[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 22 (Thursday, February 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2035-S2037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, midday today President Bush is going to 
give a speech here in Washington, DC, on the subject of the development 
of fuel cell vehicles and moving to a hydrogen economy.
  I was glad to hear the President express support for the concept of 
hydrogen and fuel cells in his State of the Union Address. After his 
speech, I gave him credit for discussing that with the American people.
  Since last year, I have made a number of presentations on the Senate 
floor about fuel cells. Today, I would like to share with my colleagues 
my thoughts about the development of a hydrogen economy and the use of 
fuel cells in our future.
  I have told all my colleagues previously that my first vehicle when I 
was a kid was an antique car I purchased for $25. It was a 1924 Model T 
Ford. I am sure people are tired of hearing me talk about it. I was 16 
years old, and I was the owner of an antique 1924 Model T Ford. I 
restored it. It took me a year and a half to 2 years to do that. I 
lovingly restored this old Model T. Then I sold it. I discovered, later 
in high school, that I wanted to date, and a Model T was not exactly a 
modern way to date.
  The point of the story is, when I was a kid I put gasoline in a Model 
T Ford--a 1924 Model T Ford--the same way you put gasoline in a 2003 
Ford. Nothing has changed in three-quarters of a century. You pull up 
to a pump. You pull the hose and put the nozzle in the tank and pump 
gas. The core technology has not changed.
  Over the years, however, our dependence on a foreign source of that 
petroleum has worsened, and become very dangerous for our economy.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State made a presentation at the United 
Nations about the country of Iraq. Frankly, Iraq produces a lot of oil. 
So do other countries in that region.
  It is a very troubled region. Yet our economy is dependent on foreign 
sources of energy, much of it from that region. Is that something that 
makes sense for us, for the American economy, for the American people? 
The answer is no.
  By talking about a technological change to a hydrogen economy and to 
the use of fuel cells, I am not suggesting we should not and will not 
mine for coal, drill for oil and natural gas. I believe we will 
continue to use fossil fuel in our economy for a long while. And I 
believe we need to do that.
  But we also need to understand that it is time to change. After a 
century of running gasoline through the carburetors of our vehicles, it 
is time for our country to think in different ways, about how can 
technology change our energy future. I would like to talk a bit about 
that.
  Again, let me say that I credit the President for talking about it in 
his State of the Union Address. I think this is a step forward on the 
part of the administration--a baby step to be sure--but an important 
step.
  Mr. President, $1.2 billion is what the President announced last week 
and is talking about today. That is not all new money. In fact, the 
majority of it is not new money. So it is a timid, small step forward, 
but, nonetheless, a step in the right direction, for which I give this 
President credit.
  Let me talk a bit about why we need to take strong action. I have in 
the Chamber a chart that shows oil consumption--in millions of barrels 
per day. This shows total demand, and you see the line going up, up, 
up, and up. It also shows transportation demand, and that growth in 
transportation demand is the bulk of the growth in energy needs and 
energy usage in our country.
  As you can see from the chart, shown here is domestic production. 
Domestic production does not come close to meeting the demand that 
exists in our country. So what do we do to meet the difference? What we 
do is we import oil from other parts of the world.
  The issue of energy security is a significant issue for all of us. 
The White House issued a press release on that subject in connection 
with its hydrogen proposal, noting the gap between our projected demand 
for oil and our domestic supply. And that gap is going to increase, not 
decrease--even if we would drill in ANWR, which I do not think this 
Congress will decide to do.
  This is what the White House had to say in proposing development of 
fuel cells:

       America's energy security is threatened by our dependence 
     on foreign oil.

  Absolutely. There is no question about that.

       America imports 55 percent of the oil it consumes; that is 
     expected to grow to 68 percent by the year 2025. Nearly all 
     of our cars and trucks run on gasoline. They are the main 
     reason America imports so much oil. Two-thirds of the 20 
     million barrels of oil Americans use each day is used for 
     transportation.

  The President went on to say:

       Fuel cell vehicles offer the best hope of dramatically 
     reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

  If tonight, God forbid, a network of terrorists interrupted the 
supply of imported oil to this country, tomorrow morning this economy 
would be in desperate, desperate trouble. That is the jeopardy we have 
in this country with our dependence--overdependence--on foreign sources 
of energy.
  Let me describe where this dependence resides. And one can make one's 
own judgment about the stability of it all.
  Our top supplier of oil is Saudi Arabia. That is not exactly 
describing a region of stability. Saudi Arabia is our top supplier. And 
then you have Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Norway, 
Colombia. Mr. President, 3.4 million barrels are imported into this 
country from these countries. And you understand--everyone 
understands--that Venezuela is in trouble. There is enormous turmoil in 
the country of Venezuela. Saudi Arabia, Iraq--these are areas of the 
world where there is not great stability.
  It makes no sense to continue along, merrily whistling our way into 
the future, believing that our country will be just fine even as our 
economy is so dependent on sources of oil from outside our borders.
  One-third of our oil comes from the Middle East. Iraq is the sixth 
largest supplier of oil; Venezuela is the fourth; Angola and Colombia, 
the seventh and ninth--both countries are also plagued with 
difficulties.
  Hydrogen fuels offer a way out. The supply of hydrogen is 
inexhaustible. It is everywhere. It is in water. The issue of hydrogen 
fuels is an interesting one. The notion of using hydrogen and the 
development of fuel cells is not new. In fact, a man named William 
Robert Grove was one of those larger-than-life characters who in the 
19th century could do almost anything. He studied law at Oxford, became 
a barrister and a judge. In his spare time, he was also a professor of 
physics. He ran into a patch of ill health and had his legal career 
interrupted, so he turned to science to occupy his time, and he 
developed what he called a gas voltaic battery, the forerunner of 
modern fuel cells.
  He based his experiment on the notion that sending an electric 
current through water splits water into oxygen and hydrogen. He figured 
if you could reverse the reaction, combining hydrogen and oxygen, you 
can produce electricity and water. In effect, he burned the hydrogen to 
produce electricity.
  Hydrogen can be derived from all sorts of energy sources. You take 
the hydrogen from water and use it to move through a fuel cell and use 
it to power an automobile and out the back tailpipe, you get water 
vapor. What a wonderful thing.
  This is a picture of a Daimler-Chrysler fuel cell vehicle that in 
June of last year went from San Francisco to Washington, DC. This 
technology exists. It is being perfected.
  The next chart shows a Ford fuel cell vehicle ready for production, a 
prototype, in autumn 2002. This is not a futuristic technology; there 
are fuel cell cars on the road today. I have driven a fuel cell car out 
in front of the Capitol Building, a car that is run by batteries 
powered by a fuel cell, that is using hydrogen as a fuel source.
  The challenge is to make this technology cost effective. I have been 
meeting with the CEOs and representatives of companies, Shell Hydrogen,

[[Page S2036]]

Methenex, UTC Fuel Cells, Union of Concerned Scientists, Siemens 
Westinghouse, just to name a few, to get their ideas. A broad coalition 
of interests is coming together because they recognize the promise of a 
hydrogen technology, going to a hydrogen economy using fuel cells in 
our future.
  I mentioned a Ford Focus fuel cell car. Here is a picture of Ford 
Focus fuel cell car that is being filled at a hydrogen fuel station. If 
we were to convert the automobile fleet to fuel cells, what would we 
have to do? We would have to build vehicles with fuel cells. We would 
have to find a reliable supply of hydrogen, determine how we will get 
the hydrogen, and then we have to have the infrastructure, fueling 
infrastructure and stations and technology to make this a commercial 
reality. That is one of the issues we have to deal with.
  Fuel cell cars don't have to be limited in size to a Ford Focus. For 
example, Nissan has another fuel cell prototype car--we are seeing more 
and more companies involved in this--the Nissan Xterra, fueled by 
compressed hydrogen, tested on California roads in the year 2000.
  General Motors now has an innovative prototype called the Hy-wire. 
This particular car has a detachable exterior so you can buy multiple 
exteriors with one chassis so you can switch between an SUV or sedan. 
It has no steering wheel or pedal. It is operated with a joystick. This 
is a fuel-cell-powered vehicle.
  To make this vision a reality, the private sector is going to need 
public investment. You might ask, why is that the case? Virtually all 
of the new technologies, the pole vaulting to new technologies, 
requires Federal involvement, requires governmental involvement. People 
these days forget, when they go on their computers and on to the 
Internet, they don't remember that the Internet exists because the 
Government developed a project to create the Internet. Otherwise, the 
Internet would not exist. That was a government creation that then 
became privatized, democratized, and is now a ubiquitous presence all 
around the world.

  If we are going to change the basic construct of our vehicle fleet--
and yes, stationary engines and other approaches to the use of power as 
well--but especially with respect to vehicles, because of what I 
described with the increased use of oil in our transportation fleet, 
the only way that will happen is if we do what we have done in other 
major technological challenges: We need to think big. We need to be 
bold.
  When we decided we were going to explore space, President John F. 
Kennedy said, we will put a man on the Moon, and he set a time 
deadline. America is going to put a man on the Moon.
  We need an Apollo-type project with respect to the development of a 
hydrogen-based economy and the use of fuel cells, especially in our 
transportation fleet.
  We need an Apollo-type project--not timid, not baby steps, bold, big 
steps--that says: Here is our goal. Here is what our country intends to 
do, and here is how.
  The President has proposed $1.2 billion over 5 years for this fuel 
cell initiative. About $700 million at most is new spending. And his 
proposal has substantial redirection of funds from a range of other 
technologies we also need to be developing: solar energy, wind energy, 
biomass, and the other renewable and limitless sources of energy that 
exist. We need to continue to fund the research that is so important on 
those limitless sources.
  This initiative--one the President supports, one I credit him for 
supporting--in my judgment deserves a strong financial commitment and 
aggressive and strong goals to be set. It should not come at the 
expense of research into other renewable sources of energy.
  The Europeans are investing big in hydrogen. As discussed in a New 
York Times article in October, the European Commission has committed $2 
billion over 5 years. They want to have a hydrogen economy. The 
Japanese are betting big on hydrogen, as discussed in a Business Week 
article. The Business Week article says that:

       Tokyo's fuel cell initiative has all the hallmarks of a 
     farsighted strategy and calls to mind Tokyo's blossoming 
     success in hybrids. Americans are snapping up these fuel-
     efficient, environmentally friendly cars. Fuel cells could 
     turn out to be a bigger, more important chapter in the same 
     book.

  I propose legislation that is bold. It is an Apollo-type project that 
says: Let's set bold goals, $6.5 billion in a 10-year program for 
hydrogen fuel cell research, development, and infrastructure. I have 
been working with a number of industry leaders in natural gas, oil, 
energy, methanol renewables, and fuel cell industries. Interestingly 
enough, the very companies that are now involved in the development of 
oil and natural gas and electricity are the companies that are going to 
be involved in this technology. They are the ones on the leading edge, 
involved in cutting-edge technology with respect to a hydrogen economy.
  This initiative will not displace current energy firms. They will be 
very actively involved in the creation and development of this new 
future.
  What I propose is a substantial boost over what the President is 
proposing to date, saying it is the right direction, but it is many 
steps short. Let's do this and do it boldly. We need to fund 
infrastructure, fund research, and set goals. R&D funding, pilot 
projects, yes, tax incentives for consumers who buy fuel cell vehicles, 
all of that is necessary. But it needs to be broad, bold, new money, 
not reprogrammed money, something that catches the imagination of the 
American people that we can make a change and decide our country will 
not be held hostage by oil coming from unstable regions of the world.
  Is $6.5 billion a significant investment? Absolutely. But over 10 
years, my plan would cost an amount equal to less than 1 percent of the 
President's proposed $675 billion tax cut.
  Now, in our debate over energy, there will be discussion about where 
we should drill for oil. As I said before, my State produces oil, coal, 
and natural gas. I believe we are going to continue to do that, and we 
should. But if our strategy in energy is only to dig and drill, then 
our strategy should be called ``yesterday forever.'' And that is not 
going to solve the problem of dependence on foreign oil.
  In 2000, the president of Shell Oil attended the World Petroleum 
Congress, and this is what he said:

       If the world thinks that carbon dioxide emissions should be 
     reduced, I see this as an opportunity. The stone age didn't 
     end because they ran out of stones, but as a result of 
     competition from the bronze tools which better meet people's 
     needs. I feel there is something in the air. People are ready 
     to say this is something we should do.

  You know, that is what our charge is at this point--to think ahead. 
We should not develop a policy and debate a policy that is simply 
``yesterday forever,'' and not to ignore the needs of those that 
produce coal, natural gas, and oil. We need to work with industry 
leaders to make them part of the solution, part of the answer, part of 
the cutting-edge change that will lead us to a hydrogen-based economy, 
with fuel cells powering not only stationary engines, but especially 
that part of our energy usage that is growing so rapidly, 
transportation.
  I started by talking about my old Model T that I bought as a young 
boy. I am hoping that in years to come, someone walking into a showroom 
to buy a new car will be able to buy a really ``new'' vehicle, powered 
by fuel cells, a vehicle that is part of a new hydrogen-based economy, 
one that can move this country into the future, strengthen its economy, 
and rescue us from dependence on a supply of oil from such enormously 
troubled parts of our world.
  Will Rogers used to say:

       When there is no place left to spit, you either have to 
     swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times.

  On energy, there is ``no place left to spit,'' in the vernacular. We 
have to change. We need to move beyond the same tired debate of where 
are we going to dig and drill. Let's work with those that produce 
fossil fuels and say you are valuable to this country and to our 
economy and will always be. Let's work with them to say you will also 
be the pioneers in the development of a hydrogen economy, developing 
fuel cells for our future. We can do that. This President says, let's 
move in that direction. I say, absolutely, good for you. But I say 
let's do more than just move. Let's be bold, establish a national goal, 
and make this happen.

[[Page S2037]]



                          ____________________