[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 165 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13507-S13508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am here because the distinguished
majority leader spoke today, and I wasn't here when he talked about the
two Energy bills that are outstanding--maybe it is three. The House has
a couple of Energy bills and we have one, and they are languishing, so
to speak, because there is no conference, no official conference. The
distinguished majority leader used the phrase, saying we ought to marry
the two bills. Now, the leader knows I have every bit of respect for
him, and I have talked with him about this Energy bill at least 10
times. I have even suggested in writing some ideas about how we might
have a conference that is not a conference but accomplishes the same
thing. With that, I wish to say right off, Mr. Leader and fellow
Senators, these two bills are so different, so different, that they are
incompatible.
So you cannot say marry them, because that marriage cannot last. You
cannot start it because the bills are diametrically different, with the
exception of a few pieces that are not terribly relevant that are the
same. What they have, we don't have; what we have, they don't have. You
cannot marry them. It is a hard job to work a bill when you don't have
a conference.
I will repeat what I have suggested. At least 2 Republican Senators
who were part of the big bill--maybe myself from the Energy Committee,
and maybe Senator Stevens from Commerce--have to be part of negotiating
every part of the bill or it is going to be very difficult to get 60
votes in the Senate. I cannot make it any clearer. That is what I have
told them. I still say that. I don't know where we do it, but maybe we
could informally agree to something like that. So don't bring up a big
piece of the bill that has been negotiated out between some House
Members and Senate Members but you have not worked it with the Senators
who put together the basic pieces of the big bill in the Senate.
As a member of the Senate Energy Committee for 30 years, I have
learned a lot about what it takes to pass a comprehensive, bipartisan
energy bill and get it signed. As chairman in 2005, I shepherded
through the Senate the
[[Page S13508]]
most comprehensive Energy bill in decades. Over time, when fully
implemented, this bill will have a very positive impact across every
sector of energy. Strengthening America's energy security doesn't have
an overnight solution. It is not something that can be accomplished in
5-second bites. Instead, it requires long vision and courage to make a
difficult decision. Both the Senate and the House have passed bills, as
I indicated. While the Senate bill takes big, important steps to
diversify our fuel sources to increase our energy efficiency and
conservation, the House bill does little more than, in a sense,
increase the energy cost for America.
The majority leader suggested that we marry these bills, as I
indicated. However, this marriage of convenience would be an
inconvenient burden. I would call it an incompatibility for those who
fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes.
The centerpiece of our Senate efforts on energy is a mandate which
would require an increasing portion of our fuel to come from advanced
biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. These newly advanced, clean
biofuels will eventually help make America less dependent upon foreign
oil. The House Energy bill contains no such provisions and, in fact,
takes steps that would reduce our domestic energy supply. This led a
former Member of the Senate to write:
unless Congress includes provisions for increasing supply,
this will remain an energy bill without energy.
Again, that was a former Senator. I think people could guess who it
is. He is from down South, maybe from Louisiana.
The House repeals numerous provisions of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 that are already increasing domestic energy production. Across the
country, applications for drilling permits are on the rise. I know a
little bit about it. That is out in my part of the country. I know that
sounds wrong, but they are on the rise. Last year, we did produce more
oil than we did before because the activities are taking place. We will
need to continue this rise to keep up with our Nation's demand for
domestic oil and natural gas. Instead of expediting the process of
domestic oil and gas production, the House bill slows it down. Instead
of decreasing domestic gas and oil exploration and production costs,
the House bill increases the costs.
I guess the answer to that is, well, everybody is making too much
money, so increase costs. Frankly, we don't generally do that in the
United States. That is what we have tried before when we had such
strange things as a tax on the rich. We tried an extra tax on oil
because it was making too much money. We got in big trouble because it
never did work.
The price tag is a $16 billion tax increase on American oil and gas
production--on big and small businesses alike. This is a conservative
estimate, and I fear one that will increase behind closed doors.
The House bill results in a punitive fee on deep sea production or,
in the alternative, a ban on future leasing altogether. That one is an
interesting one. People look at that and say it is good, we ought to do
it. Incidentally, that is so anti-American, you cannot believe it. I
believe it is also unconstitutional as an ex post facto law. But that
is not the issue. That is one of the things we are not going to marry
up because plenty of Members in the Senate--at least on our side of the
aisle--think that because a mistake was made--not made by a Republican
President, it was made during the Presidency of our last Democratic
President. A mistake was made and the royalty requirements were not
included and the bids let. Those people who got those bids and didn't
pay any royalties were trying to collect from them after the fact. That
is one of their provisions in the House bill and not in ours. You could
tell that is in for a heavy fight.
I don't know whether you could pass a bill in the Senate that had the
division they have. They say any of those companies in that position,
they pay up something they don't owe, but they pay it up anyway or they
cannot drill for 20 years. I cannot imagine anything that looks more
anti-American, more like a banana republic that takes over oil
companies and releases them and nobody knows what is going on. These
types of measures will reduce our domestic energy supply, increase our
energy cost and, over time, play into the hands of the large state-
owned oil companies in unstable regions around the world.
The House-passed Energy bill is a gift to our global competitors in
China, Russia, and the Middle East. This is not just an energy issue,
it is a national security issue. The more we increase our dependence,
the less secure we become. The higher prices we put on energy at home,
the greater the costs we place on our strategic competitiveness abroad.
The House Energy bill doesn't end at increasing costs for consumers
at the pump. It also targets those of us who use electricity. By
requiring States that lack natural resources to meet an unachievable,
mandatory, renewable portfolio standard, we increase costs. Those who
cannot meet this standard will simply pay a fee. Remember, that was not
offered in the Senate. My friend, the chairman of the committee, is for
that and he didn't offer it. I speculate that he didn't offer it
because it might have made the bill impossible to pass. But it is in
the House bill, so it is not so easy to say let's go and marry them.
Somebody has to sit down and talk seriously about whether that kind of
provision can stand the test of a head count as to whether we can get a
bill through the Senate.
If I am needed, I am needed to help get a bill. If I am not needed to
get a bill, you can marry anything to anything and bring it to the
floor and see what can happen.
I have been a long-time supporter of renewable energy in both the
appropriations process and in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I led
efforts to protect an offshore wind project in unfair opposition. The
bill I authored provided the largest and most important tax incentives
for renewable energy in American history. We don't need to do anything
else to help with wind energy. It is growing at the most rapid pace of
any of the renewables. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding the
orders for turbines for wind energy are so far behind that you have no
wait for 2 years. Most of them are being made overseas. You see, it
won't do any good--we don't need more States mandated to produce 15
percent of their energy through wind, and they are allowing a 4-percent
credit or something. We ought to increase the tax incentive, so it is
not going out too quickly.
I support sound, smart policy on increasing our domestic renewable
energy supply, but I oppose tax increases on the American energy
consumers.
The next 30 years will bring a massive shift in American wealth if we
continue to increase our dependence on foreign oil. That is what will
happen. Plainly and simply, the Senate bill moves away from this trend.
The House bill does not; it accelerates it. I will say that again. The
next 30 years will bring a massive shift of American wealth if we
continue to increase our dependence. That shift is at an incredible
level at this point.
For these reasons, we cannot simply marry these two bills in the dark
of the night. Instead, we need a bipartisan conference committee
similar to the one we had in 2005. If we cannot get it in any official
way, we are going to have to find a way to do it. It cannot be expected
that those on the other side of the aisle will meet with certain
Republicans and they will change these bills and say now we have
married the bills and we can pass them. That will not happen.
This is a difficult bill on the Senate side but a good one. As a
matter of fact, I can say the bill that passed the Senate is one of the
best bills we have ever passed. It sort of came from three committees,
and it is different, but it will certainly, over 10 years, do a lot for
our country. But you don't put on top of it a tax--this tax of $16
billion. They tried it here and it was defeated on the Energy bill. But
because the House has it, there is talk that we have to marry it up and
take their tax provision. Where are you going to get the votes for
that? And that is so with other things that are in the House bill and
not in ours.
I thank Senator Lott for being patient. Clearly, we will discuss the
issue more and maybe sit down at a table and talk about it among
Senators of both parties.
I yield the floor.
____________________