[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16314-16332]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 60 minutes equally divided under the 
Bunning and Tester amendments.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1628

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Bunning, et al., 
fuel amendment No. 1628. Senator Hatch has asked to be listed as a 
cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, for too long America has ignored its 
energy security. Many of us can remember the energy crisis in the 
1970s. We were held ransom by a monopolistic oil cartel and forced to 
endure shortages, gas lines, and high prices. In the early 1980s, just 
as America began to invest in alternative fuels, the oil-producing 
states of the world crashed prices to make new technology 
uncompetitive. During most of the last 25 years, we have enjoyed low 
prices and plentiful supplies. But we have had to pay a price. Today, 
we find that America is addicted to oil.
  September 11, 2001, and the hurricanes in the gulf region have shown 
the fragile state of our energy markets. Domestic disasters and 
terrorism can send energy prices spiraling out of control. Our energy 
resources are stretched to the limit and small supply disruptions 
ripple throughout the entire economy. I believe all Americans, as they 
see continued instability in the Middle East, China, and India, and 
sustained gasoline prices around $3.50, $4 a gallon, can see an energy 
crisis on the horizon.
  As you can see from the chart I have here, our production of energy 
has almost stayed completely flat and will stay completely flat until 
about 2025, unless we do something about it. On the other side, our 
consumption continues to escalate. So the difference between the two is 
the crisis at which we are now looking.
  This year alone, we will send about $250 billion to foreign 
countries--mostly in the Middle East--to buy oil, adding to the $7 
trillion we have already spent in the last few decades. America has 
become complacent and overdependent on imported oil. No matter what 
energy prices are, we need to take responsibility for our reliance on 
imported energy and develop a secure, domestic fuel source.
  I believe part of that effort should be developing coal to liquid 
fuels. America happens to be blessed with significant coal reserves. 
Coal powers our homes and businesses. Fifty-two percent of our 
electricity is derived from coal. It has long been America's most 
abundant fuel resource and has driven our economic growth since the 
Industrial Revolution. Coal to liquid technology lets America 
capitalize on a domestic resource. Every dollar invested in coal to 
liquid production will stay in America, grow our economy, and create 
jobs. By displacing payments to foreign oil companies with domestic 
investment, we will actually increase the amount of funding available 
for other alternative fuels. It will lower energy prices for American 
families, improve the environment, create thousands of jobs, and bring 
billions of dollars in new investment to our local communities.
  Many of you may be asking one question right now: If this technology 
is so great and could replace expensive imports from the Middle East, 
why hasn't it been done already?
  The answer is simple: Costs and market uncertainty. A typical size 
coal to liquid plant costs between $3 billion and $5 billion to 
construct. With complicated plans and environmental permits, a new 
plant could take 5 to 8 years to build. This is a challenge for even 
the biggest risk takers on Wall Street. Raising the capital needed to 
develop a new technology is always difficult, but the multibillion 
dollar investment scale of a coal to liquid plant has made it nearly 
impossible.
  On top of this is the uncertainty of the price of oil. Yesterday, oil 
hit $69.09 cents a barrel--an all-time high. Soon we will be seeing $70 
prices on a barrel of oil. We have seen this dramatic rise in the last 
few years. But investors are concerned that oil prices could drop to 
the low levels of the 1980s and make coal to liquid plants 
uncompetitive again.
  But even if oil prices were to drop that low in the next few decades, 
I believe CTL would more than pay for itself by insulating us from 
supply shocks and providing a secure domestic fuel source for our 
military, businesses such as airlines and trucking, and the average 
American car.
  The challenge for America is to leverage the private investment 
required for these large, expensive plants. U.S. investors remember the 
last time synthetic fuels were promoted in the 1970s, and remember the 
losses they took as oil prices collapsed in the 1980s. The scale of 
investment, uncertainty of oil prices, and a complicated environmental 
permitting process have prevented the industry from taking root in the 
United States.
  We need to take aggressive steps now to ensure that America does not 
continue to face high heating and gasoline costs and rely so heavily on 
unstable and dangerous parts of the world for our energy. I believe the 
answer is to provide Government support to get coal to liquid 
technology off the ground. At least it is one of the things we must 
consider.
  With modest initial investments, we can kick-start the industry and 
then the Government will get out of the way and let the marketplace 
take over. I would rather the Government not have any involvement in 
coal to liquids, but this industry needs assistance because

[[Page 16315]]

of the threat of OPEC, oil tyrants like Hugo Chavez, and technology 
challenges.
  While these are legitimate challenges facing coal to liquid, another 
issue has become more and more prominent during this debate. In the 
last few weeks, the environmental rhetoric has been strongly against 
coal fuels. Unfortunately, too many people have repeated it without 
checking the facts. The picture opponents of coal paint is far from the 
truth about our fight for energy independence. It shows the same 
misinformed biases found in anti-coal advertisements and environmental 
newsletters.
  I want to tell you clearly and without reservation that coal to 
liquid fuel will be a clean part of our energy future.
  I want to show you another chart. While some may remember urban 
diesel pollution problems, coal to liquid will be significantly cleaner 
than existing fuels in terms of air pollutants such as sulfur, 
particulate matter, nitrogen, and aromatics. Air Force tests, 
laboratory tests, and environmental reports all show that coal to 
liquid fuels will reduce the air pollutants that pose a threat to human 
health.
  As you can see when you compare diesel and well-to-wheel urban 
emissions, compared to low-sulfur, petroleum-based diesels, you can see 
organic compounds, carbon monoxide, pollutants, particulate matter, and 
SOX, all decreasing in the coal to liquid area. But all of 
these improvements and the promise of energy security are wiped away by 
misleading claims that coal to liquid would produce twice as many 
carbon emissions as conventional fuel. That is not true.
  The production of coal to liquid fuels does release carbon twice--
once during gasification and another when burned like conventional 
fuels in engines. But that does not mean coal to liquid plants have to 
release twice as much carbon emissions.
  My amendment requires carbon capture--listen to this. I hope some 
people in their offices are listening to this. My amendment requires 
carbon capture, but recognizes that there are limits to this technology 
today. Carbon capture is only part of the emissions model. Nearly all 
of the developers we have worked with want to use biomass coal-blended 
feedstock to achieve emissions reductions.
  Believe me, I have studied coal to liquid extensively. Reports from 
the EPA, DOE, Princeton University, and the Idaho National Laboratories 
has shown the coal to liquids lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate 
will vary dramatically based on the technology, feedstocks, and process 
used. These researchers have shown that the coal to liquid process 
could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral. I will repeat 
that. These researchers have shown that the coal to liquid process 
could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral--no carbon 
emissions. This is not pie-in-the-sky research. Using some of the same 
ideas, a planned plant in Ohio--one that will need some Government 
support to get started--will produce coal to liquid diesel that has 46 
percent less carbon emissions than diesel fuel made presently from 
oil--46 percent less.
  On chart 3, we show greenhouse gas emissions. This chart shows the 
life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions of different kinds of fuel based 
on the analysis of the Idaho National Lab. On the left, we have diesel 
fuel, coal to liquid fuels with no environmental technology, coal to 
liquid that uses carbon capture, and coal to liquid that uses carbon 
capture and biomass. As we can see by the chart, coal to liquid can be 
very clean. That is our goal.
  For comparison, I included gasoline and ethanol blends on the right. 
If we support coal to liquids and let the industry develop these carbon 
capture and biomass technologies, we will reduce emissions more than 
corn-based E85 and more than cellulosic E10. That is currently what 
everybody wants to do. E85 is the big savior. The new cellulosic 
ethanol, E10, is the big savior. As we can see by this chart, that is 
not true because the emissions at the end of the line with cellulosic 
E10 and corn E85 are all higher than the coal to liquids mixed with 
biomass. That is the truth. Those are facts.
  The sector should be given time, just as everyone else, to develop 
the best technology and not rely on Congress to pick it for them. That 
is why my coal to liquid fuel amendment sets the environmental standard 
for coal to liquids at the same aggressive 20-percent life cycle 
reduction that Chairman Bingaman requires for biofuels. The very same 
reduction that Chairman Bingaman in his Energy bill requires of 
biofuels is the one I have in this amendment. Every gallon of coal-to-
liquids made with the help of my amendment would meet this standard and 
would be a gallon of oil we do not have to buy from the Middle East.
  While I have shown that limited Government support is necessary and 
coal to liquid fuels will be as clean as biofuels, another reason to 
support coal to liquid fuels is national security.
  I want my colleagues to look at this chart because this is the most 
important part of coal to liquid technology, and putting it on this 
Energy bill.
  The military is the largest single purchaser in this country, and the 
Air Force consumes 50 percent of this total. I have spoken many times 
with the Secretary of the Air Force, and I am proud to say he has taken 
the lead on developing this domestic resource.
  Last year, the Air Force spent nearly $7 billion--$7 billion--alone 
on aviation fuels, which was over budget by $1.6 billion. For every $1 
change in the price of a barrel of oil, it costs the Air Force about 
$60 million a year. That dramatic impact is 10 times worse for our 
commercial airlines.
  As we can see, if we do it the right way, we can produce enough of 
our aviation fuel from this technology with a change in the way the Air 
Force buys their fuels. If we change it from 5 to 20 years in terms of 
the amount of time they can contract for, we can have this kind of 
dramatic impact for our military.
  With this in mind, last summer, the Air Force tested jet fuel with a 
50-percent mix of Fischer-Tropsch fuel--that is the coal to liquid 
process--in a B-52 bomber. The results of these tests so far are 
nothing short of outstanding. We already knew these fuels are nearly 
zero in sulfur and very low in nitrogen oxide and particulate matter 
emissions, but we are learning very new benefits.
  During these tests, the Air Force demonstrated this fuel we are 
talking about burns significantly cleaner and burns significantly 
cooler than conventional jet fuel. These characteristics allow our jets 
to have a smaller radar profile and lower heat signature. And these 
advantages translate into better mileage, reducing both fuel costs, as 
well as greenhouse gas emissions.
  In light of this successful assessment, the Air Force plans to test 
this fuel in the C-17 cargo plane this year, and it is embracing the 
goal of certifying the entire fleet of aircraft by 2016.
  By that time, the Air Force intends to meet 50 percent of its annual 
fuel needs, more than 1.3 billion gallons, with Fischer-Tropsch fuel. 
Coal-to-liquid fuel will provide a safety net for our military to 
ensure a stable fuel supply regardless of the global politics of oil, 
but only if we build a domestic industry to make the fuel for them.
  Let me turn to the two amendments we will consider today. I am asking 
that my colleagues support the Bunning-Domenici amendment that I have 
offered with Senator Craig, Senator Enzi, Senator Martinez, and Senator 
Hatch. Our amendment is the only amendment that will help create a 
domestic coal to liquids industry, is a separate program that will not 
compete with biofuels in any way, requires coal to liquids meet the 
same 20 percent life cycle reduction of greenhouse gases that biofuels 
must meet--the rest of this bill requires that--requires coal to liquid 
facilities to capture carbon dioxide, and mandates only one-sixth as 
much fuel as the renewable fuel standard.
  I am also urging my colleagues to oppose the Tester-Bingaman 
amendment. This amendment is not--and I emphasize this--is not a coal 
to liquid amendment. It sets an irresponsible environmental standard 
and will just kick Government support for this fuel into the future.

[[Page 16316]]

  Their amendment is opposed by 23 members of the coal to liquid 
coalition, including industry, airlines, railroads, and others.
  It sets strict technology mandates for emissions that will stifle 
innovation and prevent nearly all domestic coal to liquid plants from 
moving forward.
  It limits the availability of the loan to 50 percent of the plant 
cost, making it less effective than the already existing DOE program 
that we passed in 2005.
  It will take years in DOE rulemaking before the first dollar is ever 
allocated for a plant.
  In the greatest deception of all, it does not require coal to be used 
in the coal to liquid process.
  Let me say that again so everybody understands. The biggest deception 
of all is that the Tester-Bingaman amendment does not even require coal 
to be used in the coal to liquid process.
  I am committed to the coal-to-liquid fuel as a secure domestic and 
environmentally sound fuel. The Tester amendment looks at coal-to-
liquids as an afterthought. I think my proposal should be adopted for 
any one of a dozen arguments that we have made for coal to liquid 
fuels. It will create jobs, bring down the price of fuel, bring down 
the price of what we pay at the pump, fuel our military, but basically 
displace foreign oil, enhance our national security, add value to our 
coal resources, and improve our environment.
  But my final and perhaps most important point is that coal to liquid 
fuels deserve fair treatment. I ask that my colleagues look at what we 
have done for biofuels in America and the benefits we have given to our 
farmers. Communities throughout the Midwest are uniting to invest in 
ethanol and biomass. Money from Wall Street is flowing into our rural 
communities, developing infrastructure and creating jobs. In many parts 
of America, I have seen new hope in agriculture and new ways for 
farmers to realize greater values for their crops.
  It all started with the ethanol fuel mandate. My amendment will 
create the exact same mandate for coal to liquid fuel with the same 
environmental standards. I think our coal communities deserve the same 
support we gave our farm community.
  Will you tell the Governors of the Southern States, Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, Illinois, North Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana that you 
oppose their efforts to bring coal to liquid plants to their States?
  Will you tell the men and women who serve as coal miners, 
construction workers, truckdrivers, train conductors, and plant 
operators that they deserve less support than our farmers?
  Will you tell all Americans that you would rather keep buying oil 
from the Middle East instead of making fuel in America?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time 
remains on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 50 seconds--5-0 
seconds--remaining and the majority side has 30 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak for 10 minutes in support of the Tester amendment, 
followed by 10 minutes for Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Colorado 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of 
amendment No. 1614, which is the amendment Senators Tester, Byrd, 
Rockefeller, Bingaman, and I are cosponsoring today. Before I make my 
prepared remarks, let me make a couple of introductory remarks.
  The work we are doing today here on the floor of the Senate is 
perhaps the most important work we could be doing, because how we move 
from our current chaos on energy here in America to the reality of 
energy independence is the hallmark of the 21st century. It is an 
absolute imperative for us to get to the kind of energy independence 
that has been desired in this country for over 40 years and which has 
been the topic of much rhetoric and very little action. This is our 
opportunity, today and in the days ahead, as the Senate speaks out 
loudly and clearly about the importance of energy and how we will move 
forward in this world.
  From my perspective, I believe we have no choice. I believe the 
inescapable forces of our civilization today require us to do nothing 
less than to embrace this concept of a clean energy future with the 
sense of moral imperative President Carter spoke about over 30 years 
ago. I believe there are three inescapable forces that are with us 
today.
  First, there is national security. When we see the rockets that are 
raining down from Hezbollah and northern Israel, one has to ask, where 
is that money coming from that is funding those rockets; and where is 
that money coming from that is funding 10,000 members of the militia? 
We know it is coming from the $67 per barrel being paid today for oil 
that is imported from those countries. Today, indeed, when one looks at 
the fact that, for instance, in March it was 66, 67 percent of the oil 
we use in America that was imported from foreign sources, our national 
security requires us to make sure we move forward with this imperative 
before us today.
  Secondly, there are environmental security issues in how we deal with 
climate change. I think it is finally a reality here in America that 
our world needs to deal with the issue of climate change in a realistic 
way. We need to do it now. We cannot wait. Even the President of the 
United States, who appeared to be a person who didn't believe in global 
warming, in his State of the Union speech as he addressed the Congress, 
said he wanted the Congress this year to address the issue of global 
warming.
  The third and inescapable force which should compel us to move 
forward on the issue of energy has to do, again, with the economics of 
our Nation and making sure we are not subject to the volatility we have 
seen so often in the past. That is why I come to the floor to speak on 
behalf of the coal gasification amendment for which Senator Tester is 
the lead sponsor. What we are proposing fits very well into making sure 
we are adopting this clean energy future.
  I am not against the development of coal. I know what coal is in the 
West, in places such as Montana and other places, places such as my own 
State of Colorado, where the coal miners in the mines on the western 
slope know the importance of coal and the importance of clean energy. 
The amendment we have introduced will help us reduce our independence 
on foreign oil by making better use of our vast coal resources here at 
home. Fuels, fertilizers, chemicals, and consumer products derived from 
coal, if produced responsibly with coal gasification technology, can 
replace much of the imported oil we use on a daily basis.
  Coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia. It is our 
most abundant domestic energy resource. It produces more than 50 
percent of our electricity. As a nation, we have enough coal to last 
more than 200 years. Until recently, however, coal has not been a 
legitimate replacement for oil. With old technologies, coal 
gasification resulted in high CO2 emissions, which caused 
global warming. Without carbon capture technology, CO2 
emissions from liquid coal, a product of the coal gasification process, 
are twice that from conventional fuels. This poses an unacceptable risk 
to our environmental security. So as we try to deal with CO2 
emissions, we ought not embrace a policy or technology that will 
increase our problems with respect to CO2 emissions.
  Fortunately, we have new technologies, and those new technologies 
offer us a way to use coal in our transportation sector and other 
sectors of our economy in an environmentally responsible manner. Not 
only can we sequester the carbon produced in the gasification process, 
but we are able to produce a wide range of materials that are currently 
being made from oil and natural gas, including diesel fuel, plastics, 
fertilizer, chemicals, and a wide range of household items.

[[Page 16317]]

  Senator Tester and I and the other cosponsors of this amendment have 
included in this amendment a framework for how we proceed with coal 
gasification in a responsible manner. Our amendment has four main 
components.
  First, it provides $10 billion in direct loans for the construction 
of low emission coal gasification plants.
  Secondly, our legislation will establish a grant program that will 
help spur construction of a new generation of coal gasification plants. 
The grants will be up to $20 million for any one project or $200 
million nationwide. They will be awarded to projects that use a variety 
of feedstocks such as coal and biomass and which have carbon emissions 
that are 20 percent lower than conventional baseline emissions.
  The third component of our amendment is a set of studies that will 
help us determine the opportunities that might be provided with greater 
use of coal and moving forward with liquid production of coal. The 
amendment commissions a study of the benefits of maintaining coal to 
liquid products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It also requires 
the administrator of the EPA to examine the emissions of coal-based 
products that are used as vehicle and aviation fuel.
  Fourth, the legislation also provides additional funding for the Air 
Force research lab to continue its development and testing of synthetic 
fuels for use in jets.
  The amendment that Senator Tester, myself, and others are proposing 
is a reasoned way of making better use of our vast coal resources here 
at home. It recognizes that coal can replace much of the imported oil, 
but it also creates a rigorous carbon emission standard for these new 
coal gasification projects to meet in order to get Federal support. We 
simply cannot afford to dump excess carbon into the atmosphere, and 
this amendment ensures we won't.
  I once again thank Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici for their 
leadership on the overall bill.
  Before I conclude, I want to make a comment with respect to a 
statement made on the other side with respect to a competing amendment. 
The essence of the competing amendment is to say it is the end of the 
world for coal if we don't adopt the amendment that is being proposed 
by my good friend from Kentucky. As I said earlier, we are not anti-
coal. Both of us who are sponsoring amendments are from coal-producing 
States. We believe coal is very much an item that has to be in our 
portfolio in the future.
  I have a letter, however, in which Dow Chemical says they are fully 
supportive of Senator Tester's amendment, and one of the conclusions 
they reach, in support of the amendment is that:

       Dow Chemical believes the environmental standards in the 
     bill are achievable.

  It says:

       The requirement that 75 percent of the carbon dioxide 
     generated is captured will ensure that all companies prepare 
     for long-term CO2 management. This will help drive 
     action to make carbon capture and storage a reality sooner 
     than later.

  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join us in support of 
amendment 1614 because it is the most responsible way to proceed as we 
deal with energy independence as well as dealing with the issue of high 
emissions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority side has 20 minutes 40 seconds 
remaining, and on the minority side there are 50 seconds remaining.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
minority side be given an additional 5 minutes, and would note that 
Senator Domenici and Senator Craig are here to use that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will talk quickly in 2 minutes.
  I come to support the Bunning-Domenici amendment of coal to liquids. 
It is quite simple. I look at it in rather black-and-white terms. A 
vote for coal is a vote against Saudi Arabia. A vote for coal-to-
liquids is a vote against Hugo Chavez. A vote of coal-to-liquids is a 
vote against Nigeria and for our own production.
  The Senator from Colorado talks about America always laying the claim 
that we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, except we are rapidly deciding we 
are not going to use it for anything. Now, if we are going to use it, 
and it is the great energy supply, then we have to make it cleaner, and 
that is clearly the technology at hand.
  One of the ways to do so, and not only to use it for transportation 
fuels, is to run it through the liquefication process. And who is the 
expert in the field of testing it? The Idaho National Laboratory, 
working with Baard Energy, looked at the Ohio projects--46 percent 
cleaner. If you add biomass to it, 30 percent biomass to sequester the 
carbon dioxide and the combined cycle cogeneration process, that is 
what you get.
  Now, isn't that a technology worth passing on to China, which is the 
largest emitter, or soon will be, producing more emission with less 
economy of CO2 than the United States? I think it is time we 
pushed all technologies, and if they are cleaner, they are better.
  The argument here is they have to be perfect before we do them. I 
would suggest that perfect may not be possible, but 50 percent cleaner 
or more is possible, and that is where we ought to go. That is where 
the Bunning amendment takes us.
  I tell you what I am going to do; I am going to vote for Senator 
Bunning's amendment, and I am going to vote against Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think I have, what, 3 minutes 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 35 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator Larry Craig, for those 
comments.
  Now, let me say we have a similar situation to the one we had here in 
the last 2 or 3 days on the 15-percent wind mandate--RPS. We have two 
amendments out here, and all of a sudden we find out neither of them is 
going to have the votes. I am afraid what has happened here is we have 
two amendments and neither is going to get the votes if the Senate 
doesn't consider the difference between these two bills and vote for 
the one that is most apt to accomplish the purpose we set out in a coal 
to liquid amendment.
  The Tester-Bingaman amendment, No. 1614, in this Senator's opinion is 
only a long shot that we are going to get a lot of incentives for coal-
to-liquid. There is $10 billion in direct loans. That is nice for 
everybody. We are going to have $10 billion to loan, but it is loanable 
on a number of things beyond coal-to-liquid. I predict the money is 
going to go to those other things because it is so hard to reach the 
calibration required in this amendment of coal-to-liquid.
  In the Bunning amendment, there is a long time to work on it, until 
2016, and a given amount of that liquid will be purchased and they can 
get ready for it to be purchased. But the standard is clearly 
achievable because it is the same 20 percent we are going to require of 
ethanol and of the other programs we are achieving, and we are saying 
do the same thing. They are not saying that in the Montana amendment--
do the same as we have done for the other fuels. I am afraid we are not 
going to get there and the money is going to get loaned for the wrong 
things before we are finished. In competing between the two, both are 
going to die. I suggest that colleagues vote against the amendment of 
the Senator from Montana and for the one of the Senator from Kentucky 
if you want to get coal-to-liquid started.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 20 minutes 15 seconds, and 
the minority has 53 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take 5 minutes. I know Senator 
Tester is here and wishes to speak. I understand Senator Kerry and many 
others wish to speak also.
  The issue between the two amendments is what our focus should be, 
when we think about the future of coal, are we sure the best use of 
coal and the

[[Page 16318]]

best future for coal is in the developing of transportation fuels? In 
my view, that is what the Bunning amendment concludes.
  The Tester amendment, to the contrary, takes a broader view of the 
future of coal. I believe we want to enable the development of many 
potential uses of coal that are both environmentally and economically 
sound. We should not be focused on commercializing in large-scale uses 
of coal that do not make good sense in the marketplace.
  First, let me say a couple of things about the Bunning amendment.
  There are currently no large-scale coal to liquid plants in the 
United States. The price tag of a typical plant is in the billions of 
dollars.
  The Bunning amendment purports to require that coal-derived fuels be 
20 percent better than gasoline. But we have an apples-to-oranges 
comparison here because coal-to-liquids plants will produce primarily 
diesel fuel, not gasoline. The total greenhouse gas emissions from 
coal-derived diesels are likely to be greater by about 150 percent than 
the emissions from diesels that are powered from petroleum.
  The Bunning amendment is technologically limiting, and such uses of 
coal as conversion to chemicals, to plastics, and to fertilizer are not 
permitted to benefit from the Bunning amendment.
  Coal to liquids products mandated by the Bunning amendment have very 
large water requirements. Water requirements are estimated to be about 
2 gallons for every gallon of coal-derived fuel produced. The Tester 
amendment, by contrast, is much more broad in the beneficial uses coal 
can be put to, whether to make fuels or fertilizers or plastics or 
chemicals.
  There are industrial plants in the United States that do use coal 
commercially as a feedstock for chemical products.
  I have a letter from the president of Dow Chemical which I ask 
unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at the end of my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. He states as follows in that letter:

       On behalf of Dow Chemical Company, I write to offer my 
     strongest support for Senator Tester's ``Coal Innovation'' 
     amendment.
       Simply put, it will allow companies to build gasification 
     plants in the United States that run on coal, biomass and 
     other feedstocks, while helping to increase fuel and 
     feedstock diversity and demonstrate options for carbon 
     capture and storage. This will result in gasification plants 
     that are more efficient and help address climate change and 
     contribute to energy security.

  Mr. President, I also have a letter that I want to have printed in 
the Record at the end of my remarks from various unions--the AFL-CIO 
Building and Construction Trades Department, the Industrial Union, the 
United Mine Workers, various others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. They strongly endorse the Tester amendment. They 
previously were part of a coal to liquids coalition which issued an 
earlier letter which has now been rescinded which spoke in favor of the 
Bunning amendment and against the Tester amendment, and they say in 
their letter that they strongly support the Tester amendment.
  Clearly, I think the Tester amendment gives us the best chance of 
promoting the use of coal to meet our energy needs in the future, and I 
strongly support it and oppose the Bunning amendment. I hope my 
colleagues will do the same. I believe this is the right course for us 
to follow.

                               Exhibit 1


                                     The Dow Chemical Company,

                                 Midland, Michigan, June 18, 2007.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of The Dow Chemical 
     Company, I write to offer my strongest support for Senator 
     Tester's ``Coal Innovation'' amendment to H.R. 6, the energy 
     bill pending before the Senate. Simply put, it will allow 
     companies to build gasification plants in the United States 
     that run on coal, biomass and other feedstocks, while helping 
     to increase fuel and feedstock diversity and demonstrate 
     options for carbon capture and storage. This will result in 
     gasification plants that are more efficient, help address 
     climate change and contribute to energy security.
       Dow is excited by the prospect of this legislation being 
     enacted. As you know, Dow is one of the world's largest 
     chemical companies and is heavily reliant in the U.S. on 
     natural gas and oil as raw materials for the products we 
     manufacture. High and volatile prices for these inputs have 
     caused the company's energy bill to swell three-fold since 
     2002, reaching $22 billion last year, and have forced us to 
     look to other parts of the world for our growth.
       In an effort to address this problem, and to help sustain 
     our operations here, we have expressed interest in utilizing 
     industrial gasification technology and in leading a 
     consortium in the U.S. to demonstrate it on a commercial 
     scale. A company like Dow could be a major purchaser of the 
     syngas and/or the naphtha that these plants produce. As you 
     know, the military also has a high interest in taking syngas-
     based liquid fuels.
       Dow would be able to make virtually all of the products we 
     currently make from natural gas liquids by substituting coal, 
     biomass or a combination thereof. The ability to manufacture 
     products like plastics, fibers and coatings would help to 
     optimize the carbon footprint of a project, since a portion 
     of the carbon would reside in finished goods that are not 
     burned. However, one major hurdle for any would-be plant 
     sponsor is the financing. The direct loans in the amendment 
     would go a long way toward helping to get these types of 
     plants built, and help provide, in the long run, a lower cost 
     alternative to oil and natural gas.
       In addition, Dow believes that the environmental standards 
     in the bill are achievable. The requirement that 75% of the 
     carbon dioxide generated is captured will ensure that all 
     companies prepare for long-term CO2 management. This will 
     help drive action to make carbon capture and storage a 
     reality sooner rather than later.
       Thank you for your and your staff's attention to this 
     issue, which is critical to American manufacturing, the 
     economy and our energy security. Please let us know if there 
     is any way we can be of assistance on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Andrew N. Liveris,
     Chairman and CEO.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                                                    June 18, 2007.
       Dear Senator: On June 13, 2007 the Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) 
     Coalition sent you a letter purporting to have the support of 
     the undersigned labor unions and organizations. The CTL 
     Coalition did not clear this letter with us before sending 
     it. We regret that this letter created the mistaken 
     impression that our organizations had arrived at a position 
     on the issues addressed in the June 13 letter.
       Unfortunately, this unauthorized correspondence has been 
     misconstrued to mean that our organizations oppose an 
     amendment that Senators Tester, Byrd, Rockefeller, Salazar, 
     and Bingaman are expected to offer later this week to the 
     Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN 
     Energy) Act of 2007 (H.R. 6).
       On the contrary, we strongly urge your support for the 
     Tester-Byrd-Rockefeller-Salazar-Bingaman amendment to 
     establish a coal innovation direct loan program. This $10 
     billion program would enable America to build successful 
     large-scale facilities to demonstrate carbon dioxide capture 
     for coal conversion technologies, which is essential to 
     guarantee the viability of coal into the future. The coal 
     innovation direct loan program would create thousands of U.S. 
     jobs in mining, construction, and operation.
       We believe strongly that coal can be both an economically 
     and environmentally responsible choice for America's energy 
     security. To realize the potential of coal, America must make 
     significant investments to prove the new technologies vital 
     to its future. We therefore urge you to support the Tester-
     Byrd-Rockefeller-Salazar-Bingaman amendment.
           Sincerely,
       AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department.
       AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council.
       International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.
       International Union of Operating Engineers.
       Laborers International Union of North America.
       United Mine Workers of America.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to amendment

[[Page 16319]]

1628, the Bunning amendment, for a number of reasons.
  No. 1, this is a mandate to develop the gallonage from coal-to-
liquids. I don't think it is the right direction to go. This 
amendment--folks have been using apples and oranges to compare 
greenhouse gases. The Bunning amendment says coal-to-liquids will be 20 
percent better than gasoline, but coal-to-liquids does not produce 
gasoline-equivalent fuel, they produce the equivalent of diesel fuel, 
and that is 150 percent higher in greenhouse gas emissions than diesel 
produced from petroleum.
  The third thing, it is technology-limiting. Fuels produced from coal 
are only allowed under the Bunning amendment rather than articles such 
as fertilizer, chemicals, and plastics, as my amendment does.
  Finally, there is no path to coal's future in a carbon-constrained 
world with the Bunning amendment--no requirement to deal with the 
carbon dioxide produced in the coal to liquids plants, no technology 
incentive to keep coal viable into the future, which we absolutely 
need. If and when our greenhouse gases are regulated, these plants will 
not be economic, and the cost to the consumers of the Bunning mandate 
will soar.
  I have seen many signs up today, placards, talking about how coal-to-
liquid technology is automatically less than petroleum. That is not 
correct unless you have carbon capture. The Bunning amendment does not 
allow for carbon capture. My amendment does.
  With that, I would certainly suggest and request that the body vote 
against the Bunning amendment and support the Tester amendment No. 
1614.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for up 
to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have sought recognition to speak in favor of the 
amendment which will be voted on later this afternoon which provides 
that we would lift the antitrust exemption which is now held by the 
OPEC nations.
  There have been judicial interpretations holding that the OPEC 
countries have sovereign immunity from prosecution under the antitrust 
laws, and it is my legal judgment that the limited judicial holdings in 
this field are erroneous because there was a well-accepted exception to 
the sovereign immunity doctrine where there is commercial activity 
involved. But in any event, there is no doubt that the Congress of the 
United States has the authority to legislate in the field, and I 
believe it would be very crucial to remove the antitrust exemption 
which the OPEC nations now have.
  We have a crisis--a strong word but I think an accurate word--on 
gasoline prices today. The price of crude oil has been hovering around 
$65 a barrel. The American people are paying on average more than $3 a 
gallon for gasoline. Consumers are paying more for products because 
American companies have to pay more to manufacture, and without going 
into great detail, there is no doubt that there is a crisis in the 
field.
  This legislation has been acted on in the past--in the 109th Congress 
when I chaired the Judiciary Committee--and it has been reintroduced 
this year. Senator Kohl is the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Antitrust and has taken the lead, and we have a very impressive list of 
sponsors: Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, Senator Biden, Senator 
Coburn, Senator Feingold, Senator Snowe, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer, 
Senator Lieberman, Senator Schumer, Senator Sanders, as well as my own 
cosponsorship of this legislation.
  I have been interested in this subject for more than a decade because 
I think the antitrust exemption which they enjoy ought not to be. I 
wrote to President Clinton in his term in office--and received no 
answer on the subject--a very lengthy letter which I put in the 
Congressional Record when I spoke on this amendment last week. I 
followed it up with a letter to President George Bush on the same 
subject. We passed the amendment last year. As I say, it was dropped in 
conference. We are asking for a rollcall vote on it this time because 
the practical realities are, if it gets a very strong vote--and I 
anticipate it will--it will have more stature when it gets to 
conference.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to eliminate the 
conspiracy, the concerted action where the OPEC nations get together in 
a room, reduce supply, and that raises the price. This is an important 
amendment, and it will contribute to reducing the price of gasoline at 
the pump.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Roughly 9 minutes for the majority, and there 
is no time remaining for the minority.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from Montana if 
he wanted to use the remaining 9 minutes or some lesser amount of that. 
We can go ahead and go to a vote whenever you are finished with your 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. I just want to talk about my amendment, 1614, as long as 
we have time to do that, very quickly recap it because I think it is 
important that we know the facts.
  First of all, we have enough coal in this country, if it is used at 
the current rate, to last us for 250 years. We need to develop it 
responsibly. This amendment for coal-to-liquids will develop it 
responsibly. What it does is it provides grants and loans for clean 
coal technology. Let me tell you the parameters because some folks have 
said this can't be achieved.
  In front of the Senate Finance Committee, it was testified that it is 
entirely capable, with the technology we have today, to have 85 percent 
carbon capture. This amendment requires 75 percent carbon capture.
  The National Mining Association said that with coal to liquids, 
adding some biomass with the coal, we could achieve 46 percent less in 
life cycle greenhouse gases than comparable petroleum--46 percent less. 
This amendment requires 20 percent less. This amendment is entirely 
doable by the industry. If we want to develop our coal resources in a 
manner that meets the needs of consumers as well as being able to 
develop our coal resources in a responsible way that would not trash 
the environment when climate change is such a huge issue in the world, 
we need to step forth and adopt this amendment.
  I could go into the amendment further and talk about the potential of 
replacing foreign oil. I could talk about how it is a win-win situation 
for the country overall, as far as achieving energy independence, as we 
push this bill forward that deals with renewables such as biofuels and 
wind and solar and geothermal. The fact is, with this amendment there 
are no bogeymen. It is achievable by the industry, and it should be 
adopted if we are going to lead this country down the road of energy 
independence, a road that will allow the climate change issue to be put 
to bed.
  By the way, if we pass this amendment, I fully believe, with the two 
powerplants a month China is putting on board at 500 megawatts each, we 
can also help lead China down a road to clean coal technology.
  I would appreciate a ``yes'' vote on amendment 1614.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of my good 
friend from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, and his amendment with the 
Senator from New Mexico to establish a program to help support and 
promote

[[Page 16320]]

clean coal-to-liquid fuels. Focusing more on coal-to-liquid fuels will 
benefit our economy and our national security. Coal is a vital part of 
America's energy production, and coal is a vital part of Kentucky's 
economy and history. The coal industry creates over 60,000 jobs in my 
State, including approximately 15,000 coal miners. Over half the 
country's electricity is generated by coal, and coal constitutes over 
90 percent of America's fossil fuel resources. That means the coal we 
can mine in this country alone would be enough to supply our Nation for 
more than 250 years. What Saudi Arabia is to oil, America is to coal. 
Therefore, it would be irresponsible of us, not to mention downright 
foolish, not to invest in technology to take advantage of this vital 
natural resource. That is why I thank my friend Senator Bunning for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Greater use of coal to liquid fuels will benefit the environment by 
reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate 
matter, and other pollutants as compared to conventional fuels. The 
Bunning amendment also requires that coal to liquid fuels under this 
program reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent relative to 
gasoline. Greater use of coal to liquid fuels, which we can generate 
here at home, will mean less dependence on foreign sources of oil. 
Right now America gets 60 percent of its oil from foreign countries, 
many of which do not have our best interests at heart, as we certainly 
know. Passing this amendment will mean greater energy independence and 
strengthened national security. I commend my good friend and fellow 
Senator Jim Bunning, as well as Senator Domenici. Senator Bunning has 
been hard at work on this issue for a lengthy time. I thank him for his 
dedication to the coal producers and miners of Kentucky and America. 
This amendment is the right thing to do for them, for our economy, and 
for our national security.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1628 offered by the Senator from Kentucky, 
Mr. Bunning.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), 
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 39, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 213 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brownback
     Coburn
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
  The amendment (No. 1628) was rejected.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1614, offered by the 
Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I strongly urge support for the 
Tester-Byrd amendment.
  I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Tester.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, what this amendment does is gives loans 
for equipment to capture and sequester carbon from coal to liquid 
technology. It also allows for loans to construct the plant.
  The Federal Government has the opportunity right now to push coal to 
liquids forward with some dollars. Also, what happens with this 
amendment is--and these are entirely achievable parameters--75 percent 
of the carbon would be captured and sequestered, and it would be 20 
percent less than life-cycle greenhouse gases from petroleum. It works 
for this country in making us more energy independent and it works for 
the global warming issue to make sure we get our hands wrapped around 
that and it is progress in the proper way for energy development.
  It is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the United Mining Association, and Dow 
Chemical. This amendment is achievable, entirely achievable.
  The industry testified in the Senate Finance Committee that they 
could capture and sequester 85 percent. This amendment does it at 75 
percent.
  I encourage the adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I looked around and didn't see anyone 
else, so I guess I will respond.
  Fellow Senators, we defeated the best amendment to assure we would 
bring coal to liquid on board. Now what you have is an amendment that 
says a $10 billion direct loan program--not any other kind of loan but 
a direct loan--meaning the appropriators, without the White House, can 
approve in appropriations $10 billion. But the kicker is it does not 
have to go for coal to liquid technology, it can go for a number of 
technologies, and if you can't reach it in coal, you will reach it in 
the others. So you surely are voting for $10 billion in direct loans. 
You are not assuring that you are going to get coal to liquid because 
the standards are so high you may not be able to achieve them in the 
coal to liquid.
  That is enough for me. I thank you for giving me some time, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1614.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Byrd

[[Page 16321]]


     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Inouye
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb

                                NAYS--61

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brownback
     Coburn
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
  The amendment (No. 1614) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1519

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 30 minutes 
equally divided on the Kohl amendment. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise at this time with 13 cosponsors to 
urge all of my colleagues to support our bipartisan no-OPEC amendment 
to the Energy bill. This amendment will hold OPEC member nations to 
account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix 
prices in violation of the most basic principles of free competition.
  In addition to the 13 cosponsors of this amendment today, companion 
House legislation passed the other body last month by an overwhelming 
345-to-72 vote. This amendment will authorize the Justice Department, 
and only the Justice Department, to file suit against nations or other 
entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit supply or fix the 
price of oil.
  We have longed decried OPEC, but sadly no one in Government has yet 
tried to take any action. This amendment will, for the first time, 
establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil 
producers, such as the OPEC nations, act together to restrict supply or 
to set prices, then they will be violating U.S. law.
  As we consider the high price of gas, one fact has remained 
consistent: the price of crude oil and, in turn, gasoline dances to the 
tune set by the OPEC members.
  Referring to the 18-percent rise in worldwide crude oil prices since 
the start of the year, OPEC's president commented:

       We did have a bad situation at the beginning of the year, 
     but it is much better now.

  The difference was OPEC's decision last fall to enforce combined 
output cuts of 1.7 billion barrels of oil a day in order to drive up 
the price of crude oil. Just last week, OPEC refused to add more oil 
supply to the market despite the International Energy Agency's urgent 
call for new supplies to meet rising demand.
  While OPEC enjoys its newfound riches, the average American consumer 
suffers every time he or she visits the gas pump or pays a home heating 
bill. Gas prices have now increased 71 cents a gallon just since the 
start of the year, to a current national average of $3.01 per gallon, 
an increase of more than 30 percent.
  The Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the 
variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the 
cost of crude oil. If private companies engaged in such an 
international price-fixing conspiracy, there would be no question it 
would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be treated no differently 
because it is a conspiracy of nations.
  The amendment will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will 
authorize the Justice Department to file suit under the antitrust laws 
for redress. It will always be at the discretion of the Justice 
Department and the President as to whether to take action against OPEC.
  Our amendment will not require the Government to bring legal action 
against OPEC member nations. This decision will entirely remain in the 
discretion of the executive branch.
  I believe the Senate should now join the 345 of our colleagues in the 
House and vote to support this legislation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, there is an old legal adage that says, 
hard cases make bad law. That seems to be the case here. No one likes 
OPEC. None of us like being put in a position of appearing to defend 
OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law. The 
Framers of the Constitution wisely assigned responsibility for 
formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the 
President and to the Congress, not to the law courts.
  Chief Justice Marshall said nearly two centuries ago:

       The judiciary is not the department of the Government to 
     which the assertion of its interest against foreign powers is 
     confided. A question like this is more a political one than a 
     legal one.

  There has been much talk in this Chamber over the years about the 
proper role of the judiciary. Nearly every time we are asked to confirm 
a judicial nomination, we hear speeches given on the Senate floor about 
the need for judges to confine themselves to the business of 
interpreting the law, not making the law. And this is exactly what the 
courts have done in this circumstance.
  Here is a case where the courts have wisely recognized that OPEC's 
pricing policies are not something that should be litigated in U.S. 
courts but should instead be addressed by the political branches of the 
Government--the President, the executive branch, and the Congress. 
Senator Kohl's amendment would throw the issue of OPEC's oil prices 
back into our courts and force the courts to address those issues.
  The amendment before us has its roots in a lawsuit filed by the labor 
union nearly 30 years ago. The union at that time charged OPEC with 
price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws.
  The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that OPEC members 
are sovereign nations and are immune from suit. On appeal, the appeals 
court affirmed the dismissal, though for different reasons. It 
dismissed the suit under the act of State doctrine. In the court's 
words:

       The act of State doctrine declares a United States 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.
  Quoting the Supreme Court, the Court said:

       Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence 
     of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country 
     will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of 
     another done within its own territory.

  Senator Kohl's amendment overturns the act of state doctrine, at 
least so far as OPEC is concerned. It also creates a new offense under 
the Sherman Act to get at OPEC, it waives sovereign immunity for this 
new offense, and it amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to 
cover the new offense. In short, it sweeps away all of the legal 
defenses OPEC members have against antitrust suits in our courts.
  Adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular, but it is 
also very unwise. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained nearly 
30 years ago:

       To participate adeptly in the global community, the United 
     States must speak with one voice and pursue a careful and 
     deliberate policy.

  The President can do this, the court said; the judiciary cannot.
  Here is another quote from that same decision:

       When the courts engage in piecemeal adjudication of the 
     legality of the sovereign acts of states, they risk 
     disruption of our country's international diplomacy. The 
     executive may utilize protocol, economic sanction, 
     compromise, delay, and persuasion to achieve international 
     objectives. Ill-timed

[[Page 16322]]

     judicial decisions challenging the acts of foreign states 
     could nullify these tools and embarrass the United States in 
     the eyes of the world.

  In this case--

     the granting of any relief would in effect amount to an order 
     from a domestic court instructing a foreign sovereign to 
     alter its chosen means of allocating and profiting from its 
     own valuable natural resources. On the other hand, should the 
     court hold that OPEC's actions are legal, this would greatly 
     strengthen the bargaining hand of the OPEC nations in the 
     event that Congress or the executive chooses to condemn 
     OPEC's actions.

  In addition, we here in the Senate ought to consider how enactment of 
this amendment might affect our relations with OPEC members. What will 
be the international repercussions when the United States starts 
awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets 
in this country? What sort of precedent will the amendment set in the 
international community? Will other nations start to view our trade 
policies--such as our nuclear trade restrictions--as violations of 
their antitrust laws?
  The Bush administration has offered us answers to some of these 
questions. Its statement of administration policy on this bill, which 
we are considering here in the Senate, says that:

       The consequent targeting of foreign direct investment in 
     the United States as a source of damage awards would likely 
     spur retaliatory action against American interests in those 
     countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. 
     refiners. Not only would such a result substantially harm 
     U.S. interests abroad, it would discourage foreign investment 
     in the United States economy.

  For these reasons, the administration concluded:

       If a bill including such a provision is presented to the 
     President--

  That is the bill we are considering right here on the Senate floor.

     --his senior advisers will recommend that he veto the bill.

  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kohl 
amendment.
  Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8\1/2\ minutes in opposition, and 
11\1/2\ minutes in support.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I join Senator Kohl as a cosponsor of his 
NOPEC amendment and urge the Senate to adopt it. Under Senator Kohl's 
leadership, the NOPEC bill has passed unanimously out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee without amendment in four separate Congresses, 
under both Democratic and Republican leadership.
  The support for this legislation is both bipartisan and bicameral. 
The House of Representatives recently passed NOPEC with 345 Members 
voting for it.
  NOPEC will simply hold accountable certain oil-producing nations for 
their collusive behavior that has artificially reduced the supply and 
inflated the price of fuel. Unless this amendment becomes law, 
consumers across the Nation will continue to suffer.
  The rise and fall of oil and gas prices has a direct impact on 
American consumers and our economy. Last month, gas prices in the 
United States reached a near record high. While prices have come down 
slightly in recent weeks, that is no reason to condone anticompetitive 
conduct by foreign government cartels. American consumers should not be 
held economic hostage to the whim of colluding, foreign governments.
  The Associated Press recently reported the Iranian oil minister's 
announcement that members of OPEC would not increase the supply of oil 
despite reports that demand is on the rise. Without collusion, OPEC 
members would compete to serve that demand and prices at home would 
fall.
  When entities engage in anticompetitive conduct that harms American 
consumers, it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to 
investigate and prosecute. It is wrong to let members of OPEC off the 
hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of 
approval of national governments. I am disappointed that the 
administration does not share this view and has threatened a veto.
  Americans deserve better, and it is time for Congress to act. We know 
the oil cartel and Big Oil companies like things just the way they are, 
and why shouldn't they? They continue to break new records as they roll 
up huge profits taken from consumers' pockets.
  I hope this Senate and this Congress will take the side of American 
consumers, not the side of Status Quo, Incorporated. We cannot claim to 
be energy independent while we permit foreign governments to manipulate 
oil prices in an anticompetitive manner. I thank Senator Kohl for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I yield several minutes to Senator 
Lincoln.
  I am sorry, did the Senator from Rhode Island wish to speak?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If I may, but it is to a different amendment. It is 
for the Cardin amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, if we could complete the debate on 
this amendment, and then if the Senator wishes to yield back time, we 
could proceed to debate on the next amendment.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That will be fine.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I will yield several minutes to Senator 
Lincoln.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 1556

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, 
Senator Kohl, for giving me a few moments.
  My comments are on a slightly different topic today, and I appreciate 
my colleague yielding to me. I filed an amendment, No. 1556, to the 
energy legislation almost a week ago. Since that time, I have pleaded 
with my colleagues to help reach an agreement where I could come to the 
floor and offer this important amendment. I offered it several times 
last week in the latter part of the week so it could be considered by 
the Chamber and get an up-or-down vote on its merits. Unfortunately, I 
understand that certain colleagues are unwilling to lift their 
objection to this amendment being considered on the floor under any 
circumstances. So I come to the floor today to try to express some of 
my frustrations in dealing with this bill and particularly my 
amendment, not only for myself and many of my colleagues who are 
strongly in support of my amendment but also for the hard-working farm 
families across our Nation.
  The amendment I introduced with my good friend and colleague from New 
Mexico, Senator Domenici, is quite simple. It is identical to the 
legislation we cosponsored together last Congress and have reintroduced 
again this year, which is S. 807. The bill already has 26 cosponsors in 
the Senate and 121 cosponsors in the House. This amendment is 
particularly timely and appropriate for the legislation we are 
currently considering in the Chamber today because there is a growing 
understanding in this countryside that without the clarification 
provided by this amendment, requirements and liabilities under CERCLA, 
a law designed to clean up toxic industrial pollutants, could be 
unfairly applied to America's farmers and ranchers of all sizes, of any 
size, large or small. These are the very men and women who hold the 
future of renewable energy production in this country in their hands 
and in their production operations.
  The underlying bill we will consider today would take steps to 
promote the use of biomass, and specifically animal manure, as an 
important and critical source of renewable energy. It is widely known 
that farmers are beginning to use their excess manure for energy 
generation already, through methane digesters and other innovative 
technologies that are developing on a day-to-day basis. The expanded 
use of animal manure for energy production not only promotes our 
Nation's energy independence, it is also a way to control the 
unavoidable supply of manure and litter from livestock production in an 
environmentally friendly manner while adding economic value for our 
farm families and our rural communities.
  This is a win-win situation for our Nation and especially for 
American agriculture. Yet as this Chamber stands

[[Page 16323]]

ready to incentivize these innovative practices and spur the growth of 
alternative technologies to manage this waste, pending lawsuits 
threaten the entire viability of this emerging industry, not to mention 
the viability of the hard-working farm families across our country.
  We should not stand by and allow a situation where farmers or those 
who are transporting manure for energy production or other purposes are 
handling a hazardous waste subject to CERCLA's strict and punitive 
liability provisions.
  It is worth noting that CERCLA section 101(14) specifically excludes 
petroleum. Here we are, looking to lessen our independence on foreign 
oil and petroleum products, yet they are exempt from CERCLA. We are 
looking at the possibility of agricultural by-products being included 
in CERCLA under the definition of hazardous waste substances but 
petroleum releases are not subject to CERCLA reporting and liability 
provisions. Why is it these same liability provisions should apply to 
our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and particularly our dairy farmers? 
Farmers and ranchers have always been responsible stewards of the land, 
making great strides to preserve a healthy environment for their food 
production but also for their families and communities. Keep in mind 
that agricultural operations are already regulated under the Clean 
Water and the Clean Air Acts, as well as other Federal and State 
environmental laws. The larger size operations are subject to 
management practices. These are the appropriate regulatory tools to 
manage the environmental impacts of agriculture in this country, and 
any farmer will tell you that our U.S. producers are already subject to 
much greater scrutiny in this area than their foreign competitors. That 
is one reason why Americans continue to enjoy the safest food supply in 
the world, produced right here at home by our Nation's farm families, 
working as hard as they possibly can to not only produce that safe food 
and fiber but to do it in a way that is respectful of the environment 
under the regulations we put upon them. The last thing we need to do is 
stand by and allow policies that encourage the outsourcing of food 
production in this country.
  On that note, it is my view that Congress never intended for CERCLA 
to apply to agriculture in the first place. In fact, the idea of 
including animal agriculture under CERCLA was never raised during the 
first two decades of this law's existence. If normal animal manure is 
found by the courts to be a hazardous substance under CERCLA, then 
virtually every farming operation in the country could be potentially 
exposed to severe liability and penalties under the law. Clearly, 
Congress never intended such an outcome, and we should take the 
necessary steps by taking up and passing my amendment to ensure that 
the courts clearly understand what our congressional intent is. We 
should not jeopardize American agriculture by allowing courts to impose 
CERCLA liability on farmers for their traditional farming practices, 
including the use of manure as a beneficial fertilizer or an emerging 
feedstock for renewable energy production. This would be most 
unfortunate.
  I hope my colleagues will look at this and be aware. I will continue 
my efforts to clarify that CERCLA liability does not apply to 
agriculture, to our livestock, to our ranches and our dairy farms, 
making sure that agriculture in this country can continue to do what it 
has always done, and that is to produce a safe, abundant, and 
affordable food supply under the regulations we provide them.
  I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding, and I yield back his 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe we have 8 minutes remaining 
in opposition, and I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 1519

  Mr. DOMENICI. First, before the Senator from Arkansas leaves the 
floor, I wish to say I associate myself with her remarks as they 
pertain to both subjects, and in particular CERCLA, in which we both 
share a common interest. We have to get something done; we both know 
it. Those who are not letting us have a chance at getting a vote will 
find out sooner or later we are going to get a vote, and what is fair 
and reasonable will prevail. We are going to work hard to see that is 
done sooner rather than later.
  Having said that, I want to talk about the No-OPEC amendment that 
would permit legal action to be brought in U.S. courts by the 
Department of Justice on alleged price-fixing and other anticompetitive 
behavior affecting petroleum product pricing, production, and 
distribution by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting 
Countries--OPEC.
  While I can see at some level how this idea appeals to our sense of 
fairness and our frustration about oil prices, I must oppose this 
amendment and join with my chairman, because it is reality, not 
sentiment, that counts in public policy. The reality is this amendment 
would be unenforceable. OPEC producers would simply decide not to sell 
oil to us any longer. One-third of the oil used in the United States 
every day comes from an OPEC member. They would suffer the loss of some 
profits, but our entire economy could come to a grinding halt.
  Another problem I have with the amendment is it is a major change in 
international law that has potential applications beyond the oil 
sector. The sovereignty of nations is put into question by this 
amendment. I know of no instance when the United States Government sued 
a foreign government.
  I think if this amendment passes, we can expect a jittery oil market 
to become even more nervous. We can expect that. In reality, that means 
higher prices. We can expect less transparency from OPEC. In reality, 
that means higher prices. We can also expect less cooperation from OPEC 
in the future, and I think that, too, will lead to higher prices.
  I believe this amendment should fail, but obviously, looking at the 
past and looking at the propensity of Senators to vote on this 
amendment without looking at the realities of it, I am not too hopeful. 
Nonetheless, that is the extent of my remarks.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes in opposition and about 
3\1/2\ in favor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I think the Senator from Wisconsin 
should be given the chance to conclude his remarks or close the 
argument. I will yield back the time in opposition and allow Senator 
Kohl to use whatever additional times he wants. Then we can close the 
debate on this amendment and proceed to the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I believe the arguments set forth by the 
administration, as well as those on the floor today in opposition to 
this bill, are without merit. For example, we disagree that it would 
harm U.S. interests overseas.
  The Justice Department has taken action to sue many foreign cartels 
that have engaged in price fixing, including, for example, the 
international vitamin cartel. There has been no retaliation against 
U.S. business interests abroad.
  Only 11 Nations in the world are members of the OPEC oil cartel. 
There would be no reason for any other Nation to retaliate against the 
United States for attempting to enforce this legislation. The idea that 
OPEC could strongly discourage investment in the U.S. economy is 
likewise speculative and without basis. The existence of strong U.S. 
antitrust laws for over a century, laws that are already reaching 
foreign conduct affecting the U.S. markets, has not discouraged 
investment in the United States.
  Further, and this is enormously important, this legislation does not 
require the administration to do anything. It simply gives them the 
authority to bring action in court against the OPEC oil cartel. It 
seems to me the legislation would have a constructive

[[Page 16324]]

effect in bringing notice to the OPEC oil cartel that we do have 
recourse, should it be necessary, to move against them in retaliation 
of their fixing prices of oil at unreasonably high levels.
  That is why I believe this legislation should be passed by this body 
as it was passed by the House of Representatives.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think Senator Bingaman yielded our time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. There will now be 30 
minutes of debate on the Thune amendment. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I see Senator Whitehouse is waiting to 
speak on the Cardin amendment. Senator Thune is agreeable to letting 
him speak for 3 minutes or so on that before beginning discussion on 
the Thune amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 3 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 1610

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank Senators Bingaman and Thune for their 
courtesy. I am here today to express my support for an amendment 
sponsored by my colleague, Senator Cardin, regarding State approval for 
liquefied natural gas terminals. I am a cosponsor of this important 
bipartisan amendment with Senators Mikulski, Snowe, Dodd, Kerry, 
Kennedy, Boxer, Lieberman, and my senior Senator, Jack Reed of Rhode 
Island.
  Our country is grappling with a serious and difficult question: how 
to meet our growing energy needs without depleting our natural 
resources, threatening our environment or endangering our people.
  I strongly support the work of Senators Boxer and Bingaman, with many 
of our colleagues, to take a significant step forward in our use of 
alternative and renewable fuels. But as we develop these new and 
emerging fuel sources, we must take great care to balance our need for 
energy with other imperatives.
  Liquefied natural gas is rapidly assuming a larger share of the 
overall natural gas market. Over 40 new LNG terminals are now proposed 
for construction, many of which are planned near heavily populated 
areas or environmentally sensitive coastal areas. Unfortunately, in 
their haste to expand this market, the LNG industry and the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission have dismissed the risks this poses to 
public safety and the environment. I am particularly concerned about a 
proposed LNG terminal in Fall River, MA, a town of nearly 100,000 
people, barely over the State line from Rhode Island.
  This is Rhode Island's treasured Narragansett Bay. The Bay is used, 
particularly on beautiful summer days such as today, for commercial and 
recreational boating and fishing. Tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders 
live along its shores, and our Bay is in many ways the economic heart, 
as well as the environmental and recreational heart, of our ocean 
State.
  Now, to reach the LNG facility proposed for Fall River, LNG tankers 
would have to navigate 21 nautical miles through Narragansett Bay, 
passing directly by the homes and businesses of 64,000 Rhode Island 
residents. Along the way, tankers would pass under four heavily 
trafficked bridges and execute what the Coast Guard itself recently 
described as extremely challenging navigational maneuvers, as many as 
130 times per year.
  Moreover, the tanker requires a security zone around it as it 
proceeds through the Bay. Here is the tanker. This is the size of the 
security zone it requires, completely occupying the east passage going 
up through Narragansett Bay between Newport and Jamestown. It would 
displace all recreational boaters and other cargo boats and disrupt 
bridge traffic as it transits.
  The residents of my State of Rhode Island have spoken loudly and in 
large numbers against the LNG terminal proposed for Fall River. I have 
heard their deep concern about the environmental and security risks 
posed by LNG tankers passing so close to their homes and communities. 
Yet their voices have not been heard adequately in the current process 
for permitting LNG terminals.
  This amendment would help correct this flaw and give all States and 
communities the seat at the table they deserve, by requiring the 
concurrence of affected States for permits to build liquefied natural 
gas terminals.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 1609

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today in support of my amendment 
to create clean energy corridors, which will greatly enhance our grid 
system to transmit clean and renewable energy.
  Much of the debate in this Energy bill has focused on renewable 
energy. How much renewable energy should we use? How should it be 
produced? Who should be required to use it? However, this debate has 
overlooked a key component in this argument, which is, how do we 
transport this energy from areas with high concentrations of renewable 
resources to areas with high demand for electrical power?
  Oftentimes, clean, renewable sources of power are located in rural 
areas with low demand for electricity and limited capacity to transmit 
large amounts of power long distances. At the other end of the 
spectrum, States with larger urban areas are passing State laws that 
require the use of renewable energy. In many cases, it is more 
economical to import that energy from other areas of the country.
  It is critical that we create the infrastructure to allow that 
movement of energy to happen. I have to point to this chart to 
illustrate exactly how my State of South Dakota serves as a prime 
example of this dilemma. In South Dakota, we are blessed to have 
abundant sources of wind. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of 
Energy, South Dakota has enough wind to produce 566 gigawatts of 
electric power from wind, which is the equivalent of 55 percent of the 
Nation's electricity demand.
  I will refer to the chart. If you look at these red areas and the 
pink areas, the purple areas around the country, all these different 
colors demonstrate varying amounts of wind energy.
  Of course, as you can see, South Dakota and North Dakota, Minnesota, 
Iowa, have enormous amounts of wind energy available. Although South 
Dakota has an abundant source of wind, this renewable resource is 
dramatically underdeveloped in my State.
  In fact, we have less than one-tenth the wind energy production of 
our neighboring States, even though our wind resources are far 
superior. The fundamental problem is we don't have the population 
markets to use large amounts of wind power within my State's borders.
  More importantly, we lack the transmission capacity to carry wind 
power from rural areas in South Dakota to urban areas in other areas of 
the country. This amendment includes simple provisions that would 
significantly improve transmission development for renewable sources of 
energy.
  First, this amendment would direct the Department of Energy to 
identify areas with transmission constraints that increase costs to 
consumers, limit resource options to serve load growth or limit access 
to sources of clean, renewable energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal 
energy, and biomass.
  Upon completion of this study, after verifying all alternatives and 
public comments, the Department of Energy could then designate these 
areas as ``National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.''
  These corridors, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support as part of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, are important tools for transmission 
development. Under current law, these corridors are targeted toward 
areas experiencing heavy grid congestion. My amendment would expand the 
designation of these corridors to include access to clean, renewable 
sources of energy.

[[Page 16325]]

  This amendment also directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
to establish regulations that allow public utilities to allocate and 
recover costs associated with building the additional transmission 
infrastructure for wind and other forms of renewable energy. It ensures 
that rates associated with this development are reasonable, just, and 
nondiscriminatory.
  By overcoming some of the inherent obstacles associated with 
transmitting renewable energy long distances, I believe this amendment 
promotes clean, renewable sources of energy in a commonsense fashion.
  This amendment will serve as the blueprint for the 21st century grid 
by facilitating the national scale designation and construction of 
clean energy corridors that will enable the delivery of clean, 
sustainable, reliable power to consumers across this country.
  As I have met with people from the industry, as I have traveled my 
State, as I have talked with those who invest in energy projects, it is 
clear that this is one of the issues that presents a major obstacle to 
wind energy development in this country. This amendment helps address 
that by creating and opening these corridors, clean energy corridors 
that would allow clean green wind energy to make it from areas where it 
is in abundance, places such as the State of South Dakota, to places in 
the country that desperately need affordable power.
  So I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support this amendment and 
do something that will significantly address and further the production 
of wind energy and affordable electricity to America's consumers.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wish to say to the Senator, I 
congratulate you on this amendment, the scope of the amendment and the 
rationale. It is something we need. From my standpoint, I am in favor 
of it. It will not require a rollcall vote. Hopefully, we can dispose 
of your amendment very shortly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, Senator Thune's amendment makes a 
major change in a provision of the Federal Power Act that governs the 
siting of electric transmission lines. Until 2 years ago, the siting of 
electric transmission lines was under the exclusive control of the 
States. The Federal Power Act gave neither the Secretary of Energy nor 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to site 
transmission lines.
  The States tended to make their siting decisions in the best 
interests of their citizens, not necessarily in the best interests of 
the citizens of neighboring or even distant States that might benefit 
by the long distance transmission of electricity.
  Two years ago, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I worked on 
with Senator Domenici, which amended the Federal Power Act to provide 
what is called the Federal backstop siting authority. Specifically, we 
directed the Secretary of Energy to conduct a comprehensive national 
study of electric transmission congestion once every 3 years.
  We then authorized the Secretary to designate, based on the study, 
any geographic areas experiencing electric transmission congestion as 
``national interest electric transmission corridors.'' The Secretary 
completed the first congestion study last August, and he has begun 
proceedings to designate the first national interest corridors.
  Designation of an area as a national interest corridor is likely to 
have serious consequences. Under the law we passed 2 years ago, a 
utility that wants to build an electric transmission line within the 
corridor can apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 
permit, and the Commission can approve construction of the transmission 
line without the permission of or even over the objections of the 
State. Once the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues the utility 
a permit, the utility can then go into Federal court and exercise the 
Federal Government's power of eminent domain and take private property 
to erect the transmission line.
  I have heard speeches in the time I have served in the Senate from 
many of my colleagues about their concern over the exercise of the 
power of eminent domain. The passage of the Thune amendment 
substantially increases the likelihood that authority, that power of 
eminent domain, will be exercised against private property rights. 
Giving Federal officials and private utilities these powers was a major 
change in Federal law and a major departure from past practice. 
Nonetheless, we believed the step was warranted to ensure that the 
national interest in a national electric grid was protected. We 
believed that entrusting the Secretary of Energy with the task of 
studying congestion on a national basis and allowing the Secretary to 
designate only those areas which affected the national interest would 
prevent abuse of this Federal eminent domain authority.
  Even though this authority is less than 2 years old, no corridors 
have yet been designated, no construction permits have been issued, and 
no private property has been taken. The authority is already, however, 
proving very controversial. There is major opposition to the use of 
this authority just west of here in northern Virginia and in other 
areas of the country. There has been talk of repealing the authority.
  The Thune amendment will only add to the controversy. It makes a 
fundamental change in the current authority. The Thune amendment says 
that ``the Secretary may designate additional corridors . . . upon the 
application by an interested person.'' So even though the Secretary of 
Energy did not find that a particular area presented congestion 
concerns of national interest in conducting his congestion study last 
year and even though the Secretary of Energy did not see fit to propose 
an area as a national interest corridor, a utility that would like to 
make use of the Federal eminent domain authority to take private 
property can apply to the Secretary and the Secretary could then 
designate the area as a corridor under this new authority. This, as one 
of the authors of the provision we put in law in 2005, is a major 
expansion of that authority, and it is an unwarranted expansion.
  In addition, the Thune amendment contains additional provisions on 
rates and recovery of costs which direct the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to issue new rules setting transmission rates for the 
recovery of the cost of transmission lines in national interest 
corridors. Frankly, I am not entirely sure what the purpose of these 
provisions are. I am not sure how these provisions affect the 
ratemaking authority the Commission already exercises under the Federal 
Power Act. They are either redundant or unnecessary or else they 
authorize the Commission to set up a new rulemaking standard that will 
apply in national interest corridors different from the standard the 
Commission applies elsewhere.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. We should give the 
program we created in the Energy Policy Act just 2 years ago a chance 
to work before we dramatically expand it in ways that are not entirely 
clear.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, because our very economic security is 
dependent on the availability of electricity, our Nation must reinforce 
its electric power transmission system.
  In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress sought to establish 
national interest electric transmission corridors to make America's 
electricity grid more secure by ensuring there is enough capacity in 
essential areas.
  In EPAct, we directed the Energy Department to identify regions where 
electricity reliability is threatened by transmission congestion and to 
designate national corridors. Congress further provided FERC with 
``backstop siting'' authority for the construction of transmission 
facilities if the states involved are unable or unwilling to do so.
  Just recently, DOE unveiled the following two draft corridor 
designations:

[[Page 16326]]

the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor, which runs from New York to 
Northern Virginia; and the Southwest Area National Corridor, which 
includes counties in southern California, western Arizona, and southern 
Nevada.
  The amendment offered by Senator Thune would authorize the Energy 
Department, in designating national corridors, to consider transmission 
constraints or congestion that increases costs to consumers; limits 
resource options to serve load growth; or limits access to sources of 
clean energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
  Now we just had a debate on the Senate floor last week on the use of 
renewable energy sources. We all support the increased use of renewable 
energy sources but there is often heated opposition to the siting of 
transmission facilities. This is not in the national interest.
  I don't see how you can support a mandate for more renewable energy 
sources but then oppose the designation of national corridors to get 
the transmission built that is needed to move these renewable energy 
sources to market.
  Yet as we consider this amendment to expand the work we began in the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, there are those in the House that are 
attempting to block the needed funding to implement the national 
corridors designations out of NIMBY concerns. Again, such attempts are 
not in the national interest.
  The siting provision in EPAct literally provides a light at the end 
of the tunnel for parts of the country where the electricity grid is at 
risk due to congestion.
  The Thune amendment simply seeks to allow national corridor 
designations to ensure the necessary transmission to access clean 
sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Thune amendment.
  I congratulate Senator Thune for his amendment because it is just a 
rational extension and expansion of what we did in the Energy Policy 
Act. I happened to be part of that Energy Policy Act. As a matter of 
fact, I think I can say that for years before we got together and 
Senator Bingaman and I were carrying it, we couldn't get it through. 
But we did get it through. I believe we got it through because it was 
high time the United States decided that for most matters we could 
stand on States rights, but every now and then something percolated up 
that demanded that we take a serious look at a greater interest of the 
Federal Government.
  That is all we are talking about here. If the development of our 
electric grid ran into situations where you couldn't go through because 
of the obstinacy of a State to your moving from one State to another or 
one property owner had a transmission line totally locked up, you could 
back that up with the Federal Government ending up saying: It has to go 
because it is a big national interest. You are just kind of 
piggybacking on that national interest already found in that law as we 
passed it. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate that we pass this 
amendment tonight.
  I yield back any time I have. I wonder if Senator Bingaman would so 
we could vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Before I yield back my time, I thank both Senators from 
New Mexico. They have both been great leaders on the energy issue.
  The 2005 Energy Act was a landmark accomplishment in the Congress. It 
set a lot of new policy with regard to energy and moved us in a 
direction that gets us less dependent upon foreign sources of energy 
and more energy independent, which I think is what this debate is all 
about.
  I argue with respect to this amendment that it builds upon the work 
we did in 2005. In fact, that amendment that was talked about in 2005 
which deals with those areas which are experiencing heavy grid 
congestion--this simply expands that designation to those corridors to 
include access to clean, renewable sources of energy, which I believe 
is what a part of this debate is all about; that is, how do we take 
energy sources in this country, make them more available to people 
across the country, and lessen the dependence on foreign sources of 
energy?
  I use my State as a prime example. There are lots of different 
regulatory bodies, whether it is the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, the Western Area Power Administration, the Midwest 
Independent System Operators, whether it is the Public Utilities 
Commission of the State of South Dakota, there is a balkanization of 
networks out there that has evolved over time that has created these 
barriers in the grid to getting power from where it is generated, where 
it is produced, to where it is needed. My State is a good example of 
that. On the border of South Dakota, we have what is called a pancaking 
problem where there is a stacking of fees that makes it difficult to 
get wind generated in South Dakota across State lines into other areas 
that could benefit from it.
  This is fairly straightforward and consistent with the good work that 
was done in the Energy bill in 2005. It doesn't in any way undermine or 
contradict that but complements it in a way that is consistent with 
what our priorities should be and what our objectives are in terms of 
energy policy.
  I appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues from New Mexico, 
and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield back any additional time 
remaining in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1609.
  The amendment (No. 1609) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1610

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there remains 11\1/
2\ minutes in support of and 15 minutes in opposition to amendment No. 
1610 offered by the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The amendment I am proposing with Senators Mikulski, Snowe, Dodd, 
Kerry, Reed, Kennedy, Whitehouse, Boxer, and Lieberman would restore 
the authority of our State and local governments to protect the 
environment and ensure public safety with respect to the siting of 
liquefied natural gas--LNG--terminals within their States. This measure 
simply gives our States a say as to whether these kinds of facilities 
should be built within their boundaries and, if so, the exact location.
  It amends the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Under that law, the 
Army Corps of Engineers, acting for the Secretary of the Army, is 
responsible for issuing permits to anyone who wants to build a 
structure in and above waters of the United States. These are often 
called section 10 permits because that is where the provision is found 
in the Rivers and Harbors Act.
  I wish to clarify, we are not changing the authority of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission. Their authority to site is not changed by 
this amendment. What we are doing is requiring the Army Corps to work 
with our States before they issue their permits under the Rivers and 
Harbors Act. This is not about stopping LNG plants from being sited. 
Today, there are six in our country. One is located in my State of 
Maryland in the right location. This amendment is about siting LNG 
plants where they should be sited and having confidence in federalism 
and in our States. Our States will act responsibly, but they should be 
consulted before LNG plants are sited. That is what this amendment will 
do. We want to make sure they are located in the right locations.
  My colleague from Rhode Island pointed out pretty vividly the 
concerns he has about a site up in the New England area. AES Sparrows 
Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express have proposed building a new 
terminal near a densely populated area of Baltimore.

[[Page 16327]]

That is the wrong location for an LNG plant. If we had consultation and 
working with the States, we would be able to site these facilities 
without the risk that they will be located in areas where they should 
not be. That is what the amendment is about. In our area, our 
congressional delegation, Governor O'Malley, Baltimore County Executive 
Jim Smith, and other local officials have all come out against this 
particular location because of the risk to the community, because of 
the risk to the environment.
  This amendment is very simple. It requires the Army Corps to work 
with our States before an LNG license could be issued under section 10 
permits. It is the right way for federalism to work. We should take 
advantage of each State's unique understanding of the issues it faces 
and make sure that expertise is considered in a meaningful way. That is 
why the Coastal States Organization supports this amendment. They 
believe it is the right sharing of how LNG plants should be sited.
  I urge my colleagues to respect federalism. Respect the goodwill of 
our States. Respect the fact that we want LNG facilities and terminals 
to be located, but we want them to be located in the right location.
  I yield my colleague from Maryland 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague.
  I understand this is his first amendment that will be voted on in the 
Senate. I am proud to stand with him as he stands up for Maryland and 
also stands up for the fact that when we are talking about the siting 
of an LNG facility, those who are the most affected should have the 
most to say, which means the State in which it is being located. I 
support this amendment because it is also the right public policy and 
because it is the right public policy for Maryland.
  I am absolutely opposed to a new LNG facility in Sparrows Point, MD. 
As the senior Senator from Maryland, I will do all I can to protect the 
people of Baltimore and to protect the Port of Baltimore. I oppose this 
LNG facility because of my fears and frustrations. I worry about a 
terrorist attack. I worry about an accident with ghoulish consequences. 
This is a national security issue and a community security issue, not 
just an energy or a budget issue.
  These concerns are not mine alone. According to a GAO report, 
scientists and engineers have raised enormous concern about the 
potential hazard of an accident or an attack on LNG facilities. GAO 
says we don't know about the impact of an LNG accident on public 
safety. We are talking about possible injury and death. How can anyone 
make a decision on LNG without knowing the decision on public safety?
  This is why I support this amendment. This amendment gives States and 
communities a stronger voice by making sure the Army Corps of Engineers 
gets the approval of the affected State before giving permits for 
construction for an LNG facility. That means the Governor can say: 
``Hold on a minute; this is not good for my State,'' or, ``Hold on a 
minute; it is good for my State.''
  We cannot let a Federal agency rubberstamp plans for an LNG facility. 
I am committed to promoting America's energy independence, but it must 
not compromise our national security or our neighborhood security. I 
want to make sure we know the consequence of what happens when an LNG 
facility comes to a geographic area. What can be done and should be 
done to review and control the plants, the docks, the ships, the crews?
  I do not want permits issued and foreign-flagged tankers coming to 
our ports until we know key answers. I do not want permits authored by 
Federal agencies when our States are adamantly opposed and they are not 
involved in the decision making. Many States will welcome it. Some 
States will raise questions as we have.
  It is my responsibility as a Senator to make sure we ask the right 
questions to protect the American people. But, most of all, we want to 
give the people most affected something to say.
  We worry about this second LNG facility in Sparrows Point. It is 50 
miles up the Chesapeake Bay. These tankers will have to pass under the 
Bay Bridge. My Governor is worried about the impact on the Port of 
Baltimore, and the people are worried about the impact on the 
community.
  My colleague says we have another facility, and it was in the right 
place. Well, I am not sure it was in the right place. They built this 
LNG facility 3 miles away from a nuclear powerplant--3 miles away from 
a nuclear powerplant--but it got closed in the 1980s when the market 
went down. But guess what. FERC issued a permit to reopen Cove Point in 
a different part of the State 1 month after 9/11, and they did not ask 
about security concerns. It took this Senator--and then my colleague, 
Senator Sarbanes, and I--demanding the Department of Homeland Security 
get involved, demanding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to say: Is it 
OK to have an LNG facility down the street? I had to force the Coast 
Guard to look at it from a security standpoint rather than just an 
environmental standpoint.
  I worry about the rockfish in the bay, but I worry about the people 
who eat the rockfish in the bay, meaning my constituents. We finally 
got the reviews we needed and we moved ahead with the permit. Let me 
tell you, I am on the side of safety, and I believe the safest thing is 
to make sure the Governor has a chance to comment with the Corps and to 
have an expressed impact on this permit facility.
  I think the Senator's policy is a wise one; it is a prudent one. It 
is narrowly crafted. I ask my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, I want to take 5 minutes and yield the rest of it 
to Senator Bingaman. But I do want to make a point that this country is 
going to need large amounts of natural gas over the next 15, 20, 30 
years. One source is probably going to be LNG, liquefied natural gas. 
It is terribly important for our country that we have this available 
when we need it, and if the price is right that we be able to locate 
sites that serve the United States.
  Now, frankly, when we passed the Energy Policy Act, there were three 
or four things that were very much on the minds of those who wanted to 
deliver energy to the United States. I say to my new friend, the new 
Senator from Maryland, one of those at that particular time happened to 
be liquefied natural gas and those around the world who were trying to 
figure out whether the United States was going to be a place where they 
could sell liquefied natural gas or was it going to be a place where 
they could be held up forever.
  We had to decide, as we worked through this very gigantic, gargantuan 
bill, what we were going to do about the concern on the part of the LNG 
market that if you left the law as it was, every State's Governor would 
have a veto power, and in some instances mayors would have veto power 
over an LNG site. We decided that would not work.
  Now, we did not take away everyone's power. As a matter of fact, we 
encouraged cooperation. We encouraged the involvement of the States and 
the local governments with the LNG company, and we said only when you 
get to the point where you cannot reach agreement does the Federal 
Government step in, and then they backstop it and make a determination, 
through FERC, what is in the interest of our Nation, what is fair, and 
what is right.
  Frankly, I don't know the facts about the Maryland plant, and I do 
not believe we need to know them on the floor of the Senate, nor do the 
Senators. What we need to know is we have a good law now on the books 
that gives involvement and participation to everyone who ought to have 
that, but it does not give a Governor veto power over the site.
  I correct any implications or direct statements by my good friend, 
the new

[[Page 16328]]

Senator from Maryland. There is no question the amendment which they 
offer seeks veto power on the part of the Governor, gives the ultimate 
control to the Governor of the State as to what happens to an 
application. I do not believe that is what we wanted when we 
overwhelmingly--as the occupant of the chair has said so many times--in 
a bipartisan manner passed the Energy Policy Act.
  I do not think we intended the first time we had a problem that 
somebody would come to the floor and change that wonderful law that was 
clear as could be, that when it came to locating LNG plants, we were 
not going to revert back to where we were and take the power away from 
FERC, the Federal agency in charge, and reinvest it in the Governor of 
the State.
  We all know how this happens. People get disgruntled about a site, 
they go to the Governor, we immediately have a political tussle, and, 
all of a sudden, the Governor, talking to 500, 600, 700 people at a 
meeting, cannot get out of it, and that puts the Governor in the 
position where he has to say: I am not going to let that happen.
  We saw that over the years. We saw it in other areas. We were bold 
enough in that Energy Act to change that situation, not only when it 
came to this kind of LNG siting but we also changed it--just a while 
ago we were talking about it as it pertained to the grid--the occupant 
of the chair might recall, where we said, if the grid gets clogged up, 
where you cannot get things done, we are going to actually put power in 
the Federal Government to use its public powers to take that gorging 
and dislodge it through eminent domain.
  We did that, and we did other things, all in the interest of what we 
knew was true; that you ultimately had to let energy sources and energy 
grids and energy plants--you had to let the Federal Government have the 
last say, especially where arbitrariness on the part of the local unit 
was entering the picture and they wanted their way, their way under all 
circumstances.
  I thank the Chair for being aware that I am over a moment or so, but 
I am now finished and have left most of the time for Senator Bingaman 
because I think he will do a good job, and maybe we will not have to 
have a vote. But if we do, I urge Senators not to change the law they 
just voted for 77 strong. Do not change it the first time we get an 
amendment of this nature coming before us. Leave it there for a try. 
Let it get tried. It is going to work. It is not going to hurt anybody.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the concerns of my 
colleagues from Maryland, but I also rise to oppose their amendment.
  Just 2 years ago, the Senate approved the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
which contains this comprehensive approach to the siting of liquefied 
natural gas receiving terminals. In that bill, Congress gave FERC, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the jurisdiction to approve the 
siting of LNG terminals that are located on shore.
  FERC acts as the lead agency for NEPA compliance and also as a safety 
regulator. The combined NEPA and permitting process set forth in that 
legislation, EPAct 2005, fully recognizes the role of other Federal 
agencies and the role of State agencies acting under delegated Federal 
authority.
  A project developer is not able to move forward unless all relevant 
permits are granted. FERC has addressed State concerns related to other 
LNG facilities through conditions placed on its approval certificate 
and it has denied a certificate due to safety concerns. So it is clear 
FERC is taking this authority and responsibility very seriously.
  Moreover, this EPAct 2005 legislation also mandated the consideration 
of State concerns in the NEPA prefiling process which occurs very early 
in the siting process. The Governor of the affected State has a direct 
role in that process.
  The Senators from Maryland describe their amendment as ``not 
affecting FERC authority,'' but the amendment would essentially trump 
FERC's authority to site the entire facility.
  As my colleagues know, LNG is imported. It is delivered to this 
country by ship. Therefore, an absolutely essential piece of the LNG 
receiving facility is a place for the ship to moor and to unload its 
cargo; that is, a dock that is constructed in the navigable waters of 
the United States. The Senators' amendment would allow a Governor of an 
affected State--and there is a very broad definition of which States 
are affected; in fact, any State within 15 miles of the terminal would 
be an affected State under their definition--it would allow the 
Governor of an affected State to block the Corps' permit, Army Corps of 
Engineers' permit. Obviously, there is no point in building a terminal 
if the ship is not permitted to get near it.
  Finally, all of us are aware of the high price of natural gas and the 
pressure that puts on electricity prices, home heating prices, and on 
the viability of domestic industries that rely on natural gas. The 
Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2030 the United 
States will need almost 21 billion cubic feet per day of regasified LNG 
to meet a total estimated demand of about 81 billion cubic feet per 
day. This means LNG will account for over 25 percent of our natural gas 
supply. We need a workable process to assure we have adequate capacity 
to meet this need.
  So, Mr. President, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  I know the Senator from Maryland wishes, I assume, to use the 
remainder of his time or to conclude his argument. Following that, I 
will yield back the remaining time in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank both of my friends from New 
Mexico for their leadership on this bill. They have brought forward a 
good bill--a bill that I am proud to support and a bill that I hope 
will be strengthened by the amendment process and that will allow us to 
become energy independent because we need to for national security 
reasons, for economic reasons, and for environmental reasons.
  But it is important that we get it right and that LNG facilities and 
terminals be placed in the right locations. My friend from New Mexico 
says this is a veto power by the State. It is not veto power by the 
State, no more so than you think FERC today has dictatorial powers on 
siting LNG plants. What my amendment is trying to do is to make sure 
our States work with the Federal Government and with our Federal 
agencies on appropriately siting LNG facilities. That is how federalism 
should work.
  I have confidence in my Governor. He was elected by the people of 
Maryland. He is going to do the right thing. He makes tough decisions. 
We make tough decisions. But we should work together because that is 
the way we are going to be able to get the type of energy policy in 
this country that will achieve all three objectives, and that is 
security for energy independence, economic security, and environmental 
security for this country.
  We need to engage our States. We should. This amendment does not 
change the law that was passed 2 years ago. FERC power remains the 
same. It amends the Rivers and Harbors Act dealing with the Army Corps 
of Engineers. That is what it should be; they should be consulting and 
working with the States before they issue their permits. This is a real 
problem. There are dozens of applications pending today. We will be 
able to site LNG plants, but let's site them in the right location. 
Let's not site them, as my friend from Rhode Island said, in a very 
sensitive part of Massachusetts or Rhode Island that literally would 
block recreational use and endanger communities. Let's not site them in 
a place right next to downtown Baltimore, which we know is going to 
present a risk--not just an accidental risk but a terrorist target. 
That is not where we should site LNG plants.
  So we can get it right. We can get our energy policy right. I urge my 
colleagues to respect federalism, respect the fact that the States and 
the Federal Government should be working together on the energy 
policies of this

[[Page 16329]]

 country so we truly become energy independent for the right reasons. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be 
added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1520, as Modified

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
No. 1520 be made the pending amendment for the purposes of modifying 
it, and I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment as modified is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 255. SUPPORT FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       It is the policy of the United States to provide support 
     for projects and activities to facilitate the energy 
     independence of the United States so as to ensure that all 
     but 10 percent of the energy needs of the United States are 
     supplied by domestic energy sources.

     SEC. 256. ENERGY POLICY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--There is established a commission, to be 
     known as the ``National Commission on Energy Independence'' 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Commission'').
       (2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, of whom--
       (A) 3 shall be appointed by the President;
       (B) 3 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (C) 3 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (D) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (E) 3 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (3) Co-chairpersons.--
       (A) In general.--The President shall designate 2 co-
     chairpersons from among the members of the Commission 
     appointed.
       (B) Political affiliation.--The co-chairpersons designated 
     under subparagraph (A) shall not both be affiliated with the 
     same political party.
       (4) Deadline for appointment.--Members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (5) Term; vacancies.--
       (A) Term.--A member of the Commission shall be appointed 
     for the life of the Commission.
       (B) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission--
       (i) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
       (ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       (b) Purpose.--The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive 
     review of the energy policy of the United States by--
       (1) reviewing relevant analyses of the current and long-
     term energy policy of, and conditions in, the United States;
       (2) identifying problems that may threaten the achievement 
     by the United States of long-term energy policy goals, 
     including energy independence;
       (3) analyzing potential solutions to problems that threaten 
     the long-term ability of the United States to achieve those 
     energy policy goals; and
       (4) providing recommendations that will ensure, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, that the energy policy goals of 
     the United States are achieved.
       (c) Report and Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each of 
     calendar years 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, the Commission 
     shall submit to Congress and the President a report on the 
     progress of United States in meeting the long-term energy 
     policy goal of energy independence, including a detailed 
     statement of the consensus findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations of the Commission.
       (2) Legislative language.--If a recommendation submitted 
     under paragraph (1) involves legislative action, the report 
     shall include proposed legislative language to carry out the 
     action.
       (d) Commission Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Staff and director.--The Commission shall have a staff 
     headed by an Executive Director.
       (2) Staff appointment.--The Executive Director may appoint 
     such personnel as the Executive Director and the Commission 
     determine to be appropriate.
       (3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Commission, the Executive Director may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (4) Federal agencies.--
       (A) Detail of government employees.--
       (i) In general.--Upon the request of the Commission, the 
     head of any Federal agency may detail, without reimbursement, 
     any of the personnel of the Federal agency to the Commission 
     to assist in carrying out the duties of the Commission.
       (ii) Nature of detail.--Any detail of a Federal employee 
     under clause (i) shall not interrupt or otherwise affect the 
     civil service status or privileges of the Federal employee.
       (B) Technical assistance.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of a Federal agency shall provide such 
     technical assistance to the Commission as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (e) Resources.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall have reasonable 
     access to materials, resources, statistical data, and such 
     other information from Executive agencies as the Commission 
     determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Form of requests.--The co-chairpersons of the 
     Commission shall make requests for access described in 
     paragraph (1) in writing, as necessary.

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 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. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1519

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1519 offered by the 
Senator from Wisconsin.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me and our 13 
cosponsors in voting in favor of our OPEC amendment. This amendment 
will declare price fixing by the OPEC oil cartel illegal under our 
antitrust laws and will give our Government a much needed weapon to 
combat the illegal actions of the OPEC cartel that harms consumers 
every time they visit the gas pump.
  Contrary to the fears of the opponents of this amendment, this 
amendment will not harm either our foreign relations or foreign 
investment in the United States. Enforcement of NOPEC is reserved 
exclusively to the Justice Department. Should the administration deem 
it imprudent to take action against NOPEC, then it need not do so. It 
is long past time for us to have the ability, should our Government 
decide to do so, to take legal action to fight back against the OPEC 
conspiracy on behalf of American consumers.
  So I urge my colleagues to join 345 House Members who last month 
voted in huge numbers in favor of NOPEC.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since I don't see anyone else here, let 
me speak in opposition to the amendment.
  This is one of these feel-good amendments where you can tell your 
constituents you struck a blow for freedom by outlawing OPEC.
  The truth is, this is terrible precedent for us to say we are going 
to drag foreign governments into our court system and allow them to be 
sued for antitrust violations. We have always stopped short of doing 
this. The precedent would be terrible because obviously they would do 
the same thing with us. If we can bring foreign governments into our 
courts and subject them to penalties here, they can bring our 
Government into their courts and do the same thing. The courts have 
stayed away from these issues. These are diplomatic issues and 
political issues the courts should stay out of.

[[Page 16330]]

  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the Kohl amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), 
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 70, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed (RI)
     Reid (NV)
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Burr
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
  The amendment (No. 1519) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1610

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1610, offered by the 
Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the authority 
of State and local governments to protect the environment and ensure 
public safety with respect to siting of liquefied natural gas, LNG 
terminals. This measure simply gives our States a say in whether these 
kinds of facilities, LNG facilities, should be built within their 
boundaries and, if so, their exact location.
  The amendment does not eliminate FERC's siting authority. It doesn't 
amend the FERC statute at all. It amends the Army Corps' permitting 
statute and requires that the Army Corps work with our States in siting 
LNG facilities.
  The amendment is common sense, one that engages our States as 
partners in serious decisionmaking authority as to where an LNG plant 
should be located. This bill is all about securing America's future 
through energy independence. We need to work with our States. It should 
be federalism. We should respect the authorities of our States and the 
sincerity of our Governors, and this bill restores that type of balance 
so that the States are involved in protecting the environment at the 
location of LNG facilities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment does not just allow the 
States to participate in the decision; this amendment would give the 
States the ability to veto the issuance of any permit to the Army Corps 
of Engineers to build a terminal and would, in that way, cut us off 
from needed access to international supplies of liquefied natural gas, 
LNG. We are going to be more and more dependent upon these liquefied 
natural gas supplies from overseas. We need to have these terminals 
constructed. We have a provision in existing law that gives us good 
processes for including the States, but it is important that we not 
change existing law.
  Senator Domenici, did you wish to speak?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say that I wholeheartedly 
agree with Senator Bingaman. Just 2\1/2\ years ago, we decided we 
needed LNG so much in the future that we wanted an orderly process that 
did not give the Governors of each State the right to veto. This one is 
even broader. This gives Governors a 15-mile radius around the 
opportunity to veto.
  I don't think we should change the law so quickly. I think we should 
leave it alone for a few years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The question 
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maryland, Mr. 
Cardin.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
  The amendment (No. 1610) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus 
be recognized, following him, Senator Enzi, following him Senator 
Gregg.
  Mr. GREGG. And Senator Murkowski.
  Mr. REID. Senator Enzi, how long do you wish to speak?
  Mr. ENZI. Six to eight minutes.
  Mr. REID. How long do you wish to speak, Senator Gregg?

[[Page 16331]]


  Mr. GREGG. About 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Senator Murkowski, do you know?
  Mr. GREGG. Senator Murkowski for 5 minutes, I believe.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Ten minutes.
  Mr. REID. We will follow that by Senators Menendez, Schumer, and 
Brown, up to 10 minutes each. Is that OK? You have all that down? Thank 
you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendments be temporarily set aside so I can offer an amendment 
incorporating the Finance Committee-reported energy tax package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
  Mr. ENZI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't know why there is objection. I 
note while there is objection, I will talk about it until we get the 
objection cleared. This is a Finance Committee amendment passed out of 
committee. It is very straightforward. We have a copy. The Senator from 
Wyoming objected?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I think the objection was on the basis that 
we just got the file. We haven't looked at it at all.
  Mr. BAUCUS. You will have time to look at it. We are not going to 
vote on it for a while. You will have lots of time to look at it. You 
will have time to look at it, believe me. This is a formality. It is 
good to bring it up now so we move the process along so the Senator and 
other Senators have time to look at it.
  Mr. ENZI. I have no objection to someone talking on it, but I would 
like to take a look at it, whatever it is.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I inform the Senator I am only asking the amendment be 
brought up. There will be plenty of time. In fact, the Senator could 
speak as long as he wants and other Senators could speak as long as 
they want as we look at the amendment.
  The ordinary course is the amendment is brought up. This has been 
fully vetted in the Finance Committee. Senators on both sides of the 
aisle passed it by a vote of 15 to 5. Members on the Republican side 
voted for it in committee.
  I hope we can at least get the amendment up, and then we can work the 
usual Senate will.
  Mr. ENZI. Apparently, there are objections on our side. I have no 
objection to you going ahead and speaking to it, but they want to look 
at the amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment 
incorporating the Finance Committee-reported energy tax package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1704

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1704.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schumer, 
     Ms. Cantwell and Mr. Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1704 to amendment No. 1502.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Grassley, Bingaman, Lincoln, Wyden, Schumer, Cantwell, and Salazar be 
added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a long statement here which I am 
not going to read. Essentially this is the Finance Committee amendment. 
It goes a long way to help create incentives for renewables and for 
carbon sequestration, which is so important. It is a $20-billion-plus 
amendment over 10 years. It is fully offset. It is all paid for. It 
passed out of the Finance Committee by a vote of 15 to 5 earlier today. 
We spent a lot of time on this amendment and I think it is one of which 
the Senate can be very proud.
  Basically, we are building on the strong foundation we already have 
with respect to tax incentives in our country. We continue our 
commitment to clean energy and renewables. We extend existing tax 
incentives for solar power, wind power, fuel cells, and energy-
efficient homes and buildings. We create a tax incentive for 
transmission projects related to renewable energy projects and provide 
more than $3.6 billion over 10 years for renewable energy bonds. I 
might say this will benefit all of the States and also is of particular 
interest to my home State of Montana, and I know also to the Senator 
from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
  But we are going further than all that. We are also trying to extend 
the frontier in three areas that are critical to our Nation's energy 
future. One is cellulosic ethanol. We give significant incentives for 
cellulosic ethanol development; hybrid cars, significant incentives for 
the purchase of hybrid cars as well as plug-ins for hybrids; and third, 
carbon sequestration.
  We propose a $1.11 per gallon tax credit for up to 60 million gallons 
of cellulosic fuel produced from sawgrass, agricultural wastes, and 
other biomass.
  Hybrid cars provide an opportunity to make transportation cleaner--
high-mileage cars with almost no emissions. I think it is worth 
exploring. The amendment calls for a new credit for plug-in vehicles 
for $2,500 to $7,500.
  We are also trying to take advantage of the vast reserves of coal we 
have in our country. We clearly also have great concerns about global 
warming. I think it is imperative that we use our coal to help meet our 
energy needs, but we also have to prevent carbon dioxide from escaping 
into the atmosphere.
  There are various provisions here with respect to carbon 
sequestration. It depends upon whether it is known as a clean coal 
facility, but we use tax credits provided in this mark, which must 
capture and sequester at least 65 percent of its carbon dioxide 
emissions. That is with respect to power that is used to generate 
electricity. The utility industry tells us we can't go higher than 65 
percent sequestration or captured sequestration for the utility 
industry. But we are going higher in other areas, and one is the coal-
to-liquids sequestration. We extend the current 50-cent rate for coal-
to-liquids to the year 2012. We also provide for a 75-percent capture 
of carbon for coal to liquids. This provision generated some 
controversy in the committee--some wanted it much higher, some wanted 
it lower. We felt that 72 percent is a pretty good compromise and a 
good place to begin.
  I will also add that we provide 50 percent bonus depreciation for new 
dedicated pipelines that will be used to transport carbon dioxide from 
an industrial source to a geological formation for permanent disposal.
  There are many other provisions in this amendment which I will not 
mention, except to say that this is a very great addition to the 
underlying package. We are turning the corner here. We are enacting 
legislation which will help move America away from the past and more 
toward the future. The future is renewable energies, alternative 
energies. It is conservation provisions which we also have in this 
bill. It is utilizing our coal reserves in the same way; that is, 
making sure the carbon is

[[Page 16332]]

sufficiently captured. It is all paid for, and it is paid for by 
closing some loopholes in the coal and gas industry and also by 
repealing the reduction for section 199 for the major oil companies. 
This applies only to the five majors.
  We also propose a tax on gulf oil production. Some will say: Gee, 
aren't we discouraging domestic production by doing that in America 
with those provisions? But I must point out that since section 199 was 
enacted several years ago, the actual domestic production in the United 
States has declined. A few years ago when that provision was enacted, 
the price of gasoline was much lower than it is now. It is much higher 
today. In addition to that, the projected profits for the oil and gas 
industry for the next 10 years are projected to be $1 trillion. If you 
look at the profits, if you look at how much gasoline prices have 
risen, and if you look at the decline in domestic production in this 
country over the last several years, even with those very high profits, 
it is pretty clear this offset will not in any way diminish our 
prospects of domestic production and will not cause gasoline prices to 
increase. In fact, there is a study by the Joint Tax Committee which 
makes that very point; namely, since these provisions were put into 
effect a couple or 3 years ago, domestic production has not increased. 
It has not helped increase domestic production in the United States. 
Actually, domestic production has decreased.
  So we feel this is a good package. It is paid for properly. It passed 
the committee by a vote of 15 to 5. I recommend this Finance Committee 
package to the full Senate. We will work our will on it over the next 
several days, but I think it is an excellent start.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a previous order.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, who is the next person to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 8 
minutes.

                          ____________________