[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 11, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5462-S5464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      INCREASED ENERGY PRODUCTION

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, we heard, believe it or not, 
the Democratic nominee for President of the United States suggesting 
that rising gas prices aren't the problem. I will say that again. 
Yesterday, the Democratic nominee for President of the United States 
said rising gas prices are not the problem. The problem, he suggested, 
is that they have gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual 
adjustment. The Democratic nominee for President said the problem is 
not that gas prices are too high, it is that they have gone up too 
fast. He would have preferred a gradual adjustment.
  Now, the position outlined by the Democratic nominee should not be a 
surprise to most Americans, given that Washington Democrats have 
repeatedly refused to allow increased energy production at home even 
though, as we all know, increased supply leads to lower prices. It is 
as if they are doing everything in their power to keep gas prices from 
going down. In fact, the Republicans in the Senate offered a proposal a 
few weeks ago, which would have dealt with the inadequate amount of 
domestic supply, and we were blocked by the majority. They simply 
refused to have a debate on the possibility of opening domestic 
supplies.

  Whether it is shutting down domestic exploration in large areas, both 
onshore and offshore, or instituting a moratorium on oil shale 
development, which this new Washington Democratic majority in Congress 
did, increasing the gas tax or refusing to pursue coal to liquid, 
Democrats long ago implemented a gradual adjustment, as the Democratic 
nominee for President suggested yesterday, a gradual adjustment on gas 
prices that is reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a 
gallon of gas. Kentucky families do not need a gradual adjustment to 
their pocketbooks. They need a solution for their pain at the pump.
  We have seen a lot of recent converts over the last few months 
suddenly advocating for lower gas prices, but their long-time advocacy 
for limiting domestic supply and increasing the gas tax has brought us 
to where we are today. Recycling the same failed ideas from the 1970s 
and increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil only makes the 
problem worse. I wish to be perfectly clear, at a time of record gas 
prices, we do not need to tax them even higher or make American 
consumers be even more reliant on Middle Eastern oil.
  The American people want us to address high gas prices, and we should 
do so the only way that will have a lasting impact: by increasing 
domestic supply in an environmentally responsible way and increasing 
American jobs in the process.
  When our friends on the other side agree to do the same, we will 
believe they are serious about lowering gas prices. Until then, we will 
be left to conclude that all they support is a gradual adjustment 
advocated yesterday by their nominee.

[[Page S5463]]

  What we have had is a situation where one side does not want to do 
anything to address the supply problem and suggest things that will 
only make gas prices higher. The other side has said: We are willing to 
do a balanced energy approach. Last year, we joined with the majority 
to increase the corporate average fuel economy for automobiles. That is 
an important step in the right direction on the conservation side. We 
are anxious to see us move as rapidly as possible to the kinds of 
automobiles that are more efficient and less reliant on gasoline.
  But it is absurd, it is nonsense to suggest that you can rule out of 
bounds, for example, roughly 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf, 
even when we have States that want to go offshore. Take Virginia. Last 
year, Virginia, represented by one Democratic Senator and one 
Republican Senator, wanted to open their Outer Continental Shelf. The 
Senate would not give them permission to do it. Why in the world would 
we want to deny a State which is willing to explore offshore the 
opportunity to do it, particularly in a time when gasoline prices are 
so high?
  We welcome this debate. It is a most important issue in the country 
today. Republicans are comforted by the fact that a growing number of 
opinion polls in the country indicate that a greater percentage of 
Americans get it. One of the most interesting surveys is the one by the 
respected independent polling organization Gallup a little over a week 
ago that indicated, on the issue of going into wilderness areas in a 
limited way and the Outer Continental Shelf where States are willing to 
do it, the American public now favored that 57 to 41. That is a total 
change from a year ago when the numbers were roughly equal.
  The American people understand this is a problem we can do something 
about ourselves. We are the No. 3 oil producer in the world. The Saudis 
are No. 1. The Russians are No. 2. They do not think it makes sense for 
us to continue to beg foreigners, particularly those with unstable 
regimes, to solve this problem for us when we could take it in our own 
hands and, in an environmentally sensitive way, dramatically increase 
our production at home.
  So this is a great debate about the most important issue in the 
country, and Republicans are certainly anxious to engage in this 
debate. We will be discussing this issue all day today and, in all 
likelihood, every day for the foreseeable future.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3098

  Mr. President, on another matter--and I have alerted my friend, the 
majority leader, because I think he may well wish to object--I wish to 
shortly propound a consent request. Let me say the consent request I 
will be asking for will basically, if agreed to, allow the callup of 
the bill S. 3098, which is the McConnell-Kyl-Grassley bill, which 
includes a 1-year AMT patch which was omitted in the House bill that 
the Senate did not agree to go forward with yesterday and extends the 
provisions that expired in 2007 for 2 years. This is a 1-year longer 
extension than was in the House bill we voted on yesterday.
  S. 3098 does not include any tax hikes, reflecting the position of 41 
Senators taken in a letter to Senator Baucus on April 23 of this year. 
However, the Republican alternative also includes the Ensign-Cantwell 
energy tax incentives which was approved by the Senate by a vote of 88 
to 8.
  In addition, S. 3098 does not contain the New York City earmark which 
was in the bill yesterday, the tax break for trial lawyers which was in 
the bill yesterday or the Davis-Bacon expansion which was in the bill 
yesterday. Any or all of those, of course, would draw a veto from the 
President and would make it impossible for us to get this extender 
package into law.
  On balance, this is a bill that could pass the Senate and be signed 
by the President. I would hope we would pass it as soon as possible.
  Having explained what is in the measure, I now ask unanimous consent 
that the pending motion be temporarily set aside and that I be 
recognized in order to move to proceed to S. 3098, the Alternative 
Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief Act, and to file cloture on that 
motion. I further ask that if the motion to proceed to S. 3098 is 
adopted, no other pending business be displaced, with the vote 
occurring today after morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, people who are listening to and watching 
this discussion must go back and understand George Orwell set forth a 
principle in his book ``1984'' that has become known as Orwellian. What 
that means is what the person is saying, they mean the direct opposite.

  This is so hard to respond to in a calm, deliberative manner. We want 
to legislate. The proposal the distinguished Republican leader 
suggested is an amendment we might find a way to approach, but 
shouldn't we get on the bill? I don't understand this. I don't 
understand this. They talk about the way to solve the problems of 
energy in America is to keep drilling, and now they are talking about 
drilling in wilderness areas--pristine areas in which they want to 
start drilling.
  We have 3 percent of the oil in the world, counting everything--ANWR, 
all those other things. We cannot produce our way out of the problems 
we have. Sixty-five percent of the oil we use we import. So it seems 
logical to everyone the thing we should do is stop importing oil. We 
can produce a little more, and we should do that, but the way to get 
out of this problem is to move to alternative energy.
  In this debate, with these gas prices as high as they have ever been 
in the history of America, more than $4.05 a gallon, where is George 
Bush, the President? Why isn't he talking about this? Why isn't he 
talking about this? He hasn't talked about it for the last 2 months. 
Where is John McCain? Does he favor, as obviously he does, the 
obstructionism of the Republicans in the Senate to allow us to go 
forward and debate gas prices? That is what we want to do.
  I made very clear what is in our bill. There is nothing so difficult 
to understand. We believe the cost of oil is driven up by these margins 
that are out of whack. We want to legislate and say let's take a look 
at that. We believe the OPEC nations are being unfair to America. 
Shouldn't we be able to take a look at that? We believe there are 
windfall profits that should be directed back to the American people. 
We believe the subsidies to major oil companies should be taken away, 
and we believe we should be able to do something about alternative 
energy.
  Each step of the way, the Republicans have blocked us from doing 
that. I don't understand why we can't go forward and legislate such as 
this body has done for more than 230 years. Senator Stabenow was here 
yesterday--now we put Velcro on the numbers because they change. 
Everything we do we have to go around the obstructions put up by the 
Republicans. Now the chart has 75 filibusters. We have Velcro, and we 
can add numbers to it. But remember, these acts of obstructionism by 
the Republicans are significant, and they are stopping us from doing 
the American people's business.
  I hope we can move into a time where we can legislate. We are going 
to talk about gas prices today, and the American people, while we are 
talking about gas prices, are filling their tanks at these outrageous 
prices, with the Republicans not letting us move to this legislation. 
In the meantime, George Bush, the President, and John McCain, the 
nominee, are being silent as to what should happen.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the problem, I say to my good friend, 
the majority leader, is he wants to dictate the terms of the debate in 
the Senate, as if we were in the House. What he has done repeatedly, of 
course, is filed needless cloture motions and then filled the tree. All 
this parliamentary gobbledygook, I guess, is confusing to the American 
public. But the Senate has historically been a freewheeling place, 
where both sides had to cast difficult votes.
  I remember when my party was in the majority. Senator Lott and 
Senator Frist used to say to all of us: The price of being in the 
majority is you have to cast a significant number of bad votes in order 
to get a bill through. My good friend, the Democratic leader, has 
decided he wants to protect his Members from having to cast votes they 
don't like. So what he does,

[[Page S5464]]

through a parliamentary procedure that is permissible in the Senate, is 
make it impossible for the minority to offer amendments that they want 
and, of course, the minority's reaction to that is to not let a bill 
without any of their imprint succeed.
  With regard to the substantive issue that is before us, the Los 
Angeles Times, certainly not anywhere near a conservative newspaper, in 
criticizing both sides on the gas price issue, this morning had this to 
say about the proposals my good friend and most in his party are 
advocating--windfall profits tax and the effort to sue OPEC. This is 
what the L.A. Times had to say this morning:

       Exhibit A in the case against congressional Democrats as 
     wise stewards of the energy economy is which failed to 
     advance Tuesday after it got too few votes to head off a 
     filibuster. It would have imposed a windfall-profits tax on 
     oil companies and allowed the U.S. attorney general to sue 
     OPEC on antitrust grounds, among other things.

  They are describing the central provisions of the bill we decided not 
to go forward with yesterday. And this is what they had to say about 
those two proposals:

       Trying to find an economist who thinks a windfall profits 
     tax is a good idea is like searching for a climatologist who 
     thinks global warming is caused by trees.

  This is one of the most liberal editorial pages in America. Let me 
say it again. This is what they said about the windfall profits tax:

       Trying to find an economist who thinks a windfall profits 
     tax is a good idea is like searching for a climatologist who 
     thinks global warming is caused by trees. Such a tax unfairly 
     targets the oil industry, which is already amply taxed and 
     whose profits aren't far out of line with other U.S. 
     industries when considered as a percentage of sales. It also 
     would discourage oil companies from investing in new supply, 
     which is precisely what happened when Congress imposed a 
     similar tax in 1980. The result might be even higher oil 
     prices.

  We have been there and we have done this. We know what happens.

       That's nothing compared with the lunacy of taking the 
     Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to court, 
     though. That would invite retaliation by OPEC members, which 
     could seize the assets of U.S. companies doing business 
     overseas. More likely, there would be a subtler response, 
     such as production slowdowns that would cause oil prices to 
     skyrocket.

  One of the most liberal editorial pages in America about what my good 
friend the majority leader is suggesting is somehow, some way, the 
solution to higher oil prices at the pump.
  This is a debate we welcome. We intend to participate vigorously 
today. There is no way--I repeat, no way--to get a handle on this issue 
without taking greater advantage of the oil production we have within 
our shores that we can explore for and develop in environmentally 
sensitive ways. I think it is noteworthy, for example, that there was 
not a single reported example of spillage in the gulf during the 
Katrina hurricane. I mean, that had to be, quite possibly, the most 
devastating hurricane to ever hit the United States of America. I am 
unaware of a single reported example of any spillage in the offshore 
drilling that is going on in the gulf.
  We know how to do this, Mr. President. We know how to exploit our 
resources in an environmentally sensitive way. So I welcome the debate. 
We are happy to be on the subject, and many of my Members, of course, 
will be looking forward to discussing it during the course of the day.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, my friend's statement about 
the L.A. Times is as Orwellian as his statement about wanting to cast 
votes. Understand, everybody, that he means just the opposite. They do 
not want to cast any votes, so that is why they are preventing us from 
debating this legislation. He said we are making it impossible. That is 
Orwellian. They are the ones stopping us from debating.
  I would suggest to my friend that the L.A. Times is not some liberal 
newspaper. It has been purchased by one of the most conservative men in 
America today. He owns a chain of newspapers. He announced yesterday he 
is going to cut the news of the L.A. Times by 50 percent because the 
newspaper is going broke. So it is not a liberal editorial page.
  But assuming that we understand the Orwellian-speak from the 
Republican side, let me read a little more from the same editorial he 
talked about.

       Republicans are just as short of good ideas. Their big 
     strategy on oil is to open up the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge to drilling. A recent report by the Energy Information 
     Agency showed that there is anywhere between 5.7 billion and 
     16 billion barrels of ``recoverable'' oil in the refuge. 
     Depending on where the actual number falls in that range, it 
     could eventually reduce the price of oil by between 41 cents 
     and $1.44 a barrel. Given that oil is trading at about $135 a 
     barrel, that's not much--and the price reduction wouldn't 
     occur until 2026. In fact, it would take at least a decade to 
     extract a drop from the refuge even if drilling were approved 
     tomorrow. The land is more valuable as a pristine home for 
     threatened species.

  So, Mr. President, again, everything we have heard this morning, as I 
have indicated, everything we have heard from the minority is just the 
opposite factually.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, of course the editorial was critical of 
both sides, which illustrates the point. In order to function in the 
Senate, the majority leader is not going to be allowed to say: Oh, I 
will allow you amendments, but I get to pick them. Every time we have 
had a serious issue come before the Senate, the best offer we have had 
in recent months has been: Oh, sure, we will have amendments, but I 
want to see them first and there are going to be a limited number. I 
can't think of much major legislation that has been able to go forward 
that way unless it enjoys overwhelming support on both sides of the 
aisle--for example, the supplemental to provide funding for our troops 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have such broad support that there is 
widespread cooperation going forward. Normally, the way the Senate 
legislates is to let the Senate legislate.
  I mean, my goodness, I mentioned this last week, and I will mention 
it again. The last sort of major, huge piece of legislation related to 
the environment was the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. We had 180 
amendments in the Senate, and it was a 5-week debate. It was a big, 
major, significant proposal in which both sides participated. It was a 
time in which Senator Mitchell was the Democratic leader and there was 
a Republican named Bush in the White House. That is the way we used to 
do business around here on major environmental legislation.
  And I would say to my good friend that I understand the demands he 
has within his conference to protect his members from bad votes and the 
great desire to try to shut down the minority, but it just doesn't work 
that way in the Senate. And I think we ought to, on these big issues 
where there is a broad difference of opinion, go to these bills in a 
freewheeling and open way and explain to Members on both sides--I will 
explain to mine and he can explain to his--that the price for moving 
legislation in the Senate is that once in a while you have to cast a 
vote on something you wish you didn't. That is the price for doing 
major important legislation. I wish we could get back to that. It is 
obviously not going to happen today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, remember the Orwellian-speak from the other 
side. Everything that my friend has said, just the opposite is factual. 
We would love to take votes. They won't let us take votes. As with 
global warming, we offered two amendments, three amendments, six 
amendments, germane, relevant. We tried every possible procedure, and 
they said: No, you can't do that.
  Mr. President, that is how we feel about this legislation. We believe 
and we have acknowledged that our legislation is not perfect, but it is 
good legislation. If we could get to it, we believe it would allow for 
debate on how to lower gas prices in the short term and, with the 
alternative renewable energy, that it would allow us to look down the 
road and do something that is very significant for the long term. But 
they won't let us legislate on anything. For them to come and say: We 
don't want to take tough votes, well, we will take tough votes, easy 
votes, medium votes, anything. They won't let us. That is why we have 
75 filibusters, and the number keeps going up.

                          ____________________