[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2688-S2690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH ENERGY PRICES

  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share 
with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they 
responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are 
heartbreaking and touching. While energy

[[Page S2689]]

prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very 
relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to 
share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through 
an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional 
Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is 
one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve 
to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet 
everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to 
what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that 
last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       You have asked for input as to helpful solutions regarding 
     the energy crisis.
       I am attaching three resolutions that came from a national 
     committee that I chair--the Energy, Natural Resource & 
     Agriculture Policy Committee for the National Foundation for 
     Women Legislators (NFWL). These resolutions were passed by my 
     Committee in October of 2007. Each ``Where As'' tells the 
     story of why we are where we are today and then finally gives 
     recommendations for solutions. Please submit these into the 
     Congressional Record as you seek to tell stories about what 
     Idahoans are doing to offer help and why energy solutions are 
     needed.
       Thank you for this opportunity to tell our story from the 
     Energy, Natural Resource & Agriculture Committee to the U.S. 
     Senate. And, thank you for all that you do.
                                                 Ann, Idaho Falls.

     NFWL Energy, Natural Resources & Agriculture Policy Committee


          Resolution on a Balanced Portfolio of Energy Choices

                     (Introduced October 12, 2007)

       Whereas, the United States of America has become 
     excessively dependent upon foreign sources of oil, and the 
     dependence threatens the security of the American people and 
     economy; and
       Whereas, it is in the best interests of the United States 
     to become as energy independent and diversified as possible 
     to avoid economic dislocations instigated by foreign oil 
     interests, markets and the effects of natural disasters; and
       Whereas, comprehensive federal energy legislation signed 
     into law in 2005 advocates the expansion of nuclear energy 
     for the production of electrical power and hydrogen, as well 
     as the development of bio-energy and other alternative fuels 
     to reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil, a truly 
     balanced portfolio of energy options; and
       Whereas, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) is 
     the federal agency that has primary responsibility for 
     carrying out the directives of the President and the Congress 
     relative to enabling and enhancing the energy security of the 
     nation; and
       Whereas, the DOE Laboratories and other Federal 
     Laboratories are a key national research, development and 
     demonstration resource wherein the federal government has 
     invested significant tax dollars to establish such unique and 
     globally important assets all of which demand continued, or 
     even expanded, use to assure maximum return on tax dollar 
     investment; and
       Whereas, the Idaho National Laboratory has been designated 
     as the lead DOE lab for nuclear energy technology and 
     development and is expected to have a key role in an 
     international initiative; and
       Whereas, the Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) for 
     Technology Transfer can assist in identifying federal labs 
     with a variety of expertise to help states, including energy, 
     through their website;
       Be it resolved that the NFWL Energy, Natural Resource & 
     Agriculture Policy Committee supports execution of an 
     enhanced and balanced portfolio of nuclear, bio-energy, 
     hydropower, fuel reforming and related alternative and 
     renewable energy research, and hereby requests the DOE, the 
     Administration and the Congress identify, commit and sustain 
     the funding necessary to allow continued performance of this 
     and other multi-program energy and national security 
     enhancing work so critical to the long-term well-being of 
     these United States.
       Be it further resolved, that NFWL forward a copy of this 
     resolution to the President of the United States, the 
     Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, to the President 
     of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     of Congress.
                                  ____


     NFWL Energy, Natural Resources & Agriculture Policy Committee


   Resolution on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Loan Guarantee Program

                     (Introduced October 12, 2007)

       Whereas, the National Foundation for Women Legislators 
     (NFWL) Energy, Natural Resource & Agriculture Policy 
     Committee commends Congress and the Administration on passage 
     of the EPAct05 (Energy Policy Act of 2005) that reaffirms the 
     federal commitment to establish and maintain a national 
     energy policy; and
       Whereas, the EPAct05 authorizes the U.S. Department of 
     Energy to issue loan guarantees to eligible projects that 
     ``avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic 
     emissions of greenhouse gases'' and ``employ new or 
     significantly improved technologies as compared to 
     technologies in service in the United States at the time the 
     guarantee is issued''; and
       Whereas, loan guarantees will be another tool that DOE will 
     use to promote commercial use of innovative technologies; and
       Whereas, a principal purpose of the Title XVII loan 
     guarantee program is to encourage early commercial use in the 
     United States of new or significantly improved technologies 
     in energy projects; and
       Whereas, this NFWL Policy Committee submits that energy 
     independence must be a primary goal of the United States and 
     that short- and long-term strategies that provide adequate 
     energy supplies with efficient utilization and optimum cost 
     effectiveness must be developed; and
       Whereas, it is believed that accelerated commercial use of 
     new or improved technologies will help to sustain economic 
     growth, yield environmental benefits, and produce a more 
     stable and secure energy supply; and
       Whereas, the national energy policy and loan guarantee 
     program should promote and provide incentives for the 
     development and optimal use of all energy resources; and
       Whereas, nuclear energy is not currently listed in FY 2008 
     House Energy & Water Appropriations legislation as an 
     included technology area to participate in the loan guarantee 
     program, and is a technology project that avoids, reduces, or 
     sequesters air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of 
     greenhouse gases;
       Now, therefore be it resolved that the NFWL Energy, Natural 
     Resource & Agriculture Policy Committee requests the DOE, the 
     Administration and the Congress to include nuclear energy in 
     the projects for the loan guarantee program.
       Be it further resolved, that NFWL forward a copy of this 
     resolution to the President of the United States, the 
     Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, to the President 
     of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     of Congress as well as appropriate House and Senate 
     Committees.
                                  ____


     NFWL Energy, Natural Resources & Agriculture Policy Committee


                  Resolution on National Energy Policy

                     (Introduced October 12, 2007)

       Whereas, the National Foundation for Women Legislators 
     (NFWL) Energy, Natural Resource & Agriculture Policy 
     Committee commends Congress and the Administration on passage 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that reaffirms the federal 
     commitment to establish and maintain a national energy 
     policy; and
       Whereas, the primary goals of a national energy policy 
     should develop a comprehensive energy conservation strategy, 
     with the most efficient use of energy, promote reliable 
     sources of domestic energy supplies as well as develop and 
     promote the use of alternative, renewable and non-renewable 
     energy sources; and
       Whereas, a national energy policy should ensure affordable 
     priced energy with an adequate supply available, and ensure 
     an efficient and environmentally-sound manner so that the 
     needs of all citizens, economy and national security 
     interests are met and be a balanced portfolio of energy 
     options; and
       Whereas, this NFWL Policy Committee submits that energy 
     independence must be a primary goal of the United States and 
     that short and long-term strategies that provide adequate 
     energy supplies with efficient utilization and optimum cost 
     effectiveness must be developed; and
       Whereas, a comprehensive strategy is needed to increase 
     U.S. and global energy security, encourage clean development 
     around the world, recycle nuclear fuel using new 
     proliferation-resistant technologies to recover more energy 
     and reduce waste, and improve the environment; and
       Whereas, the national energy policy should promote and 
     provide incentives for the development and optimal use of all 
     energy resources and new facility infrastructure which 
     assures that various domestic energy sources are continually 
     developed, maintained and stored to prevent supply 
     emergencies and to promote energy independence; and
       Now, therefore be it resolved that the NFWL Energy, Natural 
     Resource & Agriculture Policy Committee encourages the DOE, 
     the Administration and the Congress to develop a balanced 
     portfolio of energy choices, implement and maintain an 
     expansive, cost-effective, environmentally-sensitive national 
     energy policy.
       Be it further resolved, that NFWL forward a copy of this 
     resolution to the President of the United States, the 
     Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, to the President 
     of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     of Congress.
                                  ____

       I am a little more than concerned about the rising costs of 
     fuel. It hits every economic level of income but mostly the 
     middle to low incomes. We are in the $50,000 income range. I 
     own a small business and my husband works for the State. 
     Increase in the price of fuel is directly felt every time a 
     person drives a vehicle. It is double what it was last year. 
     I drive a 2000 Nissan Sentra. It is a little car. We live on 
     a budget. A paycheck only stretches so far. For a small 
     business this means an increase in freight costs. Some

[[Page S2690]]

     of those costs are passed to the consumer and some are 
     absorbed. A small business is the least likely to be able to 
     handle this. The costs passed to the consumer are on top of 
     the gas prices they are already paying. I live in a small 
     rural community. Because in the past so many people have done 
     their shopping out of town, our town has less to offer which 
     in turn makes going out of town to shop a very costly 
     experience. The whole situation is a catch-22.
       America needs to use its own resources and not let foreign 
     companies do it (drilling for oil off the coast). We also 
     need to be responsible for our overindulgences and use 
     smaller more economical vehicles. We are paying for 
     our gluttony. We do need to explore alternative energy 
     also. We also need to curb our spending in congress. Our 
     country is broke and nobody wants to fix it. Pork barrel 
     spending is breaking this country. Why are we attaching 
     appropriations to bills that have nothing to do with the 
     original bill? Please start making upright and morally 
     responsible decisions. I think Congress is totally out of 
     control.
       A desperate citizen,
     Sue, Grangeville.
                                  ____

       I appreciate your interest in this issue. I must say I am 
     quite fortunate that my 94 Ford escort gets 37 MPG and suits 
     most my needs quite adequately. In addition, I live just a 
     few miles from work in Boise, so I usually ride my bicycle to 
     work. I do recognize that this is not an option for many 
     Idahoans, such as my mom who lives 10 miles outside of 
     Blackfoot.
       Frankly, as far as this last e-mail you sent me goes, it 
     sounds like you are listening too much to lobbyists from the 
     energy industries. More gas exploration is not a long term 
     solution--I cannot imagine that new finds are going to even 
     come close to offsetting increased demand from Asia. (If you 
     have numbers that suggest otherwise, I would love to see 
     them.) More exploration is a mere band-aid that just kicks 
     the problem down the road to whomever gets your seat next. To 
     me, it sounds almost as pointless as Senator Clinton's gas 
     tax holiday she was talking about.
       Instead of typical Washington [solutions], Senator, we need 
     real leadership. We need to be pouring our resources into 
     building alternative modes of transit that can aid this 
     inevitable transition from cheap fossil fuels. We need to 
     bring rail transit back to Southern Idaho. We need a rural 
     bus system with park-and-ride spots along state highways 
     (much like the system used for the buses that run to INL). We 
     need higher fuel-efficiency standards from Detroit. (You may 
     have to tell some industry folks to jump in a lake--that is 
     what we pay you for.) As far as helping people cope with this 
     transition, perhaps you could give tax cuts to small farmers 
     and people who live more than 15 miles from a bus or train 
     stop. But basically any incentives should go towards helping 
     people use less fossil fuel, not more.
     Alex, Boise.
                                  ____

       First off I want to state that I do not consider this fuel 
     problem to be as big of a crisis as it was when we had the 
     fuel shortages back a few decades. This is becoming more of 
     an issue because the dollar is so weak right now, and it does 
     not seem to be getting any better. With that said, my family 
     and I have noticed the problems with fuel prices across the 
     board. I am in the process of trying to make a choice in a 
     new job that would put me back in the classroom doing what I 
     really love, but with gas prices and me riding the ACHD van 
     that is a big cost change for us. I am amazed that with all 
     of the possibilities out there that our energy and gas prices 
     are going up. Why are we not building more wind power plants 
     like California to produce endless power that is also very 
     expandable? Why are we not taking advantage of the man who 
     invented the super fuel efficient engine right here in Idaho 
     who resides in Weiser? There are answers besides drilling 
     right here and we seem to overlook them. I am not against 
     more nuclear power, but the hazards really do not justify 
     those means of power any more. I really hope that we can see 
     some changes soon with the addition of a transit system from 
     Caldwell to Boise or maybe even Weiser. I do know that 
     something has to change or the US will have too many poor 
     people to help. Thank you for your time.
     Richard, Boise.
                                  ____

       You asked for and so here goes. I am so upset with all of 
     the members of Congress and our Government in general for not 
     having an energy plan already in place in the United States. 
     Not only should we not be dependent on foreign countries for 
     our oil sources but we should most definitely have invested 
     in other sources of energy long before now. Off-shore 
     drilling and massacring the Alaskan Wilderness is not the 
     answer. There is absolutely no reason for us not to have 
     automobiles running on other sources of power other than to 
     line the pockets of the oil industry and those ``in the 
     trough''. The technology is there and I think we need 
     government mandates and incentives in place now to force 
     (if necessary) people to create and use these alternative 
     sources. We should reward those companies and those people 
     who produce and use hybrid and other alternative energy-
     sourced vehicles and mass transit and severely tax those 
     people who insist on driving the big SUVs and Hummers in 
     the U.S. as well as those who are the big wasters of 
     energy. ``Going Green'' should not only be the right thing 
     to do for us and the world (and the U.S. should be leading 
     the world as the ``example'') but should be the most 
     economical thing to do and we need to reward those who do 
     and assess those who do not. If companies are not going to 
     take the initiative to make this happen on their own, then 
     the government has to give the free enterprise system and 
     the general public incentives to make it happen.
       There is no one person in the U.S. who is not feeling the 
     effects of the high prices. Whether it be gas, food or other 
     products we buy and use in our life activities, they are all 
     affected by the high gas prices. Those with high incomes can 
     most likely absorb these increased costs but those on fixed 
     incomes and the low- and middle-income cannot sustain these 
     high prices for long. We are in a crisis situation here and I 
     only see it getting worse. And I blame all of you in Congress 
     for not addressing it much sooner (like some 10-20 years ago) 
     and I blame John Q. Public for re-electing all of you time 
     and again. It seems to me that Congress is completely out of 
     touch not only with John Q. Public but with reality. Let me 
     reiterate, more drilling in our own country is not the 
     answer. We must use other alternative energy sources be it 
     electric, wind, nuclear, etc. What kind of country are we 
     leaving for our grandkids? Not a very good one at this rate--
     if we even have one left!
     Melodie.
                                  ____

       You write that my country is too dependent on foreign oil 
     and we must develop alternate energy sources. You, your 
     party, and many of the Democrats have voted consistently 
     against all such alternatives for one reason or another. It 
     is of no use to write about my experience with the rise in 
     gas prices. If Congress and this Administration need stories, 
     then it further proves that our elected government does not 
     give a damn about the citizens--an expansion of Katrina/New 
     Orleans. You have held hearings with the oil representatives 
     which resulted in the usual shameful display of sucking-up to 
     the industry. Thank you for your inattention to this 
     response.
     Harry.
                                  ____

       Does anyone in Washington remember the huge deal it was 
     when gasoline broke $2/gallon about 4 years ago? How about 
     when it reached $3/gallon briefly in 2005 and caused a minor 
     panic about skyrocketing prices? I remember newspaper 
     articles asking ``Will we ever see $2/gallon gasoline 
     again?'' and we wondered if that time had passed. Then prices 
     came back down and did a bit of an up-down over the next 
     couple of years. Through all of that, combatting high oil 
     prices was a top priority for Congress and the White House, 
     which led to the ethanol debacle.
       Now, the Democrat powers-that-be in Washington and around 
     the country have seemingly embraced $4/gallon gasoline as the 
     impetus to make us explore ``alternate energy sources,'' 
     while completely ignoring the agonizing inflationary pressure 
     these price increases are causing. Now we hear, ``Blame 
     Bush!'' ``No war for oil!'' ``Save the polar bears!'' How in 
     the world do we expect to be able to maintain our economic 
     strength while we simultaneously insist on crippling the 
     economy?
       I would urge you, Senator, to work to allow us to pursue 
     oil reserves wherever they might be found in our country. We 
     should seek to be wise stewards of the land, but also 
     acknowledge that if we do not do it here, it will be done 
     elsewhere by people who do not seem to care as much about the 
     environment. ``Not in my backyard'' is the most 
     environmentally irresponsible decision we could possibly 
     make.
     David, Boise.
                                  ____

       Gas prices are outrageous. If it does cost that much for 
     the oil, why not get out of there and drill on our own 
     grounds, or even Canada? What is happening is someone is 
     making a lot of money off this, and they know that they can 
     keep raising the price and people will pay it, people have to 
     pay it.
     CJ.
                                  ____

       We appreciate your interest in the high cost of gasoline 
     and energy, but even if the government started drilling 
     today, we do not have refineries up and running nor do we 
     have enough of them to process the gas we discover. So who 
     and where will we have to transport this ``new gas'' to, to 
     make it useable for the people of the U.S.? Obama stated he 
     wished the price would have increased a little more slowly so 
     this sounds like it is been planned a looong time in 
     Congress.
       Who has got the truth on any of our economy and energy 
     issues?
       Thanks for your efforts.
     Chuck.

                          ____________________