Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to ask Senator Stevens how much time he wants. Senator Stevens wants 3 minutes, but he wants Senator Inouye to speak first.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe we are out of time except for leader time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no other Senators who want to be heard on my side. I yield back the remainder of our time, reserving the full leader's time at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. DOMENICI. That is without the leader's time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thank you. I will use 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank all of those who participated. Their names have been mentioned, whether they be Senators or staff. I want to say, I include all of those who have already been mentioned. I want to make a couple statements that will make the record true. First of all, this bill was not intended to solve all of America's energy problems. Second, it was not intended to have a huge number of energy proposals in it. It was a bill that had two great big core provisions, and we are very grateful they are both here before the Senate--not exactly the way they passed the Senate, but good enough for the kind of work that goes on between the House and Senate. Because we must--we cannot get perfection--get some kind of compromise, we have a great bill. Everybody has said all that can be said about this bill. But the Commerce Committee of the Senate, chaired by Senator Inouye, and with Ranking Member Stevens--while we, the Energy Committee, were debating one way, and another committee another way--one afternoon decided they were going to alter, amend, and change the fuel standards for American automobiles, and they did it. We have been waiting around for years for it. It was the impulse and impact for us to do the rest of this bill. We added to it the RFS, which is ethanol 2--and I will acknowledge that as to those speakers who have said it is not as good as the Senate provision, they are right. But there are two bodies, and it was difficult to negotiate everything we wanted. So there will have to be some ardent observations of what is going on in ethanol and its successor to ethanol to see if we need to make some changes. But things are not done in legislation to correct all problems. They are done to do the best you can. If the best you can is good, you adopt it. We have done that. It certainly has been a rocky road, but I am thrilled that the Senate is finally considering a bill that contains the right priorities and stands an excellent chance of becoming law. Today is a historic one for the U.S. Senate. The bill before us takes important steps to reduce our dependence on oil and improve our energy efficiency. For the first time in 32 years, the Senate today will increase fuel economy standards. We will also extend and expand the renewable fuels standard, which will help us diversify our fuel supply. And we will improve the efficiency of our appliances, our lighting, and our buildings. While I was not happy with the process by which we proceeded on this bill, it nonetheless reflects a compromise for many of us. And, reaching a fair agreement is the way things get done here in the Senate. This energy bill contains the right priorities. Although it took us two tough cloture votes, we have avoided adding costly provisions that would have placed this bill in jeopardy, like a renewable portfolio standard and tax increases on domestic energy production. Instead, we have focused on provisions that will help us save oil and save energy, such as CAFE and energy efficiency. The renewable fuels standard that we enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has already helped farmers and diversified our fuel supply, and that RFS is expanded in this bill. The House of Representatives should pass this bill, and I believe that the President should sign it into law. I am pleased to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to pass it today. We will send the right message and begin the long process of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I wish to close by saying, everyone did not agree on what would go in this bill along with the energy provisions. There were very difficult votes that were taken, and actually there was no question that as between the Democrats and Republicans there was truly a big difference of opinion. But when it ended up, we had the major energy provisions left in the bill. We had tax provisions mostly out. We had the provision that has to do with mandating alternative fuels, led by wind, by every State--we had that provision out. What is left is a very good bill. Senator Bingaman described some of the unheard of and unknown quantities that are good. The other Senators have all sung the praises, so I do not need to do it again. It is historic, however, to change the automobile standards after 32 years, and to do it in a way where our automobile makers think they can comply. That is very unique. They never did that. They think they can comply and keep their businesses manufacturing cars. That is No. 2. No. 3, when you are looking to solve the problem of how much crude oil you import, you look for someplace you can save on that quantity and commodity you are importing. Now, the best experts in America have testified there is no act the Congress could take that will do more to cut our dependence upon foreign oil than this measure. Get it? The experts of America say you will reduce America's dependence more by the passage of this bill, the Inouye-Stevens bill, than any other single provision you could pass. That is pretty good. The experts are in the records where we have taken testimony as Senators. The best experts said that about 2 weeks ago. It shocked everybody. They said there is nothing you can do that will save more foreign oil that we import that makes us dependent than if you change CAFE standards as we have changed them. I think that would have to be hard work. Senators are tired. They voted twice on cloture on this bill in a roundabout way. In both instances, one or two votes was the only difference. That makes sometimes for hard feelings. But I do not think it has here. I think we have come out of this OK, friends, ready to go to work on some more energy bills. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time I have. I want to start over again to make sure everybody understands what I have to say. Sometimes the most simple thing is the most difficult to explain. This is a very simple proposition. We have put in a bill--the Energy bill--the work of two or three committees. It is not all an Energy Committee bill. The lead pony in the bill is an important provision with reference to the mileage on automobiles, and we have, for the first time in more than two decades, changed that in this bill. We have an ethanol 2, which is cellulosic, which follows on right behind ethanol to make sure ethanol is stabilized and we get a huge product in years to come to take the place of oil-based petroleum. Those were in a bill, and they were working their way through, and the decision was made: Well, we will put on that some taxes. They put on $21 billion in taxes and another item that was long passed--we will leave it alone--and all of a sudden the President of the United States said: Well, don't send me that bill. I will veto it. Now, I am one who happens to believe him. Since I believe him, I think what we ought to do is see what we can do to make it most probable we will get these two energy provisions that we need--the ones I have just alluded to for the third time today. It would appear to me what we ought to do to get those energy provisions, to most probably get them--you never know until the President signs; and this still has to go one time to the House--but it appears to me rather simple. The way to do that is to take out the taxes the President does not want. They may be good incentives. They may be good taxes on bad people-- whatever it is Senators have to say--but they are bad taxes for those who want this Energy bill. They are bad taxes for anyone who wants these two new provisions of the Energy bill, bad because the President will veto them and we will get nothing. So I urge that you vote today against cloture so we will have this bill before us, and we know, then, the majority leader will do something to see that we get a bill. He will have some time to work on what kind of language he wants to send to the House. It is very limited with amendments because this is not a very ordinary way the House sent us this bill. They sent us this as a message on one of their bills, and that is very unique. Nonetheless, let's not get into that. It is simple today: Do you want an energy bill? If you want an energy bill, then don't vote for cloture so taxes can be taken out of this bill, and then all you have to do is send it to the House after you fix it up, if you would like to, if the majority leader wants to repair it, because it needs some repair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Are there any other commitments to speak on this?

Mr. DOMENICI. I don't need the entire time, but I will speak a while and see what happens. I am here because there is a misunderstanding somewhere about the CAFE bill that is coming before us. We all acknowledge the CAFE standards bill that is before us is long overdue. We all understand that it is very good legislation. We all understand that the cellulosic provisions--the postcorn ethanol--are very important. It is here, although it has some problems. The President finds some problems with it. So do many on our side find problems with it. But it is in here. But the issue is not whether that is a good package. The issue is what is going to happen if we decide we are going to pass this bill with the taxes that are in it as it sits before us at the desk, $21 billion worth of taxes. What is going to happen to the bill if we pass it with those taxes in? It is very simple: It is going to get vetoed. We have heard it. The President has said it. The only thing we could do would be to get a tape recorder and ask him to say it and bring that down here and make it legal and let him tell us. He has said he doesn't want those taxes on this bill. We still have people voting for this, as I talked to them, because they want this bill. They say it is great; it is a wonderful bill. I ask you, how are you going to get a bill if you leave the taxes on and send it to the President when he has already told you in advance he was going to veto it? What we should do is, if you want the bill, produce a bill the President will sign. We have already taken one giant step. We took out the mandatory wind for electricity production. A percentage was mandated, and we took that out. Now, today, the issue is, Are we going to take out the taxes? That is the vote when we come to a vote on the Energy bill. Some people think that is a nice vote; I like the taxes; I am going to vote for them. But the point is, you are not going to get the taxes and you are going to lose with it the energy portion of the bill because the President is going to veto it. I can't answer any more than to repeat what he has said. I am not his spokesman on the floor; I am merely repeating what has come up Pennsylvania Avenue from down there where he lives and up here where we work. He has said: If the taxes are in, the bill is gone. So it looks to me as if those who want a winner ought to vote to take the taxes. Those who want a loser ought to vote to leave the taxes in and they will get their wish. But they will not only lose the taxes--which some say: They are pretty good; I like them--they will lose the entire Energy bill on CAFE and cellulosic, which follows right after ethanol and is desperately needed to buttress the ethanol market, as my friend who spoke eloquently for her side of this bill knows. We need the bill on cellulosic. I call it ethanol 2 for simplicity. We need it because we need to get that ethanol market stabilized a little better and come in with a second kind of product instead of just corn. But we are not going to get that, so the wishers are not going to get their wishes, if they vote for the taxes, even if they say: I have looked at them, and I love them. Lots of people love taxes. Some have looked at this $21 billion or $20-plus billion and said: We love them. They are great. They are incentives. They are the right thing. But, look, the point is, this is not the bill you are going to get them on. You are not going to get the taxes on a bill that is essentially an energy bill. Send the President an energy bill. Send the President an energy bill and look around for another time when we could send him the tax bill. I still talk to Senators--some yesterday--and they say: Well, I think the taxes belong in. And I ask them: How do you think we are going to get the CAFE standards, which you certainly would acknowledge is one of the most important energy measures we could do? ``Well, we will just vote for it.'' No, we won't. The President is going to veto it if the taxes that you like so much are in it. So why don't we take the taxes off and send the President a clean bill with CAFE, cellulosic, and a couple other things? It would then be an energy bill which he would want and he would sign, and instead of a veto, we would have a victory party. That would be good, it seems to me. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator have?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was, I say to the Senator, but I will be glad to give you a couple minutes. Go ahead and take a few minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the Senator from Nevada leaves, I wish to note first I was very pleased to accept your definition of our relationship--good friends. We are friends. I thank you for that and I want to say that now. I do want to say to you about the bill we have had a long fight about, and we just finished about as difficult a vote as we have had in a long time, that the bill you are going to send back to the House, this bill up here, with a few alterations and the taxes out, this bill, I guarantee, will get signed and it will become law. It will be the most significant act we can take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, all by itself. It will get passed, now that we are finished with the hurdles, and you will be the one who will be leading it through the remainder of its journeys and you will be there when, indeed, it becomes the law of the land. It will be the most significant energy act we can do. It was done by the Committee on Commerce, led by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. Because they know how to work, they passed it when we could not pass it for years. Now it is ready to go. It is not dead. The vote caused it to stay alive and go down its way to the President for his signature. I think the Senator's accomplishments in this regard are to be commended. We are going to get a great bill and you will be part of it. I am sorry it is not exactly what you want, and you can rest assured there will be some of us helping you and helping the other side when it comes to the incentives you spoke of in your remarks. Some of us think they are important. We just don't think they belong on this bill and they do not deserve a veto. I thank the Senator for his kindness as we work this through. I hope we can make a couple of changes that Senator Inouye thinks are important before the bill is sent to the House.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish today to bring attention to the progress being made by the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, on the front of global nuclear non-proliferation. Yesterday the NNSA announced that 176 pounds of highly enriched uranium, HEU, had been secured from the Nuclear Research Institute in Rez, Czech Republic and safely returned to Russia. With the cooperation of several countries, this nuclear fuel has been secured and returned to its country of origin, reducing the risk of it falling into the wrong hands. Nuclear nonproliferation programs such as the NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, GTRI, are some of the most important tools we have to curb the threat of nuclear material being acquired by those who wish to do us harm. With the addition of this most recent shipment, the GTRI program has returned over 1300 pounds of HEU to Russia from civilian sites worldwide. I applaud the work being done through the GTRI, and I look forward to the day when we no longer have to be concerned with the possibility of an illicit acquisition of nuclear fuel.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, Madam President----

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wanted to ask the Senator for whom the 30 minutes is being reserved, and the managers, if they would grant me 6 minutes before they start to inform the Senate about the status of a project that I think is vital and they should know about.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, first, I regret I had to ask for time in the middle of debate on such a serious subject. I will talk about an issue that is not related. It looks to me as if the Senate, once again, will be forced to consider a tax package we know is likely to be vetoed. We considered an energy tax increase in June on the Senate floor, and the Senate rejected it. We considered an energy tax increase on the Senate floor last Friday, and the Senate rejected it. Now we will be forced again to consider what I understand is a $21 billion tax increase that is likely to be vetoed. I hope that, once again, the Senate will reject it. But while we delay in playing these games, we jeopardize the passage of the CAFE standards and a real increase in much-needed renewable fuel standards should be able to be put to work, and we will be reshaping the flawed amendment that was sent to us by the House on that score. I urge the majority to reconsider this attempt to force another vote on taxes, and that provision we have been told by the President will be vetoed. I cannot answer the question why is it going to be vetoed, why can't we do it another way, why can't we negotiate, why can't we have part of the taxes. All I know is the President says: If you send me this tax bill, no matter how good it is, with $21 billion in taxes, it is dead; I will veto it. I wish to tell my colleagues, I have been in this Senate for 36 years, and for 20 years of it, we have been trying to change the CAFE standards on automobile fleets in the United States. Increasing the CAFE standards to 35 miles by 2020 will be the biggest conservation initiative for transportation fuels in years. Additionally, increasing the renewable fuel standard will bring thousands of jobs to rural America and help reduce our increasing dependence on foreign oil. All this good work will be put at risk by the inclusion of the $21 billion tax increase. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stand back from this risky decision and let us pass a bill and send it to the House that does not include these taxes, and we will get one of the most important amendments we could ever do for saving transportation fuel. Let me start over: The most important area where we abuse the use of fuel--that is, fuel that comes from crude oil--is in the transportation system. What we are trying to do is to modify the CAFE standards to force the production of higher mileage cars in the fleets of America. We are told by the best expert in the world, who testified before one of the committees, there is nothing else we can do that will increase our savings of crude oil and diesel than this particular provision of CAFE modification. I say to everyone, the fact is, you think you need taxes, you know you want taxes, you say when are you going to get these taxes, and you say they ought to be on this bill. I say to you: If you put them on this bill, you don't get the taxes and you don't get the big energy savings part of this bill. What do you say? You are going to do it anyway? What are you going to do it for? We might as well throw the bill in the basket here. We don't have to fool around and waste time. Put it in the basket and throw it away, because if you insist on putting the $21 billion on and sending it back to the House so they can play games, they will keep the $21 billion and then the President will say: I told you not to do it. Here it is. Goodbye. I urge that the best opportunity to get major energy-saving legislation is with CAFE standards modification, and with it this other provision which will give us ethanol 2, which will be for rural America to begin producing not by corn but other than corn, producing ethanol for transportation fuel. I believe I cannot say it any better. It is wasted time and effort to pass a bill with $21 billion worth of taxes. We will not get either the taxes, which will lose, and we will not get the energy savings portion. I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to speak to the Senate. I hope those proposing this legislation will understand it cannot be done. I cannot fix it. I cannot help it. It is the President. Who will get him to change his mind? He will not do it. I have asked him. He will not do it.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is an amendment in order or do I have to move to set aside an amendment in order to offer one?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside so that I may proceed with a different amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 3614.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think there are a number of people who want to cosponsor this amendment, but I will handle those later--except for the two Senators who are here; I ask that they be original cosponsors at this time, as well as the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will try to be as brief as I can. A couple of weeks back there was much talk about the need to keep only relevant amendments in order on this farm bill. While there was much left to interpretation of what exactly ``relevant amendments'' mean, there can be no question that the Senate should debate and vote on my amendment. This farm bill is called the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I cannot think of an amendment more relevant to the economic security of the American farmer and energy security of the American people than an amendment to increase the renewable fuels standard. Since we passed the first ever renewable fuels standard in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, of which I was proud to be the floor manager and the leader, we have seen a surge in ethanol jobs and a surge in the construction of plants. In 2006 alone the U.S. ethanol industry supported the creation of 160,000 new jobs while producing 5 billion gallons of ethanol. These are American farm jobs which help produce American fuels and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are not aware of this happening because we have a gigantic country. As for 160,000 new jobs and 5 billion gallons of ethanol being added to the American workplace, that is happening because of the gigantic disparity that has occurred in the cost of oil now versus a year and a half or two ago. That is why there is so much activity in foreign countries where we have seen a whole country saying: We are going to build a brand-new country from top up full of hotels and motels, banks, and the like. That is oil money. That is the disparity between the price of oil they are charging us now and what it was worth sometime ago, and all that left over is going into the hands of those who produce crude oil and sell it to us. We might as well understand that is not helping America. People say: Well, it isn't hurting us yet. They still have--they are buying up our bonds. Well, I believe it is hurting us. I believe it is part of the crisis--problem with the dollar--not crisis yet. It is also part of the problem with the gross domestic product of the United States in that it is not going to be as buoyant in the future because so much of our basic wealth is going out of our country, and the price of oil that we are paying to whatever country produces it and sends it to us. Now, what my amendment does is changes--sets an annual requirement for the amount of renewable fuels used in motor vehicles, homes, and boilers. It will require that our Nation use 8.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008 and progressively increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Now, you understand wherever we use the words ``renewable fuel,'' that means something else other than the crude oil that I have just been talking about. It means it is getting produced here or under our control. Beginning in 2016, an increasing portion of renewable fuel must be advanced biofuels. Beginning in 2016, increased cellulosic ethanol-- advanced biofuels include cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other fuels derived from unconventional biomass feedstocks, like sorghum. The required amount of advanced biofuels begins at 3 billion gallons in 2016 and increases to 21 billion gallons by 2022. Advanced biofuels do not have many of the challenges that conventional ethanol does. The inclusion of advanced biofuels strikes a balance that will allow America to begin diversifying our fuel supply, both in the short term and the long term. That is why when supporting these same provisions in the Energy bill, the Renewable Fuels Association said they ``strike the right chord, `` noting that ``such an investment in our Nation's energy future promises to spur the creation of new, good-paying jobs'' across our land. The amendment I seek to offer and that I have offered consists of the very same provisions that passed the Senate in June during consideration of the Energy bill--the then-Energy bill. That was not the Energy Policy Act. It was the next major bill. Some may ask, then: Why do I seek to offer the amendment on the farm bill? My answer is threefold. One, it is clear that the Energy bill has slowed down, largely because the House has passed two major provisions--a tax increase and a renewable portfolio standard--that are untenable to many in the Senate, and they have slowed the bill down. They have brought forth a discussion from the President of the United States that is unequivocal; that if those two provisions are in the bill, he will veto the bill. That is the renewable portfolio standard and the tax increases that are in the House bill. They are not only untenable to the Senate, we ought to make the point over and over that they are untenable to the President. So what good is it to have that bill and say we are going to do it or else? What is the ``or else?'' We are going to do nothing. We are going to pass something that will never become the law. I wish we could do something different so we would not have to adopt this Domenici amendment because it will be adopted on the other bill where it already lies and languishes. Second, the House Energy bill in many respects weakens the renewable fuels standard in the Senate Energy bill. Besides, if the Senate makes progress on passing the Energy bill and getting it signed into law, there would be nothing to prevent a conference from simply removing this then unnecessary provision. Third, this amendment is relevant to the farm bill and necessary now to reinvigorate an ethanol industry that is looking to Congress to extend this mandate as soon as possible. Mr. President, in one sense, we have been a victim of our own success. Thanks to the 2005 Energy bill, rural America has answered the call for increased ethanol production. In fact, we have now exceeded the original mandated fuel in our fuel mix. For example, in 2006, the ethanol standard was 4 billion gallons. I think the two Senators on the floor played an active role in that and are fully aware of that. In fact, our domestic production of ethanol is 5 billion, far exceeding the billions of gallons we directed. We can do more, a lot more, and the American farmer is looking for Congress to do more. Over the last year, the price of ethanol dropped nearly 40 percent. The reason for this is simple economics. We have an increased supply and diminished demand in the marketplace. As a result, the construction of new plants has been delayed, meaning new job growth has been diminished and rural communities are looking to us to take action. We cannot wait for the Energy bill while rural communities are losing their opportunities. This amendment is not simply just relevant to the farm bill, it is necessary. I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. I further ask our leadership go to work today, which I am sure they will, and tomorrow on the Energy bill that went to the House. It was sent back to us not as a bill but rather as a message, and it does not do justice to the biofuels for energy. They ought to fix that and, at the same time, take the taxes out and take the 15-percent electricity mandate for alternative fuels. I ask sincerely that our distinguished leader take the lead in that and see that gets done quickly. I yield the floor and thank the Senators for letting me proceed.