[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16895-16952]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator suspend to allow 
the Senate to report pending business.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of 
H.R. 6, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on 
     foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative 
     energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, 
     developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic 
     Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in 
     alternative energy, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1537 (to amendment No. 
     1502), to provide for a renewable portfolio standard.
       Klobuchar (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1573 (to amendment 
     No. 1537), to provide for a renewable portfolio standard.
       Bingaman (for Klobuchar) amendment No. 1557 (to amendment 
     No. 1502), to establish a national greenhouse gas registry.
       Corker amendment No. 1608 (to amendment No. 1502), to allow 
     clean fuels to meet the renewable fuel standard.
       Cardin modified amendment No. 1520 (to amendment No. 1502), 
     to promote the energy independence of the United States.
       Collins amendment No. 1615 (to amendment No. 1502), to 
     provide for the development and coordination of a 
     comprehensive and integrated U.S. research program that 
     assists the people of the United States and the world to 
     understand, assess, and predict human-induced and natural 
     processes of abrupt climate change.
       Baucus amendment No. 1704 (to amendment No. 1502), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for energy 
     advancement and investment.
       Kyl-Lott modified amendment No. 1733 (to amendment No. 
     1704), to provide a condition precedent for the effective 
     date of the revenue raisers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 70 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 1733, offered by the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. Kyl, and the motion to invoke cloture on amendment No. 1704, 
offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1733

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, resuming debate on the amendment which I 
offered, the amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that 
notwithstanding the tax increases, $28.6 billion in tax increases in 
the amendment pending on the floor, they shall not take effect unless 
the Secretary of Energy certifies that those tax increases will not 
increase retail gasoline prices or the reliance of the United States on 
foreign sources of energy.
  The point of the amendment is to make it clear that sometimes tax 
increases on business can be passed on to consumers. If that happens in 
this case, we are going to see higher gasoline prices at the pump, not 
lower prices. One of the concerns many of us have with the underlying 
bill is it doesn't produce any new energy. Yet it spends $28.5 billion. 
To make up for that spending, it taxes an additional $28.6 billion.
  Somebody has to end up paying that tax. Most people in America know 
that when you put a tax on a business, that gets passed on to the 
consumers who buy the product--in this case, gasoline. So instead of 
reducing gasoline prices, this bill, if the underlying amendment 
passes, is going to add to the cost of gasoline.
  Yesterday I mentioned a Heritage Foundation study that confirmed that 
what I was saying was not simply my opinion but the facts as a result 
of a study that the Heritage Foundation had done. I would like to 
expand on that a little bit because we actually have the figures for 
two States, the State of the chairman of the committee, Montana, and my 
State of Arizona, to illustrate the point.
  The study projects that gas prices in Montana, for example, in May 
averaged at $3.17 per gallon. They would be $3.48 per gallon next year 
as a result of the Energy bill before the Senate. A Montana taxpayer 
would see spending on gasoline increase by $1,632.95 next year, as a 
result of the bill.
  In Arizona, we are paying about $3.09 per gallon. That would go up to 
$3.40 next year as a result of this bill, so Arizona taxpayers will see 
spending on gasoline increase by $1,140.51 next year as a result of 
this Energy bill. That is a huge increase in consumers' payment for 
gasoline. When we realize that for many people driving is not a luxury, 
it is a requirement--to get to work or perform work--it is clear we are 
costing the American consumer a huge amount of money that is important 
for our economy and for them to make a living. That is an unintended 
consequence of the tax increases embodied in this bill but real 
nevertheless.
  What we are saying is, if that is the result of tax increases, then 
those tax increases would not go into effect. I think that is an 
important principle for us to establish.
  I would like to respond to a couple of points made by opponents of my 
amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee argued the tax 
increases in the underlying bill are simply loophole closers, but that 
is not true. The largest tax increase in the bill is a brandnew tax. It 
is not a loophole closer, it is a new 13-percent tax on new oil 
production in the Gulf of Mexico. How is that going to help bring down 
gasoline prices? I suggest it is not. It will help to raise prices.
  The second largest tax increase in the bill raises the corporate tax 
rate. That is not a loophole closer either, it is simply needed to pay 
for the other costs of the bill, so it was a ready source of revenue 
that they decided to tap.
  This is a raise in the corporate tax rate for oil and gas companies, 
which would then make it higher on those companies than others in 
manufacturing--something we were trying to promote when we passed the 
bill 2 years ago.
  Raising the corporate tax rate is obviously not a loophole closer. I 
suggest when you raise marginal tax rates, you either get less 
production or higher prices--more likely, both--not good results from 
raising taxes.
  Finally, the Senator from Oregon argued yesterday that with oil over 
$55 a barrel, oil companies should not need incentives to drill for new 
oil and gas. I certainly agree with that; they do not need any new 
incentives to drill for oil and gas. I have always been against those 
kinds of targeted incentives or taxpayer subsidies for any form of 
energy. But imposing a new tax or raising the corporate rate is not the 
same thing as repealing targeted incentives, which is what we should be 
doing. Moreover, with oil over $60 a barrel right now, renewable energy 
companies should not need any further taxpayer subsidies either. The 
market is providing all the incentives necessary to produce hybrid cars 
and advanced fuels.
  These tax increases are not necessary. They are going to be 
counterproductive to our economic growth. They are going to hurt our 
producers vis-a-vis foreign producers, they are going to further 
increase our dependence on foreign oil and, most importantly, they are 
going to raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for American consumers.
  All my amendment says is if that happens, then these tax increases 
should not go into effect. If it doesn't have that effect, then the tax 
increases would go into effect.

[[Page 16896]]

  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Baucus 
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against cloture.
  There are only two things wrong with the Baucus amendment: One, it 
raises taxes in the wrong places; and, secondly, it spends these taxes 
on the wrong policies. I want to make two points upfront before I start 
my remarks.
  When we speak of American big oil, let me remind people that 
America's five big oil companies hold less reserves than Hugo Chavez, 
the state-owned company of Hugo Chavez in his country.
  My second point is, very seldom does the United States tax businesses 
that are in competition overseas. Let me repeat that. We in America 
hardly ever tax American businesses that are in competition overseas. 
Of course, that is exactly what we have done here, and what is going to 
happen is not going to be good. It is not going to help the American 
consumer one bit.
  There are only two things, as I indicated, that are wrong with the 
Baucus amendment. I would repeat: It raises taxes in the wrong places, 
and then it spends them on the wrong policies.
  I cast this vote, and I think it is an informed vote based on my 
experience. It is with a deep sense of responsibility to do what is 
right, with a keen interest and understanding of energy policy, because 
I have been forced to work on it with many who know a lot about it. 
With a real appreciation of the importance of this vote, I will oppose 
cloture.
  The tax provisions in this bill will increase the cost of gasoline at 
the pump for Americans, increase electricity bills for families, and 
work severe hardship on our natural gas supply. Additionally, this 
amendment could seriously harm our economy. The Federal Reserve 
Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently noted that: A significant increase in 
energy prices can simultaneously slow the economy, and raise inflation.
  I cannot vote for that consequence. I urge that my colleagues not do 
so either. I do not cast this vote lightly, and I arrive at the 
decision after a great deal of reflection. There are many good and 
important provisions contained in this amendment. In the area of 
renewable energy, while there may be questions about how long certain 
tax credits should be extended, there should be no doubt that in the 
past I have supported renewable energy.
  In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with Senator Bingaman, we passed 
the largest tax incentives for renewable energy, a variety of renewable 
energies, than we ever have in American history. My friend and 
colleague Senator Alexander has often referred to the bill that we 
passed as the ``Clean Energy Act.'' He is right. In 2005, in the Energy 
Policy Act we provided renewable energy production tax credits, 
automobile tax credits, and we can keep going. We provided tax credits 
for energy efficient improvements, biodiesel, and for ethanol. We 
included tax credits for installing alternative refueling property, tax 
credits for the installation of solar. The world demanded cleaner 
energy, and the Energy Policy Act answered the call.
  Between 2004 and 2006, global private capital investment in clean 
energy rose from around $30 billion to $60 billion a year. It rose 
because we set the framework into law, and it was invested on the 
private side. In the public market and in venture capital and in 
private equity, in corporate research, development, and demonstration, 
and government research and development and asset financing, the answer 
has been the same. Both the private and public sector are excited about 
the future of clean energy, and they are busy, under our 2005 act, 
investing heavily in it.
  The weakness is in the amendment I am talking about. Without 
question, some of the tax incentives in this bill could have a positive 
impact on the landscape of American energy future. To deny that would 
be to debate unfairly the merits of this amendment.
  Cellulosic ethanol production credits, plug-in hybrid vehicle 
credits, and clean coal energy bonds are smart financial incentives, 
and those tax policies complement many of the goals we have sought to 
achieve in the previous legislation. I think that is good.
  Supporting the great things that we accomplished together in the 
Energy bill 2 years ago made us all feel good. However, the tax 
incentives in this bill focus on too narrow a field of energy policy. 
The Finance Committee has reported this amendment with a pricetag of 
$32.1 billion, a very large tax increase. In a few minutes I will speak 
about the troubling revenue-raising proposals in this amendment.
  But, first, I ask myself and I ask others, so our people would get a 
feeling of what $32.1 billion is, what it can be better used for or 
what it might be used for in the American economy if it were free to be 
invested or other things bought with it: $32.1 billion would purchase 
15 biorefineries, 16,000 barrels-per-day coal-to-liquid refineries, 5 
gasoline refineries, and 4 nuclear powerplants, 10 bio-energy research 
centers, and 500 miles of transmission lines.
  Now, I am not suggesting we would buy them with this bill, but I am 
suggesting that everyone should know the huge size of this tax, taken 
out of the economy, and what it would invest in similar dollars, that 
it could invest in the American economy. I just told you what they 
were.
  We could use this money for commercial demonstrations in oil shale, 
fund demonstrations for energy from coal using IGCC, and we all know we 
must do that. We do not have any money to do them, and we are having 
difficulty getting loans from the Government, and here we are taking 
$32 billion and not providing anything for these kinds of investments 
that we must do if we are going to keep pace with China, which is going 
full speed ahead with all of those things, including nuclear power, and 
nuclear powerplants in this country. We must get there also.
  But in the meantime, we are taking an awful lot of revenue flow out 
of the economy, right away from the energy companies that know how to 
invest it, where to invest it, how to pick up reserves, and how to keep 
the price of oil as much within bounds as the world market will permit.
  Without question, the revenue-raising proposals in the amendment will 
increases the cost of exploring for and producing our Nation's oil and 
gas and natural gas. As a result, Americans will pay higher prices for 
gasoline at the pump, and we will suffer increased electricity costs as 
our Nation's natural gas supply is weakened. We will pay higher prices, 
obviously, for natural gas.
  The excise tax on oil and gas exploration increases taxes $10 billion 
over 10 years on producers on our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. 
Frankly, I believe that entire tax is wrong. We should not be taxing 
the most productive--the places where more money is being put for 
exploration than anywhere else, the Outer Continental Shelf. Yet one-
third of the taxes here come from imposing a fee, a very high fee, on 
the Outer Continental Shelf. Who would have thought it? The place in 
America where we have a chance of producing, we have imposed a heavy 
tax. Proponents of this amendment claim these tax provisions only 
affect the five largest U.S. oil and gas companies. Not true. But I 
have already told you who they are and what they represent in the world 
markets.
  In fact, there are 40 lessee companies. Nearly 75 percent of all 
entities leasing on the OCS hold leases that would be subject to a 13-
percent punitive tax. I hardly thought I would see that on the floor of 
the Senate. Yet here it is, bragged about as a very big source of money 
that we can do other things with, without regard to the prices the 
American people are going to pay in the increased prices for oil and 
gas coming from the shelf.
  This is the lifeblood of our domestic oil and gas production. It 
makes absolutely no sense to advocate for independence from foreign 
oil, and then turn right around and raise taxes on our domestic 
companies that are producing America's oil and natural gas.

[[Page 16897]]

It will mean higher prices for consumers.
  Oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf amounts to 
approximately 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, and 12\1/2\ billion 
cubic feet of natural gas. Annually, this production equals 
approximately 600 million barrels of oil per year and 4.7 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas per year.
  Now, that is good. They are doing fine. So why don't we put a tax on 
them of 13.5 surtax? It makes no sense. The price will go up, 
production will come down. These amounts produce 30 percent of our 
domestic oil production per year, and 23 percent of our domestic 
natural gas. Placing a punitive tax on this production is serious 
business backed by very serious facts, and I say serious consequences.
  Activities on the OCS provide an average of over $6 billion a year in 
revenue to the Treasury. In the future the offshore will be even more 
important. The Minerals Management Service estimates about 60 percent 
of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be 
contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States are 
located where? Where might you guess? In the Outer Continental Shelf, 
upon which we are going to place a very stiff, very high tax.
  Furthermore, the intent of the OCS excise tax and the effect of this 
tax is crystal clear. The provision charges 13 percent of the removal 
price of taxable crude oil and natural gas, with a credit available to 
those who have price thresholds on their oil and natural gas leases. In 
plain English, this amendment seeks to legislatively breach valid 
contracts from 1998 and 1999, because the Clinton administration failed 
to include a term in these agreements.
  In other words, there was no fault of the companies. The Clinton 
administration either made a mistake or did not want to put the fee on; 
it just didn't happen. So for those 2 years, we have royalty leases 
with no royalty thresholds.
  Congress cannot rewrite contracts after the fact merely because we do 
not like the contracts or the results. I predict when we are all 
finished, the courts of the land are going to say: This part of this 
tax is illegal and unconstitutional, and out the window will go a very 
large portion of this tax because the rights are clearly there. We have 
to think about it and think about what we are doing.
  I do not like the idea of the United States of America going back on 
its contracts. It sounds and looks and smells like some foreign 
country. But we are close to doing it here in the name of some new 
answer, and at the same time saying it is going to yield revenues for 
us to use for various things in this bill.
  As we consider this amendment, the Senate should be on notice that 
legal precedent would not be on our side. The U.S. Supreme Court and 
Federal circuit court precedents suggest that the Government cannot 
avoid the obligations of its contracts by using its taxing power to 
take back benefits it has given up pursuant to an agreement. I suggest 
to the Senate that a Federal court will recognize this tax for what it 
is and, therefore, this $10 billion we are counting on in this bill 
will be lost.
  The Department of the Interior has already testified before Congress 
expressing its concern about protracted litigation over this issue and 
the potential for a loss of billions in revenue as well as the delay of 
oil and gas production.
  There are 2 other provisions among the revenue raising proposals that 
are very troubling. One provision would amend the Job Creation Act of 
2004, which created tax relief for more than 200,000 U.S. corporations 
and businesses. This proposal increases taxes by almost $10 billion 
over 10 years.
  Instead of the Jobs Creation Act, we could call this provision the 
Jobs Destruction Act.
  Finally, the increase in taxes by the U.S. Government on American 
companies competing overseas--through the foreign oil tax provision--
increases taxes $3.1 billion over 10 years.
  This amendment also attacks American interests and cedes control to 
foreign interests. It says we would rather buy energy from the likes of 
Hugo Chavez in Venezuela than produce it ourselves.
  To put the proper context on this, Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian 
state-owned oil company, has nearly 3 times more daily output per 
million barrels per day than the largest U.S. oil company and holds 
nearly 10 times the oil and natural gas reserves.
  To make it more difficult for American companies to compete overseas 
for this global commodity at a time when oil prices are nearly $70 per 
barrel is simply wrong. The Senate should reject this political 
expediency that will hurt American businesses, and the American 
consumer.
  I began my remarks by conveying to this Senate the seriousness with 
which I cast this vote.
  In my judgment, this amendment will have significant negative 
consequences on America's energy security. The Baucus amendment will 
increase the cost of producing oil and gas in America and will 
undermine the ability of American businesses to compete against state-
owned oil companies run by foreign governments. The result for our 
Nation will be a greater reliance on crude oil from hostile regions of 
the world and an increase in the price of gasoline for the American 
people.
  That is an unacceptable consequence and not what the American people 
expect of us.
  For the reasons that I have stated, I must vote no on the motion to 
invoke cloture on the Baucus amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I come to the floor to oppose the tax that has been proposed and is 
now before us brought by the Finance Committee.
  It is very easy politically to stick it to the big boys, and that is 
the political game which is being played out on the floor of the Senate 
as we speak. Stick it to the big boys. OK, we are going to stick it to 
the big boys, $32.1 billion worth of taxes. What will it do for us? 
Will it change the price at the gas pump today? No. In fact, we have 
just heard the Senator from New Mexico say it could possibly raise the 
price of gas in the long term. Hasn't this Senate heard the plea of the 
American consumer over the last 6 months about $3 gas? Don't we get it 
today or do we just want to play petrol politics? That is what the 
Finance Committee has done; they have played petrol politics. They are 
sticking it to the big boys, and they are going to put it in the green 
machine. The green machine may yield some energy in the future, but it 
sure isn't going to change the price at the gas pump tomorrow or the 
next day or next week or next year. If they argue in disagreement with 
me, my answer is simple: Prove it. Prove that you will change the price 
at the pump. Or will the big boys simply try to pass it through to the 
consumer? We will find out, won't we, if this bill passes. That is why 
I am going to have to oppose cloture on the Baucus provision of taxes, 
the petrol politics of this issue.
  Let me show you the petrol politics of the real issue. Here is where 
the reserves in the world exist today. Here are the big boys of 
America--Exxon, Chevron, Marathon. Do we really think if we stick it to 
these three and more we will change the world? No. The world today from 
the standpoint of energy is controlled over here on the left-hand side 
of the chart. It is controlled by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and so on 
down the line. They control the known reserves. They control the 
world's oil supply. They are the big boys. We are not sticking it to 
them. In fact, we are handing them a golden leaf. We are saying: You 
control the world oil supply, and we are dependent upon you for 60 
percent of our supply. But we are going to penalize our producers 
because of the petrol politics of this issue.
  There is another petrol game being played out. Petrol politics is 
being played out on the floor of the Senate, but petrol nationalism is 
being played

[[Page 16898]]

out by these companies and countries of known reserve. Every one of 
these producers controls their supply; their nation's government and 
their nation's government's companies control the supply of oil. They 
can turn the valve on or off. Every time they do, the American consumer 
ultimately pays more. That is called petrol nationalism. I believe when 
we talk about the war of energy today, that is what we are involved in. 
We are involved in a war on who can produce energy and can we become 
energy secure so that we don't have to be dependent upon Saudi Arabia 
and Iraq and Iran.
  We know what is happening in that area of the world today, the 
phenomenal instability. Not only do these nations play petrol 
nationalism, they also play with something else: They have the weapon 
of mass disruption. Let me repeat that. These nations hold the weapon 
of mass disruption. You change the price at the pump a couple of 
dollars because you turn the valve off in these countries, and you hit 
this economy like a freight train.
  What are we going to do today? We are going to tax it a little more. 
That is all this Congress really knows how to do, is tax. They don't 
know how to produce. We don't produce. We get out of the way of 
production. We encourage production, but this bill will not produce one 
barrel of oil. ExxonMobil will produce a barrel of oil. Chevron will. 
Marathon will. The rest of these countries will. But we don't. We are 
now stepping in the way of that production. We are now penalizing that 
production.
  The senior Senator from New Mexico talked about where the greatest 
reserves of America lie today--offshore. Yet we are saying: If you want 
to play out there, if you want to go out, find it, drill, we are going 
to tax you. We are going to penalize you instead of encourage you and 
incentivize you to discover, to bring it to the wellhead and to bring 
it to America's shores and to refine it for the American consumer.
  Anybody in a reasonable way who doesn't want to play the political 
game being played out on the floor as we speak--petrol politics--needs 
to vote no on cloture.
  If the American consumer thinks these companies are going to pay the 
$32.1 billion in taxes, they have it wrong. They are going to pay it at 
the pump. The Baucus bill pumps tax dollars out of the back pocket of 
the American consumer. It does not allow oil to be pumped out of the 
ground. It does not allow us to hold a stronger political position in 
the world of petrol nationalism. That is the debate we are going 
through right now. It is about windmills. It is about cellulosic. It is 
about all the things I like. But it really isn't. It is antiproduction. 
It is anticonsumer. It is anti-American to deny our Nation's economy 
access to the world energy supply. That is what we are doing. Let's 
allow Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran to grab us by the gas nozzle and 
jerk us around every time they choose. This tax package suggests that 
could start again tomorrow because we are not going to get ourselves 
back into the business of production.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very interesting series of 
statements we have heard in the last 15 minutes, half hour, statements 
basically trying to lead Americans to believe that this Finance 
Committee tax package, as well as the provisions of the tax package to 
pay for incentives so we can wean ourselves away from OPEC, away from 
all these countries, is going to result somehow in some cataclysmic 
event; namely, gasoline prices are going to go up, according to 
statements we have heard. We have also heard that we are going to 
reduce domestic exploration and development of American oil companies; 
we are putting ourselves in the hands of foreign countries. The fact 
is, the exact opposite is the case. These statements are amazing. It is 
good political rhetoric, but it has nothing to do with the facts.
  First, it is more important that people understand that the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, basically delegates to 
the Secretary of Energy whether $30 billion worth of tax provisions 
will be enacted. I am astounded that anybody in the Senate wants to 
delegate that decision to the Secretary of Energy instead of the U.S. 
Congress deciding whether the tax needs to be imposed.
  The Kyl amendment basically says that unless the Energy Secretary can 
determine that the effect of this will not increase the price of 
gasoline at the pump, that he, the Energy Secretary, or she, the Energy 
Secretary--whoever the Energy Secretary is--will automatically be 
forced to rescind the pay-fors in this bill. That is astounding. It is 
basically delegating to the Energy Secretary a policy which should be 
made by the Congress, and that is a huge dereliction of responsibility. 
I am appalled that anybody would dare suggest it. But that is a fact.
  Second, if we look at the whole bill, the Finance Committee package 
in the Energy bill and also the Kyl amendment, several things are 
striking. The first is the major underlying Finance Committee bill is 
designed to accomplish the objective that the Senator from Idaho is 
complaining about. The Senator from Idaho is complaining that this 
amendment transfers power to Venezuela or to Saudi Arabia, other 
countries. The whole point of this bill is the exact opposite. It is to 
wean ourselves away from OPEC, wean ourselves away from those 
countries, so that we Americans are in a better position to determine 
our own destiny, in a better position to get more energy production 
here in America.
  How do we do that? The committee bill does that through all kinds of 
incentives. It reduces taxes in lots of different ways for alternative 
energy, renewable energy, cellulosic development, encouraging more 
American clean coal technology so we can tap into our vast reserves of 
coal. It has lots of ways we could help America be more self-sufficient 
and wean ourselves away from these very high gasoline prices we are 
forced to pay partly because OPEC is forcing us to pay those prices; 
the truth is, partly because the major oil companies are charging 
whatever the market will bear. That is why they are charging such high 
prices to the American consumer. What evidence do I have of that? It is 
very simple and direct.
  I was stunned because of the candor of the CEO of ExxonMobil when he 
made this statement. This was last year at a Judiciary Committee 
hearing. I was not there; I was watching on C-SPAN. At that hearing, 
the exchange was essentially between the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Kohl, and the CEO of Exxon. I think Senator Kohl asked the question. 
This was an open hearing.
  He said: Sir, why are gasoline prices so high now?
  The answer: Well, Exxon has to pay more because OPEC is charging us 
more. So we to have pay more, and we transfer those price increases 
down to the American consumer.
  The Senator from Wisconsin asked the head of ExxonMobil: Explain this 
to me, please. At the same time, your profits have exploded. They have 
gone up about $35 billion this year. Your profits have expanded.
  Senator Kohl said: I am a businessman. Ordinarily, if my costs go up, 
my profits go down. Please explain to me why you would say your costs 
are going up because OPEC is charging you more and yet your profits are 
going way up. Why?
  His answer was very illustrative of the point here. He said, in all 
candor: Senator, my responsibility is not to the American consumer; my 
responsibility is to my stockholders. I will charge whatever the market 
will bear because I have a duty to protect my stockholders and get 
whatever I can for my stockholders. I am going to charge whatever I 
can.
  That is why profits are so high, because Americans can't put milk in 
their car or their truck. They can't put in water. They have to put in 
diesel fuel or gasoline. Americans are stuck. The majors are passing on 
through their distribution system these very high gasoline prices 
because they can get away with it and because it fattens profits and 
because they are beholden

[[Page 16899]]

to stockholders, not the American consumers.
  What about these provisions which the Senator from Arizona wants to 
strike. There are three of them. It is very simple, and there is a 
reason why they are there and why they will not have the disastrous 
effect the Senator from Arizona claims.
  The first one is to rescind a tax break we gave to the five major oil 
companies back in 2004. It is called section 199.
  We gave that tax break, frankly, to all American domestic 
manufacturers, including the oil companies. It was as a response to a 
WTO ruling a year or two earlier which said our American tax laws--
which gave incentives for American products to be exported--were WTO 
illegal. So we came up with a backup plan. The backup plan was 
basically section 199 in the code, enacted in the 2004 Jobs Act, which 
says, OK, we will give an extra little break to domestic production in 
the United States. If they export the products, fine; if they do not, 
that is fine. We will still give them a break. That is what that is.
  What has happened to domestic oil production in the United States 
since that was enacted in 2004? Well, one would think it probably 
increased a little bit because the major oil companies get a little tax 
break. The fact is, the exact opposite has happened.
  Let me quote a couple statistics. In 2004, when that provision was 
put in effect, domestic production was about 170 million barrels a 
month. It was 170 million barrels a month in 2004. Well, you would 
think it would go up because of that tax break for domestic production. 
Oh, no, that is not what happened. It actually went down. It is down to 
about 160 million barrels.
  Look at the price of oil. Back in 2004, the price of oil was $40 a 
barrel. Now it is about $65 a barrel. Well, gee, you would think--that 
is more money in the oil companies' coffers--they would want to use 
that for more exploration, more development. No. Again, there is less 
domestic production, even with the price of oil so high over that 
period of time and even though they have had a tax break. I might add, 
too, the price of gasoline at the pump back then was about $2 a gallon. 
Today, it is above $3 a gallon. So that did not help.
  So, gee, we thought: We will take that away. It did not help, so we 
will take it away. So, therefore, it seems to me it is not going to 
cause an increase in the price of gasoline at the pump.
  I might say, the statistics cited by the Senator from Arizona are 
based on the Heritage Foundation. I am not going to get into the 
question of who financed that study--I have an idea who financed that 
study; and, therefore, it drove the results they would like to get--but 
that is the same organization that said Iraqi oil is going to pay for 
Iraq reconstruction too. They were dead wrong then, and they are dead 
wrong now. They are an organization which, frankly, I think is not the 
most objective, independent organization in the world. That is the 
first one. That is why we made that first change.
  The second provision in the Finance Committee bill the Senator's 
amendment wants to strike is a loophole closer. We are trying to close 
a loophole. The Joint Committee on Taxation said--that is a bipartisan 
organization, the Joint Committee on Taxation, which serves both the 
House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats--their independent 
study shows there is a big loophole the major oil companies take with 
respect to foreign tax breaks in this area; that is, ordinarily a 
company gets to reduce its income taxes in the amount of the foreign 
taxes that company pays to a foreign country.
  Now, the law is different between exploration costs and distribution 
downstream costs. The companies game the system. They offset one 
against the other. Joint Tax saw this big loophole. Let's close it. 
That is the second provision. Also, I do not see how anybody could 
argue against that. It is a big loophole closer. It makes the Tax Code 
more fair.
  Then we get to the third provision. This is the so-called 
confiscatory excise tax on the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Let's be honest. First of all, the President of the United States, 
himself, believes there is insufficient revenue paid to Uncle Sam on 
these OCS leases. The best evidence: The President of the United 
States, himself, has enacted a 6\2/3\-percent royalty on all new leases 
in the gulf. He thinks they are not paying enough. He has increased the 
current royalty--it was 12 percent. The bill has a 13-percent severance 
tax. The President, himself, has enacted a whole new higher royalty 
provision on new leases in the gulf. He thinks they are undertaxed. 
Right now it is about a 12-percent royalty. This provision in our 
Finance Committee bill says a 13-percent severance tax.
  Clearly, Congress has the power to enact a tax. The royalties paid by 
any company are credited against the 13 percent, and so it is a net 
lower than what the President thinks the amount should be in revenue 
paid by the oil and gas companies in the gulf.
  I might also say the General Accounting Office has done a study of 
how much America taxes oil and gas compared with how other countries 
tax oil and gas. What is the result of the GAO study? The result of the 
GAO study is we Americans basically tax oil and gas less than other 
jurisdictions around the world--or other States. The State of Alaska is 
taxing more. Other countries tax more now. We Americans are pretty easy 
and soft compared to other countries on how much we tax oil and gas 
revenues.
  So this argument that somehow, oh, my gosh, America is going to tax 
oil and gas companies with these provisions--that it is confiscatory; 
they are going to go overseas--it is just nonsense. It is just total 
nonsense because, already, oil and gas revenue in the United States is 
not taxed as much as it is in other jurisdictions. It seems to me, 
therefore, it is not unfair to enact this provision.
  The main point is if the Kyl amendment passes, then the Finance 
Committee tax title of this bill is dead because we are not paying for 
it, effectively. That is because the Energy Secretary, under the Kyl 
amendment, probably would rule that maybe prices might go up at the 
pump, given the politics of it all, and that means we do not have a 
bill anymore.
  Therefore, I urge Senators to say: OK, let's do what is right. Let's 
start to wean ourselves from OPEC. Let's start to give some incentives 
to American domestic producers of alternative fuels, renewable fuels, 
and have more conservation measures to help America again take control 
of our own destiny.
  This is not a perfect bill. Nothing is perfect. But it is a good 
bill. It is a very good bill. It helps put America back on track, helps 
America turn the corner toward more energy independence, and enhances 
our national security so we are less reliant upon OPEC, less reliant 
upon those countries to which some Senators say this bill gives a 
break. It does not. This bill does the exact opposite. It helps America 
become America again.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address why we should have 
cloture on this bill to get to finality--and that is going to take 60 
votes--and why you should not support the Kyl amendment.
  In the debate on some of this bill, particularly in committee, we had 
the issue of, well, we are taxing oil companies to promote renewable 
fuels; that this is an industrial policy, and it is bad for Congress to 
be involved in industrial policy. Basically, I agree.
  But, remember, throughout the history of this country, Congress has 
been involved in a lot of industrial policy. There would not be a 
farmstead today that would have electricity if we did not have rural 
electric cooperatives. Railroads would have a monopoly on hauling 
things if we did not have river improvements so that barges could work 
as well. Railroads would still be hauling most of our commerce if we 
had not built an interstate system. Airports and airlines are all about 
the Government promoting competition.
  Also, we are involved in where we are, taxing the oil industry to get 
a renewable energy industry started--as we

[[Page 16900]]

 have been for 20 years now just with ethanol, and expanding it beyond 
ethanol, but we would not have an ethanol industry today if we had not 
had tax incentives over the last few years. There will be, someday--
just like we are saying to the oil companies today: You got your start 
because of tax policy, a lot of tax benefits, because the oil industry 
was infant at one time and needed to get started. The same thing is 
true of alternative energy. If we do not give some tax incentives to 
get alternative energy--and I mean beyond ethanol: biodiesel, wind 
energy, things that maybe we do not even have on our mind today--we are 
talking a little bit about cellulosic ethanol, but it is around the 
corner yet--we are not going to develop these industries to the strong 
capability they need to be when there is less and less and less 
transportation provided by petroleum products.
  So I think we ought to look at the reality of how a gigantic oil 
industry got started in the United States--through tax incentives. We 
are talking about tax incentives to get alternative energy started. 
That is why I hope you will abide by the decisions the Committee on 
Finance made to have these situations where there is some tax on oil 
companies for the benefit of tax credits for alternative energy.
  I hope you also appreciate the fact that maybe a lot of us would like 
to have the tax incentives without offsets, but we are in an 
environment of pay-go. We are not in a reconciliation situation. We are 
in a situation where we have to provide the necessary offsets in order 
to get this legislation through.
  So I hope you will think of the history of where we have been with 
tax policies to promote an industry that is out there now. I hope you 
will understand that God only made so much fossil fuel and there has to 
be a follow-on if we are going to have the growth of our economy.
  I would like to state this one last point that I have heard the 
President of the United States make many times when I have been to the 
White House in the Oval Office to talk energy. The President has said 
many times that with these high prices of oil the way they are, we do 
not need any more incentives for the oil companies to get more energy.
  The President has been a friend of alternative energy, most often 
expressing his support of ethanol, but a supporter of alternative 
energy, and I hope he is in support of this legislation as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor because I think the Senator's time 
is about up. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New 
Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I 
want to publicly state what I have stated several times in the last few 
days, and that is my appreciation to Senator Baucus and Senator 
Grassley for their leadership in putting this tax package together that 
has been reported favorably by the Finance Committee on which I am 
privileged to serve.
  Let me speak, briefly, about the Kyl amendment and then talk about 
the tax package more generally and why we should vote to invoke cloture 
on this tax package and proceed.
  On the Kyl amendment, my first concern is the obvious one: that 
adoption of the Kyl amendment would be totally irresponsible as a 
fiscal matter. The Kyl amendment says ``notwithstanding any other 
provision of the subtitle,'' the subtitle being those provisions that 
raise revenue to pay for this. We are in a pay-go situation in the 
Senate under our budgetary arrangements, so if we are going to provide 
tax credits and tax benefits to some parts of the economy, we need to 
pay for that. We need to find some way to obtain the revenue. The way 
the committee has found is to reduce the tax benefits that some other 
parts of the economy are enjoying today.
  So Senator Kyl's amendment says ``notwithstanding the provisions 
of''--the provisions in the tax package that raise revenue--none of 
this shall ``take effect unless the Secretary of Energy'' positively 
decides, that is, ``certifies that such amendments shall not increase 
gasoline retail prices and the reliance of the United States on foreign 
sources of energy.''
  So, essentially, we are saying it is up to the Secretary of Energy 
whether we pay for this set of tax provisions. I do not think it is 
responsible for this Congress to take that position. I mean it is 
great, and I know everybody likes to be able to go home and say: I 
didn't oppose the production tax credit extension which is in the bill, 
I didn't oppose the investment tax credit for solar energy which is in 
the bill, I didn't oppose the provisions that would incentivize more 
biofuels production; all I opposed was the idea that we should pay for 
them. I don't think that is a responsible position for us to take.
  On the general tax package and the cloture issue, let me say, the 
arguments I have heard are three. Some have argued this is going to 
reduce production; some have argued it is going to increase the price 
of gas; some have argued this is going to hurt the energy companies. 
Let me address each of those points briefly.
  On reducing production, I don't think this is going to reduce 
domestic production of oil and gas. I think Senator Baucus made the 
point very clearly that the two big items that are being used to pay 
for this tax package are this section 199 provision, which was not even 
in the law until 2004. We are taking that away as it applies to certain 
large companies.
  Then, of course, the severance tax provision. Let me talk a minute 
about that. I wasn't here last evening when Senator Bunning was 
speaking, but I noticed he referred to it as Senator Bingaman's 
``scheme'' in his comments last night. The severance tax proposal is 
not that; it is a 13-percent tax which would apply prospectively; there 
is nothing retrospective about it. It is prospective. It applies to all 
production of oil and gas that occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf 
and in the Gulf of Mexico. It is designed so it will not be unduly 
burdensome on any company that is producing in the Gulf of Mexico. I 
think we have done a good job in accomplishing that. It does not 
abrogate contracts. It is a forward-looking tax provision which I think 
is eminently reasonable.
  It would raise some revenue that is sorely needed if we are going to 
extend these tax provisions, including the production tax credit, the 
investment tax credit, and the other provisions that are in this bill. 
I feel very strongly that we should keep it in place, and it is an 
appropriate way for this Congress to proceed.
  The second argument we heard was if we adopt this, we are going to 
see an increase in the price of gas. The truth is we all know the price 
of oil is determined on the world market. Our producers produce 
something like 5 percent of the oil that goes into the world market. So 
the idea that for us to raise some revenue here is going to affect the 
price of gas at the pump is not true. If the world price of oil goes 
up, we wind up paying more at the pump; if the world price of oil goes 
down, we wind up paying less at the pump. I think American consumers 
have watched that occur year after year and they understand that is the 
circumstance.
  The other argument is this is going to hurt our energy companies, 
that this is an undue burden on them. When you look at the reality, the 
reported profits of the top five integrated oil and gas producers last 
year were over $111 billion. I don't begrudge them that, but that is 1 
year, and that is 5 companies. If profits continue at somewhere in that 
range, we can reasonably expect very conservatively that producers--
large producers of oil and gas--will have over the next 10 years over 
$1 trillion in profits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 7 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Montana.

[[Page 16901]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. So we have $1 trillion of profits over the next 10 
years. This package calls for raising $27 billion over the next 10 
years. So that is something in the range of 2.5 percent of profits, a 
much smaller percentage of revenues, of total revenues. So I point out 
that is not an undue burden on anyone, and I think all of these screams 
that this is the end of the world for the oil and gas industry are not 
founded on any kind of basis in fact.
  I think the whole purpose here is to do some very good things in the 
Tax Code, which I compliment the Senator from Montana and the Senator 
from Iowa for proposing, and to do so by--under our pay-go rules, find 
revenue where it will reduce production at the very least, and I think 
they have done an excellent job in accomplishing that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the tax package and vote for cloture 
on the tax package when it comes up for a vote following the Kyl 
amendment, and obviously I urge all Members to oppose the Kyl 
amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much thank the chairman of the 
Energy Committee who I think has put together a very good energy bill. 
I thank him very much for his instructive comments here. They are very 
helpful.
  Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when oil was $55 a barrel, President Bush 
said oil companies don't need taxpayer subsidies to drill. Oil is now 
just under $70 a barrel, and certainly oil companies truly don't need 
taxpayer subsidies to drill for oil.
  The Finance Committee amendment begins to reverse decades of policies 
that equated what was good for the major oil companies was good for 
America, and that oil companies would get us cheap and plentiful energy 
supplies here in America. The reality is, if you go to the gas pump 
today, you see gas is not cheap. If you look at the impact of a 
refinery fire or a pipeline problem or a cold snap and the impact on 
heating oil prices, you see energy is not plentiful. If you look at the 
growing level of oil imports from countries around the world that don't 
have our best interests at heart, you will see that what has been good 
for the major oil companies has not been good for the well-being of the 
citizens of America.
  The Kyl amendment is just the latest in a long line of arguments that 
has been advanced on the theory that we ought to keep subsidizing the 
oil industry or energy prices will go up, oil imports will go up, and 
America will be less secure.
  The fact is our people and our country have now experienced the 
results of past policies based on the idea that we ought to send 
billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to the major companies. 
It is time to end those subsidies. It is time to stop the major oil 
companies from fleecing taxpayers when they drill for oil on public 
lands, and it is time to embrace the very different vision of a more 
positive energy future, largely constructed by the chairman of the 
Finance Committee and the chairman of the Energy Committee.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kyl amendment and to support 
the work of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
discuss my opposition to a few of the provisions in the Finance 
Committee-passed energy tax package. Before I begin, I would like to 
take a moment to thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for 
their work on this amendment. I know they have exerted an incredible 
amount of energy to get this legislation to the floor so that we can 
debate it as part of this Energy bill.
  The package we are debating includes a number of important 
provisions. It includes additional funding for clean renewable energy 
bonds, which are important to rural electric cooperatives who seek to 
build clean generation. It includes accelerated depreciation for carbon 
dioxide pipelines, which will encourage more carbon sequestration. It 
also includes a carbon capture credit that will make it more economical 
for some carbon dioxide to be used in enhanced oil recovery and for 
some carbon dioxide to be sequestered. These are important provisions, 
and I am pleased to see them included in this package.
  Although that is the case, I have grave concerns about the impact of 
this tax package. I am specifically concerned about its impact on 
consumers. When taken as a whole, I believe that the package will lead 
to increased gas prices and will have a detrimental impact on our 
country's quest to become energy independent by discouraging domestic 
energy production.
  The amendment contains approximately $28.6 billion in ``revenue 
raisers'' over the next 10 years. The phrase ``revenue raisers'' is 
Washington speak for tax increases, and I find it hard to believe that 
we can increase taxes by $28.6 billion and have no impact on the price 
of gasoline at the pump for the average American. Businesses are in 
business to make money, and when we increase their taxes, they pass 
that increase along to the consumer.
  It is not ExxonMobil or Shell or BP that will pay for these tax 
increases. It is the senior citizen on a fixed income who fills up her 
station wagon. It is the soccer mom who drives her children to school. 
This tax title is not punishing the companies. It is punishing the 
American people who rely on energy to fuel their daily lives.
  Specifically, I am concerned that three provisions of this bill will 
increase gas prices and will discourage energy production at a time 
when our Nation's supply does not meet our Nation's demand. Last week, 
I joined a number of my colleagues in a letter to the Senate Finance 
Committee that urged the committee not to repeal the section 199 
manufacturing deduction, and I am disappointed to note that this was 
included. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that the repeal of the 
section 199 deduction will raise $9.43 billion over a 10-year period. 
That is $9.43 billion that will be passed along to the American people.
  I am also disappointed that the legislation includes a new 13-percent 
severance tax for oil produced in the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. The 
OCS represents one of America's greatest energy sources, and raising 
taxes on those who hope to produce in the OCS will most certainly not 
encourage the domestic energy production that we all believe is so 
important.
  Finally, I am concerned that this legislation changes what is known 
as the foreign tax credit. This change, which amounts to double 
taxation, will increase taxes by $3.2 billion over the next 10 years. 
Someone has to pay for that tax increase, and I am concerned that it 
will be the American people.
  While I appreciate the work of my colleagues, at the end of the day, 
I am extremely concerned that this legislation will slow domestic 
energy production and increase the prices paid by consumers. There are 
a number of good provisions in this bill that I do support. However, at 
the end of the day, raising taxes is not the way to increase energy 
production and decrease energy prices. I would urge my colleagues to 
oppose cloture on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 4\1/2\ minutes 
and the Senator from Arizona has 8 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would be happy to take half of my time 
right now and then let the Senator from Montana close, and I will close 
after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the arguments 
that have been made. First, I do appreciate the candor of both the 
Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Iowa. Rather than arguing 
that these tax increases are loophole closers, as has been suggested, 
they candidly acknowledge the reason for the tax increases is to pay 
for the costs of the bill. As the Senator from Iowa said, we

[[Page 16902]]

want to avoid offsets, but we can't. We have to pay for the costs of 
the bill. So, so much for the argument that these tax increases are 
loophole closers. They are, very plainly, necessary to pay for the cost 
of the bill, so they are tax increases. I appreciate that.
  Another bit of candor: The Senator from Montana quoting--or 
paraphrasing, anyway--the former chairman of Exxon Oil Company, 
essentially argued that it is OK to add these taxes on oil companies 
because they make too much money, and they make too much profit, so we 
are justified in taxing them.
  I am not going to argue with that theory. If they make too much 
money, we are going to tax them, if that is the argument for imposing 
these new taxes. All I say is as long as it doesn't raise the price of 
gasoline for American consumers, then I guess the question would be: 
Who cares? But if they do raise the cost of gasoline for American 
consumers, then I think we should care. That is all this amendment 
does. It says: If it doesn't raise the cost of gasoline, go ahead and 
impose the tax. If these oil companies are making too much money, go 
ahead and tax them. But if the result of it is not just to hurt the oil 
companies but to hurt the American consumer, then Congress says: Wait a 
minute; not so fast. We are not going to allow that to happen. That is 
all this amendment does. So we don't say you can't tax. What we say is, 
you can't tax if it has a negative impact on the American consumer.
  Now, there was a question about the Heritage study. I noticed there 
was no attack on the numbers, no refutation of the numbers, just: Well, 
who paid for the study? I don't know who paid for the study. I presume 
Heritage paid for the study. It is their study. What does it say and 
why is it such a burr under the saddle of those who oppose my 
amendment? Well, it found that the tax provisions in this bill, setting 
aside the other mandates, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents 
per gallon over the next 8 years, and taking all of the provisions of 
the bill together, it can increase the price of regular unleaded gas 
from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon in the year 2016, over the next 
10 years. That is a 104-percent increase.
  If that is the case, even if it is only half that much, it is a huge 
hit to the American consumer and we shouldn't even be thinking about 
that kind of a hit on the American consumer.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a 
letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America. It 
is dated June 20, 2007.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 2007.
       To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing more than three million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region, supports the 
     Kyl amendment, to H.R. 6, the ``Renewable Fuels, Consumer 
     Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.''
       This amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to 
     certify that the tax provisions included in H.R. 6 will not 
     lead to increased reliance on foreign oil or higher gasoline 
     prices for American consumers.
       The Chamber strongly opposes the tax title of this bill 
     because it contains many proposals that amount to little more 
     than a modern-day Windfall Profits Tax. When that tax 
     increase was enacted in 1980, it resulted in higher prices 
     for consumers, long waits at gasoline lines, and increased 
     consumption of foreign oil.
       The economic reality is that oil and gas are necessities 
     for the nation's economic growth and well being. Even 
     assuming the development of viable alternatives and increased 
     efficiency, the U.S. will continue to rely on these 
     traditional energy sources. It is imperative that the Senate 
     ensure that the American consumer not be saddled with higher 
     prices due to the consequences of the tax changes included in 
     H.R. 6.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten.

  Mr. KYL. This is a letter from R. Bruce Josten, who makes the point 
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the tax increases in the bill 
and supports the amendment which I offer, which would condition that 
tax increase on not hurting American consumers.
  He says:

       This amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to 
     certify that the tax provisions included in H.R. 6 will not 
     lead to increased reliance on foreign oil or higher gasoline 
     prices for American consumers.

  As a result, they support the amendment, and I believe they will key 
it as a key vote.
  He goes on to say:

       The Chamber strongly opposes the tax title of this bill 
     because it contains many proposals that amount to little more 
     than a modern-day Windfall Profits Tax. When that tax was 
     enacted in 1980, it resulted in higher prices for consumers, 
     long waits at gasoline lines, and increased consumption of 
     foreign oil.

  That is what we are concerned about here. If the tax increases don't 
have that effect, then nobody has to worry about it. But if they do 
have that effect on the American consumers, they would not go into 
effect.
  My penultimate point is the argument that we have to do something to 
wean ourselves from OPEC, so what do we do? We slap a new 13-percent 
tax on the production of new oil. How does that help wean us from OPEC? 
What it does is to say to the producers of oil: You go out and find 
some, and by the way, if you do, we are going to hit you with a new 
tax. This is a perverse incentive, not a proper incentive.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cornyn as 
a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 
Americans For Tax Reform I expect will also key vote the Kyl-Lott 
amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 4 minutes 20 
seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes and--how many seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2 minutes 10 seconds to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from New Mexico for all of the work they have done.
  I think the argument we are hearing today is we should have trust in 
the oil companies and that ExxonMobil and their friends are staying up 
nights and days worrying about high gas prices in the best interests of 
the American people. If anyone believes that, I think we have some good 
bridges to sell you right now.
  The truth is the oil companies are ripping off the American people. 
This moment in American history is a time that our country needs to 
radically change the way it does energy, and the Finance Committee, in 
a bipartisan way, and the Energy Committee, in a bipartisan way, are 
making some very clear statements.
  What they are saying is that global warming is a huge problem for 
this Nation today, and if we do not get a handle on it, that problem 
will only intensify in years to come.
  What we must begin to do, and what this legislation is making clear, 
is that we have to break our dependency on fossil fuel, we have to move 
to energy efficiency, we have to move toward sustainable energy, and in 
that process not only can we substantially lower greenhouse gas 
emissions but we can also create millions of good-paying jobs for the 
American people.
  As the chairman of the Energy Committee made clear a moment ago, the 
oil companies, year after year, are making recordbreaking profits. I 
for one do not stay up nights worrying about ExxonMobil, when a few 
years ago they were able to provide a $400 million retirement package 
to their former CEO.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for yielding me the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will take the remaining 2 minutes. This

[[Page 16903]]

whole debate boils down to something pretty simple and basic; that is, 
do we as Americans want to begin to become more self-sufficient in our 
energy production? Do we want to be less reliant on OPEC? Do we want to 
give incentives to new clean energy industries to develop in America--
not just renewables and alternatives but also clean coal technologies 
and other ways to help America be more self-sufficient?
  Congress, for many years, has provided some very significant tax 
incentives to the oil and gas industry to help America be strong, to 
make sure we as Americans have a strong industrial base and a strong 
energy base to fuel our industries. That was probably the right thing 
to do over the years from 1926, and the various provisions that have 
helped America. I think the time has come for us to give incentives to 
other industries, alternative energy, renewable fuels, clean coal 
technologies, cellulosic, and so forth--the same kinds of incentives 
that the oil and gas industry have enjoyed for decades and decades.
  We are not taking away these incentives from the oil and gas industry 
at all. We are just saying the time has come for us to give incentives 
to make America more self-sufficient in the production of energy. This 
bill helps accomplish that result, and the way we do that is very fair 
and balanced. It will not have the horrible results that are claimed 
here. I urge our colleagues to begin to take--we will still have huge 
breaks for the oil and gas, but we give help on the margin to new 
independent energy sources in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in closing the debate on this amendment, I 
will respond to the point that both the Senator from Vermont and the 
chairman have just made, and that is the need to promote renewable 
energy and to give incentives to those producers. That is a fine 
sentiment, but my amendment has nothing to do with that. My amendment 
doesn't affect these incentives one iota. It doesn't speak to them at 
all. So that is a straw man, just as it is a straw man to argue that we 
ought to have the right to sock it to the oil companies because they 
are making huge profits. I am not arguing that proposition. In fact, 
yesterday, I offered an amendment to eliminate a real loophole in one 
of those subsidies that one oil company is going to be taking advantage 
of, and both of the Senators whom I mentioned voted to support that 
subsidy. I voted to eliminate it.
  I am not trying to protect the oil companies, obviously. I am trying 
to protect the American consumer. My amendment says if the American 
consumer comes out OK, tax the oil companies. My amendment says if the 
American consumers are going to lose, then we say no, and then there 
are unintended consequences to these sentiments of socking it to the 
oil companies, creating subsidies for renewable energy producers and so 
on, fine. But if it adversely affects American consumers and increases 
our dependency upon foreign oil, then does anybody argue that we should 
do this? Wouldn't they instead try to find another way to achieve the 
objective? I think the answer is yes.
  My amendment says: Do what you want to do here, but if it adversely 
affects the American consumer or increases our dependence on foreign 
oil, that is where we say no, we need to find another way to do this.
  My amendment doesn't affect the underlying subsidies and doesn't say 
that you cannot impose additional taxes. These arguments are straw men. 
All I say is, if the American consumers end up being the losers, as 
they sometimes have been with our tax policies, if these are the 
unintended consequences and we become more dependent upon foreign oil, 
then we say no. That is all this amendment does.
  I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I hope they 
will support my amendment. We are going to vote on it right now, but 
first I think the chairman wants to raise a point of order. I yield the 
floor at this time for him to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs in relation to the 
amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a letter to Senator Bingaman regarding a study by professors 
of law John Leshy and Brian Gray.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         University of California,


                                  Hastings College of the Law,

                                 San Francisco, CA, June 18, 2007.
     Re proposed severance tax on oil and gas production in the 
         Gulf of Mexico.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and 
         Infrastructure, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: At your request, we have examined 
     your proposal for a severance tax on production from federal 
     oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico with an eye toward 
     potential constitutional takings and breach of contract 
     issues. We also have reviewed the June 14, 2007, memorandum 
     from the Congressional Research Service on this subject.
       We are thoroughly familiar with the legal issues posed. 
     Professor Leshy teaches them as part of his law school course 
     in Federal Lands and Resources Law. In fact, he includes a 
     section on these takings and contracts issues in the standard 
     law text that he co-authors on the subject: Federal Public 
     Land and Resources Law, 6th Ed., 2007 (which will appear next 
     month). Professor Gray has litigated several cases that 
     involved similar takings and breach of contract questions, 
     including Madera Irrigation District v. Hancock, 985 F.2d 
     1397 (9th Cir. 1993); and Peterson v. Department of the 
     Interior, 899 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1990). He also has written 
     several articles on the subject and teaches these materials 
     in his own courses.
       In our judgment, the argument that this proposal raises a 
     serious takings issue has a steep uphill climb. The Supreme 
     Court has long been reluctant (for good reason) to give much 
     scrutiny to takings arguments in the context of federal tax 
     proposals. See, e.g., Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., 
     239 U.S. 254, 264-65 (1915) (special tax assessment not a 
     taking ``unless the exaction is a flagrant abuse. and by 
     reason of its arbitrary character is mere confiscation of 
     particular property''); Cole v. LaGrange, 113 U.S. 1, 8 1885) 
     (``the taking of property by taxation requires no other 
     compensation than the taxpayer receives in being protected by 
     the government to the support of which he contributes''); 
     County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691, 703 (1880) 
     (``neither is taxation for a public purpose, however great, 
     the taking of private property for public use, in the sense 
     of the Constitution'').
       Even if a court were to apply the basic Penn Central 
     takings analysis to the proposed severance tax, we believe 
     the proposal would easily satisfy that test. The tax is for 
     an important public purpose: funding of clean energy tax 
     initiatives, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, 
     and other clean energy programs. The proposed 13 percent 
     royalty is modest and would leave the lessees significant net 
     revenue from the production of oil and natural gas. And the 
     tax, of course, would not physically encroach on the 
     companies' property. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. 
     New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 123-28 (1978); cj. Lingle v. 
     Chevron U.S.A., 544 U.S. 528, 538-40 (2005) (confirming the 
     Penn Central standards as the general takings test).
       The contract question is slightly more complicated, because 
     the severance tax proposal contains a provision that allows 
     lessees to credit against the severance tax the royalties 
     they pay on oil and gas production from their federal leases. 
     While companies with leases that require them to pay less 
     royalty to the United States than other lessees might argue 
     that the credit provision effectively rewrites their leases, 
     we believe this argument also would not withstand careful 
     legal scrutiny.
       The proposed legislation does not target these leases. 
     Rather, it is aimed at a generic category of activity--Gulf 
     of Mexico OCS production--to serve a general and important 
     public policy--viz. raising revenue for green energy tax 
     initiatives. In our judgment; the severance tax therefore 
     falls within the standard government contract principle, 
     recognized for more than a century by the United States 
     Supreme Court, that protects ``public and general'' acts by 
     Congress from breach of contract claims.
       In Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982), 
     for example. the Court upheld the application of a severance 
     tax on oil and natural gas production to long-term leases. 
     The lessees claimed that the tax effectively increased the 
     royalties on oil and gas production set forth in their 
     contracts with the Tribe. The Supreme Court rejected this 
     claim inter alia on the ground that ``Contractual 
     arrangements remain subject to subsequent legislation by the 
     presiding sovereign. Even where the contract at issue 
     requires payment of a royalty for a license or franchise 
     issued by the governmental entity, the government's power to 
     tax remains unless it `has been specifically surrendered in 
     terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation.'''

[[Page 16904]]

       Id. at 147-48 (citations omitted); see also Bowen v. Public 
     Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 
     (1986). In United States v. Winstar, 518 U.S. 839 (1996), the 
     Court modified this principle of contract interpretation in 
     suits for damages--allowing certain government contractors to 
     sue for breach of contract on the ground that a new law 
     altered the terms of performance of their existing contracts 
     with the United States. The Court maintained the sovereign 
     acts/unmistakable waiver doctrine in cases involving new 
     taxes however, because the consequence of refunding tax 
     payments in the form of damages would be to nullify the tax. 
     In the Court's words: ``The application of the doctrine will 
     therefore differ according to the different kinds of 
     obligations the Government may assume and the consequences of 
     enforcing them. At one end of the wide spectrum are claims 
     for enforcement of contractual obligations that could not be 
     recognized without effectively limiting sovereign authority, 
     such as a claim for rebate under an agreement for a tax 
     exemption. Granting a rebate, like enjoining enforcement, 
     would simply block the exercise of the taxing power, and the 
     unmistakability doctrine would have to be satisfied.''
       Id. at 994 (citation omitted).
       There is nothing in the existing OCS leases that purport to 
     waive or to limit Congress' sovereign taxing authority. 
     Accordingly, we conclude that existing lessees that are not 
     presently paying royalties for deep water oil and natural gas 
     production would be unlikely successfully to challenge the 
     proposed severance tax on grounds of breach of contract.
       Please let us know if we may be of any additional 
     assistance.
           Sincerely yours,
     John D. Leshy,
       Harry D. Sunderland, Distinguished Professor of Law.

     Brian E. Gray,
       Professor of Law.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a pay-go point of order that the 
pending Kyl amendment would worsen the deficit, in violation of section 
201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2008.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable points of 
order with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on 
the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
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), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Sessions).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Johnson
     McCain
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 38, the nays are 
55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                  tribute to senator frank lautenberg

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, a record was broken. 
Senator Frank Lautenberg has passed Senator Clifford Case's record for 
the most votes cast by a Senator from the State of New Jersey.
  Senator Lautenberg's career can't possibly be summed up, though, on 
numbers alone. I have had the good fortune of serving with this man in 
the Senate since I came here. Sometimes the term ``American Dream'' is 
thrown around, and probably a bit too much, but if there were ever a 
Member of this body who exemplifies the American Dream, it is Frank 
Lautenberg, the Senator from New Jersey.
  Frank Lautenberg was born without privilege to immigrant parents. He 
served his country bravely in World War II and put himself through 
Columbia University on the GI bill. He is an example of what the GI 
Bill of Rights did for America.
  Frank Lautenberg achieved great personal success in the business 
world, but he wanted to do more than be a successful businessman. And 
he was a successful businessman, both in reputation and in the ability 
to make money in our great free enterprise system. He was an exemplar 
of that.
  He decided he would seek public service, and, very unusually, he shot 
for the top. He ran for the Senate--and ran and ran and ran--and was 
elected in 1982. Senator Lautenberg's legislative record is fantastic. 
It is terrific. He has been a titan here.
  Guns and crime: Author of the Domestic Violence Ban, and sponsored 
countless laws to make neighborhoods safer.
  Health and safety: He led the fight regarding drunk driving by 
toughening Federal laws and penalties relating thereto in the States.
  The environment: I had the good fortune of serving with him on the 
Environment Committee from the first day I arrived in the Senate, and I 
do say to Frank, and he knows this, that as a result of his having a 
very short retirement, voluntarily, I was fortunate enough to be able 
to become the chairman of that committee twice. Had he been here, he 
would have been the chairman on those two occasions.
  But no one, and I say it without any reservation, has a better 
environmental record in the history of our country than Frank 
Lautenberg. He sponsored countless laws to reduce pollution; clean up 
Superfund sites. One of the real battles of the Senate in recent years 
was the battle he and the ranking member had--and the chairman, they 
went back and forth--as to what would happen regarding the Superfund in 
the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has followed that like 
no one else has ever followed it.
  He has promoted recycling by legislation. He has done legislation to 
protect our drinking water. Very importantly, he has ensured the 
public's right to know about environmental hazards in our communities.
  For me, personally, the legislative accolade that I wish to give him 
relates to what he did regarding smoking cigarettes. I have five 
children, and traveling back and forth to Nevada as we have done, one 
of my boys was terribly affected by cigarette smoke. They tried 
something where you could only smoke in certain parts of the airplane, 
but that didn't work. If you are allergic to cigarette smoke, that 
didn't work. And my boy, Key, suffered as a result of people smoking in 
those airplanes.
  When Frank Lautenberg took on this battle, people actually made fun 
of him--why would he take on the tobacco industry; and if he did, did 
he mind losing? Well, he lost a few battles, but he won the war, and my 
boy is extremely happy he did win that war. Today they do not even have 
ashtrays on commercial airlines anymore.
  The list is longer than I can possibly enumerate of his legislative 
accomplishments, but one of the things that is not a legislative 
accomplishment that I so admire about Frank Lautenberg is his sense of 
humor. There is a story he tells, and he tells a number of

[[Page 16905]]

stories, and I would go around and ask him, would you tell your story 
again, and he would tell it just as good as the last time. The one 
reason I so admire his humor is he reminds me of Red Skelton, because 
even though he has retold those jokes many times, in my presence, he 
laughed harder each time at his own jokes.
  Suffice to say, when the day has come, and it will come, when 
historians write about Senator Frank Lautenberg, he will be hailed as a 
great legislator for the State of New Jersey, a legend in the Senate, 
and a foremost legislator of great repute standing up for the health, 
safety, and welfare of every single American, not just those from New 
Jersey.
  His record-breaking vote is reason enough to honor him, but his 
tremendous record is an accomplishment that will endure for many 
generations to come. Congratulations, Frank.
  (Applause.)


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Baucus tax 
     amendment No. 1704 to H.R. 6, the Energy bill.
         Max Baucus, Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad, Jeff Bingaman, 
           John Kerry, Blanche L. Lincoln, Charles Schumer, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Byron L. Dorgan, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, 
           Ken Salazar, Daniel K. Akaka, Daniel K. Inouye, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Harry Reid.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 1704, offered by Mr. Baucus of Montana, to 
H.R. 6, a bill to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by 
investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, 
promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater 
efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables 
Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
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), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Sessions).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Johnson
     McCain
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 
36. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of Senators?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.


          Honoring Senator Robert C. Byrd on His 18,000th Vote

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the man seated behind me, Robert Byrd, just 
voted for the 18,000th time, more than any other Senator in history.
  Let me tell a couple of things that are important to me about my 
relationship with this unusually brilliant man.
  I had returned from Nevada to Washington. I was a new Senator. I 
asked Senator Byrd what he had done that weekend--he was standing back 
here. He said: I have been studying the Roman Empire. I am reading, for 
the third time, Gibbon's ``The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.''
  He said: What did you do? I was a little chagrined. I said: Well, I 
grabbed a little pocketbook out of my library at home. It was ``The 
Adventures of Robinson Crusoe.''
  He looked--we all know Senator Byrd when he is thinking about 
something. He rolled his head back, and he looked up and he said:

       Robinson Crusoe, let's see. How long was he on that island? 
     Twenty-eight years, two months, two weeks, and five days.

  I looked at him like: What are you talking about? I just read the 
book. I didn't know how long he had been there. So I went home that 
night and looked. Senator Byrd was right. Robinson Crusoe had been on 
that island 28 years, 2 months, 2 weeks, and 5 days. I bet he hadn't 
read the book in 45 or 50 years, but he remembered that.
  All of us will remember how he disliked the line-item veto. He came 
to the Senate floor once a week for 10 weeks and gave a lecture on the 
evils of the line-item veto. But he did it in a unique way because it 
was all about the fall of the Roman Empire. His thesis was that the 
Roman Empire fell because the executive took power away from the 
legislative branch of government. He gave 10 lectures, every lecture 
lasting exactly 1 hour.
  There is not a professor who teaches Roman history who could give the 
detailed lecture on the Roman Empire that Senator Byrd did, but he gave 
it. It was so good. At the University of Las Vegas they had a political 
science department, and they took those lectures and turned them into a 
course, a graduate course.
  What was quite remarkable is he did it without a note. He just walked 
out here and gave his lecture. As we know, he referred to the Emperors 
and how long they were there and the battles that took place and the 
times they took place.
  I said: Senator Byrd, tell me how you do that without a note.
  He looked at me and said, ``I memorized what I was going to say.'' So 
he gave 10 hours of lectures, and every word of it he memorized.
  I could tell stories about this man for a long time. Let me just tell 
one more. I was a fairly new Senator. Some of the Senators may be 
listening to this who went on this little trip we took to West 
Virginia. He invited the British parliamentarians to meet with us, a 
few Senators, in the hills of West Virginia. It was beautiful. They had 
bluegrass music there. It was a festive occasion for a relatively small 
number of British parliamentarians and Senators. He even sang.
  I can still remember him singing: ``There's More Pretty Girls Than 
One.'' Senator Byrd sang that. But the music stopped, and he said: OK, 
if anybody hears anything that I have said that is wrong, I have given 
a little notebook and pencil. You write it down and we'll talk about it 
later.
  He proceeded to tell us and the British parliamentarians about the 
reign of

[[Page 16906]]

the British monarchs, starting from the beginning. Remember, he has no 
notes, he is just standing there, starting from the beginning. If it 
was necessary, he would spell the name of the monarch. Every one of 
them he gave the years they reigned. If it was something interesting 
that happened during their reign, he would tell us about it. It took 
him about 1 hour and 20 minutes to do this.
  The British parliamentarians were dumbfounded. Here is this American 
Senator telling them far more than they knew about their own country.
  This man has been such an inspiration to all of us, with his mind, 
this incredible mind. I just finished reading Walter Isakson's 
``Einstein''--a wonderful book, 528 pages, that talks about this 
brilliant genius. I did not know and I did not have the opportunity to 
meet Albert Einstein, but I had the opportunity to meet this genius. He 
has an unparalleled knowledge of the Rules of the Senate. He has a 
reverence for this institution that is unsurpassed. One of the things 
that I think is so important is that he believes in the Constitution. I 
have here with me--the other one is worn out, but I have here, with a 
very nice inscription that I prize--I have it with me virtually every 
day--signed by the Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd.
  These gifts he has been given by the Almighty bring to my mind words 
from Ralph Waldo Emerson in his ``Essays on Self-Reliance,'' which was 
10,000 words long. Now, Senator Byrd, if he were familiar with this, 
would recite it. I cannot. I can't give you 10,000 words, but I am 
going to give you the last paragraph of this brilliant essay by Ralph 
Waldo Emerson, which I think talks about who this man is.

       Use all that is called Fortune.
       Most men gamble with her, and gain all, and lose all, as 
     her wheel rolls.
       But do thou leave as unlawful these winnings, and deal with 
     Cause and Effect, the chancellors of God. In the Will work 
     and acquire, and thou hast chained the wheel of Chance, and 
     shalt sit hereafter out of fear from her rotations.
       A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your 
     sick, or the return of your absent friend, or some other 
     favorable event raises your spirits, and you think good days 
     are preparing for you.
       Do not believe it. Nothing can bring you peace but 
     yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of 
     principles.

  So said Ralph Waldo Emerson. I congratulate the Senator from West 
Virginia, Robert Byrd, for accomplishing all he has done as a Member of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, of all the many milestones along the 
way of the extraordinary career of Senator Robert Byrd--and, by the 
way, we have celebrated a few of those on the floor of the Senate since 
I have been here, as he achieves more and more distinction by setting 
more and more records about Senate service, I am always reminded that 
Senator Byrd said his greatest accomplishment was his extraordinary 
marriage to Erma for a longer period of time than many Americans live. 
I would suspect that if Senator Byrd were to list his most important 
achievement, it would be his incredible, successful marriage to his 
beloved Erma.
  Mr. President, let me add, on behalf of those on this side of the 
aisle, our congratulations to the distinguished senior Senator from 
West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing 
deadline be extended until 2 p.m. for second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring 
to a close debate on the Reid substitute amendment No. 1502 to Calendar 
No. 9, H.R. 6, the Energy bill.
         Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, John Kerry, 
           Robert Menendez, Kent Conrad, Pat Leahy, Russell 
           Feingold, Jack Reed, Christopher Dodd, Ken Salazar, Joe 
           Biden, Frank R. Lautenberg, Daniel K. Inouye, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Byron L. Dorgan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1502, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to 
H.R. 6, a bill to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil by 
investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, 
promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater 
efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables 
Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
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), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Sessions).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lott
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Johnson
     McCain
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
32. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are all partisans here, but I really do 
believe this vote we just took is going to change the complexion of the 
Senate. The American people are upset at us--Democrats and 
Republicans--because we are not getting things done. We have to get 
over that.
  I so appreciate Democrats and Republicans doing what is good for the 
country on this vote. There are still things with this bill I do not 
particularly like. There are things my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle do not like. But we have to start legislating. I really do 
say--and I repeat--I think this could be the beginning of our being 
able to legislate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw that suggestion so the 
distinguished

[[Page 16907]]

Senator from West Virginia can be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, be allowed to follow the statement by 
Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.


                         18,000th Rollcall Vote

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, each Senator--every Senator--has a 
responsibility to vote. The people of West Virginia expect me to do the 
job they sent me here to do, and I am doing it. This 18,000th rollcall 
vote is a testament to their faith in me and to my work for them.
  I love this Senate. I love it dearly. I love the Senate for its 
rules. I love the Senate for its precedents. I love the Senate for the 
difference it can make in people's lives.
  The Senate was viewed by the Framers as a place where mature wisdom 
would reside. The Senate was intended to serve as a check on both the 
House of Representatives and the Executive. The longer terms, the older 
age requirements, the special functions delegated to the Senate 
regarding treaties, appointments, impeachment--all of these are 
indicative of the intent by the Framers to have the Senate be the 
stabilizer, the fence, the check on attempts at tyranny, and the calmer 
political passions. Partisanship was not viewed as necessary or 
constructive in that day in time so long ago, nor, may I say, is total 
devotion to partisanship constructive in this day in time or in any day 
in time.
  I have served in this Chamber for nearly five decades--nearly 50 
years. Times have changed. The world has changed. But our 
responsibilities, our duties, as Senators have not changed. We have a 
responsibility, a duty, to the people to make our country a better 
place. The people send us here to do a job. They do not send us here to 
score political points or to advance our personal agenda.
  If I could have one wish as I cast this 18,000th vote, it could be 
that the Senate could put aside the political games, roll up our 
sleeves, and get back to work for the great people of this great 
country of America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, the Senate is trying to come up 
with an energy bill. I know Senators have been working very hard on all 
sides of the aisle to come up with consensus legislation we can 
support, and I really do support them. I wish to particularly call to 
the attention of the Senate the efforts of Senators Pryor, Levin, and 
Stabenow to try to come up with a compromise on the CAFE. But we are 
now where we are. We are at a very important juncture in our history.
  You know me. I am a blue-collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with 
the blue-collar American. I spent most of my life in a blue-collar 
neighborhood. When Bethlehem Steel went on strike, my dad gave those 
workers credit. When UAW was having a hard time, my father and mother 
tried to smooth the way by helping them in the grocery store. My career 
and my public service is one of deep commitment to the working people. 
So when automobile manufacturers told me they could not meet the 
increased CAFE standards, I listened. I listened year after year, and 
now I have listened for more than 20 years. When they told me they 
needed more time, I agreed. When they told me an increase in CAFE 
standards was unattainable with existing technology, I voted against 
the increase to give more time so we could come up with attainable and 
existing technology.
  But 20 years have gone by since the last increase in fuel efficiency 
standards. I was here when we voted for those CAFE standards. Now, 
after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change--not any 
kind of change--a smart change, a feasible change, an affordable 
change. That is why I support the Energy bill that is before us. I 
support the framework that has been generally presented by Senator 
Feinstein of California. I know that American automobile manufacturers 
and their workers are true patriots. They want what is best for our 
Nation. They have faced challenges before and they have met them and I 
believe they will face these challenges now. I believe they want to 
build vehicles that are safer and more energy efficient.
  The time has now come to increase fuel efficiency standards. We need 
a national effort. We need a national standard. It is time for our 
automobile industry to make the changes because they need to be able to 
do that to help their own industry survive and also for the interest of 
the Nation.
  I believe our world and our Nation is facing a crisis. When you look 
at the increased gas prices at the pump, it is hurting every single one 
of us. When you talk to families, you learn it now costs $90 to fill up 
a minivan. A commuter who has no other way to get to work than an 
automobile is now paying more to get to work than they are for their 
food bill in certain areas. As the Presiding Officer knows, small 
businesses need those vans to make those deliveries, whether they own a 
flower shop, whether they are a heating and air-conditioning guy, 
whether they are a plumber or whether they are the person delivering 
pharmaceuticals to nursing homes. In my own State right now, the 
watermen, those fishermen are out on the Chesapeake Bay trying to 
harvest ever-diminishing crabs with ever-increasing fuel prices.
  It is time to conserve our energy resources and to deal with the 
crisis we are facing. We know that energy and gasoline and petroleum 
products are in limited supply and are going up. We know that America's 
dependence on foreign oil presents a very serious national security 
challenge.
  I am on the Intelligence Committee, and I know what these 
transnational threats are. I know that energy independence is 
absolutely crucial to fighting the global war against terrorism. If we 
follow the money, we know that every time we are putting money into the 
tank, we are putting money into the pockets of the petro jihadists, 
those petro jihadists who are trying to undermine us everywhere around 
the world. They are undermining and attacking our troops in Iraq. They 
are funding Hezbollah so they can attack Israel; Hugo Chavez, shake, 
rattling, and rolling in Latin America. Do we want our money going to 
the petro jihadists who want to plot and destroy not only American 
lives but the American way of life? I don't want to support al-Qaida by 
buying more gasoline than I have to, but this is what Iran, Venezuela, 
and others are doing.
  We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that is one of 
the most important ways we can as the public is by fighting the war 
against terrorism. There are 150,000 men and women fighting in Iraq 
today. The temperature is 110 degrees. We already have lost 14 more 
military. While we are doing that, though, there are 300 million of us 
who don't have to share in the sacrifice of the battle in Iraq, but we 
can share in that sacrifice if we embrace energy conservation and are 
serious about it. At the same time, we know there is a dangerous 
increase in the climate crisis that affects the life of our planet. It, 
too, is a national security issue because, make no mistake, the climate 
crisis will affect our food supply and will create a climate in which 
infectious disease will grow and natural disasters will increase.
  What can we do about it? How can we sign up to have a safer America, 
a safer planet? Well, I believe the most sensible foundation of an 
energy plan must begin with conservation. We have to make better use of 
what we have in our homes, in our businesses, in our cars, and in our 
airplanes. We also need incentives for new renewable energy and energy-
efficient technologies that we can use in our homes and in our 
businesses and an increase in fuel efficiency standards for our 
vehicles on the road and our vehicles in the air.
  Now, in considering any fuel efficiency standard, otherwise known as 
CAFE, I come back to where I began: My heart and soul lies with the 
American worker, so I believe anything we do must preserve American 
jobs, but it also must achieve real savings in oil consumption. It also 
has to be realizable and achievable. That means a real

[[Page 16908]]

technological ability to accomplish it. That means a reasonable lead 
time to adjust our production.
  I also believe we have to create incentives to enable companies to 
achieve those goals. I don't believe in an industrial policy where we 
pick winners and losers, but if we are going to pick a winning energy 
policy, we have to provide some type of help to the industry to help 
them get where we need for them to go.
  In the 1950s, when part of the world saw the Iron Curtain come down 
and they went into communism, many against their own will, such as 
Poland, Latvia, and Estonia, there was a whole other world that chose 
to go with what they called a Socialist tendency. We saw industrial 
democracies such as England, France, and Canada develop a national 
health system. We said: Oh, no, we are Americans. We don't want to go 
that way. We don't want to have a national health system. So we said to 
the private sector: Provide health care, provide pensions, and we will 
support that. So our American manufacturing base went to a defined 
benefit. They did provide health care. They did provide pensions. Now, 
they should not be penalized for it. Yet you look at the fact that our 
American manufacturers and our automobile industry itself does carry 
the legacy cost of health care; we asked them to do it and they did do 
it. General Motors provides more health care than the VA system. They 
provide more health care than some countries around the world. They 
have legacy costs to retirees. So if we are going to make the move in 
CAFE, we have to acknowledge that issue and how that impacts their 
competitiveness.
  Let's put our thinking caps on. Let's not only help one industry. 
Maybe this is the time to motivate us to get serious about having 
universal health care and a real prescription drug benefit so we don't 
dump it on the private sector to do.
  I also know, when we look at this in terms of preserving jobs, we 
need to also make sure that the technology is achievable, and I believe 
it is. I believe also there are certain waivers in this bill that help 
them achieve--that deal with the fact that if they cannot increase some 
of these standards, the mandates can be waived. But you don't get an 
energy policy by mandates alone. We can't mandate and regulate our way 
out of this.
  I am going to vote to raise fuel efficiency standards, only because I 
am so convinced it is in our national security interests. But I do not 
want to ignore the economic impact that this is going to have on the 
automobile industry. We can't just mandate and we can't just regulate. 
So I say to my colleagues, if we are going to go energy, then let's go 
to health care. If we are going to go energy, then let's fix the 
prescription drug benefit and don't talk about vetoes and filibusters. 
Let's now work in our national interests. Let's now work for our 
manufacturing base.
  Out-of-control health care costs mean that companies are less able to 
be innovative and invest in technology. Our current President likes to 
talk a lot about relieving the tax burden, but to our business 
community, the cost of health care is a tax because we have not gotten 
serious about how to provide affordable health care, both to the people 
who want to buy it and businesses who want to provide it. So let's get 
rid of that health care tax on American business and come up with 
universal health care. Last year we made some progress in helping 
manufacturers meet their pension obligations, and we can do it in 
health care.
  The time has come to raise the CAFE standards, but the time has come 
also to put our thinking caps on, to be an innovation society, and to 
come up with new ideas for efficiency, new technologies for energy 
efficiency, new composite materials to make cars lighter but keep them 
safe, and at the same time to seriously come to grips with health care.
  This is not an easy vote for me. I am telling you, this is not an 
easy vote for me. I have always, for 20 years, stood with colleagues 
such as Senators Levin and Stabenow. I stand with them now. But I also 
know that if the American automobile industry is going to survive and 
that if we are going to deal with the petro jihadists, we need to get 
serious about fuel efficiency. Let's get serious about the legislation. 
Let's get serious about health care. Let's be serious about the 
American workers, and let's get the job done the people want us to do.
  So today, I know we voted for cloture on the bill, but we have to 
continue to speak up on what we need to do to make us a safer country, 
but to keep a stronger economy, and for God's sake, could we start to 
be smarter about it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business, the time to be charged to the time allotted for 
cloture. I will probably take up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Employee Free Choice Act

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the first thing I want to do is take a 
minute to publicly thank the majority leader for the kindness he 
extended to me earlier when he announced the fact that I have cast the 
second-highest number of votes of any Senator from the State of New 
Jersey.
  Mr. President, I am as surprised as anybody in this Chamber that this 
event took place and that kind of longevity has been extended to me by 
the people of New Jersey. I now enter the middle of my 23rd year in the 
Senate and I want to continue to serve. But that is a discussion for 
another time.
  The majority leader was very generous in his comments about me. 
Coming from a person who has provided so much by way of leadership and 
contribution to the country as Harry Reid, it is a touching experience. 
We are busy, but Senator Reid took time out of the business of the day 
to note the fact that I had achieved that record.
  The biggest surprise of all is, for me, the fact that I have been in 
this Chamber as long as I have been. I spent 30 years building a 
company with a couple of colleagues.
  That is the legend of America--what can happen even if you are born 
poor but you have some assistance. I wore the uniform of this country 
proudly during World War II. I was a beneficiary of the GI Bill of 
Rights. That is how they defined the educational opportunity that was 
given.
  Mr. President, my surprise--my awe, if I may--was that I was able to 
go to Columbia University, a distinguished educational facility, which 
was something I never dreamed possible because of the humble roots that 
my family had. They gave me values--nothing of value but values. My 
parents' admonition throughout my life was to always be honest, always 
tell the truth, always work hard, and remember one thing, son: There 
are people as poor as we are. As difficult as it is at times, there are 
always people less fortunate.
  My grandmother had a little bank in the house, which we shared with 
her many times, in which we would put small coins, to be used for--I 
cannot say charity but for others who were less fortunate.
  So I stand in this Chamber at this moment, and I want to talk about 
something related to roots--to my roots. My father and my mother 
struggled to make a living. My father worked in the silk mills of 
Paterson, NJ, a textile city. Others like my dad and mother were 
brought to this country by their parents, hoping for an opportunity to 
make a living and to have some degree of opportunity.
  My father worked in the silk mill with a dear friend of his who was 
later very active in union organization. My father made a plea to his 
foreman for a holiday off. It was an important religious holiday. He 
wasn't looking for any pay, Heaven forbid. He just wanted to have the 
time off for observance of

[[Page 16909]]

the holiday. He and his very close friend asked the foreman if it would 
be all right if they took the day off for the observance of the 
holiday, which was the week following. The reply was very quick: Oh, 
sure, you can take the day off, but don't come back to work here 
anymore. With that, you can imagine the view of my father and his 
friend not being able to continue a job that was scarce and difficult 
to get. So they waited, hat in hand.
  In those days, people would wear hats to work in common labor at a 
mill. They described that, hat in hand, the two of them nervously 
waited for the owner of the company to come by. They would not let them 
go into the owner's office. Heaven forbid, that is no place for people 
like you. But the owner was a kind, generous man. When he walked out, 
they stopped him and explained that they desperately wanted to take the 
holiday off, but they needed their jobs. The owner was a kind, 
sympathetic person, and he said: Take the time off, and you are going 
to be paid for that holiday.
  That was the beginning days of union representation in this country--
very active, very confrontational, very difficult, and sometimes 
violent. But my father saw and his friend saw that they had to have a 
better way to do things than stand hat in hand and beg for a day off. 
Fortunately, they found a kind man who listened and gave them the day 
off. But the experience was searing, and they never forgot that working 
people had to have representation.
  Both of them then became active in union organization. Those were 
difficult days. We have all heard stories about employees who wanted 
some representation, wanted a voice in how they were paid, wanted a 
voice in what conditions were like.
  My father worked in a mill. My father was a health faddist even in 
those days. He took very good care of himself. He was a man with 
muscles. He would go to the gym, and he would lift weights. He belonged 
to the local Y. He never smoked, was light on coffee, and no liquor. He 
died when he was 43 years old. He contracted cancer when he was 42. The 
cause was almost undeterminable, but they realized that there were 
materials they used when they worked with the silk to keep the silk 
brittle and to keep the machinery working that ultimately caused my 
father's cancer. His brother died at age 56 also from cancer. Their 
father died at age 52 also from cancer induced by the environment at 
the factory in which they worked.
  The fact is that people who work in places like this should have a 
voice--and we see disparities, such as taking 10 years to raise the 
minimum wage.
  It is time to give unions, to give working people a chance to have a 
voice in their work or their opportunity to take care of their 
families, or the opportunity, as my father said, to hold your head 
high, be proud, be proud you are a worker, be proud you are 
contributing something to your country.
  What we see now is distressing, which is why we are discussing 
freedom of choice for workers, to give them a chance have their voice 
heard without having to go through a hassle about whether they are 
organized. I have seen what happens. I ran a very big company. When I 
left the company, it had 16,000 employees. Today it has 40,000 
employees, a company I started with 2 other poor kids from the 
neighborhood. We were always very conscious of our responsibility to 
our employees. That is why the company was so successful. It had the 
longest growth of any company in American history of 10 percent or more 
on the bottom line.
  We had a case in New Jersey where a bus driver was fired for being a 
union supporter and giving testimony to the National Labor Relations 
Board. Even as we gather here, we see that employers are still using 
all kinds of tactics to harass, threaten, or fire workers who try to 
exercise their right to form a union. Ninety-two percent of employers 
make their employees sit through one-sided, anti-union presentations, 
according to a study by Cornell University.
  The Cornell study also said that 78 percent of employers have 
supervisors hold repeated closed-door, one-on-one meetings with workers 
to intimidate them to oppose the union.
  I don't think those kinds of tactics are appropriate. Decent jobs are 
ever more scarce in this country as we ship so many jobs abroad, as 
technology--and I come from the computer business; I know something 
about technology--as technology takes jobs away from people whose only 
skills are manual skills, and they need a way to make a living. You 
don't have to be a new immigrant to need a job where you use your 
hands, use your body, or use your strength to make a living. But these 
jobs are going further and further afield because of the technology.
  We should not allow employers to prevent workers from having a 
greater voice in their workplace on issues of pay and benefits and 
working conditions.
  We can improve this situation by passing the Employee Free Choice Act 
to protect workers and to protect their rights--again I use the 
expression--hold their heads high, know they can provide for their 
families, know they don't have to apologize to their kids for having to 
work as hard as so many do, two jobs in many cases.
  The bill that is in front of us will let employees select a union if 
a majority signs cards saying they want representation. They don't want 
to take over the ownership of the company. They don't want to deprive 
senior executives from making their salaries or their benefits. When we 
see what is happening in America today, there is a frightening specter 
out there, and I talk as someone who came from the corporate boardroom. 
I can be accused of being a tree hugger because I care about the 
environment. I can be accused of other things. But I can't be accused 
of not understanding what it is like to run a business, a successful 
business.
  If people want representation, when we see that there are people in 
this country making $1.8 billion for a single year's work, and many 
others earning $240 million or more. The salaries are adequate enough, 
as they said in an article in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago, 
that if you took the combined wages of people who made $240 million or 
more in the year, you could pay 80,000 school teachers in the city of 
New York for 3 years.
  There are disparities, and what has to happen is that people who work 
for a living have to understand their work, their effort, their 
contribution to the country. We have Tom Brokaw here for lunch right 
now. He wrote a book, ``The Greatest Generation.'' What was it? It was 
working people who made the contribution. It was working people who on 
D-Day--I didn't arrive in Europe on D-Day; I arrived a little bit 
later--those who were there, those who were the heroes, those who saved 
their companions, working people. They are entitled to be heard.
  Workers cannot be hassled or harassed to be kept from expressing 
their interests in a union. This bill says employees can select a union 
as soon as a majority signs a card saying they want representation. 
Current law allows for this majority signup, but only at the employer's 
discretion. The employer can instead demand an election and use that 
time before that election to scare workers away from joining a union.
  The Employee Free Choice Act will protect and enhance the right of 
workers to join a union, and there is good reason for some to choose a 
union. As President Bush helps the wealthy get wealthier, helps the 
corporations develop ever more earnings, I see nothing wrong with that 
as long as there is a fairness, an equity. When a company such as 
ExxonMobil earns almost $40 billion in a year, and Americans pull up to 
the pump and very often they are giving away a significant part of 
their purchasing power at that gasoline pump, we have to be sure we 
don't totally demoralize the working people of this country.
  Union wages can help low- and middle-wage workers earn their way to 
new opportunities and financial stability. Everybody knows it costs 
more to live these days. It costs more to send a kid to college. It 
costs more to get health care. It costs more for gasoline. It costs 
more for mortgages. It costs more for everything.

[[Page 16910]]

  We have to make sure that the people who work for a living, who do 
the building, who do the lifting, are able to make a living.
  When it comes to wages, union wages are almost 30 percent higher than 
nonunion wages, and union workers are almost twice as likely to have 
employer-sponsored health benefits.
  In 2005, 1.3 million New Jersey residents were uninsured for health. 
That is 300,000 more residents than 5 years ago. Union membership can 
make a huge difference to them and their families. Hard-working 
Americans deserve these benefits. We need the Employee Free Choice Act 
so workers can express themselves without intimidation. They have to be 
certified if they make that kind of choice. But we also want employers 
to be accountable when they violate the law. This bill will strengthen 
penalties for employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act 
so that employers are deterred from breaking the law.
  Workers deserve an atmosphere where they can choose a union without 
intimidation or coercion. They need a strong law to allow them to make 
their own choice without interference from management. The Employee 
Free Choice Act is that law. It will give employees a stronger voice in 
shaping the workplace and will help employees earn more money, 
benefits, and improve their futures.
  I am proud to support this bill for New Jersey's and America's 
current union members and for those who want to unionize.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Permit people to make their 
choice and make it freely and not have to be worried about intimidation 
or harassment. If you want to join a union, simple: Fill out a card. 
Why should they be deprived from doing so for their future? I don't 
think they should be.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Heroes of Charleston

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, my colleagues have been very kind to me 
in passing on their condolences from the people of their States 
regarding Charleston. I publicly acknowledge all the kindness they have 
shown to me and Senator DeMint regarding the loss of the firefighters 
in South Carolina. It was a huge blow to the community of Charleston. 
Nine very brave souls lost their lives trying to protect their fellow 
citizens. Senator Kennedy spoke very eloquently of the life of a 
firefighter. Senator Dodd and so many people have offered their 
condolences.
  There will be a memorial service tomorrow in Charleston. I will be 
going with other members of the delegation, and we will have a 
resolution before the Senate tomorrow honoring these heroes.
  I learned, talking with Senators Kennedy and Kerry, that there were 
six or seven firefighters lost in Worcester, MA, not that long ago. I 
have been told the Charleston fire was the largest loss of life among 
firefighters since 9/11.
  Those who have been to Charleston, SC, know what a wonderful, 
beautiful community it is. It is one of the most open, welcoming 
communities in the country. To the families, we grieve with you. We can 
only imagine the pain you are going through. I hope you do realize you 
have so many people in your corner saying prayers for your well-being 
and deeply appreciative of the sacrifice your loved ones made.
  It is human nature for most people to run away from fires. Only 
firemen run into them. Thank God people are willing to do that, go off 
and serve in the military, be policemen, EMTs, many of the other jobs 
that require self-preservation to take a backseat to the common good. 
Self-preservation is a strong instinct. I know parents would do 
anything for their children, and that is a very understandable emotion, 
taking care of your loved ones and your family. That probably trumps 
self-preservation--most of the time, anyway. Doing it for somebody you 
don't know makes you a hero. When you are willing to give your life, 
risk your life for someone you don't know, that is where the term 
``hero'' applies.
  To the families who have lost loved ones, I do hope you have some 
comfort knowing that what your loved one was doing was so important. In 
this case, there was a belief that a civilian was left in the warehouse 
unaccounted for, so the firemen went back in to look for this person. 
Unfortunately, the worst happened. The building collapsed on them, and 
there was a tremendous tragedy.
  There are so many ways to thank firemen, and I am very inadequate in 
that regard.
  Similar to most young kids, I thought being a fireman was about the 
top of the pyramid. It seemed like the neatest job in the world. But as 
you get older, you realize how dangerous it is. It is one of those 
occupations, such as being a policeman or other occupations--but 
particularly firemen--that every day is a real risk you take.
  To the people of Charleston, SC: I know you are banded together. I 
know you are mourning together. You have the wishes of this body. All 
the Senators--Republicans and Democrats--very much have you in their 
prayers.
  To the families: Tomorrow will be a difficult day. It will be a very 
touching day. It will be a day of remembrance and mourning. It will 
also be a day of celebration, celebrating the lives of those brave 
firefighters who represent the best of my State and the best of 
humanity.
  I would like to end this statement with the understanding that there 
is nothing we can do to replace your loss. But we can and we will be 
there by your side as you move forward.
  God bless.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. REID. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendments are either nongermane or are drafted improperly and are out 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the majority leader may 
make a combined point of order against the pending amendments.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendments fall.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the pending business the Reid 
substitute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                    Amendment No. 1792, as Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
No. 1792 be called up and modified by amendment No. 1843.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1792, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 239, beginning with line 16, strike through line 5 
     on page 277 and insert the following:

           TITLE V--CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy 
     Act''.

     SEC. 502. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILES AND 
                   CERTAIN OTHER VEHICLES.

       (a) Increased Standards.--Section 32902 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``NON-PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES.--'' in 
     subsection (a) and inserting

[[Page 16911]]

     ``PRESCRIPTION OF STANDARDS BY REGULATION.--'';
       (2) by striking ``(except passenger automobiles)'' in 
     subsection (a); and
       (3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Standards for Automobiles and Certain Other 
     Vehicles.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation, after 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall prescribe average fuel economy 
     standards for--
       ``(A) automobiles manufactured by manufacturers in each 
     model year beginning with model year 2011 in accordance with 
     subsection (c); and
       ``(B) commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway 
     vehicles in accordance with subsection (k).
       ``(2) Fuel economy target for automobiles.--
       ``(A) Automobile fuel economy average for model years 2011 
     through 2020.--The Secretary shall prescribe average fuel 
     economy standards for automobiles in each model year 
     beginning with model year 2011 to achieve a combined fuel 
     economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per 
     gallon for the fleet of automobiles manufactured or sold in 
     the United States. The average fuel economy standards 
     prescribed by the Secretary shall be the maximum feasible 
     average fuel economy standards for model years 2011 through 
     2019.
       ``(B) Automobile fuel economy average for model years 2021 
     through 2030.--For model years 2021 through 2030, the average 
     fuel economy required to be attained by the fleet of 
     automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States shall 
     be the maximum feasible average fuel economy standard for the 
     fleet.
       ``(C) Progress toward standard required.--In prescribing 
     average fuel economy standards under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall prescribe annual fuel economy standard 
     increases that increase the applicable average fuel economy 
     standard ratably beginning with model year 2011 and ending 
     with model year 2020.''.
       (b) Fuel Economy Target for Commercial Medium-Duty and 
     Heavy-Duty On-Highway Vehicles.--Section 32902 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``(k) Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Highway 
     Vehicles.--
       ``(1) Study.--No later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, the Secretary 
     of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, shall examine the fuel efficiency of commercial 
     medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and determine--
       ``(A) the appropriate test procedures and methodologies for 
     measuring commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway 
     vehicle fuel efficiency;
       ``(B) the appropriate metric for measuring and expressing 
     commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle fuel 
     efficiency performance, taking into consideration, among 
     other things, the work performed by such on-highway vehicles 
     and types of operations in which they are used;
       ``(C) the range of factors, including, without limitation, 
     design, functionality, use, duty cycle, infrastructure, and 
     total overall energy consumption and operating costs that 
     effect commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle 
     fuel efficiency; and
       ``(D) such other factors and conditions that could have an 
     impact on a program to improve commercial medium- and heavy-
     duty on-highway vehicle fuel efficiency.
       ``(2) Rulemaking.--No later than 24 months after completion 
     of the study required by paragraph (1), the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, by 
     regulation, shall determine in a rulemaking procedure how to 
     implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway 
     vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program designed to 
     achieve the maximum feasible improvement, and shall adopt 
     appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy 
     standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are 
     appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for 
     commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.
       ``(3) Lead-time; regulatory stability.--Any commercial 
     medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle fuel efficiency 
     regulatory program adopted pursuant to this subsection shall 
     provide no less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead-
     time and 3 full model years of regulatory stability.
       ``(4) Commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle 
     defined.--In this subsection, the term `commercial medium- 
     and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle' means an on-highway 
     vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 
     pounds, and that, in the case of a vehicle with a gross 
     vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds, is not an 
     automobile.''.
       (c) Authority of Secretary.--Section 32902 of title 49, 
     United States Code, as amended by subsection (b), is further 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(l) Authority of the Secretary.--
       ``(1) Vehicle attributes; model years covered.--The 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) prescribe by regulation average fuel economy 
     standards for automobiles based on vehicle attributes related 
     to fuel economy and to express the standards in the form of a 
     mathematical function; and
       ``(B) issue regulations under this title prescribing 
     average fuel economy standards for 1 or more model years.
       ``(2) Prohibition of uniform percentage increase.--When the 
     Secretary prescribes a standard, or prescribes an amendment 
     under this section that changes a standard, the standard may 
     not be expressed as a uniform percentage increase from the 
     fuel-economy performance of attribute classes or categories 
     already achieved in a model year by a manufacturer.''.

     SEC. 503. AMENDING FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 32902(c) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Amending Fuel Economy Standards.--Notwithstanding 
     subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary of Transportation--
       ``(1) may prescribe a standard higher than that required 
     under subsection (b); or
       ``(2) may prescribe an average fuel economy standard for 
     automobiles that is the maximum feasible level for the model 
     year, despite being lower than the standard required under 
     subsection (b), if the Secretary determines, based on clear 
     and convincing evidence, that the average fuel economy 
     standard prescribed in accordance with subsections (a) and 
     (b) for automobiles in that model year is shown not to be 
     cost-effective.''.
       (b) Feasibility Criteria.--Section 32902(f) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Decisions on Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy.--
       ``(1) In general.--When deciding maximum feasible average 
     fuel economy under this section, the Secretary shall 
     consider--
       ``(A) economic practicability;
       ``(B) the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the 
     Government on fuel economy;
       ``(C) environmental impacts; and
       ``(D) the need of the United States to conserve energy.
       ``(2) Limitations.--In setting any standard under 
     subsection (b), (c), or (d), the Secretary shall ensure that 
     each standard is the highest standard that--
       ``(A) is technologically achievable;
       ``(B) can be achieved without materially reducing the 
     overall safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the 
     United States;
       ``(C) is not less than the standard for that class of 
     vehicles from any prior year; and
       ``(D) is cost-effective.
       ``(3) Cost-effective defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `cost-effective' means that the value to the United States of 
     reduced fuel use from a proposed fuel economy standard is 
     greater than or equal to the cost to the United States of 
     such standard. In determining cost-effectiveness, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to those technologies and 
     packages of technologies that offer the largest reduction in 
     fuel use relative to their costs.
       ``(4) Factors for consideration by secretary in determining 
     cost-effectiveness.--The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and may 
     consult with such other departments and agencies as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate, and shall consider in the 
     analysis the following factors:
       ``(A) Economic security.
       ``(B) The impact of the oil or energy intensity of the 
     United States economy on the sensitivity of the economy to 
     oil and other fuel price changes, including the magnitude of 
     gross domestic product losses in response to short term price 
     shocks or long term price increases.
       ``(C) National security, including the impact of United 
     States payments for oil and other fuel imports on political, 
     economic, and military developments in unstable or unfriendly 
     oil-exporting countries.
       ``(D) The uninternalized costs of pipeline and storage oil 
     seepage, and for risk of oil spills from production, 
     handling, and transport, and related landscape damage.
       ``(E) The emissions of pollutants including greenhouse 
     gases over the lifecycle of the fuel and the resulting costs 
     to human health, the economy, and the environment.
       ``(F) Such additional factors as the Secretary deems 
     relevant.
       ``(5) Minimum valuation.--When considering the value to 
     consumers of a gallon of gasoline saved, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall use as a minimum value the greater of--
       ``(A) the average value of gasoline prices projected by the 
     Energy Information Administration over the period covered by 
     the standard; or
       ``(B) the average value of gasoline prices for the 5-year 
     period immediately preceding the year in which the standard 
     is established.''.
       (c) Consultation Requirement.--Section 32902(i) of title 
     49, United States Code, is

[[Page 16912]]

     amended by inserting ``and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency'' after ``Energy''.
       (d) Comments.--Section 32902(j) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting ``(1) Before 
     issuing a notice proposing to prescribe or amend an average 
     fuel economy standard under subsection (b), (c), or (g) of 
     this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall give the 
     Secretary of Energy and Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency at least 30 days after the receipt of the 
     notice during which the Secretary of Energy and Administrator 
     may, if the Secretary of Energy or Administrator concludes 
     that the proposed standard would adversely affect the 
     conservation goals of the Secretary of Energy or 
     environmental protection goals of the Administrator, provide 
     written comments to the Secretary of Transportation about the 
     impact of the standard on those goals. To the extent the 
     Secretary of Transportation does not revise a proposed 
     standard to take into account comments of the Secretary of 
     Energy or Administrator on any adverse impact of the 
     standard, the Secretary of Transportation shall include those 
     comments in the notice.''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and the Administrator'' after ``Energy'' 
     each place it appears in paragraph (2).
       (e) Alternative Fuel Economy Standards for Low Volume 
     Manufacturers and New Entrants.--Section 32902(d) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Alternative Average Fuel Economy Standard.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon the application of an eligible 
     manufacturer, the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe 
     an alternative average fuel economy standard for automobiles 
     manufactured by that manufacturer if the Secretary determines 
     that--
       ``(A) the applicable standard prescribed under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c) is more stringent than the maximum feasible 
     average fuel economy level that manufacturer can achieve; and
       ``(B) the alternative average fuel economy standard 
     prescribed under this subsection is the maximum feasible 
     average fuel economy level that manufacturer can achieve.
       ``(2) Application of alternative standard.--The Secretary 
     may provide for the application of an alternative average 
     fuel economy standard prescribed under paragraph (1) to--
       ``(A) the manufacturer that applied for the alternative 
     average fuel economy standard;
       ``(B) all automobiles to which this subsection applies; or
       ``(C) classes of automobiles manufactured by eligible 
     manufacturers.
       ``(3) Importers.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an 
     importer registered under section 30141(c) may not be 
     exempted as a manufacturer under paragraph (1) for an 
     automobile that the importer--
       ``(A) imports; or
       ``(B) brings into compliance with applicable motor vehicle 
     safety standards prescribed under chapter 301 for an 
     individual described in section 30142.
       ``(4) Application.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
     prescribe the contents of an application for an alternative 
     average fuel economy standard.
       ``(5) Eligible manufacturer defined.--In this section, the 
     term `eligible manufacturer' means a manufacturer that--
       ``(A) is not owned in whole or in part by another 
     manufacturer that sold greater than 0.5 percent of the number 
     of automobiles sold in the United States in the model year 
     prior to the model year to which the application relates;
       ``(B) sold in the United States fewer than 0.4 percent of 
     the number of automobiles sold in the United States in the 
     model year that is 2 years before the model year to which the 
     application relates; and
       ``(C) will sell in the United States fewer than 0.4 percent 
     of the automobiles sold in the United States for the model 
     year for which the alternative average fuel economy standard 
     will apply.
       ``(6) Limitation.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     notwithstanding section 32901(a)(4), the term `automobile 
     manufactured by a manufacturer' includes every automobile 
     manufactuered by a person that controls, is controlled by, or 
     is under common control with the manufacturer.
       (f) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 32902(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears.
       (2) Section 32902(g) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (a) or (d)'' each place it 
     appears in paragraph (1) and inserting ``subsection (b), (c), 
     or (d)''; and
       (B) striking ``(and submit the amendment to Congress when 
     required under subsection (c)(2) of this section)'' in 
     paragraph (2).

     SEC. 504. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 32901(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) except as provided in section 32908 of this title, 
     `automobile' means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by 
     fuel, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use 
     on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at not more 
     than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, except--
       ``(A) a vehicle operated only on a rail line;
       ``(B) a vehicle manufactured by 2 or more manufacturers in 
     different stages and less than 10,000 of which are 
     manufactured per year; or
       ``(C) a work truck.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) `work truck' means an automobile that the Secretary 
     determines by regulation--
       ``(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross 
     vehicle weight; and
       ``(B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as defined in 
     section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations).''.
       (b) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation--
       (1) shall issue proposed regulations implementing the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) shall issue final regulations implementing the 
     amendments not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Effective Date.--Regulations prescribed under 
     subsection (b) shall apply beginning with model year 2010.

     SEC. 505. ENSURING SAFETY OF AUTOMOBILES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 301 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 30129. Vehicle compatibility standard

       ``(a) Standards.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue a motor vehicle safety standard to reduce automobile 
     incompatibility. The standard shall address characteristics 
     necessary to ensure better management of crash forces in 
     multiple vehicle frontal and side impact crashes between 
     different types, sizes, and weights of automobiles with a 
     gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less in order to 
     decrease occupant deaths and injuries.
       ``(b) Consumer Information.--The Secretary shall develop 
     and implement a public information side and frontal 
     compatibility crash test program with vehicle ratings based 
     on risks to occupants, risks to other motorists, and combined 
     risks by vehicle make and model.''.
       (b) Rulemaking Deadlines.--
       (1) Rulemaking.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue--
       (A) a notice of a proposed rulemaking under section 30129 
     of title 49, United States Code, not later than January 1, 
     2012; and
       (B) a final rule under such section not later than December 
     31, 2014.
       (2) Effective date of requirements.--Any requirement 
     imposed under the final rule issued under paragraph (1) shall 
     become fully effective not later than September 1, 2018.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     301 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 30128 the following:

``30129. Vehicle compatibility standard''.

     SEC. 506. CREDIT TRADING PROGRAM.

       Section 32903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``passenger'' each place it appears;
       (2) by striking ``section 32902(b)-(d) of this title'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a), (c), or (d) 
     of section 32902'';
       (3) by striking ``3 consecutive model years'' in subsection 
     (a)(2) and inserting ``5 consecutive model years'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``clause (1) of this 
     subsection,'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (5) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Credit Trading Among Manufacturers.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation may establish, by regulation, a corporate 
     average fuel economy credit trading program to allow 
     manufacturers whose automobiles exceed the average fuel 
     economy standards prescribed under section 32902 to earn 
     credits to be sold to manufacturers whose automobiles fail to 
     achieve the prescribed standards such that the total oil 
     savings associated with manufacturers that exceed the 
     prescribed standards are preserved when transferring credits 
     to manufacturers that fail to achieve the prescribed 
     standards.''.

     SEC. 507. LABELS FOR FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS 
                   EMISSIONS.

       Section 32908 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) of subsection (b)(1) 
     as subparagraph (H) and inserting after subparagraph (E) the 
     following:
       ``(F) a label (or a logo imprinted on a label required by 
     this paragraph) that--
       ``(i) reflects an automobile's performance on the basis of 
     criteria developed by the Administrator to reflect the fuel 
     economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions consequences 
     of operating the automobile over its likely useful life;
       ``(ii) permits consumers to compare performance results 
     under clause (i) among all automobiles; and
       ``(iii) is designed to encourage the manufacture and sale 
     of automobiles that meet or exceed applicable fuel economy 
     standards under section 32902.
       ``(G) a fuelstar under paragraph (5).''; and

[[Page 16913]]

       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(4) Green label program.--
       ``(A) Marketing analysis.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, the 
     Administrator shall implement a consumer education program 
     and execute marketing strategies to improve consumer 
     understanding of automobile performance described in 
     paragraph (1)(F).
       ``(B) Eligibility.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall issue 
     requirements for the label or logo required under paragraph 
     (1)(F) to ensure that an automobile is not eligible for the 
     label or logo unless it--
       ``(i) meets or exceeds the applicable fuel economy 
     standard; or
       ``(ii) will have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over 
     the useful life of the vehicle of all vehicles in the vehicle 
     attribute class to which it belongs in that model year.
       ``(5) Fuelstar program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program, 
     to be known as the `Fuelstar Program', under which stars 
     shall be imprinted on or attached to the label required by 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Green stars.--Under the Fuelstar Program, a 
     manufacturer may include on the label maintained on an 
     automobile under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) 1 green star for any automobile that meets the 
     average fuel economy standard for the model year under 
     section 32902; and
       ``(ii) 1 additional green star for each 2 miles per gallon 
     by which the automobile exceeds such standard.
       ``(C) Gold stars.--Under the Fuelstar Program, a 
     manufacturer may include a gold star on the label maintained 
     on an automobile under paragraph (1) if the automobile 
     attains a fuel economy of at least 50 miles per gallon.''.

     SEC. 508. CONTINUED APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING STANDARDS.

       Nothing in this title, or the amendments made by this 
     title, shall be construed to affect the application of 
     section 32902 of title 49, United States Code, to passenger 
     automobiles or non-passenger automobiles manufactured before 
     model year 2011.

     SEC. 509. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     execute an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to 
     develop a report evaluating vehicle fuel economy standards, 
     including--
       (1) an assessment of automotive technologies and costs to 
     reflect developments since the Academy's 2002 report 
     evaluating the corporate average fuel economy standards was 
     conducted;
       (2) an analysis of existing and potential technologies that 
     may be used practically to improve automobile and medium-duty 
     and heavy-duty truck fuel economy;
       (3) an analysis of how such technologies may be practically 
     integrated into the automotive and medium-duty and heavy-duty 
     truck manufacturing process; and
       (4) an assessment of how such technologies may be used to 
     meet the new fuel economy standards under chapter 329 of 
     title 49, United States Code, as amended by this title.
       (b) Quinquennial Updates.--After submitting the initial 
     report, the Academy shall update the report at 5 year 
     intervals thereafter through 2025.
       (c) Report.--The Academy shall submit the report to the 
     Secretary, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, with its findings and recommendations no 
     later than 18 months after the date on which the Secretary 
     executes the agreement with the Academy.

     SEC. 510. STANDARDS FOR EXECUTIVE AGENCY AUTOMOBILES.

       (a) In General.--Section 32917 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 32917. Standards for Executive agency automobiles

       ``(a) Fuel Efficiency.--The head of an Executive agency 
     shall ensure that each new automobile procured by the 
     Executive agency is as fuel efficient as practicable.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Executive agency.--The term `Executive agency' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5.
       ``(2) New automobile.--The term `new automobile', with 
     respect to the fleet of automobiles of an executive agency, 
     means an automobile that is leased for at least 60 
     consecutive days or bought, by or for the Executive agency, 
     after September 30, 2008. The term does not include any 
     vehicle designed for combat-related missions, law enforcement 
     work, or emergency rescue work.''.
       (b) Report.--The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration shall develop a report describing and 
     evaluating the efforts of the heads of the Executive agencies 
     to comply with section 32917 of title 49, United States Code, 
     for fiscal year 2009. The Administrator shall submit the 
     report to Congress no later than December 31, 2009.

     SEC. 511. INCREASING CONSUMER AWARENESS OF FLEXIBLE FUEL 
                   AUTOMOBILES.

       Section 32908 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Increasing Consumer Awareness of Flexible Fuel 
     Automobiles.--(1) The Secretary of Energy, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Transportation, shall prescribe 
     regulations that require the manufacturer of automobiles 
     distributed in interstate commerce for sale in the United 
     States--
       ``(A) to prominently display a permanent badge or emblem on 
     the quarter panel or tailgate of each such automobile that 
     indicates such vehicle is capable of operating on alternative 
     fuel; and
       ``(B) to include information in the owner's manual of each 
     such automobile information that describes--
       ``(i) the capability of the automobile to operate using 
     alternative fuel;
       ``(ii) the benefits of using alternative fuel, including 
     the renewable nature, and the environmental benefits of using 
     alternative fuel; and
       ``(C) to contain a fuel tank cap that is clearly labeled to 
     inform consumers that the automobile is capable of operating 
     on alternative fuel.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall collaborate 
     with automobile retailers to develop voluntary methods for 
     providing prospective purchasers of automobiles with 
     information regarding the benefits of using alternative fuel 
     in automobiles, including--
       ``(A) the renewable nature of alternative fuel; and
       ``(B) the environmental benefits of using alternative 
     fuel.''.

     SEC. 512. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ACCURACY OF FUEL ECONOMY 
                   LABELING PROCEDURES.

       Beginning in December, 2009, and not less often than every 
     5 years thereafter, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation, shall--
       (1) reevaluate the fuel economy labeling procedures 
     described in the final rule published in the Federal Register 
     on December 27, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 77,872; 40 C.F.R. parts 86 
     and 600) to determine whether changes in the factors used to 
     establish the labeling procedures warrant a revision of that 
     process; and
       (2) submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce that describes the results 
     of the reevaluation process.

     SEC. 513. TIRE FUEL EFFICIENCY CONSUMER INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 301 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 30123 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 30123A. Tire fuel efficiency consumer information

       ``(a) Rulemaking.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall, after notice and 
     opportunity for comment, promulgate rules establishing a 
     national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program 
     for tires designed for use on motor vehicles to educate 
     consumers about the effect of tires on automobile fuel 
     efficiency.
       ``(2) Items included in rule.--The rulemaking shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a national tire fuel efficiency rating system for 
     motor vehicle tires to assist consumers in making more 
     educated tire purchasing decisions;
       ``(B) requirements for providing information to consumers, 
     including information at the point of sale and other 
     potential information dissemination methods, including the 
     Internet;
       ``(C) specifications for test methods for manufacturers to 
     use in assessing and rating tires to avoid variation among 
     test equipment and manufacturers; and
       ``(D) a national tire maintenance consumer education 
     program including, information on tire inflation pressure, 
     alignment, rotation, and tread wear to maximize fuel 
     efficiency.
       ``(3) Applicability.--This section shall not apply to tires 
     excluded from coverage under section 575.104(c)(2) of title 
     49, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on date of 
     enactment of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act.
       ``(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency on the means of conveying 
     tire fuel efficiency consumer information.
       ``(c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     periodic assessments of the rules promulgated under this 
     section to determine the utility of such rules to consumers, 
     the level of cooperation by industry, and the contribution to 
     national goals pertaining to energy consumption. The 
     Secretary shall transmit periodic reports detailing the 
     findings of such assessments to the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       ``(d) Tire Marking.--The Secretary shall not require 
     permanent labeling of any kind on a tire for the purpose of 
     tire fuel efficiency information.
       ``(e) Preemption.--When a requirement under this section is 
     in effect, a State or political subdivision of a State may 
     adopt or

[[Page 16914]]

     enforce a law or regulation on tire fuel efficiency consumer 
     information only if the law or regulation is identical to 
     that requirement. Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to preempt a State or political subdivision of a State from 
     regulating the fuel efficiency of tires not otherwise 
     preempted under this chapter.''.
       (b) Enforcement.--Section 30165(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Section 30123a.--Any person who fails to comply with 
     the national tire fuel efficiency consumer information 
     program under section 30123A is liable to the United States 
     Government for a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for 
     each violation.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     301 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 30123 the following:

``30123A. Tire fuel efficiency consumer information''.

     SEC. 514. ADVANCED BATTERY INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Transportation, shall establish and 
     carry out an Advanced Battery Initiative in accordance with 
     this section to support research, development, demonstration, 
     and commercial application of battery technologies.
       (b) Industry Alliance.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     competitively select an Industry Alliance to represent 
     participants who are private, for-profit firms headquartered 
     in the United States, the primary business of which is the 
     manufacturing of batteries.
       (c) Research.--
       (1) Grants.--The Secretary shall carry out research 
     activities of the Initiative through competitively-awarded 
     grants to--
       (A) researchers, including Industry Alliance participants;
       (B) small businesses;
       (C) National Laboratories; and
       (D) institutions of higher education.
       (2) Industry alliance.--The Secretary shall annually 
     solicit from the Industry Alliance--
       (A) comments to identify advanced battery technology and 
     battery systems needs relevant to--
       (i) electric drive technology; and
       (ii) other applications the Secretary deems appropriate;
       (B) an assessment of the progress of research activities of 
     the Initiative; and
       (C) assistance in annually updating advanced battery 
     technology and battery systems roadmaps.
       (d) Availability to the Public.--The information and 
     roadmaps developed under this section shall be available to 
     the public.
       (e) Preference.--In making awards under this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall give preference to participants in the 
     Industry Alliance.
       (f) Cost Sharing.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall require cost sharing in accordance with 
     section 120(b) of title 23, United States Code.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

     SEC. 515. BIODIESEL STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Secretary of Energy, shall promulgate 
     regulations to ensure that all diesel-equivalent fuels 
     derived from renewable biomass that are introduced into 
     interstate commerce are tested and certified to comply with 
     appropriate American Society for Testing and Materials 
     standards.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Biodiesel.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``biodiesel'' means the monoalkyl 
     esters of long chain fatty acids derived from plant or animal 
     matter that meet--
       (i) the registration requirements for fuels and fuel 
     additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency 
     under section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545); and
       (ii) the requirements of the American Society of Testing 
     and Materials D6751.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``biodiesel'' includes esters 
     described in subparagraph (A) derived from--
       (i) animal waste, including poultry fat, poultry waste, and 
     other waste material; and
       (ii) municipal solid waste, sludge, and oil derived from 
     wastewater or the treatment of wastewater.
       (2) Biodiesel blend.--The term ``biodiesel blend'' means a 
     mixture of biodiesel and diesel fuel, including--
       (A) a blend of biodiesel and diesel fuel approximately 5 
     percent of the content of which is biodiesel (commonly known 
     as ``B5''); and
       (B) a blend of biodiesel and diesel fuel approximately 20 
     percent of the content of which is biodiesel (commonly known 
     as ``B20'').

     SEC. 516. USE OF CIVIL PENALTIES FOR RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 32912 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(e) Use of Civil Penalties.--For fiscal year 2008 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, from the total amount deposited 
     in the general fund of the Treasury during the preceding 
     fiscal year from fines, penalties, and other funds obtained 
     through enforcement actions conducted pursuant to this 
     section (including funds obtained under consent decrees), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, shall--
       ``(1) transfer 50 percent of such total amount to the 
     account providing appropriations to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the administration of this chapter, which 
     shall be used by the Secretary to carry out a program of 
     research and development into fuel saving automotive 
     technologies and to support rulemaking under this chapter; 
     and
       ``(2) transfer 50 percent of such total amount to the 
     Energy Security Fund established by section 517(a) of the 
     Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act.''.

     SEC. 517. ENERGY SECURITY FUND AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Fund.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury a 
     fund, to be known as the ``Energy Security Fund'' (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Fund''), consisting of--
       (A) amounts transferred to the Fund under section 
     32912(e)(2) of title 49, United States Code; and
       (B) amounts credited to the Fund under paragraph (2)(C).
       (2) Investment of amounts.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     in interest-bearing obligations of the United States such 
     portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current 
     withdrawals.
       (B) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (C) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to, and form a part of, the Fund in 
     accordance with section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (3) Use of amounts in fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be 
     made available to the Secretary of Energy, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, to carry out the grant 
     program under subsection (b).
       (b) Alternative Fuels Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, acting 
     through the Clean Cities Program of the Department of Energy, 
     shall establish and carry out a program under which the 
     Secretary shall provide grants to expand the availability to 
     consumers of alternative fuels (as defined in section 
     32901(a) of title 49, United States Code).
       (2) Eligibility.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     any entity that is eligible to receive assistance under the 
     Clean Cities Program shall be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection.
       (B) Exceptions.--
       (i) Certain oil companies.--A large, vertically-integrated 
     oil company shall not be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subsection.
       (ii) Prohibition of dual benefits.--An entity that receives 
     any other Federal funds for the construction or expansion of 
     alternative refueling infrastructure shall not be eligible to 
     receive a grant under this subsection for the construction or 
     expansion of the same alternative refueling infrastructure.
       (C) Ensuring compliance.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     promulgate regulations to ensure that, before receiving a 
     grant under this subsection, an eligible entity meets 
     applicable standards relating to the installation, 
     construction, and expansion of infrastructure necessary to 
     increase the availability to consumers of alternative fuels 
     (as defined in section 32901(a) of title 49, United States 
     Code).
       (3) Maximum amount.--
       (A) Grants.--The amount of a grant provided under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $30,000.
       (B) Amount per station.--An eligible entity shall receive 
     not more than $90,000 under this subsection for any station 
     of the eligible entity during a fiscal year.
       (4) Use of funds.--
       (A) In general.--A grant provided under this subsection 
     shall be used for the construction or expansion of 
     alternative fueling infrastructure.
       (B) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 3 percent of 
     the amount of a grant provided under this subsection shall be 
     used for administrative expenses.

     SEC. 518. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2021 to carry out the provisions of chapter 329 of 
     title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 519. APPLICATION WITH CLEAN AIR ACT.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to conflict with 
     the authority provided by sections 202 and 209 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 and 7543, respectively).

[[Page 16915]]



     SEC. 520. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE ACTION PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall, 
     establish and implement an action  plan which takes into 
     consideration the availability cost effectiveness of 
     alternative fuels, which will ensure that, beginning with 
     model year 2015, the percentage of new automobiles for sale 
     in the United States that are alternative fuel automobiles is 
     not less than 50 percent.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Alternative fuel automobile.--The term ``alternative 
     fuel automobile'' means the following but not limited to--
       (A) a new advanced lean burn technology motor vehicle (as 
     defined in section 30B(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) that achieves at least 125 percent of the model year 
     2002 city fuel economy;
       (B) an alternative fueled automobile;
       (C) a flexible fuel automobile;
       (D) a new qualified fuel cell motor vehicle (as defined in 
     section 30B(e)(4) of such Code).
       (E) a new qualified hybrid motor vehicle (as defined in 
     section 30B(d)(3) of such Code);
       (F) a plug-in hybrid automobile;
       (G) an electric automobile;
       (H) a hydrogen internal combustion engine automobile; and
       (I) any other automobile that uses substantially new 
     technology and achieves at least 175 percent of the model 
     year 2002 city fuel economy, as determined by the Secretary 
     of Transportation, by regulation.
       (2) Other terms.--Any term used in this section that is 
     defined in section 32901 of title 49, United States Code, has 
     the meaning given that term in that section.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the fuel economy compromise that I filed 
yesterday, as now amended, is a step toward addressing our energy 
crisis. I thank my dear friend chairman Inouye and his staff for 
working across the aisle to ensure a bipartisan measure. I support the 
notion articulated by the President in his State of the Union Address 
that we need to modernize the Nation's fuel economy program, and save a 
significant amount of fuel over the next decade. I believe the 
provision we now consider would effectuate that policy goal in a 
thoughtful and functional way.
  Once again, our Nation stands at a crossroads in our history. The 
United States faces an energy crisis, but we find ourselves trapped in 
a vicious cycle which will only make its consequences more severe. 
While our Nation is blessed with enormous natural resource potential, 
inconsistent government policies discourage their exploration and 
development. As a direct result, the amount of oil imported each year 
is increasing, and our Federal lands, including those in my home State 
of Alaska, are being withdrawn from oil and gas development and 
exploration. These policies have been--and will continue to be 
detrimental to our national security and long-term environmental 
economic health. The time has come for those of us in Congress, as the 
custodians of the public trust, to make the difficult energy policy 
decisions that will serve to benefit future generations.
  Those who advocate a one-approach-fixes-all solution are misleading 
the American public. The only way our Nation will achieve energy 
independence is through a combination of initiatives. Conservation, 
domestic production, and the development of alternative sources of 
energy are all parts of the broader solution. The end to our crisis 
lies in the balance between them, and the advancement of each will also 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One initiative without the others will 
simply not be enough to achieve our energy objective.
  The fuel economy provisions of this bill would enhance conservation. 
The measure would remove the legal ambiguity that for years has 
inhibited the Secretary of Transportation from raising fuel economy 
standards for passenger cars, and mandate significant fuel economy 
increases for both passenger cars and light trucks.
  By providing authority to increase standards for passenger vehicles, 
and challenging automobile makers to invest toward the achievement of a 
specific fuel economy target, this amendment would provide consumers 
with fuel savings at the pump, limit our Nation's dependence on foreign 
oil, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  I am fully aware of the aggressiveness of the target standard set 
forth in this bill and the challenges involved with reaching the fuel 
economy standard for the domestic vehicle fleet. And I thank Chairman 
Inouye for agreeing to allow regulatory flexibility in the event that 
the targets set forth by this legislation are not feasible. But the 
overall charge to the auto industry set forth in this measure is not 
unfamiliar to the industry during times of geopolitical instability. In 
fact, the CAFE program was born out of very similar circumstances in 
1973, during the Arab oil embargo. At the time, our Nation recognized 
that it was in our national interest to reduce our dependence on 
foreign sources of oil by demanding better fuel economy from our 
automobiles. History has now repeated itself and a combination of 
events, including the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and geopolitical 
unrest, has precipitated once again the need for difficult energy 
conservation determinations.
  Mr. President, the terrorist attacks waged on this country on 
September 11, 2001, and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East have 
brought into focus the need to reduce our dependence on all foreign 
oil. The United States imports almost 11 million barrels of crude oil 
every day, compared with only 5 million produced here at home. And more 
than 2 million imported barrels arrive from the Persian Gulf each day. 
Domestic consumption has increased since 1993 from 17 million to 21 
million barrels per day. The savings achieved by increasing fuel 
economy standards for the entire domestic passenger vehicle fleet is an 
essential component of our comprehensive strategy to increase our 
energy independence and national security.
  But any change to fuel economy standards requires the careful balance 
of many factors, including national security, consumer preference, 
domestic employment, as well as the need for powerful and durable 
vehicles in rural America, including my home State of Alaska. While the 
fuel economy provisions in this amendment would set aggressive goals, 
they would also provide the Secretary the authority to balance these 
market and national security considerations, and to make the 
appropriate and necessary fuel economy increases.
  By significantly improving fuel economy in our passenger vehicle 
fleet, we will inherently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the 
cause of global climate change has yet to be fully determined, its 
speed and impacts are more evident in Alaska than anywhere in the 
country.
  Many believe global climate change is attributable partly to manmade 
activities. Temperatures are rising in the Arctic region at more than 
twice the rate of the rest of the world, according to the 2004 Arctic 
Climate Impact Assessment, and many impacts in Alaska such as erosion 
and flooding exacerbated by climate change require immediate attention 
and planning of responses.
  Mr. President, our Nation needs a new energy paradigm. The 21st 
century will be the proving ground for our commitment to achieve both 
energy independence and a clean, sustainable environment. The fuel 
economy provisions in the amendment address conservation and are 
intended as an aggressive first step of a more holistic energy policy.
  The current energy crisis cannot be resolved through conservation 
alone, and we cannot suspend the law of supply and demand while we 
anticipate alternative technologies and energy sources. I remain 
steadfast in my belief that allowing for the development of our 
domestic resources, particularly in my State of Alaska, is an essential 
component of a successful energy policy.
  While my colleagues in the past have narrowly defeated efforts to 
effectuate that calling, I will not give up on advancing the need for 
such production. The development of our domestic resources would 
generate billions of dollars for the Federal Government, which could 
aid in our quest for alternative sources of energy if we use this new 
revenue to invest in research efforts and infrastructure development.
  Mr. President, I ask for action on the amendment.

[[Page 16916]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1792), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the managers of the bill, Senators Bingaman 
and Domenici, are now going to try to see if there are amendments that 
can be called up, so that a quorum call will be entered into. 
Hopefully, we can have other amendments in this matter as soon as 
possible.
  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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the sponsors of the amendment 
that has just been adopted be myself, Senator Inouye, Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Lott, Senator Kerry, Senator Carper, Senator Hagel, 
Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, Senator Alexander, Senator Cantwell, 
Senator Corker, Senator Dole, Senator Craig, and Senator Sununu, in 
that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. 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. REID. Mr. President, in this downtime, the managers are working. 
At this time, what we are trying to do is clear amendments. There are a 
number of amendments that have been filed, some of which are germane. 
We are working to see if we can clear amendments without a lot of 
determination at this time as to whether they are germane or not. 
Managers are working on this real hard and speaking to the individual 
Senators and staffs.
  Senator Domenici has been notified of this situation. Senator Craig 
is here from the committee representing the minority at this time. We 
hope they can expedite the clearing of some of these amendments, and 
then we will make a determination after that to see if there are any 
other votes we have to have on some of these germane amendments.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on behalf of our colleagues, is it possible 
at this time for the leader to give us some timeframe as it relates to 
the packaging and possible activity this evening and into tomorrow?
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from Idaho very much. I say to my dear 
friend from a neighboring State of Nevada, we are trying--and I have 
had a number of conversations this afternoon with the Republican 
leader--to see if we can expedite the time. It is very possible that we 
could move forward on this legislation and not have to work the weekend 
because a lot of the weekend would be spent just standing around.
  If we can accomplish what we need to do without a lot of standing 
around time, we would be better off, and then we can move early next 
week to finish the debate on immigration. We have a limited number of 
items left to do. We have to finish the germane amendments. I have 
already indicated the managers are willing even to take a look at some 
nongermane amendments. We need to finish the germane amendments, and we 
have to have cloture on the bill if, in fact, that is required. 
Sometimes it isn't. Most of the time it isn't. I said that earlier. And 
then we would have final passage on the bill. Then we would have 20 
minutes on card check. That is the time for the vote. There would be no 
debate on that. I have a strong suspicion that cloture will not be 
invoked on that legislation. Following that, we would move to 
immigration.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the leader.
  Mr. REID. One of the proposals, I say to my friend, was to start 
immigration on Monday and maybe some other odds and ends around here on 
this matter. The other proposal Senator McConnell and I have talked 
about is starting everything Tuesday morning. We would arrive at the 
same end time. It would just be we wouldn't have to be in session with 
people standing around guarding to make sure somebody isn't going to do 
something when the quorum call is on. We could wind up at the same 
place and accomplish just as much. That doesn't take away how difficult 
it is going to be once we get on immigration.
  There are meetings being held on that today and progress is even 
being made.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  I withhold for a minute. We are going to be in a quorum call. If 
someone wants to give a speech for 10 minutes, recognizing they will 
speak as in morning business just for that 10-minute period, that would 
certainly be appropriate. But we are not going to do any business on 
this bill until the managers give us some direction.
  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. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the floor is available 
for some discussion while we are waiting for the managers to work on 
amendments and perhaps clear amendments, and I wanted to take a few 
minutes along with my colleague Senator Craig to talk about some 
information in a piece of legislation we have previously introduced 
called the SAFE Energy Act, Security and Fuel Efficiency Energy Act.
  That legislation represents legislation trying to reduce the oil 
intensity of the American economy. The calculation of where we are with 
respect to oil in this country is that we are dangerously dependent on 
foreign sources of oil, dangerously dependent on oil that comes from 
very troubled parts of the world--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, 
Venezuela, and more. That dependence now is over 60 percent. In other 
words, over 60 percent of the oil we need to run this country's economy 
comes from other parts of the world, much of it very troubled.
  If, God forbid, tomorrow a terrorist were to interrupt the supply of 
oil coming to this country, our economy would be flat on its back. So 
how do we reduce the oil intensity in this country? Well, you do a lot 
of things. I mentioned that 60 percent plus of our oil comes from 
outside of our country. About 70 percent of the oil we use in this 
country is used in vehicles. So while 60 percent comes from other 
countries, 70 percent is running through a carburetor or fuel injector 
to make our vehicle fleet go, and we are in a hopeless pursuit of 
becoming less dependent on foreign sources of energy if we don't make 
our vehicle fleet more efficient.
  So that is one. You have to make your vehicle fleet more efficient. 
We have just passed a piece of legislation that moves in that 
direction. But you need a lot of things: You need efficiency, you need 
conservation, you need renewable energy, you need additional production 
of energy; yes, even fossil fuels, but done in an environmentally 
acceptable way. So conservation.
  We misuse, we waste, an enormous amount of energy in this country. 
The cheapest form of energy available to us is through conservation. 
There is no question about that. Efficiency. Almost everything we do in 
this country, from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed 
at night, we are using all kinds of appliances that require energy. We 
flip on a switch and a

[[Page 16917]]

light bulb turns on. We plug in a razor and shave and use electricity. 
We jump in the shower and that water is heated by electricity or 
perhaps natural gas. But the fact is everything we do can be made more 
efficient.
  There are strange terms, such as SEER 13 standards for air 
conditioners. Some don't know what that means. I know it is kind of an 
arcane language, talking about SEER 13 standards, but it means much 
more efficient air conditioners. We fought for a long time about that 
and finally got a SEER 13 standard, and it is going to use much less 
electricity and be much more efficient.
  So conservation, efficiency, renewables. The bill on the floor of the 
Senate is a significant piece of legislation dealing with renewable 
energy, solar energy, biomass, wind energy, and then the biofuels, 
including ethanol, biodiesel, and all of these issues that deal with 
renewable energy. That is another significant step toward being less 
dependent on foreign sources of oil. Conservation, efficiency, 
renewables.
  But there is another piece that has received too little notice, in my 
judgment, too little notice on the floor of the Senate, and that is 
additional production. We are going to use additional coal. As chairman 
of the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee that funds those 
energy accounts, we are going to use clean power and clean coal 
technology to, I hope one of these days, be able to have a coal-fired 
electric generating plant that is a zero-emission coal-fired electric 
generating plant. I believe we can get there through technology and 
better science. We have all these issues we are working on.
  With respect to fossil fuel, coal, oil, and natural gas, we need to 
find additional ways to produce additional quantities of oil here as 
well. As I look at this issue, and my colleague Senator Craig and I 
have evaluated this issue, there are quantities of oil offshore--yes, 
in Alaska and on the west coast, in the gulf--and the largest quantity 
is in the Gulf of Mexico. We know we have passed some legislation in 
the last 2 years, within the last year and a half or so, opening up 
what is called lease 181. It was modified, through the work of the 
Senators from Florida and others, in a way that was acceptable to them.
  We opened up a portion of the Gulf of Mexico for additional 
production. Senator Craig and I believe there are additional tracts and 
significant tracts that can be open for additional production of oil, 
oil and natural gas, and that such production can be done without 
destruction of our environment. That production can be done by 
expanding the supply, which must be part of the answer to addressing 
this energy problem we have.
  The oil intensity in our country makes us dangerously dependent on 
foreign sources of oil, and so as we look at how we deal with that, we 
deal with it in a lot of ways, but one of those ways must, in my 
judgment, include some additional production with proper and certain 
environmental protections. That can be done. That should be done, in my 
judgment.
  Now, Senator Craig and I understand that portion of the plan we 
introduced here in the Senate that deals with offshore production is 
controversial. We understand when you try to do something such as that, 
people come to the floor and put up a pretty vigorous fight. I might 
say the Presiding Officer, being from Florida, has been very active and 
very aggressive in protecting his State's interests, and very effective 
at protecting his State's interests. Both Senators from Florida have 
been active and involved in that. We understand that.
  We also understand it is not likely at this point that we have the 
votes here in the Senate at this moment to expand the kind of 
production we wish to expand in the Gulf of Mexico, but that doesn't 
mean we shouldn't be discussing and considering how at some point in 
the future we access those significant additional quantities of oil and 
natural gas our country needs, and how we access them with the kind of 
certain protections for our economy and our environment that would be 
necessary to accompany that.
  That is why Senator Craig and I introduced a piece of legislation 
that has this production side to it, and we feel it has not been much 
discussed on the floor of the Senate. Everything else has been--
conservation, efficiency, renewables--all of which I support, all of 
which I am excited about, all of which I think advance this country's 
interest, but the production side has not been discussed in as 
significant a way as I believe it should. So I wanted to simply take 
this moment to say that the proposal offered by my colleague from Idaho 
and myself is one that believes that whether it is now or in the 
future, the construct of how we put together a comprehensive energy 
plan to reduce the dangerous dependence we have on foreign sources of 
oil must include some additional production, and the most likely place, 
with the greatest potential, if you look at all of the potential areas, 
is in the Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor so my colleague from Idaho can 
express himself as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for a very succinct presentation about the reality of why we have spent 
the last couple of weeks debating energy in the Senate.
  There is another reality check that I think most Americans fail to 
understand when it comes to why they are paying $3-plus at the pump, 
and that reality is that clearly demand in this country has outstripped 
supply by a significant amount. We have increasingly, since the 1950s, 
begun to have to go elsewhere than just in and around our country to 
meet the hydrocarbon or the crude oil needs of our refiners and, 
ultimately, the gasoline needs of our consumers. As that dependency has 
grown on foreign sources of energy, I would argue that America became 
increasingly less secure.
  Now, I am one who in the 1980s, and probably the early 1990s, thought 
it would be just production, production, and more production. I have 
changed. I have spent a lot of time looking at the energy equation of 
our country over the last couple of decades and said, no, you have to 
do a variety of different things.
  Production is important. Our President said we are hooked on 
hydrocarbons. We are ``gasaholics,'' if you will. We are and we will be 
for an extended period of time. We have been there a long while. We 
have a multi, multibillion dollar infrastructure that supplies that 
energy out to the suburban access points, and you don't change those 
overnight. You don't change the technology that ultimately gets you 
there, but you do change. And America must change.
  Some say you don't need anymore production, you can go to efficiency, 
you can go to new technology, and that alone will change the equation 
fast enough to save America's consumers and the economy.
  I disagree with that. I think we are going to go there. In fact, the 
Senate by a voice vote a few moments ago passed a new efficiency 
standard for automobiles that I support. I am a Senator who has never 
supported that in the 27 years I have been in the Senate. So while I 
may be asking the Presiding Officer from Florida to change a little bit 
as it relates to the resources that are offshore Florida because I now 
know the technologies can bring those resources out without damaging 
the environment, here is a Senator who has changed also because I do 
believe that when you get to a fleet that burns less fuel, you are 
going to get to an America that needs less hydrocarbons over time.
  That is why the Senator from North Dakota and I introduced 
legislation earlier this year that talked about conservation, and it 
talked about innovation, but it also talked about production and the 
reality of having to get more production out of our own resources 
instead of relying on one of the most unstable, riskiest areas of the 
world to gain that production.
  If the world were at total peace today and the world's oil supplies 
were managed by companies and not countries, my guess is crude would 
not be at $60-plus a barrel. It would be at $40-plus a

[[Page 16918]]

barrel and the American consumer would probably be paying a dollar less 
at the pump. But that is not reality. Reality is reflected at the pump 
and therein lies one of our greatest problems.
  Earlier in the day, we had a great debate about a tax bill, to tax 
the oil companies by about $30 billion. Somehow that was going to 
change the equation; it was going to make the world a safer and better 
place. It was not going to change the price at the pump, not one dime. 
In fact it had the potential of taking it up.
  Here is the reason why. It did not change this equation. What is this 
equation? These are the known reserves of oil on the globe. Here are 
the big boys, as we think of them--the big companies. Here is Exxon and 
here is the British Petroleum and here is Texaco and over here is 
Marathon.
  You can hardly see them on the chart. They don't own the world's oil 
supply. They manage and own very little of it.
  Who owns it? Hugo Chavez, Venezuela--who would love to jerk this 
country around by its tail--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq. I have named some 
of the most unstable areas of the world. They own the oil today. We 
need it because we are dependent on it, because we have done very 
little about it. That is why the Senator from North Dakota and I said 
we have to go where the oil is in our country, and the oil is not 
onshore anymore. The oil is not onshore. It is offshore. We know it is, 
and we know there is a substantial supply of it. But we have allowed 
States to put on moratoria and establish a political environment that 
denies the Federal Government access to its own resources, so the 
taxpayers of Idaho are paying a higher price for gasoline, in part, 
because the State of California--the Senator from California is here, 
the State of Florida, and other States have said you can't drill off 
our shore. No. No. Even though in California, with the old leases, they 
are still drilling in the State waters--not drilling but producing--the 
ghost of Santa Barbara is long gone. There are some who still like to 
talk about it, but my guess is these young folks sitting around here 
tonight, who are our pages, don't even remember Santa Barbara or the 
oilspill that resulted from the catastrophe of a wellhead blowing off 
offshore years ago.
  The reason you don't is because it doesn't happen anymore. The 
technology of today, the safety of today, the regulations of today have 
changed the equation.
  The Senator from North Dakota talked about a compromise the Senator 
from Florida worked with us on this past year. This is lease sale 181, 
where there may be millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic 
feet of gas. We don't know. There is a pretty good idea it is there and 
it can be produced and pushed into the current infrastructure and 
America, for a moment in time, will be a little bit more energy secure.
  What I am proposing and what many are talking about is what about 
this area? What about the rest of the eastern gulf? Ought we not be 
talking about that? Looking at it? Understanding what is there, if 
technology allows us to produce?
  Here is where America's oil is being produced today, in the Gulf of 
Mexico. We are finding more and more out there as the technologies 
improve and as we can get deeper into the waters. That is reality. 
There are those who will give a lot of different arguments about why 
you should not do it. But I will argue you can do it and that the oil 
is there and America ought to know about it and they ought to be asking 
why we are not going there but, instead, why are we increasingly 
dependent upon foreign nations for our source of oil?
  It is a reasonable question to ask. Right now, America has grown 
increasingly angry because of the price it is paying at the pump. 
People are not accustomed to using their disposable income for the 
price of energy as we know it today. That is not what we have done in 
an economy such as ours. But that is where we are today.
  Here is what happens when we rely on other countries to produce our 
energy for us. We are at war with terrorism today around the globe. 
This is the French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen in October 6 of 
2002, when an al-Qaida suicide boat hit it and set it afire. Here is 
the vulnerability of all of our oil moving on water. I suggest the 
ecological problems resulting from this are greater than from any 
drilling that could occur offshore America today because we expose 
ourselves to a high risk by the shipment of oil on our ocean surfaces 
around the world.
  That is why I think it is important that we keep talking and allowing 
America to understand we are not without oil and not without oil 
reserves. The progressive and environmentally sound development of them 
over time will help us in this period of transition that will take 
several decades to move to flex-fueled cars--hydrogen cars, electric 
cars, all of the kinds of things we think America wants and that in 
public policy and incentivizing the marketplace we are moving America 
toward.
  It will not happen overnight. In that period of time, while it is 
happening, America remains extremely vulnerable. Our economy is at 
risk. There is no question about it. What I have said is this picture 
demonstrates something that ought to be repeated and repeated again: 
The weapon of mass ``disruption'' in this country is an al-Qaida 
suicide boat hitting the side of an oil tanker, time and time again. 
That is the weapon of mass disruption. The high risk involved, the 
driving up of the oil prices, the movement of gas by $2 or $3 a gallon 
in this economy creates havoc everywhere. Certainly, in my State of 
Idaho it creates tremendous problems.
  It is important that I and other Senators recognize that you do not 
conserve your way out of an energy crisis. You do not innovate your way 
out of an energy crisis. You do not produce your way out. You do all 
three.
  I am going to continue to work while I am in the Senate to encourage 
this Senate in public policy to do all three. I think it is in the best 
interests of America, our economy, and our national security that we do 
so. As an American today, I am not only frustrated, I am sometimes 
angered and embarrassed that we, through public policy, have allowed 
our country to become so dependent on other parts of the world.
  Great nations should not allow that to happen, but we have. Then we 
make excuses all around us why we can't produce. Petropolitics is a 
fascinating thing. America gets it. The consumer understands it, and 
the consumer will grow increasingly angry when they understand that 
public policy doesn't allow the marketplace to do what it can do best 
in an environmentally sound way, to provide our country with the kind 
of energy it needs.
  Again, as we debate this bill on the floor and finalize it, my guess 
is we will do a lot about conservation, we will do a lot about 
innovation, but we will do little to nothing about production. In the 
next 5 to 6 years, production is where it is. As we work on innovation, 
as we move technology from the laboratory to the street to commercial 
use, production still remains critically important.
  I call upon my colleagues to stand up and be counted in all three of 
these areas. It is important for our country. It is important for our 
economy. Without question, it is important for our national security. 
The rest of the world should not tell America what its foreign policy 
is or will be based on their willingness or lack thereof to produce the 
oil supply our economy needs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate works in strange ways. I 
think there is no question about that. Some of us were upstairs holding 
a press conference on the fact that we had come together around a 
substitute amendment, and Senator Kerry, who had participated, came 
back up and said the amendment was agreed to.
  For me, I began this in 1993, so it has been a very long time. 
Senator Snowe and I have worked, first, for the SUV loophole closer and 
then for this ten-over-ten bill for 6 years now. So it was

[[Page 16919]]

adopted by the Senate, and there are some people I would like to thank.
  I would like to begin thanking Senator Snowe, who has been the 
cosponsor of this legislation--10 miles improvement in mileage 
efficiency over 10 years--since we started; the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Inouye; the ranking member, Senator Stevens; Senator 
Carper, who was so helpful all the way along; Senator Dorgan, who had 
one part of the legislation, who agreed to a change and came into the 
compromise; Senator Kerry, who worked very hard with Senator Cantwell 
on the flex-fuel part of this; Senator Lott, Senator Corker; Senator 
Klobuchar; and many others. You, Mr. President, we thank you for being 
a cosponsor of this compromise effort as well.
  We have pushed the rock for so long I think it is hard to feel 
anything once the rock goes over the hill. But the amendment was 
adopted and it is in the base bill. For this, we are very grateful.
  I would quickly like to say what this agreement does. It increases 
the fleetwide average fuel economy for all cars, SUVs, and light trucks 
by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years or from 25 miles per gallon to 35 
miles per gallon by model year 2020.
  Second, it requires the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, which we call NHTSA, to establish an attribute-based 
system that sets mileage standards based on size, weight or type of 
vehicle. This is important because it creates a level playing field for 
all automobiles.
  From 2011 to 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible and 
ratchet these standards up, making steady progress to meet the 35-
miles-per-gallon fleetwide average by 2020. The fleetwide average must 
be met unless NHTSA determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, 
that a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide average would not be cost effective 
for the Nation.
  From 2021 to 2030, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the 
maximum feasible and ratchet even these standards up at a reasonable 
rate.
  In addition, the agreement establishes a credit system that NHTSA 
would design, run, and operate. This would allow automakers to buy 
credits if you exceed the standard, and essentially sell those credits 
to those who cannot make the standards in a given year. So the credit 
trading program gives an automaker a financial incentive to exceed the 
standard.
  It can bank its credits also for up to 5 years. That is insurance if 
it falls below the standard in a later year. If an automaker cannot 
meet the standard in a given year, it can purchase credits, use banked 
credits or borrow from projected surpluses in future years.
  This provision was strongly recommended by the National Academy of 
Sciences in 2002. In part of the negotiation we negotiated with the two 
Senators from Michigan, both distinguished Senators, Ms. Stabenow and 
Mr. Levin. And I want to say this: There are no two Senators from any 
single State that I have seen fight harder for their State's industries 
than Senator Stabenow and Senator Levin. We could not reach an 
accommodation. Those of us who have watched this fight for CAFE 
standards and participated in it for the last 13 years, I have just 
found, for me, the automobile industry has never responded. They have 
fought everything we have proposed every time. When this happens, when 
an industry is not forthcoming and does not come to you and say: Look, 
I cannot support this, but I can support that, could you make some 
changes, just something--instead, it is a stone wall. It is: No, it 
does not work in this agreement, the arena, with those of us who feel 
strongly.
  I come from a huge State. We have two nonattainment pollution areas, 
the central valley of California and the Los Angeles area. We are 
having a huge problem meeting the attainment standards. If we do not, 
it can stop everything dead.
  Therefore, this, which reduces pollution, which reduces carbon 
dioxide, reduces global warming gases, and saves oil to the tune of 1.2 
million barrels a day, is something that is going to happen when you 
try, try, try year after year and decade after decade.
  I am very sorry we could not make an accommodation with these two 
Senators. But those of us who have worked on this felt so strongly that 
after all these years, 23 years, where Detroit has said: No, no, no, 
the time had come to say: Yes, yes, yes.
  I, for one, want to help with leap-ahead technology. I, for one, want 
to help with financing, wherever I can, to make it possible. I believe 
I speak for all of the cosponsors of this bill. I believe we all want 
to help. So I hope the next step these Senators will take is to say: 
Here is a bill that we want to help on, that will provide the leap-
ahead technology, and here is something that would help financially the 
American automakers meet these standards.
  We who have worked on this, we who asked in the early 1990s--I was 
the one who asked for the National Academy of Sciences study. They took 
a period of years to do it. We have read it. I think those of us who 
have been at that for so long gave up any hope that we could work with 
the automakers. We do not believe this will stifle the American auto 
industry. We believe the technology is now available, we believe it is 
cost effective to use this technology. It is not just based on reducing 
weight; there are new materials, new engineering strategies, new types 
of engines that can be employed.
  I want to summarize by saying with this amendment, 206 million metric 
tons of carbon dioxide will not be pumped into the air in 2020; between 
345 million metric tons and 428 million metric tons by 2025. We 
estimate savings for consumers at the pump, at $3-a-gallon gasoline, to 
be $55.6 billion in 2020, and $93 billion to $116 billion by 2025. As I 
said, oil savings of 1.2 million barrels per day, or 438 million 
barrels per year in 2020, and between 2 and 2\1/2\ million barrels per 
day by 2025. That is about what we import from the Middle East.
  I thank everybody who participated. There are some of those Senators 
on the floor. I want to particularly thank Senator Cantwell for her 
efforts on flex fuel. She is extraordinarily knowledgeable. She is also 
determined. She perseveres. Her amendment was added as a modification 
to the amendment that passed.
  I thank Senator Carper for his steadfast help. The Senator from 
Delaware has been there every step of the way, in every meeting.
  Most of all, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee. What can 
I say about this chairman? Well, I can begin by saying how lucky we are 
to have you, Dan Inouye. You run a fine committee. We are so grateful 
for your leadership in this matter. I do not believe it would have 
happened had you not, A, been chairman of the committee; B, been 
committed to this legislation; C, wanted us to come together and find a 
solution. You were so right, because we did come together, and the 
solution happened quicker than any of us might guess.
  I also want to, if I might, thank your staff. David Strickland is a 
technological wizard on this. He also has the dedication. He is sitting 
here today. I know he has worked very long hours. But we are very 
grateful for his help.
  Mr. Chairman, I say thank you very much.
  I would be remiss if I did not thank my staff, particularly John 
Watts, who has been with us for some time, as my environmental counsel, 
and has worked on this issue; and Matthew Nelson, who is new to our 
staff, but came in and got his feet wet very fast. I am very grateful 
to both of them as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bill Nelson as 
a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I know others want to speak. This is one of the great 
days in the Senate. When you work on something for a long time, and you 
find yourself cut out year after year, you are determined you are going 
to persevere to find new ways to do it, and for Senator Snowe and for 
me, it is a

[[Page 16920]]

very special day. I thank everyone for making it possible for all of us 
in the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. While Senator Feinstein is still on the floor, I would 
tell her: In my life, as I have had a chance to meet great leaders in 
this country and in other places, other countries, in all walks of 
life, I have taken over the years to asking those leaders: To what do 
you attribute your success--whether they happen to be a leader in 
business or academia or government. More often than not they say to me, 
among other things, I work hard. They also say: I don't give up. I 
don't give up.
  I say to my colleague Senator Feinstein, to my colleague Olympia 
Snowe: You do not give up. And we are going to be a better country, a 
country less dependent on foreign oil because of those efforts, a 
country with a cleaner environment, a country and a world less 
threatened by global warming because of your efforts.
  If we are smart, we will pull together and find ways to make sure 
this legislation, rather than being the death knell for the auto 
industry in this country, can be like a second wind and help to restore 
us to the kind of vigor we once enjoyed.
  Thank you very much. Thank you for your kindness in giving so many 
other people credit. I echo Senator Feinstein's comments with respect 
to our staffs, committee staff, and there are a bunch of them sitting 
back here. David and the first team are back here. I want to say you 
have done a remarkable job.
  I have been in the Senate for 7 years. This is my first year on the 
Commerce Committee. I have never seen staff as helpful, Democratic and 
Republicans, like one team working together, and Beth Osborne, who 
works on my personal staff, continues to rave about the great support 
we get from the committee staff. I think they key off Senator Inouye, 
our chairman, and Senator Stevens, the senior Republican. It is a 
wonderful kind of relationship, the way this place ought to work. When 
it does, we get the kind of results I hope we are going to get with 
respect to fuel efficiency for our cars, trucks, and vans.
  I believe it was Thomas Edison who said, and I am going to paraphrase 
Thomas Edison, that: Sometimes people miss opportunity. And they miss 
opportunity because it comes wearing overalls and looks a lot like 
work.
  There is opportunity in the legislation we are prepared, I believe, 
to pass with respect to fuel efficiencies for our cars, trucks, and 
vans. I think there is an opportunity here for the U.S. domestic auto 
industry. We have to help make sure that opportunity is not missed.
  We have all seen the Home Depot commercials where the folks from Home 
Depot say: You can do this; we can help. And with respect to meeting 
the goal of 35-miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency standards for cars and 
trucks by 2020, that is an aggressive goal. But for the auto industry, 
Ford, GM, and Chrysler, it is important for us to be there to help them 
to meet that goal. If you look closely at the legislation we are 
preparing to pass here in the next--maybe tonight, maybe in the next 
day or two--if you look at the legislation, there is a variety of ways 
where we do help. I will mention a few of those now, if I might.
  One of those is the infusion of Federal dollars in research and 
development with respect to new battery technology. The coolest car I 
saw at the Detroit auto show in January of this year was a Chevrolet. 
It is called a Chevrolet Volt. It is a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid 
vehicle. The mileage it will get is probably close to 75, 80, 90 miles 
per gallon. You plug it in your garage at night, go out the next day, 
drive 40 miles or so on the battery, push on the brakes, and recharge 
the battery. But also it comes with an auxiliary battery unit. It can 
be biocell, it could be flex-fuel diesel, it could be flex-fuel ethanol 
powered, internal combustion engine, recharging the battery and getting 
this remarkable fuel economy from what I call an elegant solution.
  That is the kind of creativity we have in this country; not just 
Chevrolet, not just Ford, not just Chrysler, but all of us together, 
working together. It is a wonderful concept, as that car is. It is not 
going to be a reality in 2010 or 2011 or 2012 if we don't have the next 
generation lithium ion battery to be able to plug in the garage at 
night and provide the kind of charge to carry us 30, 40 miles the next 
day, plug it in at work, and on and on.
  We have an opportunity, I think we have an obligation as the Federal 
Government, to make sure tax dollars are appropriately spent. Fifty 
million dollars a year at least for the next 5 years goes to help fund 
the technologies so that vehicle and other flex-fuel plug-in hybrid 
vehicles can be built and get us, if not ahead of the rest of the 
world, at least at the starting line with them as we begin this next 
part of the race, the competitive race for market share in the world.
  One way we can help within the Federal Government is through our R&D 
investment. A second way we can help is by using our Federal purchasing 
power to commercialize these new technologies as they come to market. 
We do that in this legislation in one way, by calling for the 
development of major steps toward a game plan as early as 2009 for the 
Federal Government to use its purchasing power to buy new technology, 
highly energy-efficient vehicles.
  In the underlying language of this bill, it actually says that 70 
percent, up to 70 percent of the vehicles that GSA, General Services 
Administration, purchases on the civilian side for the Federal 
Government have to be highly energy efficient, next-generation kind of 
technology--70 percent.
  In a week or two we are going to take up legislation on the 
reauthorization of the Defense bill. If we are smart, we will put a 
similar kind of requirement in there for the defense side of our 
Government to do what we are preparing to do in this legislation for 
the civilian side of our Government in terms of purchasing power, to 
say to the Department of Defense, when they go to the marketplace and 
they are buying cars, trucks, and vans, and they buy a lot of them, to 
make sure that early in the next decade maybe 70 percent of what we are 
purchasing on the defense side is these new technology energy-
efficient, low-emission vehicles.
  That is a smart thing to do. That is the second thing we can do, use 
the Federal Government's purchasing power to commercialize new 
technologies.
  The third thing we can do is make sure our tax policy marries up with 
the goals we are setting for more highly energy-efficient, low-emission 
vehicles. In 2005, we passed legislation that said when people buy 
hybrid-powered vehicles, they can earn a tax credit from about $300 to 
up to $3,500. That tax credit brings down the cost of the energy-
efficient hybrid vehicles and encourages people to buy them. 
Unfortunately, most of the hybrids people are buying these days happen 
to be built in other countries. That is going to change very soon, as 
GM product comes on the market. Chrysler product comes on the market 
early next year, and we will have the opportunity to buy not just 
hybrid vehicles built in other countries but a lot of hybrids built 
here. We have a Tax Code that is set to infuse and encourage American 
consumers to buy those vehicles as soon as they hit the road.
  There is also a provision in the 2005 Energy bill that incentivizes 
consumers to buy low-emission, highly efficient diesel-powered 
vehicles. The full effect of that will not be felt until 2009. But 
Chrysler, in a partnership with DaimlerChrysler, is beginning to bring 
to the roads a highly energy-efficient, far lower emission diesel that 
increases performance by 40 percent or more in terms of fuel 
efficiency. It reduces the emission of bad stuff, including 
CO2, into the air. Beginning in 2009, when emissions really 
go down on diesel, the tax policy is there to incentivize folks to buy 
those vehicles. That is a smart thing to do.
  The fourth area we tried to work into this legislation--and we need 
to do more--deals with the kind of infrastructure we have for folks who 
buy

[[Page 16921]]

fuel cell-powered vehicles in this decade and the next. We don't have a 
hybrid highway. It is not as if you can take your fuel cell vehicle and 
go to the corner gas station and fill up, even in this city or its 
neighboring States. We in the Federal Government have an obligation, 
particularly if we want to encourage people to get into fuel cell-
powered vehicles, hydrogen-powered vehicles, to make sure the 
infrastructure is there so people can fill up. The same is true with 
biodiesel, ethanol. It is no good for us to have vehicles run on 
biodiesel or ethanol if there is no place to fill up. We tried, in the 
context of this legislation, to fix that problem.
  I am sure our present Presiding Officer remembers when we were trying 
to get folks to buy unleaded cars powered by unleaded gas. Finally, we 
said: Every gas station has to have at least one pump where you can get 
unleaded gas. We made it a mandate. Today it is hard to find a gas pump 
that has leaded gas. But it took a while to do that. We need a similar 
kind of approach with respect to biofuels and ethanol, not that they 
would supplant completely the petroleum products--that is not going to 
happen any time soon--but to make sure people have the fuel to meet the 
kinds of needs of their vehicles.
  Those are four things we can do in the context of this legislation. 
We are going to find ways to do more. The best way to do that is to ask 
the auto industry: How can we help? We want you to meet these goals. We 
realize you think they are maybe difficult to achieve, some would say 
impossible to achieve. I don't think so.
  This is the United States of America. This is the Nation which 
invented cars. This is the Nation which invented airplanes. This is the 
Nation which invented televisions and CD players. This is the Nation 
which invented the Internet, computers. This is the Nation which 
unleashed the power of the atom. This is the Nation which put a man on 
the Moon, did it in less than 10 years, when we said we were going to 
do it. This is the United States of America. We are creative, hard 
working. We are smart. If we are really smart, we will find a way to 
make this new approach to fuel efficiency for our cars, trucks, and 
vans work; to make it work for the domestic auto companies as well as 
for others who come to our shores; to make it work for the shareholders 
and for their employees; and, most importantly, to make it work for our 
Nation so that we will have reduced our dependence on foreign oil, 
reduced the amount of harmful emissions put into the air, and made this 
country a little better place to live.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator 
Feinstein for her quest over a number of years and thank all of our 
colleagues on the Commerce Committee, Members and staff, for bringing 
this possibility about. It came about as a result of the other side not 
having the votes. All they had to get was 41 votes. Fortunately, that 
did not occur. It allowed us to come together and massage the bill a 
little bit more with these amendments. Thus, we get the end result.
  This Senator has filed an amendment for 40 miles per gallon. It 
simply wasn't practical. We weren't going to have the votes for that 
because we were trying hard enough to get the votes for 35 miles a 
gallon in 13 years, in 2020, and then with the compromises that were 
made, instead of thereafter being at a 4-percent increase in miles per 
gallon per year, which would compound, leaving it to NHTSA, with the 
criteria of what is practically feasible. That is a reasonable 
compromise.
  Then totally apart from that, on a separate issue, flex-fuel 
vehicles, wherever we can encourage that, it is certainly to our 
advantage because the more we can have a fuel that is something other 
than derived from oil, the better off we are. If we have the vehicles 
that use E85, then the question is, Do we have the gas stations that 
have the ethanol distributed to them in order to get E85? We have to 
start working on that. As a matter of fact, in my State of Florida, we 
have one company that is seriously thinking about ethanol plants all 
over the State so that it could then have the ability to get the 
ethanol distributed to the gas stations.
  While the chairman of the Commerce Committee is here, I wanted to 
say, in handing out all of these congratulations, under his leadership, 
under his tutoring, under his mentoring, and under his encouragement, 
he has allowed the committee to come forth with this work product that 
is a signal achievement. Now if we can get the Energy bill passed on 
final passage and then if we can survive the process, if the House can 
pass an energy bill, in conference committee, then, of course, if we 
can survive not having a veto by the President, this is all doable now 
because we are where we are thanks to the leadership of the chairman of 
the Commerce Committee.
  I wanted to make another comment on another subject in response to my 
colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Craig from Idaho. Senator Craig 
puts up a chart there as if all the oil in the United States is in the 
Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. That is not what the geology says. To 
the contrary, over the last 50 years where they have drilled, they have 
come up with a number of dry holes.
  That was why last year this Senator was willing to compromise for 
those who wanted a lease sale called 181 that basically had boiled down 
to about 2 million acres, to be able to expand that to 8.3 million 
acres but to keep it away from the coastline of Florida, where we 
happen to have a $50 billion-a-year tourism industry that depends on 
pristine beaches, but equally as important, that kept it away from the 
military mission line, which is the edge of the largest testing and 
training area in the world for our military. It is there where we are 
doing significant testing of weapons systems and new sophisticated 
technology, often with live ordnance. Over and over, the Secretary of 
Defense has issued letters and said: You can't drill in this area 
because oil rigs are incompatible with live fire and testing of live 
ordnance on new weapons systems.
  Senator Craig in his comments would have us believe the answer is 
drill, drill, drill. By his chart, he was suggesting drilling off the 
coast of Florida. That simply is not true. It is interesting that he 
said that at the very time in which we are on this Energy bill through 
which we are now doing something about lessening the consumption of oil 
by the amendment we just adopted, an amendment that goes to the very 
heart of where we consume most of our oil, and that is in the 
transportation sector. Where in transportation is it most consumed? It 
is in our personal vehicles. Thus, we are doing something about that 
tonight.
  I wanted to add these comments while we are still on the Energy bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Employee Free Choice Act

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Employee Free 
Choice Act, S. 1041. This bill was introduced by our esteemed 
colleague, Senator Kennedy, along with myself and 45 other Members of 
the Senate.
  This bill takes the long overdue step of returning to workers a 
measure of negotiating power and ensuring that workers have a free 
choice and fair chance to form a union. Everyone needs an agent, and 
for too long workers have not had an agent in the Congress or, in many 
cases, in the workplace.
  The bargain this country has promised workers--that if you work hard, 
you will get ahead--is broken. Hard-working Americans are losing 
ground. Real wages are lower today than in 1973, despite the fact that 
productivity has risen over 80 percent. The benefits of rising 
productivity are going to the richest members of our society. CEO 
compensation today is 420 times what it is for our workers. Medical 
costs have skyrocketed. Good manufacturing jobs are being sent 
overseas. Many workers are squeezed between the impact of corporate 
outsourcing on the

[[Page 16922]]

one hand and wage-depressing effects of immigration on the other. In 
Virginia, real median hourly wages fell by 3.6 percent just in the past 
2 years. Hundreds of thousands of Virginians, just like millions of 
Americans, have no health insurance.
  As I heard so often during my campaign for the Senate last year and 
what I continue to hear since I took office, our workers are under 
tremendous pressure. Only 38 percent of the public says their families 
are getting ahead financially, and less than one-third believes the 
next generation of Americans is going to be better off than this 
generation.
  Our unions have historically provided a ladder for workers to get 
ahead. According to a national survey by Peter Hart Research, 60 
million Americans report, right now, they would join a union if they 
could. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that workers who belong 
to unions earn 30 percent more than their nonunion counterparts and are 
63 percent more likely to have employer-provided health care.
  Unfortunately, many workers who try to form unions in this country 
are being blocked by employers. In an analysis of union organizing 
drives in Chicago, the University of Illinois found that 30 percent of 
employers tended to fire prounion workers, that 82 percent of employers 
hired consultants to fight union organization drives, and that 78 
percent of employers required supervisors to deliver antiunion messages 
to their workers. Union membership in this country is now at an alltime 
low, just comprising 12 percent of our workforce.
  The ability to form a union should not require heroic efforts. Yet 
American workers all too often face employer coercion and run the risk 
of losing their livelihoods simply because they want to organize their 
workplace in accordance with existing law. Hard-working Americans 
should have the freedom to make their own choice about whether to join 
a union, and they should be able to make that choice freely and fairly. 
The best opportunity for hard-working Americans to get ahead is to join 
their coworkers and negotiate in one way or another for better wages 
and benefits.
  We can help workers improve their bargaining position. The National 
Labor Relations Act already permits workers to form unions through 
majority signup. In fact, more workers join unions through majority 
signup than through National Labor Relations Board elections. Employees 
of Cingular Wireless joined the Communications Workers of America 
following a majority signup that was supported by the company.
  This bill makes the much needed change of allowing workers to form 
unions by majority signup where employers oppose the union. This bill 
also levels the playing field for workers by strengthening penalties 
against employers that coerce or intimidate employees. The fundamental 
sense of fairness that runs so deep in our Nation's character demands 
that we take this step on behalf of our working men and women.
  Let us measure our success in the Senate by the number of hard-
working Americans we bring back to the table, the number of families 
with health care, the number of workers with pensions and fair wages, 
and the number of children who are able to go to college. Passing the 
Employee Free Choice Act puts us on the road to achieving this type of 
success.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise tonight because we are on the 
precipice of passing new energy legislation--new energy legislation 
that will point our country in a new direction, on an energy strategy 
that is about cleaner, renewable alternative fuel, and, yes, on 
research and development, on many other ways that will help us, as 
Americans, be energy leaders again.
  It is exciting to be here tonight on the Senate floor as new 
legislation is being adopted that does change the direction in ways my 
colleagues have been fighting for many years and many of the staff who 
are behind me have been fighting for much of their legislative careers 
on the Hill. But we are here tonight because Senator Reid, early this 
year, asked six different committees to come up with energy legislation 
and point our country in a new direction. He asked each of those 
committees to put those proposals on the Senate floor by passing them 
out in a bipartisan fashion, and those committees have done so.
  Now, while we have not gotten all those packages together, we do have 
a proposal before us that would save the United States 20 percent on 
the oil consumption of today. That is a great goal. It does it in two 
fundamental ways: by making sure we produce alternative fuel--and what 
is before us tonight is 36 billion gallons of alternative fuel, mostly 
done by advanced technologies of cellulosic that will be a much bigger 
reduction of CO2 emissions than corn-based ethanol, and that 
is a huge direction change--and the amendment of the Senator from 
California to make sure we have fuel-efficient cars.
  For the first time in decades, we are passing legislation that will 
allow Americans to get more out of a tank of gas. In fact, with this 
new standard for fuel efficiency, Americans, when they fill up their 
tank, will be able to go anywhere from 100 to 150 more miles on that 
tank of gas when these fuel efficiency standards are fully implemented.
  Because we are also including a flex-fuel provision, we are giving 
Americans a chance to have their automobiles run on two different fuel 
choices: fossil fuel or new advanced green renewable fuels that will be 
a great reduction of CO2 and carbon emissions and will help 
in the reduction of demand for gasoline and thereby help lower the 
price of gasoline. This is exactly what America wants us to do in a new 
energy direction.
  We should also emphasize that the underlying bill tonight also has 
protections for consumers on price gouging and to make sure the Federal 
Trade Commission stops any manipulative practices. It also has a 
provision that the Federal Government do its job as one of the leading 
energy consumers in America. It says they have to use 30 percent less 
electricity and 20 percent less fuel.
  Now, while I would like to see the provisions the Finance Committee 
passed that literally take the incentives which have been given to the 
fossil fuel industry in the past--take those and apply those to 
renewable technologies--we will have to wait another day for that 
battle to occur.
  I certainly join my colleagues in wanting to see more of our 
electricity grid supplied with green energy technology, to incentivize 
solar, to incentivize wind. I believe this is one of the best ways we 
can keep our electricity costs down in the future. Right now, we are 
too dependent on natural gas, for which we have seen a 70-percent 
increase in the last several years. Natural gas, which is also used in 
fertilizer as a product, is putting pressure on our electricity grid 
prices. We do not want to be just dependent on natural gas and coal for 
electricity generation.
  So coming back to this renewable standard and getting more of our 
national grid to rely on clean energy is very important to help 
consumers keep down price in the future. But those two provisions, we 
will have to come back to. We were not able to reach agreement on 
those.
  But in this landmark legislation, we are going to give Americans more 
for their tank of gas by passing fuel efficiency and passing the 
opportunity to fill up their gas tank with something other than fossil 
fuel. Driving down the price of fossil fuel is a great accomplishment. 
We would not have gotten here if it was not for the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee and the ranking member, Senators Inouye and Stevens, 
who worked very hard to make sure this was bipartisan legislation, as 
did Senator Snowe, working with Senator Feinstein, making sure this 
legislation made it the full way through the process.
  While this is only the Senate taking action tonight, we are clearly 
turning our country in a new direction. This is a greener energy bill 
than the Senate has passed before but rightly so because the 2005 bill 
did set us on a

[[Page 16923]]

course of making sure we were investing in alternatives. The fact that 
we were putting a downpayment on those alternatives has led to job 
creation, not just in my State, Washington State, but throughout the 
country. But it is time for us to accelerate that, to bring job 
opportunities to Americans across the country, by making sure these new 
technologies are implemented. We are well poised to do that tonight.
  I hope my colleagues understand the significance of this new energy 
direction. I thank all of the chairs of the various committees who have 
worked hard on a bipartisan basis--the Finance Committee, the EPW 
Committee, the Energy Committee, the Commerce Committee, and even the 
Homeland Security Committee--in making sure our Federal Government is 
more energy efficient. This is a great time for us to continue the 
bipartisan effort in working not just across the aisle but working with 
the House of Representatives in making sure this energy legislation 
passes as soon as possible.
  Again, I applaud the great work of my colleague, Senator Feinstein, 
for her perseverance over at least 10 years in trying to close the 
loopholes that have existed in CAFE, the car efficiency standards, by 
making sure the loopholes for SUVs were closed. Even though she did not 
win that battle, she persevered tonight to make sure this new 
efficiency standard, applied across the Nation, can bring real savings 
to American consumers.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Crisis in Darfur

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the last several months, I have come 
to the floor on a weekly--a regular basis--to remind my colleagues 
about the crisis in Darfur. I would like to highlight two recent 
developments. Last week, the regime in Sudan finally agreed, after 
months of international pressure, to accept a joint African Union-
United Nations peacekeeping force for the Darfur region.
  If my colleagues will recall, this is a region where our Government 
has declared a genocide. We know at least 200,000 people, maybe 400,000 
people, have been brutally murdered, over 1 million have been 
displaced, and the killing and displacement, the raping and the 
pillaging continues.
  For years after the declaration of this genocide, many people around 
the world have lamented this tragic state of affairs, but so little has 
been done. We have tried through the United Nations to send a 
peacekeeping force to protect innocent people from the jingaweit 
militia force that is killing on a wanton basis, but we have been 
unsuccessful. There has been resistance from the Sudanese Government in 
Khartoum. Unfortunately, a lot of lip service has been made, but very 
little attention has been paid to resolving this issue.
  Last week the Sudanese said they would accept a joint African Union-
United Nations peacekeeping force for that region. Well, the Government 
of Sudan has agreed to allow 17,000 to 19,000 troops. That is a good 
sign, or at least good words.
  Let's not forget the Sudanese regime has agreed to similar plans in 
the past, only to renege on its promises and allow the suffering and 
killing to continue. It is critical at this moment in time that the 
Bush administration and our allies continue to pressure the Sudanese to 
take actions beyond their words. Darfur has been on the agenda for the 
European Union summit this week, and the Chinese Government made 
positive statements as well. I encourage the Bush administration to 
keep pressuring all of our allies and the United Nations to act.
  Next week there is a prime opportunity. Secretary of State Rice has 
just announced plans to attend an international meeting in France that 
will focus on the crisis in Darfur. Representatives from the Chinese 
Government and other places have committed to join her. I urge the Bush 
administration to use this opportunity to ensure that the global 
community continues to act on this crisis and to fully support the 
rapid and full deployment of U.N. forces to Darfur. Only a unified 
message from the international community will succeed in convincing the 
Sudanese Government to meet its obligations. Only then will the crisis 
begin to come to an end. This crisis must end immediately.
  I have said on this floor many times that as a young college student, 
I found it hard to understand how the Holocaust could occur and people 
would know of it and not try to stop it. Now I understand. This 
genocide in Darfur was declared by our Government years ago and little 
or nothing has been done.
  Last week, the United Nations World Food Programme did launch a 
highly complex operation to try to bring in emergency food supplies to 
the over 2,600 refugees from Darfur who recently crossed into the 
remote northeast corner of the Central African Republic. The Director 
of the World Food Programme and the Central African Republic, Jean-
Charles Dei, said the following:

       These people are in one of the least accessible regions in 
     the world, but they need help now. This is just the latest 
     example of how the conflict in Darfur has a destabilizing 
     effect across the region.

  It is certainly positive that food is on the way to these starving 
refugees, but the need for this airlift is symbolic of how bad the 
crisis has become and how destabilizing the situation is becoming for 
the whole region.
  The United States and civilized nations around the world who 
acknowledge this genocide and this humanitarian disaster must act.
  What can we do in the Senate? As a start, we can pass the Sudan 
Disclosure and Enforcement Act. I introduced it 2 weeks ago with 
bipartisan support, and after consultation with the Bush 
administration. The act provides the administration and all Americans 
with more resources and information so that we can use our investments 
as individuals and as institutions to strike a nonviolent blow for 
peace in Darfur. It creates real financial consequences for those 
companies that bear some complicity in the bloodshed by supporting the 
murderous Sudanese regime of Khartoum. Most important, it requires 
members of the administration and the relevant congressional committees 
to meet in about 3 months' time to reassess the steps that are being 
taken to end the crisis and decide what we should do beyond them.
  To repeat what the bill does for the benefit of my colleagues who are 
considering supporting it, here is a summary.
  First, it expresses the sense of the Congress that the international 
community should continue to bring pressure against the Government of 
Sudan to convince that region that the world will not allow this crisis 
to continue.
  Second, it authorizes greater resources for the Office of Foreign 
Assets Control within the Department of Treasury to strengthen its 
capabilities of tracking Sudanese economic activity and pursuing 
sanctions violations.
  Third, it requires more detailed SEC disclosures by U.S.-listed 
companies that operate in the Sudanese petroleum sector so that 
investors can make informed decisions regarding divestment from these 
companies.
  I might add that during the course of researching this issue, I 
learned that my own company that I have had my family mutual fund 
investments with for 20 years sadly was one of the largest--it was a 
company with one of the largest holdings in Petrochina, the Chinese oil 
company whose parent company does the most business in Sudan. I 
contacted this major company, asked them if they were going to change 
their policy, and they said no. I then removed my investments from that 
company. I am in the process of making sure they are all transferred to 
another company. It is a small thing, and it probably won't make a big 
difference to anyone, but I feel better that at

[[Page 16924]]

least I am trying to do a small part--and I hope others will too--to 
ask important questions, whether your brokerage house, your mutual fund 
has holdings in Petrochina, which is this Chinese oil company whose 
parent is the major oil company in Sudan whose revenues support this 
Government.
  Fourth, this bill dramatically increases civil and criminal penalties 
for violating American economic sanctions to create a true deterrent 
against transacting with barred Sudanese companies.
  Fifth, it requires the administration to report on the effectiveness 
of current sanctions and recommend additional steps to Congress to end 
the crisis.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut, 
the chairman of the Banking Committee, to send this to the President 
for his signature.
  I will repeat again what President Bush said in April:

       You who have survived evil know that the only way to defeat 
     it is to look it in the face and not back down. It is evil we 
     are now seeing in Sudan--

  President Bush said--

     and we're not going to back down.

  I completely agree with President Bush's remarks. The African Union 
and the United Nations forces should be on the way soon, but we still 
must do more. Every Member of Congress and everyone interested in doing 
something meaningful to end this genocide must take action and not 
allow this to continue.
  The President once said he didn't want the moral burden of this 
genocide on his conscience, on his watch. The President's watch is 
coming to a close. It is time for those of conscience and those who 
care not only in our Government, but around the world, to act to spare 
those who are victims of this genocide in Darfur.
  I yield the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today to speak on the successful 
adoption, moments ago, of the Stevens Amendment, which I have 
cosponsored. Its incorporation into the underlying bill clears the way 
for passage of the most significant fuel efficiency legislation the 
Senate has seriously considered in decades. If this legislation is 
eventually adopted by the full Congress, it will be the first time 
since 1975 that effective fuel efficiency legislation will have been 
enacted.
  First of all, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator 
Dianne Feinstein, for her unrivaled leadership on the issue of fuel 
economy standards. We have worked together for 6 years to bolster CAFE 
standards and her commitment and passion for implementing critical and 
long-overdue changes has only grown. Our efforts have culminated this 
year in the introduction of the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which is 
the key component of the underlying energy bill that currently sits 
before the Senate. All of us in this fight can be deeply appreciative 
of her voice and her tireless advocacy.
  I also want to express my deepest appreciation to Senator Ted 
Stevens, the author of this amendment, who has shown strong resolve on 
this issue by working to forge a compromise in the face of obstacles 
that often seemed insurmountable. I likewise want to thank and commend 
he chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Inouye, who has been 
instrumental both as an original cosponsor of the ``Ten in Ten'' bill 
and in deftly shepherding this bill through his committee and on the 
floor. Both gentlemen have again demonstrated that compromise is 
possible in this body and, without their bridge building, this day 
would not have been possible.
  Likewise, I want to recognize the principled leadership of Senators 
Lott, Carper, Alexander, Dorgan, Kerry, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Craig, all 
of whom have been critical in arriving at the consensus fuel efficiency 
legislation which we have before us today.
  The Senate now stands at a landmark moment. Thirty-two years have 
passed since Congress last took action on fuel economy standards, 
dating all the way back to 1975. It has been an entire generation since 
we said that--as a Nation--we can and must do better when it comes to 
saving fuel, saving money at the pump, and saving our environment.
  We have a lot of catching up to do. From 1985--the last time fuel 
economy standards were administratively increased for passenger 
vehicles--not by Congress, mind you, but administratively--oil imports 
have increased substantially from 4.3 million barrels a day to 13.8 
million barrels a day, while our efficiency standards have virtually 
been stagnant. Indeed, over the past 25 years, fuel economy standards 
in the ``light truck'' category have only increased by a measly 4.7 
miles per gallon--that's an average of two-tenths of a gallon 
improvement every year.
  Let me repeat that--it's taken a quarter of a century to wring a 
grand total of an additional 4.7 miles per gallon out of light trucks--
which currently include SUVs--for a current average of just 22.2 mpg. 
Meanwhile, think about this--in that same period of time since 1982, we 
have gone from land-lines to cell phones, from record players to CDs to 
Ipods, from big mainframe computers to minuscule handhelds, from 
encyclopedias to the Internet. So are we really to believe that over 
the next 10 years we can't manage an average of 10 additional miles per 
gallon of gasoline across America's entire fleet of passenger vehicles?
  Indeed, as a Nation built on innovation, built on the ``can-do'' 
spirit, we ought to be asking ourselves exactly how it is we couldn't 
have done better already--never mind questioning if we can do better in 
the future.
  That's why Senator Feinstein and I introduced legislation 6 years ago 
to close the SUV loophole, whereby SUVs were exempt from increased fuel 
efficiency requirements because they were classified as light trucks. 
It's also the reason we introduced this year a bipartisan measure to 
raise the average fuel economy standards for all vehicles, including 
SUVs, from a combined 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 
model year 2020.
  As I will explain more in-depth, this legislation was carefully 
crafted to reflect not what we wish we could achieve, but what we know 
we can actually achieve. And I'm pleased that mandate was embraced and 
passed in the Senate Commerce Committee; now, it is vital that this 
provision in the underlying bill be preserved.
  Now, we have heard mischaracterizations of this measure--there have 
been omissions when it comes to describing this bill from those who 
oppose this measure--so let me just begin by stating plainly what this 
bill will do. Let me repeat, it requires that the average fuel economy 
standard for all vehicles under 8,500 pounds reach 35 miles per gallon 
by model year 2020. This bill has no such requirement for vehicles over 
8,500 pounds.
  With respect to those vehicles, we allow the Secretary of EPA and 
Energy to determine an appropriate fuel efficiency improvement program. 
Again, there are no specific mandates for vehicles over 8,500 pounds--
just a direction that the standards are set at the maximum feasible 
level--we assign no numerical goal.
  Furthermore, we preserve the separate standard for fuel efficiency or 
the existing light truck category until 2011--recognizing that our 
manufacturers already have these vehicles in the works for the next 
three model years and it would be impossible, as a practical matter, 
for them to reengineer those vehicles at this juncture.
  After 2011, there will no longer be separate categories for light 
trucks and passenger vehicles, as the legislation switches to a fleet-
wide standard based on vehicle attributes such as weight, as I just 
described. The world has already adopted this system because it is the 
most efficient framework. In fact, Taiwan, Japan, China, and South 
Korea have all established an attribute-based system that is either 
based on size of

[[Page 16925]]

the engine or the weight of the vehicle. Now, the U.S. Congress must 
expand the framework of our attribute-based system to a structure that 
does not distinguish between passenger cars and light trucks but that 
does create an efficient and logical system.
  And let me emphasize, this is a change that automakers themselves 
have sought, because it provides them greater flexibility and choices 
across product lines to achieve the overall goal of a fleet-wide fuel 
efficiency standard.
  And let me elaborate on that point. Not only will manufacturers no 
longer have to contend with specific CAFE targets for specific vehicle 
segments, they won't even have to meet a specific target for their 
specific company. So how do we achieve the goal? That will be up to 
NHTSA to determine--not Congress--which is yet another change that the 
auto industry has sought.
  In other words, the industry has asked that the arbitrary and 
artificial lines between vehicle categories be eliminated; this bill 
does so. Even the alternative amendment filed by my friend and 
colleague, the junior Senator from Arkansas, also incorporates our 
``attribute-based'' approach precisely because that's what the industry 
is seeking. The industry has also asked that the experts--and not 
Congress--determine specifically how fuel economy standards are met, 
and by placing those decisions in the hands of NHTSA this bill does so 
on that score as well.
  The bottom line is, our bill provides our car companies with the 
flexibility they require. It doesn't place a mandate on vehicles over 
8,500 pounds. It absolutely will not mean the end of light trucks. That 
is a red herring, Mr. President, and as I will detail in a few moments, 
the experts tell us that an additional 10 miles per gallon in 10 years 
over the entire American fleet of passenger vehicles is achievable.
  Of course, there are some who argue that Congress shouldn't even be 
in the business of setting these fuel economy requirements. Well, first 
of all, let's look back at what happened the last time Congress became 
involved.
  In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis, Congress delivered a long-term 
significant increase in CAFE standards, which the New York Times has 
labeled as the most successful energy-saving measure this country has 
ever seen. The congressional challenge in 1975 worked to reduce our 
Nation's demand for energy. Does anyone seriously believe that the fuel 
economy for America's vehicles would have improved by 40 percent from 
1978 to 1985--just a seven year period--if Congress hadn't stepped in? 
And just imagine where we'd be today if our energy independence efforts 
hadn't been dormant for the past 22 years.
  Moreover, there should be no question of the critical national 
security component to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Every 
day, we import 2.1 million barrels of oil from the Persian Gulf. Every 
day, our rising gas prices shift billions of dollars from the American 
consumer to authoritarian governments in some of the most volatile 
regions of the world. Reflecting the critical involvement of energy 
security in our national security, an organization called the Energy 
Security Leadership Council has formed in an effort to advance a 
fundamental shift of our national energy policy.
  The Energy Security Leadership Council is a nonpartisan organization 
that aims to build bipartisan support for policies to reduce our 
Nation's dependence on foreign oil and improve our energy security. The 
Council is cochaired by Frederick W. Smith, chairman, president, and 
CEO of FedEx Corporation, and Retired General P.X. Kelley, the 8th 
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. The Membership consists of 
generals, admirals, and a former Secretary of the Navy. These are 
prominent, experienced, and highly credible leaders who understand the 
consequences of a reliance of foreign oil. The Energy Security 
Leadership Council has recommended for increasing fuel economy 
standards, and has endorsed this bill before us. They understand that 
our Nation must finally curtail our energy demand from these volatile 
regions.
  Mr. Smith testified just last week before the Senate Small Business 
Committee on the impact of rising gas prices. Noting that most oil 
shipments pass through a handful of maritime chokepoints such as the 
Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, Mr. Smith observed that ``a mere 4 
percent shortfall in global daily oil supplies could push the price of 
oil to more than $120 per barrel.'' What's the solution? According to 
the Energy Security Leadership Council, it is the bill before us today. 
Mr. Smith testified that ``the Senate has made great strides . . . 
through bipartisan support for'' the Ten-in-Ten bill. Mr. Smith further 
applauded our bill's use of an attribute-based system, noting that 
``[t]his focus on attributes will also ensure that Americans will still 
be able to purchase different types of vehicles that cater to different 
transportation needs.'' He concluded, ``This is truly path-breaking 
legislation that merits broad support.''
  Similarly, General Kelly has recently articulated, ``Current events 
only serve to confirm the unacceptable security risks created by our 
extraordinary level of oil dependence. Significantly, reducing the 
projected growth in U.S. oil consumption must become a compelling 
national priority.'' We ought to heed General Kelly's assessment and 
protect American security. I ask my colleagues, since when should 
Congress excuse itself from issues of vital national security?
  As the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report stated, the trade-
offs on these vital matters ``rightly reside with elected officials''. 
Furthermore, they also conclude that it is ``appropriate for the 
Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected 
to result from market forces alone.'' So we ought to get beyond the 
question of the proper role for Congress in this debate. We have an 
indispensable and undeniable role to play.
  Now, there are some who are concerned that we will inadvertently 
limit consumer choice, and let me say emphatically that we address 
those concerns.
  From 1978 to 1985 vehicles did not disappear from the road and during 
that period we witnessed a 40 percent increase in fuel economy. In 
fact, I would argue the American consumer finally had the opportunity 
to purchase the more fuel efficient cars they wish they had years 
earlier.
  But most importantly, let me reiterate this bill before the Senate 
does not mandate a certain fuel economy for any specific type of 
vehicle. Rather, it ensures that all of America's vehicles improve, in 
the aggregate, to the 35 mile per gallon standard while leaving the 
specifics on how to attain that requirement to the experts at the 
Department of Transportation and, specifically, the National Highway 
and Traffic Safety Administration. As a result, the engineers and 
economists at NHTSA are empowered to ensure that we accomplish the oil 
savings in the most efficient mechanism. And what does this mean for 
consumer choice?
  Because the bill doesn't mandate particular fuel economy targets for 
any specific category of passenger vehicle, there is greater 
flexibility in how the 35 mpg mandate can be reached. For example, the 
Secretary of Transportation may decide that pick-up trucks can't 
realistically achieve any substantial gains, but other segments have 
that capacity. Manufacturers will have greater latitude in how they 
contribute to the attainment of the overall target of 35 mpg. So this 
bill will not remove any vehicles from the road, but it will abate the 
sting at the pump.
  Our approach in this bill also addresses another concern we share--
that increased fuel efficiency doesn't translate to unaffordable 
sticker prices on America's new vehicles. Figuring in the cost-savings 
based on $1.50 per gallon of gas, the 2002 NAS study outlined that any 
initial cost in additional technology that saves gasoline would be 
recovered over the life of the vehicle.
  Of course, with fuel costs now more than double that amount, it's 
logical to assume the savings on fuel costs of more efficient vehicles 
will be even greater. In fact, even at $2.00 per gallon, the net 
consumer savings would be

[[Page 16926]]

$20 billion in 2020. In short, as the Congressional Research Service 
summarizes the NAS report, it ``concluded that it was possible to 
achieve more than a 40 percent improvement in light truck and SUV fuel 
economy over a 10 to 15 year period at costs that would be recoverable 
over the lifetime of ownership.''
  If there's any doubt about the importance of this, just take a look 
at the example of the impact of fuel economy--or the current lack 
thereof--on Pottle Transportation, based in Bangor, ME.
  Owner Barry Pottle stated this past year that their fuel economy has 
drifted from between 4 miles per gallon to 7 miles per gallon in the 25 
years that he has led his company. I have a chart which indicates the 
gallons of consumption over a year for one vehicle and the 
corresponding cost as a result of current diesel prices. The aggregate 
cost over a year just for an increase of 2 miles per gallon is a 
staggering $20,000 for each truck. This bill will finally consider 
these heavy trucks in the fuel economy framework for the very first 
time in history. As indicated from Pottle Transportation, it is 
perfectly clear that these fuel economy increases will result in 
substantial dividends for America's small businesses.
  The fact is that the current system does not provide fuel efficient 
vehicles on the market for large commercial and heavy duty trucks 
greater than 8,500 pounds. Just last week before the Senate Small 
Business Committee, Janet Myhre of Chuckals a company that distributes 
office products, stated that ``fuel cost impact each and every 
transaction that our organization manages and is the third largest 
expense item on our financial statement.''
  Ms. Myhre was then asked if the company had considered switching to 
more efficient vehicles or alternative vehicles for their delivery 
trucks to minimize fuel costs. Ms. Myhre responded that Chuckals had 
investigated the market and found that there were ``no commercial 
options'' available for these vehicles. The market has not provided 
companies with the options of utilizing fuel efficient vehicles and for 
the sake of our Nation's small businesses, this Congress must begin to 
increase standards for vehicles over 8,500 pounds.
  Still others have argued that this bill would place our domestic 
automobile manufacturers at an unacceptable disadvantage, but that is 
simply not the case it would be regrettable to view this debate in 
terms of fuel efficiency versus the future of our auto industry. When 
did energy independence and the strength of our domestic companies 
become mutually exclusive?
  For those who say our proposal is unrealistic and unreachable, the 
National Academy of Sciences reported 5 years ago that it is feasible 
to reach a 40 percent increase in fuel economy in 15 years--and that is 
with existing technology. Relatively simple improvements such as hybrid 
technologies, variable valve engines, high strength steel and aluminum, 
and continuously variable transmissions are all advancements the 
experts say could be implemented now.
  So do we really want to argue we don't have the technological 
wherewithal to make our vehicles travel more miles per gallon? Is it 
really the American Way to say, ``We can't do that?'' To the contrary, 
we should have already witnessed progress in these areas. If we had, 
perhaps our auto makers would be in better financial shape today. In 
fact, I certainly wish it were an American automaker who had recently 
announced surpassing the one million mark in sales of hybrids. In fact, 
in 2006, Toyota's Prius was the company's third best-selling passenger 
car. So someone out there must want to buy more efficient vehicles. 
Talk about providing consumer choice, if anything consumers will have 
more choices for more cost-effective cars and SUVs and light trucks.
  Indeed, there are auto company business models that have demonstrated 
that consumers value fuel economy. In testimony before the House Energy 
and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on March 14 of 
this year, Toyota's North American president, James Press, remarked, 
``2007 marks the 10th year of the Prius, our first hybrid. I am happy 
to say the introduction of Prius was a sound business decision.''
  Furthermore, let me reiterate, we do not mandate any fuel economy 
increase for any specific model or any specific car company. Rather, we 
crafted the legislation so that the entirety of America's passenger 
fleet--cars, light trucks, and SUVs--must increase from an average of 
25.2 miles per gallon now to an average of 35 miles per gallon by the 
year 2020. What we don't mandate is how exactly we get there.
  Right now, each company is required to meet a corporate average fuel 
economy. Currently those standards are 22.2 miles per gallon for light 
trucks and 27.5 for passenger vehicles. However, the problem with fuel 
economy standards does not reside in one company; it exists throughout 
the entire transportation sector. As a result, we initiated a fleet-
wide solution rather than a piece-meal, company-by-company approach. In 
fact, the corporate average fuel economy standard actually ceases to 
exist under this bill; rather, it focuses results for the entire 
industry--a fleet wide average as opposed to a corporate average. This 
is a much broader and more flexible framework that will help domestic 
automakers.
  Indeed, some opponents have maintained that any legislation must not 
be ``discriminatory against our companies,'' and that the ``numbers 
should be set . . . by experts who understand what can and cannot be 
done from a technology standpoint.'' Well, we couldn't agree more--and, 
once again, this is exactly what our initiative accomplishes by leaving 
the details to the experts at NHTSA.
  Our bill ensures that NHTSA will establish a mathematical function 
that alters fuel economy requirements based on attributes, like weight. 
Because I agree that companies that focus on larger vehicles should not 
be unfairly punished, we have provided maximum latitude to preserve our 
domestic manufacturers, foster consumer choice, and improve fuel 
economy.
  The bottom line is, this measure navigates the narrow waters between 
doing less than we should, and more than we realistically can. In 
contrast, the amendment advanced by opponents of this legislation would 
only raise standards to an estimated fleetwide average of 30.6 by 2020. 
Furthermore, their proposal retains rigid categories for cars and light 
trucks and assigns different efficiency targets for each--36 miles per 
gallon by 2022 for cars, and 30 miles per gallon by 2025 for trucks. 
But if you calculate for the entire U.S. fleet overall, accounting for 
the number of vehicles in each category estimated to be on the road at 
that time, you arrive at 30.6 miles per gallon by 2020 under this 
amendment.
  In other words, the proposal advanced by my colleague from Arkansas 
is a 5 mpg increase in 10 years, while our proposal is 10 miles per 
gallon in 10 years. And at the end of the day, the amendment would 
save, at best, merely 400,000 barrels of oil a day in 2020--accounting 
for just 3 percent of our daily import of oil--a mere drop in the 
bucket. So the ramifications between the proposals are significant, 
with ours saving 1.3 million barrels each day by 2020. Furthermore, in 
roughly 2023 this bill will save 2.1 million barrels of oil each day--
the equivalent to what we are currently importing from the Persian 
Gulf.
  Mr. President. This is clearly not a time for timidity. The current 
gas prices in Presque Isle, ME, right now is $3.13; in Arkansas, $2.99; 
in North Dakota, $3.14. These prices have and are continuing to raise 
transportation costs and the price of goods and services. Lower-income 
families and small businesses are financially strained beyond their 
capacity. It's been estimated that every time oil prices increase 10 
percent, 150,000 Americans lose their job.
  And the critical relevance to our environment is unambiguous, with 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report this year 
dispelling any doubt about the reality of human induced climate change, 
and the reality that while the U.S. represents 4.6 percent of the 
world's population, we emit

[[Page 16927]]

23 percent of the planet's CO2. Our legislation would remove 
358 million metric tons of global warming emissions in 2025 alone. This 
is nearly the same amount that India's entire economy current emits. As 
the Washington Post stated just yesterday in advocating for this bill, 
``There's a climate crisis brewing, and the transportation sector, 
which accounts for 33 percent of global warming pollution, must do its 
part to combat.''
  Mr. President, shouldn't we be leaving a better legacy than that? 
Shouldn't we be striving to challenge and harness the innovative and 
entrepreneurial spirit that built America to the greatest extent 
possible, rather than settling for less? Just look at where our Nation 
has come with cell phones. This technological revolution has occurred, 
while our fuel economy standards have stagnated. We can do better. The 
underlying bill does do better while providing an achievable solution.
  I applaud today's result and look forward to continuing to push for 
full adoption of this legislation into law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. OBAMA. 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. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the compromise 
amendment that has been offered by Senator Stevens. I appreciate the 
hard work and the long hours expended by the proponents of this 
amendment to craft an approach that bridges the significant differences 
on this issue. I commend all who were involved for their good work, 
their diligent work.
  This amendment is a good start, and I intend to support it. I also 
believe we can and should do more to improve the fuel efficiency of our 
cars and our trucks. With this bill, we have a great opportunity to 
finally end a 20-year stalemate and accomplish something that will 
benefit all of us--require our cars to go further on a tank of gas. 
This is the moment. The window is open, and I believe a bold approach 
is needed to achieve a major reduction in our Nation's dependence on 
foreign oil and the emission of greenhouse gases. A bold approach is 
what made all of the difference almost three decades ago when Congress 
first established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, program. 
At the time, auto executives protested, much as they protest today, 
saying there is no way to increase fuel economy without making cars 
smaller. One company predicted Americans would all be driving 
subcompact cars as a result of CAFE. Anyone can see today that some of 
our SUVs are the size of about three or four subcompacts put together.
  The fact is, CAFE worked. It nearly doubled the average gas mileage 
of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 miles per gallon in 
1985. The increase in fuel economy saves us almost 3 million barrels of 
oil per day and prevents the emission of over 1 million tons of carbon 
dioxide per day.
  But our oil dependence has only gotten worse, and that is why we need 
a major improvement in fuel economy standards. Americans are now paying 
more than $3 a gallon for gas. We are importing 60 percent of our oil, 
much of it from the Middle East. Osama bin Laden has identified this 
dependence as a weakness, urging his supporters to ``focus your 
operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this 
will cause [the Americans] to die off.''
  The environmental effects of our oil dependence are also severe. The 
oil used in transportation accounts for a third of our Nation's 
emissions of greenhouse gases. Just in the last few months, we heard 
from a panel of top climate change experts from around the world that 
global warming is a certainty and that most of the temperature increase 
is likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
  All this, and yet the CAFE standards have not changed in 20 years. 
This deadlock deepens our dependence on foreign oil and impedes our 
efforts to address global climate change. Since 1985, efforts to raise 
the CAFE standards have been blocked by opponents who argued Congress 
does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an 
inflexible congressional mandate would result in a sacrifice of safety.
  I am confident we could achieve higher fuel efficiency standards, and 
we could do this in a cost-effective manner without sacrificing safety. 
According to a recent report by the International Council on Clean 
Transportation, technologies exist today that can improve light-duty 
vehicle fuel economy by up to 50 percent over the next 10 years without 
any sacrifice in safety, through improvements in engines, 
transmissions, aerodynamics, and tires. Fuel savings would be more than 
enough to cover the cost of these improvements when gas is at $3 per 
gallon.
  Last year, I first joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, 
Bingaman, Harkin, Coleman, and Durbin to introduce the Fuel Economy 
Reform Act. This bill set a new course by establishing regular, 
continual, and incremental progress on fuel economy standards, 
targeting a 4-percent annual increase but preserving some flexibility 
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine how 
to meet those targets.
  I also believe we should look for ways to help automakers meet higher 
CAFE standards. The Health Care for Hybrids Act that I introduced is an 
example of how we can offer constructive assistance. This bill would 
establish a voluntary program in which automakers could choose to 
receive Federal financial assistance toward their retiree health care 
costs in return for investing the savings into developing fuel-
efficient vehicles. This proposal could jump-start the industry's 
efforts to develop new technology, improve the competitiveness of U.S. 
automakers in the growing market for hybrid vehicles, and help auto 
workers to get the health care they have been promised.
  Today's agreement makes long overdue progress on weaning America off 
our dependence on foreign oil and fighting climate change. It is an 
important step forward but bolder action will be necessary if we want 
to solve the dual problem facing our country.
  I will support this bill and this increase in fuel efficiency 
standards.
  Again, I commend all those who have worked so diligently to move this 
amendment forward. I do have to say, though, that I regret we have 
missed an opportunity to do more today. I will continue to work in the 
months to come to see if we can make some further progress on this 
front.
  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.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Employee Free Choice Act

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor on two very 
important issues, issues that really do go to the heart of the kind of 
economy and future that our Nation will have. One is the Employee Free 
Choice Act, which we will be voting on in the next day or two, and the 
other is the very important Energy bill that we have been debating.
  With respect to the Employee Free Choice Act, for me, this is about 
preserving, supporting, and growing the American middle class. The 
middle class is the backbone of the American economy, and our unions 
are the backbone of the American middle class. It is time we passed 
into law the Employee Free Choice Act to give unions a level playing 
field so they can organize for fair wages, safe working conditions, and 
the hard-won rights and responsibilities that American workers demand 
and deserve.

[[Page 16928]]

  This is a moment of profound challenge for our country. There is a 
deep sense of concern that I have certainly heard and listened to as I 
have traveled throughout America. Americans know they cannot win in the 
global economy unless the middle class wins, but there is a feeling 
that some people are betting against the American middle class. Some 
people have assumed that in a global economy one of the changes that 
will have to be made is that the middle class will have to shrink; that 
inequity is inevitable; that globalization is a harsh phenomenon that 
we have to accept. Well, I do not, and our families are right to be 
concerned.
  In 2005 all income gains went to the top 10 percent of households. 
The vast majority of people--the other 90 percent--saw their incomes 
decline. Health care costs are up, gas prices are up, the cost of 
college is up, and for 6 straight years worker productivity, which 
means how hard people work--because American workers are the hardest 
working people in the world--has gone up. But wages have either been 
stagnant or falling. 2005 was the first year since the Great Depression 
that average personal savings were negative for a whole year. There is 
a sense that we are losing something in America; that basic bargain 
that allowed our country to succeed: if you work hard, you and your 
family can reach the middle class. You can have that American dream.
  So it is not surprising that we are seeing the weakening of the 
American middle class at the same time we see unions under assault. In 
the early years of the National Labor Relations Act, the majority sign-
up procedure was the presumptively valid way in which employees could 
choose a union. Over the years, however, culminating in the 1960s, a 
number of decisions shifted us to a new regime, a regime where 
employers can choose to require their employees to vote for unions 
through a one-sided election process, dominated by employers, in order 
to secure collective bargaining rights. Some employers even began to 
make efforts to push unions out of the workplace.
  Just consider these comparative facts: In the 1950s, companies 
illegally fired or punished during organizing campaigns, or they 
otherwise violated National Labor Relations Act rights, fewer than 
1,000 employees. The number increased to 6,000 workers in 1969. And 
now, today, it is 31,000 workers who have been illegally fired or 
otherwise punished for wanting to exercise a fundamental right, one 
that we believe people should be able to exercise not only here in our 
country but around the world. As the number of labor violations have 
increased, we have seen it become harder and harder for workers to 
organize.
  In 1956, unions represented 35 percent of the private workforce. The 
number today is only 7 percent. Our middle class, which unions helped 
to build in the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, and the 1960s is suffering 
as a result. Studies show that the decline in union membership has been 
responsible for at least 20 percent of the rise in income inequality 
over the last three decades. I think it is probably much more than 
that, but that is what we can quantify.
  It is time, therefore, that we modernize labor laws that are stacked 
against working people and stacked against their right to unionize. 
Right now, employers have unlimited access to employees in one-sided 
union representation elections. Employers are given every opportunity 
to dissuade workers in mandatory one-to-one meetings. They can delay 
votes for years. There are no fines or penalties or sanctions if an 
employer illegally fires or discriminates against a worker for 
collective bargaining.
  At most, the worker is reinstated with backpay, an award that is, on 
average, so small that many employers regard it as a cost of doing 
business. Finally, 32 percent of workers who choose to unionize, still 
do not have a contract after a year of making that choice.
  The system is broken. It is not only our collective bargaining and 
unionization system, it is our economy as it affects our middle class. 
Our country needs reforms that will bring balance to our labor laws, 
and our workers need the opportunity to unite with their coworkers to 
obtain the protections and benefits of America's labor movement.
  Union wages are 20 percent higher than nonunion wages. Union members 
are almost twice as likely to be covered by health insurance and to 
participate in employer-provided retirement plans.
  Unions improve safety conditions. For example, deaths in nonunion 
mines are almost twice as likely as deaths in mines where the workers 
are union members.
  Unions certainly provide opportunities for women and minorities. 
Women in unions earn an extra $179 per week. African Americans in 
unions earn an extra $187 per week. Latinos in unions earn an extra 
$217 per week. Nonunion employees benefit from the efforts of the 
unions to seek benefits and protections. That is why it is so important 
we pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
  It is long past time to enact real financial penalties against those 
employers who illegally fire or retaliate against workers during an 
organizing campaign. It is long past time to allow employees to decide 
if they want to use majority sign-up to organize.
  Finally, it is long past time to allow either employers or employees 
to request mediation if they are unable to negotiate a contract after 
90 days of collective bargaining.
  These changes will finally give employers an incentive to bargain in 
good faith and to avoid situations where years, and even decades, can 
pass without a bargaining agreement.
  I believe in the basic bargain. I believe that unions help keep that 
bargain for America's working people. I hope this Congress will uphold 
its end of that basic bargain; that this Congress will pass the 
Employee Free Choice Act; that the Senate will join the House, which 
has done so, to give employees the real, fair chance to garner the 
protections and benefits of unions and to give unions the opportunity 
to help bring workers into the middle class.
  That is part of the equation; to respect and protect the rights of 
those in the workplace and to give them the opportunity to unionize. 
The other part of the equation is to have good jobs, good jobs with 
rising incomes. We need a source of new, good jobs in America. That is 
why this Energy bill is so important. Much of the debate about the 
Energy bill has been, rightly so, about the need to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil--which I agree with 100 percent; the need to 
begin, finally, to address seriously global warming--which I think is 
way overdue.
  But there has not been enough talk about why this Energy bill is 
critical to the economy of the United States in the way it will help to 
create millions of new jobs. As the Presiding Officer knows, he and I 
offered an amendment, which we are pleased the managers accepted, to 
provide incentives for training and equipping and preparing the 
workforce to do what are called green-collar jobs. These are jobs that 
can't be outsourced, by and large. If we finally get serious--and I 
hope we will get back to visit some of the financial incentives that 
need to be in this bill that unfortunately we were unable to include--
we will begin to join other countries that have gotten smart about 
this.
  Germany gets a lot of its electricity now generated by solar--you 
know, panels on the roofs of residences and offices. The last time I 
checked, Germany was not a tropical climate, but they have taken 
advantage of government-incentives to move the market toward using 
solar.
  Denmark is also moving toward more wind energy. The United Kingdom, 
which went into Kyoto when our country left it, has created tens of 
thousands of new jobs weatherizing homes, installing new energy 
technology such as solar, such as wind. We could do this many times 
over. We believe we could create millions of new, good-paying jobs for 
hard-working Americans.
  Every so often we have to regenerate our job creation in America. 
During the 1990s, we had a lot of new jobs that were related to telecom 
and information technology. We saw the creation of 22 million new jobs 
between 1993 and 2001. We saw more people lifted out of

[[Page 16929]]

poverty than at any time in our country's history. We saw shared 
prosperity--not what we are seeing today, where the bulk of the 
benefits go to a very small sliver of us.
  This Energy bill is about jobs, it is about creating new, good-paying 
jobs for hard-working Americans. What I am looking at when I think of 
the Employee Free Choice Act and when I think of this Energy bill is 
how we get back into balance, how we get back to where the economy 
works for everybody, where the market is not stacked against those who 
are not already privileged, where unions can once again be a vehicle 
for people moving into and staying in the middle class and, comparably, 
where we can have a new source of jobs.
  We also have to recognize how we have to look at the jobs that are 
already in the economy and how the Energy bill will affect them. I am 
hopeful we will think seriously about lifting the health care costs off 
a lot of our labor-intensive, energy-intensive, capital-intensive 
industries in America, such as the automobile industry, because 
laboring under the costs of health care is an uncompetitive position 
for them in the global economy.
  There is a lot to be done. I wish to be sure that as we look at the 
economy and begin to try to get it back into that balance that works 
best for America, that we vote for the Employee Free Choice Act, which 
is a way of giving employees the choice to have a better life for 
themselves and their families. There is a lot to be done in our 
country. I am very optimistic we can begin tackling our challenges. But 
so much of what we have to do to create the framework for our people to 
have that better future has to come from this Chamber.
  Let's look at the future together. Let's make decisions that will 
give the tools to our people to show they are the best workers and the 
most competitive and productive people in the world, to unleash that 
dynamism in the American economy, and to demonstrate clearly that we 
stand with the American middle class.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in this body we are on the brink of 
something that is momentous, and that is significant energy legislation 
to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels. The bill before us will 
break new ground. We will have fuel efficiency standards increased for 
the first time since 1975. This is the result of compromise, of 
principled compromise that advances the cause of reducing our 
dependence on foreign fuel.
  Last year I introduced the BOLD act, Breaking Our Long-term 
Dependence. That was perhaps the most comprehensive energy legislation 
introduced in this body all last year. It had many provisions, many 
provisions to encourage further development of ethanol and biodiesel 
and wind energy and solar energy--all the renewables. But more than 
that, it had provisions to expand domestic production of oil and gas in 
a responsible way; also providing clean coal incentives because, after 
all, over 50 percent of our electricity in this country comes from 
coal. That is not going to fundamentally change anytime soon. So we 
have to take measures to increase the environmentally friendly aspects 
of coal usage and to improve our ability to produce and use that 
resource in a clean way.
  While I am delighted we are on the brink of passing something 
significant and the beginning of something that could be much bigger, I 
am very disappointed the provisions that passed the Senate Finance 
Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan vote did not get the 60 votes 
required to advance. Those provisions would have also taken us in a new 
direction, and they contained many of the provisions contained in the 
BOLD Act that I introduced last year.
  Those provisions shifted our incentives away from fossil fuels 
because, with the high price of fossil fuels, incentives aren't 
required there. Instead, we took money that had previously gone to 
fossil fuels and shifted the funds to renewables and conservation--
again, in a vote that passed on a bipartisan basis, a very strong vote 
out of the Senate Finance Committee.
  Let me say there are some who have argued it costs too much money to 
have those incentives for renewables and for conservation. It is true, 
that bill costs $28.6 billion over the next 10 years--$28.6 billion 
over the next 10 years. But we are going to spend, over that same 
period, $3,000 billion on imported oil. In fact, that is probably a 
low-side estimate because last year alone we spent over $270 billion 
importing foreign oil, much of it from the least stable parts of the 
world.
  Yes, $28 billion is a lot of money over 10 years. But $3,000 billion 
on imported oil dwarfs it. It is over 100 times as much. Isn't it a 
good investment to spend 1 percent of what we are going to spend 
importing foreign oil to develop our own resources in this country? How 
much better would it be for a President of the United States, instead 
of depending on the Middle East, to be able to look to the Midwest of 
this country to help grow our way out of this crisis by using ethanol 
and biodiesel? Instead of sending $270 billion to places that are 
unfavorable to us, to spend $270 billion right here in America--how 
different would our country look if that money, instead of going 
abroad, was staying at home?
  No one should think we are not going to have another possibility on 
the legislation that came out of the Finance Committee. There will be 
another opportunity. We will have a chance in the House of 
Representatives, in the conference committee, to add back those 
provisions that passed on a strong majority vote, not only in the 
Finance Committee but on the floor of the Senate.
  We didn't have a supermajority, we didn't have the 60 votes. We had 
57. Of course the leader changed his vote to be on the prevailing side 
so he could move to reconsider. We are missing another Senator because 
of a family obligation and, of course, we are missing our colleague, 
Senator Johnson, because of his illness. But Senator Johnson will be 
back, and the Senator who was missing because of a family obligation 
will be back. And Senator Reid will switch his vote. Then we will have 
the 60 votes necessary.
  No one should be under any illusion that we are not going to take 
this opportunity to strengthen our country and to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil because we will have that additional opportunity and the 
votes will be here and we will have a comprehensive energy package to 
take to the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder, while the Senator is still 
standing, if I could ask him a question. I was standing someplace where 
I caught an echo on your last 2 or 3 minutes. Could you maybe repeat 
it, because it hit my ear wrong. I did not quite get it. What did you 
talk about when it went to the House and came back and what?
  Mr. CONRAD. What I am saying is there will be another opportunity to 
vote on the package that came out of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. When is that? When you come back from the House?
  Mr. CONRAD. When we come back from conference committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The same people who voted here will vote again then, 
will they not? Are you expecting some Senators to leave in the meantime 
from this side?
  Mr. CONRAD. No. It is unfortunate the Senator did not hear my 
remarks. I made it very clear in the remarks what I think will happen. 
We were missing one Senator because of a family obligation, missing 
another Senator because of illness. Senator Reid, of course, changed 
his vote to be on the prevailing side. That will provide the 60 votes 
required.

[[Page 16930]]


  Mr. DOMENICI. I see.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think with the passage of time, I say to my colleague 
and friend, we will have more votes as people think about the 
consequences of the failure to get a stronger package; that there is 
time now to work out an agreement to add votes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I see. Well, it would be good if you would add to that 
there might be a little opportunity to work together on that, too, you 
know. If you get a few people a little anxious, you might find you 
could not get cloture again. That could happen.
  Mr. CONRAD. It could. I prefer to be an optimist. I prefer to think 
of the extraordinary vote we had out of the Finance Committee, a 
bipartisan vote, very strong, and the fact that we have more than a 
majority here with votes missing. Those votes are going to come back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I hope. I believe before this year is out, we will have a 
chance to have a more comprehensive package than the one we will be 
able to move on this floor in the next several days. I believe it will 
be a package that will enjoy strong bipartisan support, just as the 
package did that came out of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, you are inviting some of us not to approve 
anything tonight, to have another cloture, and you have nothing going 
to conference.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, that would be a tragedy for the Nation, and those 
who would engage in that tactic, I think, would pay the consequences.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you know, you and I have been here long enough 
that we go through these tragedies every now and then. But they get 
worked out. Then as long as you do not try to defy reality--there were 
a lot of people who didn't want this to happen; a lot of people did. 
That is the Senate. Now we will see.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is the great thing about our country. Some people do 
not want to advance on the question of reducing our dependence; some 
want to stay stuck where we have been; others want to move forward. I 
believe those who want to move forward are ultimately going to prevail.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So do I.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is a good thing for this country. I welcome this 
debate, because I think the American people think it is long overdue 
that we make this advance, and it is to the credit of this body that we 
are prepared to move forward tonight.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, there is no doubt in my mind we are going to move 
ahead. We have had some terrific movement ahead in the past 3\1/2\, 4 
years. Some of us who are questioning how you think it is going to 
happen have been part of that over the last couple of years. We are 
not--nobody is going to sit here and say: There is one way, only one 
group of Senators knows how to do this. We did our share in this pretty 
good bill you voted for a couple of years ago. Had we implemented the 
provisions of that with financing that went with it, we would already 
be a long way toward the development of both supply and conservation; 
supply of the type you want, and supply of the type some others want. 
We would already have that going. Instead, we do not, because we 
haven't financed it. We should have. You were with us on the financing. 
It should have happened.
  Mr. CONRAD. I say to my colleague and my friend, I was proud to 
support that bill. I was proud of the leadership shown by the Senator 
from New Mexico on that legislation. I am proud of the leadership shown 
by the Senators from New Mexico on this bill. I just think, at the end 
of the day, we are going to have even stronger legislation before we 
complete our work this year. That was the point I was making in my 
earlier remarks. Look, we all know the genius of this body is that 
there are those who agree and those who disagree; those who favor, 
those who oppose. Tonight we can celebrate together. We are making 
progress. That is important for the country, but more needs to be done.
  I don't think any Senator would leave here tonight saying this 
legislation alone is all we can do. We can do more this year, and we 
should.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I oftentimes laugh. It is either Iowa, or 
Ohio, or Idaho. The other side of that equation with the late Craig 
Thomas, I am Larry Craig, Craig Thomas. His wife is Susan, my wife is 
Suzanne. It was not at all unusual that sometimes we would get mixed 
up. People would come to my office looking for Craig Thomas, and would 
find out they needed to be on the other side of a mountain range and 
out across a rather wide expanse of land toward Casper, Wyoming, 
instead of Boise, Idaho.
  But I understand. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I will be brief. We are very close, I believe, toward the final 
passage of an energy bill that many of us have spent a good deal of 
time with.
  I want to thank a few folks who have spent a lot more time with this 
issue than I or than the principals on it. Cory McDaniel on my staff, 
legislative LA for energy, who has spent a great deal of time over the 
last good many months as we have fashioned the SAFE Act, as we have 
fashioned a clean portfolio standard versus a renewable portfolio 
standard, I thank Cory for that effort.
  I also thank Frank Macciarola, the minority staff director, and Bob 
Simon, the majority staff director. We worked closely with them as we 
have worked our way through this issue. Sam Fowler, counsel for the 
majority, and Judy Pensabene, minority counsel, have all been very 
helpful.
  I have worked closely with Senator Dorgan and his staff. Franz 
Wuerfmannsdobler and Nate Hill on his staff have been very helpful; 
also Colin Jones, a fellow from the National Lab in Idaho on my staff, 
and Darren Parker, a research assistant, have been extremely helpful. A 
couple of interns, J.C. Dunkelberger and Brian Riga, have been very 
helpful throughout all of this effort.
  I think those of us who have been in the Senate a long time know this 
work gets done certainly by us in some instances but by our staff in 
most instances. They spend a lot of time, they develop a level of 
expertise in working with us on some of these issues.
  I thank these men and woman for their assistance in a complicated 
process. I hope we can finish and produce a work product that will come 
back to us in a reasonable form that many of us can support.
  I am frustrated we are potentially moving a bill out of the Senate 
that does not have any production. It is all about the future and the 
outyears. I do not think America worries about the outyears when they 
go to a pump and pay $3 and 10 or 15 or 20 cents a gallon. They worry 
about tomorrow and next year and the next year. That is what I think 
all of us have voiced in this debate.
  Somehow it is not right anymore to drill holes in the ground and pull 
out oil and refine it. I do believe that still fits into the equation 
and will for several decades to come, as we move to flex fuel, as we 
move to hybrids, as we move to hydrogen, as we move to electricity, as 
we are, and as we will continue to, and we must.
  But in the meantime, it is a reality that this Nation has to continue 
to produce. As loudly as I and some on the other side have spoken about 
it, the Senate collectively does not want to seem to go there anymore. 
My guess is the American consumer, tragically enough, is going to pay 
the price. I hope that ultimately we do get some more production built 
into this legislation or other public policy as we move down the road 
because it is the reality of where we are. While we work our way away 
from it and take this great economy and start shifting it and moving it 
around to new economies in the field of energy, it takes a great deal 
of investment that the private sector will make, and it takes the kinds 
of incentives, and it takes a substantial amount of time that I do not 
think is as reflected in this policy as I would hope, and as I have 
hoped it would be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak tonight as 
we get

[[Page 16931]]

close to the point hopefully of passing an energy bill here in the 
Senate.
  I first acknowledge the leadership of both Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Domenici. When we look at where we are today on energy, much of 
it started, the bipartisan cooperation, between Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Domenici, in the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. I know 
there have been critics of that act, but it was a creation that was put 
out in a bipartisan fashion, a significant step forward on energy.
  This legislation that came out of the Energy Committee, which is 
included in the bill which we are about to vote on, in large part is a 
very good step forward in terms of trying to address the goals we had 
in that particular legislation.
  I also congratulate both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I think 
when you think about the people who have made such a mark, an imprint 
on the Senate today and on our country, two of our national heroes are 
Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye. I never get tired of hearing the story of 
Senator Inouye and his service to our country. Every time I see him and 
I remember his great contribution and sacrifice to our country, I 
remember those are the greatest of the greatest generation, and 
certainly both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye embody that 
greatness.
  I also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee 
for their great work. As a member of the Finance Committee, we worked 
very hard to come up with legislation that would help us move forward 
in dealing with the reality of getting energy independence.
  While I am disappointed that part of the package is not included as 
we move forward toward final passage here, it nonetheless represented 
the best of our thinking about how we could invest in this new 
imperative of America, and gets us to a new energy future for the 21st 
century.
  I also thank the rest of my colleagues who were involved in some of 
the discussions that have been underway today. Let my say that from my 
point of view, there is no more important issue we must deal with here 
in Washington, here in the Congress, than the issue of energy.
  If we look at the big issues of our time in the 21st century, I think 
in my mind there are three issues we have to deal with. We have to deal 
with the issue of foreign relations and how we put the world back 
together again and restore America's greatness in the world.
  We also need to make sure we embark on a new clean energy future for 
the 21st century.
  We also need to deal with other issues that are very difficult, the 
enormous challenge that we face with the health care in America today. 
That issue is bankrupting America's families and America's businesses 
day by day. So how we move forward with those three issues is very 
important.
  But tonight we are at the doorstep of taking a significant step 
forward on one of those huge issues; that is, the issue of energy and 
moving forward to establishing a clean energy future.
  Now, when I often talk about energy, I think back to what happened in 
the early 1970s and through the 1970s with both President Nixon and 
President Jimmy Carter, where President Nixon declared the need for us 
to be energy independent, and coined that term.
  Then following him, President Carter spoke about energy independence 
as being something that was the moral equivalent of war. Well, the fact 
is that in those days the driver for those statements and the coining 
of that term came from the economic volatility that was caused by the 
formation of OPEC and their ability to be able to influence the world 
markets on oil.
  I think today we have three inescapable forces that drive us to look 
at the clean energy future as the imperative of the 21st century. Those 
inescapable forces are, first and foremost, our national security. When 
we see what is happening in the Middle East with Hezbollah and in 
Lebanon with Hamas in the Gaza, you know that terrorist organizations 
such as those are being funded by the very oil that is being consumed 
by the free world.
  So for us to become energy independent is our way of making sure we 
are not held hostage to those kinds of organizations, to the oil barons 
and sheiks of this world. It is an imperative we do that from a 
national security point of view.
  Secondly, I think it is now beyond argument in our world today that 
the issue of global warming is here, and we will have some debate that 
will come on down the road with respect to how we address the issue of 
global warming here in America and across the world.
  It is inescapable that we must do something about global warming if 
we are to save civilization for our children and grandchildren and save 
this planet we have been given the humble privilege of inhabiting. That 
is an inescapable force that will drive us to a clean energy future in 
the 21st century.
  Last is the economic opportunity and dealing with the economic 
volatility that happens when you are hostage to someone who controls 
supplies such as OPEC can today. The economic opportunity is one that 
you already see happening throughout our great Nation.
  In my State of Colorado, where 2 years ago, before passage of the 
2005 act, there was really nothing going on in terms of renewable 
energy, we have totally turned that around. We have now ethanol plants 
in places such as Fort Morgan and Yuma. We have a number of other 
ethanol plants springing up in Windsor and Devon, down in the southern 
part of the State, places which were part of the forgotten rural 
America which had been hanging on by a shoestring just to keep their 
communities alive. There is a new breath of activity, a new breath of 
hope and opportunity and optimism in rural America, in large part 
because we believe we can grow our way to energy independence.
  I believe strongly we are headed in the right track with the 
legislation that has been put forward. I am hopeful that we will move 
forward and conclude our effort on this energy legislation tonight.
  I want to go back for a minute and reflect upon the legislation that 
came out of the Energy Committee which was led in a remarkable fashion 
by Senator Bingaman, with the support of Senator Domenici. It was a 
bipartisan effort that focused on three major issues, all of which are 
included in the underlying legislation.
  The first of those was moving forward with alternative fuels. If you 
think about what we have done with the renewable fuels standard, we 
will be quintupling the amount of energy we create from biofuels. We 
will be opening a new chapter with cellulosic ethanol that will make 
the biofuels targets a reality.
  Secondly, the efficiency measures are important to make sure we stop 
wasting the energy we consume. When we look at what the experts tell 
us, from the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Lab, 
we know we waste 60 percent of the energy that is consumed in America 
today. Therefore, the lowest hanging fruit for all of us is to move 
forward with efficiency measures. We are doing that in the part of the 
legislation that was created in the Energy Committee. We also are doing 
it very much with the CAFE standards, the fuel efficiency standards 
that were negotiated today with the leadership of Senators Stevens and 
Inouye, Senator Feinstein, and many others who were involved. That will 
help us achieve the oil savings targets and goals we have set forth in 
this legislation.
  Finally, we take some movement forward in terms of dealing with the 
issue of carbon by making sure that we are dealing with carbon 
sequestration mapping in the United States and that we develop the way 
forward in terms of how we sequester carbon. There has been debate 
about coal. Not everybody agrees on how we ought to move forward with 
respect to coal. I believe it is important that we look at coal as a 
possible resource because it currently generates about 50 percent of 
our electricity today and it is the most abundant resource we have in 
this country. We have enough coal resources for the next 200 years of 
energy for America's

[[Page 16932]]

use. Coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia. So it is 
important that we not turn a blind eye and say we are a nation that is 
not going to look at all at coal.
  Some of the new technologies we have with respect to IGCC--the 
creation of electricity in a way that can help us with the hybrid plug-
ins--will open a whole new chapter today and build on the 2005 act. 
That will all be very important. Carbon sequestration needs to be a 
part of the equation. We know there are formations throughout this 
country where, in fact, we can sequester carbon. The technology is not 
all that complex. The enhanced oil recovery efforts and the technology 
we have with EOR is technology that has been used in the oilfields for 
decades. We know there are formations out there where we can, in fact, 
store carbon. So we can find ways of utilizing this abundant fuel we 
have in the United States to help us fuel the energy needs of the 
country.
  In addition to the many Members who have worked on making this a 
possibility--and I hope we do get the 60 votes we need--there have been 
a lot of people on many staffs on both the majority side and the 
minority side who have worked to make this happen. I thank each and 
every one of them for getting us to the point we are today. I know the 
countless hours and nights and days they have spent working on this 
issue. Without them, we would not be where we are tonight.
  I thank the people in my office who have been working hard on this 
legislation for a long time, both in the Energy Committee and in the 
Finance Committee. I say thank you to Steve Black, who has been an 
enormous player on the energy issue, in 2005 as well as today; Matt 
Lee-Ashley, Suzanne Wells in my office, Grant Leslie, and Sam Mitchell, 
who have done an enormous job pulling all of this together.
  This is a major step we are about ready to take. I look forward to 
being a part of the celebration when we get this all done, hopefully in 
the not too distant future before we go into the wee hours of tomorrow 
morning.


                            Efficiency Title

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the Energy 
Committee, its chairman and ranking member, in crafting this bill. 
However, I have concerns about some aspects of the efficiency title 
specifically as they relate to regional standards for heating and 
cooling products and the possibility of more than one energy standard 
such as SEER or EER being applied to these products. I sincerely hope 
that we can work on resolving these issues following the passage of 
this legislation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to work with my colleague from Arkansas to 
improve this bill, and will work with her on this issue following the 
passage of this legislation.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I appreciate the chairman's good-faith commitment to 
work with us on this issue. I raised these concerns when this bill was 
being discussed in the Energy Committee, and I continue to have 
reservations about how the language, as written, can be implemented.


                                  rps

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, through 
the President, if he is in agreement with me on a matter of some 
importance. I offered an amendment last week to require that 15 percent 
of the electricity sold in the Nation come from renewable energy 
resources by the year 2020. We have not been able to get an agreement 
to have a vote on this amendment, or on other forms of it that might 
have provided more flexibility to States in meeting the goals of the 
amendment. We would have been agreeable to accepting a supermajority 
threshold for passage of the amendment. We still could not reach 
agreement. That implies, to me, that opponents of the measure believe 
that 60 or more Senators support the amendment. I believe that they may 
be correct in assuming so.
  This amendment would have been as significant an amendment as we 
could have added to the bill. Such a standard would increase the 
generation of renewables in the Nation from something over 2 percent to 
a much greater share of our generation supply. We have tried again and 
again to provide, in law, mechanisms to allow renewable energy 
technologies to take the place in the market that they deserve. The 
Senate has passed similar amendments three times. This provision would 
result in cleaner electricity generation, be the source of extensive 
creation of new jobs, enhance our energy security, lower the price of 
natural gas, and could even result in lower electricity prices.
  Given the importance of this provision of the Nation, and the clear, 
strong support for it in the Senate, I would ask if it is the intention 
of the majority leader, should we conclude business on the Energy Bill 
without passing it, to seek another vehicle for the passage of the 
renewable electricity standard?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would answer the chairman of the Energy 
Committee, who has done great work in managing this complicated energy 
bill, that I agree with him as to the importance of this amendment to 
the Nation, and on the broad support that it enjoys in the Senate.
  There is little that we could do in the electricity sector that would 
bring more benefits--in terms of consumer savings, reducing natural gas 
demand, and slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. We have 
sought in this bill to broaden the range of energy resources that we 
depend on for motor fuels to include renewable resources. We must do 
the same for our electricity supply. I share his strong belief that 
enactment of a national renewable electricity standard is critical for 
the Nation's efforts to become more energy independent and to reduce 
the risks of global warming, as well as create new jobs in the clean 
energy industry. I promise to work with him to see that proposal gets 
fair consideration, a vote and, if at all possible, enacted into law 
this Congress.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, right now, people are at gas stations 
across America, filling up cars and trucks to get to work, take their 
kids to school, and run their errands.
  In May of 2002, a gallon of gas cost $1.40. Today that same gallon of 
gas costs $3.22. In just 5 years, the price of gas has more than 
doubled.
  Gas isn't the only energy cost that has spiked in the last 5 years. 
In New Jersey, individuals, families, and businesses are paying 25 
percent more for electricity than they were just 5 years ago. These 
high prices are hurting our families--families whose budgets are 
already stretched thin.
  We also know that our energy policies are hurting our environment. 
The emissions from our cars and trucks, electric utilities, and 
factories are causing global warming--a fact recently verified by a 
United Nations Panel on Climate Change. The energy bill before us marks 
the first serious attempt in years to address our energy crisis.
  First, it takes a measured but appropriate approach to improving CAFE 
standards governing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks. Right 
now, Japan leads the world in fuel efficiency. Many of their cars and 
trucks get more than 40 miles per gallon. The United States is far 
behind. Our passenger cars have been stuck at CAFE standards of 27.5 
miles per gallon since 1990--and our light trucks get just 21.6 miles 
per gallon. We must do better, and with this bill, we will.
  Our energy bill calls for increasing fuel efficiency to 35 miles per 
gallon by the year 2020. As we improve our fuel efficiency, we decrease 
both the amount of gas Americans have to pay for and the greenhouse 
gases our cars emit. But despite what many think, greenhouse gases 
don't only come from cars and trucks. Buildings have a significant 
impact on the environment and on the health of every American--
accounting for nearly 40 percent of America's greenhouse gases. The 
Federal Government is the largest owner and renter of buildings in the 
Nation and is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the 
world.
  In addition, poorly designed schools can cause the air inside to be 
unhealthy. This poor air quality increases childhood asthma.
  More than 67 percent of schools have a design problem that 
contributes to

[[Page 16933]]

asthma. For those reasons, I introduced the High Performance Green 
Buildings Act, which is now included in the Energy bill. This 
legislation focuses on making our Federal buildings ``green'' and 
improving the environmental and health impacts of our schools. I worked 
with our former colleague, Senator Jeffords, on this bill in the past--
and the language now in the Energy bill represents a collaborative 
effort between myself, Senator Boxer, and Senators Snowe and Warner.
  In comparison to standard buildings, the average green building has 
better air quality, uses 30 percent less energy, and results in nearly 
40 percent fewer emissions. Green buildings also have smaller electric 
bills, which saves owners and tenants on their bottom lines.
  The Federal Government must lead by example and achieve those results 
for its buildings. Accordingly, my green buildings bill will direct the 
General Services Administration to use a green building certification 
that all Federal buildings should achieve. It also provides grants and 
voluntary guidelines for schools to lessen their environmental 
impacts--and improve the health of the students, teachers, and staff 
inside them.
  Finally, the bill calls for demonstration projects to show the public 
that green buildings are environmentally sound, benefit people's 
health, and are both cost-effective and practical.
  The States are doing their part. New Jersey and 21 other States have 
already signed bills similar to my legislation. Many private companies 
are doing their part as well. For example, Bank of America is building 
a new highrise office tower in Manhattan--a building that will be 
entirely green. It is time for the Federal Government to do its part.
  We need a solution to our energy problems: one that protects the 
American pocketbook, improves our CAFE standards, reduces our 
dependence on foreign oil, and promotes green building. This energy 
bill will be an important step forward toward achieving these goals.


                           amendment no. 1792

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1792, 
filed by Senators Stevens, Snowe, Alexander, and Carper, and 
cosponsored by Senators Feinstein and Kerry, among others. This 
bipartisan compromise reflects the input of Members, industry, and 
consumers, and is good policy for our Nation.
  I particularly wish to congratulate Senator Dianne Feinstein for her 
dedicated efforts over the years to update our Nation's fuel economy 
standards. The success of the amendment today is a tribute to her 
tenacious and skilled advocacy.
  At every step of the legislative process following the introduction 
of S. 357, the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, by Senators Feinstein and 
Olympia Snowe, the authors and cosponsors of S. 357 and members of the 
Senate Commerce Committee have worked together in a bipartisan manner 
to address the concerns of the automotive industry. In particular, this 
group worked hard to ensure that automakers will not face a significant 
burden when meeting the first improvements to fuel economy standards in 
more than 30 years.
  I am pleased that Members from both sides of the aisle continued to 
work together to produce the amendment adopted today. While addressing 
a number of the concerns raised by automakers regarding the Feinstein-
Snowe Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act as reported by the Commerce 
Committee, the amendment preserves the core goals and fuel savings of 
Ten in Ten.
  The amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation to increase 
fuel economy for automobiles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, as in Ten 
in Ten. But in the years that follow from 2021 to 2030, the Secretary 
shall increase fuel economy at a maximum feasible rate instead of at a 
pace of 4 percent per annum.
  If we have a breakthrough in battery technology, then 4 percent per 
year may well be too low. If there are unforeseen problems, 4 percent 
may be too high. The amendment will allow the Secretary to set an 
appropriate standard in the future.
  The Kerry-Cantwell second degree amendment to the Stevens-Carper-
Feinstein-Snowe-Kerry amendment also directs the Secretary to establish 
and implement an action plan to ensure that 50 percent of the vehicles 
for sale in 2015 are alternative fuel automobiles. We must encourage 
manufacturers to improve their fleets' fuel economy by exploring new 
technologies and producing alternative fuel vehicles. I commend 
Senators Kerry and Cantwell for developing this compromise amendment 
that addresses this important goal.
  By adopting the bipartisan compromise amendment and H.R. 6 as 
amended, we will place the country on a path toward reducing our 
Nation's dependence on foreign oil, protecting the environment, and 
helping consumers deal with rising gas prices.
  Finally, I wish to express my appreciation for the excellent efforts 
of the dedicated staff on the Senate Commerce Committee including David 
Strickland, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Ken Nahigian, Mia Petrini, and Jason 
Bomberg.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the pending energy 
bill and the future of energy in the U.S. I commend Chairman Bingaman 
for crafting this compromise bill and bringing it before the full 
Senate for consideration. Like many of us, he recognizes that the 
energy crisis we face will be long-term and life-altering, and that we 
must enlist all Americans, and the cooperation of governments 
worldwide, to solve it.
  Let's be honest. We have only gotten to this critical point because 
we have put off for too long momentous energy decisions. In fact, the 
main answer to our energy dilemma from the party across the aisle while 
they were in power in Congress was the 2005 energy bill, a scandalous 
mix of billions in drilling subsidies and other giveaways to big oil 
companies which even some of them admitted were unnecessary. That 
effort was doomed from the start: While we consume 25 percent of the 
world's oil, we only hold 3 percent of its reserves--so we can't, we 
never could, drill our way out of the problem. The results of that bill 
in the last 2 years haven't been surprising: skyrocketing oil and gas 
prices; no slackening of demand; increased U.S. dependence on foreign 
oil; underfunding of renewable energy initiatives; and slashed 
conservation funding. This bill takes us in a much better direction, 
with progressive new policies. And that is critical. If we are to 
address honestly the threat posed by America's addiction to carbon-
based fossil fuels, and especially imported oil, it is long past time 
to move in a better direction, and to make some difficult choices.
  We have known for a long time about the three-fold threat--to our 
national security, our economic vitality, and our environmental 
health--posed by our over-reliance on foreign oil. To our national 
security, because we now import about 60 percent of our oil from some 
of the most politically unstable regions of the world, governed by 
authoritarian regimes, some serving as breeding grounds for terror. To 
our economic vitality, through high gasoline prices, rising home 
heating costs, and electricity price spikes which strain family 
budgets, burden businesses, and make our Nation less competitive. To 
our environmental health, due to smog, climate change, increased asthma 
risks, cancer and other diseases caused or exacerbated by pollution. We 
continue on this path to our peril. A better way forward is to embark 
now on a course of dramatic change in our energy policies, including 
setting clear long-term goals and enforceable benchmarks; backing our 
rhetoric on conservation, renewable energy and other initiatives with 
real funding; scaling back wasteful oil industry subsidies, and 
including all Americans in energy conservation efforts. If we do it 
right, Middle East imports will decline and vital U.S. interests will 
be made less vulnerable; our air will be cleaner; new jobs in the 
renewable sector will be created, our rural communities will be 
revitalized through energy innovation, and our relationships with 
allies and overall position in the world will be strengthened.

[[Page 16934]]

  Our over-reliance on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East, 
makes us vulnerable to price spikes, supply disruptions, and market 
uncertainty. We also, sadly, pay for the privilege of propping up 
authoritarian regimes that use oil reserves to bolster their own power, 
insulate themselves from demands for political and economic 
liberalization, and protect themselves from the need to improve their 
human rights records--what NYT columnist Tom Friedman calls ``petro-
authoritarianism.'' This is why the government of Iran can suppress its 
own people; it's why Russia can crush Chechnya and intimidate its 
neighbors; it's why China, a major owner of Sudan's main oil 
consortium, can continue to block effective U.N. action on Darfur. We 
are effectively financing them to do it through our oil purchases.
  And we have been doing this for decades. I was first elected to 
Congress in 1974, in the wake of an energy crisis prompted by an OPEC 
oil embargo. It was a summer of gas lines and shortages, of steps large 
and small taken to address the problem. And now here we are, fighting 
another uphill battle to enact a good energy bill, which contains an 
important set of incremental steps to address these problems. I would 
like us to go much farther than this bill does. But at least with its 
passage we would finally be headed in the right direction.
  I think almost everyone in this Chamber would agree that the future 
of energy in this country, to the maximum extent possible, should be 
clean, green, domestic, and renewable. We know that our dependence on 
foreign oil leaves us vulnerable, increases our trade deficit, and 
creates volatility in energy prices and hardships for American 
consumers and businesses. We know that emissions from fossil-fuel fired 
powerplants cause unnecessary illnesses and deaths. And we know that 
our emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global climate change, 
which is leading to higher sea levels, melting glaciers, shifting 
ecosystems, and ocean acidification.
  Our national energy policy must be retooled to address those threats 
directly, and to encourage the development and deployment of 
technologies that will encourage the use of clean, domestic, renewable 
energy. This bill, modest as it is, does that, I applaud Senators 
Stevens, Inouye, Feinstein, and others for crafting a compromise on 
fuel economy standards, though we must recognize that it is a 
compromise: the new fuel economy standards contained in this bill do 
not do enough to achieve the full potential of current technologies to 
increase fuel efficiency. Even so, setting the CAFE target at 35 miles 
per gallon by 2020, is an important advance for a Congress that has not 
managed to increase standards at all for over 20 years. There was no 
increase in fuel economy standards to blame for the decline in American 
auto manufacturers' market share from 73 percent in 1986 to 55 percent 
in 2006; the future strength or weakness of those manufacturers will 
depend far more on the extent to which they transform themselves by 
taking advantage of new green vehicle technologies in the coming years. 
The same arguments we have heard for many years--that the technology is 
unavailable to enable these higher standards, that they will make cars 
less safe, that we will hurt our own manufacturers--are the ones made 
in the late 1970's; they are no more true now than they were then.
  We have spent much of this debate on a few contentious issues, but 
there are many significant provisions in the bill that have not been as 
widely discussed, including creating research and demonstration 
programs for carbon capture and sequestration, substantially increasing 
appliance efficiency standards, and making the Federal Government a 
leader in the use of renewable energy and green construction. Moreover, 
this legislation puts the Senate on record in our support of engagement 
with other countries, especially those in the Western Hemisphere, to 
better coordinate energy security and assure diverse and reliable 
energy supplies. While it is not perfect, it is a step in the right 
direction.
  Mr. President, let me say a final word about the elephant in the 
room, which we have scarcely acknowledged thus far in this debate about 
energy policy: climate change. Climate and energy policy are 
inextricable--any energy policy we adopt will have an enormous impact 
on the climate. I recognize that this body is not yet ready to adopt a 
comprehensive measure to substantially limit emissions of greenhouse 
gases, or to take the bold step of imposing some form of a 
comprehensive corporate carbon tax. If we were honest with the American 
people, that is the kind of bold step we would take to help resolve our 
energy dilemma.
  The truth is that, on energy and climate issues, Americans are ahead 
of their political leaders. They understand the serious, long-term 
cumulative threat climate change poses to their children and 
grandchildren; they're willing to make tough choices to address it. 
They understand that cleaner energy is possible; they know that fuel-
efficient vehicles and appliances are within reach--but they're worried 
that American manufacturers are falling behind. Americans 
overwhelmingly support the development of alternative energy, higher 
mileage standards, hybrid vehicles, and incentives to produce and 
install more energy efficient appliances. They see the potential for 
savings generated by energy-efficient technologies, both for their 
families and for a more efficient, more effective use of their tax 
dollars by government. And they want change. They understand that the 
threats of climate change are not geographically remote or far off in 
time; they are real and urgent. I hope that the day when we can take up 
and pass tough new controls on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 
gases arrives soon. But however we address emissions and efficiency, 
conservation, bio-fuels, fuel economy, and other important provisions, 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to start us on the road 
towards a future of clean, domestic, and renewable energy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support the Energy 
bill that we are voting on tonight. I will vote against cloture on the 
bill and against final passage. There are many good provisions of this 
bill--particularly in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable 
fuels--but at its core, the bill contains CAFE provisions that will 
needlessly harm the American auto industry.
  I believe we had a real opportunity to make significant strides in 
improving fuel economy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and 
doing it in a sensible way that would support American manufacturing 
and American workers. Instead, the bill before the Senate tonight has 
chosen the path that is most likely to harm our workers by combining 
trucks with cars for new standards that are overly aggressive and 
unachievable and may have a particularly harmful effect on those 
manufacturers who produce a high percentage of light trucks and produce 
small cars in America.
  America has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, over 
200,000 jobs in the automotive sector. Our companies face enormous 
competition in the global marketplace without support from the U.S. 
Government. Our companies are not competing against companies overseas 
they are competing against other governments that strongly support 
their manufacturing sectors with currency manipulation and trade 
barriers against our products. American companies must compete against 
those who are protected from import competition by their government, 
have cheap labor costs, do not pay health insurance and legacy costs, 
or do not have to meet our strict environmental standards. Our 
manufacturers can compete with anyone on a level playing field but 
right now that field is tilted against them.
  Tonight, we are choosing to follow a path that will continue that 
uneven playing field for our manufacturers through our own regulatory 
process--no other countries would do that to its companies. The 
proponents of these provisions--a combined car-truck standard of 35 
miles per gallon by 2020 claim that these standards will be easy

[[Page 16935]]

to meet with new advanced technology and suggest that these fuel 
economy numbers are supported by the National Academy of Sciences. But 
that is simply not true. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, in 
its 2002 report that is frequently cited, specifically stated that the 
conclusions it drew about technologies should not be interpreted as 
fuel economy recommendations.
  There was a better way. An amendment sponsored by Senator Pryor that 
I cosponsored, along with Senators Bond, Voinovich, Stabenow and 
McCaskill, offered that alternative approach. Our amendment would have 
taken bold steps forward to improve fuel economy, reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil, and protect the environment. We did that in our 
amendment by establishing aggressive, yet achievable, new and different 
fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks and by setting clear 
interim milestones for reaching these new standards.
  Our amendment would have required a thirty-percent increase in fuel 
economy standards for cars by 2022 and a thirty-five-percent increase 
in standards for trucks by 2025, and our amendment would have provided 
certainty that these standards will be met. It also would have provided 
the predictability needed by our auto companies to plan ahead and 
utilize new advanced technology to the maximum extent possible. Our 
amendment would have provided the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, NHTSA--the agency that would set these standards--tools 
necessary to establish the standards in a sensible way that would have 
ensured the standards would be at the maximum feasible level, even if 
that level proved to be higher than the number included in this 
amendment. To ensure that the technology would be available to meet 
these standards, our amendment also would have provided a significant 
new infusion of Federal dollars to support advanced technology 
research, development, and demonstration programs across a wide 
spectrum of technologies--from advanced batteries and lightweight 
materials to advanced clean diesel, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fuel 
cells. Our amendment also would have put more advanced technology out 
on the road immediately by requiring each auto manufacturer to make a 
certain percentage of their new vehicles either flexible fuel vehicles 
or advanced technology vehicles--increasing to 50 percent of their 
fleets by 2015.
  To be sure, meeting the new fuel economy standards under our 
amendment would have been a stretch and a challenge for all of our 
country's auto manufacturers--both our traditional American 
manufacturers, who built the foundation of the auto industry in this 
country, as well as manufacturers such as Toyota, Mazda, and 
Mitsubishi. But it would not have pushed our companies to the breaking 
point, as I fear the provisions of this legislation will do.
  So I cannot support this bill tonight, and I regret that we did not 
take a different path. I was encouraged that the Commerce Committee 
leaders were willing to take some of our suggestions and make some 
improvements in their bill. Through our negotiations, we received a few 
significant concessions. Specifically, the standards in the final bill 
are for the industry as a whole and not standards to be met company by 
company, ending a procedure which has discriminated against the 
domestic industry. The bill also makes clear that NHTSA is required to 
set standards according to an attribute based system that will look at 
the different attributes of cars and trucks, and make clear that the 
fuel economy standards after 2020 will be set at the maximum feasible 
level rather than requiring an arbitrary and unrealistic increase of 
four percent annually and was true with the Commerce Committee bill.
  I believe that we can reduce our dependence on oil, reduce our 
greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the overall fuel economy of our 
vehicles on the road while supporting our American manufacturers in the 
global market place. To do that, we need a major public-private 
partnership and major investments in leap-ahead energy technologies, 
including advanced technology vehicles. We need a huge infusion of 
resources and a commitment from both the private sector and the Federal 
government to support efforts to reach these important goals. At a 
minimum, we cannot have our government act in ways that will unfairly 
disadvantage our American manufacturers against their global 
competitors.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the improvements to vehicle efficiency that are included in 
H.R. 6. It is time for us to make reasonable, achievable, and 
meaningful increases to the corporate average fuel economy standards.
  In the past 2 weeks I have spoken repeatedly about the national 
security, economic security, and environmental security implications of 
the energy debate that we are holding. The converging and growing risks 
of our overdependence on foreign oil are well understood among 
Americans, who see the impacts of our failed energy policy on a daily 
basis.
  At the gas station, consumers see prices spike at OPEC's whim or with 
the threat of supply disruptions in countries like Venezuela or 
Nigeria. In their businesses, Americans feel the pain of soaring oil 
prices--fuel prices for farmers are so high that some do not know if 
they will be able to complete the harvest in the fall. And in their 
land, air, and natural surroundings, Americans are beginning to 
understand the impacts that global warming could have over the coming 
decades.
  This week we have already made significant progress in our quest to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not only is the underlying bill 
an important step forward, but we have passed several amendments that 
strengthen the foundations of a new, clean energy economy for the 
United States.
  So far we have increased the oil savings targets in this bill by 50 
percent, so that by 2016, we are saving as much oil as we are currently 
importing from the Middle East. We have passed provisions from the 
DRIVE Act that will bring high-efficiency vehicles, such as plug-in 
hybrids, to consumers. And we set a goal of producing 25 percent of our 
energy from renewable sources by 2025. These are important improvements 
that will accelerate the pace at which we are moving toward energy 
independence.
  Today, though, I want to talk more specifically about a provision of 
this bill that has been a point of intense debate for some time. 
Vehicle efficiency standards in this country have been stagnant for too 
long. Although our vehicle manufacturers have made impressive 
improvements to the safety, strength, and power of our vehicles, the 
average fuel economy of new cars and trucks was actually lower in 2006 
than it was 20 years ago. Passenger cars sold in the U.S. only get 
around 27.5 miles per gallon on average.
  The result? American consumers and businesses are suffering 
disproportionately from $3-a-gasoline. $50 and $80 visits to the gas 
station are now the norm, and transportation costs are taking a growing 
slice out of family budgets.
  People who live in rural areas are hit the hardest by low fuel-
efficiency standards. They drive around 15 percent more miles than 
people who live in cities, they rarely have the choice of using public 
transit, and they use work vehicles, like pickups, that get fewer miles 
to the gallon. As a result, gas bills in rural households have risen 
almost $1,300 in the past 5 years.
  The question of how to improve vehicle efficiency standards is not an 
easy one, and is not to be taken lightly. But today the path forward is 
clearer than it has been in some time. Not only is the need for 
improved efficiency evident, but we have the technological know-how to 
make these changes to our vehicle-fleet in a safe and cost-effective 
manner.
  The bill before us raises the CAFE standards for cars and light 
trucks to 35 mpg by 2020. This is a reasonable and appropriate goal for 
efficiency. The bill also gives manufacturers tremendous flexibility to 
meet the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
NHTSA, will have the ability to set a national fleet-wide average fuel 
economy standard of 35 mpg

[[Page 16936]]

by 2020 that will be tailored to the weight, size, type of use and 
towing capabilities of each car type. Under this flexible system, the 
standards for light trucks will likely be significantly lower than the 
standards for passenger cars, and standards will vary for passenger 
cars: smaller cars will have higher standards than larger cars.
  The bill also includes an important exemption for work-trucks between 
8,500 and 10,000 pounds--these are the trucks that are essential to the 
daily operations of farmers, ranchers, and small business owners.
  The CAFE standards in this bill are achievable by incorporating a 
group of modest, proven conventional technologies into vehicles. The 
technologies would add about $1,100 to the price of an average vehicle 
in 2019, an investment that would be recovered in less than 3 years of 
driving, assuming that gasoline costs $2.00 per gallon. Over the 
lifetime of the vehicle the owner would save a total of more than 
$3,600 in gasoline costs.
  And the technologies are only getting better. Our national labs and 
universities are making breakthroughs in research that will allow us to 
make even greater advances in fuel efficiency. At the Colorado School 
of Mines, for example, researchers are developing a way to cast metal 
alloy composite materials for high strength, lightweight vehicle parts. 
This technology will reduce the weight of vehicle components by as much 
as 60 percent without compromising vehicle performance, cost, or 
safety.
  While I am a champion for the responsible development of our domestic 
energy supplies and I firmly believe that we need to make smart 
investments in a renewable energy economy, improving efficiency is the 
cheapest, cleanest and quickest way for us to extend our energy 
supplies, get a handle on rising gas prices, and reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  I am proud of the responsible, bipartisan approach we have taken to 
improving vehicle standards. I want to again thank Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Domenici for their leadership on this bill and I look forward 
to passing it as soon as possible.
  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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. First of all, Mr. President, the distinguished Republican 
leader and I apologize to everyone.
  However, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 p.m. tonight the 
substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill be read a third time, and 
the Senate vote on cloture on H.R. 6; that if cloture is invoked, the 
Senate vote immediately on passage of the bill with the preceding all 
occurring without any intervening action or debate; further, that the 
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 800 occur at 11:30 a.m. 
on Tuesday, June 26; that if cloture is invoked, the motion be agreed 
to and the Senate vote immediately on cloture on the motion to proceed 
to S. 1639, the immigration bill; that if cloture is invoked, the 
motion be agreed to; and further that if cloture is invoked on S. 1639, 
it be in order upon the disposition of all postcloture debate time 
there be 20 minutes equally divided for debate only on a motion to 
waive the Budget Act in response to a budget point of order against the 
bill made by Senator Jeff Sessions or his designee; further, that on 
Wednesday, if the Senate is considering the immigration bill, Senator 
Sessions be recognized for debate only for up to 2 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. I would just like a few minutes to look at the language.
  Mr. REID. I renew my consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, and they are concerned about some ability to get in 
conference the cloture motion; that is, the tax aspects of the Energy 
bill that was defeated. It is not part of this matter we are working on 
now. As I told my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, if he 
could figure out a way to do it, he should let me know. I want everyone 
to cool their jets. The Republican leader and I have had a pretty good 
agreement on matters that pass this body, as to what goes to 
conference.
  Now, we have preconferenced--we don't need to run through the things 
we have preconferenced, but I think the Republican leader will tell 
everyone here that I have been on the level with him, and I intend to 
be on this matter. So if anyone is concerned about some trick to put 
this energy tax package in the bill in conference, they need to tell me 
how to do it because I don't know how. It takes three cloture votes for 
me to get to conference. I have been through that. They are procedural 
votes. Although I wish I had the magic wand to tell a lot of you how to 
vote on the procedural votes, I haven't been too successful so far.
  So everyone just relax on that issue. I don't know what more I can 
say. I have told the Republican leader personally about that. That is 
how I feel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what I assume my good friend, the 
majority leader, is talking about is that there are three 
filibusterable motions prior to going to conference. What he is 
suggesting here is, in fact, the case, which is that rather than simply 
going to conference without any discussion of what might come out of 
conference, the matter could be discussed in some detail before we go 
to conference. I know that is what my good friend, the majority leader, 
was talking about.
  Our concern, of course, was that Senator Conrad said, right here on 
the floor of the Senate tonight--I won't read it word for word, but 
these are direct quotes from the floor of the Senate tonight--that was 
the game plan, to simply put the tax component, which was defeated 
earlier today, back in the measure. That created a considerable amount 
of angst on this side of the aisle for obvious reasons. There was 
substantial opposition to this massive tax increase which would have 
been added to the bill.
  So we will have a lengthy discussion before going to conference. Let 
me just say, as one of the States that does not find much to applaud in 
the bill in any event, there are ample reasons for voting against 
cloture. I certainly am going to vote against cloture and would hope 
that a number of our colleagues, sufficient to deny cloture, would have 
a similar vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend the Republican leader, I 
hope we would proceed on the basis--I gave a little speech here earlier 
today, after cloture was invoked, talking about a new day having 
arrived. I hope people would vote the way they have in the past on this 
issue earlier today. It would be a real bad day for this Congress now, 
after the progress we have made, not to pass this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page 16937]]




Amendments Nos. 1639; 1677; 1798; 1698; 1568, As Modified; 1569; 1597, 
   As Modified; 1624; 1764, As Modified; 1799; 1602; 1660; 1513, As 
Modified; 1683; 1729, As Modified; 1675; 1687, As Modified; 1688; 1689; 
 1525, As Modified; 1567, As Modified; 1717; 1710; 1759, As Modified; 
1797, As Modified; 1702; 1706, As Modified; 1595, As Modified; 1676, As 
  Modified; 1679, As Modified; 1615, As Modified; 1520, As Modified; 
                  1700, As Modified; and 1724, En Bloc

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider en bloc the list of cleared amendments at the desk 
that have been approved by Senator Domenici and his staff and myself 
and my staff, that they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that 
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments and 
cleared them on our side. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1639

        (Purpose: To make certain technical edits to title III)

       On page 180, line 7, insert ``and storage'' before ``of 
     carbon''.
       On page 180, line 11, strike ``the compression'' and insert 
     ``advanced compression''.
       On page 180, line 18, strike ``and''.
       Beginning on page 180, strike line 19 and all that follows 
     through page 181, line 9, and insert the following:
       ``(v) research and development of new and improved 
     technologies for--

       ``(I) carbon use, including recycling and reuse of carbon 
     dioxide; and
       ``(II) the containment of carbon dioxide in the form of 
     solid materials or products derived from a gasification 
     technology that does not involve geologic containment or 
     injection; and

       ``(vi) research and development of new and improved 
     technologies for oxygen separation from air.
       On page 181, line 10, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 182, line 2, strike ``and''.
       On page182, line 4, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       On page 182, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       ``(vii) coal-bed methane recovery.
       On page 183, line 8, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 183, line 12, insert ``involving at least 1,000,000 
     tons of carbon dioxide per year'' after ``tests''.
       On page 183, line 14, insert ``collect and'' before 
     ``validate''.
       On page 184, line 1, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 184, line 7, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 184, line 11, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 186, strike lines 18 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (6) the work done to develop the Carbon Sequestration Atlas 
     of the United States and Canada that was completed by the 
     Department of Energy.
       On page 189, strike lines 14 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       (A) In general.--On completion of the assessment, the 
     Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     incorporate the results of the assessment using--
       (i) the NatCarb database, to the maximum extent 
     practicable; or
       (ii) a new database developed by the Secretary of Energy, 
     as the Secretary of Energy determines to be necessary.
       On page 190, line 25, strike ``or''.
       On page 191, line 2, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       On page 191, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (G) manufacture biofuels.
       On page 191, strike lines 10 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Scope of award.--An award under this section shall be 
     only for the portion of the project that--
       (A) carries out the large-scale capture (including 
     purification and compression) of carbon dioxide;
       (B) provides for the cost of transportation and injection 
     of carbon dioxide; and
       (C) incorporates a comprehensive measurement, monitoring, 
     and validation program.
       On page 192, line 7, insert ``carbon dioxide by volume'' 
     after ``95 percent''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1677

       On page 7, line 11, insert ``(including landfill gas and 
     sewage waste treatment gas)'' after ``biogas''.
       On page 7, strike lines 13 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
     biomass;
       (vi) butanol or other alcohols produced through the 
     conversion of organic matter from renewable biomass; and
       (vii) other fuel derived from cellulosic biomass.
       On page 9, line 13, strike ``, boiler fuel,''.
       On page 9, line 20, strike ``, boiler,''.
       On page 10, lines 17 and 18, strike ``motor vehicle fuel, 
     home heating oil, and boiler fuel'' and insert ``motor 
     vehicle fuel and home heating oil''.
       On page 11, line 11, strike ``built'' and insert ``that 
     commence operations''.
       On page 44, lines 4 and 5, strike ``local biorefineries'' 
     and insert ``local biorefineries, including by portable 
     processing equipment''.
       On page 44, lines 13 and 14, strike ``local biorefineries'' 
     and insert ``local biorefineries, including by portable 
     processing equipment''.
       On page 47, strike lines 9 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Quality regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the President shall promulgate 
     regulations to ensure that each diesel-equivalent fuel 
     derived from renewable biomass and introduced into interstate 
     commerce is tested and certified to comply with applicable 
     standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1798

       Beginning on page 79, strike line 8 and all that follows 
     through page 80, line 4, and insert the following:
       ``(6) Energy conservation standard.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `energy conservation standard' 
     means 1 or more performance standards that--
       ``(i) for covered products (excluding clothes washers, 
     dishwashers, showerheads, faucets, water closets, and 
     urinals), prescribe a minimum level of energy efficiency or a 
     maximum quantity of energy use, determined in accordance with 
     test procedures prescribed under section 323;
       ``(ii) for showerheads, faucets, water closets, and 
     urinals, prescribe a minimum level of water efficiency or a 
     maximum quantity of water use, determined in accordance with 
     test procedures prescribed under section 323; and
       ``(iii) for clothes washers and dishwashers--

       ``(I) prescribe a minimum level of energy efficiency or a 
     maximum quantity of energy use, determined in accordance with 
     test procedures prescribed under section 323; and
       ``(II) may include a minimum level of water efficiency or a 
     maximum quantity of water use, determined in accordance with 
     those test procedures.

       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `energy conservation standard' 
     includes--
       ``(i) 1 or more design requirements, if the requirements 
     were established--

       ``(I) on or before the date of enactment of this subclause; 
     or
       ``(II) as part of a consensus agreement under section 
     325(hh); and

       ``(ii) any other requirements that the Secretary may 
     prescribe under section 325(r).
       ``(C) Exclusion.--The term `energy conservation standard' 
     does not include a performance standard for a component of a 
     finished covered product, unless regulation of the component 
     is authorized or established pursuant to this title.''.
       Beginning on page 87, strike line 16 and all that follows 
     through page 90, line 25, and insert the following:

     SEC. 224. EXPEDITED RULEMAKINGS.

       (a) Procedure for Prescribing New or Amended Standards.--
     Section 325(p) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6295(p)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Direct final rules.--
       ``(A) In general.--On receipt of a statement that is 
     submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly 
     representative of relevant points of view (including 
     representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, 
     and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, 
     and contains recommendations with respect to an energy or 
     water conservation standard--
       ``(i) if the Secretary determines that the recommended 
     standard contained in the statement is in accordance with 
     subsection (o) or section 342(a)(6)(B), as applicable, the 
     Secretary may issue a final rule that establishes an energy 
     or water conservation standard and is published 
     simultaneously with a notice of proposed rulemaking that 
     proposes a new or amended energy or water conservation 
     standard that is identical to the standard established in the 
     final rule to establish the recommended standard (referred to 
     in this paragraph as a `direct final rule'); or
       ``(ii) if the Secretary determines that a direct final rule 
     cannot be issued based on the statement, the Secretary shall 
     publish a notice of the determination, together with an 
     explanation of the reasons for the determination.
       ``(B) Public comment.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) solicit public comment with respect to each direct 
     final rule issued by the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(i); 
     and
       ``(ii) publish a response to each comment so received.
       ``(C) Withdrawal of direct final rules.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     on which a direct final rule issued under subparagraph (A)(i) 
     is published in the Federal Register, the Secretary shall 
     withdraw the direct final rule if--

       ``(I) the Secretary receives 1 or more adverse public 
     comments relating to the direct final rule under subparagraph 
     (B)(i); and

[[Page 16938]]

       ``(II) based on the complete rulemaking record relating to 
     the direct final rule, the Secretary tentatively determines 
     that the adverse public comments are relevant under 
     subsection (o), section 342(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable 
     law.

       ``(ii) Action on withdrawal.--On withdrawal of a direct 
     final rule under clause (i), the Secretary shall--

       ``(I) proceed with the notice of proposed rulemaking 
     published simultaneously with the direct final rule as 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i); and
       ``(II) publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the 
     direct final rule was withdrawn.

       ``(iii) Treatment of withdrawn direct final rules.--A 
     direct final rule that is withdrawn under clause (i) shall 
     not be considered to be a final rule for purposes of 
     subsection (o).
       ``(D) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     authorizes the Secretary to issue a direct final rule based 
     solely on receipt of more than 1 statement containing 
     recommended standards relating to the direct final rule.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 345(b)(1) of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1)) is amended 
     in the first sentence by inserting ``section 325(p)(5),'' 
     after ``The provisions of''.
       Beginning on page 91, strike line 20 and all that follows 
     through page 95, line 25, and insert the following:
       (b) Energy Conservation Standards.--Section 325(m) of the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by designating the first and second sentences as 
     paragraphs (1) and (4), respectively;
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) (as so designated) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--After issuance of the last final rules 
     required for a product under this part, the Secretary shall, 
     not later than 5 years after the date of issuance of a final 
     rule establishing or amending a standard or determining not 
     to amend a standard, publish a final rule to determine 
     whether standards for the product should or should not be 
     amended based on the criteria in subsection (n)(2).
       ``(2) Analysis.--Prior to publication of the determination, 
     the Secretary shall publish a notice of availability 
     describing the analysis of the Department and provide 
     opportunity for written comment.
       ``(3) Final rule.--Not later than 3 years after a positive 
     determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     publish a final rule amending the standard for the 
     product.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4) (as so designated), by striking ``(4) 
     An'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Application of amendment.--An''.
       (c) Standards.--Section 342(a)(6) of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)) is amended by 
     striking ``(6)(A)(i)'' and all that follows through the end 
     of subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(6) Amended energy efficiency standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Analysis of potential energy savings.--If ASHRAE/IES 
     Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to any small commercial 
     package air conditioning and heating equipment, large 
     commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, 
     very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 
     equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged 
     terminal heat pumps, warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, 
     storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, or 
     unfired hot water storage tanks, not later than 180 days 
     after the amendment of the standard, the Secretary shall 
     publish in the Federal Register for public comment an 
     analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy 
     efficiency standards.
       ``(ii) Amended uniform national standard for products.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     not later than 18 months after the date of publication of the 
     amendment to the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for a product 
     described in clause (i), the Secretary shall establish an 
     amended uniform national standard for the product at the 
     minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 
     90.1.
       ``(II) More stringent standard.--Subclause (I) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary determines, by rule published in the 
     Federal Register, and supported by clear and convincing 
     evidence, that adoption of a uniform national standard more 
     stringent than the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for the 
     product would result in significant additional conservation 
     of energy and is technologically feasible and economically 
     justified.

       ``(iii) Rule.--If the Secretary makes a determination 
     described in clause (ii)(II) for a product described in 
     clause (i), not later than 30 months after the date of 
     publication of the amendment to the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 
     for the product, the Secretary shall issue the rule 
     establishing the amended standard.''.
       Beginning on page 96, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 98, line 13, and insert the following:

     SEC. 226. ENERGY EFFICIENCY LABELING FOR CONSUMER ELECTRONIC 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 324(a) of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Labeling requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) through (iv), 
     not later than 18 months after the date of issuance of 
     applicable Department of Energy testing procedures, the 
     Commission, in consultation with the Secretary and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (acting 
     through the Energy Star program), shall, by regulation, 
     promulgate labeling or other disclosure requirements for the 
     energy use of--

       ``(I) televisions;
       ``(II) personal computers;
       ``(III) cable or satellite set-top boxes;
       ``(IV) stand-alone digital video recorder boxes; and
       ``(V) personal computer monitors.

       ``(ii) Alternate testing procedures.--In the absence of 
     applicable testing procedures described in clause (i) for 
     products described in subclauses (I) through (V) of that 
     clause, the Commission may by regulation promulgate labeling 
     requirements for a consumer product category described in 
     clause (i) if the Commission--

       ``(I) identifies adequate non-Department of Energy testing 
     procedures for those products; and
       ``(II) determines that labeling of those products is likely 
     to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.

       ``(iii) Deadline and requirements for labeling.--

       ``(I) Deadline.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     promulgation of any requirements under clause (i) or (ii), 
     the Commission shall require labeling of electronic products 
     described in clause (i).
       ``(II) Requirements.--The requirements promulgated under 
     clause (i) or (ii) may include specific requirements for each 
     electronic product to be labeled with respect to the 
     placement, size, and content of Energy Guide labels.

       ``(iv) Determination of feasibility.--Clause (i) or (ii) 
     shall not apply in any case in which the Commission 
     determines that labeling in accordance with this subsection--

       ``(I) is not technologically or economically feasible; or
       ``(II) is not likely to assist consumers in making 
     purchasing decisions.''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Authority to include additional product categories.--
     The Commission may require labeling in accordance with this 
     subsection for any consumer product not specified in this 
     subsection or section 322 if the Commission determines that 
     labeling for the product is likely to assist consumers in 
     making purchasing decisions.''.
       (b) Content of Label.--Section 324(c) of the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6924(c)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(9) Discretionary application.--The Commission may apply 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of this subsection to 
     the labeling of any product covered by paragraph (2)(H) or 
     (6) of subsection (a).''.
       On page 157, line 5, strike ``and if'' and insert the 
     following: ``the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     or the Secretary of Agriculture make a determination that the 
     revised codes do not negatively affect the availability or 
     affordability of new construction of assisted housing and 
     single family and multifamily residential housing (other than 
     manufactured homes) subject to mortgages insured under the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or insured, 
     guaranteed, or made by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.), 
     respectively, and''.
       On page 106, line 23, strike ``2012'' and insert ``2015''.
       On page 106, line 24, strike ``2012'' and insert ``2015''.
       On page 107, line 3, strike ``2012'' and insert ``2015''.
       On page 147, line 20, strike ``from a public utility 
     service''.
       On page 166, line 15, insert ``, Indian tribal,'' after 
     ``State''.
       On page 166, line 18, insert ``of Indian tribes or'' after 
     ``activities''.
       On page 166, line 21, insert ``, Indian tribes,'' after 
     ``States''.
       On page 167, line 12, insert ``, indian tribes,'' after 
     ``States''.
       On page 167, line 17, strike ``70'' and insert ``68''.
       On page 167, line 18, strike ``and''.
       On page 167, line 19, strike ``30'' and insert ``28''.
       On page 167, line 19, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 167, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       ``(iii) 4 percent to Indian tribes.
       On page 169, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       ``(D) Distribution to indian tribes.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a formula 
     for the distribution of amounts under subparagraph (A)(iii) 
     to eligible Indian tribes, taking into account any factors 
     that the Secretary determines to be

[[Page 16939]]

     appropriate, including the residential and daytime population 
     of the eligible Indian tribes.
       ``(ii) Criteria.--Amounts shall be distributed to eligible 
     Indian tribes under clause (i) only if the eligible Indian 
     tribes meet the criteria for distribution established by the 
     Secretary for Indian tribes.
       On page 170, line 1, strike ``(B)(ii) or (C)(ii)'' and 
     insert ``(B)(ii), (C)(ii), or (D)(ii)''.
       On page 170, lines 10 and 11, strike ``(B)(ii) or (C)(ii)'' 
     and insert ``(B)(ii), (C)(ii), or (D)(ii)''.
       On page 171, line 7, insert ``tribal,'' after ``State,''.
       On page 171, line 20, insert ``, Indian tribes,'' after 
     ``States''.
       On page 171, line 24, insert ``Indian tribe,'' after 
     ``State,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1698

        (Purpose: To modify the definition of renewable biomass)

       In section 102(4), strike subparagraph (A) and insert the 
     following:
       (A) nonmerchantable materials or precommercial thinnings 
     that--
       (i) are byproducts of preventive treatments, such as trees, 
     wood, brush, thinnings, chips, and slash, that are removed--

       (I) to reduce hazardous fuels;
       (II) to reduce or contain disease or insect infestation; or
       (III) to restore forest health;

       (ii) would not otherwise be used for higher-value products; 
     and
       (iii) are harvested from National Forest System land or 
     public land (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702))--

       (I) where permitted by law; and
       (II) in accordance with--

       (aa) applicable land management plans; and
       (bb) the requirements for old-growth maintenance, 
     restoration, and management direction of paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (4) of subsection (e) and the requirements for large-tree 
     retention of subsection (f) of section 102 of the Healthy 
     Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6512); or


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1568, AS MODIFIED

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. COORDINATION OF PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.
       (2) Planned refinery outage.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``planned refinery outage'' means 
     a removal, scheduled before the date on which the removal 
     occurs, of a refinery, or any unit of a refinery, from 
     service for maintenance, repair, or modification.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``planned refinery outage'' does 
     not include any necessary and unplanned removal of a 
     refinery, or any unit of a refinery, from service as a result 
     of a component failure, safety hazard, emergency, or action 
     reasonably anticipated to be necessary to prevent such 
     events.
       (3) Refined petroleum product.--The term ``refined 
     petroleum product'' means any gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel 
     oil, lubricating oil, liquid petroleum gas, or other 
     petroleum distillate that is produced through the refining or 
     processing of crude oil or an oil derived from tar sands, 
     shale, or coal.
       (4) Refinery.--The term ``refinery'' means a facility used 
     in the production of a refined petroleum product through 
     distillation, cracking, or any other process.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Review and Analysis of Available Information.--The 
     Administrator shall, on an ongoing basis--
       (1) review information on planned refinery outages that is 
     available from commercial reporting services;
       (2) analyze that information to determine whether the 
     scheduling of a planned refinery outage may nationally or 
     regionally affect the price or supply of any refined 
     petroleum product by--
       (A) decreasing the production of the refined petroleum 
     product; and
       (B) causing or contributing to a retail or wholesale supply 
     shortage or disruption;
       (3) not less frequently than twice each year, submit to the 
     Secretary a report describing the results of the review and 
     analysis under paragraphs (1) and (2); and
       (4) specifically alert the Secretary of any planned 
     refinery outage that the Administrator determines may 
     nationally or regionally affect the price or supply of a 
     refined petroleum product.
       (c) Action by Secretary.--On a determination by the 
     Secretary, based on a report or alert under paragraph (3) or 
     (4) of subsection (b), that a planned refinery outage may 
     affect the price or supply of a refined petroleum product, 
     the Secretary shall make available to refinery operators 
     information on planned refinery outages to encourage 
     reductions of the quantity of refinery capacity that is out 
     of service at any time.
       (d) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall alter any 
     existing legal obligation or responsibility of a refinery 
     operator, or create any legal right of action, nor shall this 
     section authorize the Secretary--
       (1) to prohibit a refinery operator from conducting a 
     planned refinery outage; or
       (2) to require a refinery operator to continue to operate a 
     refinery.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1569

 (Purpose: To provide an alternate sulfur dioxide removal measurement 
              for certain coal gasification project goals)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE.

       Section 402(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
     (42 U.S.C. 15962(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking 
     subclause (I) and inserting the following:

       ``(I)(aa) to remove at least 99 percent of sulfur dioxide; 
     or
       ``(bb) to emit not more than 0.04 pound SO2 per 
     million Btu, based on a 30-day average;''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1597, AS MODIFIED

       On page 22, strike lines 1 through 17.
       Beginning on page 56, line 17, strike through line 4 of 
     page 59.
       On page 277, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. ------. STUDY OF THE ADEQUACY OF TRANSPORTATION OF 
                   DOMESTICALLY-PRODUCED RENEWABLE FUEL BY 
                   RAILROADS AND OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation and the 
     Secretary of Energy shall jointly conduct a study of the 
     adequacy of transportation of domestically-produced renewable 
     fuels by railroad and other modes of transportation as 
     designated by the Secretaries.
       (2) Components.--In conducting the study under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretaries shall--
       (A) consider the adequacy of existing railroad and other 
     transportation infrastructure, equipment, service and 
     capacity to move the necessary quantities of domestically-
     produced renewable fuel within the timeframes required by 
     section 111;
       (B)(i) consider the projected costs of moving the 
     domestically-produced renewable fuel by railroad and other 
     modes transportation; and
       (ii) consider the impact of the projected costs on the 
     marketability of the domestically-produced renewable fuel;
       (C) identify current and potential impediments to the 
     reliable transportation of adequate supplies of domestically-
     produced renewable fuel at reasonable prices, including 
     practices currently utilized by domestic producers, shippers, 
     and receivers of renewable fuels;
       (D) consider whether inadequate competition exists within 
     and between modes of transportation for the transportation of 
     domestically-produced renewable fuel and, if such inadequate 
     competition exists, whether such inadequate competition leads 
     to an unfair price for the transportation of domestically-
     produced renewable fuel or unacceptable service for 
     transportation of domestically-produced renewable fuel;
       (E) consider whether Federal agencies have adequate legal 
     authority to address instances of inadequate competition when 
     inadequate competition is found to prevent domestic producers 
     for renewable fuels from obtaining a fair and reasonable 
     transportation price or acceptable service for the 
     transportation of domestically-produced renewable fuels;
       (F) consider whether Federal agencies have adequate legal 
     authority to address railroad and transportation service 
     problems that may be resulting in inadequate supplies of 
     domestically-produced renewable fuel in any area of the 
     United States;
       (G) consider what transportation infrastructure capital 
     expenditures may be necessary to ensure the reliable 
     transportation of adequate supplies of domestically-produced 
     renewable fuel at reasonable prices within the United States 
     and which public and private entities should be responsible 
     for making such expenditures; and
       (K) provide recommendations on ways to facilitate the 
     reliable transportation of adequate supplies of domestically-
     produced renewable fuel at reasonable prices.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall jointly submit 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives a report that describes the results of the 
     study conducted under subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1624

(Purpose: To expand the scope of the applied research program on energy 
               storage systems to include flow batteries)

       On page 127, line 5, insert ``(including flow batteries)'' 
     after ``batteries''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1764, AS MODIFIED

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     Subtitle G--Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion

     SEC. 281. DEFINITION OF MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE 
                   ENERGY.

       (a) In General.--In this subtitle, the term ``marine and 
     hydrokinetic renewable energy'' means electrical energy 
     from--

[[Page 16940]]

       (1) waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and 
     tidal areas;
       (2) free flowing water in rivers, lakes, and streams;
       (3) free flowing water in man-made channels, including 
     projects that utilize nonmechanical structures to accelerate 
     the flow of water for electric power production purposes; and
       (4) differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal 
     energy conversion).
       (b) Exclusion.--Except as provided in subsection (a)(3), 
     the term ``marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy'' does 
     not include energy from any source that uses a dam, 
     diversionary structure, or impoundment for electric power 
     purposes.

     SEC. 282. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Program.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, 
     shall establish a program of marine and hydrokinetic 
     renewable energy research, including--
       (1) developing and demonstrating marine and hydrokinetic 
     renewable energy technologies;
       (2) reducing the manufacturing and operation costs of 
     marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies;
       (3) increasing the reliability and survivability of marine 
     and hydrokinetic renewable energy facilities;
       (4) integrating marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy 
     into electric grids;
       (5) identifying opportunities for cross fertilization and 
     development of economies of scale between offshore wind and 
     marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy sources;
       (6) identifying, in conjunction with the Secretary of 
     Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, the potential 
     environmental impacts of marine and hydrokinetic renewable 
     energy technologies and measures to minimize or prevent 
     adverse impacts, and technologies and other means available 
     for monitoring and determining environmental impacts;
       (7) identifying, in conjunction with the Commandant of the 
     United States Coast Guard, the potential navigational impacts 
     of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies and 
     measures to minimize or prevent adverse impacts;
       (8) standards development, demonstration, and technology 
     transfer for advanced systems engineering and system 
     integration methods to identify critical interfaces; and
       (9) providing public information and opportunity for public 
     comment concerning all technologies.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, 
     shall provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report that addresses--
       (1) the potential environmental impacts of hydrokinetic 
     renewable energy technologies in free-flowing water in 
     rivers, lakes, and streams;
       (2) the means by which to minimize or prevent any adverse 
     environmental impacts;
       (3) the potential role of monitoring and adaptive 
     management in addressing any adverse environmental impacts; 
     and
       (4) the necessary components of such an adaptive management 
     program.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2017.

     SEC. 283. NATIONAL OCEAN ENERGY RESEARCH CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations under subsection (e), the Secretary shall 
     establish not less than 1, and not more than 6, national 
     ocean energy research centers at institutions of higher 
     education for the purpose of conducting research, 
     development, demonstration, and testing of ocean energy 
     technologies and associated equipment.
       (b) Evaluations.--Each Center shall (in consultation with 
     developers, utilities, and manufacturers) conduct evaluations 
     of technologies and equipment described in subsection (a).
       (c) Location.--In establishing centers under this section, 
     the Secretary shall locate the centers in coastal regions of 
     the United State in a manner that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, is geographically dispersed.
       (d) Coordination.--Prior to carrying out any activity under 
     this section in waters subject to the juridiction of the 
     United States, the Secretary shall identify, in conjunction 
     with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the potential environmental impacts of such 
     activity and measures to minimize or prevent adverse impacts.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.


                           Amendment No. 1799

(Purpose: To reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from the Capitol power 
                                 plant)

       On page 192, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 305. CAPITOL POWER PLANT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       The first section of the Act of March 4, 1911 (2 U.S.C. 
     2162; 36 Stat. 1414, chapter 285), is amended in the seventh 
     undesignated paragraph (relating to the Capitol power plant), 
     under the heading ``Public buildings'', under the heading 
     ``Under the Department of the Interior''--
       (1) by striking ``ninety thousand dollars:'' and inserting 
     ``$90,000.''; and
       (2) by striking ``Provided, That hereafter the'' and all 
     that follows through the end of the proviso and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Designation.--The heating, lighting, and power plant 
     constructed under the terms of the Act approved April 28, 
     1904 (33 Stat. 479, chapter 1762), shall be known as the 
     `Capitol power plant', and all vacancies occurring in the 
     force operating that plant and the substations in connection 
     with the plant shall be filled by the Architect of the 
     Capitol, with the approval of the commission in control of 
     the House Office Building appointed under the first section 
     of the Act of March 4, 1907 (2 U.S.C. 2001).
       ``(b) Capitol Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Emissions 
     Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(B) Carbon dioxide energy efficiency.--The term `carbon 
     dioxide energy efficiency', with respect to a project, means 
     the quantity of electricity used to power equipment for 
     carbon dioxide capture and storage or use.
       ``(C) Program.--The term `program' means the competitive 
     grant demonstration program established under paragraph 
     (2)(B).
       ``(2) Establishment of program.--
       ``(A) Feasibility study.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Architect of the 
     Capitol, in cooperation with the Administrator, shall 
     complete a feasibility study evaluating the available methods 
     to proceed with the project and program established under 
     this section, taking into consideration--
       ``(i) the availability of carbon capture technologies;
       ``(ii) energy conservation and carbon reduction strategies; 
     and
       ``(iii) security of operations at the Capitol power plant.
       ``(B) Competitive grant program.--The Architect of the 
     Capitol, in cooperation with the Administrator, shall 
     establish a competitive grant demonstration program under 
     which the Architect of the Capitol shall, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, provide to eligible entities, 
     as determined by the Architect of the Capitol, in cooperation 
     with the Administrator, grants to carry out projects to 
     demonstrate, during the 2-year period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the capture and storage or 
     use of carbon dioxide emitted from the Capitol power plant as 
     a result of burning coal.
       ``(3) Requirements.--
       ``(A) Provision of grants.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Architect of the Capitol, in 
     cooperation with the Administrator, shall provide the grants 
     under the program on a competitive basis.
       ``(ii) Factors for consideration.--In providing grants 
     under the program, the Architect of the Capitol, in 
     cooperation with the Administrator, shall take into 
     consideration--

       ``(I) the practicability of conversion by the proposed 
     project of carbon dioxide into useful products, such as 
     transportation fuel;
       ``(II) the carbon dioxide energy efficiency of the proposed 
     project; and
       ``(III) whether the proposed project is able to reduce more 
     than 1 air pollutant regulated under this Act.

       ``(B) Requirements for entities.--An entity that receives a 
     grant under the program shall--
       ``(i) use to carry out the project of the entity a 
     technology designed to reduce or eliminate emission of carbon 
     dioxide that is in existence on the date of enactment of this 
     subsection that has been used--

       ``(I) by not less than 3 other facilities (including a 
     coal-fired power plant); and
       ``(II) on a scale of not less than 5 times the size of the 
     proposed project of the entity at the Capitol power plant; 
     and

       ``(ii) carry out the project of the entity in consultation 
     with, and with the concurrence of, the Architect of the 
     Capitol and the Administrator.
       ``(C) Consistency with capitol power plant modifications.--
     The Architect of the Capitol may require changes to a project 
     under the program that are necessary to carry out any 
     modifications to be made to the Capitol power plant.
       ``(4) Incentive.--In addition to the grant under this 
     subsection, the Architect of the Capitol may provide to an 
     entity that receives such a grant an incentive award in an 
     amount equal to not more than $50,000, of which--
       ``(A) $15,000 shall be provided after the project of the 
     entity has sustained operation for a period of 100 days, as 
     determined by the Architect of the Capitol;
       ``(B) $15,000 shall be provided after the project of the 
     entity has sustained operation for a period of 200 days, as 
     determined by the Architect of the Capitol; and
       ``(C) $20,000 shall be provided after the project of the 
     entity has sustained operation

[[Page 16941]]

     for a period of 300 days, as determined by the Architect of 
     the Capitol.
       ``(5) Termination.--The program shall terminate on the date 
     that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the program $3,000,000.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1602

  (Purpose: To provide transitional assistance for farmers who plant 
        dedicated energy crops for a local cellulosic refinery)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS WHO PLANT 
                   DEDICATED ENERGY CROPS FOR A LOCAL CELLULOSIC 
                   REFINERY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Cellulosic crop.--The term ``cellulosic crop'' means a 
     tree or grass that is grown specifically--
       (A) to provide raw materials (including feedstocks) for 
     conversion to liquid transportation fuels or chemicals 
     through biochemical or thermochemical processes; or
       (B) for energy generation through combustion, pyrolysis, or 
     cofiring.
       (2) Cellulosic refiner.--The term ``cellulosic refiner'' 
     means the owner or operator of a cellulosic refinery.
       (3) Cellulosic refinery.--The term ``cellulosic refinery'' 
     means a refinery that processes a cellulosic crop.
       (4) Qualified cellulosic crop.--The term ``qualified 
     cellulosic crop'' means, with respect to an agricultural 
     producer, a cellulosic crop that is--
       (A) the subject of a contract or memorandum of 
     understanding between the producer and a cellulosic refiner, 
     under which the producer is obligated to sell the crop to the 
     cellulosic refiner by a certain date; and
       (B) produced not more than 70 miles from a cellulosic 
     refinery owned or operated by the cellulosic refiner.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (b) Transitional Assistance Payments.--The Secretary shall 
     make transitional assistance payments to an agricultural 
     producer during the first year in which the producer devotes 
     land to the production of a qualified cellulosic crop.
       (c) Amount of Payment.--
       (1) Determined by formula.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall devise a formula to be used to calculate the 
     amount of a payment to be made to an agricultural producer 
     under this section, based on the opportunity cost (as 
     determined in accordance with such standard as the Secretary 
     may establish, taking into consideration land rental rates 
     and other applicable costs) incurred by the producer during 
     the first year in which the producer devotes land to the 
     production of the qualified cellulosic crop.
       (2) Limitation.--The total of the amount paid to a producer 
     under this section shall not exceed an amount equal to 25 
     percent of the amounts made available under subsection (e) 
     for the applicable fiscal year.
       (d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     carry out this section.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $4,088,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, to remain available 
     until expended.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1660

(Purpose: To modify sections to provide for the use of geothermal heat 
                                 pumps)

       Strike sections 402 through 404 and insert the following:

     SEC. 402. COST-EFFECTIVE AND GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP TECHNOLOGY 
                   ACCELERATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Definition of Administrator.--In this section, the term 
     ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of General 
     Services.
       (b) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     program to accelerate the use of more cost-effective 
     technologies and practices and geothermal heat pumps at GSA 
     facilities.
       (2) Requirements.--The program established under this 
     subsection shall--
       (A) ensure centralized responsibility for the coordination 
     of cost reduction-related and geothermal heat pump-related 
     recommendations, practices, and activities of all relevant 
     Federal agencies;
       (B) provide technical assistance and operational guidance 
     to applicable tenants to achieve the goal identified in 
     subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii); and
       (C) establish methods to track the success of Federal 
     departments and agencies with respect to that goal.
       (c) Accelerated Use of Technologies.--
       (1) Review.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the program under this section, 
     not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall conduct a review of--
       (i) current use of cost-effective lighting technologies and 
     geothermal heat pumps in GSA facilities; and
       (ii) the availability to managers of GSA facilities of 
     cost-effective lighting technologies and geothermal heat 
     pumps.
       (B) Requirements.--The review under subparagraph (A) 
     shall--
       (i) examine the use of cost-effective lighting 
     technologies, geothermal heat pumps, and other cost-effective 
     technologies and practices by Federal agencies in GSA 
     facilities; and
       (ii) as prepared in consultation with the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, identify cost-effective 
     lighting technology and geothermal heat pump technology 
     standards that could be used for all types of GSA facilities.
       (2) Replacement.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the program under this section, 
     not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall establish, using available 
     appropriations, a cost-effective lighting technology and 
     geothermal heat pump technology acceleration program to 
     achieve maximum feasible replacement of existing lighting, 
     heating, cooling technologies with cost-effective lighting 
     technologies and geothermal heat pump technologies in each 
     GSA facility.
       (B) Acceleration plan timetable.--
       (i) In general.--To implement the program established under 
     subparagraph (A), not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a 
     timetable, including milestones for specific activities 
     needed to replace existing lighting, heating, cooling 
     technologies with cost-effective lighting technologies and 
     geothermal heat pump technologies, to the maximum extent 
     feasible (including at the maximum rate feasible), at each 
     GSA facility.
       (ii) Goal.--The goal of the timetable under clause (i) 
     shall be to complete, using available appropriations, maximum 
     feasible replacement of existing lighting, heating, and 
     cooling technologies with cost-effective lighting 
     technologies and geothermal heat pump technologies by not 
     later than the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) GSA Facility Technologies and Practices.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     annually thereafter, the Administrator shall--
       (1) ensure that a manager responsible for accelerating the 
     use of cost-effective technologies and practices and 
     geothermal heat pump technologies is designated for each GSA 
     facility; and
       (2) submit to Congress a plan, to be implemented to the 
     maximum extent feasible (including at the maximum rate 
     feasible) using available appropriations, by not later than 
     the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, that--
       (A) with respect to cost-effective technologies and 
     practices--
       (i) identifies the specific activities needed to achieve a 
     20-percent reduction in operational costs through the 
     application of cost-effective technologies and practices from 
     2003 levels at GSA facilities by not later than 5 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act;
       (ii) describes activities required and carried out to 
     estimate the funds necessary to achieve the reduction 
     described in clause (i);
       (B) includes an estimate of the funds necessary to carry 
     out this section;
       (C) describes the status of the implementation of cost-
     effective technologies and practices and geothermal heat pump 
     technologies and practices at GSA facilities, including--
       (i) the extent to which programs, including the program 
     established under subsection (b), are being carried out in 
     accordance with this subtitle; and
       (ii) the status of funding requests and appropriations for 
     those programs;
       (D) identifies within the planning, budgeting, and 
     construction processes, all types of GSA facility-related 
     procedures that inhibit new and existing GSA facilities from 
     implementing cost-effective technologies or geothermal heat 
     pump technologies;
       (E) recommends language for uniform standards for use by 
     Federal agencies in implementing cost-effective technologies 
     and practices and geothermal heat pump technologies and 
     practices;
       (F) in coordination with the Office of Management and 
     Budget, reviews the budget process for capital programs with 
     respect to alternatives for--
       (i) permitting Federal agencies to retain all identified 
     savings accrued as a result of the use of cost-effective 
     technologies and geothermal heat pump technologies; and
       (ii) identifying short- and long-term cost savings that 
     accrue from the use of cost-effective technologies and 
     practices and geothermal heat pump technologies and 
     practices;
       (G)(i) with respect to geothermal heat pump technologies, 
     achieves substantial operational cost savings through the 
     application of the technologies; and
       (ii) with respect to cost-effective technologies and 
     practices, achieves cost savings through the application of 
     cost-effective technologies and practices sufficient to pay 
     the incremental additional costs of installing the cost-
     effective technologies and practices by not later than the 
     date that is 5 years after the date of installation; and

[[Page 16942]]

       (H) includes recommendations to address each of the 
     matters, and a plan for implementation of each 
     recommendation, described in subparagraphs (A) through (G).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section, to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 403. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEMONSTRATION GRANT 
                   PROGRAM FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall establish a demonstration program 
     under which the Administrator shall provide competitive 
     grants to assist local governments (such as municipalities 
     and counties), with respect to local government buildings--
       (A) to deploy cost-effective technologies and practices; 
     and
       (B) to achieve operational cost savings, through the 
     application of cost-effective technologies and practices, as 
     verified by the Administrator.
       (2) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity carried out using a grant provided under this 
     section shall be 40 percent.
       (B) Waiver of non-federal share.--The Administrator may 
     waive up to 100 percent of the local share of the cost of any 
     grant under this section should the Administrator determine 
     that the community is economically distressed, pursuant to 
     objective economic criteria established by the Administrator 
     in published guidelines.
       (3) Maximum amount.--The amount of a grant provided under 
     this subsection shall not exceed $1,000,000.
       (b) Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue 
     guidelines to implement the grant program established under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Requirements.--The guidelines under paragraph (1) shall 
     establish--
       (A) standards for monitoring and verification of 
     operational cost savings through the application of cost-
     effective technologies and practices reported by grantees 
     under this section;
       (B) standards for grantees to implement training programs, 
     and to provide technical assistance and education, relating 
     to the retrofit of buildings using cost-effective 
     technologies and practices; and
       (C) a requirement that each local government that receives 
     a grant under this section shall achieve facility-wide cost 
     savings, through renovation of existing local government 
     buildings using cost-effective technologies and practices, of 
     at least 40 percent as compared to the baseline operational 
     costs of the buildings before the renovation (as calculated 
     assuming a 3-year, weather-normalized average).
       (c) Compliance With State and Local Law.--Nothing in this 
     section or any program carried out using a grant provided 
     under this section supersedes or otherwise affects any State 
     or local law, to the extent that the State or local law 
     contains a requirement that is more stringent than the 
     relevant requirement of this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
       (e) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide annual 
     reports to Congress on cost savings achieved and actions 
     taken and recommendations made under this section, and any 
     recommendations for further action.
       (2) Final report.--The Administrator shall issue a final 
     report at the conclusion of the program, including findings, 
     a summary of total cost savings achieved, and recommendations 
     for further action.
       (f) Termination.--The program under this section shall 
     terminate on September 30, 2012.

     SEC. 404. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Cost-effective lighting technology.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``cost-effective lighting 
     technology'' means a lighting technology that--
       (i) will result in substantial operational cost savings by 
     ensuring an installed consumption of not more than 1 watt per 
     square foot; or
       (ii) is contained in a list under--

       (I) section 553 of Public Law 95-619 (42 U.S.C. 8259b); and
       (II) Federal acquisition regulation 23-203.

       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``cost-effective lighting 
     technology'' includes--
       (i) lamps;
       (ii) ballasts;
       (iii) luminaires;
       (iv) lighting controls;
       (v) daylighting; and
       (vi) early use of other highly cost-effective lighting 
     technologies.
       (2) Cost-effective technologies and practices.--The term 
     ``cost-effective technologies and practices'' means a 
     technology or practice that--
       (A) will result in substantial operational cost savings by 
     reducing utility costs; and
       (B) complies with the provisions of section 553 of Public 
     Law 95-619 (42 U.S.C. 8259b) and Federal acquisition 
     regulation 23-203.
       (3) Operational cost savings.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``operational cost savings'' 
     means a reduction in end-use operational costs through the 
     application of cost-effective technologies and practices or 
     geothermal heat pumps, including a reduction in electricity 
     consumption relative to consumption by the same customer or 
     at the same facility in a given year, as defined in 
     guidelines promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to 
     section 403(b), that achieves cost savings sufficient to pay 
     the incremental additional costs of using cost-effective 
     technologies and practices or geothermal heat pumps by not 
     later than--
       (i) for cost-effective technologies and practices, the date 
     that is 5 years after the date of installation; and
       (ii) for geothermal heat pumps, as soon as practical after 
     the date of installation of the applicable geothermal heat 
     pump.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``operational cost savings'' 
     includes savings achieved at a facility as a result of--
       (i) the installation or use of cost-effective technologies 
     and practices; or
       (ii) the planting of vegetation that shades the facility 
     and reduces the heating, cooling, or lighting needs of the 
     facility.
       (C) Exclusion.--The term ``operational cost savings'' does 
     not include savings from measures that would likely be 
     adopted in the absence of cost-effective technology and 
     practices programs, as determined by the Administrator.
       (4) Geothermal heat pump.--The term ``geothermal heat 
     pump'' means any heating or air conditioning technology 
     that--
       (A) uses the ground or ground water as a thermal energy 
     source to heat, or as a thermal energy sink to cool, a 
     building; and
       (B) meets the requirements of the Energy Star program of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency applicable to geothermal 
     heat pumps on the date of purchase of the technology.
       (5) GSA facility.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``GSA facility'' means any 
     building, structure, or facility, in whole or in part 
     (including the associated support systems of the building, 
     structure, or facility) that--
       (i) is constructed (including facilities constructed for 
     lease), renovated, or purchased, in whole or in part, by the 
     Administrator for use by the Federal Government; or
       (ii) is leased, in whole or in part, by the Administrator 
     for use by the Federal Government--

       (I) except as provided in subclause (II), for a term of not 
     less than 5 years; or
       (II) for a term of less than 5 years, if the Administrator 
     determines that use of cost-effective technologies and 
     practices would result in the payback of expenses.

       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``GSA facility'' includes any 
     group of buildings, structures, or facilities described in 
     subparagraph (A) (including the associated energy-consuming 
     support systems of the buildings, structures, and 
     facilities).
       (C) Exemption.--The Administrator may exempt from the 
     definition of ``GSA facility'' under this paragraph a 
     building, structure, or facility that meets the requirements 
     of section 543(c) of Public Law 95-619 (42 U.S.C. 8253(c)).


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1513, AS MODIFIED

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 106 of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15 
     U.S.C. 720d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Administration.--
       ``(1) Personnel appointments.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal Coordinator may appoint and 
     terminate such personnel as the Federal Coordinator 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(B) Authority of federal coordinator.--Personnel 
     appointed by the Federal Coordinator under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be appointed without regard to the provisions of title 
     5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service.
       ``(2) Compensation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), personnel 
     appointed by the Federal Coordinator under paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States 
     Code (relating to classification and General Schedule pay 
     rates).
       ``(B) Maximum level of compensation.--The rate of pay for 
     personnel appointed by the Federal Coordinator under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed the maximum level of rate 
     payable for level III of the Executive Schedule.
       ``(C) Applicability of section 5941.--Section 5941 of title 
     5, United States Code, shall apply to personnel appointed by 
     the Federal Coordinator under paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(3) Temporary services.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal Coordinator may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services in accordance with 
     section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(B) Maximum level of compensation.--The level of 
     compensation of an individual employed on a temporary or 
     intermittent basis under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 
     the maximum level of rate payable for level III of the 
     Executive Schedule.

[[Page 16943]]

       ``(4) Fees, charges, and commissions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal Coordinator shall have the 
     authority to establish, change, and abolish reasonable filing 
     and service fees, charges, and commissions, require deposits 
     of payments, and provide refunds as provided to the Secretary 
     of the Interior in section 304 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734), except that the 
     authority shall be with respect to the duties of the Federal 
     Coordinator, as delineated in the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 720 et seq.), as amended.
       ``(B) Authority of secretary of the interior.--Subparagraph 
     (A) shall not affect the authority of the Secretary of the 
     Interior to establish, change, and abolish reasonable filing 
     and service fees, charges, and commissions, require deposits 
     of payments, and provide refunds under section 304 of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1734).
       ``(C) Use of funds.--The Federal Coordinator is authorized 
     to use, without further appropriation, amounts collected 
     under subparagraph (A) to carry out this section.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1683

(Purpose: To implement the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for 
                            Nuclear Damage)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 7__. CONVENTION ON SUPPLEMENTARY COMPENSATION FOR 
                   NUCLEAR DAMAGE CONTINGENT COST ALLOCATION.

       (a) Findings and Purpose.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2210) (commonly known as the ``Price-Anderson Act'')--
       (i) provides a predictable legal framework necessary for 
     nuclear projects; and
       (ii) ensures prompt and equitable compensation in the event 
     of a nuclear incident in the United States;
       (B) section 170 of that Act, in effect, provides operators 
     of nuclear powerplants with insurance for damage arising out 
     of a nuclear incident and funds the insurance primarily 
     through the assessment of a retrospective premium from each 
     operator after the occurrence of a nuclear incident;
       (C) the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for 
     Nuclear Damage, done at Vienna on September 12, 1997, will 
     establish a global system--
       (i) to provide a predictable legal framework necessary for 
     nuclear energy projects; and
       (ii) to ensure prompt and equitable compensation in the 
     event of a nuclear incident;
       (D) the Convention benefits United States nuclear suppliers 
     that face potentially unlimited liability for a nuclear 
     incidents outside the coverage of section 170 of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) by replacing a 
     potentially open-ended liability with a predictable liability 
     regime that, in effect, provides nuclear suppliers with 
     insurance for damage arising out of such an incident;
       (E) the Convention also benefits United States nuclear 
     facility operators that may be publicly liable for a Price-
     Anderson incident by providing an additional early source for 
     a Price-Anderson incident by providing an additional early 
     source of funds to compensate damage arising out of the 
     Price-Anderson incident;
       (F) the combined operation of the Convention, section 170 
     of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210), and this 
     section will augment the quantity of assured funds available 
     for victims in a wider variety of nuclear incidents while 
     reducing the potential liability of United States suppliers 
     without increasing potential costs to United States 
     operators;
       (G) the cost of those benefits is the obligation of the 
     United States to contribute to the supplementary compensation 
     fund established by the Convention;
       (H) any such contribution should be funded in a manner that 
     neither upsets settled expectations based on the liability 
     regime established under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act 
     of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) nor shifts to Federal taxpayers 
     liability risks for nuclear incidents at foreign 
     installations;
       (I) with respect to a Price-Anderson incident, funds 
     already available under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act 
     of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) should be used; and
       (J) with respect to a nuclear incident outside the United 
     States not covered by section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210), a retrospective premium should be 
     prorated among nuclear suppliers relieved from potential 
     liability for which insurance is not available.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to allocate 
     the contingent costs associated with participation by the 
     United States in the international nuclear liability 
     compensation system established by the Convention on 
     Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, done at Vienna 
     on September 12, 1997--
       (A) with respect to a Price-Anderson incident, by using 
     funds made available under section 170 of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) to cover the contingent costs in 
     a manner that neither increases the burdens nor decreases the 
     benefits under section 170 of that Act; and
       (B) with respect to a covered incident outside the United 
     States that is not a Price-Anderson incident, by allocating 
     the contingent costs equitably, on the basis of risk, among 
     the class of nuclear suppliers relieved by the Convention 
     from the risk of potential liability resulting from any 
     covered incident outside the United States.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission.
       (2) Contingent cost.--The term ``contingent cost'' means 
     the cost to the United States in the event of a covered 
     incident the amount of which is equal to the amount of funds 
     the United States is obligated to make available under 
     paragraph 1(b) of Article III of the Convention.
       (3) Convention.--The term ``Convention'' means the 
     Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, 
     done at Vienna on September 12, 1997.
       (4) Covered incident.--The term ``covered incident'' means 
     a nuclear incident the occurrence of which results in a 
     request for funds pursuant to Article VII of the Convention.
       (5) Covered installation.--The term ``covered 
     installation'' means a nuclear installation at which the 
     occurrence of a nuclear incident could result in a request 
     for funds under Article VII of the Convention.
       (6) Covered person.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``covered person'' means--
       (i) a United States person; and
       (ii) an individual or entity (including an agency or 
     instrumentality of a foreign country) that--

       (I) is located in the United States; or
       (II) carries out an activity in the United States.

       (B) Exclusions.--The term ``covered person'' does not 
     include--
       (i) the United States; or
       (ii) any agency or instrumentality of the United States.
       (7) Nuclear supplier.--The term ``nuclear supplier'' means 
     a covered person (or a successor in interest of a covered 
     person) that--
       (A) supplies facilities, equipment, fuel, services, or 
     technology pertaining to the design, construction, operation, 
     or decommissioning of a covered installation; or
       (B) transports nuclear materials that could result in a 
     covered incident.
       (8) Price-anderson incident.--The term ``Price-Anderson 
     incident'' means a covered incident for which section 170 of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) would make 
     funds available to compensate for public liability (as 
     defined in section 11 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2014)).
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (10) United states.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``United States'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     (42 U.S.C. 2014).
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``United States'' includes--
       (i) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
       (ii) any other territory or possession of the United 
     States;
       (iii) the Canal Zone; and
       (iv) the waters of the United States territorial sea under 
     Presidential Proclamation Number 5928, dated December 27, 
     1988 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note).
       (11) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) any individual who is a resident, national, or citizen 
     of the United States (other than an individual residing 
     outside of the United States and employed by a person who is 
     not a United States person); and
       (B) any corporation, partnership, association, joint stock 
     company, business trust, unincorporated organization, or sole 
     proprietorship that is organized under the laws of the United 
     States.
       (c) Use of Price-Anderson Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Funds made available under section 170 of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) shall be used 
     to cover the contingent cost resulting from any Price-
     Anderson incident.
       (2) Effect.--The use of funds pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     shall not reduce the limitation on public liability 
     established under section 170 e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)).
       (d) Effect on Amount of Public Liability.--
       (1) In general.--Funds made available to the United States 
     under Article VII of the Convention with respect to a Price-
     Anderson incident shall be used to satisfy public liability 
     resulting from the Price-Anderson incident.
       (2) Amount.--The amount of public liability allowable under 
     section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) 
     relating to a Price-Anderson incident under paragraph (1) 
     shall be increased by an amount equal to the difference 
     between--
       (A) the amount of funds made available for the Price-
     Anderson incident under Article VII of the Convention; and
       (B) the amount of funds used under subsection (c) to cover 
     the contingent cost resulting from the Price-Anderson 
     incident.
       (e) Retrospective Risk Pooling Program.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     nuclear supplier shall

[[Page 16944]]

     participate in a retrospective risk pooling program in 
     accordance with this section to cover the contingent cost 
     resulting from a covered incident outside the United States 
     that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
       (2) Deferred payment.--
       (A) In general.--The obligation of a nuclear supplier to 
     participate in the retrospective risk pooling program shall 
     be deferred until the United States is called on to provide 
     funds pursuant to Article VII of the Convention with respect 
     to a covered incident that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
       (B) Amount of deferred payment.--The amount of a deferred 
     payment of a nuclear supplier under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     based on the risk-informed assessment formula determined 
     under subparagraph (C).
       (C) Risk-informed assessment formula.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall, by regulation, determine the risk-informed 
     assessment formula for the allocation among nuclear suppliers 
     of the contingent cost resulting from a covered incident that 
     is not a Price-Anderson incident, taking into account risk 
     factors such as--

       (I) the nature and intended purpose of the goods and 
     services supplied by each nuclear supplier to each covered 
     installation outside the United States;
       (II) the quantity of the goods and services supplied by 
     each nuclear supplier to each covered installation outside 
     the United States;
       (III) the hazards associated with the supplied goods and 
     services if the goods and services fail to achieve the 
     intended purposes;
       (IV) the hazards associated with the covered installation 
     outside the United States to which the goods and services are 
     supplied;
       (V) the legal, regulatory, and financial infrastructure 
     associated with the covered installation outside the United 
     States to which the goods and services are supplied; and
       (VI) the hazards associated with particular forms of 
     transportation.

       (ii) Factors for consideration.--In determining the 
     formula, the Secretary may--

       (I) exclude--

       (aa) goods and services with negligible risk;
       (bb) classes of goods and services not intended 
     specifically for use in a nuclear installation;
       (cc) a nuclear supplier with a de minimis share of the 
     contingent cost; and
       (dd) a nuclear supplier no longer in existence for which 
     there is no identifiable successor; and

       (II) establish the period on which the risk assessment is 
     based.

       (iii) Application.--In applying the formula, the Secretary 
     shall not consider any covered installation or transportation 
     for which funds would be available under section 170 of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210).
       (iv) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on whether 
     there is a need for continuation or amendment of this 
     section, taking into account the effects of the 
     implementation of the Convention on the United States nuclear 
     industry and suppliers.
       (f) Reporting.--
       (1) Collection of information.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may collect information 
     necessary for developing and implementing the formula for 
     calculating the deferred payment of a nuclear supplier under 
     subsection (e)(2).
       (B) Provision of information.--Each nuclear supplier and 
     other appropriate persons shall make available to the 
     Secretary such information, reports, records, documents, and 
     other data as the Secretary determines, by regulation, to be 
     necessary or appropriate to develop and implement the formula 
     under subsection (e)(2)(C).
       (2) Private insurance.--The Secretary shall make available 
     to nuclear suppliers, and insurers of nuclear suppliers, 
     information to support the voluntary establishment and 
     maintenance of private insurance against any risk for which 
     nuclear suppliers may be required to pay deferred payments 
     under this section.
       (g) Effect on Liability.--Nothing in any other law 
     (including regulations) limits liability for a covered 
     incident to an amount equal to less than the amount 
     prescribed in paragraph 1(a) of Article IV of the Convention, 
     unless the law--
       (1) specifically refers to this section; and
       (2) explicitly repeals, alters, amends, modifies, impairs, 
     displaces, or supersedes the effect of this subsection.
       (h) Payments to and by the United States.--
       (1) Action by nuclear suppliers.--
       (A) Notification.--In the case of a request for funds under 
     Article VII of the Convention resulting from a covered 
     incident that is not a Price-Anderson incident, the Secretary 
     shall notify each nuclear supplier of the amount of the 
     deferred payment required to be made by the nuclear supplier.
       (B) Payments.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), not 
     later than 60 days after receipt of a notification under 
     subparagraph (A), a nuclear supplier shall pay to the general 
     fund of the Treasury the deferred payment of the nuclear 
     supplier required under subparagraph (A).
       (ii) Annual payments.--A nuclear supplier may elect to 
     prorate payment of the deferred payment required under 
     subparagraph (A) in 5 equal annual payments (including 
     interest on the unpaid balance at the prime rate prevailing 
     at the time the first payment is due).
       (C) Vouchers.--A nuclear supplier shall submit payment 
     certification vouchers to the Secretary of the Treasury in 
     accordance with section 3325 of title 31, United States Code.
       (2) Use of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Amounts paid into the Treasury under 
     paragraph (1) shall be available to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, without further appropriation and without fiscal 
     year limitation, for the purpose of making the contributions 
     of public funds required to be made by the United States 
     under the Convention.
       (B) Action by secretary of treasury.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall pay the contribution required under the 
     Convention to the court of competent jurisdiction under 
     Article XIII of the Convention with respect to the applicable 
     covered incident.
       (3) Failure to pay.--If a nuclear supplier fails to make a 
     payment required under this subsection, the Secretary may 
     take appropriate action to recover from the nuclear 
     supplier--
       (A) the amount of the payment due from the nuclear 
     supplier;
       (B) any applicable interest on the payment; and
       (C) a penalty of not more than twice the amount of the 
     deferred payment due from the nuclear supplier.
       (i) Limitation on Judicial Review; Cause of Action.--
       (1) Limitation on judicial review.--
       (A) In general.--In any civil action arising under the 
     Convention over which Article XIII of the Convention grants 
     jurisdiction to the courts of the United States, any appeal 
     or review by writ of mandamus or otherwise with respect to a 
     nuclear incident that is not a Price-Anderson incident shall 
     be in accordance with chapter 83 of title 28, United States 
     Code, except that the appeal or review shall occur in the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit.
       (B) Supreme court jurisdiction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United 
     States under chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code.
       (2) Cause of action.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in any civil 
     action arising under the Convention over which Article XIII 
     of the Convention grants jurisdiction to the courts of the 
     United States, in addition to any other cause of action that 
     may exist, an individual or entity shall have a cause of 
     action against the operator to recover for nuclear damage 
     suffered by the individual or entity.
       (B) Requirement.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply only if the 
     individual or entity seeks a remedy for nuclear damage (as 
     defined in Article I of the Convention) that was caused by a 
     nuclear incident (as defined in Article I of the Convention) 
     that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
       (C) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph limits, 
     modifies, extinguishes, or otherwise affects any cause of 
     action that would have existed in the absence of enactment of 
     this paragraph.
       (j) Right of Recourse.--This section does not provide to an 
     operator of a covered installation any right of recourse 
     under the Convention.
       (k) Protection of Sensitive United States Information.--
     Nothing in the Convention or this section requires the 
     disclosure of--
       (1) any data that, at any time, was Restricted Data (as 
     defined in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2014));
       (2) information relating to intelligence sources or methods 
     protected by section 102A(i) of the National Security Act of 
     1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-1(i)); or
       (3) national security information classified under 
     Executive Order 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note; relating to 
     classified national security information) (or a successor 
     regulation).
       (l) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary or the Commission, as 
     appropriate, may prescribe regulations to carry out section 
     170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) and 
     this section.
       (2) Requirement.--Rules prescribed under this subsection 
     shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that--
       (A) the implementation of section 170 of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) and this section is consistent 
     and equitable; and
       (B) the financial and operational burden on a Commission 
     licensee in complying with section 170 of that Act is not 
     greater as a result of the enactment of this section.
       (3) Applicability of provision.--Section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall apply with respect to the 
     promulgation of regulations under this subsection.

[[Page 16945]]

       (4) Effect of subsection.--The authority provided under 
     this subsection is in addition to, and does not impair or 
     otherwise affect, any other authority of the Secretary or the 
     Commission to prescribe regulations.
       (m) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1729, AS MODIFIED

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. OFFSHORE RENEWABLE ENERGY.

       (a) Leases, Easements, or Rights-of-Way for Energy and 
     Related Purposes.--Section 8(p) of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``Secretary of the Department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating'' the following: ``, the 
     Secretary of Commerce,'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Competitive or noncompetitive basis.--Any lease, 
     easement, or right-of-way under paragraph (1) shall be issued 
     on a competitive basis, unless--
       ``(A) the lease, easement, or right-of-way relates to a 
     project that meets the criteria established under section 
     388(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; 
     Public Law 109-58);
       ``(B) the lease, easement, or right-of-way--
       ``(i) is for the placement and operation of a 
     meteorological or marine data collection facility; and
       ``(ii) has a term of not more than 5 years; or
       ``(C) the Secretary determines, after providing public 
     notice of a proposed lease, easement, or right-of-way, that 
     no competitive interest exists.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Clarification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission shall not have authority to 
     approve or license a wave or current energy project on the 
     Outer Continental Shelf under part I of the Federal Power Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.)
       ``(B) Transmission of power.--Subparagraph (A) shall not 
     affect any authority of the Commission with respect to the 
     transmission of power generated from a project described in 
     subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Consideration of Certain Requests for Authorization.--
     In considering a request for authorization of a project 
     pending before the Commission on the Outer Continental Shelf 
     as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall rely, to the maximum extent practicable, on 
     the materials submitted to the Commission before that date.
       (c) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section or an 
     amendment made by this section requires the resubmission of 
     any document that was previously submitted, or the 
     reauthorization of any action that was previously authorized, 
     with respect to a project on the Outer Continental Shelf for 
     which a preliminary permit was issued by the Commission 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1675

  (Purpose: To provide for a study on the effect of laws limiting the 
     siting of privately owned electric distribution wires on the 
           development of combined heat and power facilities)

       At the end, add the following:

                       TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 801. STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF PRIVATE WIRE LAWS ON THE 
                   DEVELOPMENT OF COMBINED HEAT AND POWER 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     States and other appropriate entities, shall conduct a study 
     of the laws (including regulations) affecting the siting of 
     privately owned electric distribution wires on and across 
     public rights-of-way.
       (2) Requirements.--The study under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) an evaluation of--
       (i) the purposes of the laws; and
       (ii) the effect the laws have on the development of 
     combined heat and power facilities;
       (B) a determination of whether a change in the laws would 
     have any operating, reliability, cost, or other impacts on 
     electric utilities and the customers of the electric 
     utilities; and
       (C) an assessment of--
       (i) whether privately owned electric distribution wires 
     would result in duplicative facilities; and
       (ii) whether duplicative facilities are necessary or 
     desirable.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that describes the results of the study conducted 
     under subsection (a).


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1687, AS MODIFIED

   (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Department of 
Energy should be the lead United States Government agency in charge of 
formulating and coordinating the national energy security policy of the 
                             United States)

       On page 293, line 6, insert the following:
       (4) the Department of Energy should be designated as the 
     lead United States Government agency in charge of formulating 
     and coordinating the national energy security policy of the 
     United States, and in furtherance of these goals, there 
     should be established within the Department of Energy an 
     Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Security whose 
     responsibilities should include--
       (A) directing the development of the national energy 
     security strategy of the United States;
       (B) coordinating the national energy security policy of the 
     United States with the Department of Defense, the Department 
     of State, and the National Security Council, as appropriate, 
     to address the impact of, and integrate national security and 
     foreign policy on, the national energy security policy of the 
     United States;
       (C) monitoring international and domestic energy 
     developments to gauge their impact on the national energy 
     security policy of the United States and implementing changes 
     in such policy as necessary to maintain the national security 
     and energy security of the United States;
       (D) identifying foreign sources of energy critical to the 
     national energy security of the United States and developing 
     strategies in conjunction with the Department of State for 
     ensuring United States access to critical foreign energy 
     resources;
       (E) developing strategies for reducing United States 
     dependence on foreign sources of energy, including demand 
     reduction, efficiency improvement, and development of 
     alternative and new sources of domestic energy; and
       (F) developing strategies in conjunction with the 
     Department of State for working with major international 
     producers and consumers, including China, Russia, the 
     European Union, and Africa, to minimize politicization of 
     global energy resources while ensuring access through global 
     energy markets.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1688

  (Purpose: To require the President to submit to Congress an annual 
               national energy security strategy report)

       On page 313, strike lines 20 and 21 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 707. ANNUAL NATIONAL ENERGY SECURITY STRATEGY REPORT.

       (a) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), on the date on 
     which the President submits to Congress the budget for the 
     following fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code, the President shall submit to Congress a 
     comprehensive report on the national energy security of the 
     United States.
       (2) New presidents.--In addition to the reports required 
     under paragraph (1), the President shall submit a 
     comprehensive report on the national energy security of the 
     United States by not later than 150 days after the date on 
     which the President assumes the office of President after a 
     presidential election.
       (b) Contents.--Each report under this section shall 
     describe the national energy security strategy of the United 
     States, including a comprehensive description of--
       (1) the worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the 
     United States that are vital to the national energy security 
     of the United States;
       (2) the foreign policy, worldwide commitments, and national 
     defense capabilities of the United States necessary--
       (A) to deter political manipulation of world energy 
     resources; and
       (B) to implement the national energy security strategy of 
     the United States;
       (3) the proposed short-term and long-term uses of the 
     political, economic, military, and other authorities of the 
     United States--
       (A) to protect or promote energy security; and
       (B) to achieve the goals and objectives described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (4) the adequacy of the capabilities of the United States 
     to protect the national energy security of the United States, 
     including an evaluation of the balance among the capabilities 
     of all elements of the national authority of the United 
     States to support the implementation of the national energy 
     security strategy; and
       (5) such other information as the President determines to 
     be necessary to inform Congress on matters relating to the 
     national energy security of the United States.
       (c) Classified and Unclassified Form.--Each national energy 
     security strategy report shall be submitted to Congress in--
       (1) a classified form; and
       (2) an unclassified form.

     SEC. 708. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1689

    (Purpose: To amend the National Security Act of 1947 to add the 
Secretary of Energy to the National Security Council in recognition of 
 the role energy and energy security issues play in the United States 
                           national security)

       After section 706, insert the following:

[[Page 16946]]



     SEC. 707. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION.

       Section 101(a) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 402(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as 
     paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) the Secretary of Energy;''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1525, AS MODIFIED

       On page 161, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 269. STANDARD RELATING TO SOLAR HOT WATER HEATERS.

       Section 305(a)(3)(A) of the Energy Conservation and 
     Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6834(a)(3)(A)) (as amended by 
     section 266) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)(III), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) if life-cycle cost-effective, as compared to other 
     reasonably available technologies, not less than 30 percent 
     of the hot water demand for each new or substantially 
     modified Federal building be met through the installation and 
     use of solar hot water heaters.''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1567, AS MODIFIED

       On page 133, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 246. COMMERCIAL INSULATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Advanced insulation.--The term ``advanced insulation'' 
     means insulation that has an R value of not less than R35 per 
     inch.
       (2) Covered refrigeration unit.--The term ``covered 
     refrigeration unit'' means any--
       (A) commercial refrigerated truck;
       (B) commercial refrigerated trailer; and
       (C) commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-
     freezer described in section 342(c) of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that includes an evaluation of--
       (1) the state of technological advancement of advanced 
     insulation; and
       (2) the projected amount of cost savings that would be 
     generated by implementing advanced insulation into covered 
     refrigeration units.
       (c) Demonstration Program.--
       (1) Establishment.--If the Secretary determines in the 
     report described in subsection (b) that the implementation of 
     advanced insulation into covered refrigeration units would 
     generate an economically justifiable amount of cost savings, 
     the Secretary, in cooperation with manufacturers of covered 
     refrigeration units, shall establish a demonstration program 
     under which the Secretary shall demonstrate the cost-
     effectiveness of advanced insulation.
       (2) Disclosure.--Section 623 of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 13293) may apply to any project carried out 
     under this subsection.
       (3) Cost-sharing.--Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 
     2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) shall apply to any project carried out 
     under this subsection.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the funds 
     authorized under section 911(b) of Public Law 109-58, the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2005, such sums shall be allocated to 
     carry out this program.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1717

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
  Director of the Minerals Management Service, to conduct a study to 
assess each offshore wind resource located in the region of the eastern 
                        outer Continental Shelf)

       On page 59, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 151. STUDY OF OFFSHORE WIND RESOURCES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible 
     institution'' means a college or university that--
       (A) as of the date of enactment of this Act, has an 
     offshore wind power research program; and
       (B) is located in a region of the United States that is in 
     reasonable proximity to the eastern outer Continental Shelf, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Minerals 
     Management Service.
       (b) Study.--The Secretary, in cooperation with an eligible 
     institution, as selected by the Secretary, shall conduct a 
     study to assess each offshore wind resource located in the 
     region of the eastern outer Continental Shelf.
       (c) Report.--Upon completion of the study under subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that 
     includes--
       (1) a description of--
       (A) the locations and total power generation resources of 
     the best offshore wind resources located in the region of the 
     eastern outer Continental Shelf, as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       (B) based on conflicting zones relating to any 
     infrastructure that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     is located in close proximity to any offshore wind resource, 
     the likely exclusion zones of each offshore wind resource 
     described in subparagraph (A);
       (C) the relationship of the temporal variation of each 
     offshore wind resource described in subparagraph (A) with--
       (i) any other offshore wind resource; and
       (ii) with loads and corresponding system operator markets;
       (D) the geological compatibility of each offshore wind 
     resource described in subparagraph (A) with any potential 
     technology relating to sea floor towers; and
       (E) with respect to each area in which an offshore wind 
     resource described in subparagraph (A) is located, the 
     relationship of the authority under any coastal management 
     plan of the State in which the area is located with the 
     Federal Government; and
       (2) recommendations on the manner by which to handle 
     offshore wind intermittence.
       (d) Incorporation of Study.--Effective beginning on the 
     date on which the Secretary completes the study under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall incorporate the findings 
     included in the report under subsection (c) into the planning 
     process documents for any wind energy lease sale--
       (1) relating to any offshore wind resource located in any 
     appropriate area of the outer Continental Shelf, as 
     determined by the Secretary; and
       (2) that is completed on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (e) Effect.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) delays any final regulation to be promulgated by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to carry out section 8(p) of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)); or
       (2) limits the authority of the Secretary to lease any 
     offshore wind resource located in any appropriate area of the 
     outer Continental Shelf, as determined by the Secretary.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1710

(Purpose: To clarify the purposes of the energy and environmental block 
                             grant program)

       On page 166, strike lines 17 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) to reduce fossil fuel emissions created as a result 
     of activities within the boundaries of the States or units of 
     local government in an environmentally sustainable way that, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, maximizes benefits for 
     local and regional communities;


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1759, AS MODIFIED

       On page 192, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 305. ASSESSMENT OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND METHANE AND 
                   NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM TERRESTRIAL 
                   ECOSYSTEMS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Adaptation strategy.--The term ``adaptation strategy'' 
     means a land use and management strategy that can be used to 
     increase the sequestration capabilities of any terrestrial 
     ecosystem.
       (2) Assessment.--The term ``assessment'' means the national 
     assessment authorized under subsection (b).
       (3) Covered greenhouse gas.--The term ``covered greenhouse 
     gas'' means carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane gas.
       (4) Native plant species.--The term ``native plant 
     species'' means any noninvasive, naturally occurring plant 
     species within a terrestrial ecosystem.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
       (A) land of the National Forest System (as defined in 
     section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
     Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))) administered by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
     Forest Service; and
       (B) public lands (as defined in Section 103 of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)), the 
     surface of which is administered by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (7) Terrestrial ecosystem.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``terrestrial ecosystem'' means 
     any ecological and surficial geological system on Federal 
     land.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``terrestrial ecosystem'' 
     includes--
       (i) forest land;
       (ii) grassland; and
       (iii) freshwater aquatic ecosystems.
       (b) Authorization of Assessment.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date on which the final methodology is published 
     under subsection (f)(3)(D), the Secretary shall complete a 
     national assessment of--
       (1) the quantity of carbon stored in and released from 
     terrestrial ecosystems; including from man-caused and natural 
     fires; and
       (2) the annual flux of covered greenhouse gases in and out 
     of terrestrial ecosystems.
       (c) Components.--In conducting the assessment under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
       (1) determine the processes that control the flux of 
     covered greenhouse gases in and out of each terrestrial 
     ecosystem;

[[Page 16947]]

       (2) estimate the technical and economic potential for 
     increasing carbon sequestration in natural and managed 
     terrestrial ecosystems through management activities or 
     restoration activities in each terrestrial ecosystem;
       (3) develop near-term and long-term adaptation strategies 
     or mitigation strategies that can be employed--
       (A) to enhance the sequestration of carbon in each 
     terrestrial ecosystem;
       (B) to reduce emissions of covered greenhouse gases; and
       (C) to adapt to climate change; and
       (4) estimate annual carbon sequestration capacity of 
     terrestrial ecosystems under a range of policies in support 
     of management activities to optimize sequestration.
       (d) Use of Native Plant Species.--In developing restoration 
     activities under subsection (c)(2) and management strategies 
     and adaptation strategies under subsection (c)(3), the 
     Secretary shall emphasize the use of native plant species 
     (including mixtures of many native plant species) for 
     sequestering covered greenhouse gas in each terrestrial 
     ecosystem.
       (e) Consultation.--In conducting the assessment under 
     subsection (b) and developing the methodology under 
     subsection (f), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) the Secretary of Energy;
       (2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (3) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (4) the heads of other relevant agencies;
       (5) consortia based at institutions of higher education and 
     with research corporations; and
       (6) Federal forest and grassland managers.
       (f) Methodology.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a 
     methodology for conducting the assessment.
       (2) Requirements.--The methodology developed under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall--
       (i) determine the method for measuring, monitoring, 
     quantifying, and monetizing covered greenhouse gas emissions 
     and reductions, including methods for allocating and managing 
     offsets or credits; and
       (ii) estimate the total capacity of each terrestrial 
     ecosystem to--

       (I) sequester carbon; and
       (II) reduce emissions of covered greenhouse gases; and

       (B) may employ economic and other systems models, analyses, 
     and estimations, to be developed in consultation with each of 
     the individuals described in subsection (e).
       (3) External review and publication.--On completion of a 
     proposed methodology, the Secretary shall--
       (A) publish the proposed methodology;
       (B) at least 60 days before the date on which the final 
     methodology is published, solicit comments from--
       (i) the public; and
       (ii) heads of affected Federal and State agencies;
       (C) establish a panel to review the proposed methodology 
     published under subparagraph (A) and any comments received 
     under subparagraph (B), to be composed of members--
       (i) with expertise in the matters described in subsections 
     (c) and (d); and
       (ii) that are, as appropriate, representatives of Federal 
     agencies, institutions of higher education, nongovernmental 
     organizations, State organizations, industry, and 
     international organizations; and
       (D) on completion of the review under subparagraph (C), 
     publish in the Federal register the revised final 
     methodology.
       (g) Estimate; Review.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) based on the assessment, prescribe the data, 
     information, and analysis needed to establish a 
     scientifically sound estimate of--
       (A) the carbon sequestration capacity of relevant 
     terrestrial ecosystems;
       (B) a national inventory of covered greenhouse gas sources 
     that is consistent with the inventory prepared by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency entitled the ``Inventory of 
     U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005''; and
       (C) the willingness of covered greenhouse gas emitters to 
     pay to sequester the covered greenhouse gases emitted by the 
     applicable emitters in designated terrestrial ecosystems; and
       (2) not later than 180 days after the date on which the 
     assessment is completed, submit to the heads of applicable 
     Federal agencies and the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report that describes the results of the assessment.
       (h) Data and Report Availability.--On completion of the 
     assessment, the Secretary shall incorporate the results of 
     the assessment into a web-accessible database for public use.


                    amendment no. 1797, as modified

       On page 141, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 255. SMART GRID SYSTEM REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), shall, 
     after consulting with any interested individual or entity as 
     appropriate, no later than one year after enactment, report 
     to Congress concerning the status of smart grid deployments 
     nationwide and any regulatory or government barriers to 
     continued deployment

     SEC. 256. SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                   DEMONSTRATION.

       (a) Power Grid Digital Information Technology.--The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission and other appropriate agencies, electric 
     utilities, the States, and other stakeholders, shall carry 
     out a program--
       (1) to develop advanced techniques for measuring peak: load 
     reductions and energy-efficiency savings from smart metering, 
     demand response, distributed generation, and electricity 
     storage systems;
       (2) to investigate means for demand response, distributed 
     generation, and storage to provide ancillary services;
       (3) to conduct research to advance the use of wide-area 
     measurement and control networks, including data mining, 
     visualization, advanced computing, and secure and dependable 
     communications in a highly-distributed environment;
       (4) to test new reliability technologies in a grid control 
     room environment against a representative set of local outage 
     and wide area blackout scenarios;
       (5) to investigate the feasibility of a transition to time-
     of-use and real-time electricity pricing;
       (6) to develop algorithms for use in electric transmission 
     system software applications;
       (7) to promote the use of underutilized electricity 
     generation capacity in any substitution of electricity for 
     liquid fuels in the transportation system of the United 
     States; and
       (8) in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission, to propose interconnection protocols to enable 
     electric utilities to access electricity stored in vehicles 
     to help meet peak demand loads.
       (b) Smart Grid Regional Demonstration Initiative.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a smart grid 
     regional demonstration initiative (referred to in this 
     subsection as the ``Initiative'') composed of demonstration 
     projects specifically focused on advanced technologies for 
     use in power grid sensing, communications, analysis, and 
     power flow control. The Secretary shall seek to leverage 
     existing smart grid deployments.
       (2) Goals.--The goals of the Initiative shall be--
       (A) to demonstrate the potential benefits of concentrated 
     investments in advanced grid technologies on a regional grid;
       (B) to facilitate the commercial transition from the 
     current power transmission and distribution system 
     technologies to advanced technologies;
       (C) to facilitate the integration of advanced technologies 
     in existing electric networks to improve system performance, 
     power flow control, and reliability;
       (D) to demonstrate protocols and standards that allow for 
     the measurement and validation of the energy savings and 
     fossil fuel gas emission reductions associated with the 
     installation and use of energy efficiency and demand response 
     technologies and practices; and
       (E) to investigate differences in each region and 
     regulatory environment regarding best practices in 
     implementing smart grid technologies.
       (3) Demonstration projects.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out the Initiative, the 
     Secretary shall carry out smart grid demonstration projects 
     in up to 5 electricity control areas, including rural areas 
     and at least 1 area in which the majority of generation and 
     transmission assets are controlled by a tax-exempt entity.
       (B) Cooperation.--A demonstration project under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be carried out in cooperation with the 
     electric utility that owns the grid facilities in the 
     electricity control area in which the demonstration project 
     is carried out.
       (C) Federal share of cost of technology investments.--The 
     Secretary shall provide to an electric utility described in 
     subparagraph (B) financial assistance for use in paying an 
     amount equal to not more than 50 percent of the cost of 
     qualifying advanced grid technology investments made by the 
     electric utility to carry out a demonstration project.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (A) to carry out subsection (a), such sums as are necessary 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012; and
       (B) to carry out subsection (b), $100,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

     SEC. 257. SMART GRID INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK.

       (a) Interoperability Framework.--The Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Commission''), in cooperation with other relevant federal 
     agencies, shall coordinate with smart grid stakeholders to 
     develop protocols for the establishment of a flexible 
     framework for the connection of smart grid devices and 
     systems that would align policy, business, and technology 
     approaches in a manner that would enable all electric 
     resources, including demand-side resources, to contribute to 
     an efficient, reliable electricity network.

[[Page 16948]]

       (c) Scope of Framework.--The framework developed under 
     subsection (b) shall be designed--
       (1) to accommodate traditional, centralized generation and 
     transmission resources and consumer distributed resources, 
     including distributed generation, renewable generation, 
     energy storage, energy efficiency, and demand response and 
     enabling devices and systems;
       (2) to be flexible to incorporate--
       (A) regional and organizational differences; and
       (B) technological innovations; and
       (3) to consider voluntary uniform standards for certain 
     classes of mass-produced electric appliances and equipment 
     for homes and businesses that enable customers, at their 
     election and consistent with applicable state and federal 
     laws, and are manufactured with the ability to respond to 
     electric grid emergencies and demand response signals by 
     curtailing all, or a portion of, the electrical power 
     consumed by the appliances or equipment in response to an 
     emergency or demand response signal, including through--
       (A) load reduction to reduce total electrical demand;
       (B) adjustment of load to provide grid ancillary services; 
     and
       (C) in the event of a reliability crisis that threatens an 
     outage, short-term load shedding to help preserve the 
     stability of the grid.
       (4) Such voluntary standards should incorporate appropriate 
     manufacturer lead time.

     SEC. 258. STATE CONSIDERATION OF SMART GRID.

       Section 111 (d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(16) Consideration of smart grid investments.--Each State 
     shall consider requiring that, prior to undertaking 
     investments in nonadvanced grid technologies, an electric 
     utility of the State demonstrate to the State that the 
     electric utility considered an investment in a qualified 
     smart grid system based on appropriate factors, including--
       ``(i) total costs;
       ``(ii) cost-effectiveness;
       ``(iii) improved reliability;
       ``(iv) security;
       ``(v) system performance; and
       ``(vi) societal benefit.
       ``(B) Rate recovery.--Each State shall consider authorizing 
     each electric utility of the State to recover from ratepayers 
     any capital, operating expenditure, or other costs of the 
     electric utility relating to the deployment of a qualified 
     smart grid system, including a reasonable rate of return on 
     the capital expenditures of the electric utility for the 
     deployment of the qualified smart grid system.
       ``(e) Obsolete equipment.--Each State shall consider 
     authorizing any electric utility or other party of the State 
     to deploy a qualified smart grid system to recover in a 
     timely manner the remaining book-value costs of any equipment 
     rendered obsolete by the deployment of the qualified smart 
     grid system, based on the remaining depreciable life of the 
     obsolete equipment.
       ``(17) Smart grid consumer information.--


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1702

 (Purpose: To authorize loans for renewable energy systems and energy 
efficiency projects under the Express Loan Program of the Small Busines 
                            Administration)

       On page 161, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 269. EXPRESS LOANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY.

       Section 7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(a)(31)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) Express loans for renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency.--
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this subparagraph--

       ``(I) the term `biomass'--

       ``(aa) means any organic material that is available on a 
     renewable or recurring basis, including--
       ``(AA) agricultural crops;
       ``(BB) trees grown for energy production;
       ``(CC) wood waste and wood residues;
       ``(DD) plants (including aquatic plants and grasses);
       ``(EE) residues;
       ``(FF) fibers;
       ``(GG) animal wastes and other waste materials; and
       ``(HH) fats, oils, and greases (including recycled fats, 
     oils, and greases); and
       ``(bb) does not include--
       ``(AA) paper that is commonly recycled; or
       ``(BB) unsegregated solid waste;

       ``(II) the term `energy efficiency project' means the 
     installation or upgrading of equipment that results in a 
     significant reduction in energy usage; and
       ``(III) the term `renewable energy system' means a system 
     of energy derived from--

       ``(aa) a wind, solar, biomass (including biodiesel), or 
     geothermal source; or
       ``(bb) hydrogen derived from biomass or water using an 
     energy source described in item (aa).
       ``(ii) Loans.--Loans may be made under the `Express Loan 
     Program' for the purpose of--

       ``(I) purchasing a renewable energy system; or
       ``(II) an energy efficiency project for an existing 
     business.''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1706, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To establish a small business energy efficiency program, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 161, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 269. SMALL BUSINESS ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively;
       (2) the term ``association'' means the association of small 
     business development centers established under section 
     21(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648(a)(3)(A));
       (3) the term ``disability'' has the meaning given that term 
     in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12102);
       (4) the term ``electric utility'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 3 of the Public Utility Regulatory 
     Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2602);
       (5) the term ``on-bill financing'' means a low interest or 
     no interest financing agreement between a small business 
     concern and an electric utility for the purchase or 
     installation of equipment, under which the regularly 
     scheduled payment of that small business concern to that 
     electric utility is not reduced by the amount of the 
     reduction in cost attributable to the new equipment and that 
     amount is credited to the electric utility, until the cost of 
     the purchase or installation is repaid;
       (6) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636);
       (7) the term ``small business development center'' means a 
     small business development center described in section 21 of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648);
       (8) the term ``telecommuting'' means the use of 
     telecommunications to perform work functions under 
     circumstances which reduce or eliminate the need to commute; 
     and
       (9) the term ``veteran'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
       (b) Implementation of Small Business Energy Efficiency 
     Program.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     final rules establishing the Government-wide program 
     authorized under subsection (d) of section 337 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6307) that ensure 
     compliance with that subsection by not later than 6 months 
     after such date of enactment.
       (2) Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish a 
     detailed plan regarding how the Administrator will--
       (A) assist small business concerns in becoming more energy 
     efficient; and
       (B) build on the Energy Star for Small Business Program of 
     the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (3) Assistant administrator for small business energy 
     policy.--
       (A) In general.--There is in the Administration an 
     Assistant Administrator for Small Business Energy Policy, who 
     shall be appointed by, and report to, the Administrator.
       (B) Duties.--The Assistant Administrator for Small Business 
     Energy Policy shall--
       (i) oversee and administer the requirements under this 
     subsection and section 337(d) of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6307(d)); and
       (ii) promote energy efficiency efforts for small business 
     concerns and reduce energy costs of small business concerns.
       (4) Reports.--The Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives an annual report on the progress of the 
     Administrator in encouraging small business concerns to 
     become more energy efficient, including data on the rate of 
     use of the Small Business Energy Clearinghouse established 
     under section 337(d)(4) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6307(d)(4)).
       (c) Small Business Energy Efficiency.--
       (1) Authority.--The Administrator shall establish a Small 
     Business Energy Efficiency Pilot Program (in this subsection 
     referred to as the ``Efficiency Pilot Program'') to provide 
     energy efficiency assistance to small business concerns 
     through small business development centers.
       (2) Small business development centers.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out the Efficiency Pilot 
     Program, the Administrator shall enter into agreements with 
     small business development centers under which such centers 
     shall--
       (i) provide access to information and resources on energy 
     efficiency practices, including on-bill financing options;
       (ii) conduct training and educational activities;
       (iii) offer confidential, free, one-on-one, in-depth energy 
     audits to the owners and operators of small business concerns 
     regarding energy efficiency practices;

[[Page 16949]]

       (iv) give referrals to certified professionals and other 
     providers of energy efficiency assistance who meet such 
     standards for educational, technical, and professional 
     competency as the Administrator shall establish; and
       (v) act as a facilitator between small business concerns, 
     electric utilities, lenders, and the Administration to 
     facilitate on-bill financing arrangements.
       (B) Reports.--Each small business development center 
     participating in the Efficiency Pilot Program shall submit to 
     the Administrator and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency an annual report that includes--
       (i) a summary of the energy efficiency assistance provided 
     by that center under the Efficiency Pilot Program;
       (ii) the number of small business concerns assisted by that 
     center under the Efficiency Pilot Program;
       (iii) statistics on the total amount of energy saved as a 
     result of assistance provided by that center under the 
     Efficiency Pilot Program; and
       (iv) any additional information determined necessary by the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the association.
       (C) Reports to congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date on which all reports under subparagraph (B) relating to 
     a year are submitted, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives a report summarizing the information 
     regarding the Efficiency Pilot Program submitted by small 
     business development centers participating in that program.
       (3) Eligibility.--A small business development center shall 
     be eligible to participate in the Efficiency Pilot Program 
     only if that center is certified under section 21(k)(2) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(k)(2)).
       (4) Selection of participating state programs.--
       (A) Groupings.--
       (i) Selection of programs.--The Administrator shall select 
     the small business development center programs of 2 States 
     from each of the groupings of States described in clauses 
     (ii) through (xi) to participate in the pilot program 
     established under this subsection.
       (ii) Group 1.--Group 1 shall consist of Maine, 
     Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode 
     Island.
       (iii) Group 2.--Group 2 shall consist of New York, New 
     Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
       (iv) Group 3.--Group 3 shall consist of Pennsylvania, 
     Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, the District of Columbia, 
     and Delaware.
       (v) Group 4.--Group 4 shall consist of Georgia, Alabama, 
     North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, 
     Kentucky, and Tennessee.
       (vi) Group 5.--Group 5 shall consist of Illinois, Ohio, 
     Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
       (vii) Group 6.--Group 6 shall consist of Texas, New Mexico, 
     Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
       (viii) Group 7.--Group 7 shall consist of Missouri, Iowa, 
     Nebraska, and Kansas.
       (ix) Group 8.--Group 8 shall consist of Colorado, Wyoming, 
     North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Utah.
       (x) Group 9.--Group 9 shall consist of California, Guam, 
     American Samoa, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona.
       (xi) Group 10.--Group 10 shall consist of Washington, 
     Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon.
       (5) Matching requirement.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     section 21(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648(a)(4)) shall apply to assistance made available under the 
     Efficiency Pilot Program.
       (6) Grant amounts.--Each small business development center 
     selected to participate in the Efficiency Pilot Program under 
     paragraph (4) shall be eligible to receive a grant in an 
     amount equal to--
       (A) not less than $100,000 in each fiscal year; and
       (B) not more than $300,000 in each fiscal year.
       (7) Evaluation and report.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall--
       (A) not later than 30 months after the date of disbursement 
     of the first grant under the Efficiency Pilot Program, 
     initiate an evaluation of that pilot program; and
       (B) not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     initiation of the evaluation under subparagraph (A), submit 
     to the Administrator, the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate, and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives, a report 
     containing--
       (i) the results of the evaluation; and
       (ii) any recommendations regarding whether the Efficiency 
     Pilot Program, with or without modification, should be 
     extended to include the participation of all small business 
     development centers.
       (8) Guarantee.--The Administrator may guarantee the timely 
     payment of a loan made to a small business concern through an 
     on-bill financing agreement on such terms and conditions as 
     the Administrator shall establish through a formal rule 
     making, after providing notice and an opportunity for 
     comment.
       (9) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     from such sums as are already authorized under section 21 of 
     the Small Business Act to carry out this subsection--
       (i) $5,000,000 for the first fiscal year beginning after 
     the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (ii) $5,000,000 for each of the 3 fiscal years following 
     the fiscal year described in clause (i).
       (B) Limitation on use of other funds.--The Administrator 
     may carry out the Efficiency Pilot Program only with amounts 
     appropriated in advance specifically to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (10) Termination.--The authority under this subsection 
     shall terminate 4 years after the date of disbursement of the 
     first grant under the Efficiency Pilot Program.
       (d) Small Business Telecommuting.--
       (1) Pilot program.--
       (A) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall conduct, in not more than 5 of the 
     regions of the Administration, a pilot program to provide 
     information regarding telecommuting to employers that are 
     small business concerns and to encourage such employers to 
     offer telecommuting options to employees (in this subsection 
     referred to as the ``Telecommuting Pilot Program'').
       (B) Special outreach to individuals with disabilities.--In 
     carrying out the Telecommuting Pilot Program, the 
     Administrator shall make a concerted effort to provide 
     information to--
       (i) small business concerns owned by or employing 
     individuals with disabilities, particularly veterans who are 
     individuals with disabilities;
       (ii) Federal, State, and local agencies having knowledge 
     and expertise in assisting individuals with disabilities, 
     including veterans who are individuals with disabilities; and
       (iii) any group or organization, the primary purpose of 
     which is to aid individuals with disabilities or veterans who 
     are individuals with disabilities.
       (C) Permissible activities.--In carrying out the 
     Telecommuting Pilot Program, the Administrator may--
       (i) produce educational materials and conduct presentations 
     designed to raise awareness in the small business community 
     of the benefits and the ease of telecommuting;
       (ii) conduct outreach--

       (I) to small business concerns that are considering 
     offering telecommuting options; and
       (II) as provided in subparagraph (B); and

       (iii) acquire telecommuting technologies and equipment to 
     be used for demonstration purposes.
       (D) Selection of regions.--In determining which regions 
     will participate in the Telecommuting Pilot Program, the 
     Administrator shall give priority consideration to regions in 
     which Federal agencies and private-sector employers have 
     demonstrated a strong regional commitment to telecommuting.
       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date on which funds are first appropriated to carry out this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee 
     on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives a 
     report containing the results of an evaluation of the 
     Telecommuting Pilot Program and any recommendations regarding 
     whether the pilot program, with or without modification, 
     should be extended to include the participation of all 
     regions of the Administration.
       (3) Termination.--The Telecommuting Pilot Program shall 
     terminate 4 years after the date on which funds are first 
     appropriated to carry out this subsection.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administration $5,000,000 to carry 
     out this subsection.
       (e) Encouraging Innovation in Energy Efficiency.--Section 9 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(z) Encouraging Innovation in Energy Efficiency.--
       ``(1) Federal agency energy-related priority.--In carrying 
     out its duties under this section to SBIR and STTR 
     solicitations by Federal agencies, the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) ensure that such agencies give high priority to small 
     business concerns that participate in or conduct energy 
     efficiency or renewable energy system research and 
     development projects; and
       ``(B) include in the annual report to Congress under 
     subsection (b)(7) a determination of whether the priority 
     described in subparagraph (A) is being carried out.
       ``(2) Consultation required.--The Administrator shall 
     consult with the heads of other Federal agencies and 
     departments in determining whether priority has been given to 
     small business concerns that participate in or conduct energy 
     efficiency or renewable energy system research and 
     development projects, as required by this section.
       ``(3) Guidelines.--The Administrator shall, as soon as is 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
     issue guidelines and directives to assist Federal agencies in 
     meeting the requirements of this section.

[[Page 16950]]

       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `biomass'--
       ``(i) means any organic material that is available on a 
     renewable or recurring basis, including--

       ``(I) agricultural crops;
       ``(II) trees grown for energy production;
       ``(III) wood waste and wood residues;
       ``(IV) plants (including aquatic plants and grasses);
       ``(V) residues;
       ``(VI) fibers;
       ``(VII) animal wastes and other waste materials; and
       ``(VIII) fats, oils, and greases (including recycled fats, 
     oils, and greases); and

       ``(ii) does not include--

       ``(I) paper that is commonly recycled; or
       ``(II) unsegregated solid waste;

       ``(B) the term `energy efficiency project' means the 
     installation or upgrading of equipment that results in a 
     significant reduction in energy usage; and
       ``(C) the term `renewable energy system' means a system of 
     energy derived from--
       ``(i) a wind, solar, biomass (including biodiesel), or 
     geothermal source; or
       ``(ii) hydrogen derived from biomass or water using an 
     energy source described in clause (i).''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1595, AS MODIFIED

       On page 122, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       (e) Set Aside for Small Automobile Manufacturers and 
     Component Suppliers.--
       (1) Definition of covered firm.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``covered firm'' means a firm that--
       (A) employs less than 500 individuals; and
       (B) manufactures automobiles or components of automobiles.
       (2) Set aside.--Of the amount of funds that are used to 
     provide awards for each fiscal year under this section, the 
     Secretary shall use not less than 30 percent of the amount to 
     provide awards to covered firms or consortia led by a covered 
     firm.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1676, AS MODIFIED

       On page 161, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 26_. RENEWABLE ENERGY INNOVATION MANUFACTURING 
                   PARTNERSHIP.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     program, to be known as the Renewable Energy Innovation 
     Manufacturing Partnership Program (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Program''), to make assistance awards to 
     eligible entities for use in carrying out research, 
     development, and demonstration relating to the manufacturing 
     of renewable energy technologies.
       (b) Solicitation.--To carry out the Program, the Secretary 
     shall annually conduct a competitive solicitation for 
     assistance awards for an eligible project described in 
     subsection (e).
       (c) Program Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are--
       (1) to develop, or aid in the development of, advanced 
     manufacturing processes, materials, and infrastructure;
       (2) to increase the domestic production of renewable energy 
     technology and components; and
       (3) to better coordinate Federal, State, and private 
     resources to meet regional and national renewable energy 
     goals through advanced manufacturing partnerships.
       (d) Eligible Entities.--An entity shall be eligible to 
     receive an assistance award under the Program to carry out an 
     eligible project described in subsection (e) if the entity is 
     composed of--
       (1) 1 or more public or private nonprofit institutions or 
     national laboratories engaged in research, development, 
     demonstration, or technology transfer, that would participate 
     substantially in the project; and
       (2) 1 or more private entities engaged in the manufacturing 
     or development of renewable energy system components 
     (including solar energy, wind energy, biomass, geothermal 
     energy, energy storage, or fuel cells).
       (e) Eligible Projects.--An eligible entity may use an 
     assistance award provided under this section to carry out a 
     project relating to--
       (1) the conduct of studies of market opportunities for 
     component manufacturing of renewable energy systems;
       (2) the conduct of multiyear applied research, development, 
     demonstration, and deployment projects for advanced 
     manufacturing processes, materials, and infrastructure for 
     renewable energy systems; and
       (3) other similar ventures, as approved by the Secretary, 
     that promote advanced manufacturing of renewable 
     technologies.
       (f) Criteria and Guidelines.--The Secretary shall establish 
     criteria and guidelines for the submission, evaluation, and 
     funding of proposed projects under the Program.
       (g) Cost Sharing.--Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 
     2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) shall apply to a project carried out 
     under this section.
       (h) Disclosure.--Section 623 of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 13293) shall apply to a project carried out 
     under this subsection.
       (i) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Secretary should ensure that small businesses 
     engaged in renewable manufacturing be considered for loan 
     guarantees authorized under title XVII of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq.).
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated out of funds already authorized to carry 
     out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013, to remain available until expended.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1679, AS MODIFIED

       On page 26, strike lines 19 through 21 and insert the 
     following:
       (j) Study of Impact of Renewable Fuel Standard.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which 
     the Academy shall conduct a study to assess the impact of the 
     requirements described in subsection (a)(2) on each industry 
     relating to the production of feed grains, livestock, food, 
     and energy.
       (2) Participation.--In conducting the study under paragraph 
     (1), the National Academy of Sciences shall seek the 
     participation, and consider the input, of--
       (A) producers of feed grains;
       (B) producers of livestock, poultry, and pork products;
       (C) producers of food and food products;
       (D) producers of energy;
       (E) individuals and entities interested in issues relating 
     to conservation, the environment, and nutrition; and
       (F) users of renewable fuels.
       (3) Considerations.--In conducting the study, the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall consider--
       (A) the likely impact on domestic animal agriculture 
     feedstocks that, in any crop year, are significantly below 
     current projections; and
       (B) policy options to alleviate the impact on domestic 
     animal agriculture feedstocks that are significantly below 
     current projections.
       (4) Components.--The study shall include--
       (A) a description of the conditions under which the 
     requirements described in subsection (a)(2) should be 
     suspended or reduced to prevent adverse impacts to domestic 
     animal agriculture feedstocks described in paragraph (3)(B); 
     and
       (B) recommendations for the means by which the Federal 
     Government could prevent or minimize adverse economic 
     hardships and impacts.
       (5) Deadline for completion of study.--Not later than 270 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report that describes the results 
     of the study.
       (6) Periodic reviews.--
       (A) In general.--To allow for the appropriate adjustment of 
     the requirements described in subsection (a)(2), the 
     Secretary shall conduct periodic reviews of--
       (i) existing technologies;
       (ii) the feasibility of achieving compliance with the 
     requirements; and
       (iii) the impacts of the requirements described in 
     subsection (a)(2) on each individual and entity described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (k) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise specifically 
     provided in this section, this section takes effect on the 
     date on which the National Academies of Science completes the 
     study under subsection (j).


                    amendment no. 1615, as modified

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. 305. ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Commerce 
     shall establish within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Research of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, and shall carry out, a program of scientific 
     research on abrupt climate change.
       (b) Purposes of Program.--The purposes of the program are 
     as follows:
       (1) To develop a global array of terrestrial and 
     oceanographic indicators of paleo-climate in order to 
     sufficiently identify and describe past instances of abrupt 
     climate change.
       (2) To improve understanding of thresholds and 
     nonlinearities in geophysical systems related to the 
     mechanisms of abrupt climate change.
       (3) To incorporate such mechanisms into advanced 
     geophysical models of climate change.
       (4) To test the output of such models against an improved 
     global array of records of past abrupt climate changes.
       (c) Abrupt Climate Change Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``abrupt climate change'' means a change in the climate 
     that occurs so rapidly or unexpectedly that human or natural 
     systems have difficulty adapting to the climate as changed.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of such sums 
     previously authorized, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Department of Commerce for each of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014, to remain available until expended, such sums 
     as are necessary, not to exceed $10,000,000, to carry out the 
     research program required under this section.


                    amendment no. 1520, as modified

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

[[Page 16951]]



     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.


                    amendment no. 1700, as modified

       At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 13_. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN SUPPORT OF LOW-CARBON 
                   FUELS.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that, in 
     order to achieve maximum reductions in greenhouse gas 
     emissions, enhance national security, and ensure the 
     protection of wildlife habitat, biodiversity, water quality, 
     air quality, and rural and regional economies throughout the 
     lifecycle of each low-carbon fuel, it is necessary and 
     desirable to undertake a combination of basic and applied 
     research, as well as technology development and 
     demonstration, involving the colleges and universities of the 
     United States, in partnership with the Federal Government, 
     State governments, and the private sector.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     research support to facilitate the development of sustainable 
     markets and technologies to produce and use woody biomass and 
     other low-carbon fuels for the production of thermal and 
     electric energy, biofuels, and bioproducts.
       (c) Definition of Fuel Emission Baseline.--In this section, 
     the term ``fuel emission baseline'' means the average 
     lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy of the 
     fossil fuel component of conventional transportation fuels in 
     commerce in the United States in calendar year 2008, as 
     determined by the President.
       (d) Grant Program.--The President shall establish a program 
     to provide to eligible entities (as identified by the 
     President) grants for use in--
       (1) providing financial support for not more than 4 nor 
     less than 6 demonstration facilities that--
       (A) use woody biomass to deploy advanced technologies for 
     production of thermal and electric energy, biofuels, and 
     bioproducts; and
       (B) are targeted at regional feedstocks and markets;
       (2) conducting targeted research for the development of 
     cellulosic ethanol and other liquid fuels from woody or other 
     biomass that may be used in transportation or stationary 
     applications, such as industrial processes or industrial, 
     commercial, and residential heating;
       (3) conducting research into the best scientifically-based 
     and periodically-updated methods of assessing and certifying 
     the impacts of each low-carbon fuel with respect to--
       (A) the reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of 
     each fuel as compared to--
       (i) the fuel emission baseline; and
       (ii) the greenhouse gas emissions of other sectors, such as 
     the agricultural, industrial, and manufacturing sectors;
       (B) the contribution of the fuel toward enhancing the 
     energy security of the United States by displacing imported 
     petroleum and petroleum products;
       (C) any impacts of the fuel on wildlife habitat, 
     biodiversity, water quality, and air quality; and
       (D) any effect of the fuel with respect to rural and 
     regional economies;
       (4) conducting research to determine to what extent the use 
     of low-carbon fuels in the transportation sector would impact 
     greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors, such as the 
     agricultural, industrial, and manufacturing sectors;
       (5) conducting research for the development of the supply 
     infrastructure that may provide renewable biomass feedstocks 
     in a consistent, predictable, and environmentally-sustainable 
     manner;
       (6) conducting research for the development of supply 
     infrastructure that may provide renewable low-carbon fuels in 
     a consistent, predictable, and environmentally-sustainable 
     manner; and
       (7) conducting policy research on the global movement of 
     low-carbon fuels in a consistent, predictable, and 
     environmentally-sustainable manner.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the funding 
     authorized under section 122, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       (2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       (3) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
       (4) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
       (5) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.


                           amendment no. 1724

(Purpose: To modify the deadline by which the President is required to 
            approve or disapprove a certain State petition)

       On page 21, line 17, strike ``90'' and insert ``30''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1502, 
as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1502), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule

[[Page 16952]]

XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 9, 
     H.R. 6, Comprehensive Energy legislation.
         Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, John Kerry, 
           Robert Menendez, Kent Conrad, Pat Leahy, Russell 
           Feingold, Jack Reed, Christopher Dodd, Ken Salazar, Joe 
           Biden, Frank R. Lautenberg, Daniel K. Inouye, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Byron L. Dorgan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by 
investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, 
promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater 
efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables 
Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boxer
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Johnson
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 
32. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. DURBIN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Coburn
     Johnson
     McCain
     Shelby
  The bill (H.R. 6), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, due to a family obligation, Senator Boxer 
was unable to attend today's session. Had she been present for the vote 
to invoke cloture on the Baucus energy tax package, she would have cast 
a vote of ``aye''. She would have also cast a vote of ``aye'' on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the Reid substitute, cloture on the 
underlying bill, and on final passage of H.R. 6.

                          ____________________