[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 93 (Monday, June 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5167-S5169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about energy legislation. I 
have been reading today all the stories in the newspapers about the 
caucus we had last week in which we described energy legislation and 
climate change legislation and what we should or should not do.
  There are two challenges for this country at this point: No. 1, we 
are far too dependent on foreign oil. Over 60 percent of the oil we 
receive comes from outside of our country; 70 percent of the oil we use 
goes into the transportation sector. We are far too dependent on 
foreign oil. If something should happen to shut off the supply of 
foreign oil to our country, our economy will be flat on its back for a 
long while. We need to be less dependent on foreign oil. No. 2, there 
is something happening to our climate. We are not completely sure what 
that is, but I don't think there is any question that there is a wide 
scientific consensus that something is happening to the global climate.
  We should work on both, no question about that. But there is a 
practical limitation of what we will be able to consider and do between 
now and the end of this year. I have said previously that I support a 
cap on carbon. I support pricing carbon. I have said I will not support 
what is called classic cap and trade, which would serve the interests 
of Wall Street by creating a $1 trillion carbon securities market so 
they can trade carbon securities on Monday and Tuesday and tell us what 
the cost of our energy is going to be on Thursday and Friday. I have no 
interest in doing that, nor would I support it. But there are ways for 
us to price carbon and to restrict carbon. I understand that.
  The question has lingered now about a piece of legislation that came 
out of the Energy Committee 1 year ago this month. We had 12 weeks of 
markup. It was a very difficult markup. We passed, at the conclusion of 
the markup, a bipartisan piece of energy legislation that advances our 
country's energy interests and will make us less dependent on foreign 
oil. It will substantially reduce carbon emissions because it will 
dramatically change the amount of production that comes from renewable 
energy, wind, solar, biomass, and so on.
  For a year we have now waited for that legislation to come to the 
floor. It has not come to the floor because some say: If we can't do 
comprehensive climate change legislation, then we don't want to do any 
legislation. Even that which would reduce carbon, even that which would 
substantially increase production from sources of energy where the wind 
blows and the Sun shines so we can collect this energy and put it on a 
grid.
  It does not make any sense, that we would not consider a bipartisan 
energy bill and end this year having failed to address something that, 
A, was bipartisan, and B, will in fact reduce carbon and will give us 
an opportunity to be less dependent on foreign oil. That makes no 
sense, not to be able to take advantage of that kind of success.
  It seems to me there are not 60 votes in the Senate to bring up a 
comprehensive climate change bill in June or July of this year. I know 
some people will have heartburn when I say that. I just think that is 
the case. If that is the case, let's not block a bipartisan energy bill 
that does address production, efficiency, and a lower carbon future.
  We need to produce more in this country. We need to save more, that 
is, conserve more. Even as we do that, we

[[Page S5168]]

need to produce more energy in a different way--wind energy, solar 
energy, the biofuels, obviously, that are renewable and, generally 
speaking, reduce carbon.
  Building an interstate highway of transmission capability is 
essential because it is not the case that all people live in areas 
where they get the best sunshine or the most significant amount of 
wind. If we are going to get the most energy available from wind and 
solar, we need the kind of transmission that is capable of getting the 
wind energy and solar energy and then moving it to where it is needed.
  The building efficiency plan that contains the best and quickest 
capability for saving energy is also in the bill we have written.
  We will and we should produce more domestic oil. We are doing 
unbelievable things in new kinds of horizontal drilling. The Bakken 
shale in my State is the largest assessed reserve of recoverable oil 
ever registered in the history of the lower 48--just in the last 2 
years--up to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.
  Coal development, including carbon capture and sequestration, an 
especially beneficial use of carbon--all of that is capable of being 
done; and, yes, some nuclear energy. I support loan guarantees for 
nuclear plants, like requested by the Administration.
  I think all of this is capable of being done in a way that reduces 
our dependence on foreign oil and is good for our economy. I understand 
change is hard and that is never demonstrated more concretely than in 
this Chamber. Change is very hard. I mentioned some while ago that a 
man named Rudolf Diesel showed up at the World's Fair in Europe about 
110 years ago. Rudolf Diesel showed up with a new engine which we now 
know as the diesel engine. He was very proud of the engine he had 
developed, and it ran on vegetable oil. Yes, that was 110 years ago. 
Rudolf Diesel's new engine ran on vegetable oil. Most of what we can 
and should and I hope will do, does not need to represent a new idea.
  Ninety-seven percent of our transportation sector runs on oil. So 
Senator Alexander, myself, and Senator Merkley have just introduced the 
electric drive transportation bill. We are moving toward electric drive 
vehicles, and we are establishing the capability of demonstration 
cities for infrastructure and all the things that are necessary, 
including battery investment and so on. I think ultimately we will have 
a 400- or 500-mile battery in vehicles that are electric drive 
vehicles.
  Think of the changes in transportation, and it is pretty 
unbelievable. Nobody knows exactly what the future is going to hold, 
but we either decide to make that future or we just let it happen. I am 
a big believer in making it happen. In 1935, it took 3 weeks to go from 
Chicago to New York. Twenty-five years later, it took 3 days by 
railroad, then the cars, and then the jet airplanes, and all of a 
sudden things changed dramatically.
  From the Roman legions time until when Lewis and Clark came and spent 
the winter in North Dakota on their wonderful expedition, there was no 
change to speak of in travel. One could travel as fast as a horse or a 
river stream could take them, and that was it. All of a sudden, in the 
last century, century and a half, things have exploded. But it has 
required a great deal of energy.
  So the question is, What kind of energy? How do we produce it? What 
makes us less dependent, for example on foreign oil, so we do not find 
ourselves, at some point, tipped over in an economy that cannot work 
because we do not have the energy? How do we address the energy issue, 
still paying attention to the issue of climate change? Those are the 
issues.
  As I indicated, very few people can see the future. In fact, most 
people are skeptical about anything. They say Fulton, when he developed 
the steam engine--he apparently was with Napoleon, talking to Napoleon 
about his idea--and Napoleon said: Are you kidding me?
  He probably did not quite say it that way. He said: You are saying 
you are going to make a boat sail against the wind by putting a fire 
under its deck? I don't think so. That was Napoleon's response to 
Fulton.
  Or Einstein said: There is no evidence whatsoever that nuclear energy 
will ever be achievable. I do not know, has anybody ever said Einstein 
lacked clarity about the future?
  David Sarnoff once famously said about the wireless music box, which 
we now call the radio: Who on Earth would pay for someone to send a 
message that goes to no one in particular? Or Harry Warner who said: 
Who would pay to hear actors talk? So much for prognosis. Watson, at 
IBM, said he thought there was a market worldwide for about five 
computers. That was his assessment.
  So it is very hard to predict the future. No one can see very far. 
The question, it seems to me is: Are we going to decide reasonably what 
we want our future to be, with new technology--perhaps using old 
technology--and move there, or are we just going to sit around and let 
things happen?
  That is why this Energy bill is so important. We are charting a new 
path. RES--we say we want 15 percent, and if we can get the bill to the 
floor, I am going to offer an amendment for 20 percent. We want 20 
percent of all electricity produced in America coming from renewable 
sources. Driving renewable energy will make us less dependent on 
foreign oil.
  I also support domestic production of oil and gas and domestic 
production of coal. By the way, coal is one of the most significant 
quantities of resources in our country for energy, and there is great 
concern because it produces carbon when you burn it, and that is tough 
for the environment and goes against the issue of the global climate 
change matter. So what do we do about that? Well, one of the things I 
am convinced we can do is understand that carbon is a product, not just 
a problem.
  What can we do with carbon? Well, we can produce fuel with carbon. We 
have work going on at Sandia National Laboratories that uses a heat 
engine. You put CO2 in one side and water in the other side, 
and you fracture the molecules and chemically recombine them, and you 
produce fuel. So take carbon and air and produce fuel, along with some 
water.
  I do not think these problems are unsolvable. But in order to get 
there, we have to get this Energy bill to the floor of the Senate, and 
it has now been 1 year. I noticed this morning there were 15 or 20 of 
my colleagues who said: If a bill does not contain climate change, we 
would not support any bill coming to the floor.
  Well, do you know what? Climate change means you want to reduce 
carbon to try to protect our environment. How do you reduce carbon? 
With the very kinds of policies that exist in this Energy bill, and we 
have done it on a bipartisan basis.
  So my hope is, in the next couple of weeks or so, that we might 
finally, at last--at long, long last--get to the point where we are 
bringing up a piece of legislation that is out of the committee, that 
is bipartisan, that will protect our environment but, most importantly, 
will invest in virtually every form of energy production and 
conservation and make us less dependent--much less dependent--on 
foreign oil.
  That ought to be the goal of all Americans. We do not think much of 
it, we do not talk much about it because we just assume energy is going 
to be a part of our lives beginning tomorrow morning. We get up in the 
morning, we turn off the alarm--that was electricity--we turn on the 
light--that is electricity--make a piece of toast--that is 
electricity--get a cup of coffee--that is electricity--take a shower--
that is electricity to heat the water. We get in the car and turn the 
key to start the engine--that is oil.
  The fact is, we use energy in a prodigious way all day long and never 
think much about it. But if, God forbid, tomorrow morning something 
happens that shuts off the supply of foreign oil to this country, our 
economy would be in deep, desperate trouble. We would be smart, we 
would be wise, to understand that over dependence, that excessive 
dependence on foreign oil, is a detriment to this county's future. We 
better get about the business of trying to address it. There is a way 
to do that, and a way to do that at the same time that is very helpful 
to this country's environment by restricting and limiting 
CO2 emissions because we are going more and more toward the 
development of renewable sources of energy for the future.

[[Page S5169]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________