[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6642-S6643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Kansas waiting 
patiently. I do not want him to sit here and miss the picnic. I will 
just speak for a few minutes more.
  The point I was trying to make when I yielded to the majority leader 
is there is dramatic growth in the Chinese economy, and with that 
growth, there will be an increase in their demand for oil. They will be 
competing with the United States around the world.
  We will find the old laws of supply and demand will not work. 
Increased demand without increasing supply means higher prices. So we 
will be in competition for this foreign oil, paying more for it, 
watching our economy strangled by this dependence on foreign oil.
  Obviously, there are some who say that is fine, that is the way life 
is, get ready for it. We do not see it that way. On the Democratic side 
of the aisle, the Cantwell amendment sets a goal of reducing this 
dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent over the next 20 years. It is 
an achievable goal. People who follow this closely will tell you there 
are variety of ways to achieve it. The measures that can be used, short 
of changing CAFE standards, which I support personally--but if you do 
not want to change CAFE standards, there is market growth in hybrid 
vehicles, industrial, residential, and aviation efficiency, heavy-duty 
truck efficiency gains, replacement tires--that sounds like a small 
thing but it turns out to be a large element in increasing fuel 
efficiency--transportation choices, such as mass transit and growth in 
biofuels.
  All of these are here. The National Commission on Energy Policy has 
come up with these recommendations and have given us things we can 
point to, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  Some on the other side of the aisle just do not want to concede this 
point. They are obviously prepared to accept this indefinitely, that 
our dependence on foreign oil will grow. But how can that make us 
stronger as a Nation, how can that make us more secure? It moves us in 
the wrong direction.
  There may be some who profit from our dependence on foreign oil, but 
it is not the American economy, and it is certainly not the American 
taxpayers, nor the sons and daughters who are serving overseas 
defending America's interests.
  Furthermore, unstable governments, in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia also 
threaten U.S. supply.
  Finally, I would like to note that the money that we spend annually 
in the Middle East to feed our oil thirst, goes directly to the 
production of hate literature throughout the region. So today, while 
American men and women are fighting in Iraq, the U.S. continues to send 
billions of dollars overseas that are funneled off to support 
operations that completely undermine our service people's efforts 
there.
  In the past few years we have witnessed China's surging economic 
growth. China's real gross domestic product is growing at a rate of 7 
percent a year. In the U.S. News and World Report this week, the cover 
story is, ``The China Challenge, What the awakening giant will mean for 
America.''
  China is the world's most populated country with 1.2 billion people.
  In 2003, China overtook Japan as the second largest oil consuming 
nation in the world and projections are that Chinese demand for oil 
will double by 2025, nearly meeting current U.S. imports. The US News 
reports notes that China's economy is expected to surpass Japan's by 
2020, making it the second largest in the world.
  Recent data indicates that the number of automobiles in China has 
grown 19 percent annually, surpassing Germany with the number of cars 
they have on their roads. By the year 2010 China is expected to have 90 
times more cars than in 1990. Consequently, China could surpass the 
total number of cars in the U.S. by 2030.
  China's oil consumption has grown by 7.5 percent per year reaching a 
current daily demand of about 6.4 million barrels a day, yet China's 
oil production is flat at around 3.4 million barrels per day.
  Currently, 58 percent of China's oil imports come from the Middle 
East and it is projected that by 2015, the share of Middle East oil 
will reach 70 percent.
  With projected growth in automobiles, projected oil demand in China 
could increase to 15 million barrels a day by 2020.
  This growth in demand will increase global competition for oil 
resources, likely to increase, not decrease the price of crude oil.
  While China is attempting to diversity its oil interests, like the 
United States, China recognizes that the world's most substantial oil 
reserves are in the Middle East.
  If we look at this chart, we can clearly see that in 2020, 83 percent 
of projected global reserves based on current production rates will be 
in the Middle East. The United States and China will be in very similar 
positions with regard to domestic oil reserves.
  A story last week's Washington Post reported that nationally, daily 
production of oil and natural gas liquids dropped last year to an 
average of 7.2 million barrels a day, a 36 percent decrease since 
peaking in 1970. And at Prudhoe Bay, average daily production last year 
was about 450,000 barrels a day, a 72 percent drop from its peak, and 
production is expected to continue to drop.
  What does this mean for the U.S.? Our increasing decline in domestic 
production and growing global demand on Middle East oil supply could 
have serious implications on foreign policy. A report by the U.S.-China 
Security Review Commission, a group created by Congress, warned:

       A key driver in China's relations with terrorist-sponsoring 
     governments is its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its 
     economic development. This dependency is expected to increase 
     over the coming decade.

  China is already competing with us for world supply, and this 
competition is--not may--is going to increase.
  It is very clear from China's economic growth, with India emerging as 
well, that the United States, if it continues on the current course, 
feeding its thirst for energy using foreign oil, will face increasing 
pressures caused by increasing demand and tightening supply.
  Inevitably the production decisions of foreign nations and 
organizations like OPEC, will determine the price of our energy, and in 
turn control of our economy and America's national security.
  Earlier this year, in April, the price of a barrel of oil rose above 
$55, today it is hovering around $53. With the increase in crude prices 
in the spring, gas prices jumped too, increasing 40 or more cents per 
gallon in many parts of the country since that time last year. While we 
have witnessed a slow drop in gas prices, they still remain over $2 per 
gallon in much of the country.
  An AP report noted yesterday that oil prices rose yesterday on news 
that OPEC may increase production quotas, and that oil prices will 
remain high well into 2006, even if the production ceiling is raised.
  In this same report, a group of finance ministers from the Group of 
Eight industrialized nations, over the weekend, called for greater 
investment in increased energy efficiency and alternative sources of 
energy. They noted that sustained high energy prices ``are of 
significant concern since they hamper global economic growth.''
  Not only do high oil prices hamper global economic growth, they 
hamper America's economic growth.
  Back when oil was $43 per barrel, the International Air Transport 
Association estimated that the airlines would lose $5.5 billion. 
Yesterday's oil price, however was $10 higher than this, $53.47

[[Page S6643]]

per barrel, pushing this overall figure even higher. Fuel costs are the 
second biggest cost for our nation's airlines.
  The chief of the IATA said that each dollar rise in the cost of oil 
boosts the industry's total fuel costs by about a billion dollars 
annually.
  Airlines, many on the verge of bankruptcy like United Airlines in my 
State, cannot afford this. Workers and retirees are impacted with wage 
and benefits cuts. United Airlines reported that their fuel costs 
soared $200 million in just the first quarter of 2005.
  And in this industry, where fuel makes up such a large portion on the 
companies operating budget, fuel efficiency is leading purchase 
decisions.
  For instance, the next Boeing jetliner, the 787, is projected to be 
20 percent more fuel efficient than its predecessors, key factor being 
cited by airlines like Air Canada and others who have placed orders for 
the new model.
  The economic toll that rising energy costs has on the industrial 
sector is also large. For instance a $1 increase in the price of oil 
costs U.S. companies and consumers about $828 million in trucking costs 
each year.
  And families are impacted too, making hard decisions as the money 
gasoline they pump into their gas tanks eats at a bigger portion of 
their paycheck.
  I raise these issues because I think we can help move America in a 
direction whereby reducing demand will help to insulate our economy, 
our jobs and our national security from oil prices spikes brought on by 
either production quotas, infrastructure delivery implications or 
instability in foreign countries.
  There is potential job growth if America embraces a new vision. For 
instance, a report completed by the Renewable Fuels Association 
estimated that doubling the production of ethanol could create 234,840 
new jobs in all sectors of the U.S. economy--help communities grow and 
rejuvenate cities.
  Advancing technological innovation can encourage our traditionally 
robust manufacturing sectors provide new parts and products that we 
will need to meet our goals. Cynics point to what we know, increasing 
fuel economy standards, visionaries embrace new ideas, advancing 
engineering design, alternative fuels, hybrids, hydrogen--and who knows 
what next.
  Building new infrastructure or retooling factories are jobs that will 
be in America--not oversees. These jobs will provide stronger markets 
for goods and labor--reinvigorating some cities across the U.S.
  Yesterday, Mr. Woolsey noted in our press conference that the U.S. 
borrows $4 billion annually to buy foreign oil. If each billion spent 
abroad were spent in the United States, we could create 10,000-20,000 
American jobs, many in rural communities.
  Technological change and advancement has always been a recipe for 
success for America. From the Wright brother's flier to the creation of 
the personal computer, we have created ways to advance and provide jobs 
for Americans while doing so.
  But America needs to agree that we have to move in this direction. 
The Cantwell ``40 in 20'' Amendment establishes the goal that moves the 
U.S. forward.
  Earlier on the floor today, I heard one of my colleagues say that it 
is not possible to reach the goal established by this amendment. First, 
how do we know if we do not try. Second, I challenge American's to do 
so--because it is our Nation's best interest.
  The AP story yesterday noted that an energy analyst cautioned that, 
what is the so-called ``global depletion midpoint''--the point at which 
roughly half of oil reserves have been tapped and production can no 
longer be increased--could come by the end of the decade.
  For me, I believe that we have no choice but to turn around before 
it's too late.
  In May 1961, President John F. Kennedy set the goal of landing an 
American on the moon. He did not prescribe to scientists how to get an 
American to the Moon; he set the goal, and provided the resources to 
meet that goal. Only nine years later, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin 
made the first human steps on the Moon. I know there were skeptics at 
the time--I wasn't one of them, but there were--thinking a man couldn't 
walk on the Moon. But we did, and we've done so much more since.
  When American's are challenged they have proven that they can and 
will rise to the occasion.
  I encourage each one of my colleagues to think long and hard about 
this amendment and what vision they have for America.
  If you want an America whose economy is strapped to the whims of 
foreign governments and supply shocks of foreign oil, then vote no on 
this amendment.
  If you believe that America's great thinkers, innovators, scientists 
and businesses cannot create the solutions that we need to reach this 
goal then you should vote no on this amendment.
  If you believe that we cannot create more jobs by increasing 
domestically produced fuels, then you should vote no on this amendment.
  But if you want a different America, one where your children or 
grandchildren can don a lab-coat instead of a flack-jacket; where 
energy solutions can create jobs, protect the environment and safeguard 
public health and believe that America's economic prosperity and 
national security are our highest priority, I encourage you to vote yes 
on the Cantwell energy security amendment.
  In keeping with the bipartisan nature of this bill to date, I 
encourage all my colleagues to pass this amendment and move America 
toward an energy independent future.
  The Cantwell amendment moves us in the right direction, reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil and reducing our dependence on the nations 
that supply that oil.
  Critics have come to the Senate floor and said: Well, she does not 
spell out how to do it. This bill spells out many ways that we could 
move toward less dependence on foreign oil, and because it is a good 
bipartisan bill, I am looking forward to supporting it.
  These things which I have noted are already existing technology that 
can be used to move us toward this goal. For those of us who have a 
positive, optimistic view of the creativity and freedom in America, the 
Cantwell amendment sets us on a goal that America should achieve on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
supporting the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, during Senate vote No. 139, pertaining to 
amendment No. 779, I was necessarily absent. Had I been present, I 
intended to vote ``yes.'' I ask that the Record reflect this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________