January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S341 

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not less, says it all happened when 

Enron was the seventh largest corporation in 

the United States. 

Mr. Greenberger: (Voiceover) This was 

when Enron was riding high, and what Enron 

wanted, Enron got. 

Kroft: Why did they want a deregulated 

market in oil futures? 

(Traders at desks; spreadsheet; man at 

computer) 

Mr. Greenberger: Because they wanted to 

establish their own little energy futures exchange through computerized trading. 

(Voiceover) They knew that if they could 

get this trading engine established without 

the controls that had been placed on speculators, they would have the ability to drive 

the price of energy products in any way they 

wanted to take it. 

When Enron failed, we learned that Enron 

and its conspirators who used their trading 

engine were able to drive the price of electricity up, some say by as much as 300 percent, on the West Coast. 

Kroft: Is the same thing going on right now 

in the oil business? 

Mr. Greenberger: Every Enron trader who 

knew how to do these manipulations became 

the most valuable employee on Wall Street. 

(Oil rig; stock market ticker; oil rig in 

ocean) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) But some of them may 

now be looking for work. The oil bubble 

began to deflate early last fall when Congress threatened new regulations and federal 

agencies announced they were beginning 

major investigations. It finally popped with 

the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the 

near collapse of AIG, who were both heavily 

invested in the oil markets. With hedge 

funds and investment houses facing margin 

calls, the speculators headed for the exits. 

Mr. MASTERS: From July 15th until the 

end of November, roughly $70 billion came 

out of commodities futures from these index 

funds. In fact, gasoline demand went down 

by roughly 5 percent over that same period 

of time. Yet the price of crude oil dropped 

more than $100 a barrel. It dropped 75 percent. 

Kroft: How do you explain it? 

Mr. Masters: By looking at investors. 

That’s the only way you can explain it. 

Kroft: The regulatory lapses in the commodities market that many believe fomented the rapid speculation in oil have still 

not been addressed, although the incoming 

Obama administration has promised to do so. 

By Mr. FEINGOLD: 

S. 222. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the 

national limitation on qualified energy 

conservation bonds and to clarify that 

certain programs constitute a qualified 

conservation purpose, and for other 

purposes; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over 

the past few days I have introduced a 

series of bills that are part of my E4 

Initiative, dubbed E4 because of its 

focus on economy, employment, education, and energy. Today I am introducing two bills that are part of this 

effort: the Community Revitalization 

Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 

2009 and the Energy and Technology 

Advancement, ETA, Act of 2009. 

The newest among my E4 bills is the 

Community Revitalization Energy 

Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009. This 

bill will increase the amount of funding available to State and local governments for the rehabilitation and revitalization of the fledgling green economy, and also expand the types of eligible projects to cover energy efficiency 

improvements to privately owned 

buildings. While our country is facing 

its greatest economic challenge since 

the Great Depression, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs 

critical to addressing the energy challenges we face. The CREC Act amends 

the recently authorized Qualified Energy Conservation Bond, QECB, program to increase funding for important 

public-private partnerships to significantly invest in energy efficiency and 

conservation, a key national priority. 

It also offers States and local governments the opportunity to create jobs 

and stimulate their local economies. 

First, my bill will more than quadruple the amount of bonds that can be 

issued under the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program—increasing 

the program from $800 million to $3.6 

billion. This will provide the opportunity for private investors to partner 

with State and local governments to 

fund energy investments through State 

and locally issued tax credit bonds. As 

we give private investors the opportunity to participate in the green economy through Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, we signal to the market that the Federal Government will 

continue to affirm the importance of 

investment in energy efficiency and 

conservation, as well as the development of new energy technologies. Helping these new energy technologies 

thrive is not only a promising way to 

develop the next generation of energy 

technology to reduce our energy consumption, it will also help to spur job 

creation as State and local governments embark on capital improvements. 

Increasing the size of the program 

will support funding for eligible 

projects including energy efficiency 

improvements of publicly owned buildings; rural development of electricity 

from renewable sources; research facilities or grants for renewable technologies such as advanced automobile 

battery technology and nonfossil fuels; 

mass commuting facilities that reduce 

energy consumption; or financing 

qualified energy production projects 

such as wind, biomass, geothermal, 

landfill gas, and solar. 

Secondly, my bill expands the types 

of eligible programs to ones that reduce energy consumption in privately 

owned buildings. It would allow States 

and local governments to help homeowners and businesses make improvements such as heating-fuel saving 

measures; electricity-saving measures; 

on-site renewable energy generating 

devices; or water-saving measures that 

reduce the energy use of the owner, 

renter or water provider. Gains in efficiency savings between 20–30 percent 

are easily achievable through improving lighting, insulation, HVAC equipment and controls for these items. 

These measures are often one-time and 

low maintenance or maintenance free 

once they have been installed. In terms 

of costs, implementing efficiency measures only costs about 3 cents per kWh 

of energy saved while implementing 

wind and solar projects can cost at 

least two to three times more. 

Importantly, my bill will increase 

the success of these energy efficiency 

and conservation programs by ensuring 

the Qualified Energy Conservation 

Bond program can be used to promote 

novel payment structures in order to 

reduce the prohibitive upfront costs 

that homeowners and businesses must 

pay for energy efficiency and conservation upgrades. By eliminating expensive up-front costs for homeowners and 

businesses, we can eliminate one of the 

main obstacles to making significant 

energy efficiency gains. Furthermore, 

we can virtually eliminate what homeowners and businesses have to pay for 

the efficiency and conservation upgrades by not increasing their out-ofpocket expenses. For example, States 

and local governments can work with 

electric and water utilities to bill individuals or businesses monthly for the 

cost of the efficiency improvements 

based on the savings they receive. The 

payment for the efficiency improvements each month will be no more 

than the monthly energy-savings realized by the improvements, thereby 

keeping their monthly payments the 

same as before the energy improvements. 

The Center on Wisconsin Strategy 

states that buildings account for 40 

percent of total U.S. energy consumption, 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, and 43 percent of U.S. carbon 

emissions, a larger share than either 

transportation or industry. It is possible that the U.S. could realize more 

than $200 billion in annual savings 

from improved building efficiency 

alone. However, one of the challenges 

associated with implementing building 

efficiency measures is its prohibitive 

cost. Unfortunately, poor households 

devote a disproportionate share of income to home energy costs, often upwards of 10 percent, because they have 

less income and tend to live in less efficient buildings and use less efficient 

appliances. Through building retrofits 

we have the potential to generate 

about 10 person years of employment in 

direct installation of efficiency measures and another 3–4 person years in 

the production of relevant materials 

for every $1 million spent on retrofits 

Large cities and counties with populations over 100,000 would be eligible 

for Wisconsin’s share, $65.7 million, 

that my bill would allow for. Eligible 

local governments in Wisconsin include: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, 

and the counties of Milwaukee, Dane, 

Waukesha, Brown, Racine, Outagamie, 

Kenosha, Winnebago, Rock, Marathon, 

Washington, Sheboygan, La Crosse, 

and Walworth. 

I commend the city of Milwaukee and 

the Center on Wisconsin Strategy— 

they have already begun to develop a 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
S342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

program to address retrofitting residential buildings with energy efficiency measures through Me2—Milwaukee Energy Efficiency. COWS’ initial estimates suggest if you could retrofit nearly all of the existing housing 

stock in Milwaukee, an initial investment of just under $250 million could 

result in annual energy savings of over 

$80 million. Examples of other cities 

that are tackling the issue of energy 

efficiency in residential buildings include Berkeley, CA; Babylon, NY; and 

Brookhaven, NY. 

All of these efforts to conserve energy require investments in time and 

money. By combining efforts on two of 

the challenges that we currently face— 

energy and employment—we can create 

great opportunities. Energy efficiency 

and conservation are in our national 

interest for our long term economic 

well-being, for the health and safety of 

our citizens and the world as we mitigate the effects of climate change, and 

for our independence and security. 

I have urged the Treasury Department to quickly issue regulations for 

the Qualified Energy Conservation 

Bonds so the initial program can get up 

and running. Once regulations are finalized, States and local governments 

can begin applying to receive an allotment of the bonds to pursue projects 

that may have been shelved in our 

struggling economy. 

The second energy bill I am introducing as part of my E4 Initiative is 

the Energy and Technology Advancement Act. This bill will increase partnerships between the Federal Government and businesses to help spur the 

commercialization of energy, forestry, 

and other technologies—in other 

words, to increase the ETA, or estimated time of arrival, for bringing new 

technologies to market. 

Particularly in the area of energy, we 

must do more to make new energy solutions, like next generation biofuels, a 

reality. My bill will help make the 

Federal Government a better business 

partner for the many businesses that 

are researching and developing innovative technology solutions our country 

needs. We are squandering the Federal 

investment of billions into research 

and development by not doing enough 

to prevent new technologies from sitting on the shelf or being shipped to 

another country. Helping these new energy technologies get off the ground is 

not only a promising way to develop 

the next generation of energy technology that will help break our addition to oil, it will also help to spur job 

creation and enhance rural development. 

One obstacle identified by the Forest 

Service’s Wisconsin-based Forest Products Lab which conducts forestry and 

energy technology research with businesses and others, is lack of Federal 

support for moving technologies from 

the research and development phase to 

commercialization. My bill will bridge 

this gap by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which 

includes the Forest Service, to work 

with businesses and provide access to 

resources to assist with getting technologies to market. 

By encouraging the USDA to act as a 

‘‘business incubator,’’ we can increase 

the rate of success and reduce the 

length of time for bringing technologies to the market. By providing a 

bridge to move new technologies beyond the research and development 

phase to commercialization, the Federal Government will accelerate the 

development of new technologies and 

create increased opportunities for 

small businesses, local and State government, and others. 

All energy, forestry, and other technologies will benefit from my ETA Act 

because it will help new technologies 

come to the market. It does so by promoting the Federal Government as a 

better business incubator, encouraging 

the USDA to provide business support 

services, and authorizing USDA employees and private-sector employees 

to work together in Federal or private 

experimental or product facilities. My 

bill will also increase cooperation between the Federal Government and innovative businesses by encouraging the 

USDA to allow rental of Federal equipment and property for the development 

of new technology. 

Lastly, a specific partnership encouraged by my Energy and Technology 

Advancement Act will spur the commercialization of biofuels. My bill requires the USDA to pursue a biorefinery pilot plant that will allow 

businesses to partner with the Federal 

Government to test various biofuels 

technologies derived from a variety of 

feedstocks, including woody and agriculture waste. 

Certainly one of today’s greatest 

challenges—energy—is also one of tomorrow’s greatest opportunities. 

Today, the transportation sector accounts for 70% of our oil consumption. 

However, there are promising efforts to 

significantly lessen our dependence on 

oil by reducing fuel consumption 

through increased efficiency and by aggressively pursuing renewable fuels, or 

biofuels. The commercialization of 

biofuels will also create job opportunities, support rural development and industries such as forestry, and develop 

the next generation of fuels that are 

sustainable and from diverse sources. 

Given our current dire fiscal situation, it is more important then ever 

that we are careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. Not only are both of 

these new bills fully offset, so as not to 

worsen our current Federal deficit; 

they actually provide over a billion 

dollars in deficit reduction. That’s yet 

another reason to pass them, and I 

look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that. 

By Mr TESTER (for himself and 

Mr. BAUCUS): 

S. 226. A bill to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient 

clinic in Havre, Montana, as the Merrill Lundman Department of Veterans 

Affairs Outpatient Clinic; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise 

today with my colleague Senator BAUCUS to introduce legislation honoring a 

Montana veteran named Merrill 

Lundman. 

Merrill was not a general officer. He 

did not become famous in battle, or 

wealthy in his civilian life. After serving in the Army, he came home to 

north-central Montana to work on the 

family farm and, later, for 20 years for 

the BNSF railroad. Some people might 

say he was just an ordinary man who 

served his country in the Army for 

three years, and then came home to 

work to live most of his days on the HiLine, a strip of U.S. Highway 2 in Montana that cuts across the prairie near 

the northern border. 

But because of Merrill Lundman, 

thousands of veterans in and around 

Havre, Montana, can expect to get 

their VA medical care a little bit closer to home. You see, for the last several years of his life, Merrill devoted 

his time and his energy to pushing the 

VA to open a new community based 

outpatient clinic in Havre. And today, 

his dream has become a reality. 

I am sorry that Merrill Lundman is 

not with us today to celebrate this day. 

He died just over one year ago, on December 22, 2007. Less than a month 

later, the VA announced its intention 

to establish a clinic in Havre. 

The data says that veterans who live 

in rural areas don’t live as long—or as 

well—as their urban peers. That’s because it’s harder to get to the VA facility that may be hundreds of miles 

away—especially this time of year 

when snow and ice can make travel in 

Montana treacherous. I don’t know if 

Merrill knew this, but he sensed that 

his fellow veterans were getting a raw 

deal, and he didn’t hesitate to tell the 

VA and his congressional delegation. 

The story of this clinic is a grassroots effort led by one man who stood 

up for his fellow band of brothers to 

make sure that they can get the care 

that they have earned. And to honor 

that effort, Senator BAUCUS and I are 

proud to introduce this legislation, and 

I look forward to working with Chairman AKAKA to move this bill quickly 

through the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. 

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. 

CLINTON, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. 

SCHUMER): 

S. 227. A bill to establish the Harriet 

Tubman National Historical Park in 

Auburn, New York, and the Harriet 

Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I 

am proud to introduce The Harriet 

Tubman National Historical Park and 

The Harriet Tubman Underground 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE