Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a report by the Energy Information Administration released this week confirms that we have made real, measurable progress in our efforts to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. The best estimating group in the world, the Energy Information Administration of America, made this determination. I know the occupant of the chair will be interested, because what we have done in the past 3 years with the passage of three major pieces of energy legislation is, for the first time in modern history, we have reduced the amount of consumption of crude oil from overseas to America by Americans here at home. In other words, during the next 30 years, we will finally get to the point where, instead of that importation going up, it will begin to reverse itself and start coming down. Now, the bad news for Americans is you can't do that overnight, but we have done it with the passage of the CAFE standards, meaning smaller cars in the future for everyone, and with the passage of two or three other big bills, we have made a lasting impact on how much we use of this dread imported product that we call crude oil. Over the last several years, as I indicated, Congress has passed three major pieces of legislation: the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and the Energy Independence and Security Act. We put these together, and the estimates are that as a result of this action I just spoke about, more than 2 million barrels of oil per day will be saved by America by 2030. In addition, our action will lead to--and get this--5.3 billion fewer metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by that time--the equivalent of 71,500 megawatt coal-burning electric plants. Imagine that. By reducing that amount of oil consumed, we will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide by 5.3 billion fewer metric tons used. Nevertheless, our work is not nearly done. I have been encouraged by the growth of clean energy technologies, but I have come to believe that in the long run, we will fall far short of the amount of financial resources necessary to move these projects along at a fast enough pace. Consider that nearly half of our current electric generation fleet is over 30 years old. Nearly a third of our overall generation comes from coal-fired plants, the majority of which are not equipped with emission control technology. Yet investor-owner utilities are not large enough to carry several multibillion dollar projects, and competitive electricity markets don't have an effective mechanism to encourage investment in larger, expensive new capacity. I come to the floor to propose at least a partial solution to this challenge. Today I am introducing legislation to establish a clean energy investment bank. This bank will be a government corporation, modeled after the Export-Import Bank, designed to promote investment in domestic energy projects. I am pleased to have a number of cosponsors, including Senators Landrieu, Murkowski, Martinez, Bunning, Craig, Alexander, and Dole. I haven't worked very hard because I haven't had time, but I think I can get many more Senators to be cosponsors as well. According to some analysis, over $350 billion will be needed over the next 15 years to meet our increased demands for energy. Not only do we face the challenge of needing to get more power on line, we also are trying to do it in a way that results in less pollution. By investing in clean energy technology, we will reap enormous benefits when it comes to energy, economic, environmental, and national security. Investors have shown a willingness to support clean energy technology. A United Nations report recently revealed that investment in sustainable energy has nearly doubled since 2005. Additionally, private sector research and development has risen to over $16 billion. Yet the growth we have seen primarily comes from equity investment and venture capital, not long-term debt financing. The clean energy industry faces unique challenges. Unlike traditional fossil fuel energy projects, which are able to more easily secure long- term debt financing, clean energy markets have a greater level of risk both economically and technically. That is why the certainty provided by Federal Government support would be beneficial. Our goal moving forward should be greater increases for all types of clean energy generation projects through secure financing. Right now, we are lacking an institution able to undertake this kind of activity and fill this gap. The clean energy investment bank that will be created by the legislation which I introduce today has a real chance of filling that gap. The bank will engage in investment activities to encourage long term debt financing of clean energy projects. It will take responsibility for management of the Department of Energy's title 17 loan guarantee program, and have the authority to offer loans, insurance products, and take positions in commercially viable projects. The clean energy investment bank will be a governmental corporation, with a bipartisan board of directors that will have significant autonomy in choosing the projects they believe are most worthy. In this legislation, we do not seek to tell the bank exactly which specific types of projects to support. Our requirement is that the projects provide clean energy and that the bank considers a reasonable diversity of projects, technologies, and energy sectors. We give flexibility to the bank's board of directors and management so that they can provide support for the latest technologies, some of which may not even be under consideration right now. The sole mission of the clean energy investment bank will be to advance the deployment of clean energy technologies. The bank will be staffed with investment professionals who will make informed decisions on loans, loan guarantees, and other investments. Initially, we anticipate that the clean energy investment bank will be given a similar level of financial support as the Export-Import Bank. The Export-Import Bank assists financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. By enabling companies in our country to turn exports into sales overseas, the bank helps create jobs and ensures a level playing field. Export-Import provides a worthy and useful service to our economy and to growing economies overseas. Last year, Congress provided $68 million to the bank to subsidize its costs, and another $78 million for administrative expenses. But we must ask ourselves: shouldn't domestic energy diversification receive at least as much support as U.S. companies investing overseas? The bank will be financed in part through the appropriations process, but in greater measure through a revolving fund. The goal would be for the bank to be self-funding through its investment of activity as soon as possible. Congress will soon be embarking on a debate about climate change. It is simply a reality that much of that discussion will largely fall on partisan lines. Senators have diverse views about global climate change and the proposed solutions to handle it. The clean energy investment bank, however, is something that we all can support. It gives us a chance to make real progress in a bipartisan way on our shared goals of increasing energy production and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the odds, we have demonstrated that when we work together to find common ground on energy, we can succeed and pass legislation that will help make America stronger. In times of economic uncertainty, we need pro-growth strategies that incentivize large private investment, not complex regulatory structures that increase the cost of energy. The clean energy investment bank is such a pro-growth proposal that stands tall on its own. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this bill, and I hope the Senate will adopt it. We have made great strides in recent years to diversify our energy supply, but we should not rest on our laurels. This bill will help us keep up the momentum and shift America away from foreign oil and toward cleaner, home-grown technologies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a report by the Energy Information Administration released this week confirms that we have made real, measurable progress in our efforts to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. The best estimating group in the world, the Energy Information Administration of America, made this determination. I know the occupant of the chair will be interested, because what we have done in the past 3 years with the passage of three major pieces of energy legislation is, for the first time in modern history, we have reduced the amount of consumption of crude oil from overseas to America by Americans here at home. In other words, during the next 30 years, we will finally get to the point where, instead of that importation going up, it will begin to reverse itself and start coming down. Now, the bad news for Americans is you can't do that overnight, but we have done it with the passage of the CAFE standards, meaning smaller cars in the future for everyone, and with the passage of two or three other big bills, we have made a lasting impact on how much we use of this dread imported product that we call crude oil. Over the last several years, as I indicated, Congress has passed three major pieces of legislation: the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and the Energy Independence and Security Act. We put these together, and the estimates are that as a result of this action I just spoke about, more than 2 million barrels of oil per day will be saved by America by 2030. In addition, our action will lead to--and get this--5.3 billion fewer metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by that time--the equivalent of 71,500 megawatt coal-burning electric plants. Imagine that. By reducing that amount of oil consumed, we will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide by 5.3 billion fewer metric tons used. Nevertheless, our work is not nearly done. I have been encouraged by the growth of clean energy technologies, but I have come to believe that in the long run, we will fall far short of the amount of financial resources necessary to move these projects along at a fast enough pace. Consider that nearly half of our current electric generation fleet is over 30 years old. Nearly a third of our overall generation comes from coal-fired plants, the majority of which are not equipped with emission control technology. Yet investor-owner utilities are not large enough to carry several multibillion dollar projects, and competitive electricity markets don't have an effective mechanism to encourage investment in larger, expensive new capacity. I come to the floor to propose at least a partial solution to this challenge. Today I am introducing legislation to establish a clean energy investment bank. This bank will be a government corporation, modeled after the Export-Import Bank, designed to promote investment in domestic energy projects. I am pleased to have a number of cosponsors, including Senators Landrieu, Murkowski, Martinez, Bunning, Craig, Alexander, and Dole. I haven't worked very hard because I haven't had time, but I think I can get many more Senators to be cosponsors as well. According to some analysis, over $350 billion will be needed over the next 15 years to meet our increased demands for energy. Not only do we face the challenge of needing to get more power on line, we also are trying to do it in a way that results in less pollution. By investing in clean energy technology, we will reap enormous benefits when it comes to energy, economic, environmental, and national security. Investors have shown a willingness to support clean energy technology. A United Nations report recently revealed that investment in sustainable energy has nearly doubled since 2005. Additionally, private sector research and development has risen to over $16 billion. Yet the growth we have seen primarily comes from equity investment and venture capital, not long-term debt financing. The clean energy industry faces unique challenges. Unlike traditional fossil fuel energy projects, which are able to more easily secure long- term debt financing, clean energy markets have a greater level of risk both economically and technically. That is why the certainty provided by Federal Government support would be beneficial. Our goal moving forward should be greater increases for all types of clean energy generation projects through secure financing. Right now, we are lacking an institution able to undertake this kind of activity and fill this gap. The clean energy investment bank that will be created by the legislation which I introduce today has a real chance of filling that gap. The bank will engage in investment activities to encourage long term debt financing of clean energy projects. It will take responsibility for management of the Department of Energy's title 17 loan guarantee program, and have the authority to offer loans, insurance products, and take positions in commercially viable projects. The clean energy investment bank will be a governmental corporation, with a bipartisan board of directors that will have significant autonomy in choosing the projects they believe are most worthy. In this legislation, we do not seek to tell the bank exactly which specific types of projects to support. Our requirement is that the projects provide clean energy and that the bank considers a reasonable diversity of projects, technologies, and energy sectors. We give flexibility to the bank's board of directors and management so that they can provide support for the latest technologies, some of which may not even be under consideration right now. The sole mission of the clean energy investment bank will be to advance the deployment of clean energy technologies. The bank will be staffed with investment professionals who will make informed decisions on loans, loan guarantees, and other investments. Initially, we anticipate that the clean energy investment bank will be given a similar level of financial support as the Export-Import Bank. The Export-Import Bank assists financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. By enabling companies in our country to turn exports into sales overseas, the bank helps create jobs and ensures a level playing field. Export-Import provides a worthy and useful service to our economy and to growing economies overseas. Last year, Congress provided $68 million to the bank to subsidize its costs, and another $78 million for administrative expenses. But we must ask ourselves: shouldn't domestic energy diversification receive at least as much support as U.S. companies investing overseas? The bank will be financed in part through the appropriations process, but in greater measure through a revolving fund. The goal would be for the bank to be self-funding through its investment of activity as soon as possible. Congress will soon be embarking on a debate about climate change. It is simply a reality that much of that discussion will largely fall on partisan lines. Senators have diverse views about global climate change and the proposed solutions to handle it. The clean energy investment bank, however, is something that we all can support. It gives us a chance to make real progress in a bipartisan way on our shared goals of increasing energy production and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the odds, we have demonstrated that when we work together to find common ground on energy, we can succeed and pass legislation that will help make America stronger. In times of economic uncertainty, we need pro-growth strategies that incentivize large private investment, not complex regulatory structures that increase the cost of energy. The clean energy investment bank is such a pro-growth proposal that stands tall on its own. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this bill, and I hope the Senate will adopt it. We have made great strides in recent years to diversify our energy supply, but we should not rest on our laurels. This bill will help us keep up the momentum and shift America away from foreign oil and toward cleaner, home-grown technologies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because Holloman has a variety of military construction needs associated with the Air Force's decision to house F-22A Raptors at Holloman Air Force Base. One of these is an Aerospace Ground Equipment facility to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 09 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $4.6 million for the construction of the Aerospace Ground Equipment facility. Holloman Air Force Base is an important asset to our nation, and I am proud to support the base and the airmen stationed there by introducing this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because Holloman has a variety of military construction needs because of a March 2006 decision by the Secretary of Defense to use Holloman Air Force Base as an F-22 Raptor base. One of these is for additions and alterations to a Flight Simulator facility to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $3.15 million for the additions and alterations to the Flight Simulator facility. Our Air Force fighter wings defend our homeland and support all global combat operations. I am proud to support those airmen, and I look forward to working on this bill and taking other actions to support our military forces. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. Kirtland Air Force Base serves many roles for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force. The Nuclear Weapons Center, Air Force Research Laboratories, the New Mexico Air National Guard, and a Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration national laboratory are some of the many Federal entities doing work at Kirtland. As such, Kirtland's construction needs are many. Therefore, I am proud to offer this bill to authorize replacement of fuel storage tanks at Kirtland Air Force Base. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $14.4 million for this work, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $14.4 million for the work to replace the fuel storage tanks. Our armed forces deserve our full support, I am proud to offer my support for the personnel at Kirtland Air Force Base by introducing this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because Holloman has a variety of military construction needs because of a March 2006 decision by the Secretary of Defense to use Holloman Air Force Base as an F-22 Raptor base. One of these is for additions and alterations to Aircraft Maintenance Units to support the F-22 transition and stationing, at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $1.05 million for additions and alterations to Aircraft Maintenance Units. The F-22A is a unique capability, and we must ensure that our airmen have the facilities they need to utilize and care for that capability. I am proud to offer this legislation to fulfill those purposes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Forc Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because with F-22s scheduled to arrive at Holloman in 2009, military construction is needed at the base. One of those needs is alteration of an existing hangar for construction of a Low Observable Composite Repair Facility to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $14.5 million for the construction of the Low Observable Composite Repair Facility. Our Air Force fighter wings are an important part of our global combat operations. I am proud to support our airmen, and I look forward to working on this bill to address some of their construction needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because Cannon has a variety of military construction needs because of a June 2006 decision by the Secretary of Defense to use Cannon Air Force Base as an Air Force Special Operations base. One of these needs is the construction of a Special Operations Forces Maintenance Hangar. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorized $18.1 million for the construction of a Special Operations Forces Maintenance Hangar. Our special operations forces are a part of some of the most important missions in the Global War on Terror, and we have more special operations warfighters deployed now than ever before. I am proud to support those soldiers, and I look forward to working on this bill taking other actions to support our special operations forces. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because there are a number of military construction needs at Holloman as a result of a decision by the Secretary of the Air Force to use Holloman Air Force Base as an F-22 Raptor base. One of these is a Jet Engine Maintenance Shop to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $2.15 million for the construction of the Jet Engine Maintenance Shop. Mr. President, our airmen are one of the most important assets we have in the Global War on Terror, and they need adequate facilities to do their work. I am proud to offer this legislation to support them in one of their newest missions, flying the F-22A Raptor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because Holloman has a variety of military construction needs associated with the Air Force's decision to house F-22A Raptors at Holloman Air Force Base. One of these is an Aerospace Ground Equipment facility to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 09 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $4.6 million for the construction of the Aerospace Ground Equipment facility. Holloman Air Force Base is an important asset to our nation, and I am proud to support the base and the airmen stationed there by introducing this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. Kirtland Air Force Base serves many roles for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force. The Nuclear Weapons Center, Air Force Research Laboratories, the New Mexico Air National Guard, and a Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration national laboratory are some of the many Federal entities doing work at Kirtland. As such, Kirtland's construction needs are many. Therefore, I am proud to offer this bill to authorize replacement of fuel storage tanks at Kirtland Air Force Base. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $14.4 million for this work, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $14.4 million for the work to replace the fuel storage tanks. Our armed forces deserve our full support, I am proud to offer my support for the personnel at Kirtland Air Force Base by introducing this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because Holloman has a variety of military construction needs because of a March 2006 decision by the Secretary of Defense to use Holloman Air Force Base as an F-22 Raptor base. One of these is for additions and alterations to Aircraft Maintenance Units to support the F-22 transition and stationing, at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $1.05 million for additions and alterations to Aircraft Maintenance Units. The F-22A is a unique capability, and we must ensure that our airmen have the facilities they need to utilize and care for that capability. I am proud to offer this legislation to fulfill those purposes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Forc Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because with F-22s scheduled to arrive at Holloman in 2009, military construction is needed at the base. One of those needs is alteration of an existing hangar for construction of a Low Observable Composite Repair Facility to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $14.5 million for the construction of the Low Observable Composite Repair Facility. Our Air Force fighter wings are an important part of our global combat operations. I am proud to support our airmen, and I look forward to working on this bill to address some of their construction needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because Holloman has a variety of military construction needs because of a March 2006 decision by the Secretary of Defense to use Holloman Air Force Base as an F-22 Raptor base. One of these is for additions and alterations to a Flight Simulator facility to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $3.15 million for the additions and alterations to the Flight Simulator facility. Our Air Force fighter wings defend our homeland and support all global combat operations. I am proud to support those airmen, and I look forward to working on this bill and taking other actions to support our military forces. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing new construction at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. I am proud to offer this bill because there are a number of military construction needs at Holloman as a result of a decision by the Secretary of the Air Force to use Holloman Air Force Base as an F-22 Raptor base. One of these is a Jet Engine Maintenance Shop to support the F-22 transition and stationing at Holloman. The Department of Defense budgeted for this item in its fiscal year 2009 Defense budget request, and in keeping with that request my legislation authorizes $2.15 million for the construction of the Jet Engine Maintenance Shop. Mr. President, our airmen are one of the most important assets we have in the Global War on Terror, and they need adequate facilities to do their work. I am proud to offer this legislation to support them in one of their newest missions, flying the F-22A Raptor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand I have up to a half hour to speak at this time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the work we have done, and the challenges we still face, with regard to energy policy. I return to the floor today to complete my remarks. I concluded yesterday by putting a pricetag on our dependence on imported oil. Experts estimate that foreign oil will cost us $400 billion just this year. This expense will impact our economy in a number of ways, including our trade balance. In December 2007, imported crude oil accounted for 61 percent of the national trade deficit, or an all-time high of $36 billion. The trade deficit, propelled by high oil prices, has factored into the decline of the dollar. Yesterday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke testified that the cost of energy is being passed through and reflected in the increase in prices of core consumer goods and services. Other experts believe that increasing energy prices and lower economic growth could lead to a return of ``stagflation.'' Our dependence on foreign oil also has a negative impact on job creation in America. The National Defense Council Foundation concluded that imported oil deprives the U.S. economy of more than 2.2 million jobs per year. Choosing to import oil to meet our energy needs exports more than our money--it also exports jobs. Choosing to produce energy here at home would keep those jobs within our borders, and help countless Americans earn a good living. The National Defense Council Foundation also identified several more ``hidden costs'' of oil imports, including oil-related defense expenditures, lost economic activity, reduced domestic investment, lost Government revenues, and the cost of periodic supply disruptions. Together, these total $825 billion per year, nearly four times the amount that America spent directly on acquisition of foreign oil in 2005. The money we export for oil flows directly into the economies of foreign nations around the world. Oil-producing nations spend these revenues on national defense, education, health care, social programs, infrastructure, financial instruments, and to bolster their own energy security. As these nations use American dollars to pay for investments in their own futures, we are forced to spend money we do not have, and forgo our own priorities. The fact that many of the major oil-exporting nations are undemocratic only makes matters worse. We import much of our oil from Canada and Mexico. Unfortunately, beyond North America, most of our oil comes from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, and Algeria. Worldwide, the top oil exporting nations also include Russia and Iran. Many regimes in oil-rich nations are unstable and unfriendly. Anti- Americanism is prevalent throughout the Middle East. The same Saudi lands that are used to produce 10 million barrels of oil per day also provide a staging ground for the advancement of radical Islam. While the State Department has listed Iran as a sponsor of terrorism since 1984, oil revenues allow that regime to weather heightened sanctions. Our reliance on foreign oil continues at our own peril. We pay huge sums for oil, but even this premium cannot guarantee the availability of supplies. A recent study identified 24 significant oil supply disruptions between 1950 and 2003. These lasted an average of 6 months, and reduced the world's supply of oil by up to 12 percent. Recent events around the world reveal that our supply of oil is still incredibly vulnerable to disruption. In Nigeria, conflict over oil wealth reduced that nation's daily output by 25 percent last year. Dozens of workers have been kidnapped there, nearly leading Shell to suspend all of its operations in the Niger Delta region. In Iraq, more than 460 attacks on oil pipelines, facilities, and personnel have occurred in the past 4 years. Not all supply disruptions will be caused by natural events or manmade strife, because much of the world's oil is controlled by irrational, often unpredictable leaders. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently threatened to stop sending his country's oil to America because of a British court ruling. The simple truth is this: in a world without spare production capacity, every major production loss, no matter where it occurs, can boost oil prices--and even short-term increases heighten the long-term costs to our Nation. Many foreign leaders are using oil as a diplomatic weapon, and establishing diplomatic ties with growing energy consumers. Such relationships legitimize the regimes in power and allow them to secure regional influence. We have seen the Putin regime use its vast resources as leverage throughout Eastern Europe. But perhaps the best example of this type of petro-influence can be seen in Venezuela. The Chavez regime peddled influence by distributing nearly $5 million in financial assistance per day last year to nations throughout Latin America. Venezuela also used revenue from its oil sales to subsidize bus tickets for Londoners and home heating oil for Americans. Nearly all of us, and nearly all of our constituents, can agree that America's dependence on foreign oil must end. Before I discuss some solutions to the problems I have outlined, I will provide historical context for them. Attempting to bolster America's energy security is not new to Washington. In 1973, my first year in Congress, President Nixon gave a major address on energy. He proposed a very aggressive initiative, called `Project Independence', stating: Let us set as our national goal, in the spirit of Apollo with the determination of the Manhattan Project, that by the end of this decade we will have developed the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources. At the time of that speech, net imports accounted for approximately 28 percent of U.S. crude oil demand. Thirty-five years later, imports account for more than 60 percent. Imports have grown because the gap between domestic supply and demand has been allowed to widen-- consumption has steadily increased over the years, while production dwindled. In 2005, the United States consumed 21 million barrels of crude oil per day, but that same year, domestic production hit a 50-year low. The result established a record for oil imports--13.7 million barrels per day--but not a ceiling on them. According to the EIA, oil usage will rise 30 percent by 2030, even as alternative sources of energy account for a much greater percentage of our energy supply. These estimates show that, while our goals have been admirable and ambitious, we are heading in the wrong direction. As consumption rises, and domestic production falls, oil imports continue to increase and our hand is weakened diplomatically, militarily, and economically. As we debate catch phrases like ``energy independence,'' ``energy security,'' and ``energy freedom''--we miss the point. And that is, we must immediately adopt policies to reverse the course we have been on since before 1973, and the course that our best experts estimate will continue beyond 2030. Part of the problem is created by the talking points originating in Washington. Although the goal of ``Project Independence'' was never met, the same rhetoric is still used to define the challenges we face. Invoking the Apollo missions and the Manhattan Project ignores the hard truth that an effective long-term energy policy will not be a race to the finish line. As President Nixon asserted, we will need the spirit and determination of past endeavors. We will need our brightest minds and best science. But this time, we do not seek a one-time goal--to land the first man on the Moon, or to develop the first atom bomb. Instead, we seek a fundamental shift in how our Nation powers its economy. The widening delta between domestic production and consumption will continue to swell unless we change course. Throughout this debate, we must be straight about these challenges. We must be honest with the American people and honest with ourselves. Given our growing energy needs, and our reliance on foreign oil, we should not promise energy independence within a term of office. In the absence of scientific breakthroughs, the strengthening of our energy security that we seek will take substantial time and effort to achieve. But we can begin to move in that direction today. There are no easy solutions or quick fixes to our energy challenges. As we debate these issues, we should not propose to overhaul the traditional energy industries without also addressing the likely impacts that such actions will have. And we should not seek to transition away from traditional sources of energy until new technologies are affordable, available, and acceptable to the public. Those of us in Congress share a common goal--to reduce our dependence on foreign oil--but there are deep divisions over how to achieve it. As a result, the Congressional Record is filled with legislation that undermines our ability to move toward this goal. These measures were drafted with good intentions. However, good intentions are not enough, especially when they are not matched with the wisdom and experience necessary to achieve these goals we seek. This Congress is in danger of failing in this regard. Last year, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill in the place of several individual bills. As time dwindled, attention was diverted away from damaging provisions that were inserted in that bill and passed with little notice and no debate. Among these provisions was a moratorium on oil shale regulations, which could delay the commercialization of one of America's most promising resources. Our Nation holds 62 percent of the world's oil shale deposits. This equals nearly five times the proven conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Just imagine the possibilities if we unleash American ingenuity to access these resources. Another provision in that bill imposed new fees for domestic oil and gas permits, which will increase the cost of business and ultimately heighten the cost of energy for American consumers. As we have seen our domestic production level off over the past several years, it is irresponsible to adopt policies that accelerate this trend. Yesterday, the House Democrats chose the unwise path of raising taxes on our domestic energy producers by $18 billion. Additionally, some in the majority seek to make it more difficult for our military to purchase unconventional fuels from our allies in Canada. On top of that, some in the majority still seek to undo lease agreements that American companies have to produce energy in the Gulf of Mexico. This makes no sense. These backward policies prevent us from building on the success of recent energy bills. Legislative efforts to open a small section of the Arctic Coastal Plain have now been thwarted for over 25 years. Much of our Outer Continental Shelf also remains closed for energy leasing. Combined, these areas contain more than 100 billion barrels of oil and 450 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Using old fears about energy production, and ignoring new concerns about energy prices, policymakers are locking up our energy potential. It is clear that this approach has failed, and that we need to find a new way to reach smart consensus on energy policy. For too long, the debate on energy has been dominated by extreme ideologies. Discourse has deviated into an ``either/or'' approach, where participants are accused of being beholden to either ``big oil'' or ``environmental extremism.'' In an almost equally divided Senate, and at a time when party control is split between the legislative and executive branches, there is no better time to bridge this divide. We must take action on an aggressive agenda of both new and old energy ideas. Some of these proposals have been labeled as Republican ideas, and others have been labeled as Democratic ideas. We must recognize that reasonable policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil are American ideas, not partisan agendas. We must affirm that these policies are worth pursuing, because additional steps can and should be taken to reduce the amount of energy this nation imports. A strong energy policy will rely upon three types of initiatives: those that increase the responsible production of domestic energy; those that accelerate the research, development, and deployment of renewable and alternative sources of energy; and those that significantly enhance our Nation's ability to conserve energy. There is broad agreement that two of these three areas are critical to America's energy security. I see them outlined in the measures introduced in Congress, and they are built upon in the energy proposals of those running for President. In modern politics, most people would be satisfied with two out of three. But when we miss a critical piece of the puzzle--the one that matters most in the near-term, and would have the greatest immediate impact--then we can safely say, as I do now, that our efforts will fall short of the goal. I speak, of course, of the continuing disagreements over domestic production. We must, without delay, produce more energy at home. American energy, produced by our workers, must be used to power our homes, businesses, and vehicles. Increasing domestic production will not be a stand-alone solution. But with proven reserves of more than 21 billion barrels of oil, and undiscovered reserves of more than 100 billion barrels, it is simply unacceptable that America fail to meet a greater share of our own needs with domestic energy resources. The good news is that we have the resources, the technology, and the support of most Americans. The bad news is that so far we have been unable to muster the political will--we cannot even build consensus to inventory these areas and gain an accurate assessment of our Nation's energy reserves. To have a fair and informed debate, we must know the extent of our resources. And then we must tap them with the ingenuity, skill, and technology at our disposal. We must listen to the people of Alaska and open the Arctic Coastal Plain to responsible leasing for the exploration and production of oil and natural gas. ANWR is an emotional subject for many folks, so let's stick to the facts. First, to the critics who say that oil from ANWR will take 10 years to come on-line--you are probably right. But to use this as an argument against development is like refusing to save for your retirement because you are not retiring next year. It will take time and patience to develop the resources of Alaska's North Slope. From experience, we know that starting this process a decade ago would have ensured greater domestic oil production when we needed it most. In 1995, Congress did pass legislation to open a small portion of the Coastal Plain to oil and gas leasing. But President Clinton vetoed the legislation, and more than a decade later, an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil continue to sit under our own soil. The week of that veto, the average price of crude oil was $19 per barrel. This week, the price has risen to about $102 per barrel. I would say that conditions have changed enough to warrant a fresh debate on this topic. Congress must also open more of the Outer Continental Shelf, as we did in the Gulf of Mexico in 2006. Last year, an amendment that would have allowed leasing off the coast of Virginia was defeated on a near party-line vote. That vote was a step in the wrong direction. Offshore America holds tremendous energy potential, and it is essential that the American energy industry have greater access to explore and produce in this area. Continuing to restrict the OCS will sacrifice billions of dollars that could be used to develop our Nation's future energy supplies. Opening it would augment our supply of traditional fuels--and dollars that now go overseas to acquire oil could remain within our own economy and could be used to develop alternative sources of energy. The conventional fuels of the 20th century can be used to pioneer those of the 21st century, but we must first find the courage to put ourselves on such a forward-looking and pragmatic path. Equally important to increased domestic production will be measures to expedite the on-shore permitting process. A good example of why is Alaska's natural gas pipeline. Permitting and activities related to permitting that project may add more than 5 years to its timeline. This is just one example, but it is representative of an increasingly burdensome process. Permitting must be streamlined, not only to prevent energy producers from investing abroad, but also for the sake of growing our energy production. As I have indicated, our Nation has a great quantity of oil locked up off of our coasts, beneath our permafrost, and within our shale. These areas can provide a stable supply of energy as we transition to alternative fuels. But oil is not the only resource that can be developed at home and depended upon to meet our energy needs. We are also fortunate to have vast reserves of coal: some 270 billion recoverable tons, which would last for 240 years at the current rate of consumption. That coal can be turned into fuels that help meet our transportation, manufacturing, and electric power needs. Because of the emissions that result when coal is converted to energy, we will need cleaner methods to ensure the protection of our environment. To me, this is an opportunity. Our Nation has a proud heritage of innovation, and there is no reason to believe this strong record will not continue in the future. As our most abundant and affordable fossil resource, we cannot simply cross coal off the list. Any serious effort to strengthen our energy security must include coal. One of our best prospects is to advance the development of coal-to- liquid fuels. As an alternative to oil, coal-to-liquid fuels have many merits: it will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants when compared to conventional fuels. Coal-to-liquid fuels have been commercially demonstrated in other countries, can be moved through existing pipelines, and can be used in existing vehicles. Commercialization of this resource will create investment in rural communities, thousands of good-paying jobs, and cheaper energy for American consumers. Despite this potential, two amendments to advance this type of fuel were defeated on party-line votes in the most recent energy debate. Future generations of automobiles will be powered by the advanced battery. The Government must redouble its efforts to ensure the research, development, and deployment of these technologies. Reliable and rechargeable batteries will be critical to the success of hybrid vehicles, which hold tremendous promise for reducing the amount of oil consumed in the transportation sector. The policies I speak of are just a few of the options available to us. We should also increase the number of flex-fuel vehicles on the road, and the number of stations that offer blended fuels. We should offer incentives to existing refineries, and encourage the expedited construction of new ones, to reduce the amount of gasoline we import. We continue to lament that while our refinery capacity has improved at existing sites, we have not built a new refinery in 30 years. We must rethink our policies to match the modern challenge we face. Again, these are just a sampling of the policy options available to the Congress as we seek to chart a more responsible path forward. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee for nearly 30 years, and its chair or ranking member for much of the past decade, I obviously have strong views on the energy policies that will best serve our Nation. But I also recognize that we must work together to find common ground. We did this in the past on energy policy, and we can do it again. The costs of our dependence on foreign oil are enormous and increasing. The consequences of removing money from our economy, and sending it to often-volatile oil-producing nations, are becoming clear. Few positives will ever be drawn from this arrangement. When we import oil, we export our jobs and we export our wealth. We strengthen regimes that are intent on undermining our interests, opposed to the spread of democracy, and unwilling to extend some of the most basic freedoms to their own people. When we import oil, we threaten our national security and our economic strength. As we look ahead, we must remember that for today and the foreseeable future, we need oil. We should put our American energy resources to use. This is my final year in the U.S. Senate. It is a privilege and an honor to serve the people of New Mexico and this country. But it is not just the end of my time in the Senate that approaches; the time to reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil is also upon us. It is my sincere hope that we will use this year and the future to work together on policies that will move us toward our energy security goals. This will require us to set aside our differences and make difficult decisions. It will require us to come to the table with open minds and positive intentions. In an era defined by its bitter partisanship, this will not be easy. But given the stakes--our national security, our economic strength, and our standing in the world--that is exactly what we must do.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have to stay here until it is done.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have spoken twice on energy, once today and once yesterday. I have come to add a few more thoughts to my previous remarks on energy. I spoke yesterday of the recent Energy bills that Congress has passed, and the growing costs of our dependence on foreign oil. This morning, I urged my colleagues to reach agreement on a comprehensive energy policy that uses our own resources to meet our energy needs. Of all the issues we have to consider in this Congress, some may wonder why I have focused on energy three times in the past 2 days. The answer is simple: it is February 29. Oil is going for nearly $102 per barrel, and gas prices are up 20 cents in the past 2 weeks alone. The start of the summer driving season is still 3 months away, but consumers are already being squeezed by near-record energy prices. More than that, this should be a story we talk about in both good and bad times, because our dependence is growing great and it is not matched by our policy. We must rethink our policies to match the modern challenges we face. As I have indicated, our Nation has a great quantity of oil locked up off of our coasts, beneath our permafrost, and within our shale. These areas can provide a stable supply of energy as we transition to alternative fuels. But oil is not the only resource that can be developed at home and depended upon to meet our energy needs. We are also fortunate to have vast reserves of coal: some 270 billion recoverable tons, which would last for 240 years at the current rate of consumption. That coal can be turned into fuels that help meet our transportation, manufacturing, and electric power needs. Because of the emissions that result when coal is converted to energy, we will need cleaner methods to ensure the protection of our environment. To me, this is an opportunity. Our Nation has a proud heritage of innovation, and there is no reason to believe this strong record will not continue in the future. As our most abundant and affordable fossil resource, we cannot simply cross coal off the list. Any serious effort to strengthen our energy security must include coal. One of our best prospects is to advance the development of coal-to- liquid fuels. As an alternative to oil, coal-to-liquid fuels have many merits: it will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants when compared to conventional fuels. Coal-to-liquid fuels have been commercially demonstrated in other countries, can be moved through existing pipelines, and can be used in existing vehicles. Commercialization of this resource will create investment in rural communities, thousands of good-paying jobs, and cheaper energy for American consumers. Despite this potential, two amendments to advance this type of fuel were defeated on party-line votes in the most recent energy debate. Future generations of automobiles will be powered by the advanced battery. The Government must redouble its efforts to ensure the research, development, and deployment of these technologies. Reliable and rechargeable batteries will be critical to the success of hybrid vehicles, which hold tremendous promise for reducing the amount of oil consumed in the transportation sector. The policies I have spoken of these past 2 days are just a few of the options available to us. We should also increase the number of flex- fuel vehicles on the road, and the number of stations that offer blended fuels. We should offer incentives to existing refineries, and encourage the expedited construction of new ones, to reduce the amount of gasoline we import. We continue to lament that while our refinery capacity has improved at existing sites, we have not built a new refinery in 30 years. Again, these are just a sampling of the policy options available to the Congress as we seek to chart a more responsible path forward. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee for nearly 30 years, and its chair or ranking member for much of the past decade, I obviously have strong views on the energy policies that will best serve our Nation. But I also recognize that we must work together to find common ground. We did this in the past on energy policy, and we can do it again. The costs of our dependence on foreign oil are enormous and increasing. The consequences of removing money from our economy, and sending it to often-volatile oil-producing nations, are becoming clear. Few positives will ever be drawn from this arrangement. When we import oil, we export our jobs and we export our wealth. We strengthen regimes that are intent on undermining our interests, opposed to the spread of democracy, and unwilling to extend some of the most basic freedoms to their own people. When we import oil, we threaten our national security and our economic strength. As we look ahead, we must remember that for today and the foreseeable future, we need oil. We should put our American energy resources to use. This is my final year in the Senate. It is a privilege and an honor to serve the people of New Mexico and this country. But it is not just the end of my time in the Senate that approaches; the time to reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil is also upon us. It is my sincere hope that we will use this year and the future to work together on policies that will move us toward our energy security goals. This will require us to set aside our differences and make difficult decisions. It will require us to come to the table with open minds and positive intentions. In an era defined by its bitter partisanship, this will not be easy. But given the stakes—our national security, our economic strength, and our standing in the world—that is exactly what we must do.

Mr. DOMENICI. I object.

Mr. DOMENICI. Before we leave, Madam President, I say to the distinguished majority leader that I appreciate his kind, generous remarks.