The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ENERGY” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Senate section on pages S4479-S4481 on April 28, 2005.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ENERGY
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter of grave importance to our economy and national security. The issue is energy policy and what it will take to put us on a path toward energy diversification and away from our overdependence on foreign oil.
Tonight we will hear from the President about how he plans to lower gas prices. In the State of Washington we have seen a rise of almost 50 cents a gallon in 1 year. I look forward to hearing what the President has to say about lowering those gas prices. I do not believe his plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will help make any difference in the prices in the near term.
I will address what is a broader energy debate this Senate is about to start. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. It keeps our cars running, our companies competitive, our citizens safe, and our Nation secure. It is the future source of job growth for America.
The House has passed an energy bill and the Senate will start shortly on its own plan. We need to tell America where we are going on this important journey to set about an energy policy in America that we can be proud of.
We are at a critical juncture. The pain being felt at the gas pump by Americans is a wake-up call to all of us that we need to take action. Now is the moment our Nation must make a conscious choice to tackle the challenges ahead in a straightforward and serious manner, and get to the heart of what is a very enormous problem.
What our country needs is an energy policy that bets on American ingenuity and investment rather than gambling our future on the good will of the Saudi Royal Family or the OPEC cartel. There is no doubt in my mind, and history shows this, when this Nation devotes its tremendous resources and innovative spirit to confronting a threat such as that posed by the high cost of energy and overdependence on foreign supply, we can succeed. History has shown in our country, we have made significant shifts in investment when our national goals were set in the right direction.
Americans are familiar with the ambitious goals set by President John F. Kennedy when he challenged this Nation to put a man on the moon within a decade. But it was not just rhetoric. President Kennedy tripled the budget for the space program between 1961 and 1962. He also asked us to double the number of scientists and engineers working on the project over a 5-year period. President Kennedy recognized the importance of this investment and America won an international race to put a man on the moon.
A less recounted story, but nonetheless significant to our country's history, was the shift in gears this country made when we embarked on the Manhattan Project. In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized
$85 million for what would become the Manhattan Project. Within 2 years, our entire national budget for atomic research grew from $6,000 to $85 million. In the midst of World War II, the President had decided it was in our Nation's strategic interest to make this investment. Three years later, the Manhattan Project ushered in the nuclear age and the United States won the race to become a superpower. The Manhattan Project changed the course of history. That $2 billion investment also has influenced domestic and international policy ever since that time.
A little less dramatic but no less important for consumers and businesses across America, there is another example of how this country shifted gears and focused on investment and energy policy. In the 1970s we woke up to the fact that our country was defending, in support of, the only democracy in the Middle East. As a result, we ended up with an OPEC oil embargo. Our economy was stalled and we waited in long gas lines to fill up our tanks.
What did Congress do during that crisis? Among many things, we passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 which made our cars more efficient. In 1978, we passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act which led to diversifying our source of electricity generation by lowering the barriers for new generation of cleaner and more efficient power.
In the mid-1970s, oil was used to generate electricity for homes and fuel for our economy; we got 20 percent of our Nation's electricity from oil. But because of our actions during the 1970s, being aggressive, today oil is only 2 percent of our electricity portfolio. During this time, consumers also began making choices to switch from home heating oil to other sources. In fact, since that time period, the number of homes that use home heating oil has dropped about 35 percent.
So we have seen in our history that we can take aggressive steps and shift our investments toward a new strategy. Certainly that is what we need to do now to get this country moving toward a more independent energy future. In other words, we showed the leadership that is lacking today in making the right investments.
We are in an international race because of the economics of oil and where our oil dependence is leading us. First, even if every last deposit geologically present in the United States was tapped, the fact remains that the United States sits on 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Today, the United States imports about 60 percent of its oil supply. Dependence on oil means dependence on foreign sources of oil. It is a geological and economic fact of life: We cannot drill our way to energy independence.
Where are the prices today? According to DOE's Energy Information Administration, gas prices for this week have reached a national average of $2.24. As I said, in my home State, that is a little higher at $2.48. What we understand is that gas prices for the future are also going to be high if we stay this course. The gas prices that have hovered about $50 a barrel for this year are up from about $30 a barrel in 2004. I don't know if any of my colleagues remember the 1990s, when oil was $15 a barrel.
The real concern is, what is the economic outlook for oil prices in the future? The World Economic Outlook Report issued earlier this month by the International Monetary Fund will have all my colleagues' attention. That is because it is projected that oil could spike to $100 a barrel between now and 2030.
These prices are driven in part by a tripling of demand by China. As the Chinese and Indian economies grow, so will their dependence on petroleum. And rising incomes in China mean they will own more automobiles. According to that same report of the International Monetary Fund, China will be consuming 19 million barrels of oil a day in 2030, more than triple the amount it used last year, and almost as much as the United States uses today.
We know demand for oil is going to increase, and we know the cost is going to go up. In fact, a Wall Street firm, Goldman Sachs, predicted the price of oil could reach $105 a barrel in the next few years and that the energy markets could be in the early stages of a superspike period, where we could see prices fluctuate as we did in the 1970s, when at times they quadrupled. So this is a very important issue, something this body needs to address, not with a Band-Aid, but with a long-term solution that will put our country on the right track.
If we do not think this is impacting other parts of our economy, particularly on the trade front, the Department of Commerce recently, in its monthly report, said the U.S. trade deficit in February worsened to $61 billion, in part because of the surging oil prices. So it is impacting our economy all around. But so long as this Nation fails to make progress on an energy policy that acknowledges the reality of geology and the international marketplace, we are jeopardizing our economic future.
I cannot say I agree with the President's energy proposal and policy goals. But I know he has said he knows this becomes a ``foreign tax on the American dream.'' I do agree with that. The American people want to see a different policy. They have not given the President high marks on his energy proposal.
In an AP poll taken last week, more than 50 percent of people said if gas prices stay as high as they are in the next several months, it will cause financial hardship for them. It is already causing financial hardship in many parts of my State. In fact, 57 percent of people in the same report said they have already cut back on other expenses to cope with rising gas prices.
Here is a telling figure: Sixty-two percent of the people say they disapprove of the handling of our nation's energy policy. I believe they mean they want to see a different approach. Mr. President, 87 percent of the American people say that conservation, fuel efficiency, and alternative energy sources are the best way to reduce America's overdependence on foreign oil. We need to listen to them and get an energy policy that reflects that reality.
The American people know it is time to get serious. They know some of the ideas we talk about here are the alternatives to our overdependence on oil--investment in wind power, wave power, solar power, and the ingenuity of American brainpower. Those ideas need to have their day in the Senate, where we can talk about the issues of alternative energy and modernizing our transmission grid.
Well, I can tell you this, we are going to have some challenging times agreeing to some of the proposals that are being passed over by the House of Representatives as they discuss an energy policy. Here in the Senate, I am encouraged that the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, is actually reaching out to Members and trying to discuss the formation of what will be a productive energy debate and discussion, and a bipartisan effort that will merge these ideas about where we need to go for the future into a bill. So I appreciate the chairman's efforts, as he has discussed with Members of both the majority party and minority party some of the ideas the Senate should be considering in an energy strategy.
But if we are going to make dramatic progress, we need to make sure the President of the United States, who is endorsing the House proposal in his administrative statement of support, understands that proposal is a nonstarter. The American people want to see a real plan of diversification, insofar as they think the House proposal has fallen short. In fact, even the President's own economic advisers in the Energy Information Administration have concluded the House Republican energy plan will have a ``negligible'' impact on energy supply, energy prices, production, and imports--``negligible.'' In fact, the same economists concluded their proposal will have a 0.1 percent--that is less than 1 percent--impact on oil consumption by 2025.
So, in other words, the House energy plan, which the President is endorsing, is like treading water. It is like standing still, while our economy cannot stay afloat on these high gasoline prices, and while our businesses and consumers continue to be gouged.
Details of what is wrong with the President's plan ought to be front and center as we discuss our Senate proposal so as not to make the same mistakes and so we can move forward.
Because clearly, there is something wrong when we look at the priorities of the legislation the President has endorsed. For example, this proposal continues to provide subsidies in the wrong direction. Last year, this body rejected a proposal that would have given 60 percent of the tax incentives to the traditional industries; that is, oil and gas. You would think turning that proposal down might have sent a message. But, instead, our colleagues in the other body now give 90 percent of the tax incentives to the same traditional industries and devote only 6 percent to new technologies.
If the President is serious about getting a proposal before August, he should start by making clear his opposition to a waiver, letting oil companies off the hook for groundwater-polluting chemicals such as MTBE. I do not believe granting immunity to polluters for groundwater cleanup costs and saying States should pay for it has a single thing to do with getting an energy policy that will put America on the right track.
Americans want to know our energy policy is about the common interest, not special interest. They want to know we are going to get a bill that helps us diversify off of our foreign sources of energy.
There are many other things the President's plan endorses that I think are dead wrong, and we are going to have plenty of time to talk about them. But I would mention them briefly.
For example, this current proposal fails to recognize how our country has been gouged by high energy costs from companies such as Enron. It does nothing to hold the line against what I call the latter-day Ken Lays, and would leave future Enrons with the opportunity to steal from consumers. What we need is a tough bill in relation to market manipulation that includes making sure utilities that continue to be sued by Enron are not the deep pockets for their extreme market manipulation and trading practices that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has failed to adequately deal with.
The President's endorsed energy plan also rolls back dozens of environmental rules and laws that were put in place to protect Americans' public health and safety. Many of them were put in by previous Republican administrations. So we are going to have lots of time to discuss this energy plan and proposal when we return and the Senate Energy Committee starts discussing this proposal. But because gas prices are still high, and because we still need to address where we are going as a country, I want to make sure this Senator stands firm on the fact that we cannot continue to tread water or stay in the same place. We need to take the same aggressive actions previous administrations did, as we changed our investment strategy, as we put the Nation on call for an emergent need, and moved forward on a policy.
That is what I call progress. The Europeans already understand this. That is why they are making a significant investment in renewable energy technology. The Japanese understand this. That is why their automakers are making big investments and cornering the market on fuel efficiency technologies and vehicles. And even China understands this because they have put in place higher fuel efficiency standards than in the United States. What we need to do is recognize the energy future by planning for it, not with half-baked policies that dither around the margins of the problem but with real leadership on an energy economy of the future.
I hope that tonight the President will address the American people and tell us what his real plan is to lower gas prices in the future, to give America an independence from our overdependence on foreign oil. I hope he will give this country the kind of boost that previous administrations have, by leading the way with new technology investments and a vision of the future that will give our country the national and economic security it deserves. I think he will find that there are many Americans waiting to hear that plan--there are farmers, environmentalists, businesspeople, certainly a number of us in the Senate and, I would say to the President, even some of the neocons of previous administrations who are ready to hear an energy strategy that gets us off of our overdependence on foreign oil. I look forward to those comments.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
