Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I want all the Senators who are concerned about this legislation, concerned about what they think might happen that is not good if, in fact, the Bingaman portfolio mandates become law, to understand I am holding down the amendments. Certainly we can, if they wish--many of our Members do wish to--not let the Bingaman amendment come up for a long time. We can do that. But we cannot then keep Senator Bingaman from tabling my amendment. There will be a motion to table, if that is what he desires to do, sometime before noon, if that is the time he desires. I wish he wouldn't do that. I would prefer we have a vote on ours and a vote on his. We have asked for that, side by side, with 60 votes on each one. That would be satisfactory to me. But that doesn't seem to be satisfactory to Senator Bingaman, which I thoroughly understand. With that, those who want to speak against Senator Bingaman's amendment or in favor of the Domenici amendment, we gladly, on our side, accept anything you would like to say. Come down here before 11, or shortly after 11, and you will be heard. For those who want to be part of what is normally called a filibuster, or delaying tactic, and have asked me to be here with you, I do not mind doing that. In fact, that is my job. I think some of you should come down and speak and be heard on the matter. I wish you would. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama.) The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I know this is a difficult situation for the Senator from New Mexico, because on big matters of energy for the last 3 years, I have been working with my colleague, and we end up coming forth with bipartisan ideas. In fact, the basic underpinning of this bill that was brought before us is bipartisan. If we can keep all of that that came through us, it will be a very big and powerful bill. I am not sure we can, because there will be those who are trying to take out big pieces of it before we are finished. But after the bill was out of committee and here on the floor, Senator Bingaman proposed an amendment I could not possibly support, so it did not end up in our bill. So it is not bipartisan; it is his. I have to oppose it. First, let me say if I were Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, or South Carolina-- and I am not, and nobody sent me here to represent them or defend them, but they are busy and some of them understand this issue. I hope they will vote accordingly. These States I have just mentioned--Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and South Carolina--are the States that are going to have to pay into this program and they get nothing for it. They cannot produce wind energy, and so Florida is going to pay $21 billion over the course of this legislation; South Carolina is going to pay 6; Alabama is going pay to 7, and so on. I think any piece of legislation that comes to the floor in the field of energy that is so distorted that right off the bat we can come here, whether we are from New Mexico or whether we are from Louisiana, we can come here and say this about our sister States and our fellow Senators should not be adopted. There are not enough Senators to join this list, but we ought to protect them, and we ought to inquire very seriously how can this be such a good bill. Incidentally, these States have to pay 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. That is where this money comes from I am talking about that I just said they are going to have to pay. That is a huge amount of money they are going to have to pay, these States I am here trying to protect. I am asking them to come down and protect themselves a little more, because I need your help. If you do not help, and if you do not stand up and not let this amendment even pass, ultimately you have got to have a filibuster on this amendment, you southerners and you people I just mentioned, because this is the worst bill that could ever happen to you. Now what happened was the wind experts and the wind people in this country got big headed. They got a big head. You see, I love them. I have been part of giving them every energy credit we could give to wind energy. Wind is doing preposterously well, but not because it is, per se, such a great source of energy. We are giving it subsidies. And when you give the subsidies, it is a natural that it is clean. I am not so sure it is pretty. After people had it around a long time, they began to complain. But in my State it is terrific. It is up in the low mountains where it can't be seen too much. The ranchers who lease their land love it too because they get paid very heavily, I say to my friend from Alabama. But the problem is we should have allowed more energy sources included in this major program. My definition changed from Senator Bingaman's to clean, to offer clean energy into this proposal. We raised it to 20 percent with these new kinds of energy I have described many times here on the floor, that everybody supports, that we ought to encourage as much as we are encouraging wind, which cannot be built in certain States of the Union, and yet this is a national policy. Openly he states it is a national policy. My friend Senator Bingaman says what is wrong with mine is it is not national. I guess that means his must be a national policy. But it is not, because the States I mentioned cannot do it. They cannot produce the wind that is contemplated by this amendment. Since they cannot produce it, they have to pay a fine, a pretty whopping penalty. I think we ought to try every way we can to try to get alternatives that are clean and put them in this mix. I believe we ought to keep it open as long as we can for those who develop new sources to get in. I am not embarrassed that our amendment says you can let some new sources of energy in after the amendment is adopted, even 5 or 10 years into it. If, in fact, America is acting the way it normally does, they will do that. I want to give those technocrats we like and love who get things done maximum time to get in and improve clean energy and put it in this mix likewise, since I do not think wind ought to be the national energy. I am not impressed with wind being the national energy source for America. Right now we are stuck; it is probably crude oil that is the energy of America. We don't want it, but it probably is. But I don't think we want to say America has nominated, of all of the sources we have, wind to be the national source of energy. I think that is what it says, because my opposition and good friend says mine is not national, his is, so he is bragging about it being national. I do not see why it needs to be national. I never heard of a weaker energy policy being national for America than wind. I mean, it is pretty. It produces energy. It has got a lot of problems. It does not produce it all the time, so you have to have backup energy for it. But it is pretty good stuff. I mean, it is doing a great job. What we ought to do is we ought to make sure it continues to get its tax incentive. That would be the best thing we could do to keep wind energy going. We don't need this for it. What we need is a 5- or 10- year assurance that we are going to have the tax credit, if that is what people think. That is another thing you look at. This is not even an energy source that can make it on its own, and we are trying to make it the national energy source, the national energy. It cannot do it on its own. Right? It cannot do it without tax incentives right now. Maybe it can later. Maybe that is the way a lot of them start and maybe later on they get there. I hope my friends in the wind industry don't think what Senator Domenici has been saying here on the floor is anti-wind. It is anti what people are trying to make wind be when it can't be; that is what I am. I have supported everything that has caused wind to move ahead. I urge my fellow Senators today not to table the Domenici amendment and to leave pending in the Senate two amendments, the Domenici amendment and the Bingaman amendment. Don't kill mine. Leave his here, leave mine here. We will probably get up, get off that amendment, go on to something else in the bill. But even if we close mine, then I urge all of those who are here, who are listening and who understand, we ought to be very careful about adopting this national standard, wind; that you watch out and make sure that we try to force 60 votes on this amendment before it can breathe as an amendment that will be part of this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would, but I don't want to hold him up.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Domenici amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. I object.

Mr. DOMENICI. No objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, do I have any time constraints?

Mr. DOMENICI. How do I speak if I don't have any time? I ask unanimous consent to be granted permission to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am speaking on my own. I am not the proponent. Do you think it is fair that just for my speaking you must speak? If you do, I will have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that he then have that time. I will take 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is fine.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, the Senator from Virginia, I sense what is going on here today would indicate you will have a hard time with this amendment and maybe you won't win. But I guarantee you it will not be long before what you espouse here happens. You will once again, as in so many other things, be ahead of the politicians. You will be two steps ahead of those who do things for political reasons around here instead of the many times you have come forth and put your Senate privileges on the line by doing what is right. Your State must be elated with the idea--if they aren't now, they will be--that they will have the option of letting drilling occur 50 miles off the coast. They won't see the drilling unless they have binoculars. So for those who say they are going to see one of these beautiful wells with all of the equipment, they better have binoculars to see it. For those who are worried about a spill, they will have to be grandmas and grandpas and even older than that before they see one, because even with the big earthquakes and the big things that happened in Louisiana, they didn't even get a spill. How are you going to get a spill if you can't get one out of that thing? So here you come and you say, with natural gas at $7, feeding all the industries in America--and it does; natural gas feeds the underlying businesses that produce in America--they are all telling us the one thing that is forcing us to do what, to leave America, can you imagine, to be forced to go to another country? It used to be this or that, now it is: We can't afford natural gas. It is so cheap somewhere else, and we have it in abundance on our own property. Offshore is America's property. Here you come with a very innocuous proposal to let the State decide. Then if they say, OK, they, too, have said they are not afraid, then they are going to share in the royalties just like Louisiana and Mississippi. But guess what. The United States is going to share in not only the royalties, they are going to get natural gas for users in America who are desperate. The price used to be $1 and $2. You haven't seen that, and you won't see it. It is $7 for the unit we use. How could some company that uses that for its base industries survive? If you are in the business of ethanol and running around here bragging about ethanol, let me remind you, the second biggest cost item for turning corn to ethanol, the second biggest cost product is natural gas. Then comes corn. Corn is first and then it. Can you imagine? It itself is making gasoline more expensive, not only natural gas, because we are making gasoline out of corn. Then we are spending a huge amount for the natural gas that goes into heating it, burning it and all the other things, and we can't even get an amendment adopted here today. I hope I am wrong. It used to be the States that didn't want us to. Now we have somebody else objecting. What is it, other States? We are going to have to go around with a cop and ask the States all around us. I would hope we would pass the Warner amendment here today. This bill, which has nothing in it to produce anything, would at least turn a little bit toward production. You could put up a flag and say: We have an energy bill, and John Warner's amendment is the first one that produced any energy of any significance. We would all be glad to see that happen. We hope we have some other amendments that produce before we are finished.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a number of Republican Senators have indicated they are preparing amendments they want to get into this bill. I just want to remind my colleagues that it doesn't seem like it, but time has really been flying. We will be lucky if we are on this bill until Wednesday of next week, and when we come back on Monday, there are no votes. So if you have amendments, you had better get them ready and get them in, or we probably will not have them considered. You tell me about great things when we stand around here and talk, but I don't have your amendments, so it would be good if you have them. I assume Senator Bingaman has a similar request, maybe not.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President. I would like to take a few moments to observe Flag Day. Two hundred thirty years ago this week the second Continental Congress passed a resolution that created the flag of our Nation. On Flag Day we commemorate the anniversary of this resolution and pay tribute to this honored symbol of the United States. For every generation of Americans the flag has represented the highest ideals of our Nation, democracy, liberty, and justice. I am proud that although the number of stars has changed over the years, what our flag stands for has not. I hope New Mexicans will take a moment today to honor the flag and all it represents.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I apologize to Senator Bingaman for not hearing all of his speech. I was detained. They told me he had started. I thought they would tell me a few minutes before. I had to drive from downtown. I apologize for that. Senator Bingaman and I have been doing our best to remain bipartisan. But on this issue, I can't do that. He will go his way and I will go mine. His amendment is on the bottom and my amendment is on top. I have offered mine as a second-degree amendment to his. My recollection of how we do this, when time has run out, unless other arrangements are made--and they could be--mine would go first. I thank the cosponsors. Senator Craig has just told us that he is a cosponsor. He worked very hard. Clearly, you can see from the morning's work that Senator Pete Domenici, ranking member of the committee, is pretty lucky. He can step down and go out and leave things vacant for a little while, and the man behind me, Larry Craig, will soon take over. No one will know anything was missed. If anything, they will figure things got better. He is very good at it, and I thank him for all the help he has given me. Other cosponsors are Senators Bennett, Crapo, Graham, and Murkowski. I am saying there is a far better way to reach the goals Senator Bingaman wants, and we don't have to harm so many States in doing it. What we ought to know right up front is that you have to go ahead and choose something. Senator Bingaman chose to put two or three things in his. Before I am finished, I think I can convince you that everybody who has looked at it says that in its application, it is predominantly a wind amendment. It says a couple other things, but when you look at it as to what is done, I am safe in calling our battle a battle between wind in every State, forced upon them at the level of 15 percent of what their utilities use in energy. Every single State will have to have that by a time certain, whether they can do it or not. If they can't do it, they will be penalized. I want to take a quick look at this map. Here is a map that shows what we are talking about. If you look at it, you see the United States. You see the eastern seaboard is white. Then you see some inlets of water. Then you see it is white again. That means there is not enough wind in those areas to move the wind turbines enough for them to be used to accomplish the goals of this bill. Then if you look out in the western part, you see very big pieces of the West that are white, all the way through this white versus blue and dark blue. The white is what Senator Bingaman calls wind energy. It is clean, but it is wind. I don't believe we should do it that way. I have said, since you all want something, I am going to suggest that you want clean--not his words, my words--a clean energy portfolio. If it is clean and available, you ought to put it in so they can use it. So you will find that is what I have done. The clean energy portfolio standard provides a comprehensive, technology-neutral program to ensure that clean energy will make up for an ever-increasing portion of our Nation's electricity operation. The clean portfolio standard requires electric utilities to produce a set percentage of electricity from clean energy sources, ramping up to an enforceable goal of 20 percent by 2020. So it is 20 by 20, and it is a clean portfolio. Rather than pick winners and losers--and I stress this--rather than pick winners and losers between various clean technologies that are or will be available in the future, the clean portfolio standard provides for all sources of clean energy--including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, hydropower, new nuclear power, and fuel cell quality--under the program. The clean portfolio also provides credit for innovative technologies that will allow future traditional fuels to be burned in a way that captures and sequesters carbon emissions. We are going to do that. Somebody is going to make that breakthrough. Our bill provides that they can come in. Credit is further provided for reductions in electricity usage from programs that provide efficiency and lower the amount of power that needs to be generated in the first place. Energy efficiency efforts such as demand response should be part of the solution. Everybody tells us that demand response is a way that, by managing it properly, you can get a very significant savings. Finally, since we have faith in American engineers, the clean portfolio standard encourages innovation by giving the Secretary of Energy authority to provide credit for new clean technologies that may just be a twinkle in the inventor's eye but which may revolutionize the way we produce and use electricity. If that occurs during the time, clearly it should be permitted to come in. It doesn't have to be here yet. If it is invented in 5 years, we thank the Lord and put it in and use it. We don't operate in stagnation and say: You are outside of our window. You are clean, but you don't come in. We don't give you credit. You go on with that same old wind technology. I am going to invite my friend from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, to come down and share again with us what he thinks about what he calls a wind economy. I can't give that speech. I am not that good. But I sure listen to him because I think he is right. I don't believe we want wind as the test of providing an alternate renewable in every State in the Union, even if there is insufficient wind. And we don't want those States paying fines because they can't come in. I don't think Senator Bingaman wants to pull out the States--I don't know how many it would be, 10, 12, 13--and say: We aren't going to do anything there. I think if he did, he couldn't call it national. But he certainly would gain a lot of support if it was fair. To make it fair, you cannot impose the same regulated wind requirement on States that have no wind and then say: Let's vote on this bill. The bill should not be voted on in that way. In fact, those States that have it that way ought to come down here and say: We can't vote on this bill. It is so obviously wrong that we should not do it. Finally, since we have faith, we are going to expect innovation to be offered to the Secretary of Energy while the years run. That innovation, if it produces something, will come to us and be put into the package we are talking about that will start taking away white and turning it into blue because we put new technology into the area. Unlike the RPS, the clean portfolio, the CPS, doesn't pick winners or losers. Unlike the RPS, the clean portfolio standard recognizes that regional differences in resources and geography mean that we can't create a one-size-fits-all. That is what I believe. That is what I believe the Senate is going to say. Why pick a one-shoe-fits-all, when you can't get it in. You can't get any foot in on the white up here in the north because you can't get that much in the foot. You can't create one that will put it in and still have essentially what is in the Bingaman amendment. Take a look at the chart from the National Renewable Lab. It shows where our Nation's wind resources are located. Wind has no application in the Southeast. The resources simply are not available in an entire region of the country. We cannot ignore the reality that utilities in some regions cannot meet the RPS mandate with the limited resources permitted because they are located in regions that are not blessed with ample renewable resources. Wind power is the clear winner under an RPS. Advocates of the Federal RPS call it the ``wind power legislation.'' They are right--the only way to reach a 15-percent requirement from the limited number of renewable resources permitted under the Bingaman amendment is from wind power. Wind is the clear winner in the RPS. This chart I have in the Chamber is based on an estimate prepared by Global Energy Decisions. As you can see, wind will be used overwhelmingly to attempt to meet the RPS requirement. The Union of Concerned Scientists concurs, estimating that two-thirds of the RPS requirements would likely be met by new wind generation. I have told you that already, that it would be almost all wind. Now I am telling you that scientific groups that analyzed it agree with what I said. The Federal Government has supported wind power development since 1992. I am not saying that is wrong. In fact, there will be much wind produced under the Domenici amendment because much of the renewables will be wind. It is that every State will not be required, and some will not have any because they cannot produce any. The Federal Government has been allowing a production tax credit since we first adopted it in 1992. Since then, we have spent in excess of $2 billion on wind power development--from R&D, to the tax credit, to clean renewable energy bonds. We have made a lot of progress in the past 15 years. In 2006, installed wind power capacity was 11,600 megawatts--enough to power 3 million homes. The wind industry continues to grow. With a good subsidy, we continue to give it to them. An additional 3,000 megawatts is going to come on line by the end of 2007. So we support wind power. Wind power is included in the clean portfolio standard I offer today. What is interesting is--you have to think ahead with me--the Bingaman portfolio is almost all wind. How many years do we intend to support wind with a subsidy so that this system will work? Without wind, it will not work. It seems like right now, without a subsidy, it will not work. I do not know what the scientists working on it say. Will it soon not need any subsidy? They may say the subsidy can start going away. Or how many years will it be they will have to have it? That puts me to thinking whether you should have it at all. Today, we have only Senator Bingaman's amendment and mine--both of them. His has all wind, and we have some wind, so we are kind of admitting we are going to keep it as long as we can and pay for it as long as we can so we can have that kind of nationwide--or partially nationwide--program. For the one I suggest, the clean one, obviously, we use less wind and will still be clean, and no States will pay any fines, no States will be given any slips that they are entitled to money in the future. The clean portfolio standard results in more clean energy actually produced. It is not watered down. The clean portfolio standard would impose a 20-percent standard--a full one-third higher--yet the proponents of the RPS claimed this is a ``watered down'' program. What is their complaint? That we allow a greater number of resources to qualify for credits under this program? It is true the clean portfolio standard allows the use of any nonemitting source of power: including expanded hydropower, new nuclear powerplants, fuel cells, clean coal technologies that capture and sequester carbon, and energy efficiency to meet the 20-percent standard. Thus, the clean portfolio standard allows the use of a greater variety of technologies to meet a higher standard. The goal of this amendment is to provide a greater amount of clean energy from a greater diversity of energy sources. Obviously, the clean portfolio standard does this much better than the RPS proposal. Mr. President and fellow Senators, the clean portfolio standard allows States that develop their own portfolio standards to opt out of the Federal program. Some are trying to label this provision as a loophole. It is not. Instead, it is a recognition that States should be afforded the right to develop their own clean portfolio approaches without Federal interference. We should not penalize those States that already have forged ahead by imposing an inconsistent Federal mandate. The Federal RPS could cost billions. Here is an estimate prepared by Global Energy Decisions. GED estimates which States can and cannot comply with a Federal RPS. As shown on the chart, the orange States do not have the necessary renewable resources to comply with an RPS. The majority of the States--27--will not be able to meet the mandate. Let's look at this another way--by population. This pie chart I have in the Chamber represents those that will not be in compliance with a 15-percent renewable portfolio standard. About two-thirds of the U.S. population--66 percent--will not be able to meet the new standard. How will the States' inability to meet this new electricity mandate impact consumers? It is going to cost billions. I have another chart. According to the study prepared by Global Energy Decisions, the cumulative costs to consumers to comply with the RPS is $175 billion. The States hit the hardest are those in the Southeast without access to wind power; Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina. The EIA recently concluded a study on the 15-percent RPS mandate and found it would cost consumers $21 billion. Obviously, that is still a tremendous cost to pass on to the consumer. However, the EIA has used some questionable assumptions in its analysis that have been rejected not only by the utility industry but by all 10 Southeastern public utility commissions--bipartisan watchdogs for the ratepayers. With this amendment, we keep our eye on the ball. The true goal of this legislation is an increase in the amount of electricity generated by clean technologies, reducing the emissions in our environment. Our goal is not to promote one or two or three specific technologies over another. In fact, the only way to ensure that the cost to the consumer is mitigated to the maximum extent is to avoid the temptation to pick winners and losers between technologies that all move us toward one goal. To limit the number of qualifying resources to a handful of existing technologies is to ignore the history of rapid acceleration of scientific and technological development in this country. Do the sponsors of the RPS truly believe that innovation is dead? Only a handful of existing technologies qualify under the RPS. This assumes there will be no breakthroughs in the way we produce electricity for the next 23 years. I believe the incentive of a clean portfolio standard, combined with environmental concerns and rising prices for traditional fuels, will produce an ideal climate for technological innovation. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is the best way to do it. We will have more to say during the afternoon. With that, I yield the floor and thank the Senate for the time I was given and for listening.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would say to Senator Bingaman that I have nothing to say now for myself, but I did want to tell him there are a couple of Senators coming shortly. I know about the time they are coming. I don't want to speak before they come, but if Senator Bingaman wants to proceed rapidly, we could do that. It will be 15 or 20 minutes before they arrive. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would you yield 30 seconds to me? Would that be acceptable to you?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Lamar Alexander, who gave about a 20-minute speech or 25, whatever it was, that I truly commend you on your understanding of both the problem and the attempted solutions here and the differences between the Bingaman amendment and mine. The way you present it is laudable. I thank you for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know how much longer we are going to be here this evening. I have not been able to confer with Senator Bingaman on the timing. But I do not think we are going to be here very late. I am not sure--I mean, I am sure we are not going to vote on either amendment this evening. Nonetheless, there are a couple of Senators--at least one standing there--who have not talked today and who want to. I am going talk for a little bit. First, I want to say to everybody-- including the previous immediate speaker who spoke about what kind of people we are who think we have something better than Senator Bingaman--I want to say that there is no animus between Senator Bingaman and Pete Domenici. We are friends, and it is almost difficult when people are saying: You do so many things together; how can you come up on opposite sides of this? Well, I just studied it as best I could, and I came up with what I thought was a better idea. We have to do that. That is what we are elected for. New Mexicans ought to be wondering what is cooking, but they also ought to know that he has an idea and I have a different idea built on it, and that is all there is to it. One or the other or neither will get adopted, and we will have a good exchange here on the floor to see what is really happening. I do want to say that anybody who comes to the floor and talks about how much richer we are going to get by having a plan like Senator Bingaman's, the mandate for each State--I have not seen any estimate of the cost to the people of either Senator Bingaman's approach or mine. I have seen one of Senator Bingaman's plans--two of them, and none of them say you are going to make money; both of them say it is going to cost a lot of money to the taxpayers. One says a lot more than the other. So I guess they really don't know. EIA recently studied the 15- percent RPS mandate and found that it would cost $21 billion. But there was another one that was already done before that by Global Energy Decisions, and they said the cumulative cost to consumers would represent $175 billion over the 20-year life. But in both cases, they said it was going to cost money. So I don't think anybody is going to get all excited about a statement down here on the floor that, among the many things, having a mandate that every State be the same, have 15 percent, nobody is going to get excited and stand up and jump here on the floor of the Senate with the idea that this is a good way for each State to make money. It is going to cost them money. It may be a great idea, and it may be worth it. But I am here tonight to suggest--and I also want to say that the last speaker on the Democratic side, the Senator from Illinois, spoke also about some of us as if we do not believe in wind energy. Well, let me say, there are not too many Senators who came to the party here in Washington in helping wind energy. There are not too many who helped them more or came to help them sooner than this Senator. The Senate and the House have been helping solar energy to a fare-thee-well. We will continue to do that. But I can say to the wind industry that I have helped you all the way through, and now I note that you are out campaigning as hard as you can for this Bingaman proposal, this proposal by Senator Bingaman, this mandate. When you look at it and think about it, it is a mandate that we use more and more wind energy. That is what it is. Now, I am not at all sure we are right in assuming that across this land the fundamental way to get things going right is for every State to march to the tune of getting to 15 percent of solar energy in their base. I am not sure that is the best thing for the United States. I think maybe when it was dreamt up, nobody thought there were any other alternatives. But there are, and certainly we are making a mistake in saying it is going to be the language of the Bingaman bill or nothing else when we already see that means wind for the next 20 years or more. What I tried to say in mine was maybe there is something good about pushing States to change. But I provided alternatives for diversification. I say to my friend from Montana, I do not know where you stand on a nuclear powerplant. If you have never had one in your State, you are not going to get one because they are building them right where they were. So States that had them are going to get nuclear powerplants within the next 10 years, many of them right where the existing powerplants are. All the Senator from New Mexico, the senior Senator, said was that if that is done during the lifetime of this program and you put in a new nuclear powerplant, you ought to get credit for that. And the only way I could think of was to call my portfolio the clean energy portfolio. That is what is it. And when you look at it that way--and I added to the availability of what is allowed, I added nuclear and I added some other things that I truly believe we should pursue with vigor, and I raised the ceiling to 20 instead of 15. Now, when you look at it, you get a chance of one or the other. The distinguished Senator, my colleague from New Mexico, thought it was kind of unexpected that this bill had an opt-out and seemed to make of it as if that was something very bad. Look, we are open and sincere about our bill having an opt-out. When a State meets the goal, we see no reason for them to stay in. We think they ought to be able to get out. There is nothing that is naturally ideological or philosophical about it; it just seems there is no reason to keep them in. We have seen no good suggested from keeping them in, and so we think when they get through and meet their goal, they ought to be able, if they want to, to get out. If, in fact, they are already tied together because of electric lines and the like, they will not destroy all of that. There will still be relationships of those types which were built, and the ones that are needed will stay on. They will be there for a long time. Let me say in closing that one from the other side of the aisle need not talk about those on this side of the aisle, including this Senator, as if we don't understand what wind energy is and we don't have enough dreams about solar energy. We understand both of them. We have funded both of them. We have put the identical tax benefit on both, the same as we have put on everything else. Last year when we did them all, we gave them all a 27.5-percent tax credit, from nuclear power all the way down to solar, bio, and everything else. They all got the same. We had already begun funding wind power. Again, I say to the nuclear industry, but for the Congress of the United States, the truth is, there would be no wind industry, because without the tax credits we gave to make wind energy work, there would be no wind energy except in a few places. I am not saying that in any way negative. I am for it. I don't know how many more years we will have to give them this tax credit to push them over the hump, but I am going to do that because I believe they ought to move ahead. We are learning both sides of the wind energy delivery system. We are beginning to see some negative aspects to it. It was all positive at one time. Some people are reporting negative ones. Out in the country where we used to raise cattle, certainly anybody who leases their land is delighted. They make a lot more money out of wind turbines than they do trying to graze cattle. There is no doubt about that. Some of those cattlemen are extremely happy because they don't look like the old windmills. They are much different. But they pay well, so they are glad. They joined up with wind energy, those who are lobbying for them. They got all the property owners who are getting paid. They joined them. That is good. I don't know who is lobbying for the rest of the kinds of energy we want to put in so we have diversity. All this is is a vote to distinguish the two. If you want diversity of clean energy, vote for Domenici. If you want to be tied rigidly by a Federal statute to what is almost all wind, vote for Bingaman. If you want to vote for letting those who have already met their goal opt out if they want, vote for Domenici. If you want to say they have to stay in, somebody ought to tell us all why and how long they should stay in, but if they are going to have to stay in and be rigidly construed as to what counts, then obviously, you have to vote for the Bingaman amendment. We will have more discussion because everybody is getting well informed and asking questions. I don't know what is going to happen immediately after this. I assume the distinguished Senator from Montana will speak. He was next. I will be leaving and apologize in advance that I would not get to hear his speech about this bill. Maybe someday we can meet back up there in Montana on the campaign trail and he can talk about Montana and I can talk about I don't know what. He can tell me what to talk about. But it is good to be here with him on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wish to recognize three great students from New Mexico today. These three students have harnessed their creativity and skills to produce amazing projects which were displayed today at the National Portrait Gallery in honor of National History Day. What a great achievement for these students to be selected out of 500,000 entries to be showcased in the National Portrait Gallery. Shannon Burns, from Los Alamos Middle school, has put together a 10- minute documentary on Irish immigration and how it contributed to the American Civil War while Ryan Andrews-Armijo and Ashley Page from Moriarity Middle School contributed a documentary on the racial tensions and the triumph over those obstacles, of the 1966 Texas Western College basketball team. I was incredibly honored to meet with these three individuals earlier today, and I am impressed by their projects and their tenacity. I am proud to see these kids learn and put into action what they have learned at school and beyond. I was also very pleased to hear of 44 other students, in total, from New Mexico participating in the National History Day contest in Maryland today. It is quite impressive to see how well New Mexico was represented in this nationwide contest. National History Day is an academic organization for elementary and secondary children that has been celebrating history for over 25 years now. This exceptional scholarship program gives kids the opportunity to research a historical event and put that research into a format for others to enjoy. This is a great way for our children to learn and explore history while also putting their creativity to work. History is one of the cornerstone subjects taught in America's schools today. When students learn about the past, they are taught how to handle the future. National History Day gives us a unique opportunity to reflect on our past and appreciate where we, as Americans, come from. History makes us who we are, it defines us. We must not forget our history. Learning history is as important today in our schools as it ever was. We must always be stewards of continual learning from our mistakes and victories. Congratulations again to the amazing students participating in this great commemoration of history.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank Senator Inhofe for yielding to me. I am going to take a very few minutes. I have not had a second round on this. I assume both of us will. I have to leave the floor shortly for another meeting. I will stay here up to the last minute. I want to make a couple statements about the bill, as introduced, and what it does in terms of the transportation, gasoline, and diesel consumption in the country. We have just had the Senator from California explain an amendment that is no longer an amendment; it is in this bill. The Senator expressed in a very profound way, in a very lengthy explanation, this provision which the Senator from California originated. But we must understand that, today, it comes to us from the Commerce Committee, wherein the Feinstein proposal is encapsulated in the bill that was managed in committee by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. I believe Senator Feinstein would join us in giving our appreciation and thanks to the Commerce Committee for the courage they showed. They met to try to help us put together a bill that would address the energy problems of our country and, obviously, immediately we ran into provisions of the law, or matters of law, that had to be changed, which were not part of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The big one out there is what do we do about CAFE standards. What happened before is we had a big hoopla on that, and we will probably still have it, so the Senator from California ought to be ready. Obviously, even though she did not amend, it is in the bill. Those who don't like it will offer an amendment to the bill striking or modifying that provision of the CAFE standards of America that is in the bill. Over all these years, we have been going back and forth, never getting anything done--until this year. Clearly, this bill before us, which took the CAFE standards and finally said we are going to adopt the changes recommended in the Feinstein bill, which have been bantered around--we are going to adopt it in the language of the Commerce Committee and send it over to the leader, and it will be incorporated in the bill. So when the bill comes over, it has whatever was done in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to save our consumption of gasoline and related products. It has the CAFE standards and a couple of other provisions. I want to say that I believe the bill before us includes the CAFE standards we have spoken of, which were put in the bill by the Commerce Committee, headed by Senators Stevens and Inouye. In addition to that, which is by itself one of the biggest modifications of our gasoline usage in this country and, obviously, it has a ways to go because it might not clear the Senate later today, or tomorrow, or whenever we figure out that the Senators who want their amendments finally come up. But as before us, this is the largest transportation savings of fuel in history. CAFE standards all by themselves would have been a very big achievement. Everybody knows that. That is in the bill. So there is one. Secondly, we adopted just about what the President spoke of in his State of the Union Address with reference to biofuels and a new standard for those set forth in the 2005 Energy bill; that is, the big bill. We started down the path of biofuels, but all we had in there was corn-produced biofuels. What we have done in this bill is mandated 21 billion gallons which has to come from cellulosic ethanol by 2022. So the total biofuel required in our bill is 36 billion gallons. Let's hope--I think it will--that we will produce the little, tiny, remaining technology breakthrough, which we are putting everything in, and if that works, we will be on our way to the breakthrough that will permit us to use the cellulosic ethanol I have been speaking of. That will permit us to reach this new high standard of 36 billion gallons. Remember, we get the CAFE standards, which have been explained, which reduce the amount of gas and diesel used, and then we have this gigantic breakthrough that we expect, and this tremendous amount of fuel that will come from biomass, which I stated to you was 36 billion gallons. Then this bill has a giant set of mandated efficiencies, increases in efficiencies, the biggest we have ever had. In fact, $12 billion will be saved by our consumers from the efficiency provisions, the big items you buy at your hardware store or big chain store, the items you use in your kitchen and that you wash your clothes with-- those big items have the new efficiency standards, and we have been toying with them for years. Senator Bingaman has been trying to get them done. They are in this bill. People might still take them out in the next week, but I don't think so. I think this bill will stay as it is. It is bipartisan. The provisions I am talking about, so far, came out of the Committee bipartisan. CAFE did not come out of our committee, but it came out of Commerce bipartisan, with a very huge majority. I am pleased that right away when we finish that, we get on with the next thing the bill ought to have in it, and that is some new production. That brings the Senator from Oklahoma in, who has been for a long time trying to get us to do something about the refining situation in our country. I am not even totally familiar with the Senator's amendment. He has given it to us and submitted it to the Senate. Senator Bingaman and his staff are looking at it. We will be looking at it. I don't know when we will vote on it. With his permission, I assumed he would not be upset if we set it aside and go on to some other work and then call it up in due course in the Senate. We will do that after the Senator is finished. We don't think we are going to vote on it right away because we have to study it, and the Senator would not have wanted it otherwise. Senator Bingaman wants to look at it. There is another matter that was also in this Commerce bill. It has been packaged. We have Energy matters, Commerce matters, and I note that Senator Cantwell is standing on the floor. She had something to do with an amendment in the Commerce Committee that has to do with trying to--if there is gouging taking place out there in the hinterland of America, this amendment she and I will talk about when we are finished with Senator Inhofe's amendment will tell everybody what is in the bill about antigouging that the distinguished Senator worked on. It is mostly hers. Others might have added something, but we will talk about it, so that we put together what will be the package we can all understand--that is, the Energy and Commerce package, plus whatever else came in through the Environment and Public Works Committee--a smaller portion. Put all that together and it is a pretty good bill. With that, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Oklahoma for having given me a chance to speak.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I told Senator Bingaman that I have to leave the floor for about 20 to 25 minutes, and I need somebody here.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I wanted to tell the Senator. Madam President, can the Senator from Oklahoma stay in my stead?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, reserving the right to object.