Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call for the regular order in relation to amendment No. 1038.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I, at the outset, thank both Senator Bingaman and Senator Thomas for their willingness to sponsor this amendment, which is an important amendment for counties, especially in the western part of the United States where so much of our land is held in the hands of the Federal Government. I would like to underscore the importance of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. PILT funds are Federal payments to local governments. We all understand that property taxes are the main source of revenue for local governments. Anyone who has spent any time at all in Colorado or in the West will recognize that local governments there do not have a tax base because the Federal Government owns huge tracts of land in our States. In my State alone, approximately one-third of Colorado is owned by the Federal Government. Earlier this spring, in my first Senate trip around our great State, I held meetings with local-elected officials. Time and time again, these local-elected officials--mayors and county commissioners-- informed me about the importance of full PILT funding and that it is their No. 1 priority. Sadly, PILT has never been fully funded by this Congress. Congress regularly shortchanges local governments with Federal lands by appropriating less than the authorized levels. To that end, one of the first bills I introduced as a U.S. Senator would make full funding of PILT a mandatory priority for this Congress every year. In 2005, more than $226 million was distributed to approximately 1,850 local governments in 49 of our 50 States whose jurisdictions contain tax-exempt Federal lands. In my State of Colorado, over $16 million was paid to local communities for over 2.3 million acres of tax-exempt Federal lands. These funds have been used to help improve local schools, water, and road systems. President Bush's budget request cut PILT funding for 2006 by $27 million. Fortunately, Congress has responded forcefully to that request. The House of Representatives passed a bill with $242 million for PILT funding, and the good work of the Appropriations subcommittee in the Senate has gotten us to $235 million, which is the proposal in this bill. My amendment would increase PILT funding to $242 million from the current level of $235 million in the Interior appropriations bill. That increase would be offset with $7 million from the Department of Interior's overhead funds. Earlier this afternoon, I spoke with Interior Secretary Norton and with Senators Burns and Dorgan about my amendment and my strong desire to see PILT funding as close to full authorization levels as possible. I appreciate the consideration that Senators Burns and Dorgan have given to my amendment and to the importance of the issue of PILT. I know they will represent the hopes and needs of rural counties in the conference committee and will work to ensure that the conference report is at least at the House level of $242 million for PILT. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk en bloc and ask unanimous consent for their immediate consideration.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I want to just spend a few quick minutes speaking about both of these amendments. The first amendment is an amendment relating to the payment in lieu of taxes. For those of us who come from the West, where so much of our land is owned by the Federal Government, payment in lieu of taxes is essential for our local governments to be able to function. In my great State of Colorado, most of the western half of the State is owned by the Federal Government. There are many counties in my State that rely on payment in lieu of taxes for up to 90, 95 percent of their budgets. The amendment I have sent forward that deals with payment in lieu of taxes is an amendment that would add an additional $7 million into the payment in lieu of taxes fund. That would bring the amount up to a level of consistency with what has come out of the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the amendment. Mr. President, the second amendment deals with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. My proposal, in this amendment, is that the user fees that are collected in, for example, ski areas in places such as Montana or Wyoming or Colorado--that those amounts of money be returned back to the Land and Water Conservation Fund in those States in addition to the amount of money they already receive under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It seems to me it would be an appropriate investment of these dollars to be invested through the programs of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Again, we may be talking more about this in the days ahead, but the Land and Water Conservation Fund has had an exemplary record in the contributions it has made to preserve our water and our air and our land. I think this amendment will be helpful for us as we work on that agenda at a national level. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am pleased join with the distinguished majority leader in support of H.R. 6. I am particularly pleased with the bill's support for integrated coal gasification, IGCC, technology development and deployment into commercial use. Our Nation needs a comprehensive energy policy which promotes new, cleaner, and more advanced generation technologies. I have been increasingly concerned with the challenges associated with developing IGCC technology for burning Western coal. Western coal is a valuable resource and crucial to our economy; however, both cost and technological difficulties have prevented development of IGCC in the West. That is why I support a provision for a Western IGCC Demonstration Project, Section 407. This project would allow for development of an IGCC technology designed to use Western coal and in a cost-effective manner. I have also been increasingly concerned with the need to address climate change. The promise of IGCC technology's ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions should be realized as soon as possible. That is why the Western IGCC demonstration project shall include a carbon technology component. I wish to also take this opportunity to clarify an important point. There have been media reports expressing concern that the Western IGCC demonstration project is special legislation designed to benefit a single company building a new project in Wyoming. I can assure you that neither this provision, nor any other provision I have sponsored, is designed to benefit any specific project or any specific company. My sincere objective is simply to provide for the development of an IGCC demonstration project in the West, using Western coal, regardless of who owns or develops it. This provision is designed to provide incentives to an IGCC project using Western coal at high altitudes. I have heard from many stakeholders, the utility industry, environmental groups and energy consumers, regarding the potential environmental and energy benefits of this new technoloy. However, I have also heard that IGCC has been applied primarily in the East. It is not yet demonstrated to be viable and cost-effective in the high altitude West using the low-rank coals mined in Western States. This provision would allow the region to prove the viability of this important technology, assess carbon capture and sequestration opportunities, and, I hope, lead to its successful deployment in my region of the country. The purpose of the Western coal demonstration project will be to show that coal gasification works for the different kinds of coals mined in the West. This includes the lower energy coals like those mined in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, and it includes higher energy coals like those found in Colorado. These coals vary by energy content, and in other ways such as moisture and sulfur content. My colleague from Wyoming and I want to ensure that the demonstration project will show the feasibility of gasification for the entire range of Western coals. In that way, hurdles to gasification can be removed and our Nation can move forward into a cleaner energy future, and one that recognizes the importance of our abundance of coal resources. I want to close with a special tribute to Senator Thomas for his diligence in this effort. We are both Western Senators and we share a concern that the Western United States should benefit from IGCC technology as much as the Eastern United States. I want to thank him for his initiative and support for this provision.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, as I have said time and again during this debate over the last several weeks, America is being held hostage to its over-dependence on foreign oil. This Energy bill is our first step in setting America free. From the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden to the balanced development of oil and gas, Colorado is already playing a big part in setting America free. With a huge, untapped resource called oil shale, Colorado can play an even bigger role in this effort. If properly developed, oil shale that exists in my great State of Colorado has the potential to be part of a strategy to address America's dependence on foreign oil. Colorado is home to tremendous deposits of oil shale, a type of hydrocarbon bearing rock that is abundant in Western Colorado, as well as Utah and Wyoming. Estimates place the potential recoverable amount of this type of oil as high as 1 trillion barrels. Let me say that again--1 trillion barrels. Let me put that in perspective: Saudi Arabia's proven conventional reserves are said to be around 261 billion barrels. Several of our colleagues argued earlier this spring that ANWR is a resource so remarkable that we must open that pristine land to drilling. According to the U.S. Geological Survey--USGS--the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil is 7.7 billion barrels--billion bbl--but there is a small chance that, taken together, the fields on this Federal land could hold 10.5 billion bbl of economically recoverable oil. That's one percent of the potential oil shale. Assuming we use 15 million barrels of oil a day just for transportation, oil shale could keep our transportation going for another 200 years. Colorado has some experience in trying to access this potential asset. We have had two boom and bust periods, one in the 1800s and the other in the 1980s. The most recent story is about the ``Boom & Bust'' Colorado experienced during the last oil shale development cycle that began in the 1970's and ended in May of 1982 on ``Black Sunday.'' I will never forget the powerful lessons of Black Sunday. Colorado invested millions in new towns, only to see thousands of residents flee when oil prices fell, leaving behind them a devastated real estate market. Communities that invested heavily in schools and roads and housing could no longer meet the burden of paying for this critical infrastructure. Buildings on the Western Slope--and even in Denver--were built and left empty, if the construction was completed at all. Towns that thought they were seeing a bright future, struggled to deal with crippling unemployment. The technical challenges of oil shale and the searing memories of Black Sunday have taught all of Colorado some important lessons. We now recognize that oil shale's potential can only be realized if it is approached in the right way. Oil shale development must be considered a marathon and not a sprint. I believe, as many in Colorado do, that oil shale research and development must be conducted in an open, cautious and thoughtful manner that includes our local communities. As Congress instructs Federal agencies to consider oil shale research and development leasing and commercial leasing, it must give careful consideration to environmental and socioeconomic impacts and mitigations as well as the sustainability of an oil shale industry. Colorado is a team player. The people of my State are ready to share the abundant natural resources with which we have been blessed. In exchange, Colorado expects to have a seat at the table. That is why I introduced the Oil Shale Development Act of 2005. I am very pleased that it has been incorporated into the Energy bill we are now considering. I believe the oil shale provision in this Energy bill is a thoughtful approach to future oil shale development. It is full of commonsense provisions that build on the lessons we learned in that painful experience 30 years ago. It directs leasing for research and development; It requires a programmatic Environmental Impact Study to ensure that we take a comprehensive environmental look at potential commercial leasing; It directs the Secretary of Interior to work with the States, local communities, and industry to identify and report on issues of primary concern to local communities and populations with commercial leasing and development; and it insists that States--not the Federal Government--retain authority over water rights. I know we are going to hear more and more about oil shale development in the Rocky Mountain west. That is as it should be, and we will embark on a thoughtful, balanced approach to oil shale development with this bill.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, the energy legislation that is currently being considered by this Senate is very good energy legislation. From my point of view, our vision is to get to energy independence for America. The cornerstones of our getting to energy independence in America are set forth in this legislation. They include efficiency and conservation, which is a very significant component of this bill; second, enough emphasis on renewable energy because we know that can help us get to energy independence with the right emphasis on renewables; third, technology because the technological revolution we are working on will allow us, for instance, to convert our massive resources of coal into zero emissions coal, and coal gasification has great promise; and fourth, the development, in a responsible way, of additional fuel resources. I think those cornerstones will help us get a long way down the road toward the energy independence that we require in this country so we are not held hostage to the importation of foreign oil. As important as this Energy bill is, I also strongly believe it is incomplete unless we address the challenge of global warming, which is the subject of the McCain-Lieberman amendment which is now before this body. I applaud both Senator Hagel and Senator Pryor for their efforts yesterday in the successful passage of the global warming amendment to the Energy bill. I believe it will put the spotlight on the reality of global warming before us. I am also proud to be a very strong supporter of the legislation of Senators McCain and Lieberman because that will help us get down the road to real progress on the issue of global warming. Climate change is a very real and very present problem. We are no longer at the stage where we ask whether the climate of our world is changing. In the words of the recent USA Today article, the headline read, ``The Debate's Over.'' Our climate, the climate that has nurtured life on this planet for millennia, is changing, and we--each and every one of us--are bringing that change about. Climate change in our world poses a significant and real economic danger to our country. We know what is causing climate change. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, are piling up in the atmosphere, where it stays for decades, for centuries--for a very long time, where it traps the heat on this Earth. We know the amount of these greenhouse gases is rising and that it is higher now than at any time in the last 400,000 years. It is higher at this time than at any time in the last 400,000 years. We know these gases trap more of the Sun's energy on Earth than is being released back into outer space. If we do not start cutting global warming pollution, the pile-up of greenhouse gases will lock our planet into a future of such rapid climate change that the results could be devastating to our children and to future generations of Americans and future generations of the population of this world. This understanding of the climate change challenge we face is international in scope. Last week, the heads of the National Academies of Science--these are not fly-by-night scientists or academies or institutions but the National Academies of Science of all the G8 countries--the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada, plus those of Brazil, China and India--joined the head of the U.S. National Academy of Science in an unequivocal statement calling for ``action . . . now to reduce significantly the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere'' of our Earth. We must listen to the science. Colorado, my State, has a lot at stake when it comes to global warming. We have a world-class tourist industry that has flourished because of our State's natural beauty, its mighty rivers, expansive forests, and majestic plains. Colorado has the best ski areas, I would venture, in the world, and some of the best big game hunting and fishing anywhere in the continental United States. Tourism employs almost 1 in 10 people in Colorado. In some parts of our State along the I-70 corridor, it employs almost 50 percent of the people who live there. The likely outcomes of global warming are clear. Losses of forest and meadows in our mountains, reduced stream flows, and significantly reduced snowpack. Those realities pose unacceptable threats to my State, and the same can be said about every State in America. Colorado's municipal and agricultural life is imperiled as well. Colorado is an arid State, similar to most of our States in the West. We have low annual precipitation rates. Our abundant agriculture and our booming cities are dependent on winter snowpacks and reliable spring runoff. Scientific studies predict less and less snowpack across the West, including in the Colorado Rockies. Studies also predict reduced runoff of the water upon which our water supply system depends. These warnings are dire. These warnings are frightening. They are not abstract concerns about the effects of a warming Earth. We know from recent experience the kinds of effects that prolonged drought can have on our major Colorado river systems. The droughts for the last several years that have left Lake Powell below a 50-percent level tell us this is a real issue across the West. There are signs that this continuing change in climate across our world needs to be addressed. For me, in a very personal way, I saw the devastation to agriculture across the State of Colorado when we had the most severe drought that our State has had in over 400 years. I saw the pain in the eyes and in the hearts of farmers and ranchers who had to give up their lands and farms and cattle herds because the drought had caused such an economic devastation to the pastures and to the meadows that they relied on for their cattle operations. We must do something about global warming. It is an imperative that we act now. We, in the Senate, have a responsibility so that we can be proud, 10 or 20 years from now, when our children look back and ask: What did this Senate do? Did they take a position of courage, to address the issue of global warming or did they simply walk away from an issue because they thought it was too tough to handle? Next month, at the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, the United States will be the only nation among the G8 that has refused to embrace a mandatory program to cut greenhouse gas pollution. America's closest ally, Britain's Tony Blair, has put climate change at the top of the G8 summit agenda. The heads of Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Russia have all signed their nations on to mandatory targets, and they have all joined a global market in which anyone who finds a better, cheaper or faster way to cut global warming pollution can profit by their ingenuity. By contrast, denial and delay in addressing the problem means not only that the problem is getting worse every day but that American businesses, farmers, scientists, and bankers are being left out and cannot benefit from the kind of active carbon trading market that exists in the European Union today. We need renewed leadership in America on this issue. Two years ago, Prime Minister Tony Blair came right here to this Capitol and stood with President Bush and addressed this body. In speech after speech, Prime Minister Blair has said he is willing to stand by our Nation on the challenges of immediate security--the war on terrorism, and the campaign against weapons of mass destruction. But he also said America needs to stand with him in his fight against climate change. On the eve of the G8 meetings in Scotland, Mr. Blair has repeated that imperative. The amendment before us today, called the McCain-Lieberman amendment, is an amendment that takes us in the right direction. I am proud to be a sponsor of that amendment. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote in support of that amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. I think 10 minutes will do it.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, it is with deep sorrow that I come to speak on the floor of the Senate today. The father of the United States Air Force space and missile program, General Bernard Adolph Schriever, died today of natural causes. He is survived by his wife, his three children, and his two step-children. I offer them my deepest condolences and prayers as they go through this difficult time. General Schriever was a great American. Born in Bremen, Germany in 1910, Schriever's family moved to America 7 years later, where he became a naturalized citizen in 1923. Schriever would give 33 years of distinguished military service to his new home. During his exceptional career in the Air Force, General Schriever led America's charge into space. When President Dwight Eisenhower assigned the Nation's highest priority to the development of an Inter- Continental Ballistic Missile, the Air Force assigned Schriever to manage the program. He demanded sweeping authority to accomplish the job, authority that Schriever's commander gladly granted him. The success of the ballistic missile and space programs managed by Schriever was phenomenal. The progression of the Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile, from program approval to the Initial Operational Capability, took only 3\1/2\ years. The Atlas's development time was little more than 5 years, and the Titan's less than 6. Moreover, even as the first Titan lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Schriever's group was already developing the more advanced Titan II. The Minuteman, from start to finish, took only 4 years and 8 months to deploy. The first ten were on combat alert in their underground silos in October of 1962. Schriever's organization could rightfully take credit for winning the Cold War's race for missile supremacy, helping to ensure America's safety and security in perilous times. Schriever had assembled an organization with the highest educational level of any U.S. military organization either before or since that time. More than a third of his hand-picked officers had Ph.D.s and Master's degrees. Schriever believed that America had to develop its mind power if the country was to survive in the space age, a belief we would be well served to listen to today. General Schriever's legacy lives on in the men and women of Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. The more than 3,400 military and civilian employees continue to provide our Nation with an aerospace capability second to none. The base flies nearly all of the Department of Defense's satellites. Colorado is proud of the men and women who serve at Schriever Air Force Base, and we are proud of the legacy left to us by General Bernard Adolph Schriever.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to remember one of Colorado's fallen heroes, Marine LCpl Chad Bryant Maynard who was killed last week in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was only 19 years old. Lance Corporal Maynard hailed from Montrose, CO, on the Western Slope. Growing up, it was his dream to serve his country. Chad Maynard's deep patriotism was a family tradition--his father served in the Marines, and his brother Jacob returned from his second tour in Iraq a few months ago. As a high school student, Chad had secretly contacted recruiters when he was 16 about his wish to join the Marines. His parents remember him sneaking recruiting brochures into the house. The recruiters had to ask him to stop contacting them until he was 18. But Lance Corporal Maynard was determined to serve his country. He joined the junior ROTC at Montrose High School. One of his friends once quipped, ``God rested on the seventh day and on the eighth day made Maynard for the Marines. . . .'' He worked hard at his classes so he could graduate early to go to boot camp. At his 2004 graduation from Montrose High, Chad Maynard stood proudly in his Marine Corps dress uniform. Lance Corporal Maynard's friends and instructors remember him as a young man who took his commitment to his country very seriously. On September 11, Lance Corporal Maynard organized a prayer around the flagpole at school. He sought out the Marines because he wanted to be on the front lines, making a difference for his country. Today in Montrose is the funeral for Lance Corporal Maynard. Just 1 year and 6 days after he picked up his diploma, Chad Maynard was taken from us, a life of extraordinary promise snuffed out all too soon. He served his Nation with honor and distinction. LCpl Chad Maynard set an example for all those around him to follow and left a positive mark on every life he touched. Chad's brave and selfless actions have made the world a better and safer place for all of us and we owe him a debt of gratitude which we will never be able to pay. To his wife Becky and their soon-to-be-born child, I send my humble thanks for Chad's sacrifice on our behalf. Your family will remain in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. SALAZAR

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

Mr. SALAZAR. We were here before the United States was here, so 407 years ago.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Bingaman's amendment, the renewable energy standard or, as we have come to know it, the renewable portfolio standard. When we consider the imperative with which we deal today in the Senate, we are talking about whether we can get the United States to energy independence, whether we can set America free from being held hostage to the importation of foreign oil from Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, from those places in the world where for 30 years their stranglehold on America has continued to increase day by day with no end in sight. Energy independence at the end of the day is what we should have a bipartisan consensus on with respect to this legislation. The legislation which has been prepared by the Energy Committee came together in that kind of a bipartisan fashion, led by Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman. It is a good piece of legislation that we can improve on. I believe the RPS proposed by Senator Bingaman, which would require that 10 percent of our electric generation come from renewable sources by 2020, is a very modest goal for us to have. Indeed, the experts around this country who talk to us about energy say if we have the will and the courage, we could get up to a much higher amount than 10 percent by 2020. They will tell you that we could get to 40 percent within probably 15 years, 20 years, to 2025. So the proposal that is currently being considered under this amendment is a modest proposal that moves us in the right direction. In my own State of Colorado, in this last election in 2004, there was a proposal considered by the voters of our State. That proposal on an RPS was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the people of Colorado. What it requires us to do is to get to a point where we have produced 15 percent of our energy by the year 2020. Fifteen percent of the energy of Colorado will come from renewable sources by the year 2020. The Bingaman amendment has a more modest goal at only 10 percent by 2020. If we can do that amount of renewable energy and meet that standard in my State by 2015, there is no doubt that we can do that with the amendment that Senator Bingaman has offered. My view is that setting America free from its overdependence on Saudi and Venezuelan oil is an imperative for our Nation. We must first conserve and increase efficiency, we must invest in renewable energy resources, we must develop new technologies, and we must pursue a balanced approach to developing domestic energy. This bill does much of that. The amendment that is currently on the floor of the Senate will help us move even further forward on those goals. The oil savings provision that is already in the Senate Energy bill represents an important, if modest, goal for achieving some measure of independence from foreign oil. But it is, frankly, not enough. I am encouraged by the strong show of support for the Cantwell amendment to raise that bar even further. I am proud to be a cosponsor of her amendment. I believe we need to do more to achieve oil energy savings. But the grave problems we face with respect to long-term domestic supplies of oil are only part of the story. Even if domestic reserves of oil and other fossil fuels were limitless, the way we use hydrocarbons is jeopardizing our way of life. Sooner or later--and I prefer sooner--the people of our great country must embrace the energy challenges of the 21st century and figure out how to produce clean and abundant energy from domestic sources that do not produce carbon or other greenhouse gases and that do not involve recurring problems of intermittent supply from politically unstable and overly hostile regions of the world. Although we have been encouraging progress in the development of new carbon-free technologies, there is still a lot of work for us to do. Earlier this year I visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO, and saw some of the cutting-edge technologies that the scientists there have advanced with respect to wind energy. I saw solar energy collection cells that could double as 20-year roofing shingles and some of the most advanced solar technologies America has developed. Today we produce only about 8 percent of our electric power needs from renewable energy sources, and most of that--approximately three-fourths of the total or 6 percent--comes from hydropower. By contrast, the two most common sources of renewable--solar energy and wind power--account for less than 1 percent of the total electric power. Why do these sources of renewable energy account for such a small fraction of our electric energy needs, even after three decades of effort? There are at least three reasons to that question. The first is technological, and the second is economic. Both of those are closely related. As new energy technologies have advanced and solar panels and wind turbines have become more efficient, the relative cost of generating electric power from these energy sources has declined. Despite these impressive growth rates, however, and despite decades of research and development, these new energy technologies still suffer from serious engineering and economic drawbacks. Hydrogen fuel cells, despite their promise, are still many times more expensive than an internal combustion engine, and they will require several more decades of research and development to be competitive. Likewise solar power, even after three decades of research and development, still costs five times as much as coal-fired power. Moreover, there are inherent limits in the quality of the energy these new energy technologies can produce. They are intermittent sources of energy, and they are not always located near a load source. Therefore, investment in transmission infrastructure and advances in control technologies are necessary before renewable energy sources can provide a dominant share of the future energy mix. The third reason that alternative energy sources claim such a tiny fraction of the energy market is political. We can change that today. Alternative sources of energy must compete in an energy market dominated by hydrocarbons and the industries that profit from those hydrocarbons. I introduced legislation that would begin to level the playing field and provide tax and other incentives for renewable energy sources. Today the Finance Committee is marking up its tax title which will extend the production tax credit for certain renewable energy sources. Those incentives are extremely important for these relatively immature power industries. Americans across the country recognize that renewable energy is an important part of our future, and they recognize that Government should be doing more to promote this type of energy. I stand with Americans who have that point of view. On Tuesday, the White House released a statement that they do not support any kind of renewable portfolio standard. Here is one case where the President and I differ in a fundamental way. I believe the Energy bill should be a way to move us away from foreign oil, away from pollution and towards independence. I do not understand the reason the President is on the other side of this issue. The United States needs to take substantial steps forward with renewable energy. Colorado and all of the West is positioned to be America's innovation hub of the future. That is why the Federal standard of renewable energy development, which Senator Bingaman has proposed, is so important. Investing in these nascent technologies now will significantly improve our ability to produce energy from renewable resources. But it is just as important for the U.S. Congress to establish a Federal standard, an achievable goal of producing a minimum amount of electric power from renewable energy sources, to establish uniform national goals and an active credit trading market based on those goals. Other benefits of Senator Bingaman's renewable energy standard are the following: A standard similar to Colorado's 10 percent by 2015 is aggressive enough to stimulate the market and produce widespread and rural economic benefits. Secondly, a 10-percent RPS by 2020 will help reduce natural gas prices by reducing demand for electricity generated from natural gas powerplants. Studies show that consumers will save $9.1 billion on their natural gas bills and $4.4 billion on their electricity bills between now and 2020, for a total savings of $13.5 billion. And third, renewable energy technologies create more jobs, nearly twice as many as in traditional fossil fuel industries. The Bingaman amendment would create about 58,000 new jobs a year for America. This kind of commonsense approach is something that the American people expect of all of us. Let me say two final things with respect to the RPS. First, it is going to create a problem for industry and for this Nation to have a haphazard patch of RPSs around the States as they are adopted State by State. Therefore, it would make more sense to have a national standard so that industry can recognize it has to live up to one standard. Finally, I suggest that to make renewable energy a significant part of our energy portfolio is something that makes common sense because of the national economic security issues that we face, because of the economic opportunities that it will bring to rural America, and because of the fact that we need to deal with this issue that is creating so many problems for us around the world, especially with overreliance on oil from the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to provide a note of commendation for the junior Senator from Tennessee. We have long known his work as Governor of Tennessee, where he worked hard on behalf of land and water issues. It was through his leadership and the leadership of both Democrat and Republican colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we were able to accomplish what is only seldom done in Washington, DC; that is, the production of a bipartisan piece of legislation that is a very good beginning for energy policy framework for the 21st century. I acknowledge the great contributions to that effort on the part of Senator Alexander and all the members of the Energy Committee. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Energy bill. Before starting my remarks, I want to once again thank Senator Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman for their excellent work on this bill for the last 5 months. It is a source of great pride for me to see my two neighbors from the South, from the Land of Enchantment, working so well together on such an important issue. I also want to reiterate my thanks to their key staff, Alex Flint, Judy Pensabene, Lisa Epifani, Bob Simon, and Sam Fowler. Without the work of the staff, we would not have gotten to the point in this legislation where we are today. I also want to congratulate Senator Bingaman and his staff on their successful inclusion of the RPS amendment. They have done this Nation a great favor. The Nation has a real problem. When I look at the issues that face America today, I believe the two most significant domestic issues facing America, America's families and America's businesses are health care and the energy crisis of America. Today, this Chamber is addressing the challenge of energy. The problem can be described in lots of different ways, but it is, in fact, an emergency. In the 1970s, our Nation imported about one-third of our oil needs. Many of us still remember then-President Jimmy Carter talking about the OPEC oil embargo and talking about the energy independence of America being the moral equivalent of war. Yet, since that time during the last 30 years, we have seen continuing reliance and dependence on foreign oil so that today 58 percent of the oil we need is being imported. By 2020, we will be importing 70 percent more of our oil. America today consumes one-quarter of the world's oil supplies but has only 3 percent of the global reserves. Currently, OPEC member countries produce about 40 percent of the world's oil and hold 80 percent of the proven global reserves, and 85 percent of those reserves are in the greater Middle East, including countries that are not particularly friendly to the United States: Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Twenty-two percent of the world's oil is in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism and under U.S./U.N. sanctions, and only 9 percent of the world's oil is in the hands of countries ranked ``free.'' We are importing more oil at a time when other growing nations continue to increase their imports of oil, including China, which is exponentially increasing its oil demand and imports. China's oil imports were up 30 percent from the previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum consumer only after the United States, and there is no end in sight in terms of how this nation of 1.3 billion people will continue to import oil from other places around the world. Experts predict China's large and rapidly growing demand for oil will have serious implications for United States oil prices and supplies. Fully one-quarter of the U.S. trade deficit today is associated with oil imports, and as we have continued to grow on our overreliance on foreign oil, it is incredible for me to take a look at the statistics with respect to American vehicles. American vehicles today get fewer miles per gallon than they did in 1988. What that tells us is this Nation has not taken the energy crisis we currently have in a series enough fashion. It is an imperative for us to do so, and this energy bill we are considering today in the Senate is part of our response to try to make sure we live up to the challenges we face in America today. In my view, the answer to the energy crisis we face is that we must do everything we can to set America free from its overdependence on the importation of foreign oil. Indeed, leading American conservatives and progressive organizations, both Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, have come forward with a concern about the security and economic implications of America's growing dependence on foreign oil. These groups have formed a coalition called Set America Free. We should embrace the Set America Free agenda as an imperative for America for energy independence and security. Since most of the oil and the overwhelming source of known oil reserves lie in one specific region of the world, the Middle East, our national security is held hostage to the whims of despotic or increasingly unstable regions. Ominously, the money we pay for foreign oil helps pay for the activities of extremists and terrorists who hate the United States and the West in general. We need only to recall the horrors of 9/11 to know this hatred is real. Even worse, the money pit grows deeper because as the world consumes more oil, that oil becomes more expensive and the money that keeps some of those regimes in place gets more and more concentrated. So America is held hostage in a tighter and tighter grip. There is only one way for us to fix this. America must embrace an imperative of energy independence and security. We have to set America free. This energy bill, which is a bipartisan bill, is a good first step. This energy bill that is before the Senate takes some very important steps: an important step in energy conservation, which means we will do more with what we have; an important step in embracing a new ethic of renewable energy for the 21st century, which will help us grow our own energy resources in our country; an important step in developing new technologies that will help us address the energy demands of our Nation and, also importantly, balanced development of existing fuel supplies. These are important steps to lead us to the goal of energy independence and security. I want to review each of those steps briefly. First, conservation. Energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest way for our country to extend its energy supplies and to begin to tackle the alarming increases in energy prices we have witnessed in the past few years. This is far cheaper than any other form of energy, and for a good reason. Energy efficiency is not subject to transmission losses, and it is not subject to fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels or the availability of a renewable resource. The Energy bill contains a number of very good provisions for conservation. It establishes requirements for energy and water savings in congressional buildings so that we in Congress can tell the rest of the Nation that we also will walk the walk on conservation. It establishes new conservation goals on energy measurement and accountability standards for Federal buildings and agencies all over the country. This is significant, for one of the Nation's largest if not the largest landlords is the Federal Government. It extends the energy savings performance contracts, ESPCs, for 10 years. These contracts are an excellent mechanism by which the Federal Government is guaranteed to save money and save energy, savings that can be passed on directly to the taxpayers of America. The program provides private financing of energy-saving improvements for Federal buildings. The Senate Energy bill also authorizes or extends energy assistance for State programs, such as weatherization assistance, energy-efficient appliance rebate programs, and grants to States and local governments to create more energy-efficient buildings. The Senate Energy bill also sets energy efficiency standards for exit signs, for lamps, certain transformers, traffic signals, heaters, lamps, refrigerators and freezers, air conditioners, washing machines, dehumidifiers, commercial ice makers, pedestrian signals, mercury vapor light ballasts, and pre-rinse spray valves. The energy portions of this legislation are a strong indication of the direction in which this country has to head, and that is to be more efficient with the fuel resources that are available for us. Second, renewable energy--renewable energy is a great opportunity for the United States of America in the 21st century. Nothing is more important in this bill than its call for increased use of renewable energy. I am particularly proud of the people of Lamar, CO. Their efforts to produce clean, renewable energy are a great service to the entire Front Range of Colorado. The efforts in Lamar literally keep the lights on. This morning, in our Denver Post in Colorado, they talked about the town's efforts to make their voices heard on the Senate floor. I assure you, Mr. President, and all of the people in Lamar, we hear you, and we thank you for your support for renewable energy. The Energy bill directs the Secretary of Energy to compile a detailed inventory of the Nation's renewable energy resources and also establishes a renewable fuels standard. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the renewable fuels standard provision of the Senate Energy bill. This amendment calls for 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel to be produced in America by 2012. This amendment is good for America and good for the environment. Growing our own transportation fuels directly reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It not only reduces our dependence on foreign oil now, it promises to reduce our imports even more in the near future. The production and use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012 will displace more than 2 billion barrels of crude oil, and it will reduce the outflow of dollars to foreign oil producers by more than $60 billion. An important provision of this renewable fuel standard is that it provides incentives for the development of cellulosic ethanol. Current methods of producing ethanol have an energy return of about 35 percent, but cellulosic ethanol, which will soon become economically feasible, will provide as much as 500 percent energy return. And once we are at that point, we will be on the edge of a brand new frontier for domestic biofuel production. Finally, ethanol and biodiesel are good for the environment. Net carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels are lower than from fossil fuels, because the carbon released during combustion was taken out of the air by the agricultural crops in the first place. Ethanol and biodiesel are both young industries in Colorado, but I believe that these biofuels are essential to our energy future, and the farmers of Colorado believe that they are a key component of that future. And truth be told, I simply like the idea of growing and harvesting our transportation fuels. It seems to me that this is a true way forward for America. Third, Technology. The energy bill also includes provisions for the development of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants--IGCC, commonly referred to as gasification. Using this technology, we can extract energy from coal in a much more environmentally responsible way than the pulverized coal plants in use today. IGCC significantly reduces mercury, sulfur, and nitrogen oxide pollution. It uses our most abundant natural resource--coal. And it can be used to fake a synthetic natural gas, which means coal can help drive down the price of natural gas. IGCC can also be used to make fertilizer--fertilizer is normally made from natural gas. The fertilizer industry has been shutting its doors in America, and fertilizer prices have been going up ever since our natural gas prices became so high. IGCC also offers modest gains in efficiency today, and the potential for great gains tomorrow. I think that the steps the energy bill takes towards developing IGCC are good ones. And I it comes at a crucial time. Although the bill contains good provisions to move forward with gasification for electrical energy production, it does not yet have the necessary incentives for reducing gasoline consumption by motor vehicles. There are about 800 million cars in active use worldwide. By 2050, as cars become more common in China and India, it will be 3.25 billion. In America alone, two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption is due to the transportation sector. These two facts alone tell us that we need greater fuel economy. I do not believe we are doing enough to promote vehicle fuel economy. The Energy Future Coalition and Set America Free are promoting the idea of a plug-in, hybrid car that gets 500 miles per gallon. Unless you are a multimillionaire, I imagine you--most consumers in America-- would go for cars that can go 70, 100--500 miles on a gallon of gas. As revolutionary as it sounds, consider that a significant portion of American driving is done over short distances to and from the store or to and from work. With shorter trips powered purely by electrical batteries, the amount of gasoline conserved in America would increase significantly. This kind of out-of-the-box thinking, combined with solid technological underpinnings, is exactly what America needs to move us forward. Already a hybrid plug-in car has been demonstrated at over 100 miles per gallon, nearly 4 times our current national fuel economy. Five hundred miles per gallon is a lofty goal, no doubt. But only by setting high standards can we achieve great results and see progress soar. Let me address balanced development and non-traditional sources of energy in the bill. To pursue energy independence, we must also work to develop our own natural resources. But this development must be done in a balanced and responsible way. Over the past 2 decades the Rocky Mountain West, including my State of Colorado, has experienced an incredible boom in natural gas exploration and production. This activity has been centered in Western Colorado, also known as the Western Slope. The exploration and production taking place on the Western Slope is on public lands as well as private lands. With over 60 drilling rigs operating in our state this month--as many as Wyoming--there is tremendous pressure on our local land and communities. Responsible development, balanced development, means that some places are simply not appropriate for drilling or exploration. Some places are too pristine to allow the potential environmental damage that comes with fossil fuel development. In Colorado, we have the unique Roan plateau, and I do not believe the top of the Plateau should be opened for drilling. Colorado is also home to the world's best deposits of Oil Shale from which unconventional oil can be derived. Estimates are that over one trillion barrels of unconventional oil could be recovered from the oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Even a fraction of that amount would be an important contribution to what must be a national priority: lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Oil shale development has failed in the past due to technical, environmental and economic problems. If we are to successfully develop oil shale we must follow the principle of sustainability; a marathon, not a sprint. Sustainability will focus on the long-term development of oil shale. The development must take place in cooperation with States and local communities. The development must be based on sound economics. We must make sure we have developed oil shale in an environmentally responsible manner. I am cautiously optimistic that the future of oil shale will include its contribution to lessening the dangerous dependence of the United States on foreign oil. If we do not rise to meet this opportunity, we will only have ourselves to blame when in the years ahead we look back and wonder what we might have done better to set America free. There is a component of the energy challenge we face which must be addressed and on which there will be further dialog in this Senate in the days ahead, and that is the issue of climate change. Climate change is happening. The scientists of America agree that climate change is here and that we must address it. The business community of America comes together with companies such as DuPont and GE. They say we must address this issue. As we move forward in the days ahead to complete our work on the energy legislation, it is my hope that we include provisions that address the issue of carbon emissions and global warming. In conclusion, let me say that when I think back to the greatest generation of time, just like many of my colleagues in this Senate, I think back to my father and my mother, part of that ``greatest generation'' of World War II, where they knew that anything was possible in America and no challenge was too high or too steep to climb as an American nation. That was truly the unique spirit of the American people. Today, when we face the crisis we are in with our overdependence on foreign oil and our energy crisis, it requires the same kind of spirit we saw in that generation of World War II. It requires the kind of leadership and courage we saw with people such as Abraham Lincoln, who staked the life of the Nation over the Civil War and resulted in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and forever changed our Nation. It requires the leadership and vision and courage of someone such as Franklin Roosevelt, who could lead us through the Depression and prepare us to win World War II. It requires the leadership of people such as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who said that we could reach the Moon and we could do it within 10 years. That is the kind of boldness we need in this energy legislation to make sure we get rid of our overdependence on foreign oil and that we set America free, not only for our generation but for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam. President, I rise today to take a moment to recognize a woman on the occasion of her 60 birthday, a woman whose leadership and courage in her home country of Burma inspires the people of that country and the world to continue to fight for democracy and human rights. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has devoted her life to fighting for peace in a country whose people live under an oppressive one-party socialist government known as the State Law and Restoration Council, SLORC. This government is responsible for the deaths of thousands of its own people and the unjust imprisonment of untold more. Suu Kyi remains the only detained Nobel Peace Laureate in the world. Suu Kyi was born in Burma in 1945 to General Aung San, the leader of the Burmese movement for independence from Great Britain. After his group achieved Burmese independence and took control of the government, he was assassinated for his democratic beliefs and practices. Suu Kyi left Burma and moved to India with her mother after she became the Burmese Ambassador to India in 1960. Although Suu Kyi was only 2 when her father was killed, it was his legacy that inspired her to head the National League for Democracy, NLD when she returned to Myanmar after graduating from Oxford University many years later. Under her leadership, the NLD won the general election in 1990 with a landslide victory. However, the SLORC refused to acknowledge their win and put the elected pro-democracy leaders under house arrest, including Suu Kyi. Although no longer in prison, Suu Kyi is not allowed to travel freely due to restrictions by the Burmese Government. As a result, she will not leave the country out of fear of being permanently exiled from her homeland. Her commitment to her people is so enduring that she is willing to forsake seeing her children who live abroad ever again. Suu Kyi has inspired countless other Burmese supporters and the world to focus global attention on this conflict. In my State of Colorado, for example, many people from that country have relocated to Boulder. One such person is former Burmese princess Inge Sargent who founded the Burma Lifeline. This organization funds refugee camps along the Thai border and works in conjunction with other groups such as the Shan Women Action Network. Inge Sargent was awarded the United Nations International Human Rights Award in 2000. In an effort to lend my voice to the efforts of Senator McConnell and Inge Sargent, I am happy have joined with 42 other Senators as a cosponsor of a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. It is because of brave women like Suu Kyi and the hundreds of people from Burma who have made Colorado their home that Burma has a bright future. Yet the struggle is far from over; these brave leaders will not be free until Suu Kyi's call for democracy is answered.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan amendment to increase the renewable fuels standard. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this commonsense amendment--and honored to join the senators, such as Senators Johnson and Lugar, who have been working on this issue literally since its inception. My parents always taught me that it was important to understand the history of our family, the lands around us and our Nation. I don't think it's out of the question for us to take a moment to reflect on the history of ethanol, too. The use of ethanol in this Nation reaches back more than a century. Henry Ford's Model T was designed to run on ethanol. During World War I, ethanol accounted for 20 percent of vehicle fuels and during World War II we converted whiskey distilleries to produce fuel ethanol. Ethanol helped combat the oil crisis of the 1970s and was pivotal in the phase-out of leaded gasoline in the early 1980s. Now we have an opportunity to move forward again with ethanol, which Henry Ford referred to as the ``fuel of the future''. Last year this Nation used 140 billion gallons of motor fuel, but only 3.45 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel. In other words, in 2004 only 2.5 percent of our Nation's fuel was renewable. The amendment we are considering now calls for 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel to be produced in America by 2012. This will represent slightly less than 5 percent of the transportation fuel that will be used in 2012. At the moment, most of our biofuels are ethanol, and most of that is derived from corn. But this legislation helps the country to transition to producing more biodiesel and more diverse ethanol feedstocks. This transition to a more diverse set of feedstocks will help our national security and national economy, because it will allow farmers from all over the country to grow crops that can be used to make transportation fuels. These diverse feedstocks will include potatoes, tobacco, sugar, wood waste and more. And while this amendment works to diversify the feedstocks for renewable fuels, it also contain very good incentives to establish cellulosic ethanol. This is the ethanol of the future and we need to develop it. While current ethanol has a positive energy return of around 35 percent, cellulosic ethanol has the potential to return as much as 500 percent of the energy required to make it. This will be a significant advance in our quest to set America free from foreign oil. The amendment is meant to send a very clear signal to the market that America is committed to this cheap, clean and reliable energy source. This amendment is not, as some of my colleagues have suggested, an ``outrage.'' This amendment is good for Colorado, good for America, and good for the environment. First of all, this amendment is good for Colorado. Rural economies in Colorado and across the country need help. We cannot continue to maintain the policies that have made rural America the forgotten America. It is said that a rising tide lifts all boats, but too often the tides never reach the Main Streets of our rural communities. Ethanol can help make it possible for everyone to benefit from economic growth. Domestically produced biofuels can provide that assistance, in the form of good jobs, an influx of construction dollars, and new markets for local agriculture. In Colorado alone, new ethanol plants are planned for Windsor, Evans, and Sterling. There is some talk of future ethanol plants in Fort Morgan, Commerce City, and Lamar. The facility in Sterling is under construction now and should be up and running by October of this year. It will employ about 32 people and may add up to 100 secondary jobs. The facility hopes to supply about 1 million gallons of ethanol each year. For biodiesel, we have small producers in Berthoud and in Denver, and a new production and blending facility will come on line in Monte Vista this year that should be producing biodiesel fuel within the next two months and will employ 12 people around the clock. Once in full production, this Monte Vista plant should create a ripple effect of up to 200 additional jobs. And right now, in my own San Luis Valley, canola is being grown specifically for the production of biodiesel. This amendment also includes potatoes as a possible feedstock for bio-fuel. The San Luis Valley grows, but cannot use, tons and tons of potatoes each year. The amendment allows for the possibility that someone in the San Luis Valley will pick up on this cheap feedstock and turn it into fuel. Second, this amendment is good for America. It is a simple fact that our dependence on oil from a politically unstable region of the world puts our I national security at risk. Remember what we are dealing with when we are so dependent on foreign sources of energy. Our four top sources for oil are Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. It is no secret that stability in Saudi Arabia is an open question, and each week records a new outrage from the President of Venezuela. Developing our own transportation fuels directly reduces this dependence on foreign oil and frees our nation to better protect its citizens from economic or other harms. The production and use of 8 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012 will displace more than 2 billion barrels of crude oil, and it will reduce the outflow of dollars to foreign oil producers by more than $60 billion. By reducing our dependence on foreign oil and the unstable governments that provide it, we strengthen our national security. By reducing our trade deficit, we strengthen our economy. This amendment does both. Finally, ethanol and biodiesel are good for the environment. There is no monopoly on concern for protecting our natural heritage. Everyone in this chamber share the goal of clean air, and ethanol is a simple, direct route to getting there. Net carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels are lower than from fossil fuels, because the carbon released during combustion was taken out of the air by the agricultural crops in the first place. According to Argonne National Labs in Illinois, in 2004 ethanol use in the U.S. reduced greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 7.3 million tons, equivalent to removing the annual emissions of more than 1 million cars from the road. According to the EPA, ethanol can reduce the production of carbon monoxide, one of the chief ingredients of smog, by as much as 30 percent. In fact, ethanol can reduce urban smog more than any other fuel available. Supporting this, amendment is the common-sense thing for the Senate today. It's a win for big cities and rural small towns alike. It benefits the environment while putting us on a stronger economic and national security footing. How often are we presented with an opportunity to implement policy that benefits every person in this country? To pass it up would be a I shame. In closing, Mr. President, I reiterate that I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to establish a strong renewable fuels standard. It is a clear-cut case of what we can do when we work together--Republicans and Democrats--to fix problems that face our country. I wish it were not such a I unique development. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Plumb, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, at the outset of my statement on this energy legislation, I want to provide my laudatory comments to the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, and the ranking member, Jeff Bingaman, for their great work in pulling together what is a great piece of legislation. I also want to say thank you to Alex Flint, Lisa Epifani, Sam Fowler, and Bob Simon for their good work as staff members on the committee. I believe the Energy legislation is a very good first step, and I think the bipartisan nature in which that committee considered the legislation is a good template for other work this Senate Chamber engages in. I believe the keystones of energy conservation, renewable energy, new technologies, and balanced development are all very important parts of this legislation. It is my hope this Senate and the House of Representatives are able to deliver energy legislation to the President for his signature in the near future. I will speak more broadly about the Energy bill and its importance to America because I do think it is one of the two most important things we are working on on behalf of our Nation today. I believe the energy challenge we face in America and the health care challenge that is bankrupting America's families and businesses are the two most important things we could be working on as a Senate. But today, and for at least the week, perhaps several weeks ahead, Senators Domenici and Bingaman will lead us through the discussion on what we are going to do with respect to the energy imperative. I rise this evening to specifically address the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Washington to establish a goal to reduce by 40 percent the amount of oil the United States is projected to import in 2025. This amendment requests an annual report be completed that provides information about the progress the United States has made in achieving the goal. When this goal is met, the United States would be positioned to reduce imports by 1.5 million barrels per day compared to 2005 import numbers. Those savings would be equivalent to the amount of oil the United States is currently importing from Saudi Arabia. Section 151 of the Senate Energy bill as written contains an oil savings provision. That provision would direct the President to implement measures sufficient to reduce by 2015 the country's projected demand for oil by 1 million barrels a day. Assuming that all those savings came from import reductions, the United States would still be importing 14.4 million barrels a day. That is over a million barrels a day more than we import today. It strikes me as odd to be importing more oil and calling it oil savings. It sounds a bit like Washington doublespeak. We need to work toward real energy independence, not away from it. We need to import less oil, not more. We have to stop putting so much money in the hands of regimes hostile to the United States in the most unstable regions of the world. We have to do everything we can to set America free from our overdependence on foreign oil. I rise in support of this amendment because it truly represents oil savings. The amendment would reduce our oil imports by 1.5 million barrels per day less than we are importing right now. This is progress. This is the right kind of vision for America's future, a vision of energy independence, a vision of an America free of foreign oil. These oil savings can be easily achieved if we have the vision and the courage to do it. More use of renewable fuels, more efficient vehicles, and the intent to actually do something are substantial keys to setting America free through this energy legislation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt the Cantwell amendment to the energy legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak in support of S. Res. 39, apologizing for the Senate's failure to enact antilynching legislation. It is important for us to reflect on the statements that have been made by my colleagues, including the distinguished Senator from Louisiana and the distinguished Senator from Virginia, so that we can remember the history of this country and how America has been an America in progress. The past can be painted in statistics or it can be painted in the stories of people who have suffered from the unjust result of the absence of an antilynching law. We can speak about the time between 1882 and 1968 when there were nearly 5,000 lynchings. These lynchings that occurred were not lynchings that occurred just in the southern part of the United States of America but happened throughout most of the States of our country, including in my own home State of Colorado, where a historian has in his own research concluded that there were about 175 lynchings in Colorado between 1859 and 1919. It is appropriate and fitting that today we apologize for the absence of those laws, that we recognize people like James Cameron who became a survivor of the lynchings of that time period, recognize that this Senate today says we apologize for that past. It is perhaps even more important to look to the future of America and to look at the racial issues and the challenges we face as a nation to create an America that truly is an America of inclusion. It is one thing to stand in the Chamber of the Senate today, to look at our history, and to learn from that painful history, but it is equally as important to look to the future and to recognize the challenges we face in this America in the decade ahead, and the 100 years ahead require us to learn from those very painful lessons of the past. When one looks at those very painful lessons of the past, we have to recognize for the first 250 years of the beginnings of this Nation we had a system of law that recognized it was OK for one group of people to own another group of people under our system of slavery just because of the color of their skin. It is important for us, also, to recognize that it took the bloodiest war of the United States during the Civil War, for over half a million people were killed on our own soil in America to bring about an end to the system of slavery and to usher in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which are the bedrock of the constitutional liberties we now endow upon all people of America. Notwithstanding the fact that in that time period of the Civil War we saw the blood and life of so many Americans laid down in this country, we still continued through another period of almost 100 years where we divided our Nation according to groups. It was over 100 years ago when Justice Harlan, writing for the dissent in the now famous case of Plessy v. Ferguson, made the following observation, disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court on the segregation system which was ushered in under that decision, saying: The destinies of the races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together and the interests of both require that the common government law shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. That was over 100 years ago. Yet it took more than half a century, until 1954, in the decision of Brown v. Board of Education, for the U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of Justice Warren to say in these United States, separate but equal was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It took more than half a century more for the U.S. Supreme Court to make that statement. So when we look to the future of America, when we look to the diversity that defines our country, it is my belief that this next century will be defined by how we as an American society embrace the concept of an inclusive America. When we embrace a concept of an inclusive America, we talk about including people of all backgrounds-- be they Anglo Americans, French Americans, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, women--that we as an American society will be challenged in the century ahead by how we deal with the issue of inclusion, and the greatness of this country will be defined by how successful we are in making sure we are inclusive of all people. There are some who have recognized this. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in the now famous decision of the University of Michigan from several years ago, made the following comment about the importance of diversity in higher education in the majority opinion: These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. That was from the brief submitted by General Motors. She went on to say: What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert, based on their decades of experience, a highly qualified racially diverse officer corps is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security. It was in that articulation by Justice Day O'Connor, where she articulated the challenge and the opportunity that we have as an American society, the 21st century unfolds in front of us. In my estimation, the greatness of this country depends on our learning and not forgetting the painful lessons of the past, including the lynchings that occurred across America, while also looking forward to the challenge of including people of all backgrounds and all races in all of the business affairs and civic affairs of this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a moment about a brave American who lost his life earlier this week. His name is SSG Justin L. Vasquez. Staff Sergeant Vasquez was killed this past Sunday when a roadside bomb exploded near his military vehicle. Staff Sergeant Vasquez was 26, and from the small town of Manzanola, CO, near La Junta, along the Arkansas River. He was a member of the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment out of Fort Carson, CO. He aspired to become an FBI agent, to continue his career of helping to protect people. He even considered becoming a lifetime military man. Regardless of whether he chose the FBI or stayed in the military, he was clearly motivated by patriotism and was making service to our great country and our security his career. Staff Sergeant Vasquez was always a patriot who chose to put his country over himself. He enlisted at 18, and after his first tour of Iraq reenlisted for a second 6-year stretch with the Army in 2003. Consider that, Mr. President. We are learning everyday that the Army is having trouble meeting its recruiting goals because of the demands of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Vasquez chose to re-up for service after having been to Iraq and knowing he was in all likelihood heading back to Iraq. During this, his second tour in Iraq, Staff Sergeant Vasquez was serving as a commander of a team of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Earlier this year, Staff Sergeant Vasquez was selected as one of nine soldiers from Colorado profiled by the Rocky Mountain News during their service in Kuwait. The paper noted that Staff Sergeant Vasquez had ``arguably, the toughest job in First Platoon, if not in all of Lightning Troop''--working with new enlistments fresh out of boot camp. But perhaps most importantly, Staff Sergeant Vasquez was a leader. Among the nine men under his command, five were new enlistments on their first tour. He would spend much of his time during the days training the inexperienced scouts, helping to build their confidence in their mission and their actions. Staff Sergeant Vasquez was shaping nervous boys into confident young men, creating leaders for our cities and towns, businesses and PTA boards. He had every confidence in his men and inspired them to have confidence in themselves and their mission. In his short life, Sergeant Vasquez was a living role model of what each of us in this Chamber hopes to become: a champion for something other than ourselves, a champion for an ideal--freedom--bigger than anyone person. All of Colorado is saddened by the loss of SSG Justin Vasquez, but we also celebrate everything that he stood for. He served his Nation with honor and distinction, and set an example to which we can all aspire. He will be missed by his family and friends and the men whom he led. Today, they are all in our thoughts and prayers. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me at the outset say that I am proud that I was 1 of the 14 Members who signed the agreement just referred to by my good friend from Ohio. In the signing of that agreement, one of the things that brought people together was the concept of respect for each other, mutual respect for our colleagues in this Chamber, mutual respect for the people of America. As we have gone through the debate on the confirmation of judges over the last several days, I have seen debate within this body as well as debate among some of the constituent groups that I have found troublesome because it goes to the heart of the kind of respect we should afford each other in this Chamber. I have heard statements that those who happened to be opposed to Bill Pryor, for whom I voted, were opposed to him because he was anti- Catholic. I heard statements made that some of my Democratic colleagues who were opposed to Janice Rogers Brown were opposed to her because she was African American. I submit that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when those kinds of statements emanate from Members of this Chamber or when they emanate from some of the constituent groups that follow us, it is a violation of the respect we should afford each other. I, too, am hopeful that as we move forward in the consideration of other judges and other matters, that kind of hurtful, vitriolic, and unwarranted attack on each other is something we will not see again. If we can establish that kind of collegiality within this body, we can, in fact, return to those days when we had people working across the aisle to solve the common problems that faced Americans, regardless of whether they were Democrats, Independents, or Republicans. It is that kind of ethic I hope is embraced as we move forward in deliberations.