[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 97 (Thursday, June 12, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5565-S5573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADDRESSING HIGH GAS PRICES
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, over the last several weeks, I have
come to the Senate floor to discuss my ideas on how to address the high
price of gasoline in this country. I understand the toll these high
prices are taking on the American people, and I understand the grave
consequences of continuing our cycle of dependence upon foreign oil.
Americans are looking to us for some solutions and leadership. But,
so far, all they are getting is gridlock and fighting. However, I think
there are some things that we ought to be able to come together on that
would truly address the fundamental global supply and demand imbalance.
Today, I would like to talk about them with the Senate and anybody who
is interested out in the hinterland of America.
This morning, my friend, the senior Senator from New York, said the
Republican leader was incorrect in his assertion that the Democrats do
not want to increase American oil and gas production. I was glad to
hear him say that because given the votes that the other side has
taken, I had my doubts. Just in the last month alone, they have opposed
exploring in Alaska, opposed deep sea exploration, opposed lifting the
moratorium on final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shale,
and they have opposed converting coal to liquid fuel. That liquid fuel
could be used by the U.S. military, as an example. They will be using
it in one way or another. They could use the liquid that comes from
conversion from coal.
In fact, in the past, a large majority of the other side of the aisle
has opposed taking inventories on our U.S. lands to simply find out how
much oil and gas we actually have. Why would that proposition be
objectionable? Wouldn't it seem appropriate, with such large resources
offshore, that we would inventory them, even if it costs some money?
The amount we could find out there may be terrific and tremendous in
size. Yet we have had objection to even doing that.
If the United States were to explore in our deep sea and move to
develop our vast quantities of oil shale--just those two things--we
could completely shift our dependence upon foreign oil in ways I
suspect my friends on the other side of the aisle don't even realize.
The amount of oil shale potential alone in our Nation is massive. This
morning, I met with officials from the Department of the Interior who
told me that in the coming decades, American companies are predicting
production of up to 3 million barrels per day from our American oil
shale. That gives us a good idea of just how much our Nation has at its
disposal that we are not taking advantage of.
Nevertheless, my friend from New York pointed out that he supported
my effort in 2006 to open a portion of the Gulf of Mexico to
exploration. In fact, he even said he ``helped lead the charge.'' Well,
if that was the case, then I invite him to help me once again lead the
charge to increase domestic production. Everything I have tried so far,
his side has said no to. Tell me, what proposal will get them to say
``yes''? The Senator knows that I have been here a long time, and I
have had a hand in passing many pieces of legislation. I understand it
usually takes some bipartisan compromise to get something done. So I
say to my friend, on the production side, how can we compromise?
One reason I have been so discouraged about our ability to get
something done is because even a limited, reasonable proposal to allow
one single State to explore natural gas was rejected by the other side
last year. My good friend from Virginia, Senator Warner--who you all
know is respected for his bipartisanship--introduced an amendment a
year ago this week, with Senator Webb's support, that would have
allowed his home State to conduct natural gas exploration in the deep
sea over 50 miles off the coast. He did this because the Democratic
Governor of Virginia, and Republicans in the legislature expressed
interest in possibly developing Virginia's coastal resources.
It all sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? What is the harm in
letting Virginia explore for natural gas if Virginia is interested in
it? And yet Senator Warner's amendment was defeated by the Senate. Six
Members from the other side of the aisle voted for it, and 39 voted
against it--including my friend from New York.
America has enormous oil and gas resources. Total offshore oil
reserves are around 85.9 billion barrels of oil. Over 19 billion of
that is completely off-limits for exploration. On shore, we have 30.5
billion barrels of oil, and over 60 percent of it is considered off-
limits. We have over 1.6 trillion barrels of oil equivalent in oil
shale, which is the equivalent of more than three times the oil
reserves of Saudi Arabia.
This policy of taking our own resources off the table simply makes no
sense, especially when we face a price of $135 per barrel of oil and $4
per gallon of gasoline. No other nation in the world deliberately
prevents itself from using its own resources. Look around the world--
Brazil, Norway, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Russia and many others.
They are producing their own oil and gas off of their own shorelines.
So I sincerely hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will
join with me to try to find a way to allow States that wish to explore
50 miles off their coasts to be able to do so.
The other side of the aisle frequently tells us that we can't drill
our way out of this problem. This morning, the majority leader said
that the ``answer to this is not drill, drill, drill.'' I agree with
him. He is right. The answer to this problem is not just ``drill,
drill, drill.'' There is no question that our long term future requires
us to find solutions other than drilling. We need to reduce our
dependence on oil from all sources. But we need to build a bridge to
help get us there. On the far side of the bridge is a world in which
cellulosic ethanol and plug-in hybrid vehicles are available and
deployed on a wide scale basis. But in the near term our experts tell
us we need oil to fuel our economy and our lives. So the question
remains: is Congress going to choose to create jobs and revenues in
America by exploring for our own oil and gas, or are we going to
continue to increase our deficit by purchasing foreign oil in greater
quantities?
In order to get across this bridge I just described to secure an
energy future, we need to develop our own natural resources. So let's
build this bridge to a cleaner, more independent energy future by
increasing domestic production here at home. It will take time and
investments. Congress has already made great progress developing these
resources for the long term and for the future of this country, but we
are falling short in the near term. So let's come together in a
bipartisan fashion to build a bridge to the future and begin to reduce
our reliance on foreign oil.
I truly believe that if we decided we could do this, the independence
that would be shown to the world because of the great quantities we
could say we would produce for ourselves, for the world inventory,
would have an immediate impact on those who are speculating and those
who are counting on a future of shortage. When they see the United
States is going to do something about it, it can do something rather
significant, I am convinced.
[[Page S5566]]
We don't need to look at those other countries in awe when we have at
home great resources that we are refusing to explore just because we
refuse to do it. There should be no higher priority than the
exploration of these resources, unless it is some great national
interest that takes over and takes place and displaces this enormous
interest we have to stop sending $125 a barrel to a foreign country for
every barrel of oil we use.
I repeat what I have said before: We are growing poor--p-o-o-r. Our
economy is not flourishing, and we are asking why. We are being given
all kinds of reasons. This Senator says one of the big reasons is that
we are approaching the time when we will have sent $600 billion a year
to foreign countries just for the crude oil we consume at home. If we
have some of that locked up offshore of our country, we should say:
Where is it, and what damage will it do if we use it? The answer will
probably be that we have plenty and there will be no damage to use it.
And if we move it out 25 or 50 miles from the shoreline into deep
waters, there will be no damage to anyone.
This technology has been perfected. Hurricane Katrina hit a part of
the offshore where we had many of these rigs. Some were old and some
were brandnew technology. It didn't matter, the technology was strong
enough to where there was no leakage, no oil was spilled.
I believe my friend has been waiting; therefore, I will not use my
last 2 minutes. I will certainly yield to my good friend from
Connecticut. I told the Senator that if he lets me go first, good
things would follow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Energy Production
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, who
is a wonderful friend. I appreciate his kindness and generosity.
I wish to speak, if I may, about the so-called Merida Initiative.
This is a proposal which was made by President Bush, along with
President Calderon of Mexico, to deal with the raging drug violence
that is occurring along the Mexican border, particularly in Mexico
itself. However, I also wish to briefly address, if I may, the issue of
energy production.
We had this debate earlier this week on energy issues. I know one of
the arguments being raised is, of course, that we are denying the oil
and gas industry the opportunity to drill for more of these products
off our own shores, and if we did more of that, then we would be
reducing our problems and bringing down costs.
Let me announce to my colleagues that I intend to propose legislation
directly addressing this issue of oil production and development. I
commend the Members of the other body--Congressman Markey, Congressman
Hinchey, Congressman Rahall, and Congressman Emanuel. They proposed a
bill over there, which I will offer here, which addresses this issue.
We hear this argument that if we allow production in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and some of the coastal regions, we will be in
great shape. But, Mr. President, there are 44 million offshore acres
that have been leased by the oil companies, but these companies have
put only 10.5 million of those acres into production. Of the 47.5
million onshore acres under lease for oil and gas production, only 13
million are in production. Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases
to 68 million acres of Federal land and waters on which they are not
producing any oil and gas, despite the fact they have the leases and
could be drilling there. Compare that with just 1.5 million acres of
ANWR that proponents of drilling say they want us to open. The vast
majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal lands are already
open for drilling, and they are not being tapped.
I hear complaints about the 1.5 million acres closed off in ANWR, and
yet we are sitting on roughly 68 million acres under lease but not in
production--why don't they talk about that?
So our bill is basically a ``use it or lose it'' lease idea. If you
are going to sit on these leases and do nothing with them, then you
ought to be paying a higher fee. In our proposal, this fee would be $5
per acre per year for the first three years. We would then raise the
fee, if the property remains unused, to $25 per acre in the fourth year
and to $50 per acre in the fifth year and beyond. This will be an
incentive to companies to put these millions of acres where leases have
already been granted for oil and gas production to actually use this
land they control. This is our answer to the great complaint: Let us
drill in ANWR. Why not use the leases you have already been given?
I will offer that legislation.
By the way, the revenue that would come in from those production
incentive fees would be devoted to the development of wind, solar,
other alternative energy ideas, weatherization programs, and, of
course, low-income energy assistance, to help with what is sure to be a
staggering cost for moderate and lower income families come next
winter.
This is an idea that I think will debunk this notion that if we can
only produce more by drilling in new areas, we will solve our energy
problems. Well, why aren't you drilling on the millions of acres you
have leases on already instead of complaining about 1.5 million acres
or a few more offshore when there are literally millions of acres
already under lease that oil companies are doing nothing with? If they
are not going to drill on it, they are going to pay more.
Merida Initiative
Madam President, I wish to address the Merida Initiative. As all of
my colleagues are aware, this bilateral initiative, the Merida
Initiative, is a proposal between the United States and Mexico designed
to combat the shocking increase in drug-related violence in Mexico over
the past year.
Last weekend, I spent the weekend at an interparliamentary meeting in
Monterey, Mexico, with our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Corker, at
their annual meeting. This is the 47th gathering of the bilateral
Members of Congress of the United States and Mexico to meet and talk
about bilateral issues. I am pleased that this was my 20th or 21st year
in which I participated in these bilateral meetings with our neighbors
to the south. But the issue of the drug cartels and the violence they
are causing in that country, not to mention our problems on the border,
was the dominant theme of this past weekend's gathering. Much of the
discussion, as I say, focused around this initiative, in large part
because of the grotesque increase in drug-related violence in Mexico
within recent months.
While in Mexico, I expressed my condolences to the Mexican people on
behalf of our colleagues here and the American people for what they
have gone through. Some 4,000 people, police officers, military
personnel, have lost their lives to the drug cartels in recent months,
including the assassination of the chief of police of the country,
Millan Gomez, who was gunned down inside his home. Cartel members
waited inside his house to assassinate him. This would be tantamount to
the Director of the FBI being gunned down in his home in the United
States. That is how violent these cartels are. That is how unafraid
they are of any retribution. So I think the notion of cooperation
between our two countries is absolutely critical.
Mexico, as I said, has been under siege, and they need and deserve a
combined effort. Though it is the Mexican people who bear the brunt of
so many of these problems they are facing, there are, indeed, common
security challenges affecting both of our people. So let me say
unequivocally that the United States is committed--I believe all of us
are--to helping and working with our colleagues, our neighbor to the
south, Mexico, to end such violence.
President Calderon of Mexico made a very sincere gesture in reaching
out to the United States for cooperation in this battle. Combating drug
trafficking and related violence and organized crime through
intelligence sharing, law enforcement, and institution building is
critically important.
But it was unfortunate that the proposal that was made to the Mexican
Government by the Bush administration lacked any input or consultation
with the respective two legislative bodies. That was not just a
violation of good manners. Rather, if you are going to propose these
kinds of initiatives, it is critically important that you invite the
Members of Congress who will have
[[Page S5567]]
to appropriate the money and be responsible for the oversight of these
programs. So at the outset you need to involve Democrats and
Republicans in both Chambers, not because you fear they are going to
object to the proposal, but because you are going to need their ongoing
support.
In the case of the Merida Initiative, while all the good intentions
are there, when you announce these proposals and do not invite input,
you invariably end up with a train wreck that caused the problems that
I had to listen to all weekend long in Mexico about whether we are
putting conditions on these proposals, in some way limiting them or
certifying this kind of financial assistance to Mexico, which was met
with incredible hostility by every political party in the country--
political parties that rarely agree on anything, by the way, but on the
response to the Merida Initiative, there was unanimity among the
political parties in Mexico despite what I think is a clear desire to
see the kind of cooperation we absolutely need if we are going to have
any success at all in taking on these cartels.
There also needs to be more accountability on both sides of the
border. My primary concern is that Merida, as presented to both
Congresses, focuses too much on the short-term fixes, which are of
course needed, and very little on the longer term problems which we
must address. I do not and would not object to this program on that
basis alone, but I think it is important that we acknowledge this
shortcoming.
No one denies that we need well-trained and well-equipped police
forces to confront the most violent criminals, and no one doubts that
Mexico urgently needs assistance fighting these violent criminals. They
are tremendously well financed, and they are incredibly well armed.
They have equipment and armaments that would compete with almost any
military in the world, let alone a police force.
But what is equally needed is well-trained and well-equipped civilian
judicial authorities and institutions to enforce and uphold the rule of
law. We must work to combat corruption and do a better job of sharing
intelligence.
These are all commonly held goals. We must tackle the larger,
systemic problems which only exacerbate the drug trafficking and
violence we witnessed over the last number of months.
Only by creating robust economic alternatives to the drug trade can
the United States and Mexico together build the kind of future that
reduces the number of people who enter into the drug trade either by
force or by choice. That is why I am very supportive of an approach
that more broadly promotes regional trade and political engagement, an
approach that fosters sustainable growth through private investment,
increased foreign aid, and supports regional institutions, such as the
Inter-American Development Bank. Given our shared border of thousands
of miles, the United States and Mexico must also deepen their bilateral
partnership in ways that are mutually beneficial, such as more closely
coordinating border security to ensure our goods and services can move
through more effectively and efficiently. We should promote more
business and cultural ties and more direct investment across the border
as well. The United States must also support Mexico's integration with
its southern neighbors as well and the role they play in both of our
economies.
While a bilateral approach will be necessary, given the interrelated
nature of our economies, a regional approach will be required to ensure
effective and sustainable economic growth over the long term.
In addition to fostering sustainable economic development, we must
also cooperate on financial intelligence and counter money-laundering
programs and combat the black-market peso exchange which undermines the
very economic alternatives we are trying to create on a bilateral
basis.
In addition, of course, our own country must take responsibility for
our contributions to the growing insecurity and to the violence that
occurs in Mexico. Though we often fail to admit it or take action to
address it, one of the biggest markets for illegal drugs, and by far
the largest supplier of weapons to some of the most violent cartels in
Central South America and Mexico, is, of course, our own country. Any
sustainable effort to reduce trafficking and violence in Mexico must
seriously address problems on both sides of the border, and here, I
think, Merida, while it is a very good proposal and idea, falls a
little bit short.
Despite all this, Merida is a very good first start, and I support
it. Despite the failure of this administration to work with and consult
Democrats and Republicans in both Houses, which should happen if we are
going to succeed with this initiative, and despite the fact Merida is
focused too much, in my view, on short-term fixes, and despite the fact
Congress will most likely not be able to fully fund Merida as much as
we would like--given problems in other places around the world,
including Burma and Darfur, U.N. peacekeeping and food aid--this is a
good beginning and it is deserving of our support--identifying the
common concerns we share with our neighbor to the south.
While in Monterrey, I heard many concerns voiced by our Mexican
counterparts about some of the language in the Merida Initiative,
particularly language which many of our friends to the south are
calling conditions in the legislation. Let me be clear, at least for my
own part. The intent of the Senate language is not to condition our aid
but rather to insist--as Mexicans ought to as well--on accountability
from both our administration and from the Government of Mexico.
I, for one, am not going to sign off on a blank check that does not
demand accountability from this administration. Of all the terrible
lessons we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, surely one is that more
accountability can only be a positive thing, not only to guarantee
taxpayer money is being well spent but also to sustain these programs
over the longer term. That said, I understand Mexico's sensitivity to
the idea of conditions, and I agree with those sensitivities.
Many in this Chamber will remember the arduous and contentious
certification process we used to use to determine whether Mexico was
cooperating in counternarcotics programs. My friend and colleague,
Senator Pat Leahy, has been a hero on these issues, to me and many
others, over many years. His concern about human rights and
accountability of dollars is long-standing and never focused on any
country, or one specific issue. He is concerned, as he should and all
of us should be, to make sure we abolish the certification process.
He was not only cooperative but also understood better than most when
the debate raged in this Chamber about a certification bill, because
rather then ensuring cooperation on counternarcotics operations, all
certification ensured was that the United States and Mexico would
simply feud day in and day out over what qualified--a development that
benefitted no one but the drug traffickers.
So as a joint effort, we were able to change that certification
process. And cooperation improved dramatically as a result, I might
add. So I support the work Senator Leahy is engaged in. I explained to
our Mexican counterparts what his intentions were in regard to the
Merida Initiative, and because of the negotiations we have had over the
last number of days, I believe the Merida Initiative, as constructed,
is going to work well and be received well.
The people of Mexico, indeed, Latin Americans in general, have no
greater friend than Patrick Leahy, a Senator who champions human rights
and has worked throughout his career to foster closer ties and change
in our hemisphere.
The United States--including myself, Senator Leahy, and others--is
committed to addressing many of the concerns voiced by Mexico and to
reaching a compromise acceptable to everyone, a compromise that will,
in the words of Senator Leahy, ``provide support for the Merida
Initiative in a manner that addresses our shared interests and
concerns.''
So rather than characterize these ongoing talks with our friends in
Mexico, as some have in the United States, as ``rejecting Merida'' or
``abandoning Mexico'' or an ``infringement on sovereignty,'' I believe
we have an obligation--both countries do--to share responsibilities
with our executive branch, to tone down the rhetoric, to lower the
temperature, and to work together to craft an effective broad-based
[[Page S5568]]
strategy that combats drug trafficking, takes on these cartels, and
lets them know they are never going to prevail in the efforts they are
using today to advance their narcotics trafficking.
It is important that the cartels understand this debate about the
Merida Initiative in no way should be construed as a retreat from our
common goals to see that the cartels are soundly defeated; that they
are wiped out as cartels trying to do what they do every day.
Secondly, the audiences in our respective countries should understand
that we will work cooperatively, that we will work together to advance
this cause. I believe that is a sentiment that we all share in this
Chamber, and that people across this country share too.
So working together, I think we will get Merida right. I am confident
that, in the end, we will produce an agreement that will be acceptable
to both the Mexicans and Americans so we can join together in building
a safer, more productive future and successfully combat those engaged
in the violence within Mexico and along our border area. That is our
shared goal. That is the kind of lasting change I think we all want.
And through this process, this is what I believe we can produce
together.
I yield the floor for my colleague from Pennsylvania, who is here and
ready to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
U.S. And Iraq Agreements
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to discuss two agreements under
negotiation between the United States and Iraq that have grabbed
headlines in recent days as more and more Iraqi politicians announce
their strong opposition to these agreements. The two agreements will
shape the presence of American military forces in Iraq long beyond the
tenure of the current administration. Unfortunately, the
administration, in my judgment, is handling these negotiations in the
same manner that has characterized its entire approach to Iraq since
2003. Its approach is this: unnecessary secrecy, a disdain for
congressional input, and an arrogant insistence that its course of
action--the administration's course of action--is the only reasonable
option.
Let me talk about each of these agreements. The first agreement to
which I am referring is a proposed Status of Forces Agreement, known by
the acronym SOFA. The Status of Forces Agreement would define the
authorities, privileges, and immunities of American troops on Iraqi
soil and allow U.S. forces to remain in Iraq beyond December 31, when a
U.N. Security Council mandate, authorizing the presence of coalition
troops, is scheduled to expire. Administration officials insist the
extension of the U.N. mandate, which has been repeatedly renewed on an
annual basis, is no longer possible; the Iraqis seek to return to a
normal status in the international system and no longer want to be the
subject of a U.N. authorized military operation.
The second agreement involves a more ambiguous ``strategic
framework,'' which would lay out the broad political, security, and
economic ties between our two nations. While the administration walked
back from previous statements indicating the United States is prepared
to offer a binding security guarantee to Iraq's Government to come to
its defense in the event of foreign aggression or internal turmoil, it
is still prepared to agree to ``consult''--consult--with the Iraqi
Government under such circumstances. While the promise to consult, in
the event of aggression, has been extended by the United States to many
nations around the world, and is known in diplomatic jargon as a
``security arrangement,'' it still raises concern when the United
States maintains a large-scale troop presence in a nation. Any promise
to consult with a foreign government takes on much greater weight when
more than 100,000 troops are stationed there.
The Congress and the American public first learned of these two
proposed agreements when President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki
signed a ``Declaration of Principles'' last November, outlining their
shared intention to conclude negotiations by July 31. A week later--a
week after July 31--joined by five other Senators, I sent a letter to
President Bush expressing deep concern over the proposed security
guarantees to the Iraqi Government and the insistence of the
administration that it could conclude both these agreements without--
without--congressional input or approval. Since then, many Members of
Congress, on both sides of the aisle, I might add, have expressed deep
unease with the administration's approach. Some of the questions we
have raised, including at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
hearing in April, include the following: Here are a couple pertinent
questions we should be asking and the administration should be
answering.
First, why the sudden insistence on a termination of the U.N.
Security Council mandate for the U.S. and other coalition troops in
Iraq at the end of this year? Why not simply extend the mandate for
another year and allow the next President to negotiate a bilateral
accord with the Iraqis instead of a lameduck President?
Why would we accept a bilateral accord with the Iraqi Government that
incorporates greater restrictions--greater restrictions--on U.S.
troops, including limitations on the authority to conduct combat
operations and detain prisoners of war than the current mandate? Why
would we agree to that? I am a strong opponent of an open-ended U.S.
combat presence in Iraq, but so long as American troops remain in Iraq,
they should retain the discretion to conduct necessary operations to
ensure their safety and security. American troops can never answer to a
foreign government, especially one as dysfunctional as the Iraqi
Government is now.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On Page S5568, June 12, 2008, the Record reads: I am a strong
proponent of an open-ended U.S. combat presence in Iraq.
The online record has been corrected to read: I am a strong
opponent of an open-ended U.S. combat presence in Iraq.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Why has the Iraqi Government committed to submitting these agreements
to the approval of the Iraqi Parliament, acknowledging a national
consensus in Iraq must exist to support their implementation. Yet the
Bush administration stubbornly insists the Congress of the United
States--the Congress--can have no formal role in approval, even
refusing to share a draft text with key Members of the Congress.
Finally, why did the administration first characterize the Strategic
Framework Agreement as a nonbinding ``declaration'' but has now changed
its tune and has agreed, at the request of the Iraqis, to categorize it
as an executive agreement that imposes binding obligations on both
sides?
At a news conference yesterday during his overseas trip to Europe,
President Bush responded to a question on the ongoing negotiations by
asserting:
There's all kind of noise in their system and our system. I
think we'll get the agreement done.
Well, this isn't noise, Mr. President. What you are hearing is
bipartisan unease over the course of United States-Iraq negotiations
and puzzlement over the supposed urgency of concluding these accords
instead of merely extending the U.N. mandate.
For the President of the United States to dismiss these concerns
expressed by some of the leading foreign policy and national security
voices in the Congress as mere ``noise'' is offensive and I think
represents a fundamental misreading of our constitutional system of
government.
As on other issues, I encourage the President to listen closely to
his Secretary of Defense. In a television interview yesterday,
Secretary Gates responded to a question over congressional input on
this issue and on these agreements by acknowledging:
If it emerges in a way that does make binding commitments
that fit the treaty-making powers or treaty ratification
powers of the Senate, then it will have to go in that
direction.
Let me conclude with this. There is no urgency to concluding long-
term agreements that define the future of U.S. military presence in
Iraq. There is even less reason to conclude agreements that impose
unhelpful restrictions on American military personnel and obligate the
United States to an ambiguous commitment to Iraq's future security. I
urge the President to acknowledge the importance and essential role the
Congress has to play. If the President insists on completing these
agreements during the last days of his administration, he should fully
involve the relevant congressional committees in the ongoing
negotiations and agree to submit any final accords for congressional
approval.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S5569]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the
Preserving Access to Medicare Act. It was introduced by the ranking
member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and I have
cosponsored the act.
Having practiced medicine for almost 25 years, I can tell you that
our Nation's health professionals and our hospitals face tremendous
pressures. If these pressures are not addressed, it can and it will
impede access to quality health care services. That is why we must act
now to stop the upcoming Medicare physician reimbursement cuts.
But this is not just a physician issue, it is a Medicare access issue
and a Medicare quality issue. If Congress does not act, many Wyoming
physicians could be forced not only to stop seeing Medicare patients,
some could decide to lay off staff, to restrict office hours, or may
even leave rural America and move to the big cities.
We, the Senate, must put aside partisan differences and craft a
reasonable bill that President Bush can and will sign into law before
June 30. But we have to act quickly. Senator Grassley has offered
legislation that would allow us to do that. The Preserving Access to
Medicare Act provides a \1/2\-percent physician update for the
remainder of 2008. It also makes sure doctors will receive a 1.1-
percent update in 2009. These payment increases will preserve access to
health care for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. But the Grassley
bill accomplishes much more. It improves the quality of care and it
gives doctors an incentive to report quality measures. Senator
Grassley's measure also retains the Physician Assistance and Quality
Improvement fund. Congress created that fund specifically to help stop
future cuts. The bill that has been defeated eliminates this fund.
The Grassley proposal promotes e-prescribing, it promotes electronic
health records, and it returns ownership of oxygen equipment to the
supplier, not the beneficiary. The bill curbs abusive Medicare
Advantage marketing practices, but it does not make large across-the-
board cuts to Medicare Advantage. Doing so would disproportionately
affect patients in rural areas and it would alter policies designed to
maximize patient choice. Most importantly, the Grassley bill protects
access to quality health care for rural patients.
By now it should come as no surprise that rural health care issues
are near and dear to my heart. I practiced medicine in Casper, WY, for
almost 25 years, so I have some firsthand knowledge of the obstacles
families face to obtain medical care in rural America. I also
understand the challenges our hospitals and providers must overcome to
deliver quality care to families in an environment with limited
resources.
In my maiden speech on the floor of the Senate, I made a simple
pledge to the people of Wyoming. I promised them I would fight every
day, I would fight every day to strengthen our rural hospitals, our
rural health clinics, and our community health centers; that I would
fight every day to increase access to primary health care services, and
I would fight to help successfully recruit and retain health care
providers in rural and in frontier America.
Over the past year I have kept my word. Working with the bipartisan
Senate Rural Health Caucus, I led and joined in several efforts to
preserve and strengthen our Nation's rural health care delivery system.
I believe the Federal Government must recognize the important
differences between urban and rural health care providers and respond
with appropriate policy.
Senator Grassley's Preserving Access to Medicare Act includes a
robust but responsible rural health package. Most importantly, the
Senator from Iowa pays tribute to the late Senator Craig Thomas. The
bill's rural equity title is called the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and
Provider Equity Act. As Members of this body know, Senator Thomas
honorably served as cochair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus for over
a decade. In that position he worked closely with his caucus colleagues
to advance rural and frontier-specific health care legislation. Due in
part to Craig's efforts, comprehensive rural health care bills have a
long history of collaboration and cooperation on both sides of the
aisle and at both ends of this building.
For example, when Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act of
2003, it included a broad health care package specifically tailored for
rural communities, rural hospitals, and with rural providers in mind.
This was the largest rural health care provider payment package ever
considered by Congress.
The Medicare Modernization Act finally put rural providers on a level
playing field with their neighbors in larger communities. With the
passage of the act, Congress put into place commonsense Medicare
payment provisions critical to maintaining access to quality health
care in isolated and underserved areas. Rural and frontier America
achieved a significant victory, and there was much to celebrate.
The mission, however, is not complete. Several of the act's rural
health provisions have expired and many are set to expire soon. The
Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act, which is a title
included in S. 3118, reauthorizes expiring health care provisions
included in the Medicare Modernization Act. It also takes additional
steps, steps to address inequities in the Medicare payment system that
continually place rural providers at a disadvantage.
First, the legislation recognizes that low-volume hospitals have
considerably more volatility over time in the demand for in-patient
services. This makes it very difficult for those hospitals to set
budget and recruitment goals. Many small rural facilities are often
backed into a financial corner. They are forced to convert to what are
called critical access hospitals in order to make ends meet. This
provision will help certain rural hospitals cover the higher cost per
patient and stay within the prospective payment system.
Second, the bill reinstates the ``hold harmless'' payments to rural
sole community hospitals. This is a temporary fix until analysts can
find out why some rural hospitals do not perform as well under the
Medicare Program. S. 3118 extends the geographic practice cost index
work floor. As we all know, Medicare payments for physician services
are based on a fee schedule. There are three components to the fee
schedule: liability, practice, and work. Physician work is defined as
the amount of time and skill and intensity necessary to provide the
medical services. Prior to the Medicare Modernization Act, the
physician work component was lower in rural communities than it was in
big cities. Rural physicians put in as much or even more time and more
skill and greater intensity into their work as doctors in the big
cities. Rural physicians should not be paid less for their work. This
is a simple fairness issue and it is addressed in the Grassley bill.
Additionally, the bill would allow independent laboratories to
continue billing Medicare directly for certain physician pathology
services.
Finally, S. 3118 would help rural areas maintain access to lifesaving
emergency medical services. Senator Grassley's bill makes sure that
rural ambulance providers receive a 3-percent add-on payment. This
extra payment is critical and it is critical because rural emergency
medical service providers are primarily volunteers. They have
difficulty recruiting, difficulty retaining, and difficulty putting the
time and effort into educating the personnel. They also have less
capital to buy and upgrade essential equipment.
The Grassley legislation clearly preserves the achievements gained in
the Medicare Modernization Act. It also gives much needed relief to our
rural hospitals and to our rural providers.
The time has come to move beyond this political wrangling. We need to
send a bill to the President that the President will sign. Wyoming's
seniors and disabled patients are counting on us to get it right. We
must enact bipartisan legislation now that protects seniors, that pays
doctors fairly, and that strengthens the rural health care delivery
system.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Energy
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, a few months ago I asked my
constituents in the State of Vermont, and it turns out people around
the country, a
[[Page S5570]]
very simple question. We sent out an e-mail and said: Tell me, what
does the decline of the middle class mean to you personally? Not in
great esoteric terms, not in academic terms--What is going on in your
life? Frankly, in my State we expected to receive a few dozen
responses. We ended up receiving over 700 responses.
Then I asked people in Vermont and also around the country: Tell me
what these high gas and oil prices mean to you. We received 1,100 e-
mails that came in, 90 percent from Vermont but some from around the
country.
I want to do two things this afternoon. I want to read, in the words
of ordinary people, what these high gas and oil prices are meaning, in
terms of how they impact their lives; and what the decline of the
middle class means in the words of people who are in the midst of that
decline.
For many years I have been very angry about the Bush administration
talking about how strong the economy was, how robust the economy was.
That is like the operation being a success except that the patient
died. The economy has been so great except that the working people in
the economy are seeing a decline in their standard of living. What we
are seeing, generally speaking, in the economy is poverty increasing,
the middle class shrinking, while the people on top have never had it
so good since the 1920s.
Let me read some e-mails that came to my office within the last
several months, mostly from Vermont but occasionally from other parts
of the country. This is what we heard recently:
I am a single mother with a 9-year-old boy. We lived this
past winter without any heat at all. Fortunately, someone
gave me an old wood stove. I had to hook it up to an old
unused chimney we had in the kitchen. I couldn't even afford
a chimney liner--the price of liners went up with the price
of fuel. To stay warm at night my son and I would pull off
all the pillows from the couch and pile them on the kitchen
floor. I would hang a blanket from the kitchen doorway and we
would sleep right there on the floor.
State of Vermont, United States of America, 2008.
Another letter:
My 90-year-old father in Connecticut has recently become
ill and asked me to visit him. I want to drop everything I am
doing and go visit him, however I am finding it hard to save
enough money to add to the extra gas I will need to get
there. I am self-employed with my own commercial cleaning
service and money is tight, not only with gas prices but with
everything.
In other words, here is an instance where a 90-year-old father is ill
and a son cannot even visit him because of the high price of gas.
Another story:
My husband and I are retired and 65. We would have liked to
have worked longer but because of injuries caused at work and
the closing of our factory to go to Canada, we chose to
retire earlier. Now with oil prices the way they are we
cannot afford to heat our home unless my husband cuts and
splits wood--which is a real hardship as he has had his back
fused and should not be working most of the day to keep up
with the wood. Not only that, he has to get up two or three
times each night to keep the fire going.
Another story:
I, too, have been struggling to overcome the increasing
cost of gas, heating oil, food, taxes, et cetera. I have to
say this is the toughest year financially that I have ever
experienced in my 41 years on this Earth. I have what used to
be considered a decent job. I work hard, pinch my pennies,
but the pennies have all but dried up. I am thankful my
employer understands that many of us cannot afford to drive
to work 5 days a week. Instead, I work 3 15-hour days. I have
taken odd jobs to try to make ends meet.
Another story:
I am 55 years old and worse off than my adult children. I
have worked since age 16. I do not live from paycheck to
paycheck, I live day to day. I can only afford to fill my gas
tank on my payday. Thereafter, I put $5, $10, whatever I can.
I cannot afford to pay for the food items that I would. I am
riding around daily to and from work with a quarter of a tank
of gas. This is very scary as I can see myself working until
the day that I die.
Another story:
I am a working mother of two young children. I currently
pay, on average, about $80 a week for gas so that I can go to
work; $80 a week just to go to work. I see the effects of the
gas increase at the grocery stores and at the department
stores. On average I spend about $150 per week at the grocery
store. And, trust me, when I say I do not buy prime rib, I
buy just enough to get us through the week, and I cannot
afford to make sure that we have seven wholesome meals to eat
every night of the week. Some nights we eat cereal and toast
for dinner because that is all that I have.
Another story. This is an interesting story because I am sure it
applies all over the country:
As the chief of a small ambulance service, I have seen the
impact of rising costs. As the service is made up of
primarily volunteers, we have seen our numbers decline. When
soliciting for volunteers in the community, we have been told
that they are unable to put the time in due to the need to
work more to pay their bills.
Our costs associated with running an ambulance
--this is a volunteer ambulance service--
have also risen in the last few years. When discussing with
our supplier fuel prices, they play a large part in the
increase both to the manufacturer and to transport.
Here is another story. This is just incredible. It reminds us of all
of the ways that this increase in gas and oil is impacting our people
and our communities. Here is this story:
My story involves my capacity as an oncology social worker
working with cancer patients in an outpatient clinic. I also
run an emergency fund through the Cancer Patient Support
Program which provides funds to cancer patients in need
during their cancer journey, including the initial diagnosis,
surgery, and treatment period in which they experience a
significant decrease in income during a medical leave.
This is an oncology worker at a hospital.
I cannot describe how devastating it has been for these
folks who need to travel great distances to get to and from
their cancer treatment and followup care with the way gas
prices have been. Many of these folks need to travel on a
daily basis to radiation therapy for several weeks, while
others come from surrounding counties every 1 to 2 weeks for
chemotherapy. The high price of gas has had a tremendous
impact on our ability to provide the financial assistance to
our emergency fund to all of those in need.
Imagine someone living in a rural area dealing with cancer, dealing
with chemotherapy, dealing with radiation, sick as a dog, worried about
the future, and then having to worry about how they can afford to get
to the hospital to get the treatment they need.
Another letter:
First of all, I am a single mother of a 16-year-old
daughter. I own a condominium. I have worked at the hospital
for 16 years and make a very good salary, in the high $40,000
range. I own a 2005 Honda Civic. I filled up my gas tank
yesterday, April 1. It cost me almost $43; that was $3.22 per
gallon. That was on April 1. If prices stay at that level it
will cost me $160 per month to fill up my gas tank. A year
ago it cost me under $20 to fill up my tank.
On and on it goes. I think the message is that high gas and oil
prices are having a devastating impact on tens of millions of Americans
in every aspect of their lives and on our economy. As bad as it is all
over this country, it is especially bad in rural areas where people
have to travel long distances to work, and it is especially devastating
in cold States where people have to spend a huge amount of money for
home heating oil.
It seems to me it is absolutely imperative that we get our act
together and that we do everything we can to lower the price of gas and
oil. In that regard, let me talk a little bit about some of the events
that have taken place on the floor of the Senate in the last couple of
days.
I think it is interesting that many Americans have already given up
on any belief that the Bush-Cheney administration even understands the
problem, let alone is prepared to do anything about it. It is amazing
that no one even looks to the White House for leadership on this issue,
and for appropriate reasons; that is, because Bush-Cheney, from the day
they have been in office, have been much more concerned about the
profits of large multinational corporations, including the oil
companies, than the needs of ordinary Americans.
There are a few points that I want to focus on at this time. First,
it is a national obscenity that at a time when oil prices are off the
wall, when people are paying over $4 for a gallon of gas, at exactly
this same moment the major oil companies are enjoying recordbreaking
profits and are giving their CEOs outrageous compensation packages.
It seems to me that while there are multiple causes for why oil and
gas are soaring, one of the reasons certainly has to do with the greed
of these huge oil companies. And the time is long overdue for the
Congress to say enough is enough and stop ripping off the American
people.
[[Page S5571]]
During the last 2 years, ExxonMobil has made more profits than any
company in the history of the world, making over $40 billion in profits
last year alone--$40 billion, one company.
But it is not only ExxonMobil; Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP
have also been making out like bandits. For example, in the first
quarter of this year, BP announced a 63-percent increase in their
profits--a 63-percent increase in their profits--and people are paying
over $4 for a gallon of gas.
As a matter of fact, the five largest oil companies, the five largest
companies in this country, have made over $600 billion since George W.
Bush has been President; 7 years, $600 billion in profits.
Let me mention what these large oil companies have been doing with
some of their profits. In the year 2005, Lee Raymond, who was then the
CEO of ExxonMobil, received a retirement package of $398 million. Let
me repeat that. Former CEO leaves his position, retirement package of
$398 million.
Workers all over this country, as indicated in the letters that I
have read, are finding it harder and harder to fill their gas tank and
get to work.
In 2006, Ray Irani, who is the CEO of Occidental Petroleum--that is
the largest oil producer in the State of Texas--received over $400
million in total compensation, one of the biggest single-year payouts
in U.S. corporate history.
People here tell us, often my friends on the other side of the aisle
say: Well, we have to trust the oil companies. They really are
concerned about the American people.
I do not think so. I think one has to be very naive to believe
companies in the midst of this energy crisis, when people are
struggling with these very outrageously high prices, when these
companies are giving hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation
packages to their CEOs, and then they tell us that the oil companies
are concerned about the American people. I do not think so. I really do
not.
The situation is so absurd that there was an article the other day in
the Wall Street Journal. Not only are these companies giving huge
compensation packages to their CEOs, they now have a deal that if the
CEO dies while he is CEO, their heirs and families will receive huge
compensation packages.
According to the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago, the family
of Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, will get over $115
million if he dies while he holds that job. The family of the CEO of
Nabors Industries, another oil company, will receive $288 million.
Meanwhile, in the northeastern part of this country people are
saying: How am I going to stay warm this winter? Prices of home heating
oil are soaring.
We need a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. We need to tell
them: Enough is enough. The windfall profits tax on the oil industry is
not the only thing that we should be doing. We need to take a hard look
at speculation that is taking place in the industry.
As you well know, as I think the American people increasingly know,
there are estimates out there that as a result of the activities of
major financial institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP
Morgan Chase, and others, there are estimates that between 25 and 50
percent of the cost of a barrel of oil today has to do with speculation
in oil futures.
Earlier last week, George Soros told the Commerce Committee that
rampant speculation in oil and gas futures is ``intellectually unsound
and distinctly harmful in its economic consequences.''
We have had representatives in the oil industry themselves who have
told us that speculation is one of the reasons oil prices are so high.
Mark Copper with the Consumer Federation of America told the Commerce
Committee last week that the speculative bubble in the price of oil has
cost the U.S. economy over a half trillion dollars over the past 2
years and has cost U.S. families an average of a $1,500 increase in
gasoline and natural gas costs.
So I think those are two areas at which we have to take a hard look.
Now, in terms of speculation, people say: Well, this sounds like a
conspiracy theory. Well, let's talk about some recent history. In 2000
and 2001, as the American people well know, especially the people on
the west coast, Enron successfully manipulated the electricity markets
and drove up prices by 300 percent.
Now, what was interesting is during the debate over this terrible
tragedy on the west coast, what was Enron saying? They were saying: The
reason that prices are going up is supply and demand. It is the natural
forces of the market. Do not blame us.
That is what they said. I guess that is what some of the guys who are
now in jail, after being convicted for massive fraud, told the public.
It was not supply and demand, it was excessive manipulation. But it
was not only Enron in 2000 and 2001, in 2004, energy price manipulators
moved to the propane gas markets. That year the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission found that BP artificially increased propane prices
by purchasing ``enormous quantities of propane and withholding the fuel
to drive prices higher.'' That was the Commodities Future Trading
Commission.
By the end of February of 2003, BP had almost 90 percent of all
propane delivered on a pipeline that stretches from Texas to
Pennsylvania and New York. BP's cornering of the propane market caused
prices to increase by 40 percent during the month of February 2004. And
as a result of their illegal actions, our friends at BP paid a $303
million fine.
So we have Enron, those guys are in jail, having caused severe
economic damage on the west coast. We have BP, a major oil company,
paying a $303 million fine.
But it goes on. In 2006, 2 years ago, energy manipulators moved to
the natural gas market, when Federal regulators described that the
Amaranth Hedge Fund was responsible for artificially driving up natural
gas prices.
Amaranth cornered the natural gas market by controlling as much as 75
percent of all of the natural gas futures contracts in a single month.
The skyrocketing cost of natural gas cost American consumers an
estimated $9 billion. I should point out that the Amaranth hedge fund
eventually collapsed, as a result of their illegal activity.
When people say, let us take a hard look at speculation, this is not
conspiracy theory. This is based on some very real economic realities
which have taken place in the last few years.
Today, the price of oil has more than doubled over the past 14
months. We need to find out who is manipulating oil and gas prices.
Right now, oil and gas futures are largely traded on unregulated
markets and enormous conflicts of interest exist between investment
bank analysts, energy traders, and employees involved with oil and gas
infrastructure.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has the authority and
responsibility to prevent fraud, manipulation, and excessive
speculation in U.S. commodity markets. Unfortunately, this authority
and responsibility has largely been abdicated through the use of over-
the-counter energy derivatives that are largely unregulated and by
foreign boards of trade that have received no action letters from the
CFTC to operate terminals inside the United States, trading U.S.
commodities to U.S. investors free from regulatory oversight. It is
pretty complicated stuff. But the bottom line is, huge amounts of money
in oil futures are being traded in an unregulated, below-the-radar-
screen market, and we don't know who is controlling what.
Congress needs to end what some have referred to as the ``Wild West''
of energy trading by requiring anyone operating a trading terminal in
the U.S. trading U.S. commodities to U.S. investors to register with
the CFTC and be subject to CFTC oversight. We also need to
substantially increase margin requirements for these trades to make it
harder for speculators to manipulate oil prices.
In addition, major conflicts of interest exist in the commodities
markets. Goldman Sachs and other large financial institutions seem to
have a corner on virtually every sector of this market. When Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley predict the price of oil will go up, so do
their profits in the oil futures market. When ExxonMobil wants to sell
or buy oil in the futures market, they go to Goldman Sachs or other
large financial institutions. When Sovereign Wealth Funds, pension
funds, or
[[Page S5572]]
smaller dealers want to invest in energy derivatives, Goldman Sachs and
other investment banks facilitate those trades. Goldman Sachs, Morgan
Stanley, BP and other major institutional investors even co-founded the
InterContinental Exchange that now trades West Texas Intermediate crude
oil to U.S. investors free of U.S. regulatory oversight.
And when Morgan Stanley and other investment banks need insider
knowledge of the heating oil market to benefit their traders, they
physically purchase large quantities of heating oil for storage and
delivery. This is an issue that I am paying particular attention to.
Heating oil prices right now are skyrocketing. Right now, fuel dealers
in my State have told me that the residential price for heating oil
would cost about $5 a gallon. If heating oil prices keep climbing there
are a large number of my constituents who are in danger of freezing to
death. We cannot let that happen.
I want to know why heating oil prices are high right now and if
Morgan Stanley or others are manipulating these prices through
excessive speculation. We have got to get heating oil prices to go down
before winter.
We need to end these massive conflicts of interest in the energy
markets. There are a number of ideas that I am exploring on this issue,
but for starters, I strongly believe that the commodities market should
have similar laws prohibiting insider trading that our securities
market currently has.
Further, we must once and for all begin to break up OPEC. OPEC is an
illegal price-fixing cartel that is clearly in violation of
international trade rules. The high price of oil is expected to
increase OPEC's crude oil export earnings by more than $300 billion
this year to a record of over $1 trillion. That is an astronomical
figure.
The time has come for the President to file a complaint with the
World Trade Organization and demand the dismantling of OPEC. The ending
of collusion with regard to oil production will result in increased
production and lower oil prices.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, over the long term we need a
strong program to break our reliance on fossil fuels once and for all.
That means transitioning electricity generation away from fossil fuel
power and demanding automobiles that get substantially more miles per
gallon. Plug-in hybrid prototypes currently get in the range of 150
miles per gallon. We need to get them out of the laboratory and onto
the roads. We also have to invest heavily in mass transit, including
rail and rural bus transportation. These steps can help break the power
of the big energy companies, reduce damage to our environment, and
create millions of good-paying, green-technology jobs across the
country.
The bottom line is this: Congress and the President can no longer sit
idly by while Americans are getting ripped off at the gas pump, and
ExxonMobil, greedy speculators, and OPEC are allowed to make out like
bandits pushing oil and gas prices higher and higher. The time for
action is now. We need to lower gas prices.
That is something we must address, if the Congress is going to gain,
perhaps once again--hopefully regain the confidence of the American
people that we understand what is going on in their lives, we
understand the absolute necessity of addressing this crisis of high gas
and oil prices, that we understand the necessity of transforming our
energy system away from foreign oil and our dependence on foreign oil,
away from fossil fuels which is causing so many problems in terms of
global warming, that we understand that the potential for moving toward
energy efficiency, toward sustainable energy such as wind, solar,
geothermal, biomass is sitting there right in front of us.
Yesterday there was a conference right here in Washington where
people were talking about plug-in hybrids that get 150 miles per
gallon. These are the kinds of developments we need. There has been a
lot of discussion about a so-called Manhattan project. I believe in it.
I think if we focus and are aggressive and are prepared to transform
our energy system, take on the big, powerful special interests, we can
not only create millions of good-paying jobs, we can reverse global
warming. We can address environmental concerns. That is what we have to
do.
The challenge we face is to understand that the oil industry and the
coal industry have put hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying,
campaign contributions, advertising. They are very formidable folks.
They want the status quo. We have been represented by the people,
presumably not by the special interests. Our job is to represent
ordinary people. I hope we can do that. If we do the right thing, I
believe not only can we lower gas and oil prices today, we can
transform our energy system and create a much better tomorrow for our
kids and grandchildren.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the high cost of gasoline has had a
crippling effect on the economy of my State of Mississippi. The people
in my State, where earnings are below the national average, are simply
not able to keep up with the rising cost of living. High gasoline
prices not only increase the cost of going to work, they also result in
an increased cost of food and other consumables.
As a constituent who called my office yesterday said: I can stand the
high price of gas, but my utility bills have stretched me to the
breaking point.
The Daily Journal, a newspaper in northeast Mississippi, quoted
another constituent, Jennifer Skinner, of Tupelo, as saying:
Working class people can barely make it. I'm a single Mom
with three kids.
We have been very fortunate that our farmers have been getting record
prices for corn, soybeans, and wheat, other commodities as well, over
the last 2 years. While the value of these commodities is high, energy
costs have caused the inputs for farm operations to rise significantly.
This has affected costs of fertilizer, pesticides, electricity, and the
diesel fuel farmers use. As a result, some farmers who have worked so
hard to produce food at a lower cost to the consumer than in any other
country are not able to sustain their farming operations. These high
prices and high costs have created a cycle of higher food costs that
have been added to the burden of my constituents.
Crude oil prices are, of course, linked to supply and demand. While
there are many other compounding factors, such as a weakened dollar, we
must remember that at the root of the problem is the increased
worldwide demand for energy. According to the Federal Highway
Administration, Americans drove 12 billion fewer miles in the first
quarter of this year compared with the same period last year. Americans
are driving less due to increased costs. However, the decreased demand
for energy in America has had little effect on the increased worldwide
demand.
We know that demands for oil will continue to escalate as more
developing countries use crude oil. According to the International
Energy Agency, between now and 2030, China and India will account for
70 percent of all new demand for oil. The Congress and the
administration must consider now how much future demands will increase
in the coming years. While there are steps I believe the Congress can
take to help cope with higher prices in the short term, our future
demands for energy independence will require us to move to new sources
of fuel. Americans are looking to their leaders for answers. They want
to know what the Congress can do to help them through these hard times.
As we consider energy policies that will ease the burdens of higher
costs for our constituents and their struggling businesses, we should
not impose policies that create higher tax burdens or costs for energy
companies. Higher taxes will not lead to lower prices but will only
serve to increase the expenses of doing business that will be passed on
to the consumers. Our economy relies heavily on transportation. A
policy that doesn't provide real long-term reforms to the way our
country acquires and uses energy will not provide Americans with a
better deal or a stronger economy.
[[Page S5573]]
While we search for better energy sources, we must remember that
until developing technologies are able to create affordable and
efficient fuels, the short-term supply-and-demand problems will still
exist. Some Senators have called for increased exploration and
drilling. While I am always mindful of protecting our environment, I
think we need to be reminded that advancements in drilling technology
over the last several years mean we are much better able to protect our
valuable natural resources as we explore for new energy.
In addition to acquiring more crude oil within the United States--and
offshore drilling provides another opportunity--we should do all we can
to promote the exploration and use of oil shale. I know the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico talked about his views, which
include the use of oil shale. It is already used extensively in many
other countries.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there is a potential
equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil to be found in America alone.
It is my hope the Congress, the administration, and private industry
will come together, work together with those who are concerned about
environmental consequences and impacts, deal with those challenges in a
thoughtful and effective way, and proceed with exploration and
extraction of oil shale. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 identified oil
shale as a very important resource that should be developed. While
progress in the development of this important resource has occurred, we
should do more to make oil shale resources as a motor fuel into a
reality.
Peter J. Robinson, vice chairman of Chevron Corporation, recently
testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming. He said:
The search for the next source of energy--whether it be oil
or next-generation fuels from renewable sources--takes
enormous capital, specialized expertise and the
organizational capability that characterizes Chevron.
Transforming raw materials into usable energy products and
delivering them to market some six continents takes
substantial financial strength, advanced technology, and
human energy.
I think Mr. Robinson is correct when he says we face a huge
undertaking in determining the next source of fuel. I also believe the
Congress should not be in the business of trying to pick a winner for
the next form of energy. Rather, we should be doing what we can to
promote all forms of alternative energies that show promise through
appropriated research dollars, grants, and public/private partnerships.
In Mississippi, we are prepared to play a major role in the
development of new energy. Our farmers have the knowledge and expertise
to create renewable feedstocks such as corn, soybeans, timber, grasses,
animal fats, and even wastewater. The University of Southern
Mississippi, for example, is engaged in research to create more
efficient and lower cost fuel cell membranes. The University of
Mississippi is using termite research in an innovative approach to
cellulosic energy research.
In addition to researching alternative fuels that include waste
water, timber, and other feedstocks, Mississippi State University
students were winners of the 2008 Challenge X Competition. This
competition is a partnership between the Department of Energy and
General Motors. It challenges university students to create vehicles
that are more fuel efficient and produce lower emissions.
I am proud of my State's commitment and contribution to creating a
better energy future, and I hope we can continue to work hard to make
the ideas and efforts of these students and university researchers and
our entire population in our State who are involved in this challenge a
reality.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The clerk will call
the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized with unanimous
consent.
____________________