Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7580-S7582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, what I really came to address is an issue of
utmost importance to the American people. When I visit my home State
and read the mail I receive from constituents, I am consistently
reminded of the fact that we are seeing record-high energy prices. High
energy prices affect almost every American. They affect the parent who
drives his or her kids to school. They affect the college student who
wants to make it home for the weekend. They affect Members of the
Senate as we travel to and from our States. But we have to be careful
with what we do. A lot of the time, something that we think is going to
be a positive move turns out to be a negative.
I refer to a Wall Street Journal article of May 16, 2007. It is
titled ``Green But Unclean.'' It reads:

I ask unanimous consent to print this article in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2007]

Green But Unclean

Remember those water-saving toilets that Congress mandated
a few years back? Yes, the ones that frequently clog and
don't flush, causing many Americans to resort to buying high-
performance black-market potties in Canada and sneaking them
into their homes like smugglers. Well, get set for
Washington's latest brainstorm: $800 washers that don't
really clean.
The June issue of Consumer Reports states that ``Not so
long ago you could count on most washers to get your clothes
clean. Not anymore. . .'' The magazine tested the new washers
and found that ``Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly
as dirty as they were before washing.''
The cause of this dirty laundry is a regulation issued in
the waning days of the Clinton Administration mandating that
washers use 35% less energy by 2007. Regulators claimed at
the time that this would save money and energy without
sacrificing performance. That's what they always say. But,
according to Consumer Reports, the new top-loading washers
``had some of the lowest scores we've seen in years.''
Don't expect apologies from Congress or the green activists
who promoted these mandates. We are living in one of those
eras where all Americans are supposed to bow before the gods
of energy conservation, even if it means walking around with
dirty underwear. One irony is that because the new machines
clean so poorly, consumers will often have to rewash clothes,
which could well offset energy savings from the mandates. Not
to mention the use of extra detergent. But no matter:
Crusades like these are about pure green intentions, not the
impure actual results.
And this is just the beginning. President Bush's
endorsement of more immediate auto-mileage standards this
week is the latest sign that we are returning to the era when
the environment is used as the political justification to
promote a new wave of government regulation.
Members of Congress and state legislatures are proposing
new government edicts forcing Americans to use new and more
energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs instead of the
conventional incandescent bulbs that many people prefer.
Apparently Americans aren't wise enough to make up their own
minds, as technology adapts and prices of the new bulbs fall.
Once upon a time liberals said government should stay out
of the bedroom; at the current rate, that will be the only
room in the house where Uncle Sam won't be telling us how to
live.

Mr. ENZI. Price increases are for a number of reasons, but the
simplest explanation is that we lack the supply to meet the demand for
energy. At the same time, prices decrease when we see strong supplies
that are capable of meeting the demand that exists.
We have to be careful that we reduce the demand--and that is what
part of this bill does--but we also have to figure out a way to
increase the supply. I am a little disappointed in what the bill does
with that.
On June 12, 2007, there was an article in the Casper Star-Tribune.
The title is ``Official warns of energy crisis; Growth in demand for
electricity in West exceeds generation capacity.'' Of course, for years
we have been hearing about rolling brownouts in California and even
blackouts in part of the country.
It says:

Construction of new electrical generation in the West is
projected to grow by 6 percent, while demand for electricity
is projected to increase by 19 percent over the next 10
years, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

FERC Commissioner Suedeen Kelly, speaking on her own behalf, said the
situation is nothing short of a crisis.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Casper Star-Tribune, June 12, 2007]

Official Warns of Energy Crisis

(By Dustin Bleizeffer)

Deadwood, S.D.--Construction of new electrical generation
in the West is projected to grow by 6 percent, while demand
for electricity is projected to increase by 19 percent over
the next 10 years, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.

[[Page S7581]]

FERC commissioner Suedeen Kelly, speaking on her own
behalf, said the situation is nothing short of a crisis.
``There's not enough time to build our way out,'' Kelly
told the Western Governors' Association here Monday.
Kelly said Western states must band together to
aggressively seek energy efficiency, noting that even small
load reductions during peak usage times have proven to save
millions of dollars. In addition to efficiency, Kelly said,
Western states must immediately launch a massive and
coordinated construction effort to link rural renewable
energy and clean coal resources to high-load centers.
She commended the Western Governors' Association for its
efforts toward those goals, but cautioned that the process is
going to be expensive--both financially and politically. The
political cost is that some government entity--whether state
or federal--is going to have to force power lines into
someone's backyard.
States retain authority over siting power lines and related
facilities--an endowment the federal government doesn't seem
to envy, according to Kelly. Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal
suggested this is one area where the federal government could
be useful. Freudenthal's idea: Perhaps FERC could play some
sort of ``convenor'' role to ``legitimize'' siting authority.
``The governor feels really what the state can do is set
the stage and make the case that transmission is important,''
Freudenthal spokeswoman Cara Eastwood said. ``It's a complex
issue, and it's a challenging issue that has to be overcome
in some way.''
Individual states can invite FERC to participate without
relinquishing siting authority, Kelly said. She said open co-
operation is key to dealing with the energy crisis, so
Westerners are going to have to accept ``small environmental
footprints'' to reduce the overall environmental footprint
across the nation.
``We are no longer flying solo with our electricity supply
and demand,'' Kelly said. ``We are dependent on each other--
even more dependent on each other if we want to (develop) our
renewable and clean coal'' resources.
Kelly said the energy shortfall will likely reveal itself
this summer, noting that meteorologists project hot
temperatures across the nation.
``We can correctly call this a crisis,'' Kelly said. ``We
don't have enough time to build generation to meet increased
demand this summer.''

Mr. ENZI. As prices continue to escalate, some would say we are in an
energy crisis. We are at a point where we continue to see the global
demand for energy increasing as countries such as China and India
develop. At the same time, the demand increases, the Democratic
Congress is not taking the steps to increase our domestic supply. Some
of the policies we are seeing will have a detrimental effect on that
supply.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a number of important
incentives for the domestic exploration of many new natural resource
supplies. It aided in the production of affordable domestic energy. We
are now seeing a number of proposals from the other side to repeal
these important provisions.
In the 109th Congress, we attempted to pass important legislation to
streamline the bureaucratic process that made it impossible to build an
entirely new refinery, and that is what has been happening for the last
30 years. That legislation was repeatedly blocked at the expense of the
American people, who continue to suffer as refiners struggle to keep
pace through expansion. Supply and demand--you can buy the oil, but
unless the oil becomes gasoline, you cannot use it, and unless it is in
enough of a quantity of gasoline and enough of a supply, the price will
go up. It will provide complications.
Since November, gasoline prices have increased almost 50 percent. The
price of gas averaged $2.20 a gallon at the last election. Now the
average is $3.15 a gallon. Part of that is the cost of a barrel of oil,
but more of that is a reflection on the future and how unstable some of
the world situations are. That is what fluctuates the price of a barrel
of oil.
But the price at the pump is affected by the number of refineries we
have and the number of regulations Congress puts on the gasoline we
use. We saw a spike last month in the price of gasoline. That is the
point at which the refineries had to shut down some of their production
in order to change over to the requirements we put on for the summer
fuel. When that happens, there is less supply, and prices go up. Since
the changeover has been made, prices have come down slightly.
These are not positive trends and, unfortunately, there is nothing to
indicate the Senate will be acting in a way to increase supply and
improve the price of energy for the American people.
My State of Wyoming is an energy-producing State. We produce about a
third of the Nation's coal. We produce a million tons of coal a day. We
also have large natural gas fields. We are the only State in the Nation
that is showing an increasing supply of natural gas. We also produce
some oil. We have a significant amount of wind power. We have uranium.
Because of a lot of Sun, I am seeing an increasing amount of solar
power with each visit to Wyoming.
We have a diversified energy portfolio. We have an energy portfolio
that recognizes that coal is the Nation's most abundant resource. In
fact, my county has more Btu's in coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil.
Our energy portfolio recognizes you can produce natural gas in an
environmentally efficient manner. At the same time, our State's
portfolio recognizes there is an increasingly important place for wind
and other renewable resources. We are trying to do them all, but we
cannot neglect the one we have the most of.
The policies on the other side of the aisle do not reflect this need
for diversity. While they talk about the need to reduce our dependence
on foreign energy sources, they repeatedly block efforts to produce our
domestic resources. As they talk about the need to lower prices for
consumers, they advocate policies that will make it more expensive to
produce energy. As they talk about the need to increase our Nation's
energy security, they vote against policies that will increase the use
of our Nation's most abundant domestic energy source.
We are currently debating an energy bill. I want to commend Chairman
Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici for their work on this
legislation. There is no question there are some positive provisions in
the legislation. I do appreciate that it actually came through
committee. I have not seen a bill that has just been brought to the
floor, such as the immigration bill, that has ever made it through the
process. So this one has a chance of making it through, and I am glad
for that. The legislation will help develop biofuels technologies which
will allow us to displace some of our Nation's traditional energy
supply.
However, the legislation has many flaws, most clearly illustrated by
the decision of Senate Democrats to block efforts by members of the
Energy Committee who worked to incentivize a technology that can truly
reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources. That technology is
known as coal-to-liquids, and it is the process of turning our Nation's
most abundant energy source--coal--into liquid fuels--incentives
instead of stopping the process.
Coal-to-liquids technology is not new. The technology has been around
since the 1940s, and there is no question it will be used today in a
much better way than even in the 1940s. It would be used in the
transportation markets, which is our biggest difficulty.
It can be transported in pipelines that currently exist. And, because
it comes from coal--our Nation's most abundant energy source--it can be
produced at home by American workers.
Coal-to-liquids plants are being developed in China. They are being
developed in other major industrialized nations, but they are not being
developed in the United States. I am concerned that, as we sit on the
sidelines, other nations will take advantage of our inaction and our
economy will suffer.
The amendment offered by Senators Thomas and Bunning that was blocked
in the Energy Committee offered a tremendous opportunity to move coal-
to-liquids forward. It was a tremendous opportunity to place more of
our energy security in the hands of Americans and to take it out of the
hands of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and other oil barons who seek to do
economic harm to the United States. Unfortunately, on a party-line
vote, that effort was blocked and instead of debating a more
comprehensive energy bill, we are debating one with a glaring weakness.
In addition to the decision to keep coal-to-liquids language out of
the legislation, I am concerned that a number of other sections
included in the bill make for good talking points, but not for good
solutions. Although I understand and sympathize with the problems that
high energy prices create for

[[Page S7582]]

families, creating a federal price gouging law is not the answer. The
authority already exists for investigations into price gouging, and I
am concerned that price gouging is simply a code word for ``price
controls.'' Such a policy failed in the past and will fail in the
future.
I also have concerns about the sections of the legislation that
increase corporate average fuel economy standards, and I have concerns
that this bill does nothing to address our lack of domestic energy
production in areas where production is possible and environmentally
responsible.
We are in a situation where our Nation's energy supply does not meet
our Nation's energy demand, and, while we must work to reduce our
consumption, we should also work to produce as much energy domestically
as is possible.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of America's
energy security, and I wish to speak a moment about the bill that is
before us and talk about some of the pluses it brings into our debate
and also talk about some additions I think are very necessary.
I am very excited that the Energy Committee, which I am on, has
passed out to this body a bill that talks about increasing the ability
of our country to rely upon alternative fuels. I think we have set some
very good goals in that area. I believe that is an excellent start to
cause us to be less dependent on petroleum, to be far more dependent on
biofuels in our country.
I know the State of Tennessee, which I proudly represent, will be a
big part of making sure that happens. As a matter of fact, our State is
working to make sure we are a substantial part of our country's goal in
meeting these objectives.
I know cellulosic research is taking place in Tennessee and
throughout the country, which will benefit all Americans in the
process, as we take the pressure off corn-based ethanol, which is a big
part of what we are doing in our country. I am so thrilled for the corn
farmers and others across America who are playing a part in our energy
future, but I know that cellulosic is going to be a big part of what we
need to do to even increase our country's ability to produce
alternative fuels.
I also know this bill we are contemplating does a great deal to focus
on carbon capture and storage. It also allows our country to actually
assess the various caverns throughout our country to really look at how
much storage capacity our country has as it relates to storing
CO2 emissions in order to make sure we do no further damage
to our environment.
I know this bill also really focuses on energy efficiency standards--
something all Americans need to embrace. Certainly, the Federal
Government needs to be a leader in that area, and this bill certainly
contemplates that.
But let me say this: In a rush to do this--and I am, again, thrilled
we have a bipartisan effort underway--I think we need not lose sight of
the fact that overall our goal should be to certainly make sure
whatever we do with energy policy raises the gross domestic product of
our country over time, so these young people who are here as pages
today have a future that is even brighter than it is today, that what
we do certainly causes our country to have energy security so we are
not dependent on regimes around the world that are not friendly to our
country, and that whatever we do causes us to be environmental
stewards, that we do not damage our country.
I want to tell you that I had the great privilege of spending time in
Europe 2 weeks ago, looking at some of the energy policies some of our
friends and allies have put in place. While on one hand I admire
greatly their effort to do less damage to the environment, sometimes
there are adverse consequences to what occurs. I think what we have
seen over the short term is a greater dependence on fuel sources that
will cause them to be in some ways more dependent on regimes that could
not in some ways be friendly to their future.
I think we need to keep these things in balance. So while we look at
alternative fuels that are going to be friendly to our environment and
cause us to be less dependent on those that are not, I think we ought
to also focus heavily, in this bill, on increased production. Here in
America, we need to do our best to boost fuel supply by increased
production. We need to increase our refining capacity. We really have
not had major increases in refining capacity in this country since the
1970s. There are additions that are taking place.
I know many people are talking about the high price of gasoline.
Certainly, one of the reasons for that is our country has a limited
ability to actually refine petroleum in a way we can use it in our
vehicles. That is something we as a country need to aggressively
pursue.
The other thing we need to do in this bill--and I plan to offer an
amendment to deal with this issue. In some ways, in this bill, in
focusing on alternative fuels, we are trying to pick winners and
losers. We are saying certain types of ethanol are the types of
alternative fuels we need to be pursuing and those only. What I would
like to do is add--and what I will do through an amendment, and
hopefully, it will pass this body--is to cause the Senate to actually
set standards, standards that cause fuels to be environmentally
friendly, to emit less carbon, to emit less other types of pollutants,
and at the same time be fuel efficient, to provide the amount of
energy, if you will, that really meets the standards these other fuels
do. So we hope to broaden that definition so the Senate itself is not
defining specific fuels.
We have tremendous capabilities in our country through
entrepreneurship. We have tremendous capabilities through coal-to-
liquid technology that we can do in an environmentally friendly way. We
have other types of technologies that are being developed. I think we
as a country should set goals and standards and let entrepreneurs and
the business community help fill the void to cause our country to be
energy secure, to cause our country to help grow the GDP, and to cause
our country to make sure what we do causes us to be environmentally
friendly.
So we will be putting forth that amendment. I hope my colleagues will
join me in helping us broaden these definitions so we can harness the
very best we have in our country.
I yield my time.

____________________