Energy
Floor Speech
ENERGY -- (Senate - June 12, 2007)
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a story in today's Los Angeles Times states that the approval rating of Congress is the lowest in a decade. The poll reported in today's Los Angeles Times says 27 percent of Americans approve of how Congress is doing its job, and most see business as usual. After Congress has diverted its attention from what I consider to be the most important domestic issue confronting the Nation today; that is, fixing our broken borders and actually enforcing our immigration laws, in order to have a vote of no confidence on the Attorney General in what is clearly a political exercise rather than anything that would produce a meaningful result, we now turn our attention to an important issue and one I hope Congress will embrace in order to address energy concerns in this country.
Of course, we all know--all we have to do is to drive up to fill up our gas tank--the price of gasoline has gone through the roof. While it is true that Congress can pass laws and Congress can even repeal laws that have been passed by previous Congresses, what Congress cannot do is repeal the laws of supply and demand.
It is important as we look at this legislation before us that we look at whether this legislation is, in fact, designed to fix problems. One of the questions I suggest we need to look to is, Does this bill increase supply? In a global economy we know there is going to be more and more competition for oil and gasoline. We know we are competing, not only in the United States, but literally with China and India, each of which have 1 billion people. Their economies are growing, and the number of people driving and their economic activity is directly related to access to a reasonably priced energy supply. We need to look to see what we are doing at home to try to increase supply.
We all know we are dangerously reliant on imported oil from dangerous parts of the world or from places such as Venezuela, governed by the likes of Hugo Chavez. Current energy policy in this country does nothing but make our enemies richer. It does nothing but line the pockets of people like Hugo Chavez or somebody like President Ahmadinejad in Iran--countries pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
We have to eliminate the schizophrenia that has characterized our energy policy in the past and look at what commonsense steps Congress can take in order to improve the supply of oil and gas, preferably from our own domestic sources at home, so we are less reliant on these dangerous rulers in other parts of the world for the very lifeblood of our economy.
By any measure, the bill that is now before us is an incomplete bill. It deals nearly exclusively with the demand side of the energy equation. While it is worthwhile to aggressively pursue better efficiencies and alternative sources of energy to meet our future energy needs, the provisions in this bill fail to address much of our current energy needs. It is a matter of simple economics. This bill will do nothing to deal with our current energy needs without addressing supply.
I fear this bill will also end up being even more expensive for consumers. Both the provisions in the bill and some of the expected amendments from the majority set up unreasonable mandates for renewable and alternative energy sources, which are more expensive. I do not question our need to produce more of our energy from clean and renewable sources, but I believe the winners and losers should be determined by the market, not by the Government. Indeed, this bill determines for Americans which fuels we will use, how much, and at what time. That is the last thing we need the Federal Government to dictate--to determine which fuels we will use, how much, and at what time--when public confidence in Congress under this new majority is at a 10-year low. The last thing we need to do is say: Give us the power to determine what fuels you will use, how much, and at what time.
I do believe there is great promise in renewable energy. I am proud that my State, Texas, continues its energy leadership. As a traditional oil and gas State, it now is the largest producer of wind energy in the country--2,749 megawatts as of last year. We are also the largest producer of biodiesel, an industry that has grown rapidly in just the last few years.
It is also unwise to turn away from proven and developing technologies to meet our Nation's clean air goals. For example, nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the environment, including land, air, water, and wildlife, of any energy source because it does not emit harmful gasses. It isolates its waste from the environment and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources.
I wouldn't necessarily hold out other countries as a model for America when it comes to their energy policies, but I must say a country such as France that generates 80 percent of its electricity by nuclear power does represent a goal that I think the United States ought to strive for, particularly when nuclear power is cheap. It is conducive of a good environment, and it requires a lot less for us to produce in terms of cost and other collateral issues. I think this is one area where we clearly ought to be encouraging greater use of nuclear power, particularly when it comes to our electricity supply.
I want to say a word about coal. Coal should also continue to play an important role in our energy future. There are clean coal technologies being developed that could enable us to continue utilizing this abundant domestic resource and--this is important--improve air quality. Coal is also expected to remain one of the lowest cost fuels available.
I do believe with Federal investment in programs such as FutureGen, which is a $1 billion investment in clean coal-burning technology, we can use this 300-year supply of coal in our country in a way that is compatible with a good environment and allows us to maintain the diversity of our energy sources which are essential to the growth of our economy, as well as our national security, from the standpoint of depending less and less on people who are trying to do us harm for the very energy we need.
It is ironic at a time that we are engaged in the global war on terror that many of the state sponsors of terrorism, many of those areas that are in unstable regions of the world, from the standpoint of the global war on terror, are the very ones being enriched by our current energy policies, which puts a lot of our domestic resources here at home out of bounds and depends, as I say, too much on imported oil and gas.
It is important to note there are some differences between the approaches of those of us in this Chamber on how we achieve that sort of energy self-sufficiency in this country, which I believe ought to be our goal.
It is important that we, as I said a moment ago, increase supply and that we not inadvertently or otherwise create disincentives for those currently exploring and producing oil and gas. On this side of the aisle, we support increasing America's energy supplies while reducing consumption.
For example, the bill we passed in 2005, under Republican leadership, provided incentives for domestic exploration of potential new natural resource supplies and aided the production of affordable domestic energy. Now we are seeing the new majority threaten to overturn several of those successful provisions.
Then when it comes to trying to increase supply of gasoline in this country by enhancing capacity of refineries, we have seen those efforts blocked by our friends on the other side of the aisle in the last Congress. Now the majority leader will be offering a substitute amendment, we are told, based on S. 1419 to H.R. 6.
This amendment by the Democratic majority leader contains some positive provisions. But, unfortunately, it is promise that is being oversold. Very simply, the legislation produces no new energy and may actually end up raising prices, not lowering them. The Reid substitute, in my opinion, does not produce a viable energy policy for the United States.
As a matter of fact, many of the proposals we will hear from the other side of the aisle may actually increase energy prices. For example, we are likely to hear a proposal for a 15-percent renewable portfolio standard which ignores clean energy sources such as nuclear power.
This proposal would cost consumers billions of dollars because States simply would not be able to meet it. The majority leader's substitute amendment will also, it looks like, ignore the need for domestic energy supplies and ignores the problem of refining capacity, which experts say is a leading cause of high gas prices; again, simply a matter of supply and demand.
With the static supply not catching up to demand, you are going to see gas prices go up. That is what we have all experienced at the pump. This bill makes no effort to increase domestic production and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
This bill also does not pay enough attention to clean alternatives, attempting to mandate energy production solely from renewable sources. While alternative and renewable energy has made a great start in reducing our foreign imports needed for energy, it will be decades before we can produce enough alternative fuels to replace oil and other carbon fuels.
It is important we support efforts to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels, but we should not be sold on unrealistic proposals that will suggest that somehow, in the short term, we are going to be able to replace our dependence on oil and gas, particularly in the transportation sector, where there is not any other viable alternative. It is unrealistic to think we can address our current dependance without producing as much of America's energy as we can here at home.
Overlooking sources of new clean energy demonstrates, once again, we are not paying enough attention to our domestic energy supply. Of course, gas prices are up to record levels, particularly since the new majority took over in November.
The Reid substitute does nothing to reduce them. We have seen gasoline prices increase almost 50 percent during the last 5 months. Now, when our friends on the other side of the aisle were put in control in last November's election, the price of gasoline was about $2.20 a gallon. Today it averages $3.15 a gallon. The proposals in this bill do nothing to reduce high gasoline prices. In fact, some of the amendments I am told that our friends on the other side of the aisle are considering would actually increase energy prices for the consumers.
Neither the Federal Trade Commission nor any State agency that has explored the issue has found any evidence that there has actually been price gouging. I am told there will be proposals to prohibit price gouging, which is already illegal I might add, but by new and vague standards which are impossible for anybody to determine whether their actions are covered, unless perhaps it is too late.
This is a diversion from the real energy problems. We all oppose price gouging. I know of no one who supports price gouging. But it is important we understand we need to find new ways to increase our domestic supply and particularly our refining capacities here at home. We see nothing but roadblocks thrown up every time we introduce proposals to try to encourage expansion of refinery capacity, which is the only way we are going to make more gasoline to keep up with the demand and hopefully keep prices down.
Now we will see alternatives offered during the course of this debate that will lead to increased domestic production of oil, streamlined refinery processes, and greater investment in research and development and clean vehicles. I think this is an important debate.
But we need to be careful about what we are doing again to make sure we do not oversell and underdeliver when it comes to energy policy, because, frankly, I think when it comes to the way the Congress has approached our energy needs, it has been more than a little schizophrenic. The consequence, I think we can all see, is that gasoline prices are too high because refinery capacity is too low. We have actually increased the danger, in terms of our security, by continuing to rely too much on imported oil and gas from dangerous parts of the world, enriching our biggest enemies. At the same time, we have put out of bounds too much of our domestic reserves.
So I hope as this debate goes forward, we will have a full opportunity to debate amendments and offer constructive solutions to this problem. That is why I think our constituents sent us here. If we do that, then hopefully this poll I mentioned at the outset, reported in today's Los Angeles Times that reflects 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, hopefully those numbers will go up as we produce constructive solutions to the problems that confront the American people and we do the job we are sent here to do by our constituents.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source