[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 77 (Monday, May 12, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4010-S4014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PUBLIC OPINION
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, so far, the 110th Congress has failed to
address some of the biggest problems confronting our Nation today.
While some may be content to simply point the finger of blame, I think
it is time for the Senate to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
I was struck by a poll I read which I would like to share with my
colleagues dated April 9, 2008. This is a Rasmussen poll which said
that just 13 percent of likely voters believe Congress is doing a good
or excellent job--13 percent. The respondents to the poll were also
asked whether they thought Congress had passed in the last year any
legislation that was designed to make their life a little bit easier.
Incredibly, only 12 percent of these likely voters said Congress had
passed any legislation to improve life in America during the last year.
Fifty-nine percent said we had not. Fifty-nine percent of the
respondents said Congress had not passed any legislation in the last
year that had made their life better.
This is quite an indictment. Frankly, I think we are going to have a
chance tomorrow morning to demonstrate that either these respondents to
this poll had gotten it all wrong or we are going to prove them exactly
right, depending on the vote we have tomorrow morning on this important
energy legislation I want to talk about in a moment. But first I wish
to offer some suggestions on why it is that Congress is so poorly
thought of by the American voter. Frankly, I think there are a number
of examples. I have four examples of inexplicable delays in how
Congress has failed to take care of the Nation's business.
First of all, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Certainly,
one of the most important jobs of the Federal Government is to make
sure the American people are safe and secure. Our national security is
job No. 1 for the Federal Government.
Over a year ago, our intelligence community alerted us to the fact
that an outdated foreign intelligence surveillance system was causing
our intelligence gatherers to operate essentially blind to new threats.
Despite this urgent plea from the intelligence community, the Speaker
of the House has denied an opportunity for the House of Representatives
to vote on a bipartisan piece of legislation that came out of the
Senate. In fact, this authority has expired for new threats some 87
days ago. Without the critical reform to our foreign intelligence
surveillance system, we will not have access to time-critical
information that will help protect not only our troops who are deployed
around the world but also the American people at home as well. It is
just a crying shame that the House leadership would have delayed
passage of this important legislation. Again, legislation that was
bipartisan and voted out of the Senate is now bogged down and blocked
because the Speaker of the House has denied an opportunity for this
important legislation to come up.
There is another example, unfortunately, justifying the American
public's low opinion of the Congress, and this has to do with the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. We have been waiting 538 days--that is
the second number on the chart, 538 days--for Congress to consider the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. After more than a year of trying to
negotiate with Congress, President Bush finally submitted this
important legislation for fast-track approval. But in a stunning
display of just how far Speaker Pelosi is willing to go to delay this
important agreement, she opted to rewrite the rules of the House of
Representatives in order to avoid having to vote on the bill within the
expedited timeline of our trade promotion authority.
This act would have ensured that farmers in my State, the State of
Texas, as well as manufacturers and small businesses--it would have
provided them a duty-free entry into the markets of the nation of
Colombia in South America. Right now, those goods and services bear a
tariff of up to 80 percent on their products, notwithstanding that my
State of Texas, last year, sold $2.3 billion worth of goods and produce
to the nation of Colombia and the people in Colombia. It is one of our
best trading partners in South America. So why should our American
goods and produce be discriminated against because of these high
tariffs? Well, we had a way to solve that 538 days ago, but the Speaker
of the House of Representatives has simply refused to allow the House
to vote on it.
Recently, American businesses crossed the $1 billion mark in money
lost to tariffs in Colombia as a result of the refusal to consider this
important legislation. That is $1 billion that could have been saved
and invested in our economy, and it is opportunities lost to small
businesses and large businesses in America--such as farmers--to sell
their goods and produce in Colombia without a tariff.
Well, it is also important because Colombia is one of our very best
allies in South America in the fight against the drug cartels and
terrorist organizations. Just last week, Colombia extradited a reputed
drug kingpin, Luis Hernando Gomez Bustamante, to America. This man is
believed to head an organization responsible for 60 percent of the
cocaine in America. He is finally now in custody pending trial in
America, thanks to the Colombian Government. We need to support
Colombia and President Uribe in their fight against men such as Luis
Gomez Bustamante who are bringing deadly drugs to our streets. But,
instead of the kind of cooperation and reinforcement and appreciation
you would expect one friend to show another friend, our friends in
Colombia have gotten nothing but a stiff arm from the Congress in a
refusal to act on important legislation that would benefit them and
would benefit us and would tell the world what it means to be a friend
of the United States: beneficial trading relationships that are to the
mutual benefit of the trading partners. But that was 538 days ago, with
no action, and the clock is still ticking.
Mr. President, 683 days is another important example of mismanagement
of the opportunity we have been given to serve the interests of the
American people. It was 683 days ago that Peter Keisler was first
nominated for a judicial appointment by the President of the United
States. Unfortunately, he is not the only nominee who continues to
languish while the majority continues to drag its feet in providing an
opportunity for an up-or-down vote for these judicial nominees.
Today, as our colleagues from North Carolina have already pointed
out, is the 300th day since Judge Robert Conrad's nomination came to
the Senate, and he has not even been given the courtesy of a committee
hearing--300 days after his nomination came to the Senate.
[[Page S4011]]
So far this year, the Senate has approved a total of one circuit
court judge--just one. That by any standard is abysmal. While we
continue to delay the confirmation of judges, there are 46 judicial
vacancies in the Federal judiciary, 13 of which are considered judicial
emergencies. And what does Congress do? What does the Senate do? Well,
not much, almost nothing to deal with the judicial emergencies and
these vacancies and to provide an up-or-down vote on these nominees.
The American people depend on fully functioning courts to find
justice. The Senate's failure to do its constitutional duty to confirm
or at least to allow a vote on qualified nominees for these vacancies
has a very real impact on communities, on businesses, on the residents
of the areas in which those courts have jurisdiction, and crime victims
to have access to justice. But having no judge who can sit and hear the
case is essentially like locking and chaining the front door to the
courthouse.
Finally, how long will it be before the majority makes good on its
promise that Speaker Pelosi made 749 days ago? It was 749 days ago when
she promised the American people that if the Democrats were given the
majority, they would have a commonsense solution to rising gas prices.
Well, last week, after waiting more than 2 years, Democrats did unveil
a plan. The irony is that it has become all too commonplace to find
that these energy plans do not have one drop of additional energy but,
rather, they recommend, really, more of the same--more taxation, more
litigation, more investigations--but not one single drop of additional
energy, not one single watt of new energy.
While oil and gas prices have hit record highs virtually every day--
today hitting $3.72 a gallon--on January 4, 2007, when Speaker Pelosi
and our friends on the Democratic side took charge of both the House
and the Senate, that price of a gallon of gas was $2.33. Now it is
$3.72. That is about a $1,400-per-family increase in the cost of
living. And Congress continues to do next to nothing to deal with it,
notwithstanding the promise Speaker Pelosi made some 749 days ago.
Well, the irony is that we have heard, in the plan that has been made
by some on the other side of the aisle, that all we need to do is to
raise taxes on the domestic oil producers and that will somehow find a
way to solve our lack of oil and gasoline. Unfortunately, some of these
ideas have been tried before and found to be total and abject failures.
For example, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research
Service, this same tax idea was tried back during the Jimmy Carter
administration. If you are too young to remember what happened during
the Carter administration, there were shortfalls in the supply of
gasoline, resulting in interminable lines waiting at gas stations. As a
result, the Congressional Research Service said that domestic
production--that is America's energy production--fell by roughly 5
percent, resulting in an overall increase in the dependence on imported
oil from foreign sources. Is that what our friends on the other side of
the aisle want, an increase in our dependence on imported oil? Well, I
would think not. So why would they come up with these tested and failed
schemes to increase our reliance on imported oil? I noticed the
distinguished Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy Committee,
Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, has expressed it in words that
perhaps I think are prophetic when he says this windfall profits tax is
very arbitrary and bad policy.
Now, while this plan would help further line the pockets of OPEC, the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and anti-American
foreign leaders such as Hugo Chavez, this bill would also authorize the
American Government to sue OPEC to demand that they increase oil
production.
Now, we ought to think about that one a minute. OPEC, after all, is
composed of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Algeria,
Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates. What our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed
is we file a lawsuit against Iran and Venezuela and tell them to turn
the spigot all the way open. What that would do, of course, assuming it
were possible, is it would mean that we were even more dependent on
imported oil from our enemies such as Iran and Venezuela--not less.
This would only make us more dependent on OPEC--not less.
Now, I believe there is a better solution, and that better solution
is to take advantage of the natural resources God has given this great
country of ours, one with which we have been supremely blessed. If, in
fact, our friends on the other side of the aisle would allow us to pass
the Domenici energy amendment--the American Energy Production Act--it
would have the potential of producing as much as 3 million additional
barrels of oil a day from American natural resources. This bill would
open domestic resources such as shale oil in the Arctic and offshore
deposits to domestic energy producers. It would immediately send a
message to the speculators and commodity investors that there is going
to be an additional amount of oil available in the future, up to 3
million barrels a day, and I believe have an immediate downward effect
on the price of oil--a barrel of oil which, of course, is 70 percent of
the cost of gasoline.
One thing is for sure: By taxing and penalizing our own domestic
producers, that is not a solution, and we need to do everything we can
in our power to lower prices and not to play additional games by
trotting out tired and failed efforts of the past to try to bring down
prices. We know the law of supply and demand is one Congress cannot
repeal, so that is why we ought to pass the Domenici amendment
tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are debating two very different
amendments on gas prices that are up for a vote tomorrow. We have the
proposal of the minority leader that is full of old ideas that will not
work and will do absolutely nothing to affect gas prices now or in the
future. In fact, the only provision in the minority leader's amendment
that would do anything to lower gas prices is lifted directly from the
Democratic plan to lower gas prices. This is the provision to
temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In
response, the majority leader has offered a clean amendment to
temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is
one of the few options we have to address the pain at the pump our
constituents are facing right now.
Every time my friends on the other side of the aisle decide to pay
attention to our energy crisis, their solution is always the same: help
big oil. In 2005, they authored energy provisions that gave ExxonMobil
and other oil giants lavish subsidies that totaled over $14 billion,
and these companies are reaping the rewards with record profits
announced every quarter. ExxonMobil recently announced $11 billion in
profits over a 3-month period. To put that in context, this means
ExxonMobil's yearly profit this year might well be almost twice the
annual budget of the Department of Energy.
The authors of these proposals argue that if we simply shovel more
taxpayer money in the direction of oil companies, this money will
eventually trickle down to the people. But, as we have all too often
seen, it does not. Gasoline prices are now over $3.70 per gallon, and
the specter of $4-per-gallon gasoline is looming around the corner.
While oil companies hoard their windfall profits, the American people
are suffering.
Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want real relief
for the country; they only want to protect big oil's huge profits at
any cost by opening every environmentally sensitive area in the country
to drilling. Now, President Bush was right when he said we are addicted
to oil, but what amazes me is the President's party is unaware they
continue to act like addicts. Instead of supporting real plans to
conserve oil or even transition to sustainable fuels, they go out in
search of their next oil fix.
Some claim the way to lower gas prices is to end a bipartisan, 26-
year moratorium to open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration
and drill, drill, and drill. But the Energy Information Administration
projects that even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf to
drilling off the east coast, off the west coast, and opened the entire
eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing would happen to gas
[[Page S4012]]
prices. Why? First, because production would not begin before the year
2017. The infrastructure to drill for oil is not just a large oil
platform but a network of hundreds of miles of pipeline to transport
oil from the platform onto land and then to refineries. This kind of
infrastructure simply does not exist on the east coast and in only
limited exceptions on the west coast.
The second reason why opening all our shores to oil drilling will not
lower gas prices is because by the time full production actually ramped
up, in 2030, drilling off all our coasts full tilt would only result in
a whopping 3-percent increase in domestic production. And even in 2030,
as our continent is rung all the way around by oil platforms, all of
this new supply will be eaten up by a 7-percent increase in domestic
demand. The Energy Information Administration predicts that: ``Any
impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.''
So even opening all of our coasts to drilling, as the minority leader
proposes, will have no impact on gas prices at all. As my colleagues
can see by this chart, the Federal Government has been issuing more and
more leasing permits for drilling, but at the same time the price of
gasoline has continued to rise. In fact, over 80 percent of the
resources in the Outer Continental Shelf are already open for
exploration. Since 2001, the Bush administration has issued over 100
new leases. Many of these leases are in the eastern Gulf where the oil
industry already has much of the infrastructure necessary to go into
production but only 12 of these new wells have been drilled. The
industry is only developing a small fraction of the area already open
for drilling. Why isn't ExxonMobil pumping some of its profits into
developing these areas? If companies are not interested in developing
the large fields already open in the Gulf of Mexico, why is it so
critical to open environmentally sensitive areas to more drilling?
One might say it is to be expected that those on the side of big oil
would use this sort of rhetoric in an election year, but it is much
worse than that. The McConnell amendment could be both economically and
ecologically devastating. If you look at a picture here taken after a
recent oil spill in San Francisco, this is what we can routinely be
facing if we allow widespread drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.
We could see our beaches closed for business because of oil spills.
In my home State of New Jersey, our shore is a priceless treasure
that my State would protect at any cost, but the shore also generates
tens of billions of dollars in revenues each year and supports almost
half a million jobs. It simply makes no sense to jeopardize a tourism
and fishing economy worth tens of billions of dollars in exchange for a
cumulative total of only a half year's supply of oil. The people of New
Jersey cannot afford the risk of millions of gallons of oil washing up
on our beaches.
This is not just a New Jersey problem. Florida's beaches generate
billions of dollars each year. In South Carolina, Myrtle Beach alone
brought in $3 billion in revenues. Do we want oil washing up onto the
pristine Cape Hatteras National Seashore? What about Virginia Beach?
Can Maryland's famous blue crab survive yet another environmental
assault?
The bottom line is the minority leader's proposal will do nothing to
lower gas prices, but it will jeopardize coastal economies all along
both coasts. Is there anything we can responsibly do to ease the pain
of such high gas prices? The answer is a resounding yes.
One important way to address oil prices that I hope we will be
debating more fully in the next week or so is to better regulate oil
markets. Many analysts who have testified before the relevant House and
Senate committees agree that based on pure supply and demand, the price
of oil should be somewhere between $50 and $70 a barrel. So why are we
hitting $125 a barrel? In part, it is because of excessive speculation
on futures markets, and unlike other markets such as the commodities
involving corn or soybean futures, oil is being traded around the globe
with little or no oversight by the U.S. Government. If the Enron
disaster teaches us anything, it should be that markets cannot be
allowed to operate without real oversight. In the upcoming weeks when
the Senate debates the comprehensive Democratic plan to address runaway
gas prices, one of the most important aspects of that package will be
increased regulation of oil markets so we can effectively combat excess
speculation and any possible market manipulation.
Another important measure to bring short-term relief to the pain at
the pump is the majority leader's amendment to be voted on tomorrow.
This amendment would suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at
least through December 2008. When the people of this country are
suffering with almost $4-a-gallon gas, when the price of oil has broken
$125 a barrel, why would we be burying this precious commodity when we
need it the most? We should stop pouring all that oil into a hole in
the ground until the price of crude oil recedes to $75 or less. This
will truly help drive gas prices back down by increasing supply and
offering some immediate relief to Americans.
It is very important that we look at these proposals. Even Jim
Woolsey is fond of saying, by buying oil in such huge quantities and at
such high prices, we are funding both sides of the war on terror. So it
seems to me that if we want to do something about kicking our
addiction, we don't go after more of it; we move in a different
direction. We suspend the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is already
97 percent full. We will have that opportunity tomorrow. Then we look
at market speculation and these other elements of a truly broad-based
effort that preserves our natural resources, preserves the economy that
those natural resources generate, as the New Jersey shore does, and
then ultimately achieves the goal of not only driving down the cost of
gas but at the same time move us in a different direction to break our
dependency.
So what are the real long-term solutions to ending our dependence on
oil and greening our transportation fleet?
The first thing we need to do is drastically improve fuel economy. In
1976, our cars and trucks got 13 miles per gallon. Because of the Arab
oil crisis, we passed laws to improve the fuel economy of our passenger
vehicles. From 1976 to 1981, we saw a rapid increase in fuel economy.
In 1981, our fleet had improved to 21 miles per gallon. But since 1981,
without the political will to improve fuel economy standards and the
rising popularity of SUVs, the average fuel economy of our passenger
vehicle fleet actually declined to 20 miles per gallon in 2006.
What would have happened if we had kept slowly improving the fuel
economy of our vehicles from 1981 to the present? If we had increased
fuel economy a modest 2 percent per year during that time, our new
fleet of vehicles would now average 34 miles per gallon. While this is
certainly a huge improvement over where we sit today, it was definitely
achievable since this figure is still well below standards set in Japan
which are over 40 miles per gallon.
Astonishingly, if we had followed this course, our current demand for
oil would be over one-third less than it is today, down over 2 billion
barrels of oil per year. Cumulatively, we would have saved over 30
billion barrels of oil. Thirty billion barrels of oil is more oil than
the entire proven oil reserves remaining in the United States. This
means that this sensible and achievable policy could have saved us more
oil than we could ever hope to gain from domestic drilling. It is
commendable that we have finally raised fuel economy standards, but we
must make even further reductions if we want to make up for lost time.
Of course, fuel efficiency is just part of the answer to solving our
addiction to oil. We also need tax incentives to increase the producion
and use of superefficient vehicles already out there--such as hybrids.
We need a massive investment in cars that can run on sustainable
alternative fuels like electricity or cellulosic ethanol. Once we truly
have a choice of fuels, the grip of our oil addiction will finally
loosen.
This country also needs to invest in our mass transit infrastructure.
This weekend the New York Times reported that mass transit is up all
over the country. We need a huge investment in mass transit to make
sure that we all have multiple transportation options so we are not so
reliant on driving.
[[Page S4013]]
But while most of the Democratic Party supports these sensible policy
reforms, my friends on the other side of the aisle are stuck in the
past advocating old positions from previous Congresses. Mr. President,
I hope that this will be the last time I need to rise in this Chamber
to point out that more oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas
is not the answer to our oil addiction. It is time for an intervention.
It is time for a real cure based on a tough examination and
reordering of our energy priorities--and not the tired old policies of
the past.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is time for us to get real about energy.
It is time for us to get real about gas prices. Withholding from the
American people new oil supplies needed to get gas prices down will
only hurt our families and our workers more.
American families are suffering from record pain at the pump.
Truckers and shippers face layoffs and losses. Farmers, processors, and
packagers are sending their food to market with higher prices and
higher costs, and airlines are once again threatened with bankruptcy.
Whether you drive a car, a big rig or a tractor, you know personally
what I am talking about. With average gas prices now topping $3.70 a
gallon, you have a right to demand some answers about our energy
future. Your pain and suffering demands we supply you with relief.
Relief comes in the form of economics 101. Folks, every time prices are
too high, there is too much demand and too little supply. Now, maybe
some of our colleagues did not take the economics course, but I believe
in common sense, and I believe the American people have common sense.
They realize that when you don't have enough of something, and the
demand keeps going up, the price goes up.
That is how our system works. Answers that focus only on demand and
not on supply are not enough to fix the problem. So we are where we are
today with record high gas prices inflicting record pain at the pump.
Don't get me wrong. I support good, strong measures to reduce the
demand for oil. Last year, I supported Congress's measure to increase
aggressively but achievably high standards for corporate average fuel
economy, or CAFE. That would force better gas mileage from cars and
trucks. But those new fuel efficiency requirements will take years
before they have an effect. In the meantime, families and workers will
suffer through years of higher gas prices. Auto makers cannot go out
tomorrow and build a new fleet of high gas mileage cars and trucks. New
cars take years to design and build.
Even if highly efficient cars were available tomorrow, families in
the middle of 4-year car loans probably cannot go out and buy a new
car. They have to wait until they can purchase a more fuel-efficient
car. In the meantime, these families will suffer through more years of
higher prices.
We can cut demand with more people riding mass transit, and I have
supported mass transit. I will continue to do so. But if you don't have
mass transit in your area, such as where I live and where a whole lot
of people in rural America live, you cannot move to the city or get a
different job. In the meantime, you will suffer through years more of
higher gas prices.
We can cut demand by subsidizing hybrid vehicles. Congress supported
those tax credits, as I do. But hybrid cars are too expensive now and
will take too many years to become affordable to most families. We are
working in Missouri to get much more efficient, much lighter batteries
that can help meet the needs for hybrid and plug-in cars. In the
meantime, while we are working on those technologies, families will
suffer through years more of higher gas prices.
I, for one, am unwilling to allow families to suffer years more of
higher gas prices, while we wait for demand strategies to work.
To address supply, some say we should take our hat in hand and beg
our Middle Eastern suppliers to produce more oil. Since when has
increasing our dependence on the Middle East ever been a good idea?
Some propose raising taxes on suppliers searching and developing new
domestic oil supplies. Since when has taxing something more ever
increased its supply or lowered its price? Never. When we put taxes on
those who are searching and developing for new domestic oil supplies,
we ensure that there won't be as much and the price will be higher.
Some say we should investigate suppliers to probe what is making
prices so high. I too support investigating wrongdoing, but since when
has investigating something ever increased its supply or lowered its
price?
The American people deserve more than begging, taxing, and
investigating. American families and workers deserve real actions
toward real solutions. America doesn't need to look that far. Indeed,
the solutions to America's supply problems are right here in our own
backyard. America's lands, ocean floors, and mountains hold billions of
gallons of oil waiting for us to come and get it.
We have millions of gallons of oil beneath the frozen tundra of
northern Alaska. Had there not been a veto in 1995 of the development
of the sources above the Arctic circle in Alaska, we would be getting a
million gallons of oil a day from Alaska. You cannot tell me that would
not lower the price. It would have a huge impact. We also have millions
of gallons of oil beneath the seabeds miles off our coasts. We have
billions of gallons of oil trapped in the shale beneath our Rocky
Mountains.
Tapping these new U.S. supplies will help relieve prices immediately.
While it is true it will take years before new supplies will come on,
we will send an immediate signal to the speculators in the oil trading
markets that new suppliers are on their way. They cannot continue to
push prices higher.
Today's prices built on limited supply and a world dependent on
trouble spots will see America deciding to open vast and safe new oil
supplies. Oil prices, built on predicting the future, will have no
choice but to fall in the face of a future safe, new supply source for
America.
We can also face the future using new technologies. America owns, and
uses every day, environmentally friendly oil technologies that are
cleaner than ever before for exploring, developing, and producing. We
can drill sideways deep underground to avoid sensitive areas above. We
can drill many locations from a single site to avoid sensitive areas
around.
Environmentally friendly operations in northern Alaska can drill in
the winter and be gone long before any animals are active in the
spring.
Environmentally friendly operations could drill in the ocean and
survive hurricanes such as Katrina with no spilled oil or gas. Does
anybody recall the spills resulting when Hurricane Katrina tore through
the Gulf of Mexico drilling rigs? No, because they didn't happen.
To say we would repeat the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s with the
same 40-year-old technology is like saying we will all continue to call
ourselves on rotary telephones or write each other on typewriters.
Another source of transportation fuel from new technology is coal to
liquids. The technology to turn coal into liquid jet fuel or diesel has
been around for a hundred years. We now have the technology to capture
carbon emissions and make it cleaner than refining conventional oil
and, in addition, providing a greater supply.
We are also developing even cleaner and more affordable forms of
biofuels. Technology giving us clean-burning corn ethanol today will
give us cellulosic ethanol tomorrow with grasses and wood chips.
In my State of Missouri, gas is 10 cents cheaper than it otherwise
would be because we require 10 percent ethanol in all pumps. This will
save Missouri drivers $285 million this year. Some people say ethanol
is driving up prices. Ethanol is a lot cheaper to produce, and it uses
fermentation, not the cat cracking that goes into regular gasoline. It
brings down prices; it doesn't drive up the price of the fuel. The
overall shortage of fuel has driven up the price for food. But most
importantly, the Government hoarding food is driving up the price.
Don't make farmers the scapegoats. They are responding to the demand
Congress made of them to go out and build ethanol-producing plants and
produce the ethanol to get cleaner, cheaper, domestically-produced
energy. That is what they are doing.
[[Page S4014]]
Now the future is brighter in many areas because of new, cleaner
technologies. We can have a brighter future of energy supplies if we
let all these new technologies work for us.
We can also have a brighter future of energy supplies if we stop
being selfish and start thinking about the collective good. Too many
individuals are willing to say ``not in my backyard,'' even if it means
the group suffers. Too many groups pursue NIMBY strategies even if it
means the Nation suffers.
Nobody here is trying to force Alaska to do something Alaska doesn't
want to do. Alaskans want to open more of their oil reserves. But it is
people in places such as Massachusetts saying no to Alaska.
No one here is trying to force Virginia to do something it doesn't
want to do. Virginians want to explore for oil and gas off their
coastline. It is people in places such as California and New Jersey
saying no to Virginians.
Nobody here is trying to force Colorado to do something it doesn't
want to do. Colorado wants to tap the shale beneath its mountains. It
is people in places such as Washington, DC, saying no to Colorado.
This type of NIMBY sentiment must end. This type of selfishness must
end. This type of inflicting multiyear pain waiting for demand
strategies must end. We must no longer deny Americans the new supply
solutions they need. We must no longer refuse American families and
workers the lower gas prices they demand.
We must not only suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, we must also open new oil supplies in northern Alaska, open
new oil and gas supplies under our oceans, and open new oil shale
supplies under our mountains, and open our ability to refine more oil.
We must open the ability of U.S. workers to manufacture more hybrid
batteries.
I urge my colleagues to support the Republican amendment and
provision that will be coming tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues have spoken
about the energy challenge and the crisis we face. I look forward to
supporting Senator Reid's amendment tomorrow. That amendment has been
outlined in great detail during the course of the afternoon. I am in
strong support of that amendment.
We are facing a national challenge, and if you look back,
historically, when we have been facing a national challenge--and this
time is a wartime--not to say all of this crisis is from the war, but
whether it is adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or bidding up
prices in other parts of the world, it is unconscionable that we have
these extraordinary windfall profits that are out of the pockets of
working families. And the indifference of this administration to the
plight of these working families is appalling.
I applaud our leader for the legislation we will have a chance to
vote on tomorrow and, hopefully, we will have a strong vote in support
of it. It is inevitable that we are going to be successful because the
American people are not going to tolerate the indifference and the
extraordinary profiteering that is being experienced in this country at
this time. I thank our leader for his efforts and his recommendations
to the Senate, and I look forward to voting in support of that
tomorrow.
____________________