[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12713-12741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence of the distinguished 
Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, on the floor. We have agreed 
heretofore that her amendment would now be the subject matter before 
the Senate. I understand the Senator is prepared to offer it.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may we have a copy of the final draft of 
the amendment?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes, we will send the amendment to the desk.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have it. I wonder if we can discuss what the 
Senator's pleasure is. We have nothing else pending but her amendment 
for at least a couple of hours or more. How much time does the Senator 
think she might need?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know there are many colleagues who 
want to talk on this issue. I do not know how many members on the other 
side of the aisle want to speak. I would think we can dispose of this 
within a couple of hours. That would be my guess.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we will not set a specific time, but 
let's talk about a couple of hours. I gather that the Senator would not 
need all that time continuously, if somebody desired to speak. I ask 
the Chair to recognize the Senator to answer my question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. That is correct. I think we will start the debate on 
the Cantwell amendment, and if other Members want to address that or 
other issues, we are happy for them to come down and address those 
issues as the afternoon progresses.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is the understanding--and I hope Senator Cantwell 
would comply--that there will not be any other subject matter come up. 
I ask unanimous consent that no other amendments be in order while this 
discussion is taking place, other than discussing the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, having said that, Senators on our side 
have heard we will be on this amendment for 2 hours, probably longer. 
If any of my colleagues desire to come down and debate the issue, I 
would very much appreciate them letting us know or, in fact, come to 
the floor and we will arrange for them to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Energy 
Committee for his participation and help in clarifying this next 
segment of debate on the Energy bill. While I think we have several 
issues left to discuss, I think it is very important to realize what a 
milestone we have achieved. After a couple of sessions of the Senate 
trying to get energy legislation, we are now on the precipice of having 
an energy bill that has great bipartisan support.
  I compliment the chairman of the Energy Committee for his hard work 
and diligence in getting an energy bill that has such great bipartisan 
support. As a member of the Energy Committee and as a relatively new 
Member of the Senate, I can tell you how honored I was that Senator 
Domenici visited me in my office to talk about the issues impacting the 
Northwest--because we

[[Page 12714]]

have been hard hit by an energy crisis in the last several years--and 
his willingness to work with my office on those Northwest issues, 
particularly related to the hydro system.
  I can say with certainty that just about every member of the Senate 
Energy Committee participated in the markup of this legislation by 
getting ideas and concepts into the Energy bill. While each of us have 
different perspectives because we represent different regions of the 
country, people should realize that getting an energy bill is a very 
important step forward in our Nation.
  I contrast that to the House version. The House version reminds me of 
where we were in the Senate version 2 years ago, except for the House 
version just kept going in the wrong direction. It basically has what I 
call ``gratuitous special interest deals'' relating to groundwater 
pollutants. This includes letting MTBE manufacturers off the hook from 
their liability, something I know the Presiding Officer has concerns 
about. The House bill also has rollbacks of the Clean Air Act, the 
Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. I think these are bad precedents to set.
  I am trying to bring attention to the fact that the product we are 
starting with in the Senate is good legislation. The next week and a 
half will probably make this legislation even better, as Members who 
are not on the committee bring up issues, some of which, Members who 
are on the committee left to be discussed by all the Members on the 
Senate floor.
  Something of particular importance to the Northwest is the 
electricity title in this legislation. Establishing the electricity 
title was a very meaningful step toward responding to the scandalous 
Enron crisis and the unethical practices of market manipulation. We are 
really getting tough on energy traders and executives who perpetrate 
the kinds of abuses that we saw in the western energy market. We are 
sending a message to those industries and businesses that the consumer 
will not provide the deep pocket for Enron kinds of bankruptcies.
  I am grateful to the chairman and the ranking member from New Mexico 
for their hard work on this legislation. There was a great irony taking 
place the moment the Senate was about to make a decision on changing 
the filibuster rules. Members of both sides of the aisle and all their 
staffs were hard at work marking up a very comprehensive energy bill in 
a very bipartisan fashion. If people were there, they would have 
realized it was the Senate at its best doing its best work.
  There are still outstanding issues that we decided we were going to 
bring to the Senate floor. Some of those issues were related to a 
variety of concerns that we thought were best addressed on the Senate 
floor. One of the issues that I think is important to bring up is my 
amendment on energy security. It is an amendment that will set a 
national goal for getting off our overdependence on foreign sources of 
oil. I am pleased to be able to offer that amendment with Senators 
Durbin, Salazar, and Kerry because it is important that energy 
independence be part of our strategy for a national energy policy.
  Many Americans are feeling this overdependence at the gas pump today. 
They know we are overdependent on foreign oil. They want to see more 
competition in gas prices. Americans may not realize that now the 
United States imports about 58 percent of our oil supply. That is about 
11 million barrels a day. This number is expected to grow to about 62 
percent by 2015. The underlying bill tried to address this by saying we 
should cut our dependence on oil by a million barrels a day, but what 
that underlying bill does is leave us worse off by 2015 than we are 
today. It would leave us more dependent on foreign oil than we 
currently are. The mathematics of the underlying bill need to be 
improved.
  My amendment would direct the President to develop and implement a 
long-term strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by reducing 
7.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2025. So, instead of allowing our 
foreign oil imports to grow from the 58 percent that it is today to 68 
percent in 2025, my amendment would reverse this alarming trend.
  We can see where we are today and where we need to get to reduce this 
dependence.
  Under my amendment, this would be a 40-percent reduction by the year 
2025. It is very important that this goal be included as part of our 
energy legislation.
  It should be no surprise because many of the Members have talked 
about energy independence as part of the energy legislation. If my 
colleagues believe in the underlying fundamentals of this legislation, 
then they must believe that we can be successful in getting off our 
overdependence on foreign oil.
  What this legislation is missing is an adequate goal to actually 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  It is no surprise that consumers and experts alike agree on this. In 
fact, there was a recent poll which showed that 92 percent of Americans 
are very worried about our dependence on foreign oil, and 93 percent of 
Americans want our Government to develop an energy strategy that will 
get us off our overdependence on foreign oil. In fact, the President 
has joined in the call, saying that in order to make sure our economy 
grows, we need to encourage small business sector growth and vitality. 
We need to address a major problem facing our country, and that is our 
Nation's growing dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  The President has joined in this debate in saying that getting off 
our foreign dependence is important.
  We have had many others speak out, such as the leadership on both 
sides of the aisle. In the House, Speaker Hastert said: Our Nation is 
dependent on a fickle foreign oil market that is being stretched to the 
limit by foreign demands.
  National security experts, such as CIA Director James Woolsey, former 
Secretary of State George Schultz, and others in the Energy Future 
Coalition, have said that the possibility exists for future oil 
embargoes and supply disruption that make us more dependent on the 
Middle East.
  In fact, those gentlemen, in their report, said: For the foreseeable 
future, as long as vehicle transportation is dominated by oil, the 
greater Middle East and especially Saudi Arabia will remain in the 
driver's seat.
  We have a chart that shows who owns the oil supply and who are the 
top global oil companies in the world. If one thinks about these 
companies on the chart, looking at the names, Aramco and various 
companies, and they look at the countries that basically own these 
companies, people will see that they are 100-percent owned by those 
entities. We can see what countries they are. We can see where the 
supply is.
  If Americans look at this chart, then they know that we cannot leave 
our economic future and our national security for future oil supply in 
the hands of these governments and these countries. What we need to do 
is to get off of our overdependence on foreign oil and diversify, and 
that is specifically what my amendment calls for.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Energy Future 
Coalition that calls for major new initiatives to curtail U.S. oil 
consumption be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Energy Future Coalition,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to follow up on the 
     letter we sent to the President in March, urging an 
     aggressive program to address America's growing dependence on 
     foreign oil, which in our judgment endangers our national and 
     economic security. We asked the President to ``launch a major 
     new initiative to curtail U.S. oil consumption through 
     improved efficiency and the rapid development and deployment 
     of advanced biomass, alcohol and other available petroleum 
     fuel alternatives.''

[[Page 12715]]

       The signatories, representing a broad range of political: 
     views, support a new national commitment: to reduce U.S. oil 
     consumption substantially, through the accelerated 
     introduction of advanced technology vehicles and alternative 
     fuels. We believe domestic biofuels can cut the nation's oil 
     use by 25 percent by 2025, and substantial further reductions 
     are possible through efficiency gains from advanced 
     technologies. That is an ambitious goal, but it is also an 
     extraordinary opportunity for American leadership, 
     innovation, job creation, and economic growth.
       Mr. Chairman, we recognize that you and the other Members 
     of the Committee are well along in the drafting process, and 
     we hope that legislation can be enacted this year that 
     addresses the critical energy challenges confronting the 
     nation. We want to commend you for the leadership you are 
     showing and the bipartisan approach you have pursued in 
     developing a comprehensive energy bill. You have demonstrated 
     a willingness to look anew at the facts on the ground and to 
     adjust to those facts as appropriate.
       We come forward now in a constructive spirit, with 
     recommendations drawn from the work of several groups that 
     have recently examined this topic in addition to the Energy 
     Future Coalition--the National Commission on Energy Policy, 
     the Set America Free Coalition, the Apollo Alliance, Rocky 
     Mountain Institute, and others.
       The President said last month, ``Our country is on the 
     doorstep of incredible technological advances that will make 
     energy more abundant and more affordable for our citizens. By 
     harnessing the power of technology, we're going to be able to 
     grow our economy, protect our environment, and achieve 
     greater energy independence.'' We could not agree more 
     strongly.
       We see a broad and bipartisan consensus emerging at various 
     levels of government throughout the country on the need to 
     move to a new model of energy production and use. As 
     promising as that vision is, however, it won't happen by 
     itself. Public policy and investment are needed to hurry the 
     future, and now is the time to act, before a crisis.
       Toward that end, we recommend certain first steps, outlined 
     briefly below. The cost of this package is small, relative to 
     both the risks and opportunities at hand, but it would begin 
     to change the nation's direction on this critical issue. We 
     would be pleased to work with you and your staff on specific 
     legislative language.
       1. Reward technological innovation that increases fuel 
     efficiency--Transportation accounts for two-thirds of U.S. 
     oil consumption, and light-duty vehicles account for more 
     than half of all transportation demand. New vehicle 
     technologies, including hybrids and advanced diesels, can 
     dramatically increase the efficiency of that fleet.
       The health of the U.S. economy is closely linked to the 
     health of its auto manufacturing industry, which affects one 
     out of every 10 private-sector jobs in America. The 
     industry's vitality in turn depends on its ability to 
     innovate and respond to rapidly changing customer 
     preferences.
       We recommend tax incentives for U.S. vehicle and component 
     manufacturers that will enable them to retool existing 
     production lines for both cars and trucks and produce 
     advanced technologies that reduce fuel consumption and U.S. 
     demand for foreign oil. We also recommend tax incentives, as 
     the President did again last month, that will increase 
     consumer demand for these technologies. We recognize, of 
     course, that tax policy falls within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Finance, and we will send a similar letter to 
     Chairman Grassley.
       2. Support the next generation of advanced vehicles--Fuel 
     consumption is closely tied to vehicle weight. Lighter 
     vehicles are thus desirable as long as they do not compromise 
     safety or performance. Advanced materials--such as composites 
     now used in advanced aircraft--could allow dramatic gains in 
     fuel economy if they could be reduced in cost. We recommend 
     that the Federal government carry out a program to 
     demonstrate the feasibility of high-volume, low-cost 
     manufacture of these materials, which will have important 
     military applications as well.
       Additional reductions in oil demand would flow from 
     extending the range that hybrid vehicles can travel on the 
     electricity stored in their batteries. This will require 
     further improvements in battery technology and the ability to 
     plug in to the electric power grid, but may have the 
     additional benefit of leveling peak utility power loads. We 
     recommend support for further development, demonstration, and 
     deployment of these technologies.
       3. Accelerate the introduction of alternative 
     transportation fuels--The production of ethanol has increased 
     dramatically in the last two yeas, but must grow much further 
     to displace a major share of U.S. oil demand. Technologies to 
     convert widely abundant plant fiber--cellulosic biomass--to 
     liquid fuels have been demonstrated at pilot scale but face 
     considerable financial and technical risk in moving to first-
     of-a-kind commercial-scale production. A Canadian company, 
     Iogen, is currently producing ethanol from wheat straw, but 
     at relatively small scale. Biodiesel fuels--from sources as 
     diverse as soybeans, waste cooking oil, and turkey offal--are 
     also emerging as important alternatives.
       A well-focused and adequately funded program to take these 
     technologies to the point of becoming low-risk commercial 
     choices should be pursued on grounds of national security. 
     This may be the only way that the U.S. can have--in years, as 
     opposed to decades--a significant supply of renewable 
     domestic fuels, chemicals, and other products for which we 
     now depend on imported oil or limited natural gas reserves. 
     The Federal government should be directed to conduct a one-
     time technology competition, supporting private-sector 
     construction of at least 10 commercial-scale demonstration 
     plants within the next five years--testing the comparative 
     advantages of different conversion processes, feedstocks and 
     end products.
       We also support an aggressive program to increase the use 
     of renewable fuels in the fleet (similar to S. 650, for 
     example) to encourage development of these fuels and their 
     use as fuel substitutes, not just as additives. Flexible-fuel 
     vehicles can use ethanol or gasoline interchangeably, and 
     some four million are already on the road. Because new cars 
     can be given flexible-fuel capability at negligible cost, we 
     recommend that this technology be rapidly introduced into the 
     fleet to give consumers a choice in refueling options. We 
     also believe the corporate average fuel economy program 
     should provide credit for the demonstrated use of alternative 
     fuels not based on petroleum, and we recommend that all 
     biodiesel blends be treated alike in the tax code.
       Finally, we are not unmindful of the current budget 
     situation and its implications for the energy bill; however, 
     we think that a more rational allocation of scarce resources 
     would substitute the unfunded elements of this package for 
     the $2 billion ``ultra-deepwater and unconventional onshore 
     natural gas and other petroleum research and development 
     program'' contained in the House bill. As the President noted 
     recently, with oil at $50 a barrel, ``energy companies do not 
     need taxpayers'-funded incentives to explore for oil ad 
     gas.'' We should support instead a new direction in energy 
     policy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, expand 
     the production of domestic transportation fuels from 
     agriculture, and create new jobs, economic growth, and 
     investment in America.
       Mr. Chairman, we note that the Committee has held 
     conferences this year on natural gas supply and on the future 
     of coal, as well as hearings on other relevant topics, but 
     not on the subject of oil dependence and national security, 
     despite the remarkable rise in the price of oil over the past 
     year. We respectfully urge you to consider such a session and 
     offer our participation if you so desire. In any case, we 
     would be pleased to discuss these initiatives with you as you 
     consider incentives for innovative clean energy technologies, 
     as well as other provisions on renewable energy, fuels and 
     vehicles, and oil and gas.
       These recommendations are the product of three years of 
     work by the Energy Future Coalition and others, who have come 
     together in a constructive and non-partisan effort to develop 
     politically viable answers to seemingly intractable issues, 
     so that we might have a national energy policy that responds 
     strategically both to the challenges we face and to the 
     opportunities they create.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
         Robert C. McFarlane.
         R. James Woolsey.
         Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
         Richard L. Trumka.
         Charles B. Curtis.
         C. Boyden Gray.
         Timothy E. Wirth.
         John D. Podesta.

       Enclosures: Additional Signatories

       Lt. Gen. John S. Caldwell, Jr., USA (Ret.); Adm. William T. 
     Crowe, Jr., USN (Ret.), Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff; Hon. John H. Dalton, Former Secretary of the Navy; 
     Vice Adm. Robert F. Dunn, USN (Ret.); Michael T. Eckhart, 
     American Council on Renewable Energy; Hon. Vic Fazio, Former 
     U.S. Representative; Hon. Robert W. Fri, Resources for the 
     Future; Brig. Gen. Gordon Gayle, USMC (Ret.); Hon. Sherri W. 
     Goodman, Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; Hon. James 
     C. Greenwood, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Former 
     U.S. Representative.
       Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.); Institutes for Public 
     Research, Center for Naval Analysis; F. Henry Habicht II, 
     Former Deputy Administrator, EPA Commission on National 
     Energy Policy; David A. Harris, American Jewish Committee; 
     Hon. Gary Hart, Former U.S. Senator; Co-Chair, U.S. 
     Commission on National Security for the 21st Century; Bracken 
     Hendricks, Apollo Alliance; John P. Holdren, Harvard 
     University, Co-Chair, National Commission on Energy Policy; 
     Lt. Col. William C. Holmberg, USMC (Ret.), Biomass 
     Coordinating Council; Hon. Jerry Hultin, Former Under 
     Secretary of the Navy; Rear Adm. Leland S. Kollmorgen, USN 
     (Ret.).
       Gen. Richard L. Lawson, USAF (Ret.), Former President, 
     National Mining Association; Maj. Gen. Charles Link, USAF 
     (Ret.),

[[Page 12716]]

     National Defense University Foundation; Gal Luft, Institute 
     for the Analysis of Global Security; Lt. Gen. William R. 
     Maloney, USMC (Ret.); Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Ret.); 
     Dennis R. Minano, Former Vice President for Environment and 
     Energy, General Motors; Hon. William A. Nitze, Former 
     Assistant Administrator, EPA, The Gemstar Group; John L. 
     Petersen, The Arlington Institute; Hon. Robert B. Pirie, Jr., 
     Former Secretary of the Navy (acting).
       Hon. Joe R. Reeder, Former Under Secretary of the Army; 
     Hon. William K. Reilly, Former Administrator, EPA, Co-Chair, 
     Commission on National Energy Policy; Maj. Gen. J. Milnor 
     Roberts, USAR (Ret.); Larry J. Schweiger, National Wildlife 
     Federation; Hon. Philip R. Sharp, Former U.S. Representative, 
     Congressional Co-Chair, Commission on National Energy Policy; 
     Hon. Susan F. Tierney, Former Assistant Secretary of Energy, 
     Commission on National Energy Policy; Vice Adm. Richard H. 
     Truly, USN (Ret.), Former Director, National Renewable Energy 
     Laboratory; R.E. Turner, Turner Foundation; Adm. James D. 
     Watkins, USN (Ret.), Former Secretary of Energy.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Specifically, this coalition believes that domestic 
biofuel, something that we just debated as part of this energy 
strategy, can be used to produce a very significant amount of our 
future energy, and they are calling it an extraordinary opportunity for 
American leadership for job creation and economic growth.
  I think this group of individuals, who are part of a coalition that 
is interested in our country's national security, are pointing out that 
this very chart, showing the ownership by foreign entities, is of great 
concern to our future. I think this letter does adequately call on us 
to do our job in making sure we are getting off of our foreign 
dependence.
  I believe this underlying legislation gives us the tools to do so. 
That is especially true if you think about the framework that is in the 
bill and the debate we just had on biofuels, the 8 billion gallon 
biofuels goal by 2012. What is great about the biofuels amendment that 
was adopted and revised from the committee markup is that it includes 
both ethanol and biodiesel, and specifically ethanol research and 
development of what are called cellulosic ethanols--biomass-based 
ethanol materials.
  We know we have Midwestern States that are already producing ethanol 
and giving us a source of supply. But if you take those five Midwestern 
States and try to transport that product to the Northwest, as we do 
today--we are selling biofuels and ethanol in a variety of places in 
Washington State today, but you are adding a 30-cent to 50-cent 
transportation cost. What the amendment we just adopted does is make 
sure that various parts of the country can also be in the biofuels 
business; that we can start producing products in other parts of the 
country, closer to the source and consumers that are going to use them. 
So it is a very positive step forward.
  The bill also includes clean coal technology, that I know my 
colleague who is on the floor, the Senator from Tennessee, has worked 
on so diligently. It includes hydrogen fuel cells, and it includes next 
generation nuclear power, things I know my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle have worked hard to perfect. It includes new research and 
development, to play a vital role in the commercialization of new 
technology. It promotes in, a bipartisan way, conservation initiatives. 
It is exciting to catch a sense of the new technology that will be in 
this bill to give us more efficiency in our homes and businesses. We 
will get a lot of savings from these programs and tools.
  There are many tools in the underlying bill to achieve the goals we 
set out for ourselves. We believe this underlying bill has the right 
technology answers; that is, it has all the various means by which we 
can get off our foreign oil dependence, but it is simply lacking a 
goal. That is what my amendment will provide. This legislation should 
reflect the resolve of the American people, who say that getting off 
our overdependence on foreign oil is a national priority, and we are 
going to stick to it.
  I know various Members are going to come down here and offer 
amendments on other issues, issues related to global warming and 
greenhouse gas emissions. We are going to have proposals regarding a 
renewable portfolio standard, which would basically mean that our 
electricity grid would use more renewable energy to provide supply. I 
think Senator Feinstein is still going to come down and offer her 
amendment to close the SUV loophole, to try to make SUVs more fuel 
efficient.
  We are going to have a lot of discussion to help improve the bill. 
But without setting a national goal, without saying our country has to 
get off our dependence on foreign oil, we will have missed an 
opportunity. This underlying legislation sets a goal that will actually 
make us, in 2015, more dependent on foreign oil than we are today. I 
think we need to set a goal as a legislative body, that we want to 
reverse that trend. In 2025 we want to actually be importing less 
foreign oil, and that is exactly what my amendment does.
  Why is this so important? First, we all know it is in the economic 
interest of the United States to diversify off foreign oil. We know our 
dependence has cost us, since 1970, something like $3.6 trillion. In 
2003, imports cost us $10 billion every single month, and our oil 
imports count for about 34 percent of our existing trade deficit. Think 
about that, 34 percent of our trade deficit, just because of the cost 
of oil. In fact, Alan Greenspan has said that the high cost of fuel has 
basically caused 8 out of the 10 postwar U.S. recessions; they were 
related to high energy prices and spikes in oil.
  We know there is a strong relationship between energy costs to our 
overall economy. That is what we are trying to change. But a number of 
factors remain, and that is what is of great concern. Who actually 
controls those energy costs? We know the OPEC cartel, as well as 
international events and political events, have an impact. We know the 
growing demand in China and India for the same supply of oil has an 
impact. We know we need to do something about it.
  If you talk to economists about what is going to happen to the price 
of oil in the future, the signs are pointing to oil prices could reach 
$100 a barrel in the next 20 years. If that is the case, that would 
have a devastating impact on our national economy. Yet that is exactly 
what we are hearing from them. That is exactly what people are saying. 
There is a world economic outlook report that was issued this spring by 
the International Monetary Fund, and that report basically said that 
oil could spike to $100 a barrel between now and 2030.
  The Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs also predicted that the price 
of oil could reach $105 in the next few years, and energy markets could 
easily be in the early stages of a superspike period. I know the United 
States has been through these periods before, where we have seen 
extreme spikes in energy costs. It has had a devastating impact on our 
economy. That is something we are trying to avoid by setting a national 
goal to diversify away from foreign oil.
  We have many economic reasons for this amendment. But as I stated 
earlier, we also have security reasons. Let me expound on that just a 
little bit because I think it is important to understand the demand for 
oil and, basically, who holds the reserves. The oil reserves of every 
area in the world are in decline except for the Middle East. That means 
if we continue to be dependent on foreign oil, we are going to be more 
dependent on OPEC and its member countries. Given that those reserves, 
let's just say, are constantly under some scrutiny because of the 
challenges in that region of the world, some analysts, when looking at 
the oil futures market, basically describe what they call a fear 
premium. That is, the price of oil futures actually increases because 
people are concerned that international incidents may happen, terrorist 
threats and other things, that will damage that oil supply. So the cost 
of oil futures actually goes up, just on the fear of what might happen.
  That is troubling because as we all know, we cannot predict what is 
going to happen on an international basis. We do our best to protect 
that oil supply, but Saudi Arabia alone has about a quarter of the 
world's oil reserves and more than 60 percent of that country's total 
oil inputs are processed at a single facility. So if you think about 
it, it

[[Page 12717]]

is the home to almost all of the world's spare production capacity. 
Again, we are putting all our eggs in one basket. I am simply saying 
lets set a national goal to get off that dependence on foreign oil 
because of this security reason, as well as the economic reason and who 
owns this supply and how important it is.
  I would like to talk for a second about the picture as it relates to 
other people interested in that oil supply. I mentioned China and India 
and the projections of the price of oil reaching $100 a barrel. 
Analysts agree that China, because of its growth and huge demand, is 
likely to shift the whole center of gravity for energy markets. That 
is, China has already moved past Japan in its global energy 
consumption. It is the second largest oil consumer and the third 
largest oil importer. In the next decade, China is going to continue to 
grow to about half of today's U.S. combined car and truck total, so 
they are going to be looking for lots of energy supply. It is expected 
that their imports are going to double by 2010 and quadruple, to 8 
billion barrels of oil a day, by 2025. Imports will be 60 percent of 
China's total oil consumption.
  While we are looking at the picture, already knowing we are 
overdependent on foreign oil and that the challenges to security are 
there and that the American economy is already suffering, we also need 
to recognize there are other nations who are going to be bidding for 
that same resource.
  We need to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. How are we 
going to do that? First, we have to have the resolve. There are many 
times in American history this country has shown American resolve. We 
have put a man on the Moon. We have ushered in the nuclear age. We 
stood up in the OPEC crisis and got fuel efficiency standards for cars. 
We ought to have the resolve now. We need to bet on the ingenuity of 
American brain power to get us off our overdependence on foreign oil. 
If we are smart enough to put a man on the Moon, we ought to be smart 
enough to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. When John F. 
Kennedy made the declaration of wanting to put a man on the Moon in a 
10-year period of time, I don't think he had the answer to every single 
element of how to do that. He left the details up to both the public 
and private sector in getting new technology developed so we could move 
forward.
  In this case we have an underlying bill that actually can achieve 
this goal of reversing the trend by 2025 and reducing 40 percent the 
consumption of the United States of foreign oil. How do we do that? 
Many people have talked about how we get there. I will show one chart 
with examples of the oil savings technology in this legislation.
  The biofuels amendment we talked about: Many organizations, including 
some of those security initiative organizations such as Energy Future 
Coalition and some environmental organizations such as Natural 
Resources Defense Council, have said biofuels can play a significant 
role. They could help produce 3.9 billion barrels of alternative fuel a 
day.
  I hope my Midwest colleagues and my colleagues from other parts of 
the country who are interested in biodiesel and ethanol are excited by 
that opportunity. It means an economic opportunity for all the regions 
of our country that can produce those fuels. It also has a higher 
national purpose, to help us get off our over-dependence on foreign 
oil.
  We can also improve efficiencies in various sectors such as aviation, 
residential applications, and various modes of transportation. I am 
very proud the Northwest has figured this out.
  At the Paris Air Show we are seeing a lot of news about future 
planes. One plane you will not see there today but is on the drawing 
boards and is getting rave reviews from people making purchase orders 
is the next generation 787. What is great about that is its whole 
design is based on a more fuel-efficient plane. Boeing estimates it can 
save between 20 and 30 percent on fuel costs. They figured out the 
marketplace is going to be very sensitive to the high expense of 
transportation fuel and have developed a plane to answer the call from 
the marketplace. What has the marketplace said? The marketplace is 
responding with over 200 orders for a plane that is not even finished 
yet. That is a great example of how we can get efficiencies in aviation 
and other sectors.
  This chart explains how we can make a big step forward in energy 
savings, which are aspects of this legislation. They are very important 
aspects to look at.
  A few of my colleagues who are anxious about this legislation want to 
know if it is a back door to higher fuel efficiency standards; that 
somehow this bill mandates CAFE. It does not mandate a higher fuel 
efficiency standard, although this Member would certainly support a 
piece of legislation in the Senate that suggested that. This amendment 
realizes there are hybrid cars in the marketplace that are likely to 
come onboard. There are estimates that you can increase the efficiency 
of our economy using hybrids and save up to 2 million barrels a day by 
2015. That's just from the growth in the hybrid auto market. That is 
just American consumers buying hybrid cars and making that investment. 
It does not have to be CAFE, although I personally think we are losing 
a huge opportunity in the American marketplace by not being more 
aggressive about cars that can run on alternative fuels. I say that, 
mentioning the Boeing experience in aviation.
  The aerospace industry in the Northwest is responding to the demand 
of more fuel-efficient transportation. I wish the auto manufacturers 
would be more aggressive. Actually, as oil has hit $50 a barrel they 
have gotten more aggressive. They have gone over to Japan and said, 
okay, we want a technology deal with the Japanese auto manufacturers; 
we want to get more of these cars in the United States market. Maybe 
that will work.
  However, this amendment does not assume we are going to have a new 
CAFE standard. It simply says to the United States, if you are serious 
about this problem, you will set a national goal to get off our 
overdependence on foreign oil by 2025 and start reducing the trend. 
Instead of continually importing more, we should be importing less.
  This chart shows the trend we are trying to reverse. Today we are 
basically importing 13 million barrels a day; if we do nothing, by 
2025, we will be importing 19 million barrels. This is the trend we are 
trying to reverse. This is the direction we did not want to go in. We 
want to make a change.
  Some of my colleagues ask, how can you set this goal? If you are not 
specific about how you get there, how are we going to achieve it? There 
is a lot I am sure that President Kennedy thought about when he wanted 
to put a man on the Moon, and maybe his original projections were not 
accurate. There is a lot of research and development we are going to do 
on a variety of these technologies.
  One country that has taken this challenge and embraced it is Brazil. 
It is a country which looked at this same dilemma the United States 
has, from the economic perspective. They said, we cannot afford to be 
dependent on the high cost of imported oil. In fact, in the 1970s, 
Brazil had about 80 percent of its supply from imports. That was a big 
challenge.
  As it exists today, Brazil has, because of its biofuels initiative, 
changed that trend. In fact, Brazil has gone from 1975 being 80 percent 
dependent on foreign oil to 1990 being only 45 percent dependent on 
foreign oil, and in 2006, Brazil actually plans on being an energy 
self-sufficient country and maybe even being a net exporter of fuel. 
That is very interesting. As it stands today, they are only importing 
about 11 percent of their supply.
  How do you go from 1975 at 80 percent to 11 percent in 2003? The 
country took the initiative and said they were going to produce a 
competitive product to fossil fuel. That competitive product happened 
to be sugar-based ethanol. They got good at producing sugar-based 
ethanol. They got so good at producing sugar-based ethanol they 
actually can produce it and ship it here cheaper than we can produce it 
today.

[[Page 12718]]

  I don't like losing the competitive edge to somebody else on the 
production of an alternative fuel source. I want the United States to 
be a leader in the production of alternative fuel sources. It holds a 
lot of promise for the United States.
  One might say, well, Brazil is only one-eighth the size of the United 
States economy and we have much more demand than Brazil. That is true, 
but Brazil has learned about the efficient production of ethanol. Are 
we saying somehow the United States does not have the raw material 
supply for ethanol, whether it is sugar-based ethanol or biomass-based 
ethanol?
  We actually are trying to put the American farmer in the fuel 
business. If there is anything we ought to be sure we have its 
agriculture. We know we only sit on 3 percent of the oil reserves in 
the world, so we know we are not going to get it from there. We are 
talking about importing liquified natural gas, so we know we are 
challenged there. But we sure know that the American farmer can produce 
a lot of product as it relates to ethanol, whether it is sugar based or 
biomass based, and we can produce a lot as it relates to biodiesel 
products as well.
  That is exactly what this legislation does. It is very specific about 
the research and development that needs to take place to get us into 
the alternative fuels business. I am so certain of the well-crafted 
nature of that section of the bill that I am willing to say that I 
think we really can achieve our goal of decreasing our energy 
dependence by 2025. So it is a very positive step for us to look at 
what we have seen around the globe as far as other countries trying to 
get toward energy independence or becoming less dependent on foreign 
oil.
  Now, I have another chart that shows examples of what we are trying 
to reach. This chart basically demonstrates how we can reduce, by 7 
million barrels a day, U.S. consumption. It does not have to be the 
exact mix as shown on the chart of how we achieve that. This is just 
one of the proposals. You have market growth in hybrid cars; industrial 
improvements, efficiency improvements in aviation; efficiency gains in 
trucks and heavy-duty equipment. One of our National Laboratories in 
the State of Washington, the Pacific Northwest Labs, is doing great 
research on lightweight trucks, lightweight materials, transportation 
efficiency, for the trucking industry in our country. Other areas to 
reduce consumption: how to make the movement of goods and services more 
efficient, saving transportation costs; the replacement of tires, you 
can get more fuel efficiency just by having better balance of your 
tires to get better gas mileage; and there are transportation choices; 
and biofuels. Again, biofuels is a big opportunity for us.
  So I hope all my colleagues are listening who are very supportive of 
the biofuels section of this legislation--which I hope there are many 
because I think it is a great opportunity. If you are supportive of 
that biofuels section of the bill, you ought to be very supportive of 
setting a goal because you really ought to believe the national goal is 
achievable. You ought to believe that the economic interest of our 
country in getting that new production of biofuels is not only an 
economic and security matter, it is also just plain good job creation 
for our country. You are putting the American farmer back in business 
with a product that now will see huge demand.
  Now, I do not know if we have it here on the floor, but I took great 
note that the Economist magazine wrote a piece on biofuels a few weeks 
ago. In fact, it was a front-page cover story article that week about 
biofuels. What was interesting about it is that it discussed the fact 
that we are at this point where biofuels make so much sense because of 
the price of oil.
  Now, several years ago, when we were talking about oil at $20 a 
barrel and people were talking about biofuels, maybe it did not make 
much sense, the economics did not make much sense. But we have hit, as 
Andy Grove would say, an inflection point, and that inflection point is 
that now we are seeing prices over $50 a barrel for imported oil.
  So the article basically says that it is no longer the ``blue sky'' 
stuff that people talk about, but it is an idea whose time has come. It 
is a very substantive opportunity for anybody who can produce biofuels 
because at anywhere around $50 a barrel, instead of $25 a barrel, 
biofuels can be competitive.
  Now, in Washington State, we are selling biodiesel and alternative 
fuels. A few weeks ago, we had the opening of one of our first biofuels 
stations. It was actually at the same location as a previous 
traditional petroleum-based station. So they changed over from serving 
customers gasoline to now serving biodiesel.
  Right now, the product is something that is shipped from the Midwest, 
refined at a production facility in Seattle, and then sent over to what 
was this particular station, Laurelhurst Oil. They are producing a 
biofuel in Seattle, even though the oil is still imported from another 
state. That biofuel, I think at the time, was about 30 cents more than 
what you could go around the corner and get to fill your car up with 
gasoline--30 cents more. And you ask: Well, how are you expecting to be 
competitive if it is 30 cents more? It was 30 cents more because we had 
the transportation cost of bringing that agricultural product to the 
Northwest, having it processed, and then sold. The production facility 
that is actually producing this biodiesel in Seattle believes it can 
reduce the cost by 30 cents--they could be selling the biodiesel at the 
same cost we are buying gasoline per gallon in Seattle--by simply 
producing the product in the State of Washington.
  So that is what this bill allows us to do. I think the Economist was 
right, that the private sector is starting to respond to this and 
starting to come up with solutions. So then you say: Well, if the 
private markets are responding, why do we have to set a national goal? 
Well, let me address that because as a former businessperson, I 
understand that businesses are responsive to their customers and they 
are responsive to their shareholders. I do not blame a national oil 
company for setting its own agenda on when it wants to get into new 
energy technologies. That is their prerogative.
  You see lots of commercials on TV all the time about how existing 
fossil fuel companies are going to generate biofuels, how they are 
going to diversify. They would make you think they are doing that in a 
rapid fashion. I am not so sure it is rapid enough for the consumers of 
Washington State, who are paying a very high price for gasoline, have 
paid a very high price for electricity recently, and are reeling from a 
hard-hit economy because of high energy costs.
  We would like to see a much more aggressive effort. But those 
companies are not going to set a national goal and they are not going 
to diversify until it is in their financial interest. So the question 
is whether this body is going to set a national goal, which I think 
this underlying bill can achieve, and whether we, as a country, are 
going to diversify off of that overdependence on foreign oil. It is not 
their job; it is our job. And we should get about showing the American 
people that we have the will to do it and that we are betting on 
American ingenuity to achieve it. I have to believe that putting a man 
on the Moon is a lot harder than discovering how to be as efficient as 
the Brazilians are in the development of ethanol. I have to believe 
that was a tougher challenge.
  So I think about the things we have achieved in our country's 
history. I think about the fact that, in response to the threat of what 
other countries might be doing with the nuclear bomb in World War II, 
FDR ushered in the nuclear age in 2 years. He shifted our spending in 
the development of energy in 2 years from about $8,000 to 86 million 
dollars and ushered in the nuclear age. Why? Because he saw a threat, 
and he wanted to set a national goal. We have had these instances where 
our country has decided it was in our economic interest and our 
security interest to move ahead. That is what we need to do today.
  So I am glad to offer this amendment that simply says that we should 
take

[[Page 12719]]

the underlying legislation and change its goal. The underlying bill 
already has a goal. It says that our goal should be to get off of 
foreign oil by 2015 by reducing it a million barrels a day.
  What we need to do is reduce our oil supply in a much more aggressive 
fashion. We need to reduce that 40 percent by 2025. That is what my 
amendment calls for. I am happy to hear from my other colleagues on 
this issue. I hope that my colleagues will take this issue as an 
amendment to improve the underlying bill.
  The underlying bill has the tools and the framework we need. What we 
need to do is have the resolve as a country to set a national goal. The 
private sector is not going to do that. We are not going to have 
consumers make market choices that don't exist. They want more market 
choices. What we have to do is set the wheels in motion. The good news 
is, once the Government sets a goal, it is amazing how many people 
respond to that.
  Our country has set lots of goals. We set goals for more homeland 
security. I have seen more security technology companies come through 
my office in the last 2 years than imaginable. Why? Because we said we 
want more homeland security. So we have every imaginable aspect of 
homeland security being addressed by thousands of companies across 
America.
  If we want to be serious about getting off our overdependence on 
foreign oil, we will pass this amendment, and we will be on the track 
for setting a goal that both the private sector and public sector will 
respond to. I think with that we will be able to say to Americans that 
we are on the right track, that we are not going to let consumers 
continue to pay high transportation costs, and that we have a plan for 
the future. We are not going to continue to be so singularly dependent 
on the fossil fuel industry. We are not going to continue to have 
transportation-sensitive industries caught in a stranglehold by high 
energy costs. We are going to say to them instead that our national 
security interests, our economic interests, our environmental interests 
are being met by a new national goal that all of us will participate in 
making a reality.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for her leadership. The amendment she 
is proposing--and we hope will be embraced by both sides of the aisle--
will set a goal to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I can't think 
of a single person in America who wouldn't agree with that goal. We can 
all understand that as we wait every day for a press release from the 
OPEC nations to try to determine whether or not the price of gasoline 
is going to go up or down. This proud, strong, leading nation in the 
world goes hat in hand to the Saudi peninsula looking for oil. We wait 
for them to determine what the price will be. It affects every 
individual and family and business and airline, right down the line.
  Is it not true that the bill before us, S. 10, has a goal of reducing 
dependence on foreign oil over the next 10 years by 1 million barrels a 
day, which is not as ambitious or as far reaching as the goal of 
reducing dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent over 20 years? Is it 
not also true that the President sent a letter to Congress yesterday 
and said if we include this provision--the weaker provision that is 
already in the bill--reducing the barrels of oil by 1 million a day 
over 10 years, the President will veto the bill? Is that the message 
that we have received from the Bush White House about our goal in 
reducing dependence on foreign oil?
  Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator is correct. In the underlying bill, we have 
language that says we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 
million barrels a day by 2015. The problem with that goal is, when you 
are currently importing 58 percent of your oil supply from foreign 
sources and you calculate in the growth of demand--obviously, our 
economy continues to grow--there is demand for more oil. Even with that 
amendment, in 10 years, in 2015, we will be importing 60 to 62 percent 
of what our Nation consumes in oil supply from foreign sources. So the 
underlying amendment does nothing to stop this trend. In fact, we will 
continue to be more dependent on foreign oil.
  I know the White House has sent some communication to Senators saying 
they oppose even that milestone in the bill which does attempt to try 
to reduce oil consumption. But the provision in the bill doesn't take 
into effect the fact that the economy grows. I guess it is saying: We 
don't want to have any goal to actually try to decrease the amount of 
foreign oil coming into this country.
  I want to have a goal for decreasing the amount of foreign oil coming 
into this country. I want to reverse the trend. I want to go from what 
we are expected to have, 68 percent in 2025, and say, let's switch that 
down towards 50. Let's get to 56 percent. Let's start doing as the 
Brazilians did, which is an amazing story, if you think about it. Here 
is a nation that basically went from 80 percent, now, today to 11 
percent, and is on the verge of becoming an exporter. When you think 
about the economic opportunities our country has in actually being an 
exporter of new energy efficiency technology, it is a great 
opportunity.
  The Senator is right that the administration opposes any goal setting 
in this bill. Why would somebody oppose goal setting? All the tools are 
here in this legislation. I am not saying which technology is going to 
win. Basically, our amendment is technology agnostic. It doesn't say: 
You are going to have CAFE; you are going to have nuclear power.
  A lot of my colleagues are betting on nuclear power. There is new 
language in here for new nuclear technology. A lot of people think it 
will provide us hydrogen sources, and we will have hydrogen fuel cells. 
We will move to having a more fuel-efficient economy that way.
  I am not being prescriptive because 2025 is a long time from now. But 
I know if we look at specifics, we can get there through these various 
means, but we won't get there without a goal.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, we 
can't pick up a news magazine or a newspaper in America without reading 
about the growth of the Chinese economy. They are expanding at the 
expense of many other countries, including the United States.
  We have lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs over the 
last 4 years to China as their economy is exploding in size. Many of 
the companies in China that are growing are American companies. The 
fact is, China is expanding its economy dramatically. It is no longer a 
backward Communist nation. It is a full-fledged world competitor, and 
many believe that China and India will be our competitors in the next 
50 years for jobs and economic growth.
  Is it not also true that China has one problem it has to face, and 
that is the fact that within the borders, as huge as China is, they 
don't have a lot of energy resources. So to keep this economy moving 
forward, they need to import energy into China, which means in the 
years to come, we will see more and more competition for foreign oil, 
not just the United States versus the rest of the world, but the United 
States versus China and the rest of the world, which means oil for $50 
per barrel, which has now raised our price at the pump, may go to $100 
per barrel.
  I ask the Senator from Washington, setting this goal of reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil through conservation techniques, through 
alternative fuels, through finding environmentally sensitive resources 
that we can use, is that not looking forward to the kind of global 
competition we are going to face and accepting the reality that if we 
don't do this as a nation, we will find ourselves losing out from a 
security viewpoint as well as global competition with nations such as 
China?
  Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator from Illinois brings up an important 
question, which is with China's interest in global oil supply and the 
demand, is it going to drive up the price. I don't think an oil company 
really cares whether the price of oil is driven up or not. What do they 
care?

[[Page 12720]]

  Somebody is going to pay them, whether it is $50, $55, $60, $80, or 
$100. With an increase in demand, that is good news for them. Oil 
supply costs just go up. They reap the benefits; they reap the profit. 
But what it is not good for is the American economy.
  So the Senator is absolutely right, China's entrance into the demand 
for foreign oil should be seen by this country as an economic and 
security risk. China's consumption and growth rate is staggering. China 
is going to be consuming I think I said 8 million barrels of imports. 
They have already overtaken Japan, and they are fast on our heels to 
catch up to our consumption, and they will get to a point where they 
are the 800-pound gorilla in the dynamics of world oil supply.
  Even our underlying bill says you can try to ramp up different 
sources of U.S. production. But we all know with the United States 
being situated on 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, it is not a 
likely scenario for us in the United States to be able to drill our way 
to energy security. So the Senator is right, China is a unique concern 
in this. We ought to take that, along with the other national security 
factors, and the fact that the oil supply is located primarily in these 
Middle Eastern countries--if we can put the chart back up there. If you 
look at where the supply is already, the countries and state ownership, 
that is already worrisome enough. Now, when you throw into the equation 
that China is going to be demanding more supply from these entities, it 
is going to lead to a higher price. I am not sure any of these 
countries are worried about the U.S. consumer and what they have to pay 
for transportation costs. I don't think they are responsive to the 
needs of U.S. consumers. The United States might be responsive to our 
own consumers if we were the owner of these companies, but we are not.
  So this is about setting a national goal that recognizes the hardship 
the American economy is going to encounter, and that we are going to be 
under in the future if we continue to pay these prices. We might, in 10 
years, be happy we were talking about $50 a barrel prices, if some of 
the expectations of Wall Street come to pass--the predictions that we 
could see superspikes and get to $100 a barrel. We are already feeling 
the pain now. Americans are losing jobs, pensions, like the pensions of 
transportation workers, where there are issues because of high fuel 
costs; and people are curtailing economic activity because of high 
transportation costs. We ought to take the Chinese part of the equation 
and realize this goal needs to be set and we need to make it a reality, 
just as we did to reach the goal of putting a man on the Moon.
  My colleague from Tennessee is also on the floor. I want to give him 
an opportunity to add whatever comments he wants to add about this.


                           Amendment No. 784

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment at the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 784.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To improve the energy security of the United States and 
reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40 percent by 
                                 2025)

       Beginning on page 120, strike line 23 and all that follows 
     through page 122, line 14, and insert the following:

     SEC. 151. REDUCTION OF DEPENDENCE ON IMPORTED PETROLEUM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) based on the reports of the Energy Information 
     Administration entitled ``Annual Energy Outlook 2005'' and 
     ``May 2005 Monthly Energy Review''--
       (A) during the period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending 
     April 30, 2005, the United States imported an estimated 
     average of 13,056,000 barrels of oil per day; and
       (B) the United States is projected to import 19,110,000 
     barrels of oil per day in 2025;
       (2) technology solutions already exist to dramatically 
     increase the productivity of the United States energy supply;
       (3) energy efficiency and conservation measures can improve 
     the economic competitiveness of the United States and lessen 
     energy costs for families in the United States;
       (4) United States dependence on foreign energy imports 
     leaves the United States vulnerable to energy supply shocks 
     and reliant on the willingness of other countries to provide 
     sufficient supplies of oil;
       (5) while only 3 percent of proven oil reserves are located 
     in territory controlled by the United States, advances in 
     fossil fuel extraction techniques and technologies could 
     increase United States energy supplies; and
       (6) reducing energy consumption also benefits the United 
     States by lowering the environmental impacts associated with 
     fossil fuel use.
       (b) Goal.--It is a goal of the United States to reduce by 
     40 percent the amount of foreign oil projected to be imported 
     during calendar year 2025 in the reference case contained in 
     the report of the Energy Information Administration entitled 
     ``Annual Energy Outlook 2005''.
       (c) Measures To Reduce Import Dependence.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every two years thereafter, the 
     President shall--
       (A) develop and implement measures to reduce dependence on 
     foreign petroleum imports of the United States by reducing 
     petroleum in end-uses throughout the economy of the United 
     States sufficient to reduce total demand for petroleum in the 
     United States by 1,000,000 barrels per day from the amount 
     projected for calendar year 2015; and
       (B)(i) subject to clause (ii), develop and implement 
     measures to reduce dependence on foreign petroleum imports of 
     the United States by reducing petroleum in end-uses 
     throughout the economy of the United States sufficient to 
     reduce total demand for petroeum in the United States by 
     7,640,000 barrels per day from the amount projected for 
     calendar year 2025.
       (ii) If the President determines that there are 
     insufficient legal authorities to achieve the target for 
     calendar year 2025 in clause (i), the President shall develop 
     and implement measures that will reduce dependence on foreign 
     petroleum imports of the United States by reducing petroleum 
     in end-uses throughout the economy of the United States to 
     the maximum extent practicable and shall submit to Congress 
     proposed legislation or other recommendations to achieve the 
     target.
       (2) Requirements.--In developing measures under paragraph 
     (1), the President shall--
       (A) ensure continued reliable and affordable energy for the 
     United States, consistent with the creation of jobs and 
     economic growth and maintaining the international 
     competitiveness of United States businesses, including the 
     manufacturing sector; and
       (B) implement measures under paragraph (1) under existing 
     authorities of the appropriate Federal agencies, as 
     determined by the President.
       (3) Projections.--The projections for total demand for 
     petroleum in the United States under paragraph (1) shall be 
     those contained in the Reference Case in the report of the 
     Energy Information Administration entitled ``Annual Energy 
     Outlook 2005''.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the President 
     shall submit to Congress a report, based on the most recent 
     edition of the Annual Energy Outlook published by the Energy 
     Information Administration, assessing the progress made by 
     the United States toward the goal of reducing dependence on 
     imported petroleum sources by 2025.
       (2) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) identify the status of efforts to meet the goal 
     described in subsection (b);
       (B) assess the effectiveness of any measure implemented 
     under subsection (c) during the previous fiscal year in 
     meeting the goal described in subsection (b); and
       (C) describe plans to develop additional measures to meet 
     the goal.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know there are many Members who want 
to speak. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Feinstein and Reid be 
added as cosponsors of the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Kerry be recognized to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her contribution to the debate today and for her contribution to the 
debate in our committee process.
  While it may seem like ``inside baseball'' to those outside the 
Senate, the

[[Page 12721]]

process here is very important. We don't get anywhere unless we have 
some sort of consensus. That is the way this body operates. So far, 
over the last several years, we have not had a consensus on energy. I 
thought the Senator from Washington, at the close of our committee 
markup proceedings a couple of weeks ago, made a very important 
comment. She said this was a clean energy bill, but she said it also 
was a clean process. She was referring to the fact that both Senator 
Domenici, the Republican chairman, and Senator Bingaman, the Democratic 
ranking member on the committee, have been working together to try to 
identify areas of consensus.
  Senator Domenici literally set out on that by going from office to 
office on the Democratic side and on the Republican side to see what he 
could do. We all had our say. We didn't all get our way in those 
proceedings, but we had long hearings on gas, we had long hearings on 
coal, and we had much discussion of renewable energy. In the end, we 
reported to this body a piece of legislation with a vote of 21 to 1. 
There was only one dissenting vote.
  The Senator from Washington made an important contribution to that 
discussion, as she did today, with her discussion of biodiesel, which 
is a promising renewable fuel. It is in its infancy. We don't know how 
far it will go. Biodiesel has only contributed about 2 percent of all 
of the fuel we use in the United States today. We have to always 
remember what a huge economy we have and how long and how much it takes 
to turn it around. But she offered an amendment that the committee 
adopted and which was included in the bill now before us. It has as 
part of the mandate for use of renewable fuels biodiesel.
  The Senate, by a large vote a few minutes ago included, I believe, an 
8 billion gallon standard for renewable fuels. So she made an important 
contribution. And the spirit of our discussion so far has been that we 
recognize the urgency of the issue we are talking about, which is blue-
collar workers, homeowners, keeping jobs from moving overseas, and that 
this is serious business and we need to get it right.
  I will make some observations about the Senator's amendment. There 
will be three observations. One is I respectfully suggest she has the 
wrong goal for the near term. Two, I suggest the bill we have before us 
actually presents an excellent, balanced approach toward what we need 
to do. Three, I will reemphasize the importance of not just reducing 
our dependence on oil, the growth of our dependence on oil in the 
United States--that is the goal, I believe--but lowering the price of 
natural gas for the benefit of blue-collar workers, homeowners, and 
farmers. That is the point.
  The Senator talked about President Kennedy and probably the most 
celebrated goal of the last 100 years--certainly one of the most 
celebrated in our history, and very much in keeping with the American 
spirit and character. We are always setting high goals, such as 
``anything is possible'' and ``all men are created equal'' and ``we 
will pay any price and bear any burden to defend freedom.'' A lot of 
our politics is about the disappointment of not reaching those goals. 
In fact, most of American history is the story of setting high goals, 
missing them, being disappointed, and recommitting ourselves to the 
goals. But the goals we remember and the leaders we remember are the 
ones who have challenged us within some reason. We used to have a 
wonderful citizen of Tennessee named Chet Atkins, who played the 
guitar. He may have been the best guitar player in the world. He always 
said: In this life, you have to be mighty careful where you aim, 
because you are likely to get there.
  I don't think we would have remembered President Kennedy as well if 
he had said in 1960 that we need to put a man on Mars by 1970, or a man 
on Jupiter by 1970. President Kennedy didn't say that. That would have 
been far outside of our reach. Our scientists knew that, but it was 
within our reach to go to the Moon. He said that and challenged us, and 
we figured out the details of doing it.
  I suggest the goal of the Senator from Washington would be like 
putting a man on Mars. It is out on another planet, it is somewhere out 
there. It might be the right goal one day, but we have to go to the 
Moon before we go to Mars. I suggest her goal is the wrong goal. The 
Senator suggests that the United States, over the next 20 years, reduce 
its dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent. That sounds pretty good, 
like going to Mars might have sounded pretty good in 1960, but we would 
never have gotten there. Let me try to put her goal in perspective.
  She says get rid of 7.6. We use about 20 million barrels of oil a day 
in the United States. It supplies about 40 percent of all of our 
energy. The Energy Committee, including the Senator from Washington, 
considered all of this, and we came to a consensus that we should look 
for wherever the Moon might be in this goal. And we said: Let's save 1 
million a day. Let's ask the President to save 1 million a day by the 
year 2015, 1 million of that 20 million.
  That million is a pretty big number. Drilling for oil in ANWR, which 
we argued so heavily in this body, would produce about 1 million 
barrels of oil a day. If I am not mistaken, if we were to adopt the 
CAFE standards legislation that Senator Cantwell herself suggested in 
earlier debates, that would have saved about 1 million barrels of oil a 
day. But she is saying 7.6 million barrels of oil a day over the next 
20 years.
  I agree it might be possible to go higher than 1 million barrels of 
oil a day. Senator Johnson and I introduced the National Gas Price 
Reduction Act of 2005 earlier this year. We had in that an oil savings 
amendment of 1.75 million barrels of oil a day.
  All these amendments direct the President to figure out a plan for 
doing this and then to implement it. These are not just idle 
suggestions.
  I think there is a consensus in this body, certainly on this side and 
that side of the aisle, and I might say, as Senator Bingaman mentioned, 
we did not really vote Republican and Democrat in our committee 
hearings. We had a lot of votes, but they generally split on our 
individual views and regions, not whether we are a Republican or a 
Democrat. I think there is still a consensus here. Of course, we want 
to reduce the growth of our dependence on oil, but to say our goal 
should be to reduce by 40 percent in 20 years our reliance on oil is 
somewhere out on another planet, not within our reach.
  Many of us have been reading very carefully the National Commission 
on Energy Policy report called ``Ending the Energy Stalemate, A 
Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Challenges,'' that 
includes within it a broad variety of people--Mr. Holdren, Bill Reilly, 
Mr. Rowe from Exelon Corporation, a representative from the United 
Steelworkers. We all read it, and I suppose we all like the parts we 
agree with and try to agree with some things that may have changed our 
mind. Here is what this commission report, which is an excellent 
report, says about oil:

       Over the last 30 years, the United States has sought to 
     improve oil security by promoting a greater diversity of 
     world oil suppliers, reducing domestic consumption through a 
     substantial increase in new passenger fuel economy between 
     1975 and 1987, and creating the largest dedicated strategic 
     petroleum reserve in the world. Due to these policies and as 
     a result of structural shifts, the U.S. economy today is less 
     oil-intensive and therefore less vulnerable to oil price 
     shocks than it was in 1970. The fact that oil imports have 
     nonetheless steadily increased since that time suggests that 
     calls for energy independence--while rhetorically seductive--
     represent the wrong focus for the U.S. energy policy.

  To try to get another example of the practical effect of the 
amendment of the Senator from Washington, we asked the Energy 
Department to take a look at it. Here is what they said. Remember, the 
Cantwell energy security amendment calls for a 7.64-million-barrel-per-
day reduction in oil consumption over the next 20 years. EIA, the 
Energy Information Administration, which looks at all these things, 
estimated that by a combination of policies outside the transportation 
sector, the upper limit of what we could do in this country would be 2 
to 3 million barrels of oil per day.
  So we take out 2 or 3 million barrels of oil a day and let's say that 
leaves 4.5

[[Page 12722]]

million barrels oil per day. The Cantwell amendment would require the 
President to, therefore, impose on the transportation sector of our 
economy this achievement, and here is what it would translate to in 
terms of a CAFE standard miles per gallon. It would require a 78.6-
mile-per-gallon CAFE standard. That is a 185-percent increase over 
today's standard. And it would require 60.8 miles per gallon for light 
trucks. That is a 174-percent increase.
  I submit that is putting a man on Mars instead of a man on the Moon. 
That is somewhere off on another planet and not anything that we could 
reasonably do. The effect of enforcing that on the American economy 
would be to destroy jobs and raise fuel prices and raise expectations 
and disappoint the people who sent us here.
  I much prefer the approach the committee bill takes that came out of 
the committee 21 to 1, with a very broad consensus. I will admit, we 
all recognized, when that came out, that we would reserve for debate on 
the floor some of the more contentious issues, such as MTBE, global 
warming, CAFE standards, and the size of the oil savings amendment, 
about which we are talking today.
  We said 1 million a day. That is what the committee could agree on. I 
and Senator Johnson thought 1.75. Senator Cantwell is at 7.6, and that 
is the wrong goal.
  What would the right goal be? The right goal is to say, of course, we 
want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It makes no sense 
whatsoever for us to rely for so much of our oil on an area of the 
world where men and women are getting blown up every day, including a 
great many Americans. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  So our goal should be this: Putting us on the path to a steady supply 
of low-cost, adequate, American-produced clean energy--low-cost, 
adequate supply of American-produced clean energy. As we do that, we 
reduce our reliance on all oil. We reduce our reliance on oil not just 
from around the world but from this country.
  Here would be some of the things that are already underway in this 
bill. As I mentioned, we just adopted an 8-billion-gallon requirement 
for renewable fuels. Personally, I think that is a little high. That is 
stretching the limit. I believe the House of Representatives is at 5. 
Remember, only at 2 percent of all of our energy is renewable fuels. So 
we have done that.
  We have in our bill which is before the Senate research for biofuels, 
about which the Senator from Washington talks. They are very important, 
but they are minuscule at this time. We have a way to go. There are 
some associated waste problems that occur with them, and there are 
production problems about which we have to think. To produce large-
scale biodiesel fuel requires large areas of land. We have to think 
about that as well. Clearly, we should do it in this bill, which 
supports research for that.
  If we are really serious about reducing our demand for overseas oil, 
then we should start with efficiency and conservation in the United 
States, both of oil and natural gas because they often come together. 
And so the provisions in this legislation, twice as strong as last 
year's Energy bill, provide for efficiency and conservation standards 
for such items as appliance efficiency standards. It would avoid 
building 45 natural gas powerplants of 500 megawatts each and save 
billions of dollars.
  This legislation also includes a 4-year national consumer education 
program which, when used in California, helped produce a 10-percent cut 
in peak demand. This is natural gas we are talking about. But we are 
talking about conserving energy, and oil and gas often are found 
together.
  If we were to add a provision, as I tried to do in the committee, and 
as I would welcome the Senator from Washington helping me do on the 
floor as we debate this bill, to encourage utilities to use first the 
electricity most efficiently produced from natural gas, we could save 
and conserve even more. Add that to the oil savings amendment of 1 
million barrels of oil per day, which is in our legislation, which is 
about the same as the amount of oil produced onshore in the State of 
Texas, and then add on top of the provisions that are in the Finance 
Committee's mark that would continue the deduction for American 
consumers to purchase hybrid, and I would hope advanced diesel vehicles 
as well, that saves oil, that gives an incentive, that helps to change 
the market in a very promising way without a mandate. If we include the 
provision that is also in this legislation that supports discouraging 
large trucks from running their motors all night long so they can have 
their air-conditioning on and their TV on and their appliances on, one 
may think that is a small potatoes item, but it is actually a big 
potatoes item. Big trucks are a big part of our energy use in the 
United States. They are a big part of our air pollution in the United 
States. When we encourage them to plug into a battery instead of 
leaving their trucks on, we are using less oil. All of this is a well-
balanced approach.
  So it is my respectful suggestion that we remember President Kennedy 
for saying, Let us go to the Moon. We would not remember him as well if 
he had said, Let us put a man on Mars in 1970. I believe the committee 
approach is the right goal and is the right balance and much more 
realistic than the goal of the Senator from Washington State which, 
according to the Energy Department, would produce a CAFE standard of 78 
miles per gallon for cars and 60.8 miles per gallon for light trucks.
  I conclude by making a general remark about natural gas and other 
aspects of how we ought to be producing energy in this country. One 
important part of it is American-produced. That is what the Senator 
from Washington is emphasizing with her amendment. Another important 
part is low cost. Another important part is reliable and adequate 
supply.
  We use 25 percent of all the energy in the world in the United States 
of America. We spend $2,500 per person on it. Another important part is 
clean air. This is not the clean air debate, but it is the debate that 
will solve the clean air problem, in my opinion, because clean air and 
clean energy are so intricately related.
  The legislation that is before this Senate begins with conservation 
and efficiency. That reduces our demand for oil, as well as natural 
gas, and helps to lower prices at least of natural gas. It goes next to 
increasing supply of natural gas, and I would say oil.
  Listening to the Senator from Washington, she is saying we need to 
reduce our demand for oil from overseas, and since it is unrealistic to 
think we could save this much oil in that 20-year period of time, that 
would suggest to me that she would be advocating a big increase in 
supply of oil as well as natural gas from domestic sources in the 
United States.
  In the legislation that Senator Johnson and I offered, we recommended 
that. It recommended that we look onshore and offshore for new supplies 
of natural gas as well as oil in the Rocky Mountain area and offshore. 
Well, that has been greeted with a very cold gaze by many Members of 
this body, including some who have created objections to unanimous 
consent agreements just to stop us from even considering increasing our 
exploration for drilling the large amount of oil and gas that we have 
just offshore, even though we could put the rigs far out to sea where 
no one could see them.
  It would seem to me as we are talking about oil savings, if we want 
to keep prices down in the United States and keep jobs here, we need to 
talk about oil and gas supply at the same time coming from the United 
States. I did not hear very much about that.
  We also need to hear more about LNG. I am speaking now of natural 
gas, which is an essential part of this debate. Many in the Senate 
often talk about gasoline prices. The truth is, as the Senator from 
Washington accurately observed, there is a huge demand for oil. Prices 
are going to stay up for the foreseeable future, that is the truth 
about it in terms of gasoline, and we need to learn to reduce our use 
of the oil. The one thing we can do is lower the cost of natural gas, 
which is

[[Page 12723]]

a big part of this bill. That affects millions of blue-collar workers, 
millions of farmers, and tens of millions of homeowners.
  We have gone from having the lowest priced natural gas to the highest 
price natural gas, and this is outsourcing jobs, putting farmers out of 
business, and making home heating and cooling prices too high.
  If we are going to reduce the price and conservation does not do it, 
the next best step is to import some from overseas. That goes directly 
in the face of what the Senator is talking about to reduce our supply 
of natural gas. If we do not import liquefied natural gas from 
overseas, we are going to be exporting jobs from America to overseas. 
So we can either import natural gas or export American jobs. We have to 
be realistic in the near term in what we have to do.
  I would hope that we could drill offshore and drill in the United 
States and use the extensive amounts of natural gas we have and bring 
down the price that way. But if we are not going to do it that way we 
are going to have to bring it in from overseas at least for a while 
until we have an alternative form of energy.
  When we talk about alternative forms of energy, we often go to the 
renewable fuels, and I will talk about those more in a moment. I am 
just as excited about those as anybody. We have in Memphis a Sharp 
plan, for example, that produces solar energy. They have exciting new 
technologies. In the Oakridge National Laboratory we have a whole 
division on renewable energy and renewable fuels. They have exciting 
new technologies in solar. That is only 2 percent of our energy and 2 
percent of our fuels. We have to be realistic about where we are going 
from there.
  Where are we going to get the energy we need that will create this 
adequate supply of American-produced clean energy? After conservation, 
after new supply, we have to come to nuclear power. I suggest if we 
want to talk about American independence, we talk about nuclear power, 
that we do what France is doing. They are 80 percent nuclear power. We 
should do what Japan is doing. They are adding a nuclear powerplant 
every year. We invented the technology. We have used it without 
incident for more than half a century in our Navy. We produce 20 
percent of our electricity today from nuclear power and 70 percent of 
our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear power.
  So if we really want American-produced energy, we need to build 
advanced nuclear powerplants so that we can have them at a cost that 
makes us less reliant on oil and gas from overseas.
  Waiting in the wings and right behind nuclear power is coal 
gasification and carbon sequestration. I see the Senator from North 
Dakota on the Senate floor. He has been a leader in that area for a 
long time. He talks about it a lot and talks about it clearly. That 
technology is not completely with us yet. We know how to do coal 
gasification; that is, turn coal into gas and then gas into 
electricity. That gets rid of mercury, nitrogen, and hydrogen by and 
large. It still leaves carbon in the air, but there is a technology 
called carbon sequestration. We are a few years away from that, but if 
we accelerate research on carbon sequestration that would be a good 
goal.
  Then we can burn the coal we have in the United States, and we have a 
400- or 500-year supply of it. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. 
Conservation plus our own supply of natural gas, plus nuclear power, 
plus coal gasification and carbon sequestration would fuel this great 
big economy.
  One might ask, what does that have to do with automobiles? Well, 
hopefully, by that time we will also have invested a lot of money in 
research and development--not just for nuclear power, not just for 
carbon sequestration, but also for hydrogen, which the Senator from 
North Dakota is a leading spokesman for, and for fusion. When we get to 
hydrogen and these hybrid cars that we see being driven around America 
today--a gasoline engine with an electric engine, that is called a 
hybrid--when that hybrid becomes an electric engine and a hydrogen 
engine, then we have to have some way to make that hydrogen. We are 
either going to import oil and gas from overseas as we are doing it 
now, we are going to supply it from our own reserves, we are going to 
conserve enough, we are going to make it from nuclear, or we are going 
to make it from coal gasification.
  I am glad we are having a debate about American energy independence. 
Just as President Kennedy is remembered for having the right goal by 
saying, Let us put a man on the Moon, and not for picking an 
unrealistic goal in 1960 and saying, Let us put a man on Mars in 1970, 
let's be realistic. Our bill stretches our country, causes us to aim 
differently, and if adopted will transform the way we produce 
electricity and will increase our independence on foreign sources of 
gas and oil.
  One last thought about renewable fuels, before I finish. We need to 
keep that in perspective. If we were a small country, we might be able 
to rely on renewable fuels or renewable energy, but we are not. We are 
a country that uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world. Stretch 
as we might, for the foreseeable future we are going to have to rely on 
conservation, on our own supplies of oil and gas, and, yes, on some oil 
and gas from around the world. Then we are going to have to invest in 
an incredibly aggressive way in advanced nuclear technology and 
advanced coal gasification and carbon sequestration technology if we 
are going to have a reliable, low-cost power of American-produced clean 
energy.
  I hope the Senate will prefer the committee report which was adopted 
by 21 to 1, that includes a balanced approach to the right goal. I 
would say it is more in keeping with President Kennedy's ``man on the 
Moon'' goal. This is a ``man or woman on Mars'' goal, and maybe we will 
get there one day, but it is unrealistic today. It would be disruptive 
of jobs if you set a 78 mile per gallon CAFE standard for cars, a 185-
percent increase; a 60 mile per gallon standard for trucks, light 
trucks, a 174-percent increase. I hope we will stick with the consensus 
that passed 21 to 1, and one day we might also reach this goal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for 
his comments and for his diligence in following energy policy both on 
the committee and on the floor. I know he cares greatly about this 
issue and has spent many hours on the details in various sections of 
this legislation. I appreciate his interest and unique focus on clean 
coal technology. He has great interest and knowledge about clean coal 
technology, and has articulated his views about that numerous times.
  I know my colleague from North Dakota is here so I want to give him 
an opportunity to talk, but I want to respond. The 7 million barrels 
reduction is an achievable goal. If you believe in the underlying 
technology the Senator from Tennessee just discussed, which is the 
various ways we can get to that goal, he and I are in agreement. Where 
we seem to be in a disagreement is whether we want to set this goal. I 
believe the American people deserve to have a goal set that is 
achievable.
  The underlying bill that says in 2015 we will be more dependent on 
foreign oil than we are today doesn't seem the goal we should be 
putting forth. While the committee passed that out of committee, we 
knew we were going to come out here and discuss a variety of issues. 
Now that we have the perspective of the entire bill with a lot of 
different technology solutions, I would say it is time for the Senate 
to be more bold about this.
  I commend to my colleagues this report, ``Securing America; Solving 
Our Oil Dependence Through Innovation.'' There are two different 
organizations, the NRDC and the IAGCS, that basically outline in their 
report how we can save close to 7 billion barrels of oil per day.
  We have a submittal to the Record from the Committee on the Present 
Danger, on our oil security. It, too,

[[Page 12724]]

talks about how we can achieve this goal and what some of the sources 
are.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    A Committee on the Present Danger Policy Paper: Oil and Security

               (By George P. Shultz and R. James Woolsey)


                                SUMMARY

       This paper could well be called, ``It's the Batteries, 
     Stupid.'' Four years ago, on the eve of 9/11, the need to 
     reduce radically our reliance on oil was not clear to many 
     and in any case the path of doing so seemed a long and 
     difficult one. Today both assumptions are being undermined by 
     the risks of the post-9/11 world and by technological 
     progress in fuel efficiency and alternative fuels.
       We spell out below the risks of petroleum dependency, 
     particularly the vulnerability of the petroleum 
     infrastructure in the Middle East to terrorist attack--a 
     single well-designed attack could send oil to well over $100/
     barrel and devastate the world's economy. That reality, among 
     other risks, and the fact that our current transportation 
     infrastructure is locked in to oil, should be sufficient to 
     convince any objective observer that oil dependence, today 
     creates serious and pressing dangers for the US and other 
     oil-importing nations.
       We propose in this paper that the government vigorously 
     encourage and support at least six technologies: two types of 
     alternative fuels that are beginning to come into the market 
     (cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel derived from a wide range 
     of waste streams), two types of fuel efficient vehicles that 
     are now being sold to the public in some volume (hybrid 
     gasoline-electric and modern clean diesels), and one vehicle 
     construction technique, the use of manufactured carbon-carbon 
     composites, that is now being used for aircraft and racing 
     cars and is quite promising as a way of reducing vehicle 
     weight and fuel requirements while improving safety.
       The sixth technology, battery improvement to permit ``plug-
     in'' hybrid vehicles, will require some development--although 
     nothing like the years that will be required for hydrogen 
     fuel cells. It holds, however, remarkable promise. Improving 
     batteries to permit them, to be given an added charge when a 
     hybrid is garaged, ordinarily at night, can substantially 
     improve mileage, because it can permit hybrids to use battery 
     power alone for the first 10-30 miles. Since a great many 
     trips fall within this range this can improve the mileage of 
     a hybrid vehicle from, say, 50 mpg to over 100 mpg (of oil 
     products). Also, since the average residential electricity 
     cost is 8.5 cents/kwh (and in many areas, off-peak nighttime 
     cost is 2-4 cents/kwh) this means that much of a plug-in 
     hybrid's travel would be on the equivalent of 50 cent/gallon 
     gasoline (or, off-peak, on the equivalent of 12-25 cent/
     gallon gasoline).
       A plug-in hybrid averaging 125 mpg, if its fuel tank 
     contains 85 per cent cellulosic ethanol, would be obtaining 
     about 500 mpg. If it were constructed from carbon composites 
     the mileage could double, and, if it were a diesel and 
     powered by biodiesel derived from waste, it would be using no 
     oil products at all.
       What are we waiting for?
       There are at least seven major reasons why dependence on 
     petroleum and its products for the lion's share of the 
     world's transportation fuel creates special dangers in our 
     time. These dangers are all driven by rigidities and 
     potential vulnerabilities that have become serious problems 
     because of the geopolitical realities of the early 21st 
     century. Those who reason about these issues solely on the 
     basis of abstract economic models that are designed to ignore 
     such geopolitical realities will find much to disagree with 
     in what follows. Although such models have utility in 
     assessing the importance of more or less purely economic 
     factors in the long run, as Lord Keynes famously remarked: 
     ``In the long run, we are all dead.''
       These dangers in turn give rise to two proposed directions 
     for government policy in order to reduce our vulnerability 
     rapidly. In both cases we believe that existing technology 
     should be used, i.e. technology that is already in the market 
     or can be so in the very near future and that is compatible 
     with the existing transportation infrastructure. To this end 
     government policies in the United States and other oil-
     importing countries should: (1) encourage a shift to 
     substantially more fuel-efficient vehicles, including 
     fostering battery development for plug-in hybrid vehicles; 
     and (2) encourage biofuels and other alternative fuels that 
     wherever possible can be derived from waste products.


                   PETROLEUM DEPENDENCE: THE DANGERS

       This fact substantially increases the difficulty of 
     responding to oil price increases or disruptions in supply by 
     substituting other fuels.
       There is a range of fuels that can be used to produce 
     electricity and heat and that can be used for other 
     industrial uses, but petroleum had its products dominate the 
     fuel market for vehicular transportation. With the important 
     exception, described below, of a plug-in version of the 
     hybrid gasoline/electric vehicle, which will allow recharging 
     hybrids from the electricity grid, substituting other fuels 
     for petroleum in the vehicle fleet as a whole has generally 
     required major, time-consuming, and expensive infrastructure 
     changes. One exception has been some use of liquifed natural 
     gas (LNG) and other fuels for fleets of buses or delivery 
     vehicles, although not substantially for privately-owned 
     ones, and the use of corn-derived ethanol mixed with gasoline 
     in proportions up to 10 per cent ethanol (``gasohol'') in 
     some states. Neither has appreciably affected petroleum's 
     dominance of the transportation fuel market.
       Although there are imaginative proposals for transitioning 
     to other fuels, such as hydrogen to power automotive fuel 
     cells, this would require major infrastructure investment and 
     restructuring. If privately-owned fuel cell vehicles were to 
     be capable of being readily refueled, this would require 
     reformers (equipment capable of reforming, say, natural gas 
     into hydrogen) to be located at filling stations, and for 
     natural gas to be available there as a hydrogen feed-stock. 
     So, not only would fuel cell development and technology for 
     storing hydrogen on vehicles need to be further developed, 
     but the automobile industry's development and production of 
     fuel cells also would need to be coordinated with the energy 
     industry's deployment of reformers and the fuel for them.
       Moving toward automotive fuel cells thus requires us to 
     face a huge question of pace and coordination of large-scale 
     changes by both the automotive and energy industries. This 
     poses a sort of industrial Alphonse and Gaston dilemma: who 
     goes through the door first? (If, instead, it were decided 
     that existing fuels such as gasoline were to be reformed into 
     hydrogen on board vehicles instead of at filling stations, 
     this would require on-board reformers to be developed and 
     added to the fuel cell vehicles themselves--a very 
     substantial undertaking.)
       It is because of such complications at the National 
     Commission on Energy Policy concluded in its December, 2004, 
     report ``Ending The Energy Stalemate'' (``ETES'') that 
     ``hydrogen offers little to no potential to improve oil 
     security and reduce climate change risks in the next twenty 
     years.'' (p. 72)
       To have an impact on our vulnerabilities within the next 
     decade or two, any competitor of oil-derived fuels will need 
     to be compatible with the existing energy infrastructure and 
     require only modest additions or amendments to it.
       2. The Greater Middle East will continue to be the low-cost 
     and dominant petroleum producer for the foreseeable future.
       Home of around two-thirds of the world's proven reserves of 
     conventional oil--45% of it in just Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and 
     Iran--the Greater Middle East will inevitably have to meet a 
     growing percentage of world oil demand. This demand is 
     expected to increase by more than 50 per cent in the next two 
     decades, from 78 million barrels per day (``MBD'') in 2002 to 
     118 MBD in 2025, according to the federal Energy Information 
     Administration. Much of this will come from expected demand 
     growth in China and India. One need not argue that world oil 
     production has peaked to see that this puts substantial 
     strain on the global oil system. It will mean higher prices 
     and potential supply disruptions and will put considerable 
     leverage in the hands of governments in the Greater Middle 
     East as well as in those of other oil-exporting states which 
     have not been marked recently by stability and certainty: 
     Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, for example (ETES pp. 1-2). 
     Deep-water drilling and other opportunities for increases in 
     supply of conventional oil may provide important increases in 
     supply but are unlikely to change this basic picture.
       Even if other production comes on line, e.g. from 
     unconventional sources such as tar sands in Alberta or shale 
     in the American West, their relatively high cost of 
     production could permit low-cost producers, particularly 
     Saudi Arabia, to increase production, drop prices for a time, 
     and undermine the economic viability of the higher-cost 
     competitors, as occurred in the mid-1980's. For the 
     foreseeable future, as long as vehicular transportation is 
     dominated by oil as it is today, the Greater Middle East, and 
     especially Saudi Arabia, will remain in the driver's seat.
       3. The petroleum infrastructure is highly vulnerable to 
     terrorist and other attacks.
       The radical Islamist movement, including but not 
     exclusively al Qaeda, has on a number of occasions explicitly 
     called for worldwide attacks on the petroleum infrastructre 
     and has carried some out in the Greater Middle East. A more 
     well-planned attack than what has occurred to date--such as 
     that set out in the opening pages of Robert Baer's recent 
     book, Sleeping With the Devil, (terrorists flying an aircraft 
     into the unique sulfur-cleaning towers in northeastern Saudi 
     Arabia)--could take some six million barrels per day off the 
     market for a year or more, sending petroleum prices sharply 
     upward to well over $100/barrel and severely damaging much of 
     the world's economy. Domestic infrastructure in the West is 
     not immune from such disruption. U.S. refineries, for 
     example, are concentrated in a few places, principally the 
     Gulf Coast. The recent accident in the Texas City refinery--
     producing multiple fatalities--points out potential 
     infrastuture vulnerabilities. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline

[[Page 12725]]

     has been subject to several amateurish attacks that have 
     taken it briefly out of commission; a seriously planned 
     attack on it could be far more devastating.
       In view of these overall infrastructure vulnerabilities we 
     do not suggest that policy should focus exclusively on 
     petroleum imports, although such infrastructure vulnera-
     bilities are likely to be the most severe in the Greater 
     Middle East. It is there that terrorists have the easiest 
     access and the largest proportion of proven oil reserves, and 
     low-cost production are also located there. Nor do we hold 
     the view that by changing trade patterns anything 
     particularly is accomplished. To a first approximation there 
     is one worldwide oil market and it is not generally useful 
     for the U.S., for example, to import less from the Greater 
     Middle East and for others then to import more from there. In 
     effect, all of us oil-importing countries are in this 
     together.
       4. The possibility exists particularly under regimes that 
     could come to power in the Greater Middle East, of embargoes 
     or other disruptions of supply.
       It is often said that whoever governs the oil-rich nations 
     of the Greater Middle East will need to sell their oil. This 
     is not true, however, if the rulers choose to try to live, 
     for most purposes, in the Seventh century. Bin Laden has 
     advocated, for example, major reductions in oil production.
       In 1979 there was a serious attempted coup in Saudi Arabia. 
     Much of what the outside world saw was the seizure by 
     Islamist fanatics of the Great Mosque in Mecca, but the 
     effort was more widespread. Even if one is optimistic that 
     democracy and the rule of law will spread in the Greater 
     Middle East and that this will lead after a time to more 
     peaceful and stable societies there, it is undeniable that 
     there is substantial risk that for some time the region will 
     be characterized by chaotic change and unpredictable 
     governmental behavior. Reform, particularly if it is 
     hesitant, has in a number of cases been trumped by radical 
     takeovers (Jacobins, Bolsheviks). There is no reason to 
     believe that the Greater Middle East is immune from these 
     sorts of historic risks.
       5. Wealth transfers from oil have been used, and continue 
     to be used, to fund terrorism and its ideological support.
       Estimates of the amount spent by the Saudis in the last 30 
     years spreading Wahhabi beliefs throughout the world vary 
     from $70 billion to $100 billion. Furthermore, some oil-rich 
     families of the Greater Middle East fund terrorist groups 
     directly. The spread of Wahhabi doctrine--fanatically hostile 
     to Shi'ite and Suffi Muslims, Jews, Christians, women, 
     modernity, and much else--plays a major role with respect to 
     Islamist terrorist groups: a role similar to that played by 
     angry German nationalism with respect to Nazism in the 
     decades after World War I. Not all angry German nationalists 
     became Nazis and not all those schooled in Wahhabi beliefs 
     become terrorists, but in each case the broader doctrine of 
     hatred has provided the soil in which the particular 
     totalitarian movement has grown. Whether in lectures in the 
     madrassas of Pakistan, in textbooks printed by Wahhabis for 
     Indonesian schoolchildren, or on bookshelves of mosques in 
     the U.S., the hatred spread by Wahhabis and funded by oil is 
     evident and influential.
       It is sometimes contended that we should not seek 
     substitutes for oil because disruption of the flow of funds 
     to the Greater Middle East could further radicalize the 
     population of some states there. The solution, however, 
     surely lies in helping these states diversify their economies 
     over time, not in perpetually acquiescing to the economic 
     rent they collect from oil exports and to the uses to which 
     these revenues are put.
       6. The Current Account deficits for a number of countries 
     create risks ranging from major world economic disruption to 
     deepening poverty, and could be substantially reduced by 
     reducing oil imports.
       The U.S., in essence, borrows about $13 billion per week, 
     principally now from major Asian states, to finance its 
     consumption. The single largest category of imports is the 
     $2-3 billion per week borrowed to import oil. The 
     accumulating debt increases the risk of a flight from the 
     dollar or major increases in interest rates. Any such 
     development could have major negative economic consequences 
     for both the U.S. and its trading partners.
       For developing nations, the service of debt is a major 
     factor in their continued poverty. For many, debt is heavily 
     driven by the need to import oil that at today's oil prices 
     cannot be paid for by sales of agricultural products, 
     textiles, and other typical developing nation exports.
       If such deficits are to be reduced, however, say by 
     domestic production of substitutes for petroleum, this should 
     be based on recognition of real economic value such as waste 
     cleanup, soil replenishment, or other tangible benefits.
       7. Global warming gas emissions from manmade sources create 
     at least the risk of climate change.
       Although the point is not universally accepted, the weight 
     of scientific opinion suggests that global warming gases 
     (GWG) produced by human activity form one important component 
     of potential climate change. Oil products used in 
     transportation provide a major share of U.S. manmade global 
     warming gas emissions.


                  THREE PROPOSED DIRECTIONS FOR POLICY

       The above considerations suggest that government policies 
     with respect to the vehicular transportation market should 
     point in the following directions:
       1. Encourage improved vehicle mileage, using technology now 
     in production.
       Three currently available technologies stand out to improve 
     vehicle mileage.
     Diesels
       First, modern diesel vehicles are coming to be capable of 
     meeting rigorous emission standards (such as Tier 2 standards 
     being introduced into the U.S., 2004-08). In this context it 
     is possible without compromising environmental standards to 
     take advantage of diesels' substantial mileage advantage over 
     gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines.
       Substantial penetration of diesels into the private vehicle 
     market in Europe is one major reason why the average fleet 
     mileage of such new vehicles is 42 miles per gallon in Europe 
     and only 24 mpg in the U.S. Although the U.S. has, since 
     1981, increased vehicle weight by 24 percent and horsepower 
     by 93 percent, it has essentially improved mileage not at all 
     in that near-quarter century (even though in the 12 years 
     from 1975 to 1987 the U.S. improved the mileage of new 
     vehicles from 15 to 26 mpg).
     Hybrid Gasoline-Electric
       Second, hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles now on the market 
     show substantial fuel savings over their conventional 
     counterparts. The National Commission on Energy Policy found 
     that for the four hybrids on the market in December 2004 that 
     had exact counterpart models with conventional gasoline 
     engines, not only were mileage advantages quite significant 
     (10-15 mpg) for the hybrids, but in each case the horsepower 
     of the hybrid was higher than the horsepower of the 
     conventional vehicle. (ETES p. 11) If automobile companies 
     wish to market hybrids by emphasizing hotter performance 
     rather than fuel conservation they can do so, consistent with 
     the facts.
     Light-Weight Carbon Composite Construction
       Third, constructing vehicles with inexpensive versions of 
     the carbon fiber composites that have been used for years for 
     aircraft construction can substantially reduce vehicle weight 
     and increase fuel efficiency while at the same time making 
     the vehicle considerably safer than with current construction 
     materials. This is set forth thoroughly in the 2004 report of 
     the Rocky Mountain Institute's Winning the Oil Endgame 
     (``WTOE''). Aerodynamic design can have major importance as 
     well. This breaks the traditional tie between size and 
     safety. Much lighter vehicles, large or small, can be 
     substantially more fuel-efficient and also safer. Such 
     composite use has already been used for automotive 
     construction in Formula 1 race cars and is now being adopted 
     by BMW and other automobile companies. The goal is mass-
     produced vehicles with 80% of the performance of hand-layup 
     aerospace composites at 20% of the cost. Such construction is 
     expected to approximately double the efficiency of a normal 
     hybrid vehicle without materially affecting manufacturing 
     cost. (WTOE 64-66).
       2. Encourage the commercialization of alternative 
     transportation fuels that can be available soon, are 
     compatible with existing infrastructure, and can be derived 
     from waste or otherwise produced cheaply.
     Biomass Ethanol
       The use of ethanol produced from corn in the U.S. and sugar 
     cane in Brazil has given birth to the commercialization of an 
     alternative fuel that is coming to show substantial promise, 
     particularly as new feedstocks are developed. Some six 
     million vehicles in the U.S. and all vehicles in Brazil other 
     than those that use solely ethanol are capable of using 
     ethanol in mixtures of up to 85 percent ethanol and 15 
     percent gasoline (E-85); these are called Flexible Fuel 
     Vehicles (``FFV'') and require, compared to conventional 
     vehicles, only a somewhat different kind of material for the 
     fuel line and a differently programmed computer chip. The 
     cost of incorporating this feature in new vehicles is 
     trivial. Also, there are no large-scale changes in 
     infrastructure required for ethanol use. It may be shipped in 
     tank cars, and mixing it with gasoline is a simple matter.
       Although human beings have been producing ethanol, grain 
     alcohol, from sugar and starch for millennia, it is only in 
     recent years that the genetic engineering of biocatalysts has 
     made possible such production from the hemicellulose and 
     cellulose that constitute the substantial majority of the 
     material in most plants. The genetically engineered material 
     is in the biocatalyst only; there is no need for genetically 
     modified plants. Typically the organism that is engineered to 
     digest the C5 sugars freed by the hydrolization of the 
     hemicellulose also produces the enzymes that hydrolyze the 
     cellulose.
       These developments may be compared in importance to the 
     invention of thermal and catalytic cracking of petroleum in 
     the first decades of the 20th century--processes which made 
     it possible to use a very large share of petroleum to make 
     gasoline rather than the tiny share that was available at the 
     beginning of the century. For example, with such

[[Page 12726]]

     genetically-engineered biocatalysts, it is not only grains of 
     corn but corn cobs and most of the rest of the corn plant 
     that may be used to make ethanol.
       Such biomass, or cellulosic, ethanol is now likely to see 
     commercial production begin first in a facility of the 
     Canadian company, Iogen, with backing from Shell Oil, at a 
     cost of around $1.30/gallon. The National Renewable Energy 
     Laboratory estimates costs will drop to around $1.07/gallon 
     over the next five years, and the Energy Commission estimates 
     a drop in costs to 67-77 cents/gallon when the process is 
     fully mature (ETES p. 75). The most common feedstocks will 
     likely be agricultural wastes, such as rice straw, or natural 
     grasses such as switchgrass, a variety of prairie grass that 
     is often planted on soil bank land to replenish the soil's 
     fertility. There will be decided financial advantages in 
     using as feedstocks any wastes which carry a tipping fee (a 
     negative cost) to finance disposal: e.g. waste paper, or rice 
     straw, which cannot be left in the fields after harvest 
     because of its silicon content.
       Old or misstated data are sometimes cited for the 
     proposition that huge amounts of land would have to be 
     introduced into cultivation or taken away from food 
     production in order to have such biomass available for 
     cellulosic ethanol production. This is incorrect. The 
     National Commission on Energy Policy reported in December 
     that, if fleet mileage in the U.S. rises to 40 mpg--somewhat 
     below the current European Union fleet average for new 
     vehicles of 42 mpg and well below the current Japanese 
     average of 47 mpg--then as switchgrass yields improve 
     modestly to around 10 tons/acre it would take only 30 million 
     acres of land to produce sufficient cellulosic ethanol to 
     fuel half the U.S. passenger fleet. (ETES pp. 76-77). By way 
     of calibration, this would essentially eliminate the need for 
     oil import for passenger vehicle fuel and would require only 
     the amount of land now in the soil bank (the Conservation 
     Reserve Program (``CRP'') on which such soil-restoring crops 
     as switchgrass are already being grown. Practically speaking, 
     one would probably use for ethanol production only a little 
     over half of the soil bank lands and add to this some portion 
     of the plants now grown as animal feed crops (for example, on 
     the 70 million acres that now grow soybeans for animal feed). 
     In short, the U.S. and many other countries should easily 
     find sufficient land available for enough energy crop 
     cultivation to make a substantial dent in oil use. (Id.)
       There is also a common and erroneous impression that 
     ethanol generally requires as much energy to produce as one 
     obtains from using it and that its use does not substantially 
     reduce global warming gas emissions. The production and use 
     of ethanol merely recycles in a different way the 
     CO2 that has been fixed by plants in the 
     photosynthesis process. It does not release carbon that would 
     otherwise stay stored underground, as occurs with fossil fuel 
     use, but when starch, such as corn, is used for ethanol 
     production much energy, including fossil-fuel energy, is 
     consumed in the process of fertilizing, plowing, and 
     harvesting. Even starch-based ethanol, however, does reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions by around 30 percent. Because so 
     little energy is required to cultivate crops such as 
     switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol production, and because 
     electricity can be co-produced using the residues of such 
     cellulosic fuel production, reductions in green-house gas 
     emissions for cellulosic ethanol when compared to gasoline 
     are greater than 100 percent. The production and use of 
     cellulosic ethanol is, in other words, a carbon sink. (ETES 
     p. 73)
     Biodiesel
       The National Commission on Energy Policy pointed out some 
     of the problems with most current biodiesel ``produced from 
     rapeseed, soybean, and other vegetable oils--as well as . . . 
     used cooking oils.'' It said that these are ``unlikely to 
     become economic on a large scale'' and that they could 
     ``cause problems when used in blends higher than 20 percent 
     in older diesel engines''. It added that ``waste oil is 
     likely to contain impurities that give rise of undesirable 
     emissions.'' (ETES p. 75)
       The Commission notes, however, that biodiesel is generally 
     ``compatible with existing distribution infrastructure'' and 
     outlines the potential of a newer process (``thermal 
     depolymerization'') that produces biodiesel without the above 
     disadvantages from ``animal offal, agricultural residues, 
     municipal solid waste, sewage, and old tires''. It points to 
     the current use of this process at a Conagra turkey 
     processing facility in Carthage, Missouri, where a ``20 
     million commercial-scale facility'' is beginning to convert 
     turkey offal into ``a variety of useful products, from 
     fertilizer to low-sulfur diesel fuel'' at a potential average 
     cost of ``about 72 cents per gallon.'' (ETES p. 77)
     Other Alternative Fuels
       Progress has been made in recent years on utilizing not 
     only coal but slag from strip mines, via gasification, for 
     conversion into diesel fuel using a modern version of the 
     gasified-coal-to-diesel process used in Germany during World 
     War II.
       Qatar has begun a large-scale process of converting natural 
     gas to diesel fuel.
       Outside the realm of conventional oil, the tar sands of 
     Alberta and the oil shale of the Western U.S. exist in huge 
     deposits, the exploitation of which is currently costly and 
     accompanied by major environmental difficulties, but both 
     definitely hold promise for a substantial increases in oil 
     supply.
     Plug-In Hybrids and Battery Improvements
       A modification to hybrids could permit them to become 
     ``plug-in-hybrids,'' drawing power from the electricity grid 
     at night and using all electricity for short trips. The 
     ``vast majority of the most fuel-hungry trips are under six 
     miles'' and ``well within the range'' of current (nickel-
     metal hydride) batteries' capacity, according to Huber and 
     Mills (The Bottomless Well, 2005, p. 84). Other experts, 
     however, emphasize that whether with existing battery types 
     (2-5 kwh capacity) or with the emerging (and more capable) 
     lithium batteries, it is important that any battery used in a 
     plug-in hybrid be capable of taking daily charging without 
     being damaged and be capable of powering the vehicle at an 
     adequate speed. By most assessments some battery development 
     will be necessary in order for this to be the case. Such 
     development should have the highest research and development 
     priority because it promises to revolutionize transportation 
     economics and to have a dramatic effect on the problems 
     caused by oil dependence.
       With a plug-in hybrid vehicle one has the advantage of an 
     electric car, but not the disadvantage. Electric cars cannot 
     be recharged if their batteries run down at some spot away 
     from electric power. But since hybrids have tanks containing 
     liquid fuel (gasoline and/or ethanol, diesel and/or 
     biodiesel) plug-in hybrids have no such disadvantage. 
     Moreover the attractiveness to the consumer of being able to 
     use electricity from overnight charging for a substantial 
     share of the day's driving is stunning. The average 
     residential price of electricity in the U.S. is about 8.5 
     cents/kwh, one-quarter the cost of $2/gallon gasoline. So 
     powering one's vehicle with electricity purchased at such 
     rates is roughly the equivalent of being able to buy gasoline 
     at 50 cents/gallon instead of the more than $2/gallon that it 
     presently costs in the U.S. Moreover, many utilities sell 
     off-peak power for 2-4 cents/kwh--the equivalent of 12-to-25 
     cents/gallon gasoline. (Id. p. 83) Given the burdensome cost 
     imposed by current fuel prices on commuters and others who 
     need to drive substantial distances, the possibility of 
     powering one's family vehicle with fuel that can cost as 
     little as one-twentieth of today's gasoline (in the U.S. 
     market) should solve rapidly the question whether there would 
     be public interest in and acceptability of plug-in hybrids.
       Although the use of off-peak power for plug-in hybrids 
     should not initially require substantial new investments in 
     electricity generation, greater reliance on electricity for 
     transportation should lead us to look particularly to the 
     security of the electricity grid. In the U.S. the 2002 report 
     of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and 
     Medicine (``Making the Nation Safer'') emphasized 
     particularly the need to improve the security of transformers 
     and of the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) 
     systems in the face of terrorist threats. The National 
     Commission on Energy Policy has seconded those concerns. With 
     or without the advent of plug-in hybrids, these electricity 
     grid vulnerabilities require urgent attention.


                               Conclusion

       The dangers from oil dependence in today's world require us 
     both to look to ways to reduce demand for oil and to increase 
     supply of transportation fuel by methods beyond the increase 
     of oil production.
       The realistic opportunities for reducing demand soon 
     suggest that government policies should encourage hybrid 
     gasoline-electric vehicles, particularly the battery 
     developments needed to bring plug-in versions thereof to the 
     market, and modern diesel technology. The realistic 
     opportunities for increasing supply of transportation fuel 
     soon suggest that government policies should encourage the 
     commercialization of alternative fuels that can be used in 
     the existing infrastructure: cellulosic ethanol and 
     biodiesel. Both of these fuels could be introduced more 
     quickly and efficiently if they achieve cost advantages from 
     the utilization of waste products as feedstocks.
       The effects of these policies are multiplicative. All 
     should be pursued since it is impossible to predict which 
     will be fully successful or at what pace, even though all are 
     today either beginning commercial production or are nearly to 
     that point. The battery development for plug-in hybrids is of 
     substantial importance and should for the time being replace 
     the current r&d emphasis on automotive hydrogen fuel cells.
       If even one of these technologies is moved promptly into 
     the market, the reduction in oil dependence could be 
     substantial. If several begin to be successfully introduced 
     into large-scale use, the reduction could be stunning. For 
     example, a 50-mpg hybrid gasoline/electric vehicle, on the 
     road today, if constructed from carbon composites would 
     achieve around 100 mpg. If it were to operate on 85 percent 
     cellulosic ethanol or a similar proportion of biodiesel fuel, 
     it would be achieving hundreds of miles per gallon of 
     petroleum-derived fuel. If it were a plug-in version 
     operating on upgraded lithium batteries so that 20-30 mile 
     trips could be undertaken on its overnight charge before it 
     began

[[Page 12727]]

     utilizing liquid fuel at all, it could be obtaining in the 
     range of 1000 mpg (of petroleum).
       A range of important objectives--economic, geopolitical, 
     environmental--would be served by our embarking on such a 
     path. Of greatest importance, we would be substantially more 
     secure.

  Ms. CANTWELL. There are lots of third parties saying we can achieve 
this goal. I want to bet on the American ingenuity that is outlined in 
this bill, and other American ingenuity, that we can achieve what it 
takes to get there. So I am not afraid of setting this goal. I am glad 
third parties are validating that we can achieve it.
  My colleague wants to say this is about putting a man on Mars or 
something of that nature. I can tell you, the American people are right 
here on planet Earth and paying $2.36 or close to it for gasoline in 
Seattle, and that is too high. What Americans want is relief. What they 
know they will not get is relief from language that says we are going 
to be more dependent in 2015 than we are today. They want us to set a 
goal to get off that overdependence because, frankly, there is not true 
competition on oil prices. That is to say when Americans have no 
alternative fuel at the pump and they have to pay that price, there is 
no true competition. So Americans want to get off that overdependence. 
That is what the amendment says and that is what we want to achieve by 
2025, 20 years from now.
  With all the myriad technology in the legislation and all the 
technology we can create between now and then, let's reverse the trend 
and be less dependent on foreign oil in 2025 than we are today. That 
seems to be a national goal on which everyone in this body ought to be 
able to agree. We should not be afraid of the underlying bill and the 
great work that has been done by my colleagues. I cannot say who the 
ultimate winners and losers will be. My colleague has spoken about new 
nuclear technology, he has talked about natural gas--there will be many 
ways. But I know if we set this goal and tell the American people they 
are not going to be strangled by high energy costs moving forward maybe 
up to $100 a barrel, then we will actually achieve that goal. But our 
underlying language right now does not get us there. So I hope we will 
embrace the bipartisan effort that the Senate committee had and work 
together on this to set a goal we will be proud of, in the sense of 
reversing the trend so we are not in 2015 being more dependent on 
foreign oil, but in 2025 being less dependent on foreign oil.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me thank my colleague from the State of Washington. I 
think she has offered an amendment that is worthy of the kind of 
significant debate we should be having about energy. I recognize that 
tomorrow's newspapers will not likely include this discussion on the 
front page. I was watching the television programs last Sunday, 
including one with perhaps one of the most esteemed columnists in this 
country, one of the best, in my judgment, David Broder. They were 
talking about the majority party and Democrats and the political 
differences. David Broder observed that the Democrats need to come 
forward with a positive agenda--with an agenda. What is their agenda?
  The fact is, people don't cover positive news. You can be on the 
floor all day with an agenda and they will not cover it. This will not 
be on the front page of the paper tomorrow.
  On the front page today is Michael Jackson. His attorney says he has 
agreed to end the behavior that got him into such trouble.
  A new ``Batman'' movie, I noticed on the front page.
  The Lakers have hired a new coach. That is on the front page of the 
newspaper.
  I don't think this debate will make the front page and that is 
regrettable, because this is a big issue. This is an important issue. 
The question is, are we going to set goals as a country and aspire to 
achieve those goals? There is an old saying that if you do not care 
where you are going, you are never going to be lost. Where are we going 
with respect to energy? We know that 60 percent of our oil comes from 
off our shores--60 percent from off our shores.
  I asked the Energy Department officials one day when they came before 
the Energy Committee: We talk a lot about 50 years from now, like what 
will be the consequences of the Social Security financing system 50 
years and 75 years from now. Then I asked these officials to tell me 
what their plan is 50 years from now with respect to energy usage and 
energy supply. You would have thought I hit him with a baseball bat. 
They did not have the foggiest idea. They don't have a 50-year plan for 
energy. We know that 60 percent of our oil now comes from off our 
shores, much of it from troubled parts of the world. Yet here we are, 
blissfully moving along, buying one big vehicle after another.
  In fact, pull up to the next stoplight and pull beside a humvee; that 
is about 6,500 pounds--I will get a letter from the humvee folks, I 
suppose--6,000 pounds or so. I am sure it gets single-digit gas 
mileage. I never took Latin, but I think of the Latin term ``totus 
porcus'' whenever I pull up next to a humvee. Someone told me it means 
whole hog. Here we are, blissfully moving along, driving our humvees, 
driving our SUVs, understanding that the question of whether we 
continue to have an oil and gas supply in this country is not up to us, 
it is up to the generosity of others, their willingness to pump it, 
their willingness to sell it, and the question of, at what price do 
they sell it to this country.
  I want to tell a story. Late one evening, I was in the old Air Force 
One, the old 707 used by President George Bush, the first. That plane 
was retired and is now in a museum. But that old Air Force One is the 
airplane that carried John F. Kennedy's body from Dallas, TX, to 
Andrews Air Force Base the night that he was shot. It is a great old 
airplane. One of the last trips made in that old Air Force One was to 
Asia. I was on that trip. Senator John Glenn was on the trip and about 
two or three other Senators. We were going to China and Vietnam and a 
couple of other places to talk to foreign leaders.
  Late that night, in the dark, in the front cabin which the President 
would have used when it was Air Force One, we began talking as we were 
sitting around, as colleagues do. I asked John Glenn about his space 
flight because I was a young boy listening to the radio with rapt 
attention when I heard that John Glenn circled the Earth. I asked him 
questions about it. What was it like going up in that space capsule and 
being the first American to orbit the Earth? He leaned forward, and for 
the first time he began talking about that flight to us.
  One of the things he told us I never have forgotten. As he crossed 
from the light side of the Earth to the dark side of the Earth--some of 
you might remember that all of the citizens of Perth, Australia, 
decided to turn on all of their lights so that when this human being in 
some small little capsule called Friendship 7 orbited over the dark 
side, Perth, Australia, wanted to shine all their lights up so that 
John Glenn could see them. And John Glenn told us that night, sitting 
in that old Air Force One cabin, flying across the Pacific, he told us 
that he looked down on the dark side, and the only thing he could see 
on that path around were the lights of Perth, Australia.
  Think of that. This big old planet of ours, with 6 billion people, 
that spins around the Sun, we have a human being for the first time 
orbit the Earth. He looked down on the dark side and saw the product of 
the light switches turned on by all those citizens in that community in 
Australia. The only evidence on the dark side of the Earth that John 
Glenn could see as he orbited the Earth was the product of energy--
light.
  We take energy for granted every single morning. We wake up, we flip 
the switch on, and it is energy at our fingertips. We put our key in 
the ignition, we turn the ignition on, and it is energy at our 
fingertips. We turn on the air conditioner or the heater, it is energy 
at our fingertips. We take it for granted. The story John Glenn told 
describes that the human condition in

[[Page 12728]]

this country depends a lot on the availability of energy.
  What has the Senator from Washington said today? She said: Let's have 
a big idea. I am pleased to support this amendment and to come over and 
speak about this amendment because this is a big idea. It says: Let's 
set a goal. Let's set a target, a timetable. I know there will be some, 
and there are some, who say it shouldn't be done, won't be done, can't 
be done, can't be done, can't be done. I understand these comments. 
That is always the case.
  In my little old hometown, we had a guy named Grampy. His reaction to 
everything was, it can't be done. He always supported it after it was 
done, but he always said, it can't be done. While he was saying it 
can't be done, the other folks in my little hometown were doing it, out 
making it happen.
  This country has a responsibility at this intersection, at this time, 
at this moment, to decide on a different energy future. We cannot hold 
this country hostage by being dependent on 60 percent of our oil from 
troubled parts of the world.
  I talk a lot about trade. In part, this is a trade issue. We use 
nearly 21 million barrels of oil a day. The Saudis suck that oil out of 
the sands. They are blessed with a lot of oil under their sands. Then 
the oil comes over here, and we say, well, go ahead and fill her up 
over here and we will just give you a credit card. By the way, our 
folks will pay for it later. That is exactly what happens because that 
is how we get a $640 billion trade deficit--which, by the way, next 
year we are on the path--for the first 4 months of this year--we are on 
the path to exceed $750 billion in trade deficit next year. This is 
just one construct of that transaction, saying: Suck the oil out of the 
sand, send it over here, and we will pay later. It is like going to the 
gas station saying: Fill it up, here is a plastic card. We will not pay 
now, we will pay later.
  This cannot continue. What if, God forbid, we woke up and discovered 
our oil supplies from Iraq, from Saudi Arabia, from Kuwait, from 
Venezuela, from any other country around the world, were gone. If that 
happened, I guarantee this economy will be belly up immediately. We 
cannot exist as a world class economy, we cannot exist, without this 
supply of energy.
  What about this energy? We are hopelessly addicted to oil. When you 
have an addiction, the best way to deal with an addiction is to have an 
intervention. My colleague from Washington is saying let's have an 
intervention. Let's decide the future has to be different from the 
past. She says let's propose a big idea. I support that, as do many of 
my colleagues. Let's really have a big idea. Let's decide to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil in the next 20 years by 40 percent.
  Some say it can't be done. Well, we decided to go to the Moon. We did 
it in 10 years. We cannot do this in 20? Don't underestimate the 
American people. Of course, we can do this in 20 years.
  I will go through a list of technologies, and my colleague from 
Tennessee listed some, but there are a lot of hopeful things on the 
horizon. Those things alone will not solve this issue. We have to be 
more aggressive, much more aggressive, by setting timetables.
  Those who are pilots, they understand what I mean when I say you set 
waypoints when you are in the airplane. You get in the cockpit and 
decide where you are going to fly and you set waypoints and fly to a 
waypoint. We need to set targets, waypoints. Where do we want to be? 
How do you measure where you are if you do not have a discussion about 
where you want to be?
  That is what this amendment is about. It is not about 80-mile-per-
gallon CAFE standards or 50-mile-per-gallon CAFE standards. It is not 
about that at all. It is about whether this country collectively will 
decide that when it is dependent on something, dangerously dependent on 
something that it must shed its dependency on, whether we will make the 
decision to stop that dependency. Will it make a bold decision to stop 
the direction we are heading, turn it around, and back off?
  I don't know the answer to that. We will find out at some point. If 
anyone happens to be listening with respect to reporting on positive 
agendas, I would say here is an example of a positive agenda, a 
positive idea, a big idea. Big and bold. Risky? I don't know. I know 
the riskiest proposition for this country. By far, the riskiest 
proposition for this country is to keep doing what we are doing and be 
dependent and held hostage to 60 percent of our oil coming from outside 
of our country.
  Those who have studied economics, and I have studied and taught 
economics--probably not very well--but you will recognize the doctrine 
of comparative advantage. It was a simple doctrine. The doctrine of 
comparative advantage is, and the example traditionally used is, it is 
easier to produce wool through sheep in England and to grow grapes and 
wine in Portugal. It makes more sense, is more efficient to do both in 
England and Portugal, and then the English can ship their wool to 
Portugal, and Portugal can ship their wine to England, and they have 
traded. They have each produced what is to their advantage. The English 
raise sheep, get the wool; the Portuguese raise grapes, make the wine; 
and you simply trade wool for wine. It is a very simple construct, the 
doctrine of comparative advantage.
  That is not what this issue is about. The issue of energy has nothing 
to do with the doctrine of comparative advantage. The advantage here is 
not comparative. The advantage here is that in the Middle East you have 
a massive amount of oil under the sands. It is pulled up less 
expensively there than any place else in the world. A few people sit on 
massive reserves of oil. And we have become addicted to its supply. As 
a result of that, instead of getting ourselves out of a hole, we are 
still busy with shovels continuing to dig.
  We need to find a way and develop a goal that says at a certain point 
this country's future is no longer dependent on someone else providing 
for us the oil we need. We need to do that. Is it hard? Sure, it is 
hard, absolutely. This is not an easy thing to do. But do we have a 
choice? I do not think so. I do not believe we have a choice.
  My colleague described a number of technologies that are being 
discussed these days. Let me describe a few of them.
  Wind. Does anybody here understand how much more efficient the new 
wind turbines are? The new turbines are much more efficient. We are in 
a situation where we have the capability of taking energy from the 
wind. You take energy from the wind, a renewable resource, use it to 
produce electricity, use the electricity in a process called 
electrolysis, and separate hydrogen from water, and have an 
inexhaustible supply of hydrogen coming from water. Where does that 
come from? It comes from renewable energy, an inexhaustible supply of 
energy.
  We just finished the ethanol title on this piece of legislation 
today. What a wonderful thing that is, to grow energy in your farm 
fields. Take a kernel of corn, and from that kernel of corn comes a 
drop of alcohol and, in addition to the drop of alcohol, you still have 
the protein feedstock left to give to the cows. It makes a lot of 
sense, doesn't it?
  I know some oil companies do not like it. When I learned they did not 
like it, I figured this has to make a lot of sense for our country. So 
we passed an ethanol title. The renewable part of this legislation 
dealing with wind energy and biodiesel and a range of other strategies 
makes great sense.
  I particularly have been interested in helping write the title that 
deals with hydrogen and fuel cells. Some say: Well, we are not ready 
for that. You are right, at this point we do not have all the solutions 
of production, storage, transportation, and infrastructure. I 
understand that. But we can, and we will, and other countries, 
particularly in Europe, are moving rapidly in this direction. And even 
as an interim step we are seeing these hybrid cars. But we are going to 
move rapidly toward a different construct: hydrogen fuel cells--twice 
the efficiency of power to the wheel and water vapor out the tailpipe.
  What a wonderful thing. Hydrogen is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. 
There are

[[Page 12729]]

many strategies to employ to take hydrogen from water, using renewable 
resources, to extend our country's energy supply in a dramatic way and 
move us toward less dependence and greater independence.
  The one thing that characterizes this country is how famously wrong 
people have been in trying to prognosticate the future. There is a 
whole list of these famous projections. Thomas Watson, in 1943, who was 
the chairman of IBM, said he thought maybe there was a world market for 
up to five computers. He was the head of IBM in 1943: I think maybe 
there is a world market for five computers. Sarnoff once said, with 
respect to the proposal to develop the radio: Well, who on Earth would 
pay for a message sent to no one in particular?
  I guess they missed the mark. I could go through a long list. We are 
famous for not understanding what promise the future holds. This is not 
going to the Moon. That is not what this is. But this country does best 
when setting goals, such as when John F. Kennedy said, in response to 
Sputnik and in response to the race with the Soviets: We are going to 
go to the Moon by the end of the decade.
  I have talked to folks at NASA who were around back then, the old 
codgers, the old-timers. They scratched their heads: How on Earth are 
we going to get to the Moon? We don't have the technology to get to the 
Moon.
  Did you know the lunar lander that landed on the Moon with Armstrong 
and Aldrin had less computer power than a current new car has? Let me 
say that again. The lunar lander, on which Buzz Aldrin and Neil 
Armstrong settled on the surface of the Moon, had less computer power 
than a new car that you purchase today at the dealership anyplace 
around this country.
  That is remarkable. But those scientists, those engineers, that 
American ingenuity, that know-how, that spirit said: We are going to do 
this. We are going to put someone on the Moon in a decade. And guess 
what. By the end of the decade, there they were. ``One small step,'' 
you will recall, when Neil Armstrong planted his foot on the Moon.
  This country needs to establish goals. This country needs to have 
aspirations. All of us need to be a part of something that is bigger 
than ourselves. We debate so many issues on the floor of the Senate 
that have so little importance. This issue will determine whether our 
kids and our grandkids and their kids have jobs and opportunities and 
live in a country that has an economy that expands, that improves the 
standard and scale of living in the United States. That is what this 
amendment is about.
  Read the history books. Just because we are here on this designated 
spot in America, we think we have some blessing, some right to believe 
that America will always grow, always expand, always lead the world. 
Not so. It will be the case only if we make good decisions, only if we 
make the right decisions.
  This country has a wonderful economy. You can circle the globe in any 
kind of plane you want and you can look down on any spot in the world, 
and you will not find the equivalent of the United States of America--
nowhere. But we are headed toward some whitewater rapids here in a 
range of areas. We are spending money we do not have. We have the 
highest budget deficits in history. We have a trade deficit that is 
going to choke this country unless we get it under control. And, I 
think most importantly, we have an economy that is running on foreign 
oil.
  Sixty percent of that which we use comes from elsewhere. An economy 
that is hostage to decisions made by OPEC, hostage to decisions that 
might be made by terrorists, hostage to 60 percent--and going, we 
estimate by the Department of Energy, to 69 percent in a relatively 
short period of time--of its oil coming from off its shores, is a 
country, in my judgment, that is not in control of its own destiny.
  It falls to us to make the decisions to put this country on track. It 
falls to us to chart the future with respect to this country's energy. 
We have an energy bill on the floor. I have complimented Senator 
Domenici and Senator Bingaman. I am pleased this bill was brought to 
the floor in a bipartisan way. I voted for it out of the committee. I 
had a hand in a good many of the titles that were written for this 
bill. I could not be more pleased than to be here saying this is a step 
that is a positive step in the right direction: a bipartisan energy 
bill.
  My hope is the amendment that has been offered by Senator Cantwell 
will be embraced on a bipartisan basis as well because there is not a 
Republican or a Democratic way for this country to go off course. There 
is not a Republican or Democratic way for this country to need energy 
and not have it and, therefore, shrink its economy and shrink 
opportunity for the future.
  We need to do this together. Together we need to describe a big, new, 
bold idea that charts a new course for this country, a new energy 
course that gives us some feeling that we are moving toward 
independence.
  There is all this discussion these days about freedom. I am not 
talking about ``freedom fries'' now, I am talking about freedom and 
independence. All of that was undergirding the State of the Union 
Address given to us by President George Bush.
  Well, in my judgment, the issue of independence related to the word 
``freedom'' these days applies to a lot of things. And it must--it 
must--apply to the circumstances that this country finds itself in with 
respect to its dangerous, its hopeless addiction to oil coming from off 
our shores. As I have said previously, we simply cannot hope that in 
the months and years ahead the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Iraqis, the 
Venezuelans, and others, will decide there is enough oil to share with 
us.
  My colleague from New Mexico, the other day on television, I think, 
actually said--I did not hear him exactly--but there may not be a 
completely inexhaustible supply of oil in this world. We act as though 
it is inexhaustible. Every day we wake up in this country and use over 
20 million barrels of oil.
  We pretend it is inexhaustible. Maybe it is not. If it is not, what 
then: That is why I believe we ought to set some goals. This has 
nothing to do with politics. The Senator from New Mexico just came on 
the floor. He missed the credit I have given him and Senator Bingaman. 
I like what we have done. I am going to vote for another energy 
independence amendment called the renewable portfolio standard, 
requiring 10 percent of our electricity be made with renewables. We 
didn't have that in committee because we decided to do it on the floor. 
Some utility companies don't want it. I understand that. There is lots 
of room for debate. Maybe my view isn't the right view. I don't know.
  I know my view is one I hold passionately. I believe strongly that we 
need to do what is in this bill because it moves this country forward 
and advances our energy interests. I also believe we ought to do more. 
I believe we should set big, bold goals for America's energy future, 
see if we can't free ourselves from a hopeless dependence on foreign 
oil that is set now to grow and grow. Let's decide to make a U-turn and 
see if we can't begin to move in a more constructive direction.
  The Cantwell amendment will improve the legislation. I am going to 
vote for the Energy bill. I voted for it in committee. I am proud to 
vote for it. I am also going to vote for some things that will improve 
it. This positive idea is going to improve the legislation. I am happy 
to be a cosponsor and happy to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for his comments. I wish I could take credit for the bold idea in the 
sense that I am happy to be the sponsor of this amendment, but there 
are many people in America who have been talking about this as an idea.
  I submit for the record another organization that has supported a 
blueprint for U.S. energy security, the Set America Free Organization, 
which is a collective organization of individuals, and they actually 
submit information that would be much bolder than a proposal to set a 
goal in number of barrels that could be saved by 2025.

[[Page 12730]]

  There are a lot of people out there who have their sights set even 
more dramatically than what we are talking about.
  Clearly, my colleague outlined that we are talking about something 
that is technologically agnostic. We are not declaring what technology 
is going to win. There are lots of great solutions that are provided in 
this bill. But I would like to remind my colleagues that today at 2 
p.m., the price of oil per barrel was up to $56.50. So that is what we 
are dealing with, $56.50.
  I know my colleagues in the Chamber were involved in getting the 
original language of 1 million reduction by 2025. I think that language 
first emerged when the Senate was considering previous Energy bills 2 
years ago. At the time we originally started thinking about this goal 
of how to get off our foreign oil dependence or to reduce it, we were 
talking about oil prices that were much lower, maybe as low as $23 a 
barrel. Now we are looking at $56 a barrel. It is imperative that we be 
more aggressive by setting this goal and by working together to achieve 
it.
  The underlying bill is a testament to bipartisan work in saying that 
there are a variety of ways to reach the goal. Some may ask: Senator 
Cantwell, why do you want to set this goal? You might actually find the 
United States pursuing more domestic oil supply as a result of this 
goal.
  I can't say what is going to happen. I just know I want to get off 
the foreign dependence that we are at today because our economy cannot 
continue to take that risk. With the concentration of oil supply in the 
Middle East, we are one mishap away from having our economy face a 
$100-a-barrel oil cost in the future. We cannot afford $56 a barrel. 
Some people say: Well, economies adjust to the high cost. I guarantee, 
in the meantime, a lot of people are going to suffer. There is not a 
week that goes by that I am not on a plane flying back to the west 
coast, to my home State of Washington, and a transportation worker 
doesn't come up to talk to me about their pension, the fact that they 
are laid off, the fact that they are losing their job because 
transportation fuel costs in aviation have not been passed on to the 
consumer. Consequently, it is being taken out on pensions. So there 
isn't a week that goes by where I don't see somebody who hasn't 
suffered from the high cost already, at $56 a barrel.
  We cannot continue this dependency or the race we are going to be in 
with China on competing for a limited supply.
  I am confident enough in American ingenuity that I am not even going 
to be prescriptive about how we get there as it relates to whether it 
is nuclear, another supply of oil, biofuels, what is going to win the 
day. I showed a chart because I am a big advocate of biofuels. If you 
can buy biofuels in Seattle now in the $2.60 range, $2.70 range, I know 
that we can create more incentive, as we are in this bill, more 
research and development to get that cost down. So I know I can get it 
competitive to what I think gasoline prices are going to be. I want to 
do that. I am gung-ho about that.
  I am gung-ho about what the Brazilians have done because they have 
turned their economy around by becoming almost net exporters of energy 
instead of net importers. That is an incredible story the United States 
should learn from.
  As my colleague from North Dakota said, there are many different 
technologies in the bill, but other countries are starting to gain the 
advantage. If we think about it, we are not the experts on fuel 
efficiency that the Japanese are. We are not the experts on wind energy 
that some of the Scandinavian countries are. We are not the experts on 
the production of sugar-based ethanol that the Brazilians are. It 
bothers me that we are losing the technology edge to other countries.
  I certainly am willing to take the risk of setting a goal of 2025 in 
reducing our foreign oil consumption by 40 percent and saying all the 
options are on the table. I believe that Senator Domenici and Senator 
Bingaman did a good job of putting all those options on the table. I 
believe in the underlying bill. What I think we should reflect on is 
that the underlying bill includes language from a couple of years ago 
that may not be bold enough in the sense that if it doesn't reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil in 2015, we will be more dependent.
  We should reflect on that and see if we can get to a point where we 
are endorsing the underlying solutions in this bill and setting a 
higher goal so that we can say to the American people, we are reversing 
this trend.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I thank 
my kind colleague from Louisiana. I attended a meeting at the White 
House and just returned so I only had this time to do it. I appreciate 
the opportunity to discuss the Cantwell oil savings amendment.
  Obviously, it sounds good. Anybody who says we are going to save more 
oil, it is a good thing. But I urge my colleagues to look at it for 
what it really is. This appears to me to be a back-door attempt, 
arbitrarily, to increase the corporate average fuel economy or what we 
call the CAFE standards. Along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator 
Levin, we have been through the CAFE debate in both the 107th and 108th 
Congress. It appears, from all I can tell, that if this amendment 
really has any teeth, it means we are going to go through it again in 
this Congress. I am sure there will be other efforts to increase CAFE 
standards later in the debate.
  Let me remind my colleagues, we went through extensive debate, and we 
got signed into law measures saying that we must push the technology to 
increase fuel economy as fast as we can. We directed the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to examine the technology and 
increase the required CAFE standards as quickly as can be done with the 
technology available.
  Now, I believe that after all of our debates on CAFE, the Members of 
this body understand that corporate average fuel economy is a complex 
issue that requires a lot of thought and scientific analysis. That is 
why previous CAFE measures in the last Congress were defeated. Members 
have come to realize that the massive arbitrary increases in CAFE 
standards cost lives, jobs, and stifle the ability of consumers to 
choose the vehicle best for their families.
  It is wonderful to say we want to make a statement--we are not saying 
how we want to get there, but we really ought to have a major decrease. 
Well, Mr. President, the effort by Congress initially to establish CAFE 
standards, without knowing how you are going to get there, wound up 
with the auto manufacturers being forced to lower the average weight of 
their automobiles by about a thousand pounds.
  As I will be discussing later, we have lost thousands and thousands 
of lives because of unsafe automobiles. Unless you mandate that only 
certain cars can be sold or you tell people what they have to buy, 
people may not buy the cars that are made small to conform to the CAFE 
standards.
  While I laud my colleagues' desire to conserve oil, the fact is that 
under this amendment, as best we can determine, the only place oil 
savings can come from would be a massive increase in CAFE standards. 
The amendment requires the use of existing authorities to obtain these 
savings, but they appear to be inadequate to the task required. 
Authorities to implement the requirement or mandate are very limited.
  According to a recent Energy Information Association report, by 2025, 
oil consumption reductions on the order of 1.3 million barrels per day 
might be expected using a broad array of incentives and policies, such 
as new appliance efficiency standards, credits for home efficiency 
upgrades, additional tax credits for advanced technologies, energy 
performance standards for customers of selected utilities, and, of 
course, the promotion and use of renewable fuels. Many of these 
policies are already outside of the scope of existing authorities and 
still fall short of the goal of this amendment of 7.64 million barrels 
per day.

[[Page 12731]]

  Furthermore, assuming the renewable fuels standard included in the 
bill can be doubled by 2025 to 16 billion gallons per year, which is 
ambitious and also beyond existing authorities, it would contribute 
only 1 million barrels a day of petroleum reduction toward the Cantwell 
goal. As a result, some 4 to 5 billion barrels per day would be 
required, and there is no readily apparent source to get it from.
  The Cantwell amendment fails to protect these policies subject to 
existing authorities from excessive implementation. Existing programs, 
such as CAFE, may be called upon to provide contributions toward the 
goal that are far in excess of the normal implementation of these 
programs if there are inadequate overall authorities or demand 
reductions to accomplish these goals and other measures. For example, 
the Energy Information Association analysis referenced above estimates 
that with a 20-percent increase in CAFE standards by 2012, in 
conjunction with the other policy options analyzed, only a 1.1-percent 
decrease in the net import share of oil consumption occurs by 2025. The 
40-percent reduction required in the Cantwell amendment is far beyond 
what can reasonably be expected, using existing authorities.
  The proposed amendment assumes that huge, new opportunities exist to 
reduce oil demand, but existing programs will ultimately be held 
accountable. The development of fuel cells and extensive implementation 
of other advanced technologies may contribute significantly to the 
accomplishment of the goal, but the contributions they might make are 
highly uncertain. If we don't know where they are coming from, the 
consequences could be something very different than what we bargained 
for and having the adverse consequences we have seen from other broad 
mandates where Congress assumed that great, good things could be 
accomplished. Those are some of the reasons, frankly, we got into this 
energy problem, because of some of the ``great'' ideas. I will only 
mention the forcing of electric utilities to burn natural gas, which 
has caused a great part of the energy problem we have today.
  In addition, since the measures must be defined and implemented 
starting within a year, existing programs and authorities would have to 
be relied upon extensively to develop the plan and to make up any 
shortfalls.
  The Cantwell amendment would push the administration to rely on 
contributions from programs and activities that are high risk, high 
cost, and the benefits are unknowable at this point. The President is 
allowed 1 whole year under the amendment to develop and implement 
measures that will save an amount of oil equivalent to 90 percent of 
the annual consumption of the current light-duty vehicle fleet. 
However, the timing and the level of contributions of programs such as 
fuel cell and hydrogen development can only be guessed at this point, 
and authorities to fully implement them are still being developed. In 
light of this, my question would be, How can the President obtain the 
oil savings required under this amendment?
  According to the Department of Energy's EIA, the vast majority of 
petroleum consumption in the United States--68 percent in 2002--is in 
the transportation sector. Any reduction in petroleum consumption will 
imply a substantial contribution from this sector.
  Under the Cantwell amendment, CAFE standards for cars, light trucks, 
and SUVs will skyrocket. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in 
its examination of the EIA's assessments on oil savings, projects that 
the Cantwell amendment will require CAFE standards for passenger cars 
nearly to triple from its current level of 27.5 miles per gallon to 
78.6 miles per gallon by 2025. Anybody for riding a golf cart? 
Furthermore, the CAFE standard for light trucks and SUVs would nearly 
triple from its current level of 21 miles per gallon to 60.8 miles per 
gallon by 2025.
  Under the 20-year duration of the proposed amendment, the yearly 
percentage increase for passenger cars and light trucks would be equal 
to a 10-percent rate of increase. According to NHTSA, the ``maximum 
feasible'' standard for cars and light trucks for the years 2005 to 
2007 is a 2.8-percent rate of increase. To go above that, to have the 
10-percent increase, would not only be technically infeasible, but it 
would have a devastating effect on employment in the auto industry. If 
the requirements of the Cantwell amendment are enacted, then we could 
kiss tens of thousands of good, high-paying, American union jobs 
goodbye. I don't want to do that to the roughly 36,000 hard-working men 
and women who work directly for the automotive industry in Missouri, 
nor am I willing to do that to the over 200,000 men and women who work 
in auto-dependent jobs in my State or those employed directly and 
indirectly throughout this Nation.
  Furthermore, what does the Cantwell amendment mean for the size and 
safety of our Nation's vehicle fleet? If we force consumers to drive 
smaller vehicles, which is what will happen under arbitrary CAFE 
increases, then we can expect a lot more highway fatalities.
  Yesterday, I received some frightening statistics from NHTSA and the 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis regarding the small vehicle 
fatality rates. In 2003, over 3,200 fatalities resulted from crashes 
involving smaller vehicles. This is anywhere from 2 to 7 times more 
than the fatality rates for larger, heavier vehicles, depending on 
their weight class.
  As we talked about the last time we debated CAFE, when we take a look 
at it over the years, NHTSA has found that solely as a result of the 
lighter cars made necessary by CAFE standards, between 1,000 and 2,000 
more people were killed on the highways than would have been killed if 
they had larger vehicles. This isn't just on head-to-head, running into 
another larger car or a larger vehicle; over 40 percent of those were 
single-car accidents.
  The latest figures I have heard is that NHTSA estimates that 1,300 
deaths a year occur because of the mandated smaller size cars made 
necessary by the CAFE standards. Make no mistake, you may call this an 
oil savings, but this is CAFE all over again. As I have stated time and 
again, far-reaching increases to fuel efficiency standards that are not 
based on sound science are too costly and impractical for us to adopt. 
The lives and safety of drivers and their passengers, along with the 
livelihood of men and women in the automotive workforce who manufacture 
these vehicles, is too much of a price to pay for unthought-out, 
unscientific fuel efficiency standards.
  And, finally, make no mistake about it, this goes to consumer choice. 
Consumers are making the decision on what kind of vehicles they want to 
drive. Right now, more and more of them are opting for light trucks. 
Are we going to tell them that we are going to tell them what kind of 
vehicle they can purchase? Are we going to have some Soviet-style czar 
who says because they have two parents and two children in the family, 
we will allow them one minicar and one small van? Who is going to 
decide if we take away from the consumers their right to choose these 
vehicles?
  If we have fuel standards of 78 miles per gallon, we are not going to 
be able to buy any of the cars we want. Consumers are not going to have 
choices. We are going to see people out of work in the auto industry, 
major disruptions in the transportation sector, a great inconvenience, 
and increased highway dangers.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to work for sound, science-based 
ways to conserve and produce more energy and to reject a measure that 
does not have a good, sound scientific foundation.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute. Before Senator 
Bond leaves, I thank him for his statement. I have heard the Senator 
eloquently describe this whole situation regarding automobiles in the 
United States and CAFE standards, but it seems to me this amendment is 
even way beyond anything we debated before. We are talking about 
changing by a couple miles, 2 or 3 miles. What we are talking about 
here would never become law. Let's be serious about it. But if it

[[Page 12732]]

would, we are talking 3 or 4 times the CAFE standards we have today. 
What kind of cars could we build?
  Mr. BOND. We would have golf carts.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It seems to me the answer is impossible. That is the 
answer. This is an impossible amendment. People want to dream, but you 
do not build a country on dreams. Maybe you can dream, wake up and 
think of something that is quite appropriate for goal achievement. This 
seems like somebody dreamt up something to tell us we ought to save 40 
percent of crude oil we use in the United States by 2025; is that what 
it sounds like to the Senator?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am happy to answer. Obviously, it is well-
intentioned, but I agree with the distinguished chairman of the 
committee who has done an excellent job on this entire bill. I commend 
him. The chairman and ranking member, our two friends from New Mexico, 
have done great things in this bill, but I think this kind of amendment 
would cripple its chance of passage. It does not meet the test of 
scientific reasonableness, sound science that I think we have to follow 
if we are to make some major improvements in the energy situation in 
our country.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to make a 
few brief remarks about the overall Energy bill that is before us, 
about some of the strong points in this bill and how we might be able 
to improve upon it.
  I would like to briefly mention, along the lines of the discussion 
that just ensued, importing oil and the challenges that brings to our 
Nation. I will submit a few documents for the Record and discuss 
generally the situation that we have in Louisiana. Of course, I will 
not be offering any amendment at this time but just discussing 
something I know we will be talking more about as this debate ensues.
  While I understand the amendment before us is quite an aggressive 
amendment--and at this time, I have not made a final decision about 
it--I would like to say something positive about the amendment.
  One of the points I like about this approach, while it is very 
aggressive because it is similar to an approach that Senator Alexander 
and I took 2 years ago on the Energy bill, is the flexibility that it 
provides to the country to try to make smart strategic choices about 
how savings can occur and smart strategic choices about lessening our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Coming from an oil-producing State, I can say that the people in 
Louisiana who produce oil and gas right here at home would like to 
reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil.
  The question is--and I think the chairman raises a very excellent 
point, and it is a real question--can we do that this fast, this 
aggressively, and maintain our economic position? We may or may not. 
But I want to say that anything we can do to reduce our dependency on 
foreign oil, while we recognize that we are just about to open to the 
imports of natural gas because we virtually have no choice--we have to 
because we cannot step up domestic production fast enough to meet the 
demands because China, because India, because our industries--chemical, 
petrochemical, agriculture, and others--are demanding more natural gas. 
We are about ready to bring in natural gas, where in some ways, while I 
support that, it will compound the problem of dependency.
  It really is a dilemma. I say to the Senator from Washington that I 
think the flexibility of her proposal is very important, and the fact 
that this amendment does not say we have to conserve, we could, in 
fact, produce more domestic oil and gas which I happen to think would 
be a great idea. I know the chairman and the ranking member support 
more domestic drilling of oil and gas.
  I want to say a word about that for a moment. We do not do anything 
the same way today that we did in the 1930s. Our telephones do not work 
the same way. We did not even have computers in the 1930s. Everything 
has changed. Technology for the large part has made everything better. 
Some people might argue with that statement, but the efficiency, the 
convenience, the ability to clean up our environment--everything has 
been made better in large measure by technology.
  The oil and gas industry is not what it once was when the men and 
women who started it were paddling in a pirogue, a canoe--that is what 
we call a pirogue in Louisiana. A pirogue is a canoe--in the marsh 
pumping the oil out of the ground by hand and digging with shovels and 
crude instruments. This industry resembles more of the space industry 
today. It is run by computer. It is highly technical.
  The environmental advances are absolutely astonishing. I have taken 
the chairman down to Louisiana. He has seen this with his own eyes. The 
wells, where they are situated, the offshore platforms, I believe, 
would make any American proud, even Americans who belong to the 
California Sierra Club. I absolutely believe they would be proud if 
they could see the development of this oil and gas industry. In fact, 
one of the majors told me--and I do not have any reason to doubt them 
because I think independent studies have shown this--that in the Gulf 
of Mexico last year, in the entire Gulf of Mexico, that oil company 
collected three barrels--three barrels--of spilled oil from its 
operations, and it has billions of dollars invested.
  That is how good we have gotten. Guess what. We are the best in the 
world. Instead of bellyaching, we should be proud of that. We should 
say thank goodness for that old American ingenuity. We did not do it 
very well in the 1930s, and we did not do it well in the 1940s, but one 
good thing about America is we never stop trying to be better. It 
separates us from so many places in the world.
  Coming from an oil and gas State, I would be the happiest person in 
the world if we could stop importing oil, drill it at home and explore 
new places that are appropriate. Some places may need to be off-limits 
but not everyplace.
  There is a place that is not off-limits and we are proud of, and that 
is south Louisiana and the work that we have contributed to this 
country. I am going to show my colleagues this chart because this is 
where all of the drilling off the coast of our country occurs: Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. We have been producing oil and gas 
and sending $5 billion annually to the Treasury in taxes every year. 
Yes, there have been some environmental impacts which I am going to 
talk about in a moment, but they have been minor compared to the wealth 
that this industry has created not just for this region but for the 
entire Nation.
  Does anybody remember we have gone through an industrial revolution? 
Does anybody remember that everybody moved off the farms and went to 
the cities? How do people think the cities got lit? It did not wave a 
magic wand and the lights came on. We have been producing and digging 
from coal, oil, and gas. So if anybody wants to say that, oh, well, we 
just do not have to do that any more, heck, the whole country was built 
on this contribution. People from Louisiana are darn proud of it.
  Instead of everybody coming to the floor and saying how we do not 
care about our land and we do not care about our trees and we do not 
care about our coast and we do not have anything beautiful to preserve, 
not only do the people of Louisiana love our land and love our water, 
we survive on it and in it more than anybody in America. We swim more. 
We eat more fish. We spend more time in boats. We recreate more on the 
water than probably anyplace maybe except for a very few. Not only 
wealthy people get to the water, everybody lives by the water. In some 
places, one has to have a $5-million house before they can touch the 
water. In Louisiana, there are people who live in a house not worth 
$25,000, but they have a gorgeous marsh land behind their house, and 
those kids go fishing.
  So I do not like to hear anybody come to this floor and say that we 
do not treasure our land in Louisiana. We are going to continue to 
produce oil and gas. We are going to continue to be

[[Page 12733]]

proud of it, and we are going to continue to tell the story, whether 
anybody wants to believe us or not, that this can be done in a very 
safe environmental way. Why? Because we have good regulation; two, we 
have courts that enforce the regulation; three, we have all kinds of 
agencies--some would argue too many--that make sure that all of these 
companies are doing what they are supposed to do.
  We have a free press, which means a lot because if somebody is doing 
something wrong, there is nothing I can do or the Senator from New 
Mexico can do to try to stop them from reporting it. So they can report 
anything they want. There is open information. I wish they would really 
tell people what is actually happening.
  The point I want to make in just a moment is that we are going to 
continue to do drilling. I appreciate all the good work of my 
colleagues to try to give more revenues to the State. We get a little 
bit, but because we are generating so much and helping everybody so 
much--let me just use this. I wanted to thank my colleagues for their 
interest in helping us, but this makes my point even better. When the 
Senator from Washington said she wants us to be more like Brazil, I am 
going to learn a little bit more about what Brazil has done because I 
am not quite sure of the details, but I will tell my colleagues about 
11 States in the United States and what they have done. Those States 
are Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, New 
Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Wyoming. Eleven States 
out of fifty are the only States in the United States that produce more 
energy than they consume.
  Let me say that again. There are only 11 States in the United States 
of America that produce more energy than they consume. So if anybody 
wants to give Brazil an award, please give these 11 States an award 
first because we have already done that. We produce oil and gas. We are 
net exporters of energy--well, we produce oil, gas, coal, nuclear. We 
can produce energy from a lot of different ways. This is not just oil 
and gas production. This includes nuclear. This is from the Energy 
Information Agency, our own agency, not from Louisiana or Senator 
Landrieu. This is the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Information 
Agency. This includes nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wood, wind, waste, 
solar, oil, natural gas, and coal.
  As the chairman from New Mexico will say, his goal is to increase the 
choices of all of these so that more States can begin producing 
something. If my colleagues do not want to drill for oil, then drill 
for gas. If they do not want to do that, put in a nuclear powerplant. 
If they do not want to do that, put in some wind turbines. If they do 
not want to do that, dam up some of their rivers and use hydro. Some 
people will do that; some people will not. But for heaven's sakes, do 
something. Do something. If they want to mine for coal, we have given 
them a lot of money in this bill and they can clean the coal. It can be 
burned and used efficiently. Put in solar panels. Go get waste from the 
agricultural areas of their State. That is the whole point of this 
bill.
  We have 39 States that need to make some decisions about what they 
are going to produce to be free because 11 of us have already figured 
it out.
  I do not know these other States as well as I know my State, but in 
addition to being a net exporter of energy, I will also tell the 
country that Louisiana probably has the most petrochemical plants per 
capita than any State in the Union. Those products that are produced in 
my State are not consumed by my State alone.
  We make these products and send them all over the country and the 
world. So not only are we producing enough energy for every single 
person in Louisiana--the 4.5 million of us--and what we need, but we 
are also fueling every plant, every LNG facility, every petrochemical 
facility, supplying so much for the Nation and still exporting because 
people in Louisiana kind of believe in good old-fashioned ``do your 
part'' kind of work.
  We also conserve. I am so tired of people saying, oh, the Senator 
from Louisiana and the people from Louisiana, all they do is waste 
fuel. I do not have the document, but I am going to submit for the 
record--I am going to take the last 10 years--the efficiencies that 
Louisiana, through our industry, has achieved. Yes, some of them have 
been mandated by this body and they had no choice and they had to do 
it, but some of it is voluntary. We have tried to be more efficient as 
well and, of course, we have produced this energy.
  Let me just point out three or four States that are at the top of 
this list. Actually, I am probably going to do five States.
  The States that consume more energy than they produce are California 
at the top of the list, New York second, Ohio third, Florida fourth, 
and Michigan fifth.
  Let me point out one other thing, because you will say, Why isn't 
Texas on the green list. I want to find where Texas is--here it is, 25. 
Texas is not a net exporter, but it is close. The reason it is not is 
because, of course, it is a big State, a huge State--20-plus million 
people, and they also have so much industry that they supply energy 
for, that helps us all, they don't quite make it. But I have to say 
Texas is doing a great deal. Perhaps they could do more.
  But the rest of these you can understand. Maybe Hawaii is too small. 
Hawaii is not very big, but they are doing a whole heck of a lot better 
than California.
  I want to be clear about who is doing what, who is not, and where we 
need to go and try to help everybody make the choices that work for 
their State but that also work for the country. It has to happen.
  I will stop for a moment on that issue and move to something else.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I am happy to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Just for a few minutes, without losing your right to 
the floor.
  I want to say to the Senator, thank you for your discussion, as you 
zero in on what States do and do not do. I will not repeat that. People 
heard it and they ought to heed it. Some of the States you have alluded 
to ought to heed it, too. Some of them are the very ones who do not 
want to produce anything and have production somewhere else, not there.
  But in passing, the Senator discussed offshore production in her 
State, which she described in terms of new technology that is very 
safe. There is nothing happening that hurts anybody. There is no 
degradation of the water, no degradation of the air. I have seen one of 
the new facilities. I wish everybody who is worried about offshore 
drilling would take a helicopter and go out there. They are not next 
door to your house, they are miles and miles out in the ocean, and they 
are very large. They look like a big battleship out there all lighted 
up, full of technology, with 10 or 12 oil wells you cannot even see, 
producing natural gas for America, and you don't know where it goes, no 
pipes, nothing. Nothing spills, and it is our resource.
  The Senator knows in this bill one big thing is missing and that is 
we are not going to do anything significant about letting the United 
States of America or States make a decision that off their shores they 
could produce more natural gas or crude oil for this great country. 
That is because Senators will not vote for it because the Senators with 
coastlines stand up and talk about what you have been talking about 
here.
  ``We need the energy, we need to grow, we are great Americans, we 
have a lot of plants, we want jobs--but you bring the energy here.'' 
Right?
  Off our shores, remember--and Americans should remember it well--sits 
the largest reserve of natural gas that America has today, but for some 
parts of Alaska which are very difficult right now, but we are going to 
bring some down. It is the largest mainland reserve of natural gas we 
are going to have for generations to come.
  What does it mean that we do nothing about it? Listen well, we are 
not going to stop using it. Remember how

[[Page 12734]]

much crude oil we import. It will be 5, 6, 10 years and what will we be 
importing? The Senator knows the answer: Natural gas. Where from? Not 
from our seashores 100 miles away out there in the ocean where our 
natural gas is. From thousands of miles away in big, gigantic boats. 
They are going to come across the ocean and come over to America. And 
do what? Pump it into these States you are talking about. Because right 
here on this floor, if the Senator from New Mexico and two Senators 
from Louisiana were to say, just simple: Those States that have 
moratoriums off their shores where we can't drill, if they would like 
to let us drill, let's let them say yes and then let's pay them a 
little more royalties than we have been paying. Because right now we 
get no royalties. Give them more than we are paying now and let them 
decide whether they would like to or not.
  Guess what would happen. I have already been told. The bill, if it 
passed, will die. First of all, it will not pass. Because for all this 
language around here--flexibility, let's do what we can, let's use 
every avenue for exploration--that is not true. That is not true. 
Because don't touch this one I have just talked about. Right?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Your State has. They have done it, along with Texas and 
a couple of other States. Frankly, before we start giving other States 
resources, I wish they would start making decisions and we would start 
making them so other States would join. We have to help your State. We 
have to help you because you are taking the burden, and we are going to 
try to do something about that.
  I don't know what we can do because we are stymied by a few things 
that are intangible, that we don't control--fiscal policy and budget 
policy and the like. But I want to say it doesn't do very much good to 
adopt resolutions on this floor and proposals such as are pending here 
from Senator Cantwell--it doesn't do a bit of good to say these are our 
goals, let's do them. Flexibility.
  We don't need that kind of bill if we do what we know we should do. 
We have not built a nuclear powerplant in two decades plus, while the 
rest of the world built them. We can talk all we want about why did we 
use so much natural gas in the powerplants of America. We know why. We 
didn't want to use anything else. Right? So we used natural gas, even 
some from offshore, some from your State. We piped it all the way over 
and burned it in powerplants as though it were coming out and would be 
here forever. It starts running out, right? So we are going to import 
it pretty soon.
  That is the problem. We have been doing that. It is the problem in 
this bill. We are 90 percent where we ought to go, but the big thing is 
no action with reference to the largest asset we have toward 
independence, which is natural gas and crude oil hundreds of miles--not 
a mile--offshore.
  There is one thing we are asking in this bill: Let's inventory it. 
Right? We voted in our committee. It was a hard vote. Hard? Just ask 
somebody to go out and tell America what we own. That natural gas you 
have been talking about, how much is there? You don't have to disturb 
anything anymore.
  We have been talking about high tech. You don't drill holes to find 
out what is there. We do it by technology, by looking, by checking, by 
a new kind of geophysical equipment. Should not we tell America how 
much is there?
  You watch, there will be a motion to strike that here on the floor. 
You and I will be here saying, What is the matter with that. But we are 
apt to lose that. Yet we are talking about some ``pie in the sky,'' 
let's set a goal 30 years from now to be 40 percent less dependent upon 
crude oil and we will have all the flexibility in the world. We don't 
need flexibility of any statute. We need the flexibility of Americans 
deciding that we have to do what you said.
  If we have a source of energy, we have to produce it. Do not think we 
are producing ourselves out of existence. This bill conserves more than 
any piece of legislation will ever ask Americans to conserve. But we 
can't conserve our way out of this dilemma either, right?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We could close up the wells offshore in Louisiana and 
say, ``Thank you.'' Of course not. We need more--and conservation. But 
I thought, since you raised the subject of offshore, we ought to tell 
the Senate, tell the few people listening, where the real value in 
America is, that we refuse. We are like ostriches when it comes to 
offshore.
  People say, it is so pretty here, we don't want to touch it. What 
about 100 miles out from that shore? You cannot even see it. And people 
around here are crying that you will hurt their States. You could put 
any limitation you would like that is credible and let's go beyond that 
and try to do something with this very important asset--this asset 
field that is ours.
  I thank the Senator for her comments and thank her for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the chairman, the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico, because he is absolutely correct. I share his frustration. 
All I can say is as we proceed, we will continue to talk about these 
issues and educate the American people. People are afraid. They tend to 
be afraid if they are not sure of the facts. Sometimes people get the 
facts all confused.
  But as I hope people understand, as I keep speaking the truth on this 
and people understand there are ways you can do this drilling, 
particularly for natural gas, that are safe for the environment, that 
meet every environmental standard we have today, and actually meet the 
clean air standards set out in our own act, we can most certainly 
explore these opportunities and continue to work on this bill. I thank 
the Senator for his comments, for his interest and his knowledge of the 
subject. I can only say I will continue to try to tell the story, and 
as the American people learn more about it, perhaps some of the fear 
will dissipate, reason will prevail, and we can begin to understand 
that here at home we have places on our shores and off our shores that 
we can tap into and minimize our dependency on foreign oil and foreign 
gas.
  For the short term, this bill, and with the support of most of these 
Senators, will begin importing natural gas. We have policies in this 
bill to allow that to happen. It is quite ironic we are setting out in 
a bill to import more natural gas, and we will not take opportunities 
to drill for more on our shores. Again, this is a work in progress.
  Let me share another part of the story that is not just about energy 
production. It is the great contribution our coast makes to Louisiana. 
There is the gold coast, the rocky coast, the cliff coast. We are the 
working coast. We are proud of it. We are the largest and most 
productive expanse of coastal wetlands in North America. It is the 
seventh largest delta on Earth. The Mississippi River drains two-thirds 
of the United States. As I said, it is one of the most productive 
environments in America.
  In addition to the energy production I talked about which is right 
off this shore--and we have 20,000 miles of pipeline that can wrap 
around the country 10 times, 2,000 miles each way, miles of pipeline 
that send oil and gas to Chicago, California and to Washington and New 
York--in addition to the energy we produce for the Nation, through this 
Mississippi River, we drain the mountains in the West and all 
throughout the Nation; we also have a great nursery for one of the 
greatest flyways in the world for millions of waterfowl and migratory 
songbirds.
  It also is a nursery for the Gulf of Mexico. Most of the seafood in 
the Gulf of Mexico is produced because this marsh does not exist 
anywhere else in the coastal United States. Again, it is an unusually 
large delta created by the Mississippi River. It is unique.
  In addition to the energy contributions this delta makes, in addition 
to the drainage we contribute by our location for the Nation, in 
addition to the great flyways for migratory birds that this provides, 
and the nursery for all the gulf coast fish and species, it also serves 
as a protection for the two million people that live below I-10. This 
is

[[Page 12735]]

the main interstate that runs in the southern part of the United 
States. It goes all the way through Mississippi, to Florida, and all 
the way through Texas and west. This I-12/I-10 corridor is one of the 
busiest in the Nation for many reasons. It is a great north-south trade 
Route.
  Below this interstate, basically two million people live in 
Louisiana. As the map shows, this land is all marsh and low-lying 
wetlands. The people that live here are in some jeopardy. They are in 
some danger if this marsh would erode and go away as storms--whether 
they are hurricanes, floods, or rising tides--continue to pound our 
shore. That, unfortunately, is exactly what is happening today.
  Yet this wetland that supplies all of this energy, seafood and other 
environmental benefits to the Nation, we are losing a football field 
every 30 minutes. We are losing 25,000 square miles every year. In the 
last 50 years, we have lost the size of the State of Rhode Island.
  The red on this map indicates a loss of wetland. This is not caused 
by oil and gas and by fisheries. It is exacerbated by pipeline 
construction and some exploration, but it is caused primarily by the 
channelization of the Mississippi River. This river, for all the things 
I have said it is used for, you could argue the most important thing it 
is used for, for the Nation, is the commerce--500 tons of cargo, the 
largest port system in the world. When my friends from the Midwest--
whether it is Senator Harkin, Senator Conrad, or Senator Dorgan and 
others--want to get grain and corn out of the States they represent, 
there is not a whole lot of ways to get it out except by barge. It 
comes down the Mississippi River.
  We are happy for the trade and the traffic. But this river was levied 
to keep the water in, to create this major port system for the Nation, 
and as a result, over decades, the river cannot overflow itself, and it 
then cannot replenish the marsh. That is what is causing the staggering 
loss of these wetlands. Then, on top of that--which is probably 85 
percent of the loss of wetlands, say our scientists who have been 
studying this for many years, the last two decades in particular--when 
the oil and gas industry came in and some canals had to be put in for 
the drilling, it exacerbated it by allowing the saltwater from the Gulf 
of Mexico to come into this water. We call it brackish. It is part salt 
and part fresh. It comes into the marsh and kills the marsh grass. The 
salt is toxic to that particular marsh grass. The marsh grass fades 
away, and before you know it, you are in open water.
  I have friends that have fished down here for years and old timers I 
talk to. It is getting scary because it is not even people that are 
that old any more who are saying: When I was a kid, you could stand 
right here in Terrebonne Bay and look out for miles and see land. I 
took my little boy down there last week, the same place I used to fish 
when I was a kid, and there is no land left.
  Senator, what is happening? Where is it going? It is eroding. I have 
been here for 8 years trying to get this Congress--Senator Breaux 
joined me, Senator Vitter now joins this effort--to try to get this 
Senate and this Congress to understand that this delta is not only 
precious to Louisiana--it is not even Louisiana's wetlands, it is 
America's wetlands--it deserves our attention.
  Since we contribute so much toward waterborne commerce, so much to 
the energy infrastructure and independence of this Nation, we serve as 
a nursery for the fisheries industry, for the whole gulf coast of 
Mexico, we serve as a flyway for migratory birds which support a whole 
emerging and growing ecotourism industry that affects everyone in a 
positive way, surely we can get a few little dollars to help us save 
our coast.
  We are only one hurricane away. We had a terrible season last season. 
We had five or six major storms. Luckily, they did not hit directly. 
Unfortunately, our friends in Mississippi and Mobile were hit. None of 
us along the gulf coast like to get hit. We are in great sympathy and 
empathy with each other because we know what a major hurricane will do. 
My people are sitting ducks. It is getting worse and worse. We can save 
our coast. But we need to use some of the moneys we can get to invest 
and to do this and we can make progress.
  The Senator from Washington would like to wrap up on her amendment, 
and so let me conclude in a few moments. I thank the Senator for her 
courtesy and time.
  This is a very precious wetland to Louisiana and to America. It is 
something that can be saved, must be saved and, if saved, cannot only 
contribute so much to Louisiana but to the Nation.
  This issue is not as clearcut as some would like to believe. As I 
said, I like some parts of the amendment of the Senator from 
Washington. She has been a tremendous contributor on the Energy bill 
and a tremendous voice for conservation. What I do like about her 
amendment is its flexibility. What I do like about her amendment is the 
opportunity to produce more domestically so we do not have to get it 
from somebody else, particularly a somebody who does not share our 
values, who does not have America's best interests at heart. So I agree 
with that approach. Again, it may be too aggressive for us. But the 
Senate will decide if that is the case.
  But I want to say from a State that is producing--and we are going to 
continue to produce; we are happy to produce--there are some coastal 
impacts associated with it. But even if we were not doing any 
production off the coast of Louisiana, this loss of wetlands would 
still be occurring because of the channelization of the Mississippi 
River done by the Corps of Engineers, at our request, on behalf of the 
Nation. It is time we get some help and some support for fixing this 
wetland.
  I thank the Senator for her patience and her courtesies, and I wish 
her the best of luck as we continue to work on our bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  The Chair would advise the Senator from Washington that her last 
unanimous consent request for a submission was not made formally. If 
she would like to resubmit that request at this time, the Chair would 
take it. It was the last piece of information you submitted.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from Set America Free be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Set America Free

       For decades, the goal of reducing the Nation's dependence 
     upon foreign energy sources has been a matter on which 
     virtually all Americans could agree. Unfortunately, 
     differences about how best to accomplish that goal, with what 
     means, how rapidly and at what cost to taxpayers and 
     consumers have, to date, precluded the sort of progress that 
     might have been expected before now.
       Today, we can no longer afford to allow such differences to 
     postpone urgent action on national energy independence. After 
     all, we now confront what might be called a ``perfect storm'' 
     of strategic, economic and environmental conditions that, 
     properly understood, demand that we affect over the next four 
     years a dramatic reduction in the quantities of oil imported 
     from unstable and hostile regions of the world.
       America consumes a quarter of the world's oil supply while 
     holding a mere 3% of global oil reserves. It is therefore 
     forced to import over 60% of its oil, and this dependency is 
     growing. Since most of the world's oil is controlled by 
     countries that are unstable or at odds with the United States 
     this dependency is a matter of national security.
       At the strategic level, it is dangerous to be buying 
     billions of dollars worth of oil from nations that are 
     sponsors of or allied with radical Islamists who foment 
     hatred against the United States. The petrodollars we provide 
     such nations contribute materially to the terrorist threats 
     we face. In time of war, it is imperative that our national 
     expenditures on energy be redirected away from those who use 
     them against us.
       Even if the underwriting of terror were not such a concern, 
     our present dependency creates unacceptable vulnerabilities. 
     In Iraq and Saudi Arabia, America's enemies have demonstrated 
     that they can advance their strategic objective of inflicting 
     damage on the United States, its interests and economy simply 
     by attacking critical overseas oil infrastructures and 
     personnel. These targets are readily found not only in the 
     Mideast but in other regions to which Islamists have ready 
     access (e.g., the Caspian Basin and Africa). To date, such 
     attacks have been relatively minor and their damage easily 
     repaired. Over time, they are sure to become

[[Page 12736]]

     more sophisticated and their destructive effects will be far 
     more difficult, costly and time-consuming to undo.
       Another strategic factor is China's burgeoning demand for 
     oil. Last year, China's oil imports were up 30% from the 
     previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum user 
     after the United States. The bipartisan, congressionally 
     mandated U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 
     reported that: ``China's large and rapidly growing demand for 
     oil is putting pressure on global oil supplies. This pressure 
     is likely to increase in the future, with serious 
     implications for U.S. oil prices and supplies.''
       Oil dependence has considerable economic implications. 
     Shrinking supply and rising demand translate into higher 
     costs. Both American consumers and the U.S. economy are 
     already suffering from the cumulative effect of recent 
     increases in gas prices. Even now, fully one-quarter of the 
     U.S. trade deficit is associated with oil imports. By some 
     estimates, we lose 27,000 jobs for every billion dollars of 
     additional oil imports. Serious domestic and global economic 
     dislocation would almost certainly attend still-higher costs 
     for imported petroleum and/or disruption of supply.
       Finally, environmental considerations argue for action to 
     reduce imports of foreign oil. While experts and policy-
     makers disagree about the contribution the burning of fossil 
     fuels is making to the planet's temperatures, it is certainly 
     desirable to find ways to obtain energy while minimizing the 
     production of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
       The combined effects or this ``perfect storm'' require 
     concerted action, at last, aimed at reducing the Nation's 
     reliance on imported oil from hostile or unstable sources and 
     the world's dependence on oil at large. Fortunately, with 
     appropriate vision and leadership, we can make major strides 
     in this direction by exploiting currently available 
     technologies and infrastructures to greatly diminish oil 
     consumption in the transportation sector, which accounts for 
     two thirds of our oil consumption.
       The attached Blueprint for Energy Security: ``Set America 
     Free'' spells out practical ways in which real progress on 
     ``fuel choice'' can be made over the next four years and 
     beyond. To be sure, full market transformation will take a 
     longer time. In the case of the transportation sector, it may 
     require 15-20 years. That is why it is imperative to begin 
     the process without delay.
       We call upon America's leaders to pledge to adopt this 
     Blueprint, and embark, along with our democratic allies, on a 
     multilateral initiative to encourage reduced dependence on 
     petroleum. In so doing, they can reasonably promise to: deny 
     adversaries the wherewithal they use to harm us; protect our 
     quality of life and economy against the effects of cuts in 
     foreign energy supplies and rising costs; and reduce by as 
     much as 50% emissions of undesirable pollutants. In light of 
     the ``perfect storm'' now at hand, we simply can afford to do 
     no less.


                              Signatories

       Gary L. Bauer, President, American Values; Milton Copulos, 
     President, National Defense Council Foundation; Congressman 
     Eliot Engel; Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security 
     Policy; Bracken Hendricks, Executive director, Apollo 
     Alliance; Bill Holmberg, American Council on Renewable 
     Energy; Anne Korin, Co-Director, Institute for the Analysis 
     of Global Security (IAGS); Deron Lovaas, Natural Resources 
     Defense Council (NRDC); Gal Luft, Co-Director, Institute for 
     the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS); Cliff May, President, 
     Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; Robert C. 
     McFarlane, Former National Security Advisor; Daniel Pipes, 
     Director, Middle East Forum; Professor Richard Smalley, Nobel 
     Laureate Chemistry; Admiral James D. Watkins, former 
     Secretary of Energy; R. James Woolsey, Co-Chairman, Committee 
     on the Present Danger; and Meyrav Wurmser, Hudson Institute.


                  a blueprint for u.s. energy security

     Introduction
       Historically, the United States has pursued a three-pronged 
     strategy for minimizing the vulnerabilities associated with 
     its dependency on oil from unstable and/or hostile nations: 
     diversifying sources of oil, managing inventory in a 
     strategic petroleum reserve and increasing the efficiency of 
     the transportation sector's energy consumption. In recent 
     years, the focus has been principally on finding new and 
     larger sources of petroleum globally.
       Rapidly growing worldwide demand for oil, however, has had 
     the effect of largely neutralizing this initiative, depleting 
     existing reserves faster than new, economically exploitable 
     deposits are being brought on line. Under these 
     circumstances, diversification among such sources is but a 
     stop-gap solution that can, at best, have a temporary effect 
     on oil supply and, hence, on national security. Conservation 
     can help, but with oil consumption expected to grow by 60% 
     over the next 25 years, conservation alone will not be a 
     sufficient solution.
     The `Set America Free' Project
       Long-term security and economic prosperity requires the 
     creation of a fourth pillar--technological transformation of 
     the transportation sector through what might be called ``fuel 
     choice.'' By leading a multinational effort rooted in the 
     following principles, the United States can immediately begin 
     to introduce a global economy based on next-generation fuels 
     and vehicles that can utilize them:
       Fuel diversification: Today, consumers can choose among 
     various octanes of gasoline, which accounts for 45% of U.S. 
     oil consumption, or diesel, which accounts for almost another 
     fifth. To these choices can and should promptly be added 
     other fuels that are domestically produced, where possible 
     from waste products, and that are clean and affordable.
       Real world solutions: We have no time to wait for 
     commercialization of immature technologies. The United States 
     should implement technologies that exist today and are ready 
     for widespread use.
       Using existing infrastructure: The focus should be on 
     utilizing competitive technologies that do not require 
     prohibitive or, if possible, even significant investment in 
     changing our transportation sector's infrastructure. Instead, 
     ``fuel choice'' should permit the maximum possible use of the 
     existing refueling and automotive infrastructure.
       Domestic resource utilization: The United States is no 
     longer rich in oil or natural gas. It has, however, a wealth 
     of other energy sources from which transportation fuel can be 
     safely, affordably and cleanly generated. Among them: 
     hundreds of years worth of coal reserves, 25% of the world's 
     total (especially promising with Integrated Gasification and 
     Combined Cycle technologies); billions of tons a year of 
     biomass, and further billions of tons of agricultural and 
     municipal waste. Vehicles that meet consumer needs (e.g., 
     ``plug-in'' hybrids), can also tap America's electrical grid 
     to supply energy for transportation, making more efficient 
     use of such clean sources of electricity as solar, wind, 
     geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear power.
       Environmentally sensible choices: The technologies adopted 
     should improve public safety and respond to the public's 
     environmental and health concerns.


             Key Elements of the `Set America Free' Project

     Vehicles
       Hybrid electric vehicles: There are already thousands of 
     vehicles on America's roads that combine hybrid engines 
     powered in an integrated fashion by liquid fuel-powered 
     motors and battery-powered ones. Such vehicles increase gas-
     consumption efficiency by 30-40%.
       Ultralight materials: At least two-thirds of fuel use by a 
     typical consumer vehicle is caused by its weight. Thanks to 
     advances in both metals and plastics, ultralight vehicles can 
     be affordably manufactured with today's technologies and can 
     roughly halve fuel consumption without compromising safety, 
     performance or cost effectiveness.
       ``Plug-in'' hybrid electric vehicles: Plug-in hybrid 
     electric vehicles are also powered by a combination of 
     electricity and liquid fuel. Unlike standard hybrids, 
     however, plug-ins draw charge not only from the engine and 
     captured braking energy, but also directly from the 
     electrical grid by being plugged into standard electric 
     outlets when not in use. Plug-in hybrids have liquid fuel 
     tanks and internal combustion engines, so they do not face 
     the range limitation posed by electric-only cars. Since 
     fifty-percent of cars on the road in the United States are 
     driven 20 miles a day or less, a plug-in with a 20-mile range 
     battery would reduce fuel consumption by, on average, 85%. 
     Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can reach fuel economy 
     levels of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline consumed.
       Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs): FFVs are designed to bum on 
     alcohol, gasoline, or any mixture of the two. About four 
     million FFV's have been manufactured since 1996. The only 
     difference between a conventional car and a flexible fuel 
     vehicle is that the latter is equipped with a different 
     control chip and some different fittings in the fuel line to 
     accommodate the characteristics of alcohol. The marginal 
     additional cost associated with such FFV-associated changes 
     is currently under $100 per vehicle. That cost would be 
     reduced further as volume of FFVs increases, particularly if 
     flexible fuel designs were to become the industry standard.
       Flexible fuel/plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: If the two 
     technologies are combined, such vehicles can be powered by 
     blends of alcohol fuels, gasoline, and electricity. If a 
     plug-in vehicle is also a FFV fueled with 80% alcohol and 20% 
     gasoline, fuel economy could reach 500 miles per gallon of 
     gasoline.
       If by 2025, all cars on the road are hybrids and half are 
     plug-in hybrid vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by 8 
     million barrels per day (mbd). Today, the United States 
     imports 10 mbd and it is projected to import almost 20 mbd by 
     2025. If all of these cars were also flexible fuel vehicles, 
     U.S. oil imports would drop by as much as 12 mbd.
     Fuels
       Fuel additives: Fuel additives can enhance combustion 
     efficiency by up to 25%. They can be blended into gasoline, 
     diesel and bunker fuel.
       Electricity as a fuel: Less than 2% of U.S. electricity is 
     generated from oil, so using electricity as a transportation 
     fuel would

[[Page 12737]]

     greatly reduce dependence on imported petroleum. Plug-in 
     hybrid vehicles would be charged at night in home garages--a 
     time-interval during which electric utilities have 
     significant excess capacity. The Electric Power Research 
     Institute estimates that up to 30% of market penetration for 
     plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with 20-mile electric range 
     can be achieved without a need to install additional 
     electricity-generating capacity.
       Alcohol fuels: ethanol, methanol and other blends:
       Ethanol (also known as grain alcohol) is currently produced 
     in the U.S. from corn. The industry currently has a capacity 
     of 3.3 billion gallons a year and has increased on the 
     average of 25% per year over the past three years. Upping 
     production would be achieved by continuing to advance the 
     corn-based ethanol industry and by commercializing the 
     production of ethanol from biomass waste and dedicated energy 
     crops. P-Series fuel (approved by the Department of Energy in 
     1999) is a more energy-efficient blend of ethanol, natural 
     gas liquids and ether made from biomass waste.
       Methanol (also known as wood alcohol) is today for the most 
     part produced from natural gas. Expanding domestic production 
     can be achieved by producing methanol from coal, a resource 
     with which the U.S. is abundantly endowed. The commercial 
     feasibility of coal-to-methanol technology was demonstrated 
     as part of the DOE's ``clean coal'' technology effort. 
     Currently, methanol is being cleanly produced from coal for 
     under 50 cents a gallon.
       It only costs about $60,000 to add a fuel pump that serves 
     one of the above fuels to an existing refueling station.
       Non-oil based diesel: Biodiesel is commercially produced 
     from soybean and other vegetable oils. Diesel can also be 
     made from waste products such as tires and animal byproducts, 
     and is currently commercially produced from turkey offal. 
     Diesel is also commercially produced from coal.
     Policy Recommendations
       Provide incentives to auto manufacturers to produce and 
     consumers to purchase, hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid 
     electric vehicles and FFVs across all vehicle models.
       Provide incentives for auto manufacturers to increase fuel 
     efficiency of existing, non-FFV auto models.
       Conduct extensive testing of next-generation fuels across 
     the vehicle spectrum to meet auto warranty and EPA emission 
     standards.
       Mandate substantial incorporation of plug-ins and FFVs into 
     federal, state, municipal and covered fleets.
       Provide investment tax incentives for corporate fleets and 
     taxi fleets to switch to plug-ins, hybrids and FFVs.
       Encourage gasoline distributors to blend combustion 
     enhancers into the fuel.
       Provide incentives for existing fueling stations to install 
     pumps that serve all liquid fuels that can be used in the 
     existing transportation infrastructure, and mandate that all 
     new gas stations be so equipped.
       Provide incentives to enable new players, such as 
     utilities, to enter the transportation fuel market, and for 
     the development of environmentally sound exploitation of non-
     traditional petroleum deposits from stable areas (such as 
     Canadian tar sands).
       Provide incentives for the construction of plants that 
     generate liquid transportation fuels from domestic energy 
     resources, particularly from waste, that can be used in the 
     existing infrastructure.
       Allocate funds for commercial scale demonstration plants 
     that produce next-generation transportation fuels, 
     particularly from waste products.
       Implement federal, state, and local policies to encourage 
     mass transit and reduce vehicle-miles traveled.
       Work with other oil-consuming countries towards 
     distribution of the above-mentioned technologies and overall 
     reduction of reliance on petroleum, particularly from hostile 
     and potentially unstable regions of the world.


                         A New National Project

       In 1942, President Roosevelt launched the Manhattan Project 
     to build an atomic weapon to be ready by 1945 because of 
     threats to America and to explore the future of nuclear 
     fission. The cost in today's prices was $20 billion. The 
     outcome was an end to the war with Japan, and the beginning 
     of a wide new array of nuclear-based technologies in energy, 
     medical treatment, and other fields.
       In 1962, President Kennedy launched the Man to the Moon 
     Project to be achieved by 1969 because of mounting threats to 
     U.S. and international security posed by Soviet space-
     dominance and to explore outer space. The cost of the Apollo 
     program in today's prices would be well over $100 billion. 
     The outcome was an extraordinary strategic and technological 
     success for the United States. It engendered a wide array of 
     spin-offs that improved virtually every aspect of modern 
     life, including but not limited to transportation, 
     communications, health care, medical treatment, food 
     production and other fields.
       The security of the United States, and the world, is no 
     less threatened by oil supply disruptions, price 
     instabilities and shortages. It is imperative that America 
     provide needed leadership by immediately beginning to 
     dramatically reduce its dependence on imported oil. This can 
     be done by embracing the concepts outlined above with a focus 
     on fuel choice, combined with concerted efforts at improving 
     energy efficiency and the increased availability of energy 
     from renewable sources.
       The estimated cost of the `Set America Free' plan over the 
     next 4 years is $12 billion. This would be applied in the 
     following way: $2 billion for automotive manufacturers to 
     cover one-half the costs of building FFV-capability into 
     their new production cars (i.e., roughly 40 million cars at 
     $50 per unit); $1 billion to pay for at least one out of 
     every four existing gas stations to add at least one pump to 
     supply alcohol fuels (an estimated incentive of $20,000 per 
     pump, new pumps costing approximately $60,000 per unit); $2 
     billion in consumer tax incentives to procure hybrid cars; $2 
     billion for automotive manufacturers to commercialize plug-in 
     hybrid electric vehicles; $3 billion to construct commercial-
     scale demonstration plants to produce non-petroleum based 
     liquid fuels (utilizing public-private cost-sharing 
     partnerships to build roughly 25 plants in order to 
     demonstrate the feasibility of various approaches to perform 
     efficiently at full-scale production); and $2 billion to 
     continue work on commercializing fuel cell technology.
       Since no major, new scientific advances are necessary to 
     launch this program, such funds can be applied towards 
     increasing the efficiencies of the involved processes. The 
     resulting return-on-investment--in terms of enhanced energy 
     and national security, economic growth, quality of life and 
     environmental protection--should more than pay for the seed 
     money required.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her comments 
and for her focus on the fact that the amendment is basically agnostic 
about where we get future supply. You can get it from more domestic 
production of oil or natural gas. I have been a big supporter of more 
natural gas production, particularly from Alaska, because I think it is 
so important to our country moving ahead.
  I appreciate her chart showing what States are involved in energy 
production because we in Washington State are getting 70 percent of our 
electricity from a hydro system. She mentioned, yes, you can get energy 
from damming rivers. Well, that is exactly what we have done in the 
State of Washington and many parts of the Northwest. It has cost our 
environment, but yet we get 70 percent of our power from that.
  We have one nuclear powerplant in our State. We have one coal plant 
in our State. We have a few natural gas-fired plants in our State. We 
have four major refineries that take crude oil and convert it to 
petroleum products, such as gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, and asphalt. So 
we in Washington State are involved in all those activities.
  The fact is, we do not have significant oil and natural gas off the 
coast of Washington. I know that is something that is being discussed. 
But the Minerals Management Service Report that was conducted basically 
says there is not a lot of natural gas off the coast of Washington. So 
I am not in the same position as the Senator from Louisiana.
  I think you have to take into consideration in this debate what some 
of my staff call the ``accidents of geology;'' that is, that Saudi 
Arabia happens to sit on 25 percent of the world's oil reserves, and we 
in the United States only sit on 3 percent. That is a fact of geology.
  So the fact that Louisiana has oil and gas and Washington does not is 
another fact of geology. But I tell you that we do play our role in 
Washington State. We help keep the lights on in California. We were 
forced to do so by emergency order by the U.S. Government during a 
drought, at a cost to ratepayers in Washington State. So we do play our 
part in providing energy supplies around the region.
  But this is an issue about regional diversity and about getting off 
our overdependence on foreign oil. I think the Senator correctly 
articulated what this amendment does; and that is, it basically sets a 
goal and says it is most important to get off the foreign dependence, 
to start reducing it. I appreciate that because she came up with the 
original language and I think is concerned that we do set goals. So I 
appreciate her comments.
  I would like to add to the record, if I could--I know my colleagues 
from Colorado and Illinois are on the floor and

[[Page 12738]]

want to speak. But we have had questions about whether we can get a 
supply of biofuels. I know a lot of my Midwestern colleagues believe in 
the biofuel section of this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Executive Summary of the USDA and Department of Energy report 
entitled ``Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts 
Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The 
          Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply


                           executive summary

       The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department 
     of Agriculture (USDA) are both strongly committed to 
     expanding the role of biomass as an energy source. In 
     particular, they support biomass fuels and products as a way 
     to reduce the need for oil and gas imports; to support the 
     growth of agriculture, forestry, and rural economies; and to 
     foster major new domestic industries--biorefineries--making a 
     variety of fuels, chemicals, and other products. As part of 
     this effort, the Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee, a 
     panel established by the Congress to guide the future 
     direction of federally funded biomass R&D, envisioned a 30 
     percent replacement of the current U.S. petroleum consumption 
     with biofuels by 2030.
       Biomass--all plant and plant-derived materials including 
     animal manure, not just starch, sugar, oil crops already used 
     for food and energy--has great potential to provide renewable 
     energy for America's future. Biomass recently surpassed 
     hydropower as the largest domestic source of renewable energy 
     and currently provides over 3 percent of the total energy 
     consumption in the United States. In addition to the many 
     benefits common to renewable energy, biomass is particularly 
     attractive because it is the only current renewable source of 
     liquid transportation fuel. This, of course, makes it 
     invaluable in reducing oil imports--one of our most pressing 
     energy needs. A key question, however, is how large a role 
     could biomass play in responding to the nation's energy 
     demands. Assuming that economic and financial policies and 
     advances in conversion technologies make biomass fuels and 
     products more economically viable, could the biorefinery 
     industry be large enough to have a significant impact on 
     energy supply and oil imports? Any and all contributions are 
     certainly needed, but would the biomass potential be 
     sufficiently large to justify the necessary capital 
     replacements in the fuels and automobile sectors?
       The purpose of this report is to determine whether the land 
     resources of the United States are capable of producing a 
     sustainable supply of biomass sufficient to displace 30 
     percent or more of the country's present petroleum 
     consumption--the goal set by the Advisory Committee in their 
     vision for biomass technologies. Accomplishing this goal 
     would require approximately 1 billion dry tons of biomass 
     feedstock per year.
       The short answer to the question of whether that much 
     biomass feedstock can be produced is yes. Looking at just 
     forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential 
     biomass sources, this study found over 1.3 billion dry tons 
     per year of biomass potential (Figure 1)--enough to produce 
     biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand 
     for transportation fuels. The full resource potential could 
     be available roughly around mid-21st century when large-scale 
     bioenergy and biorefinery industries are likely to exist. 
     This annual potential is based on a more than seven-fold 
     increase in production from the amount of biomass currently 
     consumed for bioenergy and biobased products. About 368 
     million dry tons of sustainably removable biomass could be 
     produced on forestlands, and about 998 million dry tons could 
     come from agricultural lands.
       Forestlands in the contiguous United States can produce 368 
     million dry tons annually. This projection includes 52 
     million dry tons of fuelwood harvested from forests, 145 
     million dry tons of residues from wood processing mills and 
     pulp and paper mills, 47 million dry tons of urban wood 
     residues including construction and demolition debris, 64 
     million dry tons of residues from logging and site clearing 
     operations, and 60 million dry tons of biomass from fuel 
     treatment operations to reduce fire hazards. All of these 
     forest resources are sustainably available on an annual 
     basis. For estimating the residue tonnage from logging and 
     site clearing operations and fuel treatment thinnings, a 
     number of important assumptions were made: all forestland 
     areas not currently accessible by roads were excluded; all 
     environmentally sensitive areas were excluded; equipment 
     recovery limitations were considered; and recoverable biomass 
     was allocated into two utilization groups--conventional 
     forest products and biomass for bioenergy and biobased 
     products.
       From agricultural lands, the United States can produce 
     nearly 1 billion dry tons of biomass annually and still 
     continue to meet food, feed, and export demands. This 
     projection includes 428 million dry tons of annual crop 
     residues, 377 million dry tons of perennial crops, 87 million 
     dry tons of grains used for biofuels, and 106 million dry 
     tons of animal manures, process residues, and other 
     miscellaneous feedstocks. Important assumptions that were 
     made include the following: yields of corn, wheat, and other 
     small grains were increased by 50 percent; the residue-to-
     grain ratio for soybeans was increased to 2:1; harvest 
     technology was capable of recovering 75 percent of annual 
     crop residues (when removal is sustainable); all cropland was 
     managed with no-till methods; 55 million acres of cropland, 
     idle cropland, and cropland pasture were dedicated to the 
     production of perennial bioenergy crops; all manure in excess 
     of that which can be applied on-farm for soil improvement 
     under anticipated EPA restrictions was used for biofuel; and 
     all other available residues were utilized.
       The biomass resource potential identified in this report 
     can be produced with relatively modest changes in land use, 
     and agricultural and forestry practices. This potential, 
     however, should not be thought of as an upper limit. It is 
     just one scenario based on a set of reasonable assumptions. 
     Scientists in the Departments of Energy and Agriculture will 
     explore more advanced scenarios that could further increase 
     the amount of biomass available for bioenergy and biobased 
     products.

  Ms. CANTWELL. The reason I am asking to do that is because this 
report, which was done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the 
Tennessee research facility that is part of our national lab system, 
has said we currently have enough forestland and agriculture land in 
our country to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of our 
current transportation demand. We are already doing research at these 
labs. They are already calculating the numbers. They are already saying 
we have enough forestland and timberland in our country to produce one-
third of our current demand for transportation fuels. So I think this 
report is very telling that we can and are on our way. It is a matter 
of us setting the goal.
  I know my colleagues talked earlier a lot about CAFE standards. One 
of the charts that was presented was supposedly information from the 
Energy Information Administration about CAFE standards. The Energy 
Information Administration does not have any idea where those numbers 
came from, and they understand this amendment does not say anything 
about CAFE standards. It says basically we ought to set a national 
goal.
  It is important to set the national goal to get off our 
overdependence of foreign oil because this is who owns the foreign oil. 
These are the state-owned facilities. These are the countries: Saudi 
Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya. These are the places that 
have the majority of the world's oil reserves. So our policies for the 
future are going to be subject to factors involving these countries, so 
long as we are so dependent on foreign oil.
  Now, it is in our economic and security interests to diversify. I 
think the underlying bill gives us lots of tools to do that, but it 
does not set a goal to reduce the amount we are dependent on foreign 
oil.
  My amendment would say, let's reduce the amount so that in future 
years we actually have a reduction--not the 58 percent we are importing 
today, and not the 68 percent of foreign fuel we are going to import in 
25 years, but actually reduce that down to 56 percent so that the trend 
line is going in the other direction. Let's become less dependent on 
foreign oil than we are today. That is the goal of my amendment.
  I appreciate that my colleagues from Colorado and Illinois are also 
here to speak on that, so I yield to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, at the outset of my statement on this 
energy legislation, I want to provide my laudatory comments to the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, and the ranking member, 
Jeff Bingaman, for their great work in pulling together what is a great 
piece of legislation. I also want to say thank you to Alex Flint, Lisa 
Epifani, Sam Fowler, and Bob Simon for their good work as staff members 
on the committee.

[[Page 12739]]

  I believe the Energy legislation is a very good first step, and I 
think the bipartisan nature in which that committee considered the 
legislation is a good template for other work this Senate Chamber 
engages in. I believe the keystones of energy conservation, renewable 
energy, new technologies, and balanced development are all very 
important parts of this legislation. It is my hope this Senate and the 
House of Representatives are able to deliver energy legislation to the 
President for his signature in the near future.
  I will speak more broadly about the Energy bill and its importance to 
America because I do think it is one of the two most important things 
we are working on on behalf of our Nation today.
  I believe the energy challenge we face in America and the health care 
challenge that is bankrupting America's families and businesses are the 
two most important things we could be working on as a Senate. But 
today, and for at least the week, perhaps several weeks ahead, Senators 
Domenici and Bingaman will lead us through the discussion on what we 
are going to do with respect to the energy imperative.
  I rise this evening to specifically address the amendment that has 
been offered by the Senator from Washington to establish a goal to 
reduce by 40 percent the amount of oil the United States is projected 
to import in 2025. This amendment requests an annual report be 
completed that provides information about the progress the United 
States has made in achieving the goal.
  When this goal is met, the United States would be positioned to 
reduce imports by 1.5 million barrels per day compared to 2005 import 
numbers. Those savings would be equivalent to the amount of oil the 
United States is currently importing from Saudi Arabia. Section 151 of 
the Senate Energy bill as written contains an oil savings provision. 
That provision would direct the President to implement measures 
sufficient to reduce by 2015 the country's projected demand for oil by 
1 million barrels a day.
  Assuming that all those savings came from import reductions, the 
United States would still be importing 14.4 million barrels a day. That 
is over a million barrels a day more than we import today. It strikes 
me as odd to be importing more oil and calling it oil savings. It 
sounds a bit like Washington doublespeak.
  We need to work toward real energy independence, not away from it. We 
need to import less oil, not more. We have to stop putting so much 
money in the hands of regimes hostile to the United States in the most 
unstable regions of the world. We have to do everything we can to set 
America free from our overdependence on foreign oil.
  I rise in support of this amendment because it truly represents oil 
savings. The amendment would reduce our oil imports by 1.5 million 
barrels per day less than we are importing right now. This is progress. 
This is the right kind of vision for America's future, a vision of 
energy independence, a vision of an America free of foreign oil. These 
oil savings can be easily achieved if we have the vision and the 
courage to do it. More use of renewable fuels, more efficient vehicles, 
and the intent to actually do something are substantial keys to setting 
America free through this energy legislation.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt the Cantwell amendment to 
the energy legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cantwell 
amendment and ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her 
leadership on this amendment. It is going to precipitate a debate which 
shows the difference in outlook between the two political parties. The 
goal that Senator Cantwell has spelled out is to reduce America's 
dependence on foreign oil. She believes that we are capable as a 
nation, through our innovation, through hard work and bipartisanship, 
to come up with ways to conserve energy, to find alternative fuels, to 
find environmentally responsible places to seek new oil sources in the 
United States; that it is possible for us to lessen dramatically our 
dependence on foreign oil, 40 percent in the next 20 years. That is her 
vision.
  Does it mean changing the way we live? Slightly. Of course, it does. 
But it is not too great a sacrifice. Senator Cantwell's vision looks to 
an America that is no longer going hat-in-hand to OPEC saying: Please 
give us your oil. We cannot survive without it. Understanding that at 
any given moment they can cut off oil supplies and we could watch 
prices skyrocket as they recently have. That is her vision. It is one I 
share. It is a vision that challenges America to look forward in a 
positive way, look forward to change which lessens our dependence on 
oil-producing countries around the world.
  In 1973, we imported 28 percent of the oil we used. Today, we are up 
to 58 percent. If we don't change our ways in the next 20 years, we 
will be up to 68 percent. When we are so dependent on foreign oil, we 
give up our freedom. We allow other governments that provide the oil to 
tax our economy, tax our businesses, tax our lives. We give up our 
freedom to those who turn on and off this energy spigot and make a 
difference.
  When I was a little boy, years and years ago, growing up in East St. 
Louis, IL, I had a great aunt. She was a wonderful lady who, when I 
knew her, was very old. She used to tell us stories about growing up in 
her lifetime. It was Aunt Mame. I always thought it was curious, as a 
little boy, that she never referred to the vehicles in the driveway as 
cars or automobiles. She always called them machines. I thought, who in 
the world would call that a machine? She explained to me that in her 
lifetime, these machines had appeared out of nowhere, taking the place 
of horses and buggies. Getting into a car, which she called a machine, 
was a big deal for Aunt Mame. I used to laugh, after I left her, with 
my cousins and say: Can you believe she calls those machines? It 
reflected her mindset. To her, the concept of a car would always be 
something new and foreign.
  I listened today while Republican Senators, such as the Senator from 
Missouri, came to the floor and said they cannot visualize or imagine a 
different kind of car in the future that would be more fuel efficient. 
They just can't see it. In fact, the Senator from Missouri, when asked 
what that car would look like, said it would look like a golf cart. 
That doesn't demonstrate the same kind of vision of our future.
  We hear from the other side that the idea of reducing our dependence 
on foreign oil is a bad idea. They are wedded to the concept that we 
will continue to be dependent on foreign oil. The idea of challenging 
America to come up with more fuel-efficient cars and with other ways to 
save oil is something they don't believe in. They just don't have 
confidence that American creativity and ingenuity can rise to that 
challenge. It is a negative and dismal outlook, and they also believe 
that American drivers and consumers are so selfish they would never 
consider giving up their Hummers, or their huge cars, if it meant less 
dependence on foreign oil.
  I see the world a lot differently. This Nation comes together time 
and again, sending our best and brightest and bravest over to fight in 
wars, rallying around the war on terrorism after 9/11. We do rise to 
the challenge. That is what we are all about. The Cantwell amendment 
lays down that challenge.
  In the underlying bill, almost 800 pages long, section 151 states:

       The President shall develop and implement measures to 
     conserve petroleum and end uses throughout the economy of the 
     United States sufficient to reduce total demand for petroleum 
     in the United States by 1 million barrels per day in the 
     amount projected for calendar 2015.

  This is not a new provision. It is a good one, but it is not a new 
one. It was offered by Senator Landrieu of Louisiana the last time we 
had an energy bill. It passed 99 to 1. Only one Senator thought this 
was a bad idea. Ninety-nine Senators believed reducing our dependence 
on foreign oil was a

[[Page 12740]]

good idea. This amendment was an important first step.
  But if the United States reached the savings included in this 
provision of the bill, we would still be importing 14.4 million barrels 
per day to sustain the economy. That is over 1 million barrels a day 
more than we import today, allowing America's foreign oil dependence to 
continue to grow. We can do better. We can slow our growth in demands 
on foreign oil. We can reduce America's use of foreign oil.
  First, we have to agree on a national goal. That is what the Cantwell 
amendment is all about, a goal that recognizes our national security, 
our economic prosperity, our environmental integrity, and makes sure 
that Americans have good jobs. Those are our high priorities. We must 
agree that sending billions of dollars annually to foreign governments 
to feed our thirst for energy instead of reinvesting that money in the 
United States shortchanges our own economy and our future. We must 
agree that sending our daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, 
fathers, uncles, mothers, and aunts into regions of the world, whether 
to establish a national presence or to advance freedom or for the sake 
of securing our future energy supply can be shortsighted and wrong.
  To be drawn into a war to protect a foreign source of oil is to say 
it is too much to ask someone to change the car they drive, but not too 
much to ask them to send their son into combat. I, frankly, think that 
is an easy choice. I believe it is wrong for us to see the world in 
those terms, that we accept this dependence on foreign oil. That is why 
I strongly support this amendment.
  This amendment seeks to establish a goal to reduce our projected 
foreign imports by 40 percent over the next 20 years, and 7.6 million 
barrels a day would be saved. Do you know where that gets us? If we 
meet that goal in 2025 and reduce foreign imports, we will just begin 
to reduce our foreign imports overall. Today, the United States imports 
over 13 million barrels per day of foreign petroleum. That is the 4-
month average for this year.
  In 2025, after reaching this goal, we will import 11.8 million 
barrels per day, a decrease of only 1.5 million barrels per day of our 
current imports.
  Energy independence is about reducing imports of foreign oil, not 
slowing the growth of our dependence or toeing the line. As long as oil 
remains the sole major fuel source for the American economy, dependence 
on foreign imports will remain a geologic and economic fact of life.
  Last year, I participated in a discussion entitled ``New Energy for 
America, Jobs, Security and Prosperity for the 21st Century.'' The 
discussion focused on the need to move America in a direction toward 
more jobs, security, and prosperity. The speakers included labor 
leaders, business leaders, lawmakers--all with a different message, but 
basically saying the same thing: We need to move America in a new 
direction.
  I have been encouraged by new coalitions, such as Set America Free, 
the Energy Futures Coalition, and the Apollo Alliance, which 
incorporate unique bedfellows into the same common goals. In a 
bipartisan nature, these groups have shared resources and ideas because 
they share the same values: Put America first. Make America secure and 
less dependent upon foreign oil.
  I appreciate the bipartisan fashion in which Senator Domenici and 
Senator Bingaman and the members of the committee crafted this bill, 
and I hope this amendment becomes a bipartisan amendment.
  I want to note there are a couple provisions in the bill that take 
small steps in the right direction, such as the renewable fuels title 
and the provision to increase the efficiency of heavy-duty trucks by 
reducing the use of diesel power during idling. These are all good 
things. But we can do more.
  I will offer an amendment on CAFE standards at a later point. That is 
not what the Cantwell amendment is about. I have heard the argument 
that the amendment is a backdoor way to increase CAFE, that that is 
where the Cantwell amendment is headed. But it is not. It is about 
setting a goal, without a prescribed recipe, understanding that we all 
may believe there are different means by which America can best meet 
this goal. We all understand it must be our goal.
  How can we be stronger as a Nation while being dependent upon foreign 
oil? How can we talk about growing our economy if we have to beg the 
OPEC cartel for the oil we need? It is a fact of life. If you look at 
the oil resources that are available around the world, it is pretty 
obvious. Look at this chart. North America. When you look at 2002, we 
have about 4 percent of the global reserves when it comes to oil. By 
2020, it is going to be 1 percent. The lion's share of the global 
resources is not in America, it is in the Middle East and North Africa. 
So even if we use all of the current available resources and can bring 
them forward in an environmentally sensible way, we could not get close 
to our energy demands. We are always going to be dependent on some 
other source from some other part of the world. That is why I think we 
have to move toward those developments in the use of energy which 
reduce our dependence.
  Also, let me say this about China. You cannot talk about the world 
economy and ignore China. You don't see China on this list of 
producers. It happens to have a growing economy that also is dependent 
on foreign oil. But China gets it and the United States does not. Let's 
take one example. Fuel efficiency in cars. Today, China has higher fuel 
efficiency in cars and trucks than the United States. They get it. They 
understand it. If they are dependent on foreign oil, they are going to 
put vehicles on the road that are more fuel efficient. The United 
States does not. Why? It is worth a moment's discussion.
  I listened to the Senator from Missouri speak earlier about the 
automobile industry opposing fuel efficiency, opposing this idea of 
lessening our dependence on foreign oil. There was a time in my 
lifetime when American automobile manufacturers led the world--not only 
in inventing the earliest vehicles, but in developing them, setting the 
standard for the world. Sadly, that is not the case today. Just a week 
or so ago, General Motors announced 25,000 employees were being laid 
off. Last quarter, General Motors lost a billion dollars. When you look 
at the legacy cost to General Motors, there is a serious concern about 
whether this former automobile giant can survive. When you also 
consider the fact that Toyota announced last week that it would raise 
the prices of cars in the United States so as to allow General Motors 
to raise its prices and stay in business--think of it, the Japanese 
automobile manufacturer is going to come to the rescue of General 
Motors for fear they would go out of business. You wonder why.
  How can a country that is so good, with an industry that once led the 
world, be in such bad shape? I think the answer is fairly clear. 
Detroit and the automobile manufacturers of our country focus on making 
more cars this year of the same kind they made last year. They lack the 
vision to look to the future of what we could do, in terms of making a 
new generation of automobiles and trucks to serve America's economic 
and family needs, without sacrificing safety. They think it is an 
impossible dream. While they sit and puzzle over the future, lamenting 
the possibility of change, sadly, other automobile manufacturers are 
doing much more.
  My wife and I decided to buy a new car a few months ago. I wanted to 
buy an American car. We decided we didn't need a big SUV. We joke in 
our house that if you want to drive a Hummer, you ought to join the 
Army. We decided to get a modest size car to fit our family needs. We 
wanted it to be fuel efficient. Do you know what? The choices are 
pretty limited. There are not many American-made cars that fit the 
standard. We heard about the Ford Escape hybrid and bought one. It is 
good, but it is not great. I am glad we are doing a little bit to try 
to reduce our dependence on gasoline in our family and on oil imports 
as a Nation.

[[Page 12741]]

That hybrid was introduced in the market 2 years after the Japanese 
came out with their car.
  At a time when there is overwhelming demand for Japanese hybrid 
automobiles, Detroit still doesn't get it. They are not building that 
same type of vehicle to compete. I don't understand it. They seem to 
always miss the new trend and try to convince us to stick with the old 
model cars that used to be sold.
  One of the aspects about this whole debate is security. In a paper 
that former CIA Director James Woolsey gave to me at a press conference 
a day or two ago, he identified six technologies that, with vigorous 
Government support, could dramatically change the nature of our fuel 
use in America over the next 20 years. I will not go through the list, 
but they are things that are already available. So when some Senators 
come to the floor and say we cannot imagine how we lessen dependence on 
foreign oil without dramatically tripling the fuel efficiency of cars, 
they haven't taken the time to do the research. If they did, they would 
understand there are plenty of technologies available today to reach 
those goals. ``I am not sure every one of these is going to be 
implemented,'' Mr. Woolsey advised, but at least it gives a starting 
point to make the changes.
  The right mix and standards and incentives are out there. I believe 
we can find the right set of financial incentives and standards that 
meet our goal. There are a lot of cynics. They probably had a lot 
around when Henry Ford said you don't need a horse to get around. But 
the fact is we know we can rise to this challenge as a nation.
  I fully appreciate that in 10 years we may make technological 
advances we cannot fathom today. I didn't think I would be driving a 
hybrid vehicle a few years ago or carrying around 2,300 songs on an 
IPOD in my pocket. You cannot think small in America. You have to think 
big. Sadly, the naysayers and negative voices on the other side of the 
aisle cannot envision America growing with this technology and becoming 
more fuel efficient. I think there are creative and visionary people on 
both sides of the aisle. I hope they will support this amendment.
  We can test the innovation of America, and I know we can rise to that 
challenge. We burn 10,000 gallons of oil per second today in the United 
States--10,000 gallons per second. We use four times more oil than any 
other Nation, even though we know that the United States contains just 
3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves.
  Two-thirds of the world reserves are located in the Persian Gulf 
region. In fact, the Saudi state-run oil company alone has 30 times the 
reserves of ExxonMobil, the largest American company. Today, nine out 
of ten reserve-richest companies in the world are owned by foreign 
governments.
  Do you understand how that makes the United States subservient to 
these governments when it comes to our economic future? They own the 
oil we need to exist, and unless we start weaning ourselves from this 
dependence on foreign oil, it will just get worse.
  A study published by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that in 2000, 
oil imports cost $109 billion and comprised 24 percent of that year's 
goods and services trade deficit. In 2003, that figure rose to $10 
billion a month, $120 billion. What could we do with $10 billion fed 
into the U.S. economy instead of into these oil-rich nations around the 
world?
  On the Web site for the Set America Free Coalition, there is a link 
called, ``The True Cost of Oil.'' This is often a sensitive subject. 
Whenever externalities are calculated into the overall cost, there is 
often wiggle room for debate. However, on this Web site, Set America 
Free has a link to the National Defense Council Foundation's summary of 
the hidden cost of imported oil.
  The report finds that the economic impact of U.S. dependence on 
imported oil includes almost $49 billion in annual defense outlays to 
maintain the capability to defend the flow of Persian Gulf oil, the 
equivalent of $1.17 to the price of every gallon of gasoline; the loss 
of 828,000 jobs in the U.S. economy because we are depending on foreign 
oil; and the loss of $159 billion in GNP, not to mention $13.4 billion 
in Federal and State revenues. Total economic penalties from our 
importation of oil, $297 billion to $304 billion every year. And the 
voices on the other side objecting to this Cantwell amendment are 
content to let those figures grow. I think that is just plain wrong.
  One final striking figure is the cost of periodic oil shocks the U.S. 
economy has experienced over the last three decades. They estimate they 
have cost us $2.2 trillion to $2.5 trillion.
  Today, vulnerabilities in oil infrastructure could easily send oil 
prices skyrocketing.
  We all know about terrorism and terrorism in the Middle East. 
Unstable governments in Iraq and Saudi Arabia can certainly threaten 
the U.S. supply, not to mention Iran.
  Finally, I would like to note that the money we spend annually in the 
Middle East to feed our oil thirst goes directly to the production of 
hate literature throughout the region. So today, while American men and 
women are fighting in Iraq, the U.S. consumers continue to send 
billions of dollars overseas funneled off to support operations that 
completely undermine our service men and women overseas.
  Can we not see the connection here, that in this same Middle East, 
where we are sacrificing and have lost 1,700 American lives in combat, 
our enemies are being fed by our dependence on foreign oil?
  We have seen the dramatic surge in Chinese economic growth at a rate 
of 7 percent a year. This week's U.S. News & World Report cover story 
is, ``The China Challenge: What the Awakening Giant will Mean for 
America.'' China is the world's most populated country, with 1.2 
billion. In 2003, China overtook Japan as the second largest oil-
consuming nation in the world, and projections are that the Chinese 
demand for oil will double by 2025.
  Mr. President, I see that the majority leader is on the floor. He has 
asked to be recognized. I yield the floor to the majority leader for 
whatever purpose and then reclaim my time after he is finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I apologize for the interruption. A number 
of people have called asking for the schedule for tonight in terms of 
voting. We will be voting on the Cantwell amendment sometime tomorrow 
morning, and we will not have rollcall votes tonight.
  I have one unanimous consent request.

                          ____________________