Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment Senator Domenici just called up be set aside at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I call up amendment 1614 on behalf of Senator Tester, Senator Byrd, Senator Salazar, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Bingaman, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Webb.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I am not going to speak about the amendment at this point or about the Bunning amendment Senator Domenici described in general terms. But this is a very important issue. It is one we spent time on in our Energy Committee markup. It is one we clearly need to resolve here on the Senate floor and allow Senators to express their views on the issue. I know Senator Tester was hoping to be here to speak on the amendment possibly later today but, if not, then tomorrow. I know he will want to speak both about his amendment and about the Bunning amendment, and I will plan to do the same. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 19, when the Senate resumes H.R. 6 following morning business, there be up to 2\1/2\ hours of debate prior to a vote in relation to Bunning amendment No. 1628 and Tester amendment No. 1614, to run concurrently, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Bunning and Tester or their designees; that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the respective party conferences; that upon reconvening at 2:15 p.m., the Senate resume debate on the above-mentioned amendments; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to Bunning amendment No. 1628; that upon disposition of that amendment, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to Tester amendment No. 1614, with no amendment in order to either of the above amendments prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the Tester amendment, the Senate then debate consecutively the following amendments listed below and that the debate time on each be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and controlled in the usual form with no amendment in order to any of the amendments enumerated below; that upon the use or yielding back of all time with respect to the amendments listed below, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to each vote; and that after the first vote in this sequence, the remaining votes be 10 minutes in duration: The listed amendments are Kohl amendment No. 1519, Thune amendment No. 1609, and Cardin amendment No. 1610.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 238, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1639, introduced earlier today by Senators Kennedy and Specter, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 19; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes, and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that upon the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 6, as under the previous order.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just recount the state of play and where we are. I have just spoken to my colleague, Senator Domenici. I advise all Senators and their staffs we are still hung up on the two proposals that relate to requiring utilities to produce a larger amount of their energy from renewables. The amendment I offered, which is designated the renewable portfolio standard, requires 15 percent for renewable sources. The amendment offered on behalf of Senator Domenici, which has a different base against which it is applied--but it has a requirement of 20 percent against that different base and has a wider list of ways that people can meet that requirement, a wider set of options available--is a second-degree amendment to my amendment. It would be my hope that we could get a vote on both amendments today and move on to other items on the bill. This is a very important part of what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation, so I hope very much we can do that. I do have a unanimous consent request that I will propound at this point. I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 11 a.m. this morning be for debate with respect to the pending amendments, with the time equally divided and controlled between myself and Senator Domenici or our designees; that no other amendments be in order prior to the vote; and that at 11 a.m., without further intervening action, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Domenici second-degree amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment, as amended, if amended.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in light of the objection, I have no choice but to move to table the Domenici amendment, which I intend to do sometime after 11 o'clock. I understand there are committees meeting right now in important sessions, so I am not going to make that motion right now, but I expect to sometime after 11 o'clock. Then the Senate will be able at that point to go on record as to their views on the Domenici amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Idaho leaves the floor, I wish to make a short statement and then pose a question to him so I am sure we are understanding things correctly. My short statement is that the Energy Information Administration has made it clear they see the main beneficiaries of the renewable portfolio standard proposal I have put forward--not as wind--they see the increase in wind capacity at 50 percent, but they say biomass will increase 300 percent. Beyond that, they recognize biomass currently produces more electricity--about twice as much electricity--as does wind. So they see a dramatic increase in biomass, which the Southeast part of the country has a great deal of. They also project a 500- percent increase in electricity production from solar power. But to the point the chart makes that the Senator from Idaho has in the Chamber, first of all, there are two ways--Mr. President, this is in preface to a question I am going to pose to the Senator from Idaho. There are two ways we are trying to stimulate more use of renewable energy and more production of renewable energy. One is through the Tax Code. As he points out, there are various tax credits--the production tax credit, the investment tax credit for various kinds of renewable energy. The other is through what I have proposed here, which is the renewable portfolio standard, which is a requirement that utilities produce power from these sources. Now, if we just do the tax provisions, and do not do the renewable portfolio standard, then that is what is indicated on the bottom line of the chart, as I understand it. You get the substantial increase in budget impacts--that the red line reflects--if you do both, if you do the tax provisions and you also do the renewable portfolio standard because the renewable portfolio standard will ensure that more people qualify for the tax credits because you are going to be producing more electricity from solar, you are going to be producing more electricity from wind, you are going to be producing more electricity from biomass. Every time you do, it costs the Federal Treasury because that new energy is eligible for these tax credits. Am I understanding correctly that is why the budget impact is reflected as it is there?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask another question. Does the chart the Senator from Idaho has on the floor assume there is a renewal of the tax credit or that the tax credit expires?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask one other line of questioning to the Senator, and I appreciate his answer. The Domenici proposal, which is the alternative the Senator from Idaho is advocating for, as I understand it--not only as it has been described by the Senator from Idaho but by my colleague from New Mexico and others--not only would encourage utilities to produce more power from the sources I have identified--the renewable sources, traditional renewable sources of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, tidal and all-- but it also says we want to encourage more production of nuclear power, as I understand it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Would the Senator from Idaho agree with me that to the extent that amendment is successful in doing that, in encouraging all of that additional nuclear power, nuclear generation, and all, that also is going to cost the Treasury, and that is also going to drive up what is indicated on the chart? I notice there is no line on the Senator's chart to represent what the fiscal impact on the budget would be from the Domenici proposal. But my assumption is, it would be at least as expensive to the Federal budget as mine would be, or else if it would not be as expensive that is because the Domenici amendment would not be as effective in promoting development of these sources; am I correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Georgia is in the Chamber wishing to speak on the bill. I will defer to him, and we will come back for additional debate in the coming hour.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, just to advise folks of what I believe the course is going to be here in the next few minutes, Senator Cantwell from Washington is waiting to speak. She is going to speak for up to 10 minutes or something in that range; Senator Corker is here from Tennessee, and he wishes to speak for a relatively short period also; and then, as I have indicated to Senator Domenici, it will be my intent at that point to move to table his amendment. So that is my expectation of how we will proceed. I am not asking for any consent to do that, but I wanted to advise Senators.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say a few words about the Domenici amendment, which I will move to table. I know my colleague, Senator Domenici, wishes to speak in support of his amendment. I certainly will not make the motion to table until he gets a chance to do that. Let me say why I think his amendment is a major mistake for the Senate to adopt and why we should table the amendment. The underlying amendment that I offered tries to put in place a requirement that over the next couple of decades we move toward more electricity in this country being produced from renewable sources. We have a very extensive list of what we are talking about. We are talking about solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, biomass, ocean tidal current wave energy, incremental hydropower, landfill gas--those are all what are defined as renewable energy sources, and we are trying to stimulate the production of electricity from those sources. We have said we have to get to a point by 2020, each utility does, where it is either producing 15 percent of the power that it is selling from those sources or it is buying 15 percent, taking 15 percent of what it is selling from someone else who has produced it from those types of sources or it is buying credits from someone who has produced more than they were required to and therefore has sold them credits or they have made a compliance payment. Those are all ways that utilities can comply. The Domenici amendment comes along and says three things: First, it purports to say the 15 percent is not the right percentage, it ought to be 20 percent. That sounds encouraging for those of us who like renewable energy. But there is a bit of a sleight of hand in there, and let me explain what that is. In that amendment they say you take the base amount of electricity that the utility sells and then go back and define what is the base amount of electricity that the utility sells. It is what they sell minus what they are selling that is produced from nuclear. That is 20 percent. So instead of taking 15 percent of 100 percent, which is what my amendment proposes, they are taking 20 percent of the lower amount, which would be 18 percent of the base because 20 percent of our electricity today is produced from nuclear power. So we have essentially a requirement that would be something in the range of 16 percent instead of the 15 that I have asked for. Then they say: OK, let's define the requirement in a way that it does not just include those things the Bingaman amendment calls for; that is, production of electricity from solar power, wind power, geothermal, biomass, ocean tidal, current wave energy, incremental hydropower, landfill gas; you get credit for doing any of those if you want to do them. But if you want to build a nuclear plant, we will give you credit for that too. If you want to improve energy efficiency, we will give you credit for that too. If you want to adopt the demand-response program to reduce the demand of your customers, then we will give you credit for that too. If you want to adopt capture-and-storage technology for carbon in some coal plant, we will give you credit for that too. Then it has a general catchall. It says: The Secretary of Energy can pick out other things in the future he may think people ought to get credit for. So what it does is it eliminates any real requirement that any company, any utility, actually go and produce additional power from renewable sources. That was the whole purpose of the Bingaman amendment. There is one other provision I want to alert my colleagues to, because it is a very important provision, and this relates to the States' abilities to opt out. I know various people have been here and said: Well, States ought to be able to opt out. Well, you don't have a national renewable standard. You don't drive the development of these technologies in a national market if it is up to each State to decide whether they want to participate. There is a provision in here called Governor certification. This is on page 9 of my friend's amendment. It says: On submission by the Governor of a State to the Secretary--that is the Secretary of Energy-- of a notification that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State portfolio standard that substantially contributes to the overall goals of the Federal clean portfolio standard, under this section the State may elect not to participate. Under this section, it is clear to me the problem with the Domenici amendment is it essentially prescribes that utilities should do what they are doing at any rate. Then it sets up a complicated procedure of credits and monitoring and trading they have to comply with as well. But it does not require any change in the mix of energy they are, in fact, producing and selling. That, of course, is the purpose of the Bingaman amendment, which is a second-degree amendment. I do think it is very important we table this amendment so we have a chance to consider the Bingaman amendment and add it to this bill. For that reason I urge my colleagues to support the motion to table which I will make following the remarks of my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Ms. KLOBUCHAR addressed the Chair.