Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that going forward, the time be equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside. I have an amendment, No. 1557, at the desk and am asking for its immediate consideration.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I call up amendment No. 1573 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to make some brief comments about amendment No. 1557, which was introduced today. I spoke about this earlier, but it had not yet been accepted and introduced. I appreciate that Senator Snowe, one of the coauthors on this amendment, also spoke. I wish to thank the other authors of this amendment. That would be Senator Bingaman, who is managing this Energy bill, as well as Senators Carper, Coleman, Kerry, and Boxer. This amendment is a very important one. It establishes a national greenhouse gas registry that will gather and consolidate consistent, transparent, and reliable data on greenhouse gas emissions. Now, it may not be the most exiting amendment that is being introduced today or this week, but it is a very important one. The reason we need this amendment is we actually do not have mandatory reporting right now for greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is surprising for people. If you were to ask what are some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, you would not be able to easily find that information. Recently, a reporter for National Public Radio tried to find out that answer. She was unable to do it. Although most electric powerplants already report their carbon dioxide emissions to the EPA, this only represents 37 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that are reported. As for the remaining greenhouse gas emissions data, the Department of Energy and the EPA collect data on energy production and consumption; however, the quantity and the quality of this data collected vary significantly across different fuels and different sectors. For example, data on crude oil and petroleum products is collected weekly from selected oil companies, while data on the industrial sector is collected only once every 3 years through surveys. In some cases, Federal agencies collect the data themselves, while in other cases data is collected through voluntary reports. This inconsistency in approaches has resulted in a lack of comparability of reported emissions from company to company within specific economic sectors, as well as the lack of comparability of results from reporting program to reporting program. Many people have called for a national registry. Currently, as you know, 31 States have asked for some type of registry. They have actually joined together and tried to create their own national registry because of inaction by the Federal Government. I cannot think of a better example when you have 31 States banding together when, in fact, they would prefer a national registry with the EPA. That is why these States are interested in a national registry. We also have some significant businesses which would like to see a registry such as this. They have come together as part of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. They have urged Congress to fast-track a greenhouse gas inventory and registry. They actually did this back in January of this year. We still see no action. These are companies such as Boston Scientific, BP America, Caterpillar, Deere and Company, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont. It is time to act. Justice Brandeis once talked about how the States were the laboratories of democracy and how one courageous State can go ahead and do things and experiment and set an example for the Nation. Well, that is happening right now across this country. He never meant, however, for the Federal Government to be complacent. This is a simple piece of legislation with bipartisan support. It is time to act. This is the bill to do it. We can get the accurate data. It does not dictate the policy with greenhouse gas emissions. We will have as many policy choices as we do now; the difference is we will get this national greenhouse gas registry in place, not for small business, as there is an exemption, but for our largest emitters of greenhouse gases so that we can have accurate information with which to proceed. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senator from New Mexico has objected to the consideration of my amendment No. 1557. It provides for a national greenhouse gas registry and has the support of many people on the other side of the aisle as well as this side of the aisle. I ask that we try to work this out in the future, but I ask that I may discuss this amendment. My amendment, which I have submitted with Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Collins, Carper, Coleman, and Kerry, establishes a national greenhouse gas registry--a comprehensive and uniform method of tracking greenhouse gas emissions by major industries. This registry creates a national framework for credible and consistent greenhouse gas emissions reporting. Currently, reporting of greenhouse gas emissions data falls under a number of different Federal and State programs. Reporting is largely voluntary, and the criteria and reporting formats are inconsistent. The resulting data is meager and unsatisfactory. The Klobuchar-Snowe-Bingaman amendment requires the Administrator of the EPA to gather complete, consistent, transparent, and reliable data on greenhouse gas emissions at the facility level. It builds upon existing reporting requirements to minimize the impact on businesses as well as the EPA. This amendment is very similar to legislation that has passed this Senate twice in the past 5 years as part of comprehensive energy legislation. A little over 5 years ago, Senator Brownback, along with then-Senator Corzine, passed an amendment creating a greenhouse gas registry. This registry would have been voluntary, but after 5 years--if the registry contained less than 60 percent of the total national greenhouse gases in the United States--mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases would have been triggered. Now it has been over 5 years since the passage of that amendment in this body of Congress, and we still lack credible greenhouse gas emissions data from nearly all major sectors of our economy. This amendment is simpler than the Brownback-Corzine amendment, requiring reporting from a little over 10,000 establishments in the U.S. economy, representing over 80 percent of our human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, without requiring costly monitoring equipment for smaller entities. Collection of greenhouse gas emissions data is necessary to better understand how much greenhouse gas various sectors of our economy emit and design effective strategies to address greenhouse gas emissions. Last week, on National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition,'' a reporter asked a seemingly simple question that helps illustrate the need for such a registry: Who is the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the country? It turns out, finding the answer is not that simple. The reporter could not find an answer because we do not have an accurate and complete inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. This is a problem. As Peter Drucker, the famous business management scholar, has said: If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. Without accurate measurement, it is hard to implement effective solutions. At the moment, there is a void of accurate measurements on greenhouse gases, and what data is available is not certified by either the EPA or a third party. There is strong support in the business community for the establishment of a national registry. In January 2007, a group of businesses unified to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This diverse group of businesses urged Congress to act within the year to create a greenhouse gas registry, along with a number of other steps. The group includes General Electric, DuPont, Duke Energy, General Motors, PG&E Corporation, and many others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the companies be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. The strength and breadth of this coalition demonstrates the fact that the U.S. business community anticipates a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program coming into force. Having accurate greenhouse gas emissions data is necessary to assess risks of capital investment decisions. It also provides an opportunity for major industries to gather information on greenhouse gas emissions from previous years and make good decisions on the design of any future greenhouse gas regulatory program. In response to the absence of action by the Federal Government, 31 States--representing over 70 percent of the population of this country--have banded together to create a greenhouse gas reporting system called the Climate Registry. While it is a good start, and a sign of bipartisan impatience with the Federal Government's inaction, this registry is no substitute for a comprehensive national registry. You now have a situation where 31 States are having to start their own registry because we have not acted. The other issue with the 31-State registry is that it does not require mandatory reporting or third-party verification. Its participants range from States that are moving to impose mandatory greenhouse gas reduction programs to those that are beginning to evaluate whether to take any steps. According to Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano: The State Climate Registries are another example of how States are taking the lead in the absence of Federal action to address greenhouse gas emissions in this country. These States will benefit from a national registry, which will reduce administrative costs, centralize technical expertise and support, and greatly reduce the risk of under- or overreporting. As the Climate Registry--the nonprofit entity coordinating the 31 States' efforts--claims: The creation of a Federal greenhouse gas emissions reporting system would be a significant step forward in U.S. climate policy that will build on the progress made through existing reporting systems and make it easier and less costly for corporations to track and report their greenhouse gas emissions. We need a greenhouse gas registry because there simply isn't a consistent set of data. We have a patchwork system that is simply unworkable for accurate data measurement. We can't make good policy choices unless we collect good data. At the Federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy collect a lot of data on energy production and consumption. However, the quantity and quality of the data vary greatly across different fuels and different sectors. For example, data on crude oil and petroleum product stocks is collected weekly from selected oil companies, while data on energy use in the industrial sector is collected only once every 3 years through surveys. In some cases, the EPA collects the data itself, while in other cases, the data is collected through State or Federal agencies. There are two existing programs that provide some, but not nearly enough, data on greenhouse gas emissions. The first is the Department of Energy's 1605(b) Program, and the second is EPA's Climate Leaders Program. However, neither of these programs gathers facility-by- facility emissions data. Additionally, both of these programs are voluntary with no means of verifying greenhouse gas emission reports. The PEW Center on Global Climate Change, as well as the National Commission on Energy Policy, have criticized both of these programs for lacking rigorous reporting standards and verification requirements, allowing for the double-counting of reductions and failing to account for overall greenhouse gas emission increases. This inconsistency in approaches has resulted in a lack of comparability of reported emissions from company to company, as well as a lack of comparability of results from reporting program to reporting program. We need to have consistent, high-quality data across all sectors, which is what I call a national carbon counter system. Our amendment--again, a bipartisan amendment--seeks to create common standards for measuring, tracking, verifying, and reporting greenhouse gas emissions by major industries. These standards do not currently exist at either the State or the Federal level. This amendment does not place limits on greenhouse gas emissions; it simply requires that the EPA establish and maintain a database of greenhouse gas emissions. A national greenhouse gas registry will create reliable and accurate data that can be used by public and private entities to inform their financial decisions and allows investors to identify and manage future risks and opportunities. The amendment has a number of checks to ensure it does not harm small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration, which emit less than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases. It will promote full and public disclosure by requiring the EPA to post greenhouse gas emissions on its Web site. You really can't see greenhouse gas emissions, but at least you will be able to check the Web site. It will build on existing reporting requirements to minimize the impact on businesses and the EPA. This amendment is not designed to support any specific legislation or policy position; it simply ensures that greenhouse gas emission data will be generated and collected in a consistent manner, regardless of its intended use. We will be able to make good decisions in the future on policy only if we have good and accurate information. I would note that Senator Boxer is also a cosponsor, in addition to Senators Snowe, Collins, and Coleman, and Senator Kerry and Senator Bingaman, who is managing this Energy bill, as well as Senator Carper. I would like to add that I am very disappointed that the Senator from New Mexico has objected to me putting this amendment in at this time. There is support on the Republican side of the aisle for this bill. I am hoping I can work with him and others to finally get this amendment admitted and considered by the Senate. I believe it is very important. I think it is the least we can do to begin information-reporting and to begin doing something about climate change. So I will work with the Senator from New Mexico and others to be able to get this amendment considered. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1573 to Amendment No. 1537 (Purpose: To provide for a renewable portfolio standard)

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, last Wednesday I came to the floor and introduced legislation that would place the country on a path toward a better energy future by requiring that 25 percent of our Nation's energy, our Nation's electricity, come from renewable sources. This made sense to me because this is what we do in Minnesota. As my colleagues know, all good things come from Minnesota. But today, Senator Bingaman has introduced an amendment requiring that 15 percent of our Nation's electricity come from renewable sources. I also support Senator Bingaman, and I am a cosponsor of Senator Bingaman's 15 percent standard by 2020. That is because I believe our country is headed down the wrong energy path, and we need to take it in a new direction. I can't tell my colleagues the number of times I hear from businesses in my State, including manufacturing companies, about the high costs and how they want to get some new possibilities and a new direction with where their energy comes from. The money issue is one thing you hear about from individual consumers, that you hear about from businesses, but there is also the effect it is having on the environment. Both the Presiding Officer and I serve on the Environment Committee. We have heard countless accounts from scientists from all over this country, from major CEOs of large businesses in this country, about the change we are seeing in our climate and about the chance we have to do something about it. So I have to tell my colleagues, in my State I also hear from regular people. I hear from hunters who see a change in the wetlands. I hear from people on Leech Lake who say it takes a month later, a month longer than usual to put their fish house out. I hear from kids wearing little penguin buttons. I hear from city council members in Lanesborough who are changing out their light bulbs. I hear from venture capitalists in Minneapolis who want to get some standards in place so they can invest in this new green technology. I hear from people up in Grand Marais, MN, where I visited 2 weeks ago. This area has had tragic fires. When we saw those fires going on in California, they were also raging in northern Minnesota and up into Canada. Nearly 200 buildings were downed by this fire in our State--some of them beautiful homes--homes that have been in families for years and years and years, rustic cabins and businesses. Of course, the people who gathered to meet with me had immediate problems. There was no phone service to many of these places. Many of the lodges that rely on tourism were having trouble even taking orders. But in the middle of all this, with these scarred forests surrounding us, there were people who wanted to talk about climate change, including ski resort owners who had seen a dramatic drop in their profits when we have had less snow and people who were very concerned about their businesses and the future of this country. So this standard is not only important for investing in our country for more jobs and putting a renewable standard in place that will spur investment, it is also important for our country's future and our environment. A strong renewable energy standard is good policy. Let's look at where our electricity comes from. Currently, we have 52 percent coming from coal. We have 15 percent coming from natural gas. We have 3 percent from petroleum, 20 percent from nuclear, 7 percent from hydro, and only 3 percent from renewables. Compare this with countries such as Denmark, where they are seeing something akin to 50 percent coming from renewables, and Great Britain and other countries. What a strong renewable standard can do is it can diversify our electricity sources so we are not so reliant on energy sources such as natural gas that are vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply interruptions. A strong renewable energy standard can also save the American consumer money. According to studies, a 15-percent renewable electricity standard will save consumers a total of $16.4 billion on their energy bills by the year 2030. Let's look at some of the savings. What are we going to get if we put in a national renewable electricity standard of the kind I have talked about, which is up to 25 percent, and the kind that Senator Bingaman and I have sponsored here today at 15 percent by 2020? We will get 355,000 new jobs, nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels; economic development, $72.6 billion in new capital investment; $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners; $5 billion in new local tax revenues; consumer savings of $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills; a healthier environment with reductions in global warming, as I discussed, equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road; less air pollution, less damage to land, and better use of our water. I have seen it firsthand in my State, in southwestern Minnesota, where there are wind turbines coming up everywhere. They have even opened a bed and breakfast near Pipestone, MN, because they are so excited about these wind turbines. If you were looking for a romantic weekend and time away from your State of Rhode Island, you could actually go down there and stay overnight and wake up in the morning and look at a wind turbine. That is the package. But the point is this: The people in that area are so excited about the development and the potential manufacturing that is going on, that they want people to come and see it. We also have individual homeowners and school districts that are trying to figure out how they can put a wind turbine up so they can bring that kind of homegrown renewable energy into their places of business and into their homes. A strong renewable energy standard is going to save us money, and it is going to cause this kind of investment. It is going to open the door to a new electricity industry that will bring thousands of jobs and billions of dollars into our economy. Over the last 20 years, America's renewable energy industry, and the wind industry in particular, has achieved significant technological advancements. The industries for solar and wind and biomass are expanding at rates exceeding 30 percent annually. Now, some of this is because the States--and I will talk about this in a minute--have shown foresight and have been ahead of the game, but we need to do more. The question is: Does the United States want to be a leader in creating new green technologies in the new green industries of the future, or are we going to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by? Tom Friedman, who actually comes from Minnesota, wrote a cover story for the New York Times Magazine about a month ago about the power of green. He talked about a new green deal--not like the old New Deal; not necessarily the kind of money we are talking about there, but that the Government's role should be to set those standards and industry will meet them. The Government's role should be to seed new research and to promote green technology and direct us that way; otherwise, if we don't do that, if we don't have the kind of 15 percent standard we are talking about on a national level, I can tell you what is going to happen because we are already seeing it happen. We no longer are the world leader in two important clean energy fields. We rank third in wind power production behind Denmark and Spain. We are third in photovoltaic power installed behind Germany and Japan. Ironically, these countries have surpassed us using our own technology. They used the technology we developed in our country. We came up with the right ideas, but we didn't capitalize on the innovations with adequate policies to spur deployment. The Federal Government, in fact, has been complacent. They have been watching the opportunities go by. Now, this is not so of the States. I know Senator Salazar borrowed my chart about an hour ago, but I like this chart because it shows the progress that is going on across the country. You can see it is not limited to one area. It is not limited. We have heard about what California has done and how aggressive they are. I am always telling the Senators from California it is great what you have done, but it is important to talk about what is going on in the rest of the country. You look at what is happening in my own State of Minnesota: 27.4 percent mandated renewable standards by 2025. We have what is happening in New Hampshire: A 23.8 standard by 2025. We have Maine, which actually has a standard and goal, as opposed to a standard, of 30 percent by 2000; Virginia, 12 percent by 2022; We have New Jersey, which has been a leader in this area, at 22.5 percent by 2020. If you go all the way out to Montana, you see a 15-percent standard by 2015; if you go up to Washington, 15 percent by 2020. If these courageous States are willing to do this with no direction from the Federal Government, I think it is time for us to act. It was Louis Brandeis, the judge, who once in one of his opinions wrote about how the States are the laboratories of democracy. That is what you see going on here. The States are the laboratories of democracy, and you talk about how one courageous State can make a decision to set policy and can be used as a laboratory for the rest of the country. I don't think he ever meant, when he wrote that opinion, that that should mean inaction by the Federal Government. In fact, it should be the opposite. The States experiment, the States show, such as our State has, you can put high standards in place, you can start developing these industries, and it is a good thing. It revitalizes our rural economy. It is cleaner for our environment. It allows us to invest in new jobs. Now it is time--we have seen the story across the country--for the Federal Government to act. What I want to see when we vote on Senator Bingaman's amendment is a bipartisan effort, bipartisan support for this kind of amendment. Let me tell you what happened in our State. In February, the Minnesota Legislature--it is a Democratic State senate, Republican statehouse--passed nearly unanimously this 2025 standard. In fact, for Xcel Energy, our biggest energy company, it is 30 percent. They passed that nearly unanimously, a Democratic house, a Democratic senate, with a number of Republicans, a majority voting for it, and then they sent it to a Republican Governor, and that Republican Governor signed it into law. It is considered the Nation's most aggressive standard for promoting renewable energy in electricity production. I think Minnesota's aggressive standard is a good example, but I also think the bipartisan way in which it was set should be a model for Federal action. The courage we are seeing in States such as my own should be matched by the courage in Washington. We should be prepared to act on a national level, especially when the States and local communities are showing us the way. There is now an opportunity for the Federal Government to act, and this Energy bill has many good things in it. I love the standards for appliances, the standards for buildings. I like to call it ``building a fridge to the 21st century.'' But I also would like to see some even bolder action. That bolder action comes in many forms, but one that is most important to me is putting this renewable standard into law. We have everything we need. We just need to act. We have the scientific know-how in this country. In my State, we are so proud of the work that is going on at the University of Minnesota and the State colleges across the State. It is going on everywhere. We have the fields to grow the energy that will keep our Nation moving, and we have the wind to propel our economy forward. The wind is at our back, and it is time for us to move. It is time to act. The only thing that is holding us back is complacency. In my office in the lobby, I have a picture. It is a picture of someone holding a world in their hands. The words on it read: The angel shrugged, and she placed the world in the palm of our hand. She said if we fail this time, it is a failure of imagination. We in the Senate in the next 2 weeks have the opportunity to show this country and the world that we have the imagination for a better world and we have the imagination that we can start having our energy and our electricity produced by the wind and the sun, that we have the imagination that we can have a better environment. This is the time to act, and I urge my colleagues to support the 15- percent standard for renewable energy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 44, H.R. 57.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 13; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the first half under the control of the majority and the second half under the control of the Republicans; that 20 minutes of the majority time be under the control of Senator Brown or his designee; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 6, as under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 232, submitted earlier today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, last Wednesday I came to the floor and introduced legislation that would place the country in a new direction, a path toward a better energy future, by requiring that 25 percent of electricity be provided by renewable sources in this country. For me, this is not that radical an idea, since my State, the State of Minnesota, just enacted this plan this past year. It was brought into law by an overwhelming majority, a bipartisan majority in a Democratic- controlled legislature, and signed into law by a Republican Governor. In fact, it is even higher for Xcel Energy, which is our largest electricity company. They are bound to a 30-percent standard. In fact, the CEO of that company came and sat in my office and told me that he felt they could meet that standard without increasing rates. Part of this is that Minnesota has been on the front end of renewables. We have done it with fuel, with biodiesel, and with ethanol--in fact, we have about a third of this country's ethanol that comes right in our State. And we have done it with wind. We have so many wind turbines right now down in southeastern Minnesota, in the Pipestone area, that they have actually opened a bed and breakfast. If you are looking for an interesting weekend, you can go to the bed and breakfast in Pipestone, MN, and wake up in the morning and look at a wind turbine. But this is serious stuff. I was proud to introduce that 25-by-25 standard, but I also want to say that I support the standard the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, is introducing in the next few days, and that is a 15 percent by 2020 standard. Our current path has led us to record-high electricity and natural gas prices. These prices are not only hurting ordinary families, but they are also hurting businesses that see their own costs going up dramatically. The growth of energy-intensive industries, such as manufacturing, is actually being stunted due to skyrocketing energy costs. We already know the negative impact this situation is having on the environment. It is clear that we need a new direction, that we cannot continue down the energy path we are on anymore. A strong renewable energy policy is good for this country. Currently, I will say, we do not have a diversified electricity portfolio. Mr. President, 52 percent of our electricity comes from coal, 20 percent is generated using nuclear power, 15 percent natural gas, 7 percent hydro, and only 2.5 percent from renewable energy. A strong renewable electricity standard can actually diversify our energy sources so we are not so reliant on one energy source, such as natural gas, that could be vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply interruptions. A strong renewable energy standard can also save the American consumer money. According to several studies, a 15-percent renewable electricity standard will save consumers a total of $16.4 billion on their energy bills by the year 2030. An aggressive national standard will also open the door to a new electricity industry that will bring in thousands of jobs and pump billions of dollars into our economy. Over the last 20 years, America's renewable energy industries, and the wind industry in particular, have achieved significant technological advancements. The industries for solar, wind, and biomass energy systems are expanding at rates exceeding 30 percent annually, and the clean energy revolution is still in its infancy. So the question is, Does the United States want to be a leader in creating new green technologies and the new green industries in the future? Are we going to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by? We are no longer the world leader in two important energy fields. We rank third now in wind production between Denmark and Spain. We are also third in solar power installed, behind Germany and Japan. Ironically, these countries surpassed us by using technology that was actually developed in our own country. We came up with the right ideas, but we didn't have a plan or the standards in place to adequately fund the deployment of these technologies. That is because the Federal Government has been complacent and let the States take the lead. That is good in some ways. The States, as Justice Brandeis noted, are the laboratories of democracy. He always talked about, in that one opinion, how an individual State can have the courage to experiment and bring us new ideas on a national basis. But I don't think he ever meant this should mean inaction by the Federal Government. Sadly, that is what has been happening. Twenty-two States now throughout the country have already demonstrated the value of establishing renewable electricity standards. As I mentioned, Minnesota has been one of the most aggressive with its 25-by-25 standard. The way that bipartisan standard was set, with a Democratic legislature and a Republican Governor, should be a model for national action. The courage that we have seen in the States must be matched by courage in Washington. We have an opportunity in the next 2 weeks for the Federal Government to act. It is time for the Federal Government to begin moving toward an aggressive national standard on power with State standards. We have everything we need, we just need to act. I have talked to many investors and businesspeople, and part of the issue is we never think in the long term in government. We don't set these standards out because when you set those standards out, the money is going to follow in terms of investment. But they think the standard is going to change or maybe we just set it for the next 2 years instead of setting it out as Senator Bingaman has suggested in his amendment for the year 2020, when we get stronger investment confidence in what we are going to be doing in this country and the new direction in which we are going to be headed in this country. We have the fields to grow the energy that will keep our Nation moving, and we have the wind energy to propel our economy forward right here in the United States. We have the science, we have the universities, we have the technological know-how. We always believe in science. In my State, we brought the world the Post-it note and the pacemaker. We have always been on the front end in science. That is why the people who are committed to a strong, renewable standard in our State are not just limited to the people who might be investing in it. It is students at the university who see the potential. It is kids who wear little buttons about ``save our penguins.'' It is the city council down in Lanesboro, MN, that recently changed out all of their lightbulbs because they are concerned about climate change. It is farmers who are putting up wind turbines in their backyard because they know it is going to save them money. It is school districts that say: Maybe I will get a wind turbine. It is governments across this land, with mayors and city councils that are installing solar energy, that see the future and see this new direction. It is our job in the next 2 weeks to lead the new direction. And that is why I support a strong renewable standard. That is why I urge my fellow Senators to support the amendment, which I am already cosponsoring, for a 15-percent renewable standard for electricity in this country. We have to start now.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss some of the changes that need to be made to our national energy policy. The simple truth is, our country is headed down the wrong energy path. Our current path has led to record-high electricity and gas prices. These prices are not only hurting ordinary families, they are also hurting businesses who are seeing their costs go up dramatically. The growth of energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing is actually being stunted due to skyrocketing electricity costs. We already know the negative global impacts our current energy path is having on our environment. It is clear we can't continue down this energy path anymore. It is not good policy. It is not good economic policy, and it is not good environmental policy. Mr. President, I will be introducing a bill that will lead the Nation down a path to a better, cleaner, more independent energy economy, a path that takes us away from higher electric bills and leads to new opportunities for investment and innovation, more jobs, and more economic development. As the chart beside me illustrates, 52 percent of our electricity is currently generated from coal; 15 percent is from natural gas; 3 percent from petroleum; 20 percent from nuclear; 7 percent from hydro; and 3 percent from renewable energy. Clearly, this is not a diversified energy portfolio. Clearly, something needs to be done about rising energy costs. It is estimated that Americans will spend over $200 billion more on energy this year than last year. That is an increase of nearly 25 percent. The bill will allow us to meet our future electricity needs. It will allow us to diversify our electricity supply. It will allow us to reduce the vulnerability of our energy system, and it will allow us to stabilize electricity prices, protect the environment, and most of all, stimulate the economies of rural America. It is time to act. It is time to pass an aggressive renewable electricity standard, one requiring that all electricity providers would have to generate or purchase 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2025. Twenty-two States throughout the country have already demonstrated the value of establishing renewable electricity standards. This chart shows what is going on around the country. I am looking at Rhode Island, to try one State, a 16-percent standard by 2019. You see California, 20 percent by 2010. You see Washington, 15 percent by 2020. All over the country, we see a change afoot. The checkered States are ones that have voluntary goals, such as Illinois. The striped States have standard goals, and the green States actually have standards put into law. While the States are already heading down the path toward the new ``green economy,'' the Federal Government has not even made it to the trail head. The Federal Government is stuck in the fossil age. I am proud to say my State of Minnesota is further down the path than any other State. In February, the Democratic Minnesota State legislature passed and our Republican Governor signed into law what is considered the Nation's most aggressive standard for promoting renewable energy in electricity production. It is a ``25-by-25'' standard. By the year 2025, the State's energy companies are required to generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, water, solar, and biomass. The standard is even higher for the State's largest utility, Excel Energy, which must reach 30 percent by 2020. The CEO has been in my office and said it is going to be tough but they are going to make it, and they are going to be able to meet this goal without raising rates. I admire what the States and communities and businesses are doing across the country. I admire them for their inspiration, and I admire them for their initiative. There is a famous phrase: the ``laboratories of democracy.'' That is how Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described the special role of States in our Federal system. In this model, States are where new ideas emerge, where policymakers can experiment, where innovative proposals can be tested. Brandeis wrote over 70 years ago: It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. But he did not mean for this to serve as an excuse for inaction by the Federal Government. Good ideas and successful innovations are supposed to emerge from the laboratory and serve as a model for national policy and action. That is now our responsibility in Congress. The courage we are seeing in the States, as they deal with global warming, climate change, should be matched by courage in Washington, DC. We should be prepared to act on a national level, especially when the States and local communities are showing us the way. Now there is an opportunity for the Federal Government to act. It is time for the Federal Government to begin moving toward an aggressive national standard--on par with Minnesota's 25-by-25 standard. There are many economic benefits of this aggressive standard. Yet, perhaps most importantly, an aggressive national standard opens the door to a new electricity industry that will bring thousands of jobs and pump billions of dollars into our economy. Over the last 20 years, America's renewable energy industries--and the wind industry in particular--have achieved significant technological advancements. The industries for solar, wind, and biomass energy systems are expanding at rates exceeding 30 percent annually. The clean water revolution is still in its infancy. I think of it like the beginnings of the computer revolution when the computer used to take up an entire room. Now they are much cheaper, and they are much more efficient. That is what is happening with our green technology. But it will not happen unless we get into the act and set the standards as they should be. Businesses are coming on board. CEOs of major corporations such as DuPont, Duke Energy, and General Electric see the opportunities. High- tech entrepreneurs in our country want to develop the green technologies before they do it in India and Japan. It is already starting. Nationally, venture capital investments in ``green'' or ``clean'' technologies have increased dramatically. Last year, venture capital investment in green technologies reached an impressive $2.9 billion. From 2001 to 2006, there was a 243 percent increase in green technology venture capital investments. Not only is clean technology the fastest growing venture capital sector, it is now the third largest category--behind only biotech and computer software. The economic benefits are not just limited to high-risk investors. In September of 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists used the Energy Information Administration's National Energy Modeling System to examine the costs and benefits of an aggressive national standard. Their analysis found an aggressive national standard would reduce electric and natural gas prices and provide significant economic benefits for all of America. For example, as you can see from this chart, an aggressive national standard would create 355,000 new jobs--nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels. We would see economic development, such as $72.6 billion in new capital investment; $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners; $5 billion in new local tax revenue. We would see consumer savings. We would see $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills. We would have a healthier environment. We would see reductions in global warming, pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road. We would see less air pollution, less damage to land, and better water use. So while traditional manufacturing jobs continue to move away from the United States, the country now has an opportunity to become a global hub of new, high-quality jobs in manufacturing and other high- skill areas, while generating environmental benefits at the same time. So the future looks bright. Never before have we seen such strong interest and growth in renewable energy and energy-efficiency technologies. But the question we face is this: Does the United States want to be a leader in creating the new green technologies and the new green industries of the future? Or are we going to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by? In this country, we have the fields to grow the energy that will keep this Nation moving. And we have the wind energy to propel our economy forward. Right here in the United States, we have the science, we have the universities, we have the technological know-how, and we have the financial capital to harness our own homegrown energy. It is time to act. The only thing holding us back is complacency. A national renewable energy standard will be a major contributor in driving innovation in green technologies. Now, I know there are critics of a national standard. These critics-- who I believe are stuck in the fossil age--believe an aggressive standard would negatively affect the reliability of an energy system. Yet, these critics seem to forget that numerous countries in Europe, including Spain, Germany, and Denmark--where wind power supplies over 30 percent of their electricity--have seen no adverse impacts on the reliability of their systems. In fact, a renewable electricity standard can actually increase the overall reliability of an electric system. It can diversify our electricity sources so we are not so reliant on energy sources such as natural gas that are vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply interruptions. Not only is a national standard more reliable and good for the economy, it will also, of course, protect the environment and public health. Electricity production has a significant impact on our environment. Today, electricity accounts for more than 26 percent of smog-producing emissions, one-third of toxic mercury emissions, and some 40 percent of climate-changing greenhouse gases. An aggressive standard will reduce CO2 emissions by 434 million metric tons per year by 2020--reductions of 15 percent below current levels. This, as I said, is equivalent to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road. A couple of weeks ago, Minnesota's own Tom Friedman had a cover story in the New York Times magazine about ``The Power of Green.'' It should be required reading for anyone who cares not only about the future of our environment but also our economic future and our future national security. He talked about the need in this area for setting the standards. When you set the standards, and people can see off into the future, we will see the investment. People say: Well, why do you have a standard set at 2025? Obviously, our bill is going to have a standard growing each year. But the reason you want to go out to 2025 is you want American businesses and capitalists and people involved in this to understand if they invest, where they are going. In his article, Tom Friedman asks: ``How do our kids compete in a flatter world? How do they thrive in a warmer world? How do they survive in a more dangerous world?'' The answer is in making the most of the economic and technological opportunities to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and the greenhouse gas pollution that comes from it. Friedman says clean energy technology is going to be ``the next great global industry.'' Well, if that is the case--and I believe he is right--then we need to make America the leader. We cannot afford to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by. As I mentioned before, we are seeing unprecedented interest and growth in renewable energy technologies. But at the same time, we are no longer the world leader in two important clean energy fields. We rank third in wind power production, behind Denmark and Spain. We are third in solar power installed, behind Germany and Japan. Ironically, these countries surpassed us largely by adopting technologies that had first been developed right here in the United States. We came up with the right ideas, but we did not capitalize on these innovations with adequate policies to spur deployment. Our foreign competition was able to leapfrog over American businesses because these other countries have government-driven investment incentives, aggressive renewable energy targets, and other bold national policies. Friedman proposes a ``Green New Deal''--``one in which government's role is not funding projects, as in the original New Deal, but seeding basic research, providing loan guarantees where needed, and setting standards, taxes and incentives that will spawn'' all kinds of new technologies. I agree. It is about leading the new economy. It is about making America the global environmental leader, instead of a laggard. It is about creating a better economy for the next generation by inventing a whole new industry, which will not only give us the clean power industrial assets to preserve our American dream but also give us the technologies that billions of others need to realize our own dreams without destroying the planet. It is about not being complacent. It is about getting on a new energy path. I believe an aggressive renewable electricity standard leads us down that path. I urge all of my colleagues to support an aggressive standard. I suggest Minnesota's standard: 25 percent by 2025 for renewable electricity. It is a start down the path.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I was shocked to read in the Washington Post that Tom Heffelfinger, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota, was among those recommended for removal by the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Tom Heffelfinger had previously been appointed U.S. attorney for Minnesota by the first Bush administration in 1991 and had the distinction of being appointed again in 2001 by George W. Bush. During his second term as U.S. attorney, I had the privilege of working with Tom as a district attorney and chief prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county. The relationship between the U.S. attorney and the district attorney for a large metropolitan county is a very important one but also a difficult one. I can tell my colleagues this: It has been my experience that the people of this country don't care who prosecutes a case. They don't care if it is a local attorney or a State attorney or a Federal attorney. They just want us to get the job done. That was the spirit in which I worked with Tom Heffelfinger and his predecessor, B. Todd Jones, who was appointed by President Clinton. When I was first elected in 1998, B. Todd Jones had been appointed by President Clinton. Todd Jones and I forged an excellent relationship. We spoke often about the various cases in our jurisdiction and the surrounding area, and we worked together when jurisdictional lines were blurred, deciding if a case would be prosecuted federally or locally. It is not a small thing. In other jurisdictions there are often disputes that are not in the best interests of the citizens, but we were able to forge that relationship. I remember we made a plan early on, and that is that we were going to work together. I remember when Mr. Jones and I decided we would have a party for our joint offices, and he invited the county attorney's prosecutors over to the U.S. attorneys, and I have to tell you, there is traditionally a little bit of jealousy that goes on. The county attorneys always look at the U.S. attorneys and figure they can have less cases and fewer resources to do those fewer cases, and the U.S. attorneys may look at the county attorneys and say, oh, why can't they spend more time on a case. So we decided we would bring the people together. I still remember when we had the party at their beautiful offices. I got there first, and I never told my office, but U.S. attorney Todd Jones got on the intercom, and before my office came over, he said: Nail down the furniture; The cousins are coming over. Since then, we forged an amazing relationship. So when George W. Bush appointed Tom Heffelfinger as U.S. attorney--Tom Heffelfinger, of course, was a Republican; I was a Democrat--you might think there would be problems. Well, there weren't. Tom Heffelfinger basically ran the office the same way Todd Jones did, in a professional manner. Many of the same people continued to work there and, in fact, the chief deputy remained the same under both the Republican-appointed U.S. attorney and the Democrat-appointed U.S. attorney. An example of Tom's professionalism comes to mind. When there was an armored truck robbery in the southern suburbs in our metropolitan area, the victim was killed execution style, kneeling next to a truck. It was a Brink's truck driver. The case had gone unsolved for a number of years. Tom came to my office. I want my colleagues to know he didn't have to do this. He could have had just a press conference and announced the charges, and that would be the end of it. But he came to my office weeks before the case was charged to tell me he thought they were closing in on the suspect; to tell me he knew in most cases murders were handled by our office, but that this case was going to be different. It was different because the Feds had been investigating it for a number of years, and it was different because it involved an armored truck. It was also different because it could potentially be eligible for the death penalty, and he knew I was personally opposed to the death penalty and Minnesota didn't have a death penalty. Nothing required him to come and talk to me about that case, but Tom Heffelfinger did because he had the respect for me and he had the respect for our office that you don't always see with people in government service. Our office jointly prosecuted many cases, and when there was a jurisdictional issue, Tom and I would always talk about it. We did a number of criminally focused initiatives together. We saw our offices as partners, not as rivals, and as time went on, as the years went on, the respect between both our offices grew. As I said, each came to see each other, the people in our office, not as rivals, but as partners in justice. This is why I am so appalled that Tom Heffelfinger was targeted for firing. I take Tom at his word--and we have talked many times in the last few months--that he had made a decision to leave the office, that he never knew he was on such a list, and he made the decision based on the fact that his wife was going to retire. But the issue is not that he made the decision on his own, the issue is that someone of such integrity as Tom Heffelfinger was ever targeted by this Justice Department for firing. I have always believed, as a prosecutor, you do your job without fear of favor. It may not be easy, but whatever your decisions--and you know they are not going to make everyone happy, but whatever your decisions, you want to know at the end of the day that you did the right thing and that you had no regrets. We have learned these past few months that our Nation's chief law enforcement officer, our leading guardian of the rule of law in this country, has allowed politics to creep too close to the core of our legal system. This administration has determined that Washington politicians--not prosecutors out in the field, and even perhaps in some cases not the facts themselves--would dictate how prosecutions should proceed. The consequences are simply unacceptable. Good prosecutors like Tom Heffelfinger who, by all accounts, were just doing their jobs--upholding their oaths, following the principles of their professions--we find out were targeted for firing. The new information we also received this week is while this administration repeatedly said we were only focusing on these eight prosecutors, it turned out to be 26 people who they were considering. This is why I am asking the Justice Department today to tell us why Tom Heffelfinger, someone of such integrity, would even be on this list. I am asking our Judiciary Committee to look into the fact that this man--this good man--was even on this list. We have seen cases all over the country now where prosecutors were pressured, where they were fired, where they were unfairly slandered by this administration. All of this, it would seem, was motivated by rank politics. This week was Law Enforcement Week. It made me a little melancholy for my previous job. I had many police officers come in and talk to me, so many I had known and worked with, and we talked about cases. I also treasured the work that I did with prosecutors throughout our State, from the smallest counties to the U.S. Attorney's Office. This is what our justice system is about in America. It is about putting justice first. It is about doing our jobs without fear of favor. That is why I believe this Attorney General must resign. I have been saying it for months. You simply cannot have a cloud over the Justice Department, where they can't do their jobs because they are constantly plagued by investigations and by everything that has been going on because of the brute political decisions made by this administration. This is just wrong. I call for the resignation of this Attorney General, and I ask that the country understand what a great man Tom Heffelfinger is, that he should never have been on this list. And I will stand tall to tell the people of my State how this is a man of integrity and that I respect him very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. U.S. Attorney Investigation