Energy Policy Act of 2005--Continued

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the pending amendment, the Cantwell amendment, if it is appropriate, unless the chairman has some other business he wants to raise at this point?

Mr. DOMENICI. I would ask the Senator, if he would, give me a little bit of time before he does that and let me see if we can have a unanimous consent agreement locked in so we have some idea how much time you will use, or others.

Mr. DURBIN. Maybe I could make an alternative suggestion to the chairman. I will speak until I receive a signal from him that he wants to speak for any reason.

Mr. DOMENICI. If you are so generous, I will listen and when I think I am tired of listening to you, I will put up my hand.

Mr. DURBIN. It will then be a very short speech, I am sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DURBIN. I hate to live under that standard, but I will proceed nevertheless, at my peril, to discuss this bill.

This 800-page bill is our energy bill. We have been working on it for years. No one has worked harder than the Senator from New Mexico. This Republican Senator has joined with the Democratic Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and they have produced a bill which in many respects is a good bill. If this bill were presented to me today to vote on, I would vote for it because I think there are so many positives here. It not only is good in itself, it is certainly good in comparison to what the House has produced. The House of Representatives has produced a grab bag of incentives and benefits to energy producers that doesn't get to the heart of the question: What is the best energy policy for America, for our children and grandchildren? What is the long-term view of America, when it comes to energy?

Senator Dorgan of North Dakota asked a question of the administration when they came to testify on this bill. He said, You look forward 30 or 40 years on Social Security and say we have to be prepared. What are you prepared to say will be our energy policy in 30 or 40 years? What should we be aiming for?

The simple answer was they couldn't answer it. They had no long-term energy policy. There is one thing we know will happen, unless we change course from where we are today. Each and every day of every month of every year for at least the next 20 years, we will become more dependent on foreign oil. Today, 58 percent of the oil consumed in the United States comes from overseas. That number has grown dramatically. In 1973, that number was 28 percent. So in 32 years we have more than doubled our dependence on foreign oil. We all need it: to fuel our cars, trucks, businesses--the economy of America. So the obvious question is, Is this something that should concern us? I think it is clear on its face it should.

As we become increasingly dependent on Saudi Arabia, the OPEC cartel, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and so many other countries for our oil sources, frankly, we are surrendering some of our freedom and control of our own future. If we lessen our dependence on their foreign oil, it strengthens our economy. Less money is going overseas to buy oil. More money goes into the United States. There is less dependence on what happens.

Saudi Arabia is a country we ought to take a close look at because we depend on it so much. Saudi Arabia is a royalty. It is a kingdom. It is a government which, on any given day, we are either embracing because they provide us with oil or admonishing because they are doing things as a matter of policy that are inconsistent with American values. How much longer do we want to be joined at the hip with Saudi Arabia? How much longer do we want to wait for these sheiks and princes to decide how much oil they will release from their country and directly impact the cost of gasoline in America?

I think the answer is very clear. The sooner we move toward independence, the more secure America is, the less dependent we are on Saudi Arabia and other countries. The pending amendment by Senator Cantwell of Washington sets a goal for America. I think it is a goal that can be reached by people of good faith on both sides of the aisle who are prepared to accept the challenge.

Here is the challenge: Can we, over the next 20 years, reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent? It is a challenge. It is not as great a challenge as putting a man on the Moon, but America did that. It may not be as great a challenge as the Manhattan Project, when President Franklin Roosevelt said develop an atomic bomb that will end World War II, but we did that. I am confident, with the creativity and ingenuity of America, we can meet this challenge--40-percent reduction in dependence on foreign oil over the next 20 years. That is the pending amendment.

You would think most Senators would say: Fine, let's accept the challenge. Let America rise to this challenge and meet it. But sadly, if you listen to the debate, primarily from the other side of the aisle, that is not what we hear. We hear, instead: Oh, this is too big a challenge for America. We can't do that. The technology isn't there. We would have to change the cars we are driving. We would have to challenge Detroit and automobile manufacturers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles. They say that is impossible, America cannot meet that challenge, and they oppose the pending amendment.

I would say from my point of view this should be a bipartisan challenge we all accept. There are people who love their SUVs. I understand that. But I think we can say to Detroit, you can, and we know you can, produce a fuel-efficient vehicle that is safe and meets the needs of America, our families and our businesses. But to continue to build cars larger and heavier, that get fewer and fewer miles per gallon, is to increase our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil, and our addiction to this source of energy. I think we can do better. I think the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell of Washington does establish that challenge for us.

I personally believe we should do something about the fuel efficiency of the vehicles we drive. Do you know it has been 20 years since we held Detroit responsible for reducing the amount of fuel that you consume to travel a mile in America? For 20 years we have stepped out of the picture, and what has happened in the meantime? The fuel efficiency of vehicles in America has gone down, down, down. People drive these Hummers. Have you ever seen them? I personally think if you want to drive a Hummer, you ought to join the Army. People want them and get 5 or 6 miles a gallon and Detroit keeps churning out these big, heavy cars.

From my point of view, we ought to step back as a nation and say, isn't it worth something for us to have more fuel-efficient vehicles so we don't get drawn into foreign conflicts over oil? It is more important to me to drive a sensible car and to spare someone's son or daughter from serving in the military in the Middle East in a war. That is not a great sacrifice on my part. And it is certainly a great reward, when we have fewer and fewer times when we are entangled in this Middle East problem that continues today over our sources of oil.

I happen to believe this is a good bill. It can be improved and the Cantwell amendment improves it. There is one provision, only one in 800 pages, which talks about better fuel efficiency in America--or at least reduces our dependence. Let me be more specific: reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There was a provision that was passed by the Senate the last time we debated this bill, 99 to 1. It was overwhelmingly supported. It said, over the next 10 years we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day. That is a good step in the right direction. The Cantwell amendment takes us a little further and I think is better overall, but I support what is in the bill. Do you know, 2 days ago President Bush and his White House sent us their evaluation of this bill and said if that provision is included in the bill, the President will veto it.

The President will veto it if we embark on a policy of reducing our dependence on oil by 1 million barrels a day over the next 10 years? What are they thinking? How can we be any safer as a nation more dependent on foreign oil? Should not we be accepting this challenge? Why is the Bush White House walking away from it?

Senator Domenici, myself, virtually every other Senator, agreed to put this provision in the bill last time. I think it is a good provision this time. Yet the Bush White House is opposed to it.

There is only a certain amount of oil we can drill for around America and around the areas we control to meet our needs. The total world oil supply in the control of the United States is about 3 percent. Yet we use 25 percent of the oil that is consumed each day. If we are going to be realistic, we have to understand we need more efficient vehicles, more use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, and we need to be looking for ways to reduce the waste of fuel, such as the one included in this bill, and I commend the Senator from New Mexico on this. The provision in your bill which relates to the idling of diesel trucks is a great provision. All of these are sensible moves in the right direction.

If they are, why isn't this administration supporting it? Why don't we have a good, strong bipartisan vote not only for that provision but for the Cantwell provision, as well?

Let us accept the challenge. Let us not view that as a negative alternative that America just cannot do it. We can. We have proven it in the past. We can come together and pass this bill on a bipartisan basis.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I am greatly rewarded by his patience in allowing me to speak a full 10 or 15 minutes without boiling his bile or whatever might have occurred.

I yield the floor and hope we are moving toward a vote.

http://thomas.loc.gov/