I want to address the Senate on the matter of the need for continued U.S. investment in energy efficiency projects in other countries, as well as our own. I recently submitted my view on this matter to a publication of the Alliance to Save Energy, but I feel now, particularly in these times of high gasoline prices, that I should make a few remarks to the full Senate on this issue. Fluctuating energy prices and instability in the Middle East once again are prompting calls for energy independence for the United States. In our efforts to meet that goal, we cannot forget that the energy use of other countries directly affects both the supply and price of our energy resources here at home. Federal efforts to ensure freedom from fluctuations in energy prices have been advocated by every President, both Republican and Democrat, since 1973 and the infamous oil boycott. As Americans we count on energy to protect our security, to fuel our cars, to provide heat, air conditioning and light for our homes, to manufacture goods, and to transport supplies. In all of these needs, we, as consumers, pay the price for fluctuations in the global energy market. Our efforts to guarantee adequate energy supplies in the U.S. should prompt us to again take a hard look at energy efficiency not only here, but abroad. We are reminded that the international energy efficiency programs and projects run by our federal government protect and enhance the economies and standard of living of developing nations around the world. Given that we have a single integrated global petroleum market these efficiency programs directly benefit American consumers: by lessening demand for oil abroad, we are helping to loosen supply and hold down price pressures domestically. Quite simply, lowered oil demand in Madras helps truckers in Montpelier. Lowered oil use in Sao Paolo helps drivers in Santa Fe. A visitor to the capital of almost any developing country, be it Bangkok, Cairo, Manila, or Mexico City, will have a common experience. These places have already seen extraordinary increases in energy use. People who last saw these places 10 or 15 years ago are struck by the massive increase in air pollution from automobiles, trucks, and factories. As development takes hold and growth accelerates, energy use increases dramatically. But in many cases developing countries do not use energy efficiently. They often require two to four times more energy than industrial countries to produce the same output. This fuel consumption speeds up the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. In addition, fuel combustion is often dirty and incomplete, generating local pollution. U.S. government-funded energy-efficient programs that provide equipment and improved energy-management practices can greatly reduce energy consumption. Over the last 10 to 15 years, the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) launched a number of energy conservation projects aimed at energy use. These projects helped create an interest in energy efficiency, trained local engineers in energy management, and sponsored energy audits and demonstration investments. The projects were technically successful and had good economic rates of return, and the Alliance to Save Energy has been involved in several of these projects. In most cases, fuel savings paid for the cost of investments in a year or two. By reducing energy consumption, the measures also reduced pollution. One of the most successful examples of a national energy conservation program has been Brazil's National Electricity Conservation Program (PROCEL). With support from U.S. AID, PROCEL has developed demonstration and education programs to foster energy efficiency savings and reduce the need for new construction of costly power plants. The country has developed energy efficiency standards, regulatory measures, and joint-venture projects that have become a model for the rest of Latin America. PROCEL's energy efficiency measures have resulted in direct savings of over 1200 gigawatt-hours per year. The need for programs such as these are overwhelming. According to the Energy Information Administration's most recent International Energy Outlook, world energy consumption will rise by 54 percent from 2001 to 2025, driven by rising demand for power in China, India and other parts of the developing world. The report, issued on April 15, 2004, says oil will remain the dominant energy source worldwide through 2025, in Asian markets as well as in the United States. Combined, Asian and U.S. consumers will account for nearly 60 percent of the increase in world oil demand, which is projected to rise from 77 million barrels per day in 2001 to 121 million barrels per day in 2025. To meet that rising demand, the world's producers would have to increase daily production by more than 44 million barrels. And for electric power generation, coal dominates energy markets in China, India and other developing Asian countries. EIA projects extensive increases in coal use in China and India. EIA also projects a near doubling of worldwide net electricity consumption by 2025, from 13,290 billion kilowatt hours to 23,072 billion kilowatt hours - again propelled by rising demand for electricity in the developing world. Unfortunately, despite these successes there is an alarming and decreasing trend in funding for energy efficiency programs at U.S. AID. During the past few years these programs have received a cut in funding - with the FY04 request ($8 million) cut to 50 percent of the FY01 ($16 million) funding. And the current proposal will not reverse this trend. In a century likely to contain many surprises and new challenges, the importance of U.S. energy security can only increase. In achieving energy security we must be mindful of a few things. We must assist developing countries in cultivating a responsible energy policy which supports sound economic and social development for the betterment of their population and the global environment. This mutually beneficial partnership will enhance our energy security while providing sorely needed revenues for health care, education, and infrastructure abroad. We also must remember that it takes continued federal investment to achieve this worthy goal.