Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 132 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 132 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11461-S11468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

A NEW ENERGY FUTURE

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I recently returned to Illinois and
traveled across the State. It is interesting to me that there is one
pervasive issue that you run into in every corner of my State and that
is the cost of energy,

[[Page S11462]]

because while I was home people were still reeling from high gasoline
prices, and announcements were being made about dramatic increases in
natural gas costs over the winter, which means record breaking home
heating fuel costs. That is going to cause as great a hardship as the
high gasoline prices on many individuals and families and businesses
large and small. People are changing their spending habits and driving
patterns to try to offset the high cost of gasoline. Consumers are now
paying about $2.75 per gallon of gasoline. That is up over 80 cents
from a year ago. Americans are now bracing for the record-high energy
prices they will face when cooler weather arrives and the cold sets in.
The Energy Information Administration recently predicted nearly a 50-
percent increase in home heating costs this winter. That is going to
cause an extraordinary hardship on many people--those on fixed incomes,
those on very limited incomes, and those who happen to live in old
dwellings that do not have a lot of insulation.
I met with families all across Illinois who are struggling with these
high energy costs and their family budgets. They want to know what
Congress is going to do. They know we spend a lot of time on the floor
of the Senate talking about a lot of things. They would like to think
that 1 hour of 1 day would be spent on one issue that really makes a
difference in their lives, and I think if they had their choice at this
moment in Illinois, it would be the energy issue. They want to know how
much profit is enough for ExxonMobil and BP before the former oil
executives now in the Bush administration are shamed into action.
In the last 6 months, it is estimated that the top five oil companies
in America collectively had $52 billion in profits--recordbreaking
profits. So when you start to fill up the tank and you watch that gas
pump go out of control in terms of the cost, the money is going
directly to the profit margins of these oil companies. Where is the
voice in Washington for the consumers who are paying these gasoline
prices? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say that is what happens in
a free market? The high profiteers step in.
Sadly, that is the only response we have heard from this
administration. These high prices are hurting everyone--families,
farmers, already having a tough year in my home State, small
businesses, municipalities, school districts. In the meantime, these
oil and gas companies are reaping record profits. In my State of
Illinois, consumers have already spent nearly $2.5 billion more this
year for gasoline than last year--$2.5 billion. By the end of the year,
that figure could more than double to over $5 billion--spending more
than $5 billion more for gasoline this year than last year, coming
right out of family budgets and the budgets of a lot of businesses,
large and small.
At the same time, in the first half of this year, the big oil
companies--ExxonMobil, Chevron-Texaco, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Royal
Dutch/Shell--recorded a combined $52 billion in profits compared to a
record $39.5 billion in the first half of 2004. They were doing pretty
well last year with the lower prices we were paying. Look at this
year--$52 billion in profit taking. That is not sales. That is $52
billion in profits at a time when Americans are worrying about how they
are going to get to work and how they are going to heat their homes
this winter.
Soon third-quarter earnings will be coming out. I suspect it is going
to show the oil companies are doing quite well, thank you.
Who is paying the price? For one, airlines. Today, three airlines in
the United States are in bankruptcy largely because of high fuel costs.
Second, American consumers. Consumers are paying an additional $600 to
$1,000 a year so they can drive to work or school. Take an average
American, someone who drives 15,000 miles a year, averages 20 miles a
gallon. An 80-cent increase in the price of a gallon of gas this past
year equates to an additional $600 out of pocket for that one driver
this year, that's at today's gasoline price. Consider for a minute what
this means to people of modest means.
We have a pending amendment in the Chamber about raising the minimum
wage in America. I think it has been about 8 years since we touched
that one. What is it, $5.15 an hour. So people get up every morning, go
to work, doing the right thing, trying to care for their families at
$5.15 an hour, and for 8 years we have run into resistance from people
in the Senate who say: That is plenty. That is enough. We don't need to
guarantee any higher minimum wage.
Think about it. I ran into a fellow in Illinois who said: I don't
understand how a person on minimum wage filling up the tank of an old
car trying to get back and forth to work comes ahead at all. And that
is the reality of life for so many people who are literally going to
work and falling behind every single day. And the high gasoline prices,
sadly, are now part of the major problem these people face. At today's
gas prices, total fuel costs for one vehicle is $2,000-plus each year.
Double that for a family who needs two cars to commute to work. Fuel
costs for that family are over $4,000.
Think of a low-income family. At $5.15 an hour, gross take-home pay
for the year is about $10,000. Now take out $2,000 for buying gasoline
before you pay any income taxes or other charges against your payroll.
Imagine, if you will, these are people in our country, vulnerable
people who are asking if there is anybody in Washington listening. They
are knocking on the door of the Senate, and nobody is opening the door.
Historically, the end of the summer driving season meant there would be
some relief from summer gas price hikes. While we witnessed a slight
drop, consumers will see no relief from energy costs.
Unfortunately, as I said, gasoline prices are just part of the
problem. Heating costs are expected to be significantly higher this
year. Nationwide, 55 percent of all households depend on natural gas as
their primary heating fuel. In the Midwest, according to the Energy
Information Administration's most recent outlook, about 75 percent of
households rely on natural gas to heat their homes. This winter, those
households can expect to pay nearly 50 percent more than last year for
natural gas. Weather forecasts suggest this coming winter may be colder
than last year, which means even higher home heating bills. High
gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil prices are forcing a slowdown in
consumer spending, an increase in consumer prices, more inflation, and
the greatest increase in the number of people who are delinquent in
paying credit card bills since the 1970s energy crisis. These high
energy costs are rippling through the American economy, and they are
hurting a lot of hard-working families.
We passed the so-called Energy bill this last August. It was signed
by the President with great ceremony. What did that bill do? Primarily
it funneled billions in subsidies to oil companies--to the same oil
companies that are experiencing record profits? Why in the world aren't
we focusing on things that can literally and really make a difference
when it comes to America's energy future?
Let me tell you the impact some of these energy prices are having. In
the second quarter of 2005, this year, the American Bankers Association
reported that the percentage of credit card bills 30 days or more past
due reached the highest level since they began recording information 32
years ago. People are falling further and further behind, and the ABA's
chief economist cited high gasoline prices as a major factor.
I can't forget the fellow I ran into back in my hometown of
Springfield, IL, just a few days ago who said: Senator, I understand my
credit card company is going to require me to pay 4 percent, 4 percent
of my balance each month. Now it only requires 2 percent. I don't know
if I can pay 4 percent.
How in the world can that poor fellow and his family ever get ahead?
Their debt keeps increasing as they run up the cost for gasoline for
this fellow to get back and forth to work. There is no end in sight.
Earlier this year, the Democrats in the Senate offered an amendment
to the Energy bill that would have finally put America on a path to
reducing consumption of foreign oil imports by 40 percent in the next
20 years. Is that a good thing for America, for us to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil? You would certainly think so. Should it be a
partisan issue? Should Democrats and Republicans disagree on that? Why
would they ever disagree? But they did, all but two.
We are going to continue to support this measure on this side of the
aisle. I

[[Page S11463]]

hope that since that vote a few months ago, my friends on the other
side of the aisle will take another look at it. This should be the
underpinning of our energy policy in America, to lessen our dependence
on foreign oil. We know America can do better than be held hostage to
high energy bills dictated by Saudi sheiks and big oil CEOs. President
Bush even rejected a modest 1-million-barrel-per-day oil saving
provision that was written in the Senate Energy bill. We tried to at
least move just ever so slightly toward conservation, energy
efficiency. It was rejected.
We understand the President and Vice President have close ties
personally and in their background with the oil industry. But shouldn't
our national priority of more energy independence have been more
important than that? Just before the Senate recessed to work back in
our States, I joined my colleagues in sending a letter to President
Bush requesting him to call on his friends and allies in the oil and
gas industry to sit down with them and make it clear that their
profiteering at the expense of the average person in America is killing
the American economy and causing extreme hardship to honest people
going to work every single day. We still haven't seen the first
indication of action from the White House.

In August, before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when gas prices were
about $2.55 a gallon, I joined my colleagues, Senator Reid of Nevada
and Senator Cantwell of Washington, in a letter to President Bush
asking him to show Presidential leadership in reducing fuel prices,
including profiteering and price gouging. Still no response from the
White House.
We proposed a set of principles on the Democratic side of the aisle.
We believe these put America first. We believe that American consumers,
businesses, and farmers should be better protected from multinational
corporations reaping record profits at the expense of the average
consumer and the average business in America.
In the next day or so, I am going to introduce legislation to help
address some of these issues, including a desperately needed funding
bill for the LIHEAP program. LIHEAP is the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program. We should tax the windfall profits of these huge
oil and gas companies that are recording billions upon billions of
dollars of profit at the expense of families and consumers across
America. We should transfer part of this money to a LIHEAP trust fund
so that the poorest folks across America, the most vulnerable, have a
chance to heat their homes this winter. That is pretty basic. This fund
would ensure that there are resources available on top of what has
already been appropriated by Congress for families hurt by high energy
costs. We are proposing other measures on the Democratic side to
protect consumers as well. Senator Cantwell and 26 cosponsors have
introduced a bill to ban gasoline price gouging and improve market
transparency. This all fits under the basic idea of protecting
America's consumers.
Senators Mikulski, Pryor, Salazar, Bill Nelson, Harkin, Corzine,
Stabenow, and Obama have introduced an amendment to the appropriations
bill calling for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate nationwide
gas prices that we witnessed immediately after Hurricane Katrina to see
if there is clear evidence of profiteering.
Senators Kerry and Reed of Rhode Island offered an amendment to add
funds for the LIHEAP program so low-income families most affected by
record energy prices can heat their homes this winter.
Senator Bingaman and 14 other cosponsors proposed an amendment to the
Energy bill that would require 10 percent of electricity generated be
produced from renewable sources by the year 2020. This measure would
ease the stress on natural gas and help to alleviate the high prices we
have currently witnessed.
Senators Schumer, Cantwell, and Lautenberg introduced a bill to
increase national fuel efficiency which would also save energy.
I have introduced a bill as well, the Strategic Gasoline and Fuel
Reserve Act of 2005. We already have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve--
that can hold 700 million barrels of crude oil the President can turn
to in times of national emergency. But when we have refining capacity
compromised by a hurricane, crude oil is not going to be released and
make it to the market very quickly. So I am proposing that the United
States, like some European countries, create a strategic gasoline and
jet fuel reserve. Let's set aside refined product, gasoline and jet
fuel, around the United States so the President has another tool to use
when we see these price spikes to help businesses like America's
airlines and other businesses overcome these skyrocketing prices.
America needs a long-term plan to diversify our energy resources. We
have to do this to improve energy efficiency, conservation, and to
prevent the energy giants from market manipulation and price gouging.
It does not appear there is any cop on the beat in Washington. There is
no one who is either threatening or punishing the profiteers who are
raising the price of energy unconscionably. For a long time, the finger
of blame was pointed at the OPEC cartel and the Saudi sheiks, but we
know now that their profit increase is modest, about 46 percent over
last year, compared to the dramatic and obscene record profit increases
by the big oil companies of 255 percent over last year. That is where
the money is going. It is going to the boardrooms of the largest oil
companies in America.
This administration and this Congress are mute. They definitely do
not want to rock the boat when it comes to their friends in these big
oil companies. Instead, the only response from the administration is a
plea by the Secretary of Energy for a campaign to conserve energy.
Well, that is a good thing. But should not the administration also be
there to protect consumers and to punish profiteers in addition to
preaching conservation?
This is what the President said:

We can all pitch in . . . by being better conservers of
energy.

Here are some suggestions: Drive less, replace traditional light
bulbs with more efficient light bulbs, keep your car well maintained,
and your tires properly inflated, and seal leaky windows and doors; all
very nice and practical suggestions. But would it not be nice if these
practical ideas of conservation were accompanied by some effort by this
administration to hold the oil companies responsible for profiteering
at the expense of American consumers? Not a word.
I strongly support conservation efforts. Changes in that way can make
a significant difference and save Americans millions of dollars. But
President Bush's plea for conservation is like putting a gallon of gas
in a Hummer and expecting to drive 50 miles.
While small conservation steps will help manage the current energy
crisis, we need a broader policy change that includes a long-term
commitment to expanding and diversifying energy sources. We have to
expand the use and access to alternative fuels, create a more efficient
transportation sector, increase the efficiency of our homes, and
promote conservation. We need energy policies that place national
interests before corporate interests, that put the well-being of the
American family before energy CEOs, and make investments to strengthen
America's energy security, instead of providing tax cuts to make
America's wealthiest individuals and corporations even wealthier.
This administration will not consider such measures, and in many
cases they blatantly rejected them. Before the recent call for
conservation, the Bush administration had done virtually nothing to
develop long-term energy solutions and promote efficiency and
conservation. While President Bush now calls for conservation, his own
Department of Energy quietly helped prevent advancements on new
building efficiency standards for insulation, standards that would have
increased efficiency in new homes, saving billions of dollars in energy
costs for Americans over the next few decades.
The other thing we have to do, as a fundamental policy when it comes
to energy in policy, is to focus on the fuel efficiency of the cars and
trucks we drive. When we faced the oil crisis in the 1970s, we
understood we were driving cars and trucks that were not adequately
fuel efficient. The fleet average of fuel economy for cars and trucks
across America was about 14 miles a gallon. So Congress knew there were

[[Page S11464]]

two ways to push the automobile manufacturers toward more fuel-
efficient cars. One was if the price of gasoline went up dramatically,
people would make the decision on their own they needed a more fuel-
efficient car, but of course that involved a lot of economic pain in
the process. The other was to establish federally mandated standards
for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks in America.
So what was the response of the Big Three in Detroit when we said in
1975 that they should double the fuel economy of cars and trucks in
America from 14 miles a gallon to 28 miles a gallon over 10 years? They
said as follows: It is technologically impossible; the cars and trucks
that we build will be so unsafe you will regret the decision pushing
for more fuel efficiency, and this will definitely drive more imports
into America because the Japanese and others will focus on making those
more fuel-efficient cars.
Thank goodness Congress rejected those three arguments by the
automobile manufacturers and in 1975 imposed the CAFE standards. As a
result, 10 years later, the average fuel efficiency had doubled in the
United States. All of the ominous warnings from Detroit
notwithstanding, we as a nation did the right thing. The one wrong
thing we did was to carve out an exemption for trucks. It turned out
that exemption was so broadly worded that they drove the big old
Hummers and SUVs right into it as they were exempt from the highest
standards.
And what happened next? America got this voracious appetite for these
huge hunks of metal on the highway which burn up the gasoline as fast
as the tank can be filled, and we watched the average fuel efficiency
in 1985 go down from 28 miles a gallon to about 21 miles a gallon
today. We have gone in the wrong direction. We are burning more
gasoline for the same miles that we drove in 1985.
What have we done in Congress since then to establish new CAFE
standards for America's cars and trucks? Absolutely nothing. When I
called for an amendment in the Energy bill debate to establish national
CAFE fuel efficiency standards over the next 10 years, improving fuel
efficiency by 1 mile a gallon each year for 10 years, the amendment was
defeated, with only 28 Senators supporting it. Americans I have run
into, and certainly people in my home State of Illinois, shake their
head when they are told that story. They ask, what are these Senators
thinking? Why would we not move as a national policy toward more fuel-
efficient vehicles?
Well, the automobile dealers have realized that. They have car lots
full of SUVs and heavy trucks that consumers are walking right by,
saying, well, what is the fuel efficiency of that car? How many miles
per gallon on that truck? They are asking the hard questions now
because gasoline prices are going up. I think it is time to return to
this debate on CAFE and to put honest fuel efficiency standards on the
books in America, to demand that those in Detroit and others take into
consideration the fact that we need to lessen our dependence on foreign
oil and we need to give consumers an opportunity.
Earlier this year my wife and I were considering buying a car. We
wanted an American car. My wife drives it more than I do. She takes it
on the highway so we wanted a larger car, but we did not want an SUV.
Try to find that highway-type car made in America that is fuel
efficient. We finally found one, the Ford Escape hybrid. We bought one.
How many were made in the United States this year? Only 20,000. There
is a long waiting list for people to buy these cars. Ford says they
hope in years to come they will start producing more of them.
Meanwhile, Japanese automobile manufacturers are making these hybrid
cars and selling them as fast as they make them. It is a shame again
that Detroit was asleep at the switch and they did not see this coming.
They tend to react a little too late and, sadly, that is one of the
reasons they face the financial difficulties they do.
While increasing efficiency of our vehicles is no longer an option,
it is a necessity. Consumers are demanding better fuel efficiency, and
unfortunately American auto companies are realizing a little too late
that they did not think ahead.

In the past month, General Motors witnessed a 24-percent decline in
sales over the same month last year. Ford sales were down 20 percent,
while U.S. sales of Japanese automobiles increased 10 to 12 percent.
Sales of hybrid vehicles soared. In the past month, Honda Civic hybrid
sales increased 37 percent. So while the Senate does not get it when it
comes to fuel efficiency and fuel economy of cars, consumers get it and
they are saying with their checkbooks and credit cards they are going
to buy the vehicles that make more sense.
I believe American ingenuity can meet this test, can produce the cars
and trucks we need to keep our economy moving forward with safe cars
that are much more fuel efficient.
We also need to invest in the production of alternative fuels and
provide incentives for their use. We need to break the stranglehold of
big oil, open the market to real competition, and give American
consumers real energy choices. Ford recently announced more production
of its dual fuel vehicles. That is good news, but we know there is only
a small number of vehicles on the road that actually use these
alternative fuels. The gas-saving potential of these vehicles is
largely wasted. We should be promoting the actual use of alternative
fuels that can reap the benefits of new gas-saving technologies.
The fact that we included language in the Energy bill to increase
ethanol production and biodiesel is all good, but it is only a small
part of the battle. We need to make sure that ethanol reaches the
market and that there are cars equipped for E-85 and ethanol compliance
so consumers can take advantage of the benefits of their homegrown
fuel.
America has 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves. We use 25
percent of the world's oil. We can never, ever drill our way out of
this challenge. There is no way we can find energy independence by
drilling away in the pristine areas that have been protected around
America, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is a sad
indictment on this administration and this Congress that instead of
accepting the challenge of conservation and fuel efficiency, instead of
asking for sacrifice and a dedicated commitment from the automobile
companies as well as American consumers, we are going to run willy-
nilly into a national wildlife reserve that was created by President
Eisenhower over 50 years ago and say the only way we can meet our needs
is to start drilling away for oil, the environment be damned.
The big oil companies and many of my colleagues want to open this
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have been there. It would be a
tragic mistake. Sadly, if we do it, over 20 years it will produce less
than 1 year's worth of oil supply for the United States. This is not
the answer to our prayers. In fact, we should be condemned for turning
our back on this great piece of America that we are willing to exploit
because of our own bad energy policies. Instead of destroying this
national habitat, we should think strategically and creatively to find
new ways to meet our future energy needs.
America can do better, and when it comes to our energy policy it is
clear we are missing the responsibility that Members of Congress should
share. We need to protect America's consumers. We need to punish the
profiteers and we need to promote, on a national scale, efficiency,
conservation and alternative fuels. America can only do better with
leadership and a clear energy policy and a plan. We have to look beyond
the quarterly profits of the big oil companies and the clout they have
on Capitol Hill and remember that we are serving the public, voters
across America, who have to face every single day these skyrocketing
gasoline prices and the prospects of a very cold and expensive winter.
I believe in American creativity and innovation, and I know that
together we can create a better future for our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is very interesting to hear this speech
on energy. There were a couple of things my colleague from Illinois
said that I agree with. No. 1, energy prices are a real problem. No. 2,
LIHEAP needs to

[[Page S11465]]

be reviewed by the appropriate Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee.
No. 3, the good things we are doing in ethanol and biodiesel need to
continue. No. 4, maybe he did not say it on the floor, but he and I
both agree on the St. Louis Cardinals. That is about the extent of the
things I could find on which we agree.
Let me go through a few of them. First, all of us are paying more at
the gasoline pump. This is having a conservation impact. People are
driving less. Everybody is thinking about how they can take fewer
trips. Certainly we are in our family. I believe the statistics show
that people are conserving more. Talk about turning back your heat
during the winter, we are one of those families--I think it is 57
percent of the families in the United States--who heat with natural
gas. That thermostat is not going to go down a couple of degrees; it is
going to go down more than that. We are going to be pulling out the
sweaters.
There are some people who cannot do anything about it. There are
workers who have to travel on jobs. There are small businesses that are
trying to keep their businesses going. There are famers who have to
keep up with those prices. This is a real concern for our economy. For
small businesses that will be hit by increased costs of energy for
operating their business, my colleague seems to want to add a minimum
wage increase. When your margins are being squeezed by energy costs,
what happens if the minimum wage goes up? Those young people, the
people just starting out in the business, the people who might be
getting minimum wage--and it is down around 6 percent of workers these
days--are probably going to be the ones let go. The people who need to
get a start in the process, who need to get a job, are the ones who are
going to lose their jobs because the minimum wage is going to put a
further squeeze on the profits of small businesses. To see a
requirement that they pay a higher cost for entry-level workers is
either going to eliminate existing jobs or certainly stifle the
creation of new jobs.
For those people on minimum wage, for those families, we have the
earned-income tax credit; we have all forms of assistance and this is
proper. We need to help those people get started because a significant
number, an overwhelming number of those starting with the minimum wage
get a 10-percent increase at the end of the first year. They have to
learn to work, and that is how they get started.
Let's go back to the problems we have with energy. We have real
problems in energy that came about even before Katrina and Rita hit our
refineries and hit the gulf coast. We concentrated our petroleum
production mainly in the gulf coast region around Texas and Louisiana.
Why? Because too many people said, No, you can't drill here. In other
places where we have oil and gas, they are being prohibited from
drilling. People say we can't drill for natural gas off the coast, and
I say, Why not? We have to do so in an environmentally sound manner. We
have to protect the environment. But siting a natural gas rig 15 miles
out in the sea, if it is done in an environmentally sound way, is not
threatening the way of life of people along our coast.
The occupant of the chair and I happen to come from a State where we
mine a lot of lead. Lead mining is environmentally difficult. Everybody
knows the problems lead can cause, but lead is absolutely critical in
many of the goods we produce, computers, and other things. So we
produce much of the lead in the United States because we have 90
percent of the lead that exists in the United States. I have told some
of my friends who do not want to drill for natural gas in their States
or off their shores, we in Missouri would be happy to trade you our
lead for your natural gas. You can mine for the lead and we will be
happy to pump the natural gas. Natural resources have to be developed
where they are found.
Ten years ago, we passed a bill authorizing the opening up of that
small portion, and only a fraction of that small portion, set aside in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the development of natural
resources. When ANWR was set up, there was a portion set aside
specifically for the development of natural resources. To the west of
there in Prudhoe Bay, they are producing oil in substantial amounts.
The best estimates we have heard is that if we had gone ahead, if the
President 10 years ago had not vetoed the opening up of ANWR, we would
be getting over 900,000 barrels of oil a day from the ANWR. That is not
going to solve all of our problems, but it is certainly a start.
Regrettably, it is a lot more than even our farmers can produce in
terms of ethanol and biodiesel.
We need to pursue every area. That includes conservation. That
includes new sources. That includes developing additional resources
that we have in the United States. Right now, because we are busily
engaged in a bill that primarily doesn't have anything to do with
energy--and I remind my colleagues this is the TTHUD appropriations
bill. We are talking about appropriations for Treasury, Transportation,
Housing, and Urban Development. My colleague and I are looking forward
to having amendments on that bill and also the Judiciary and related
agencies.
There is a hearing going on in the Environment and Public Works
Committee, and I would love to be there because the chairman has
proposed a bill to fast-track permitting for refineries. It can take up
to 20 years to get a refinery built. It is too costly. Our refinery
capacity for petroleum products has been stretched to the limit. When
Katrina and Rita knocked out those facilities, we found ourselves in a
terrible shortage. We need to streamline the process, go through all
the steps but do so in an orderly manner so we can bring more
refineries online in an efficient and environmentally friendly way.
Incidentally, what we need to do in that fast-track permit is to
fast-track permitting of coal liquefaction and coal gasification. We
are sitting on a 250-year supply of energy in the form of coal. We are
the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal has been a problem because, when you
burn it as we have in the past, it produces sulfur, nitrous oxides,
carbon, and mercury. But the coal we have in the Midwest, while it is
high in sulfur, is high in Btu, and it can be turned into gas or turned
into diesel fuel or aviation fuel in a way that removes almost all, if
not all, of the pollutants.
We need to get coal refineries putting online plants to replace the
natural gas that is being burned in utility boilers. Wasting natural
gas in utility boilers has come home to roost. Twenty-five years ago, I
heard Glenn Seaborg, a Nobel Prize winner, talking about energy. He
said there are some people who want to burn natural gas in combustion
boilers to produce energy. He said using natural gas for that purpose
is similar to taking your most prized piece of antique furniture and
throwing it in the fireplace to keep you warm. That is a bad use.

But environmental policies without considering energy impacts forced
most of the new electric generating plants in the last decade to come
online on natural gas. All those who are heating with natural gas are
paying the price now. We can get a replacement for that natural gas by
using gasified coal, but we need to do so pretty darned quick.
We need to open up areas for the production of natural gas. One of
the things we should remember is that the natural gas problem, the
crisis we face, is not only brought about by constriction and
restriction on the ability to produce the natural gas that exists off
our coasts, in our Federal land, in the resource-producing areas set
aside when ANWR was developed, but we are also facing a natural gas
crisis because we have forced utility companies to burn natural gas to
produce electricity. We need to be smarter and replace that natural gas
with coal gas.
We also have had hysteria over nuclear power. Nuclear power is the
most environmentally friendly, cheapest way to produce electricity.
Thanks to the Energy bill we passed, we are moving ahead to develop new
nuclear power. Our nuclear power facilities are getting old. There has
never been a death; they are the safest means of energy production we
have. Look at France, not an area we normally cite as an example, but
80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear. We need to go
back to development of the new style, safe nuclear powerplants, and
bring them online as quickly as we can.
My colleague had some interesting ideas. I am not surprised the
leadership

[[Page S11466]]

of the other party would come forth with taxes and windfall profits and
ideas such as that, that might sound good, unless you study economics.
Then you wonder, when was it that we passed a law making profits
illegal? We do have laws. We have laws against restraint of trade. We
have laws against price fixing, that say you cannot gain a profit by
agreeing with your competitor to fix prices. We have unfair competition
laws on the books at the FTC, and many States do, about price gouging.
But profits, No. 1, are taxed and, No. 2, are supposed to be providing
the investment we make in the new facilities, for example to produce
more oil and gas and coal, to refine it and to deliver it to market.
Profiteering--I am not exactly sure at what level making a profit is
improper or illegal. I have spent a lot of time as a lawyer on legal
cases coming out many years ago on the windfall profits tax, and I
found for law firms, litigating windfall profits is a multiyear
endeavor with more funds expended on lawyers than recovered. It is not
an easy process and not one for which I would argue.
Also, the suggestion has been made that we ought to establish higher
CAFE standards. We have had that debate. We have had that debate a
number of times. If I remember correctly, a bipartisan majority got
behind something called the Bond-Levin or the Levin-Bond amendment,
which said we need to increase our fuel efficiency standards, but we
should not make the same mistakes we made originally. Yes, when we
passed CAFE standards, one of the ways the CAFE standards were met were
car companies building lighter weight cars, 1,000 or 2,000 pounds
lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said
between 1,600 and 2,000 people a year are killed on the highways solely
because of the lighter cars.
Yes, more cars are being imported, consumers are seeing more cars
coming in from abroad, and they are demanding more fuel-efficient cars,
such as hybrid cars, and that is good. But we passed a law mandating
the NHTSA to increase the fuel standards as rapidly as technology will
permit them to increase those standards without endangering the lives
of the passengers by making lighter weight vehicles. So we do have an
agency looking out for safety, looking out for the technical advances.
Technology has already warranted their increasing the fuel mileage on
light trucks and other autos.
If you want to, I guess my colleagues on the other side could come
out and pass a law banning hybrids, saying you cannot buy an SUV, you
can't buy a small truck. Maybe you would have to get a permit if you
were a farmer. That is the way they did it in the Soviet Union. You
only got a truck if the government decided you needed a truck. I am not
sure we want to go down that path, saying we are going to tell you what
kind of truck you can have, and if you have a large family and want to
be able to transport them to school, to church, to health care, to see
other family members, the Government is going to decide how big a car
or how big an SUV you can have. If they want to debate that I would be
happy to do that. But as long as we are selling cars and trucks that
consumers want, I think pushing the technology as fast as we can is a
responsible way to get there.
Yes, I also agree we ought to consider LIHEAP increases to help low-
income seniors. That is good. We need to push ethanol and biodiesel.
The occupant of the chair was successful in getting the amendment
adopted that mandated 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels be used by
2012. All of these things are important. I believe we must get a good
refinery bill fast-tracking refineries.
In the meantime, as we think about all these energy problems, I hope
my colleagues will come forward with their amendments to this bill, as
I mentioned a long time ago, the Treasury, Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development and Judiciary.
Let us see if we can't get some amendments on this bill and move
forward with that.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first commend my colleague from
Missouri.
For those who are witnessing this, it is becoming dangerously close
to real debate on the floor of the Senate. This is history in the
making. It almost never happens that two Senators who disagree on an
issue will stand and argue their point of view back and forth. One of
the reasons I wanted to run for this body was because I could come over
here and engage in debate. I certainly respect the Senator from
Missouri. We have much different views on energy, and I think he has
articulated his point of view as clearly as one could hope for with a
moment's notice. He didn't know I was coming to the floor to talk about
energy. He did an excellent job.
I would like to clarify a few things. The first point is this: It was
the wisdom of our Founding Fathers which said that every State in the
Union would have two Senators, which means the State of Missouri has
two Senators and the State of Illinois has two Senators. I wish the
very best for the St. Louis Cardinals, and I am certain that the two
Missouri Senators are rooting every moment of every day for their
victory. But this Senator from Illinois is backing an Illinois baseball
team known as the Chicago White Sox. They were successful in winning
the American League pennant. I hope they go all the way in the World
Series. Despite my boyhood roots, I am rooting for the Illinois
baseball team. I had better say that clearly on the record or I can't
go home.
The second thing I say is when it comes to energy, I listened
carefully to what the Senator from Missouri had to say. In virtually
every instance, he suggested there were ways to find new and better and
larger sources of energy to take care of our problem. I listened
closely for any suggestion from him that we should have conservation
and efficiency as part of a national energy policy. If he said it, I
missed it.
I think it is a critical part, because we have to understand that the
conservation of energy means not only that we reduce the costs for
families and businesses to provide the same level of goods and
services, we also reduce the pollution that is a product of burning
energy across America. It is a ``two-fer.'' If you believe we can keep
finding new energy sources, whether it is oil in a national wildlife
refuge up in Alaska or drilling off some of the coasts where
Governors--both Democrats and Republicans--have said we do not accept
that as something we want as part of our State's economy, if you keep
looking for these new energy sources, you are ignoring the obvious. And
the obvious is that fuel efficiency and fuel conservation should be
part of what we do in America. We have learned that over the years. We
haven't compromised our lifestyle while we found more fuel efficiency
in so many different areas of our life every part of every day.
I will concede that the Senator from Missouri did join the Senator
from Michigan in putting together an amendment that at least mentioned
the words ``fuel efficiency'' and ``conservation'' in the last Energy
bill. But I have to say in all fairness that is all it did. It didn't
put any requirement on the automobile manufacturers to make more
efficient cars and trucks across America.
Every time you talk about CAFE standards and fuel efficiency, we get
a history lesson about what the Soviet Government was all about--top-
down government, mandating these policies, forcing rugged individuals
who would like to go their own way to march in close rank and march in
line.
I have to say I view this a lot differently. Left to their own
devices, the major automobile manufacturers in America made hundreds of
thousands of cars and trucks which Americans don't want to buy. They
are now crowding our lots with heavy trucks and SUVs, and Americans are
walking right past them. Instead, we should have thought long ago about
establishing standards that would give consumers a choice in America.
Why is America coming in second when it comes to automotive
technology? When it came to hybrids, the Japanese automobile
manufacturers, Honda and Toyota, got the jump on the United States. Are
they smarter than we are? I don't think so. Many of their engineers and
research scientists went to school in the United States and went back
to their countries to build the cars and trucks Americans wanted to
buy. For some reason, Detroit is always a little behind the curve, and
in

[[Page S11467]]

this situation, it is dangerous because they are so far from
profitability and they have such dramatic costs that they made a
terrible calculation by sticking with these heavy vehicles as the price
of fuel and energy went up across America. I don't think it is the
heavy hand of Government. I think it is good public policy for us to
move forward on a policy for CAFE standards that increases fuel
efficiency. The argument that that means unsafe cars I don't accept. I
happen to believe that in an era of new technologies for safety and
otherwise, there are ways to improve the cars and trucks we drive in
terms of safety without compromising fuel efficiency.

There are things we can do--creative approaches already recognized by
the scientific agencies in Washington--that could be part of cars and
trucks in the future. They are not, and they should be. For us to move
forward on that as a national policy is to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. If you believe, as I do, that is a worthy national goal,
then conservation and fuel efficiency have to be part of it.
The second issue which I raise, and which the Senator from Missouri
mentioned, was a bill that could come before us soon, already having
passed the House, that would suggest that in order to have the oil we
need in America, in order to expand oil refinery capacity, we have to
waive the pollution rules when it comes to air pollution and water
pollution, and we have to waive the environmental standards refineries
have been held to in America. The argument is, if you do not waive
these environmental standards, we will not have enough gasoline, and
you will have to pay more. It is a classic ``your money or your life''
argument, because these environmental and pollution standards are there
for a purpose.
I invite my colleague from Missouri and all of my friends to visit
any classroom of any school in America and ask the following question:
How many students in this classroom know someone who has asthma? Watch
the hands go up. Do you know why? Because across America these lung
problems that air pollution has some relation to are becoming epidemic.
Visit a major hospital in St. Louis or Chicago--a children's hospital
in particular--and ask in the emergency room what the No. 1 diagnosis
is of children brought into their emergency room. I can virtually
guarantee it is going to be asthma. What are we going to do? We are
being asked to waive the air pollution standards for certain industries
and for refineries so we can get cheaper gasoline while we breathe
dirtier air. What a terrific bargain for America. Is that as good as it
gets with this administration? They cannot meet the energy needs of
America without asking us to compromise our public health, to
compromise the safety and quality of water that we drink, to compromise
environmental standards that have been established for years.
This morning, a major company from Illinois--I spoke to one of their
representatives--said several years ago under the Clinton
administration they agreed to a reformulation of diesel fuel in
America, a long-term project that would make diesel fuel cleaner in
America. Do you know what diesel fuel looks like, or used to look like
as it came with billowing smoke out of the tailpipes of cars and
trucks? They want to move to the point where it is much cleaner. Years
ago, we made a commitment as a nation to move to reformulating diesel
so it is cleaner for America.
One of the bills before the Congress today waives that reformulation
requirement after 6 years of investment in cleaner diesel fuel and
cleaner diesel engines. This administration says we have to abandon
that, go back to more air pollution from diesel use in order to have
cheaper gasoline we can buy across America. What a tradeoff, what an
abdication of leadership. America can certainly do better than that.
To have this administration tell us that the only answer to
affordable energy is to compromise the public health and to put up with
more air and water pollution is a completely unacceptable alternative.
I wouldn't want to go to the Senator from the State of Florida, who is
in the chair, and tell him that the Federal Government is going to
mandate drilling off the coast of Florida. I can tell you that the
Governor of Florida, who happens to share the same last name as the
President, doesn't think that is a very good idea.
For the suggestion that may have been made here that we need to start
moving and burning and drilling off the States that don't want oil
drilling and gas drilling off their coasts is a major move by this
administration.
Again, you have to ask the basic question: Why would we do anything
that radical from Washington to deal with energy before we even discuss
the possibility of conservation and fuel efficiency of the cars and
trucks we drive? I think we have to accept responsibility. It isn't
just a question of answering every challenge in America by saying,
party on, you know we are going to find some more energy for you, just
keep using it up, don't pay any attention until tomorrow. I think
America understands, and our younger people understand better, that we
need a serious energy policy that challenges every single one of us as
consumers not only to turn down the thermostat, but be smarter in the
cars and trucks we buy, challenge the manufacturers in Detroit to
produce cars and trucks that are mindful of energy needs across America
and the increasing costs of that energy to families and our economy. We
need a government with the leadership that is responsive to this
national challenge.
The last Energy bill didn't do it. The ink was hardly dry in August
until the Members of the Senate said we had better get back and write a
new energy bill.

For goodness sakes, that is the greatest single condemnation of the
substance of that bill I can think of. We all know it is true. That
last energy bill didn't do it. In a few isolated areas, as I mentioned
earlier, it is a good bill. But, by and large, it didn't address the
fundamental problem facing us today and for years to come.
The last point I will make is this: America's most serious
competition in the world today comes from one country, China. China
right now is mushrooming in growth. They are building new industries
right and left. If you walk into a Wal-Mart to buy a product, you are
walking into the largest importer of Chinese goods in America, Wal-Mart
selling all across the United States. The obvious question is this:
What is China doing about its energy needs? First, it is doing
something we are not doing. It is imposing higher fuel efficiency
standards on its cars and trucks than we do in America. The Chinese are
thinking ahead. They understand that inefficient cars and trucks are
not part of a bright energy future.
The second thing they are doing is fighting us tooth and nail in
every site around the world where energy can be purchased. They are now
our competition for the purchase of energy. Twenty years ago, we didn't
even think about it. They did not have an economy that used that much
energy. They weren't producing goods and services. That world has
changed.
Now, as we continue to be dependent on foreign oil, we are going to
have to continue to fight the Chinese and others for affordable fuel.
That is the reality of global competition.
Does it make sense for us now to take a step back and say as a
national energy policy we ought to figure out ways to keep the American
economy moving, businesses thriving, and jobs being created, but also
build into that energy conservation and efficiency?
That to me is so obvious. Every time I bring it up in a town meeting
in Illinois, people shake their heads and say, You are honestly
debating that in Washington; it seems so obvious. We are debating it.
So far I have lost that debate. But as energy prices go up and people
realize that the energy policy of this administration has failed, I
hope we revisit this important issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I had not intended to extend this wonderful
discussion because we were trying to get amendments on the Treasury,
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Judiciary bill. I
invite people to come down and offer amendments. However, since my
colleague and neighbor brought it up, I thought I might mention a few
things.
No. 1, while he might want to root for the White Sox in the World
Series, I was hoping he would not neglect and disregard and disrespect
all of our wonderful Illinois neighbors who live in the southern part
of the State who are St.

[[Page S11468]]

Louis Cardinal fans. It is with a heavy heart that I tell the people of
southern Illinois that the Cardinal fans have been ``dissed'' by my
colleague from across the river.
I wouldn't normally do that, but since he misquoted what I said, I
thought I might as well take the same liberties and misquote what he
had to say.
First, right there at the end I thought we were almost opening a new
front in this debate. Wal-Mart bashing; oh, that is a great liberal
sport these days, bashing Wal-Mart. I saw just the hint of Wal-Mart
bashing. But I am sorry, I didn't mean to attribute that to my
colleague. He walked away from it. So we are not into Wal-Mart bashing.
But he did say I wasn't interested in conservation or energy
efficiency. Perhaps the reason he didn't vote for the Bond-Levin or
Levin-Bond amendments to conserve energy and assure energy efficiency
is he didn't understand that we ordered the scientists at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find the new technologies and
require that fuel efficiency improvements be made as technological
advances go forward.
That is the whole idea.
How about letting the scientists say what technology actually works?
It is a lot more fun on the stump making a political speech saying we
are going to double the mileage--and, by the way, forget about it if
the lighter cars do kill more people. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration has produced those figures: the lighter cars have
been killing more people.
The third thing he said was we are going to waive all the
environmental rules. We have had continually improving air quality in
this country. We are making progress, and we are continuing to make
progress. That is extremely important.
Are we going to get rid of the standards? No. How about getting the
number of processes? One refinery had 800 different permitting
processes to go through. How many different permitting processes do you
have to go through? We need to hold these refineries or other new
facilities to the standards we are setting to make air cleaner. When
government bureaucracy and lawsuits tell them how to build and how to
operate the facilities, we get tremendous waste. This is why I am
talking about economics. Economics is bringing about conservation, as
is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as are other
conservation measures--new appliances with conservation standards.
Each one of us has the ability, in responding to the marketplace as
to the price of energy, to make wise decisions about energy usage. The
market does work.
If my colleague wants to have an allocation system to tell the
American public what kind of cars and trucks they can buy and dictate
what cars, trucks, and SUVs can be made by auto manufacturers, let's
have that debate. In the meantime, let us all concede that the auto
companies may have missed the mood. They may have made mistakes. They
are paying for those mistakes in misjudging the market. But I would
rather have the private sector taking the hit because they are in it
for the profit motive, and they can afford it, rather than have the
government make those decisions which cost jobs, which cost our
economy.
I am hoping a Member will have an additional amendment. I will look
for that.
I do not intend to answer my colleague from Illinois any further
other than to say that if he cites my position, I will probably
disagree with his characterization of my position. But we will have
this debate perhaps again when we have an honest to goodness Energy
bill, maybe one that fast-tracks refineries that would get us the oil,
diesel, aviation fuel, and the coal gas we need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois, from the southern
part of Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I am from all of Illinois.
The Presiding Officer must face the same thing in the State of
Florida with your loyalties for sports teams. You cannot win in the
State of Illinois. No matter where you go you will run into
opposition--whether a Cardinals, Cubs, or White Sox fan.
I think we have made that issue. At least my position on that issue
is clear as we can.
I say in closing, and I certainly invite the Senator from Missouri to
respond, we ought to ask ourselves the basic question: If you have a
business in America that is unsuccessful, and the business has a loss
in one given year, we provide in our Tax Code that business can carry
that loss forward from the year that it was experienced, so next year's
profits can be reduced accordingly. Your tax liability is reduced
accordingly. It is a carry-forward provision for business losses.
It seems to me consistent to say that those corporations which have
extraordinary profit taking--as we see with these major oil companies--
would be subject to additional taxes.
I am sure the Senator from Missouri disagrees with me. But we have
now seen virtually--I am trying to figure the calculation--roughly 30
percent increase in profits for the major oil companies in the United
States of America, over the last 6 months, over last year. Last year
was a big year for them. Last year, in the same 6-month period, they
had about $39 billion in profits. This was with $40-a-barrel oil. This
year it is up 30 percent over last year's profits.
Why? We know why. When we go to the gas station, we know why. The
price at the pump has gone up dramatically.
The Senator from Missouri thinks this is holy ground, that we should
not touch that money: My goodness, these people were brave enough and
creative enough and entrepreneurial enough to raise gasoline prices,
and we ought to accept that as the reality of capitalism.
But the Tax Code says even if you are profitable you pay taxes. My
position is that if you have these windfall profits at the expense of
our economy and families and businesses you should face a windfall
profits tax. The money should come back to consumers. The money should
come back to fund the LIHEAP program. The money should come back to
create an incentive for automobile manufacturers to make fuel-efficient
cars. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take.
If the oil companies know that every dollar they make in profits by
raising the price of gasoline at the pump is subject to a 50-percent
tax, maybe they will slow down a little bit. Maybe they will not raise
the prices as high next time. Wouldn't that be nice if there was some
disincentive for these prices being skyrocketed and kited on the
average family and business? I don't think it is unreasonable. When we
consider the alternatives we are facing in this town right now, it
makes a lot of sense.
We have arguments being made now that to pay for Hurricane Katrina we
have to cut basic programs in this country for the most vulnerable
Americans. The idea of cutting food stamps and health care for the
poorest people in our country in order to pay for the victims of
Hurricane Katrina strikes me as unfair to the nth degree. Why in the
world would we help the poor people of Katrina by hurting other poor
people in America and look the other way when it comes to the profits
of oil companies?
For goodness' sake, a windfall profit tax I have proposed could
generate about $40 billion. That is a big chunk of the $60 billion we
have heard appropriated for Hurricane Katrina.
Is it unreasonable that these oil companies would help to pay for the
greatest natural disaster in modern memory? At least something good
would come of it, and we would not be cutting the programs and the
basic policies that help the most vulnerable people in America.
I didn't mean to try to get the last word in. I wanted to give the
Senator from Missouri that opportunity, but because he is chairman of
the subcommittee it means he will ultimately have the last word on this
bill and anything else that comes before the Senate.

____________________