Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have made it a practice for the last--I don't know how long it has been now, 12-plus years in the Senate--that any time I see a major tax increase coming along, at least I want to voice opposition, to get on record against it. That is what we are talking about right now with the renewable portfolio standard that is before us. I support development of renewable energy resources, as do the citizens of my State of Oklahoma. In fact, in 2006, Oklahoma was ranked sixth in the Nation for wind energy capacity, surpassed only by Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, California, and Washington State. Those are real turbines lighting over 150,000 homes in Oklahoma without an RPS. Let me emphasize, Oklahomans are developing wind energy without a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate known as an RPS, renewable portfolio standard. Quite a number of years ago I spent a number of years as mayor of a major American city. Its problems were not the ones you would think, not crime in the streets, not prostitution. It was Federal mandates that were not funded. This is exactly what we are looking at here. Under this amendment, Oklahomans would pay an additional $6 billion for their electricity. You might ask where would that money go? It would go to perhaps the Federal Government to spend as it pleases, or it would go to other States that are lucky enough to have the particular energy sources that environmental groups decide today they want. How does this promote clean energy in Oklahoma? It does not. The amendment cherry-picks technologies that have to be blessed by environmental groups but ignores the real clean energy benefits of nuclear power, hydro power, clean coal, and energy efficiency. A kilowatt saved is a kilowatt earned. You can't get cleaner than energy efficiency, but it doesn't comply with the amendment. The RPS amendment is nothing more than a tax increase. It is a tax on States that lack enough natural resources to meet the 15-percent mandate. It is a tax on States that do not harness the particular renewable technologies enshrined in this amendment, and it is a tax on States that do not happen to have electricity transmission lines located where the renewable resources are. The States, I believe, know best on how to promote and manage the renewable resources unique to their States without another Federal mandate. We had this discussion this morning when I had my refinery amendment up. I said there is this mentality in Washington that no decision is a good decision unless that decision is made in Washington, DC. I think that is what we are looking at here. This is an issue that should be left to the States, not enacted in an RPS. The decision should not be preempted, especially not when the cost is $6 billion. I know a lot of people are thinking, in terms of the things we talk about here in Washington, DC, $6 billion is not an astronomical amount. But take a State with a population of the State of Oklahoma. A $6 billion tax increase is huge, particularly when you do not get anything for it. I hope we will oppose the amendment of Senator Bingaman on renewable portfolio standards.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would inquire as to the time remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would like to go ahead and be recognized for a few minutes, and I would ask that the Chair stop me when there is 5 minutes remaining. I would like to remind the other side that our protocol or system is that the author of the amendment should conclude debate, so I would like to have the last 5 minutes. First of all, I look at this and I listen to the arguments from the junior Senator from California and I hear the same things over and over again. Last night, we debated this at some length. Every time, she would make a statement, and we would respond to the statement. Let me just put a chart up here. I think it is important for people to realize there are some choices. We are not willing to add to refinery capacity here in the United States. We have here the refining capacity and the growth of that refining capacity from other countries. We have Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Venezuela. It is bad enough we are dependent upon foreign sources for our ability to run this machine we call America, but these are not the kinds of countries you want to depend on. I am sure Chavez is not real excited about helping us refine our oil into something that can be used for transportation. I would like to cover a couple of the things the junior Senator from California has said, and I know what is going to happen: As soon as I do this, she will come back and say the same things over again, because we have heard these same arguments. First of all, she says it is a disastrous amendment because it is a taxpayer giveaway to the oil companies; we don't have to give away the store to the oil companies. Well, the fact is that no money goes to any oil companies or, in fact, to any corporations in any way whatsoever. The only funding of the bill is financial and technical resources to a State or tribal department of environmental quality or funds to an economically distressed community affected by BRAC. Let us keep in mind, when we talk about BRAC and Indian tribes, we have a lot of BRAC sites, and I can remember Members standing on the floor saying, during the base realignment and closure process: They are going to be closing some of the military installations in my State. Well, what is a logical thing you can do to replace the economic loss of a closed facility? It is to put--if we can encourage the local community to do it--a refinery there. You don't have to clean it up to the same standards you would have to clean it up otherwise. It is a logical thing. So those people who want coal-to-liquids and commercial- scale cellulosic ethanol facilities can have them. It does authorize the EPA to initiate a new emissions control demonstration project, but it doesn't offer the oil companies anything. The lack of sufficient refinery capacity in the United States is why we are experiencing high prices today. I think it is inconceivable that any Member of this body would come in and deny us, the United States, the right to expand our refinery capacity to do something about the supply problem we have and then turn around and say: Well, we don't want to be dependent on foreign countries for our ability to run this machine called America. In this bill, in the underlying Energy bill, without this amendment, we don't really address the problem today. We talk about the future, and we talk about conservation. This is good, and we want to do this. We talk about standards for automobiles and all that. But people in my State of Oklahoma want to do something about the $3 a gallon for gasoline right now that is there.

Mr. INHOFE. With that, I retain the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding there will be equal time taken from each side in this case, so I would invite the majority to come in and make their remarks and would appreciate it; otherwise, I would be denied my opportunity to close debate on my amendment. In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call, the time be taken from the other side.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate students Natalie Haworth and Trenton Knight from Dill City High School in Burns Flat, OK, and Libby Trusty from Verdigris High School in Claremore, OK. These students have been selected to present their award winning National History Day projects in Washington, DC, today. Each project reflects on this year's National History Day theme, ``Triumphs and Tragedies in History.'' Haworth and Knight have been selected to present their history project at the White House Visitor's Center. Trusty has been selected to present her project at the National Archives and Records Administration. Their projects were selected by the National History Day program from hundreds of thousands nationwide. Haworth's and Knight's project, ``Land Divided--World United,'' is a depiction of the historical creation of the Panama Canal. The exhibit begins with the original vision to construct a channel through Central America and extends all the way to the completion and proposed expansion of the Panama Canal. Trusty is presenting a U.S. Supreme Court case which addressed the controversial issue of equal educational opportunities available throughout American history. Fisher v. University of Oklahoma Board of Regents was one of the unfamiliar but significant cases that ultimately led to the landmark decision to desegregate schools in America. I believe it is important for students to be informed and educated about the milestones of American history, because it will strengthen them as our country's future leaders and provide them with the knowledge to continue to lead our Nation as our Founding Fathers intended. History is an integral part of the education of future generations of Americans, and I would like to commend the National History Day program for empowering teachers to improve history education and influencing students to follow these Oklahoma students' exemplary example.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I rise today to support a resolution designating June 15, 2007, as ``National Huntington's Disease Awareness Day,'' a devastating disorder that affects an estimated 1 in every 10,000 persons. We need to raise awareness of Huntington's disease, which is a progressive degenerative neurological disease that causes total physical and mental deterioration over a 12-15 year period. Though Huntington's disease typically begins in midlife, between the ages of 30 and 45, onset may occur as early as the age of 2. The average lifespan after onset of Huntington's disease is 10 to 20 years. The younger a person contracts the disease, the more rapid the progression. Additionally, children who develop the juvenile form of the disease rarely live to adulthood, and a child of a Huntington's disease parent has a 50-50 chance of inheriting the Huntington's disease gene. Since the discovery of the gene that causes Huntington's disease in 1993, the pace of Huntington's disease research has accelerated. Although scientists and researchers are hopeful that breakthroughs are forthcoming, no cures for this disease currently exist. The need for heightened awareness of Huntington's disease was brought to my attention by constituents who suffer from this disease. For the benefit of these individuals and for the well-being of sufferers in your own State and around the Nation, I ask you to join me in this effort to raise awareness of Huntington's disease.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I will read it again.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 1505 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I want to explain this amendment, but first I will yield to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reclaiming my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate having had the opportunity to yield to the Senator from New Mexico for his explanation. I think it is very important that we understand there are a lot of good things we are looking at in this bill. But he so accurately points out that the big problem we have today--not 10 years from now--is supply. We need to do something about the supply. The bill doesn't adequately address that. The amendment I have called up, No. 1505, is essentially the same amendment we considered in my Environment and Public Works Committee during the years I served as chairman. It is one of these things where it is very difficult to figure out why anyone could vote against it, because it is permissive, it allows States to do things; it doesn't mandate. I was pleased to hear the majority leader recognizing that the United States has become too reliant on foreign sources of energy. Unfortunately, the majority's bill presently doesn't improve the situation. Indeed, it could actually worsen it. The fact is that Americans are paying more at the pump because we don't have the domestic capacity to refine the fuels consumers demand. So we are talking about two ways to resolve the problem of supply. One is production, and the other is you can have all the production in the world, but if you don't have the refining capacity, you cannot get it refined and into use. Some Members' answer is more hybrids than SUVs, but that ignores the profound impact high fuel prices have on our economy. According to the Department of Labor's recent numbers, about 3 percent of the Nation's inflation is directly attributed to high fuel prices. That means whether your constituent drives a gas guzzler, a hybrid, rides a bicycle, or walks, they are paying the same for high fuel prices. In order to lower those prices, we have two options. We can increase the capacity at home or import more from abroad. The LA Times wrote in May 25, 2007, that ``gas supplies are tight because the United States lacks refining capacity, and every time a refinery shuts down for maintenance, or because of an accident, prices rise. Americans are starving for affordable energy, and the majority's bill tells them to go on a diet. That is good. We want to have these things to help with our consumption. But the Energy bill really does nothing today in terms of taking care of the supply problem we have. The good news is it is not too late to do something to improve the situation. It is in that good faith to improve the energy security position of our country that we are offering the Gas Price Act. The lack of domestic refining capacity is not new to many Members, the public, or even to the Federal Reserve. In May of 2005, Chairman Alan Greenspan stated: The status of world refining capacity has become worrisome and the industry is straining to meet markets which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet ever more stringent environmental requirements. While chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I held a series of hearings to look into this issue. The very same month I held one of those hearings, the senior Senator from California, who was on the Senate floor speaking a moment ago, Mrs. Feinstein, made this statement in a letter to the Governor of California. It says: I can see where the cumbersome permitting process, with uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and implement projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed and predictability of the permitting process, and believe that this will allow business and government to focus on their limited resources on actions that most benefit the environment. That is the statement Senator Feinstein made in a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. The amendment that Senator Thune and I are offering today will improve the energy security of the United States, and it will do so in complete compliance with environmental laws and in concert with State interests. In her letter to Governor Schwarzenegger, the senior Senator from California was correct in recognizing much of the permitting decisions are by States and not by the Federal Government. That is why we work very hard to recognize the importance of State and local groups in making those decisions. The Environmental Council of States, which represents State departments of environmental quality, said as much. Keep in mind, this is the council that represents all the different State departments of environmental quality, as well as noting that the Gas Price Act does not weaken the environmental laws. Similarly, the National Association of Counties stated: It goes a long way in addressing the concerns of local governments during a refinery siting, ranging from the importance of considering local needs, concerns, and honoring a county's land use authority. It is important to point this out because it seems that time and time again, some of the Members of this body hide behind the vague concerns over the environment in defending their failure to improve U.S. energy security. After working with a variety of stakeholders, this bill achieves both goals. It increases energy while preserving local governments and environmental quality. The fact is, like it or not, the United States needs to increase its domestic refining capacity if we are to solve the economic struggles facing every family. The amendment we are offering today redefines and broadens our understanding of a refinery to be a domestic fuels facility. Oil has and will continue to have a role in the U.S. economy, but the future of our domestic transportation fuel system must also include new sources, such as the ultraclean synfuels derived from coal and cellulosic ethanol derived from homegrown grasses and biomass. Expanding the existing domestic fuels facilities or constructing new ones is a maze of environmental permitting challenges. This is what the Senator from California was talking about a few minutes ago in trying to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to streamline this permitting process. This amendment provides a Governor with the option of requiring the Federal EPA to provide the State with financial and technical resources to accomplish the job and establishes a certain permitting process for all parties. The public demands increasing supplies for transportation fuel, but they also expect that fuel to be good for their health and for the environment. To that end, the amendment requires the EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch diesel and jet fuel as an emission-control strategy. Initial tests found that Fischer- Tropsch diesel significantly reduces criterion pollutants over conventional fuels and could easily be transported with existing infrastructure. It should be noted that the ongoing tests at Tinker Air Force Base in my home State of Oklahoma found that Fischer-Tropsch, or coal-to-liquid aircraft fuel, reduced particulates 47 to 90 percent and completely eliminated the SOX emissions over fuels that are used today. I might add, this is a technology that is here. It needs to be improved upon. We are currently flying a B-52 that has eight engines using this type of fuel. Good concepts in Washington are bad ideas if no one wants them at home. As a former mayor of Tulsa, I am a strong believer in local and State control. This is something that is controversial in Washington. There are a lot of people in this body who don't think any decision is a good decision unless it is made in Washington. I am the opposite. I feel closer to the people. They should be more involved, and that is why we structured it the way we did. The Federal Government should provide incentives rather than mandates on local communities. Increasing clean domestic fuel supplies is in the Nation's security interest, but those facilities can also provide high- paying jobs to people in towns in need. Our amendment provides financial incentives to the two most economically distressed communities in the Nation, towns affected by BRAC and Indian tribes, to consider building both liquids and commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities. Here we are talking about people who have gone through the BRAC process, people who have in their States facilities that were military facilities that were closed during the base realignment and closure process. I am very proud my State of Oklahoma is the leader in the development of the energy crops for cellulosic biofuel. The key now is to promote investment, and nothing would speed the rapid expansion of the cellulosic biofuels industry more than investments by the Nation's traditional providers of liquid transportation fuels. We have in the State of Oklahoma the Noble Foundation, Oklahoma State University, and Oklahoma University--all very much involved in the development of cellulosic biofuels. It is a technology that is coming. We know it is. I guess what we need to do is understand, while it is coming, we still need to run this great machine called America. Many integrated oil companies have formed and substantially expanded their biofuels divisions within the past year to prepare for the eventuality of cross-competitive cellulosity biofuels. Oil companies invest in exploration because their stock prices are affected by their declared proven reserves. Creating a definition of renewable reserves would create a similar incentive for them to invest in cellulosic biofuels. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to accelerate the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands. Given the country's interest in developing renewable alternatives to fossil fuel, it is logical that the SEC would develop criteria in cooperation with biomass feedstock sources in its hierarchy at the same time. This is Congress's least expensive way to jump-start the cellulosic biofuels industry. Increasing capacity to produce clean fuels at home is critical in making America more secure. Passing the Gas Price Act would be a material and substantive action toward this majority's stated goal of energy independence. To vote against it underscores something altogether. They like higher gas prices at the pump. What we are talking about is something that is permissive. It allows States to opt out, if they want, and it streamlines the permitting process. It requires EPA to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch diesel and jet fuels. It will help in our refining capacity, if we are talking about refineries for petroleum or refineries for biofuels or any other kinds of refineries. To have a comprehensive Energy bill, we need to do what we have done, what we have already done in this bill, but the problem is here today, as was pointed out by the Senator from New Mexico. We have a supply problem, and that supply problem is here and now. The gas price amendment to expand our refining capacity would dramatically and immediately relieve that problem.

Mr. INHOFE. Again, there are two supply problems--one in production and one in refining capacity. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. INHOFE. I will be happy to do it. Let me repeat what I told Senator Bingaman privately. I have no intention of bringing up this amendment for a vote now. We will set this amendment aside for other amendments and then hopefully we will have several lined up tomorrow. I think tomorrow we will start these votes.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I will stay in his stead. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond. I am not sure what bill the Senator from California is talking about. She didn't really describe this bill at all. Let's go through very quickly her four points, if the Senator from California would like to listen. First of all, the EDA portion provides grants to local communities, not oil companies. This is not grants going to oil companies. Maybe the Senator from California has not gotten emotional in experiencing what has happened when there are BRAC closings and some of the bases have had to close. But when that happens, the EDA does have the function, and the EDA in this case can provide grants if local communities apply for these grants. If they do not want to apply for them, they do not have to do it. The fund seeks to promote development of future fuels, coal to liquids, cellulosic biomass, not just oil. This is not the same amendment, I might add, as we tried to pass unsuccessfully by a one-vote margin in the Environment and Public Works Committee. Second, this idea that there is a rollback in environmental laws--the association representing the environmental concerns of every State, the Environmental Council of States, clearly states this will not do any such thing. Here is the Environmental Council of the States. Every State belongs to this, including California. It says in here: This bill does not weaken the standards and allows each State to choose its best course on most of the matters detailed in the bill. So there you have it. On this matter, the organization that represents all the environmental groups is strongly supporting this. Will do nothing to increase energy independence? The reason the United States is vulnerable, in a vulnerable position, is because we don't have an adequate supply to meet the demand. Supply--that is what I have been talking about since we started talking here. Reducing demand is only one part of the equation. We want to reduce demand. We also want to increase supply. I would say probably the most damaging thing that has been stated by the junior Senator--here is a quote by the senior Senator from California. When she talks about streamlining permitting, yes, that is one of the big problems. So I used a quote by Senator Feinstein in a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger. I will read it again because I think maybe the junior Senator wasn't in the Chamber when I talked about this. This is a quote out of the letter: I can see where a cumbersome permitting process, with uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and implement projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed and predictability of the permitting process, and believe that this will allow business and government to focus their limited resources on actions that most benefit the environment. That is exactly what we want to do. That is a very acute observation by the senior Senator from California. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would observe that the junior Senator from California is not going to support my amendment. However, I would also observe that you can't keep saying the same thing over and over and over again and make it true. We have quoted the Environmental Council of the States. They all say there is nothing in here that is going to be damaging to the environment. Anyway, it is my understanding that I am going to be willing to set this aside for other amendments, so we can perhaps get in the queue and have several votes tomorrow, whenever the appropriate time is. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I think there is a basic, as I said before, problem in disagreement on the floor of this body when there are a lot of people who do not think that decisions, good decisions, are made unless they are made in Washington, DC. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Then, also, the permitting process is a small part of this amendment, but it is a very important part. It is a part that we have, subtitle A, about 4 pages, talking about trying to make the permitting process more streamlined. And that is where I used the statement from Senator Feinstein, who certainly agrees when she says: I can see where a cumbersome permitting process with uncertain outcomes would make it difficult to plan and implement projects. Well, that is just one of the many things that we are trying to correct with this bill. Again, I have responded to all of the other statements that were made. I would repeat in terms of the environment, I am going to go ahead and submit for the Record at this point, along with the letter on the EDAs, a letter from the Environmental Council of the States, when they state very specifically: The bill does not weaken the standards and allows each State to choose its best course for most matters.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond again. The distinguished junior Senator from California can say over and over and over again as many times as she wants that it is giving money to oil companies. It is not. Specifically, the EDA portion provides grants to local communities if they want them. If the local community doesn't want them, they don't have to have them. At this point in the Record I want to have printed a letter from the EDA that says: No for-profit entity is eligible to receive EDA assistance.

Mr. INHOFE. ``I can see where a cumbersome permitting process, with uncertain outcomes, would make it difficult to plan and implement projects . . . I encourage you to improve the speed and predictability of the permitting process, and believe that this will allow business and government to focus their limited resources on actions that most benefit the environment.'' This is exactly what this bill does. We have a section in here that allows States, if they want to do it--and there is nothing wrong with allowing States to do what they see is in their best interests. I agree with Senator Feinstein that this would allow States to overcome this cumbersome permitting process, as she states in her statement.

Mr. INHOFE. This is a quote. Would you like me to read it again?

Mr. INHOFE. No, no; I am saying she is concerned about the permitting process.