[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 34214-34225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of the message from the House on H.R. 6, 
the Energy bill; that the pending motion to concur be withdrawn; that 
the Senate move to concur in the House amendment with the amendment at 
the desk; that no other amendments or motions be in order; that there 
be a time limitation of 30 minutes equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees for debate only on that motion; that upon 
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate, without intervening 
action, vote on the motion to concur; that if the motion is agreed to, 
the Senate concur in the House amendment to the title and the motions 
to reconsider be laid on the table; that if the motion to concur is not 
agreed to, it be withdrawn and the message returned to the desk.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I could 
ask the distinguished leader to yield, could you amend that to make 
that 40 minutes instead of 30 minutes because we already have 18 
minutes of requests.
  Mr. REID. I would add to that, I say to my distinguished friend, that 
we would have the final 10 minutes prior to the vote, 5 minutes for 
Senator McConnell and 5 minutes for me, so that will wind up being 
about 50 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection as amended?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Whitehouse) laid before the Senate the 
amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (H.R. 6) entitled 
``An Act 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, with amendments.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending motion to concur with an amendment 
is withdrawn.
  The pending motion is a motion to concur in the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment to the text of the bill with an amendment which is 
at the desk.


                           Amendment No. 3850

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute.)

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There shall be 40 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, out of the minority time, I ask unanimous 
consent that these times be reserved for specific Members: Senator 
Domenici, 5 minutes; Senator Inhofe, 5 minutes; Senator Stevens, 5 
minutes; and Senator Hutchison, 3 minutes, out of our allocated 20 
minutes of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would ask the Presiding Officer, how 
much time exists on each side in connection with this pending bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five minutes on each side.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. As I understand, 20 minutes and then 5 minutes for each 
of the leaders. So I would just speak for 3 minutes at this point and 
then yield to my colleague from New Mexico, who I know is planning to 
speak as well.
  Mr. President, let me amend my earlier statement. I will take up to 5 
minutes, please, if the Chair would advise me at the end of the 5 
minutes.
  The Senate has a very good energy bill before it. It would take a 
number of steps that will be viewed over the long term as very major 
steps in our energy policy.
  This is the first increase in CAFE standards in well over 20 years. 
It has improved efficiency standards for lightbulbs, for lighting 
fixtures, which will eventually save more energy than all of our 
previous energy efficiency standards combined. This bill contains 
permanent authorization for energy savings performance contracts--the 
single most useful tool for increasing energy efficiency in the Federal 
Government. It contains a strengthened program for carbon dioxide 
capture and geological sequestration and a framework for working 
through issues associated with geologic storage of carbon dioxide on 
Federal lands. It also contains strong new protections for consumers 
against market manipulation in oil markets.
  The story of this Energy bill is not only one of what we accomplished 
but also those items we were not able to accomplish.
  In the case of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the biggest issue on 
which we did not make progress was energy efficiency, especially 
increased vehicle fuel economy. We have rectified that, or we will be 
rectifying that as we go forward and pass this legislation and get it 
signed into law.
  For this bill, there were two big challenges we have proven unequal 
to here in the Senate. In my view, one is, of course, dealing with the 
very real problem of how to further incentivize the development of 
renewable energy. I hope we will have a chance to revisit the renewable 
electricity standard in the new Congress. I also hope we can revisit 
this issue of tax incentives. We failed earlier today to maintain in 
the legislation a package of tax incentives which I think is very 
important for the energy policy of this country.
  We have an extremely capable staff that has worked long and hard on 
this legislation.
  The Senate Energy Committee staff--there are many individuals here: 
Bob Simon, Sam Fowler, Allyson Anderson, Angela Becker-Dippmann, Patty 
Beneke, Mia Bennett, Tara Billingsley, Rosemarie Calabro, Michael Carr, 
Mike Connor, Jonathan Epstein, Deborah Estes, Alicia Jackson, Amanda 
Kelly, Leon Lowery, David Marks, Scott Miller, Rachel Pasternack, 
Britni Rillera, Gina Weinstock, and Bill Wicker. All of them have done 
a great job.
  Senator Domenici's staff has also done a terrific job. Frank 
Macchiarola, Judy Pensabene, Kellie Donnelly, Kathryn Clay, Colin 
Hayes, Frank Gladics, and Kara Gleason, among others on his staff I 
know have done a good job.
  The Senate owes a particular debt of gratitude to Senator Inouye's 
and Senator Stevens' staff, who developed the CAFE provisions in this 
bill. In particular, David Strickland of the Commerce Committee staff 
deserves recognition for his leadership, skill, and tenacity in 
negotiating these historic provisions.
  Chris Miller, on Senator Reid's staff, deserves our thanks for 
helping with the overall coordination of the bill in the Senate and 
with the House of Representatives. His counterparts in Speaker Pelosi's 
office, Amy Fuerstenau and Lara Levison, also put in countless hours 
attending meetings and helping to coordinate the activities of about 10 
different House committees with interests in this bill.
  Special recognition also is due to the hard-working staff of the 
Office of Senate Legislative Counsel on this bill.

[[Page 34215]]

  Their team leader, Gary Endicott, worked tirelessly to ensure that 
the provisions of this bill were expressed in clear and correct legal 
form.
  His partner for the CAFE provisions was Lloyd Ator of the Commerce 
Committee staff.
  Other key contributors in the office of Senate Legislative Counsel 
included Michelle Johnson-Weider, John Henderson, Matt McGhie, Mark 
Mathiesen, Mark McGunagle, and Jim Fransen. They enjoyed the 
cooperation of their colleagues in the House Office of Legislative 
Counsel, including Tim Brown and Pope Barrow. Without the many hours 
they invested in drafting, redrafting, and assembling this bill, we 
would not have a finished text to consider today.
  Finally, staff in the Congressional Budget Office, including Kathy 
Gramp, Megan Carroll, Dave Hull, and Matthew Pickford, helped us ensure 
that the bill was compliant with the complicated scoring rules that 
face every major piece of legislation.
  All of these staff in Leg Counsel and CBO made themselves available 
on evenings and weekends to help ensure that we could finish this bill 
this year.
  With that, I will thank my colleagues for their support for this 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the motion to go ahead with this 
legislation and send this bill to the President.
  I know there are others who wish to speak. How much time remains on 
the majority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 20 minutes, including the 5 minutes for 
the leader.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to support this energy 
legislation but not without reservation.
  I will begin by saying that I think there are some very good 
provisions in this bill. This Congress is taking a major step by 
increasing the CAFE standards. This increase calls for a 35-mile-per-
gallon standard in every car by 2020. This is a huge conservation 
victory. In fact, it is a 40-percent increase from our current 
standard. I am also pleased that we have included the measures to 
increase energy efficiency in Federal buildings. The Federal Government 
should be a leader in promoting and adopting efficiency. We are 
addressing new technologies and emerging science in environmental areas 
such as carbon sequestration. We were able to remove the onerous tax 
provisions that would have made America only more dependent upon 
foreign sources of energy and made high prices even higher.
  However, I do remain concerned with the renewable fuel standard. The 
proposal before us will increase the renewable fuel standard from the 
current requirement of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 36 billion 
gallons by 2022. This renewable fuel standard is noble in its 
objective, but it is a reckless way to draft this legislation, and here 
is why. It does not have a safety valve to address shortfalls in 
feedstocks which will be required to meet the renewable fuel standards 
mandate.
  I have been working with Texas livestock producers and food 
processors for months to try to create a safety valve that would have, 
in conjunction with the waiver provision currently in the bill, a 
prospective protection from harming these industries. I believe the 
existing waiver provision and the safety valve could function and 
coexist without resulting in market uncertainty for the RFS increase.
  I believe livestock and poultry producers and food processors are 
going to face uncertainty under these mandates. For this reason, I have 
worked with these industries and my colleagues in the Senate to strike 
a balance to provide some level of prospective analysis and relief if 
experts conclude that there will be a shortfall that leads to price 
spikes in items such as corn, cereal, chicken, and beef. Unfortunately, 
this bill does not contain this safety valve, and I am very concerned 
that we are going to have problems down the road and millions of 
Americans are going to pay higher grocery bills because of 
unanticipated events, such as droughts or floods, which impact crop 
yields.
  I have tried to be reasonable in creating this safety valve, and we 
must watch this closely if we pass this bill, and I think we will. We 
must give relief to the livestock producers and the consumers in this 
country if, in fact, we cannot produce this mandate that is in this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to clarify the time because I think time was 
allotted and some Senators who should have gotten time were not here. 
How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 21 minutes remaining, 
including 5 minutes of leader time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to ask Senator Stevens how much time he wants. 
Senator Stevens wants 3 minutes, but he wants Senator Inouye to speak 
first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inouye for all of his hard 
work, Senators Stevens, Bingaman, and Domenici. I could go on.
  I speak as a Senator from California. I also speak as the chairman of 
the EPW Committee and say this is a very good moment for the Senate. I 
see my ranking member here, Senator Inhofe. Four of the provisions in 
this bill we worked on together in the committee. I think we are both 
very pleased with them. This has been a long and winding road, as the 
song says. But here we are with a bill that I believe is very strong. I 
certainly am disappointed, because I think it should have been much 
stronger. To think that we could not get the 60 votes to ensure that 
solar energy, wind energy, and geothermal had tax incentives makes me 
sad. A simple part of that was also rejected that dealt with the 
renewable portfolio standard that makes a lot of sense and works in 
California. I think it would have worked. We are not going to give up 
on any of that. But we will fight for those another day.
  Today we should take a moment to say, good job. Good job to all of us 
to get to this moment.
  I want to talk a minute about the four provisions of the EPW that are 
in this bill. Green buildings, new Federal buildings will be energy 
efficient, will be green. As part of that we also passed a separate 
piece of legislation to retrofit the older buildings. We did it in a 
very simple way. We say in all of GSA buildings we want an individual 
responsible for retrofitting those buildings, and we will give grants 
to local governments to retrofit their government buildings as well.
  There is also a part in this bill dedicated to funding a solar wall 
on the Department of Energy so the Department of Energy becomes a 
symbol of renewable energy. There is a pilot project for the Capitol 
powerplant so we can get clean energy there as well.
  I thank Erik Olson, Bettina Poirier from the EPW Committee staff, and 
the minority staff as well, Andrew Wheeler and his team for all of 
their hard work. I have already thanked Senator Inhofe. Very special 
thanks to Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Dorgan, Carper, Cantwell, and to 
our chairman Senator Inouye, again, for their hard work on CAFE.
  I am also pleased that the Federal fleet of cars will now move to 
fuel efficiency. I don't know how many people are aware, but we buy 
60,000 new cars a year for the Federal fleet, and it makes so much 
sense for us to go out in that marketplace and move toward fuel 
efficiency and fuel economy.
  In this bill, we have renewable fuels, fuel efficiency, green 
buildings. It is a great start.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Domenici for all his 
hard work. It is one of the few times I can recall that I have 
disagreed with him on a position. I do so on this particular bill. Let 
me first say while the

[[Page 34216]]

chairman of the EPW committee is still here, I agree with the comments 
she made. We have some provisions in here that are an improvement but, 
in my mind, not enough of an improvement to pass this bill. First let 
me say I what I think is wrong with this. The renewable fuels standard 
increase is going to mandate an increase from 7\1/2\ to 15. That is of 
corn ethanol. Then other bio increases are more than that. But as far 
as the corn is concerned, in my State of Oklahoma, I have been talking 
to the livestock people and the poultry people, the meat industry in 
Oklahoma, the backbone of our economy. They are very distressed because 
of the increase in the cost of feedstock. This is going to make it that 
much worse. There are other problems with that, too, with ethanol's 
effect on food prices: economic sustainability, transportation 
infrastructure needs, the water usage in this process. It is something 
I think is a bad provision.
  It is going to pass, probably with 80 votes. Maybe I will be the only 
vote against it. But another thing, I am not as impressed with the CAFE 
standards. I know everybody is talking about, yes, we have to do this. 
We have to have these mandates. You have to keep in mind this is still 
America. We have choices in America. In western Europe they don't. Some 
other countries they don't. So we are going to be emulating them. If 
you will listen to the National Safety Council, the Brookings 
Institute, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the National 
Academy of Sciences, all of these groups say this provision is going to 
be a safety threat for Americans.
  On the tax provisions, I do appreciate the fact that they were able 
to bring down some of these. There are still some tax increases but 
nothing like it was at one time. I think it is important for people to 
understand this does extend a $1.4 billion tax, the FUTA tax. This was 
established in 1976 to repay loans from the Federal unemployment trust 
fund. They were all repaid by 1987. So they keep finding a vehicle to 
renew a $1.4 billion tax increase on the American people. It is right 
here in this legislation.
  One of the things I guess that bothered me more than anything else 
was when we did the highway bill, the highway reauthorization bill was 
a good bill. We spent a lot of time on that. We had provisions in there 
to give the States more flexibility with their money to meet the needs 
in their States with the recognition that the States are closer to the 
people. They know what their needs are more than the Federal Government 
does. We got those provisions in there. Because some people in the 
House didn't want the States to have that flexibility, we beat them in 
conference so they put it in this bill. So now we have two provisions 
in this bill that are going to make it more difficult for States. In 
fact, it is going to take away their flexibility. We are taking away 
States rights with this bill. That is what it does.
  I will tell you what it doesn't do. It has no provisions for nuclear 
power. Everybody understands we have to address that. That was one of 
the provisions when we first started talking about this. Nothing in 
there for clean coal technology, for exploration, to promote refinery 
expansion. We had a bill called the Gas Price Act. No one should have 
been opposed to it. I begged to have this as a part of this bill. Those 
who put it together found it wasn't something that could be acceptable. 
It would increase our refinery capacity and resolve many other problems 
with some of our closed military bases. That was not a part of this 
bill and should have been.
  This bill will mean a profound increase of the cost of fuel at the 
pumps. People have to know that. We can talk about how good it is and 
send out our press releases, but in the final analysis, it is going to 
increase the price at the pump. It is going to make it more difficult. 
It is going to exacerbate the problem of what I consider to be an 
energy crisis.
  So it is not an energy bill. It is one that I may be the only one 
opposing, but I thought I would share with you why I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Washington, Ms. Cantwell.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, clearly this energy bill points us in a 
new direction. This is a much greener energy bill than we have seen in 
the past and certainly is more consumer friendly. It is a greener 
energy bill because it is nearly a 20-percent reduction in future 
CO2 output by the year 2030. It is a greener energy bill 
because it does make mandates on the Federal Government's use of 
energy. In fact, it is a 30-percent reduction in energy used by Federal 
buildings, resulting in a $4 billion annual savings to taxpayers by 
2020. I know that may be hard for some people to believe and 
understand, but it is a lot of savings considering that there are 
500,000 Federal buildings and that Government is the largest user of 
electricity in the country. So mandating these energy reductions is 
going to make us more efficient and certainly apply the use of those 
savings to help American taxpayers.
  It is also a greener energy bill because it sets up new appliance and 
lighting standards. Again, I know people underestimate efficiency. 
Today household appliances, lighting, and electronics use up to two-
thirds of the energy in households. By requiring these new standards 
for manufacture of these products, we will save over 40,000 megawatts 
of energy. That is the same amount of electricity used in 19 States 
today. It is certainly a greener energy bill because we are putting at 
the pump for consumers a renewable fuel competition for fossil fuel. We 
are doing that by mandating 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 
2020. That amount is the same amount we import from the Persian Gulf 
today. So swapping that oil out for a greener energy supply for our 
future is a tremendous benefit.
  This also is a great consumer bill. It is a great consumer bill 
because of the fuel efficiency standards. The 35 miles per gallon will 
save American drivers over $200 billion at the gas pump. For my State 
of Washington, we will give consumers an annual $436 million of 
savings. It is also a consumer-friendly bill because we are reducing 
our dependence on foreign oil. This is a 35-percent reduction in our 
foreign oil consumption, and American consumers view this as one of our 
Nation's biggest priorities.
  And it is a consumer-friendly bill because we have protected 
consumers by making market manipulation of oil markets a Federal crime. 
I know we have heard stories. I know there are lots of issues about 
speculation. But by giving the FTC new authority to issue fines per 
violation, we are giving consumers more protection.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I commend him and the 
young man sitting next to him, David Strickland, who has done great 
work, as has a member of my staff, Beth Osborne, seated behind me.
  We can talk about what might have been and how this legislation could 
have been better, more comprehensive. Six months ago I stood here and 
said, there are three things we need to accomplish with respect to fuel 
efficiency for cars, trucks, and vans. No. 1, we ought to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil. No. 2, we should reduce the emissions of 
harmful stuff up into the air. No. 3, we should accomplish goals 1 and 
2 without undermining the competitiveness of the domestic auto 
industry.
  Tonight as we are on the verge of passing this legislation, we will 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we will reduce harmful emissions, 
and we will not undermine the competitive advantage of our domestic 
auto industry. It is not enough for us as a Congress to say to the auto 
industry, raise fuel efficiency standards, eat your spinach. We have a 
responsibility to help them. In this legislation we do any number of 
things to help the industry--major investments in R&D, new battery 
technology--just as we had invested previously Federal dollars in fuel 
cell

[[Page 34217]]

technology for cars, trucks, and vans. Secondly, using the Government's 
purchasing power to help commercialize the new technology both on the 
civilian side and on the defense side to make a market for these new 
products. Three, to use tax incentives for hybrids, for low-emission 
diesel in order to encourage people to buy these vehicles.
  We can lament what might have been. Let me say in graphic terms what 
this legislation means. Today we import about 2.5 million barrels of 
oil per day. By 2020, this legislation will save that much oil or more. 
Today we emit huge amounts of CO2 into the air. We warm our 
globe and imperil our future. This legislation will reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions by about 20 percent, essentially taking 60 million 
cars off the road by 2020.
  Finally, we are going to say this is based on $3-a-gallon gasoline. 
But we are going to save consumers close to $100 billion at the pump in 
the year 2020. Those are huge savings. They are tangible savings. We, 
as Democrats in the majority, have an obligation to lead. We have led. 
We have worked with the auto industry, the UAW. We have worked with our 
Republican brethren.
  The American people want us to get things done. They want us to find 
a way to set aside partisan politics and work together. I think in this 
instance we have done that. I commend Senator Inouye and Senator 
Stevens, and I commend Senators Boxer, Bingaman, and Domenici, our 
staffs who have worked so hard.
  I thank the auto industry, the UAW, our friends over in the House, 
including John Dingell, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Steny 
Hoyer.
  This a victory not just for the Democratic Party and the Republican 
Party, and not just for the Congress, this is a victory for America. We 
can be proud of this, and I am.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I rise today in 
support of the bill before us. After months of constructive 
negotiations, we have successfully crafted a thoughtful, bipartisan 
agreement, particularly in title I, otherwise known as the Ten-in-Ten 
Fuel Economy Act.
  Title I would mandate an increase in automobile fuel economy to a 
nationwide fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. In addition, 
the Department of Transportation would adopt fuel economy standards for 
medium and heavy-duty commercial vehicles for the first time.
  Today's agreement marks historic progress: This is the first 
statutory increase in fuel economy standards since 1975. Reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil is of vital importance to our national 
security, economic stability, and consumer welfare. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel 
Economy Act is a major step toward achieving these goals.
  Title I of this bill will save approximately 1.1 million barrels of 
oil per day in 2020, equal to one-half of what we currently import 
daily from the Persian Gulf. By the year 2020, this bill will save 
consumers approximately $22 billion at the pump and prevent 
approximately 200 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from 
polluting our environment each year. By dramatically reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, title I would demonstrate to the 
world that America is a leader in fighting global warming.
  Legislation of this magnitude could have only been achieved through 
the hard work of a coalition of Members. In this case, without Senator 
Feinstein, Senators Stevens, Snowe, Kerry, Dorgan, Lott, Carper, Boxer, 
Durbin, Alexander, Corker, and Cantwell, the agreement would not have 
been reached.
  In particular, I congratulate Senator Feinstein on her efforts in 
developing this bill. Her dedication over the years has led to a public 
policy that very few thought possible. I also praise the efforts of my 
good friend Senator Stevens, who was instrumental in forging the 
compromise before us. I also thank Chairman Dingell and Senators Levin 
and Stabenow for their hard work and willingness to achieve an 
agreement that aggressively improves fuel economy while protecting 
domestic manufacturing and U.S. workers. The American auto worker and 
automaker have no better champions.
  Finally, I express my appreciation to all the hard-working members of 
the staff who worked to make this historic legislation a reality. In 
particular, I commend David Strickland, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Mia Petrini, 
and Jared Bomberg of my Commerce Committee staff for a job well done.
  The importance of this legislation cannot be underestimated. During 
the Arab oil embargo in 1973, Americans suffered the first devastating 
effects of our addiction to oil. Born out of this embargo, Congress put 
in place a fuel economy program that nearly doubled the gas mileage of 
cars from 1975 to 1985. Passage of this bill will ensure that our 
Nation's energy priorities start moving in the right direction again.
  Higher fuel economy standards will wean the country of its oil 
addiction, put billions of dollars of savings back into our domestic 
economy, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  A diverse group of constituencies support the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy 
Act, from environmentalists to automotive workers and automakers. While 
it sets forth aggressive standards, the act also recognizes the 
challenges faced by the auto industry and ensures that those concerns 
will be addressed. Providing flexibility to the automotive industry, 
the sponsors of these fuel economy provisions have worked together in a 
bipartisan manner to ensure that automakers have the tools they need to 
meet the requirements enumerated in the act. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel 
Economy Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to create two fuel 
economy curves, one for passenger cars and one for light trucks. This 
change from the Senate-passed bill provides the certainty that American 
automakers, auto workers, and car dealers requested, but the act still 
requires that the combined car and light truck fleet meet a fuel 
economy standard of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
  Our actions today will improve national security, create jobs, help 
consumers, and protect the environment. At times it is the Government's 
responsibility to balance conflicting interests. Today, I believe we 
found that balance.
  Mr. President, I wish to provide 30 seconds to Senator Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I too want to add my thanks to my 
staff--Amit Ronen and Lauren Bazel--for their hard work, as well as the 
staff of the Finance, Energy, and Commerce Committees.
  I commend Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for working so hard to 
get this landmark legislation, which has been 30 years in the making, 
to pass here in the Senate. Everybody from these committees has worked 
very hard. I thank the staff for their diligence and their perseverance 
in making this happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe I have 3 minutes yielded to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at the beginning of this Congress I 
introduced a bill to achieve a 40-mile-a-gallon goal by 2020. As I have 
indicated before, I became engaged in the CAFE debate because I believe 
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. Setting fuel economy standards is one avenue toward 
limiting our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and significantly 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  The Senate passed unanimously a CAFE amendment based upon the 
attribute concept I authored. The fuel economy provision that has been 
placed in the bill is a good first step toward addressing our energy 
crisis. I thank Senator Inouye and Senator

[[Page 34218]]

Feinstein for their insistence that the fuel economy provision be a 
product of bipartisan discussions. Their commitment to instituting 
strong and achievable policy goals was instrumental during the 
negotiation process of fuel economy standards.
  The compromise we negotiated mandates the fuel economy of cars and 
trucks to be evaluated separately based upon this attribute system. The 
mandate ensures reasonable fuel efficiency goals for trucks and cars. 
In addition, the requirement will guarantee the continued availability 
of various sized trucks and cars in the market, which is important--
very important--to our home State of Alaska.
  Our bill requires annual increases to the nationwide average fleet 
fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to achieve a fleetwide 
average standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. As Senator Inouye 
said, this will be the first statutory fuel economy increase for 
passenger cars since 1975.
  The bipartisan fuel economy provision will help save, as Senator 
Cantwell has indicated, a significant amount of fuel over the next 
decade. I thank the Senate for supporting this bipartisan measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of Senate Commerce 
Committee staff on the Republican side who worked on the fuel economy 
compromise be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Senate Commerce Committee staff on the Republican side who 
     worked on the fuel economy compromise:
       Chris Bertram.
       Mimi Braniff.
       Rebecca Hooks.
       Christine Kurth.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has just under 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is without the leader's time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is including leadership time. There is a 
little over 9\1/2\ minutes without the leadership time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thank you. I will use 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I ask unanimous 
consent that a letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      May 9, 2007.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: Our members URGE you to OPPOSE any 
     increase in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for feed grain 
     ethanol above those levels established by the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 (EPAct).
       On May 2, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
     held a markup in which several energy bills, including S. 
     987, were merged into one large bio and renewable energy 
     bill. Portions of S. 987 will increase the RFS mandate to 36 
     billion gallons by 2022 and establish policy that beyond 2016 
     a certain portion of the RFS must be met with biofuels other 
     than feed grain ethanol. Even with this differentiation, a 
     defacto mandate of 15 billion gallons of renewable fuels from 
     feed grains is established by 2015.
       If our members can compete on a level playing field with 
     the ethanol industry for each bushel of feed grain, we have 
     no doubt that their businesses can remain profitable. But a 
     rush to increase the RFS for corn ethanol will only serve to 
     undermine their competitiveness.
       The EPAct of 2005 established a RFS mandate of at least 7.5 
     billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into motor 
     vehicle fuel sold in the United States by 2012. Doubling the 
     RFS mandate to 15 billion gallons for feed grain based 
     ethanol will require record feed grain production each and 
     every year and assumes the unlikely scenario of no adverse 
     weather events.
       One goal of the EPAct was to lower the United States 
     dependency on foreign oil by promoting the usage of renewable 
     energies. This policy was deemed necessary in order to assure 
     investors and encourage the development of basic production 
     technology. However, with feed grain ethanol production 
     capacity projected to exceed 12.5 billion gallons by year's 
     end, the current incentives have accomplished the objective. 
     A rush to increase the RFS or extend the tax credits for feed 
     grain ethanol will only increase artificial demand for feed 
     grain and further decrease the ability of supply and demand 
     to guide the ethanol industry.
       We all support our nation's commitment to reduce dependence 
     on foreign energy and develop forms of renewable energy. But, 
     we also believe in the free market, and URGE you to OPPOSE 
     any proposal to increase the RFS for feed grain ethanol. 
     Instead, we respectfully request that you pursue policies 
     which clearly define a transition to a market based approach 
     for the production and usage of feed grain ethanol.
           Sincerely,
       Independent Cattlemen's Assn.; Texas Association of 
     Dairymen; Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Texas and 
     Southwestern Cattle Raisers Assn.; Texas Pork Producers 
     Assn.; Texas Poultry Federation; and Texas Sheep and Goat 
     Raisers Assn.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank all of those who participated. 
Their names have been mentioned, whether they be Senators or staff. I 
want to say, I include all of those who have already been mentioned.
  I want to make a couple statements that will make the record true.
  First of all, this bill was not intended to solve all of America's 
energy problems.
  Second, it was not intended to have a huge number of energy proposals 
in it. It was a bill that had two great big core provisions, and we are 
very grateful they are both here before the Senate--not exactly the way 
they passed the Senate, but good enough for the kind of work that goes 
on between the House and Senate. Because we must--we cannot get 
perfection--get some kind of compromise, we have a great bill.
  Everybody has said all that can be said about this bill. But the 
Commerce Committee of the Senate, chaired by Senator Inouye, and with 
Ranking Member Stevens--while we, the Energy Committee, were debating 
one way, and another committee another way--one afternoon decided they 
were going to alter, amend, and change the fuel standards for American 
automobiles, and they did it. We have been waiting around for years for 
it. It was the impulse and impact for us to do the rest of this bill.
  We added to it the RFS, which is ethanol 2--and I will acknowledge 
that as to those speakers who have said it is not as good as the Senate 
provision, they are right. But there are two bodies, and it was 
difficult to negotiate everything we wanted. So there will have to be 
some ardent observations of what is going on in ethanol and its 
successor to ethanol to see if we need to make some changes. But things 
are not done in legislation to correct all problems. They are done to 
do the best you can. If the best you can is good, you adopt it. We have 
done that.
  It certainly has been a rocky road, but I am thrilled that the Senate 
is finally considering a bill that contains the right priorities and 
stands an excellent chance of becoming law.
  Today is a historic one for the U.S. Senate. The bill before us takes 
important steps to reduce our dependence on oil and improve our energy 
efficiency.
  For the first time in 32 years, the Senate today will increase fuel 
economy standards. We will also extend and expand the renewable fuels 
standard, which will help us diversify our fuel supply. And we will 
improve the efficiency of our appliances, our lighting, and our 
buildings.
  While I was not happy with the process by which we proceeded on this 
bill, it nonetheless reflects a compromise for many of us. And, 
reaching a fair agreement is the way things get done here in the 
Senate.
  This energy bill contains the right priorities. Although it took us 
two tough cloture votes, we have avoided adding costly provisions that 
would have placed this bill in jeopardy, like a renewable portfolio 
standard and tax increases on domestic energy production.
  Instead, we have focused on provisions that will help us save oil and 
save energy, such as CAFE and energy efficiency. The renewable fuels 
standard that we enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has already 
helped farmers and diversified our fuel supply, and that RFS is 
expanded in this bill.
  The House of Representatives should pass this bill, and I believe 
that the President should sign it into law.
  I am pleased to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to pass 
it today.

[[Page 34219]]

We will send the right message and begin the long process of reducing 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  I wish to close by saying, everyone did not agree on what would go in 
this bill along with the energy provisions. There were very difficult 
votes that were taken, and actually there was no question that as 
between the Democrats and Republicans there was truly a big difference 
of opinion. But when it ended up, we had the major energy provisions 
left in the bill. We had tax provisions mostly out. We had the 
provision that has to do with mandating alternative fuels, led by wind, 
by every State--we had that provision out.
  What is left is a very good bill. Senator Bingaman described some of 
the unheard of and unknown quantities that are good. The other Senators 
have all sung the praises, so I do not need to do it again. It is 
historic, however, to change the automobile standards after 32 years, 
and to do it in a way where our automobile makers think they can 
comply. That is very unique. They never did that. They think they can 
comply and keep their businesses manufacturing cars. That is No. 2.
  No. 3, when you are looking to solve the problem of how much crude 
oil you import, you look for someplace you can save on that quantity 
and commodity you are importing. Now, the best experts in America have 
testified there is no act the Congress could take that will do more to 
cut our dependence upon foreign oil than this measure. Get it? The 
experts of America say you will reduce America's dependence more by the 
passage of this bill, the Inouye-Stevens bill, than any other single 
provision you could pass. That is pretty good.
  The experts are in the records where we have taken testimony as 
Senators. The best experts said that about 2 weeks ago. It shocked 
everybody. They said there is nothing you can do that will save more 
foreign oil that we import that makes us dependent than if you change 
CAFE standards as we have changed them.
  I think that would have to be hard work. Senators are tired. They 
voted twice on cloture on this bill in a roundabout way. In both 
instances, one or two votes was the only difference. That makes 
sometimes for hard feelings. But I do not think it has here. I think we 
have come out of this OK, friends, ready to go to work on some more 
energy bills.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I have worked closely with the staff of 
Senator Inouye and Senator Domenici on an issue with regard to CAFE 
standards the Senate passed in its version but the House rejected.
  I thank Senator Inouye and the other members of the Commerce 
Committee for their work on a corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, 
standard. As you know, the Senate-passed CAFE bill contained a low-
volume manufacturer exemption that would have classified low-volume 
manufacturers as those that have a U.S. market share of less than 0.4 
percent and that sell less than about 64,000 cars--at current sales 
rates. While current law allows large multiline manufacturers to 
achieve compliance through averaging across various makes and models--
offsetting the performance vehicles with economy cars--it denies some 
small independent limited-line niche manufacturers the same 
opportunity. Small limited-line companies that manufacture only three 
models produce vehicles having superior fuel economy yet pay millions 
in CAFE noncompliance fines. Other automobile manufacturers avoid 
penalties through mergers and acquisitions and the ability to offset 
sports cars with economy cars.
  The law on automotive fuel economy standards does not require each 
passenger automobile to meet the standard, but instead allows 
manufacturers to meet the standard through a fleet average, permitting 
manufacturers to produce vehicles with varying levels of fuel economy. 
The law, 49 U.S.C. 32902, includes a provision allowing low-volume 
manufacturers of passenger automobiles to petition for alternative fuel 
economy standards. Should a petition be granted under section 32902(d), 
the low-volume manufacturer is required to meet the maximum feasible 
fuel economy standard that the Secretary of Transportation finds that 
the manufacturer can attain. In the case of a high-performance vehicle, 
this requirement can lead to greater fuel economy savings than results 
if a similar vehicle is merely averaged into a larger fleet. At the 
time the law was enacted, the threshold for petitioning for alternative 
standards was set at annual worldwide production of 10,000 passenger 
automobiles, which at that time made some 12 companies eligible.
  Today the structure of the U.S. market for passenger automobiles is 
considerably different than it was in 1975. In particular, because of 
consolidation in the automobile industry, only three independent 
manufacturers designing for niche markets remain in the United States 
market. Most, but not all, niche manufacturers have been acquired by 
major manufacturers and so are able to avail themselves of both the 
vastly greater resources and flexibility of fleet averaging of those 
major manufacturers. Thus, the few remaining niche manufacturers are at 
a distinct disadvantage in meeting fuel economy standards not only in 
an absolute sense, but compared to other manufacturers of comparable 
vehicles.
  I believe Congress's original intent in enacting the CAFE standards 
was not to competitively disadvantage small independent manufacturers. 
However, the fundamental change in the structure of the passenger 
vehicle marketplace has in fact disadvantaged the remaining low-volume 
manufacturers without furthering the CAFE goal of increasing fuel 
economy. I believe that changes in the marketplace have altered what 
should constitute a low-volume manufacturer, raising serious questions 
about the reasonableness of the 10,000 threshold for eligibility for 
alternative fuel economy standards. At the same time, I recognize that 
the threshold must not be so high as to competitively disadvantage 
major manufacturers.
  In order to preserve the original intent of section 32902 to afford 
relief to low-volume manufacturers, Senator Chambliss and I proposed 
and the Senate accepted a provision to set a new threshold for 
eligibility for alternative fuel economy standards for passenger 
automobiles by setting the threshold as a percentage of the worldwide 
market rather than an absolute number. This allows for a threshold that 
will adapt to changes in the marketplace, unlike the current threshold. 
This is the same as the language proposed by Senator Smith in 2002 and 
included in the Kerry-McCain amendment to the then-pending CAFE bill.
  The provision the Senate passed set the threshold for eligibility as 
a low-volume manufacturer above the current 10,000 but equivalent to 
less than \1/2\ percent of the world-wide market.
  It is my understanding that although the Senate voted on and passed 
this provision, the House asked that it be removed because they were 
concerned that a manufacturer who is covered by this new provision 
would no longer pay fines as a result of it. It is my understanding 
that under the terms of section 813 as drafted, the Secretary of 
Transportation--through NHTSA, we presume--conducts an investigation 
into the capabilities of any petitioner for consideration under this 
provision and decides whether or not to authorize an alternative 
standard that differs from the established CAFE standard, and if so, by 
how much. In the case of any manufacturer who petitions for an 
alternative standard, NHTSA may decide not to authorize a different 
standard or they could set an alternative standard that could still be 
unachievable in that model year. In either scenario above, a company 
would pay penalties for noncompliance and would not be relieved from 
paying penalties by anything in section 813. Obviously the hope would 
be that NHTSA would set a standard that could be achieved based on our 
maximum feasible technological capabilities.
  I also understand the provision was removed because the House was 
concerned that the alternative standard for low-volume manufacturers is 
an exemption from meeting CAFE standards. Again, it is my understanding

[[Page 34220]]

that section 813 is not an exemption because the provision is drafted 
so that it mirrors current law procedurally in that it authorizes the 
Secretary of Transportation--again, through NHTSA--to prescribe an 
alternative fuel economy standard if there is a finding that the 
petitioning manufacturer's ability to meet the standard prescribed by 
law is not achievable. Again, there is no provision that allows NHTSA 
to ``exempt'' a manufacturer. As we read it, the alternative standard 
must be achieved by the manufacturer in order to achieve compliance and 
not pay a penalty even if the standard exceeds that which the 
manufacturer claims it can meet. So in short, there is no exemption 
from CAFE and the standard established by NHTSA could still result in 
penalties for noncompliance.
  It is also my understanding that the House is not on record as having 
voted on this provision, and that the House has not passed a CAFE 
standard this Congress.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Energy bill 
that passed with my support. The bill requires that 36 billion gallons 
of biofuels be blended with gasoline by 2022, and it establishes new 
appliance and lighting efficiency standards in government buildings. 
The bill also includes Federal grants and loan guarantees to promote 
research into fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced 
diesel and battery technologies.
  The Energy bill also improves CAFE standards, requiring cars and 
light trucks to achieve an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. 
Increasing CAFE standards is a critical step that must be taken to 
reduce pollution and curb greenhouse gas emissions that cause global 
warming. Higher CAFE standards will also benefit our families and our 
communities by reducing the burden of high gas prices freeing up more 
discretionary income for working families to spend on necessities such 
as food, health care, and housing.
  I was pleased that the final bill included an amendment I offered 
that would allow small manufacturers to access awards under the 
advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive title. Considering 
that small manufacturers that employ roughly 75 employees or less 
contribute 29.5 percent to all value added to automobiles, it made 
sense that they should have the opportunity to get these awards.
  Taken together, this bill allows the United States to become more 
energy efficient in a cost effective and responsible way.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for Senate passage of the 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. I voted earlier to invoke 
cloture and to move forward with the bill after receiving assurances 
that my understanding of congressional intent relative to the fuel 
economy provisions is correct. I anticipate that the bill will now be 
accepted by the House of Representatives.
  I regret that it was necessary to drop the energy tax provisions. I 
believe it is particularly unfortunate that the energy tax provisions 
were dropped since many of these are important to continued development 
of biofuels and to development and commercialization of many advanced 
and renewable technologies. Included in these provisions were tax 
incentives for plug-in hybrids which offer potential for significant 
reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that 
we will have another chance to enact these very important provisions.
  With regard to the renewable electricity mandate, I regret that we 
were unable to come up with a formula for a renewable electricity 
mandate that could have garnered widespread support. I believe that a 
renewable electricity mandate is important to provide incentives for 
development of renewable resources, which could lead to the creation of 
numerous high-skill jobs and increase our country's energy security and 
independence. However, I also believe that a renewable energy mandate 
must be done in a way that does not have economically detrimental 
effects.
  I also regret that this bill does not include more positive 
incentives for development of advanced vehicle technologies. There are 
a number of very important provisions included in the bill--including 
authorizations for grants, direct loans, and loan guarantees for 
advanced vehicle technologies and for advanced batteries and battery 
systems--that will be very helpful but I regret that the bill does not 
include tax incentives for retooling of manufacturing facilities to 
produce alternative technology vehicles and components. that would have 
provided an immediate economic benefit to the auto manufacturers and 
suppliers who will bear the burden of meeting the regulatory 
requirements of this legislation.
  The fuel economy provisions of H.R. 6 as passed by the House are a 
significant improvement over what the Senate passed in June 2007 and 
that I opposed vigorously. The bill the Senate passed in June would 
have had a detrimental effect on both U.S. manufacturing and U.S. 
workers by requiring a combined car-truck standard and by not providing 
adequate flexibility for meeting the standards.
  During the course of deliberations between the Senate and House, some 
concessions were obtained on some of the most important issues, 
including requiring separate car and truck standards, preserving 
domestic jobs with an antibacksliding provision, and extending existing 
fuel credits until 2014 to provide flexibility to our domestic 
manufacturers to make it more practically possible for them to reach 
the ambitious level of 35 mpg by 2020. Of great significance, the House 
of Representatives was able to maintain a key reform that we were able 
to obtain during Senate consideration of the bill to set fuel economy 
standards based upon vehicle attributes. By setting standards based on 
vehicle attributes, such as size or weight, rather than having a fleet-
wide average for each company, we will end the many years of 
discriminatory impacts on domestic manufacturers imposed by the 
existing CAFE system.
  Because it is essential to manufacturers that they are able to plan 
on the 35 mpg standard in 2020, it was important to remove any 
ambiguity that could arise in the future if EPA issues new rules to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles pursuant to its 
authority under the Clean Air Act. Earlier today, I entered into a 
colloquy with Senator Inouye, chairman of the Commerce Committee, the 
committee of jurisdiction, and Senator Feinstein, the primary sponsor 
and author of the 35 mpg in 2020 legislation, confirming our mutual 
understanding and interpretation of what the Congress is doing in this 
legislation and to make clear our mutual understanding that the 
standard with which all Federal regulations need to be consistent is 
the 35 m.p.g. in 2020 standard in this bill. The Supreme Court recently 
ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the 
Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. It is 
extremely important that we make clear that it is congressional intent 
in this bill that any future regulations issued by the Environmental 
Protection Agency be consistent with the Department of Transportation's 
new fuel economy regulations that will reach an industry fleet wide 
level by 35 mpg by 2020.
  Logic dictates that we read the law this way--certainly Congress 
would not knowingly enact new fuel economy standards that could be 
undercut in the future by other federal agencies adopting conflicting 
regulations. I was assured this morning by both Senator Inouye and 
Senator Feinstein that it is indeed the intent of the law they wrote 
that EPA regulations be consistent with NHTSA. With that understanding, 
I am supporting this legislation today.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to talk 
about the cloture vote on the Energy bill today. I have worked very 
closely with my good friend, Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, to restructure the energy tax provisions in a way 
that reflects a more balanced energy policy. I have consistently 
opposed the energy tax package up to this point. I voted against the 
proposal in the Senate Finance Committee because I believed it

[[Page 34221]]

did not reflect a balanced energy policy. Rather, it imposed new taxes 
on our Nation's oil companies, while doing too little to address one of 
our Nation's most pressing energy needs: our lack of domestic refining 
capacity.
  I also voted against cloture on the energy proposal on the Senate 
floor in June before it was sent to conference, or what should have 
been a conference on the proposal. So many of us were not even afforded 
the courtesy of basic Senate procedure, and that was appalling. Thus, 
when the bill came back from the House with a House amendment earlier 
this month, I voted against cloture once again. It was my understanding 
that when cloture failed, solid commitments had been made to ensure the 
minority would be included in the formulation of a bill that would 
really address some of the very real energy problems we have in this 
country.
  Based on this understanding and as a senior Republican on the Senate 
Finance Committee, I worked with my colleagues on the Finance Committee 
to improve the tax package. To the credit of Chairman Baucus and 
several members on both sides of the aisle, significant and important 
modifications were made to the tax portion of the Energy bill.
  The new tax provisions included in this bill take some important 
steps toward balancing this bill in a way that will benefit U.S. 
consumers. The new severance tax on offshore production in the Gulf of 
Mexico had been dropped from the revised bill. This move alone restored 
more than $10 billion toward the effort to increase our domestic 
production of oil, provision to extend for 3 years a tax incentive that 
I had originally sponsored to increase refining capacity. Senator 
Baucus also dropped a tax increase on natural gas lines, which restored 
over $500 million to our natural gas infrastructure. Finally, a 
provision that would provide incentives for the conversion of hybrid 
electric vehicles to plug-in hybrid vehicles was included. This 
restored an important aspect of my legislation known as the FREEDOM 
Act, or S. 1617.
  To say this bill is perfect would be an enormous stretch. I believe 
the tax package was improved, but it could still be a whole lot better. 
However, given the realities of Congress, I believed the more balanced 
tax bill was worthy of my support.
  Also of great concern, this bill would apply new Davis Bacon 
requirements to energy production activities. Expansion of Davis Bacon 
is poor public policy and absolutely terrible energy policy. Now that 
cloture has failed and it is apparent the Energy bill cannot proceed, I 
encourage my colleagues to remove these provisions prior to any 
additional votes on an energy bill. I believe these provisions are one 
of the main reasons this bill is unable to secure enough support to 
proceed.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for 
measures contained in the Energy bill, H.R. 6, designed to spur the 
design and construction of high-performance green buildings. After 
reviewing the bill, I am pleased with the approach title IV takes to 
green buildings by retaining the balanced provisions from the earlier 
Senate and House versions of the bill.
  I am also pleased that the provision from the House-passed bill that 
specifically mentioned the Leadership in Energy and Environmental 
Design, LEED, Rating System was amended. The LEED Rating System does 
not recognize the energy and environmental benefits of wood building 
materials in its point structure. Wood products are among the most 
``green'' of all building materials.
  The Energy bill lays out general criteria that allow green building 
rating systems in the marketplace to compete for the Government's 
business. This is a sensible approach that will promote the concept of 
green building design without referencing one rating system over 
another.
  It is important that the General Services Administration and other 
agencies ensure that the balanced spirit of this legislation is 
embraced. There are at least two green building rating systems being 
used by Federal agencies and the private marketplace now, and the 
competition among these two systems has resulted in improvements in 
both. The best approach is to permit the marketplace to decide which 
rating system is best suited for each project, and this legislation 
will allow all of rating systems to compete for Government contracts.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today the Senate will approve landmark 
comprehensive energy legislation that over the next decade will lessen 
our reliance on foreign energy sources and dramatically increase the 
use of renewable fuels. Today's work is the culmination of a year-long 
debate on how best to wean Americans from the unhealthy addiction on 
foreign energy sources and record-high gasoline prices. We are going to 
accomplish these twin goals by boosting the role of renewable, 
homegrown fuel and through a long-term plan to make our cars and trucks 
use gasoline more efficiently. These two laudable goals will cut fuel 
use, spur investment into rural economies, decrease greenhouse gas 
emissions, and ultimately make energy more affordable for American 
families.
  This bipartisan bill builds on the success of the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005, which authorized the first nationwide renewable fuel standard, 
RFS. I am proud to have played a role in passage of that bill through 
my work on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The 
positive results of that bill are clear: ethanol and biodiesel 
production is booming, far outstripping the goals in that bill. Today's 
legislation builds on that success by realizing the tremendous growth 
in renewable fuels. We are going to dramatically increase the amount of 
renewable fuels, such as biodiesel and ethanol blended into the 
gasoline supply. In 2008, the United States will have the capacity to 
produce a minimum of 10 billion gallons of renewable fuels. The bill 
before the Senate today will ensure that we capture the promise of this 
tremendous growth by requiring the United States blend a minimum of 9 
billion gallons of renewable fuels in the gasoline supply. Furthermore, 
this bill will ramp up the amount of ethanol and cellulosic ethanol 
produced in this country so that by 2020 the United States will produce 
a minimum of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels. That is enough fuel 
to displace over 15 percent of the gasoline we use to power our trucks 
and cars.
  South Dakota is prepared to do its part in meeting this ambitious 
goal. The 13 ethanol plants in South Dakota will produce 1 billion 
gallons of ethanol in 2008 by turning 250 million bushels of corn into 
the clean-burning fuel. The renewable fuels industry contributes 
approximately $2 billion in total economic benefits annually to my 
State while employing hundreds in all parts of South Dakota. South 
Dakota will now become an energy producer providing the energy and food 
a growing economy and prosperous nation requires.
  Working together and placing partisan differences aside, the Congress 
is moving our country forward. We are going to produce more fuel from 
renewable resources and over the long-term decrease the amount of 
fossil fuels we need to import from unstable regions of the globe. This 
is a great bill for South Dakota and for our country, and I am glad 
that we will take this step together today.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it hasn't been easy, but the Senate is 
finally poised to pass H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer 
Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. This bill contains 
important provisions to reduce our reliance on imported oil, bolster 
our national security, reduce greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions, and 
protect the environment.
  The most important provision in this bill requires an increase in the 
average fleet fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks from 25 
miles per gallon to 35 by 2020. This 40 percent increase is overdue, 
but most welcome. Maryland drivers will save an estimated $414 million 
at the gas pump annually by 2020 because of the increased fuel economy 
standards. The average family with two cars will save up to $1,000 a 
year. By 2020, the new fuel economy standards are expected to save 1.1 
million barrels of oil per day. The standards will remove 192 million

[[Page 34222]]

metric tons of global warming pollution annually by 2020. That is the 
equivalent of taking approximately 28 million cars off the road.
  H.R. 6 raises the annual requirement for the amount of renewable 
fuels used in cars and trucks to 36 billion gallons by 2022. H.R. 6 
makes a historic commitment to develop cellulosic ethanol by requiring 
that the United States produce 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, 
like cellulosic ethanol. Homegrown renewable fuels will replace the 
equivalent of all the oil we import from the Middle East today.
  H.R. 6 establishes strong national efficiency standards for 
lightbulbs. Lightbulbs will be 30 percent more efficient by 2012 to 
2014. The near-term savings from the standard are estimated to be $6 
billion a year. The first part of the new standard will reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions by about 13 million metric tons, which is equivalent 
to approximately 24 new 500-megawatt coal plants. The second set of 
standards, effective in 2020, could at least double the initial savings 
of 65 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.
  H.R. 6 contains provisions reported by the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, EPW, calling for a 30 percent reduction 
in energy consumption by 2015 in Federal buildings. That reduction 
would save approximately 60 trillion British thermal units, Btus, of 
energy, 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and almost $4 billion 
in taxpayers' money. I worked hard with my colleagues on the EPW 
Committee to ensure that the strongest possible ``green buildings'' 
provisions would be included in H.R. 6. These provisions include my 
amendment that will put the Federal Government in the forefront of 
storm water management in the Nation. Virtually all Federal building 
projects will be required to use site planning, design, and 
construction techniques that will minimize storm water runoff. These 
storm water minimization methods are often inexpensive and highly 
effective. In many parts of the country, polluted storm water runoff is 
the leading cause of water quality problems.
  So, Mr. President, H.R. 6 is a strong bill. But it is hard not to 
regret what has been negotiated out of the bill. Most important was the 
provision to require a renewable electricity mandate. I also regret the 
repeal of ill-advised tax breaks for oil companies that would have paid 
for tax incentives for renewables, including solar energy. The 
difficulty Congress and the administration have had reaching an 
agreement on this bill underscores the need for an amendment I 
successfully offered to establish an independent, bipartisan commission 
to monitor our Nation's progress in becoming energy independent and 
make consensus recommendations on how to achieve that independence. I 
am disappointed that my amendment did not survive conference committee 
deliberations.
  H.R. 6 could have been a better bill if we had the votes, but it is a 
good bill. I consider it a solid ``downpayment'' on what we need to do 
as a Nation to make energy affordable and reliable, use it efficiently, 
cut GHG emissions, and protect the environment and enhance our 
competitiveness and national security.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate is considering one of the most 
important pieces of legislation that I have worked on in my legislative 
career--the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
  I thank all the Senators who helped to craft this important bill.
  This energy legislation will move America in a new direction--it will 
make us more independent as a Nation, strengthen our economy and 
protect our environment.
  I am proud to support this legislation which will take meaningful 
steps to use our energy resources more wisely.
  Without this legislation we will fail to protect our country, and our 
children, from the growing threats of global warming, which is a clear 
and present danger to the national security and the economy of the 
United States.
  The bill we are considering today begins to reduce our dependence on 
fossil fuels and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
  For many years I have advocated for an increase in CAFE standards and 
have offered amendments to previous energy bills to achieve this 
important goal. I am pleased that for the first time in over 2 decades 
we will be voting on legislation that raises the fuel economy of our 
cars and trucks. After 22 years of allowing vehicles to average 27.5 
miles per gallon, cars and trucks will need to average 35 miles per 
gallon by 2020.
  The provision we are considering today is historic in another way, 
because both the auto industry and the auto workers union, as well as 
the environmental community, have endorsed this key provision in the 
bill and understand the importance of making and driving more fuel 
efficient vehicles here in the U.S.
  This increase in the CAFE standards will save 18 billion gallons of 
gasoline per year in 2020, and it will help us reduce the greenhouse 
gases that cause global warming. New CAFE standards will help us avoid 
206 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually.
  This is the equivalent of removing 30 million cars from the road in 
the year 2020.
  This legislation will significantly lower our oil consumption and 
will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. This is one of the most 
effective ways we can reduce national gasoline consumption, extend our 
oil supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  To help reduce our dependence on imported oil, and on oil 
consumption, this bill strengthens the renewable fuels standard. It 
sets clear benchmarks for higher levels of production of biofuels made 
from corn as well as other feedstocks, including soybean oil, 
switchgrass, and other sources of energy that will be developed in the 
future.
  With this bill, we will shift some of our energy reliance from the 
oilfields of the Middle East to the corn fields of the Midwest.
  The bill will ratchet up the schedule for the use of renewable fuels 
in our cars and trucks from the level of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, 
as passed in the 2005 Energy Bill, to 15 billion gallons by 2015 and 36 
billion gallons by 2022.
  That represents a major advance in our commitment to renewable, home 
grown fuels that reduce emissions, mitigate global warming, and improve 
farmer income.
  This is a strong market signal to ethanol, biodiesel, and other 
renewable energy investors that the Federal Government supports fuels 
that are more environmentally friendly and help to reduce our 
dependence on oil.
  Unfortunately, the package we are considering today does not include 
a renewable electricity standard--RES.
  It does, however, include tax incentives to support the development 
of renewable energy. It is my hope that in future energy legislation, 
we will be able to pass an RES to ensure that electric utility 
companies to use more wind, biomass, geothermal and solar to generate 
electricity.
  Another important component of this bill are new standards for energy 
efficiency.
  The bill will dramatically reduce energy consumption in Federal 
buildings and improve energy efficiency in appliances. Improving 
efficiency is the best way to use less energy and reduce emissions. And 
Americans will save billions of dollars on energy bills.
  Reducing energy use by the Federal Government is not only good for 
the environment; it is good for the bottom line--our budget.
  I am pleased to support this important and long over-due bill. This 
bill makes a substantial down payment on our commitment to slow global 
warming. We will begin to reduce oil consumption and energy use and 
promote research and development and help to promote America's creative 
ideas.
  We want innovation to be the driver of our economy, not oil. We want 
more American jobs, a stronger economy and a cleaner environment.
  We want a more secure future for America.
  The bill that we are considering will go a long way toward achieving 
this goal.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my unequivocal 
support for landmark energy legislation

[[Page 34223]]

before us today that will revive our long dormant energy policy. I want 
to especially recognize Senator Feinstein for her resolve in including 
momentous, benchmark CAFE standards for the first time in three 
decades--without her tenacity this critical component would not be 
included in this legislation. Furthermore, I want to thank Senators 
Inouye, Stevens, Bingaman, and Domenici for crafting this historic 
legislation. And it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Feinstein 
for the past 7 years toward this goal and authoring with her the CAFE 
measure that was the basis for the provision included in this bill, and 
that is central to our environmental well-being.
  As record energy costs continue to saddle Americans and hamper the 
growth of our economy, this legislation is, quite frankly, long 
overdue. Since the Senate passed the Renewable Fuels, Consumer 
Protection and Energy Efficiency Act in June, our failed energy policy 
has proliferated into a crisis. Currently, in my home State of Maine, 
trucks remain idle because the prohibitive cost of diesel--an 
astonishing 43 percent higher than last year--has made trucking simply 
unprofitable and untenable for many. And as I speak, residents in 
Washington County in Maine as well as other areas around the State--are 
contemplating whether to purchase food, medicine or heat.
  The reality is, our energy policy has ambled aimlessly for decades--
and Mainers and Americans are quite literally paying the price. As a 
result, this timely energy legislation could not be more critical as it 
represents the initial step toward the boldness of leadership on this 
issue that the American people desire and require. Indeed, the bill 
before the Senate represents a departure--finally--from the regressive 
policies of the 20th century to a sustained long-term energy policy 
that both challenges and harnesses the U.S. preeminent attribute of 
innovation.
  And this change comes not a moment too soon. The fact is, while each 
of us understands the unacceptable cost of gasoline, heating oil, and 
electricity for our constituents, we must also be cognizant that our 
energy policy has been a boon to America's adversaries. As Thomas 
Friedman recently remarked, petro-authoritarianism is sweeping the 
globe. In 2005, Iran earned $44.6 billion from crude oil exports when 
oil was $50 a barrel--now it is $90. The reality is, our current energy 
policy directly shifts America's hard- earned money to the least 
democratic countries and most dangerous in the world including 
Venezuela and indirectly to Iran.
  Although this is, in itself, an undeniable reason to change our 
energy policy, our failed approaches of the past are also manifested in 
the challenge of global climate change. The release of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change completed in mid-November 
concluded that climate change is ``unequivocal'' and accelerating. 
Indeed this summer, the Arctic Ocean exposed 1 million square miles of 
open water, the most that has been determined since measurements have 
been taken. Quite frankly, it is beyond dispute that the United States 
must take immediate action to reduce carbon emissions and stem climate 
change.
  That is why this timely legislation is absolutely essential to our 
Nation's security and our environment--as well as our pocketbooks and 
wallets. Indeed this body is on the brink of forging an energy policy 
that would provide dividends to the American consumer, enhance American 
security, and reestablish American leadership on environmental issues 
by confronting climate change. The question now is, Will we?
  We can't afford to wait and, on that note, I particularly want to 
highlight the inclusion of the CAFE provisions that will finally place 
this country on track to substantially improve our Nation's automobile 
fleet from 25.2 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. 
Because this provision that Senator Feinstein and I authored is the 
most significant step our Nation can take to address our long-term 
energy crisis.
  As the New York Times stated on November 14th, ``The single most 
effective way to address the problem of oil imports and consumption is 
to improve the efficiency of cars and light trucks, which use more than 
two-thirds of all the oil burned in the United States.'' This 
legislation will save Americans 1.1 million barrels of oil per day--
nearly the same amount imported from Saudi Arabia. And at a time when 
thousands of families are struggling to provide the basic necessity of 
heat in their homes, indisputably we must not squander oil through 
inefficiency.
  There is no question this is a measure whose time has long since 
come, given the last time Congress comprehensively adjusted CAFE 
standards was over 30 years ago, in 1975, when the price of gasoline 
was 60 cents per gallon. Yet all we have done in 32 years is raise CAFE 
by a measly 5 miles per gallon for light trucks and not at all for 
passenger vehicles. It is like the program that time forgot. That is 
why this provision is essential for any comprehensive energy 
legislation.
  The legislation significantly before us achieves the goal of 35 miles 
per gallon by 2020 through an attribute-based system, incorporating the 
2001 National Academy of Science's recommendation that ``Consideration 
should be given to designing and evaluating an approach with fuel 
economy targets that are dependent on vehicle attributes such as 
vehicle weight.'' Why is this important? Because this concept maintains 
a critical component of America's automobile fleet, and that is 
consumer choice.
  This is the innovative approach that Senator Feinstein and I 
developed that focuses not on defacto mandates on what type of vehicles 
are built and sold but rather on the end result of overall fuel 
savings. And I am particularly pleased that the auto companies have 
recognized the merits in this proposal and support this initiative. 
This represents a sea change from the previous divisiveness of this 
central issue, and I want to applaud my colleagues who worked with 
Senator Feinstein, Senator Inouye, and I to craft this historic 
breakthrough that represents a new automotive era, ensuring that we 
will not return to the wasteful gas-guzzling days of the past.
  Furthermore, this legislation provides critical tax incentives for 
energy efficiency and renewable energy, to wean ourselves off the 
expensive foreign petroleum that, as I have said, also serves to line 
the pockets of some of the world's most dangerous tyrants. This 
country, quite frankly, has abrogated its commitment to a substantial 
investment in altering our energy policy--a problem encapsulated in a 
special report in the Economist, which stated that, regrettably 
``America's incentives for clean energy'' are ``relatively modest 
compared to Europe's.'' Furthermore, the article illustrates that, 
``what one politician can mandate, another can terminate--and therein 
lies one of the biggest risks for clean energy. American politicians 
have periodically allowed a tax break for wind generation to expire, 
for example. This caused the industry to falter several times, before 
the credit was renewed again.''
  Accordingly, I am extremely disappointed that this legislation fails 
to extend the vital renewable production tax credit. If we truly want 
to alter our Nation's energy policy we must make substantial 
investments and it confounds me why we elected not to make that a 
national priority.
  In addition, I want to voice my strong opposition to the inexplicable 
removal of the renewable portfolio standard to create a market for 
sustainable resources. The State of Maine has demonstrated that this 
provision stimulates the development of hydropower, wind, solar, tidal, 
and biomass energy with more than 30 percent of our energy flowing from 
these sources. Enactment of this strong RPS would have promoted fuel 
diversity and reduced our substantial dependence of natural gas. This 
reliance on natural gas was unfortunately illustrated in Maine last 
week when a Canadian supply disruption of imported natural gas forced 
to shut down two natural gas plants. Frankly, we must promote energy 
diversity to ensure energy reliance--and this strong Renewable 
Portfolio Standard that his legislation fails

[[Page 34224]]

to include would have ensured that Americans would have received 15 
percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources and 
ensured a basic level of diversity while promoting clean energy. I urge 
my colleagues to address this central issue in the future.
  On the more positive side, I am pleased to have worked closely with 
Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, and 
also House Small Business Committee Chair Velazquez and Ranking Member 
Chabot, to fashion a bipartisan small business title to this Energy 
Bill. This title includes virtually all of the provisions in the 
``Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007'' (S. 1657), which 
Senator Kerry and I introduced in June.
  This year, the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, of which I am the ranking member, has paid particular 
attention to the effects of climate change and escalating fuel costs on 
small businesses, and the role America's entrepreneurs can play in 
affecting change in these areas. Chairman Kerry and I have already 
devoted two hearings during the 110th Congress to these subjects as 
clearly rising gas prices and global warming are having a devastating 
affect on the health of small business in this country.
  As we all recognize, small business is the backbone of our Nation's 
economy. As the leading Republican on the Small Business Committee and 
as a longstanding steward of the environment, I firmly believe that 
small business has a pivotal role to play in finding a solution to 
global climate change. According to a recent survey conducted by the 
National Small Business Association, 75 percent of small businesses 
believe that energy efficiency can make a significant contribution to 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And yet, only 33 percent of those 
had successfully invested in energy efficiency programs for their 
businesses.
  We must significantly improve energy efficiency investment by small 
businesses. To that end, the small business title in the Energy bill 
will make the SBA's Express Loan Program available to small businesses 
that wish to purchase renewable energy systems or make energy 
efficiency improvements to their businesses. I firmly believe that the 
SBA Express Loan will be an attractive option to small business owners 
looking to make their businesses more energy efficient and 
environmentally sound because of the program's quick turnaround time 
and the ability of participating lenders to use their own forms and 
procedures for fast approval.
  Another key provision would encourage small business innovation in 
energy efficiency, by creating a priority under the Small Business 
Innovation Research, SBIR, program for solicitations by small 
businesses that participate in or conduct energy efficiency or 
renewable energy system research and development.
  The small business title would also create a pilot, competitive grant 
program that would be administered through the national network of 
Small Business Development Centers, which would provide ``energy 
audits'' to small businesses to enhance their energy efficiency 
practices, as well as offer access to information and resources on 
energy efficiency practices.
  Finally, the small business title will ensure that the SBA completes 
its requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Within 6 months 
of enactment, the SBA, through a final rulemaking, would be mandated to 
complete all of its requirements under the Energy Policy Act, including 
setting up a ``Small Business Energy Clearinghouse'' that builds on the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program to assist small 
business in becoming more energy efficient. Frankly, I am alarmed by 
the lack of progress that SBA has made on these requirements, which 
President Bush signed into law nearly 2\1/2\ years ago. Unfortunately, 
this may be one more example of the administration's unwillingness to 
lead on actions to address global warming. By contrast, the small 
business title will help to ensure that the SBA finally completes its 
requirements under the Energy Policy Act and actually play a leading 
role in combating global climate change.
  It is my hope that the small business title in the Energy bill will 
spur more small firms to make a smaller carbon ``footprint'' and play a 
leading role in the actions that are essential in combating global 
warming. Assisting small firms in this regard will not only help the 
environment but will also significantly lower the energy costs for 
cash-strapped small businesses.
  Given our Nation's energy crisis, we must pursue every opportunity to 
pursue energy savings, and I therefore must express my strong 
disappointment that the issue of truck weights was not considered in 
this legislation. This is a timely issue that has unnecessarily placed 
the Maine trucking industry and the safety of our residents in 
jeopardy.
  The issue, quite frankly, defies even the most elementary logic. 
Currently, arbitrary rules create two distinct truck weight limits that 
capriciously bisect the State at Augusta. Specifically, from the New 
Hampshire/Maine border to Augusta trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds 
are allowed to travel on Interstate 95. However, beyond this point all 
the way from Augusta to Houlton--a distance of 200 miles--the 
regulation recedes to 80,000 pounds.
  As a result, north of Augusta, heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, 
secondary roads that pass through our cities, towns, and villages and 
they fail to use the Federal highway system. This mosaic of Federal 
regulations unnecessarily costs our Nation energy by requiring 
additional truck trips to meet the needless 80,000 limitation. Truckers 
must make additional trips for the transportation of fish, lumber, 
blueberries, and potatoes, which increases the costs of these goods and 
regrettably has become a major safety issue on the secondary roads of 
Maine with these massive trucks speeding through Maine's communities. 
With diesel prices upwards of $3.70, the problem has burgeoned into a 
full crisis and this Federal medley of regulations must end and I urge 
my colleagues to support me in creating a uniform 100,000-limit 
restriction on Maine's Federal highways.
  Overall, I am pleased that this legislation is reflective of the 
broad ramifications of our energy plan and provides the beginning of a 
commensurate response to our energy crisis. The manifestations of our 
current strategy are discernible in some of the greatest issues facing 
America. The critical issues of climate change, the trade imbalance, 
and a restricted foreign diplomacy in the Middle East are all directly 
related to our failed energy strategy. We are realizing, with 
increasing clarity, the consequences of an oil-based energy policy.
  Now, with this Energy bill before us, this is a critical initial step 
but is only the first. A glaring absence in this bill is the preeminent 
issue of climate change. It is incumbent on this Congress to build 
momentum from the recent G8 meeting and pass legislation that 
reestablishes American leadership on this critical environmental issue. 
Currently, the entire world is meeting in Bali, Indonesia, waiting for 
an answer from America. The Environment and Public Work's Committee 
passage of the first comprehensive climate change legislation, coupled 
with the action today, resoundingly declares that American leadership 
is hopefully on its way. As I have worked with Senators McCain and 
Lieberman for 4 years on the Climate Stewardship Act, as well as 
Senator Kerry on Global Warming Reduction Act, I remain absolutely 
committed to passing climate change legislation. The legislation before 
the Senate does not replace the need for comprehensive climate 
legislation, and I look forward to bringing this fundamental energy and 
environmental issue to the floor of the Senate when we return after the 
New Year.
  Again, this bill represents critical progress toward a comprehensive 
energy policy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
additional components to finally achieve American energy independence.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?

[[Page 34225]]


  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe we are out of time except for 
leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 3 minutes 54 seconds, not 
including the leader; and the majority has 1 minute 17 seconds, not 
including the leader.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no other Senators who want to be heard on my 
side.
  I yield back the remainder of our time, reserving the full leader's 
time at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I particularly want to say how pleased 
I am Senator Domenici is still on the Senate floor. This is an 
extraordinary accomplishment for him. I congratulate him on his 
persistence and tenacity. Senator Stevens has been deeply involved in 
this issue from the very beginning and has done an extraordinary job, 
and I want to congratulate both of these outstanding Senators for what 
is going to be an accomplishment that all of us can be proud of. I also 
commend Senator Inouye and Senator Bingaman for their hard work as 
well. The final product is not perfect, but it is vastly better than 
the version that was sent to us by the House of Representatives.
  We recognized in the Senate that the House bill couldn't pass the 
Senate and wouldn't be signed into law, so we fixed it, and now it 
will. The new fuel economy standards and the increase in renewable 
fuels represent a step forward in our common effort to make America 
more energy independent. This is something we can all be proud of as we 
leave to go home for the holiday recess.
  This is a good accomplishment. It was achieved--as every good thing 
in the Senate always is--by cooperation between the parties. What we 
have done on this bill we have done together. In a year that has seen 
its fair share of partisan tensions, that is no small accomplishment 
either.
  So, again, I congratulate the managers of the bill. I also thank my 
good friend, the majority leader, for bringing it back to the floor in 
a form that guarantees not only that it will pass the Senate but that 
it will be signed into law.
  I am extremely pleased about this bipartisan accomplishment. I am 
extremely happy that we are about to show the American people we still 
have it in us to come together as a body and to achieve consensus on an 
issue that affects all of us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, a note of information for all of the 
Senators: We are trying to work out something on the farm bill to 
complete it, and we are going to complete it this week. Right now, we 
have one obstacle, and it is an amendment dealing with firefighters. 
There is bipartisan support for it. I have told those people who like 
it and don't like it that we can do a number of things. We can have a 
voice vote on it; we can have side-by-sides. If the opponents of the 
legislation want a couple of second-degree amendments that relate to 
that, they can have that. If that doesn't work, I have no alternative 
but to file cloture on that amendment. If I do that tonight, there will 
be a cloture vote on Saturday. I don't want a cloture vote on 
Saturday--no one does--but we have no alternative. We have to finish 
what we have to do here.
  Now, if I file cloture on it, maybe they would agree to allow us to 
have the cloture vote tomorrow.
  We have some other things we need to do. Everyone should be alerted. 
With the permission of the--well, I don't need to say the 
``permission.'' Whenever we finish the firefighters amendment sometime 
tomorrow, cloture will be sought on the bill. We still have Republican 
and Democratic amendments out there floating around. Some people don't 
come and offer them; some people won't debate their amendments. Once 
the firefighter issue is out of the way, we are going to see if we can 
invoke cloture on the bill.
  I think there is general consensus that, as with immigration, we have 
had enough of farm legislation this year. We have all been very 
patient. It has been a very distressing issue on occasion. We have done 
a lot of finger-pointing. It is time now that we pass the farm bill. So 
the issue relating to firefighting is on the bill. It was one of the 
Republicans' amendments, and now it is a Democratic amendment.
  That is where we are. That has nothing to do with some real good 
news. I just wanted to alert everyone as to what we are doing.
  Mr. President, we had a little going away party sponsored by the 
Republican leader and me yesterday in the Mansfield Room. It was a 
wonderful occasion. It was the farewell to Senator Trent Lott. I said 
something there that I am saying again here today. Edmund Burke, the 
famous Irish statesman and philosopher, said:

       All government, every virtue and every prudent act, is 
     founded on compromise.

  Listen to what this brilliant man said:

       All government, every virtue and every prudent act, is 
     founded on compromise.

  ``Compromise'' is not a dirty word. Consensus building is what we 
have to do. It can be frustrating. It can be exasperating. It can be 
maddening. But at the end of the day, compromise leads to progress. 
That is what we have today. Progress. The last time America raised fuel 
economy standards was 30 years ago. We didn't have airbags, the 
Internet was a science fiction fantasy, and the closest thing to GPS 
was a map. You went to a service station and they gave it to you. Today 
we have hybrid cars, hydrogen cars, ethanol cars, fully electric cars.
  Now, after 30 years, we are going to pass a new fuel economy 
standard. This is not only important, it is historic. This is a good 
energy bill. There are so many heroes. One just walked past me: Dianne 
Feinstein. There is lots of credit to go around. It will save consumers 
money. It will begin to reverse our addiction to oil. It will take a 
small first step in our fight to turn the tide of global warming. Could 
this bill have been better? Of course it could have been better. 
Absolutely. But we are not going to talk today about what could have 
been in it to make it better. We have been through that. What we want 
to talk about today is this bill will be a win for the American people.
  It may be a split decision, as we have in boxing matches, but if you 
have a split decision in a boxing match, there are still winners, and 
we have winners in this matter today. Who are the winners? Not me, not 
the Republican leader, none of the 98 other Senators are winners. It is 
a partnership. We have worked together. All Senators and all House 
Members are going to be able to walk out and hold their chests out, 
hold their heads high, and say: We passed an energy bill. Not only does 
Congress get credit for this, the White House gets credit for it. It 
sets new fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years: 36 
billion gallons of renewable fuel will replace oil by 2022. It creates 
new energy efficiency standards, everything from light bulbs, to 
refrigerators, to the construction of new buildings. Because of the 
Energy bill we will pass in just a few minutes, Americans will save 
money every day.
  I say to the Senate, to the House of Representatives, to the 
President of the United States: Congratulations.

                          ____________________