Bush to Propose Reducing Gasoline Consumption

By Peter Baker and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:28 PM

President Bush will propose reducing gasoline consumption in the United States by 20 percent over the next 10 years through a dramatic expansion of ethanol use and tougher fuel economy standards, the White House said in previewing tonight's State of the Union address.

"Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean," Bush will tell the nation, according to speech excerpts released by the White House. "For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil and do great harm to our economy. It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- and the way forward is through technology."

Under Bush's plan, which the White House has dubbed "Twenty in Ten," three-quarters of the reduction in consumption would come by increasing the mandated use of ethanol and other alternatives to oil. The federal government would require that 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels be used annually by 2017, nearly five times the 7.5 billion gallon mandate now set for 2012. The aim is to displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use in 2017.

The rest of the decreased gasoline consumption would come through additional authority for the administration to change the minimum required fuel economy for cars as it has for light trucks over the next decade. The White House said the plan would reduce gasoline consumption by up to 8.5 billion gallons a year in 2017, a 5 percent reduction in the current projected consumption in that year.

In a series of fact sheets previewing tonight's State of the Union address, the White House also said Bush's energy plan includes "stepping up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways" and doubling the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels by 2027. The doubling of the reserve's capacity would be enough to provide 97 days of supplies in the event of disruption of foreign oil imports.

The energy plan represented the major remaining surprise in a speech that will also advance new and recycled proposals on health care, immigration and education and will allow the president to defend his decision to send more U.S. troops to Iraq. Bush will address both houses of Congress and a national television audience from the lectern in the House chamber starting at 9 p.m. EST.

In pitching his troop buildup in Iraq as "the best way to succeed" in the war-ravaged country, Bush will propose establishing a "special advisory council on the War on Terror made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties," the White House said.

Bush will say that he and U.S. military commanders "have carefully weighed the options," according to excerpts of his speech defending his troop-increase plan. "We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq -- because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching."

He will stress the importance of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans and between the executive and legislative branches "so our nation can see this great effort through." The special advisory council "will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us," Bush plans to say. "And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory."

However, Democrats showed no signs today of softening their opposition to Bush's plan, which has also run into strong skepticism from a number of Republican lawmakers.

"It doesn't make a lot of sense in the type of sectarian violence that's going on to simply put American troops in the middle of it," said Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), who is scheduled to give the Democrats' response to Bush's speech tonight. Webb, a Vietnam War veteran and former Republican who won his Senate seat in November's midterm elections, told CNN today that the conflict is "only going to be resolved with strong diplomatic participation and overt ownership among other countries in that region that have relations with the sects that are involved inside Iraq."

Earlier, Webb dismissed White House appeals to give Bush's plan "a chance to work" and show support for U.S. troops. "They don't have a plan," the freshman senator told reporters. "What they have put on the table is more a tactical adjustment" than a change in strategy. "I don't see it as strategic, other than perhaps politically strategic," he said.

Expectations and speculation about Bush's energy plans have animated Washington for days as industry lobbyists, environmentalists and lawmakers tried to determine what it would mean for them and calibrate their responses. Even before Bush's proposals were made public, critics began attacking them as inadequate and tried to push alternative ideas.

In a statement today, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said it "good that the president has put his toe in the water" on reducing fuel consumption, but he expressed skepticism that Bush's proposals would make much difference.

"The quickest, most efficient way to reduce gas imports and bring down prices is to increase fuel economy standards," Schumer said. "To just give the president authority is clearly not enough without a real commitment that he will improve fuel economy standards."

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader, denounced Bush's energy plan as "a lot of empty rhetoric and, between the lines, some really bad ideas." It called ethanol "neither a clean nor renewable fuel" and noted that dual-fuel vehicles that can use either ethanol or gasoline are allowed to meet lower fuel economy standards even if they are never filled with ethanol. Moreover, the group said, the widespread use of ethanol is "impractical" because of infrastructure difficulties.

Public Citizen said Bush was likely to request authority to issue fuel economic standard for cars "on a sliding scale so that the larger the vehicle, the less fuel economy it has to achieve," a formula it said would be "perverse."

The group backed a recently passed House bill to revoke $14 billion in oil subsidies and dedicate the money to developing clean fuels and increasing energy efficiency. "But Bush has threatened a veto" of the bill, Public Citizen said, "showing that he remains beholden to Big Oil and other polluters."

The chief executives of 10 major corporations came to Washington yesterday to urge Bush to embrace binding caps on emissions that produce greenhouse gases, a position the president has adamantly rejected and, according to aides, still does not support. A separate group of 11 senators -- including eight Democrats, two Republicans and an independent -- proposed yesterday raising the average fuel economy standards for all vehicles from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2019.

"Raising the fuel economy of the cars and trucks we drive by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years is the simplest step we can take," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "This would reduce 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 2025. And it would save nearly the amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf."

Bush has been pushing for alternative energy sources for years and in last year's State of the Union address declared that "America is addicted to oil," a statement that, coming from a former Texas oilman, attracted special attention. Bush set a goal in that address of replacing three-quarters of the oil now imported from the Middle East by 2025. But Democrats have been scornful of his proposals in the past.

Bush's attempts to reach out to the opposition on domestic policy tonight will be further complicated by the uproar over his decision to dispatch an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. As he addresses a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since he took office, Bush faces deep skepticism inside the chamber, even within the House Republican leadership, which yesterday made proposals intended "to hold the Bush administration . . . accountable" for the progress of his latest Iraq plan.

The doubt on Capitol Hill reflects the continuing erosion of Bush's public support across the country. His approval rating is at the lowest level of his presidency, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, and only twice in the past six decades has a president delivered his annual speech to the nation in a weaker condition in the polls -- Harry S. Truman in the midst of the Korean War in 1952 and Richard M. Nixon in the throes of Watergate in 1974.

For the first time, majorities of Americans say Bush cannot be trusted in a crisis, has not made the country safer and should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq to avoid further casualties rather than leave them until civil order is restored. And, in a sign of intensifying opposition, a majority -- 51 percent -- for the first time expressed strong disapproval of Bush's performance, compared with 17 percent who strongly approved.

"The world changed significantly on Election Day, and the only people who were surprised were them," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said of Bush and his aides. Now, he added, "they've backed themselves into a tough corner, and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want, makes him look . . . like [he's saying], 'I'll listen to you, but I'll do what I want anyway.'"

The poll indicates that Bush has made no headway in selling his decision to bolster troop levels in Iraq by 21,500, with 65 percent now opposing it, compared with 61 percent the night of his Jan. 10 nationally televised address. Three in five Americans trust congressional Democrats more than Bush to deal with Iraq, and the same proportion want Congress to try to block his troop-increase plan.

Bush's overall approval rating of 33 percent matches the lowest it has been in Post-ABC polls since he became president, and 71 percent say the country is seriously off track, the highest such expression of national pessimism in more than a decade. By contrast, newly installed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is enjoying a honeymoon, with 54 percent approving her handling of the job.

While Bush will devote about half of tonight's 40-minute-plus speech to Iraq, the broader battle with Islamic radicals and other foreign policy matters, advisers said they understand that only sustained and visible progress on the ground in Iraq might change American minds about the war. The best Bush can hope for tonight, they said, is to prevent a wholesale defection by Republicans and buy enough time for his plan to work.

"He knows there's great skepticism," said a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the speech before its delivery. "But in spite of that, he believes there's much to be done if we can work together."

Aides said Bush will not directly engage in a debate over congressional efforts to block the troop increase. But in private briefings for administration allies yesterday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove said Bush will challenge Congress to put up its own plan if it does not like his "new way forward," according to people who were briefed.

Past presidents who found themselves facing an opposition Congress tried to tack to the middle after suffering midterm retreats. "This president, based on his speech last week, is taking the opposite approach," said Michael Waldman, a speechwriter for President Bill Clinton who heads New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. "The 2006 election was as close to a referendum on a president and issue as you get in our constitutional system. So for the president to move to escalate, it's very dramatic."

While recognizing differences over Iraq, Bush does aim to make progress with Democrats on domestic policy. The four main issues he will emphasize -- health care, immigration, energy and education -- are closer to Democratic priorities than issues in some past State of the Union addresses. And Bush tried to send a signal on the eve of the speech by accepting an invitation to address the House Democratic retreat in Williamsburg on Feb. 3.

"They're going to focus on issues and themes where they think they can get bipartisan cooperation," said Cesar Conda, former domestic policy adviser to Vice President Cheney. "It's a big difference from before, when he had a Republican Congress and the big issues would have been making the tax cuts permanent and reforming the tax code. It's a change in tone and focus. He's got to deal with the reality of a Democratic Congress."

Some of Bush's domestic discussion will sound familiar. He plans to repeat his call to overhaul immigration laws and allow illegal immigrants to become guest workers, an idea that may find more favor among Democrats than it did with Republicans last year. He plans to call for the extension of his No Child Left Behind education program, with modifications to make it more flexible, but will not ask Congress to expand it to high school as he did in the past.

The White House has previewed two new health-care proposals that will be in the speech. The first would make employer-provided health-care benefits taxable income after a deduction of $15,000 for families and $7,500 for singles. Officials said the plan would increase taxes for 30 million families whose benefits are worth more than the deduction but would provide a tax break to the vast majority of families with employer coverage as well as to 17 million people who purchase insurance on their own. The program would begin in 2009 and cost the government during its first years of operation but pay for itself by 2018, they said.

Bush also wants to redirect spending from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs toward new grants to help states ensure that everyone has access to affordable basic health insurance, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said yesterday. Leavitt did not specify a cost but said the new program would spur efforts already underway in states such as Massachusetts and California to provide coverage to people without health insurance.

Staff writers Jon Cohen, Dan Balz, Chris Cillizza, Steven Mufson, Christopher Lee and Lori Montgomery contributed to this report.