[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:

       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-marketed potties in Canada and sneaking 
     them into their homes like smugglers. Well, get set for 
     Washington's latest brainstorm.

  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.

                          ____________________