[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.




                          ____________________