[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15614-15617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Bingaman for his 
leadership efforts in addressing one of the major crises facing our 
country. I thank Senator Domenici as well.
  As Senator Bingaman just indicated, I would go further than he is 
going in his proposal. I think he has made an important step forward, 
but I think given the gravity of the situation we face, it is 
imperative for the future not only of our country but for the future of 
our planet that we seize this moment and we be bold and we be 
aggressive because if we are not, what the scientific community is 
telling us is that the results could be catastrophic.
  When thousands of scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change tell us with 100 percent certainty that global warming 
is real, and with 90 percent certainty that it is manmade, we should 
listen. When these scientists tell us that today, in terms of the 
melting of glaciers and permafrost, in terms of the increase in drought 
around the world, the increase of forest fires we are seeing in the 
United States, in terms of the loss of drinking water and farmland all 
over the world today, it would be absolutely irresponsible not only for 
us but for future generations if we did not stand up and say we are 
going to do everything we can to lower greenhouse gas emissions and 
reverse global warming.
  I have introduced legislation--which the Presiding Officer is one of 
the cosponsors of and was introduced with Senator Boxer--which, in 
fact, would lower greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent less than 
where they were in 1990. I think that is the type of aggressive effort 
that we need. If Senator Kerry offers his amendment to make sure 20 
percent of the electricity we produce in this country comes from 
renewables, I will strongly support that legislation. Fifteen percent, 
as Senator Bingaman has proposed, is a good step forward, but it does 
not go far enough.
  The bad news is that as a nation, we are lagging far behind the rest 
of the world, or many countries in the world, in going forward in terms 
of energy efficiency and sustainable energy. The bad news is that today 
in America, in terms of transportation, we are driving vehicles which, 
if you can believe it, get worse mileage per gallon than was the case 
20 years ago. Meanwhile, several weeks ago, I was in a car which was a 
retrofitted Toyota Prius which gets 150 miles per gallon. Yet, as a 
nation, on average we are driving vehicles which get worse mileage per 
gallon than we had 20 years ago.
  All over our country, we are lacking in public transportation. In 
Europe, in Japan, in China, their rail systems are far more 
sophisticated and advanced than we are. Our roadways, from Vermont to 
California, are clogged with cars, many of them getting poor mileage 
per gallon. Yet we are not investing and creating jobs in mass 
transportation. But it is not only transportation that we are lacking 
in, studies have indicated that if we make our own homes more energy 
efficient, we can save substantial amounts of energy.
  Some estimates are, if we do the right things, we could cut our 
energy expenditures by 40 percent--40 percent. Yet there are millions 
of homes in this country inhabited by lower income people who don't 
have the money to adequately insulate their homes, put in the kind of 
roofs they need, the kind of windows they need, and we are literally 
seeing energy go right out of the doors and the windows because we are 
not adequately funding weatherization. But it is not just lower income 
people. Many middle-class families are also in homes that are 
inadequately weatherized, inadequately insulated.
  One of the things I have long believed as I have studied this issue 
of global warming is that not only do we have the moral imperative to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly so that we can reverse 
global warming, but in that process we can seize this crisis, respond 
to this crisis, and create some very golden opportunities in terms of 
creating good-paying jobs. If you look at those areas in the world 
where they have moved most effectively in terms of reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions, such as Germany, many countries in Europe, and our own 
State of California, the result has been, yes, there has been economic 
dislocation, but at the end of the day, they have created a lot more 
jobs than they have lost.
  I have worked with groups such as the Apollo Project, which is a 
group that brings together labor organizations as well as 
environmentalists, that say: How do we move toward lowering greenhouse 
gas emissions and creating good-paying jobs? The opportunities are 
sitting right in front of us.
  Detroit has lost billions and billions of dollars year after year by 
building cars that many Americans no longer want. Maybe if we move 
toward energy-efficient cars, people might start buying those cars, and 
instead of laying off workers, maybe we can create more jobs. Think of 
the jobs we can create as we build a rail system that we are proud of. 
As cities like Chicago and New York and other cities rebuild their 
antiquated subway systems, we can create jobs doing that.
  We can create jobs all over this country in terms of energy 
efficiency. As we move toward biofuels, I can tell my colleagues that 
in my State of Vermont, our small family farmers are struggling very 
hard to stay on the land. There is a lot of evidence out there that we 
can create significant income for family-based agriculture as we move 
to biofuels, not only in Vermont but all over this country.
  The good news is there is a lot of good, new technology out there. 
That means we have the opportunity right now to build the cars of the 
future. I was in an electric car last month which now has a range of 
200 miles--200 miles in an electric car. That is far more than most 
people use in a day. There is potential there as well.
  If we look at what is going on in the world right now, the fastest 
growing source of new energy is wind. There is huge potential in terms 
of the growth of wind technology. One of the reasons I am supporting 
the strongest possible energy portfolio is that I want to see the wind 
technology exploding and growing all over this world. The more that is 
produced, the cheaper it will become. When I talk about wind, we are 
not just talking about large wind farms, as important as that is, as 
part of the energy mix. We are talking about small wind turbines which 
we believe in 5 or 6 years will be available for $10,000, $12,000, 
$14,000 that on average can provide half of the electric needs a rural 
house might need.
  Look at what is going on in California right now. I think we owe a 
lot to our largest State for leading us in a direction that the rest of 
our country might want to emulate. In California now what they are 
saying is that in 10 years they want, and have funded, the need for 1 
million photovoltaic units on rooftops throughout California--1 
million. In California, what they are saying is they can provide 
significant incentives to those people who want to install 
photovoltaics. There is huge potential in this country moving toward

[[Page 15615]]

solar energy. One of the issues that concerns me and saddens me is that 
the technology for solar energy, which was originally developed in the 
United States, has now moved abroad.
  Think of all of the jobs we can create if we as a nation had the goal 
of saying, in 10 years we will have 10 million rooftops in America 
using solar energy. Think how many jobs we can create by people 
installing those units. Think of the jobs we can create as American 
factories start producing those photovoltaic units--not in China, not 
in Japan, not in Germany, but producing them right here in the United 
States of America. But to do that, we are going to need the policies 
such as net metering, which says if I own a photovoltaic unit and I 
produce more than I am consuming, it goes back into the grid and I get 
paid for that, as they are doing right now in Germany.
  It means if I am a middle-income person who cannot afford the $30,000 
I need to install that photovoltaic unit, I am going to need some help, 
and it may be a lot more than the type of tax credits we are now 
providing. I think we could learn from California, which is encouraging 
people in a much more generous way than we are doing.
  It is quite similar for wind production as well; that is, the 
production tax credit should be significantly increased and the 
investor tax credit should be significantly increased as well.
  Some people might say: Well, Senator Sanders, this will cost a lot of 
money. They are right. It will cost a lot of money. But I would remind 
my colleagues that not too long ago on the floor of this Senate a 
significant number of Senators voted to repeal the estate tax 
completely--repeal the estate tax completely--which would cost our 
Government $1 trillion over a 20-year period. All of those tax breaks 
are going to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the 
population, the very wealthiest people in America.
  Well, if some of my friends think we have the resources to provide $1 
trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent, I 
would argue that we have the resources to incentivize the American 
people to purchase automobiles and other vehicles that get good mileage 
per gallon, incentivize and help people to put photovoltaic units on 
their rooftops, and incentivize and help people in rural America to 
purchase small wind turbines which could provide a substantial amount 
of electricity for their homes.
  So the good news is that today, unlike 20 or 30 years ago, what we 
can say in honesty is that the technologies now are available in terms 
of transportation and energy efficiency.
  Last month I talked to a major manufacturer of electric lights. What 
he told me is that in 4 or 5 years, there will be lights on the market, 
LED lights, which will last for 20 years when plugged in and consume 
about one-tenth of the electricity that is currently being consumed. 
Those are the kinds of breakthroughs we are making right now.
  What we have to do as a Senate right now is provide the incentives to 
the American people to go out and purchase the lightbulbs which today 
might cost, if it is even a compact fluorescent lightbulb, more than an 
incandescent lightbulb, but in the long run, you save money. But we 
have to help those who do not have the money to do that.
  An argument could be made that if the Federal Government helped every 
American purchase compact fluorescent lightbulbs and pay for those 
lightbulbs, we probably will save money in the long run without needing 
to build new powerplants, and certainly we would be making a major 
investment in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
  I conclude by saying that we would be absolutely irresponsible if we 
did not stand up to the big oil companies, the big coal companies, and 
all of those people who want us to continue to go along the same old 
path. We would be irresponsible because we would not be bringing about 
the changes we need to protect our kids and our grandchildren and, in 
fact, the very well-being of our planet.
  I hope that as this debate continues for the rest of this week and 
into next week, that what we understand is that there is an absolute 
moral imperative that we act as boldly as we can to lower greenhouse 
gas emissions, that we act as boldly as we can to break our dependency 
on fossil fuels, that we be prepared to be a leader in the world in 
terms of moving toward energy efficiency, and that we embrace the new 
technologies that are out there in terms of solar energy, wind energy, 
geothermal, and other energies.
  The more we invest, the more we produce, the more breakthroughs we 
will see. There are extraordinary opportunities out there, and if we do 
the right things, if we get our act together, 30 years from today the 
kind of energy system that exists in this country will look very 
different than the one that exists now. Not only will we be able to 
lower greenhouse gas emissions and reverse global warming, we are going 
to clean up the planet, which I think will go a long way to prevent 
many types of diseases that currently exist.
  Now is the time for boldness, now is the time for the United States 
not to continue being a laggard behind other countries on this issue 
but becoming a leader around the world. It is not good enough to 
criticize China and India. What we need to do is become a leader and 
reach out and help those countries move forward in combating global 
warming.
  This is the opportunity, and I think history will not look kindly 
upon us if we do not take advantage of this moment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I echo the words of the Senator from 
Vermont about the Energy bill being an opportunity for our country--an 
opportunity in terms of a better environment, global warming, to 
preserve our planet, an opportunity to stabilize energy costs, and an 
opportunity especially for good-paying jobs.
  I come from a State that has taken a real hit from the Bush economic 
policy. I come from a State that has taken a real hit from trade policy 
through the last two administrations, Democratic and Republican 
administrations.
  I look at what we are able to do with this Energy bill and better 
manufacturing policy.
  I start with a story. Oberlin College is a school halfway between 
Cleveland and Toledo, not far from where I live. It is the site of the 
largest freestanding building on any college campus in the country 
fully powered by solar energy. The problem is that all of the solar 
panels were imported from Germany and Japan because we simply do not 
make enough solar panels in this country to do what we ought to be 
doing. It is the same with wind turbines. Toledo is especially well 
known for research in wind turbines and wind power. Yet with the 
exception of a plant in Ashtabula that makes a small component for wind 
turbines, very little manufacturing is done in this country on that 
particular alternative energy.
  With the right kinds of incentives and with changing tax law, 
changing trade law in the Energy bill, Ohio, as the industrial Midwest, 
can play a major role in alternative energy.
  We have seen energy policy, tax policy, trade policy, and the failure 
to have a manufacturing policy cause significant job loss. My State has 
lost literally hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs since 
President Bush took office, in part because of the lack of a 
manufacturing policy and no leadership from the White House, in part 
because of trade policy, in part because of tax policy.
  For us, as we look to the future on trade agreements and trade 
policy, it is not good enough just to oppose bad trade agreements, it 
is not good enough to oppose the next round of NAFTA or CAFTA, it is 
not good enough to try to fix PNTR with China. We need a much more 
forward-looking manufacturing policy. That means expanding efforts on 
exports. It means expanding the Manufacturing Extension Program that 
Senator Kohl has worked on and I have worked on, and others. And it 
means a different regimented trade policy.
  The Bush administration has just announced with some Members of the

[[Page 15616]]

House of Representatives, some Members of my party, that they want to 
move forward on the Panama and Peru trade agreements. Those are two 
trade agreements where the administration finally has decided they 
support environmental and labor standards, but this is also an 
administration that has never pushed very hard for environmental and 
labor standards in our own country.
  I would look askance at the administration's promises without more 
proof of what, in fact, they are going to do on enforcement of labor 
and environmental standards. All one need do is look at the news 
stories that came out after the announcement from our U.S. Trade 
Ambassador Schwab and some House Democrats that there would be labor 
and environmental standards in the Panama and Peru trade agreements 
when soon after those news stories they said they may not be in the 
core trade agreements, that they may be in side deals, side agreements. 
We learned that lesson once with NAFTA where the labor standards and 
environmental standards were outside the agreement in a separate 
agreement, and that simply didn't matter. It didn't help that trade 
agreement work for American families in Steubenville or for workers in 
Toledo. It didn't work for communities in Finley and Lima and 
Mansfield.
  We also know, listening to the discussions after the Peru and Panama 
trade agreements were announced with the labor and environmental 
standards, some people do not seem so certain that they are going to 
work as hard on enforcing these labor standards and environmental 
standards as they might have initially promised. All we need to do is 
look at the Jordan trade agreement passed in 2000, a trade agreement in 
the House of Representatives I supported but a trade agreement that had 
labor and environmental standards. Soon after President Bush took 
office, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick sent a letter to the 
Jordanians with a wink and a nod saying that because of dispute 
resolution issues, he wasn't going to enforce those labor and 
environmental standards.
  If we are going to move forward on trade policy, it means stronger 
labor standards, stronger environmental standards, and stronger food 
safety standards. It means standards in the agreements, as part of the 
agreements. It means enforcing those agreements, and it means a 
manufacturing policy, the Manufacturing Extension Program, better 
assistance for small companies to export, better currency rules, 
particularly with China. It means benchmarks so that once these trade 
agreements pass, we can gauge whether the trade agreements helped our 
trade surplus deficit, our trade relations, and that there be 
benchmarks showing if there were job increases or job losses, did it 
mean a lower trade deficit or higher trade deficit, did it mean wages 
went up or wages went down for American workers. We need those 
benchmarks if we are going to pass trade agreements so we can look a 
year later and see if these trade agreements are working.
  I contend they certainly are not working. The year I ran for 
Congress, the same year the Presiding Officer was elected to Congress, 
in 1992, we had a trade deficit of $38 billion. In 2006, our trade 
deficit exceeded $800 billion. Our trade deficit with China bilaterally 
in 1992 was barely in the double digits. Today, our trade deficit with 
China is upward of $230 billion.
  President Bush 1 said $1 billion in trade deficit is equivalent to 
the result of about 13,000 fewer jobs, and if you just do the math and 
look at the trade deficit, multiplying times 20, from a factor of 20, 
the trade deficit is that much larger today than it was a decade and a 
half ago, you know it is costing us jobs. That is why a trade agreement 
with a tax policy, with a manufacturing policy that really does help 
American communities, that helps people in Toledo, Finley, Zanesville, 
Springfield, Miami Valley, and the Mahoney Valley in my State, will 
matter to help build a middle class.
  I am hopeful that as we do this Energy bill and the House and Senate 
move ahead on trade policy in the next year, that we can link these so 
that it really does help to create a middle class, strengthen the 
middle class in our country with better trade, tax, and manufacturing 
policies.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator 
Bingaman's renewable portfolio amendment which would require that 15 
percent of the Nation's electricity be generated from renewable sources 
by 2020.
  I have heard from my office some of the debate which has taken place 
today. I was surprised that some of my colleagues have characterized 
this amendment as some sort of Federal giveaway for the wind industry. 
The renewable portfolio standard will not just benefit the wind 
industry, of course, but it will also benefit the production of energy 
from solar, biomass, electricity from biogas, small hydro, geothermal, 
and ocean and tidal energy projects as well.
  This diverse set of energy sources will help protect us from the fuel 
price increases, such as those we have seen in natural gas recently. In 
turn, this reduction in demand for natural gas might even cause natural 
gas prices to fall, causing electricity prices to also fall.
  Another economic benefit of the renewable portfolio standard is that 
it would help these emerging technologies flourish in the United 
States. Right now there are renewable energy firms in Europe that are 
outpacing their U.S.-based competitors. But by driving up demand for 
renewable energy domestically, we will help develop these industries at 
home, creating jobs and allowing us to develop energy as a domestic 
economic engine. At the same time we are meeting our energy challenges, 
at the same time that we are meeting the economic imperative of our 
energy challenges, at the same time that we undermine foreign 
countries--for which we are giving our dollars abroad in terms of our 
addiction to those energy sources--we can also fuel a domestic economic 
engine by pursuing these sources.
  Of course, the most dramatic effect of the amendment will be its 
positive impact environmentally. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, it will reduce carbon emissions by 222 million tons per 
year by the year 2030, and other reports project reductions of as much 
as 10 percent per year from the electricity sector. This would be the 
equivalent of removing 71 million cars from the road. Think about it--
removing 71 million cars from the road.
  I also want to point out what this amendment will do for the solar 
energy industry. This amendment will provide triple renewable energy 
credits to solar energy. As a result, it has been estimated that this 
will result in a 500-percent increase in solar energy production.
  Solar needs to be a significant part of America's energy future. When 
you have a way to generate energy that produces no carbon emissions, 
has no moving parts, makes no noise, and results in no adverse wildlife 
impacts, that is something we as a nation need to be pursuing.
  My home State of New Jersey realized this a few years ago and set 
about enacting policies designed to spur the growth of its solar 
market. The results have been extremely successful. New Jersey has the 
second largest solar market in the entire Nation, from 6 installations 
to nearly 2,000 in just 5 years, over 7 megawatts of installed 
capacity, and tens of millions of kilowatt-hours produced each year. 
New Jersey, of course, is blessed with many things, but it is not 
blessed with more Sun than most of the rest of the Nation. The State 
simply recognized that by being visionary we could not only start 
generating large amounts of pollution-free energy in our own State, but 
we could also provide a kick-start to a whole new industry. That 
industry, of course, generates not only great energy, truly clean 
energy, truly renewable energy, but at the same time creates a very 
significant economic positive consequence as well.
  What New Jersey has done we must do as a nation. The renewable 
portfolio

[[Page 15617]]

standard amendment, along with the extension of solar tax credits, will 
help expand the use of solar energy, and, most importantly, lower the 
cost.
  I also want to urge my colleagues to oppose the Domenici amendment--
the amendment that Senator Domenici has offered to Senator Bingaman's 
renewable portfolio standard amendment. That amendment would stall the 
development of renewable energy and thereby undercut the entire point 
of this bill. There are some who don't want to challenge the industry. 
There are those who don't want to bring us to a higher standard. For 
them, the Domenici amendment to Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio 
standard is their out. That is their out.
  For those Members of the Senate who don't want to bring us to a 
higher challenge, who don't want to challenge the industry, who, in 
essence, are happy to support the status quo, the Domenici amendment is 
their solution.
  The Domenici amendment, however, has numerous problems. To begin 
with, the substitute would allow States to opt out of the standard for 
just about any reason--just about any reason. If a State can opt out, 
the renewable industries will be hesitant to adequately invest in these 
projects and, therefore, we won't move forward.
  The substitute will also weaken renewable requirements by including 
nonrenewables, such as nuclear power. This would divert money from 
renewables to an already well-subsidized energy source.
  The Domenici substitute would also allow the Department of Energy to 
designate ``other clean energy sources'' to qualify for clean energy 
credits without any restrictions on the Secretary--without any 
restrictions on the Secretary. Who knows what would be included under 
such a definition. This would leave discretion for the Secretary to 
include ``clean coal'' or any other source of energy one could put the 
word ``clean'' in front of.
  In addition, the Republican substitute would include energy 
inefficiency projects and demand-response programs. The more things we 
add to the standard, the less meaningful the standard becomes. We 
cannot pit efficiency against renewables. We need both efficiency and 
renewables to flourish in partnership and not compete for investment 
dollars.
  Once again, I praise Senator Bingaman, the chair of the Energy 
Committee, on which I have the privilege of sitting, for his amendment, 
for his vision, for bringing us and challenging us to a higher 
standard, one that the Nation clearly needs. It will be beneficial for 
our environment, it will boost our domestic economy, and it will 
reinforce the actions taken by 23 States that have already shown 
leadership by instituting renewable portfolio standards. If the States 
have already shown leadership in this regard, the Nation and the Senate 
need to show the same leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of that important amendment and 
against efforts to weaken this important provision. Those are, I hope, 
words that Members of the Senate will take to heart.

                          ____________________