[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 22 (Tuesday, March 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1549-S1552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, we are facing a problem that every 
other nation that we share the planet with hopes it will have some day. 
That is, our country's economic growth will soon outpace our supply of 
available energy.
  The growth of both the high tech and advanced manufacturing sectors 
in America has created jobs and has created enormous opportunity for 
our people, and they have created a new demand for energy. One reason 
these industries have flourished in America is because we have the fuel 
they need to succeed. We have the ``people'' fuel, the skilled workers 
with committed hearts and hands; we have the ``idea'' fuel, the smart 
minds that dream big and can take ideas from the drawing board on to 
the street; and we have ``good old-fashioned'' fuel, inexpensive, 
reliable sources of energy that literally make everything move and 
connect and work.
  Other nations have some of these pieces, but they rarely have all of 
them. That won't always be the case. The world is shrinking, and our 
competitors, strategic and otherwise, are in hot pursuit. What will we 
do to stay ahead? What will we do to fuel America's continued success?
  Our future success will require us to produce more energy to keep up 
with the growing demand for it. How big will that demand be? Big. You 
can see from this chart that there is a large gap currently in terms of 
the domestic production of energy and consumption. In other words, this 
open space on this chart is a gap between what we produce domestically 
and what we consume.

[[Page S1550]]

  According to the Department of Energy, we are going to have to 
increase by 30 percent the amount of energy produced by 2015 in order 
to meet the demand of this great Nation.
  In 2000, America used more than 3.8 billion megawatt hours of 
electricity. The Department of Energy estimates that by 2020, the 
demand will rise to 5.43 billion megawatts a year, an increase of 1.63 
billion. To meet that new demand, the DOE says it will take 1,300 new 
power plants or, quite simply, the lights will begin to dim on the 
American dream for a lot of people.
  Let's remember, needing more energy is a great problem to have. It 
means we are creating jobs and we are creating opportunity. The 
American dream is our country's economic success. It is a gift 
bequeathed to this generation by generations of men and women who 
toiled before us.
  We are the stewards of this gift. History will judge us based on what 
this generation of Americans does right now with this gift. Will we 
keep America's light of opportunity shining, or will we sleep through 
our watch and let the light flicker out?
  I am thankful to the Majority Leader for keeping his word and 
bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate. However, I disagree 
with the way it came to the Senate, since the bill should have been 
considered and voted out of the Energy Committee, instead of being 
written on the floor of the Senate.
  Still, the bill presented before us at least starts the process by 
laying the foundation and beginning the debate. It has many things 
worthy about it and many things that we can build upon.
  This bill is a good start because, among other things, it encourages 
greater use of renewable sources of energy, sources which have little 
or no impact on the environment.
  The bill also encourages the use of ethanol, a renewable gasoline 
additive that helps reduce auto emissions and makes the air cleaner for 
us and our children to breathe.
  It starts the needed debate on reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act, 
which is so vital to the future expansion of our nuclear energy 
industry. But there is much more that we need to do. I have introduced 
legislation to expand the Price-Anderson reauthorization to include 
commercial nuclear reactors, as it must, and I hope that we will be 
able to include it in this bill.
  What concerns me about this bill, however, is it raises false hopes. 
It creates the expectation that it will solve our future energy crises, 
protect our energy security, and sustain American opportunities. In 
reality, it doesn't do this. The bill does start in several good 
directions, but then falls short and is silent on several other key 
issues, such as energy infrastructure and the need to reduce our 
dependency on foreign oil.
  The majority's bill doesn't fully deliver what America needs, and I 
would have to oppose it in its current form. I hope that, as we amend 
it, it is something that I can support and a majority of the Senate can 
support.
  Our energy challenge demands from us the enactment of a comprehensive 
energy policy, the likes of which we have never seen before in this 
country. I think the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, did a very good 
job in talking about the need for an energy policy. I have wanted one 
ever since I was mayor of the city of Cleveland in 1979, but in 
administration after administration, we never got one. Today, we have 
this golden opportunity to have an energy policy for the United States 
of America. It has to be a policy that harmonizes energy and 
environmental policies, acknowledging that the economy and the 
environment are vitally intertwined, a policy that broadens our base of 
energy resources to create stability, guarantee reasonable prices, and 
protect our national security--a policy that won't cause prices to 
spike, hurting particularly the elderly, disabled, and low-income 
families, and which won't cripple the engines of commerce that fund the 
research that will yield future environmental protection technologies--
technologies that can be shared with developing nations who currently 
face severe environmental crises.
  In terms of energy security, we need to reduce our reliance on 
foreign sources of energy. As I pointed out, the gap between what we 
consume and what we produce is being met by imports--imported oil, 
imported gas, and other energy sources that we bring into the United 
States.
  As we have all learned in ways too horrific for words, the enemies of 
freedom will go to extreme lengths to attack our country. As we seek to 
protect our Nation's freedom of opportunity, we should not do it in 
ways that make America more vulnerable to these enemies of freedom. We 
must do everything we can to provide for our energy need from within 
our Nation's borders.
  We are already far too dependent on foreign energy sources. Oil 
imports have risen from 1973, when we imported 35 percent of our oil, 
to 58 percent last year. Today, we even import oil from Iraq--750,000 
barrels a day. Seven percent of our oil comes from Iraq--the same 
country over which we fly regular combat missions. Think about that: 7 
percent of our oil comes from a country that the President has 
described as one of the three countries in the Axis of Evil.
  The political climate in the Middle East region today is more 
volatile than at any other time in my memory. For the United States to 
be so dependent on this part of the world to meet such a large portion 
of our energy needs makes us extremely vulnerable to being held hostage 
for oil. If the enemies of our country were willing to take out the 
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, does anyone doubt that if they had 
a chance to cut off, or even just disrupt, our energy supply, they 
would do it? There is no doubt. They would do it and we know it.

  As we rely on our own strengths for the answers to the coming energy 
crisis, we see that no single source of domestic energy is sufficient 
to meet all of our Nation's needs. Though we are blessed with large 
reserves of coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, and nuclear fuel, no 
single energy source can single-handedly solve our problem. That means 
we have to broaden our base of energy sources. We simply cannot put all 
of our eggs in one basket. If we were some other nation, diversifying 
our energy supply might be a great challenge. But we have been blessed. 
God has blessed us with the resources to solve this problem.
  One of our great untapped resources is nuclear energy. Over the past 
40 years, we have seen how safe and reliable nuclear energy can be. We 
currently get 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear energy plants. 
But this is far below what some countries do. France derives 70 percent 
of its electricity from nuclear power; Sweden gets 39 percent; South 
Korea gets 41 percent; and Japan gets 34 percent.
  What nuclear energy brings to the table, which is so positive is that 
it produces zero harmful air emissions. In fact, 40 years of solid 
waste from all of our Nation's 103 nuclear facilities would fit on a 
football field to a height of only 10 feet.
  Since 1973, the use of nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons 
of sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, and 32 million tons of 
nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone, from being released in the 
atmosphere.
  Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson program, which provides needed 
liability protection for the public's benefit, updating an outdated, 
duplicative licensing process and creating a permanent repository for 
nuclear waste, will make it possible for us to take full advantage of 
the incredible potential this clean energy source provides us. I am 
going to offer an amendment to help improve the licensing process to 
facilitate the construction of new nuclear facilities and also address 
the human capital crisis that is impacting the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. I will be joined by the Senator from Louisiana, Senator 
Landrieu, in this effort.
  The other energy source we should turn to more is coal. It is by far 
our most abundant and cheapest energy resource. Right now, we have 
enough coal to meet our country's energy needs for the next 250 years. 
Because coal is so inexpensive, we can provide our vital manufacturing 
sector with the electricity it needs at prices low enough so that after 
businesses pay their energy bills, they will still have something left 
over for other important needs like innovation and research. Just as 
nuclear energy's challenge is waste storage--and I am glad

[[Page S1551]]

we are going to debate the issue of nuclear waste storage at Yucca 
Mountain--coal's challenge is air emissions. Coal today is cleaner than 
ever before, but we need to make it even cleaner. We have the 
technologies available to do so. Coal's low cost makes research and 
installation of clean coal technology a viable investment. In addition, 
these technologies can be shared with emerging nations that are largely 
dependent on coal for electricity. We can help them learn from our 
experience and spare them future environmental challenges. With clean 
coal technology, and the incentives to guarantee it will be used, we 
can ensure that the more than two centuries worth of coal that we have 
available today can be used as an energy source.
  Let's talk about natural gas. It is a key component in meeting our 
current and future energy needs as some 60 million American homes now 
use natural gas for heat. Natural gas also provides 15 percent of this 
Nation's electric power and nearly one-quarter of our total energy 
supply. These percentages are increasing because natural gas burns 
cleanly and because it is easier to achieve permits from the EPA for 
natural gas-powered electric generation facilities. In fact, it is 
estimated that nearly 95 percent of all new power plants are going to 
be using natural gas.
  Even with this increased usage, production of natural gas has 
remained fairly stable, and to accommodate the growing demand, imports 
of natural gas have risen from 4.3 percent of consumption in 1981, to 
around 16 percent today.
  To reduce our reliance on imports, we need to tap the estimated 40 
percent of undiscovered natural gas that is located on lands owned by 
the Federal and State governments. Without this, we face steep price 
increases in natural gas at a time when we are becoming increasingly 
dependent upon it.
  We saw what can happen with natural gas during last winter's 
especially cold temperatures. A sudden high demand caught us unprepared 
when supplies were low and prices shot through the roof, devastating 
the poor and the elderly. I will never forget holding a meeting in 
Cleveland with Catholic Charities, Lutheran Housing, and the Salvation 
Army where they presented the dramatic impact that high natural gas 
prices were having on the poor, the elderly, and the disabled.
  We also need to be mindful that changes we make on energy policy that 
affect demand for natural gas directly impact on our competitive 
position in the world marketplace for plastics and fertilizer. In fact, 
the Ohio Corn Growers Association told me that the high cost of natural 
gas was impacting the cost of their fertilizer. They said that many of 
their farmers did not plant as much corn last year because of the high 
cost of fertilizer.
  Right now in America, oil remains the primary source of energy. From 
heating people's homes to firing energy plants to running our 
automobiles, it makes up the largest portion of our energy portfolio 
which keeps our economy humming.
  Demand for oil is expected to grow at a constant rate of 1.5 percent 
per year through the year 2020. To meet that demand, we need to 
maximize the use of the more than 22 billion barrels of proven oil 
reserves the United States possesses. We also need to make oil 
extraction from mature oilfields more economical. The Senator from 
Oklahoma spoke very eloquently a few minutes ago about the oil that is 
available if we could only find an economical way to get at it.
  Of course, during the consideration of this bill, we will debate an 
amendment to allow oil exploration in ANWR. We have the technology 
today to both use our Alaskan oil and protect the region's environment. 
The potential for new job creation is great, up to 735,000 jobs in a 
variety of fields, and the added production will help strengthen our 
energy self-reliance.
  Let's turn to conservation. Conservation has proven very successful 
in reducing energy demand. By incorporating technological breakthroughs 
into the production of energy-efficient automobiles, high-efficiency 
homes, and more efficient appliances and machinery, conservation has 
succeeded in saving us tremendous amounts of money.
  I get a little concerned when I hear people say we have not done 
enough in the area of conservation.
  This chart shows that through energy conservation, we have had 
enormous savings of some $2.5 trillion from 1972 to 1991. This is 
according to a 1995 Department of Energy report, which is the most up-
to-date data we have available. One can see that we have committed this 
country to conservation, and it is making a big difference.
  Legislation that I am working on with Senator Levin would encourage 
continued fuel conservation efforts in automobiles without the 
devastating blow to our automobile manufacturing jobs that a competing 
bill would cause. Our proposal would let the technical work of 
establishing new fuel conservation standards be completed by 
researchers at the National Highway Transportation and Safety 
Administration. These new standards would be established only after 
scientific analysis of the safety, environmental, economic, and 
efficiency factors involved, which is a more responsible approach than 
picking an arbitrary number out of thin air.

  In the end, we can expect to see greater fuel efficiency without 
sacrificing safety or a devastating loss of auto worker jobs upon which 
the economies of many States depend. I can tell my colleagues that the 
economy in my State depends on it given the amount of auto 
manufacturing that goes on in Ohio.
  I have heard from the United Auto Workers and from the major 
automobile manufacturers that the language in the majority's bill could 
actually cause disruption in the economy of that industry. There is 
another way to put in place standards that will still get the job done 
in terms of conservation.
  Another avenue to focus on is renewable energy sources. We currently 
rely very little on renewable sources of energy. In fact, wind and 
solar together make up less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our current 
energy production, but they are expensive and they are heavily 
subsidized.
  Nevertheless, we need to continue to invest in these forms of energy 
because they are so environmentally friendly and they contribute to 
meeting the requirement of national self-reliance.
  On the other hand, we must also be realistic about our challenge. 
While a savings through conservation has reached more than $2.5 
trillion over 30 years, the inherent problems of renewable sources make 
it impossible for them to realize similar savings or fill the growing 
gap between demand and supply.
  In addition, because renewables make up such a small piece of our 
overall energy picture today, we do not have the capacity to meet our 
needs in the timeframe we are facing. Right now, as this chart shows, 
they will not get the job done. However, their growth will come, and 
should continue to be supported with research funding.
  The point I am making is renewables currently make up only about 8 
percent of our consumption. Even if we protect them for 20 years, they 
by themselves will not get the job done in meeting our energy needs. 
When I am talking about renewables, I am talking about solar, wind, 
hydropower, biomass, waste, and wood.
  In a recent meeting I had with General Motors in Detroit, I was told 
the company sees fuel cell technology becoming a viable source in the 
next 10 to 15 years. It is not science fiction to think that our 
children and grandchildren--it will probably be our grandchildren--will 
see a time when the roads are traveled by cars run on hydrogen and give 
off only water.
  The majority's bill mandates minimum consumption requirements for 
renewables and civil penalties if those minimums are not met. We should 
not be clubbing people for noncompliance. We should be doing everything 
we can to encourage the adoption of new energy technologies.
  Renewables and conservation need to be a bigger part of our new 
energy policy, but we must also be realistic about our challenge. These 
two strategies do not have the capacity to meet our growing energy 
needs in the timeframe we are facing. Anyone who says otherwise either 
does not know what they are talking about or they are being 
intellectually dishonest.
  Too often I hear people say: All we need to do is use more solar and 
wind power and it will take care of the problem. Here are the facts. 
Here is solar

[[Page S1552]]

and wind--less than one-tenth of one percent currently. If we project 
it, solar and wind alone will not get the job done. We are going to 
need coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and other sources of energy to 
meet the demands of the United States of America.
  Another important issue we must address is infrastructure. As we 
develop these new energy sources, we must make sure we can get them to 
where the people need them. We saw this firsthand 2 years ago when 
prices for gasoline in the Midwest spiked. The freak combination of a 
shuttered refinery and a temporarily downed pipeline created a 
bottleneck that midwesterners paid for all summer long. Low-income 
Americans were hit especially hard at the pump, and trucking companies 
and airlines took a big beating.
  That is why I introduced legislation last year to help streamline the 
permitting process for new energy facilities. I hope my legislation, S. 
1590, can be added to this bill because I think it would enhance it and 
make it better.
  The problem of distribution is especially critical to the 
northeastern States as they try to get additional natural gas supplies 
into their homes and businesses to meet a growing demand.
  I encourage my colleagues from that part of the country to take a 
close look at my provision because I think it is something they should 
get behind.
  The same technology which is helping to drive the demand for more 
energy has also equipped us with tools to provide that energy. Advanced 
slant drilling, super-efficient power plants, hyper-accurate seismic 
research, we have all of these because of our innovative high-tech 
research.
  Technology has also given us new tools to protect our environment and 
public health, and we must take full advantage of these opportunities 
because we must be good stewards of what we have been given. I reject 
the arguments from those on either side of the debate who say we have 
to choose between the environment and the economy. We now know the 
success of each is linked. As I have said before, we have to harmonize 
our energy needs and our environmental needs if we are going to have an 
energy policy. Only with a thriving economy can we fund the research 
that will find new ways to protect the environment--the cradle for 
every living thing on this planet--and the world's ecosystems cannot 
sustain us if we do not have clean air and clean water.
  A growing American economic capability is the only way we can do such 
things as fight our war on terrorism, provide a prescription drug 
benefit for seniors, save Social Security from bankruptcy, eliminate 
our national debt, and meet other financial challenges facing our 
country. We need to have a growing economy. We know the challenge. We 
must provide more energy to keep America going. We know we cannot keep 
relying on unstable foreign sources to do this. We know we have the 
resources domestically to meet our needs. We also know that doing this 
in an environmentally responsible way is critical. We know we have the 
technological know-how to meet these challenges.
  The question that remains is whether or not Congress is going to 
stand in the way of this country's future success or whether we are we 
going to be part of the solution. As we seek to provide our country the 
power to succeed, does this body have the power to resist the 
temptation of partisanship and prove wrong those who say this debate 
will not end in the successful passage of a good bill? Do we have the 
courage to work together and do something good for our country and 
leave the partisan jabs and the hollow victories on the table?
  I do not think it is going to be easy, but I think we can do that. I 
ask my colleagues to join in the constructive work of this body. Let us 
make it happen. I pray that the Holy Spirit inspires us to do it, for 
ourselves, for our children, our grandchildren and, yes, the world.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________