ENERGY -- (Senate - June 13, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the very important bill before us. Like the Senator from New Jersey, I serve on the Energy Committee. It has been my pleasure to work with the chairman and ranking member to discuss the problems we have in our country and the State of Florida with energy, the fact that it is such an essential ingredient in our daily lives. It needs more help. It needs reform, and Congress needs to address it.
As we move forward in shaping the policies that guide our Nation in securing domestic, stable, and affordable sources of energy, we must remember that everything we do here will have a direct impact on every American who drives a car, turns on a light, or takes a sip of water. Gas prices are hovering around historic highs. Energy bills are climbing. Over the last 5 months, gas prices have risen almost 50 percent. That is the one place where all Americans have to, at some point during the week, make a stop, as with the grocery store. If prices have gone up 50 percent over the last 5 months, imagine what that does to a family on a budget trying to make ends meet, trying to send children to school, trying to live on a fixed income--retire, perhaps--members of our military. This cuts across all people evenly. Energy bills are climbing for all Americans. There is increased concern over the impact our energy production has on our environment, and rightly so.
I am glad we are talking about this important issue because it is a vehicle we can use to address all three of these pressing concerns. But in this bill, there are areas where we can do more, areas we can improve to help shape the long-term outlook for domestic energy production.
In the area of gas prices, this bill does nothing to remove the barriers to refineries. Total U.S. demand for oil is about 22 million barrels per day. Right now, we have domestic refinery capacity here in the United States to produce about 17 million barrels a day. That means we have to import at least 5 million barrels of refined products every day just to meet our current deficit. But the problem is, our needs are growing and refinery capacity is static or shrinking. We need more refineries and more refinery capacity. But the fact is, we have not built a refinery in the United States in 30 years because of burdensome overregulation.
Under the current system, there is no incentive for companies to take the risk or make the investment in a process that in all likelihood will result in rejection. This is something this bill should address. We know the problem. We know the solution. All we need now is a commitment to do something about it. Until we address the refinery capacity and petroleum infrastructure problems, there will be no relief for this problem, for the ever-rising prices of gasoline for American consumers at the pump. Until we address refinery capacity, this bill will not be complete.
This bill attempts to address supposed price gouging at the pump. I think I speak for all my colleagues when I say we oppose price gouging and we should encourage vigorous prosecution of unscrupulous business practices. We should do all we can to see it doesn't happen and those who engage in that are punished. But study after study and investigation after investigation have shown that widespread price gouging is not happening. That is not the problem. After the devastating hurricanes of 2005, I joined my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ask the Federal Trade Commission if there was any sort of collusion among the oil and gas industry to drive up prices. Once again, the FTC found no evidence of price gouging or of collusion.
Until we address the capacity of our refineries to produce more gas, the supply will be limited. Basic economics says if demand is high and supply is low, you are going to pay a premium at the pump. Gas prices are hurting Americans. We are looking at historic highs. Pick up a gas pump and open your wallet. Does this bill address that? No. This doesn't add any more production. This doesn't reduce inefficiencies. Instead, this bill mandates alternative fuels without removing cost barriers. We will still have a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. That is fuel which could be flowing today in Florida and throughout our country. That is fuel which could increase supply, reduce the price at the pump, and have an impact on prices tomorrow. It is part of what this bill should address. We need to look at whether, in fact, it is prudent, at a time when we are trying to increase ethanol consumption, for us to put a tax on the import of ethanol from Brazil.
Another area of this bill where we could make improvements is by adding incentives to promote the production of nuclear energy. If we are looking for a clean, reliable, stable, and affordable energy supply, look no further than nuclear energy. In my State, we have five nuclear units generating roughly 15 percent of our energy needs. We need more of that kind of power generation. In the time since we ordered our last nuclear reactor in the 1970s, France has embraced nuclear energy. Now their country is 80 percent nuclear. They get it. They are using it. They are recycling the waste to generate even more power. If we are looking for a renewable, clean, and stable source of energy, there is one. But instead of promoting nuclear energy, this bill is silent. Instead of giving Floridians relief from the costs associated with storing the waste at our facilities, we are faced with mounting bills.
Florida ratepayers have already paid $1.2 billion to move waste to Yucca Mountain, but it currently remains stored in Florida. It is sitting at the powerplants. This money, intended to store nuclear waste in Nevada, is costing Floridians money every month in every electric bill. It is costing us the money that should have been spent on producing more energy, on finding ways of bringing down the costs.
Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we were supposed to be sending this waste to Yucca Mountain starting in 1998. We have let politics prevent us from embracing the promise of nuclear power. If we are serious about promoting the production of clean energy, we had better do what we promised Florida ratepayers and others around the Nation, that we open the central repository in Nevada.
We have enough coal to meet our energy needs for 200 years, and very little in this bill addresses that fact. States such as Kentucky, Montana, and Wyoming are rich in resources and ready to bring those resources to meet our growing fuel demands. As a Senator from Florida, I would much rather be digging for coal in Montana or Kentucky than drilling for oil on the beaches of Florida.
The Bingaman 15 percent RPS amendment is one of the amendments I encourage my colleagues to oppose. For Florida ratepayers who have embraced nuclear energy as a way to help reduce pollution, by 2030, the Bingaman amendment will have a cost of $21 billion. I don't know how many people in Florida think their energy bills are too low, but I can't imagine that they are willing to start subsidizing wind farms in North Dakota. Florida property taxes are already sky high. Our property taxes, our insurance costs are even higher. The last thing Floridians want is a $21 billion increase in their power bill. Break that down, and that is a rate increase of about $2,500 per household. That is more than a year's tuition at the University of Florida. That is more than a family on a fixed income might spend in a year for any type of recreational activity. Florida doesn't have the resources or the capacity to meet the arbitrary definitions or demands of the Bingaman amendment. We will take a big financial hit if it passes.
In the next 10 years, Florida's energy demands are expected to grow 60 percent. We need reliable, affordable, abundant, clean-burning energy to meet our demands. Disincentives like the renewable portfolio standard amendment don't provide power to the State of Florida. They don't help Florida meet its needs for seniors, veterans, working families, and those on fixed incomes.
This bill regulates and mandates, but where is the bill streamlining? Where is the redtape being reduced? Where are the incentives for States such as Florida to build upon those power sources which we have already found to be clean and successful?
A bright future for America and our economy depends on energy. We need it to run our homes, computers, cars, our entire way of life. Right now, we have a reliance on foreign sources of energy that is unhealthy. To get away from foreign sources of energy, we need to make the hard decisions today to give us a better tomorrow. That is certainly the case with our energy policy. Domestic solutions include nuclear, clean coal, biofuels, increased production of oil and natural gas. Obviously, conservation needs to be a cornerstone of what we do.
In Florida, we rejected oil and natural gas drilling off our coast in favor of pursuing alternatives, including expanding production in some of the deepest regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, opening 8.3 million acres for production. We are also studying new sources of energy. We are making great strides in biofuels research and development. We are working through public and private partnerships to harness the power of cellulosic ethanol and find ways to more efficiently turn orange rinds and sugar cane into energy. These are the ideas. These are the innovations we need to pursue in our natural energy policy. We need to reward States that are pursuing smart strategies. We need to stay away from penalizing those that don't have the resources to meet arbitrary and unrealistic benchmarks. We need an energy policy for the long haul.
I am hopeful we can do that, but we still have a lot more work to do.
I yield the floor.