[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15564-15566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as a member of the Energy Committee, I 
know a tremendous amount of work has been put into making this a strong 
energy package that will help us achieve energy self-reliance, lower 
gas prices, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
  Under Democratic leadership, we are headed into a new cleaner, 
greener, and more affordable energy future, one where we do not seek to 
treat our addiction to oil by drilling for yet more oil in the Arctic 
or off the east coast. This bill represents a bold step forward toward 
an economy that is based upon energy efficiency and renewable rather 
than fossil fuels.
  I do believe, however, that there are a few key amendments that will 
make this good bill even better. The most important of these is 
Chairman Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard amendment, requiring 
that 15 percent of the Nation's electricity be produced from renewable 
sources by 2020. This forward-thinking provision is a declaration that 
our country is ready to be a renewable energy leader.
  I often hear in the Halls of Congress that energy is a regional 
issue. If you represent a cold State, you probably support one set of 
policies; if your State grows corn or drills for oil, you support other 
policies.
  I understand the passionate advocacy one must undertake on behalf of 
one's home State. But energy can no longer be viewed as a parochial 
issue that only affects local interests. We in the Senate have a 
responsibility to ensure that our local interests do not jeopardize the 
Nation's interests as a whole, nor can we stand in the way of this 
great Nation becoming a global leader on what has become a global 
issue.
  For most of the past two centuries, this country has been blessed 
with an abundant supply of domestic energy, bountiful enough to provide 
us with all of the heat and power we have needed. But for the last 40 
years we have increasingly had to look abroad to secure supplies of 
oil. This quest to feed our seemingly insatiable appetite for oil has 
unquestionably shaped our foreign policy.
  We pay the price for our oil habit when a corrupt regime such as Iran 
feels emboldened to threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons, and do 
so with impunity because their access to oil makes it possible for them 
to buy influence around the globe.
  As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has pointed out, it is not a 
coincidence that when oil was $20 a barrel, both Russia and Iran 
launched internal reform programs to increase democratic participation. 
As the price of oil has soared past $70 a barrel, both of those 
countries have reversed course and used their burgeoning treasuries to 
stifle dissent and roll back democratic progress.
  The same story can be told across the world, from the corrupt royal 
governments and pseudo-theocracies of the Middle East, to the iron-
fisted dictators who hold sway in the former Soviet countries in 
Central Asia, to the petro-populism of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Many 
of the countries that sit on the largest reserves of oil are the same 
countries that are now resisting reform and creating global 
instability.
  If the story of the 20th century was of a tidal wave of democracy 
sweeping across the globe, the emerging story of the 21st century is of 
that wave being swallowed underneath a floor of crude. As long as there 
are tyrants who have the lucky fortune to sit on top of massive oil 
reserves and prop up their regimes through huge petroleum profits, 
there will be no reform. Finding alternatives to oil is a key to 
democratic, economic, and social reform in much of the world.
  In response to this energy security challenge, some of my friends and 
colleagues will undoubtedly advocate Federal support for efforts to 
support a liquid fuel from coal. They point out that we have an 
abundant supply of coal, that we are the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal. This 
line of thought ignores the threat of global warming.
  The lifecycle emissions of liquid fuel made from coal are over twice 
that of gasoline. If we substitute oil for coal, a fuel that releases 
even more greenhouse gasses than oil, we are setting our planet up for 
disaster. Global warming is happening. It is caused by human 
activities. It is threatening our very existence.
  Recently, the New Jersey Research and Policy Center catalogued the 
impacts of global warming in my State over the next century. If we do 
not act quickly and decisively, Cape May Beach will erode between 160 
to 500 feet inland. The Holland Tunnel will be forced to close due to 
repeated floods. Heat-related deaths in our cities will rise fivefold, 
and flooding along the Delaware River will cause millions of dollars in 
property damage.
  Similar devastating impacts will be seen all over the world. Floods 
will require the evacuation of millions in India and Bangladesh. East 
Asia will experience increased water shortages. Central Africa will see 
ever worsening drought conditions. Warmer ocean surface temperatures 
will lead to stronger hurricanes and cyclones.
  In order to address our energy challenges, we must keep these 
worldwide impacts in mind, but that does not mean we should not act 
locally to achieve our national goals. Just this past weekend, the 
Washington Post ran an article with the headline, ``Cities Take Lead on 
Environment As Debate Drags at Federal Level.''
  The article detailed the actions that mayors have taken to fill the 
void left by the President's lack of leadership on climate change. 
Hundreds of mayors have created energy efficiency

[[Page 15565]]

projects, promoted renewable energy, and vowed to meet the greenhouse 
gas reductions laid out in the Kyoto Protocol.
  To foster this local spirit in our cities to tackle climate change, 
I, along with Senator Sanders, have included a provision in this bill 
to create an energy and environmental block grant program. This program 
will allow cities and counties to get Federal grants to make their 
buildings more efficient, create new renewable energy projects, and 
continue their leadership in reducing U.S. carbon emissions.
  Mr. President, not only does the Clean Energy Act of 2007 lower 
greenhouse gas emissions and help us achieve energy self-reliance, but 
the bill also promises to reduce prices at the pump. First, the bill 
creates real competition for oil by increasing the production of 
renewable biofuels from 8.5 billion gallons per year in 2008 to 36 
billion gallons per year by 2022.
  Second, the bill lowers the demand for oil by requiring the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to achieve a nationwide fleet 
fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for passenger cars and 
light trucks.
  Third, the bill expands the Federal research into plug-in hybrid 
technology so that electricity can compete against liquid fuels as a 
power source for our vehicles.
  Finally, by cracking down on price gouging, the bill will ensure that 
oil companies cannot drive up costs without justification. For too long 
companies have been allowed to squeeze motorists for record profits 
without economic justification. This bill will make oil markets more 
transparent and institute tougher civil and criminal penalties for 
market manipulation.
  Taken together, these measures will create more supply, put downward 
pressure on demand, and create a more competitive marketplace. In turn, 
this will lead to drastically lower prices for all drivers.
  Mr. President, in closing, each of us comes to the Senate as a 
representative of our respective State, but our responsibilities do not 
end at our State's borders. As national leaders, we also have a 
responsibility to come together and address issues such as our global 
energy challenges.
  When it comes to these issues, whether it is national security or 
global climate change, we must rise above local interests and show 
national leadership. Then, and only then will we be able to effect 
change that benefits consumers, improves our energy security, and 
establishes the United States as a leader in the fight against global 
warming.
  I salute Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici in this effort. I urge 
my colleagues to support this important bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the very important 
bill before us. Like the Senator from New Jersey, I serve on the Energy 
Committee. It has been my pleasure to work with the chairman and 
ranking member to discuss the problems we have in our country and the 
State of Florida with energy, the fact that it is such an essential 
ingredient in our daily lives. It needs more help. It needs reform, and 
Congress needs to address it.
  As we move forward in shaping the policies that guide our Nation in 
securing domestic, stable, and affordable sources of energy, we must 
remember that everything we do here will have a direct impact on every 
American who drives a car, turns on a light, or takes a sip of water. 
Gas prices are hovering around historic highs. Energy bills are 
climbing. Over the last 5 months, gas prices have risen almost 50 
percent. That is the one place where all Americans have to, at some 
point during the week, make a stop, as with the grocery store. If 
prices have gone up 50 percent over the last 5 months, imagine what 
that does to a family on a budget trying to make ends meet, trying to 
send children to school, trying to live on a fixed income--retire, 
perhaps--members of our military. This cuts across all people evenly. 
Energy bills are climbing for all Americans. There is increased concern 
over the impact our energy production has on our environment, and 
rightly so.
  I am glad we are talking about this important issue because it is a 
vehicle we can use to address all three of these pressing concerns. But 
in this bill, there are areas where we can do more, areas we can 
improve to help shape the long-term outlook for domestic energy 
production.
  In the area of gas prices, this bill does nothing to remove the 
barriers to refineries. Total U.S. demand for oil is about 22 million 
barrels per day. Right now, we have domestic refinery capacity here in 
the United States to produce about 17 million barrels a day. That means 
we have to import at least 5 million barrels of refined products every 
day just to meet our current deficit. But the problem is, our needs are 
growing and refinery capacity is static or shrinking. We need more 
refineries and more refinery capacity. But the fact is, we have not 
built a refinery in the United States in 30 years because of burdensome 
overregulation.
  Under the current system, there is no incentive for companies to take 
the risk or make the investment in a process that in all likelihood 
will result in rejection. This is something this bill should address. 
We know the problem. We know the solution. All we need now is a 
commitment to do something about it. Until we address the refinery 
capacity and petroleum infrastructure problems, there will be no relief 
for this problem, for the ever-rising prices of gasoline for American 
consumers at the pump. Until we address refinery capacity, this bill 
will not be complete.
  This bill attempts to address supposed price gouging at the pump. I 
think I speak for all my colleagues when I say we oppose price gouging 
and we should encourage vigorous prosecution of unscrupulous business 
practices. We should do all we can to see it doesn't happen and those 
who engage in that are punished. But study after study and 
investigation after investigation have shown that widespread price 
gouging is not happening. That is not the problem. After the 
devastating hurricanes of 2005, I joined my colleagues on the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee to ask the Federal Trade Commission if 
there was any sort of collusion among the oil and gas industry to drive 
up prices. Once again, the FTC found no evidence of price gouging or of 
collusion.
  Until we address the capacity of our refineries to produce more gas, 
the supply will be limited. Basic economics says if demand is high and 
supply is low, you are going to pay a premium at the pump. Gas prices 
are hurting Americans. We are looking at historic highs. Pick up a gas 
pump and open your wallet. Does this bill address that? No. This 
doesn't add any more production. This doesn't reduce inefficiencies. 
Instead, this bill mandates alternative fuels without removing cost 
barriers. We will still have a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on Brazilian 
ethanol. That is fuel which could be flowing today in Florida and 
throughout our country. That is fuel which could increase supply, 
reduce the price at the pump, and have an impact on prices tomorrow. It 
is part of what this bill should address. We need to look at whether, 
in fact, it is prudent, at a time when we are trying to increase 
ethanol consumption, for us to put a tax on the import of ethanol from 
Brazil.
  Another area of this bill where we could make improvements is by 
adding incentives to promote the production of nuclear energy. If we 
are looking for a clean, reliable, stable, and affordable energy 
supply, look no further than nuclear energy. In my State, we have five 
nuclear units generating roughly 15 percent of our energy needs. We 
need more of that kind of power generation. In the time since we 
ordered our last nuclear reactor in the 1970s, France has embraced 
nuclear energy. Now their country is 80 percent nuclear. They get it. 
They are using it. They are recycling the waste to generate even more 
power. If we are looking for a renewable, clean, and stable source of 
energy, there is one. But instead of promoting nuclear energy, this 
bill is silent. Instead of giving Floridians relief from the costs 
associated with storing

[[Page 15566]]

the waste at our facilities, we are faced with mounting bills.
  Florida ratepayers have already paid $1.2 billion to move waste to 
Yucca Mountain, but it currently remains stored in Florida. It is 
sitting at the powerplants. This money, intended to store nuclear waste 
in Nevada, is costing Floridians money every month in every electric 
bill. It is costing us the money that should have been spent on 
producing more energy, on finding ways of bringing down the costs.
  Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we were supposed to be 
sending this waste to Yucca Mountain starting in 1998. We have let 
politics prevent us from embracing the promise of nuclear power. If we 
are serious about promoting the production of clean energy, we had 
better do what we promised Florida ratepayers and others around the 
Nation, that we open the central repository in Nevada.
  We have enough coal to meet our energy needs for 200 years, and very 
little in this bill addresses that fact. States such as Kentucky, 
Montana, and Wyoming are rich in resources and ready to bring those 
resources to meet our growing fuel demands. As a Senator from Florida, 
I would much rather be digging for coal in Montana or Kentucky than 
drilling for oil on the beaches of Florida.
  The Bingaman 15 percent RPS amendment is one of the amendments I 
encourage my colleagues to oppose. For Florida ratepayers who have 
embraced nuclear energy as a way to help reduce pollution, by 2030, the 
Bingaman amendment will have a cost of $21 billion. I don't know how 
many people in Florida think their energy bills are too low, but I 
can't imagine that they are willing to start subsidizing wind farms in 
North Dakota. Florida property taxes are already sky high. Our property 
taxes, our insurance costs are even higher. The last thing Floridians 
want is a $21 billion increase in their power bill. Break that down, 
and that is a rate increase of about $2,500 per household. That is more 
than a year's tuition at the University of Florida. That is more than a 
family on a fixed income might spend in a year for any type of 
recreational activity. Florida doesn't have the resources or the 
capacity to meet the arbitrary definitions or demands of the Bingaman 
amendment. We will take a big financial hit if it passes.
  In the next 10 years, Florida's energy demands are expected to grow 
60 percent. We need reliable, affordable, abundant, clean-burning 
energy to meet our demands. Disincentives like the renewable portfolio 
standard amendment don't provide power to the State of Florida. They 
don't help Florida meet its needs for seniors, veterans, working 
families, and those on fixed incomes.
  This bill regulates and mandates, but where is the bill streamlining? 
Where is the redtape being reduced? Where are the incentives for States 
such as Florida to build upon those power sources which we have already 
found to be clean and successful?
  A bright future for America and our economy depends on energy. We 
need it to run our homes, computers, cars, our entire way of life. 
Right now, we have a reliance on foreign sources of energy that is 
unhealthy. To get away from foreign sources of energy, we need to make 
the hard decisions today to give us a better tomorrow. That is 
certainly the case with our energy policy. Domestic solutions include 
nuclear, clean coal, biofuels, increased production of oil and natural 
gas. Obviously, conservation needs to be a cornerstone of what we do.
  In Florida, we rejected oil and natural gas drilling off our coast in 
favor of pursuing alternatives, including expanding production in some 
of the deepest regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, opening 8.3 
million acres for production. We are also studying new sources of 
energy. We are making great strides in biofuels research and 
development. We are working through public and private partnerships to 
harness the power of cellulosic ethanol and find ways to more 
efficiently turn orange rinds and sugar cane into energy. These are the 
ideas. These are the innovations we need to pursue in our natural 
energy policy. We need to reward States that are pursuing smart 
strategies. We need to stay away from penalizing those that don't have 
the resources to meet arbitrary and unrealistic benchmarks. We need an 
energy policy for the long haul.
  I am hopeful we can do that, but we still have a lot more work to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________