[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17434-17436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, across this land, our people are driving 
up to the gasoline pumps, and they are filling their tank. In the last 
6 or 8 months, every time they filled up their tank, the amount went 
up, up, and up. It peaked for a while, but still, in some parts of 
America, it is $2 a gallon, $1.90, $1.96.
  Everybody understands that America has no energy policy. A few months 
ago, we had a blackout--remember--in the northeastern part of America, 
something a country such as ours should not have unless somebody 
intentionally and physically destroyed power lines or big connectors. 
But it happened because of overload, and it happened because we do not 
have an energy policy.
  Natural gas, our most plentiful fuel and the one that is best for 
America's

[[Page 17435]]

future, we thought we had enough for anything forever and ever. It 
turns out that unless we do something to increase our supply, it, too, 
is going to be in short supply. As a matter of fact, as tough as it is 
to admit this, unless we bring some huge new natural gas supplies on in 
America, this great land will go from dependence on crude oil to 
another state of dependence: dependence on foreign sources for natural 
gas.
  We have solar. We have all the renewables. And at this time in our 
history, they are stalemated. The reason they are stalemated is because 
they need an energy policy. They need the Energy bill that is sitting 
up at that desk. It has production credits that existed before for all 
the renewables, for clean coal and its development. All of those are in 
this bill. The Energy bill is up there at the desk.
  Rising oil prices and the fact we have no energy policy is dangerous 
for our national security, for our environment, for jobs, and for the 
personal prosperity of our people and our consumers.
  Around the world, we are seeing increased demands for energy, 
increasingly thin reserves of fossil fuels, and increased instability 
of oil-producing countries. Demand for oil is growing. The price goes 
up and down, not so much because of supply but because there is no 
assurance of supply--interruptions, revolutions--and so America sits by 
and we look at it all, and I guess we would all like to say somebody 
else is to blame.
  I hear in the campaign that nobody wants to talk too much about 
energy. One of the candidates said we have to stop being dependent on 
foreign oil. I am not standing here saying that Energy bill at the desk 
does that because we are already 60--and going up--percent dependent, 
and I defy anybody to have a plan to get rid of that. I guess if you 
want to order Americans to get rid of all their cars and buy little 
ones that get 100 miles to a gallon or 60, you might do something. But 
nobody will vote for that.
  Is my time running out?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  So here is what we have to do. We have to look at ourselves and say: 
What can we do to produce all kinds of new alternative fuels that will 
give us a chance to prove to the world that we are not going to sit by 
and do nothing? We are going to say we are going to do something big 
about natural gas. This bill says some of the available outer 
continental gas, which is not environmentally precluded, can be gotten. 
We are going to say there is a huge supply from Alaska. Not the one 
everybody objects to. I should not say everyone. Some do, but I don't. 
But other natural gas can be brought to the central part of America, to 
Chicago, and in a few years it will provide another great source.
  We have language in this bill that will stabilize electricity, in 
terms of regions. It will put in some standards. Yes, from everything 
we understand, it has a real chance of doing two things: encouraging 
investment in electricity, which we need desperately; second, seeing 
that we do not have any blackouts in the future.
  Frankly, for the past 21 months--not alone but with other people--we 
have worked to develop a consensus on an energy bill. The other side, 
the Democrats, have insisted, because they filibustered the Energy 
bill, that we get 60 votes. Actually, the bill at the desk has been 
recrafted, so it seems to us it should get 60 votes.
  It is not so good that we have to get 60. Americans used to think 
that 51 votes would win, right? They look at television and they say: 
What do you mean you lost that bill? You got 58 votes.
  If we are filibustering, we need 60. We took out the portion of this 
bill that was most objectionable, and it is not in there anymore. I am 
not going into detail about it. Everybody in here knows it has to do 
with a piece of legislation that was in the original bill that held 
certain companies harmless from a fuel additive that was prescribed, 
mandated by the Federal Government, and OK'd by the Federal Government. 
Then when it got out in the field, if people caused it to leak or 
dropped it on the ground, it caused damage. So people want to make the 
companies that did it liable. In this body we don't want to say to 
those companies, ``You are OK.'' So we took that out. It is not in 
there.
  The House of Representatives has done their thing. After we passed 
the bill big in conference, within 48 hours they passed it. It came 
here. We got 48 votes. As everyone knows, we had to try to fix it. We 
did. The Senator occupying the chair helped. He did a yeoman's job 
helping us, as did many other Senators. We tried to bring it up. 
Senators said: We will filibuster again. If we don't filibuster, we 
have scores of amendments to add to it.
  Let me tell you, the Energy bill could do the following. Anybody who 
is interested in jobs ought to be for it. It would create more than 
800,000 jobs. It would revitalize rural America by encouraging 
renewable fuels such as ethanol. It would increase the production of 
renewables of every kind--wind, solar, geothermal, and the like. It 
would build an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, encourage production of 
domestic natural gas besides Alaska, and domestic oil.
  I am not overstating the oil. We can't produce ourselves out of 
dependence, but we can produce more than we are producing.
  It can strengthen the future of the nuclear energy option, promote 
clean coal technology, promote hydrogen--which the President said we 
start with a $5 billion program because hydrogen may indeed be the fuel 
of the future; promote energy efficiency, increase our research and 
development in various technologies.
  On electricity, I have stated it in generalities, but let me be very 
precise. It establishes mandatory reliability rules for the electricity 
grid and promotes investment and expansion of the electricity grid.
  We have labored for years. There has not been an energy bill in 12 
years. I don't know how comprehensive it was, but it was hard to get 
done, and it did a lot of things. Now we have many sound concepts in 
this bill. If we can reach agreement to limit debate to an agreeable, 
reasonable number of amendments--I suggest anything reasonable. Come 
down here and say 10 amendments on each side and then vote. I would 
like to try that. I will bet there are some on the other side who would 
object.
  Why would they object? Is not 10 amendments enough for anybody to get 
their ideas to change this bill considered and get on with voting on 
it? I think it is. But let's hear something positive. I hope we can try 
that. Then at least Americans will know we tried. Americans will know, 
as we said, we need a policy to move forward.
  Energy is a complex and multifaceted problem. To approach it as a 
single-issue problem is very small thinking and not the best way to 
move this country forward. The Energy bill is about big thinking, 
forward-looking principles that would guide us to better technologies, 
more secure energy, more secure resources that deal with energy and the 
safest operation of our energy assets. I suggest the Energy bill is a 
good place to start, and we ought to start soon. There is no other way.
  I know my time is quickly running out, but I want to close by saying 
to the Democrats, to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman: Why 
don't you let us vote? There are many Farm Belt Senators. You would 
think they would be for this bill. They should be. I spoke of ethanol. 
It is in here. Some people don't like it, but at least it is a product. 
It is energy that is produced here. It is renewable to a great extent, 
and the farmers of America would very much have another serious crop.
  Add it all together, I can't understand why those on the other side, 
the Democrats, would like to kill it. At least during this week, next 
week, and the week after, those concerned about renewables--clean coal, 
natural gas--everything I have spoken about today, they are going to 
know it wasn't the Republicans, it wasn't the President. It is those on 
that side of the aisle who do not want to let us do anything.
  Mr. President, I hope I am wrong. I hope after all these months we 
will see something positive happen. If not, we will keep insisting that 
we ought to vote and get something done.

[[Page 17436]]

  I yield the floor. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________