We are now facing a major decision by the Congress and by the Nation on energy legislation. And one of the toughest battles that I have to fight is to protect the consumers and to make sure that the Congress doesn't give the oil companies all the financial breaks as we put into effect an energy package. I might say that I have had superb support from the Vice President, from the Members of Congress from your own State in the House and Senate, and I'm going to go by Sunday afternoon and pick up the finest American that I have ever known--Senator Hubert Humphrey--and he's going to go back to Washington with me. The Michigan delegation came with me. They are helping me, too, with this very difficult energy legislation. But it could mean, if we make a serious mistake, a devastating blow to the people who are not sometimes adequately represented by the lobbyists in Washington. And I hope that you all will look on me as your prime lobbyist in Washington for those who don't have strong representation at times. We have done a few things, just to answer your specific questions, on food. This year already the Congress has very wisely removed the purchase requirement for food stamps, which, I think, will make the program much easier to administer in the future, and it will prevent poor people from having to put cash money into food stamps. They'll get the food stamp themselves now in the future without having to put money into it. We also have done the best we could to provide some help for fuel costs during the rough winter we had last year. We'll have the same program, I don't have any doubt, this winter to take care of families who might have their energy cut off. We have put forward, in addition, some programs that will be of great help to the poorer-built homes, with direct aid for those who want to insulate their homes. Quite often the poorer a family is, the more inefficient their home is in preserving heat and energy, and we want to be sure that that's corrected in this bill so that it will be a protection for you in the future. We want to make sure that the money collected on oil price increases goes back to the consumers directly. And as you know, there's a great deal of pressure to give a large part of this money to the oil companies. We are trying to have electricity rate reform. At this time the electric power companies charge the highest electric rates to those homeowners who use the least amount of electricity. If you have a big building like this or a big office building or a big factory, the more electricity you use, the less you pay per kilowatt-hour. And we want to be sure that that's turned around.

Effectively, what happened then was a year of good, strong committee work by the Energy Committee is now being held hostage in a fight in another committee. I have been patient with this, but I would remind colleagues that we are not getting any more extra legislative days being added. The clock is ticking here. This is a matter that, again, when this came before us while we were on this floor trying to work out the last of the amendments, this came up at the last minute, and we were promised a resolution at that time. We will have this fixed in a month. Well, it has been over 3 months now since this became an issue. Again, we have lost valuable time. This issue from the EPW Committee is holding back a strong, bipartisan bill that would allow us to modernize our Nation's energy policies for the first time in more than a dozen years. In a week where I have certainly been reminded about the importance of energy and, again, heard good, strong support for our energy bill, I would tell my colleagues that we need to redouble our efforts on this to advance this bill. We need to unlock this energy bill, which is a good bill that is ready to go, from the complications that have been created within another committee.

The two major items that the Congress is dealing with, of course, are social security and energy. We've had a very productive year so far, and I think when a tabulation is made of what the Congress has done, it will be well received. We've had a major agenda. The Congress committees have been heavily overloaded, and they've responded very well in my opinion. They certainly have my appreciation and admiration. In the energy package we've got five major programs. I'd say three of them have been successfully resolved. We have made a good bit of progress lately on the crude oil equalization tax; we still have natural gas pricing to go. But the committees are working in a very difficult, complicated, and politically unattractive field or subject. I think the American public is in favor of a comprehensive energy package being passed. But they are not in favor of some of the specifics that need to go in the package to make it effective. And I think the Congress has shown a great deal of both hard work, dedication, and courage in bringing us as far as they are. I hope that we'll have the complete work by the committees and a chance to vote on the energy package before Christmas. It all depends on unpredictable kinds of agreements between the House and Senate conferees. The other thing is social security. We faced when I came into office, as was the case in energy, a longstanding problem that nobody had been willing to address. It's not an attractive thing to do to provide adequate taxes to bring the social security reserve funds back into a sound position. The integrity of the social security system is of intense importance to most Americans. One of the reserve funds would have gone bankrupt in 2 years, another one probably 2 years, another one 5 years. And the Congress has moved on that. We now are down to the point of negotiating on particular subjects, the most controversial of which have absolutely nothing to do with social security. But they've been added on to the social security package, just as a legislative maneuver, so that they could be considered not on their own merits but as part of a package that, because it is attractive, might not be vetoed by me. We are trying to cut down on the very liberal add-on provisions in social security because somebody has got to pay for it. And the ones that have to pay for it, of course, are the families that still have workers. We are very concerned about this aspect of social security.

I recognize that when Lyndon Johnson was in the White House, he pushed hard and worked hard and 2 years later finally got some semblance of the Department of Transportation that he wanted--2 years. We asked the Congress 3 months ago to establish for our country a new Department of Energy. And they have already acted, and I believe that the conference committee will complete their work and I will sign this legislation into law very close to the Fourth of July. So, four of the five major issues that I asked for have already been completed-an absolutely unprecedented achievement on the part Of the Congress. And the other one of the five was equally difficult. And that was to evolve a new energy policy for our country that would be adequate and fair with vision for the future and a realization that we need to conserve our precious possessions that provide us with jobs, heat, light, and a possibility for progress. And the Congress is making good progress, in spite of tremendous complexity and tremendous pressure from special interest groups, many of them quite benevolent. But it's going to take a lot of courage, and I have no doubt that the Congress can exemplify the requisite courage themselves. So, to sum up my own feeling toward the Congress, it's one of appreciation for their achievements and also appreciation for the partnership that we've formed. I want to work in the future with you and the Congress to continue to strip away the secrecy from government, to let the American people know what we do, to observe our achievements, yes, but also to observe our failures and our needs, our shortcomings and our mistakes. I believe that we'll make sounder judgments in domestic and foreign affairs if the American people's tremendous vitality, intelligence, sound judgment, and experience can be tapped in government. And I think all of us in Washington will perform better knowing that you know how we do perform.

I think we recognize that current low prices are good for us. We are seeing our families pay less and, thus, they can devote to other priorities. The underlying message here is the energy industry is an important component to how we move to this phase of economic recovery. What can we do to help this industry and, thus, the broader economy recovery? It was interesting because we had a panel of five witnesses before us. Several of those witnesses all pointed to the same piece of legislation as one of the answers as to how we can help the economy recover, and that is a bill that those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee developed throughout last year. We called it the American Energy Innovation Act. We refer to it as our energy bill. It will ensure that the United States remains a global energy leader while strengthening our national security, investing in clean technologies, and securing our Nation's supply chain.

It is a pretty wide-ranging bill. It covers everything from energy efficiency to renewables. We have a strong focus on carbon capture. The big anchor piece is energy storage. Advanced nuclear plays a key role and also vehicle technologies. We focused on mineral security and recognizing the key aspects of secure supply chains, grid and cyber security, workforce modernization. Really, it is all areas that will work to help our economy, boost our international competitiveness, and protect human health and the global environment. At the hearing on Tuesday, one of our witnesses described this energy bill, our American Energy Innovation Act, as "foundational." I really think it is foundational. Where are we with this foundational energy bill that has been the work of such a good, strong collaborative committee process? It was clearly timely for the Senate to be considering this in this year--certainly before the pandemic--and it is even more critical, more timely that we consider it now.

As you may recall, we had the American Energy Innovation Act on the Senate floor at the end of February just before the pandemic took hold. Again, I mentioned the collaborative process that went into building that bill. We spent a lot of time in the Energy Committee working through a lot of the issues that had some conflict and to reduce that conflict so we could get a good, strong bipartisan product. As a consequence, we have a bill that contains the priorities for more than 70 Senators. It is supported by more than 200 organizations. We incorporated 18 amendments on the floor working through that process. The Senate ultimately denied cloture on March 9. This was just before the shelter in place and the work from home orders began. We hit a wall there. The unfortunate reality is we hit that wall. We were derailed with this important legislative effort not because of an impasse that we had with the contents of our bill, but it was an unrelated dispute from another committee. It was not something that, as chairman, I could have anticipated. There was no warning that it was going to be an issue for our bill. In fairness, we didn't have any power as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to work it out for this other committee. We were hamstrung by it.

Dolph Briscoe is my friend, and I don't want to get into a personal interrelationship with him except on a basis of mutual understanding and friendship. I think it's accurate to say that Congressman Krueger and several other Members of the Congress have adequately put forward the so-called Texas plan for energy development which, in my opinion, is primarily based on a complete deregulation of the price of oil and natural gas, which I think at this time would be inappropriate and a devastating load to the well-being of the consumers of this Nation. I also think it's unwarranted. The degree of deregulation which we have advocated, a substantial improvement over what it is now, would result in the natural gas field alone in a $15 billion increase in the income of the natural gas companies between now and 1985. There have been assessments made by the Library of Congress and by the GAO and other groups who advise Members of Congress, that the so-called Krueger Plan--I haven't seen the Briscoe Plan; I would guess they are similar and perhaps have a similar origin--would cost the consumers of our country maybe $70 billion more than what we advocate. But I think that this is a crucial question in the overall energy concept-whether or not we should have extremely high prices to be established by the oil and natural gas companies without constraint and accept their proposition that exploration would build by leaps and bounds, that we would have unlimited supplies of oil and natural gas as a result, and that this is the best approach, or our own proposition on the other hand. I don't think that a crash program to extract oil and natural gas in a hasty fashion from American supplies is advisable under any circumstances. I think that the emphasis on conservation and a shift toward coal, which we advocate, is the best approach. I also don't think there would be substantially increased exploration if oil was worth $20 a barrel and if natural gas was $3 or $4 a thousand cubic feet. I think the present rate of exploration would not be substantially enhanced, but it would be a great windfall to the oil and natural gas companies of our Nation. As I said in the letter that Dolph Briscoe has, as I said in my speech on the energy proposal to the Congress back on April 20, our first move toward deregulation is one that will be followed later by others. It's a first move to carry out my commitment. But I can't bring myself to accept the proposition it ought to be done peremptorily. We've advocated, by the way, a $1.75 price for natural gas to be moved in interstate and intrastate supply lines, which is a substantial increase over interstate price now, and I think is adequate.

I've never had any conversation with Senator Long that would either encourage me or require me to change my position from what it was last April. We still maintain that the proposition we put to the House and Senate in the energy proposal is the best. The House-passed version of the comprehensive energy plan is very close to what we've proposed, and we support the House position in almost every instance when there is a disagreement. I don't have any inclination to modify that position anytime soon. We will be consulting very closely with the particular conferees who most nearly espouse the administration's position, and I would guess that the negotiations leading to some ultimate resolution of differences would be between the Senate conferees, headed by Senator Long and also, of course, Senator Jackson, on the one hand and the House conferee leaders on the other side. We will add our assistance when we can, but we will not betray the confidence of people who look to us for leadership. And I will not work out any private agreement with Senator Long that would betray the commitments that we've made previously, publicly, I might say, in all instances. So, I don't see any possibility of doing what you propose, or what you ask about. Obviously, both sides are very likely to compromise. They've already had compromises on literally dozens of issues. The three major issues remaining, as you know, are the electric rate reform--we have a good chance of having that resolved this week--the pricing structure on natural gas--and that conference committee will go back to work tomorrow; Senator Jackson is returning to Washington, D.C., then--and of course, the tax on crude oil. And these are to some degree interrelated. But I think that we've got a good chance, still, for making progress now, and I'm going to maintain the position that we described last April as long as possible, support in every instance the conferees that support our position.

I like to pride myself on being a pretty good team player around here. I want to give people space to work their issues out, but I think it is time, again, for those who are able to hold the key to this to help us unlock this so we can move a significant priority--not just for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee but a significant priority for every Member in this Chamber because it doesn't make any difference if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you come from an urban area or a rural area, when it comes to the strength of our Nation's economy, the foundational interest here, the foundations rest solidly on energy. So an opportunity to update and modernize our energy policies in a way that benefits us all is something that I would hope we can all agree to. I want to get this bill moving.

Two days from now, I will present to the Congress my energy proposals.. Its Members will be my partners, and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices. The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation. Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern this Nation. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war," except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not to destroy. Now, I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gas lines are gone, and with this springtime weather, our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It's worse because more waste has occurred and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act. The oil and natural gas that we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are simply running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about 6 percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last 5 years. Our Nation's economic and political independence is becoming increasingly vulnerable. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980's the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce. The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day, and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every 9 months, or a new Saudi Arabia every 3 years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

Now, the second major challenge I want to discuss with you this morning is energy. The energy crisis is the greatest domestic challenge that our country will face in our lifetime. I still find it almost incredible that our country has no coherent plan for dealing with it until this year. We have now proposed such a plan to the Congress and also proposed a new department to deal with the energy question. This plan is based on three inescapable realities. There's no way to get around them. The first is that we are simply running out of oil. The second is that oil will, nevertheless, have to remain our primary source of energy for many years and must not be wasted. And the third principle is that unless we begin soon to prepare for the transition to other sources of energy, the consequences on our society and our way of life will be very severe. We could face massive unemployment, crippling inflation, social and political instability, and threats to our freedom of action in international affairs. We cannot just rely on increased production. While finding more oil is important, we would have to discover a new- Alaskan oil field every year just to keep pace with the annual growth in world consumption. No matter how strong the financial incentives, that is simply not going to happen. We must save oil and gas for uses where there is no good substitute. One obvious example is moving vehicles. We must shift to other sources when possible, and we must develop new sources, such as solar energy. There are no workers in America whose future jobs depend more than yours on a good energy program based on strict conservation. Now, you know and I know that meeting our energy goals is not going to be easy. It will require sacrifice from everyone in the country. We cannot use the fuel crisis as an excuse for not cleaning up our air. I have proposed tough but fair air pollution standards. We've got to improve the efficiency of our cars, and that's why I proposed a gas-guzzler tax. Now you and I have honest differences of opinion over some aspects of my proposals. But I don't hesitate to call on you for help, because I know what you've done in the past. You've never lost sight of the broader interests of our Nation. Walter Reuther helped to make possible the Clean Air Act as it was originally passed. And your members are already building cars highly efficient, getting more than 30 miles per gallon. It's absolutely inevitable, no matter who's the President of the United States, that we will have to shift to more efficient automobiles with a clean exhaust. This past quarter, unfortunately, a larger percentage of Americans bought foreign-made cars than ever before. Now, I know that you agree that the solution is not to erect trade barriers to keep out foreign competition because it only leads to trade wars, to retaliation, and added inflation. The solution lies in using our great American ingenuity to design and produce the right cars for the future. I can think of no more disastrous assumption for the American automobile industry to make than that we cannot successfully compete with foreign companies that produce and sell such cars. We can compete, and we will compete successfully.

We must review oil deregulation law and study the following: Removing VAT, lowering tariff, re-imposing price ceilings and prohibiting price manipulation. We should also spend on research and development to find alternate and indigenous sources of energy. The summit will not accomplish anything other than to highlight the ignorance and incompetence of energy officials who need to call a summit just to find out what’s going on.

It's not easy to remove the hold on our government processes that have been in existence for a long time by the oil and gas companies, but I'm determined to do it with your help. In many ways, the acceptance by the American people and the acceptance by the American Congress of a comprehensive energy policy is a test of our strength and a test of our national will. The rest of the nations of the world watch us very closely to see if we can sacrifice in a time of international need. The proposal that we've put forward is bitter medicine, but it's not nearly so bitter as the catastrophe that might befall us if we don't take rapid action. We have put forward a well-balanced program that will induce our own selves to conserve energy of all kinds. It will induce us, without hurting us deeply, to shift to other forms of energy, away from oil and natural gas. I'm determined that the consumers of our Nation will not be hurt and that the oil suppliers, the companies that produce oil and gas, will not be enriched in an unwarranted fashion. We have built into our proposal adequate incentives to encourage oil and gas exploration and production. Under our own program new oil discovered by American companies in the future will have the highest price on Earth. But still the oil companies want more. And unless we stand firm, they may get it. And if they do, it will come out of the pockets of those who need it, who need the money and who need adequate energy supplies most. As a farmer, I know that we, just a small part of the American population, use $6 billion worth of oil and gas every year. About 75 percent of all the energy we use is oil and natural gas. This means that we have got to have a supply in the future, because it takes natural gas and propane to dry our crops. It takes oil to drive our tractors and our trucks and our other machinery. We can't very easily shift to coal. So, as we conserve and shift to other supplies of energy, in the production of electric power, for instance, it makes that much more available to farmers in the future when energy supplies become even more scarce.