your amendment may create a 
     situation where electricity providers and, by proxy, our 
     customers, may end up paying duplicatively for a separate 
     federal and state program because of uncertainty regarding 
     your definition of, ``direct associations with the generation 
     or purchase of renewable energy''.
       We think this issue should be surmountable and would like 
     to work with you on this concern as your provision moves 
     through the legislative process.
       Finally, we appreciate your long standing support of 
     nuclear power and want to continue our efforts to bring the 
     next generation of nuclear power plants to this country.
           Sincerely,

                                                Paul J. Allen,

                         Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs,
     Constellation Energy Group.
                                  ____

                                                    June 13, 2007.

 Vote Yes on the Bingaman Renewable Portfolio Standard, Vote No on the 
                   Domenici Clean Portfolio Standard

       Dear Senator: On behalf of our members and supporters 
     nationwide, we urge you to support the amendment by Senator 
     Bingaman to create a national Renewable Portfolio Standard 
     (RPS) in energy security legislation now being considered on 
     the Senate floor. Adopting a RPS would enhance national 
     energy security by diversifying our sources of electricity 
     generation and would also have substantial environmental 
     benefits, such as reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
       We urge you to oppose the ``Clean Portfolio Standard'' 
     amendment by Senator Domenici that allows new hydropower to 
     qualify as new renewable energy under a RPS. Existing 
     hydropower generation comprises about 7% of the nation's net 
     electricity production. The RPS should be reserved for 
     emerging technologies that need help to enter the 
     marketplace. Hydropower, a mature technology that has not 
     advanced significantly since the 19th century. Allowing new 
     hydropower into a RPS would usher in a new era of dam 
     building, destroying our nation's last remaining free-flowing 
     rivers and encourage developers to retrofit existing dams, 
     many of which have significant environmental impacts or pose 
     a threat to public safety.
       While hydropower is an important source of energy, this 
     energy comes at a great cost to the health of our nation's 
     rivers and communities. Many hydropower plants pipe water 
     around entire sections of river leaving them dry, or worse, 
     constantly alternating between drought and floodlike 
     conditions. Hydropower turbines can chop fish into pieces, 
     and can even change the temperature and basic chemistry of 
     the water, harming fish and wildlife. Hydropower's impacts 
     have even caused the extinction of entire species.
       We urge you to support the Bingaman Renewable Portfolio 
     Standard and oppose the Domenici Clean Portfolio Standard.
           Sincerely,
       American River, American Whitewater, Appalachian Mountian 
     Club, California Outdoors, California Sportfishing Protection 
     Alliance, California Trout, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing 
     Coalition, Coastal Conservation League, Columbia Riverkeeper, 
     Connecticut River Watershed Council.
       Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Foothill 
     Conservancy, Foothills Water Network, Friends of Butte Creek, 
     Friends of Living Oregon Waters, Friends of the Crooked 
     River, Friends of the River, Georgia River Network, 
     Hydropower Reform Coalition, Idaho Rivers United.
       Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition, Missouri Coalition 
     for the Environment, New England FLOW, New York Rivers 
     United, Northwest Resource Information Center, Northwest 
     Sportfishing Industry Association, Oregon Wild, Republicans 
     for Environmental Protection, River Alliance of Wisconsin, 
     San Juan Citizens Alliance.
       Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, The Lands Council, Trout 
     Unlimited, Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Utah Rivers 
     Council, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Washington Kayak 
     Club, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Western Carolina 
     Paddler.
                                  ____

                                                    June 13, 2007.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, 
     we urge you to support the Renewable Electricity Standard 
     (RES) to be offered by Senator Bingaman.
       The Bingaman RES amendment would require utilities to 
     obtain at least 15 percent of their electricity from clean 
     renewable energy sources by 2020. A recent analysis by the 
     Union Concerned Scientists found that the Bingaman amendment 
     would save consumers $16.7 billion on their energy bills, 
     while reducing global warming emissions by the equivalent of 
     taking 41 million cars off the road. The standard will 
     diversify our energy supply with American-grown energy 
     resources create thousands of good new jobs, and generate 
     millions of dollars for farmers, ranchers, and local 
     communities.
       We urge you to oppose the Domenici amendment.
       The Domenici amendment would severely curtail our ability 
     to deploy clean renewable resources and stall investment in a 
     clean renewable future. Because it includes nonrenewables, 
     coupled with huge state and federal waivers, the Domenici 
     amendment would fail to guarantee any of the benefits for 
     consumers, large energy users, and farmers and ranchers 
     contained in the Bingaman amendment.
       For example, the Domenici amendment would:
       Waive requirements for state to participate in the program 
     if the governor found state programs to be ``substantially 
     contributing to the overall goal.'' This vague language could 
     stifle investment in renewables and cripple the federal 
     trading program that assures the lowest possible cost for 
     renewable energy.
       Weaken renewable requirements by including non-renewables 
     such as nuclear power. These provisions would subtract all 
     existing nuclear generation from the utilities renewables 
     requirement, give utilities credits for already-planned and 
     economic capacity upgrades, provide a windfall for the 
     poorest performing nuclear plants of the last 3 years, and 
     give credits for building new nuclear power plants that are 
     already heavily subsidized in the 2005 Energy bill. These 
     nuclear bailouts and subsidies would reduce the potential 
     contribution of new renewable energy from the Bingaman 
     proposal.
       Allow utilities to receive credits for ``an inherently low-
     emission technology that captures and stores carbon'' without 
     defining what that technology might be or assuring how much, 
     if any, of the carbon actually gets stored, or how permanent 
     such storage is.
       Allow DOE to designate ``other clean energy sources'' to 
     qualify for clean energy credits without any restrictions on 
     the Secretary.
       Undercuts the development of new renewables by including 
     all ``new'' hydropower. This would encourage new dam 
     construction irrespective of the potential for significant 
     environmental impacts these facilities can have. The Domenici 
     amendment would reverse the compromise language in the 
     Bingaman amendment that would permit ``incremental'' hydro 
     power that encourages new hydropower generation while 
     protecting natural resources.
       Includes electricity savings from energy efficiency and 
     demand-response programs, which will further erode the 
     national energy security, diversity, economic, and 
     environmental benefits of developing new renewable energy 
     sources. While we support a separate standard for energy 
     efficiency and demand-response, the Domenici amendment would 
     create a zero sum game between efficiency and renewable 
     energy by forcing them to compete under the same standard.
       Overall, the combined effects of allowing nuclear, 
     efficiency, demand-response, as well as new hydro, and other 
     non renewable clean energy sources to qualify for the 
     standard-

[[Page 15614]]

     without any restrictions--would greatly reduce, and 
     potentially eliminate, the development of new renewable 
     energy sources and the corresponding economic and 
     environmental benefits.
       We urge you to support the strong Bingaman RES amendment 
     and oppose weakening amendment such as the Domenici 
     amendment, as it would take us backwards, not forwards on 
     energy policy.
           Sincerely,
         EarthJustice, Environmental Law and Policy Center, 
           Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, National 
           Environmental Trust, Natural Resource Defense Council, 
           Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Union 
           of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research 
           Group, Western Organization of Resource Councils.

                          ____________________