Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a very detailed analysis I would like put in the Record which relates to provisions within the Bingaman- Domenici bill that is before the Senate which would promote responsible progress on climate change. What I tried to do here was to say to the Senate: Please understand that your Energy and Natural Resources Committee, from the inception, was worried about climate change and the gases that have an impact on climate change according to scientists in the United States. Now, there are some who contest that, but let me just follow through. The bill before us might even have been called the Clean Energy Act because so much of it is directed at producing, in the future, for these United States, energy that will have little or no effect in terms of emitting carbon that is the principal problem with global warming. Having said that, the statement goes into detail. Indeed, it is a detailed statement. So I would, just for summary, say there is an entire title which we chose to call Incentives For Innovative Technology, title XIV of the bill. This is a very different section than you find in most technology-promoting or science-promoting bills because it says this entire provision is aimed at new technologies that will produce energy sources that have no global warming emissions. Then it says, in order to do that, the Secretary of Energy--we put all this in the Energy Department so there is no mixup as to who is doing what--it allows so-called guaranteed loans to be issued for the purpose of building clean energy-producing plants, mechanisms, or activities. It says the Secretary shall analyze them. If they are feasible, he can use whatever peer review he would like. Then they ask of the Congressional Budget Office: How much should this loan require by way of insurance, insurance for the risk? If they say 10 percent, then the company asking for the money to build the new technology, which will produce clean energy, has to put up 10 percent of the cost in cash. And then we lend them the money, on an 80-20 basis, and they proceed, under the direction of the Secretary, to produce this new facility. We believe this is going to say to our Federal Government for the first time: Take a look out there and see what we can do in the next decade to move new technology along that will take the carbon out of coal, perhaps even move with the very first generation of pilot projects for the sequestration of coal and of carbon--meaning get rid of it, putting it in the ground or whatever. At the same time, who knows, that technology may take the mercury and other pollutants out of it. But we are going to put in place an opportunity for the Secretary to do this so long as he thinks they are moving in the right direction. And the right direction is the same direction as the technology-laden proposal by Senator Hagel. We also have in this bill expanded research and development for bioenergy which concentrates on solar. We expanded R&D for nuclear power. Now, for anybody interested in that, that is completely different than the incentives to build nuclear powerplants soon. This is research and development in what we call Generation IV. It is the next, next generation of nuclear powerplants. And we start moving on that. Why? Because there is a lot of money and a lot of hope that we will be moving toward a hydrogen economy. I am not predicting that will be the case but many are. In any event, it is sufficiently important. The President moved in that direction. This bill and the appropriators have spent money in that way. And what we are saying in this bill is that we should spend money for the next-two-generations-out nuclear powerplants because that kind of powerplant may be the source of heat that will produce hydrogen. At this point hydrogen must be produced. But the other day Senator Bingaman and I were on a television show and somebody asked: How are we going to produce hydrogen? My friend from New Mexico said right now we could produce it from natural gas. I had forgotten about that. That is true. But natural gas is in short supply, and it takes a lot of it to produce hydrogen. So we need another source. That R&D for a new generation of powerplants is aiming in the same direction as everything I have spoken of. It is seeking a way to get away from carbon-laden energy and move with more hydrogen potential. This bill has an 8 billion gallon renewable fuel standard, which means ethanol. Many people around here and some in the country have said ethanol isn't any good. We should not be doing it. Maybe when the price of crude oil was $8 or $7--I can remember when Senator Henry Bellmon from Oklahoma was here, it was $6. He used to say the arithmetic doesn't work. At $6 it is not worth producing ethanol. But at the price now, it is worth it. I don't know if eight is the right number, but we did that here because we said if we can produce ethanol, we will have had a dramatic effect on the prospect of contributing more carbon, which is what Senator Hagel is trying to do in his technology- pushing amendment, is to produce less carbon, thus less pressure on what many believe is the human contributor to global warming. There is another one that is in this bill. Senator Hagel doesn't have to have ethanol in his bill because ethanol is in this bill. We also require alternative fuel use, dual fuel in all Federal vehicles. We have reforms for alternative fuel programs. We have some incentives for hybrid cars. On the nuclear side, we all think that new nuclear powerplants is one of the best ways to address the issue of carbon in the atmosphere and global warming. I think my friend from Nebraska would agree. Right now in America 70 percent of the carbon- clean smokestack gases, 70 percent that is totally free of carbon comes from nuclear powerplants. So the underlying bill says: Let's build some nuclear powerplants. And it does everything possible, extending Price Anderson. So I would assume that if you had a tax-promoting bill that didn't have this underlying bill that we produced in our committee, say it was a standalone Hagel bill, he might even put Price Anderson in there because in a sense it would surely be moving the technology ahead by providing some of the security necessary for nuclear power. Beyond that, we have changes in the geothermal leasing to get more geothermal. Everywhere we turn in the bill we have produced we have moved in the direction of trying to produce carbon-free energy for the future. As I understand it, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and his sponsors want to move in that direction with loan guarantees and other kinds of consortia arrangements to move ahead with technology. They have an international feature to their bill. Obviously, we don't have an international feature to our bill, but Senator Hagel has chosen to put some provisions in that would move us in the right direction if they can become law. It says that the world has a problem, not just America, and that the international community, with America as part of it, ought to do some things to move ahead with global warming contributors that will come from outside the United States, which is a very good idea. I ask that my full analysis of the bill before us, before the Hagel amendment, which will be amplified if the Hagel amendment is agreed to--this statement shows everything we are doing in this bill to contribute to cleaner energy sources for the future in terms of our electricity production which will greatly minimize carbon production--I ask unanimous consent that summary be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays now for the Voinovich amendment when it is appropriately before the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI. We can proceed with the rest of the consent agreement, and then we are back on the Senator's amendment. If I failed to ask that the McCain-Lieberman be temporarily set aside while this is occurring, I so request.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I am sorry I did not make it clear enough. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, obviously I am letting this amendment proceed, but, frankly, I do not think the amendment should be on this bill. I do not think it could ever become law. The United States has never done this. These are sovereign nations, and for us to decide here on the Senate floor that we are going to establish some new forum for jurisdiction and litigation against the OPEC cartel is nothing short of incredible. Nonetheless, I do not question the goodwill and the authenticity of the two Senators in their approach. They do not insist on a rollcall vote, and I will not insist on one. We will, therefore, have a voice vote. I hope those who are listening to this and see what we do understand that the Senate does things different ways at different times. After the amendment is adopted by voice vote, I will tell the Senate and those interested what is going to happen to the amendment. I yield the floor and suggest that we vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to proceed to the Voinovich amendment. I thank Senator DeWine for accommodating us tonight and for his good intention. I wish we could do something and accomplish what he wanted to do today. I want everybody to know because we had a voice vote and accepted this amendment, we will go to conference with the House. It should be clearly understood that the House does not have anything like this. I want everybody to know that this amendment is going to have to be bundled up with this bill. Those are the rules. But it might get lost between the floor and the time we get over to the Senate, and we may not be able to find it when we get over there, just so everybody understands what the fate of this amendment is. But it has been adopted. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Energy bill tomorrow morning, Senator Feinstein be recognized in order to offer an amendment relating to LNG; provided further that there be 60 minutes equally divided for debate, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment. I further ask that following the debate on the Feinstein amendment, Senator Byrd be recognized in order to offer an amendment related to rural gas prices; provided further, that when the Senate resumes debate on the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment, there be 3 additional hours for debate, with Senator McCain or his designee in control of 90 minutes, Senator Domenici in control of 30 minutes, and Senator Inhofe in control of the remaining 60 minutes; further, that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the McCain amendment and there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I understand this has been cleared.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we had another good day debating the amendments on this Energy bill, and we disposed of a number of them. We are going to return tomorrow with a lineup in the morning, and we are going to talk about that in a minute. We are going to have amendments relating to the LNG, liquefied natural gas, the world gas prices, to SUVs and the continuation of the climate change debate. Having said that, I remind everyone this is our second week of considering this bill. I am very pleased and thankful for the cooperation we have had on both sides of the aisle. Our leader has said on a number of occasions that we need to finish this bill this week. Therefore, on behalf of the majority leader, I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the underlying bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum be waived.

Mr. DOMENICI. For the information of all Senators, this vote will occur on Thursday. In the meantime, I expect another full day to tomorrow with votes throughout the day. The cloture vote Thursday will enable us to bring this debate to a close and have a final vote on passage of the Energy bill this week.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing to examine the issue of voter verification in the Federal elections process.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, on Coast Guard's Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan at 10 a.m., in SR-253.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1282 that was introduced earlier today.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time of the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy bill, provided that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Energy bill, Senator Feinstein be recognized to offer an amendment as provided under the previous order.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry, Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent it be in order that Senator Nelson yield 4 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. This time agreement, if I were to ask to yield additional time beyond that which we have for Senators, what would I be moving up against in terms of putting the Senate in some kind of a problem?

Mr. DOMENICI. How many more Senators are supposed to speak on this issue?