Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a proposal that has been offered before in the Senate. This is a proposal that was included in the comprehensive Energy bill we passed in the 107th Congress, again in the bill that was passed in the 108th Congress. It sets a standard referred to, generally, as a renewable portfolio standard. It is essentially a requirement that those producing electricity in the country produce 10 percent of that electricity that they sell by 2020 from renewable sources. The Senate has approved this proposition again and again. As I indicated, in the 107th Congress, we included such a portfolio standard as part of an Energy bill. We had various votes in the Senate that affirmed the Senate's determination that the standard should not be weakened. In the 108th Congress, there was a letter signed by 53 Senators that went to the chairs of the conference on the Energy bill, H.R. 6. Senate conferees went on to approve the portfolio standard and pass it on to the House as part of the Senate action. Now we have the opportunity to renew our support for this proposal to place it in this bill where we can, hopefully, get broad bipartisan support and get it to the President's desk. There are good reasons for the strong support that we have seen in the Senate. A strong renewable portfolio standard is an essential component of any comprehensive national energy policy--not just an important part of such a strategy but an essential component. The benefits are clear and they are many. Let me cite the major benefits: This provision would reduce our dependence on traditional, polluting sources of electricity. It would reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. It would reduce the growing pressure on natural gas as a fuel for the generation of electricity. It would reduce the price of natural gas. It would create new jobs. It would make a start on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would increase our energy security and enhance the reliability of the electricity grid. The renewable portfolio standard that we are offering--and I have various cosponsors--and I hope we have additional cosponsors before this amendment is dealt with--Senator Coleman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, Senator Dorgan, Senator Cantwell, Senator Feinstein, Senator Reid, Senator Salazar. I believe many other Members in the Senate strongly support this effort. The RPS we have offered is a flexible and market-driven approach to achieving the various goals I have mentioned at a negligible cost to consumers in this country. According to the Energy Information Administration, the amendment would result in over 350 billion kilowatt hours or 68,000 megawatts of renewable generation between 2008 and 2025. That is enough power generation to supply 56 million U.S. homes. The cost to consumers would be about .18 of a percent or less than one- fifth of 1 percent increase in overall energy prices. This proposal would require retail sellers of electricity that sell more than 4 million megawatt hours per year to provide 10 percent of that electricity from renewable resources by the year 2020. The requirement would be ramped up in 3-year increments to allow for planning flexibility. The Secretary of Energy would be required to develop a system of credits for renewable generation that could be traded or sold; again, making the program easier to comply with. Utilities could use existing renewable generation to comply with the program or they could comply with the program by buying credits from someone else who is producing renewable energy. New renewable producers could receive the credits to trade or to sell. The cost of the program to the utilities would be capped by allowing the Secretary to sell credit at 1.5 cents per kilowatt, adjusted for inflation. As long as the difference between the cost of the renewable generation is less than 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, the utility could buy or generate renewables. When it reaches or exceeds that price, obviously the cap would kick in, and it would become more cost effective for the utility to go ahead and buy the credits. We also would create a program for the sale of the credits to fund State programs for the development of renewables. Congress has tried before to spur the development of renewables. In 1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PURPA. That bill required utilities to buy renewables if the generators could meet the avoided cost of the utilities. Cogeneration--that is, the combined use of heat for industrial processes and for generation of electricity--was also eligible. That program resulted in a huge growth of cogeneration. Over half of the new generation that came online in the country during the 1980s and 1990s was from that resource. It did not, however, do much for renewable generation. These technologies have remained at about 2 percent of total electricity supply for decades now. In other words, PURPA did not work to stimulate development of renewables as we had hoped it might. Let me put up a chart to make the point of this 2 percent figure to give people an idea of what we are dealing with today. This shows electricity generation by fuel for the period of 1970 through 2025. Of course, some of that is anticipated. This is from the Energy Information Agency which is part of the administration. You can see that by far the largest percentage of the electricity we produce in this country is produced from coal. That is the case today, in 2005, as shown by this white line on the chart. That has been the case ever since 1970, and that will be the case in the future. That is true regardless of whether this amendment is adopted or is not adopted. The next source of power, the next fuel for electricity generation is soon to be--right now it is nuclear but it is very soon to be natural gas. You can see a green line there. It is probably a little hard to see against that blue background on the chart, but there is a green line which goes up pretty dramatically in the future. That is a concern I know all of us who have looked at this issue share. We see the price of natural gas going up a significant degree, because we have more and more of our electricity being produced from natural gas. That puts pressure on the price of natural gas. People who are buying natural gas to heat their homes or their businesses see the cost of their utilities going up because of the increased pressure on that price of natural gas coming from the increased demand for natural gas to produce electricity. You can see the renewables number down here. The renewables is next to the bottom line, and it is bumping along at less than 5 percent. It is down around 2 percent today. It will increase very modestly. This chart is a chart of how the Energy Information Agency would expect production to occur absent a renewable portfolio standard. What this amendment will try to do is increase somewhat the amount of electricity we are producing from renewables and, by doing so, decrease the amount of electricity we have to produce from natural gas. This is a way to keep down the increasing cost of natural gas, and it is a way to keep down the increasing price of natural gas as well. Let me talk about some of the criticism that has been made of this amendment and this approach. Critics of the proposal point to a number of concerns they have. The No. 1 criticism I have heard is it costs too much; also, that States are already requiring development of renewables; and, third, some areas do not have readily available renewable resources. Those are the three major criticisms we hear, so let me respond to each of those. In response to the argument that it costs too much, I will point to a number of studies of this proposal that have been done over the last several years. In 2003, I asked the Energy Information Agency at the Department of Energy to look at the effect the standard would have. They found our standard would result in 350 billion kilowatt hours of new renewable generation between 2008 and 2025. That would not happen absent the adoption of this provision. They found the cost would be minimal. The report indicated there would be an increase in the cost of electricity of only one-tenth of a cent in 2025 over projected costs. When combined with the reduction in natural gas prices that would be caused by the RPS, total aggregate cost to the consumer on that consumer's energy bill was projected to be less than one-twentieth of 1 percent. I have asked the EIA to update this analysis with current conditions, and we have their update. They have sent me a letter which I can put in the Record. Let me cite the most important parts of it. It says: Cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 through 2025 are $2.5 billion lower while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are reduced by $2.9 billion, or 0.5 percent. Cumulative expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end-use sectors taken together would decrease by $22.6 billion. Now, that is their current estimate of what the effect of this provision would be. The report also indicates the generation of electricity from natural gas would be 5 percent lower if we adopt this RPS than it would be otherwise. It also projects that total electricity-sector carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 7.5 percent relative to the status quo. They are reduced by 249 million metric tons. A number of other studies have found positive results, even to the point of reducing overall energy costs. Earlier this year we held a hearing in the Energy Committee on generation portfolios. Dr. Ryan Wiser of Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory presented a report that summarized the results of some 15 studies of renewable portfolio standards much like the one we are offering today. All of these studies found that a portfolio standard would reduce natural gas prices. Twelve of the 15 studies projected a net reduction in overall energy bills as a result of the RPS. The Energy Information Agency report projected that the RPS would lead to a 32-percent lower allowance cost for sulfur dioxide emissions. The cost is not great. So the argument we have heard that this is too expensive a proposition I think does not hold water. Many have argued that States are implementing renewable portfolio standards and there is no need for a Federal program. It is true that States have taken the lead in pushing for more renewable generation. Eighteen States currently have developed renewable requirements. Three more are soon to begin implementing renewable requirements. Almost all of these standards are more aggressive than the Federal standard in the amendment I am proposing today. My home State of New Mexico requires 10 percent of electricity produced by utilities in that State to be from renewable sources by the year 2011--not 2020. Mr. President, 2020 is what our amendment calls for. But New Mexico says 2011. California says 20 percent by 2017. Maine requires 30 percent by 2000; Minnesota, 19 percent by 2015. This will spur the growth of renewables in these regions. There is one thing, however, a State standard will not do. It will not drive a national market for these technologies. If some States have renewable standards and others do not, or if the technologies and requirements vary from State to State, it is impossible for a national market to develop for renewable credits. This credit trading system is the piece of our proposal that gives the greatest flexibility for compliance. A credit trading system also helps to reduce the cost of compliance by allowing credits for lower cost renewables from one region to be bought by utilities in another region. Some argue this is a cost shift from the regions without renewable resources to those with renewable resources. I would argue it is a way to spread the cost to all who are seeing the benefits. If States do not have or choose not to develop renewable resources, they still realize the benefits of lower natural gas prices, of lower SO2 allowances, of lower cost carbon reductions. It is only fair they share the slight increase in cost for generation of electricity that has created these savings. The argument that many regions do not have renewable generation resources has also been made. While it is true that the best wind, geothermal, and solar resources are concentrated in Western States, the entire country has extensive biomass potential. We have another chart I want to put up here for people to look at. As Maine and other States have shown, paper production and agricultural processes are available everywhere. If Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland can implement aggressive standards, then other States can as well. This chart makes the case very strongly about where these renewable energy resources are available. You can see that solar, of course, is available everywhere but more prominently in the Southwest. That is shown in the upper right-hand part of this chart. Wind resources are not available everywhere but clearly are in many States, and particularly in the West and the Midwest. That is shown on the lower right-hand part of the chart. Geothermal resources are primarily concentrated in the West, but biomass and biofuel resources are everywhere in the country, and are particularly concentrated in the eastern part of the country. So as these technologies develop, as the markets for these technologies develop, there is an ability to produce energy from renewable sources everywhere. The environmental benefits are clear. The renewable portfolio standard would result, according to the Energy Information Agency, in a 3.6-percent reduction in carbon emissions in the year 2025. This is a reduction of 31 million tons in that year alone. That reduction is the equivalent to planting 27.5 million acres of trees, an area about the size of Pennsylvania. And this is in one single year. The RPS also benefits the economy by driving job growth. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, wind turbine construction alone would result in 43,000 new jobs per year on average. An additional 11,200 cumulative long-term jobs would result from the subsequent operations and maintenance of these renewable facilities. The Regional Economics Applications Laboratory for the Environmental Law and Policy Center found that 68,400 jobs and $6.7 billion in economic output are a result of renewable energy; wind power creates 22 direct and indirect construction and manufacturing jobs for each megawatt of installed capacity; wind power creates one operation and maintenance job for every 10 megawatts of installed capacity. A study by the State of Wisconsin found that increased use of renewable energy sources would create three times as many jobs as increased use of traditional fuels for electricity production. U.S. PIRG reports that building 5,900 megawatts of renewable energy capacity in California would lead to 28,000 yearlong construction jobs and 3,000 operations and maintenance jobs. Over 30 years, these new plants would create 120,000 person hours of employment, four times as many person hours as building 5,900 megawatts of natural gas capacity. According to the AFL-CIO, an estimated 8,092 jobs would be created over a 10-year period for installation and operations and maintenance of wind power in Nevada, and another 19,000 manufacturing jobs. Support for this concept and this proposal is strong throughout the country. Recent polls have shown that support. A poll by Mellman Associates found that 70 percent of those surveyed nationwide supported a 20-percent portfolio standard. We are not proposing that aggressive a standard. We are proposing 10 percent by the year 2020, which I pointed out is substantially more modest than most of the States have embraced that have gone this route. These results held about the same in States as diverse as North Dakota, Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona. Environmental groups from throughout the Nation, from the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, from industrial associations to the renewable trade groups and utilities, have all supported the RPS. We are trying in this bill to implement a policy to develop an energy future for the Nation that would rely on our own resources, creating energy security for the country; that would provide for cleaner air and water; that would begin to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide into the air; and that would drive our economy to greater heights. This portfolio standard is a low-cost, effective, market-driven way to accomplish these goals. Let me put up one other chart before I yield the floor. There is a chart we have that shows the production-added capacity of wind energy which I wanted to reference. It is entitled ``Annual Installed Capacity.'' One of the arguments being made against this legislation is, through the Tax Code, we are already providing incentives for utilities to do this. Therefore, something like this is not required. The truth is, we have had incentives in the Tax Code. Our history of success at getting additional installed capacity through that device has been extremely mixed. We have a tax provision for a year, and then we let it expire. Installation drops off dramatically. We have a tax provision put back in place. The installation of capacity goes up. We let it expire. Unfortunately, that has been the history in this Congress. I would like to say it is going to be different in the future, but I am not persuaded. What the renewable portfolio standard will do is to set a long-term path for how we want to proceed and would give utilities and those who are involved in the generation of electricity a clear idea of what is to be expected from them as they go forward. This would have a beneficial effect on the development of these technologies, on bringing the cost of producing power from renewable sources down, and would bring us into line with many of the more industrially advanced countries in the world. This is a useful provision. It is one that has bipartisan support in the Senate and one we have had the good sense to adopt in the previous two Congresses. I hope we will do that again this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take a very few minutes to respond to some of the points that the Senator from Tennessee was making. We are back on the amendment that I have offered for purposes of debate. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a cosponsor to the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The first point I would make, in response to the comments of the Senator and my colleague from Tennessee, who has contributed greatly to the development of this overall Energy bill and whose contribution has been very substantial and I very much respect his views, obviously we are in disagreement on this issue, and I will explain some of the reasons why. First, much of what he said related to big windmills and the fact that this, in his view, is essentially a program that would cause the establishment of more big windmills. He pointed out the reasons why that was unwise. This amendment is technology neutral. We have been very specific about this. We have said that qualifying renewables include wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, and incremental hydro power. We have tried to talk about all of the different renewables and make it clear we are not specifying which of these renewables are used by particular utilities to meet this requirement. It would be up to them, and it would be up to them based on how the various technologies develop. In fact, many utilities have chosen to pursue wind generation because they have found that that was the least costly way to produce energy from renewable sources. Clearly, advances are being made in solar power, advances are being made in biomass, and in various others of these technologies. The purpose of this legislation is to accelerate that. There is a chart which my colleague from Tennessee put up indicating the other ways in which we are trying to deal with our energy needs in this overall legislation and the other ways in which we are trying to reduce emissions into our atmosphere in this legislation. I agree with all of that. We do have provisions in this legislation to encourage the development of this gas-combined cycle technology and the use of that in our coal-fired powerplants. I will put up the chart that we had earlier that shows the different sources for our electricity generation as they exist today and as the Energy Information Agency would expect them to exist in the year 2025. You can see that by far the most significant source of our energy, our electricity generation in this country, is coal. It has been in the past; it is today; it is going to be in the future. The only question is to what extent does that number, that top line, go up. And, more importantly, to what extent do we see pressure put on natural gas as a source for electricity generation in the future. But we have provisions in this bill that try to encourage the use of IGCC technology. That is very much in the public interest and I very strongly support that. We also have provisions in here to encourage more use of nuclear power, more production of electricity from nuclear power. You can see the nuclear line is largely flat coming from today, 2005, out to 2025. It is my hope, just as it is the hope of Senator Domenici and I am sure of many on our committee, you will see that line go up somewhat, as companies are able to see the benefits that are provided in this legislation and look at the cost comparisons, that they will choose to put more resources into production of energy from nuclear sources as well. That is very much to be desired. But to accomplish our goals, our overall goals for this country and our overall goals for our energy legislation, we need to pursue all available resources. That is why I believe it is important we adopt this amendment, to give that extra push for renewables. The chart from the Energy Information Agency projects very little increase in this line down here, this blue line for renewables, without this renewable portfolio standard in place. I saw the map of the United States the Senator from Tennessee put up, showing the different States that are doing this. All of that is taken into account by the Energy Information Agency. All of those State renewable portfolio standards are taken into account in their determination that there will still be only very modest, if any, increases in the use of renewables over the next 20 years. What we are trying to do through this renewable portfolio standard is to increase the contribution from renewables somewhat. I am the first to admit we are not going to solve our energy problems with the use of renewables alone. We have to depend on nuclear power. We have to depend on clean coal technologies. We have to depend on progress in all these areas. But the effect of this amendment I have offered is to give some additional impetus to use of renewables. Let me make a couple of other points which I think bear mentioning at the same time. I think the Senator from Tennessee suggested that--maybe not the amendment that is currently before the Senate but an earlier version, I believe he indicated, would say you don't get credit for what you do to meet your State standard in order to meet this national standard. Let me be clear. That is not the case. I don't think that has ever been the case in any version I have seen of this amendment, but it is certainly not the case in what we are talking about here. In States where there is a renewable portfolio standard in place--and in almost more cases that is a much more aggressive and demanding requirement than anything we are contemplating here--clearly this standard would be met without any difficulty. This is not an incremental standard above what the State requires. This is an effort to require some effort to be made nationwide and hopefully get us to a nationwide market and demand for these technologies that we are promoting as part of this. The other big point the Senator from Tennessee was making is this $18 billion cost. He is referring to this letter from the EIA. It does say the cumulative cost to the electric power sector is about $18 billion. Three bullet points down in that same summary page, it says the cumulative expenditure for natural gas and electricity by end-use sectors, taken together, decreases by $22.6 billion. What it is saying is the effect would be to decrease what they spend on natural gas and electricity by $22.6 billion at the same time there is the $18 billion to be shifted over in this area. So clearly the whole idea behind this legislation is that the people who are producing, the companies that are generating electricity in this country, will do less of that through use of natural gas, will invest less in natural gas production facilities, or generating facilities, and will invest more in these other areas. That is the purpose of it. We believe that is a good public purpose, a good purpose for us to be promoting in this legislation. The final point the Senator was making is this is an unnecessary cost to consumers. That is not what I understand the EIA to be saying. The Energy Information Agency says, in a quote out of their letter to me dated the 15th of June: Cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 to 2025 are $2.7 billion lower, while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are reduced by $2.9 billion. That is if this amendment is adopted. So the cumulative expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end users, taken together, will decrease by $22.6 billion. It is saying, for this 20-year period we are talking about, if we adopt this amendment we will be saving consumers. They, the people who are producing the electricity the consumers are buying, will, in fact, be shifting resources to produce some additional increment of that electricity from these renewable sources rather than from natural gas plants as they otherwise would. But clearly there is a savings here for the consumer, according to the Energy Information Agency, and I think that is clearly to be desired and something we all are hoping will result from this legislation. Before I yield the floor, let me ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor. She is available to speak. Let me ask Senator Domenici, did you want to go back to your side to speak now, or Senator Clinton would like to speak on our side.

Mr. BINGAMAN. We will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Jeffords.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will defer to Senator Domenici if he wants to do something at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we would like 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the Bingaman amendment. I guess there is no need for 2 minutes before Cantwell because they have a period of time before theirs, but 2 minutes equally divided would be appreciated.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Dorgan from North Dakota.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed that the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Washington want to interrupt the remainder of our debate on the Bingaman amendment in order to discuss and do a modification of the Cantwell amendment. I ask unanimous consent that they be yielded whatever time they need to accomplish that and it not count against the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take part of the time remaining for me to respond to a few of the points made by my good friend from Tennessee and clarify the effect of this amendment as best we understand it. Contrary to what a person might believe by listening to a lot of the debate today, this is not an amendment just about windmills. This is an amendment about trying to stimulate the development of a range of technologies, solar technologies, biomass technologies, wind technologies, clearly, and get the cost of producing electricity from those different technologies down to a more reasonable level. That is the purpose of the legislation. My good friend from Tennessee says that in his opinion, based on his understanding of the position the Energy Information Agency has taken, this would result in an increase in electricity rates, or electric rates. He reads their analysis and their recent report in a totally different way than I do. It is very clear this does not cause an increase in electricity rates. It causes a decrease. It is clear it does not cause an increase in gas prices. It causes a decrease. It is clear it does not cost the electric power sector more. It costs the electric power sector less than it otherwise would be spending. Let me talk about this $18 billion he continues to refer to. It does say in their report that from 2005 to 2025, the renewable portfolio standard has a cumulative total cost to the electric power sector of about $18 billion. Now, that is true. Then it goes down a couple of sentences further on. It says, the cumulative expenditures for natural gas and electricity by all end user sectors taken together will decrease by $22.6 billion. So what it is basically saying is if this amendment is adopted, which I hope very much it will be, there will, in fact, have to be more investment by the utility sector, by the electric power generation companies, in these alternative fuel generation technologies, these alternative energy sources. But it will be more than offset by what they save in fossil fuels and what they save in investment in those other areas. As far as rates are concerned, it is very clear in this language, and I will read this again. It says: ``Compared to the reference case.'' That means with the amendment. It says: ``The cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 to 2025 are $2.7 billion lower''--that is with the amendment--``while the cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $2.9 billion lower with the amendment.'' Residential expenditures it is talking about. These are the ratepayers that we all represent in our individual States. They are saying that, if this amendment is adopted, it is going to be cheaper for them to pay their gas bills, cheaper for them to pay their electricity bills in the future because, frankly, this will take some of the pressure off the price of natural gas. That is very much to be desired. Let me read further from their report. They say: ``The increase in renewable generation''--which is contemplated by this amendment--``will lead to lower coal and natural gas generation. By 2025, coal generation is reduced by almost 9 percent, natural gas generation reduced by over 5 percent from their respective reference case levels.'' That is from the level that it would be if we didn't adopt this amendment. So in my view, this is a very substantial improvement. This legislation, this amendment will be a substantial improvement to the underlying bill which I think is a very good bill. I do not disagree with anything the Senator from Tennessee said about the advisability and desirability of seeing more nuclear power generated in our country, the advisability and desirability of seeing cleaner technologies used in coal production. All of that is in the underlying bill. What this amendment says is let's give an extra impetus to renewable power so that we can get all of the benefit from renewable power that it is reasonable for us to achieve over the next couple of decades. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment. I think that is what the effect of the amendment will be. We have had the good fortune of passing this amendment before in the Senate. I hope very much we can pass it again this time. It will strengthen the bill, it will persuade the American people that we are trying to move this country in a different direction, as far as its energy future is concerned. We are not satisfied with just saying that current technologies are adequate. We are not satisfied with saying the current mix of energy sources is adequate. We are trying to get back to more use of American ingenuity and creativeness to produce energy that we do not have to import from somewhere else in the world. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. We will have a chance to summarize very briefly the reasons for the amendment. I will have a chance, and my colleague from Tennessee will have a chance, to argue the other side of that argument before we have the vote. As I understand our agreement now, the Senator from Washington is going to have an opportunity to once again argue the merits of her amendment. That vote will occur, I believe, at 2:15. Then, after that, we will have the vote on this RPS. With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Washington. Amendment No. 784

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which says utilities that produce electricity in this country by the year 2020 should ensure that up to 10 percent of their electricity comes from renewable sources. It doesn't specify which renewable sources. It gives them a variety of choices. According to the Energy Information Agency, the $18 billion is more than offset by the savings these utilities will get by not having to invest in additional traditional sources of generation. This will result in a reduction in electricity rates and a reduction in gas rates, according to our own Department of Energy. I believe this is good legislation. I hope my colleagues will support it. It will strengthen this bill and give us a much better energy bill to take to conference. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe of Maine be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on the Bingaman amendment.

Jeff Bingaman

Speeches

Manage analytics