[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6688-H6690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ENERGY AND THE POTENTIAL FOR WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

[[Page H6689]]

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House this 
evening, as we have had speakers here earlier, focusing on issues of 
energy and the potential for war in the Middle East.
  I think it is appropriate that these two issues are in fact before 
us, because oil and the Middle East are linked in the minds of the 
public; and, in fact, I think any credible observer would agree that in 
fact they are linked in fact.
  Tonight, as one reflects on the status of the potential growing cloud 
of war in the Middle East as we are dealing in this country with issues 
that relate as we speak now, there is a conference that has been 
meeting in terms of the energy policy. I think it is appropriate for us 
to step back and reflect on the status of what this Congress has done 
in the course of the last year to deal meaningfully with energy policy.
  It is something that in and of itself is important for us to focus 
on, but it would seem that in the aftermath of the horrible attacks of 
September 11 of last year, the rising tensions in the Middle East, the 
pressures that took place as we moved into Afghanistan, what we have 
seen in terms of the potential problems with oil that is concentrated 
in terms of the 50 percent or more that comes to the United States from 
foreign sources, that there would be a sense of urgency about that 
discussion.
  Americans want and deserve a national energy policy that ensures 
safe, affordable and clean energy. One must only be disappointed by the 
lack of leadership and urgency that we have seen with the 
administration, and, sad to say, here in Congress, to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, to say nothing about reducing the impact of 
the pollution that is associated with that dependence.
  We have now been working on an energy bill for almost 2 years; and 
the plan that has come forward from the House does not even employ 
simple steps to reduce the demand for oil that years of study have 
demonstrated beyond question are necessary and in fact will work.
  Sadly, this is in the midst of the economic challenges that we face 
as we have seen the promise of fiscal stability go out the window. In 
my State of Oregon we have consistently in the course of over the last 
year and a half had among the highest unemployment rates in the 
country.
  It was less than a year and a half ago when we heard from the 
President that we could in fact embark upon a massive tax cut because 
we were going to have over $5 trillion in surplus; and, in fact, it was 
alleged that one of the real problems we were facing as a Nation was 
the possibility that we would be paying off the national debt so 
rapidly that we would not have safe investment instruments.
  Well, we have dodged that bullet. We have not just a tight budget, 
but we have deficits now for as long as the eye can see. We are going 
to be borrowing between 100 billion and $200 billion of Social Security 
trust funds. One only hears faintly the echo of the lockbox that people 
were going to set aside these monies, and we are looking at a 
significant long-term structural deficit.

                              {time}  2045

  But in the context of that, we have the conferees looking at an 
energy bill that would give away billions of dollars in new subsidies 
and tax breaks for fossil fuel, for the automobile industry, for the 
nuclear industry while sadly shortchanging clean, sustainable energy 
sources.
  Having a dependable supply of energy and using it wisely is critical 
for Americans to be able to have livable communities. However, in 
response to the terrorist attacks and the call for more stable and 
predictable energy supply, we should not increase our dependence on 
fossil fuels in the way that we have for a century. The question is not 
whether we should reduce our dependence on oil, but whether we have the 
will; not whether we will reduce dependence on fossil fuel, but how and 
when we are going to achieve it. What is our strategy?
  With the United States holding some 3 percent of the world's oil 
reserves, yet consuming over 25 percent of the fossil fuels, we will 
never drill our way out of reliance on the unsustainable sources of 
oil. But aside for a moment that the vast majority of the oil that we 
rely upon is concentrated in a handful of countries in an area that has 
never been particularly stable, but has been growing increasingly 
unstable over time, much of the recoverable oil in the United States, 
the 2 or 3 percent, is environmentally and politically difficult to 
access.
  Now, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle in the 
Republican Party and, of course, the White House believe that drilling 
for oil in the Arctic Wildlife refuge is an important part of the 
solution. Well, the fact is that even if we were to disregard the 
serious questions and problems associated with it, the reserves that we 
can recover in the Arctic are likely to provide only a few months 
energy supply for the United States, some have suggested 6 months or 
less, and it is not going to be available to us for the better part of 
a decade.
  If we, in fact, are concerned about energy security, if we are 
concerned about potential terrorist threats, putting our reliance on 
the 800-mile Alaskan pipeline seems to be a rather slender thread to 
rely upon. Recall that it was just a year ago when we had a drunk with 
a hunting rifle shoot up the pipeline, spilling almost 300,000 gallons 
of oil before the problem could be solved, and that was in the early 
fall.
  Consider what would have happened if this drunk had assaulted the 
pipeline later in the year, in the winter. Interrupting the flow of oil 
would have caused the entire pipeline to be subject to freezing up, and 
we would have an 800 mile long piece of Chapstick, hardly a safe and 
secure method of assuring oil supply to the lower 48 States. If a drunk 
with a hunting rifle can disrupt the flow, think what would happen 
along 800 miles if a few determined terrorists decided to inflict 
damage on it. Not something that we are going to rely upon.
  The notion that this is, in fact, part of a comprehensive energy 
solution that is going to be an important part of solving our problem 
is, at best, disingenuous for the American public as it is damaging to 
the environment. The public has made clear its opposition to drilling 
in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
  Now, where would the administration take us next? According to the 
petroleum industry, western Federal lands hold 95 percent of untapped 
United States oil and 40 percent of untapped natural gas. In the last 
year, 2001, the administration approved 3,800 permits for companies to 
drill for oil and gas, the most in one year since 1988. Reflecting for 
a moment that it has taken eons for the radiant energy from the sun to 
convert by natural process to fossil fuels, in the course of a few 
generations we will have used up nearly all of the Earth's entire 
supply of accessible petroleum.
  The question is increasingly not just how much oil is left in the 
ground, but how long can we go on increasing the rate at which cheap 
oil is extracted. I think it is clear that there is a finite duration; 
it is just a matter of time when that curve is crossed and when the 
cheap oil is reduced, starts to go away that we change the economics of 
the petroleum industry. One hopes that we can convince our friends in 
the administration and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
join the American public in realizing that we do have the technology to 
meet more of our energy needs through alternatives. Through energy 
conservation we have not, by any stretch of the imagination, exhausted 
the potential of energy savings through conservation, through increased 
full efficiency. Remember that a 3-mile per gallon increase in fuel 
efficiency for SUVs would offset the entire amount of oil that we 
expect to extract some day from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, if we 
change our policy.
  It is an opportunity for us to think about new creative ways to 
accelerate that progress. In one hour, there is more energy that the 
Earth receives from the sun, through the solar process, than is the 
entire year's output in fossil fuels. Energy and fuel efficiency is the 
quickest, cheapest, cleanest way to save not just energy. Most people 
will recover in a relatively short period of time over the course of 
the life of a vehicle the savings for any increase in the price of that 
vehicle. If they are going to have to have a more expensive SUV, if the 
people are not going to cut down on the power at all, they will end up 
in being able to recover those costs

[[Page H6690]]

through savings that they will achieve in terms of reduced expenditure 
that they have. Passenger cars, for example, use more than 40 percent 
of the oil consumed in America. The average American driver spends 443 
hours driving every single year. In fact, America's cars, light trucks, 
consume one-tenth of the annual global oil production.
  Mr. Speaker, we have resources available to us to, in fact, make a 
difference in energy efficiency, and it is something that we want to 
focus on with this Congress, not allow this time to get away from us, 
use the opportunity of the energy conference bill and each opportunity 
that comes before us from now until we adjourn to be able to advance 
the cause of America's energy security.
  I note, Mr. Speaker, that I have been joined by the gentlewoman from 
southern California (Ms. Sanchez), my colleague, with whom I have been 
pleased to work on a variety of issues that speak to the environment, 
to transportation. She has a wide variety of interests that range from 
the environment to national security. I am honored that she would join 
us this evening. I yield to the gentlewoman should she have some 
comments that she would wish to share.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon, and I 
thank him for coming down to the House floor tonight to speak about 
such an important issue. With everything going on right now, with our 
Nation assessing whether to go to war in the Middle East and the state 
of our economy being so shaky, we in Congress need to make sure that we 
are asking the right questions.
  For instance, we are here tonight to talk about how are we going to 
achieve a realistic solution to U.S. foreign oil dependence?
  Now, it is not like this is a new question. I remember back in 1973, 
1974, I am a Californian. We use a lot of oil, we drive a lot of cars, 
we go a lot of places, we drive long distances. I remember standing in 
lines and waiting in 100-car lines the last time we had a problem with 
OPEC and prices going up, and we all swore that we would do something 
about this and that we should not be so dependent on cars that use so 
much gas. For a while we remembered that and we started to work on and 
import and get more gas mileage for our cars. But then what happened? 
The SUV situation, and now we find that we are back up to those gas 
guzzlers, once again.
  So we have to say to ourselves, this is an opportune time when we can 
make some real policy decisions and put into play some very important 
solutions, possible solutions. People ask me all the time, well, what 
answer do you have, Loretta, to importing oil from Iraq or from the 
Middle East or the OPEC countries? There are a lot of ways, and it does 
not just have to be that we have to go off to the Arctic circle and 
drill the last plain that we have that is not touched by humans. There 
are other ways to do this.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. I am from southern California. 
We had an energy crisis about a couple of summers ago, about 18 months 
ago, blackouts in our production, our factories were being affected 
because we were not getting the electricity we needed; we had natural 
gas prices go high on us. Now, we now know that much of that was 
artificially created. But for the moment, while we were in the middle 
of all of that, we were asking ourselves, how are we going to solve 
this problem?
  Well, the first thing is consumption. Why is it that we consume the 
way we do? And we offered incentives at the State level. As it is, I 
come from a large family. My dad always taught us to turn off the 
lights as we left the room and turn everything off, so I grew up that 
way, so our energy bill was low. But the Governor told us, if you 
conserve 20 percent more than what you normally use, you will get an 
incredible savings on your electricity bill. Let me tell my colleague, 
people rose to the occasion in California. We saw an incredible drop in 
the consumption of electricity. We learned that once again, things that 
we know, but we do not think about, that we should run our machines, 
our washers and dryers and dishwashers and stuff at night, rather than 
during the day when the regular business shift is using that power.

                              {time}  2100

  So that we do not have to create more power plants, nor nuclear power 
plants, divert more rivers, create more energy. We can actually use 
what we already have, as long as we use it efficiently.
  California proved that we could do it. It was not a hardship. We were 
not killing ourselves to get that done. We understood that it was the 
right thing to do for the moment, and we could continue, and many 
people have. Many people have learned to live with less, if you will. 
We can do that in so many ways.
  Why is it that every time that we set standards at the Federal level 
to require automobiles to get higher gas mileage, and we say it is 
going to be 7 years off, the companies need to work towards this, why 
is it that we reach the 7 years, and all of a sudden we need to change 
the law because nobody invested in that, nobody really did it? We could 
have done it. If they knew we were going to stick to our guns, they 
would do that; they would increase the efficiency of our automobiles.
  Or we could just remember to put all our shopping trips in one haul. 
There are so many things that we could do; for instance, offering 
incentives. Do not punish people, but offer people, companies, 
incentives for new technologies, to invest more in new technologies for 
wind and solar and fuel cells. I will bet if we did that and we were 
real about it, if we put the money behind that, that we would find 
companies that would be willing to step up and use that and do it and 
find the solutions so that we would not be so dependent on foreign oil 
supplies, or even on the need to drill our own supplies that we know 
exist in some of the States that we have.
  We have to build better vehicles. We have to light and heat our 
buildings more efficiently. I know that by doing that we could lower 
our dependence on fossil fuel oil, which is the real problem that 
exists here.
  We have said for years that we are going to do it, but we have never 
stood behind that. We have never, as a Federal Government, as a policy 
of the people, said: be more efficient. Let us strengthen energy 
efficiency standards. Let us create incentives for a new generation of 
vehicles. Let us raise the fuel economy standards; and let us adopt a 
strong, renewable portfolio standard. If we do this, we will not be 
dependent on the Iraqs of the world.
  I thank my colleague for bringing this to light. We need to discuss 
this more. We need to get the American people involved in deciding that 
they are part of the solution towards this dependence that we have on 
foreign countries because of the oil that they possess.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments 
and her leadership.
  I will always remember the visit we took last year with some of our 
colleagues to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where we were 
camping on a plain amidst the caribou; where we had a chance to really 
sense the vastness of that area, to get a feel for what was at stake as 
we looked at other areas that had been developed and were continuing to 
be developed for oil production.
  It was clear that this was one of America's jewels, and I have 
appreciated the gentlewoman's commitment in terms of going up there to 
see it firsthand and the gentlewoman's continued advocacy for a more 
rational and thoughtful energy policy.
  Hopefully, working together, we can advance these causes here in 
Congress that will make a difference for America's energy security.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just want to add, 
it is very important that we save that last frontier. I would like my 
nieces and nephews to be able to see a part of the North American 
continent that is the same as it was 100, 200, 600, 1,000 years ago. 
They deserve a chance to see a plain that is open, that is in its 
austere and pristine condition. That is a legacy that I think is 
important for us to protect, especially when we can do it through 
better efficiency and tightening down and understanding that we are 
part of our own problem.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman said it well, 
and I thank her for her participation.




                          ____________________