[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4479-S4481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter of grave 
importance to our economy and national security. The issue is energy 
policy and what it will take to put us on a path toward energy 
diversification and away from our overdependence on foreign oil.
  Tonight we will hear from the President about how he plans to lower 
gas prices. In the State of Washington we have seen a rise of almost 50 
cents a gallon in 1 year. I look forward to hearing what the President 
has to say about lowering those gas prices. I do not believe his plan 
to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will help make any 
difference in the prices in the near term.
  I will address what is a broader energy debate this Senate is about 
to start. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. It keeps our cars 
running, our companies competitive, our citizens safe, and our Nation 
secure. It is the future source of job growth for America.
  The House has passed an energy bill and the Senate will start shortly 
on its own plan. We need to tell America where we are going on this 
important journey to set about an energy policy in America that we can 
be proud of.
  We are at a critical juncture. The pain being felt at the gas pump by 
Americans is a wake-up call to all of us that we need to take action. 
Now is the moment our Nation must make a conscious choice to tackle the 
challenges ahead in a straightforward and serious manner, and get to 
the heart of what is a very enormous problem.
  What our country needs is an energy policy that bets on American 
ingenuity and investment rather than gambling our future on the good 
will of the Saudi Royal Family or the OPEC cartel. There is no doubt in 
my mind, and history shows this, when this Nation devotes its 
tremendous resources and innovative spirit to confronting a threat such 
as that posed by the high cost of energy and overdependence on foreign 
supply, we can succeed. History has shown in our country, we have made 
significant shifts in investment when our national goals were set in 
the right direction.
  Americans are familiar with the ambitious goals set by President John 
F. Kennedy when he challenged this Nation to put a man on the moon 
within a decade. But it was not just rhetoric. President Kennedy 
tripled the budget for the space program between 1961 and 1962. He also 
asked us to double the number of scientists and engineers working on 
the project over a 5-year period. President Kennedy recognized the 
importance of this investment and America won an international race to 
put a man on the moon.
  A less recounted story, but nonetheless significant to our country's 
history, was the shift in gears this country made when we embarked on 
the Manhattan Project. In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized 
$85 million for what would become the Manhattan Project. Within 2 
years, our entire national budget for atomic research grew from $6,000 
to $85 million. In the midst of World War II, the President had decided 
it was in our Nation's

[[Page S4480]]

strategic interest to make this investment. Three years later, the 
Manhattan Project ushered in the nuclear age and the United States won 
the race to become a superpower. The Manhattan Project changed the 
course of history. That $2 billion investment also has influenced 
domestic and international policy ever since that time.
  A little less dramatic but no less important for consumers and 
businesses across America, there is another example of how this country 
shifted gears and focused on investment and energy policy. In the 1970s 
we woke up to the fact that our country was defending, in support of, 
the only democracy in the Middle East. As a result, we ended up with an 
OPEC oil embargo. Our economy was stalled and we waited in long gas 
lines to fill up our tanks.
  What did Congress do during that crisis? Among many things, we passed 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 which made our cars more 
efficient. In 1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act 
which led to diversifying our source of electricity generation by 
lowering the barriers for new generation of cleaner and more efficient 
power.
  In the mid-1970s, oil was used to generate electricity for homes and 
fuel for our economy; we got 20 percent of our Nation's electricity 
from oil. But because of our actions during the 1970s, being 
aggressive, today oil is only 2 percent of our electricity portfolio. 
During this time, consumers also began making choices to switch from 
home heating oil to other sources. In fact, since that time period, the 
number of homes that use home heating oil has dropped about 35 percent.
  So we have seen in our history that we can take aggressive steps and 
shift our investments toward a new strategy. Certainly that is what we 
need to do now to get this country moving toward a more independent 
energy future. In other words, we showed the leadership that is lacking 
today in making the right investments.
  We are in an international race because of the economics of oil and 
where our oil dependence is leading us. First, even if every last 
deposit geologically present in the United States was tapped, the fact 
remains that the United States sits on 3 percent of the world's oil 
reserves. Today, the United States imports about 60 percent of its oil 
supply. Dependence on oil means dependence on foreign sources of oil. 
It is a geological and economic fact of life: We cannot drill our way 
to energy independence.
  Where are the prices today? According to DOE's Energy Information 
Administration, gas prices for this week have reached a national 
average of $2.24. As I said, in my home State, that is a little higher 
at $2.48. What we understand is that gas prices for the future are also 
going to be high if we stay this course. The gas prices that have 
hovered about $50 a barrel for this year are up from about $30 a barrel 
in 2004. I don't know if any of my colleagues remember the 1990s, when 
oil was $15 a barrel.
  The real concern is, what is the economic outlook for oil prices in 
the future? The World Economic Outlook Report issued earlier this month 
by the International Monetary Fund will have all my colleagues' 
attention. That is because it is projected that oil could spike to $100 
a barrel between now and 2030.

  These prices are driven in part by a tripling of demand by China. As 
the Chinese and Indian economies grow, so will their dependence on 
petroleum. And rising incomes in China mean they will own more 
automobiles. According to that same report of the International 
Monetary Fund, China will be consuming 19 million barrels of oil a day 
in 2030, more than triple the amount it used last year, and almost as 
much as the United States uses today.
  We know demand for oil is going to increase, and we know the cost is 
going to go up. In fact, a Wall Street firm, Goldman Sachs, predicted 
the price of oil could reach $105 a barrel in the next few years and 
that the energy markets could be in the early stages of a superspike 
period, where we could see prices fluctuate as we did in the 1970s, 
when at times they quadrupled. So this is a very important issue, 
something this body needs to address, not with a Band-Aid, but with a 
long-term solution that will put our country on the right track.
  If we do not think this is impacting other parts of our economy, 
particularly on the trade front, the Department of Commerce recently, 
in its monthly report, said the U.S. trade deficit in February worsened 
to $61 billion, in part because of the surging oil prices. So it is 
impacting our economy all around. But so long as this Nation fails to 
make progress on an energy policy that acknowledges the reality of 
geology and the international marketplace, we are jeopardizing our 
economic future.
  I cannot say I agree with the President's energy proposal and policy 
goals. But I know he has said he knows this becomes a ``foreign tax on 
the American dream.'' I do agree with that. The American people want to 
see a different policy. They have not given the President high marks on 
his energy proposal.
  In an AP poll taken last week, more than 50 percent of people said if 
gas prices stay as high as they are in the next several months, it will 
cause financial hardship for them. It is already causing financial 
hardship in many parts of my State. In fact, 57 percent of people in 
the same report said they have already cut back on other expenses to 
cope with rising gas prices.
  Here is a telling figure: Sixty-two percent of the people say they 
disapprove of the handling of our nation's energy policy. I believe 
they mean they want to see a different approach. Mr. President, 87 
percent of the American people say that conservation, fuel efficiency, 
and alternative energy sources are the best way to reduce America's 
overdependence on foreign oil. We need to listen to them and get an 
energy policy that reflects that reality.
  The American people know it is time to get serious. They know some of 
the ideas we talk about here are the alternatives to our overdependence 
on oil--investment in wind power, wave power, solar power, and the 
ingenuity of American brainpower. Those ideas need to have their day in 
the Senate, where we can talk about the issues of alternative energy 
and modernizing our transmission grid.
  Well, I can tell you this, we are going to have some challenging 
times agreeing to some of the proposals that are being passed over by 
the House of Representatives as they discuss an energy policy. Here in 
the Senate, I am encouraged that the chairman of the Senate Energy 
Committee, Senator Domenici, is actually reaching out to Members and 
trying to discuss the formation of what will be a productive energy 
debate and discussion, and a bipartisan effort that will merge these 
ideas about where we need to go for the future into a bill. So I 
appreciate the chairman's efforts, as he has discussed with Members of 
both the majority party and minority party some of the ideas the Senate 
should be considering in an energy strategy.
  But if we are going to make dramatic progress, we need to make sure 
the President of the United States, who is endorsing the House proposal 
in his administrative statement of support, understands that proposal 
is a nonstarter. The American people want to see a real plan of 
diversification, insofar as they think the House proposal has fallen 
short. In fact, even the President's own economic advisers in the 
Energy Information Administration have concluded the House Republican 
energy plan will have a ``negligible'' impact on energy supply, energy 
prices, production, and imports--``negligible.'' In fact, the same 
economists concluded their proposal will have a 0.1 percent--that is 
less than 1 percent--impact on oil consumption by 2025.
  So, in other words, the House energy plan, which the President is 
endorsing, is like treading water. It is like standing still, while our 
economy cannot stay afloat on these high gasoline prices, and while our 
businesses and consumers continue to be gouged.
  Details of what is wrong with the President's plan ought to be front 
and center as we discuss our Senate proposal so as not to make the same 
mistakes and so we can move forward.
  Because clearly, there is something wrong when we look at the 
priorities of the legislation the President has endorsed. For example, 
this proposal continues to provide subsidies in the wrong direction. 
Last year, this body rejected a proposal that would have given 60 
percent of the tax incentives to the traditional industries; that is,

[[Page S4481]]

oil and gas. You would think turning that proposal down might have sent 
a message. But, instead, our colleagues in the other body now give 90 
percent of the tax incentives to the same traditional industries and 
devote only 6 percent to new technologies.
  If the President is serious about getting a proposal before August, 
he should start by making clear his opposition to a waiver, letting oil 
companies off the hook for groundwater-polluting chemicals such as 
MTBE. I do not believe granting immunity to polluters for groundwater 
cleanup costs and saying States should pay for it has a single thing to 
do with getting an energy policy that will put America on the right 
track.

  Americans want to know our energy policy is about the common 
interest, not special interest. They want to know we are going to get a 
bill that helps us diversify off of our foreign sources of energy.
  There are many other things the President's plan endorses that I 
think are dead wrong, and we are going to have plenty of time to talk 
about them. But I would mention them briefly.
  For example, this current proposal fails to recognize how our country 
has been gouged by high energy costs from companies such as Enron. It 
does nothing to hold the line against what I call the latter-day Ken 
Lays, and would leave future Enrons with the opportunity to steal from 
consumers. What we need is a tough bill in relation to market 
manipulation that includes making sure utilities that continue to be 
sued by Enron are not the deep pockets for their extreme market 
manipulation and trading practices that the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission has failed to adequately deal with.
  The President's endorsed energy plan also rolls back dozens of 
environmental rules and laws that were put in place to protect 
Americans' public health and safety. Many of them were put in by 
previous Republican administrations. So we are going to have lots of 
time to discuss this energy plan and proposal when we return and the 
Senate Energy Committee starts discussing this proposal. But because 
gas prices are still high, and because we still need to address where 
we are going as a country, I want to make sure this Senator stands firm 
on the fact that we cannot continue to tread water or stay in the same 
place. We need to take the same aggressive actions previous 
administrations did, as we changed our investment strategy, as we put 
the Nation on call for an emergent need, and moved forward on a policy.
  That is what I call progress. The Europeans already understand this. 
That is why they are making a significant investment in renewable 
energy technology. The Japanese understand this. That is why their 
automakers are making big investments and cornering the market on fuel 
efficiency technologies and vehicles. And even China understands this 
because they have put in place higher fuel efficiency standards than in 
the United States. What we need to do is recognize the energy future by 
planning for it, not with half-baked policies that dither around the 
margins of the problem but with real leadership on an energy economy of 
the future.
  I hope that tonight the President will address the American people 
and tell us what his real plan is to lower gas prices in the future, to 
give America an independence from our overdependence on foreign oil. I 
hope he will give this country the kind of boost that previous 
administrations have, by leading the way with new technology 
investments and a vision of the future that will give our country the 
national and economic security it deserves. I think he will find that 
there are many Americans waiting to hear that plan--there are farmers, 
environmentalists, businesspeople, certainly a number of us in the 
Senate and, I would say to the President, even some of the neocons of 
previous administrations who are ready to hear an energy strategy that 
gets us off of our overdependence on foreign oil. I look forward to 
those comments.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________