[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7968-H7974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BLUE DOG COALITION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor on Tuesday
nights, as often the Blue Dog Coalition does. And tonight the Blue Dog
Coalition wanted to come to the floor of the House of Representatives
to have a discussion about energy policy in this country. I think that
energy policy is an issue that is so important on so many levels, in
terms of the integrity of our economy, in terms of our national
security, in terms of the affordability for those who are underserved.
It touches so many different issues. And that's why I think it's
important for the Blue Dog Coalition to make its voice heard, to take
on this very complicated issue that has so many different components,
and to try to address it in a pragmatic and practical way. Because like
so many issues in Washington, this is one that's not going to be solved
by those on the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum, it is going
to be solved by people who want to sit down and roll up their sleeves
and come up with practical solutions on how we can provide an
affordable and secure energy supply for this country.
Now, I am joined by two other Blue Dogs this evening, my colleague,
Mr. Scott from Georgia, and my colleague, Mr. Melancon from Louisiana.
We look forward to having a discussion tonight about this issue. And
the Blue Dog Coalition energy principles is a document, the Blue Dog
Coalition has endorsed that identifies certain principles that we think
ought to be the basis of how we go about formulating energy policy in
this country.
And by way of introduction, I wanted to yield as much time as he
might consume right now to my colleague, Mr. Scott from Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much. It is certainly a pleasure
to be with both the gentleman from Louisiana, and for you as well, Mr.
Melancon.
This is definitely a major, major priority as far as the future of
this country is concerned. Our energy policy is interwoven directly
into our vital national security. There is no question about it.
We have, for the past 50 years, progressively gotten more and more
dependent on oil from the Middle East. There is a reason why Iraq,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, those Middle Eastern countries are so vital.
It is so important for us to try to hopefully find a way in which we
can get peace in that region. We don't know the answer to all of this;
it is largely going to be up to those Middle Eastern countries. But we
are so directly tied to the future stability of that region, largely
because of one thing, that is, our energy. And that has been a mistake,
that we are tied to our future energy needs to the most unstable region
in the world. And we now need to move very rapidly to excise ourselves
from that.
The other reason why our energy policy is so vital and so important,
and again, part and parcel of our national security, is because of
global warming. Make no mistake about it, there may be differing
opinions about global warming, there may be differing opinions about
climate change, but one thing is certain, the facts do not lie. This
Earth is getting warmer by the day, by the year.
Scientists have pointed out that the Earth's climate is increasing in
warmth at a rate of one-tenth of a degree in each of the previous
decades.
{time} 2245
That may sound like a little. But when you look at just 2 degrees
since the turn of the century, that is a major, major fact; the fact of
dependency on oil in the Middle East, the most unstable region, the
fact that we are experiencing the damage of global warming. The reason
for the global warming is the excretion of carbon dioxides into the
air, and that gives us the greenhouse effect.
So on those two points, we have no choice but to proceed directly
ahead and provide the kind of sterling leadership this Nation deserves,
as you so aptly pointed out, Mr. Matheson, in a very responsible way,
in which both sides of the aisle can come together. Everybody can come
together and understand that this is not a Republican issue. This is
not a Democratic issue. This is an issue for the future of the American
people and the people of the world.
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments. Being
from an oil-producing State such as Louisiana, we have for decades been
producing America's energy needs. To this day, approximately 30 percent
of all the energy supply is domestically produced in our coastal areas
in Louisiana. The same areas that produce all that oil and gas are also
home to what we refer to as America's wetlands. The coastal marshes of
south Louisiana are predominately the ones we are losing the most.
Ironically, in my district they provide roughly 30 percent of the
seafood to this country. Now, people say, how can the oil industry and
the seafood industry coexist side by side? Well, for a number of years,
back at the beginning of time, so to speak, when the oil and gas
industry began offshore drilling and wetlands drilling, there weren't
the environmental standards and all the other standards that are put
forth now. There wasn't the technology that is there today. So, yes,
there were mistakes made.
We have learned from our mistakes. Our Government has recognized it.
The States have recognized it. They have addressed those issues. If you
look back after the storms, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, if you
look at the devastation that occurred across the Gulf Coast, did you
hear of oil spills? The worst spills that you had actually were the gas
tanks that were leaking fuel and oil on land at the oil refineries and
from the service stations throughout the flooded areas.
There's a misconception. There's a fear by people that's more the
fear of fear itself that people seem to concern themselves with. We
have in this country, as was mentioned by some of the previous speakers
in the first hour, an industry that may be misunderstood. It is called
``big oil''. But if you look who is producing the oil and gas in the
United States, for the most part it is small, the independent. It may
be a company such as Devon out of Oklahoma. Yes, it is on the stock
market, but it was a company started in 1971 by a father and son. They
took that gamble. They got out there.
It has, in fact, by the numbers I have seen, been determined that for
the major oil companies to drill in the United States, whether onshore
or offshore, whether deep water or shallow water, it is more expensive
an investment and proposition than it is to drill in other parts of the
world. Of course, there are some security problems going on in other
parts of the world.
As we look at what we believe in in this country and what we should
believe in in this Congress, we talk about energy independence. And
energy independence, as mentioned, is not about Republicans and
Democrats. It is about the old folks. It is about the young starting
families. It is about the working people. It is about everybody that
pumps gas in that car. It is about everybody that goes to a job.
When you look at natural gas, as Mr. Peterson talked about, it is a
clean fuel and we have ample supplies throughout this country and we
ought to be producing those fuels. However, our own policies have
seemed to stymie us.
The Blue Dogs have put together a package that we are proposing that
is a principle, not a package, a principle that we feel we ought to be
looking at and having guide us as we go through the process of
developing energy legislation.
We are not going to get this country moving forward unless we
encourage development of oil and gas, alternative fuels, green fuels,
whatever. It all has to be part of the mix. This is not about one fuel
being better than the other. This is not one fuel seeing if it can
``out politic'' another fuel. This is about trying to bring together
the country to devise an energy policy, and we as the Blue Dogs felt
that it was time for us to try and take the lead and to give some
guidance and leadership in this matter.
With that, I turn the floor back over to my friend, Mr. Matheson.
[[Page H7969]]
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I think the comments from the gentleman
from Louisiana are spot on in the context of we need it all. We need to
look at a very diverse portfolio of energy supplies in terms of where
we are today and where we want to be in the future. We want to, of
course, develop as many different types of energy and diversify our
portfolio, because, at the end of the day, having an affordable and
secure source of energy is what makes the most sense for this country
and for our economy.
While all of us would like to see a bunch of new technologies put in
place immediately, the reality of this situation is it is going to take
a commitment in the public policy arena and the private sector to bring
a lot these technologies along.
These energy principles that the Blue Dogs have published represent a
set of guidelines. I don't think the Blue Dogs come to the table saying
we have all the answers. These are complicated issues that are going to
require a lot of thought and a lot of work. But I do think that these
principles help articulate a zone of reasonableness, if you will,
within which this debate ought to take place.
Since we have kind of led into it, one of the key principles is that
of fuel diversity, where the Blue Dogs think we should not be picking
winners and losers, as Mr. Melancon said. We think you have to have a
diverse energy supply portfolio to have future success in this country.
So we encourage any policy that is going to add to fuel diversity, that
is going to add to energy infrastructure in this country.
In the long term, if we are going to have energy independence, there
is no question that a whole basket of opportunities are going to help
create that. It is going to include issues of conservation and energy
efficiency. It is going to include new fuels. It may be cellulosic
ethanol, it may be biofuels. There may be other sources that are
alternative sources compared to what we use today. And it is also going
to include conventional sources of energy that we have today as well.
We have to take the longer view on this, and the longer view is at
some point we may have a whole different set of energy options that
don't exist today. How we get from here to there is going to take a
commitment to develop those technologies and a commitment to make sure
we access conventional supplies we have today to keep this economy
moving in the right direction so that we can all have the economic
growth and opportunity that is going to allow these technologies
to develop.
So, we as Blue Dogs believe in it all, whether it is oil, or gas, or
biofuels, or coal, or nuclear, or hydroelectric, or geothermal, or
other technologies that I may not have even mentioned. You really need
to put all of that on the table, all that on the table, to give this
country the opportunity to make progress and to move forward and to
have a responsible, diverse energy supply.
That is one of the key principles that the Blue Dogs have tried to
articulate, and I think it is one that everyone in this Congress ought
to be able to get their arms around in some form and see if they can
recognize the value to this country if we do that.
Mr. Scott, I am happy to yield to you.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Matheson, I would like to maybe pick up on
a point you made on the diversity and alternative sources of energy.
Let's just take one for a few moments and put this one on the table,
because I truly believe that this is one of the major directions we are
going to have to go in.
As you know, one of the problems with our dependence on oil and
petroleum, aside from the Middle East and the political volatility
there and the unstableness that is there, even if we had and were able
to produce some of this oil on our own here, we have a refining
problem. We are very short in our refining capacity.
It has been almost a quarter of a century since we even built a new
refinery. There are reasons for that, environmental, people don't want
them around, but they are not there. But that is another reason.
So, one of my interesting visits not long ago was to go down to South
America, to Brazil, to visit Brazil. One of the reasons I wanted to go
to Brazil was because I wanted to find out what they were doing and how
they were doing it with their energy problem.
Here is one salient fact: Brazil and Argentina both are not dependent
upon the Middle East for oil. They have moved very rapidly and are
setting the curve for ethanol production.
Now, 85 percent of their automobiles are ``flex'' automobiles, in
other words, running on a combination of mostly ethanol made from sugar
cane.
If Brazil can do those two things, get clean energy, get ethanol,
make it from a grown product that continually renews itself, and at the
same time not be dependent on oil from the Middle East, surely we can
learn something from what is going on in Brazil. And I did. A group of
us went down to Brazil. We spent a lot of time down there. We talked to
people and we found out some things there.
I believe, quite honestly, a major feature, not all of it, but a
major feature of our way out and our way forward in becoming energy
independent rests in the production in this country of ethanol.
Again, we have got to be very responsible as we move forward with
ethanol production. We have got to have a level of moderation with it
and we can't go overboard with it. It is very interesting that
President Bush in his State of the Union, if you recall when he was
talking about energy, mentioned it. He said we can solve our problem
with ethanol made from corn, and he put some large figure out there.
But if we even just went with that, it would put such downward
pressure on our food stock, on our cost of beef and poultry and chicken
and pork, who feed off of corn. Corn cannot do it alone. So it has to
be a dual approach with cellulosic, which is made out of pine straw and
pine trees and wood chips and switch grass, which we have plenty of.
The point that I am making is we can move rapidly here, and we are.
As a part of our farm bill that we will be marking up this week, that
we are in the process of marking up, we and the Democrats and Blue
Dogs, who make up a large part of the Agriculture Committee, are in the
leadership on this, and it is one of the areas in which all of us can
be very proud. But certainly within our Blue Dog Coalition, we are
providing the leadership on finding a way out of our energy dependence,
and we are doing it through our farm bill.
Just think, that we can grow our way out of dependence on oil in the
Middle East. We have got all of it right here in this country, and I
think getting the ethanol plants moving, using corn where we can, but
there is a certain limit we have to have there, but use these other
means of cellulosity, the wood chips, and putting the incentives in
this package, as we have in the farm bill to explore and develop
ethanol plants and plants of operation.
{time} 2300
Also, we have to do it near the points of distribution. And in the
process of creating this new industry, we create jobs when we create a
clean energy source and that is one of the major steps I believe for us
as we move towards energy independence.
Mr. MELANCON. I think about the technology as it was brought up a
second ago. One of the concerns that we have to have here as a Congress
is there is a lot of technology out there. But there is a lot of
perception that there is more technology than is factually out there.
What we can't do with Federal policy is put demands and time slots, et
cetera, production, that far exceeds what the technology provides for.
We need to make sure that we put a bill out there that is going to be
reasonable. We don't want to run off our good-paying jobs. As discussed
by Mr. Peterson earlier, natural gas is a basis for everything from
fertilizer to foods to plastic, heating our homes, you name it, it is
there. We need to make sure as the government, that we provide in the
policy sections of these bills not only the financial support mechanism
through tax breaks and other mechanisms to encourage the development of
alternative fuels and to encourage the research and development of
these new concepts, these new technologies, we as a government need to
put that carrot out there so as to get industry to participate and to
get involved in it and not discourage it.
[[Page H7970]]
Some of what we have seen in some of the legislation is a concern to
us because it is going to be difficult to become energy independent if
you are delaying the time frames for providing drilling permits to
drilling companies, if you are having longer review periods for whether
and when you can drill. We don't want to walk over the environmental
issue. We want that to be taken under full consideration.
But right now the International Energy Agency is telling us that by
the year 2030 if not sooner, this world will be short on oil and
natural gas and the fossil fuels that we need to drive all of our
economies worldwide. Now when you start looking at who holds the key to
all the energy in the world, it is not the United States. It is in fact
not the oil companies. It is the foreign countries most of whom are not
necessarily our best friends.
So as a country, we need to start thinking about energy independence
if we are going to stay strong. I have told people that being a strong
country means when times get tough, as they did back in World War II,
my parents and others, they manufactured airplanes and boats. The
Higgins Crafts were made right in New Orleans. The wives went to work
at the plants. The husbands went to war. And wives went to war, too,
I'm being discriminatory, but everybody played a part. We were
producing all of the food we needed in this country at that time and
more. We were producing the energy that we needed and more. We could
manufacture everything that we needed and more. And now, we as a
country have come to a position where we need to import most of our
energy.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United
States imported 36 percent of domestically consumed crude oil and
petroleum products and 4.3 percent of our natural gas supply in 1973.
In 2005, we imported 66 percent of our crude oil and 16 percent of our
natural gas from foreign sources. Morever, EIA projections indicate
that the United States will consume 21 percent more oil and 19 percent
more natural gas by 2030. Those numbers are dramatic, and that is just
one country in this world who has been and should continue to be one of
the strongest and mightiest and most independent countries in the
world.
But what fuels the farms, is the energy that we need. What fuels the
ability to get the energy, is the farms that feed the people. So it is
part of a cycle. We need to make sure that if we are going to stay a
strong, independent, viable country that can defend itself should it
need to, then have to have an energy policy and we as Blue Dogs believe
we need to provide and help guide this Congress in a way that brings us
good energy policy for the long term, not for the next week, not for
the next month, not to the next Congress, but for years to come.
We are drilling in areas and there are questions amongst our friends
and colleagues. When you look at the gulf coast area, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Texas and Alabama who front on the gulf, are producing oil
and gas for this country. Florida has ample supplies, but there are
some restrictions off the coast, and if you come up the entire East
Coast and West Coast. Now I don't fault my friends from those States
not wanting to drill off their shores. But at the same time, we can't
sit and talk about bringing oil and gas prices down if we are not all
into this national effort. That is another issue. That is not going to
be part of this bill, but that is something that Charlie Melancon
concerns himself with.
Mr. MATHESON. The gentleman mentioned that up to 16 percent of our
natural gas is now being imported.
When we throw out the term energy, there are all different forms of
energy, and it is dangerous to look at simple policy solutions when oil
policy has its own implications. We know about dependence on foreign
oil, but I don't think a lot of people realize we are increasing,
although not yet to the same degree, but we are increasing our
dependence on foreign supplies of natural gas as well. We have seen a
lot of price increases over the past 5 to 7 years in the United States,
and natural gas is such a key component of our economic model in this
country. Those price increases can have such damaging effects on the
integrity of our economy, let alone reaching each individual,
particularly those on fixed incomes.
I think it is important to note, and that is the statistic that my
colleague from Louisiana mentioned, we are importing natural gas into
this country. I don't think a lot of people know that we are importing
a lot of natural gas into this country. I want to piggyback on one
other thing, short term and long term.
We have talked about how in the long run we hope technology takes us
into some new places. But how do we get there. We can invest in
developing those technologies, but traditional energy sources that we
are using in the country today, be it oil or natural gas or coal or
nuclear power, those are key components of the portfolio today. And as
we move ahead in the long run and look for alternative fuels, I am sure
they will provide a significant piece of that portfolio as well. But in
that period before that takes place, this Congress ought to enact
policies that help encourage a reliable supply of those conventional
fuels that we are utilizing today. It is going to be important for our
economy, it is going to be important for making process as an economy,
and I think that is consistent, in fact I know that is consistent with
where Blue Dog energy policy recommendations have gone.
I want to mention a second principle that is in this document, and
that is the concept, because we are so concerned about maintaining
energy security. We certainly don't want to go in the wrong direction.
So we have taken our term PAYGO which is usually in the Congress in the
context that if there is a new program that you want to spend money on,
you have to find a way to pay for it. We have used that term in terms
of Blue Dogs believe in energy PAYGO. That is we don't think that we
should be enacting policies in this country that reduce existing
domestic production. We are concerned because there are some policies
out there by some of our colleagues in this Congress that we are
concerned may do just that. That doesn't match up with the notion of
trying to make sure that we have a secure, reliable, affordable energy
supply. And the statistics that my colleague from Louisiana mentioned
about the projected growth demand in the future in this country, you
don't want to go backwards and be cut back on our existing domestic
capabilities and in that context increasing even more so our reliance
on foreign supplies.
Another critical part of the Blue Dog principles is the notion that
when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We don't want to create
a greater reliance in terms of our reliance on foreign supply. And it
is not just with oils. You have to put natural gas into that discussion
as well because we are importing more natural gas than we have in the
past, and we have to be very careful about if we reduce our natural gas
production capabilities in this country, what that means in terms of
prices and putting us in an even less secure, less dependent position
than we are today.
I yield to my colleague from Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I think you made a significant statement there,
Mr. Matheson, that when you are in a deep hole, the first thing you do
is stop digging.
I want to very, very briefly share, and I am sure there are some
American people who are watching our discussion this evening, on just
how serious a situation we are in. I talked about instability in the
Middle East and our dependence upon oil.
Clearly there are two known facts. Right now, 42 percent of all of
the known oil reserves rest under the basin in the Middle East, in
Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. That is nearly half of all of the
available oil supplies that we know of in the Earth. And it is not
renewable. It doesn't renew itself. Eventually at some point oil is
going to run out.
When I was at NATO, and we had a meeting over in Paris this past
winter, our winter NATO meetings, a question was put to a noted
economist, John Malone, and he made a profound statement. He said we
didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stone; nor will we
leave the oil age because we have run out of oil. What he said was that
civilization as we know it could very well run out before the oil runs
out with the rapid rate we are going with the damage that oil-driven
energy sources around the world are causing with the greenhouse
effects.
[[Page H7971]]
I thought it would be very interesting to share with the American
people just how serious this is given the fact that oil is not a
renewable source of energy, given the fact that almost half of it is in
a very unstable region, and much of the world is still depending upon.
But according to the Energy Information Administration, here are some
startling facts. They say that world daily oil consumption is projected
to grow by 1.4 million barrels this year in 2007 and by 1.6 million
barrels in 2008. That is daily oil consumption. You talk about running
out with that rapid rate, and each year it goes up. In addition, the
EIA projects a steady increase in natural gas and electric use in the
United States which will create upward pressure on prices. This doesn't
paint a very good picture.
And then it goes on to say that almost all scientists agree that the
Earth's climate is rapidly changing and getting warmer, having
increased by 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit since the turn of the century. Now
as I mentioned earlier, on the surface of it, 2.6 doesn't seem like
much, but it is major. The Earth's global average temperature is now
approaching or possibly has passed, according to this report, the
warmest experience since human civilization began over 12,000 years
ago. Now it is approaching the warmest it has ever been in the history
of mankind. Global warming is a fact. Climate change is a fact.
And it goes on to say that over the past 150 years, measured carbon
dioxide concentrations have risen by more than one-third. The question
is not whether greenhouse gases will result in climate change, but
rather the magnitude, the speed, and the geographic details and the
likelihood of impacts stemming from this trend.
I am not painting a gloom and doom picture here. We are talking about
facts so we can get a sense, a greater sense of urgency in this
Congress and in the world. So many places over in the world we are
fighting and killing one another over what could very well be in the
scheme of things very trivial. We are all in the same bucket as human
beings.
{time} 2315
This earth of ours is precious, and for no other reason more
important than saving this earth for our future generations, the air we
breathe all rests in the decisions that we make in this Congress today.
I know and I share the same feeling with you all that we feel very
honored and very privileged to be elected and serving in Congress at a
time when this is our challenge. And when they write the history books
and perhaps our grandchildren and children will look and say, well,
what did grand-daddy or my daddy do at that time, the history books
will reflect very proudly that we provided the leadership at a very
crucial time to move this Nation forward in getting away from oil
dependency and getting into clean energies.
We have the means to do it. We know we need to do it, and we have the
direction to do it.
Mr. MELANCON. I'd like to expound on what Mr. Scott just had to say.
I've talked about that since the storms that devastated south
Louisiana. I've seen the marshes of south Louisiana that I grew up
hunting and fishing in, where my son and I have spent many, many
weekends and weekdays and just out there enjoying the land and the
water. And I've got a new grandson, and of course, after these storms,
seeing the damage to these wetlands, these estuaries, seeing and
hearing the facts that I'm hearing on climate change and the concern
with, as I tell people, there will always be a planet called earth. The
question is will there be an earth with life or with quality of life.
And we are in the generation, we are in a time in this Congress where
I believe, as you, we have an opportunity to do it, but we have to do
it right because I don't think we're going to get multiple chances at
it. We've got to try and make those decisions as wisely as we can so
that, whatever it is that we do, it is for the next generation and
those that succeed them.
Hopefully, when they read the history books, the three of us and the
other Blue Dogs and the other Members of this Congress, both Republican
and Democrat, will go down well in history as saying they had the
foresight.
Think about the people that put together and wrote the Constitution
of the United States, and look at how we've lived with that
Constitution for well over 200 years, and you think about it. It should
be possible that people of our times and our capabilities can come
together and work and come up with a policy that gets this country,
gets this world and makes it work for us so that we can all live in
harmony and peace.
And one of the things that I can remember a number of years back in
one of the presidential elections, one of the presidential candidates
went to the grocery store and didn't know what the checkout scanner
was. Well, you know, there are kids in this world, I hope there's no
Members of Congress that still believe that milk comes from the dairy
department at the grocery store and not from the cow on the farm.
And the same with gas from the gas pump. There's many people out
there that don't realize that you have to go and drill for oil in order
to put that gasoline in that automobile to run those kids to baseball
or basketball or cheerleading or whatever.
And so we need to understand what it is that drives the country. It
is not a mechanical pump at the convenience store at the corner. It is
an industry that needs to have a return on investment, and it is the
government that needs to set policy that makes it so that the industry
wants to produce it and produce it in volumes.
Yes, we have not done what we should be doing to encourage investment
not only in the refining capacity. We're starting to see that. We did
some of that about 2 years ago. There is some on-line. In my district
alone, there's at least two refineries that are expanding. One of them
will be a huge expansion project.
And the problem that I've always said is it's not that we can't
produce the oil and gas or buy it from some other country, but you
still have to have the capability of processing it through. But you
still have, because you are not producing it fast enough in this
country, dependence upon foreign oil coming in.
Ironically, this past week, speaking of climate change, there was a
scientist that decided to swim in the Arctic Ocean and dove in and swam
6/10ths of a mile in 29-degree water in the Arctic Ocean. The symbolism
there was we have a problem. He is the first man in history to swim for
any length in the Arctic Ocean in a swimming suit. He might need other
testing, but at the same time I think he's proved his point to me.
For those people that don't think that there's such a thing as global
warming and/or climate change, the scientific community has documented
it. It's there. We've talked about it. You don't have to believe
everything that's said by a Member of Congress. Sometimes I doubt some
of the things I hear, but the things that I see, the horrific
hurricanes, the tornado activity throughout the country in areas that
have never been affected, the floods that are occurring consistently,
the droughts that are occurring throughout the United States, some
people say, well, you just know more about them because the news is
there. No, they're there. They're being documented. They are more
frequent, more severe than we've ever seen.
So we need to move fast. We need to move together. We need to come
together as a country, as a Congress, and put together policy that our
kids and our grandkids and the future generations will have hope that
the world will be as good as it was for us.
Mr. MATHESON. Well, I thank my colleague and I want to follow up with
two more of the principles. There are eight in total by the way. We've
already talked about a couple.
But one of the Blue Dog energy principles does have to do with
climate change, and my two colleagues really have described mostly the
thinking behind these principles, but to put in summary, the Blue Dog
principles say, look, there's broad scientific consensus that climate
change is happening.
Blue Dogs also believe it's taken place over a significant period of
time. We need to make sure we get this right with a methodical
approach, and it may very well be a long-term approach to try to change
the direction we're going, but we want to make sure we get it right.
There are some folks who want to act very quickly and in a radical way,
and that may not be the best solution.
[[Page H7972]]
We also wanted to make sure we had a global approach. If we simply
enact policies in this country, we may be exporting jobs and pollution
overseas, and that doesn't get us to where we need to be because this
is a global issue. So the Blue Dogs want to have an approach that tries
to encourage global participation, an approach that does not
disproportionately affect one industry or one sector. It needs to be an
economy-wide approach in how we look at this issue and how we try to
reduce our carbon footprint in affecting the climate change issue.
So I think the Blue Dogs have laid out a framework that makes a lot
of sense. Again, as I said before, we don't claim to have the answer to
every single aspect of this issue. We think we've established a
framework that makes a lot of sense for people making good, sound
decisions.
A second principle, and it really follows up on what my colleague
from Louisiana said a little earlier, he was talking about how people
sometimes don't know what it takes to get energy to the point where you
use it. People just pull the pump at the gas station. They don't have
any real appreciation for the complex process it takes to get it to
that point. And that applies to all forms of energy.
I think people take for granted when they flip a switch and the light
goes on, that the light just goes on, and they don't have a full
appreciation for what it takes to generate that electricity and get it
delivered to that building or that house where the light switch exists.
And so another one of the Blue Dog energy principles recognizes we
need to invest in the energy infrastructure in this country. It doesn't
just happen without investment. It costs money, and whether it's a
refinery expansion or whether it's an ethanol plant that my colleague
from Georgia was talking about that we want to develop in this country
or whether it's finding renewable sources, let's say, wind energy that
makes electricity, that costs money. It doesn't happen without that
type of investment.
It's going to take significant commitment from both the public and
private sector in this country to ensure we have an energy
infrastructure that can deliver reliable sources of supply and
affordable sources of supply.
So we need to look for those. Again, the Congress we need to look for
those public policy options, public policy decisions that create the
environment for that to happen. It's not going to be done all by the
government, nor should it be by the way. We want the marketplace to
evolve and pursue the most efficient technologies and efficient
delivery systems, the most efficient ways to make this happen, but we
can help set the table, if you will, to make sure we have the right
incentives in our economic model to encourage that to happen.
So that's another one of the Blue Dog energy principles that I think
is very important, and we specifically point out within the electorate
sector that we need to make sure we have investment in the transmission
grid, investment in making sure it's efficient distributed generation.
During the previous hour, one of our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle had their Special Order here just before us. I think one of
my colleagues mentioned the notion that you may have a significant wind
resource where you can put up a number of windmills, but it's going to
go be in a remote area, and you have got to get that product, that
electricity created by those wind turbines, from that remote area to
where the load factor is, and that's going to be let's say in urban
area that may be hundreds of miles away, and you have got to invest in
a transmission system that allows that to happen.
So, as I said at the start of my comments at the start of this hour,
it's a complicated issue. You can mention with energy and everyone kind
of nods their head, but if you really start looking at all the sub-
issues below that, there are a lot of issues out there. And the Blue
Dogs are trying to articulate a pragmatic, practical approach to try to
capture all those issues and have a good discussion with Members of
both parties and try to create those good public policy decisions to
help us get to where we want to be as a country.
So I wanted to again follow up on those two comments that my
colleague from Louisiana mentioned, and with that I'm happy to turn
over time again to Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much. I think in addition to the
plans and the points that we have offered here, there's the other side
of this that we have got to face, and that is human behavior. We've got
to provide leadership to change human behavior when it comes basically
to the one instrument that is causing so much of the pollution, that is
causing the earth to get warmer. That is the automobile, and we have to
move on both fronts. We have to move on the front of getting the
American people to do, and we can do this if we use our policy right,
if we use our incentives right.
One is that we need to provide encouragement and incentives for
individuals to get out of their automobiles, to use other means of
transportation, especially in our large urban areas.
Let me tell you about my region of the country that I represent which
is Atlanta. The Atlanta area has one of the highest carbon dioxide
emissions area in this country, and with that is traffic congestion,
which is about to choke the great promise of our city, not only in our
region, not only in terms of the traffic but the air we breathe.
So we have got to move and provide the leadership to get alternative
means of transportation moving people from place to place without such
great dependency on the automobile. Just think about the time and
productivity and hours that's a waste in the human productivity of
sitting in traffic jams, let alone the waste of energy and the idling
of the motors just in the traffic jams alone. We can't continue that
way. We've got to do things.
Commuter rail is one of the areas that we are working. That's hard.
It's hard to get people out of their automobiles, but it might be good
policy for us to move to an area of good Federal tax dollars being used
as incentives to be able to give people opportunities to get on these
commuter rails. Perhaps we ride for free. Perhaps they're down in a
subsidized cost. We've got to do something.
In Europe and in France and throughout Europe and in Japan, they have
got trains now that are zipping people along at 100. They have got one
over in Asia and Japan somewhere that's going about 150, 160 miles an
hour. Where would we be without the rapid commuter rail systems we have
in the northeast? Can you imagine if we didn't have it? You think
traffic is bad between New York, Boston and Washington, D.C. Just think
it what it would be like if we didn't have those systems.
So there are ways in which we've got to do that.
{time} 2330
The other thing is; and I am not saying, I know how hard it is, I
love my car. We are a society in a culture in America that has just
grown up with the automobile. It's a part of us from the drive-ins to
all the things that we associate with the good life. Get a home, get a
car. You are in America.
But maybe, in addition to getting them out of those cars with
incentives and the commuter rail and other means, maybe we can do
something with the car itself. They are doing some things, American
ingenuity is already at work in New York. The Ford Motor Company is now
putting together an electric car. They are already out there. We have
moved, and I think we are moving with the proposal in this Congress, to
give an incentive, to give a tax write-off, tax benefit, some help, for
people who will buy cars that run on the batteries and electricity.
They have this.
I think there is a lot more we can do, in changing the habits of the
American people, changing to get them out of the automobiles, and then
changing the nature of the automobiles themselves, and then, of course,
getting the clean sort of renewable energy we can to put them in. These
are the kinds of proposals and approaches that I think this issue calls
for, and I think it's the way forward in the future.
Mr. MELANCON. I think about Americans, myself as an American, and how
spoiled we are with just being able to get in our car and go where we
want, when we want. I like to tell people, and it's not that I should
be bragging on it, because I'm not, but I think I'm probably a typical
American family man. I
[[Page H7973]]
have got a Suburban and a Tahoe, I mean, that's not good, but I have
got a boat. My son has a boat. We like to hunt, and we like to fish.
We have lifestyles that we have been fortunate enough that we can
live. But now we're coming to a point in time where instead of maybe
having a Suburban and a Tahoe, I could do with just having one and have
a more efficient vehicle that got better mileage.
Part of what we are talking about in the energy efficiency system
CAFE limits. Now, you can get to the limits drastically, as Mr.
Matheson expressed, by just saying, by year 2015 or 2018, you have got
to reach a certain limit for automobiles and trucks, and, you know,
just damn everybody else, doesn't matter about the jobs, let's just get
there.
Or you can take it as a curve that takes you to that point, maybe not
as acutely as a straight line, and says that you got to get there by
2022, and you have got to achieve some goals on the way up there, that
doesn't provide that we lose the manufacturing jobs and the
manufacturers. I mean, after World War II, there were 33 vehicle types
in America, our labels, as they call it. There are 335 now, different
vehicle labels out there in the United States.
We are spoiled, and we still want to have those luxuries and be able
to live those lives, the lifestyle. But we all have to start, first of
all, all of us, are going to have to start pinching ourselves and come
to the realization that we are going to have to make some changes in
our lifestyles if we want to keep this world and this country vibrant
in more ways than just fuel economy.
So the CAFE limits, we are going to have to choose, choose something
that works, choose something that is not drastic, so that America can
make that transition, so that America doesn't have to just drop
everything and start all over again.
When we talked about infrastructure, we need to provide incentives so
that you see some of the problems you have with providing electricity.
In the northeast, you saw a lot of it over the last several years. Some
of our transmission capacities and the grids Mr. Matheson talked about.
Yes, it's great to go produce solar power or wind energy, but you have
still got to get it somewhere.
If you are going to do ethanol, they are saying there is a problem
with putting it in the pipeline, so you will have to build special
pipelines just for ethanol. But somebody has got to have incentive to
go build those pipelines.
We talk about having fuel-efficient cars. They are all over the
place, flex fuel. You can walk out of here. There are thousands and
thousands and thousands of them. But you can't find a station to find
E-85. It's not available.
So to do one thing that sounds good, it's part of a whole package,
and that's what the Blue Dogs are trying to make sure that we keep
focused. There was a guy that I knew once, he says, just remember, keep
your eye on the ball, and the ball here is getting America moved
forward, but getting America's energy policy done right.
That's what we have got to stay focused on as a country, as a
Congress, and this administration, to help us make sure that we provide
good, sound energy policy.
Mr. MATHESON. I think there are two broad issues out here. Our hour
is drawing to a close, but there are two broad issues out here in the
energy debate. One is energy independence and security, and the other
is climate change challenge.
Now those issues are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a number of the
provisions to pursue each of those issues are complementary, and we
should look at it in that context. But I do think that the Blue Dogs
have come up with a set of principles, we haven't been able to talk
about every one of them tonight, and we will come back again on the
floor to do that.
As I said, this is a complicated issue. There are a lot of layers to
this issue, and this Congress needs to first recognize that level of
complexity to make sure we make good decisions. You have to recognize
the magnitude of the issue before you can make good decisions.
But I do want to touch on just one other area that is a principle the
Blue Dogs feel is very important, and that's the notion that we need to
have an aggressive effort at technology development. We talked a little
bit about technology development tonight, but let's put it in
perspective to where if we really want to get to a point where we have
greater energy independence, and if we make progress on the carbon
emission issue as well.
The technologies aren't there today that need to be there. First of
all, is the technology called carbon capture and sequestration. More
than half of all the electricity we make in this country is coal. You
know what, this country has a lot of coal. In fact, one-fourth of the
world's coal is right here in the United States. It's cheap, it's
plentiful.
The way we burn it now we put CO2 in the atmosphere. The
hope is that we can develop the technology to capture that carbon and
sequester it. But that technology isn't there yet today.
So, when Blue Dogs talk about we need to make a significant and
aggressive commitment to technology development, that's one of the
technologies. It's real straightforward. We will have coal as part of
our energy mix. I think most people think that in terms for the long
run in terms of our electric production. But we have got to solve that
carbon issue, and we have got to invest in technology.
Second, we have had discussions about cellulosic ethanol. We can't
rely on corn as our source of ethanol in this country. There has to be
a better way to do it. We have got to move technology in that
direction. A third one, just to throw an example, battery
technology. We want to get to the point where we have the car you can
go home and plug in at night and run on electricity. A lot of people
have spent a lot of time and money trying to develop that battery
technology. We are still not there yet.
That's an appropriate Federal role to invest and move ahead with that
research and development. I just want to make sure, that's the other
principle I get out tonight that the Blue Dogs believe in, that that's
the right role for the Federal Government to do, to push the
development of these technologies.
One of the greatest American strengths is innovation. That's what
this country is all about. It's why we are a superpower. We have got to
unleash that again and again. The government can't drive all that, but
we can sure encourage it. That is what we ought to do.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. The one area we did not mention, because we
need to, because it's going to play a very important role in the
future, that's nuclear, nuclear energy. I know when you mention the
words nuclear energy, folks get a little shaky, but that's an education
job, that's a leadership job. But nuclear energy is reliable, it's low
cost, everywhere we have the safety necessary, there's a licensing
process that we go through, there are all kinds of features there. But
nuclear energy is very, very important, it's going to play a very
important role, and we have got to invest in it.
Finally, I have got to say, I think in reminding a great historian
once said, on the bleached bones of many past civilizations are written
those pathetic words, too late. Let us hope and let us know for sure
with the action we are taking in this Congress that they will not be
able to say that about our civilization on this energy and global
warming. We are not going to move too late.
Mr. MELANCON. I agree with that, and in one closing remark, just a
thought, as people in public life, you have times where constituents
are there wanting things, and, of course, as there is the old
expression, what have you done for me today? I hope when this energy
policy debate is over, and we have come to a consensus and passed a
bill, that it's a good bill, and that we can say to you, I worked to
secure your energy future, and I hope that it's going to be one that
carries you for generations.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well stated.
Mr. MATHESON. I want to thank both of my colleagues for joining us.
As I said, the Blue Dog coalition stands ready to work with people on
both sides of the aisle. We approach these issues through a very,
practical, pragmatic way. We want to do what's right for this country.
We are going to come back and talk about energy more and more. By the
way, I think this is one of the great domestic policy issues. By that
way,
[[Page H7974]]
that's foreign policy implications, as my colleague pointed out in his
comments earlier. It's one of the great issues we face as a country,
and it's helpful to help drive forward that debate.
____________________