U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

61–728 2010

OVERSIGHT OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S 

ENERGY POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 22, 2008 

Serial No. 110–38 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(iii) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ...................................................................................... 6 

Hon. John Shadegg, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, opening statement ................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 8 

Hon. John Larson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, opening statement ................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Hilda Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of South Dakota, opening statement ........................................................ 11 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 13 

Hon. John Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 14 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 15 

WITNESS

Hon. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ...................... 15 

Answers to Pre-Hearing Questions ................................................................. 47 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 18 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE BUSH 

ADMINISTRATION’S ENERGY POLICY 

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m. in room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Larson, 

Solis, Herseth Sandlin, Cleaver, Hall, McNerney, Sensenbrenner, 

Shadegg and Blackburn. 

Staff present: Jonathan Phillips. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This is the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming. We welcome you all to 

this very important hearing with the Secretary of Energy, Samuel 

Bodman. 

Less than 3 months ago, when asked by reporters about predictions that gas prices would rise to $4 per gallon, President Bush 

admitted that he had not heard those forecasts. Well, for millions 

of consumers in New York and California, Chicago, all across 

America, $4 gas is now a reality. Gas prices have now reached a 

record nationwide average of $3.81 per gallon, up more than 160 

percent since President Bush took office, increasing on average by 

34 cents a gallon each year of the Bush administration. 

The price of oil has also skyrocketed. A few years ago, people scoffed at the prospect of $100 oil. But American consumers have 

now seen an increase of $100 per barrel in the price of oil since 

President Bush took office. 

The incredible escalation of gas and oil prices is not an accident. 

It is the reality of more than 7 years of this administration pushing 

an energy policy solely focused on fossil fuels. 

One of the Bush administration’s first major actions was to convene the secret Cheney Energy Task Force, comprised of Cabinetlevel and other senior administration officials meeting in closeddoor sessions with big oil and other industries. Not surprisingly, 

the recommendations from this clandestine group focused on more 

oil and gas drilling. 

On January 29, 2001, the day of the first meeting of the Cheney Energy Task Force, the price of oil was $32 per barrel. The Bush 

administration and the Republican Congress then passed an Energy Bill in 2005 that gave billions of dollars in tax breaks and 

subsidies to the oil, coal, nuclear and gas industries. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

2 

On August 8, 2005, when President Bush signed the Republican Energy Bill into law, the price of oil was $64 per barrel; and over 

the last 7 years the Bush administration has offered big oil the 

rights to drill on more than 268 million acres of public land offshore. Oil companies now own the drilling rights to more land than 

they know what to do with. In fact, big oil currently holds more 

than 30 million acres both onshore and offshore that aren’t even 

being used. But last week, on May 17, as the price of oil stood at 

$126 per barrel, President Bush once again echoed the tired refrain 

we have heard for the last 7 years, that we must increase our domestic oil exploration. The price of oil is now $135 per barrel. After 7 years of filling 

our tanks with record-high gas and filling the calendar with new 

records for the price of oil, it is time to stop giving gifts to big oil. 

In the last 16 months, since the Democrats took control of the Congress, we have passed legislation not only to provide consumers 

with immediate relief at the pump but also to reduce our oil dependence in the long term. 

Last year, the Democratic Congress passed an Energy Bill that 

by 2030 will reduce our consumption of oil by nearly 3 million barrels per day. Last week, the Democratic Congress passed legislation that required the Department of Energy to stop purchasing oil 

at record prices to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But the 

Bush administration can and must do more to help American families right now. 

In a fire, you are supposed to stop, drop and roll; and when it 

comes to using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help the consumers in an energy emergency, the President should stop, swap 

and sell. The President must deploy, must sell the oil from the Petroleum Reserve, which has a proven track record of success in 

bringing down prices. Putting more oil into the global marketplace 

is the step which will send a signal that we are serious about reducing the price of oil globally. 

The administration has no problem deploying our National 

Guard Reserves to Iraq, but it continues to refuse to deploy our oil 

reserves to help consumers this summer. This weekend is the start 

of the summer driving season, but the Bush administration refuses 

to take any action that would stop driving up oil and gas prices. 

American families are begging for help from high energy prices, 

and it is time for this administration to finally heed that call. 

That completes the opening statement of the Chair. 

I now turn to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

3 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 10 here 61728A.001
4 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 11 here 61728A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Now my hearing aid was on during your discussion, and it seems 

to me that, in our three branches of government, the Congress has 

got some responsibility, too. And with gas prices rising through the 

roof, signs that energy costs will rise even higher, now is the time 

for leadership. 

The Democrats today are calling for leadership from the administration, but it is Congress’s job to set policy, to make important policy changes, and to make sure that those changes will result in 

lower fuel and electricity costs. So far, the Democratic leadership 

has not taken that job seriously, especially when it comes to gas 

prices. Instead of solutions to the Nation’s high energy prices, the 

House leadership has given the American people the Pelosi premium. Since taking control of Congress in January, 2007, gas 

prices have risen more than $1.50 a gallon in Wisconsin under 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s watch, despite her promise of a commonsense plan to lower gas prices. 

There has been a lot of talk from the Democratic leadership 

about windmills and solar panels, but those technologies are better 

suited for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not energy prices. A 

recent report from Secretary Bodman’s own Energy Information 

Administration shows that while solar power receives government 

subsidies totaling about $24 per megawatt hour and wind power 

receives about $23 in subsidies, coal power receives just 44 cents 

and natural gas just gets a quarter. While there are benefits to 

wind and solar power, coal and natural gas are the best options for 

expanding electricity production at reasonable cost. 

I think the American people’s number one priority for Congress 

is lowering fuel and electricity costs, and Republicans are committed to doing that. 

When it comes to gasoline, Democrats have focused on fuel 

standards and ethanol. Higher fuel standards do have the potential 

to help lower fuel demand in the long run, but the American people 

need help now. Ethanol has caused more harm than good, as both 

food and gas prices continue to rise. That is why I am supporting 

legislation that will repeal the subsidies and tariffs for ethanol and 

end this boondoggle which I think—using a Democrat term—can 

best be described as corporate welfare. 

And while Democrats will blame energy costs on the President, 

the facts are clear. In the period between January, 2001, and January, 2007, before the Democrats assumed leadership in Congress, 

gas prices rose 84 cents a gallon, which is a significant jump but 

nothing compared to the Pelosi premium of more than $1.50 in 

more than 18 months. 

With neither a commonsense plan in sight from the Democratic 

leadership or an end to high gas prices, House Republicans are 

hearing the cries of the American people and are putting forth our 

own plans which are truly common sense. We will expand production of American oil and gas and do so in an environmentally safe 

way. There are billions of barrels of untapped oil that can be recovered without harming the environment. Nearly 85 percent of the 

offshore oil and gas fuels are untapped because Congress has 

placed them off limits. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

6 

Additionally, we must expand the refining capacity in the United 

States if we are going to continue to meet the surging demand for 

gasoline. 

The House Republicans’ broad plan will also encourage the expansion of nuclear power, which is a technology that stands to 

greatly improve U.S. energy independence and greenhouse gas reductions. House Republicans will also push for greater energy efficiency by supporting conservation tax incentives to Americans who 

make their homes, cars and businesses more energy efficient. And 

despite their costs, House Republicans also know there are great 

benefits to solar, wind, hydroelectric and other sources of renewable energy and will continue to support further development of 

these technologies. 

The primary difference between Republicans and Democrats on 

the issue is that House Republicans want to explore all the options 

that are on the table, while the Democrats want to pick winners 

and losers. That plan hasn’t worked in the past, and it won’t work 

now. 

House Republicans are also pushing a plan that can help get energy costs under control. These are the kinds of policies that the 

Democratic leadership should be supporting, too. But, sadly, this 

kind of leadership is lacking in this 110th Congress and for the 

sake of all Americans, Republican and Democrat, that is a shame. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am a little vexed that we have my friend from Wisconsin concerned about a so-called Pelosi premium. When in fact what we are 

seeing is a culmination of the policies that have been put in place, 

a compliant Congress doing what the Republican administration 

has wanted to do over the course of the last 6 years. And I particularly am interested in this canard that somehow we have got to 

open up some of the most pristine and delicate areas, like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, when there are already, of the 42 million acres 

of American land currently leased by oil and gas companies, only 

about 12 million are currently drilled to produce oil and gas now. 

According to the Federal Government’s own surveys, 82 percent 

of the gas in the Outer Continental Shelf and 79 percent of the oil 

is available for leasing; and this is before the Republican Congress 

opened more space in the Gulf of Mexico for drilling in 2006. 

The fundamental problem here is that the United States, with 2 

percent of the world’s oil reserves and using 25 percent of the 

world’s oil, cannot continue to waste more oil than any country in 

the world; and we are not going to drill our way out of this problem. I think having a comprehensive energy approach as we have 

been looking at on this committee is part of it. 

I look forward to exploring with the Secretary as we move forward some of the trade-offs here in terms of the policies working 

and what the implications are for their success or failure. In the 

final analysis, it is not simply something that we are going to be 

able to do by ignoring the realities. We have a small amount of a 

declining resource. We are going to have to be able to be more effierowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

7 

cient and give the American consumers more choices, not simply 

broaden the field for the oil companies that aren’t already using 

the total amount that has been given to them that is at their disposal. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I thank you for 

holding this hearing. It is important to have this discussion. 

As you can see, we have quite a wide divide in views on this 

issue. I am very pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle pushed to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to not 

add additional oil to the Reserve at the moment and even, hopefully, to press to release some oil from that Reserve. I am also supportive of legislation that would say we should take—we should be 

replacing some of the heavy for light oil that we are putting into 

the Reserve. But I think it is very important to understand why 

that is so critical. 

Although the Strategic Petroleum Reserve represents only 1/10 of 

1 percent, some experts have pointed out that somewhere between 

20 percent and 40 percent of the current cost of gasoline could be 

driven by speculation. And the argument goes that if we were to 

open the SPRO or stop putting oil in it, that might send a price 

signal to the speculators and they might stop speculating. 

The important part for that discussion is that it demonstrates 

that those who advocate that we don’t put any more oil into the 

SPRO right now understand that there is a link between supply 

and price because their argument is, look, by putting oil into the 

SPRO, we are reducing the supply for public consumption, and that 

is driving up cost and increasing speculation. If there is a link between supply and price, then we have to examine the policies of 

this Congress. 

I have been a Member now for going on 14 years; and over that 

14 years we have had vote after vote after vote after vote after vote 

on the issue of either increasing domestic supply or cutting off domestic supply, either opening further areas for exploration and production or restricting further areas for exploration and protection. 

And in vote after vote after vote, we have decided to not increase 

domestic production. We have decided to limit areas for exploration. 

Just I believe 2 years ago there was legislation contemplated to 

expand production off the Outer Continental Shelf. The idea was 

to give the States a voice in that issue and to place the drilling rigs 

at least 50 miles offshore where they couldn’t be seen. And we not 

only didn’t pass it for oil, we didn’t enact it for natural gas. 

Just a few months ago, last summer, the majority party imposed 

a moratorium on oil shale. There is a fact here, and that is this 

Congress has created this crisis by restricting supply. Everybody 

agrees that in the long term we have to pursue alternatives. I 

would simply say that in the short term we cannot continue to restrict supply in the Outer Continental Shelf, in the inner mountain 

west, the oil shale, or for ANWR and expect prices not to go up. 

And I thank the chairman for holding the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and the Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

8 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I was at a meeting in Napa, California, a couple weekends ago 

of a bunch of venture capitalists and CEOs and some really exciting American businesses that are developing really truly alternative energy sources. And there was some talk about this issue, 

that people thought this was such a silly debate back in Washington, D.C., about whether or not we could reduce gas prices by 

opening up some of the areas that we currently use for our pristine 

areas like the Arctic. And folks pointed out that it was really a 

kind of a silly debate because the fact of the matter is, is somehow 

our dinosaurs got planted under somebody else’s sand. And I am 

not blaming the Bush administration for that. 

The fact of the matter is, the oil is just not there to have any 

appreciable impact on world oil prices. And no matter what we do, 

a barrel of oil is a worldwide market that is determined by worldwide supply and demand. We use 25 percent of the world’s oil. We 

have less than 3 percent of the world’s oil supply. 

Mr. Bodman in his testimony talks about if we opened up every 

spigot in Yellowstone, in the Arctic and Mount Ranier National 

Park, we could maybe increase our domestic oil supplies by 20 percent. That is a worldwide increase of .6 percent increase of worldwide oil supplies. That will have virtually no impact on oil worldwide, barrel of oil prices. And the fact of the matter is we could 

drill on the National Mall, and the oil price of a barrel of oil is still 

going to be over $130 a barrel. 

Now there are some things we can do about the speculative market. What we really need to do is to get our cars to drive on something other than oil. 

I met a guy out in Napa named Shai Agassi, a young guy, he is 

about 35, 36 years old. Now here is a guy we ought to be listening 

to. He signed a contract to totally electrify all the cars in Israel and 

soon Denmark. 

This is what we should be thinking about. We have got to get 

off of oil ultimately in our cars. When we do that, then we will 

have a transportation system that is efficient. We have to think a 

lot bolder than we have been. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

hearing. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us this morning. 

It is so interesting to sit here and think what the American people must think as they are listening to these opening statements. 

One of the things that we hear from constituents, they think that 

Congress doesn’t have and the leadership in the Congress doesn’t 

have an energy plan. They are looking at what has happened in 

the past 2 years to a barrel of crude when it has gone from $55 

to $130 a barrel. 

As someone had mentioned earlier, the price of that barrel—and 

when I was preparing for the hearing, Mr. Chairman, we went 

back and looked; and the price on a barrel when President Bush 

took office was $30 a barrel. It varied very little until 2004, when 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

9 

we saw growth in the India and China economies. And then it really did not start to accelerate until early 2007, and the acceleration 

has been from that $55 mark to $130, and that has been in less 

than 2 years. So I do think that is noteworthy. 

Now when we were doing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, one of 

the items we discussed was getting that bill had taken a 6-year period of time to come to agreement. And there have been many 

times that, this side of the aisle, that we Republicans have pushed 

to address the supply and the capacity issue. We did it in the 2005 

Act. We had a bill that followed the 2005 Act in October of 2005 

that dealt with that issue. We had pressure from the Democrat 

side of the aisle to not address those capacity and supply issues. 

And what we know is that our constituents and the American 

people want to see this issue solved. To address the price at the 

pump today, we are going to have to talk about supply capacity, 

about energy exploration, about energy independence, and begin to 

look at what we do in the short term, the mid-range and the long 

term on these issues. 

Americans want American solutions. We are the most innovative 

people. We certainly can figure this one out. We know that there 

are barriers that have been placed in front of extraction, in front 

of exploration. Mr. Chairman, we need to remove those barriers, 

get the price down at the pump and have a long-term plan. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have to suspend 

belief when you listen to our distinguished colleagues on the other 

side. And I think it was called the Pelosi premium? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yep. 

Mr. LARSON. I didn’t realize that Nancy Pelosi was in those behind-closed-doors meetings with Dick Cheney as they were putting 

together the master plan for their energy strategy that is in its current eighth year. You know, I didn’t realize she was in on those 

meetings. But perhaps I am wrong. 

Our colleagues, who used to be known as the Grand Old Party, 

are giving new meaning to GOP, primarily inasmuch as they have 

become to mean gas, oil and petroleum and protecting those interests at all costs. 

You have to suspend your belief, because I think our colleagues 

over here have been a little bit unfair. They do have a policy, an 

energy policy; and Thomas Friedman has talked about it frequently. It is called leave no moolah behind. Because what we end 

up doing is by the moneys that we are sending overseas that work 

their ways through the madrassas and into the hands of the very 

people that are assaulting and killing our men and women over in 

the Middle East. And meanwhile, as gas prices continue to go up 

because of policies that were made behind closed doors with no 

oversight and review, with speculators that are running unbridled 

and over the counter, with an invisible market where they are able 

to jack the price up minimally 10 to 40 percent so that people in 

my district who get their Social Security check have to sign it over 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

10 

to the oil dealer to pay for the heating of their homes—this was 

the work of Nancy Pelosi, I am told. 

This is the work of an administration that hasn’t had a policy 

and people on the other side of this aisle who continue to block initiatives that would otherwise lead to our independence and nonreliance on the Middle East for foreign oil and embrace the alternatives that we know will provide a greener environment, the jobs 

that we need and get away from this path that we have followed. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, although I could speak for several 

more minutes, I reserve my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be the Irish side of the gentleman, 

not the Swedish who like to speak longer. I appreciate it. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis, is recognized. 

Ms. SOLIS. It is going to be really hard to follow. But I, too, want 

to join my colleagues here and thank our Chairman Markey for 

having this important hearing. 

It is nice to have you here with us, Mr. Secretary. As you know, 

you can hear our frustration. 

And I guess my concern again is, in your testimony, you believed 

that we could do more here. We can actually cultivate more energy 

resources by drilling and opening up previous leases along our 

coast and what have you. Well, that is a no-starter for many of us. 

So how can we really talk candidly and really talk about exploring 

renewable energies and investment in home resources here in the 

United States? 

Yesterday, most of my colleagues I think on the dais here supported, you know, renewing credits, tax credits so we can invest in 

solar energy and renewable energy. We need to do more. And I just 

am waiting to see what incentives and what innovative ideas that 

your office and through your leadership can provide. 

Every day that we go home to our districts, every weekend at 

least, that gas prices keep inching up. In my district now in Los 

Angeles it has been over—well over $4 for the last 3 weeks, if not 

a month. And that doesn’t even explain the other costs that are 

being applied to consumers when they go to the grocery store, because all the diesel fuel also has gone up dramatically. 

It hits very hard upon our low-income, working class, blue-collar 

communities that right now we seem to be ignoring. And I am 

standing up for that little guy and that little woman out there that 

is trying to make it to school to take her children or to make it to 

her part-time job that really has no voice at this table. And I am 

hoping that there is something realistically that we can do other 

than just holding our hands up and saying, well, gee, we can’t get 

the oil corporations to do anything about it and, oh, my God, we 

pay so much in taxes. Well, Jesus, when you talk to the regular 

Joe or Mary on the street, they are saying the same thing. And our 

frustration is very, very real. 

This economy, we don’t have support by the American public. 

The direction is wrong. And one area of it hits home very clearly, 

and that is in our pocketbook when we go home to our districts, 

whether it is in California, whether it is in New York, Miami, Florida or in Texas. So I would just hope you could enlighten this committee with some innovative ideas. 

Thank you. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

11 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms. 

Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

If you look at my district, the entire State of South Dakota from 

end to end, whether it is our vast fields of corn and soybeans on 

the eastern side of the State, wind across every part of the State, 

and the great forests of the Black Hills in the west, South Dakota 

embodies the idea that we need a diversified approach to our national energy policy and in particular we need to take advantage, 

as Ms. Solis is saying, of new opportunities for renewable energy. 

So as we strive to meet our national energy needs, we must continue to recognize I think that rural America has much to offer; 

and rural States should be at the center of the solution as our national energy policy shifts and adjusts in ways that can enhance 

our national and economic security, promote innovation and conservation and ultimately ease the strain on the budgets of families 

and businesses. 

With the passage of the original renewable fuels standard in 

2005 and the aggressive increase included in last year’s Energy 

Bill, we have already taken some initial key steps in the right direction as we seek to take advantage of the contribution of agricultural producers in rural States to reduce our dependence on foreign 

oil and the overall carbon emissions through an increase in the production of biofuels, wind and other types of renewable energy. 

I respectfully disagree with the ranking member, the gentleman 

from Wisconsin, on the impact of ethanol. Ethanol has kept gas 

prices from going even further, upwards of 15 percent higher than 

they are today. And the price of corn to make ethanol has very little to do with the increase in food prices when compared to other 

factors like the cost of energy and the processing and transportation of food. 

So I look forward to your testimony on these and other issues 

and in particular infrastructures for the transmission of wind energy. Thank you for being here, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner. 

I would like to welcome Secretary Bodman to the hearing. 

It is difficult to refute our current administration’s poor record 

on environmental protection and renewable energy promotion. For 

example, the administration has consistently lobbied for drilling in 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as if the oil there contains goldplated gas which would solve our growing greed for gasoline. The 

administration has also continued to support the oil and gas industry in terms of subsidies. 

Alcoholics Anonymous does not encourage its participants to visit 

more bars as a means of reducing their dependence on alcohol. 

Likewise, the solution for our energy crisis is not more drilling. For 

this reason, Congress is attempting to change the course of American energy policy by passing meaningful and effective legislation. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

12 

Just this week, the House passed H.R. 6049, the Energy and Tax 

Extenders Act of 2008. If it becomes law, this important bill will 

extend expiring tax provisions for renewable energy production and 

energy conservation. The progressive Pelosi policy has promoted renewable sources of energy efficiency and conservation, but we must 

have support from the current administration if we are to be truly 

successful. 

And I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you can offer some insight into 

the policies promoted by this administration and that we can work 

together to the extent possible to reach energy independence and 

achieve a cleaner environment for all Americans. Thank you for 

being here. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

13 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 29 here 61728A.003
14 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York State, Mr. 

Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. 

America is clearly at an energy crossroads, and one look at oil 

costs or conversations with families in my district or others around 

the country who are being forced to sacrifice in order to keep on 

the lights and the heat and the fuel in their vehicles is all the evidence one would need to come to that conclusion. 

It is our job in Congress to look at how we got here and what 

our government is doing to solve the crisis, and I am disappointed. 

When one looks back over the last 7 years, it is apparent the administration has pursued what I see as sort of a lose-lose-lose policy where we are shipping more and more of our dollars to unstable 

countries in unstable parts of the world where they are used, as 

one of the other members mentioned, to fund—in part, to fund 

madrassas or arming of these governments who we may have disagreements with about human rights or other foreign relations 

issues and then borrowing that money because we are running a 

deficit at the same time and a balance of trade deficit. 

We are basically borrowing the money from other countries and 

finding ourselves losing our sovereignty, so it is a lose-lose-lose policy. And I would like to see us move to a win-win-win policy where 

we are developing the new technologies that provide jobs here and 

keep our dollars here in this country and, at the same time, get us 

our sovereignty back. 

This is not an ideological statement. It is an empirical one, look- ing at oil prices that are breaking daily records, hitting $135 per 

barrel overnight. Gas prices have more than doubled since 2001. In 

New York, they are over $4 a gallon. 

Until recently, the administration had shown resistance to providing short-term relief through timely use of the SPR; and I am 

glad that the administration has chosen to agree with Congress on 

this issue and halt deliveries to the SPR to provide some relief on 

the demand side. 

However, the long-term solutions to our energy crisis remain 

somehow inexplicably tied to a ‘‘drill first, ask questions later’’ 

mentality. While private investment is driving renewables by wind 

and solar to grow by leaps and bounds, we are somehow being told 

that we really need to keep trying to bring them along and at the 

same time throw more money at the oil industry, as the Energy Act 

of 2005 did with subsidies that we have been trying to take back, 

tax breaks to an industry that is already claiming record profits. 

And also throwing more money down the nuclear rabbit hole. Dozens of years and billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed largesse. 

And I just would comment that I think the ranking member said 

we shouldn’t be picking winners or losers. We have always picked 

winners and losers. The taxpayer is the insurance company that indemnifies the nuclear industry since the Price-Anderson Act, for instance. So the question is not whether we pick winners and losers 

but whether we pick the right ones. 

The path we need to follow is one that has been advocated by 

this Congress, focuses on green, domestic, innovative solutions that 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

15 

will reduce our reliance on old forms of energy and drive rather 

than drain our economy. 

I remain an optimist, and I hope that even in its last 6 months 

the Bush administration can turn a corner and join with Congress 

to realign the priorities that meet this vision. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Secretary Bodman, for agreeing to come to talk to us today. 

In this committee, we are taking a broad look at all our options 

to reduce our dependence on imported oil. We have seen the benefits of pursuing renewable energies and the startling savings that 

are available through energy efficiency measures. 

I am concerned that, despite the administration’s rhetoric, the 

only action that we have seen is a push for more domestic drilling, 

including going to the length of preventing my State of California 

from requiring our vehicles in California to have more fuel efficiency. 

You know, I had a constituent literally yell at me in my face last 

weekend because he was so humiliated to see the President go hat 

in hand to Middle Eastern countries to beg for oil. I agree with that 

sentiment, and I implore this administration to take real steps toward attaining energy independence by allowing States to lead the 

way. 

Mr. Bodman, thanks again for coming. Let’s stop the rhetoric and 

start working together to find solutions. And I look forward to your 

testimony. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

All time for opening statements from the committee members 

has expired; and we turn to our witness, the Honorable Samuel 

Bodman, who is the Secretary of the Department of Energy. 

Secretary Bodman has led the Department of Energy since February of 2005. He also served in the administration as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and the Department of Commerce. He was 

also the CEO of Fidelity and also the Cabot Corporation, both up 

in Boston. 

We welcome you, Mr. Secretary. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SAMUEL W. BODMAN, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary BODMAN. Congressman Markey, Congressman Sensenbrenner, members of the committee, I want to thank you all for 

providing me the opportunity to speak with you about America’s 

energy and environmental challenges. 

These are very serious issues, in my judgment. They are deserving of serious consideration which in my judgment begins with the 

recognition that distinct energy challenges and unique constraints 

are creating a new global energy reality. 

Our response to this new reality is based on the fundamental 

premise that energy insecurity poses an unacceptable risk to the 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

16 

United States’s national security and our economy. Implicit in the 

new energy reality is the recognition that energy issues must be assessed and addressed in a global construct. 

Today, coal produced in South America is used to generate electricity in Europe. Oil drawn from Africa is used to power cars in 

Asia. Liquefied natural gas from Trinidad powers homes and businesses in the United States. America can no longer consider its energy security as largely a domestic issue. 

To illustrate what I am talking about, consider this new reality’s 

three underlying causes: one, an extraordinary surge in global energy demand; two, resource limitations coupled with increasing 

geopolitical instability; and, three, the likelihood that some type of 

carbon constraints are an eventual part of the world’s energy future. 

The challenges that these underlying causes present are considerable; and the administration, in my view, has been quite vigorous 

in its efforts to address them. This administration has, since 2001, 

spent more than $22 billion to research, to develop and to promote 

alternative energy sources and to reduce energy demand. In 2006, 

the President proposed the Advanced Energy Initiative as a comprehensive plan to change the way that we power our homes, our 

businesses and our automobiles. The Department of Energy is moving ahead with a loan guarantee program that will assist in the development and commercialization of clean alternative energies by 

systems that are providing up to $42 billion in loan guarantees. 

These initiatives, coupled with our other efforts, have led us to 

an approach which I believe can be distilled into four principal 

areas of focus: 

One, the development of energy from a more diverse set of 

sources such as oil, shale and advanced biofuels, coupled with efforts to expand production on traditional forms of energy into areas 

such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf. 

The development and deployment of innovative technologies such 

as those pursued by the Department’s vehicles technologies and 

building technologies programs. These programs provide producers 

and consumers with ways to substantially increase energy efficiency at all levels of economic activity. 

Three, the development and deployment of low carbon or no carbon energy technology such as carbon capture and storage, wind, 

solar and clean safe nuclear power. 

And, four, the development and deployment of an expanded U.S. 

energy infrastructure to include additional refineries, expedited 

siting for pipelines and improvements to the electrical grid in order 

to handle the need for increased capacity safely and securely. 

Any one of these areas that I named of those four areas requires 

considerable commitment. Together, they represent an opportunity 

for this Nation to excel and to lead. 

I continue to be confident that we are laying the groundwork 

necessary for investment and innovation to occur. The results are 

not going to be immediate, but our efforts eventually will come together to increase America’s energy security and to provide economic relief to the U.S. taxpayer. In addition, they will provide enerowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

17 

vironmental relief by changing the impact of our energy consumption and altering the ways in which we produce energy. 

To that end, between 2001 and 2008, this administration has invested more than $45 billion toward activities related to climate 

change science and technology. 

In April of this year, the President set a new national goal for 

stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 

2025. But that reduction in emissions will take place only so long 

as the necessary technology continues to advance, which is an important mission for this Department. It will require the cooperation 

of the world’s major economies, an effort that the President proposed and is leading, and the cooperation of Congress, State and 

local governments, businesses, entrepreneurs, investors as well as 

academia. 

In my judgment, there is considerable reason for optimism. Having spent many years in the Nation’s financial sector, I can honestly say that for the first time in history we are seeing the venture 

capital community putting sizable amounts of money into entrepreneurial companies in the alternative energy business. 

One recent industry report showed that the so-called clean tech 

sector, which includes renewable energy and efficiency technologies, experienced record venture capital investment levels of 

$2.2 billion in the year 2007, up from just $500 million in the year 

2005. That by almost any measure is quite remarkable in terms of 

its growth. 

Mr. Chairman, each of us, in my view, has a part to play in increasing America’s energy security. Developing new technologies is 

not enough. Implementing new policies is not enough. And it is not 

enough to simply devise new incentive schemes or to open new 

areas for production. All of these can and should contribute to increased U.S. energy security, and they must be done in concert 

with one another. They must be pursued with an understanding of 

the facts of the new energy reality. Our economic and national security future is largely dependent upon our energy future. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to conclude my remarks 

by asking that my written testimony be—a copy of which I think 

has already been provided—that that be entered into the record; 

and I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary; and, without objection, the Secretary’s entire testimony will be entered into the 

record at this point. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Secretary Bodman follows:] 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

18 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 39 here 61728A.004
19 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 40 here 61728A.005
20 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 41 here 61728A.006
21 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 42 here 61728A.007
22 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 43 here 61728A.008
23 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 44 here 61728A.009
24 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 45 here 61728A.010
25 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 46 here 61728A.011
26 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 47 here 61728A.012
27 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes himself for a round of 

questions. 

Mr. Secretary, we know that swapping and releasing oil from the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve has a proven historical track record of 

success. President Bush’s father in 1991 deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Prices dropped by 1/3. When President Clinton 

deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, prices dropped by 18 

percent; and when President Bush deployed it after Hurricane 

Katrina, there was a reduction of 9.1 percent. 

Why is President Bush refusing to answer this historical challenge by deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by now sending millions of barrels of oil out into the open marketplace that will 

have, obviously, looking at the historical record, a depressing effect 

upon the price of oil? 

Secretary BODMAN. Look, the goal, Mr. Chairman, is to provide 

security for this country. That is what the purpose of the SPRO is. 

And the SPRO is there. It is meant to deal with matters where we 

have the physical delay, interruption of the flow of oil to our country. We don’t have that issue today, and that is the reason. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we did not have that in 1991. We did not 

have that in the year 2000, when President Clinton deployed it. We 

did not have that, in fact, when the President deployed the SPRO 

after Hurricane Katrina. 

Secretary BODMAN. Of course we did. 

The CHAIRMAN. In each one of those situations there was not an 

international crisis that was going to have some permanent effect 

upon our access to oil. 

You understand what I am saying here? What we have got here 

is last Friday President Bush asking the Saudis to please produce 

more oil because it would have an effect on reducing the price of 

oil for American consumers. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Saudis said no. But we have 700 million barrels of oil stored that are ready to be deployed that will have the 

same effect if President Bush was willing to use it right now because of the speculation in the oil marketplace that nothing is 

going to happen. 

Why won’t you recommend to President Bush that he deploy the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve, given the historical, successful 

record? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know how to be clearer with you, sir. 

First of all, there was in 2005—I don’t know about the other 

cases, but there certainly was an interruption of supply that was 

caused by the hurricanes and that we had requests for the availability of oil, and we responded. 

The CHAIRMAN. Don’t you believe that there is now rampant 

speculation going on now in the oil futures marketplace—— 

Secretary BODMAN. No, I don’t. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. That is artificially driving the price 

up exponentially almost on a daily basis? 

Secretary BODMAN. No, I don’t. 

The CHAIRMAN. You don’t believe there is speculation right now? 

Secretary BODMAN. Let me explain why, if I may. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

28 

Secretary BODMAN. If you look back over the history of oil production globally, it increased by about a million barrels per day per 

year. So that each year as you moved along, it increased by roughly 

a million barrels a day. Until you got to the year 2004. In the year 

2004, we had almost an increase of 3 million barrels a day of consumption. In the year 2005, 2006 and 2007, we have had flat production. There has been no change in the global production of oil 

over that period of time. 

And the facts are that in the year 2004 we sopped up all the additional—all the available spare capacity in the system. And that 

has been the issue. That is the issue today. And it is clear to me 

that when you look at very little spare capacity in the system and 

you look at the ability of price to reflect the increase in demand, 

if you have a 1 percent increase in demand, my economics friends 

tell me, you have about a 20-fold increase in price. So that for 

every 1 percent increase in demand, I have got a 20 percent increase in price. It is easy to see that we have got that kind of situation going on at the current time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have seen over the years 1 percent increase in demand, but we have never seen a spike like we have 

seen over the last—— 

Secretary BODMAN. And that is because in the year 2004 we 

sopped up all the additional capacity of the system. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, what you are testifying here today 

is that you are not going to recommend to President Bush that he 

use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a weapon against Saudi 

Arabia, against OPEC, to tell them we are not going to stand on 

the sidelines and that we are going to actively send more oil into 

the marketplace. That over the next 10 years you might have a 

plan to drill in wilderness areas in our country. But over the next 

10 weeks, this summer, there is no plan that the Bush administration has to reduce the price of oil. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t believe—— 

The CHAIRMAN. What one weapon you have, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a proven weapon of success against OPEC, you are 

not going to deploy, notwithstanding Saudi Arabia turning a deaf 

ear to President Bush’s request last Friday. 

Secretary BODMAN. First of all, Saudi Arabia did increase the 

production by some 300,000 barrels. 

The CHAIRMAN. But not in response to the President. They said 

that is something they had already done. 

Secretary BODMAN. I assume that that is the case, but I don’t 

know that. But the situation is that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is meant to be there as a protection for the American people. 

The CHAIRMAN. The American people right now are being—Mr. 

Secretary, the American people are being tipped upside down at 

the pumps and having the money shaken out of their pockets. Ford 

just announced that they are going to cut 15 percent production in 

the manufacture of vehicles this year. Airlines are declaring that 

they are on the verge of bankruptcy. The American people are 

under assault from the skyrocketing price of oil, and the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve is the one weapon in the short run we have to 

stop this bubble from continuing to ravage the American economy 

and the American people, and we must use it now. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

29 

Secretary BODMAN. I disagree with you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think it is a disagreement that is really 

going to hurt our economy. 

My time has expired. I recognize now the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

There is another way I think we can reduce the price at the 

pump, at least those of us that have to buy gas that has 10 percent 

ethanol in it, and that is repealing the tariff on imported ethanol, 

which is a protection for the U.S. ethanol industry that is reflected 

in the pump, at least for those of us who live in areas where there 

has to be this kind of a blend. Does the administration have any 

plans to reduce or eliminate that tariff? 

Secretary BODMAN. I think that the administration would deal 

with the questions related to the tariff by working with Congress. 

We are happy to work with Congress on that subject. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Doesn’t the administration have the power 

to do this administratively, however? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t believe so, sir. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. So it does require an act of Congress? 

Secretary BODMAN. I believe so. Yes, it does. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, if it does require an act of Congress, 

will the administration request that we consider legislation to repeal this tariff? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t have a good answer to that offhand, 

but I would be happy to get it for you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I would appreciate that. 

I will give Mr. Markey some of my time since he used a bit of 

it up in his round of questioning. But it seems to me that we ought 

to have everything on the table. And we hear an awful lot of ranting about big oil, and a lot of that ranting is deserved. But I also 

think that big corn has got an oar in this equation as well because 

of the protection against cheap ethanol coming into the market 

that is produced outside this country. 

I would just very strongly urge the administration to put out a 

full court press to reduce the tariff; and maybe, at least with the 

10 percent of the petroleum that we get at the pump, we can reduce the cost of that, which will bring down the total cost. 

I thank the gentleman and yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Your phraseology here I think is important when you talked 

about new energy realities that I think we are all trying to adjust 

to. You have been clear in your testimony in prior comments that 

we are dealing with a global energy market that is being affected 

by things that are happening around the globe and that there is 

no one source. It is all sort of blended together. And you just finished saying that results won’t be immediate, that there is certain 

lag time that is going to be required as these things work their way 

through the system and adjustments are made in production and 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

30 

what not. I am curious if you have a perspective on what that lag 

time is before there are things that ripple their way through the 

energy production system. Six months? Six years? 

Secretary BODMAN. I think it varies, sir, according to which form 

of energy you are thinking about. 

On oil, we have already, I think, seen a turn where, for the first 

time, we have a turn in the percentage of oil that we import. For 

the first time in some years, it has declined; and I think that is 

an indicator that if the non-OPEC producers continue to do what 

they are intending to do that we will see a success there. 

Nuclear power, I would expect that we would see nuclear power 

and the licensing of and the proposals for nuclear power in a serious way. I think we now have four reactors that have been applied 

for. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. My time is limited, and I want to get at this 

notion of, if we have a sense of lag time, are we talking months, 

years on an overall energy situation? 

Secretary BODMAN. I think we are talking years. We are going 

to be talking a few years to see in biofuels, which is the whole 

question that the chairman raised the issue about. In biofuels, we 

are looking at, by the year 2012, that is 4 years out, that we are 

going to have cellulosic biofuels that will be cost competitive with 

corn. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, we are looking here from an historic perspective. In May of 2001, when your predecessor was on the Vice 

President’s Energy Task Force, their vision was put in place, and 

at that time gas prices were $1.70. In 2005, you said that 95 percent of the administration’s energy policy had been implemented. 

And now we are looking at $2.07 a gallon for gasoline. Then we 

have the Energy Policy Act in August of 2005, which the President 

claimed was going to make a big difference for every American. A 

year later, there was a big celebration in the Department of Energy 

celebrating the first anniversary of the passage of that. 

I am trying to get a sense now, we have had the administration 

in control since 2001. You had a Congress that in the main was 

very much in agreement with the administration, compliant, giving 

you what you wanted, and much of it was implemented, and it has 

been now 6, 7 years. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Are the $4 a gallon prices that we are seeing 

now a result of the success of the energy policy that has been in 

the pipeline now for some 7 years? 

Secretary BODMAN. I would say not, sir. I would say, however, 

that when I—you quoted me as saying that 95 percent of the energy policy of the administration had been implemented. That is 

not correct, if that is the word you claim that I said. I don’t recall 

having said that. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Then let me reframe that. It has been 7 years. 

You have had an administration that has gotten virtually everything it has wanted from Congress. It has been in place. And I 

grant you that it takes a year or 2 or 3 to work its way out. 

Shouldn’t we be seeing the results? Are we seeing the results of the 

energy policy? 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

31 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, we are starting to see the results, yes. 

As I indicated, the percentage of oil that we are importing has 

started to turn. 

That the American public is fed up with the high prices, I recognize that. I am acutely aware of that. I hear about it every day. 

And it is something that you and I have in common, I am sure. 

But it is also something that I think—we are looking to decades. 

We have been 30 years without appropriate research having been 

done on renewable energy, on solar energy, on wind energy; and 

this takes a long time to accomplish. And so it is something that 

is years away, in my judgment. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much. 

Just for your records, my understanding is that you did say that 

on March 9, 2005; and if I am in error—— 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t recall having said that. If I said that, 

I was dead wrong. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am giving you a specific date. If I am in 

error, I will correct that, if you did not, in fact, say that on March 

9, 2005. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I think you said several times that you expected the world to be 

operating in a carbon-constrained economy at some point in the future; and I want to ask, is that something you believe should happen? Do you believe that we should be taking actions to deal with 

global warming to restrain the growth of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases? Or are you simply stating that you are resigned 

to that happening and you can’t stop that from happening. 

Secretary BODMAN. Of course, it should happen; and we are 

doing everything we know how to do to accomplish that. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you think we should be doing all we know how 

to be doing to accomplish a reduction in greenhouse gases? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. INSLEE. Great. I do, too. I think we might disagree on whether we are doing that, however. 

I want to ask you about a cap-and-trade system, which we know 

how to do because we invented it in the United States. It has 

worked marvelously in sulfadoxine, with probably zero cost to the 

U.S. economy. Europe has now engaged in it on their second round 

that they have learned some lessons on, and they are now going 

to improve some of the stakes. 

We have an American system that we know works. We have a 

system that has been proposed in the Senate. I believe it has 

passed the committee over there. And we have a proposal many of 

us on this dais are supporting here for a cap-and-trade system. To 

me, it is real clear that, absent that, we won’t be able to achieve 

the carbon constraint that you indicate is necessary. 

The last time you were here I asked if you had spoken to the 

President about the cap-and-trade system, and you indicated you 

had not. Could you tell us what the administration plans are if we 

send you a cap-and-trade bill this year, whether the President will 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

32 

sign it? And, if you can, describe the cap-and-trade system that the 

President will sign. We are most anxious to receive some leadership from the White House. 

Secretary BODMAN. The President laid out issues related to 

greenhouse gas control that he would be prepared to support: reasonable and achievable goals that encouraged the investment in 

new technology, that worked on nuclear power, that encouraged the 

use of coal, that all nations need to be included in the program, 

and that we remove trade barriers. As I recall it, those were his 

five or six different points; and he has laid that out. 

I will tell you, sir, that I have now been in this administration 

71⁄2 years, and I have spent a lot of my time at Commerce and then 

at Treasury and now at Energy negotiating with the Chinese over 

their exchange rates. And we have made this much progress. And 

I would tell you that I think it is a mistake for the President to 

unilaterally declare what he is prepared to do prior to undertaking 

this whole major economy meeting, series of meetings, which he 

has been doing; and it is my view that he is correct in the way he 

is going about dealing with it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, that is very disappointing. Because, essentially, you just said that the President will not join us in embracing 

a carbon-constrained effort in the United States during his remaining term of office. 

Secretary BODMAN. I didn’t say that. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, obviously, we are not going to have a global 

agreement by June 20, 2009; and what you basically said is America is going to secede from its historic destiny of leading the world 

in these matters and taking a back seat and refusing to act until 

China agrees. And I think that is a huge mistake for several reasons. 

Number one, we didn’t wait for China to develop democracy before we acted. We are the world’s leader, we are the world’s largest 

polluter, and we have got both the moral obligation to act but, 

more importantly, an economic opportunity here. 

I mean, I met people yesterday in my office that are signing solar 

thermal contracts for solar thermal plants. We have got great 

strides in solar photovoltaic. We have got great strides in enhanced 

geothermal. We got guys making all-electric cars starting in June. 

We have got the young man I talked about signing a contract to 

electrify the whole State of Israel. But those people can’t get the 

help of the White House to send a signal to the markets that they 

need to invest in these new companies because there is going to be 

a price on carbon. It is very, very disappointing. 

And I just have to tell you that when the world looks back at all 

of our terms here, I just wish you could spend the next few months 

figuring out how to achieve a constraint on carbon in the U.S. economy that can drive investment into these new technologies. I think 

we are missing a huge opportunity here. I am very disappointed in 

your position. 

You can comment. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I would just say that that particular 

company that you mentioned, to my knowledge, they have gotten 

a lot of investment and that they are pretty well fixed. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

33 

Mr. INSLEE. But the venture capital community, I met with 12 

of them here in an office, in fact, in this building, 2 weeks ago and 

said, look, until—as long as the fossil fuel guys can put their pollution in the sky for free in unlimited amounts, we are not going to 

get this job done. You are letting the guys—it is like putting their 

garbage in a dump truck, back it up to the city hall parking lot and 

dump it all for free. As long as the fossil fuel guys can do that, we 

are not going to get the quantum leap we need so we lead the 

world and become the arsenal of clean energy like we were the arsenal in freedom. It is very disappointing. We are going to have to 

work starting in January. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms. 

Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, late last year, the results of a study co-sponsored 

by your Department were released supporting the possibility of 

mid-range ethanol blends such as E–20 or E–30 that can enhance 

fuel economy for some non-flex-fuel vehicles. In an update last 

month from the Department on its intermediate ethanol blends 

testing, it recognizes the urgent need for continued and expanded 

testing based on the new RFS and the anticipated saturation of the 

E–10 market. The update reports of the Department will have at 

least 160 test vehicles on line this month, and I am glad to see it 

is also evaluating the effects of higher ethanol blends on smaller 

engines such as pressure washers. 

So two questions. When do you expect definitive results on the 

effect of intermediate ethanol blends on most engine families, and 

has the Department considered evaluating higher ethanol blends 

over E–20? 

Secretary BODMAN. To my knowledge, we have not considered— 

to take your second question first, we have not considered above E– 

20, and we are testing various engines for E–15 and E–20, and that 

would be enough to encourage the development of the ethanol industry. 

The concern is that with the concentration of the production of 

ethanol only in the Midwest that we will not encourage the nationwide adoption of ethanol, and we need to do that and that a way 

to stimulate that would be to increase the availability of E–15 and 

E–20. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So what exactly—I am not sure I follow 

what the concern is about testing E–30 at the same time. 

Secretary BODMAN. We can test anything. But the E–20 is 

enough to get us through the—— 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Beyond the saturation of the E–10 mark. 

Secretary BODMAN [continuing]. Whole issue related to E–10. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And then when do you expect those definitive results? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t have a quick answer for you on that, 

and I would be happy to get it for you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. If you could. 

On wind energy—— 

Secretary BODMAN. On wind energy? 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

34 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes. Your Department released its 20 

percent report earlier this month concluding that wind energy 

could contribute as much as 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity 

by 2030 while significantly reducing the carbon footprint, and Assistant Secretary Andrew Carson was quoted as saying that this 

can happen for less than half a cent a kilowatt hour. So what do 

you think are the key steps Congress must take this year and next 

to make this possible; and what do you think is key to facilitating 

the siting of a new transmission infrastructure, given that the report also states that transmission must be categorized with the 

interstate highway system? 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I think the issue related to transmission is something that we would encourage. I think we have 

enough tools to encourage that. We have the so-called Electricity 

Office of—I think it is Energy Reliability and Electricity Delivery. 

And that office, headed by Kevin Kolevar, is—I just had a session 

with them the night before last with an advisory committee that 

represents those from all over America dealing with this question. 

So I think we have—to my knowledge, we do not need work from 

Congress, but I would be happy to come back to you again if that 

proves to be otherwise. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So you are confident that there is enough 

incentives that currently exist for private investment alone to move 

forward with the building of the transmission capacity? 

Secretary BODMAN. I think so, based on my discussions with the 

participants in that industry. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. How about the production of tax credits? 

Would you favor the extension of the production of tax credits for 

wind energy production? 

Secretary BODMAN. There again, we are happy to work with Congress to do that. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Do you think that that is key in order to 

get to the point where we can meet the 20 percent? 

Secretary BODMAN. It would appear that it is. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you. I yield back Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I just want to clear up something that I am not 

sure was clear earlier when you responded to Mr. Blumenauer. Are 

you saying or suggesting that Saudi Arabia agreed to increase production to 300,000 barrels a day as a result of the request from 

President Bush? 

Secretary BODMAN. I do not know. I don’t know that. I haven’t 

been told that, so I don’t have a quick answer for you. I do know 

that they did agree that day, apparently, according to, I guess, the 

chairman. That was something that they had already agreed on 

ahead of time. I don’t know. 

Mr. CLEAVER. That was my understanding, and so I just want to 

get that cleared up. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know. 

Mr. CLEAVER. The Saudis have responded to the request by the 

President by saying that the price of oil is impacted more by the 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

35 

weakened U.S. dollar than anything else. Do you agree with their 

assessment? 

Secretary BODMAN. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Why not? 

Secretary BODMAN. For the reasons that I just mentioned. That 

production has been flat for the last 3 years, having had a big jump 

up in 2004. Whenever you have a situation where we know that 

demand is increasing, demand from China, demand from India and 

even a small increase from here, that when you have a situation 

like that you can get the current kind of pricing environment 

where you have flat production and you have very little upside in 

terms of availability. 

Mr. CLEAVER. It seems to me that the market is madly searching 

for any excuse to raise the price of oil. 

Secretary BODMAN. I can’t comment on that, sir. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, I mean, you know, the price of oil appears 

to be raised on all events, you know, whether it is a hurricane, 

whether it is a loss by the Washington Nationals. I mean, whatever 

happens, it seems as if, you know, they raise the price of oil. 

Secretary BODMAN. Unfortunately, the Nationals seem to be losing a lot. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yeah, they ran out of gas early. But I am just— 

I mean, you know—I mean, you mentioned Katrina earlier. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. CLEAVER. You know, the administration seems to think that 

to solve the problem we just drill in the Wildlife Refuge. You know, 

the Saudis say it is the weakened U.S. dollar. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is not what I said. I said that we need 

everything. We need not just—this isn’t going to yield to drilling 

in ANWR or any other place. I think I acknowledged that in my 

opening remarks. We need everything. We need solar energy, we 

need wind, we need nuclear power, we need biofuels, we need coal, 

carbon capture sequestration, all of it in order to deal with this 

issue. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Greater nuclear power? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Do you have some suggestions on where we will 

store the waste? 

Secretary BODMAN. We are working very hard on the whole 

Yucca Mountain program. And next—I guess it is 2 weeks, a week 

from next Monday or Tuesday or so, we are scheduled to file the 

application. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So you are going to go ahead, in spite of the fact 

that all the Nevada Members of Congress and the Governor are all 

opposed? 

Secretary BODMAN. I am going ahead because I am acting as the 

agent of Congress and the presidency. As best I know, Congress 

has opined on this matter, as well as the administration; and our 

job is to execute. 

Mr. CLEAVER. But the point is—where are you from? 

Secretary BODMAN. This is a filing of a license with the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Does it—I mean, do you support the construction 

of new nuclear facilities? 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

36 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Where? 

Secretary BODMAN. Where? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, sir. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is something to be looked at on a Stateby-State basis, wherever the States decide they want to put them. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Including your State? 

Secretary BODMAN. I am including—I am a resident of the District. I don’t think that there is likely to be any being put in the 

District. 

Mr. CLEAVER. You know, the preys of the Bengal tiger increases 

with the distance from the jungle. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York State, Mr. 

Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

A couple of observations. I think you said that the administration 

between 2001 and 2008 has spent about $45 billion on measures 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Secretary BODMAN. It was on both the science and the technology. 

Mr. HALL. That is good. I just want to point out that it is a little 

bit less than 4 months of what we are spending in Iraq. I know this 

is off topic. I am not asking you to comment on that. But I just 

think in terms of national priorities it is important to say it. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Mr. HALL. And you also said at one point during your testimony 

that the results from many of these technologies we are looking at 

are not going to be immediate. You also said each of us has a part 

to play. 

Secretary BODMAN. That’s correct. 

Mr. HALL. And I would suggest that if each of us—perhaps you, 

as Secretary of Energy, might make a statement or, you know, the 

President in his position of bully pulpit can make a statement that 

it is patriotic, not just wise in terms of climate and the economy 

but patriotic to drive in the most fuel-efficient manner possible, 

drive the most fuel-efficient vehicle, buy the most fuel-efficient vehicle possible, try to use as little energy as you can. And that actually would have an immediate impact, would you agree? 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that. 

Mr. HALL. So there are some things that can have an immediate 

impact. And even a short-term impact, like, for instance, the Idaho 

National Laboratory has done studies in low head hydro sites in, 

I believe, all the States. But in particular those States that have 

changes in elevation that lend themselves to it. In New York, the 

Idaho Laboratory’s Web site shows 4,000 some low head hydroelectric sites, small dams and waterfalls that are currently not 

being used for hydro generation and estimates that greater than 

1,200 megawatts of power could be harvested by putting turbines 

where water is already falling and wiring that into the grid. Something that would have a short-term effect. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

37 

I would guess a serious effort, a top-priority effort to harness this 

unused hydro power, which, by the way, would hire mechanics and 

electrical workers and tradespeople to do the insulation and, of 

course, has the advantage of not being a single large point source 

but being a lot of small point sources that would be spread out over 

the grid would, in fact, hire a lot of people besides generating a lot 

of power. 

I just wanted to throw that out as something. 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with all that. 

Mr. HALL. So maybe we could work with the administration to 

try to make that happen. 

I don’t know. I am sure there are liability issues with some of 

these dams that are orphan dams and so on. Some may need to be 

indemnified and repaired. But if we can indemnify the nuclear industry, I suggest we should put renewables on the same footing. 

Either none of them get indemnified or we look at helping the ones 

that need it. 

I wanted to ask you about—there is one aspect of the administration’s budget that I was curious about. The committee has explored 

the potential to make massive improvements in efficiency and 

greenhouse gas emissions by making buildings more efficient. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. HALL. I actually commend my friend from California and his 

State’s efforts to reduce electrical consumption. While the rest of 

the country has had this curve going upward, California has sort 

of wiggled around and kept constant, mostly constant, for the last 

20 years because they have had stricter standards than the other 

States have had; and I think we should be emulating them rather 

than making them conform to a looser standard. 

But, at any rate, in the most recent budget deal we have zeroed 

out the weatherization assistance program—— 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. HALL [continuing]. Which would help those most in need by 

simultaneously boosting efficiency and cutting their energy costs 

and, by the way, employing a lot of people. Weatherization hires 

tradespeople to put in storm doors, storm windows, insulation, et 

cetera. So what is the deal, the rationale for eliminating funding 

for this program? 

Secretary BODMAN. It is simple. I was the one that made the decision. So if there is a bad guy I am the guy. 

And the issue there was the—we are largely a technically driven 

science and engineering organization. That is what we know how 

to do. We are experts at that. We are very good at it. In all these 

national labs—two-thirds of all the employees of the Energy Department work in the national laboratory, and they are very good 

at this. 

The issue therefore gets to be, what kind of return do we get for 

our money? We make, as best we now know, the number I was 

given is that we have a 20-for-1 return on investments in technology. I got a 1.5 return for the weatherization program. It was 

strictly a financial matter. 

Mr. HALL. Well, you are very honest; and thank you for your candor. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

38 

I would just close by saying that, 35 years ago, my next-door 

neighbor in the Hudson Valley, a Vietnam veteran and entrepreneurial soul named Jan Ashwood, was lighting balloons full of hydrogen in his backyard and calling up the press and trying to get 

them to come and see it. He was making hydrogen from a barrel 

of water, a photovoltaic cell and two electrodes in the water and 

then collecting hydrogen—singeing the hair off his arm by lighting 

these balloons full of hydrogen. But as a demonstration that a renewable, any kind of renewable, combined with water could use hydrogen as a storage device for energy. 

And it seems to me that siting such a facility to both store hydrogen, which we now know how to handle much better than we did 

when the Hindenberg went down—that was sort of the Three Mile 

Island of the hydrogen era. I think we have the space shuttle powered by it. We know how to handle it much more safely. 

And it seems to me it would be much easier to site a hydrogen 

storage and generation facility that produces no waste except water 

when you burn the hydrogen than it would be to site a new nuclear 

plant. And, in fact, you are looking for the same site. You are looking for a place away from population on a body of water. So I am 

just curious how 35 years have gone by since I saw my next-door 

neighbor doing that and we haven’t seen more of an effort in that 

direction. 

My time is up, so I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary may answer the question, please. 

Secretary BODMAN. The answer to that question is we have been 

through over the last 35 years a real dip in the fact that oil all of 

a sudden went from the outlandish price of $30 to $35, which it 

was in 1978, down to $10 or $8 or $9 something like that. All work 

in this area, in research area, stopped at that point in time. Everything. That is the issue we are dealing with. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to follow up on an earlier question, although your 

question deserves following up, too, Mr. Hall. 

Ms. Herseth Sandlin mentioned that the Department had just 

issued a report a couple weeks ago that wind energy could provide 

20 percent of our Nation’s electrical needs by 2030, and yet the Department of Energy’s proposed budget increases the wind energy 

research by only $3 million. Now, this is a budget that was decimated over the period between 2000 and 2006. So what is the justification for such a low level of funding for such an important part 

of our Nation’s energy supply? 

Secretary BODMAN. To my knowledge, a lot of the work that has 

been done has already been accomplished in order to create electricity from wind. That is one answer. And, two, there continues to 

be a very substantial commitment in both Massachusetts, where 

Mr. Markey is from, and in Texas relating to new wind blade test 

facilities. And so there is work going on. 

I guess I would answer that research, where it needs to be done, 

that is what we are good at. That is what we do, is research, research and development. We don’t fund new—— 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

39 

Mr. MCNERNEY. To go from 1 or 2 percent of our Nation’s energy 

to 20 percent is a huge jump. I mean, that is as much more or 

maybe more than nuclear is producing. So I suggest that additional 

research is going to be needed to meet that level of demand or that 

level of production. 

My second question would be, do you agree that there are tremendous gains to be made with energy efficiency. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Then would you agree to work within the administration to allow States to lead the Nation in efficiency legislation even though it may exceed Federal standards, especially referring to vehicle efficiency? 

Secretary BODMAN. I can’t commit to that because I don’t understand all the details of it. I would be happy to study that particular 

question. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, what I am asking is would you advocate 

that? Because California, Massachusetts and other States have had 

trouble getting the administration to allow that sort of legislation 

to go forward. And, honestly, if you don’t agree to that, then, by 

association, the administration stands in opposition to the most— 

I believe the most effective tool we have to lowering gas prices in 

the long run. 

Secretary BODMAN. Okay. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. Good. I like that kind of agreement. 

Now, you had mentioned to Mr. Blumenauer that you don’t remember mentioning a 95 percent success in implementing the administration’s energy policies. 

Secretary BODMAN. That’s correct. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. But on the White House Web site it shows that 

you have said that, over the past 4 years, we have implemented 95 

percent of those recommendations, 100 recommendations that are 

made. So that indicates in my mind that the administration’s policies are flawed. Because they have been implemented to a large degree, and the success in terms of keeping gas prices low, for whatever method, by increasing efficiency or by increasing supply, 

haven’t been as successful. Do you have a response to that? 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I think the response is that we clearly 

have a long-term research program in solar energy, wind, nuclear 

power, biofuels, carbon capture, sequestration; and it is going to 

take a number of years to dig ourselves out of the hole that we are 

in. And so the fact that I am quoted as having said that this is 95 

percent done, if I am quoted correctly by the congressman, I am 

wrong. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you for 

your testimony, Mr. Bodman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

There is going to be a series of roll calls in a few more minutes, 

and I think what might be advisable is if we can continue to question the Secretary until that time has arrived. So the Chair will 

recognize himself for another round of questions. 

Mr. Secretary, last Friday, the President was in Saudi Arabia; 

and at that time he and Secretary Rice reached an agreement in 

a memorandum of understanding which is—and I quote here from 

the agreement—intended to cooperate on the issue of appropriately 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

40 

sized light water nuclear reactors and fuel services arrangements 

for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, promoting the establishment of 

arrangements that would allow future civilian light water nuclear 

reactors deployed in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia with access to reliable nuclear fuel supplies and services. 

Now, I don’t understand, Mr. Secretary. Three years ago, Vice 

President Cheney said that—and I quote—here is what he said, 

talking about Iran’s deeply questionable nuclear program. He said, 

Iran is already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can 

figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy. 

So if that is true for Iran, why are we in the United States introducing yet more nuclear technology into the Middle East when we 

know that has been a source for much of the friction that exists in 

that region? Because, ultimately, any country can pull out of the 

nuclear proliferation regime, hold on to the uranium, hold on to the 

plutonium and have a nuclear weapons program with the very 

same light water reactor materials. Why, Mr. Secretary, is the 

President—— 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know. I wasn’t there, so I can’t respond to that, other than saying I presume that the President has 

a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi 

Arabia. 

It is also true that it is going on in the United Arab Emirates 

where they have expressed a lot of interest in nuclear power, in 

solar energy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is the point, Mr. Secretary. Saudi Arabia is three times the size of Texas. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is one big desert. It is sunny almost every day 

of the year. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why aren’t we having a Saudi solar cooperation 

agreement with the United States? Why would we introduce more 

dangerous nuclear materials into that region when solar energy 

should be the basis of our partnership with a country that says it 

wants to diversify from oil and gas? Although Mr. Cheney would 

say if Iran has plenty of oil for 75 million people, Saudi Arabia has 

twice as much for a third of the population. Why would we introduce more nuclear power? Does that make any sense, given the volatility of that region and the ability to have solar become the future for Saudi Arabia if they want to end their oil and gas era? 

Secretary BODMAN. I can’t answer that, Mr. Chairman. I don’t 

know. I wasn’t there. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, I know this sounds—I’m incredulous. 

I can’t believe that the President’s Secretary of Energy doesn’t have 

a view or have knowledge about the nuclear agreement that the 

United States is implementing with the Saudi Arabians. Given the 

fact that it is your agency that is touting new research in solar, 

new research in renewable energy resources, that you seem to be 

out of the loop in terms of then what is the energy policy for what 

our agreement should be around the world. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is true. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is true? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

41 

The CHAIRMAN. I just find that hard to believe. It seems as 

though the Secretary of State can use nuclear power plants as a 

short-term diplomatic tool for her use, knowing that solar energy 

is a better alternative for Saudi Arabia for sure, and that our long 

history with transfer of nuclear materials into these Middle Eastern countries almost inevitably results in the compromise of that 

program and the use of those materials for a nuclear weapons program. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am sure that Secretary Rice was not contemplating the fact that this program would be compromised. I 

mean, you are assuming that it is going to be compromised. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am saying to you that if you look at—— 

Secretary BODMAN. I am assuming that it is not. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you look at Saudi Arabia, you have to say that 

solar should be the first resort of that country; and, instead, we are 

sending them more nuclear power plants, the same way that the 

world sent Iraq and Iran and North Korea nuclear power plants 

that ultimately turned from energy sources into weapons programs. 

We know the tension that exists between the Saudis and the Iranians. We know that they are trepidatious about the nuclear weapons program in Iran. I don’t understand why we would be fueling 

this tension in the Middle East by providing the beginnings of a 

program where we will send nuclear materials to Saudi Arabia 

under the guise of an energy exchange when my real fear here is 

that the Bush Administration knows that this program is likely to 

be compromised in the future by the Saudis. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t believe that, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, they should know it. 

Secretary BODMAN. We have a difference of view. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, how about this? Can we have an agreement 

that this should be a Saudi solar agreement with the United States 

and that we should be sharing our solar technology with the Saudi 

Arabians? 

Secretary BODMAN. If Saudi Arabia would like to have a solar 

agreement, they certainly can ask us and we would be happy to respond. 

The CHAIRMAN. But aren’t you suspicious that the Saudis don’t 

want a solar agreement? Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of solar. 

There it is. It sits there as a desert with sun 12 months a year, 

blistering hot. Why wouldn’t this administration be suspicious that 

they are asking for nuclear rather than solar power exchange in 

order to meet their long-term energy needs? 

Secretary BODMAN. There are a lot of good reasons to use nuclear 

power. It is less expensive than solar energy right now. We don’t 

have solar energy that is cost competitive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you personally believe that Saudi Arabia 

needs nuclear power plants? 

Secretary BODMAN. I believe that it is wise for them to diversify 

their sources of energy away from oil and gas, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, here is the problem, Mr. Secretary; 

and I don’t think the Bush Administration is ever going to understand this. That every nuclear power plant is a generator of electricity, yes, it is, but with a by-product of nuclear materials that 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

42 

can be used for a nuclear bomb program. And that is what is going 

on in Saudi Arabia. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is your opinion, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know it is my opinion. But all Middle Eastern 

history points in that direction. And the Bush administration 

should be touting the dramatic breakthroughs that have been made 

in solar energy over the last couple of years and encouraging the 

Saudis to move in that direction, given their geographic location, 

the desert nature of their population and the leadership role that 

we can play in partnership with them in pointing the world in that 

direction and away from this nuclear fuel cycle which is ultimately 

going to come back and haunt the world once again. 

Let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

The Vice President famously said in 2001 that conservation may 

be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a basis, a sufficient basis 

for a sound comprehensive energy policy. Is that still the administration’s view, that conservation is a personal virtue and is not a 

cornerstone? 

Secretary BODMAN. It is certainly not my view. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I was curious, as you moved forward early in 

your tenure to implement the recommendations of Mr. Cheney’s 

national energy policy— and, again, our understanding is that the 

assertion was that much of those recommendations were, in fact, 

implemented, which, as my colleague mentioned a moment ago, 

you were quoted as saying on the White House Web site. Yet, according to the GAO, the Department of Energy has missed 34 of 

the 34 congressionally mandated deadlines for setting new efficiency standards for appliances and electrical equipment. Why was 

meeting those efficiency standards such a low priority of the Department of Energy that they missed 34 out of 34? 

Secretary BODMAN. I can’t answer that. I can tell you that one 

of the things that I have focused on during my 3-plus years of work 

in that Department had been management and has been the issue 

of trying to run things better. And we have—I think have turned 

that around and have that entire program now in better shape. It 

is still going to be a number of years before we get caught up, but 

we now have it on a program that I think makes sense. 

To write an appliance standard is a much more difficult task 

than it appears to be on the surface, and it takes time. You have 

got to then get agreement of both the manufacturing community 

and the regulatory community and others that are involved. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, that is your choice, to get the agreement 

of the manufacturing community. I mean, the administration 

stepped in and stopped some of the stronger standards that were 

already under way by the Clinton administration. 

Secretary BODMAN. Not to my knowledge. I don’t know about 

that. I can’t speak to it. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Air-conditioning standards, you don’t know 

that your Department stopped the implementation of more rigorous 

air conditioning standards? 

Secretary BODMAN. Do I know that? No, I don’t. 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

43 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. I mean, I would think that that would 

be part of—if you are getting a handle on the management and you 

were concerned that we missed 34 out of 34 standards, that there 

might—and it is so hard to get agreement, that these would be 

things that would be pretty high priority for you to know. 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t happen to know about air conditioning 

standards. I don’t happen to know about that. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, what are your priorities for efficiency? I 

mean, air conditioning I think is number one or number two in 

every area of the country. 

Secretary BODMAN. Furnaces. They are very important in the 

South. They are less important in the North. Furnaces are very important. There are all kinds. Dishwashers, refrigerators. I mean, it 

is a long list of things. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Air conditioning is number one or number two 

in every major region of the country, is it not? 

Secretary BODMAN. Not to my knowledge. I don’t happen to know 

that offhand. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you again about this cap-and-trade 

system. Many if not most of the investment community, the cap organization, which are several Fortune 500 companies that have 

been urging your administration to embrace a cap-and-trade system, they believe it is necessary both from an environmental and 

an economic standpoint. And the people I am listening to are the 

people in these cutting-edge companies who are developing advanced solar photovoltaics, enhanced geothermal, wave power, 

solar thermal plants, a whole host of new technology, the electrification of the automobile. 

What they tell me is that we are missing an economic opportunity by not adopting a cap-and-trade system. And what they tell 

me is that we are in a race—we are in a race against Germany, 

Denmark, Spain to see who is going to be developing these technologies to sell to China and India. 

India, when I was there, they have 400 million people that don’t 

have access to a light bulb. They are going to want electricity. The 

question is, who is going to provide them the clean energy technologies to do that? Is it going to be us or is it going to be Spain 

or Germany? And, right now, we are losing out to those countries 

because they have policies that drive investment into these clean 

energy technologies. 

That is what the clear energy CEOs and the investment community is telling me. Why do they get this and this administration not 

get this as seeing this as an economic opportunity for us and why 

we should lead the world? Why do they understand that and your 

administration does not understand that? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know how to answer it any differently 

than I have already answered it, Mr. Inslee. I think the question 

gets to be how do we bring all of the countries of the world toerowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

44 

gether. And the President has I think wisely developed a program 

for getting the largest—I think it is the largest 17 or 18 economies, 

the major economies of the world, to get them together to make an 

agreement on what the approach, what the world’s goal ought to 

be and what each country’s goal ought to be. And he will be prepared to commit to that at that point in time. 

And there is a G–8 meeting that is supposed to occur I think in 

early July. And if there is successful—if we are successful in getting a response from the other countries, this country will respond 

accordingly. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, clearly, we all have a stake in this; and everybody needs to act at some point. But there is two major flaws with 

that. 

Number one, if we had adopted the Bush administration model 

of democracy, we would still be trying to reach a global goal of everybody becoming a democracy before—we just went ahead and did 

it in 1776 because we decided to lead the world. And I think that 

is the policy of America, that we ought to be leading the world. 

But, secondly, and just as more importantly, this strategy, if you 

call it that, of the administration is we don’t do anything until 

Bangladesh signs onto an agreement. This is a huge, huge economic failure, because we are not going to develop the clean energy 

technologies to sell to the world if we wait for the entire world to 

get on board. 

I look at this as losing an economic opportunity while we wait 

for the rest of the world, and I just don’t know why the administration cannot understand that, of what it is to lose economic opportunity. Why don’t you agree? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know how to be any clearer than it 

was. These are the major economies of the world. I think there are 

17 or 18 of them. They include places like China, India, Brazil, 

Mexico; and we are making some progress, good progress forward. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you are willing to give away a market to sell 

China clean energy technology? You are willing to give that away 

to Spain and Germany, who are now taking advantage of our failure to act on this? 

Secretary BODMAN. Not in my view. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, that is what is happening. Germany—we used 

to be the leader in solar photovoltaic. Now Germany is. The reason 

is they have adopted a cap-and-trade system, they have adopted a 

feed-in tariff, something I will be introducing shortly, and we have 

dropped back to number five or six. And now they are leading in 

selling product to China because this administration has failed to 

act and are giving away those markets. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York State, Mr. 

Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for this conversation. 

Our office in Putnam County, New York, in the 19th District received a call lately from a woman who was all excited about buying 

a flex-fuel vehicle; and she asked my staff, where can I get some 

flex-fuel? And we had to tell her there were only a couple of pumps 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

45 

in New York State, even though there are more than 200,000 vehicles, I believe, sold by Ford and GM. 

We have sort of induced people to build vehicles that can burn 

E85, allowed them to advertise it on TV as a green thing to do. You 

can help the environment by buying an E85 car. And allowed the 

oil companies to continue to not provide that kind of blend. 

In fact, when the oil executives, the top CEOs of the top five 

companies, came before this committee, I asked them in my brief 

questions, now that you have made the biggest profit in the history 

of the world, of any corporation of the world, would you commit to 

putting at least one biofuels pump at every station that you own, 

not franchise stations, but stations that you actually own? And 

every one of them said, no. And I said, why? And they said, we 

don’t know if the demand will be there. And I said, haven’t you 

heard of flex-fuel vehicles? Haven’t you heard of advertising? 

I think they may need some help from your Department. 

And I know that you are all Ph.D.s and researchers and that 

things like this or efficiency weatherization may be far below the 

level of interest of a lot of people who work at the Department of 

Energy, but we have a situation where last week—I checked on the 

Internet—ethanol was selling for $1.97. It has gone up a little bit 

this week, but it is still somewhere between a half and a third the 

price of gasoline. 

So if we have got these vehicles on the road, we have 

incentivized production capacity, some of which, by the way, is in 

danger of going bankrupt and new ethanol or cellulosic ethanol 

projects are in danger of not being built because they are seen as 

weakening in the market, what can we do or what can your Department do to make sure that the infrastructure exists to bring 

that fuel to market? Because that would have an immediate impact 

on the price of oil. 

Secretary BODMAN. We can work and are working with the oil 

companies as well as the auto companies to get more flex-fuel vehicles made and to get the oil companies to include an E85 pump 

and/or other pumps available. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. I hope that works as fast as possible. 

And I am proud to say that West Point in my district, after some 

discussion with the commander of the post and his staff, have decided to put in a 5,000 gallon E85 tank underground and to sell 

that fuel to flex-fuel vehicles in their motor pool and at the commissary where the faculty in the West Point community buy fuel. 

And the more we can do to especially have these large facilities 

that move large quantities like school bus fleets that might be able 

to burn a blend of biodiesel or UPS or big shipping companies and 

so on to pull the string through the tube so that there is more demand to help create more production on the other end—and I 

would encourage you to do everything you can to try to make that 

happen. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and all time 

has expired. 

Mr. Secretary, we thank you so much for coming here today. We 

know that you have an unenviable task. You are the President’s 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

46 

principal energy advisor, and you have the responsibility of defending indefensible positions which are created by President Bush and 

Vice President Cheney. And we recognize the difficulty of the position which you are placed in here because those positions are indefensible. 

Again, in conclusion, on the issue of deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve beginning this Memorial Day weekend, you are arguing that there is no natural disaster. President Bush argues that 

there is no international crisis in the Middle East; and, therefore, 

the conditions do not exist that would require the deployment of 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I could not disagree more. I think 

we are in an economic crisis right now. It is largely fueled by high 

oil prices that are affecting consumers, affecting business all across 

our country. 

You are right. It is not a natural-disaster-created oil spike. It is 

a Bush-administration-driven price spike in oil and gas. 

Secretary BODMAN. I disagree with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know you disagree. But all evidence points to the fact that oil has gone from $30 a barrel to $135 a barrel during 

the 71⁄2 years that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have 

been implementing their secret energy plan; and that secret energy 

plan is one that has not included the robust investment in renewable energy resources, wind and solar. The administration is still 

opposing the extension of the wind and solar energy tax breaks. 

And even as we hit the Memorial Day weekend the Bush administration is still refusing to sell oil from our Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve as a way of sending a signal to the marketplace that we 

are not going to stand on the sidelines; we are going to actively intervene to protect consumers and businesses. 

And I understand your position. You are in a difficult one as the 

Secretary of Energy when the President and Vice President are 

committed to ending their administration as they began it, without 

a real energy policy. And it is bad news for our economy. 

But I think drivers should expect, as they head to gas stations 

across the country today and tomorrow to get ready for the Memorial Day weekend, to pay the highest prices that any American has 

ever paid for oil at the pump; and I think it is the responsibility 

of the Bush administration to deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to protect them. 

Again, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being here. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING

47 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 95 here 61728A.013
48 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 96 here 61728A.014
49 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 97 here 61728A.015
50 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 98 here 61728A.016
51 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 99 here 61728A.017
52 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 100 here 61728A.018
53 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 101 here 61728A.019
54 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 102 here 61728A.020
55 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 103 here 61728A.021
56 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 104 here 61728A.022
57 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 105 here 61728A.023
58 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 106 here 61728A.024
59 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 107 here 61728A.025
60 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 108 here 61728A.026
61 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 109 here 61728A.027
62 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 110 here 61728A.028
63 

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING


Insert offset folio 111/150 here 61728A.029