Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond to the majority leader by saying there are a great many good amendments Republican Members would like to offer, there are good amendments Democratic Members would like to offer. We are informed there is objection to us bringing up any of these amendments and getting a vote on them at this time because of objections from a Senator on the Republican side. 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 the tax package and on the bill itself. I know there is good faith on both sides in wanting to do some more business before those cloture votes occur. But obviously, good faith on the part of many Senators does not ensure we can make progress. We have to have unanimous consent and we cannot get that.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond to the majority leader. I think it is fair to say there is a good-faith effort on the part of both managers to try to move forward with legislation in a way that is fair to both Republicans and Democrats, and allows consideration of amendments on both sides. But we are being blocked by others.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Again, Mr. President, in response, let me say we have tried to get agreement that certain of the amendments that are objectionable to some Members on the Republican side--we would agree that we would be bound by a 60-vote threshold on those amendments. But at least at this point, my understanding is the objection is to any consideration of the amendments, regardless of what the threshold is going to be. We are unable to proceed right now. I hope that changes. I hope we can dispose of some of the very meritorious amendments that both Republican Senators and Democratic Senators wish to offer before we get to cloture.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, that is my understanding, that we will have 40 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment, and that vote may take place later in the afternoon.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arizona, before the debate proceeds, we now have agreements with Senator Inhofe for two votes. One is a vote in relation to amendment No. 1693 and then a vote in relation to amendment No. 1666. I was wondering if the Senator will agree that following the debate on those two amendments, which will take an hour, if the Senator will be able to return to that point and debate his second amendment and then we can have a stack of four votes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the response. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see no Senators on either side, so I will propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be recognized for 10 minutes, to be followed by 10 minutes for Senator Klobuchar, and following that, the pending amendments be set aside so I may offer amendment No. 1693 and that Senator Inhofe can then offer his first- degree amendment No. 1666; that the two amendments be debated concurrently for 1 hour, to be equally divided between Senator Inhofe and myself; that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to amendment No. 1693, to be followed by 2 minutes for debate and a vote in relation to amendment No. 1666; that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes in relation to the amendments; and that upon the disposition of the Inhofe amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 1800, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 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 wind. The estimate for a 5-year extension of section 45 credit is $10,292 million, and the amount attributed to wind is $7,846, in their estimation. The rest would be used for biomass and geothermal and other energy sources.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. For the information of Senators, we have now an hour equally divided, half of it under the control of Senator Inhofe and half of it under my control. It is for two purposes. It is to debate amendment No. 1693, which I have submitted, and also to debate amendment No. 1666, which Senator Inhofe has submitted. Why don't I take 5 minutes at this point. Amendment No. 1693 To Amendment No. 1502 Let me call up amendment No. 1693.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me take up to 5 minutes to speak on amendment No. 1693 and then yield to my colleague Senator Boxer 10 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 production of advanced biofuels with the most favorable greenhouse gas emission characteristics. The second section provides for a study by EPA of potential issues that may arise as a result of increases in the renewable fuels standard. That study will result in two reports to Congress, one in 2010, the other in 2015. The third part of the amendment allows the EPA to consider groundwater impacts when regulating fuel additives under the Clean Air Act. One of the reasons we had a problem with MTBE as a fuel additive was that we looked at it in a one-dimensional way. This section of our amendment will allow a full look at all relevant impacts of fuel additives going forward. The final part of the amendment is a provision commonly known as antibacksliding. It basically allows EPA to address air quality issues that might arise as a result of the increased volumes 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 a collaborative manner. I thank her and her staff for the good work they did on these provisions. I also acknowledge the assistance and support we have received on this amendment from the Renewable Fuels Association. This is a consensus amendment on the part of those with interests in enhancing our energy security through increased use of renewable fuels in an environmentally responsible way. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I will now yield to the Senator from California for her comments on this, and I will yield her up to 10 minutes, and I will then speak in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield the Senator from Iowa up to 5 minutes to speak in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak briefly in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma. First, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks a letter I received from the American Coalition 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.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to briefly hit the high points of this letter and explain why they are so strongly in opposition to Inhofe amendment No. 1666. I will read parts of the letter 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 [Inhofe, Burr, and Dole] when it is brought up for a vote. We strongly oppose this amendment as it would effectively gut the RFS and thwart the growth of the domestic ethanol industry. It goes on to say: Senators Inhofe, 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 oversimplified way to look at supply/demand and pricing and does not often provide an accurate picture of how markets would be impacted. It goes on with various examples. The Senator from Iowa pointed out that the price of corn is high today but may not be high indefinitely. It makes the same point here. It says: Most long-run economic models [from the] (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, and others) project stocks-to-use ratio slightly under 10 percent for the next several years, with prices in the $3.00-$3.50 range. Additionally, many economists have stopped using the stocks-to-use ratio in their econometric models as a tool to forecast price because of its obvious limitations. They go on and on along the same line, pointing out deficiencies in the approach being taken by the Senator from Oklahoma in the amendment. Let me conclude with their final statement: 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 homegrown, American-made renewable fuels. We strongly urge you to oppose the Inhofe/ Burr/Dole amendment. It is hard to know how to do better than that letter in pointing out the deficiencies in the amendment. It is clearly an amendment we should oppose. Exhibit 1 June 20, 2007. Majority Leader Harry Reid, U.S. Senate. Chairman Jeff Bingaman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senate. Ranking Member Pete Domenici, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate. Dear Senators: As the Senate continues to debate the energy bill, H.R. 6, we urge all Senators to vote against the amendment offered by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) when it is brought up for a vote. We strongly oppose this amendment as it would effectively gut the RFS and thwart the growth of the domestic ethanol industry. Senators Inhofe, 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 domestic renewable fuels. Stocks- to-use has limited value as an indicator of demand and expected price. It is an oversimplified way to look at supply/demand and pricing and does not often provide an accurate picture of how markets would be impacted. For example, in 2003/04 the stocks-to-use ratio was one of the lowest in the last 20 years at 9.4 percent, but prices remained at $2.50 for a season average. Most long-run economic models (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, and others) project stocks-to-use ratio slightly under 10 percent for next several years, with prices in the $3.00-3.50 range. Additionally, many economists have stopped using the stocks- to-use ratio in their econometric models as a tool to forecast price because of its obvious limitations. As corn usage are likely to increase substantially to 13, 14, or even 15 billion bushels in the future, a 10 percent stocks-to-use ratio could very well equate to carry-out of 1.3, 1.4, or 1.5 billion bushels. So while the stocks-to-use ratio might seem low in these cases, actual carry-out levels would be right in line with the l2-year average (95/96 to 06/07) of 1.38 billion bushels. According a recent analysis from the University of Illinois, ``the stocks-to-use ratio is generally used as a `short cut' approximation for summarizing annual supply and demand conditions. However, very different supply and demand conditions in individual years can lead to similar ratios of stocks-to-use, but very different prices. The most obvious example is the contrast between a year of very small production that results in a low stocks-to-use ratio, but also requires very high prices to force a reduction in consumption and a large crop year that results in a high level of consumption, a low stocks-to-use ratio, but low prices.'' Without the strong domestic market corn farmers won't have the incentive to plant as many acres and take the risk that large production will drive down corn prices. An arbitrary stocks-to-use ratio trigger that restricts corn use for ethanol would likely diminish overall demand and put downward pressure on the price for corn. This would serve as a disincentive to farmers and discourage them from planting more corn at a time when more corn is what the feed and fuel industries need. The food and feed industries have assumed that farmers will continue to produce record crops regardless of prices and profitability. If production declines, or even grows more slowly, stocks could also fall, eventually driving prices higher. In the long-term, America's farm sector is better off maintaining a strong and growing domestic demand base and adding value markets. The corn industry will continue to strive to satisfy a variety of important demands and maximize the utility of its product. Seed technology developments, increasing agricultural efficiency, innovation in biofuels production processes and other breakthroughs will ensure that growers will continue to meet the world's need for food, feed, fuel, and other uses. 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 homegrown, American-made renewable fuels. We strongly urge you to oppose the Inhofe/Burr/Dole amendment. Sincerely, American Coalition for Ethanol, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Sorghum Producers, Renewable Fuels Association.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I see the Senator from South Dakota here. I yield him 4 minutes to speak in opposition.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me once again ask how much time remains.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in light of that, since there is 12 minutes still remaining for the Senator from Oklahoma--I do not know how much of that time he wants to use. Once he has used his time, I was going to take a couple minutes to sum up my position in favor of the first amendment that is being offered and we are voting on, and then I would yield that time. But I defer to the Senator from Oklahoma to make any statement he has.