Energy Policy Act of 2003 - cont.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand my amendment is not pending, although it has been offered and set aside. I would like to address that amendment and engage in some explanation for my colleagues so they can understand what will be voted on shortly by the Senate.

I hold in my hand S. 14, and it is the bill that has been prepared, with long hours of work by the Senator from New Mexico and many others, to address the energy security of the United States of America. I suggest that if one visits the State of Nevada or the State of New Mexico or my home State of Illinois and asks the average person on the street, If the Senate is serious about energy security, should they consider the fuel efficiency and fuel economy of the cars and trucks that we drive, the answer would be universally yes because people intuitively know we are dependent on overseas oil to power our cars and trucks, and that, of course, is expensive not only in terms of dollar amounts but in terms of our political commitment to Saudi Arabia and other countries.

If we are talking about America's energy security, most Americans believe S. 14 would include provisions that lead to more fuel efficiency and more fuel economy of America's cars and trucks. But the sad report for the American people is this: They are wrong.

S. 14 includes no provisions requiring that automobile manufacturers provide us more fuel-efficient cars in the future. So how can it be a serious energy proposal? How can we talk about our energy security if we ignore the obvious?

Let's take a look for a moment at what we face. The vast majority of oil reserves in the world, according to this chart, are in the Middle East. In terms of the billions of barrels of oil, there are 677 billion barrels of oil in the Middle East. There is no other part of the world that can even come close in terms of its potential for providing oil. The closest I guess would be South and Central America with some 86 billion and then, of course, North America, some 76 billion. But the reserve of oil in the world, outside of the Middle East, pales in comparison.

That is important for us to consider because we in the United States and in Canada are the largest global consumers in the world of oil per capita. These 1999 figures show of what I am speaking. In the United States and Canada, we consumed 3 gallons of oil for every man, woman, and child every day in 1999. That is 3 gallons a day.

Let's look at other industrialized countries. It is 1.3 gallons per capita in other industrialized countries.

The world average was about half a gallon. So we have a veracious appetite for oil that we do not own.

When we are talking about energy security, we have to wonder how this bill, S. 14, can honestly address energy security without addressing the obvious—that unless and until we are less dependent on foreign oil to sustain our lives and our economy, how in the world can we reach energy security?

The obvious question is, What are we doing with all of this oil? Well, intuitively we know the answer, but this chart tells us with specifics: U.S. oil demand by sector, over a 50-year period of time.

What we will find is this: Cars, SUVs, minivans, pickup trucks, and other vehicles account for 40 percent of U.S. oil consumption; and the transportation sector in total, 60 percent. They own the oil. We consume it in quantities unparalleled in the world. We consume it to power our vehicles.

Stick with me because I think this takes us to the end point and why the Durbin amendment really gets to the heart of energy security.

The amendment which I have proposed would save a cumulative amount of 123 billion gallons of oil by 2015.

Now, some have said there are other ways to do this; we do not have to ask for Detroit or any automobile manufacturers to do anything responsible for fuel efficiency and fuel economy. We can ignore that. Let the market work. We continue to have bigger, heavier, less fuel efficient vehicles. Just ignore it. There are other ways out. There is an easy way to deal with it.

What is the easy way that opponents of my amendment are proposing? Take a look at it. One of them is, let's go drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Take a refuge created by President Eisenhower in the 1950s, that is supposed to be protected, and open it up for oil exploration. They say: If we just open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we do not have to worry about cars, trucks, and fuel efficiency. There is so much oil up there, we just do not have to sweat it. So give a little. Compromise this national wildlife refuge. Let oil companies come in and make a few bucks and future generations are going to be in a much better position.

Look at the facts. Look at the comparison. Look at what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will save for us, or at least produce for us, in terms of billions of gallons of gasoline over a 17-year period of time. The number is down here and it shows, I think conclusively, that we are dealing with a very small amount that would come out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; in fact, less than a tenth of what we would derive if we set about a sensible national energy policy calling for more fuel efficient cars and trucks.

NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has a proposal that would save 20 billion gallons of gas, and that is a good idea, but that again is just a fraction of what we can do if we address the obvious: The fuel economy of the cars we drive.

A lot of people have said: We can invent our way out of this problem. We do not have to sweat it in terms of demanding from Detroit and other automobile manufacturers that they come up with better cars and trucks. Let them continue to sell these behemoths on the road that have terrible fuel economy and eventually we are going to invent our way out of the problem.

Well, would that that were true. In this situation, when we take a look at the proposals for fuel cell vehicles, one of the things we have heard about is hydrogen power. I support that. I think the President's research is a good idea. But even if it is successful, in a matter of 12 years it could save us less than 10 billion gallons of gasoline. That is less than a tenth of what my amendment would achieve.

What about the consumers? I have heard Senators say: We have no right to dictate to American consumers what they want, what they prefer. We should let the consumers have what they want. Let the market govern.

I will tell my colleagues what consumers have said. An annual survey by J.D. Power and Associates found that fuel consumption was the second most common driver complaint industry-wide.