Illinois
STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR DICK DURBIN:
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE SUMMIT
Picturing a better future
More than a century ago, after the Great Chicago Fire, Chicagoans made a decision: Not only would they rebuild - but the new Chicago would be bigger and stronger than ever.
It was an audacious decision. Few cities had ever fully recovered from such a catastrophe.
Chicago succeeded because Chicagoans had a rare kind of 20/20 vision. They were able to see the present clearly. And they were able to picture a better future.
They started with two facts: First: The city's population was growing rapidly. Second: Chicago's downtown district couldn't grow. It was 35 square blocks surrounded by water on three sides. That was it.
We all know the solution: the skyscraper, an entirely new kind of building, which has since changed the face and the character of Chicago and cities around the globe.
Today, we face a new challenge.
The energy crisis isn't a disaster on the scale of the Great Chicago Fire - yet. But it could become one - if we continue to deny the obvious, and to delay meeting this challenge head-on, with American ingenuity and determination.
Economic and national security costs of inaction
Last summer, Americans were paying $3 a gallon - or close to it - for gas. While gas prices have come down, they're taking a painful bite out of family and business budgets, and creating a drag on the economy.
Home heating costs are up 30 percent or more in many parts of the country. The average Illinois family will pay $1,500 this winter to stay warm. Some low-income families and seniors are facing a terrible choice: heat or eat.
According to researchers at Oakridge National Lab, America's dependence on foreign oil cost the US economy between $150 billion and $250 billion in 2005. Since 1970, the economic cost of America's oil dependence is estimated at $3.2 trillion. Those are conservative estimates!
During the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the US imported 28 percent of our oil. Today, we import 58 percent. The US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration estimates that - under the current policies -- by 2025, we will import 68 percent of our oil -- more than two-thirds of our oil consumption.
Can you imagine what could happen to our economy if there were a major disruption in oil supplies in a foreign oil-producing country -- perhaps in the Middle East?
I can. Thirty years ago, war in the Middle East caused oil prices in the US to increase by 70 percent. Overnight, the price of oil rose from $3 per barrel to $5.11 per barrel. A few months later, oil prices more than doubled again. ...
If a terrorist organization wants to target us, they don't need to set foot on American soil. They can damage the US economy severely simply by sabotaging the oil pipeline from the Persian Gulf.
That's one reason former CIA Director James Woolsey, Robert McFarlane, former President Reagan's National Security Adviser, and other national security experts have created a group they call the "Set America Free Coalition." According to them, ``It is imperative that the nation's energy policy address the national security and economic impacts of growing oil dependence.''
"Make no small plans"
"Make no small plans. They have no power to stir men's souls."
That was the advice of visionary architect Daniel Burnham, one of the designers of the new Chicago. It's a good rule for energy policy, too.
There is no doubt in my mind that we can meet America's energy needs with American ingenuity, innovation and know-how.
As our speakers will explain, we're already making real progress developing alternative and renewable sources of energy including ethanol, wind, solar and hydrogen. Americans are also producing and designing more energy-efficient cars, buildings and communities. And we can do better. What we need is the right mix of policies, incentives and standards.
Democrat's Apollo Project for Energy Independence
Senate Democrats have a strategy to make America energy independent by 2020. This is a realistic goal -- with realistic changes in the way we use energy, advance the production and application of energy technology, and promote energy efficiency and conservation.
We support an Apollo Project for Energy Independence.
Several months ago, I spoke to an auditorium of scientists at the Argonne National Energy lab--America's first national energy lab. I can tell you, the scientists there do not think that decreasing America's over-reliance on foreign oil is impossible. They think it is imperative.
Instead of shoveling billions of dollars in new tax breaks at oil and gas companies, we ought to be investing in the work of those and other scientists to free America from foreign oil by 2020.
We should establish national standards requiring greater use of renewable fuels, including ethanol and other bio-fuels, wind, solar and hydrogen energy, and clean coal technologies.
Instead of borrowing billions of dollars to buy foreign oil, we can create tens of thousands of good jobs in America by investing in developing renewable energy sources, and in energy efficiency.
Instead of allowing oil and gas companies to drill in ANWR and other pristine wilderness areas -- we should encourage the construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline.
Senate Democrats believe we should protect American families and businesses by preventing oil company price gouging, market manipulation and disaster profiteering.
We believe consumers should have more fuel-efficient vehicle choices - including hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and more accurate fuel-economy information. And we support incentives to increase the development and use of mass transit.
We support adequate funding for weatherization and low-income energy assistance, and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit to cover increased energy household costs.
These are just some of the ways we can move America toward energy independence by 2020. Ten years from now, we may have other alternatives that we can't even imagine today. I never thought I'd be driving a hybrid car -- or carrying around 2,000 songs in my pocket.
Republican plan
Senate Democrats offered a plan for energy independence during the debate on the national energy bill, but the big oil companies, car companies, and their allies in the White House and Congress rejected even setting a goal.
How is it that the same administration that talks about sending a man to Mars does not have enough faith in American genius and American know-how to believe that our scientists and engineers can determine how to increase the fuel efficiency of our automobile fleet safely?
The federal Energy Information Administration says the new law will actually worsen America's dependence on foreign oil and do nothing to curb soaring gasoline prices!
There is only one provision in the whole bill that may - may -- reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil: a renewable fuels provision that requires a doubling in ethanol production by 2012. This provision will reduce oil consumption by about 1 percent over the next 7 years. It will be good for America's economy, good for our energy security and good for Illinois farmers.
But the new law contains no comprehensive program for the development of renewable fuels. It contains no new fuel economy standard.
The conferees even rejected a modest provision that would have reduced oil consumption by 1 million barrels per day by 2015 -- just 4 percent of the petroleum it is projected we will use by 2015.
Incredibly, it is the stated policy of the Bush Administration to oppose any fuel savings measures. Does this make any sense?
Conclusion
Fortunately, there is a growing consensus among Americans that energy independence is not an issue of can, it's an issue of must.
An Apollo Project for Energy Independence is no small plan. It is a large and necessary challenge that would unite Americans in support of a worthy and necessary goal. It would strengthen our national and economic security. And it would create good jobs, and protect our environment - now and for our children and grandchildren.
Together, we can do better. Illinois is already proving that.
