National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009--Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - July 31, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
ENERGY
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask if you would please notify us when 10 minutes remain in our time so the Senator from Georgia can take the floor. We would like to continue with the colloquy.
I know the Senator from Florida, Senator Martinez, is here. I know offshore drilling has been somewhat controversial in his State. I would like him to address that. But I would also like him to help us understand the bigger picture, and that is why the majority leader, who controls the agenda on the floor of the Senate, a Member of the other party, refuses to allow us to vote. I know Senator Obama has adamantly opposed any additional offshore exploration and production. One conclusion I guess you might draw is that the majority leader, by refusing an opportunity for Senators to vote, is somehow protecting the Presidential nominee, the presumptive Presidential nominee, from perhaps an embarrassing split in his own political party.
I wonder if the Senator has any comments.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Florida. In the real world, when the facts change, people are free to change their mind.
Mr. MARTINEZ. That is right.
Mr. CORNYN. I think $4 gasoline and $140-plus for a barrel of oil have caused a lot of people to rethink their prior positions. Gasoline was $2.33 when the Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007 but now is hovering around $4 a gallon, and I think it is only reasonable that people will reassess their decisionmaking. Indeed, I think we have seen that happen with the American people, if you look at public opinion polls, shifting to overwhelming support for exploration and production from the Outer Continental Shelf.
I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, I know, as the Senator from Florida said, more oil is going to be a transitional step on our part because production globally is declining. Yet demand, especially from huge economies such as China and India, is going up. I know the Senator from New Hampshire is a big proponent of clean nuclear power. I wonder if he can comment on what he sees this transition looking like, in terms of starting with more American production but with conservation, with renewable energy, and developing nuclear power.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the Senator from New Hampshire, it does not make sense to me. The U.S. Navy, of course, as we know, has been using nuclear power for its aircraft carriers and submarines for, I think, 50 years and is able to do so safely and without incident.
France generates 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power. In France, the environmental activists have actually cut a deal, as I understand it, with the nuclear power producers because they understand. They get the point the Senator from Florida makes, and the Senator from New Hampshire, that nuclear power is clean power. For those who are concerned about climate change, that would be one of the best things we could do to alleviate the pressure on the environment.
I wish to get back, if I can for a second, because there has been a lot of talk, particularly the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, is talking about the need to develop new technology, to develop plug-in hybrid cars, battery-operated cars. I know there is a little confusion because right now we need transportation energy, which is basically oil and gasoline--aviation fuel to fly our airplanes. People wonder how does nuclear power or using coal in a clean way to generate electricity figure into that? The point we are trying to make is we need all of the above. We need to generate the electricity cleanly so we can use the new technology that we think will bring us into a clean energy future.
I wish to ask both my colleagues to comment on a couple things. One of my constituents, T. Boone Pickens, is in town. He is a remarkable man. He has been very successful in the oil and gas business. He says we need a different way of looking at our energy future. He is advocating increased use of wind energy to generate electricity. He is advocating more use of natural gas because he says we have found ways to develop more of that here in America so we have to buy less--the point of the Senator from Florida. That is less money we have to send than the $700 billion we send overseas each year.
Mr. GREGG. He also said, did he not, that we need to use everything. He didn't say don't use drilling; he said we have to drill everywhere we can in the United States, we have to use wind, we have to use solar, we have to use nuclear, we have to use everything, because we have to stop sending $700 billion, as the Senator from Florida mentioned, to people who do not like us--Venezuela and Iran. Let's keep it here, where we can use it to build our economy.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I remember him being asked: What do you feel about drilling? He said: I want to drill everywhere.
Now, I am not there, because I don't want to drill everywhere. I want some beaches to be protected. But he was saying we need to drill, drill, drill. That is part of the answer. It is not going to get us out of the problem, but it is part of the solution.
Mr. CORNYN. I have two points, and I would like to hear from both Senators. One is we hear from folks opposed to offshore drilling say we can't drill our way out of this.
Other opponents of offshore exploration and production said: It is going to take too long.
I wonder if the Senator from Florida and the Senator from New Hampshire have some thoughts about those. I happen to believe those are pulled out of context, particularly when it comes to Boone Pickens, because, as you said, we need it all. What is the best answer to that?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I would say that, no, we cannot drill our way out of the problem, but we can improve on the problem. Today, we use about 21 million barrels of oil, and 5 million of those come from overseas. That is what turns into that $700 billion bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. I want to ask the Senator from New Hampshire, the bill that was on the floor about 2 weeks ago was a bill to deal with speculation and the commodity futures market. Our point was, we should not just deal with part of it, part of the problem, we ought to deal with the whole problem. That is why we have insisted--in fact, we have demanded and we said we should not leave here until we have had an opportunity to vote on offshore production and those other good ideas.
But I wonder if the Senator would address why the speculation component alone would be an insufficient response--may be part of the answer but certainly not the complete answer to the problems we face today?
Mr. GREGG. The simple answer is that it does not produce any more energy. Yes, there is probably speculation in the market. Yes, we should have more transparency and more enforcement to make sure the market is not being abused. But that is not going to produce any more energy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I say to the distinguished Republican leader, it sounded as though we were almost going to get to vote. The Senator from Colorado spoke so passionately about the importance of using coal. Of course, the big concern we have is coal can pollute. But the Senator is no doubt aware of a remarkable technology that has actually been around a long time that can take coal and convert it to synthetic fuel that the Air Force is now using to fly airplanes. Isn't it a fact that in terms of transportation fuels, talking about gasoline and diesel and aviation fuel, that represents one of the biggest challenges from an energy standpoint to this country and that actually coal-to-liquid technology, such as the leader described, represents one of the great opportunities for becoming less dependent on imported oil from the Middle East?
Mr. McCONNELL. Absolutely. Of course, I come from a big coal-producing State. The amendment I sought to call up is actually authored by Senator Bunning, my colleague from Kentucky. We are, not surprisingly, enthusiastic about this option. But putting aside the Kentucky-specific interest, the military is looking for a reliable, secure source of fuel for our planes. They don't want to be dependent on the Middle East.
Mr. CORNYN. I say to the Republican leader, this is not just an energy issue, this is a national security issue. Let me ask the leader, since he comes from a State that produces significant amounts of coal, whether these figures given to me by my staff are accurate. It has been reported to me that the Air Force uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a year at a total cost of about $8 billion. That is $8 billion the United States appropriates and goes to the Department of Defense and the Air Force to buy jet fuel. It is estimated that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the Air Force--and we can see in parentheses the U.S. taxpayer--spends an additional $600 million in fuel costs. Do those figures I have cited sound approximately correct?
Mr. McCONNELL. I am not an expert on the figures, but it sounds correct to me. I know the military has great desire for the kind of reliable, secure energy source this would provide.
Mr. CORNYN. Are you aware or would you have any reason to disagree with the experts who say that synthetic fuels such as coal to liquids are competitive with $70 to $80-a-barrel oil, plus an additional 10 percent that would be needed to figure out how to capture and divert the carbon dioxide that would be produced by the process? Do you have any reason to disagree with the experts on that?
Mr. McCONNELL. Those are statistics I have heard in the past. It certainly underscores what a promising alternative this would be, were we willing to pursue it. I thank my friend from Texas for his thoughts.
Source