[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3231-S3234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 2571. A bill to promote energy production and conservation, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive 
energy bill, one that I call Breaking Our Long-Term Dependency, or the 
BOLD Energy Act.
  As President Bush has stated, our Nation is addicted to oil. Our 
economy requires over 20 million barrels of oil a day to fuel our cars, 
our trucks, heat our homes, and bring goods to market all across the 
country. Sixty percent of our consumption--60 percent--is from imports. 
Many of these imports are coming from the most volatile parts of the 
world, the most unstable parts of the world, and we have to take 
serious steps now to reduce our growing dependency. That is what this 
bill is all about.

[[Page S3232]]

  This legislation, which is comprehensive in nature and which we have 
worked on for over 6 months, I believe is a serious contribution to the 
discussion. Let me make clear: These are not tepid steps. This 
legislation is bold because that is what the situation requires if we 
are to seriously reduce our dependence.
  This legislation invests approximately $40 billion over the next 5 
years to meaningfully reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Much of 
our imported oil comes from unstable parts of the world. Forty-five 
percent of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and 
Iraq. A major disruption to oil supplies in any of those areas could 
send oil over $100 a barrel. Threats to oil supplies and surging demand 
have contributed to a 95-percent increase in oil prices over the past 2 
years.
  Imported oil now accounts for $266 billion of our trade deficit. That 
is more than a third of our total trade imbalance.
  Our Nation faces other challenges on the energy front as well. 
Fluctuating natural gas prices threaten the livelihood of our Nation's 
farmers and manufacturers. Electricity sales are projected to increase 
by 50 percent over the next 25 years. Transmission capacity constraints 
prevent development of power production in many parts of the country, 
including North Dakota.
  Fortunately, the United States has the domestic resources and the 
ingenuity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our energy 
challenges. It is time, I believe, to look to the Midwest rather than 
turning to the Middle East for our energy resources. We can turn to our 
farm fields to produce more ethanol and biodiesel.
  Brazil shows what can be done. Thirty years ago Brazil was 80 percent 
dependent on foreign energy. They have reduced that dependence to less 
than 10 percent. At the same time, our country has gone from 35-percent 
dependence to now 60-percent dependence. We have been going the wrong 
way. Brazil has demonstrated what can be done to dramatically reduce 
one's energy dependence. How did they do it? They did it by aggressive 
promotion of biodiesel, by aggressive promotion of ethanol, and by 
creating a fleet of flexible fuel vehicles.
  We could do that here. Brazilian officials are now predicting they 
will be completely energy independent this year--this year. We can use 
our abundant domestic reserve of coal to produce clean, clear fuel as 
part of a plan to reduce our dependence, in addition to the use of 
those renewables.
  Coal-to-liquid fuel technology has tremendous potential. Converting 
America's 273 billion tons of coal into transportation fuel would 
result in the equivalent of over 500 billion barrels of oil. That 
compares to Saudi Arabia's reserves of 262 billion barrels.
  Why are we continuing to be dependent and vulnerable to foreign 
sources of energy? It makes no sense. It is time to do more than talk 
about the threat; it is time to act. That is why I am introducing the 
BOLD Energy Act today.
  My legislation would accomplish the following: It would increase 
production of renewable energy and alternative fuels. It would reward 
conservation and energy efficiency. It would provide more research and 
development funding for new energy technologies. It would promote 
responsible development of domestic fossil fuel resources, and it would 
facilitate upgrades to our Nation's electricity grid.
  First, the BOLD Act takes aggressive steps to increase alternative 
fuel production and use. It extends the biodiesel and ethanol tax 
credit. It requires ethanol use in the United States to increase from 
4.7 billion gallons in 2007 to 30 billion gallons in 2025. It creates a 
new biodiesel standard. It promotes alternative fueling stations, and 
it establishes a $500 million grant program for the expensive front-end 
engineering and design of coal-to-liquid fuel plants. These steps will 
allow us to substitute home-grown fuels for foreign oil, dramatically 
reducing our dependence on imported oil.
  Second, the experts tell us the single most important thing we can do 
to reduce our reliance on foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of 
our cars and trucks. My legislation provides a new rebate program for 
cars and trucks that achieve above-average fuel economy. The most fuel-
efficient vehicles would qualify for rebates of up to $2,500. This will 
encourage consumers to buy, and manufacturers to produce, more fuel-
efficient cars. We don't do this with the command-and-control structure 
of CAFE standards; we do it with incentives for the marketplace.
  My bill also requires that all vehicles sold in the United States by 
2017 must include alternative fuel technologies, such as hybrid 
electric or flex-fuel systems. Auto makers will be eligible for a 35-
percent tax credit or retiree health care cost relief to make this 
transition. We have had extensive discussions with the automobile 
industry on how to design these incentives so they would be effective.
  North Dakota E85 fueling systems will allow drivers to dramatically 
reduce gasoline usage. And in urban areas such as Washington, D.C. 
where most drivers commute fewer than 20 miles a day, new plug-in 
hybrids will allow most trips to be fueled by electricity rather than 
gasoline.
  Third, the BOLD Energy Act promotes environmentally responsible 
energy development here at home. It increases the existing enhanced oil 
recovery tax credit to 20 percent for any new or expanded domestic 
drilling project that uses carbon dioxide to recover oil from aging 
wells. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry on what would be 
the most effective incentives to seriously increase domestic energy 
production.
  It also includes language authorizing energy development in the Lease 
Sale 181 area in the Gulf of Mexico that prohibits this development 
from occurring within 100 miles of the Florida coast or interfering 
with military activities in the gulf.
  These steps will allow us to substitute American oil and natural gas 
for imports, creating jobs here at home and improving our energy 
security.
  Fourth, my BOLD Energy Act promotes new technologies to improve 
energy efficiency and develop renewable energy, such as wind and solar. 
It extends the renewable energy tax credit for 5 years and establishes 
a national 10-percent renewable electricity standard.
  My energy bill also creates a clean coal energy bonds program to 
allow electric cooperatives, tribal governments, and other public power 
systems to finance new, advanced clean coal powerplants.
  Finally, my legislation will improve the electricity grid in the 
United States by making it easier for State governments to finance the 
construction of transmission lines through the issuance of tax exempt 
bonds. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry over an extended 
period to find the things that would make the greatest difference to 
dramatically reducing our energy dependence. That is what this 
legislation is about. That is why I call it the BOLD Energy Act. It is 
seriously designed to break our long-term dependency. That is why we 
called it the BOLD Energy Act.
  A few weeks ago I met with the President and a bipartisan group of 
Senators at the White House to talk about energy policy. I told the 
President he was right to identify our addiction to oil as one of our 
challenges. I also told him it is time to be bold. No more tepid plans, 
no more plans that fundamentally do not make a difference. It is time 
for the United States to stand up to this challenge of seriously 
reducing our dependence on foreign energy.
  Make no mistake, this is a bold plan. This plan calls for the 
investment of approximately $40 billion over the next 5 years. That is 
what it is going to take. If we are going to be serious about reducing 
our dependence, it is going to take more than half steps. It is time to 
put politics aside and assemble our best collective ideas into a new, 
comprehensive energy policy. I ask my colleagues and I urge them to 
look at this bill, to examine it. I urge them and hope that they could 
cosponsor it. If not, I welcome their constructive criticism about what 
could be done to make it better.
  I don't think we have any time to waste. There is no time to lose. We 
need bold action. We need this BOLD Energy Act.
  I send the bill to the desk for its assignment to the appropriate 
committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and assigned to the 
appropriate committee.

[[Page S3233]]

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank very much the dozens of 
organizations that have contributed to writing this legislation. As I 
have indicated, we have spent 6 months in preparing this legislation. 
We have consulted with literally dozens and dozens of organizations 
across this country. We have consulted with Members in both the House 
and the Senate. We have consulted with Governors. We have consulted 
with every relevant energy group in the State of North Dakota and in 
the Midwest. I am delighted that so many of them have already endorsed 
this legislation.
  It is time for us to get serious about reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil. I am delighted today to be presenting this BOLD Energy 
Act. I believe it is the direction we should take. I again ask my 
colleagues to give it their close consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North 
Dakota for thinking boldly and focusing on an urgent need for our 
country. I look forward to studying his proposal and working with him, 
especially in the areas of conservation and efficiency. There is a 
consensus within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can 
do more in conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus in the 
Senate, I believe, that we could do more in research and development. 
There is a consensus that we could do more in renewable fuels. So I 
look forward to looking at what he has to say.
  I think our goal should be within a generation to end our dependence 
on foreign oil. That wouldn't mean we wouldn't buy oil from Mexico or 
from Canada or from anyone, really, but it would mean that no other 
country could hold the United States of America hostage to the oil 
supply.
  That is a very constructive suggestion. There is one yellow flag I 
would wave a little bit, and we can talk about it as it makes its way 
through the process. The Senator mentioned wind power. In terms of the 
transportation sector, unless we begin to put these large, giant wind 
machines on the cars--which I fully expect someone to propose before 
very long, with a large subsidy--I think we ought to examine carefully 
just how much money we are already spending on giant windmills because 
it is a massive tax ripoff to the taxpayers of the United States.
  The last figures I saw showed that we were now, over the next 5 
years, about to spend $3 billion supporting these giant wind machines, 
which are twice as tall as the football stadium at the University of 
Tennessee and extend from 10-yard line to 10-yard line and only work 
when the wind is blowing. They deface the landscape of America.
  The Senator has suggested a comprehensive policy that sounds very 
attractive to me, but I would like us to examine carefully, as we go 
through this, whether it is wise, for example, to extend the renewable 
tax credit another 2 years because that is just code words for more 
billions of dollars to the wind industry. They have a very good lobby. 
They are very effective. But there are other forms of alternative 
energy, especially regarding fuels, which is what we are talking about 
when we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is 
where we use most of our oil, in the transportation sector. I hope we 
will spend our available money on research and development, as the 
Senator has suggested, on conservation and efficiency, as the Senator 
suggested, and on other kinds of fuels--biodiesel, as the Senator 
suggested--and be very cautious about adding to the wind subsidy before 
we clearly understand what we are doing.
  Perhaps the figures aren't right, but the last figures I saw from the 
Department of Treasury is that the Congress has now authorized $3 
billion for giant wind machines. We don't need a national windmill 
policy; we need a national energy policy.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I get the attention of the Senator 
for just a moment? I say to him, first of all, I appreciate very much 
his thoughtful remarks, as always. When you have a chance to look at 
this, this is a comprehensive bill. We have spent months talking to 
everyone we thought had a good idea. We have talked to people who 
sponsored legislation in the House and the Senate, trying to cull those 
legislative offerings for the best ideas. We have talked to the people 
who were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard to do a review of national energy 
policy in America.
  As you know, they spent several years in a serious effort to come to 
grips with what we could do that would dramatically reduce our energy 
dependence. The Senator is quite right. That is why so much of this 
legislation is focused on fuels; that is where a significant part of 
our imported energy is going--to fuel the fleets of our country.
  Let me say with respect to wind energy, I truly believe that is a 
component of a comprehensive bill. Let me put it in perspective. In 
terms of our legislation, it is a very small part because I think that 
is the appropriate level of commitment to make in terms of 
comprehensive energy policy. There are many other things that have much 
more prominence in terms of where the investment is being made. I would 
say to my colleague, in North Dakota we have extraordinary wind energy 
capacity. We have the ability to relieve our dependence on coal-fired 
plants and our dependence on plants that are fueled by natural gas, and 
we have extreme problems, long term, with natural gas in this country. 
That is why natural gas prices have had such a runup.
  Wind energy is a great part of an overall plan to reduce peaking 
load. Obviously, you cannot count on the wind blowing--although in 
North Dakota you almost always can. So you have to marry it with other 
energy-generating sources. That is what we have done with this 
legislation. I very much welcome my colleague's kind comments, and I 
look forward to his consideration of what we have tried to do.
  Let me just say, I gave my staff an assignment 6 months ago. I told 
them I wanted an energy bill that anybody could look at and objectively 
say: If this were enacted, it would make a serious contribution to 
reducing our energy dependence. I have supported the past energy bills 
that have come through here. I was pleased to do so. But I think we all 
know none of them make a dramatic change in our long-term dependence. 
That is what this bill is designed to do, I say to my colleague: make a 
dramatic reduction in our dependence.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the 
Senator's remarks. He has presented this the same way he dealt with the 
budget issues. He and Senator Gregg did a very good job with that and 
helped the Senate through a difficult area. The last energy bill, the 
one in July, was a very good bill because it began to shift our policy 
toward producing large amounts of low-carbon and no-carbon energy. It 
takes a while to do that. It is like turning a big ship around. But we 
are already beginning to see the results.
  There was more conservation and efficiency in that than we had 
before, which avoids building new natural gas plants, for example. But 
we could do much more.
  There was significant support for nuclear power, which we should do 
more of. All those who want to solve global warming in a generation 
should be helping to support nuclear power because 70 percent of our 
carbon-free energy in the United States today comes from nuclear power. 
Seventy percent of the carbon-free electricity that we produce comes 
from nuclear power. There is a growing consensus that we should begin 
to proceed with that in the United States, and even help India and 
China avoid dirty coal plants that pollute the area. If we want clean 
air and low-cost power that is reliable, the approach toward nuclear 
power is important. That was in the bill.
  I encourage steps towards clean coal, which would be coal 
gasification, which would limit the amount of nitrogen and sulphur and 
mercury that would come from the use of coal--we have a lot of coal in 
the United States--and research for carbon sequestration. If we could 
recapture the carbon, we could then use coal for large amounts of clean 
power.
  Then we had significant support for renewable energy, for ethanol. 
The President has now suggested that we extend that to different kinds 
of ethanol. I am sure there are appropriate places for wind power, but 
it doesn't

[[Page S3234]]

amount to much. It is not very reliable. And there is no excuse for 
spending $3 billion over the next 5 years on gigantic windmills that 
give big subsidies to investors and scar the landscape when we could be 
spending it on conservation and efficiency. Of course, what I hope, 
finally, and in pursuit of Senator Conrad's goal, is that we redouble 
our interest in the hydrogen fuel cell economy. Major manufacturers are 
telling me they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars each year 
in hydrogen fuel cells which will have no emissions except water, and 
one major manufacturer said to me that his company, one of the largest 
in the world, would have a commercially available car on the market 
within 10 years, and that was last year. That seems soon to me. But the 
sooner that happens--the sooner that happens, the better.
  To reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held 
hostage, and to make sure that we have clean air and to make sure that 
we do our part not to add to global warming, we should do all these 
things. We do not need a national windmill policy. We need a 
comprehensive energy policy.
  I see the Senator from Massachusetts.
  We would have to put enough giant windmills to cover 70 percent of 
Massachusetts to equal the amount of energy in the oil we would get 
from ANWR.
  My main purpose is to say to Senator Conrad that I welcome his 
proposal. It is a serious, thoughtful effort, as is characteristic of 
his efforts.
  I wish to ask that we carefully consider where the tax subsidies go 
before we spend more billions of dollars on a source that is already 
oversubsidized, that scars the landscape, that only works when the wind 
blows, that requires large new power lines to be built and that can 
fend for its own in marketplaces where it is appropriate to be.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
                                 ______