Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the legislation we have just passed and to say to my colleagues there are provisions in the legislation for agriculture disaster that have been ridiculed in some circles. I would say that those who have ridiculed the notion of disaster assistance for our Nation's farmers are way off base, and they really do not know what they are talking about. I was extremely disappointed in the Secretary of Agriculture, who has suggested the only problem that farmers have is in the gulf of this country. Look, we recognize that no part of the country was harder hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita than the gulf region. And these legislative proposals that are in this bill will first and foremost help them because these are national provisions, these are not provisions just for one section of our country. But to suggest that nobody else in the country has had serious problems, that reflects an ignorance that ill becomes the Secretary of Agriculture, ill becomes a man who is supposed to be the spokesman for this Nation's farmers and ranchers. Yes, Hurricanes Rita and Katrina devastated the gulf, and they deserve first-priority consideration. But they were not the only ones hurt. Here are the headlines out of North Dakota: ``Rain Halts Harvest;'' ``North Dakota Receives Major Disaster Declaration;'' ``Heavy Rain Leads To Crop Diseases;'' ``Beef Crop Could Be The Smallest In 10 Years;'' ``Crops, Hay Lost To Flooding;'' ``Rain Takes Its Toll On North Dakota Crops;'' ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding, Disease.'' Those were the headlines all across my State last year. Shown on this chart are the number of counties in my State--they are the counties in yellow--that were given disaster designations by the President--by the President--last year. They are the counties in yellow. I say to the Presiding Officer, you will notice every single county was designated a disaster. Why? Because we had rainfall 250 percent of normal. I do not know what is happening. Some say it is global climate change. Some say it is a weather cycle. I do not know. But I do know the result. The result is this, as shown in this picture: The result is farms all across North Dakota that looked like they were in the middle of lakes last year. This is what eastern North Dakota looked like last year, when we had a million acres of land that was even prevented from being planted--a million acres. The Secretary of Agriculture said there is no problem outside the gulf. Where has he been? Who is he listening to? Does he not do even the least amount of homework before he makes these statements? We need a new Secretary of Agriculture, if that is what he reports to the President. These are the acres prevented from being planted in North Dakota last year--over a million acres that could not even be planted--and this Secretary of Agriculture says there is no problem outside the Gulf States? Mr. Secretary, you ought to get with it. You ought to inform yourself before making such ridiculous statements. As shown in this picture, this is North Dakota last year. These are tractors stuck in the mud. They could not plant. And in hundreds of thousands of additional acres where they were able to plant, they got dramatically reduced production. In those places they got production, when they went to the elevator, they got dramatically discounted prices. Why? Because of a disaster of enormous consequence--no, not as severe as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, where there was loss of life, which we mourn along with those who lost loved ones. We absolutely respect that they had, by far, the biggest catastrophe. And this legislation will primarily help them. I am the author of this legislation. I had 27 cosponsors, on a bipartisan basis, in the Senate. When it was offered in the Appropriations Committee, it passed on a unanimous vote. When there was an attempt to take out this assistance on the floor of the Senate, 72 Senators said: No, we are not going to take out disaster assistance for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. That was the right decision. And, yes, this should be national in scope because everyone who is an American who suffered a natural disaster deserves some assistance. Not only did farmers and ranchers suffer egregiously in different parts of the country from different types of natural disasters, but they were also hit with a second blow, and that was a dramatic runup in agricultural energy inputs. Every part of agriculture is dependent on inputs that are based on petroleum--whether it is fuel, with the cost up $3 billion; fertilizer, with the cost up $1.4 billion; marketing, storage, and transportation, with the cost up $400 million; electricity, with the cost up $200 million--with total energy-related costs up $5 billion in one year in agriculture. That had a devastating effect in my State. I just had a series of farm meetings in which farmers brought to me their operating statements--the difference between last year and this year--and income was cut in half--cut in half--in 1 year because of natural disasters, because of discounted prices, because of a failure to even be able to plant, and, on top of that, because of dramatically escalating energy prices. And we have a Secretary of Agriculture who says there is no problem outside the Gulf States? Excuse me, Mr. Secretary, where have you been? Shame on you for providing that kind of false statement to the American people. Here, shown on this chart, are the agricultural groups that endorsed the legislation, the disaster assistance that we passed--22 groups--the broad spectrum of American agriculture saying: Yes, disaster assistance is essential. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this material printed in the Record listing the 22 groups.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3715 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONRAD. I also ask unanimous consent Senator Clinton be included as original cosponsor.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. This is an amendment to pay for the war costs that are in the underlying legislation. The alternative is to simply stack the war costs on the debt. I believe these war costs should have been budgeted for and paid for. Instead, we just keep putting it on the charge card. I want to put in context our overall fiscal condition. This looks back to 2001, when we last had a surplus. Every year the deficits have been up, up, and away. This year they are projecting a deficit of $371 billion. But that is the tip of the iceberg because the fact is the deficit is much smaller than the amount that is being added to the debt. This year we now anticipate the debt will be increased by $654 billion. That is simply unacceptable, to be running up the debt in these record amounts, especially before the baby boomers retire. If the budget that is now stalled between the House and the Senate is adopted, the debt will go up each and every year, $500 billion or $600 billion a year, until we reach a debt of $11.8 trillion. When this President came into office, the debt was $5.2 trillion. At the end of his first year--we don't hold him responsible for the first year because we were still operating under the policies of the previous administration--we were in surplus. At the end of his first year the debt was $5.8 trillion. At the end of this year it will be $8.6 trillion, headed for almost $12 trillion. It is time we get serious about dealing with the fiscal imbalances in this country. Here is one of the results of this fiscal policy. It took all these Presidents, 42 of them, 224 years to run up $1 trillion of debt held by foreigners. This President in just 5 years has more than doubled that amount, more than doubled the amount that 42 Presidents ran up in terms of foreign debt. The Comptroller General of the United States, Mr. Walker, has warned: Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security. Let's pay for at least the war costs that are in this underlying amendment. We can do that much. The emergency provisions, those things that were unpredictable, maybe we can understand that those things aren't paid for in the underlying amendment. But the war costs? My goodness, we have been at war more than 3 years. These things should have been budgeted for. They should have been paid for. That is what I propose in this amendment. I do it in a way that I think is fiscally responsible. We provide the same offsets as the Senate-passed tax bill, closing the tax gap by shutting down abusive tax shelters and providing for other reforms. That raises $19 billion. That includes revoking tax benefits for leasing foreign subway and sewer systems. What a scam that is. Companies are buying foreign sewer systems and depreciating it on their U.S. taxes, and then leasing them back to the foreign cities where those sewer systems exist. What a scam. Let's close it down. We do it by ending loopholes for large oil companies, which raises $5 billion; requiring tax withholding on Government payments to contractors such as Halliburton, withholding that others are asked to do in our society. Why not them? We do it by renewing the Superfund tax so that polluting companies pay for cleaning up toxic waste sites, which raises $9 billion; ending a loophole that rewards U.S. companies that move manufacturing jobs overseas raises $6 billion; repealing the phaseout of limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions for very high-wealth individuals raises $28 billion; and by closing other tax loopholes and miscellaneous offsets of $1 billion. This is the legislation, this is the amendment. It pays for the war costs--$74 billion. We are going to see those who are serious about being fiscally responsible and those who just want to talk about it. This is an opportunity to pay for the war costs that should have been budgeted, that should have been paid for in the regular order. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. Let's get serious about addressing the explosion of debt and deficits in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I get the attention of the Senator for just a moment? I say to him, first of all, I appreciate very much his thoughtful remarks, as always. When you have a chance to look at this, this is a comprehensive bill. We have spent months talking to everyone we thought had a good idea. We have talked to people who sponsored legislation in the House and the Senate, trying to cull those legislative offerings for the best ideas. We have talked to the people who were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard to do a review of national energy policy in America. As you know, they spent several years in a serious effort to come to grips with what we could do that would dramatically reduce our energy dependence. The Senator is quite right. That is why so much of this legislation is focused on fuels; that is where a significant part of our imported energy is going--to fuel the fleets of our country. Let me say with respect to wind energy, I truly believe that is a component of a comprehensive bill. Let me put it in perspective. In terms of our legislation, it is a very small part because I think that is the appropriate level of commitment to make in terms of comprehensive energy policy. There are many other things that have much more prominence in terms of where the investment is being made. I would say to my colleague, in North Dakota we have extraordinary wind energy capacity. We have the ability to relieve our dependence on coal-fired plants and our dependence on plants that are fueled by natural gas, and we have extreme problems, long term, with natural gas in this country. That is why natural gas prices have had such a runup. Wind energy is a great part of an overall plan to reduce peaking load. Obviously, you cannot count on the wind blowing--although in North Dakota you almost always can. So you have to marry it with other energy-generating sources. That is what we have done with this legislation. I very much welcome my colleague's kind comments, and I look forward to his consideration of what we have tried to do. Let me just say, I gave my staff an assignment 6 months ago. I told them I wanted an energy bill that anybody could look at and objectively say: If this were enacted, it would make a serious contribution to reducing our energy dependence. I have supported the past energy bills that have come through here. I was pleased to do so. But I think we all know none of them make a dramatic change in our long-term dependence. That is what this bill is designed to do, I say to my colleague: make a dramatic reduction in our dependence.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank very much the dozens of organizations that have contributed to writing this legislation. As I have indicated, we have spent 6 months in preparing this legislation. We have consulted with literally dozens and dozens of organizations across this country. We have consulted with Members in both the House and the Senate. We have consulted with Governors. We have consulted with every relevant energy group in the State of North Dakota and in the Midwest. I am delighted that so many of them have already endorsed this legislation. It is time for us to get serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I am delighted today to be presenting this BOLD Energy Act. I believe it is the direction we should take. I again ask my colleagues to give it their close consideration.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive energy bill, one that I call Breaking Our Long-Term Dependency, or the BOLD Energy Act. As President Bush has stated, our Nation is addicted to oil. Our economy requires over 20 million barrels of oil a day to fuel our cars, our trucks, heat our homes, and bring goods to market all across the country. Sixty percent of our consumption--60 percent--is from imports. Many of these imports are coming from the most volatile parts of the world, the most unstable parts of the world, and we have to take serious steps now to reduce our growing dependency. That is what this bill is all about. This legislation, which is comprehensive in nature and which we have worked on for over 6 months, I believe is a serious contribution to the discussion. Let me make clear: These are not tepid steps. This legislation is bold because that is what the situation requires if we are to seriously reduce our dependence. This legislation invests approximately $40 billion over the next 5 years to meaningfully reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Much of our imported oil comes from unstable parts of the world. Forty-five percent of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq. A major disruption to oil supplies in any of those areas could send oil over $100 a barrel. Threats to oil supplies and surging demand have contributed to a 95-percent increase in oil prices over the past 2 years. Imported oil now accounts for $266 billion of our trade deficit. That is more than a third of our total trade imbalance. Our Nation faces other challenges on the energy front as well. Fluctuating natural gas prices threaten the livelihood of our Nation's farmers and manufacturers. Electricity sales are projected to increase by 50 percent over the next 25 years. Transmission capacity constraints prevent development of power production in many parts of the country, including North Dakota. Fortunately, the United States has the domestic resources and the ingenuity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our energy challenges. It is time, I believe, to look to the Midwest rather than turning to the Middle East for our energy resources. We can turn to our farm fields to produce more ethanol and biodiesel. Brazil shows what can be done. Thirty years ago Brazil was 80 percent dependent on foreign energy. They have reduced that dependence to less than 10 percent. At the same time, our country has gone from 35-percent dependence to now 60-percent dependence. We have been going the wrong way. Brazil has demonstrated what can be done to dramatically reduce one's energy dependence. How did they do it? They did it by aggressive promotion of biodiesel, by aggressive promotion of ethanol, and by creating a fleet of flexible fuel vehicles. We could do that here. Brazilian officials are now predicting they will be completely energy independent this year--this year. We can use our abundant domestic reserve of coal to produce clean, clear fuel as part of a plan to reduce our dependence, in addition to the use of those renewables. Coal-to-liquid fuel technology has tremendous potential. Converting America's 273 billion tons of coal into transportation fuel would result in the equivalent of over 500 billion barrels of oil. That compares to Saudi Arabia's reserves of 262 billion barrels. Why are we continuing to be dependent and vulnerable to foreign sources of energy? It makes no sense. It is time to do more than talk about the threat; it is time to act. That is why I am introducing the BOLD Energy Act today. My legislation would accomplish the following: It would increase production of renewable energy and alternative fuels. It would reward conservation and energy efficiency. It would provide more research and development funding for new energy technologies. It would promote responsible development of domestic fossil fuel resources, and it would facilitate upgrades to our Nation's electricity grid. First, the BOLD Act takes aggressive steps to increase alternative fuel production and use. It extends the biodiesel and ethanol tax credit. It requires ethanol use in the United States to increase from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007 to 30 billion gallons in 2025. It creates a new biodiesel standard. It promotes alternative fueling stations, and it establishes a $500 million grant program for the expensive front-end engineering and design of coal-to-liquid fuel plants. These steps will allow us to substitute home-grown fuels for foreign oil, dramatically reducing our dependence on imported oil. Second, the experts tell us the single most important thing we can do to reduce our reliance on foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of our cars and trucks. My legislation provides a new rebate program for cars and trucks that achieve above-average fuel economy. The most fuel- efficient vehicles would qualify for rebates of up to $2,500. This will encourage consumers to buy, and manufacturers to produce, more fuel- efficient cars. We don't do this with the command-and-control structure of CAFE standards; we do it with incentives for the marketplace. My bill also requires that all vehicles sold in the United States by 2017 must include alternative fuel technologies, such as hybrid electric or flex-fuel systems. Auto makers will be eligible for a 35- percent tax credit or retiree health care cost relief to make this transition. We have had extensive discussions with the automobile industry on how to design these incentives so they would be effective. North Dakota E85 fueling systems will allow drivers to dramatically reduce gasoline usage. And in urban areas such as Washington, D.C. where most drivers commute fewer than 20 miles a day, new plug-in hybrids will allow most trips to be fueled by electricity rather than gasoline. Third, the BOLD Energy Act promotes environmentally responsible energy development here at home. It increases the existing enhanced oil recovery tax credit to 20 percent for any new or expanded domestic drilling project that uses carbon dioxide to recover oil from aging wells. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry on what would be the most effective incentives to seriously increase domestic energy production. It also includes language authorizing energy development in the Lease Sale 181 area in the Gulf of Mexico that prohibits this development from occurring within 100 miles of the Florida coast or interfering with military activities in the gulf. These steps will allow us to substitute American oil and natural gas for imports, creating jobs here at home and improving our energy security. Fourth, my BOLD Energy Act promotes new technologies to improve energy efficiency and develop renewable energy, such as wind and solar. It extends the renewable energy tax credit for 5 years and establishes a national 10-percent renewable electricity standard. My energy bill also creates a clean coal energy bonds program to allow electric cooperatives, tribal governments, and other public power systems to finance new, advanced clean coal powerplants. Finally, my legislation will improve the electricity grid in the United States by making it easier for State governments to finance the construction of transmission lines through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry over an extended period to find the things that would make the greatest difference to dramatically reducing our energy dependence. That is what this legislation is about. That is why I call it the BOLD Energy Act. It is seriously designed to break our long-term dependency. That is why we called it the BOLD Energy Act. A few weeks ago I met with the President and a bipartisan group of Senators at the White House to talk about energy policy. I told the President he was right to identify our addiction to oil as one of our challenges. I also told him it is time to be bold. No more tepid plans, no more plans that fundamentally do not make a difference. It is time for the United States to stand up to this challenge of seriously reducing our dependence on foreign energy. Make no mistake, this is a bold plan. This plan calls for the investment of approximately $40 billion over the next 5 years. That is what it is going to take. If we are going to be serious about reducing our dependence, it is going to take more than half steps. It is time to put politics aside and assemble our best collective ideas into a new, comprehensive energy policy. I ask my colleagues and I urge them to look at this bill, to examine it. I urge them and hope that they could cosponsor it. If not, I welcome their constructive criticism about what could be done to make it better. I don't think we have any time to waste. There is no time to lose. We need bold action. We need this BOLD Energy Act. I send the bill to the desk for its assignment to the appropriate committee.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive energy bill, one that I call Breaking Our Long-Term Dependency, or the BOLD Energy Act. As President Bush has stated, our Nation is addicted to oil. Our economy requires over 20 million barrels of oil a day to fuel our cars, our trucks, heat our homes, and bring goods to market all across the country. Sixty percent of our consumption--60 percent--is from imports. Many of these imports are coming from the most volatile parts of the world, the most unstable parts of the world, and we have to take serious steps now to reduce our growing dependency. That is what this bill is all about. This legislation, which is comprehensive in nature and which we have worked on for over 6 months, I believe is a serious contribution to the discussion. Let me make clear: These are not tepid steps. This legislation is bold because that is what the situation requires if we are to seriously reduce our dependence. This legislation invests approximately $40 billion over the next 5 years to meaningfully reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Much of our imported oil comes from unstable parts of the world. Forty-five percent of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq. A major disruption to oil supplies in any of those areas could send oil over $100 a barrel. Threats to oil supplies and surging demand have contributed to a 95-percent increase in oil prices over the past 2 years. Imported oil now accounts for $266 billion of our trade deficit. That is more than a third of our total trade imbalance. Our Nation faces other challenges on the energy front as well. Fluctuating natural gas prices threaten the livelihood of our Nation's farmers and manufacturers. Electricity sales are projected to increase by 50 percent over the next 25 years. Transmission capacity constraints prevent development of power production in many parts of the country, including North Dakota. Fortunately, the United States has the domestic resources and the ingenuity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our energy challenges. It is time, I believe, to look to the Midwest rather than turning to the Middle East for our energy resources. We can turn to our farm fields to produce more ethanol and biodiesel. Brazil shows what can be done. Thirty years ago Brazil was 80 percent dependent on foreign energy. They have reduced that dependence to less than 10 percent. At the same time, our country has gone from 35-percent dependence to now 60-percent dependence. We have been going the wrong way. Brazil has demonstrated what can be done to dramatically reduce one's energy dependence. How did they do it? They did it by aggressive promotion of biodiesel, by aggressive promotion of ethanol, and by creating a fleet of flexible fuel vehicles. We could do that here. Brazilian officials are now predicting they will be completely energy independent this year--this year. We can use our abundant domestic reserve of coal to produce clean, clear fuel as part of a plan to reduce our dependence, in addition to the use of those renewables. Coal-to-liquid fuel technology has tremendous potential. Converting America's 273 billion tons of coal into transportation fuel would result in the equivalent of over 500 billion barrels of oil. That compares to Saudi Arabia's reserves of 262 billion barrels. Why are we continuing to be dependent and vulnerable to foreign sources of energy? It makes no sense. It is time to do more than talk about the threat; it is time to act. That is why I am introducing the BOLD Energy Act today. My legislation would accomplish the following: It would increase production of renewable energy and alternative fuels. It would reward conservation and energy efficiency. It would provide more research and development funding for new energy technologies. It would promote responsible development of domestic fossil fuel resources, and it would facilitate upgrades to our Nation's electricity grid. First, the BOLD Act takes aggressive steps to increase alternative fuel production and use. It extends the biodiesel and ethanol tax credit. It requires ethanol use in the United States to increase from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007 to 30 billion gallons in 2025. It creates a new biodiesel standard. It promotes alternative fueling stations, and it establishes a $500 million grant program for the expensive front-end engineering and design of coal-to-liquid fuel plants. These steps will allow us to substitute home-grown fuels for foreign oil, dramatically reducing our dependence on imported oil. Second, the experts tell us the single most important thing we can do to reduce our reliance on foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of our cars and trucks. My legislation provides a new rebate program for cars and trucks that achieve above-average fuel economy. The most fuel- efficient vehicles would qualify for rebates of up to $2,500. This will encourage consumers to buy, and manufacturers to produce, more fuel- efficient cars. We don't do this with the command-and-control structure of CAFE standards; we do it with incentives for the marketplace. My bill also requires that all vehicles sold in the United States by 2017 must include alternative fuel technologies, such as hybrid electric or flex-fuel systems. Auto makers will be eligible for a 35- percent tax credit or retiree health care cost relief to make this transition. We have had extensive discussions with the automobile industry on how to design these incentives so they would be effective. North Dakota E85 fueling systems will allow drivers to dramatically reduce gasoline usage. And in urban areas such as Washington, D.C. where most drivers commute fewer than 20 miles a day, new plug-in hybrids will allow most trips to be fueled by electricity rather than gasoline. Third, the BOLD Energy Act promotes environmentally responsible energy development here at home. It increases the existing enhanced oil recovery tax credit to 20 percent for any new or expanded domestic drilling project that uses carbon dioxide to recover oil from aging wells. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry on what would be the most effective incentives to seriously increase domestic energy production. It also includes language authorizing energy development in the Lease Sale 181 area in the Gulf of Mexico that prohibits this development from occurring within 100 miles of the Florida coast or interfering with military activities in the gulf. These steps will allow us to substitute American oil and natural gas for imports, creating jobs here at home and improving our energy security. Fourth, my BOLD Energy Act promotes new technologies to improve energy efficiency and develop renewable energy, such as wind and solar. It extends the renewable energy tax credit for 5 years and establishes a national 10-percent renewable electricity standard. My energy bill also creates a clean coal energy bonds program to allow electric cooperatives, tribal governments, and other public power systems to finance new, advanced clean coal powerplants. Finally, my legislation will improve the electricity grid in the United States by making it easier for State governments to finance the construction of transmission lines through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry over an extended period to find the things that would make the greatest difference to dramatically reducing our energy dependence. That is what this legislation is about. That is why I call it the BOLD Energy Act. It is seriously designed to break our long-term dependency. That is why we called it the BOLD Energy Act. A few weeks ago I met with the President and a bipartisan group of Senators at the White House to talk about energy policy. I told the President he was right to identify our addiction to oil as one of our challenges. I also told him it is time to be bold. No more tepid plans, no more plans that fundamentally do not make a difference. It is time for the United States to stand up to this challenge of seriously reducing our dependence on foreign energy. Make no mistake, this is a bold plan. This plan calls for the investment of approximately $40 billion over the next 5 years. That is what it is going to take. If we are going to be serious about reducing our dependence, it is going to take more than half steps. It is time to put politics aside and assemble our best collective ideas into a new, comprehensive energy policy. I ask my colleagues and I urge them to look at this bill, to examine it. I urge them and hope that they could cosponsor it. If not, I welcome their constructive criticism about what could be done to make it better. I don't think we have any time to waste. There is no time to lose. We need bold action. We need this BOLD Energy Act. I send the bill to the desk for its assignment to the appropriate committee.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank very much the dozens of organizations that have contributed to writing this legislation. As I have indicated, we have spent 6 months in preparing this legislation. We have consulted with literally dozens and dozens of organizations across this country. We have consulted with Members in both the House and the Senate. We have consulted with Governors. We have consulted with every relevant energy group in the State of North Dakota and in the Midwest. I am delighted that so many of them have already endorsed this legislation. It is time for us to get serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I am delighted today to be presenting this BOLD Energy Act. I believe it is the direction we should take. I again ask my colleagues to give it their close consideration.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I get the attention of the Senator for just a moment? I say to him, first of all, I appreciate very much his thoughtful remarks, as always. When you have a chance to look at this, this is a comprehensive bill. We have spent months talking to everyone we thought had a good idea. We have talked to people who sponsored legislation in the House and the Senate, trying to cull those legislative offerings for the best ideas. We have talked to the people who were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard to do a review of national energy policy in America. As you know, they spent several years in a serious effort to come to grips with what we could do that would dramatically reduce our energy dependence. The Senator is quite right. That is why so much of this legislation is focused on fuels; that is where a significant part of our imported energy is going--to fuel the fleets of our country. Let me say with respect to wind energy, I truly believe that is a component of a comprehensive bill. Let me put it in perspective. In terms of our legislation, it is a very small part because I think that is the appropriate level of commitment to make in terms of comprehensive energy policy. There are many other things that have much more prominence in terms of where the investment is being made. I would say to my colleague, in North Dakota we have extraordinary wind energy capacity. We have the ability to relieve our dependence on coal-fired plants and our dependence on plants that are fueled by natural gas, and we have extreme problems, long term, with natural gas in this country. That is why natural gas prices have had such a runup. Wind energy is a great part of an overall plan to reduce peaking load. Obviously, you cannot count on the wind blowing--although in North Dakota you almost always can. So you have to marry it with other energy-generating sources. That is what we have done with this legislation. I very much welcome my colleague's kind comments, and I look forward to his consideration of what we have tried to do. Let me just say, I gave my staff an assignment 6 months ago. I told them I wanted an energy bill that anybody could look at and objectively say: If this were enacted, it would make a serious contribution to reducing our energy dependence. I have supported the past energy bills that have come through here. I was pleased to do so. But I think we all know none of them make a dramatic change in our long-term dependence. That is what this bill is designed to do, I say to my colleague: make a dramatic reduction in our dependence.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Conrad and Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 2571 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CONRAD

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

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

Mr. CONRAD. No, we are not. We have people looking at that amendment. Could we go to Senator Domenici's amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield the time on this side to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we don't have on our list the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am told that is OK. That has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. No objection.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment No. 3148 and Senator Hagel is also prepared to have his amendment No. 3127 withdrawn. We are also prepared to withdraw Lincoln amendment No. 3047. We have managed to work out an understanding on all of these matters, so I ask unanimous consent to have those amendments withdrawn.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is also our understanding that Senator Grassley would not offer his amendment that was the matching amendment to the Lincoln amendment that has now been withdrawn.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Oh, yes. Borrow and spend--that is what this budget represents. Mr. President and colleagues, as shown on this chart, this is what is going to happen to the debt under this budget. It is up, up, and away. A vote for this budget is a vote for more debt, higher interest rates, a weaker economy, the export of American jobs, the selling off of America, piece by piece. Colleagues, we could do a whole lot better than this. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to go to final passage. We cannot do that without first thanking people. This has been a marathon, and people--many people--have worked around the clock to get us to this position. Let me thank a colleague because we would not be finishing at 7:15 without the extraordinary work of Senator Patty Murray. Thank you, Patty. She convinced literally dozens of our colleagues to drop amendments tonight; otherwise, we would have been here until 2 o'clock in the morning. So special thanks to her. And thanks to my staff director, Mary Naylor; and John Righter, my deputy staff director; Lisa Konwinski, my counsel; and, most of all, my chart master, Kobye Noel. And thanks to the staff of Senator Gregg: Scott Gudes and Denzel McGuire, outstanding professionals. Of course, my personal thanks to the chairman of the committee, who has been so decent to deal with, and so honorable to deal with. On our side, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your courtesies. With that, let me conclude on the budget itself.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first, I want to indicate that we may have one matter to conclude before we end.