the senate will come to order our chaplain dr barry black will lead the senate in prayer let us pray eternal spirit your great nane keeps us from harm we remember all your gifts and praise you for your mercy today guide our senators make their plans succeed as they find wisdom by following your directions when they don't know what to do teach them to be still until you make your will clear when they feel alone and anxious remind them that you will never abandon them no matter how difficult  challenge keep them from elevating the empty and hollow while neglecting the truly valuable help them to focus on the things that are excellent commendable prove honorable right pure lovely and admirable we pray in your sacred the clerk will read the communication to the senate washington d c june twentieth two thousand and seven for the senate under the provisions of rule one paragraph three of the standing rules of the senate i have i appoint the honorable benjamin l carden a senator from the state of maryland to perform the duties  energy bill thirty minutes of debate on the demesne amendment number two hundred forty six so vote in relation to that amendment expected to curt ten ten or ten fifteen this morning last night cloture was filed on the baucus grassley tax amendment to the energy bill dishnet cloture was filed on a substitute amendment and the energy bill itself was present last night i stated the obvious every step of the way for six months we have had to proceed really jump through every hoop that the complicated senate rules allow that's unfortunate we as democrats have been in the minority and we didn't we never did anything like this there were times when it was necessary because of what we did not allow the close was filed but this is untoward what is happening now and i would hope that the republican leadership would look at this and is it really necessary if we get closure on this subject to to file to to have to go forward a cloture vote on this the bill itself i hope not remain first to be remembered to the substitute in the bill need be filed at the desk by one p m today there's there will be vote today and into the evening as president just briefly let me say this yesterday a few feet out of the this chamber i had the opportunity to meet with three young ladies from nevada megan christiansen's fourteen years old an r s l from sparks thirteen years old and jordan x for a fourteen year old from las vegas his friends these girls who are here to present me with a little award as a result of work that i've done on juvenile diabetes i was representative of many people who have worked on the issue but the reason i mention this is not any award that was given to me or any of the other senators but the plight of these young ladies one of the girls was just turning to have diabetes three months ago just before child jordan las vegas they prepared a book for me two thousand and seven children's congress mother thinks mispresent one of the pictures in this is a bunch of syringes look at this i can't count them but this is one day picking and poking at this young lady's body which she has to go through because diabetes type one juvenile diabetes is a chronic disease in the child with type one diabetes the pancreas does not produce insulin the horman hormone necessary to sustain life without and find the sugar in the blood can't be used a builds up  bloodstream even all the body a star for energy a person with type one diabetes must take one or more injections of insulin daily to stay alive she has written here i take forty two shots at least every week this does not count the testing to find out what her blood sugar levels are forty two a week the reason i mention this is these young beautiful children we're here to talk about something the president's going to do today veto stem cell research legislation what a shame last year the republican controlled house and senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to top up hope for these young ladies and to indicate mr president that this is not just something that's important for nevada they had there a girl from australia a teenager from australia was here to indicate that this is an international problem that we in america with the genius we have here this president out of the top one hundred forty two universities in the world with one hundred twenty nine of them in america one of the best scores in the presiding officer state johns hopkins research is going on here stem cell research should be going on there and it's not it was really a happy day for all of us when the bill passed the house and senate was a day democrats republicans put politics and partisanship aside to do the right thing for the american people yet when we sent this historic bill to the president desk he vetoed it it was his first veto of his presidency with the help and hope of literally millions of americans hanging in the balance he vetoed the bill it was the first veto  repeat of his administration in years past the best scientists continue to work with one hand tied behind their back and akkad mr president hundred twenty nine great universities in america the best universities in the world are not allowed to do this countless millions of americans have been diagnosed with dread disease these thousands and thousands with parkinson's spinal cord injuries heart disease a years past but today we're told the president plans a veto stem cell bill again these children suffer from diabetes they were here to help get this bill passed and we sent the bill to present two weeks ago speaker pelosi and i were joined by ten year old tony  are lives here in this column being suffers from diabetes and seven year old allison howard who suffers from rats syndrome beautiful children one of them extremely ill they deserve hope just like these girls from las vegas sparks reno from australia president bush has indicated he won't give them any hope be told bill were killed he won't listen to the more than five hundred leading organizations who support this bill socialization of american retired people a p the american medical social merican diabetes association more than five hundred parganas a sions he won't listen to eighty nobel laureates who've said this is essential he won't listen to his own director i'm  about president bush his own director the nationals who helped who supports embryonic stem cell research but as president he's not listening the majority of american people this this proposal i more than eighty percent of the american public they call for stem cell research this narrow ideology that has guided the administration that has in  that has us losing standing in the world community having forty seven million americans with no health care and no plan coming from the white house to improve that a program that is lacking and keeping our children in school and vironment global warming is taking place being ignored by this white house but this hope for millions of stem cell research indicates this narrow ideology is wrong and is preventing the curing of diseases the prevention of diseases we deserve better we're a nation of analysts compassion on limited and gen megan anna jordan tony allison deserve to know we're vetter country than this narrow ideology president bush's veto is a setback and we're going to continue to hope to these children and the american people under under the previous order the leadership time is reserved under previous orders senate will resume consideration of h r six which the clerk will report color number nine h r six and actually reduce our nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean renewable and alternative energy resources and so forth and for other purposes under previous order there now be thirty minutes of debate on the amendment number fifteen forty six operate by the sounder from south carolina mr allowed to speak is if the morning business for up to five minutes and that it can against my allocated fifteen minutes on my memo and that it appear in a separate place in the record without objection so water mr president i rise today to speak about some real heroes and their real sacrifices this week late monday a horrible blaze in charleston south carolina claimed the lives of nine local firefighters details are still being investigated but what we know now is that these heroes died trying to save lives we fear that most were caught under a collapsed roof in the quake spreading flames my heart goes out to the families friends and coworkers of these firefighters these were courageous public servants and we will miss them dearly they paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty in the aftermath of this our state low country must deal with the shock and sorrow of these losses our job as citizens is to never forget what they did in to try to turn the shock and sorrow into solemn remembrance and a commitment to help their families i also want to mention two other charleston leaders who are struggling with this situation on the ground fire chief rusty thomas and the city of charleston mayor joe riley according to news reports chief thomas stayed up monday night meeting with many of the families of the victims he was on the scene all night the police chief greg mullen said chief thomas is a true leader i couldn't agree more is no stranger when it comes to dealing with disaster his leadership during the trying aftermath of hurricane hugo it was instrumental in our quick recovery is leadership was a great aid to the  charleston fire department now as they attempt to move forward mr president firefighters represent the best our country has to offer and i will never forget these hometown heroes in the tremendous sacrifice they made this week for the families of those who lost loved ones in charleston our words or he very feeble comfort but we will always honor the memory in the sacrifices of these heroic public servants of south carolina and for the families and friends of fire fighters who remain on the job today we pray for them as the psalmist did that god would be their refuge and strength a very present help in time of trouble and i thank the chair and asked that my comments again be made separate in the record on this issue of objection now mr president i'd like to take a few minutes to speak about my amendment which the senate will be voting on a few minutes after ten this morning  amendment would create a sixty vote point of order against bills or amendments in the future that would raise the price of gasoline this amendment is very straightforward it would require the congressional budget office to score legislation to determine if it would increase the cost of gasoline if the legislation would increase the cost of gasoline a sixty vote for an avoider would lie against the bill this applies the same principle we use in the congressional budget process to our energy policy the traveling public is coping with the high price of gasoline every day and while there are many factors out of our control forcing up the price of gas we can control what we do here in the united states senate for all the time that has been spent over the last few weeks railing against big oil for the high cost of gasoline a little time has been spent to examine one of the leading causes of higher prices of gasoline which is the united states congress too often the idea of rational energy policy here in congress is to create burdensome regulations on our us mandates and higher taxes all of which directly translate into higher prices at the pump for american families proposes to hold congress in check by instituting a safeguard that encourages the senate to take a do no harm approach when considering legislation affecting gas prices my amendment again is very  straightforward and very simple if the senate wants to pass legislation that will make it more expensive for american families to fill up their tank we will be required to get sixty votes instead of fifty one to pass legislation and while this amendment is relatively simple it also it's also vitally important because while many of the democrats in this body like to tell the american people they are working to stick it to big oil and lower the price of gasoline their legislative record shows something quite different the current bill is a perfect example according to a study completed this week by the heritage foundation the energy bill we are currently debating could result in significantly higher prices for gasoline to consumers a review of the legislation including the new amendment dealing with tax changes revealed that the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from three fourteen per gallon which is the may average right now to six dollars and forty cents a gallon by two thousand and sixteen that's an increase of over one hundred percent the point of order that my amendment proposes could not be used against this bill because it cannot take effect into the bill as an active but my amendment could be used to stop similar legislation in the future and if this congress is willing to consider legislation that would raise the price of gasoline but over a hundred percent like this bill may do we need to put some commonsense safeguards in place mr president i know some of my colleagues may in the future support policies that would raise the price of gasoline and that would cause the point of order that i'm proposing to lie against the bill but i would encourage even those who support this amendment if their policy goal is so important then we can overcome the point of order and we can get sixty votes to pass their legislation mr president we should adopt this common sense proposal that ensures at the very least the senate is less likely to in crease the cost of gasoline after all the concerns we've heard from my democrat colleagues about the price of gasoline this seems like the least we can do i thank the chair and reserve the balance of my time legislation that would result would quote result in an increase in the national average fuel price for automobiles by legislation that's usually interpreted to mean a a joint resolution of the many months of motion or conference for porn the determination of whether or not any of those enumerated items would increase would result in an increase in the national average fuel price for automobiles would be made by c b o in consultation with the energy information administration as president this is another piece of feel good legislation that would have the probable effect of making a great deal of what we do here in the senate subject to a sixty vote point of order frankly world oil prices and domestic fuel prices are swayed by all sorts of influences and psychological factors in the market i think the congressional budget office would be able to and  think that the congressional budget office would be able to analyze price of facts of legislative proposals that might play in this complex stew of what traders and producers and major refiners think will happen is just not realistic at this point of order would give a tremendous amount of influence to the petroleum industry most anything that we do up here causes them to complain that we are likely to raise gasoline prices or as a result for example they're saying that right now that about the anti manipulation and consumer protection provisions in the bill that was reported out of the commerce committee if there were a vote point of order that their complaints could trigger they would certainly be in constant contact with member offices and with the congressional budget office trying to boost the minimum vote  necessary for these proposals to sixty votes and let me give you a few examples of amendments to the bill that members want to offer that might be caught up in this kind of a point of order senator cochran has an amendment that he wants to offer to increase the size of the strategic petroleum reserve or any purchase of oil for the s p r would take that oil off the market and potentially raise fuel prices and that would trigger the demand point toward another example is the provision that the amendment that was adopted in the senate by over seventy votes yesterday that's referred to generally as the no pac which sensually says that u s courts will be open and available and have jurisdiction to consider antitrust claims against foreign governments for getting together and trying to conspire to set boil price that legislation could clear clearly affect the price of oil and thereby the price of gasoline at the pump we have an interest in creating reserves of refined products for gasoline we already have a heating oil reserve and legislation to establish new product reserves or to increase the size of the heating or reserve would likely trigger this point of order that my friend is is suggesting we ought to put into our procedural law our military posture in the persian gulf has a great deal to do with world price of oil we might find that amendments or other legislative proposals dealing with sensitive military or diplomatic issues in that region would have an effect on automobile fuel prices under this amendment and could thus t he point of order we might see the whole defense bill annually subject to the demand point of order on the claim that what we are proposing to do in the defense bill could increase the price of gasoline at the pump it's worth focusing on the fact that a point of order is triggered by quote an increase in quote found by the congressional budget office that increase could be less than a penny a gallon and still the sixty vote point of order would be triggered as the man with a strong another example would be any legislation that might be considered on the senate floor related to nigeria and our relations with nigeria clearly we are heavily dependent upon oil from nigeria to to meet our energy needs and any instability in that relationship could affect the price of oil add the price of gasoline as a result of increases in the price of oil people are always complaining that it's hard to get things done here in the congress we have too many  here in the congress there are an abundance already of procedural hurdles that any legislative proposal has to surmount in order to get passed we've been pleading with various senate members in connection with this exact bell to try to get permission to bring up different amendments even agreeing that we would be bound by a sixty vote point of order or a sixty vote requirement to do that so we already have procedural hurdles in place in abundance we should not be inserting into the senate procedures a requirement that will come back to haunt both republicans and democrats in completely seen and unforeseeable ways just in order to say that we did something about high gas prices i would strongly urge that we not agree to the demand amendment as the  i think their remarks were very instructive it's clear that many of the things we do here in the senate actually do result and encreased gas prices most of the discussion and a lot of the initiative motivation of the bill we're working on is to lower gas prices the fact is in the past though we have not been honest and transparent with the american people many time we're talking about our good intentions things we're going to do here and we don't really expose the fact that what we're doing is going to increase the cost of gasoline and i think that's a fair part of the debate if we want to increase our national reserves of oil then it's fair in that debate to make it clear to the american people that we do if we do it it may increase the cost of gasoline to them at home so all of us who are considering the issue can balance if some aid program to nigeria is going to increase the cost of gasoline here at home the american people should know that so that we cannot claim to be doing for people without them realizing that it's costing them more and more money i understand the objections to maybe procedural hurdles here actually that's the way the senate was designed so that we don't do things in a knee jerk fashion without openness and debate so that we actually do figure out the consequences of what we do in advance of passing legislation we've not done that in the past many of our rules that have created different boutique requests different fuel requirements and many states a lot of environmental concerns a lot of things that are good actually increase the cost of gasoline a significant degree and i think it's important that we include that in our debate while we may be resistant here to procedural hurdles much of the bill we're debating here creates many procedural hurdles to increase new gas supplies all natural gas creates new mandates new taxes we create a lot of hurdles for the energy business to create more supply for us so that we can lower the price of gasoline this amendment exposes us for what we are and for what we're doing if we're going to propose things here on the senate related to energy then the congressional budget office as my memo says in consultation with the energy information administration and other appropriate government agencies can help make a determination if what we're doing is going to raise the price of gasoline that's a fair part of an honest debate but to snuff this out and to be able to come down to the senate floor and make great claims about what we're going to do to help the american people all the time hiding from them that where the ones raising their gas prices this is not big oil it's not necessarily even opec it's us i mean we had lots of cost of gasoline every time we pass an energy bill and this energy bill is no exception and while my memory doesn't affect this bill it does create a potable water in the future now you can call this a hurdle but if sixty people in the united states senate cannot decide that it's more important to increase the size of our national reserve even though it might increase the cost of gasoline if sixty of us are not for that then perhaps we should hesitate before we increase the cost of gasoline again to the american consumers this is one of the rare simple bills that comes to the senate is just a couple of pages and all it does is say that when we introduce a bill that increases the cost of gasoline for american consumers that we have to get sixty votes instead of fifty one to pass it it's a reasonable thing and if we're willing to come down here and talk every day about what we're doing to help the american consumer and at the same time we want to hide from them that the things we're doing are actually increasing the cost of gasoline then shame on us this amendment is simple it's about transparency openness and eyes to the honesty of the american people and that's exactly what they deserve and thank you mr president urged all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time attention that the majority will seek to defeat my members by raising another point of order against it this demonstrates exactly how much damage the democrats dislike this amendment and it proves that they have additional plans in the works to raise gasoline prices on the american people why else would they be fighting it so hard i also believe this effort to deny the senate a clean up or down vote on this amendment shows that some in this body are more interested in defending the jurisdiction and rights of a senate committee than they are in defending american consumers if the other side raises a point of order against my memet i would encourage my colleagues to ask themselves which is more important protecting americans from high gas prices or protecting the jurisdiction of the budget committee i would urge my colleagues to vote to waive the budget act and if the other side tries to kill  and stick it to the american people at the pump i would again encourage them to vote against this effort and i thank the chair and you'll floor the clerk called the roll descent procedural hurdles already impeding the work of the senate then keeping us from doing up and down votes on things i strongly believe we do have too many procedural hurdles and obviously the purpose of amendment would be to put more procedural hurdles in place so that a sixty vote point of order would be required in many circumstances in the future where it is not required today for the sen that one of the procedural hurdles already and in the law is under the budget act and that the pending amendment deals with matter within the budget committees jurisdiction in solenn would direct cvo to take a variety of actions and that is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the budget committee so mr president i raise a point of order that the question would be on the waiver of the point of order i'd ask for the ask for the asian  to burn mrs boxer mr brown or to casey chandler mrs clinton was feinstein this is feinstein no stevens mr stevens  mr pryor no this is murray this is murray no mr alexander no this is lincoln this is lincoln no mr nelson nebraska i mr dodd no mr warner mr warner no is there any senator wishing to vote or to change their vote if not on this vote the yeas are thirty seven the knaves are fifty five three fifths of the senate duly chosen and sworn at not having voted in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to the point may we have order in the senate for the senator from new mexico play it's you need to get people down here senate from mexico oh mr president first let me just ask consent that the following fellows and in terms of the teles of the finance committee be allowed in the senate for for the duration of debate on the energy bill mary baker agreed to a time limit and we would have forty minutes equally divided half to be controlled by senator gregg the other half to be controlled by senator grassley or their design it would be forty minutes prior to any vote in relation to the amendment mr president just sat there and if i am sure reserving the right to object just a clarification that we're just going have forty minutes  debate and then at some point we'll have the vote right now we're having forty minutes of debate and then at some point we'll have a vote we may not have it immediately at the unite of forty minutes but you're going to have forty minutes of debate now equally divided between myself  and then when we get to a vote on it we'll have two minutes equally divided i'm as i'm informed will go ahead and vote at the end of the forty minutes so so we'll have forty minutes of debate equally divided and then we'll have a vote that's agreeable with the managers as that's fine to me is their objection without objection  remedy what is an unfortunate situation which is that people who cannot buy ethanol from the midwest and have to buy it from other sources especially outside the united states end up being taxed at fifty four cents a gallon so people from the east coast some degree from the west coast are paying an excessive amount to use a product which significantly improves the environment and which also obviously reduces our dependence on oil now the argument which was put in place when this tariff was originally initiated was that we needed to protect the ethanol production capability of the midwest the corn producers that may have had some resonance a few years ago but it certainly doesn't have any resonance any longer doesn't have any credibility any longer today there's about through seven point five billion gallons of ethanol produced in this country under this bill it will be required that that goes up to thirty six billion gallons of ethanol most of that will come from the production of corn most likely in the midwest so there is already a huge demand for corn and corn prices are high in fact they're so high as a result of the use of corn for ethanol that many of the people use corn is a feedstock are complaining goes to personally so there's no need to protect production in the mid that impacts disproportionately people on the east coast the second reason there's no need for this is the people from the east coast can't get ethanol from the midwest because you can't ship it efficiently that's because ethanol can't be shipped through pipelines because of his volatility and therefore our only options on the east coast are really to buy ethanol that comes in from outside the country the caribbean basin in venezuela and in brazil and therefore it makes no sense to penalize the east coast to try to encourage production in the center of the country for corn and ethanol when the corn is already being significantly subsidized to the tune of three billion place environmentally and in the right place from a standpoint of utilization of energy sources because we should be using ethanol obviously and on the east coast we want to use ethanol we just want to pay a fair price for  and when you've got this fifty four cents a gallon tax on the consumers in the northeast in the east it's not a fair process so if we take this tax off we will actually expand ethanol consumption in the east and so hopefully at some point they'll figure out a way to ship it through pipelines and that will create a greater demand for ethanol generally in this nation since so many people live on the east coast and that will again help the production in the midwest once you can figure out how to ship it efficiently to the east because the demand will have been created secondly we have a choice here we can either heat with oil and we can either run our cars on oil and gas or we can run it in part on ethanol the simple fact is however i would rather buy ethanol from brazil than oil from venezuela it just makes a lot more sense as a geopolitical sense of how we protect ourselves so it's a cleaner burning energy it's a better form of energy and it's an energy that should be burned as an energy which i would think is a national policy we'd rather buy than underwriting the present venezuelan government by having to buy a oil there so that the concept of having this tarot which is essentially a fifty four cent a gallon tax on everybody lives on the east coast is no longer viable it's not viable because corn production is up dramatically price of corn is up dramatically and it will continue to go up especially under this bill since you're going to require a dramatic increase in the number of gallons which are ethanol based so the ethanol industry which is current which to the extent is corn based is going to contributors continue to grow and be viable and they do not need this tariff protection which is the only purpose of it is not viable because it's not an efficient way for us to purchase energy to have us pay this much extra money in tariff so that we basically undermine the use of ethanol on the east coast it's not a good policy because it encourages the use the venezuelan or other types of oil imports over ethanol because of the pricing situation and it's not a good idea because it's just simply bad policy to have in place this type of a terror this is not the merkin teel period of the nineteenth century when we basic really arbitrarily through tariffs on products in order to efficient marketplace but something which we thought was going to help some can see some producer here there it makes much more sense to have a situation where consumers can purchase ethanol based products at reasonable prices and so you can get more utilization of ethanol so this amendment would eliminate the fifty four cents a gallon tax which is targeted on a majority quite honestly of the american we're waiting for senator thune first of all to change a little direction from where senator gregg was today when corn is  three dollars and fifty cents in central iowa and it's down twenty five cents from yesterday because it rained in a illinois the last forty eight hours or so weather is affecting the price of grain quite a bit so if  slickers worried about the price of corn flakes going up just remember that a farmer only gets a nickel out of every box of corn flakes that's half filled with air anyway so there's there's things that are affecting the price of corn a lot different than just after all but the impression you get around here and reading the papers is there's so much corn going into athan all that  it's driving up the price of food for city people around this country the other the other issue is that he said corn is being subsidized three billion dollars or one corn is  above roughly two dollars in the midwest there's no loan deficiency payment being paid out for that corn so at the price corn is today there is no subsidy for corn today  and the other issue i think that we ought to think about is that whether we're importing ethanol or importing oil don't forget a few years ago we started a program of tax incentives for energy for ethanol and other renewables so that we would be energy independent so do we want to be depended upon imported  ol any more than we want to be depended upon imported oil what we're involved here is with an infant industry that production is yellow sic ethanol to get ethanol not from green corn but from wood chips or from switch grass or from corn stover and it will be three to five years before the scientific process of enzymes is a fission enough for that to come so even though we are now having mass a production of ethanol from grain corn we cannot sustain this beyond third fifteen billion bushels of our of our of our of all i said that wrong fifteen billion gallons of ethanol coming from green corn of corn getting above that figure and the underlying bill from the senate energy committee recognizes that because they have a fifteen billion gallon limit of corn grain corn producing ethanol so beyond that it's going to have to come from what chaps switchgrass corn stover anything that's got cellulose in it that you can make ethanol from so anybody that feels that just because all of a sudden be as energy independent as we should be and that's why it's still necessary to keep the tax incentives that's why it's still necessary to have this import duty i'm going to continue to y time until senator thune comes and i want to make a statement in opposition then to the amendment by the distinguished senator from new i'm sure with today's gas prices many here in congress that there's a shortage and that is responsible for the rising cost of gasoline they look to increased imports of ethanol and the lifting of the import tariff as a solution and that's the substance of the amendment that's before us but increase imports would have little impact on the price of gasoline let me emphasize because that's the basis of the amendment and i'm i'm saying the amendment is not going to accomplish this goal increase imports will not reduce the price of gasoline this is the case because ethanol is such a tiny fraction of the cost of ethanol in fact in iowa you can buy a costs now in regard to not changing the price of gasoline i want to quote a guy caruso administrators of the energy information administration of the department of energy last year saying that can present bland of  ol is affecting price by quote just a few pennies ethanol's role in gasoline prices is a tiny fraction of the overall increase in addition it's important to point out that the united states already provides significant opportunities for countries to ship epa ethanol into our market duty free numerous countries don't pay the u s ethanol tariff at all through our free trade agreement and trade preference programs some seventy three countries currently have duty free access to u s markets for ethanol fully produced in those countries for all other countries including brazil the world's major exporter of of ethanol that's brazil the united states provides duty free access through a carve out in the caribbean basin in a the caribbean country can enter the united states duty free up to seven percent of u s ethanol markets a very generous access and been on the books for twenty years yet brazil on other countries have never come close to hitting the seven percent cap of ethanol that can come into our country duty free already in fact we're almost halfway through two thousand and seven and this duty free cap has been filled only twenty three percent for this year moreover this cap grows every year because seven percent is seven percent of a higher figure because of higher production of domestic ethanol every year and it isn't that the caribbean countries don't have the capacity to dehydration more ethanol they do have that capacity so we're already providing duty free access for brazilian ethanol that is shipped through the caribbean countries much of this duty free as in all is being exploited to the east coast the part of the country that senator gregg contends would benefit from the complete lifting of the u s tear on ethanol but the fact of the matter is that brazil isn't taking full advantage of duty free treatment currently available to them i don't know why we should bend over backwards to provide more duty free access for birds ale in fact i would offer to the authors of this amendment that when those seven percent loophole gets failed and that ethanol is coming into the country i'd be glad to sit down and see if there's a need to read to lift the cap totally i especially don't know why we should do this given birdsville stance in the doha round the trading organization brazil is a leader of the g twenty negotiating group in the w t o negotiations a group that is resisting our efforts to obtain improve market access for u products sold manufactured and agriculture throughout the entire world in addition brazilian government intervenes extensively in the price and supply of ethanol in that country but the u operates as an offset to a u s excise tax credit that applies to both domestically produced as well as imported ethanol so by lifting the tear we would in effect be giving the benefits of this tax credit to subsidize the brazilian production of ethanol providing yet more duty free treatment for subsidized brazilian ethanol would send a wrong signal to those americans who are devoting their careers to helping america become more energy independent the us as an all and history is working every day to lessen our dependence upon foreign oil this is a virtue that president bush has a touted again and again last year the president restated his goal to replace oil around the world by expanding the production of ethanol the president stated coal the federal government has a has got a role to play to encourage new industries that will help this nation the verge of high away from oil and so we're strongly committed to corn based produced in america end of quote and today the president would add to that we're committed to doing more in cellulosic production of ethanol as well the president clearly understands the need to assist our domestic ethanol industry as an infant industry so that we can get a foothold and so we can succeed why would the united states now want to send a signal that we're backing away from our efforts to seek energy independence we're already dependent on foreign oil so we don't want our country to guy on the path of eventually becoming dependent upon foreign athan all as well providing yet more duty free treatment would be a step in the wrong direction discouraging the advancement of investment in bio refineries for ethanol and biodiesel it would be a bad for energy independence and obviously bad for national security so i hope my colleagues will oppose the gregg amendment and yes you have a minute last friend senator from new mexico how much time do i have left seven minutes ok i one minute for you now and then i'll give five minutes to the senator from softball i just wonder from new mexico president i just want to thank to congratulate the senator  on these remarks and say i concur with them and i would just say that this is the wrong time while we're trying to enhance investment in cellulosic ethanol and everything that goes with that to come along with this this would weaken the investment potential and the credibility of investment right when it's ripe and and really generating interest this requires didion's of dollars to be invested in said new law seeking ethanol as we move to the next generation and to have weakening as it comes from this issue as to where what's going to happen with this export import issue is the wrong thing opposing this amendment in two thousand and six america's ethanol industry contribute over forty one billion dollars to the national economy operation of construction of domestic bio refineries created one hundred sixty three thousand and thirty four jobs in all sectors  economy last year alone the bill before the senate builds upon this excess by boosting the renewable fuel standard to thirty six billion gallons by the year two thousand and twenty two and establishing other valuable incentives for renewable energy production the memmott propose time we're going to open the back door and begin subsidizing foreign sources of ethanol if this amendment is adopted our marketplace would be flooded with heavily subsidized ethanol from foreign countries two thousand and six brazil at export of four hundred thirty three million gallons into the united states which is an increase of four hundred million gallons over the year two thousand and five that same year brazil paid over two hundred twenty million dollars in duties to import this amount of ethanol they are already importing ethanol into this country through the caribbean basin initiative have not reached that cap but i think it's fair to expect that they're going to continue to flood the u s market every opportunity they get with ethanol that's produced in brazil the tax credit that currently is in place for domestic   is critical to the success of our industry and it does not discriminate between domestic or foreign sources of ethanol so what happens is as soon as the brazilian ethanol is blunt with gasoline the united states taxpayers begin paying fifty one cents for each gallon of foreign ethanol if senator gregg's amendment is accepted american taxpayers will be immediately begin subsidizing hundreds of millions of gallons of foreign made ethanol each year with no offsetting duty simply put by eliminating this tariff we would merely trade our dependence upon foreign sources of oil for a new and growing dependence upon foreign ethanol and i would add mr president that the critics of this tariff have argued that inflates the cost of gasoline in this country in fact gasoline prices as my colleague from iowa has noted won't be affected by removing the tariff on imported ethanol ethanol itself represents less than five percent of u ethanol represents just a small fraction of that percentage the factors that are truly driving the price of gasoline higher have nothing to do with ethanol supplies record crude crude oil prices tight refining capacity lower demand for ethanol and to comply with the strength in renewable fuels standard again mr president the facts tell a very different story our nation's current domestic production capacity is six point two billion gallons of ethanol according to industry experts  four billion gallons of capacity are currently under construction and will soon be refining ethanol that's a total of twelve point eight billion gallons in current plant production which is more than enough more than enough to meet the height renewable fuel standards in the near term additionally we have to keep in mind the limitations placed on ethanol demand due to blend restrictions right now only eat in ten percent ethanol ninety percent gasoline is approved for use in non flex fuel vehicles mr president there is a point at which we are going to hit the e t n wall domestic production if you can see if you look at this chart of ethanol production in this country you can see that ethanol production is more than adequate to meet the full market potential for eatin some analyst industry analysts predict that we will soon very soon have excess ethanol production capacity when we hit the ten wall that's why it is so important that we expand ethanol and allow for higher blends e fifteen and twenty which in my view is something that's long overdue but the ten wall is the point at which the market for e ten ethanol is saturated and ethanol production continues to grow at a record pace will some of the industry disagree on when we're going to hit the  wall it's clear that it would have harmful effect on the overall ethanol industry if congress fails to act lifting the tear on ethanol imports would only flood the marketplace with foreign ethanol further magnifying the impact of the years the great commandment properly repealed the tariff now why do i say properly because the ethanol tariff acts as a tax on us consumers at the gasoline pump it increases the cost of gasoline because the cost of ethanol is increased because of the tariff if americans want anything out of this energy bill it is a reduction in gasoline prices in fact in a recent associated press poll sixty percent of the respondents said that gas prices which by the way are currently around three dollars a gallon are causing them hardships it's one thing to  maybe have to pull back a little bit on your family vacation this summer but an awful lot of people have to drive to get to work and have to drive as part of work clearly went over half of americans or caused hardships by the current high level of gasoline prices congress has the ability to do something about that we should act and one of the few ways in which we can directly impact the price of gasoline at the pump is to eliminate the t fifty four cents per gallon on ethanol that's brought into the united states nothing else in this bill will directly bring down gasoline prices in fact there are several provisions mr president that will actually have the effect of increasing gasoline prices promoting a competitive market for ethanol will help bring down gasoline prices because it increases the supply that's available and provides therefore access to lower cost  i'm line is this when there is a supply of potential fuel out there and our companies are trying to find that supplies so they can bring it into the united states to meet the demand of consumers but they have to pay fifty four cents a gallon on part of that supply they're either going to buy supply at fifty four cents a gallon and pass the cost on to the consumer or they're not going to be able to do that thereby reducing the supply of gasoline available and what happens when you have more demand of less supply the price goes up anyway either way having this tariff in place has an escalating cost on the price of gasoline because it reduces available supply to the american consumer we have a mandate now to use ethanol that's required and that mandate means that the companies that provide the gasoline to consumers have no choice but to acquire ethanol if much of that ethanol is abroad and we're charging fifty four cents a gallon for it obviously you can see it's going to increase the cost of gasoline for the american consumer americans are a competitive people we know how the free market works and one way that the free market could work just just another thirty seconds mr president one way that we know that the free market can work better is if we don't have a prices on a product which the american consumer needs in order to work and that means we can reduce the cost of gasoline by eliminating this costly ethanol tariff from new hampshire is the this is the as of the without objection mr president i think there's some inconsistency coming from the argument from the other side on this issue there's the argument well that reducing a fifty four cent a gallon tax  won't reduce the price of gasoline that's very hard to sustain on its face it's counterintuitive for obvious reasons if you cut the cost of gasoline fifty four cents a gallon or you cut the cost of ethanol fifty four cents a gallon obviously the price of gasoline is going to equally hard to defend that position when the same when we in two senses of that argument you make the argument that the country's going to be flooded with low cost ethanol so you can't have it both ways as a practical matter yes this will reduce the price of gasoline but that that that because of the ethanol blend will be more affordable in pricing gasoline and that should be our goal obviously for the american consumer to produce a more environmentally positive form of energy at a lower price and the second major argument that i've made here of course is well you just can't do this because it will assist a foreign producer over domestic producers which is totally inconsistent with the bill itself the bill requires requires that thirty six billion gallons of ethanol be produced by two thousand and twenty two there is no way that that does not mean that our domestic production is going to expand dramatically to meet that obligation so the bill already has in it the built in obligations and requirements to expand domestic production coupled with the fact there's a three billion dollars subsidy already paid independent of the ethanol benefit which is occurring to the corn producing sector of our economy three billion dollars subsidy for corn producers are paid directly coupled with the fact that midwestern produce ethanol cannot be shipped to the east coast so it's not a competition we have to buy the ethanol so off coast because that's the only way we can get the ethanol efficiently and safely because ethanol can't be sent shipped through pipelines so as a practical matter this is a holdover from a day when yes there may have been a fledgling industry in the ethanol community and maybe there was some viability to it five years ago but that's no longer the case we've seen a significant increase in corn prices as a result of ethanol the expansion of ethanol use we're going to continue to see a significant increase in corn production in corn prices because of continued ethanol use and the simple fact is that as other types of ethanol sources are brought on line they're going to be brought online at a competitive price in fact they may even be more competitive than corn and that competitive price and hopefully a way to ship it will then be taken advantage of in the east and obviously be a benefit to the entire community of ethanol producers so this argument the arguments that are put forth here are classic protectionist arguments but they don't they have no feet underneath them they have they have no basis underneath them protectionism to begin with is a lousy idea but it's especially a lousy idea when it's basically not accomplishing its goal on the face of it we know it's not accomplishing its goal again the argument of the senator from iowa this point for us when he said the seven percent was being allowed in the country and he had no problem with that well he has no problem seven percent then why not more as a practical matter as a practical matter we're not competing with the midwest on this we're just trying to get a reasonable price ethanol in the in the east and so this tax and that's what it is an american consumers on a product that we should be using is totally inappropriate and cannot be justified on the basis of protecting a industry specifically corn production in light of the nomics of corn production in today's market which is doing extraordinarily well which is seeing a massive expansion whose prices are at their highest level in recent memory and who are going to continue to expand because this bill requires that expansion with the requirement that we use thirty six billion gallons of ethanol by two thousand and twenty two which is a almost a an amendment to eliminate the blenders credit which would offset any of the losses that these revenues would occur and i would ask for the a's and they send at this time on my the center for my own you and myself the one minute i have left first of all no three billion dollars to corn farmers when corn is four dollars a bushel or three and a half abortion secondly the point made by senator kyl as well as senator gregg consumers want lower prices and somehow ethanol is driving up that price let me tell you that ethanol today this very day if you check the market is cheaper in the northeast and the east coast then gasoline is a spot market price for ethanol is two dollars and ten cents compared to the spot price for gasoline at two dollars and twenty one area along the east coast including boston new york philadelphia baltimore washington there is imported time ethanol shipped him to new york and baltimore harbor today  mr president for we go to vote i do want to clarify two things first there was an implication that the administration might not support this m m a in fact the ministration supports the repeal of this tarp and they openly supported it they were on record as supporting to ask this question does the senator from new hampshire know that the president of the united states when he was in burns ale and was quoted in the paper as telling president lou that ethanol export would not that the the import credit would not be repealed while he is president of the united states taking reclaiming my time i ask you a question i'm happy to say that i had i don't didn't understand the question if i did in the standard question i believe it was that the president said he would not repeal the ethanol credit during his time in office which i don't happen to think is the ministration position which was that they publicly did not do not support this tariff they don't support this excessive tariff they don't mix support this tax this administration has a strong record in opposition to taxes and stor prior to reader rhode island third warner mr webb the white house mr lugar i mr carden no mr lieberman i that's the rockefeller the rockefeller i mr shelby i to rockefeller no this is feinstein mrs feinstein i sir nelson of florida i mr hatch kno yeah any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote on this fall thirty six the nays are fifty six three fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to the point of order is sustained and the amendment falls as president the senator from new mexico that it will come to order the senate will come to order please take their conversations out of the senate then it will come to or the senator from new mexico here i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session in the senate they've been approved by the majority and minority leaders i ask unanimous in the senate is not in order santa will come to order  from new mexico president i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session the senate they've been approved by the majority and minority leaders i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record that objection is president senator domenici and i have been working to get some amendments cleared and there are four that are now cleared that i would ask that we proceed with i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider in block the following amendments that they be considered and agreed to and block and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table in block it's first the bingaman domenici number fifteen twenty eight next the bingaman domenici number fifteen twenty nine next menendez number fifteen thirty three and after that can't well number fifteen fifty one as modified with the changes that are at the desk is their objection without objection so ordered as president i believe the order  it was nothing fundamental it was just that my colleague yield i just want to thank him for that and if we can accept the amendment i don't have to debate it or anything are we willing to do that are we still waiting to match up i vice president something no matter courses where the senator from new york to go ahead and explain the amendment offer the amendment and then we during the course of his debate will see help persuaded we are and whether a voice of voice voters is adequate or whether a roll call vote is required thank you very much i thank senator from new york thank you i thank my colleague from new mexico both my colleagues from new mexico let's put a big burden on me to make a very good explanation here so i'll do my  best but i would ask that the pending amendment be set aside so that i may call up my amendment which would then be set aside when i am finished speaking there's your objection i i have to object to your bringing up the amendment level of building standards so that our buildings across america would be more green you know there's been tremendous focus on automobiles and of course there should be and raising their mileage standards but what's forgotten is that a huge percentage of energy consumption and greenhouse gases that go into our atmosphere come from the building and more importantly the heating and cooling of our structures both residential and commercial and the bottom line is that if we were to somehow if everybody in america were to adopt green building standards we could greatly reduce the need for a prospect of not retrospective we would greatly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and energy consumption here in america for instance according to the alliance to save energy the amendment that i'd like to offer could save our country five percent of its total energy use save consumers fifty billion dollars a year and listen to this my colleagues this is an amazing statistic it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking seventy million seventy million cars off the road now you say can this work yes because a good number of states have started doing this already california has taken the lead california increased its energy efficiency in buildings i believe in the late seventy's that was and now they in terms of greenhouse gases that they mit are at the level of some european countries even though california is a car culture so let me  and there are a list of states that have already moved forward in this regard and they are california colorado connecticut minnesota nevada pennsylvania texas vermont virginia and washington and other states are on the road to doing it and so the bottom line is by making our buildings more efficient we can really reduce gases let me tell you what our amendment does the organizations that draft commercial and residential building codes will be required to meet specific energy use targets we don't tell them how obviously it's different in minnesota than it would be in florida or arizona but they'll be required to meet specific energy use targets both must they must be more efficient by thirty percent than the two thousand and six code by twenty fifteen and fifty percent more efficient by two thousand and twenty two because this affects new buildings obviously people are given a timeline can start this next year but again california did this in the seventy's and they're reaping the benefits now and since energy independence and since global warming are long term issues we all know we're not going to solve them in a year ago acting now is really important we give the states time to change their building codes in the way that they wish and we would greatly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases now my mayor is in the news today but for other things the mayor of new york city for instance has proposed doing this the city doing it on its own and we by the way give credit to specific cities that would do this is well and they would have the same benefits and responsibilities under the bill as states would when states did it if their state didn't but your city did you'd still be able to get the help the benefits and beat the requirements of the legislation but it's estimated that it will reduce the amount of energy consumption in new york city by forty percent is that incredible so you know we have a lot of debate mr chairman as we should mr president we have a lot of debate as we should on automobiles on renewables on coal to gas but there's a quiet little secret out there that this amendment sort of makes public and that is that conservation and conservation of things that are much easier and much less controversial than say automobiles that conservation is where the real bang for the buck is in and terms of energy independence in terms of reducing greenhouse gases going up into our atmosphere and in terms of lowering the costs to the average consumer of electricity and of gasoline as well because when when we're more efficient in terms of our  buildings petroleum is used for other purposes and supply and demand would even reduce the price for gasoline one of the environmentalists that i know put it well he said alternative fuels are the sizzle and conservation is the steak and they're both important when your barbecue you like to have the sizzle it's fun but you also like to eat the steak and if we did this amendment and i have two others one that does the same on appliances the bill has good provisions on appliances but we moving further in terms of california although i'm not talking about that one here right now and if we were to do it for utilities where would we would we would require them to be more efficient and they could choose the way we could do dramatic things in this bill just in on its own the cost for most energy conservation the cost for reducing consumption of petroleum of greenhouse gas emission is about one quarter it is to producing new alternative fuels so i would hope my colleagues would support this amendment it is not controversial i don't think i mean would doesn't have universal support but it has great support the department of energy has look favorably upon it i don't know if they're officially in favor but we've talked to them and they know we have to move in this direction and i hope that the amendment could be adopted and i hope i've convinced my colleague from new mexico if not with eloquence which i'm sure i don't have but at least with the facts and the strata and the structure of this amendment and i'd be call be dispensed with that objection president since we seem to be unable to move ahead and and actually dispose of amendments here for a few minutes twelve we get the procedural circumstance  entangle let me speak briefly about the tax package that has been reported from the finance committee the energy tax package that is now part is now i pending amendment to this bill represents a dramatic shift in the direction of our national energy policy from fossil fuel dependence to one that promotes diversified domestic sources of clean energy a package that the senate will consider as part of this tax package contains three times the incentives for energy efficiency and renewables and other clean energy than what we were able to an  the two thousand and five energy bill three times more clean energy the energy tax provisions are intended to complement and augment the authorising legislation these vitally important energy measures include first an additional three year extension of the section forty five tax credit for producing electricity from wind geothermal biomass and other green resources that's three years in addition to the two years that were in the original chairman's mark so we're talking about a five year extension there extension of the section forty eight investment tax credit for businesses business investments  solar fuel cells and micro turbans for a total of eight years in the package that is now i've been reported to the senate extending the newly proposed residential when credit extending several residential and commercial energy efficiency tax incentives expanding section forty eight a and b investment tax credits to fund the development of clean coal facilities with a requirement with a particular requirement that carbon capture the c o two be captured in sequestered expanding the program for clean renewable energy bonds by up to four billion dollars adding two point five billion the tional to re new to newly established programs for clean coal bombs extending the advanced vehicle consumer credit so adding a category for plug in hybrids an electric vehicles an important new incentive to encourage the production of cellulosic ethanol these are important provisions individually combined i think they will play a major role in moving our country along to of forward looking energy policy president the finance committee mark also contains a severance tax on all orlin gas production from the federal outer continental shelf in the gulf of mexico bill we are able to secure the revenue that is vitally needed for these energy measures that i have detailed as so c s severance tax has been carefully crafted to raise revenue while doing the least possible to discourage production first of all it applies to oil and gas production on the o c s in the gulf of mexico only we carefully consider where the tax should apply the alaska o c s is an important front tier and additional costs on those operations could truly impact leasing and development activity the only other area with production other than the ost c s would be the o c s in california where production is minimal and no new leasing is occurring however the industry in the gulf of mexico is robust particularly with the price of oil where it is today last season operators there tend to be large either the major oil companies or large independent producers this is in contrast to the rocky mountain region where many small independents operate additional taxes or fees in that region could make a difference between production of thirteen percent of the value of production with a credit against the tax for royalties paid on each lease the government accountability office recently completed a study comparing the combined tax and royalty costs imposed on the oil and gas industry in the united states versus elsewhere in the world and i would note that the g a o found that the climate for doing business in the us is very favorable with the us having one of the lowest combined government takes in the world using this construct of considering the combined tax and royalty costs we design the severance tax with a credit for all these paid to ensure that no less c would be required to pay more than thirteen percent of the value of their production in combined severance taxes and royalties course any lassie that is paying the sixteen in two thirds royalty that the president has now stablished as the appropriate role to own federal leases going forward any lessee that is subject to that royalty will pay no tax any of us see paying a fifteen or a twelve point five percent royalty will pay an effective rate of a half of one percent in severance tax and the c's paying less than twelve and a half will pay the taxes an effective rate had an effective rate of the difference between the thirteen percent on the royalty rate  being paid furthermore i believe a thirteen percent tax rate is extremely reasonable earlier this year of white house did announce that the royalty rate for all new leases in the gulf of mexico would contain terms debating on amendments to the energy legislation bill h r six sets new rules for renewable fuels gas mileage price gouging and energy efficiency they're expected to vote on a couple of amendments offered by new mexico domenici sometime this afternoon and other men amendments could be voted on before the end of the day a completion of this bill is possible before friday and after it's done starters are expected to bring immigration back to the floor and not on the house that legislative action today the house members are continuing to work on the energy water spending bill and they start work on the foreign operations spending bill the energy water spending bill total some thirty two billion dollars for projects the foreign operations spending bill thirty four billion dollars and on c span three at this hour senator hillary clinton is chairing a hearing on the e p a s response to nine eleven the senate hearing is examining the e p a s testing of air quality in manhattan and the federal readiness to handle future emergencies that's on our companion network c span three while we wait for senators to return to the floor and continue debate and those on amendments on energy legislation here's some programming notes after six years as a republican new york city mayor michael bloomberg announced yesterday he has left the republican party and is on affiliated and what may believe he may believe to be a step toward entering the two thousand and eight race for president at capital news dot org the poll of the day is asking if you would consider voting for him capitol news dot org connecting you to the latest political news and video tonight on c span three history border security and immigration laws with the issue possibly returning to the senate floor this week and next we'll look back at some of the arguments president bush has on improving border security rise just for a few moments today to talk about a matter that's before the united states senate the employee free choice act just in summary what this act would do just three brief points about the act itself it would enable workers to form unions when a majority sign union authorization cards second it would establish mediation and binding arbitration when the employer and workers cannot agree on a first contract and third it was strengthen penalties for companies of course intimidate workers and i have a longer statement mr mr president i ask that the full statement be entered into the record without objection but just in summary we know today what we're facing in our economy we have rising levels of productivity thank goodness but at the same time productivity is going up in our workers have been more productive than ever our wages haven't kept pace salaries and wages haven't grown the way productivity has so we know that so many more of our families have had to suffer working families and had to suffer that disparity that gap between productivity and wages and benefits and i think that a lot of americans believe that the freedom to choose a union is vital to restoring the american dream is specially for the most vulnerable americans and unfortunately vulnerable americans now include families unions help american workers get their fair share as you well know mr president your state as well as in my state of pennsylvania union wages are almost thirty percent higher than wages in nonunion fields unions are also a cure for rising inequality because they raise wages for more low and middle income wage earners more so than for higher wage workers for example if you talk about some lower wage occupations cashiers for example earn forty six percent more than nonunion cashiers those are covered by unions forty six percent more union food preparation workers own near or nearly fifty percent more than nonunion food preparation workers just a couple of demographic categories women for example were represented a union earned thirty one percent more than women workers who don't have the benefit of a union african american union workers earn thirty six percent more than their nonunion counterparts latino workers earn forty six percent more then those latinos who are not represented by a union and finally union workers are almost twice as likely to have employer sponsored health benefits pensions at work twice as likely than their counterparts who don't have union protection they're more than four times as likely four times more likely to have a secure and defined pension benefit plan than nonunion workers so mr president protecting the freedom to choose a union benefits all americans and i believe this in my bones as we all do we support this act whether or not someone has a union or not i think it rises and lifts all boats in industries and occupations where many workplaces are unionized nonunion nonunion employers will frequently me union standards lift their sights so to speak in otherwise and of compensation a high school graduate in a non union workplace whose industry is twenty five percent unionized gets paid five percent more than similar workers in less unionized industries so just in summary mr president we know what this act can mean for workers and their families to to raise their standard of living in wages and benefits and other parts of their compensation but also i really believe this act is about america we know that unions the right to organize and collectively bargain helped build the american middle class over decades when those who said at the beginning of those fights that this was not a good idea and what we're doing today by passing this legislation before the united states senate is to move into a new chapter we're more and more of our families can have the benefit of union protection so that they can live in a country where their work their labor and the fruits of their labor can be recognized so i ask all of my colleagues respectfully as they consider this legislation to think not only of what this will do for our unions and families that are covered by those unions but what it does for all of america for all of our collective interest in a stronger economy and i ask their their consideration of this bill and i know that mr president you and so many others have been leading the fight on this and we're grateful for that for our families and for our country and with that i would it's common sense that if you tax something the price will probably go up because the higher the business because you know the consumer is going to have to absorb that cost at some point this is a tax bill that is twenty seven plus billion dollars or twenty seven billion dollars of new taxes how could anything make less sense when we are trying to pass an energy bill that will do two things it will make america less dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs and it will bring the price of gasoline down at the pump by having a bigger supply and be able to meet the demand but this bill with the tax part is not going to do either of those things in the past two and a half years the average price of a gallon of gas has risen about sixty eight percent due to increased demand here in america and around the world the price increase has harmed american families it's harmed businesses especially small businesses and higher taxes are going to mean a higher price at the  energy package could increase conservation it could increase the supply of renewable energy sources it could i have an amendment that i think is very positive that also would be able to have more research done into new sources of energy all kinds of renewable environmentally safe energy possibilities and yet we have now put a tax bill into which has just gone through committee and came out yesterday and we are going to i'm afraid make a mistake that congress has made before and nineteen eighty congress passed a windfall profits tax the consequences to the domestic oil industry to consumers and to our national security were devastating in the six years that followed that action domestic oil production dropped by one point two six billion barrels and imports of foreign oil rose thirteen percent today sixty percent of our oil comes from foreign countries the collapse of the domestic oil and gas industry has had a ripple effect on other sectors of their cars to me especially banking and real estate the windfall profits tax was terrible for this country and it was repealed now we have a tax bill that will have the same effect twenty seven twenty eight billion dollars in taxes on energy production let's go through those a repeal of the manufacturer's deduction refineries mr president everyone who has looked at the energy crisis knows that it is the lack of refinery capacity that has driven up the demand while we have not driven up the supply we are making it harder to invest in refineries and no one is doing it and we need more refineries so taking away any deductions for refineries is just counter intuitive we would establish an excise tax of thirteen percent on crude oil and natural gas produced in the gulf of mexico and mr president that is the biggest source of oil and natural gas production in our country that we are able to produce and explore and more would be larger but we have not been able to tap into and more so the gulf of mexico is our best source and other country other states are now looking at drilling exploring and then possibly drilling off their shores because there is now an opportunity for states to get revenue and it can be done environmentally safely so now we're talking about increasing the tax which is going to have the effect of lessening the exploration and drilling also to go back on a contract that was made earlier to induce people to go and drill in the gulf of mexico because it is more expensive the deep drilling is much more expensive it would impose a tax on finished gasoline eight hundred twenty four million dollars over ten years it would seem that that's going to increase the price of gasoline at the pump and it would expose our foreign oil companies to double taxation three billion dollars of taxes that would be on foreign oil profits by domestic oil companies and taxing them again in the united states so what do you think that going to do here we are in a situation where we're seeing more and more new formations of public companies going overseas anyway because of sarbanes oxley and the what the c e o s say is that the instability of our regulatory processes and the taxes and the litigation in our country has caused more and more companies to just decide to move their corporate headquarters to london or other exchanges and further the jobs are going with them so here we are trying to address this issue in a responsible way and what we doing to our all companies why wouldn't they just go and register on the london stock exchange and make that their headquarters that's what many american companies are doing now if we decide we are going to double tax this segment of industry in our country we're just saying we don't want american oil companies i don't see why they wouldn't not only incorporate overseas but move more and more of their production overseas as well so mr president i hope that we will not pass this tax bill a recent review by the heritage foundation estimated that this tax package is combined with other policies in this bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gas to six dollars and forty cents a gallon by the year twenty sixteen mr president just that's ridiculous why would we passed an energy plan that would have the potential effect of doing that know what we should be doing is encouraging more refineries encouraging nuclear power plants that are the most environmentally safe we should encourage drilling and exploration of our own natural resources and we should be looking for renewable sources of energy so you lost like ethanol corn based ethanol which we have and which is building biodiesel wind solar we have so many sources my and then that would also create the ability to start research on wave and current energy sources which they are doing in a limited way in europe right now using the gulf of mexico and our oceans for energy potential there is so much that we can do that would be positive that we could agree on in a bipartisan way this tax bill is a poison pill the tax portion is unnecessary it is counter intuitive it will have the effect of increasing gasoline prices at the pump it will ship the jobs that are in america overseas and i think we're going to lose major corporate business that is necessary and i hope my colleagues will not pass this tax package and i certainly hope that we can take this part out of the equation work on the bill that is before us which has some very good points and then mr president we will be doing something to try to help the rising cost of gasoline at the pump in our country and i hope we can help relieve the high price of corn which has resulted from our emphasis on ethanol and that is causing a rise in livestock prices because the feedstock for livestock that is being raised has increased the cost so all of the meat that we eat in this country is going to be at a higher price because ethanol is taking the corn  market and the feed stock market is suffering so i think we need to address these things and i certainly hope that we will in a responsible way to bring the cost of energy and not have side effects like the increased cost of livestock producers thank you mr president and i originally vote on this tax portion so that we can get down to the business of doing what the purpose of the energy bill was and that is to increase supply so that we can be less dependent on foreign sources and lower the price of energy in our country thank you mr president and i y the senate today continuing work on an energy bill this bill is somewhat controversial in that it is a different approach than a bill pushed through by the senate  republican controlled senate in two thousand and five that bill sought to increase the mess stic oil production the new bill focuses on decreasing consumption of oil and gasoline some of the major provisions of the bill under consideration involve fuel economy for the first time in decades the bill would raise average fuel economy standards for cars and s u v s or light trucks from twenty five miles  efficiency standards for home appliances heating cooling systems lights and residential boilers and also the bill would make oil industry price gouging a federal crime during times when the president has declared a temporary quote national energy emergency throughout the day amendments have been debated and will continue to be debated through this bill and the senate may finish up work on this bill this week in congress these days energy ranks right near the top in my judgment i've indicated previously that we most of us take energy for granted we get up the morning and turn on the hot water and that comes from energy we flick a light switch and that comes from energy we get in the car and turn the ignition key and that comes from energy i told a story awhile back about john glenn and energy i was on a trip with john glenn the former astronaut and former united states senator and i was a young man a young boy when when john glenn orbited the earth in friendship seven and so one evening late one evening in what was the old air force one a group of us were flying to asia and john glenn was with the group and we were meeting with heads of state and several governments vietnam and china and so on and we were flying over the pacific late at night in this little cabin on this  seven o seven and i mean forward and it began to ask john glenn about his space flight his first space flight and i jumped in with a lot of questions but one of the questions i asked him about was whether he actually saw perth australia of that's been written about this and i recalled as a kid when john glenn up there alone in this tiny little capsule orbiting the earth in friendship seven when he was orbiting the earth and went to the dark side of the earth the town of australia decided that they would all turn on their lights all the lights in perth australia would be turned on to great this astronaut flying alone orbiting the earth and i asked john donne did you see the lights of perth australia and he said he did on the dark side of the earth in this little capsule orbiting alone john glenn looked down on the sign of life on the dark side of the earth the sign of human existence and life was the product of energy the product of lights radiating that beam to that astronauts saying hello greetings and it comes from energy it's it's what we do to produce energy and use energy to make our lives better and they are better in many many ways now one part of this energy issue that we're debating in the energy bill deals with oil oil is an interesting debate because on this little planet of ours that circ sun there are about six point four billion of us i mean we have a lot of neighbors that are in tougher shape i mean that we get about half of this planet's population lives less than two dollars a day half of them have never made a telephone call and on this planet there's a little spot called the united states of america and we are blessed to divine providence to be here to live here but it's interesting that while we have created the standard of living that expands the middle class and creates a an increased standard of living we don't have the quantity of oil that exists elsewhere on earth we use twenty five percent of the oil that is needed every single day twenty five percent of all the oil that's used on this earth is used in this country and yet most of the oil is produced elsewhere saudi arabia kuwait iraq venezuela and others over sixty percent of the oil that we used comes from outside of our country and god forbid something should happen that would interrupt that because if it did this country would be flat on its back with respect to its economy it would dramatically impact the way we live so over sixty percent of our oil comes from other countries much of it from troubled parts of the world particularly in the middle east we believe many of us believe that we need to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil we are dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil and we need to become less dependent how do we do that well one point is this seventy percent of all the oil that we use in the united states of america is used in vehicles we run it through the carburetors of the fuel injectors in the form of gasoline seventy percent of the oil is used through vehicles so we have to find a way to make vehicles more efficient and that brings me to the debate about what are called the cafe standards or the standards that require greater efficiency for automobiles and i serve in the commerce committee and i and senator feinstein senator in a way and others included in the commerce committee a provision that requires vehicles to be more efficient and i know the auto industry is very aggressive in trying to see if they could jettison that provision in the underlying energy bill that comes from the commerce committee they don't want these increased efficiency standards they believe that they are pernicious they will injure the auto industry i think that's untrue now they make the point and in my judgment they deliberately misrepresent the point in full page advertisement in my state and others and direct mail pieces to constituents they make the point that what we're trying to do is to say you must make automobiles or vehicles more efficient and you do it on a fleet average as cafe is always always been done and if you're making too many pickup trucks and not enough small cars you've got to make more small cars and fewer pickup trucks so therefore you have a an increase in fuel efficiency and therefore this approach threatens to take your pickup truck away but that's not true it's just not accurate but that's what's being alleged this is a different approach this standard says that for each class of vehicle the class itself must be made more efficient i come from north dakota we in north dakota have on rare occasions i emphasize only rare occasions some harsh weather and when it's thirty below zero in a forty mile an hour wind you don't want to drive in a show a vet out to check the calves during calving season in march you want to vehicle a four wheel drive vehicle that has some weight has some power that's what we use i'm not interested in fuel efficiency standards that discriminate against larger vehicles but i also believe this all of the vehicles including pickup trucks including the larger vehicles should be made more efficient and for twenty five years there's not been one change in the standard and for twenty five years in this congress we said no no the auto industry doesn't want an increase in efficiency requirements therefore we won't do it and i say we i was a part of that but at some point you've got to say to the industry look they're making more efficient vehicles elsewhere they oughta make them here i mean i've described the position of the industry in opposition of this as yesterday forever i guess is wonderful if you have romantic feelings about yesterday and you want to continue forever with respect to your vehicles and the lack of requirement to make them more efficient but it is it does not help this country it retards this country's ability to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil that's what this vote is really about do you really believe that we ought to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil if so then you better belly up and you better begin to support this kind of thing or do you believe that we are not dangerously dependent it's just fine for us to have sixty percent heading towards sixty five and sixty one percent we're told of our oil coming from off our shores if you think that's fine if you're perfectly content going to sleep at night saying doesn't matter how much we get from overseas doesn't matter how troubled those areas are that's that's just hanging our future our economic future on our ability to keep getting oil from trouble parts of the world if that's your feeling then in my judgment it blithely ignores the reality and if you're one of those as i am who believes that we are too dangerously dependent on foreign sources of energy then you have to it seems to me come to this floor and be supportive of cafe standards or at least greater efficiency standards for vehicles we have established a system in the underlying bill that establishes eight classes of vehicles and you have to make them more efficient by class shouldn't those who drive pickup trucks expect to have a more efficient pickup truck as well better mileage on those vehicle as well the answer is yes in my judgment my hope would be that someday in some way we'll be able to find a way not to be dependent on oil itself but i can't see that in the near term and we're going to you continue to use fossil fuels i've described to many times for my colleagues that my first vehicle i bought for twenty five dollars as a young kid and it was a one hundred twenty four model t ford that had been in the green room for some decades and i bought it for twenty five dollars and restore that lovingly as a young boy when i was in high school and so i ended up with a model t that was decades and decades old but i sold it later because you can't you know as a young boy you can't effectively date in a model t nobody wants to ride with you but the point of the model t is that in one hundred twenty four they made a car and it's interesting you put gasoline in that car exactly the same way you put gasoline in a two thousand seven hundred two thousand eight vehicle exactly the same way you just go to the gas pump stick a hose in the tank and start pumping gas nothing has changed everything else about the cars changed computer technology more computer technology a new car than that existed on the lunar lander that put neil armstrong on the moon  better cup holders keyless entry i pod holders heated seats you name it but let me ask you do you think there's been an increase in the efficiency standards for those vehicles the answer is no the answer i ask you to take this test go back and look ten years ago of any model a car and then look at today's identical model and see how much has changed with respect to the mpg that are estimated for that vehicle and what you'll discover is almost no change those of us who supported the standards in the commerce committee a broader bill to the floor that's a good bill now there are some in this chamber who don't support it and the auto industry itself is furiously working to get the votes to defeat efficiency standards the problem is there's no amendment coming to the floor of the senate that i can see i mean it seems to me we have an underlying provision that i support in the bill and i haven't had this bill now on the floor for some while it i time to say if you want to try to amend it let's let's have a member on the floor let's have a a thorough discussion and debate and let's have a vote i mean i'm not somebody who suggests that the underlying amendment is the only member that has merit or has worth there or perhaps other ideas but i was in a meeting last evening a minister meetings today and it appears to me that the effort is simply by the industry to say let's not do this well you know we've been through that time and time and time again when they say to the congress does not do this the congress salutes and says yes or let's not do this but we've come to a different intersection seems to me with respect to the future of this country and the energy security of this country and that intersection requires us now to do what we must do to make us less dependent on foreign sources of oil if we do not find a way to be independent or at least less dependent on foreign sources of oil that comes from troubled parts of the world we are in deep deep trouble someday i would hope perhaps we can develop hydrogen fuel cars that are commercially available i hope that our children and their grandchildren will be able to get in a vehicle that is a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle i authored the legislation two years ago that established the title on hydrogen fuel cells you know instantly enough hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will have twice the efficiency of power to the wheel of the vehicle and you put water vapor turbines take energy from the wind use the electricity that you take from the the through the turbine you take energy from the wind in the form of electricity use electricity in the process of something called hydro electrolysis rather and separate hydrogen from water with the process of electrolysis so you actually take an intermittent power source of wind and produce hydrogen stored hydrogen for a vehicle use i believe we get to the point of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles which will make us much much much less dependent on foreign sources of oil we won't need foreign sources of oil if we do what we can do with this place but that won't happen three years five years or perhaps even ten years from now there has to be in term steps in which we take action to reduce our dependence even as we continue to use the internal combustion engine as we continue to use nearly seventy percent of all of our products through our vehicles even as we import over sixty percent for of the oil from overseas we must take some interim steps that begin to address that that's why this issue is so important this issue of the fish and sea of our vehicles finally let me say this i want our auto industry to succeed i want this industry to succeed i don't want to be a part of something that says to them that you know you've been asleep at the switch here and so therefore you're you know we don't care about you that's not my point my point is this industry will succeed in my judgment if they are under the gun and under some pressure to produce more efficient vehicles other companies in other countries are doing it and so too should ours and i want to be helpful to to our industry and one final point there's a discussion about a couple provisions in the underlying commerce committee bill one is the second ten years a four percent efficiency year which was part of my offering and the second was senator cantwell is offering of standards for the production of flex fuel vehicles we're building a thirty one excuse me a thirty six billion gallon biofuels requirement in this bill we're going to produce thirty six billion gallons of  biofuels what are you going to use all that if you don't have the flex fuel vehicles on the road so that you can move that through those carburetors or feel injectors you've got to be able to have a flex fuel standard so that when the automobile industry is producing cars are fuel vehicles so they can run either on the eighty five or the regular gasoline but if you're producing thirty six billion gallons of biofuels and don't have flex fuel vehicles on the road to be able to take those skills and run an eighty five through a vehicle we're going to see this ethanol market collapse that's why the flex fuel provision that's in the underlying bill from congress is so important mr president want to make the point that my hope is this afternoon those who wish to try to amend the underlying provision in the commerce committee bill would come to the floor let's have a debate about it i believe the commerce committee provision is a thoughtful provision that finally aggressively riff represents change and reform on automobile efficiency i think these standards achievable i think they'll be good for the industry they certainly will be good for the driving public in this country and most especially they will move us in the direction of being less dependent and move in the direction of being towards independence of foreign sources of oil which i think is important for this country's economic well being mr president you before president was senator from oregon the president going to take a few minutes this afternoon to discuss the tax provisions in this because i think they are very much in the public interest and something that i have been working on for many many years in the last congress for the first time in many years the executives  major oil companies were talking about shell and b p and exxon the big five companies were in front of a joint hearing and i intend attended a joint hearing of the energy committee and the commerce committee and with the executives there before this important hearing i asked all of the oil c e o s if they agreed with a recent statement that president bush had made present bush of course the oil man himself hardly somebody who's got any predisposition against the oil industry recently said that when oil is over fifty five dollars a barrel the oil companies do not need incentives to explore and develop for oil and i asked each of the executives that day the first time they had been asked a question in years and years and to a person the executives said they didn't need those subsidies every single one of the executives said it and what was so stunning about it is that their mission was completely contrary to everything the congress had been doing pretty much for the previous decade for the previous decade the congress had just been throwing one subsidy after another at these major oil companies came to billions and billions of dollars yet in the last congress when the executives were asked to go on the record and publicly state their position the executives admitted they didn't need the money that the congress had been throwing out them the billions of dollars in subsidies that the congress had been throwing at them so what you have is essentially a time now when the companies are making record profits and they are charging record prices when clearly they do not need record subsidy and that is what the senate finance committee legislation does with respect to the tax provisions i've reviewed them they are clearly targeted at the major companies are not targeted at the independents and the small companies clearly we ought to be taking steps to help them and in fact i particularly credit our friend and colleague the late senator thomas for doing extraordinary work over the years some of which i was privileged to work on with him to help those small independent companies and our friend our good friend the late senator thomas champion that work this is not going to affect those small independen the major companies the companies that said when i asked them the first time they've been asked in years admitted they did not need the billions and billions of dollars worth of subsidies they were getting and i think it ought to be put in the context of what it means for the consumer and our friend from north dakota began this discussion as well the reality is when somebody pulls up to a gasoline station in new jersey or oregon or anywhere else they are paying what amounts to a terror attack that's what we ought to call our addiction to foreign oil is literally a terror attack because when you pull up to that filling station in oregon or new jersey or anywhere else you pay this huge price and eventually some of that money gets into the coffers of the government in the middle east backdoor it to people who want to kill us so our addiction to foreign oil law to be put in a context that's appropriate it is a terror attack and this legislation is put been put together by a number of committees helps us to move away from that addiction to foreign oil and that's why i support it and by taking away some the subsidies to the major company subsidies that they have now claimed they don't even need it makes it possible for us to look at some opportunities for developing renewable energy sources here at home i was at a filling station not long ago in oregon that hopes to get all its fuel from oregon crops not from oil from the middle east but from oregon crops and waste oil and other products that's our vision of an important part of our energy supply in the future and if we get out of the business of shoveling billions and billions of dollars worth of subsidies to the major oil company subsidies that they have now made clear they don't need we can begin to develop a very different energy future one last point that i wanted to make it at this time mr president it's going to relate to a debate i'm sure we're going to have and that is a quick comment about the provisions that were added yesterday senator bingaman provisions to the legislation we're going to hear a lot about how some how this is taking illegal action with respect to all boil royalty it's taking action retroactively and it's illegal and we're going to hear that probably many many times in the course of the discussion of the bingaman legislation that was added yesterday the first thing i'd like to make clear and we were told this yesterday by council because i asked about it is that the bingaman provision would be applied prospect only on oil produced on federal offshore leases in the gulf of mexico so it would apply to future activity all produced on federal offshore leases in the gulf so as we go to this discussion and we're told repeatedly that this is some way unraveled previous agreement that this is illegal this is retroactive i hope colleagues will remember that we were told yesterday that it applies prospectively it does not change the terms of any existing oil and gas leaks so we're clear with respect to the bingaman provision it doesn't change the terms of any existing oil and gas lease and it would be applied prospectively on oil produced on these federal offshore leases and all oil produced on those leases in the gulf one last point with respect to this issue is comments that we have gotten from the general accounting office with respect to the amount of revenue the government receives from oil production from the gulf what the general accounting office has told us on this point is that the taxpayer receives revenue with respect to this production that is lower than virtually anywhere else in the world they have done a comparison to take a look at all of the other countries where you have similar activity going on and basically are taking the revenue for the tax payer hard working taxpayers across the country is lower than virtually anywhere in the world and i think the only place that even is close to us is where you have an oil company doing most of the production essentially a government corporation so the reality is with respect to drilling on our land that's what we're talking about here drilling on the people's land public lands our land the taxpayer has been getting fully for years and years and the bi begins to write the scale to get a fair shake for the taxpayers of this country i hope colleagues will support the work done by the finance committee with respect to the tax titled i think it's important that they know that the major oil companies they don't need the subsidy and the price per barrel is way over way over the amount that the president said was the level when you ought to stop paying out subsidy and i hope colleagues will look at the fact with respect to the important provisions that were added yesterday by senator bingaman because i'm of the view that taxpayers have been fleeced with respect to hoyle drilling on their land the people's land standards in automobiles and trucks over the next ten years regardless of what opponents of this amendment may say technology is available today to reach this goal we don't have to compromise the safety of the cars and trucks that we drive  american jobs don't have to be lost to meet these standards the cafe legislation that we have proposed is different than it's been in the past it is a true compromise a middle ground position we've come a long way with this compromise and i want to applaud the efforts of senators in a way and stevens it's not an easy issue to meet in the middle on but we have i'm sorry that the automobile industry which has resisted efforts to improve fuel efficiency over the last twenty years is still resisting efforts this is something that most americans understand intuitively if we're going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil if we're going to reduce the pollution that we're creating with the cars and trucks we drive we should be using fewer gallons of gasoline for the miles that we need and yet what we've seen consistently over the last twenty two years while we have not had a national fuel economy standard is that the cars and trucks being sold on average are getting less mileage so each year we buy these vehicles find that we need more gasoline than we did the previous year to drive the same number of miles and that's unacceptable if cafe provisions come a long way since i offered an amendment two years ago when i came to the floor and suggested it was time to start talking about fuel economy there weren't too many senators joining me i called for an increase in fuel economy standards that would have had vehicles reach a target of forty miles a gallon with the target date of twenty sixteen this legislation before it sets a target of thirty five miles a gallon providing even more lead time for the automobile industry to the year two thousand and twenty last time we debated forty miles a gallon my opponent said that that was just too high a standard to reach now we've lowered that target to thirty five miles a gallon and the industry proposal has thirty six m out makes we wonder why they no longer think it's arbitrary or whether they have any intention of ever meeting the target by amendment two years ago didn't provide the industry the flexibility that this legislation does i originally called for a hard target either had to reach it or pay fines this legislation before us allows for flexibility providing the national highway trance transportation safety administration the authority to lower the target if it's not technologically feasible my amendment did not reform the cafe program by creating the attribute based standards something i understand the industry would rather see than the existing system this legislation doesn't my mind also didn't create a fleet wide fuel economy standards this legislation does nor did it extend the credit training program as this amendment before us will do we've come a long way to reach a compromise on this legislation we understand the concerns about the existing programs brought to our attention we understand the difficulties in the domestic auto industry we tried to address them honestly unfortunately for the past two years the auto companies were at the table when they could have been so we change the cafe system to allow for a more level playing field between american and foreign manufacturers we provided it's the authority to create attribute based standards for passenger cars something president bush  asked for we've already witnessed and it's a set a new fuel economy standards for light trucks by using this system that can f a standards will no longer be by manufacturer but instead fleet wide based on the size attribute system that means the total fuel economy for all cars in the us will meet the fuel economy targets we set the targets will be set for different groups of cars based on their size attributes not based on the manufacturer since a fuel economy target is fleet wide the relative mix of vehicles manufactured by each company is not a real issue in the debate g m will not be penalized for making more s u v s and fewer small passenger vehicles than t order to meet a fleet wide average of thirty five miles a gallon each basic vehicle group will have to meet its own average fuel economy for example all midsize sedan will have to tain an average fuel economy standards for example for fusion honda accord toyota camry and chevy malibu must attain roughly the same fuel economy these cars will have to get about thirty six to thirty eight mpg based on current trends likewise all large v s will be subject to different lower average fuel economy will be comparing apples to apples each vehicle will have to reach an attainable fuel economy standards based on its size all of these targets must average out to thirty five miles a gallon for the entire fleet sold the united states by two thousand and twenty i want to repeat that because it's a large and important change on how cafe standards are now structured the relative mix of any manufacturer's fleet between similar passenger cars and larger s u v s as less relevant in the fuel economy debate the american auto manufacturers should not be in any disadvantage relative to foreign automobile manufacturers now we are focused completely on increasing fuel economy of vehicles driven in the united states regardless of who makes them and their size even though our legislation now addresses one of the main her issues raised in the two thousand and two national can in the sciences report and does what  requested sadly the auto manufacturers still oppose our compromise and if come up with even more arguments to try to persuade my colleagues to vote against improving the fuel economy of the cars and trucks that we drive let me remind everyone about the impact on the transportation sector of more fuel efficient vehicles in two thousand and five the united states use twenty point eight million barrels of oil per day sixty percent of it or twelve and a half million barrels the oil we use is bought from other nations sixty percent in the year two thousand and five of the twenty million barrels of oil we use every single day sixty nine percent was for transportation and sixty two percent for surface transportation like cars and light trucks every minute we consume more than two hundred sixty seven thousand gallons of gasoline in america you could say that we import oil to run our cars and by and large we do any increase in fuel economy will decrease our dependence on foreign oil how significant is the issue of foreign oil i don't need to remind anyone that we are in the midst of a war in the middle east we have lost three thousand five hundred and twenty one of our best and bravest soldiers ten times that number have been injured twice that number have been seriously injured facing traumatic brain injury and amputations it is no coincidence that these battle grounds time and again are battlegrounds in the middle east which is the source of our energy we have to reach a point where we are less dependent on that region of the world to fuel the american economy  right it was a government mandate which was resisted by the automobile industry they said to us that it was impossible there was no technology that could result in cars more fuel efficient than the ones we drove in  the manufacturers also argued that any cars built to meet the standards would be so light in weight that they would be unsafe and they argued that only foreign manufacturers would be able to make them thankfully congress ignored that argument passed cafe standards in one thousand nine hundred seventy five and ten years later saw the average mpg of cars in america almost double because of the government mandates the natural resource defense council estimates that the ten in ten fuel economy act now before the senate will save one point two million barrels of oil per day by two thousand and twenty think about it one point two million barrels of oil today i think the price of oil is about seventy dollars do the math that's the kind of money we will not be sending overseas oftentimes to countries that don't agree with us in terms of our values and the kind of american world we'd like to see in the future raising fuel economy standards will reduce our demand for gasoline which would decrease the amount of oil we have to import does anyone remember waiting in gas lines in one thousand nine hundred seventy three to get their ten gallons of gas i do the shortage was due to an opec embargo on oil exports to the united states in response to actions we had taken in the middle east overnight the price of oil went up from three dollars a barrel to five dollars and eleven cents three months into the embargo on oil prices rose further to eleven dollars and sixty five cents a barrel this embargoed came at a time when the united states imported less than thirty percent of its and oil about twenty eight percent in fact and it hit america hard suddenly  ration gasoline sales were max at ten dollars per sale gasoline stations closed on sundays and people waited in line opec succeeded in exerting its influence on global markets as well as the united states our vulnerability hundred seventy three and so easily we forget currently crude oil costs just over sixty nine dollars per barrel oil cost about twenty seven percent more now than it did the last time we talked about cafe on the floor the last time i offered an amendment two years ago and it makes the eleven dollar a barrel during the oil embargo of the seventy's seem like some sort of utopia opec brought us to our knees in the hundred seventy s imagine what they could do now we don't import twenty eight percent of our oil now we import sixty percent of our oil if other countries the bully bio from decided to stop selling to the united states or to kite the cost our economy and individuals and families small businesses and family farmers would be in big trouble nearly forty percent of all u s oil imports come from potentially hostile or unstable nations and ninety two percent of all conventional oil reserves are in these nations amazingly we continue to operate in a business as usual mode reliant on imports to quench our thirst from some of the most unstable countries in the world venezuela one of the top five oil exports the united states is also one of the most autocratic in latin america the chavez government regularly threatens nationalization of key industries and pursues policies inconsistent with many of our policies in the united states nigeria struggling on a path to democracy is also extremely unstable with ongoing violence in the oil producing regions they're also in the top five oil exports to the united states the more we rely on foreign nations to supply us with oil the more susceptible we are to their instability i hope my column colleagues realize that any future crisis that prevents or significantly restricts the production of flow of oil resources would have consequences on our economy for worse than anything that we experienced in the one nine hundred seventy s so we can do nothing and hope that some manifestation of one thousand nine hundred seventy three doesn't occur again or we can take steps now wise steps to prepare for a future the cafe standards in one nine hundred seventy five worked they can work again today the national academy of science tells us that emerging technologies could improve the fuel efficiency of a light truck by fifty to sixty five percent and the fuel efficiency of a car by forty to sixty percent i cannot for the life of me explain that a great industry like the automobile industry in the united states as fallen so far behind when it comes to new technology in few a quick fuel economy several years ago when toyota and other japanese manufacturers came up with hybrid vehicles and hybrid engines detroit was dismissive it's a fad people don't really want to they've now sold their one million toyota in the united states there's a strong appetite for cars that get forty fifty sixty miles a gallon serve our families and serve the needs of our economy detroit has not registered when it comes to this obvious reality my wife and i bought a ford escape hybrid at the time the only hybrid offered by an american manufacturer i'm sorry to report to you unfortunately that the hybrid technology in my ford was made by toyota for didn't make it they weren't up to it i hope they soon will be when it comes to more fuel efficient vehicles there are opportunities out there i'm afraid if we listen to automobile manufacturers and continue to wait nothing less will happen fuel efficiency will continue to falter will continue to be dependent on countries that send their oil to the united states it's interesting while we're in this cafe debate here in the united states other countries have already had their debate the winners when it comes to fuel economy are japan of the european union where vehicles are now getting forty to forty six miles per gallon china china this fledgling economy has more fuel efficient cars than we do and there flute  almost at thirty five miles per gallon already as we debate whether the united states can reach that goal in ten years there's a lot of reasons why we've fallen so far behind i won't try to dwell on it but clearly we have a chance to catch up point i would like to make mr president is that this is a timely debate as well when it comes to our environment there are a few of my colleagues here on the senate floor who don't believe in global warming and don't believe in climate change they're entitled to their point of view i happen to think they're wrong and i'm sure they feel they are correct i happen to believe something's happening in this world today the climate is changing storms are more violent glaciers are melting we are seeing changes already that are going to have a long term negative impact on the world that we live in when i look at my grandchild who's about eleven years old and talk about what the world will be like for him i'm sure the day is going to come when he's going to ask me did you do what you could to try to avoid the environmental crisis that was looming when you saw it back in the early twenty first century it's a legitimate question each generation has to be able to answer that question we know now that if we don't do something smart when it comes to energy and energy consumption that we're going to make this world less comfortable for us to live in that's fact and i hope that by moving toward fuel efficiency we can start doing the right thing and i'll go a step further if we fail on the fuel efficiency question on the cafe's question when it comes to the cars and trucks we drive and i believe that we will fail on one of the most fundamental issues in terms of the future of this planet and the future of the united states i honestly believe that we have an opportunity to move forward and i hope that we do it and do it soon with the senate you know for a question of we have to go for question first of all it is chairman of the environment and public works committee i just your words are really like music to my ears and i am so grateful that the senator durbin you are in the leadership here because you really do reflect the views of i think the vast majority of americans who see the challenges ahead and know we just can't do business as usual and i think that this bill is a very fair bill when it comes to fuel economy this bill went through the congress committee a committee on which i serve and it was a bipartisan measure everyone voted for it it was fair it was good the question i had for my colleagues i just want to make sure he was aware of another provision in this bill which is a good one too which is to make sure that the federal government is in fact a model of energy efficiency when it comes to purchase of new cars i want to make sure my friend was aware because it's tucked away in the spill a provision that we got out of the commerce committee that says that from now on when the federal government buys the sixty thousand cars a year sixty thousand cars a year for is for a federal fleet that it by the most fuel efficient cars my friend aware of that i'm aware of that because i know the center of california has been working on this for quite some time i might also add that i recently met with the postmaster general and you can imagine the u s postal service has many of the vehicles bought by the federal government and they are trying to focus on how to rican so your existing vehicles with diesel technology for example that is less polluting uses less fuel and they need our help so i hope that this bill will be a breakthrough when it comes to federal vehicles i might also add that i'm aware that the senator from california has joined me in a few of our colleagues in inviting the experts in to take a look at our office operations members of congress in the senate house have to lead by example and i hope that the small steps we've already taken and other steps we will take to have less of what they call a carbon footprint from our operations maybe point the way toward more fuel efficiency and conserving electricity even in our own office operations is say to my friend and again thank him for yielding for an for another  question yes we have several of our offices are part of this kind of model project to see how energy efficient we can be it's it's a pretty straightforward way for us to lead by example the the other question i had for my colleagues is this because the bill that is on the floor that senator reid worked so hard to put together with senator bingaman and myself and with senator in a way and others senator kerry was involved i know my friend was involved being the the assistant leader if there are other provisions in this bill that's why i'm so hopeful we get this done that that take this notion of the federal government being a model to our buildings because i'm not sure my friend is aware of the exact number but the federal government either runs or operates eight thousand buildings eight thousand buildings and when my friend talks about global warming it is a fact that in america thirty nine percent of the greenhouse gas emissions comes from a buildings so we can set the tone here we can move forward with a bipartisan vote we were able to pass a lighting efficiency bill for federal government which is included in this it also has a component where grants will be given to cities across this country in counties to make their buildings energy efficient in terms of lighting it will save money will reduce the carbon footprint and then with the help of senators lautenberg and mourner we get another piece of legislation included in this bill which is called the green buildings bill which also impacts all new and existing federal buildings and also requires that e t a come out with a model of green buildings for schools so we'll help our schools because you're so right when you talk about your eleven year old grandson i have a twelve year old grandson as you know  they are going to ask those tough questions and they may well ask it of the schools that they're into so i want to make sure my friend knew since we really are talking more with the leadership of of senator bingaman he has been working on the most contentious you know amendments but there's so much in the underlying bill that came out of his committee my committee other committees that really are strong and that's why we would hate to see this derail this would be an enormous that back th people want to stick reach across party lines and take care of business and an energy policy is going to take care of business by just say that senator from california that wasn't long ago when we used to hear about all the california laws rules and regulations and it was a source of amusement to many of us in the midwest that you had your own design and automobile engines and we thought what's going on with these crazy people in california well we've learned our lesson because in the period of time that you lead the nation in thinking about these things you prove something that you could keep economic growth moving forward in california and conserve energy in the process that's a lesson the nation needs to learn we don't want to sacrifice jobs business growth or opportunity in america instead we want to create opportunity in a reasonable wise environmentally sensitive way i think the senator from california for leadership on this issue and mr president to i i'd ask a unanimous consent that by entire strong support of an amendment i have filed at the desk some time ago that or amendment number sixteen fifty eight i'd like to briefly explain what that is at its core this amendment would allow louisiana to use more federal coastal impact assistance dollars which are already going to the state under preexisting law while we passed a couple of years ago to be used specifically for one of our ha ha priorities in the wake of hurricanes katrina and rita and that is is the hurricane protection africa is present by way of background in two thousand and five we pass energy policy act and that did a very important thing for the state of louisiana and other producing states it is stablished a coastal impact assistance program for the six states in the united states that produce off shore energy particularly oil and gas obviously that includes louisiana now under that four year coastal impact assistance program certain federal dollars flowed to those producing states in light of the enormous work they do producing energy for our country and the negative impact that activity has in many cases on our coastline now back at that time provision was made to restrict the amount of those funds that to go specifically to infrastructure projects and that cap was a stablished with the senator bingaman others at twenty three percent back in two thousand and five i argued strongly and worked with senator bingaman and others to say that that cap should be lifted with regard to hurricane protection work at least in louisiana because that work was absolutely so vital so essential for our very existence but unfortunately that argument did not hold the day that cap was not lifted an exemption was not put in place for hurricane protection efforts i'm trying to get that cap lifted far hurricane protection work in louisiana now and my argument that we should do it comes down to two words two words that happened that devastated my coastline between then and now the two words are katrina and rita since that original act two thousand and five  and they struck a literal death close to the louisiana coast if hurricane protection was a big priority before that it is only grown enormously with those two hurricanes coming upon our shores and so i think there is every rationale every reason to allow us to use more of that coastal impact assistance money for hurricane protection efforts and so left that ar of twenty three percent for infrastructure projects pacifically when we're talking about hurricane protection efforts a bank contact with center bang and then about this we've just discussed it on the floor i know he's considering these arguments but perhaps and wrapping up my discussion i could invite the center to engage in a brief khalik way and ask him again to focus on the really extreme needs of the louisiana coast in the wake of hurricanes katrina and rita and to continue consideration of lifting this cap in light of those really extreme needs and to see where we are in that discussion  today and i've explained to him that the reason for that is that there is a republican objection to a springing up and considering a great many amendments that democratic members would like to bring up and consider the same time so i regret that but on the substance i'm not in a position to really indicate right now whether this kind of a change would take place i would assume that to make the judgment we would have to to know something purpose of the original legislation in two thousand and five obviously i think the entire senate has been anxious to be of assistance to all of the gulf coast and this legislation that he's referring to the wetland whent lands protection part of the two thousand and five energy bill was part of that there's been several things that have been done since since the devastating hurricanes hit i'm not in a position to support it or oppose the times that are from louisiana is recognized reclaiming the floor i'll put that down as an undecided and maybe and i would like to continue these discussions with the senator from new mexico he is essentially the key to clearing this amendment probably without objection or not and again i would restate that because of the devastating impact of hurricanes katrina and rita i think there is every reason in the world to lift this arbitrary cap of twenty three percent specifically and only for hurricane protection work on our coast it's absolutely vital for our survival it will not mean we're not doing everything else we have been talking about that's moving forward for a number of reasons including the revenue sharing piece we were able to pass into law late last year which will give significant new revenue to our coastal restoration efforts and other things so i again urge the senator to continue to look at this and hopefully clear this so that it can be seventeen seventy six i just happened to get that number but i happen to think it's a very appropriate number for this amendment because this goes to our very important patriotic efforts to increase our energy independence and to get away from our enormous reliance on the middle east including very very dangerous countries and regimes in the middle who are clearly not friends of ours at all this amendment is really straightforward it would allow increased domestic production of minerals or renewable energy in federal areas that aren't allowed now if and only if for things all four of these things happened really five number one the national average gasoline price would have exceed three dollars and seventy five cents a gallon at the pump number two in addition foreign import ports imports of oil would have to exceed sixty five percent of all oil use number three in addition the president would have to determine that an ample supply of a new level fuels are insufficient to meet the fuel demand domestically at that time number four in addition the president would have to determine that continued and growing reliance on foreign oil imports is a threat to national security then of all of those four preconditions were met then only then number five the governor of a state with the concurrence of the state legislature could petition the secretary of interior to initiate policing activities on stuff the fide federal lands within the state or within the administrative boundaries of the outer continental shelf related to that state's for oil and gas or alternative energy production so if everything i just mentioned happened then and only then a state itself through its governor through its state legislature can say yes sir mr president we want to be part of the solution this is a dire extreme case this is a real national security threat we want to be part of the solution by producing safely and environmentally friendly way more oil and gas more renewable energy far america i think this is an utterly commonsense and very much needed amendment to increase domestic production decrease reliance on foreign sources that goes to energy security as such it goes to economic security it goes to national security and again none of this would happen unless all of those things happened for us gasoline prices at three seventy five at the pump foreign imports over sixty five percent of everything we're using in this country the president saying renewables can't make up the difference president saying this is a real national security issue the governor of the state saying we want to do this it's our home we can do it responsibly the state legislature the state concurrent all of those things what have to happen before opening up either land within the state or part of the outer continental shelf off the states to leasing activity in terms of federal land very important that we do a balanced approach all sorts of things to decrease our reliance on foreign sources and this is a very commonsense part of that and then you with that mr president i understand they met there may be objection but i would like to ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments so that this very commonsense amendment that goes to the heart of this debate and the heart of the bill vitter amendment number seven hundred seventy six one can be called up made pending and considered mr president i object misjudgment president could i ask a question through the distinguished certainly senator louisiana to the senator from the manager of the bill senator from new mexico majority leader is recognized i'm with the distinguished chairman of the energy committee inform the senate why why is there more being done on the scale this matter number amendments of people have said to me they want to have debated and not just democrats republicans asking same question why aren't we able to move on to get some of this stuff done mr president let me just respond to the majority leader by saying that there are a great many good amendments that the republican members would like to offer there are good amendments democratic members would like to offer  are informed that there is objection to a springing up any of these amendments and getting a vote on them at this time time because of objections from senator on the republican side so for that reason we are somewhat unable to proceed with any of these legislative matters i know the time is running toward the vote on cloture both on on the tax package and on the bill itself and and i know there's there's good faith on both sides in wanting to sue to do some more business before those cloture votes occur but but obviously good faith on the part of many senators does not ensure that we can make progress we have to have unanimous consent and we can't get that i don't know senator louisiana still wants the floor yes i do if we have movie ok if i direct another question to the manager the bill certainly i say through the chair to the distinguished senator from new mexico i have worked for all the time i've been in the senate and for more than a dozen years on a very close intimate basis while we were managing the energy and water subcommitte appropriations bill with the senior senator from new mexico senator domenici and what's going on here as the co manager this bill is very unlike certain minute she didn't send a message she likes things debated likes votes t there there's a good faith effort on the part of both managers to try to move forward with with legislation in a way that is fair to both republicans and democrats and allows allows consideration of amendments on both sides but we are being blocked by others one last question if that center would be patient center from louisiana i would and the senator from new mexico the junior sen from mexico to manage this bill has been in the senate longer than i have and knows more about the procedure i'm sure than i do but has the senator tried for example having sixty vote margin is on some amendments of people may not want him to see if there's any other way we can move this along to get that objection withdrawn well again mr president in response let me just say we have tried to get agreement that certain of the amendments that are objectionable some members of the republican side we we would do agree that we'd be bound by a sixty vote threshold on those amendments but the at least at this point my understanding is that the objection is to any consideration of the amendments regardless of what the threshold is going to be so where we're unable to proceed right now i hope that changes i hope we can we can dispose of some of the very meritorious amendments that both republican senators and democratic senators would like to offer before we get to cloture as mispresent i want the record to reflect my appreciation for the courtesy extended to me by the distinguished senator from louisiana president is recognized thank you mispresent i was happy to do that reclaiming the floor all of that is interesting it's also what is commonly referred to as inside baseball and for the sake of the insiders here let me translate for you what the american people just heard to quote charlie brown want want want want want want a lot the fact is what americans are faced with is an energy crisis and we have all this inside baseball tangling it's up in the senate in the house and we're not doing a darn thing about it now the other fact of the matter is that there is no objection on the republican side to calling this amendment seven hundred seventy six up to making attending to considering it there's all sorts of debate and all sorts of discussions about other amendments there's certainly no objection on our side to this amendment and why should there be why shouldn't we allow individual states to say yes we want to be part of the solution particularly when all of the following events occur average price of gasoline reaches three seventy five a gallon foreign imports top sixty five percent of everything used in the country the president certifies that renewables can't make up the gap the president certifies that there is a continuing reliance on foreign oil which is a national security threat all of those things happen shouldn't we be allowing a state through it governor through the state legislature to be part of the solution to in a safe and environmentally sensitive way produce more energy in this country that doesn't take away the need for alternative fuels that doesn't take away the need for conservation or everything else but the clear and simple fact of the matter is this problem is so big that we need need to do all of the above and certainly this commonsense approach should be on that menu should be among all of the above so let's get but the on the washington insider wall long long long all the running around all the objections all the being tied up in knots and present some reasonable common place solutions so there's growing national energy crisis and i hope those who control the floor and lead the florist are reading with the distinguished majority leader dick whom i just heard a few minutes ago on the floor can be part of that thank you very much mr president i yield the floor senator from west virginia west virginia became the thirty fifth star in our national constellations taking her place between kansas  am pleased to offer was genuine happy birthday wishes and to take the opportunity to share a bit about my state with the rest of the country person piece of geography of course west virginia is much older alpine plateau mountain range which may have one succeeded today's m l a now turns and i transplanted into west virginia complete with beautiful fall color and hardy wonder whether twelve inches of cold require approximately ten thousand years of continuous pete came relation to form in other rock layers there is evidence of west virginia's earlier days as well in the sea creatures forever preserved and no expose far in and elevations well of the sea level that they knew and live a new river gorge visitors have the opportunity to view rock sequences from those early years three hundred twenty to three hundred thirty million years ago west virginia's not sure of beauty as well as it's wonderful outdoor activities can be found in each of one could be an energy as care you rest and recharge musical form an artistic discipline known to man in tastes and all interest west virginia is saying famous famous for her quilts pottery handmade craft there is also plenty of every body something for everyone it could easily take a lifetime to experience everything that there is the sea and to do then of course time and nature will change a few more things and created new things to see and do so much the west virginia  reserves are blowing a mockingbird is singing rivers are tumbling between the mountains singing birthday song and tonight the star west virginia river runs as to whether or not we will stick with the bill which requires the meeting of cars and light trucks to be thirty five  gallon not for another thirteen years until twenty twenty and they are after the mileage standards to improve by four percent a year that of course is a great deal of the consternation that is going here particularly by the all immobile industry that does not want to comply with these standards i was prepared to offer an amendment that i think thirty five miles is too low we have the technology the question is do we have the political will we have the technology to go to forty m and i filed an amendment but a pair lay because of the dynamics of the senate taking up c s u we're struggling to get the votes in order to keep the thirty five miles per gallon standard in the bill and they're all kind of side discussions that are going on in the corridors and ante rooms of the capit as to whether or not there will be any offer particularly by the senator from michigan senator levin as to reduce standards originally he was proposing  standard of thirty six miles per gallon but not to be achieved until the year two thousand and twenty five with other trucks exempted from so you see you see the battle the choice that is facing the senate now why should we do this now well let's look at i came into public office in one nine hundred seventy two it's now thirty five years ago and at the time in the early seventy's we had a an embargo by the oil producing countries particularly in the persian gulf region there was a panic there were long lines at the gas stations the price of oil shot up from that low price something less than ten dollars a barrel back then shot up considerably and everybody got all concerned americans were impatient the persian gulf region became a target of our disaffection and then the spigot was turned on they all began to flow again the embargo was released the price started to recede and america went back to sleep it happened again in the late eighty's about the time i was elected to congress and there again the long gas lines the cost of gasoline shooting up the enmity toward the persian gulf region nations the double whammy that interest rates soared upwards of fifteen sixteen percent and all of that was a real crunch on americans spigot was turned on again they all flowed the price receded a little bit not nearly as much as it was back in the early part of the decade of the seventy's and america went back to sleep began all the time at each of these moments the alarm was sounded that from the defense posture of the united states you did not want to be dependent on foreign oil and yet each time the dependence increased and the amount of foreign oil imported into the united states increased to the point today mr president that we are importing sixty percent of our daily consumption of oil and where is it come in from it's coming from places like the middle east the persian gulf nigeria area and venezuela now i've just mentioned for parts of the world that are relatively unstable and yet this is what is supplying us with sixty percent of our daily consumption of oil and so we come to the moment of truth which may occur th if an alternative amendment is offered to the mpg that are required in this energy bill and the moment of truth is is america ready to have the political will to change the gas glug guzzling ways and we're just talking about reasons of energy we haven't even said anything about what all of the excess carbon dioxide as a result of the burning of the fossil fuels is doing going into the air creating the greenhouse effect and heating up the earth that's a nother complete story but it's all as a result of this well people say well another part of this we're going to talk about renewable fuels for electric utilities that's an important part too but when you look at where do we consume most of the oil the petrol it is in the sector of transportation and within transportation where is most of the oil consumed it's consumed in private vehicles so we are coming to the moment of truth are we going to finally require without many exceptions the automobile industry to do what technology is ill allows us to do but not even do it tomorrow phase it in over thirteen year period to the year twenty twenty requiring that we have greater mpg and therefore what does that mean less consumption of oil that means less dependence on foreign oil this is where the greatest consumption of oil is private vehicles and so the moment of truth is here now there is clearly a defense reason that we ought to explore as to why we ought to do this as well can you imagine the different posture of the armed forces of the united states if we did not have to be the protector almost the sole protector of the sea lanes upon which the great super tankers of the world low and steam in order to satiate an oil thirsty world and thus who do you think defends and protect the sea lanes coming out of the persian gulf coming through one of those choke punt points a military choke point called the strait of hormuz nineteen mile wide on one side or a man on the other side of the nineteen miles oh mine through which that narrow passage the supertankers of the world have to flow to get out into the indian ocean and who protect that the united states wouldn't it be different from a defense posture where a latin american president like chavez who continues to thumb his nose at the united states because he can sense he has petro dollars since he supplies twelve to fourteen percent of our daily consumption and oh by the way his company which has been nationalized by the government of venezuela the oral industry they're called essay did you know that they own all the citgo stations in the united states so his threat of cutting off is more hollow than real because he'd be to use the old expression cutting off his nose to spite his face if he were to suddenly shut down the oil supplies that are going into all of his gasoline stations around the united states but nevertheless he's made that threat and in the process with his oil wealth because we do buy half of his oil production with his own oil well he can take that all well and he can buy friends around the region happily he has not been totally successful but by friends and by influence with his petro dollars even either in the form of direct financial remuneration or in the form of oil and gasoline suppliers to oil and gasoline thirsty countries like the little countries in the caribbean like the little countries and central america and that's another thing that we are facing and so the moment of truth has come now i had an automobile dealer one of the very best from my state of florida sit with me yesterday and tell me that the automobile industry could not make this adjustment but that's what the automobile industry has been saying for the last thirty five years ever since we had that first major role disruption in the early hundred seventy s in his particular case he has tried within the industry to get the industry to be willing to reform itself and use the mr automobile industry backed up by mr all oil industry don't come tell me that we don't have the technical capability and the american people the capability of buying automobiles that will take us from what is now on the average about twenty two miles per gallon on vehicles that have a different standard something like twenty seven but in reality it's only twenty two don't tell me we don't have the technology in thirteen years to get us to thirty five mpg i wish it were forty but if we can get this we're all the better off mr mr president i i want to share one more thing as we're coming to the moment of truth two weeks ago during the break i spent it going around on  intelligence mission in africa and it became quite apparent and one of those countries nigeria from which we get twelve to fourteen percent of our daily supply and consumption of oil from that one country nigeria it became very apparent to me that those facilities were defenseless at the same time it was very apparent to me that al qaeda is on the rise in africa they're coming out of a arabia into the horn of africa they're at somalia and all the midst of that chaos and they're moving across this hell in the somehow of africa they've even changed some of the names of the terrorist groups they are in africa to be a q i am i'll take islamic magreb and that's the group that just tried to assassinate the president of algeria a couple of months ago and they got close they got a big truck bomb suicide bomber into the next to the presidential palace it killed a dozen people but they didn't get the president but it's on the rise guess what one of their targets is going to be they all facilities in nigeria the only way we're going to stop that since the nigerian government can't protect it is through the cooperative arrangement that we have with nations intelligence services cooperating with our intelligence services and that cooperation is going on and has saved some of the terrorist strikes elsewhere in the world that's the only way we're going to interdict is find out ahead of time and stop it otherwise it's going to happen and when that happens right there fourteen percent of the daily supply suddenly cut off we are going to rue the day if on this day this moment of truth we have not set ourselves on a mandatory course of higher miles per gallon in order to force less consumption of oil particularly foreign oil that's the message and i don't see how any senator can ignore this message and yet we are scrambling for sixty votes to close off debate to get to the end of this bill because of that provision in it senators the moment of truth is coming portending  consequences for the future of our country and for the future of the free world and it's going to happen today mr president is there objection to laying aside like to ask the chairman of the committee is it not correct that at this time there is agreement to have the debate forty minutes equally divided on this particular amendment the vote to be set at a later time but we would try to conclude the debate at this time as president in response that is my understanding that we will have forty minutes equally divided prior to a vote on or in relation to the the amendment which and that that vote may take place later in the afternoon thank you very much but he is there objection without objection so watered thank you mr president this amendment is designed to get back to original intent with regard to the energy policy act of two thousand and five a very specific a rather narrow provision but an important provision that provided a one dollar per gallon credit for renewable diesel the idea was to encourage the creation of new technologies for renewable diesel and the idea was primarily to try to get products like sell your lastic products that could eventually  be added to or or to be turned into a fuel that could be burned as diesel fuel and as a result that dollar per per gallon credit was deemed an important way to create a new kind of product well as entrepreneurs will do a couple of very bright people figured out that they can take an existing product which is already use namely animal fat and put that in with  with diesel fuel in effect i'm simplifying the process and voila it all burns the same but it would qualify as renewable diesel bio mass under the credit and therefore they would get the dollar per gallon credit for doing something that adds essentially nothing to the process and uses animal fat primarily tallow which is already used by the oleo chemical industry and which has seen the price skyrocket because of the interpretation that these oil companies have gotten iris to agree to that they could actually use this animal fat in their diesel and therefore get the credit for producing a new kind of diesel that was never the intent the intent was to find some new kinds of biomass processes that could be converted to a diesel fuel and have it be a renewable diesel fuel something truly new not to take existing diesel and take an existing product that's already used by every green industry by the way the only all chemical industry is an industry that gets no subsidies and uses this animal fat something that is good to dispose of and they use it to make plastics cleansing products home cleaning products some rubber kind of products and most especially so that's the basic ingredient in soap is talent and there's a finite market for that the so people buy all of the stuff that's on the market but they found that the cost has gone up one hundred percent in the last six months just because of this interpretation that that tallow could be bought up by primarily one big oil company conical oil company which  figured out that they can get the advantage of this one dollar per gallon subsidy that's wrong it was never intended for that if they want to go out and invent a new process with the big tax credit we've given them that's great but not to use the tax credit to do something that can be done anyway and which has the effect the unintended consequence of hurting and industry that employs at least four thousand people and by the way if that industry is not able to buy the towel and the animal fat that's being used here then the only alternative is to produce things like soap in foreign countries that have alternatives supplies what we have here in the united states so the unintended consequence of this is not just that somebody gets to take advantage of a one dollar per gallon tax credit that's very generous not really producing anything new but that they're also driving out of the united states an important industry which does use this waste animal fat and uses it very productively without any subsidy and this present i'll ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter from the chief executive officer of the national bio diesel board who wrote to me on june twentieth  certain the record at this point without objection thank you here's what the letter says the national bio diesel board supports your efforts to promote sound energy policy by ensuring that renewable diesel produced through petroleum co processing does not qualify for the one dollar per gallon renewable diesel excise tax credit in time of budget deficits and rising fuel prices due in large part to limited domestic refining capacity the n b b questions the wisdom of directing tax benefits and limited feedstock that's the animal fat to subsidizing existing or oil refining operations at the expense of freestanding producers of bio diesel and renewable diesel under your commitment vegetable oils and animal fats coprocessor with petroleum would not qualify for the dollar per gallon renewable diesel tax credit but would continue to qualify for a fifty cents per gallon credit that is provided under current law the n b b believes that your amendment represents balanced energy policy and is consistent with the goals of the underlying legislation and so on the spread we're not eliminating the tax credit we're not eliminating this other credit all we're doing is getting back to the original intent which was not to provide this additional dollar per gallon credit for something that could be done anyway we want you to go out and invent something new here using biomass for bio diesel not use something that can already be done and according to the testimony of the company that is primarily going to be doing this this has not if conducted successful test a converted vegetable oil with a high quality renewable do so fuel and can be produced with existing refinery equipment and with minimal incremental capital investment in other words this isn't something that requires some new investment that requires american taxpayers to subsidize it as i said they're taking something that they can to do right now and they're simply taking advantage of a tax break that we did not intend to be used by a company like that now in anticipation of this boondoggle and it's gotten quite a bit of press there's been a suggestion well we can limit it to  payers with a sixty thousand sixty's maybe sixty million a gallon production problem is in the finance committee mark that was changed from tax payer to facility so now a company can have twenty different facilities each one producing sixty million gallons and they're right back in business it's no limitation at all so my colleagues should not be hornswoggled but use the old phrase my grandfather used to use that who would want to speak in opposition to this an opportunity to try to refute what i've said but i think this is very straightforward there's no sense in rewarding what i would consider to be behavior that was never intended by this congress in providing this kind of a tax credit when we're going to take a tax benefit in effect using taxpayer dollars to promote something we want to make sure we're promoting something that is really in the best interest of the american taxpayer not just a way for somebody that knows how to make a buck to use it to make a buck especially if it has a negative consequence on the existing industry the oleo chemical industry and in particular the the soap makers of this country incentives for american production of renewables for renewal energy conservation hybrids automobiles hybrid plug in the multitude of ways to help america become much more self sufficient and hopefully therefore able to get gasoline prices down a little bit because at the current time we're very much the throes of big as mark said we're concerned about the biodiesel based produce from products like so i beans others are much more concerned about renewable diesel produced by other products that could other seeds the committee ma'am it extends both of these credits for two years and is to two thousand and ten otherwise they will expire at the end of next year sarah from arizona appears to be concerned diesel so let's find out a way to kind of work together and reach reach a balance this is the compromise that we worked out that is the dollar credit for each but in addition i might say mr president the committee capped the no longer be available we have a limit here we're cognizant of the points made by the senator from arizona we also commissioned a study on the effects of energy taxes on consumer goods and i might say  the committee men of forest extends these one dollar for each that is for biodiesel for just two more years this is not a five year extension is not a ten year extension sound of permanent provision it's just two years so it affected  sunset in two years and i might say that's not that contrary to most of the recommendations we've been getting from industry across the board namely they like five year incentives capital needs a couple three years  perspective that for two decades maybe longer nancy this country has been seeking a various approaches to alternative energy so that we're not dependent upon foreign sources and more recently violent violent and unpredictable sources of energy for the united states for reasons of national security for reasons of our economy a lot of good reasons sun you know things of that nature and now we're finding things that this country was so united on the need for renewables the need for helping agriculture the need for lowering our trade deficit the needs of national security the needs of a cleaner environment and everybody was united that we ought to be doing it now we're being somewhat successful and it used to be that we would have to listen to all the excuses a big oil big oil why we shouldn't have renewable power finding out about the high price of food diet price of animal feed just as if everything and the problems our country are in the backs of the american farmers which is very unfair and now we're finding some dissention from other industries being affected we're still in the process of infant industries whether it's ethanol after a couple decades or whether it's biodiesel after three or four years we're in the state of infancy in renewable and we ought to be as united today as we were over the past two decades of what's right for this country good for a great culture good for the environment good for our national defense good for good paying jobs in parts of rural america where it's never been before and everything about it is good good good and we better stick together or because the fighting we're going to continue to be dependent upon those violent regions of the world for energy we're going to be dependent upon something that god made a finite quantity of fossil fuels and we need to move forward united and where this is a second amendment today and who knows we may have ten other amendments that's very detrimental to the causes of getting this in industry of renewables off the ground having that is a backdrop then i want to speak specifically that what's wrong with the amendment that's before us and i can't replace the good things that i can only add to the good things that the senator from montana has already spoken but there is no cap on any biodiesel production they may go forth and produce and meet their specific chemical standards they have the right to produce as many gallons of bio diesel as a high and it will be qualified for the excise tax credit through the end of two thousand and ten now people ought to argue it ought to be longer but you've got to fit things into what we have offsets for so this is the year two thousand and tan if they are a small producer they will be able to receive the credit until december two thousand and twelve if you're a non coal processing facility and do one hundred percent bio mass not including chemicals catalysts and the like they have the same rules as bio diesel if you call process at a facility your total credit is limited to sixty million gallons if you claim a renewable diesel credit the sixty million gallons is the current definition of a small producer so a coal processor facility will not be able to receive any more tax benefits then the small producer for example if you have one hundred million gallons facility that you're concerned about they have a built in forty million dollar advantage over any co processing facility obviously both a barrel of vegetable oil or animal or oil is substantially more expensive than a barrel of crude oil and the credit by law is limited to only the baughman suzanne paine tom cornfield obvious all it's been great stevens alex hart in the least stein without objection senator from arizona this present can i be informed as to how much time is remaining on here twelve minutes for the senator from arizona six and a half for the senator from montana when i take a look at a time then before the other side speaks again on this i i respect my colleagues  spoken to this but i have not really heard an argument that to me anyway argues against the specific amendment that i'm offering remember i'm not doing away with the credit the arguments that have been raised here make it sound as if we're trying to do away with the credit that's absolutely not true that credit remains what we're trying to do is essentially to reverse an iris ruling which i submit was made in error with respect to the application of the tax credit they said you could actually apply it to a process that it was never intended to be applied to and the testimony of the secretary of treasury at the time that this bill was originally considered or excuse me a letter to the secretary of treasury at the time that this legislation was originally considered makes that crystal clear congressman blunt wrote and i quote it's been brought to my attention that some taxpayers are suggesting to the department of treasury that section thirteen forty six of the act the renewable diesel provision could be broadly interpreted to include traditional processes this is not what we intended the provision and neither the statute nor the associated j c t estimate of the revenue implications in any way support such a reading in the quote what he's saying mr president is this two years ago when this tax credit was created it was designed to in sent the creation of a new product so that we didn't have to continue to explore for oil or export it from foreign sources we could begin to make renewable diesel out of biomass that was the idea we have all of this waste product of biomass we have silly elastic products that we could create here and that will create a new renewable fuel source everybody said that's a great idea and to get it promoted let's have a dollar tax per gallon tax credit for the production of that it was not intended to apply as the congressman from missouri pointed out to include traditional processes for refining and producing fuel in other words it was designed to promote something new and so when these folks found that they could take animal fat essentially greatly simplify it add it to their existing stocks a bio mass renewable fuel that could qualify for a generous tax benefit it was never intended all my amendment does is to say that interpretation is not correct you can't do that the underlying dollar per gallon credit exists the other fifty cents per gallon credit exists we don't take away any of that all we do and the primary person company that is factored by this i acknowledge is conoco oil company they have figured out with minimal new investment as they themselves wrote in their annual report that they could take advantage of this tax credit by using the animal fat now again i suppose it wouldn't matter that if a big oil company is is taking undue advantage of a tax credit we create that's probably done all the time i don't like it and that's why taxpayers are frankly sometimes upset with congress that we pass these great generous subsidies and sometimes they're utilized by people that shouldn't be utilizing them for improper purposes not to create a new kind of diesel fuel in this case but to just keep using the same old kind of diesel fuel the other an unintended consequence here though is one which affects another industry a clean industry in industries that using the waste fat vegetable oil and animal fat the waste product of turkeys and chickens for example it's utilized today in a variety of these chemical products which are products we use every day house cleaning products soap as i said the problem is that because these existing refineries are buying up these waste products they're driving up the cost there only so much of this animal fat around it's a finite amount and when the demand is increased by having these oil refineries buy it all up so they can put it into their diesel fuel so they can get an extra credit that's driving up the price which as i said has gone up one hundred percent in the last six months if that continues these companies are not going to be able to afford the primary feedstock for the so they're going to have to produce it abroad another great unintended consequence of what started out to be a good idea but didn't turn out to be such a hot idea folks this is a very parochial thing except for the chairman of the ranking member the committee here primarily the opponents of this are places that take advantage of this and i can't object to their fighting for their local industries but i think it's important for us to recognize that is a national energy policy and as a national tax policy we have to look at it in nationwide terms and when we've created a credit to produce something new and it ends up not being used to produce something new but to produce something that currently exist by existing refineries and uses up the feedstock of another important industry driving the cost of that industry way up we better pay attention to that and the fix doesn't hurt anybody except primarily as i said this one big oil company because it leaves the credit in place it leaves the fifty cent credit in place it doesn't do anything with those credits it doesn't say that they're not extended all it does is say that we go back to the way it was prior to this i r s ruling that said that they could take advantage of this  provision for the existing refineries again and i'll just conclude at this point we don't need to subsidize existing oil refining operations at the expense of freestanding producers of bio diesel and renewable diesel that's who this tax credit was designed to help the free standing facilities the ones that were actually producing something new a key component of rising fuel prices in this country is a lack of refining capacity in the united states we all know that freestanding bio diesel and renewable diesel producers add both fuel and refining capacity we'd ought to be encouraging them and that's what the one dollar per gallon credit was designed to do by contrast co processor renewable diesel adds no new net fuel and no new refining capacity to the diesel pool this was not intended to help the existing refiners they're already in business they're already making money and we don't need to give them a dollar a gallon credit for doing something that we don't need have them do and finally as i said the availability of feed stock such as animal fat and vegetable oils is essentially fixed and this one dollar renewable diesel credit is the motivation for integrating they all companies to engage in co processing this will clearly increase demand for the feedstock needed to produce the biodiesel and increased costs it's not wise tax policy to drive tax incentives and limited feedstock to support existing refinery operations at the expense of bio diesel and freestanding renewable diesel production the economic benefits associated with free standing biodiesel production could be lost if this one dollar per gallon renewable tax incentive is directed to support operations in existing oil refineries so i ask my colleagues to please keep this in perspective take into account that those who say this is this amendment is bringing the end of the world no it's not it doesn't change an existing law at all all it does is to say go back to the original intent and apply this very generous tax credit for the purpose that we originally intended to do something new not to use existing refineries and give them a tax credit for doing something that they're already doing i hope that when they met is called mr president that my colleagues will see through some of the smokescreen that's been presented and not here in the chamber but on the outside with regard to this amendment and we'll agree that it is national that national policy dictates that we take care of taxpayer dollars carefully that we set our energy policy carefully and that we not let people take undue advantage of it in ways that we did not e for two votes one of votes in relation to amendment number sixty ninety three and then a vote in relation to amendment to sixteen sixty six and i was wondering if the senator would agree to the following the debate on those two amendments which would take an hour if the senator would be able to return at that point and debate his second amendment and then we could have a stacked stack of four would occur with regard to the second amendment which i'm going to propose i'm not at liberty to do that right now because there are numerous people that want to speak to that and i assured the chairman that as soon as i have that list we have an idea of how much the time is i i will let him know and i will do that i'm working on that i again as a thanks to chairman baucus and and to senator grassley i want to start first by thanking both the chairman and the ranking member and their staff for some incredible hard work to get this legislation ready to come to the floor  it was absolutely no small feat but it is so very important that we bring this portion of our objective in leading our nation away from dependence on foreign oil and back the engine that it provides to drive the incentive that industry needs to really move us towards renewable fuels so i just want to say how much i appreciate their efforts you know throughout the history of our nation we face great technological challenges that we have confronted and we've overcome but we didn't put a man on the moon mr president by talking about how important it was we developed a plan and we committed the resources necessary to achieve that plan and i think we're at that juncture now in this country in regard to renewable fuels and our dependence on foreign oil and i applaud their efforts and what they have done and accomplished here i'd also like to point out in terms of what the senator from arizona has brought up he mention that this is not a new product i would venture to say how many people have heard of basal made from animal fat particularly chicken fat this is a new product it's a product that produces a renewa clean burning and very positive for our environment and the overall objective of what we're trying to reach in this underlying bill and that is reducing our c o two emissions reducing what what's going into the environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil the gentleman from arizona mentions the original intent the original intent was to promote renewable diesel in fact the renewa diesel credit is drafted as technology neutral regardless of the state of the art or process at the time of enactment apac statute simply provides that renewable diesel fuel in order to qualify for the credits must be months of making sure that we're looking at all of the renewable feedstocks that we have in this country to be able to put into the mix to lessen our dependence on petroleum products and to to create variety in what it is that we go now mr president i know there are some in in this body on both sides that would think that maybe this is an opportunity to get even with big oil well that's not the intent of this bill and i hope we won't strike to that i hope we won't strike to the idea that we're here to get even with big oil but that we are here to encourage those in the oil industry to move into renewable fuels to move into the opportunities that exist in technology to push them into an area where renewables make since you know senator kyl's amendment that he offers it doesn't solve the problem that he rises regarding the increase in the price of fat the credit that senator  strike is for a process that in the very early stages of production this process has not even been produced in terms of barrels of fuel in this country so it's difficult to see how it could have had the profound effect on the prices that senator kyl claims it has the fact is the price of fats been driven up in part due to its use in the production of bio diesel senator kyl said in our hearing yesterday that if he could he would try to remove all credits that he believes might distort existing markets well mr president if we think that we're going to move ourselves as a nation and as a people with the culture in the i'm in a tease we've become accustomed we begin to move into the decade where we can really balance out our need for renewable fuels with other things we just not as well go home because that is going to happen but what we have done is crafted in this bill a very very sensible way you know that are comin chin's that the standalone renewable diesel facilities need to be protected they need to be maintained they are they have no caps whatsoever in this bill just as there is no cap on biodiesel but where we have facilities that are taking the steps in the right direction to to be able to c co produce they are going to get a credit they're going to get a credit up to the amount where they meet what the small producers are doing a sixty million gallon per facility cap it is very reasonable mr president and it certainly speaks to the efforts of what we are trying to do in this underlying bill today's amendment may only stocks so what i just sign mr president while it may be good intention for something that's parochial for the gentleman from arizona i would say let us all remember what the ultimate objective of this bill is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil clean our environment in make sure that we're moving to renewables and that's exactly what the underlying bill tha this president how much time remains offer amendment number sixteen ninety three and that senator in off could then offer his first degree amendment number sixteen sixty six that the two amendments be debated concurrently for one hour to be equally divided between senator inhofe and myself that it is and at that at the conclusion or yielding back of time the senate vote in relation to amendment number sixty ninety three to be followed by two minutes for debate and a vote in relation to amendment number sixteen sixty six that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes and relent in relation to the amendments and that upon the disposition of  the senate vote in relation to the kyl amendment number eighteen hundred with two minutes of debate prior to the vote is their objection we have no objections we have worked in that we work together to arrive at this schedule without objection so ordered senator from tennessee but first i thank the senator from new mexico for the courtesy of the next ten minutes and i would add the chair let me know  and five bill was a terrific step forward there's an important suggestions in in this bill i want to specially to say a few words about the tax part of the bill that came out today and i'll have more to say about that tomorrow and and  and amendments to to offer it's probably not the first time that it's been said of the senate that there's too much wind here but i would like to suggest there's too much of that in the tax bill that was first  five billion more dollars over the next ten years ten billion of it for when that is almost all of it in subsidies to when developers this start is the wrong is now now thirty four percent now two years ago this is the first time the senate's been generous to win in two thousand and five bill it was nineteen percent now mr president why would i say that that is i'd like to go the next chart now why would i say that that that is a little too much when it's because in many parts of the country the wind doesn't blow sufficiently price to rely on it for electricity we've had some debate about senator bingaman to proposal which might work very well in new mexico or some other states to say that fifteen percent of the renewable electricity ought to be from renewable energy mostly wind under his definition well the white area here shows that much of the southeast in the eastern united states just doesn't blow enough for that to happen and so under that proposal the one we were debating earlier called a renewable portfolio standard i'm afraid that tennesseans would have to basically a tax of two cents per kilowatt hour which would be four hundred ten million dollars a year we have one wind farm in the entire southeast it's in tennessee on buffalo mountain last october while we're all sweating and perspiring with our fans on the front porch it operated for seven percent of the time most of us water air conditioners when they work we're not the only ones who are beginning to see the limits of w yesterday the president of pacific gas and electric in california which likes wind power and is using wind power said according to california energy markets that that will not make substantial new investments in when generation and we think we're approaching in california itself the limit of when so mr president then why would we if we're going to spend twenty eight billion dollars for energy sufficient the that would mean reliable clean electricity for the country in the world that uses twenty five percent of all the electricity in the world why then would we develop a national when turban policy instead a national energy policy is it ten billion more dollars which would make our total investment over the next ten years more than two billion dollars a year for wind turbines isn't that too much when i'm not even talking so much about the fact of what these look like i think i've said many times on this floor that in tennessee i don't like the fact that these only work when they work on our most scenic ridge tops so we'd prefer not to have that's not the case with everybody i understand that it's important for people to know these aren't your grandmothers when ms these are twice as tall as the sky boxes in the football field and the ro blades go from the ten yard line to the ten yard line so there are limits to where they go across the country on the average they only work a third of the time they often blow at the wrong time at night when when people are asleep and not using so much electricity not selling so much and you can't store the wind so basically you make a big investment you pay somebody twenty million dollars in the t v a buffalo man case sixty million dollars for twenty years to buy a wind whatever it comes in and it comes at night when the lights are off tough we just lose it if it doesn't if it comes seven percent of the time in august when everybody's air conditioners are up it doesn't help very much of course if you have it you still need nuclear and coal or something else because most people want their computers and their electricity on when they want them on as i mentioned it's very difficult to store it only uses about one percent of our current electricity needs it does little to clean the air because we already have caps on sulfur and nitrogen which i would like to accelerate and it means lots of new power lines so we have a four hundred percent increase and when capacity would produce no new no change in nitrogen no change in sulfur and very little in carbon so mr president my point is i believe there are better ways to spend that ten billion of the twenty eight billion dollars we proposed to spend over the next ten years to better ways to spend a third of all this money then on a national wind policy since it doesn't work very well it's not very reliable and much of the country can't you use it all for example let me take fluorescent lighting and i know that senator bingaman and domenici have talked about this but if we spent two billion dollars a year just in tax credits for fluorescent lighting we could save enough energy to equal one thousand megawatt nuclear reactors or eighteen thousand one point eight megawatt winter or the second other idea what if we took the ten million dollars in the two billion dollars a year and gave it credit for for appliances such as dishwashers or washing machines and refrigerators there is such a credit in the tax bill that's good it costs about  hundred million dollars a year to encourage that why don't we extend that to ten years that would be of billions of the ten billion dollars that we're spending on when it would save more electricity  then then we would get building wind or mr president we talk about not just carbon but clean air i know that in vermont vermont wants clean air we want clean air in the mountains in tennessee for two billion dollars a year we could buy six new scrubbers a year at three hundred million dollars a scrub or a scrub or takes the sulfur out of the air that contributes to the unhealthy aspects into the soot and to the smaug that's unhealthy for people in that interferes with our view of the mountains or utility bills mr president the average utility bill of tennesseans is one hundred dollars a month this is two billion dollars a month we could just give the money to to tennesseans one point seven million households for a full year one month's electric bill for twenty million households that's what we could do with two billion dollars or we if we were a little more creative we might go to the metering that some utilities are now putting in homes and saying if your electric bill is one hundred dollars and you reduce your use of electricity by twenty dollars we'll match it by twenty dollars and we'll collect all that information in the utility and as a result you get a sixty dollar bill instead of a hundred dollar bill each month instead of us investing in more and more wind clean coal power plants the two thousand and five bill that senator bingaman and senator minutes he worked on had a number of initiatives for nuclear clean coal i gcc a number of things that are underfunded we don't have the money for well then if we don't have the money for those things which we decided in consensus in two thousand and five was the best way to come to create clean reliable electricity for a country that uses twenty five percent of all the energy in the world if we didn't have the money in two thousand don't we take this twenty eight billion dollars over the next ten years or lease some of this ten billion for wind and put it in thank you i thank the chair and put it in clean coal or these other areas so mr president i wanted the senate to know if i could go back to the charge that of the of the twenty eight billion dollars one third of it goes to winter we have a national where in the policy instead of a national energy policy we'll be spending two fish in a month a year pardon me today in a year on wind subsidies and there are many other when subsidies in the federal government you get bonds to build them you get excel or a depreciation and then there's state and then there are the states so i'm suggesting there's too much wind and that a wiser use of at least half that ten billion dollars would be for conservation efficiency scrubbers and other forms of energy that are reflected in the two thousand and five energy bill i think the chair and i think the senator from new mexico for the time as a senator from the mexico has the senate to grant me one minute as it as if in morning presence or one minute at this point to to say that the senator from new mexico should listen again because i have listened now twice to you at least on this subject matter but to tell you the truth your analysis of the situation becomes more relevant every single month that passes here in the congress because today we are about to decide what to do with thirty billion dollars more or less that we're going to tax breaks of the way things are done in the united states senate i'm not complaining but i can guarantee you and the senate that i as one senator and as chairman of the energy committee a year and a half ago not now excuse senator from mexico i asked consent to put in the record a statement from the joint tax committee which does an estimate of the amount of the new tax package that would go to when the estimate for the forty five year extension of section forty five credit is to point two nine two billion dollars in the amount of trivial windows seven point eight four six in their estimation republicans as well as senator bingaman this is an idea whose time has come this is the amendment that doesn't actually say what the policy will be with regard to greenhouse gases but it simply requires that on a national basis that we collect accurate information so that we can make smart policy decisions and i'm sore to tell you mr president that the other side has not yet agreed to vote on this amendment it's looking a little bleak as time ticks on but i'm still here and they really puzzles me because the senior senator from oklahoma actually said recently in a in a trade magazine and vironment an energy daily he was quoted as  saying after repeatedly calling global warming a hoax he predicted in a short interview that this measure this bill would probably be adopted of offered and i think that that's maybe accurate we have a number of republicans that are interested in this bill  we've worked very hard and we think it's important and that's why it's the very distressing to me that we're not even going to be allowed to have a vote on this it's just stressing because one of the reasons that senators now and i came up with this amendment was because we did hear well we considered something of an outcry from businesses across this country as you know thirty one states have come up with plans involving greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and they actually are starting their own registry out of complete and utter frustration with the federal government it's just absurd to think that the majority of states in this country are having to put together a greenhouse gas registry because our national government is so complacent and so back in january we had a number of these companies that gather together and came to us and said we'd like action on climate change and we'd like action on climate change and we'd like to get this registry going we'd like to have it done by the end of the year well i've been here long enough to know that we're not going to get it done at the end of the year unless we vote on it now i just want to mention some of these companies that expressed an interest in this american international group that's a boston scientific corporation b p america caterpillar conoco phillips  company the dow chemical company duke energy dupont general electric general motors corp johnson and johnson marching pepsico p g any pm resources s said they wanted us to get something done on climate change so you can imagine my surprise mr president when we found out that in fact the u s chamber of commerce oppose this bill and never really talked to me about it they just sent out a letter and in fact they threatened that this could be one of the key vote for the chamber this year depending on how people voted on this little bill that simply asked that the accurate data be collected and be able to be posted on a website like they do in canada and other places but they said it might be a key vote right up there with the estate tax last year and some of the other votes that were national issue there's been a lot of things said about this bill the senior senator from oklahoma actually sent a letter out about it and talked about how it would apply to virtually every business in america in this letter well the simple truth is that we wrote this amendment with business in mind because we had the impression from what we've heard that business wants to work with us on this important issue of climate change the amendment contains explicit provisions excluding company for which reporting is excessively burdensome  expensive the new registry only covers major emitting facilities and major sources of fossil fuels utilities already reporting under the clean air act would not have to report their data twice for facilities facing costs in purchasing advanced monitoring equipment the e p a would accept basic information on the amount and type of fossil fuel they consume which is collected by businesses for general accounting purposes and section one sixty five b ten c of my m and specifies that confidential business information will not be published under the national greenhouse gas registry the legislation also has an exemption for small businesses the exemption is defined by the small business administration that generates businesses that generate fewer than ten thousand metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions ten thousand metric tons mr president is not an arbitrary number the american chemical society released a report in two thousand and three which talked about this as a threshold ten thousand metric tons as a threshold which quote effectively relieve the agriculture and commercial building sectors from reporting substantially reduces the number of manufacturing facilities that would report while continuing to capture eighty percent of the mission so clearly this is not true we also know the current status mr president we've got some businesses major emitters reporting to the department of energy some report the e p a some report every three years some report every week some report the year this is not the kind of information we expect to have in order to make policy decisions on climate change in his letter the senior senator from oklahoma also said that organisations such as the sierra club or the natural resources defense council would be put in charge of third party verification and have access to confidential business information this is so inaccurate that i did not even know where to be get under my amendment the e p a administrator may ensure that reports are certified by a third party entity but as with the california climate registry third party verifiers will have to be verified themselves as experienced firms in providing greenhouse gas emissions certification these are engineering firms they're not political interest groups finally they've claimed that this amendment did not go through the committee process with an interest me mr president because a little over five years ago senator brownback republican senator along with and senator cordes and of new jersey passed an amendment in this chamber creating a greenhouse gas registry this registry would have been voluntary but after five years if the registry contained less than sixty percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the u s that's clearly where we have now mandatory reporting would have been triggered will sadly this did in the build and get alternately through this congress but the point is this chamber has already voted on this here's the simple truth this amendment seeks to create common standards for measuring tracking verifying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions by major industries it requires the environmental protection agency not exactly an engine of radical reform at this moment it requires the e p a to consider cost and ford with existing federal and state programs to implement this registry this is an opportunity if the senate would be willing to put it head up and vote on this measure it's opportunity to at least get the accurate data so we can start talking about climate change free for you know mr president i never knew i would end up here in the united states senate i grew up in a middle class family my grandpa was a miner and a logger my dad was a journalist my mom an elementary school teacher i worked at the cutter i worked as a car i worked as a secretary i went to public high school i got a law degree and went to a law firm i ended up being privileged to be the district attorney for the largest county in minnesota and when senator dayton decided that he wasn't going to run again for the united states senate i ran for the united states senate and spent my belief throughout my life that you can get things done if you've got right on your side and if you're able to work with other people you can get things done and you can change things started in fourth grade when i was the first girl that wear bell bottom pants the first girl to wear pants in my public elementary school i was kicked out by mrs qu principal but i came back the next day and within a year the girls were allowed to wear pants i then went on and in high school they said we couldn't raise enough money to have a high school prom and we saw a lifesaver lollipop so we got it  done in a lot of our neighborhoods and we reached out to these neighborhoods and they organized and they did a lot of good work and we had some amazing examples of individual citizens getting things done on the front end well now we're here   president and we have a major challenge confronting us and that is the challenge of climate change and there are people out there waiting for us to do something about it there's a scientist out there right now saying how the sea levels going up there's another scientist measuring temperatures and sees how since ice age we've only had a five degree increase in temperature in just the last century we've seen a one degree increase with the e p a estimating a three day degree increase in just the next hundred years there are little kids out there working save the penguin but right now we're waiting for us to act there's a hunter up in him being minnesota who sees the changes in the wetlands he's waiting for us to act as a ski resort owner up in grammar a minnesota lead thirty percent less profit in this last year because a decrease in snow he's waiting for us to act so that's why i asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow this important amendment to be heard it doesn't dictate what the policy will be it's simply asked that we collect accurate information you know i'm an optimist a seed that i hold was once held by you were humphrey and at the end of his life he said the words that are on his grave he said you know people consider me sentimental but to the end i remain an optimist he said i remain an optimist with joy and without apology about this great american experiment in democracy well i remain an optimist to madam president i remain an opto because i've seen the great work that the senator from new mexico and others have done in this energy bill and i believe more can be done i remain an optimist that this bill will ultimately pass if not today and this amendment will ultimately pass another bill thanks very much madam president i and half of it under my control and it is for two purposes it's to debate amendment number sixty ninety three which i have submitted and also to debate amendment number sixteen sixty six which c and then yield to my colleague senator boxer ten minutes for her to speak on that same amendment this amendment addresses a number of important environmental issues associated with renewable fuels it contains four sections the first section makes an authorization for grants to encourage the production of advanced biofuels with the most favorable greenhouse gas emission characteristics the second section provides for a study by the e p a of potential issues that may arise as a result of increases in the renewable fuel standard that study will result in two reports to congress one in two thousand and ten the other in two thousand and fifteen the third part of the amendment allows the e p a to consider groundwater impacts when regulating fuel additives under the clean air a one of the reasons that we had a problem with m t b e as a fuel additive was that we looked at it in a one dimensional way this will this section of our amendment will allow a full look at all relevant impacts of fuel additives going forward and the final part of the amendment is a provision commonly known as anti backsliding it basically allows e p a to address air quality issues that might arise a result of the why i am so of renewable fuel mandated by the energy bill these changes have been developed by senator boxer and her staff and myself and my staff in collaborative manner i want to thank her and her staff for the good work that they did on these provisions i'd also like to acknowledge the assistance and support we received on this amendment from the renewable fuels association this is a consensus amendment on the part of those with interest in advancing our energy security through increased use of renewable fuels in an environmentally responsible way and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment i will now yield to the senator from california for her comments on this and then i will yield her ten minutes up to ten minutes and i will then speak in opposition to the amendment by the senator from oklahoma man president senator from california man president thank you so much and senator bingaman thank you very much for for this amendment that we've worked very very hard on a for days now and i'm very delighted that we're being able to offer it i see that my ranking member is here because he has an amendment that in concept i'm just going to look at the details in concept makes a lot of sense in terms of this amendment i hope that he'll be able to support it because really what we're trying to make sure of is that in the new fields program in this bill that we do not lose any ground in terms of the clean air act so that we still are able to give e t a important story under the clean air act to mitigate any adverse air quality impacts that might result from the increased use of renewable fuel now what we learned when we dealt with m t b e which was an additive in gasoline was that we were just not prepared for any adverse impacts from an m thought it was going to be the answer and madam president as you know m t v just permeated the water supplies in many many states we thought it was going to clean up the air and guess what it did but it created havoc with our water quality so we wanted to make sure as did senator bingaman we work together very hard on this that in this new fields program we don't backslide and that we're able to have all the protections that we need so it's first we we fix the water problem and now this is fixing the air quality problem what we do is we give the p a authority under the clean air act to consider impacts on water quality when regulating the fuels and such authority as i say will prevent future m t b e situations and we require e p a to contract with the national academy of sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the environmental impacts of increasing the use of renewable fuels the study will analyze impacts of renewable fuels on air quality water quality land use patterns deforestation rates greenhouse gas emissions ecologically important areas and the long term ability to produce biomass feedstocks now i want to say to my ranking member senator  if i could have his attention that i know what he's trying to do and his amendment in many ways parallels this we in this amendment make sure that e p a senator can look at the long term ability to produce biomass feedstocks because that's that's a very important point and i think the center and i both care about this and i think the center and i both care that e p a is going to not lose jurisdiction over this new fuels program the amendment is to me also exciting because it includes a grant program for biofuels that achieve at least a fifty percent reduction of lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases so what we're saying is we want innovation and we are saying we will start a grant program so that we get that technology that we all know is going to in fact step up and meet the challenge of global warming there are so many ways we can we can meet the challenge of reducing our carbon imprint one way is to have fuels that have a fifty percent better our carbon  footprint this amendment ensures that e p a will play a critical role in protecting our environment from any adverse environmental impacts that may arise from an increase in the production and use of renewable fuels so man of president it's pretty simple  the senator from new mexico and i have been in very close contact over these last several days been helping him to manage this bill although i have to save very competent to do him self but i have given him my advice and my help and the help of my good staff and we did have a worry at the very beginning that we didn't want to live to see another m t b e problem that is an unintended consequence of a new fuels program and untended consequence so how do we protect against that is to be very vigilant and we are very vigilant and we say to the p a make sure that whatever these fields are they are really good for our people good for our air good for our water good for our land use and also our long term ability to produce biomass feedstocks and again we go a step further we set up a grant program for new fuels biofuels that achieve at least a fifty percent reduction lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases  this particular program is authorized five hundred million of course it's it's subject to appropriations so man president have the need to speak any longer on this amendment i would retain the bounds of the time that senator  i do agree with or there are some other things in fact there's an easier way to do it i would suggest to my distinguished chairman and that would be merely to strike that portion of the bill into line a bill that talks about the president or nt does get into some areas i don't find quite as excited about is as the german as having us study land lease patterns which i don't think is as appropriate for the federal government to do as state local i don't know if i give off my own thank you so much let me say to my distinguished ranking member that i agree with him and we tried that approach and we were unable to gain ground so i'm with you but we were not able to do it in our negotiation with the energy committee so we went as far as we could go and i think we've made tremendous progress again it was given take it it was tough and your staff was very helpful to us because they were helping us as we were able to get the best we could get but i think absent this amendment we had we could foresee a future where any president this one said he wouldn't do it but a future president just takes the whole feels program and eliminate so i would hope my friend would join me in this because i think in the other part and we're just asking for reports from the e p a we're not giving them authority over these issues but we're going to get information from them and i think that information we can share with local and state and so i know my friends are going to give it some real hard thought as i am about his amendment but perhaps we could wind up boarding each other's amendments but we'll see where we go from here but i would say to my friend he's absolutely right striking the offending contamination i understand they're giving the administrators are also ready to use the clean air act to regulate water quality some i'd have to think about a little bit let me go back and talk a little bit about the amendment that we're concurrently with with with the other men this is a six hundred sixty six and i we have a lot of co sponsors to this i'd invite more to come down i think people would see that this is a very rational way to to address one of the problems with the mandates that come with this with this bill we seek to ensure that the bill doesn't pick winners and losers in domestic agriculture naldo high corn prices might be good for corn farmers it's harmful for livestock and poultry industries now my state of oklahoma i'm really have a dog in this fight or i guess i could say i've got all the dogs in this fight because we are a corn state we are a very large livestock state and i've heard from a lot of our people their expression their concerns fifteen industry groups to join together in both senate leaders a letter expressing their concern that the biofuels title in this bill could harm their industries and i would ask unanimous consent at this point or at the conclusion of my remarks in the record to have a copy of that letter printed in the record of objection unfortunately the collective livestock in grocery producers concerned continues in fact the earlier coalition has grown to eighteen industry representatives including cattle and poultry swine producers coca cola and pepsi even cargill in a letter to me the coalition writes we're asking congress to provide those that utilized in rely on corn and corn proud a reasonable amount of certainty that adequate supplies are available to all users of this commodity we know right now that the price of corn are very very high and this is obviously has an effect doesn't happen in a vacuum also too often on the senate floor we believe things can be done without affecting others in this case it is definitely affecting others as is indicated by these communications now respect to our men that they state your amendment would go a long way in achieving a safety net insuring those of us that utilize corn and corn products will have enough to go around should a drought or flood occur that would limit the harvested amount that is available now are many mistakes to provide some of the much needed equity in the current system this amendment simply requires that the u s d a provide information on projected corn harvest as each year when they do that anyway this is not going to incur any more of our chip on the u s d a they have that capability and they're already doing it if the projected harvest is below a certain percentage then the administrator has the authority to modify the mandate for the next year so that if it comes down and we say we're going to have a drought we're going to have a some kind of problem we would be able to address that  making as small adjustments to the mandate that is there i would expect that the ethanol industry does for our men that since first they claim there is no food versus feed issue in second because the the ethanol mandate he says the american farmer absolutely has the ability to grow more corn to provide to quantities of grain and food and feed for a feel used age and we're going to see that that happens well if that's the case and there's not a problem so i'm not suggesting that we're picking any favorites with this and then i'm just saying that we want to be sure that in the event something that can be foreseen and these droughts can be foreseen leave as i say they're doing it right now so this amendment supports that concept corn farmers have done a great job in increasing yields raker in the past and continue to do that arm and simply provide as a collective food industry state a reasonable amount of certainty and a safety net so that all of the u s agriculture is able to to prosper and i know there are others who are on the floor who would disagree with and then that night certainly want to make sure mr president this is the third amendment today has been very detrimental to the future of ethanol and other renewable fuels and if we'd had this attitude expressed twenty years ago when we started in a very elementary way down the road to a successful renewable fuels industry that we're now developing in a cell and finance history we would never here today where we could say that we really have a strong opportunity of renewable fuel and and so we have this is a third a mammoth that raises questions about whether or not we're going to have continued to have investment in renewable fuel production and everything this connected with it and something that bothers me more than anything else and i've expressed it on previous amendments today to out the development of renewable fuels and particularly agriculture as being the the renewable the production of the renewable feedstock we've always had agriculture very much united between renewable fuels and within the last four or five months just because corn has gone from two dollars to four dollars a bushel we now have beef producers raising questions about whether or not we ought to have an ethanol industry you have the pork producers and ideas evidently we've got the poultry people raising the same question and and when when the agriculture's not going to be united if they hadn't been united we'd never get here and i don't know what happens in a matter for five months that after twenty years all of a sudden things are bad about renewable fuels and the farmers being blamed for everything for our corn food going up energy prices going up you know food prices a farmer gets a nickel out of a big box of corn flakes that's half full of a or when you buy it for four dollars and the farmers being blamed for four dollars corn raising the price of food raising the price of energy causing a livestock feed to go up you know for the last forty years we've had a principle in agriculture that we called the hog corn ratio and it was never felt during the corn hog ratio when used that that high price of corn was bad for livestock because you know livestock price would soon rise and it was considered good good good and everything about ethanol has been considered  good good good good for the farmers good for the environment good for high paying jobs in small towns of rural america good for national defense because less dependent on violent parts of the world for petroleum to be delivered air good for our balance of trade everything's good good good about renewable energy and now in the last four or five months do you think that the price of corn is going to be three and a half to four dollars forever i'll tell you right now this fall at harvest time we might find corn two dollars and fifty cents we had seventy seven million acres of corn planted last year we have ninety one and a half acres believed to be planted this year and when june the thirtieth comes and the u s d a makes their next report it may be ninety five bushel or ninety five acres of corn million a the most acres planted since one nine hundred forty four and when you have that supply of grain coming in the thing the fact that price is going to be where it is today it's a dream and here we've got people raising questions about the stock ratio the stock on hand that we have of grain that when it gets down to a certain level we're not going to to use grain though you're going to shut down you're going to shut down every ethanol plant that's operating in the united states what other amendment comes to the floor with the idea that we're going to shut down an industry under certain circumstances it never happens and so this is not a very good approach and particularly when the use of this stock ratios as proposed in this amendment there's even questions about the use of that among economists at this point so i think this is a very bad amendment very bad amendment for renewable fuels very bad amendment for agriculture all that's good about renewable fuels and you shut down the whole industry and you know it's for not you can't do that i ask you to vote against the amen senator from new mexico mr president how much time remains on both sides senator from oklahoma is twenty three minutes sound from the next question sixteen minutes  sixteen sixteen this president let me speak briefly in opposition to the amendment by the senator from oklahoma first let me unanimous consent that a letter i've received from the american coalition a vessel for ethanol the american farm bureau federation the national association of wheat growers the national corn growers association national farmers union the national sorghum producers and the renewable fuels association will be included in the record following my remarks without objection and mr president i'd like to just recently hit the high point and so this letter and explain why they are so sure only in opposition to the in off amendments amendments sixteen sixty six i'll read parts of this into the record so members will be aware of their position it says as the senate continues to debate the energy bill we urge all senators to vote against the amendment offered by senators in of off burr and dole when it is brought up for a vote we strongly opposes amendment as it would effectively gut the r f s standing for the renewed nubile fuel standard that we have in the underlying bill and thwart the growth of the domestic ethanol industry and it goes on to say senators in the off burr and dole are proposing an amendment to the energy bill that would put in place a stocks to use mechanism that would suppress crop prices and be detrimental to the american farmer and to domestic renewable fuels stocks to use has limited value as an indicator of demand and expected price it is an over simplified way to look at supply demand and pricing and does not often provide an accurate picture of how markets would be impacted and then it goes on with various examples it does say i know the senator from iowa pointed out that the price of of corn is hided day but may not be high indefinitely and it makes the same point here he says most long run economic models from the department of agriculture in the food and agricultural policy research institute her jack stocks to use ratio slightly under ten percent for next for the next several years with prices in the three to three and a half dollar range many economists have stopped using this stocks to use ratio in their economic econometric modeling as a tool to forecast price because of its obvious limitations and they go on and on along the same line pointing out deficiencies in the approach being taken by the senator from oklahoma and his men now let me just conclude with their final statement here it says efforts to undermine the continued growth of the u s ethanol industry should not be tolerated a careful look at the facts reveals that american farmers have met can and will continue to meet our domestic and international commitments for food and feed while still making a significant and growing contribution to lessening our dependence on imported oil with home grown american made renewable fuels so we strongly urge you to oppose the in the off bird dole amendment president it's hard to know how to do better than that letter in pointing out the deficiencies in the amendment i think it is clearly an amendment that we should oppose and i will  the floor and reserve the balance of my time thank you and i also rise today mr president to express my opposition this moment and i have worked closely with my colleague from oklahoma on a number of issues when i was a member of the environment public works committee and worked with them last week on an amendment to expand refinery capacity as country because we have a shortage of refinery capacity is something that needs to be addressed and unfortunately that that amendment failed last week this amendment however is not necessar mr president because we don't have a shortage of corn in fact the demand for corn is increased obviously because of ethanol production it's expected to increase further thanks in part to the growth and expansion of renewable fuels but to suggest for a minute that somehow we're going to run out of corn just simply is not true and in fact one of the most respected economists in the agricultural community u s d a s dr keith collins has testified before the senate agricultural committee that about corn ethanol production olds in the past couple of years have moved above the long term trend may continue to do so in the coming years as well helping to meet biofuel demand and reduce pressure on corn prices and acreage over the past few years a new generation wrote warm resistant corn has been introduced and companies suggest are going to go even higher much as twenty bushels per acre above that level every every five bushel increase in yield above the current trend level would be the equivalent of adding around two point five million acres to corn plantings enough to produce one billion gallons of ethanol each year if you look state by state arkansas growers are expected to plant five hundred sixty thousand acres of corn in two thousand and seven up from one hundred ninety thousand in two thousand and six nearly three hundred percent increase in corner acreage in one year alone louisiana farmers intend to plant seven hundred thousand acres in two thousand and seven three hundred thousand acres in two thousand and six a two hundred thirty three percent increase in corn acreage in mississippi corn producers expect to plant one hundred fifty thousand acres in two thousand and seven up from four three hundred forty thousand acres in two thousand and six a two hundred eighty percent increase in corn acreage as a present my point simply is this the underlying bill basically there is a stipulation in there that etha production can exceed about fifteen billion gallons while u s d a collins who's an expert the economist down there says that we can get to fifteen billion gallons of ethanol based on corn production today we're using about or we're producing about six and a half  billion gallons of ethanol so to get the fifteen billion gallons which is what u s d a u s d a is chief economist says we can reach we have a long ways to go there is a lot of headroom to fifteen billion gallons deals so to suggest for a minute that somehow we need this sort of an amendment that would put all these additional restrictions on the renewable fuel standard again i since would submit that this a memo is unnecessary the underlying bill has provisions already that addressed this issue and also waivers in place where economic hardships experienced by certain regions or states specifically the president can waive the r f s if one of the any of the following conditions are met there's an implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a state or region or the united states if extremely unusual of circumstances exist that prevent distribution of an adequate supply of domestically produced renewable fuel to consumers the united states and also you add i would also add that this particular amendment is creates lots of problems for areas of the country because it forces investors to make investment decisions based upon the weather we all know we can't protect the weather or predict the weather was certainty and so mr president i would simply say that this amendment is is misguided and unnecessary and i hope that we will vote it down seven and three quarters marks all right first of all it may well be that i'll be using back in time but let me just respond to a couple of things have been stated that have been made the senator from new mexico  senator from iowa believe it was was talking about that in the event that livestock would not be hurt because that they would actually end up going up later in the market would drive would take care of that problem but i would suggest to producers count so the restaurant association turkey federation all of them don't feel that this is going to be the the the the market result and so i wanted since the senator from new mexico  read excerpts of a letter that was signed by a large number we have many many more that signed this letter then then the letter that was read by were submitted by the senator from new mexico and one of the paragraphs  here says we are concerned that the very aggressive increase in biofuels mandates proposed in f fourteen nineteen raises fundamental questions about the impact that increased federal government mandate for corn  ethanol in addition to new state mandates will have on the livestock poetry and food industries ability to produce competitively available affordable food now other words this is going to affect a lot of people in their estimation in terms of the cost of food not just the livestock not just the the the grain concern when that is out there it is vitally important that we fully appreciate and understand the implications of qui tripling the renewable fuel standard mandate in we would ask that you use careful consideration and listen to the significant issues being raised by those in agriculture in food products community let me mention i know the senator from south dakota wasn't here when i made my remarks but you know oklahoma also is a corn state and i think i really believe that the statement that was made by the senator from south dakota who has been a real chance and may be the number one champion in this body of corn ethanol is really makes my case for me if the states are in key increasing their production the way they are then there's no problem nothing in in this amendment is going to affect anything at all in fact the only concern we have is in the event there is a year where this is not true let me let me just go ahead and make sure everyone understands what this amendment does and does not do quite often on the floor we get people opposing something and then you scratch your head and say wait a minute that my minute they're talking about the amend that is a modification provision for food in animal feed based on the ratio of corn stocks to projected demand in the case of short or low corn crop year there is currently no meaningful safety valve that would address this situation in this amendment would provide a small level of confidence to producers as well as investors that corn would be available to meet the needs of all users in other words if if if production is up there's not a problem this address disasters and worst case scenarios assures that the renewable fuels standard does not lead to a shortage of corn for human or animal consent it requires the u s d a and the e p a to make a mid year  determination of current weather conditions followed by an end of the year determination on the stocks to use ratio following the harvest if the determination estimates stocks to that would not permit the r f s to fall more than fifteen percent in any given year now it's been said i suspect there's a letter floating around here somewhere that said that this would be the the end of the world and that it would completely destroy what they're trying to do let me just read that one limitation that is in here says a requirement under the renewable fuel standard under section one eleven a show not be reduced by more than fifteen percent during any calendar year that is if there is some kind of a drought or some kind of a row serious problem a candy too much water can be not enough then it would not affect it by more than fifteen percent well that's fifteen percent that's not the end of the world i mean it means eighty five mentioned some of the names but it's there are these industries well i'm just going to read them at this point the american feed industry association american the institute cargill the coca cola company con agra foods general mills grocery manufacturers and food  products association hormel foods the national cattlemen's beef association national chicken council national pork producers council the national restaurant is she asian the national turkey federation pepsico incorporated seaboard corporation tyson foods united nation united egg producers and the list goes on and on so there is this concern out there and again my state is not dissimilar in any way than the state of new mexico they're right next door and i would suggest that we probably have about the same size of the corn industry as well as the press and our cattle industry is not quite as large as it is in new mexico but it certainly is not dissimilar and there's nothing that i would do that to be damaging to the corn industry because that's a major industry of course in my state one of the things the products association let me just mention to you how they feel this in th e worst case scenario if they don't have some kind of a safety though it could be damaging they say more and more pursuant more and more pursuit of corn based ethanol is a resulting in higher food and feed prices the price of corn has jumped fifty five percent since september and according to the u s d a s chief economist the consequences of ethanol are the biggest thing going on in agriculture today an increase in ethanol production is already having as the nipping an impact on food and feed supplies such as corn soybeans in wheat the u s labor department recently reported february prices for crude foodstuffs in feeds were all eighteen percent above year ago levels that was in the wall street journal's march of this year according to the wall street journal the higher corn prices have raised cost for livestock in poetry which are fed corn and for crops like soybeans which farmers are replacing so that they can grow more corn and the corn in companies are starting to pass through those higher prices on to consumers consider consumer proof prices were up six point we right now one of our companies know clomid we've actually been very very active in that we're leading the field we have openly state university in oakland university and the noble foundation leading the country in the pursuit of these technologies the  again we are corn state we're also big livestock state and i think this is a middle of the road type of thing again you've got to respond to these statements that you're going to destroy something when the limitation by law would be fifteen percent of the current reduce the impact of future disruptions of our supplies by enlarging the strategic petroleum reserve this amendment which is co sponsored by senators by the lot and land will expand the capacity of the strategic petroleum reserve from one billion barrels to one and a half billion barrels the economic security of the united states is threatened by our vulnerability to disruptions of the world oil supply and the volatile prices of energy whether we like it or not our nation's transportation sector our major industries and our military forces are all dependent upon petroleum we must protect ourselves from the instability and the uncertainty of the international law market the existing inventory in the strategic petroleum reserve represents only fifty six days of net petroleum imports our obligation to the member countries of the international energy agency requires us to maintain the equivalent of ninety net petroleum imports increasing the authorized capacity of our reserves will help ensure that we meet our international obligations with the senator you i'm happy to y is for a question it's my understanding that the time that you're taking right now would be taken off of our time equally and since we're under you see for a time certain for a vote i know that would not be your intention and all day long i've been trying to get an opportunity to make this stuff last december the department of energy identified the salt domes near ridged in mississippi as a preferred site for a new strategic petroleum reserve storage facility my state welcomes the opportunity to help meet our nation's energy needs other sites in texas and louisiana will also gain additional reserves under the plan being developed by the department of energy mr president our nation's energy security and stability depend on a combination of efforts to increase domestic supplies of oil gas and petroleum as well as the development and promotion of new renewable energy technologies the combination of these efforts will make it possible for us to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil and provide for a bright economic future for all klahoma to make any statement he has all right mr president i don't think adequate time has been given to them in that you want to address the boxer amendment and and if you would want some of my time to do devastating keep in mind we had this limitation there is a very sizable mandate that's out there the very maximum that would be used would be to reduce that in the year where a disaster occurs by only fifteen percent now the words eighty five percent of that mandate was still in effect and i think that that at the very reasonable approach to it so with that  first makes an authorization for grants to encourage production of advanced biofuels with the most favorable greenhouse gas emission characteristics second we have a study by the e p a a potential issues that may arise a result of increases in the renewable fuel standard heard that study will result in two reports to congress of both in twenty ten and in twenty fifteen the third part allows e p a to consider groundwater impacts regulating fuel additives under the clean air act which is a good provision and the final part is a provision commonly known as anti backsliding basically allowing e p a to address air quality issues that might arise as a result of the increase the balance of my time to the senator from california and as at this point thank you so much mispresent the senator from illinois asked if he could have a minute and a half and if if there's no objection could i suggest that we allow that to happen at this point and then i'll follow him with two minutes thank you mr president and have known of one of the pending amendments will consider very shortly is by senator inhofe and this would create an additional mechanism that would interrupt the bill renewable fuel standard depending on the ratio of stocks of corn to total use known as stocks to use ratio just statistics show us that the stocks to use don't correlate to price and supply information in addition there is already a waiver of provision in the bill that offers protection to consumers of corn prices or availability become unsustainable according to one economic analysis the ten percent stocks to use trigger required by this amendment would suppress corn prices to two dollars and fifty cents to two dollars and sixty cents a bushel in the current farm bill the target price is two dollars and sixty three cents so bias artificially suppressing the price of corn two dollars and fifty to two hours and sixty cents the in