[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7854-S7872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CREATING LONG-TERM ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NATION ACT OF 2007--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 60 minutes equally divided under the
Bunning and Tester amendments.
Who seeks time?
The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Amendment No. 1628
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Bunning, et al.,
fuel amendment No. 1628. Senator Hatch has asked to be listed as a
cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, for too long America has ignored its
energy security. Many of us can remember the energy crisis in the
1970s. We were held ransom by a monopolistic oil cartel and forced to
endure shortages, gas lines, and high prices. In the early 1980s, just
as America began to invest in alternative fuels, the oil-producing
states of the world crashed prices to make new technology
uncompetitive. During most of the last 25 years, we have enjoyed low
prices and plentiful supplies. But we have had to pay a price. Today,
we find that America is addicted to oil.
September 11, 2001, and the hurricanes in the gulf region have shown
the
[[Page S7855]]
fragile state of our energy markets. Domestic disasters and terrorism
can send energy prices spiraling out of control. Our energy resources
are stretched to the limit and small supply disruptions ripple
throughout the entire economy. I believe all Americans, as they see
continued instability in the Middle East, China, and India, and
sustained gasoline prices around $3.50, $4 a gallon, can see an energy
crisis on the horizon.
As you can see from the chart I have here, our production of energy
has almost stayed completely flat and will stay completely flat until
about 2025, unless we do something about it. On the other side, our
consumption continues to escalate. So the difference between the two is
the crisis at which we are now looking.
This year alone, we will send about $250 billion to foreign
countries--mostly in the Middle East--to buy oil, adding to the $7
trillion we have already spent in the last few decades. America has
become complacent and overdependent on imported oil. No matter what
energy prices are, we need to take responsibility for our reliance on
imported energy and develop a secure, domestic fuel source.
I believe part of that effort should be developing coal-to-liquid
fuels. America happens to be blessed with significant coal reserves.
Coal powers our homes and businesses. Fifty-two percent of our
electricity is derived from coal. It has long been America's most
abundant fuel resource and has driven our economic growth since the
Industrial Revolution. Coal-to-liquid technology lets America
capitalize on a domestic resource. Every dollar invested in coal-to-
liquid production will stay in America, grow our economy, and create
jobs. By displacing payments to foreign oil companies with domestic
investment, we will actually increase the amount of funding available
for other alternative fuels. It will lower energy prices for American
families, improve the environment, create thousands of jobs, and bring
billions of dollars in new investment to our local communities.
Many of you may be asking one question right now: If this technology
is so great and could replace expensive imports from the Middle East,
why hasn't it been done already?
The answer is simple: Costs and market uncertainty. A typical size
coal-to-liquid plant costs between $3 billion and $5 billion to
construct. With complicated plans and environmental permits, a new
plant could take 5 to 8 years to build. This is a challenge for even
the biggest risk takers on Wall Street. Raising the capital needed to
develop a new technology is always difficult, but the multibillion
dollar investment scale of a coal-to-liquid plant has made it nearly
impossible.
On top of this is the uncertainty of the price of oil. Yesterday, oil
hit $69.09 cents a barrel--an all-time high. Soon we will be seeing $70
prices on a barrel of oil. We have seen this dramatic rise in the last
few years. But investors are concerned that oil prices could drop to
the low levels of the 1980s and make coal-to-liquid plants
uncompetitive again.
But even if oil prices were to drop that low in the next few decades,
I believe CTL would more than pay for itself by insulating us from
supply shocks and providing a secure domestic fuel source for our
military, businesses such as airlines and trucking, and the average
American car.
The challenge for America is to leverage the private investment
required for these large, expensive plants. U.S. investors remember the
last time synthetic fuels were promoted in the 1970s, and remember the
losses they took as oil prices collapsed in the 1980s. The scale of
investment, uncertainty of oil prices, and a complicated
environmental permitting process have prevented the industry from
taking root in the United States.
We need to take aggressive steps now to ensure that America does not
continue to face high heating and gasoline costs and rely so heavily on
unstable and dangerous parts of the world for our energy. I believe the
answer is to provide Government support to get coal-to-liquid
technology off the ground. At least it is one of the things we must
consider.
With modest initial investments, we can kick-start the industry and
then the Government will get out of the way and let the marketplace
take over. I would rather the Government not have any involvement in
coal-to-liquids, but this industry needs assistance because of the
threat of OPEC, oil tyrants like Hugo Chavez, and technology
challenges.
While these are legitimate challenges facing coal to liquid, another
issue has become more and more prominent during this debate. In the
last few weeks, the environmental rhetoric has been strongly against
coal fuels. Unfortunately, too many people have repeated it without
checking the facts. The picture opponents of coal paint is far from the
truth about our fight for energy independence. It shows the same
misinformed biases found in anti-coal advertisements and environmental
newsletters.
I want to tell you clearly and without reservation that coal-to-
liquid fuel will be a clean part of our energy future.
I want to show you another chart. While some may remember urban
diesel pollution problems, coal to liquid will be significantly cleaner
than existing fuels in terms of air pollutants such as sulfur,
particulate matter, nitrogen, and aromatics. Air Force tests,
laboratory tests, and environmental reports all show that coal-to-
liquid fuels will reduce the air pollutants that pose a threat to human
health.
As you can see when you compare diesel and well-to-wheel urban
emissions, compared to low-sulfur, petroleum-based diesels, you can see
organic compounds, carbon monoxide, pollutants, particulate matter, and
SOX, all decreasing in the coal-to-liquid area. But all of
these improvements and the promise of energy security are wiped away by
misleading claims that coal to liquid would produce twice as many
carbon emissions as conventional fuel. That is not true.
The production of coal-to-liquid fuels does release carbon twice--
once during gasification and another when burned like conventional
fuels in engines. But that does not mean coal-to-liquid plants have to
release twice as much carbon emissions.
My amendment requires carbon capture--listen to this. I hope some
people in their offices are listening to this. My amendment requires
carbon capture, but recognizes that there are limits to this technology
today. Carbon capture is only part of the emissions model. Nearly all
of the developers we have worked with want to use biomass coal-blended
feedstock to achieve emissions reductions.
Believe me, I have studied coal to liquid extensively. Reports from
the EPA, DOE, Princeton University, and the Idaho National Laboratories
has shown the coal-to-liquids lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate
will vary dramatically based on the technology, feedstocks, and process
used. These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process
could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral. I will repeat
that. These researchers have shown that the coal-to-liquid process
could one day produce a fuel that is carbon neutral--no carbon
emissions. This is not pie-in-the-sky research. Using some of the same
ideas, a planned plant in Ohio--one that will need some Government
support to get started--will produce coal-to-liquid diesel that has 46
percent less carbon emissions than diesel fuel made presently from
oil--46 percent less.
On chart 3, we show greenhouse gas emissions. This chart shows the
life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions of different kinds of fuel based
on the analysis of the Idaho National Lab. On the left, we have diesel
fuel, coal-to-liquid fuels with no environmental technology, coal to
liquid that uses carbon capture, and coal to liquid that uses carbon
capture and biomass. As we can see by the chart, coal to liquid can be
very clean. That is our goal.
For comparison, I included gasoline and ethanol blends on the right.
If we support coal to liquids and let the industry develop these carbon
capture and biomass technologies, we will reduce emissions more than
corn-based E85 and more than cellulosic E10. That is currently what
everybody wants to do. E85 is the big savior. The new cellulosic
ethanol, E10, is the big savior. As we can see by this chart, that is
not true because the emissions at the end of the line with cellulosic
E10 and corn E85 are all higher than the coal to liquids mixed with
biomass. That is the truth. Those are facts.
[[Page S7856]]
The sector should be given time, just as everyone else, to develop
the best technology and not rely on Congress to pick it for them. That
is why my coal-to-liquid fuel amendment sets the environmental standard
for coal to liquids at the same aggressive 20-percent life cycle
reduction that Chairman Bingaman requires for biofuels. The very same
reduction that Chairman Bingaman in his Energy bill requires of
biofuels is the one I have in this amendment. Every gallon of coal to
liquids made with the help of my amendment would meet this standard and
would be a gallon of oil we do not have to buy from the Middle East.
While I have shown that limited Government support is necessary and
coal-to-liquid fuels will be as clean as biofuels, another reason to
support coal-to-liquid fuels is national security.
I want my colleagues to look at this chart because this is the most
important part of coal-to-liquid technology, and putting it on this
Energy bill.
The military is the largest single purchaser in this country, and the
Air Force consumes 50 percent of this total. I have spoken many times
with the Secretary of the Air Force, and I am proud to say he has taken
the lead on developing this domestic resource.
Last year, the Air Force spent nearly $7 billion--$7 billion--alone
on aviation fuels, which was over budget by $1.6 billion. For every $1
change in the price of a barrel of oil, it costs the Air Force about
$60 million a year. That dramatic impact is 10 times worse for our
commercial airlines.
As we can see, if we do it the right way, we can produce enough of
our aviation fuel from this technology with a change in the way the Air
Force buys their fuels. If we change it from 5 to 20 years in terms of
the amount of time they can contract for, we can have this kind of
dramatic impact for our military.
With this in mind, last summer, the Air Force tested jet fuel with a
50-percent mix of Fischer-Tropsch fuel--that is the coal-to-liquid
process--in a B-52 bomber. The results of these tests so far are
nothing short of outstanding. We already knew these fuels are nearly
zero in sulfur and very low in nitrogen oxide and particulate matter
emissions, but we are learning very new benefits.
During these tests, the Air Force demonstrated this fuel we are
talking about burns significantly cleaner and burns significantly
cooler than conventional jet fuel. These characteristics allow our jets
to have a smaller radar profile and lower heat signature. And these
advantages translate into better mileage, reducing both fuel costs, as
well as greenhouse gas emissions.
In light of this successful assessment, the Air Force plans to test
this fuel in the C-17 cargo plane this year, and it is embracing the
goal of certifying the entire fleet of aircraft by 2016.
By that time, the Air Force intends to meet 50 percent of its annual
fuel needs, more than 1.3 billion gallons, with Fischer-Tropsch fuel.
Coal-to-liquid fuel will provide a safety net for our military to
ensure a stable fuel supply regardless of the global politics of oil,
but only if we build a domestic industry to make the fuel for them.
Let me turn to the two amendments we will consider today. I am asking
that my colleagues support the Bunning-Domenici amendment that I have
offered with Senator Craig, Senator Enzi, Senator Martinez, and Senator
Hatch. Our amendment is the only amendment that will help create a
domestic coal-to-liquids industry, is a separate program that will not
compete with biofuels in any way, requires coal to liquids meet the
same 20 percent life cycle reduction of greenhouse gases that biofuels
must meet--the rest of this bill requires that--requires coat-to-liquid
facilities to capture carbon dioxide, and mandates only one-sixth as
much fuel as the renewable fuel standard.
I am also urging my colleagues to oppose the Tester-Bingaman
amendment. This amendment is not--and I emphasize this--is not a coal-
to-liquid amendment. It sets an irresponsible environmental standard
and will just kick Government support for this fuel into the future.
Their amendment is opposed by 23 members of the coal-to-liquid
coalition, including industry, airlines, railroads, and others.
It sets strict technology mandates for emissions that will stifle
innovation and prevent nearly all domestic coal-to-liquid plants from
moving forward.
It limits the availability of the loan to 50 percent of the plant
cost, making it less effective than the already existing DOE program
that we passed in 2005.
It will take years in DOE rulemaking before the first dollar is ever
allocated for a plant.
In the greatest deception of all, it does not require coal to be used
in the coal-to-liquid process.
Let me say that again so everybody understands. The biggest deception
of all is that the Tester-Bingaman amendment does not even require coal
to be used in the coal-to-liquid process.
I am committed to the coal-to-liquid fuel as a secure domestic and
environmentally sound fuel. The Tester amendment looks at coal to
liquids as an afterthought. I think my proposal should be adopted for
any one of a dozen arguments that we have made for coal-to-liquid
fuels. It will create jobs, bring down the price of fuel, bring down
the price of what we pay at the pump, fuel our military, but basically
displace foreign oil, enhance our national security, add value to our
coal resources, and improve our environment.
But my final and perhaps most important point is that coal-to-liquid
fuels deserve fair treatment. I ask that my colleagues look at what we
have done for biofuels in America and the benefits we have given to our
farmers. Communities throughout the Midwest are uniting to invest in
ethanol and biomass. Money from Wall Street is flowing into our rural
communities, developing infrastructure and creating jobs. In many parts
of America, I have seen new hope in agriculture and new ways for
farmers to realize greater values for their crops.
It all started with the ethanol fuel mandate. My amendment will
create the exact same mandate for coal-to-liquid fuel with the same
environmental standards. I think our coal communities deserve the same
support we gave our farm community.
Will you tell the Governors of the Southern States, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Illinois, North Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana that you
oppose their efforts to bring coal-to-liquid plants to their States?
Will you tell the men and women who serve as coal miners,
construction workers, truckdrivers, train conductors, and plant
operators that they deserve less support than our farmers?
Will you tell all Americans that you would rather keep buying oil
from the Middle East instead of making fuel in America?
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time
remains on either side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 50 seconds--5-0
seconds--remaining and the majority side has 30 minutes remaining.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized to speak for 10 minutes in support of the Tester amendment,
followed by 10 minutes for Senator Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Colorado
is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of
amendment No. 1614, which is the amendment Senators Tester, Byrd,
Rockefeller, Bingaman, and I are cosponsoring today. Before I make my
prepared remarks, let me make a couple of introductory remarks.
The work we are doing today here on the floor of the Senate is
perhaps the most important work we could be doing, because how we move
from our current chaos on energy here in America to the reality of
energy independence is the hallmark of the 21st century. It is an
absolute imperative for us to get to the kind of energy independence
that has been desired in this country for over 40 years and which has
been the topic of much rhetoric and very little action. This is our
opportunity, today and in the days ahead, as the Senate speaks out
loudly and clearly about the importance of energy and how we will move
forward in this world.
[[Page S7857]]
From my perspective, I believe we have no choice. I believe the
inescapable forces of our civilization today require us to do nothing
less than to embrace this concept of a clean energy future with the
sense of moral imperative President Carter spoke about over 30 years
ago. I believe there are three inescapable forces that are with us
today.
First, there is national security. When we see the rockets that are
raining down from Hezbollah and northern Israel, one has to ask, where
is that money coming from that is funding those rockets; and where is
that money coming from that is funding 10,000 members of the militia?
We know it is coming from the $67 per barrel being paid today for oil
that is imported from those countries. Today, indeed, when one looks at
the fact that, for instance, in March it was 66, 67 percent of the oil
we use in America that was imported from foreign sources, our national
security requires us to make sure we move forward with this imperative
before us today.
Secondly, there are environmental security issues in how we deal with
climate change. I think it is finally a reality here in America that
our world needs to deal with the issue of climate change in a realistic
way. We need to do it now. We cannot wait. Even the President of the
United States, who appeared to be a person who didn't believe in global
warming, in his State of the Union speech as he addressed the Congress,
said he wanted the Congress this year to address the issue of global
warming.
The third and inescapable force which should compel us to move
forward on the issue of energy has to do, again, with the economics of
our Nation and making sure we are not subject to the volatility we have
seen so often in the past. That is why I come to the floor to speak on
behalf of the coal gasification amendment for which Senator Tester is
the lead sponsor. What we are proposing fits very well into making sure
we are adopting this clean energy future.
I am not against the development of coal. I know what coal is in the
West, in places such as Montana and other places, places such as my own
State of Colorado, where the coal miners in the mines on the western
slope know the importance of coal and the importance of clean energy.
The amendment we have introduced will help us reduce our independence
on foreign oil by making better use of our vast coal resources here at
home. Fuels, fertilizers, chemicals, and consumer products derived from
coal, if produced responsibly with coal gasification technology, can
replace much of the imported oil we use on a daily basis.
Coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia. It is our
most abundant domestic energy resource. It produces more than 50
percent of our electricity. As a nation, we have enough coal to last
more than 200 years. Until recently, however, coal has not been a
legitimate replacement for oil. With old technologies, coal
gasification resulted in high CO2 emissions, which caused
global warming. Without carbon capture technology, CO2
emissions from liquid coal, a product of the coal gasification process,
are twice that from conventional fuels. This poses an unacceptable risk
to our environmental security. So as we try to deal with CO2
emissions, we ought not embrace a policy or technology that will
increase our problems with respect to CO2 emissions.
Fortunately, we have new technologies, and those new technologies
offer us a way to use coal in our transportation sector and other
sectors of our economy in an environmentally responsible manner. Not
only can we sequester the carbon produced in the gasification process,
but we are able to produce a wide range of materials that are currently
being made from oil and natural gas, including diesel fuel, plastics,
fertilizer, chemicals, and a wide range of household items.
Senator Tester and I and the other cosponsors of this amendment have
included in this amendment a framework for how we proceed with coal
gasification in a responsible manner. Our amendment has four main
components.
First, it provides $10 billion in direct loans for the construction
of low emission coal gasification plants.
Secondly, our legislation will establish a grant program that will
help spur construction of a new generation of coal gasification plants.
The grants will be up to $20 million for any one project or $200
million nationwide. They will be awarded to projects that use a variety
of feedstocks such as coal and biomass and which have carbon emissions
that are 20 percent lower than conventional baseline emissions.
The third component of our amendment is a set of studies that will
help us determine the opportunities that might be provided with greater
use of coal and moving forward with liquid production of coal. The
amendment commissions a study of the benefits of maintaining coal-to-
liquid products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It also requires
the administrator of the EPA to examine the emissions of coal-based
products that are used as vehicle and aviation fuel.
Fourth, the legislation also provides additional funding for the Air
Force research lab to continue its development and testing of synthetic
fuels for use in jets.
The amendment that Senator Tester, myself, and others are proposing
is a reasoned way of making better use of our vast coal resources here
at home. It recognizes that coal can replace much of the imported oil,
but it also creates a rigorous carbon emission standard for these new
coal gasification projects to meet in order to get Federal support. We
simply cannot afford to dump excess carbon into the atmosphere, and
this amendment ensures we won't.
I once again thank Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici for their
leadership on the overall bill.
Before I conclude, I want to make a comment with respect to a
statement made on the other side with respect to a competing amendment.
The essence of the competing amendment is to say it is the end of the
world for coal if we don't adopt the amendment that is being proposed
by my good friend from Kentucky. As I said earlier, we are not anti-
coal. Both of us who are sponsoring amendments are from coal-producing
States. We believe coal is very much an item that has to be in our
portfolio in the future.
I have a letter, however, in which Dow Chemical says they are fully
supportive of Senator Tester's amendment, and one of the conclusions
they reach, in support of the amendment is that:
Dow Chemical believes the environmental standards in the
bill are achievable.
It says:
The requirement that 75 percent of the carbon dioxide
generated is captured will ensure that all companies prepare
for long-term CO2 management. This will help drive
action to make carbon capture and storage a reality sooner
than later.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join us in support of
amendment 1614 because it is the most responsible way to proceed as we
deal with energy independence as well as dealing with the issue of high
emissions.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority side has 20 minutes 40 seconds
remaining, and on the minority side there are 50 seconds remaining.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
minority side be given an additional 5 minutes, and would note that
Senator Domenici and Senator Craig are here to use that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who seeks time?
The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will talk quickly in 2 minutes.
I come to support the Bunning-Domenici amendment of coal to liquids.
It is quite simple. I look at it in rather black-and-white terms. A
vote for coal is a vote against Saudi Arabia. A vote for coal to
liquids is a vote against Hugo Chavez. A vote of coal to liquids is a
vote against Nigeria and for our own production.
The Senator from Colorado talks about America always laying the claim
that we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, except we are rapidly deciding we
are not going to use it for anything. Now, if we are going to use it,
and it is the great energy supply, then we have to make it cleaner, and
that is clearly the technology at hand.
One of the ways to do so, and not only to use it for transportation
fuels, is to run it through the liquefication
[[Page S7858]]
process. And who is the expert in the field of testing it? The Idaho
National Laboratory, working with Baard Energy, looked at the Ohio
projects--46 percent cleaner. If you add biomass to it, 30 percent
biomass to sequester the carbon dioxide and the combined cycle
cogeneration process, that is what you get.
Now, isn't that a technology worth passing on to China, which is the
largest emitter, or soon will be, producing more emission with less
economy of CO2 than the United States? I think it is time we
pushed all technologies, and if they are cleaner, they are better.
The argument here is they have to be perfect before we do them. I
would suggest that perfect may not be possible, but 50 percent cleaner
or more is possible, and that is where we ought to go. That is where
the Bunning amendment takes us.
I tell you what I am going to do; I am going to vote for Senator
Bunning's amendment, and I am going to vote against Saudi Arabia.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think I have, what, 3 minutes
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 35 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator Larry Craig, for those
comments.
Now, let me say we have a similar situation to the one we had here in
the last 2 or 3 days on the 15-percent wind mandate--RPS. We have two
amendments out here, and all of a sudden we find out neither of them is
going to have the votes. I am afraid what has happened here is we have
two amendments and neither is going to get the votes if the Senate
doesn't consider the difference between these two bills and vote for
the one that is most apt to accomplish the purpose we set out in a
coal-to-liquid amendment.
The Tester-Bingaman amendment, No. 1614, in this Senator's opinion is
only a long shot that we are going to get a lot of incentives for coal
to liquid. There is $10 billion in direct loans. That is nice for
everybody. We are going to have $10 billion to loan, but it is loanable
on a number of things beyond coal to liquid. I predict the money is
going to go to those other things because it is so hard to reach the
calibration required in this amendment of coal to liquid.
In the Bunning amendment, there is a long time to work on it, until
2016, and a given amount of that liquid will be purchased and they can
get ready for it to be purchased. But the standard is clearly
achievable because it is the same 20 percent we are going to require of
ethanol and of the other programs we are achieving, and we are saying
do the same thing. They are not saying that in the Montana amendment--
do the same as we have done for the other fuels. I am afraid we are not
going to get there and the money is going to get loaned for the wrong
things before we are finished. In competing between the two, both are
going to die. I suggest that colleagues vote against the amendment of
the Senator from Montana and for the one of the Senator from Kentucky
if you want to get coal to liquid started.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 20 minutes 15 seconds, and
the minority has 53 seconds remaining.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take 5 minutes. I know Senator
Tester is here and wishes to speak. I understand Senator Kerry and many
others wish to speak also.
The issue between the two amendments is what our focus should be,
when we think about the future of coal, are we sure the best use of
coal and the best future for coal is in the developing of
transportation fuels? In my view, that is what the Bunning amendment
concludes.
The Tester amendment, to the contrary, takes a broader view of the
future of coal. I believe we want to enable the development of many
potential uses of coal that are both environmentally and economically
sound. We should not be focused on commercializing in large-scale uses
of coal that do not make good sense in the marketplace.
First, let me say a couple of things about the Bunning amendment.
There are currently no large-scale coal-to-liquid plants in the
United States. The price tag of a typical plant is in the billions of
dollars.
The Bunning amendment purports to require that coal-derived fuels be
20 percent better than gasoline. But we have an apples-to-oranges
comparison here because coal-to-liquids plants will produce primarily
diesel fuel, not gasoline. The total greenhouse gas emissions from
coal-derived diesels are likely to be greater by about 150 percent than
the emissions from diesels that are powered from petroleum.
The Bunning amendment is technologically limiting, and such uses of
coal as conversion to chemicals, to plastics, and to fertilizer are not
permitted to benefit from the Bunning amendment.
Coal-to-liquids products mandated by the Bunning amendment have very
large water requirements. Water requirements are estimated to be about
2 gallons for every gallon of coal-derived fuel produced. The Tester
amendment, by contrast, is much more broad in the beneficial uses coal
can be put to, whether to make fuels or fertilizers or plastics or
chemicals.
There are industrial plants in the United States that do use coal
commercially as a feedstock for chemical products.
I have a letter from the president of Dow Chemical which I ask
unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at the end of my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. He states as follows in that letter:
On behalf of Dow Chemical Company, I write to offer my
strongest support for Senator Tester's ``Coal Innovation''
amendment.
Simply put, it will allow companies to build gasification
plants in the United States that run on coal, biomass and
other feedstocks, while helping to increase fuel and
feedstock diversity and demonstrate options for carbon
capture and storage. This will result in gasification plants
that are more efficient and help address climate change and
contribute to energy security.
Mr. President, I also have a letter that I want to have printed in
the Record at the end of my remarks from various unions--the AFL-CIO
Building and Construction Trades Department, the Industrial Union, the
United Mine Workers, various others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 2.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. They strongly endorse the Tester amendment. They
previously were part of a coal-to-liquids coalition which issued an
earlier letter which has now been rescinded which spoke in favor of the
Bunning amendment and against the Tester amendment, and they say in
their letter that they strongly support the Tester amendment.
Clearly, I think the Tester amendment gives us the best chance of
promoting the use of coal to meet our energy needs in the future, and I
strongly support it and oppose the Bunning amendment. I hope my
colleagues will do the same. I believe this is the right course for us
to follow.
Exhibit 1
The Dow Chemical Company,
Midland, Michigan, June 18, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of The Dow Chemical
Company, I write to offer my strongest support for Senator
Tester's ``Coal Innovation'' amendment to H.R. 6, the energy
bill pending before the Senate. Simply put, it will allow
companies to build gasification plants in the United States
that run on coal, biomass and other feedstocks, while helping
to increase fuel and feedstock diversity and demonstrate
options for carbon capture and storage. This will result in
gasification plants that are more efficient, help address
climate change and contribute to energy security.
Dow is excited by the prospect of this legislation being
enacted. As you know, Dow is one of the world's largest
chemical companies and is heavily reliant in the U.S. on
natural gas and oil as raw materials for the products we
manufacture. High and volatile prices for these inputs have
caused the company's energy bill to swell three-fold since
2002, reaching $22 billion last year, and have forced us to
look to other parts of the world for our growth.
In an effort to address this problem, and to help sustain
our operations here, we have expressed interest in utilizing
industrial gasification technology and in leading a
consortium in the U.S. to demonstrate it on a commercial
scale. A company like Dow could be a major purchaser of the
syngas and/or the naphtha that these plants produce. As you
know, the military also has a high interest in taking syngas-
based liquid fuels.
[[Page S7859]]
Dow would be able to make virtually all of the products we
currently make from natural gas liquids by substituting coal,
biomass or a combination thereof. The ability to manufacture
products like plastics, fibers and coatings would help to
optimize the carbon footprint of a project, since a portion
of the carbon would reside in finished goods that are not
burned. However, one major hurdle for any would-be plant
sponsor is the financing. The direct loans in the amendment
would go a long way toward helping to get these types of
plants built, and help provide, in the long run, a lower cost
alternative to oil and natural gas.
In addition, Dow believes that the environmental standards
in the bill are achievable. The requirement that 75% of the
carbon dioxide generated is captured will ensure that all
companies prepare for long-term CO2 management. This will
help drive action to make carbon capture and storage a
reality sooner rather than later.
Thank you for your and your staff's attention to this
issue, which is critical to American manufacturing, the
economy and our energy security. Please let us know if there
is any way we can be of assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew N. Liveris,
Chairman and CEO.
____
Exhibit 2
June 18, 2007.
Dear Senator: On June 13, 2007 the Coal-to-Liquids (CTL)
Coalition sent you a letter purporting to have the support of
the undersigned labor unions and organizations. The CTL
Coalition did not clear this letter with us before sending
it. We regret that this letter created the mistaken
impression that our organizations had arrived at a position
on the issues addressed in the June 13 letter.
Unfortunately, this unauthorized correspondence has been
misconstrued to mean that our organizations oppose an
amendment that Senators Tester, Byrd, Rockefeller, Salazar,
and Bingaman are expected to offer later this week to the
Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN
Energy) Act of 2007 (H.R. 6).
On the contrary, we strongly urge your support for the
Tester-Byrd-Rockefeller-Salazar-Bingaman amendment to
establish a coal innovation direct loan program. This $10
billion program would enable America to build successful
large-scale facilities to demonstrate carbon dioxide capture
for coal conversion technologies, which is essential to
guarantee the viability of coal into the future. The coal
innovation direct loan program would create thousands of U.S.
jobs in mining, construction, and operation.
We believe strongly that coal can be both an economically
and environmentally responsible choice for America's energy
security. To realize the potential of coal, America must make
significant investments to prove the new technologies vital
to its future. We therefore urge you to support the Tester-
Byrd-Rockefeller-Salazar-Bingaman amendment.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department.
AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council.
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.
International Union of Operating Engineers.
Laborers International Union of North America.
United Mine Workers of America.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to amendment
1628, the Bunning amendment, for a number of reasons.
No. 1, this is a mandate to develop the gallonage from coal to
liquids. I don't think it is the right direction to go. This
amendment--folks have been using apples and oranges to compare
greenhouse gases. The Bunning amendment says coal to liquids will be 20
percent better than gasoline, but coal to liquids does not produce
gasoline-equivalent fuel, they produce the equivalent of diesel fuel,
and that is 150 percent higher in greenhouse gas emissions than diesel
produced from petroleum.
The third thing, it is technology-limiting. Fuels produced from coal
are only allowed under the Bunning amendment rather than articles such
as fertilizer, chemicals, and plastics, as my amendment does.
Finally, there is no path to coal's future in a carbon-constrained
world with the Bunning amendment--no requirement to deal with the
carbon dioxide produced in the coal-to-liquids plants, no technology
incentive to keep coal viable into the future, which we absolutely
need. If and when our greenhouse gases are regulated, these plants will
not be economic, and the cost to the consumers of the Bunning mandate
will soar.
I have seen many signs up today, placards, talking about how coal-to-
liquid technology is automatically less than petroleum. That is not
correct unless you have carbon capture. The Bunning amendment does not
allow for carbon capture. My amendment does.
With that, I would certainly suggest and request that the body vote
against the Bunning amendment and support the Tester amendment No.
1614.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for up
to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I have sought recognition to speak in favor of the
amendment which will be voted on later this afternoon which provides
that we would lift the antitrust exemption which is now held by the
OPEC nations.
There have been judicial interpretations holding that the OPEC
countries have sovereign immunity from prosecution under the antitrust
laws, and it is my legal judgment that the limited judicial holdings in
this field are erroneous because there was a well-accepted exception to
the sovereign immunity doctrine where there is commercial activity
involved. But in any event, there is no doubt that the Congress of the
United States has the authority to legislate in the field, and I
believe it would be very crucial to remove the antitrust exemption
which the OPEC nations now have.
We have a crisis--a strong word but I think an accurate word--on
gasoline prices today. The price of crude oil has been hovering around
$65 a barrel. The American people are paying on average more than $3 a
gallon for gasoline. Consumers are paying more for products because
American companies have to pay more to manufacture, and without going
into great detail, there is no doubt that there is a crisis in the
field.
This legislation has been acted on in the past--in the 109th Congress
when I chaired the Judiciary Committee--and it has been reintroduced
this year. Senator Kohl is the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Antitrust and has taken the lead, and we have a very impressive list of
sponsors: Senator Leahy, Senator Grassley, Senator Biden, Senator
Coburn, Senator Feingold, Senator Snowe, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer,
Senator Lieberman, Senator Schumer, Senator Sanders, as well as my own
cosponsorship of this legislation.
I have been interested in this subject for more than a decade because
I think the antitrust exemption which they enjoy ought not to be. I
wrote to President Clinton in his term in office--and received no
answer on the subject--a very lengthy letter which I put in the
Congressional Record when I spoke on this amendment last week. I
followed it up with a letter to President George Bush on the same
subject. We passed the amendment last year. As I say, it was dropped in
conference. We are asking for a rollcall vote on it this time because
the practical realities are, if it gets a very strong vote--and I
anticipate it will--it will have more stature when it gets to
conference.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to eliminate the
conspiracy, the concerted action where the OPEC nations get together in
a room, reduce supply, and that raises the price. This is an important
amendment, and it will contribute to reducing the price of gasoline at
the pump.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Roughly 9 minutes for the majority, and there
is no time remaining for the minority.
[[Page S7860]]
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from Montana if
he wanted to use the remaining 9 minutes or some lesser amount of that.
We can go ahead and go to a vote whenever you are finished with your
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. I just want to talk about my amendment, 1614, as long as
we have time to do that, very quickly recap it because I think it is
important that we know the facts.
First of all, we have enough coal in this country, if it is used at
the current rate, to last us for 250 years. We need to develop it
responsibly. This amendment for coal to liquids will develop it
responsibly. What it does is it provides grants and loans for clean
coal technology. Let me tell you the parameters because some folks have
said this can't be achieved.
In front of the Senate Finance Committee, it was testified that it is
entirely capable, with the technology we have today, to have 85 percent
carbon capture. This amendment requires 75 percent carbon capture.
The National Mining Association said that with coal to liquids,
adding some biomass with the coal, we could achieve 46 percent less in
life cycle greenhouse gases than comparable petroleum--46 percent less.
This amendment requires 20 percent less. This amendment is entirely
doable by the industry. If we want to develop our coal resources in a
manner that meets the needs of consumers as well as being able to
develop our coal resources in a responsible way that would not trash
the environment when climate change is such a huge issue in the world,
we need to step forth and adopt this amendment.
I could go into the amendment further and talk about the potential of
replacing foreign oil. I could talk about how it is a win-win situation
for the country overall, as far as achieving energy independence, as we
push this bill forward that deals with renewables such as biofuels and
wind and solar and geothermal. The fact is, with this amendment there
are no bogeymen. It is achievable by the industry, and it should be
adopted if we are going to lead this country down the road of energy
independence, a road that will allow the climate change issue to be put
to bed.
By the way, if we pass this amendment, I fully believe, with the two
powerplants a month China is putting on board at 500 megawatts each, we
can also help lead China down a road to clean coal technology.
I would appreciate a ``yes'' vote on amendment 1614.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of my good
friend from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, and his amendment with the
Senator from New Mexico to establish a program to help support and
promote clean coal-to-liquid fuels. Focusing more on coal-to-liquid
fuels will benefit our economy and our national security. Coal is a
vital part of America's energy production, and coal is a vital part of
Kentucky's economy and history. The coal industry creates over 60,000
jobs in my State, including approximately 15,000 coal miners. Over half
the country's electricity is generated by coal, and coal constitutes
over 90 percent of America's fossil fuel resources. That means the coal
we can mine in this country alone would be enough to supply our Nation
for more than 250 years. What Saudi Arabia is to oil, America is to
coal. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of us, not to mention
downright foolish, not to invest in technology to take advantage of
this vital natural resource. That is why I thank my friend Senator
Bunning for his leadership on this issue.
Greater use of coal-to-liquid fuels will benefit the environment by
reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate
matter, and other pollutants as compared to conventional fuels. The
Bunning amendment also requires that coal-to-liquid fuels under this
program reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent relative to
gasoline. Greater use of coal-to-liquid fuels, which we can generate
here at home, will mean less dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Right now America gets 60 percent of its oil from foreign countries,
many of which do not have our best interests at heart, as we certainly
know. Passing this amendment will mean greater energy independence and
strengthened national security. I commend my good friend and fellow
Senator Jim Bunning, as well as Senator Domenici. Senator Bunning has
been hard at work on this issue for a lengthy time. I thank him for his
dedication to the coal producers and miners of Kentucky and America.
This amendment is the right thing to do for them, for our economy, and
for our national security.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield back the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 1628 offered by the Senator from Kentucky,
Mr. Bunning.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 213 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--55
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Brownback
Coburn
Dodd
Johnson
McCain
The amendment (No. 1628) was rejected.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1614, offered by the
Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I strongly urge support for the
Tester-Byrd amendment.
I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Tester.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, what this amendment does is gives loans
for equipment to capture and sequester carbon from coal-to-liquid
technology. It also allows for loans to construct the plant.
The Federal Government has the opportunity right now to push coal to
liquids forward with some dollars. Also, what happens with this
amendment is--and these are entirely achievable parameters--75 percent
of the carbon would be captured and sequestered, and it would be 20
percent less than life-cycle greenhouse gases from petroleum. It works
for this country in making us more energy independent and it
[[Page S7861]]
works for the global warming issue to make sure we get our hands
wrapped around that and it is progress in the proper way for energy
development.
It is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the United Mining Association, and Dow
Chemical. This amendment is achievable, entirely achievable.
The industry testified in the Senate Finance Committee that they
could capture and sequester 85 percent. This amendment does it at 75
percent.
I encourage the adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I looked around and didn't see anyone
else, so I guess I will respond.
Fellow Senators, we defeated the best amendment to assure we would
bring coal to liquid on board. Now what you have is an amendment that
says a $10 billion direct loan program--not any other kind of loan but
a direct loan--meaning the appropriators, without the White House, can
approve in appropriations $10 billion. But the kicker is it does not
have to go for coal-to-liquid technology, it can go for a number of
technologies, and if you can't reach it in coal, you will reach it in
the others. So you surely are voting for $10 billion in direct loans.
You are not assuring that you are going to get coal to liquid because
the standards are so high you may not be able to achieve them in the
coal to liquid.
That is enough for me. I thank you for giving me some time, and I
urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1614.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 61, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]
YEAS--33
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Brown
Byrd
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Inouye
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
NAYS--61
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Roberts
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Brownback
Coburn
Dodd
Johnson
McCain
The amendment (No. 1614) was rejected.
Amendment No. 1519
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 30 minutes
equally divided on the Kohl amendment. Who yields time?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise at this time with 13 cosponsors to
urge all of my colleagues to support our bipartisan no-OPEC amendment
to the Energy bill. This amendment will hold OPEC member nations to
account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix
prices in violation of the most basic principles of free competition.
In addition to the 13 cosponsors of this amendment today, companion
House legislation passed the other body last month by an overwhelming
345-to-72 vote. This amendment will authorize the Justice Department,
and only the Justice Department, to file suit against nations or other
entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit supply or fix the
price of oil.
We have longed decried OPEC, but sadly no one in Government has yet
tried to take any action. This amendment will, for the first time,
establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil
producers, such as the OPEC nations, act together to restrict supply or
to set prices, then they will be violating U.S. law.
As we consider the high price of gas, one fact has remained
consistent: the price of crude oil and, in turn, gasoline dances to the
tune set by the OPEC members.
Referring to the 18-percent rise in worldwide crude oil prices since
the start of the year, OPEC's president commented:
We did have a bad situation at the beginning of the year,
but it is much better now.
The difference was OPEC's decision last fall to enforce combined
output cuts of 1.7 billion barrels of oil a day in order to drive up
the price of crude oil. Just last week, OPEC refused to add more oil
supply to the market despite the International Energy Agency's urgent
call for new supplies to meet rising demand.
While OPEC enjoys its newfound riches, the average American consumer
suffers every time he or she visits the gas pump or pays a home heating
bill. Gas prices have now increased 71 cents a gallon just since the
start of the year, to a current national average of $3.01 per gallon,
an increase of more than 30 percent.
The Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the
variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the
cost of crude oil. If private companies engaged in such an
international price-fixing conspiracy, there would be no question it
would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be treated no differently
because it is a conspiracy of nations.
The amendment will not authorize private lawsuits, but it will
authorize the Justice Department to file suit under the antitrust laws
for redress. It will always be at the discretion of the Justice
Department and the President as to whether to take action against OPEC.
Our amendment will not require the Government to bring legal action
against OPEC member nations. This decision will entirely remain in the
discretion of the executive branch.
I believe the Senate should now join the 345 of our colleagues in the
House and vote to support this legislation.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, there is an old legal adage that says,
hard cases make bad law. That seems to be the case here. No one likes
OPEC. None of us like being put in a position of appearing to defend
OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law. The
Framers of the Constitution wisely assigned responsibility for
formulating foreign policy and conducting foreign relations to the
President and to the Congress, not to the law courts.
Chief Justice Marshall said nearly two centuries ago:
The judiciary is not the department of the Government to
which the assertion of its interest against foreign powers is
confided. A question like this is more a political one than a
legal one.
There has been much talk in this Chamber over the years about the
proper role of the judiciary. Nearly every time we are asked to confirm
a judicial nomination, we hear speeches given on the Senate floor about
the need for judges to confine themselves to the business of
interpreting the law, not making the law. And this is exactly what the
courts have done in this circumstance.
Here is a case where the courts have wisely recognized that OPEC's
pricing policies are not something that should be litigated in U.S.
courts but should instead be addressed by the political branches of the
Government--the President, the executive branch, and the Congress.
Senator Kohl's amendment would throw the issue of OPEC's
[[Page S7862]]
oil prices back into our courts and force the courts to address those
issues.
The amendment before us has its roots in a lawsuit filed by the labor
union nearly 30 years ago. The union at that time charged OPEC with
price fixing in violation of our antitrust laws.
The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that OPEC members
are sovereign nations and are immune from suit. On appeal, the appeals
court affirmed the dismissal, though for different reasons. It
dismissed the suit under the act of State doctrine. In the court's
words:
The act of State doctrine declares a United States court
will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute which
would require the court to judge the legality of the
sovereign act of a foreign State.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Court said:
Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence
of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country
will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of
another done within its own territory.
Senator Kohl's amendment overturns the act of state doctrine, at
least so far as OPEC is concerned. It also creates a new offense under
the Sherman Act to get at OPEC, it waives sovereign immunity for this
new offense, and it amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to
cover the new offense. In short, it sweeps away all of the legal
defenses OPEC members have against antitrust suits in our courts.
Adopting the amendment will undoubtedly be very popular, but it is
also very unwise. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained nearly
30 years ago:
To participate adeptly in the global community, the United
States must speak with one voice and pursue a careful and
deliberate policy.
The President can do this, the court said; the judiciary cannot.
Here is another quote from that same decision:
When the courts engage in piecemeal adjudication of the
legality of the sovereign acts of states, they risk
disruption of our country's international diplomacy. The
executive may utilize protocol, economic sanction,
compromise, delay, and persuasion to achieve international
objectives. Ill-timed judicial decisions challenging the acts
of foreign states could nullify these tools and embarrass the
United States in the eyes of the world.
In this case--
the granting of any relief would in effect amount to an order
from a domestic court instructing a foreign sovereign to
alter its chosen means of allocating and profiting from its
own valuable natural resources. On the other hand, should the
court hold that OPEC's actions are legal, this would greatly
strengthen the bargaining hand of the OPEC nations in the
event that Congress or the executive chooses to condemn
OPEC's actions.
In addition, we here in the Senate ought to consider how enactment of
this amendment might affect our relations with OPEC members. What will
be the international repercussions when the United States starts
awarding judgments against foreign nations and attaching their assets
in this country? What sort of precedent will the amendment set in the
international community? Will other nations start to view our trade
policies--such as our nuclear trade restrictions--as violations of
their antitrust laws?
The Bush administration has offered us answers to some of these
questions. Its statement of administration policy on this bill, which
we are considering here in the Senate, says that:
The consequent targeting of foreign direct investment in
the United States as a source of damage awards would likely
spur retaliatory action against American interests in those
countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S.
refiners. Not only would such a result substantially harm
U.S. interests abroad, it would discourage foreign investment
in the United States economy.
For these reasons, the administration concluded:
If a bill including such a provision is presented to the
President--
That is the bill we are considering right here on the Senate floor.
--his senior advisers will recommend that he veto the bill.
For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kohl
amendment.
Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8\1/2\ minutes in opposition, and
11\1/2\ minutes in support.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I join Senator Kohl as a cosponsor of his
NOPEC amendment and urge the Senate to adopt it. Under Senator Kohl's
leadership, the NOPEC bill has passed unanimously out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee without amendment in four separate Congresses,
under both Democratic and Republican leadership.
The support for this legislation is both bipartisan and bicameral.
The House of Representatives recently passed NOPEC with 345 Members
voting for it.
NOPEC will simply hold accountable certain oil-producing nations for
their collusive behavior that has artificially reduced the supply and
inflated the price of fuel. Unless this amendment becomes law,
consumers across the Nation will continue to suffer.
The rise and fall of oil and gas prices has a direct impact on
American consumers and our economy. Last month, gas prices in the
United States reached a near record high. While prices have come down
slightly in recent weeks, that is no reason to condone anticompetitive
conduct by foreign government cartels. American consumers should not be
held economic hostage to the whim of colluding, foreign governments.
The Associated Press recently reported the Iranian oil minister's
announcement that members of OPEC would not increase the supply of oil
despite reports that demand is on the rise. Without collusion, OPEC
members would compete to serve that demand and prices at home would
fall.
When entities engage in anticompetitive conduct that harms American
consumers, it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to
investigate and prosecute. It is wrong to let members of OPEC off the
hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of
approval of national governments. I am disappointed that the
administration does not share this view and has threatened a veto.
Americans deserve better, and it is time for Congress to act. We know
the oil cartel and Big Oil companies like things just the way they are,
and why shouldn't they? They continue to break new records as they roll
up huge profits taken from consumers' pockets.
I hope this Senate and this Congress will take the side of American
consumers, not the side of Status Quo, Incorporated. We cannot claim to
be energy independent while we permit foreign governments to manipulate
oil prices in an anticompetitive manner. I thank Senator Kohl for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I yield several minutes to Senator
Lincoln.
I am sorry, did the Senator from Rhode Island wish to speak?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If I may, but it is to a different amendment. It is
for the Cardin amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, if we could complete the debate on
this amendment, and then if the Senator wishes to yield back time, we
could proceed to debate on the next amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That will be fine.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I will yield several minutes to Senator
Lincoln.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Amendment No. 1556
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin,
Senator Kohl, for giving me a few moments.
My comments are on a slightly different topic today, and I appreciate
my colleague yielding to me. I filed an amendment, No. 1556, to the
energy legislation almost a week ago. Since that time, I have pleaded
with my colleagues to help reach an agreement where I could come to the
floor and offer this important amendment. I offered it several times
last week in the latter part of the week so it could be considered by
the Chamber and get an up-or-down vote on its merits. Unfortunately, I
understand that certain colleagues are unwilling to lift their
objection to this amendment being considered on the floor under any
circumstances. So I come to the floor today to try to express some of
my frustrations in dealing with this bill and particularly my
amendment, not
[[Page S7863]]
only for myself and many of my colleagues who are strongly in support
of my amendment but also for the hard-working farm families across our
Nation.
The amendment I introduced with my good friend and colleague from New
Mexico, Senator Domenici, is quite simple. It is identical to the
legislation we cosponsored together last Congress and have reintroduced
again this year, which is S. 807. The bill already has 26 cosponsors in
the Senate and 121 cosponsors in the House. This amendment is
particularly timely and appropriate for the legislation we are
currently considering in the Chamber today because there is a growing
understanding in this countryside that without the clarification
provided by this amendment, requirements and liabilities under CERCLA,
a law designed to clean up toxic industrial pollutants, could be
unfairly applied to America's farmers and ranchers of all sizes, of any
size, large or small. These are the very men and women who hold the
future of renewable energy production in this country in their hands
and in their production operations.
The underlying bill we will consider today would take steps to
promote the use of biomass, and specifically animal manure, as an
important and critical source of renewable energy. It is widely known
that farmers are beginning to use their excess manure for energy
generation already, through methane digesters and other innovative
technologies that are developing on a day-to-day basis. The expanded
use of animal manure for energy production not only promotes our
Nation's energy independence, it is also a way to control the
unavoidable supply of manure and litter from livestock production in an
environmentally friendly manner while adding economic value for our
farm families and our rural communities.
This is a win-win situation for our Nation and especially for
American agriculture. Yet as this Chamber stands ready to incentivize
these innovative practices and spur the growth of alternative
technologies to manage this waste, pending lawsuits threaten the entire
viability of this emerging industry, not to mention the viability of
the hard-working farm families across our country.
We should not stand by and allow a situation where farmers or those
who are transporting manure for energy production or other purposes are
handling a hazardous waste subject to CERCLA's strict and punitive
liability provisions.
It is worth noting that CERCLA section 101(14) specifically excludes
petroleum. Here we are, looking to lessen our independence on foreign
oil and petroleum products, yet they are exempt from CERCLA. We are
looking at the possibility of agricultural by-products being included
in CERCLA under the definition of hazardous waste substances but
petroleum releases are not subject to CERCLA reporting and liability
provisions. Why is it these same liability provisions should apply to
our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and particularly our dairy farmers?
Farmers and ranchers have always been responsible stewards of the land,
making great strides to preserve a healthy environment for their food
production but also for their families and communities. Keep in mind
that agricultural operations are already regulated under the Clean
Water and the Clean Air Acts, as well as other Federal and State
environmental laws. The larger size operations are subject to
management practices. These are the appropriate regulatory tools to
manage the environmental impacts of agriculture in this country, and
any farmer will tell you that our U.S. producers are already subject to
much greater scrutiny in this area than their foreign competitors. That
is one reason why Americans continue to enjoy the safest food supply in
the world, produced right here at home by our Nation's farm families,
working as hard as they possibly can to not only produce that safe food
and fiber but to do it in a way that is respectful of the environment
under the regulations we put upon them. The last thing we need to do is
stand by and allow policies that encourage the outsourcing of food
production in this country.
On that note, it is my view that Congress never intended for CERCLA
to apply to agriculture in the first place. In fact, the idea of
including animal agriculture under CERCLA was never raised during the
first two decades of this law's existence. If normal animal manure is
found by the courts to be a hazardous substance under CERCLA, then
virtually every farming operation in the country could be potentially
exposed to severe liability and penalties under the law. Clearly,
Congress never intended such an outcome, and we should take the
necessary steps by taking up and passing my amendment to ensure that
the courts clearly understand what our congressional intent is. We
should not jeopardize American agriculture by allowing courts to impose
CERCLA liability on farmers for their traditional farming practices,
including the use of manure as a beneficial fertilizer or an emerging
feedstock for renewable energy production. This would be most
unfortunate.
I hope my colleagues will look at this and be aware. I will continue
my efforts to clarify that CERCLA liability does not apply to
agriculture, to our livestock, to our ranches and our dairy farms,
making sure that agriculture in this country can continue to do what it
has always done, and that is to produce a safe, abundant, and
affordable food supply under the regulations we provide them.
I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding, and I yield back his
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe we have 8 minutes remaining
in opposition, and I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Amendment No. 1519
Mr. DOMENICI. First, before the Senator from Arkansas leaves the
floor, I wish to say I associate myself with her remarks as they
pertain to both subjects, and in particular CERCLA, in which we both
share a common interest. We have to get something done; we both know
it. Those who are not letting us have a chance at getting a vote will
find out sooner or later we are going to get a vote, and what is fair
and reasonable will prevail. We are going to work hard to see that is
done sooner rather than later.
Having said that, I want to talk about the No-OPEC amendment that
would permit legal action to be brought in U.S. courts by the
Department of Justice on alleged price-fixing and other anticompetitive
behavior affecting petroleum product pricing, production, and
distribution by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries--OPEC.
While I can see at some level how this idea appeals to our sense of
fairness and our frustration about oil prices, I must oppose this
amendment and join with my chairman, because it is reality, not
sentiment, that counts in public policy. The reality is this amendment
would be unenforceable. OPEC producers would simply decide not to sell
oil to us any longer. One-third of the oil used in the United States
every day comes from an OPEC member. They would suffer the loss of some
profits, but our entire economy could come to a grinding halt.
Another problem I have with the amendment is it is a major change in
international law that has potential applications beyond the oil
sector. The sovereignty of nations is put into question by this
amendment. I know of no instance when the United States Government sued
a foreign government.
I think if this amendment passes, we can expect a jittery oil market
to become even more nervous. We can expect that. In reality, that means
higher prices. We can expect less transparency from OPEC. In reality,
that means higher prices. We can also expect less cooperation from OPEC
in the future, and I think that, too, will lead to higher prices.
I believe this amendment should fail, but obviously, looking at the
past and looking at the propensity of Senators to vote on this
amendment without looking at the realities of it, I am not too hopeful.
Nonetheless, that is the extent of my remarks.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes in opposition and about
3\1/2\ in favor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I think the Senator from Wisconsin
should be given the chance to conclude
[[Page S7864]]
his remarks or close the argument. I will yield back the time in
opposition and allow Senator Kohl to use whatever additional times he
wants. Then we can close the debate on this amendment and proceed to
the next amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I believe the arguments set forth by the
administration, as well as those on the floor today in opposition to
this bill, are without merit. For example, we disagree that it would
harm U.S. interests overseas.
The Justice Department has taken action to sue many foreign cartels
that have engaged in price fixing, including, for example, the
international vitamin cartel. There has been no retaliation against
U.S. business interests abroad.
Only 11 Nations in the world are members of the OPEC oil cartel.
There would be no reason for any other Nation to retaliate against the
United States for attempting to enforce this legislation. The idea that
OPEC could strongly discourage investment in the U.S. economy is
likewise speculative and without basis. The existence of strong U.S.
antitrust laws for over a century, laws that are already reaching
foreign conduct affecting the U.S. markets, has not discouraged
investment in the United States.
Further, and this is enormously important, this legislation does not
require the administration to do anything. It simply gives them the
authority to bring action in court against the OPEC oil cartel. It
seems to me the legislation would have a constructive effect in
bringing notice to the OPEC oil cartel that we do have recourse, should
it be necessary, to move against them in retaliation of their fixing
prices of oil at unreasonably high levels.
That is why I believe this legislation should be passed by this body
as it was passed by the House of Representatives.
I yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think Senator Bingaman yielded our time back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. There will now be 30
minutes of debate on the Thune amendment. Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I see Senator Whitehouse is waiting to
speak on the Cardin amendment. Senator Thune is agreeable to letting
him speak for 3 minutes or so on that before beginning discussion on
the Thune amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that that be the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 3 minutes.
Amendment No. 1610
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank Senators Bingaman and Thune for their
courtesy. I am here today to express my support for an amendment
sponsored by my colleague, Senator Cardin, regarding State approval for
liquefied natural gas terminals. I am a cosponsor of this important
bipartisan amendment with Senators Mikulski, Snowe, Dodd, Kerry,
Kennedy, Boxer, Lieberman, and my senior Senator, Jack Reed of Rhode
Island.
Our country is grappling with a serious and difficult question: how
to meet our growing energy needs without depleting our natural
resources, threatening our environment or endangering our people.
I strongly support the work of Senators Boxer and Bingaman, with many
of our colleagues, to take a significant step forward in our use of
alternative and renewable fuels. But as we develop these new and
emerging fuel sources, we must take great care to balance our need for
energy with other imperatives.
Liquefied natural gas is rapidly assuming a larger share of the
overall natural gas market. Over 40 new LNG terminals are now proposed
for construction, many of which are planned near heavily populated
areas or environmentally sensitive coastal areas. Unfortunately, in
their haste to expand this market, the LNG industry and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission have dismissed the risks this poses to
public safety and the environment. I am particularly concerned about a
proposed LNG terminal in Fall River, MA, a town of nearly 100,000
people, barely over the State line from Rhode Island.
This is Rhode Island's treasured Narragansett Bay. The Bay is used,
particularly on beautiful summer days such as today, for commercial and
recreational boating and fishing. Tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders
live along its shores, and our Bay is in many ways the economic heart,
as well as the environmental and recreational heart, of our ocean
State.
Now, to reach the LNG facility proposed for Fall River, LNG tankers
would have to navigate 21 nautical miles through Narragansett Bay,
passing directly by the homes and businesses of 64,000 Rhode Island
residents. Along the way, tankers would pass under four heavily
trafficked bridges and execute what the Coast Guard itself recently
described as extremely challenging navigational maneuvers, as many as
130 times per year.
Moreover, the tanker requires a security zone around it as it
proceeds through the Bay. Here is the tanker. This is the size of the
security zone it requires, completely occupying the east passage going
up through Narragansett Bay between Newport and Jamestown. It would
displace all recreational boaters and other cargo boats and disrupt
bridge traffic as it transits.
The residents of my State of Rhode Island have spoken loudly and in
large numbers against the LNG terminal proposed for Fall River. I have
heard their deep concern about the environmental and security risks
posed by LNG tankers passing so close to their homes and communities.
Yet their voices have not been heard adequately in the current process
for permitting LNG terminals.
This amendment would help correct this flaw and give all States and
communities the seat at the table they deserve, by requiring the
concurrence of affected States for permits to build liquefied natural
gas terminals.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Amendment No. 1609
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today in support of my amendment
to create clean energy corridors, which will greatly enhance our grid
system to transmit clean and renewable energy.
Much of the debate in this Energy bill has focused on renewable
energy. How much renewable energy should we use? How should it be
produced? Who should be required to use it? However, this debate has
overlooked a key component in this argument, which is, how do we
transport this energy from areas with high concentrations of renewable
resources to areas with high demand for electrical power?
Oftentimes, clean, renewable sources of power are located in rural
areas with low demand for electricity and limited capacity to transmit
large amounts of power long distances. At the other end of the
spectrum, States with larger urban areas are passing State laws that
require the use of renewable energy. In many cases, it is more
economical to import that energy from other areas of the country.
It is critical that we create the infrastructure to allow that
movement of energy to happen. I have to point to this chart to
illustrate exactly how my State of South Dakota serves as a prime
example of this dilemma. In South Dakota, we are blessed to have
abundant sources of wind. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of
Energy, South Dakota has enough wind to produce 566 gigawatts of
electric power from wind, which is the equivalent of 55 percent of the
Nation's electricity demand.
I will refer to the chart. If you look at these red areas and the
pink areas, the purple areas around the country, all these different
colors demonstrate varying amounts of wind energy.
Of course, as you can see, South Dakota and North Dakota, Minnesota,
Iowa, have enormous amounts of wind energy available. Although South
Dakota has an abundant source of wind, this renewable resource is
dramatically underdeveloped in my State.
In fact, we have less than one-tenth the wind energy production of
our neighboring States, even though our wind resources are far
superior. The fundamental problem is we don't have the population
markets to use large amounts of wind power within my State's borders.
[[Page S7865]]
More importantly, we lack the transmission capacity to carry wind
power from rural areas in South Dakota to urban areas in other areas of
the country. This amendment includes simple provisions that would
significantly improve transmission development for renewable sources of
energy.
First, this amendment would direct the Department of Energy to
identify areas with transmission constraints that increase costs to
consumers, limit resource options to serve load growth or limit access
to sources of clean, renewable energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal
energy, and biomass.
Upon completion of this study, after verifying all alternatives and
public comments, the Department of Energy could then designate these
areas as ``National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.''
These corridors, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support as part of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, are important tools for transmission
development. Under current law, these corridors are targeted toward
areas experiencing heavy grid congestion. My amendment would expand the
designation of these corridors to include access to clean, renewable
sources of energy.
This amendment also directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
to establish regulations that allow public utilities to allocate and
recover costs associated with building the additional transmission
infrastructure for wind and other forms of renewable energy. It ensures
that rates associated with this development are reasonable, just, and
nondiscriminatory.
By overcoming some of the inherent obstacles associated with
transmitting renewable energy long distances, I believe this amendment
promotes clean, renewable sources of energy in a commonsense fashion.
This amendment will serve as the blueprint for the 21st century grid
by facilitating the national scale designation and construction of
clean energy corridors that will enable the delivery of clean,
sustainable, reliable power to consumers across this country.
As I have met with people from the industry, as I have traveled my
State, as I have talked with those who invest in energy projects, it is
clear that this is one of the issues that presents a major obstacle to
wind energy development in this country. This amendment helps address
that by creating and opening these corridors, clean energy corridors
that would allow clean green wind energy to make it from areas where it
is in abundance, places such as the State of South Dakota, to places in
the country that desperately need affordable power.
So I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support this amendment and
do something that will significantly address and further the production
of wind energy and affordable electricity to America's consumers.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wish to say to the Senator, I
congratulate you on this amendment, the scope of the amendment and the
rationale. It is something we need. From my standpoint, I am in favor
of it. It will not require a rollcall vote. Hopefully, we can dispose
of your amendment very shortly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, Senator Thune's amendment makes a
major change in a provision of the Federal Power Act that governs the
siting of electric transmission lines. Until 2 years ago, the siting of
electric transmission lines was under the exclusive control of the
States. The Federal Power Act gave neither the Secretary of Energy nor
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to site
transmission lines.
The States tended to make their siting decisions in the best
interests of their citizens, not necessarily in the best interests of
the citizens of neighboring or even distant States that might benefit
by the long distance transmission of electricity.
Two years ago, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I worked on
with Senator Domenici, which amended the Federal Power Act to provide
what is called the Federal backstop siting authority. Specifically, we
directed the Secretary of Energy to conduct a comprehensive national
study of electric transmission congestion once every 3 years.
We then authorized the Secretary to designate, based on the study,
any geographic areas experiencing electric transmission congestion as
``national interest electric transmission corridors.'' The Secretary
completed the first congestion study last August, and he has begun
proceedings to designate the first national interest corridors.
Designation of an area as a national interest corridor is likely to
have serious consequences. Under the law we passed 2 years ago, a
utility that wants to build an electric transmission line within the
corridor can apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a
permit, and the Commission can approve construction of the transmission
line without the permission of or even over the objections of the
State. Once the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues the utility
a permit, the utility can then go into Federal court and exercise the
Federal Government's power of eminent domain and take private property
to erect the transmission line.
I have heard speeches in the time I have served in the Senate from
many of my colleagues about their concern over the exercise of the
power of eminent domain. The passage of the Thune amendment
substantially increases the likelihood that authority, that power of
eminent domain, will be exercised against private property rights.
Giving Federal officials and private utilities these powers was a major
change in Federal law and a major departure from past practice.
Nonetheless, we believed the step was warranted to ensure that the
national interest in a national electric grid was protected. We
believed that entrusting the Secretary of Energy with the task of
studying congestion on a national basis and allowing the Secretary to
designate only those areas which affected the national interest would
prevent abuse of this Federal eminent domain authority.
Even though this authority is less than 2 years old, no corridors
have yet been designated, no construction permits have been issued, and
no private property has been taken. The authority is already, however,
proving very controversial. There is major opposition to the use of
this authority just west of here in northern Virginia and in other
areas of the country. There has been talk of repealing the authority.
The Thune amendment will only add to the controversy. It makes a
fundamental change in the current authority. The Thune amendment says
that ``the Secretary may designate additional corridors . . . upon the
application by an interested person.'' So even though the Secretary of
Energy did not find that a particular area presented congestion
concerns of national interest in conducting his congestion study last
year and even though the Secretary of Energy did not see fit to propose
an area as a national interest corridor, a utility that would like to
make use of the Federal eminent domain authority to take private
property can apply to the Secretary and the Secretary could then
designate the area as a corridor under this new authority. This, as one
of the authors of the provision we put in law in 2005, is a major
expansion of that authority, and it is an unwarranted expansion.
In addition, the Thune amendment contains additional provisions on
rates and recovery of costs which direct the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to issue new rules setting transmission rates for the
recovery of the cost of transmission lines in national interest
corridors. Frankly, I am not entirely sure what the purpose of these
provisions are. I am not sure how these provisions affect the
ratemaking authority the Commission already exercises under the Federal
Power Act. They are either redundant or unnecessary or else they
authorize the Commission to set up a new rulemaking standard that will
apply in national interest corridors different from the standard the
Commission applies elsewhere.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. We should give the
program we created in the Energy Policy Act just 2 years ago a chance
to work before we dramatically expand it in ways that are not entirely
clear.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
[[Page S7866]]
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, because our very economic security is
dependent on the availability of electricity, our Nation must reinforce
its electric power transmission system.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress sought to establish
national interest electric transmission corridors to make America's
electricity grid more secure by ensuring there is enough capacity in
essential areas.
In EPAct, we directed the Energy Department to identify regions where
electricity reliability is threatened by transmission congestion and to
designate national corridors. Congress further provided FERC with
``backstop siting'' authority for the construction of transmission
facilities if the states involved are unable or unwilling to do so.
Just recently, DOE unveiled the following two draft corridor
designations: the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor, which runs from
New York to Northern Virginia; and the Southwest Area National
Corridor, which includes counties in southern California, western
Arizona, and southern Nevada.
The amendment offered by Senator Thune would authorize the Energy
Department, in designating national corridors, to consider transmission
constraints or congestion that increases costs to consumers; limits
resource options to serve load growth; or limits access to sources of
clean energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
Now we just had a debate on the Senate floor last week on the use of
renewable energy sources. We all support the increased use of renewable
energy sources but there is often heated opposition to the siting of
transmission facilities. This is not in the national interest.
I don't see how you can support a mandate for more renewable energy
sources but then oppose the designation of national corridors to get
the transmission built that is needed to move these renewable energy
sources to market.
Yet as we consider this amendment to expand the work we began in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, there are those in the House that are
attempting to block the needed funding to implement the national
corridors designations out of NIMBY concerns. Again, such attempts are
not in the national interest.
The siting provision in EPAct literally provides a light at the end
of the tunnel for parts of the country where the electricity grid is at
risk due to congestion.
The Thune amendment simply seeks to allow national corridor
designations to ensure the necessary transmission to access clean
sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
I ask my colleagues to support the Thune amendment.
I congratulate Senator Thune for his amendment because it is just a
rational extension and expansion of what we did in the Energy Policy
Act. I happened to be part of that Energy Policy Act. As a matter of
fact, I think I can say that for years before we got together and
Senator Bingaman and I were carrying it, we couldn't get it through.
But we did get it through. I believe we got it through because it was
high time the United States decided that for most matters we could
stand on States rights, but every now and then something percolated up
that demanded that we take a serious look at a greater interest of the
Federal Government.
That is all we are talking about here. If the development of our
electric grid ran into situations where you couldn't go through because
of the obstinacy of a State to your moving from one State to another or
one property owner had a transmission line totally locked up, you could
back that up with the Federal Government ending up saying: It has to go
because it is a big national interest. You are just kind of
piggybacking on that national interest already found in that law as we
passed it. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate that we pass this
amendment tonight.
I yield back any time I have. I wonder if Senator Bingaman would so
we could vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Before I yield back my time, I thank both Senators from
New Mexico. They have both been great leaders on the energy issue.
The 2005 Energy Act was a landmark accomplishment in the Congress. It
set a lot of new policy with regard to energy and moved us in a
direction that gets us less dependent upon foreign sources of energy
and more energy independent, which I think is what this debate is all
about.
I argue with respect to this amendment that it builds upon the work
we did in 2005. In fact, that amendment that was talked about in 2005
which deals with those areas which are experiencing heavy grid
congestion--this simply expands that designation to those corridors to
include access to clean, renewable sources of energy, which I believe
is what a part of this debate is all about; that is, how do we take
energy sources in this country, make them more available to people
across the country, and lessen the dependence on foreign sources of
energy?
I use my State as a prime example. There are lots of different
regulatory bodies, whether it is the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, the Western Area Power Administration, the Midwest
Independent System Operators, whether it is the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of South Dakota, there is a balkanization of
networks out there that has evolved over time that has created these
barriers in the grid to getting power from where it is generated, where
it is produced, to where it is needed. My State is a good example of
that. On the border of South Dakota, we have what is called a pancaking
problem where there is a stacking of fees that makes it difficult to
get wind generated in South Dakota across State lines into other areas
that could benefit from it.
This is fairly straightforward and consistent with the good work that
was done in the Energy bill in 2005. It doesn't in any way undermine or
contradict that but complements it in a way that is consistent with
what our priorities should be and what our objectives are in terms of
energy policy.
I appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues from New Mexico,
and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield back any additional time
remaining in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1609.
The amendment (No. 1609) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1610
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there remains 11\1/
2\ minutes in support of and 15 minutes in opposition to amendment No.
1610 offered by the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
Who yields time? The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The amendment I am proposing with Senators Mikulski, Snowe, Dodd,
Kerry, Reed, Kennedy, Whitehouse, Boxer, and Lieberman would restore
the authority of our State and local governments to protect the
environment and ensure public safety with respect to the siting of
liquefied natural gas--LNG--terminals within their States. This measure
simply gives our States a say as to whether these kinds of facilities
should be built within their boundaries and, if so, the exact location.
It amends the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Under that law, the
Army Corps of Engineers, acting for the Secretary of the Army, is
responsible for issuing permits to anyone who wants to build a
structure in and above waters of the United States. These are often
called section 10 permits because that is where the provision is found
in the Rivers and Harbors Act.
I wish to clarify, we are not changing the authority of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. Their authority to site is not changed by
this amendment. What we are doing is requiring the Army Corps to work
with our States before they issue their permits under the Rivers and
Harbors Act. This is not about stopping LNG plants from being sited.
Today, there are six in our country. One is located in my State of
Maryland in the right location. This amendment is about siting
[[Page S7867]]
LNG plants where they should be sited and having confidence in
federalism and in our States. Our States will act responsibly, but they
should be consulted before LNG plants are sited. That is what this
amendment will do. We want to make sure they are located in the right
locations.
My colleague from Rhode Island pointed out pretty vividly the
concerns he has about a site up in the New England area. AES Sparrows
Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express have proposed building a new
terminal near a densely populated area of Baltimore. That is the wrong
location for an LNG plant. If we had consultation and working with the
States, we would be able to site these facilities without the risk that
they will be located in areas where they should not be. That is what
the amendment is about. In our area, our congressional delegation,
Governor O'Malley, Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith, and other
local officials have all come out against this particular location
because of the risk to the community, because of the risk to the
environment.
This amendment is very simple. It requires the Army Corps to work
with our States before an LNG license could be issued under section 10
permits. It is the right way for federalism to work. We should take
advantage of each State's unique understanding of the issues it faces
and make sure that expertise is considered in a meaningful way. That is
why the Coastal States Organization supports this amendment. They
believe it is the right sharing of how LNG plants should be sited.
I urge my colleagues to respect federalism. Respect the goodwill of
our States. Respect the fact that we want LNG facilities and terminals
to be located, but we want them to be located in the right location.
I yield my colleague from Maryland 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague.
I understand this is his first amendment that will be voted on in the
Senate. I am proud to stand with him as he stands up for Maryland and
also stands up for the fact that when we are talking about the siting
of an LNG facility, those who are the most affected should have the
most to say, which means the State in which it is being located. I
support this amendment because it is also the right public policy and
because it is the right public policy for Maryland.
I am absolutely opposed to a new LNG facility in Sparrows Point, MD.
As the senior Senator from Maryland, I will do all I can to protect the
people of Baltimore and to protect the Port of Baltimore. I oppose this
LNG facility because of my fears and frustrations. I worry about a
terrorist attack. I worry about an accident with ghoulish consequences.
This is a national security issue and a community security issue, not
just an energy or a budget issue.
These concerns are not mine alone. According to a GAO report,
scientists and engineers have raised enormous concern about the
potential hazard of an accident or an attack on LNG facilities. GAO
says we don't know about the impact of an LNG accident on public
safety. We are talking about possible injury and death. How can anyone
make a decision on LNG without knowing the decision on public safety?
This is why I support this amendment. This amendment gives States and
communities a stronger voice by making sure the Army Corps of Engineers
gets the approval of the affected State before giving permits for
construction for an LNG facility. That means the Governor can say:
``Hold on a minute; this is not good for my State,'' or, ``Hold on a
minute; it is good for my State.''
We cannot let a Federal agency rubberstamp plans for an LNG facility.
I am committed to promoting America's energy independence, but it must
not compromise our national security or our neighborhood security. I
want to make sure we know the consequence of what happens when an LNG
facility comes to a geographic area. What can be done and should be
done to review and control the plants, the docks, the ships, the crews?
I do not want permits issued and foreign-flagged tankers coming to
our ports until we know key answers. I do not want permits authored by
Federal agencies when our States are adamantly opposed and they are not
involved in the decision making. Many States will welcome it. Some
States will raise questions as we have.
It is my responsibility as a Senator to make sure we ask the right
questions to protect the American people. But, most of all, we want to
give the people most affected something to say.
We worry about this second LNG facility in Sparrows Point. It is 50
miles up the Chesapeake Bay. These tankers will have to pass under the
Bay Bridge. My Governor is worried about the impact on the Port of
Baltimore, and the people are worried about the impact on the
community.
My colleague says we have another facility, and it was in the right
place. Well, I am not sure it was in the right place. They built this
LNG facility 3 miles away from a nuclear powerplant--3 miles away from
a nuclear powerplant--but it got closed in the 1980s when the market
went down. But guess what. FERC issued a permit to reopen Cove Point in
a different part of the State 1 month after 9/11, and they did not ask
about security concerns. It took this Senator--and then my colleague,
Senator Sarbanes, and I--demanding the Department of Homeland Security
get involved, demanding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to say: Is it
OK to have an LNG facility down the street? I had to force the Coast
Guard to look at it from a security standpoint rather than just an
environmental standpoint.
I worry about the rockfish in the bay, but I worry about the people
who eat the rockfish in the bay, meaning my constituents. We finally
got the reviews we needed and we moved ahead with the permit. Let me
tell you, I am on the side of safety, and I believe the safest thing is
to make sure the Governor has a chance to comment with the Corps and to
have an expressed impact on this permit facility.
I think the Senator's policy is a wise one; it is a prudent one. It
is narrowly crafted. I ask my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Well, I want to take 5 minutes and yield the rest of it
to Senator Bingaman. But I do want to make a point that this country is
going to need large amounts of natural gas over the next 15, 20, 30
years. One source is probably going to be LNG, liquefied natural gas.
It is terribly important for our country that we have this available
when we need it, and if the price is right that we be able to locate
sites that serve the United States.
Now, frankly, when we passed the Energy Policy Act, there were three
or four things that were very much on the minds of those who wanted to
deliver energy to the United States. I say to my new friend, the new
Senator from Maryland, one of those at that particular time happened to
be liquefied natural gas and those around the world who were trying to
figure out whether the United States was going to be a place where they
could sell liquefied natural gas or was it going to be a place where
they could be held up forever.
We had to decide, as we worked through this very gigantic, gargantuan
bill, what we were going to do about the concern on the part of the LNG
market that if you left the law as it was, every State's Governor would
have a veto power, and in some instances mayors would have veto power
over an LNG site. We decided that would not work.
Now, we did not take away everyone's power. As a matter of fact, we
encouraged cooperation. We encouraged the involvement of the States and
the local governments with the LNG company, and we said only when you
get to the point where you cannot reach agreement does the Federal
Government step in, and then they backstop it and make a determination,
through FERC, what is in the interest of our Nation, what is fair, and
what is right.
Frankly, I don't know the facts about the Maryland plant, and I do
not believe we need to know them on the floor of the Senate, nor do the
Senators. What we need to know is we have a good law now on the books
that
[[Page S7868]]
gives involvement and participation to everyone who ought to have that,
but it does not give a Governor veto power over the site.
I correct any implications or direct statements by my good friend,
the new Senator from Maryland. There is no question the amendment which
they offer seeks veto power on the part of the Governor, gives the
ultimate control to the Governor of the State as to what happens to an
application. I do not believe that is what we wanted when we
overwhelmingly--as the occupant of the chair has said so many times--in
a bipartisan manner passed the Energy Policy Act.
I do not think we intended the first time we had a problem that
somebody would come to the floor and change that wonderful law that was
clear as could be, that when it came to locating LNG plants, we were
not going to revert back to where we were and take the power away from
FERC, the Federal agency in charge, and reinvest it in the Governor of
the State.
We all know how this happens. People get disgruntled about a site,
they go to the Governor, we immediately have a political tussle, and,
all of a sudden, the Governor, talking to 500, 600, 700 people at a
meeting, cannot get out of it, and that puts the Governor in the
position where he has to say: I am not going to let that happen.
We saw that over the years. We saw it in other areas. We were bold
enough in that Energy Act to change that situation, not only when it
came to this kind of LNG siting but we also changed it--just a while
ago we were talking about it as it pertained to the grid--the occupant
of the chair might recall, where we said, if the grid gets clogged up,
where you cannot get things done, we are going to actually put power in
the Federal Government to use its public powers to take that gorging
and dislodge it through eminent domain.
We did that, and we did other things, all in the interest of what we
knew was true; that you ultimately had to let energy sources and energy
grids and energy plants--you had to let the Federal Government have the
last say, especially where arbitrariness on the part of the local unit
was entering the picture and they wanted their way, their way under all
circumstances.
I thank the Chair for being aware that I am over a moment or so, but
I am now finished and have left most of the time for Senator Bingaman
because I think he will do a good job, and maybe we will not have to
have a vote. But if we do, I urge Senators not to change the law they
just voted for 77 strong. Do not change it the first time we get an
amendment of this nature coming before us. Leave it there for a try.
Let it get tried. It is going to work. It is not going to hurt anybody.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the concerns of my
colleagues from Maryland, but I also rise to oppose their amendment.
Just 2 years ago, the Senate approved the Energy Policy Act of 2005
which contains this comprehensive approach to the siting of liquefied
natural gas receiving terminals. In that bill, Congress gave FERC, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the jurisdiction to approve the
siting of LNG terminals that are located on shore.
FERC acts as the lead agency for NEPA compliance and also as a safety
regulator. The combined NEPA and permitting process set forth in that
legislation, EPAct 2005, fully recognizes the role of other Federal
agencies and the role of State agencies acting under delegated Federal
authority.
A project developer is not able to move forward unless all relevant
permits are granted. FERC has addressed State concerns related to other
LNG facilities through conditions placed on its approval certificate
and it has denied a certificate due to safety concerns. So it is clear
FERC is taking this authority and responsibility very seriously.
Moreover, this EPAct 2005 legislation also mandated the consideration
of State concerns in the NEPA prefiling process which occurs very early
in the siting process. The Governor of the affected State has a direct
role in that process.
The Senators from Maryland describe their amendment as ``not
affecting FERC authority,'' but the amendment would essentially trump
FERC's authority to site the entire facility.
As my colleagues know, LNG is imported. It is delivered to this
country by ship. Therefore, an absolutely essential piece of the LNG
receiving facility is a place for the ship to moor and to unload its
cargo; that is, a dock that is constructed in the navigable waters of
the United States. The Senators' amendment would allow a Governor of an
affected State--and there is a very broad definition of which States
are affected; in fact, any State within 15 miles of the terminal would
be an affected State under their definition--it would allow the
Governor of an affected State to block the Corps' permit, Army Corps of
Engineers' permit. Obviously, there is no point in building a terminal
if the ship is not permitted to get near it.
Finally, all of us are aware of the high price of natural gas and the
pressure that puts on electricity prices, home heating prices, and on
the viability of domestic industries that rely on natural gas. The
Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2030 the United
States will need almost 21 billion cubic feet per day of regasified LNG
to meet a total estimated demand of about 81 billion cubic feet per
day. This means LNG will account for over 25 percent of our natural gas
supply. We need a workable process to assure we have adequate capacity
to meet this need.
So, Mr. President, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this amendment.
I know the Senator from Maryland wishes, I assume, to use the
remainder of his time or to conclude his argument. Following that, I
will yield back the remaining time in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank both of my friends from New
Mexico for their leadership on this bill. They have brought forward a
good bill--a bill that I am proud to support and a bill that I hope
will be strengthened by the amendment process and that will allow us to
become energy independent because we need to for national security
reasons, for economic reasons, and for environmental reasons.
But it is important that we get it right and that LNG facilities and
terminals be placed in the right locations. My friend from New Mexico
says this is a veto power by the State. It is not veto power by the
State, no more so than you think FERC today has dictatorial powers on
siting LNG plants. What my amendment is trying to do is to make sure
our States work with the Federal Government and with our Federal
agencies on appropriately siting LNG facilities. That is how federalism
should work.
I have confidence in my Governor. He was elected by the people of
Maryland. He is going to do the right thing. He makes tough decisions.
We make tough decisions. But we should work together because that is
the way we are going to be able to get the type of energy policy in
this country that will achieve all three objectives, and that is
security for energy independence, economic security, and environmental
security for this country.
We need to engage our States. We should. This amendment does not
change the law that was passed 2 years ago. FERC power remains the
same. It amends the Rivers and Harbors Act dealing with the Army Corps
of Engineers. That is what it should be; they should be consulting and
working with the States before they issue their permits. This is a real
problem. There are dozens of applications pending today. We will be
able to site LNG plants, but let's site them in the right location.
Let's not site them, as my friend from Rhode Island said, in a very
sensitive part of Massachusetts or Rhode Island that literally would
block recreational use and endanger communities. Let's not site them in
a place right next to downtown Baltimore, which we know is going to
present a risk--not just an accidental risk but a terrorist target.
That is not where we should site LNG plants.
So we can get it right. We can get our energy policy right. I urge my
colleagues to respect federalism, respect the fact that the States and
the Federal Government should be working together on the energy
policies of this
[[Page S7869]]
country so we truly become energy independent for the right reasons. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be
added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1520, as Modified
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
No. 1520 be made the pending amendment for the purposes of modifying
it, and I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment as modified is as follows:
At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:
SEC. 255. SUPPORT FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED
STATES.
It is the policy of the United States to provide support
for projects and activities to facilitate the energy
independence of the United States so as to ensure that all
but 10 percent of the energy needs of the United States are
supplied by domestic energy sources.
SEC. 256. ENERGY POLICY COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established a commission, to be
known as the ``National Commission on Energy Independence''
(referred to in this section as the ``Commission'').
(2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members, of whom--
(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President;
(B) 3 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate;
(C) 3 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate;
(D) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives; and
(E) 3 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives.
(3) Co-chairpersons.--
(A) In general.--The President shall designate 2 co-
chairpersons from among the members of the Commission
appointed.
(B) Political affiliation.--The co-chairpersons designated
under subparagraph (A) shall not both be affiliated with the
same political party.
(4) Deadline for appointment.--Members of the Commission
shall be appointed not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(5) Term; vacancies.--
(A) Term.--A member of the Commission shall be appointed
for the life of the Commission.
(B) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission--
(i) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
(ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
(b) Purpose.--The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive
review of the energy policy of the United States by--
(1) reviewing relevant analyses of the current and long-
term energy policy of, and conditions in, the United States;
(2) identifying problems that may threaten the achievement
by the United States of long-term energy policy goals,
including energy independence;
(3) analyzing potential solutions to problems that threaten
the long-term ability of the United States to achieve those
energy policy goals; and
(4) providing recommendations that will ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable, that the energy policy goals of
the United States are achieved.
(c) Report and Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each of
calendar years 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, the Commission
shall submit to Congress and the President a report on the
progress of United States in meeting the long-term energy
policy goal of energy independence, including a detailed
statement of the consensus findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Commission.
(2) Legislative language.--If a recommendation submitted
under paragraph (1) involves legislative action, the report
shall include proposed legislative language to carry out the
action.
(d) Commission Personnel Matters.--
(1) Staff and director.--The Commission shall have a staff
headed by an Executive Director.
(2) Staff appointment.--The Executive Director may appoint
such personnel as the Executive Director and the Commission
determine to be appropriate.
(3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the
Commission, the Executive Director may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code.
(4) Federal agencies.--
(A) Detail of government employees.--
(i) In general.--Upon the request of the Commission, the
head of any Federal agency may detail, without reimbursement,
any of the personnel of the Federal agency to the Commission
to assist in carrying out the duties of the Commission.
(ii) Nature of detail.--Any detail of a Federal employee
under clause (i) shall not interrupt or otherwise affect the
civil service status or privileges of the Federal employee.
(B) Technical assistance.--Upon the request of the
Commission, the head of a Federal agency shall provide such
technical assistance to the Commission as the Commission
determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the
Commission.
(e) Resources.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall have reasonable
access to materials, resources, statistical data, and such
other information from Executive agencies as the Commission
determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the
Commission.
(2) Form of requests.--The co-chairpersons of the
Commission shall make requests for access described in
paragraph (1) in writing, as necessary.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1519
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1519 offered by the
Senator from Wisconsin.
The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me and our 13
cosponsors in voting in favor of our OPEC amendment. This amendment
will declare price fixing by the OPEC oil cartel illegal under our
antitrust laws and will give our Government a much needed weapon to
combat the illegal actions of the OPEC cartel that harms consumers
every time they visit the gas pump.
Contrary to the fears of the opponents of this amendment, this
amendment will not harm either our foreign relations or foreign
investment in the United States. Enforcement of NOPEC is reserved
exclusively to the Justice Department. Should the administration deem
it imprudent to take action against NOPEC, then it need not do so. It
is long past time for us to have the ability, should our Government
decide to do so, to take legal action to fight back against the OPEC
conspiracy on behalf of American consumers.
So I urge my colleagues to join 345 House Members who last month
voted in huge numbers in favor of NOPEC.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since I don't see anyone else here, let
me speak in opposition to the amendment.
This is one of these feel-good amendments where you can tell your
constituents you struck a blow for freedom by outlawing OPEC.
The truth is, this is terrible precedent for us to say we are going
to drag foreign governments into our court system and allow them to be
sued for antitrust violations. We have always stopped short of doing
this. The precedent would be terrible because obviously they would do
the same thing with us. If we can bring foreign governments into our
courts and subject them to penalties here, they can bring our
Government into their courts and do the same thing. The courts have
stayed away from these issues. These are diplomatic issues and
political issues the courts should stay out of.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to the Kohl amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
[[Page S7870]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 23, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]
YEAS--70
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Crapo
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed (RI)
Reid (NV)
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--23
Allard
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Burr
Cochran
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Murkowski
Roberts
Sununu
Vitter
Warner
NOT VOTING--6
Biden
Brownback
Coburn
Dodd
Johnson
McCain
The amendment (No. 1519) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1610
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1610, offered by the
Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
Who seeks time?
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the authority
of State and local governments to protect the environment and ensure
public safety with respect to siting of liquefied natural gas, LNG
terminals. This measure simply gives our States a say in whether these
kinds of facilities, LNG facilities, should be built within their
boundaries and, if so, their exact location.
The amendment does not eliminate FERC's siting authority. It doesn't
amend the FERC statute at all. It amends the Army Corps' permitting
statute and requires that the Army Corps work with our States in siting
LNG facilities.
The amendment is common sense, one that engages our States as
partners in serious decisionmaking authority as to where an LNG plant
should be located. This bill is all about securing America's future
through energy independence. We need to work with our States. It should
be federalism. We should respect the authorities of our States and the
sincerity of our Governors, and this bill restores that type of balance
so that the States are involved in protecting the environment at the
location of LNG facilities.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment does not just allow the
States to participate in the decision; this amendment would give the
States the ability to veto the issuance of any permit to the Army Corps
of Engineers to build a terminal and would, in that way, cut us off
from needed access to international supplies of liquefied natural gas,
LNG. We are going to be more and more dependent upon these liquefied
natural gas supplies from overseas. We need to have these terminals
constructed. We have a provision in existing law that gives us good
processes for including the States, but it is important that we not
change existing law.
Senator Domenici, did you wish to speak?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say that I wholeheartedly
agree with Senator Bingaman. Just 2\1/2\ years ago, we decided we
needed LNG so much in the future that we wanted an orderly process that
did not give the Governors of each State the right to veto. This one is
even broader. This gives Governors a 15-mile radius around the
opportunity to veto.
I don't think we should change the law so quickly. I think we should
leave it alone for a few years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The question
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maryland, Mr.
Cardin.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Akaka
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--56
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
NOT VOTING--6
Biden
Brownback
Coburn
Dodd
Johnson
McCain
The amendment (No. 1610) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus
be recognized, following him, Senator Enzi, following him Senator
Gregg.
Mr. GREGG. And Senator Murkowski.
Mr. REID. Senator Enzi, how long do you wish to speak?
Mr. ENZI. Six to eight minutes.
Mr. REID. How long do you wish to speak, Senator Gregg?
Mr. GREGG. About 10 minutes.
Mr. REID. Senator Murkowski, do you know?
Mr. GREGG. Senator Murkowski for 5 minutes, I believe.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Ten minutes.
Mr. REID. We will follow that by Senators Menendez, Schumer, and
Brown, up to 10 minutes each. Is that OK? You have all that down? Thank
you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendments be temporarily set aside so I can
[[Page S7871]]
offer an amendment incorporating the Finance Committee-reported energy
tax package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
Mr. ENZI. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't know why there is objection. I
note while there is objection, I will talk about it until we get the
objection cleared. This is a Finance Committee amendment passed out of
committee. It is very straightforward. We have a copy. The Senator from
Wyoming objected?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I think the objection was on the basis that
we just got the file. We haven't looked at it at all.
Mr. BAUCUS. You will have time to look at it. We are not going to
vote on it for a while. You will have lots of time to look at it. You
will have time to look at it, believe me. This is a formality. It is
good to bring it up now so we move the process along so the Senator and
other Senators have time to look at it.
Mr. ENZI. I have no objection to someone talking on it, but I would
like to take a look at it, whatever it is.
Mr. BAUCUS. I inform the Senator I am only asking the amendment be
brought up. There will be plenty of time. In fact, the Senator could
speak as long as he wants and other Senators could speak as long as
they want as we look at the amendment.
The ordinary course is the amendment is brought up. This has been
fully vetted in the Finance Committee. Senators on both sides of the
aisle passed it by a vote of 15 to 5. Members on the Republican side
voted for it in committee.
I hope we can at least get the amendment up, and then we can work the
usual Senate will.
Mr. ENZI. Apparently, there are objections on our side. I have no
objection to you going ahead and speaking to it, but they want to look
at the amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment
incorporating the Finance Committee-reported energy tax package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1704
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1704.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schumer,
Ms. Cantwell and Mr. Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered
1704 to amendment No. 1502.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Grassley, Bingaman, Lincoln, Wyden, Schumer, Cantwell, and Salazar be
added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a long statement here which I am
not going to read. Essentially this is the Finance Committee amendment.
It goes a long way to help create incentives for renewables and for
carbon sequestration, which is so important. It is a $20-billion-plus
amendment over 10 years. It is fully offset. It is all paid for. It
passed out of the Finance Committee by a vote of 15 to 5 earlier today.
We spent a lot of time on this amendment and I think it is one of which
the Senate can be very proud.
Basically, we are building on the strong foundation we already have
with respect to tax incentives in our country. We continue our
commitment to clean energy and renewables. We extend existing tax
incentives for solar power, wind power, fuel cells, and energy-
efficient homes and buildings. We create a tax incentive for
transmission projects related to renewable energy projects and provide
more than $3.6 billion over 10 years for renewable energy bonds. I
might say this will benefit all of the States and also is of particular
interest to my home State of Montana, and I know also to the Senator
from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
But we are going further than all that. We are also trying to extend
the frontier in three areas that are critical to our Nation's energy
future. One is cellulosic ethanol. We give significant incentives for
cellulosic ethanol development; hybrid cars, significant incentives for
the purchase of hybrid cars as well as plug-ins for hybrids; and third,
carbon sequestration.
We propose a $1.11 per gallon tax credit for up to 60 million gallons
of cellulosic fuel produced from sawgrass, agricultural wastes, and
other biomass.
Hybrid cars provide an opportunity to make transportation cleaner--
high-mileage cars with almost no emissions. I think it is worth
exploring. The amendment calls for a new credit for plug-in vehicles
for $2,500 to $7,500.
We are also trying to take advantage of the vast reserves of coal we
have in our country. We clearly also have great concerns about global
warming. I think it is imperative that we use our coal to help meet our
energy needs, but we also have to prevent carbon dioxide from escaping
into the atmosphere.
There are various provisions here with respect to carbon
sequestration. It depends upon whether it is known as a clean coal
facility, but we use tax credits provided in this mark, which must
capture and sequester at least 65 percent of its carbon dioxide
emissions. That is with respect to power that is used to generate
electricity. The utility industry tells us we can't go higher than 65
percent sequestration or captured sequestration for the utility
industry. But we are going higher in other areas, and one is the coal-
to-liquids sequestration. We extend the current 50-cent rate for coal-
to-liquids to the year 2012. We also provide for a 75-percent capture
of carbon for coal to liquids. This provision generated some
controversy in the committee--some wanted it much higher, some wanted
it lower. We felt that 72 percent is a pretty good compromise and a
good place to begin.
I will also add that we provide 50 percent bonus depreciation for new
dedicated pipelines that will be used to transport carbon dioxide from
an industrial source to a geological formation for permanent disposal.
There are many other provisions in this amendment which I will not
mention, except to say that this is a very great addition to the
underlying package. We are turning the corner here. We are enacting
legislation which will help move America away from the past and more
toward the future. The future is renewable energies, alternative
energies. It is conservation provisions which we also have in this
bill. It is utilizing our coal reserves in the same way; that is,
making sure the carbon is sufficiently captured. It is all paid for,
and it is paid for by closing some loopholes in the coal and gas
industry and also by repealing the reduction for section 199 for the
major oil companies. This applies only to the five majors.
We also propose a tax on gulf oil production. Some will say: Gee,
aren't we discouraging domestic production by doing that in America
with those provisions? But I must point out that since section 199 was
enacted several years ago, the actual domestic production in the United
States has declined. A few years ago when that provision was enacted,
the price of gasoline was much lower than it is now. It is much higher
today. In addition to that, the projected profits for the oil and gas
industry for the next 10 years are projected to be $1 trillion. If you
look at the profits, if you look at how much gasoline prices have
risen, and if you look at the decline in domestic production in this
country over the last several years, even with those very high profits,
it is pretty clear this offset will
[[Page S7872]]
not in any way diminish our prospects of domestic production and will
not cause gasoline prices to increase. In fact, there is a study by the
Joint Tax Committee which makes that very point; namely, since these
provisions were put into effect a couple or 3 years ago, domestic
production has not increased. It has not helped increase domestic
production in the United States. Actually, domestic production has
decreased.
So we feel this is a good package. It is paid for properly. It passed
the committee by a vote of 15 to 5. I recommend this Finance Committee
package to the full Senate. We will work our will on it over the next
several days, but I think it is an excellent start.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a previous order.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, who is the next person to speak?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 8
minutes.
____________________