homegrown renewable energy sources, we can, indeed, greatly reduce or eliminate dependence on imported oil. improve our national security, and strengthen our economy all at the same time. well, let's talk about dependence on foreign oil. our dependence on oil comes from two intertwined factors. first, our economy depends upon oil for transportation. cars, trucks, trains, planes, boats that we use to move ourselves and our goods around the country is entirely dependent on oil. indeed, 95% of the energy use in our transportation sector comes from oil. second, our oil addiction relies on foreign imports. 58% of the oil we consume is imported. thus, access to foreign oil is essential to the vitality of our economy.

and the result is that attaining access to this oil becomes a very high priority for our national security. exactly who do we depend on? the good news is nearly 30% of our imported oil comes from our democratic neighbors to the north and south here in north america. but that's where the good news ends. take a look at this chart. 70% of our oil comes from outside of north america. all four of these countries represent security challenges for the united states. saudi arabia is number one on the list. it is the source of one in nine barrels of imported oil. and before addressing the fact that that presents extra security challenges, it should be noted that saudi arabia has often been a significant ally to

the united states in our relationship going back decades. nevertheless, the dependency on their oil creates two national security issues: first, the oil infrastructure delivery systems of saudi arabia are vulnerable to terrorist attack or manipulation from governments in the region. consider the straits of hormuz. the straits of wh hormuz is is really a vulnebility for all oil, 90% of which moves through the strait. the strait is 20 miles wide. geographically, it's vulnerable to disruption and iran has explicitly threatened to put pressure on the strait or attempt to control it outright. second, the wealth that we send to saudi arabia in exchange for petroleum has not always served us well. former c.i.a. director james woolsey testified in the senate

a few years ago that over the last three decades, the saudis have spent between $70 billion and $100 billion to support conservative institutions that often have viewpoints hostile to the united states. the wealth disexpensed in this manner has -- the wealth dispensed in this manner has migrated into groups like al qaeda to build additional capacity. this has led former c.i.a. director wool stoi say of our -- to say of our current military conflicts -- quote -- "this is the first time since the civil war that we finance both sides of the conflict." now, venezuela is number two on the list. this is of course led by president hugo chavez, a vocal critic of our country, who has explicitly threatened to cut off u.s. oil supplies. he called an argentine newspaper that venezuela has "a strong oil

card to play on the geopolitical stage, a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the united states." end of quote. now, the third nation on this list is nigeria. the nigerians had a series of disruptions just this year due to civil unrest. in february oil companies reported to roiter reuters thatf the oil was cut off because of militants. according to testimony given to our foreign relations committee in 2006, nigeria loses 135 barrel,000barrels a day due to . iraq has gone through enormous upheavals. saddam'saddam's infrastructure n subject to ongoing sabotage over the last six years.

a significant share of iraqi oil, like its neighbors, moves through the straits of hormuz, an additional point of vulnerability. moreover, iraq has not succeeded yet in passing a national law to share oil wealth among the ethnic groups in the nation and the friction that comes from this continues to allow the possibility of factual conflict and disruptions in supply. now, iran isn't on this list. we have an embargo against iran. we don't import oil from there. but it is still worth mentioning. many of our allies get oil from iran, and their oil supplies are large enough to affect the world markets, and thereby the stability and cost of our own supply. again, turning to former coul c. director woolsey testifies testifying in the senate noted that iran derives a large majority of its oil. it has not just emboldened the

iranian government to defy the united nations regarding their nuclear program but also helped iran finance activities of hezbollah and hamas. our dependence on foreign oil makes us vulnerable to disrupted energy supply, and the risk is heightened because most of the world's proven reserves are controlled by just a few governments. state control means countries can and do manipulate energy supply. we've had a case just this last year when russia manipulated markets in eastern europe. the energy modeling form at stanford university brought together a group of elite experts to assess the chances of a major oil supply disruption. they identified major areas of the globe where oil disruptions are most likely due to geopolitical, military, or terrorist threats. those areas include corks the rest of the persian gulf, russia, and the caspian states,

a group of nations in african south america account for 60% of oil production. so the threat of disrupted supply is a serious country for -- a serious one for our economy. as we found out during the oil shocks of the 1970's which cost our economy about $2.5 trillion, if raimented today, such a crisis would cost our american economy about $8 trillion. we're reminded of the threat of supply disruption again when hurricanes katrina and rita disrupted supplies and cost price spikes -- and caused price spikes here in our nation. these don't supply the u.s., but they do supply our allies and in a global oil market, these supplies are dependent. a disruption of european oil supplies would have effects on our economy. we also expend extraordinary resourcesources to maintain ours

to foreign oil. it is important to the success of our economy. while estimates vary, according to a study produced by the national defense council foundation, they estimated that the direct and indirect security/military costs to securing our oil amount to about $825 billion. now, that equates to more than $5 a gallon on top of the price we pay at the pump. we cannot allow or nation's security and health of the american economy to rely on the whims of unreliable and hostile governments. if we refuse to address our single-grist point of vulnerability, we fail in our duty to protect this nation. so it's clear that we need to end this addiction. we need to be energy self-sufficient. but how are we going to get there?

one answer which we heard chanted in rallies across america last year was "drill, baby, drill." and it is true that we could increase production from american reserves in the short term with an aggressive drilling strategy. in fact, i support changing leases on hundreds of thousands of acres already approved for petroleum drilling and bringing those into use-it-or-lose-it leases. they're signature on them without doing a thing. nevertheless, drilling is not and cannot be a long-term strategy for security of our nation. for one simple reason: america uses a lot of oil but has, globally speaking, limited reserves. in fact, the united states has just 2% of the world's oil reserves, as this chart shows right here. here we are down here at the

small end, mexico and europe. then we see eurasia with 9 punish and mexico with 7%. and then the whopper, the middle east, which makes my point about security for our supplies. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. merkley: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, if the distinguished senator from rhode islanwould care to cs remarks, i don't have any objection. i don't suspect anybody else would. mr. merkley: thank you for that offer. i think that -- would that -- would a period of about five or six more minutes be acceptable? okay. then i would accept your kind offer. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i have no objection.

we are limiting -- the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: we are limiting morning business statements to 10 minutes. we are on the business of the energy and water appropriations bill waiting for amendments to be filed. so we have a general order on this bill that morning business will be 10 minutes. so i have no objection if the senator wishes to take a few minutes extra, but i did want both senators to understand that beer on the energy and water appropriations bills, and morning business is done at the consideration of that legislation. so i have no objection. mr. merkley: i will defer -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. americamark i'll defer if you have other business to conduct. but i'll proceed, if you feel that's acceptable. okay. thank you. so we looked at the reserve side of this. now let's look at the consumption sievmentd as this chart shows, america, which has only 2% of the reserves, we consume 24%. world's oil. so we only have 1/50th of the

supply. but we consume one-fourth of the output. that's a formula for trouble. the nation would b is vulnerablt has very high reserves and low consumption. that's where america is. to make things worse, the price of petroleum is going to continue to rise as the thirst from china and india increases. because the position that we are in, our addition to imported oil will only grow if we don't change our energy strategy. what about fossil fuels? in my home state, energy speculators looking to build terminals to import l & g. there are vulnecialses there as well. top producers include cay tarks the united arab emirates and

milan. others can find abundant domestic fuel. but it is worth observer that these strategies require extraordinary energy to produce the fuel and emit extraordinary amountamounts pollution in the process. so we have to look elsewhere for a solution and the place to look is energy efficiency and renewable energy. energy efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way out of our dependence, and we know it works. in response to the 1970's oil crisis, the nation doubled the required gas mileage performance of our cars and trucks and saw per capita oil consumption plummet even as our economy grew. our progress in this area has not been stead -- however. it's stagnated for the last two decades. progress resumed this year when president obama made an announcement to increase gas mileage standards to more than 35 miles per gallon five years ahead of the date scheduled. but we can do better.

china beat to us 35 miles per gallon, and 35 miles per gallon is suvment we could aggressively develop and employ hybrid technology, cars with highly efficient electric motors. we need to deploy sufficient strategies for trucks that carry out our commerce, similar strategies, efficient body design, and we need to move goods by rail and barge. a barge can move a ton of cargo 576 miles on a gallon of fuel. and a train can move a ton of cargo 413 miles on a gallon of fuel. we should give our families and workers better transportation options, better access to rail and bus lines. we know from experience that the right policy choices -- with the right choices we can use far lesenergy to power our economic

activity. we use a fraction of the energy today than we did 30 years ago. if we give american scientists, engineers and business the right -- the other half of the equation is renewable energy. produced right here in america. it is the second major weapon in the war against oil addiction. renewable energy can replace power for plug-in electric vehicles. i heard senator reid describe nevada as the saudi arabia of solar power. i've heard the good senator from north dakota describe north dakota as the saudi arabia of wind power, renewable electric energy. we need to say -- we need to seize this nation's potential for renewable electric and wind, solar, wave and geothermal. we can also transition to homegrown renewable liquid fuels in the form of biofuels. in my state of oregon, has one

example. we have lots of fiber that can be converted, that forced biomass can be converted into fuel. we can produce biobutenol. in producing biofuels from agriculture and forestry waste and from waste from food crops raised on marginal lands, we can produce significant quantities of energy and create jobs and wealth for america's farmers and timber workers. if an american car can go 30 miles renewable electricity and then if needed switch over to 50-mile-per gallon engine burning cellulosic biofuels derived from forced biomass, that car isn't using a single drop of imported foreign oil. it's running on 100% red, white and blue energy. mr. president, in energy efficiency and renewable energy we have twin elements that can break our addiction to foreign

oil. to achieve that self-sufficiency we need a comprehensive strategy for producing our energy here at home. that, mr. president; what president obama called for and what the senate committee on environment and public works is developing, drafting a comprehensive system of incentives and investment that in combination with energy policies crafted by the senate committee on energy and natural resources will reduce our stpoul stpoul -- fossil fuel dependence and put us on the track to energy efficiency. some say it is too expensive. they couldn't be more wrong. every economy will tell you the cheapest energy is the energy you never use. and even today renewable solar, wind and geothermal is cheaper than imported oil when you factor in the huge price we pay to maintain our access to that oil. and let me add that when we stop spending $2 billion a day on imported oil and spend that money on renewable fuels here in

the united states, we're going to create a lot of good-paying jobs for america's families. mr. president, depending on a few formations for imported oil is a colossal mistake. we need to change course, improve our national security, spend our energy dollars here in america to create jobs. that's why i hope that every member of the senate will join me in supporting our 2009 clean energy and jobs bill when it comes to the senate floor this fall. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, the 1:00 time has passed for filing of amendments as a result of the cloture petition being filed last evening, and we now have, i believe, about 90 amendments filed to this bill. not all of them will be offered, certainly, but 90 amendments represent the determination of people who wish to alter this bill, who wish to come and -- presumably come and offer

amendments, have a debate on amendments and perhaps vote on their amendments. yet no one arrived. i indicated earlier that senator bennett and i talked about third reading on this legislation, to move it through the senate. the fact is the majority leader will not have the patience to allow us to sit here with nothing to do and people saying they want to offer amendments but not being willing to show up to offer amendments. we've been here since monday afternoon, and very little has been done. and i would again say to the staff that may be watching or senators who are watching that i think we ought to conclude this bill. and if people are not interested in offering amendments, filing amendments is not offering them. if they don't have the interest in coming to the floor of the senate to offer them, i'm going to push very hard with the majority leader to go to third reading and finish this legislation this afternoon.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, while we await the arrival of senators who may be interested in offering their amendments, i would ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 12 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i rise today to join my colleague from oregon in discussing the challenges and opportunities that america faces as we look to insure our economic leadership and prosperity for the 21st century and beyond. america has always been a land of innovation and entrepreneurship. we led the way during the industrial revolution which began at slater mill in pawtucket, in my home state of rhode island. and we led the way in the information technology revolution that began in silicon valley. it is in americans' d.n.a. to

think boldly and through hard work to translate bold thinking into practical solutions, solutions that improve people's lives all over the world and bring prosperity to our shores. it is time for us to lead again. a clean energy economy beckons, and we must not, we cannot ignore the call. congress must act to pass clean energy legislation that will promote here at home cleaner, cheaper renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and biofuels. and i stand here today in strong support of such legislation. our transition to a clean-energy economy is past due. this country has run on the same fuels and basically the same efficiency levels since the start of the industrial revolution over a century and a half ago. this was acceptable in 1900, perhaps even in 1950.

but where does it leave us today in 2009? well, first, it leaves us depend on foreign oil. approximately 40% of our energy needs are met through oil and more than 70% of this oil at a cost of $630 billion out of the american taxpayers' pocket every year comes from foreign sources including saudi arabia, venezuela and other regimes that do not wish us well. it is the largest transfer of wealth in history, and we are on the losing end of it. and international big oil is only too happy to profit off america's decline. second, while we enrich hostile foreign governments and international big oil, other countries have embraced the development, manufacture, and export of renewable clean-energy

technologies like wind turbines and solar panels so that now half america's wind turbines are manufactured overseas. the u.s. invented the first solar cell, but we now rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components. the u.s. is home to only one of the world's top ten companies manufacturing energy and solar components and to only one of the world's top ten companies manufacturing wind turbines. recently two wind turbines went up in ports sphougt, rhode island. one was manufactured by a danish company and the other by an austrian company with a canadian distribute tor that delivered the components to rhode island. these turbines are very welcome. it was sort of like a barn raising when they came up. people went out to watch.

and as a result of this, rhode island and america got the benefit of cheaper energy. but we missed out on the manufacturing jobs these projects should have created for american workers. other countries that have debraced the demand for clean energy technology are investing more per capita in clean energy than the united states. i would like to include an article from "the washington post" reporting china is poised to bypass the united states in clean-energy technology investment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, we've got some catching up to do. while we have that catching up to do, ph-lgs of americans are out of work. my home state of rhode island has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country. across the country couples are sitting at their kitchen tables late at night and they are trying to figure out how to make ends meet, and it is not adding up. that is the reality many

americans face when we cling to the failed policy of the past. when we care more about keeping big oil happy than about finding new inventive ways for the average american worker to find lasting, secure kphroeuplt in the tra -- secure kphroeuplt. remarkably there are those in congress who would have us do nothing, who remain wedded to tired, centuries-old technologies and left in the dust as other nations race for leadership in the new clean-energy world. i would submit that this do-nothing caucus is selling america short. don't they trust that when it comes to inventing new technologies and manufacturing valuable products, we are the best in the world? if congress passes strong clean-energy legislation that creates the necessary incentives for the research, development, manufacture and sale of clean-energy technologies, that

spirit of innovation and entrepreneurialism will again lead the world as it has so often over the centuries. we can have confidence in that. and, mr. president, we've already seen some progress. it is clear at least to people outside the beltway get it. in the last ten years jobs in the clean-energy sector have grown nearly two and a half times faster than jobs overall. in 2006 alone, the american solar energy society estimates that federal, state, and local governments spent $8.6 billion on energy efficiency, creating 64,000 direct jobs and 83,000 indirect jobs. their investment of an additional $3.2 billion in expanding renewable energy production created nearly 7,000 direct jobs and nearly 9,000 indirect jobs. every day in america real people and real companies are moving into the clean-energy economy. in rhode island, newport

biodiesel is producing a cheaper form of home heating oil for rhode island families by recycling restaurant grease. al terrace renewables is creating jobs in rhode island, installing solar energy systems on residential homes. i recently visited a home in charleston, rhode island, where a family has a new al terra solar system on their roof and heard about the significant energy savings they will achieve. this is a fraction of the scale needed to revolutionize our economy. the american people, our researchers, entrepreneurs and workers from the largest, most sophisticated research institutions and corporations to our smallest local businesses can create clean-energy jobs everywhere in the united states. in urban areas, as well as rural, in the rustbelt as well as the wheat belt, in our deserts and on our coast. all they need is for us in congress to set the economic

parameters correctly, to level the playing field with foreign competition, to meet the market for investment in these products. america is waiting for congress to act. as i close, let me address a couple of the points that we often hear from the do-nothing caucus and their see-nothing supporters in the pwaod rooms of the big -- in the boardrooms of the big polluters. first, we cannot -- we simply cannot drill our way toward a secure energy future. it would take ten years before we'd see any tangible result from drilling, and the result would be negligible when it came. the u.s. has only 3% of known oil reserves, yet we use 25% of the world's oil production. we cannot drill our way out of that math. the u.s. could supply 20% of our energy needs through wind power alone. not even factoring in other forms of renewable energy. the choice is a clear one for

the future. do we continue to enrich exxonmobil and continue our dependence on foreign oil from places like saudi arabia and sequences way la? or do -- and venezuela? or do we tap into america's most abundant resource: the innovation and entrepreneurship of the american people? we should also be skeptical of the champions of the status quo when they exaggerate the costs associated with transitioning to a clean-energy kpheufplt our c.b.o. has projected clean-energy jobs legislation would cost most american households on average less than a postage stamp per day and that it actually puts money back in the pockets of the poorest families. and that didn't even consider the savings to individuals and companies from energy efficiency practices and technologies. if prices go up a little but efficiency reduces demand and reduces use, families save. they always leave that part out of the