[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 23, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7092-S7095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      LOWERING THE COST OF ENERGY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I notice my good friend from Nevada did 
not mention T. Boone Pickens' views on whether speculation is a part of 
the problem. Republicans are perfectly happy to have a speculation 
component of the overall issue. But if we are in the business of 
quoting T. Boone Pickens, I had a chance to meet with him for an hour 
on Monday. He told me, without equivocation, he did not think 
speculation had anything to do with this particular runup. I do not 
know whether it does. I think most of my Members are in favor of 
transparency. We want to put more cops on the beat to make sure the 
markets are working properly. But if we are quoting Pickens, I am sure 
I will be safe in saying Pickens would not be voting for this bill that 
the majority leader thinks is the way we ought to go.
  Right now in Lexington, KY, and Las Vegas, NV, and every other city 
and town across the country, Americans are hurting from high gas 
prices. Right now, there is a man watching his hard-earned paycheck go 
into his gas tank instead of his daughter's college fund. That man 
doesn't care about cloture motions or second-degree amendments; he 
wants Congress to do something. He wants us to act.
  We have all heard the frustrations from constituents literally for 
months. They have made their feelings known. So we were surprised 
yesterday to learn about the intentions of our friends across the aisle 
when it comes to high gas prices. The majority leader told reporters 
that voting on more than one amendment per side--this is in some ways 
almost laughable--voting on more than one amendment per side on the No. 
1 domestic issue facing our Nation is unreasonable.
  Let me repeat that. Our friends on the other side are saying that 
having a real debate and considering good ideas from all sides is too 
much for the Senate to handle. They have apparently rejected the idea 
of finding a serious solution to high gas prices. Instead, they want us 
to take up a proposal that is designed to fail. They want us to try to 
fool our constituents into believing we are addressing this problem in 
a serious way, when everyone knows we are not.
  It is no surprise that the Democratic leadership won't allow 
Americans' top priorities to be heard. It is the same reason they have 
been canceling hearings and markups all week. They don't want to choose 
between their Presidential nominee--whose position on bringing down gas 
prices is: No, we can't--and the demands of the guy at the gas pump who 
is watching his daughter's college fund shrink with every gallon he 
puts in the tank.
  It is a sad commentary, given the propositions they made. Our friends 
across the aisle promised a year-and-a-half ago in their ``Six for 06'' 
pledge to lower gas prices and to free America from dependence on 
foreign oil, but things didn't turn out exactly as planned. The fact 
is, a gallon of gas is now $1.70 higher than it was when the new 
majority took over and promised to lower it. At a time when Americans 
are clamoring for them to make good on their pledge, they must muster 
the political will to do something about it. We should not be content 
to leave town after a couple of failed votes and a speculation proposal 
that no serious economist in America believes will have a significant 
impact by itself on the price of gas.
  Let me reiterate. The Republicans believe we can strengthen the 
futures markets. Our bill would do just that--the Gas Price Reduction 
Act. If bad actors are out there, we would like to find them by putting 
more cops on the beat and by bringing greater transparency to the 
market, but we don't claim this provision alone will solve the problem. 
No serious person would claim that. The other side has made the 
astonishing claim that the speculation provision alone will lower the 
price of gas by 20 to 50 percent. Yet I have found no one--not the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve, not the 27-nation International Energy 
Agency, not even the most famous rich Democrat in America, Warren 
Buffett--to back up that claim.
  Yesterday, our colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, asked here 
on the floor for any citation backing up such a claim. My good friend 
the majority leader came back to the floor to respond, but the only 
person he could name who had made this claim had been so thoroughly 
discredited here in the Senate that the Democratic chairman of the 
Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a stinging 11-
page rebuttal of his recent testimony. In testimony before the 
committee, the majority leader's source--a lawyer, not an economist--
claimed that ``overnight,'' the speculation bill dealing with energy 
commodities would ``bring down the price of crude oil, I believe, by 25 
percent.''
  The committee's public response to this notion of an overnight 
reduction of 25 percent was blunt. Here is what the committee had to 
say:

       There is no credible evidence that simply amending the 
     Commodities Exchange Act to regulate energy commodities as if 
     they were agricultural commodities will lead to lower energy 
     prices.

  So in other words, the one source our friends across the aisle point 
to when they claim their bill will lower the cost of energy by 20 to 50 
percent is the subject of an 11-page, bipartisan rebuke which says 
there is zero credible evidence to support his claim.
  Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the report from the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
  Let me say it again: We, as do our friends, support legislation that 
keeps bad actors from driving up gas prices. We have addressed this in 
our own bill, the gas price reduction bill, but serious people 
understand that if this activity

[[Page S7093]]

is occurring, it is a small portion of the overall problem.
  This leads me to a broader point. The price of gas at the pump is a 
serious national problem that requires a serious legislative response. 
We cannot solve this problem with timid, half-hearted measures. We need 
to act boldly, and that means we need to consider good ideas from both 
sides, as we have typically done when dealing with the biggest issues 
in the country. Now is not the time to be timid or to play political 
games that are designed to benefit a single party. Our job, it seems to 
me, is to help the man or woman at the gas pump who is making hard 
choices in order to keep his gas tank full. That is why it is so 
irresponsible to shortchange this debate. Until we have acted boldly to 
cut gas prices and our reliance on Middle East oil, we will be ignoring 
the demands of the American people.
  So it is time to be serious about this problem. No more unsupportable 
outlandish claims, no more relying on discredited testimony, no more 
canceling markups simply to avoid taking votes on a serious approach to 
lowering the price of gas at the pump.
  We need to find more and we need to use less, and we need to start 
now. We need to consider good ideas from all sides, and we need to take 
seriously that energy is the No. 1 domestic issue facing our Nation. We 
simply can't go through a failed process, claim credit for trying, and 
then pack up and go home. Let's get serious. Let's open this debate to 
more than one good idea rather than bring it to a premature conclusion, 
and let's find a solution that incorporates increased domestic supply 
as well as conservation. We need to find more and use less, and the 
American people are simply demanding no less from us.
  I see the Senator from New Hampshire is here.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, would the Republican leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield to my friend from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. As I understand the proposal from the Democratic leader, 
it would not allow an amendment, for example, on oil shale. As I 
understand it, the Democratic proposal suggests that we use the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would give us an estimated 3.5 days 
of oil. Were we to be able to extract oil shale, as I understand it, we 
would have the potential for 40,000 days of oil.
  I guess my question to the Republican leader is if we are going to 
have a comprehensive energy policy, shouldn't we at least take up the 
issue of whether the restrictions which have been placed on the ability 
to use oil--which restrictions have been offered by the Democratic 
Party--shouldn't an amendment on that issue be allowed, as well as an 
amendment on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, 
of course. That moratorium was installed by this new majority last year 
to shut down this promising new source that we have right here in our 
country, some have estimated as much oil as the entire reserves in 
Saudi Arabia times three.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Republican leader's answer on that.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. REID. The Senator was not talking.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I also have a question for the minority 
leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KYL. I am trying to understand basically the differences between 
the proposals that have been put forth by the majority leader and by 
the minority leader in terms of unanimous consent requests. As I 
understand it, they basically boil down to the following, and I wonder 
if the Senator could confirm this for me.
  What the majority leader has said is there could be either one 
amendment--or possibly two, I am not clear--but that they would pit the 
two sides against each other; that is, a Democratic proposal and a 
Republican proposal.
  What I believe the minority leader has suggested is that we engage in 
what Senators call the regular order, which is a process of debate and 
proposals for amendments which would try to build a bill with 
amendments that could actually be adopted by both sides--or by Members 
on either side, let me put it that way--rather than simply having two 
party positions, neither of which could win 60 votes, would fail, and 
therefore we would end up with nothing. What the minority leader is 
suggesting is a process by which both Democrats and Republicans could 
offer ideas--pieces of the puzzle, as it were--that could appeal to 
Members on both sides in such a way that a bill could eventually be 
built and passed to actually do something about this energy crisis and 
the high cost of oil; is that correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think my friend from Arizona is correct. What I 
proposed to the majority leader and to the Senate--to which he 
objected, unfortunately--was that we proceed on this measure related to 
the subject that is most on the minds of the American people in a way 
entirely consistent with the way we have dealt with energy in the past 
when it wasn't the No. 1 issue in the country.
  Last year when we were on an energy measure, the way we proceeded 
involved 15 days on the floor, it involved 16 rollcall votes and the 
adoption of 49 amendments. I say to my friend from Arizona, at that 
time gasoline was way too high, but it wasn't nearly as high as it is 
now. It was $3.06 a gallon; now it is about a dollar a gallon higher. 
That was in this Congress.
  In 2005, when our party was in the majority, we passed an energy 
bill, and we spent 10 days on the floor. At that time gas was $2.26 a 
gallon. We had 19 rollcall votes, 57 amendments were adopted, and we 
passed the bill.
  So if we were treating the subject of energy in a credible way 
consistent with Senate traditions in 2005 when it wasn't the No. 1 
issue and in 2007 when it wasn't the No. 1 issue in the country, my 
thought is why in the world would we be trying to do something less 
than that--something that doesn't give all Senators, many of whom have 
good ideas to propose on both sides of the aisle, an opportunity to 
craft a proposal that gets at the No. 1 issue in the country. That is 
what my unanimous consent request would have allowed. I proffered it a 
while ago. It was objected to. It would have allowed us to have energy-
related amendments only, I would say to my friend from Arizona, that we 
would rotate from side to side--a Republican amendment and then a 
Democratic amendment--and we wouldn't put a sort of arbitrary timeline 
on ending the discussion prematurely before we had dealt with the 
problem.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from New 
Hampshire----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader has the floor 
under leadership time.
  Mr. GREGG. I was wondering if the Republican leader would entertain 
another question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would be happy to yield to my friend from New 
Hampshire for a question.
  Mr. GREGG. The Republican leader has made the point that we need to 
have a good piece of legislation, something that can be bipartisan in 
the area of drilling. Hopefully, we can also have an equally bipartisan 
effort in the area of oil shale.
  Isn't it also likely we could probably have a bipartisan amendment on 
the issue of how we bring more nuclear power online, and shouldn't that 
be considered as part of any energy solution, because it addresses the 
environmental concerns which the Democratic leader spoke of so well 
relative to making sure we have clean energy? Shouldn't that also be 
part of any package such as this? Isn't it also totally reasonable that 
we could allow these types of amendments and do it in a fairly orderly 
way and in a quick way within this week, and certainly within next 
week, which is a small amount of time and certainly a reasonable amount 
of time, considering the fact that the American people continue to pay 
such extraordinary fees at the gas pump and expect us to act?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from New Hampshire that under the 
consent agreement I proffered, to which there was an objection lodged 
by the majority leader, such an amendment would have been entirely 
appropriate, and as he suggests, entirely

[[Page S7094]]

consistent with the subject that I know my good friend, the majority 
leader, cares deeply about.
  He brought up in the Senate a climate change measure back in the 
first week of June--something he obviously felt was important. We spent 
a number of days on it. Many people feel nuclear power is one of the 
best solutions to the climate change issue, an entirely relevant 
subject to energy, and would have been permitted under the consent 
agreement that I offered earlier.
  So I think the point is well made, that it is the kind of amendment 
you would normally expect in the Senate on the biggest issue in the 
country to be offering, debating, and voting on.
  I see my friend from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would the distinguished minority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have been listening to the colloquy and the 
questions and the urging all of us have been making to have an open 
amendment process.
  I wonder if the Republican leader, the Senator from Kentucky, is 
aware that we actually have a vehicle that would increase production, 
and the process could be done immediately, and that is through the 
appropriations bills that have been steadily marked up by the 
Appropriations Committee. But is the leader aware that the markup for 
Thursday was canceled?
  It was canceled because the Interior appropriations bill, which has 
the moratorium against offshore drilling and shale production, is in 
that bill, and there was going to be an amendment offered by myself and 
Senators Domenici and Bond to take that moratorium off so that we could 
do something for the American people to bring the price down and start 
production and use our own resources. But that markup was canceled. I 
wanted to see if the leader was aware of that and what possible reasons 
could there be for not having the opportunity, again, to address this 
issue of production.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I might say to my friend from Texas 
that I was surprised to learn that not only was the meeting canceled, 
the rationale for canceling the meeting was announced by the chairman 
as being precisely what the Senator from Texas suggests, which was the 
avoidance of having to vote on the question of offshore drilling.
  The last two surveys I looked at--one is a Fox survey and one a CNN 
survey--indicated that over 70 percent of the American people believe 
we ought to move in previously off-limits offshore areas to increase 
American production. I was surprised to see that the chairman of the 
committee doesn't want to allow a vote on that. It strikes me that 
there is a lot of dodging and weaving going on here to try to avoid 
voting on the things the American people are clearly asking us to do.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for raising that issue. Does she have 
another question?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would just say that the 
Appropriations Committee and this Senate have had a tradition of 
bipartisan participation, and there is a great bipartisan bill for the 
Interior to be able to go forward, and we have the chance to address 
the issues of the congressional moratorium in a bipartisan way. There 
is no other bar to being able to let the States explore on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, and the States that have oil shale reserves, to be 
able to open those, and that bipartisan spirit has been in the 
Appropriations Committee.
  So I just saw that we have this opportunity on the Senate floor right 
now to work all weekend, with amendments, deciding what the majority of 
the Senate wants to do. We have something that is an opportunity that I 
hope we will take, and that is to let the American people see the 
debate and let the American people decide if we have some proposals 
that would increase production, and would that in fact bring down the 
price of oil and gasoline at the pump right now.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The appropriations process has certainly been used in 
the past to achieve the opposite result. I believe the process was used 
last year to put a moratorium on going forward with the development of 
oil shale, much of which is found in Utah. I see our friend from Utah. 
So it is not at all inappropriate, it strikes me, for the 
appropriations process to consider the other side of the equation, 
which is to actually provide additional domestic production.
  It is pretty clear what is going on here, I say to my friend from 
Texas. There is a great effort to avoid having the Senate go on record 
on the issues that are on the minds of the American people, that they 
believe--I think correctly--would take us in the direction of moving 
toward energy independence, which is something that clearly has not 
been accomplished.
  Mr. President, this is an important debate which I and most of my 
Members think we ought to continue to be on for many days, and to try 
to achieve an accomplishment for the American people that would make a 
difference. I don't think we should be afraid of this issue. That is 
what the Senate is here to do--grapple with the big issues confronting 
the country. This is the biggest one. It is time that we dealt with it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what the American people are now watching is 
what has been taking place for 18 months. The Republicans said they 
wanted a vote on drilling. We offered them a vote on drilling. They 
cannot take yes for an answer.
  We have had statement after statement by people who say drilling is 
important. But remember what Senator McCain said. The Republican 
nominee for President, John McCain, said drilling wouldn't make any 
difference; it is only psychological. Think about that. They have been 
talking for weeks about drilling.
  We say: OK, let's have a vote on drilling.
  They say: No, we don't want a vote on drilling, we want the open 
amendment process.
  That is a buzzword for: Folks, we are not going to do anything.
  If they want a vote on shale, I thought that would be part of their 
amendment. If they want a vote on shale, we will give them a vote on 
shale. They want a vote on nuclear. We could limit the time on those 
three amendments. We are happy to do that if they want a vote on 
drilling, shale, and nuclear.
  Of course, Mr. President, everybody knows, as Senator McCain has 
said, these are only psychological things. We know that shale would 
take at least 15 years, even if we started doing something about it 
yesterday. We know that, regarding nuclear, there hasn't been a new 
nuclear plant built in 40 to 50 years, and there likely would not be 
in the near future.

  These are only ploys by the Republicans to avoid voting on what they 
said is the best thing. They go through all this stuff about the 
appropriations process. The appropriations bills are going nowhere 
because of George Bush, the President. Remember, last year, he had us 
where he wanted us. We had to do everything he wanted because, 
otherwise, we would have to deal with him in January after a CR. Well, 
we will not have to deal with this guy anymore; after January 20, he is 
gone.
  To suggest that in some way I have said we are only going to have one 
amendment--I didn't say that. We made a unanimous consent request 
asking them to do what they said they wanted. They said they wanted 
drilling. OK, drill. Vote on that. We believe our domestic production 
is much better than theirs.
  Now, let's talk about a few other things, Mr. President. These are 
the words of my Republican counterpart: ``Timid, half-hearted, bobbing 
and weaving.'' Talk about bobbing and weaving--we give them what they 
want and they say no.
  Now, on speculation, we have done this before, and we will do it 
again.
  Economist Mark Zandi said speculation is driving up oil prices.
  Gary Ramm of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America blamed 
speculation for driving up oil prices. He did that less than a month 
ago.
  The Acting Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission said 
the oil markets are ``ripe for those wanting to illegally manipulate 
the market.''
  The former Director of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's 
Trade Division, Michael Greenberger--

[[Page S7095]]

now a professor at the University of Maryland Law School--said 
speculation is one of the big problems with the energy problem. He also 
said the price has gone up 20 to 50 percent because of speculation.
  The Japanese Government said speculation added $30 to $40 to the cost 
of each barrel of oil last year.
  Consumer advocate, Mark Cooper, testified that speculation on energy 
has cost the American people $500 billion in the last 2 years.
  Now, let's take one of the pals of the Republicans. ExxonMobil Senior 
Vice President Stephen Simon testified that ``the price of oil should 
be about $55 a barrel.'' It is speculation, Mr. President.
  So the Republicans are where they have been for 18 months. They still 
have their nose out of joint because we are in the majority. It is a 
slim majority. They have done everything to slow down, stop, or 
disguise their stalling.
  We have said we think we should do something about speculation. Now 
they say it is no big deal. We are willing to vote on what they think--
and they have been saying it for a month--is the most important thing 
to do: drill off the Outer Continental Shelf. We are saying: Good, draw 
up your amendment and let's vote on it.
  Now they say oil shale, and now--it is remarkable--they are back-
talking about nuclear. If you want to talk about the only thing that 
uses more water than coal, it is nuclear. There isn't enough water in 
Nevada to have a nuclear powerplant. It is in the West. That is why 
they are usually on oceans or rivers because they need huge amounts of 
water.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. So the record is clear, I ask the Senator, we want to 
consider the impact of speculation on energy prices and whether it is 
raising the cost of a barrel of oil and the cost of a gallon of 
gasoline--we believe it is--and we want to put in more regulators to 
watch this industry, add more transparency, more computer capacity, 
make sure there is more disclosure from markets around the world.
  We want to limit the trades to commercial trades that really have 
value to businesses rather than just speculators, as the leader said, 
clicking a mouse and moving around millions of dollars. And we want to 
offer this as an amendment.
  I ask the majority leader, did we say to the Republican side: You can 
offer your own version of the speculation amendment, and you can try to 
strike ours, if you wish. Offer yours. But we are giving you the 
opportunity to offer your amendment, in your terms, with your 
substantive suggestions, and we will vote on each one of them. Is that 
the offer on the table to the Republicans?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, they are not seriously 
trying to solve the problem. They are stalling, as they have done for 
18 months. My friend, the Republican leader, said--to answer the 
question of the senior Senator from Illinois, the assistant leader--
that no serious person has suggested that speculation has anything to 
do with the price runup.
  Talk about a serious person. Glenn Tilton is running a company that 
we have all heard of, United Airlines. United Airlines is trying to 
hang on without going bankrupt. Is this just some corporate executive 
who has an idea that the price of oil is too high? He is also a former 
president of Texaco and formerly the vice chairman of Chevron, so he 
has a little background.
  He said speculation is a big problem. My friend, the Democratic whip, 
attended a meeting where he desperately told us we needed to do 
something about speculation. Does he remember that meeting?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes. I ask the majority leader, if we believe that 
speculation on energy prices is part of the problem, and we have a 
measure to try to address it, and we say to the Republicans ``offer 
your version of it,'' are we stopping them from the substance of the 
amendment that they offer? Are they able, under our proposal, our 
suggestion, to put whatever they want into their version of the 
amendment?
  Mr. REID. We have been saying that for weeks. Certainly, since our 
bill has been on the Senate floor, it has been clear--and I have said 
it on the floor many times--if they don't like our speculation bill, 
come up with a better one.
  Mr. DURBIN. We have also offered to the Republicans to put together 
their Energy bill, to include in their Energy bill what they think is 
important. Day after day, in press conference after press conference, 
they say drill, drill, drill--which they could include in their Energy 
bill. We have heard talk about oil shale. We have not objected to them 
putting a provision for that in their bill.
  Senator Gregg said, ``Let's bring in nuclear power.'' If we said to 
them, write your own bill, bring it to the floor, and we will debate it 
and have a vote, with the same number of votes on both sides, and let's 
see who prevails, have we restricted the Republicans in anything that 
they include in their Energy bill in the proposal we have given to 
them?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend that we have not stopped them from doing 
anything. We have oil shale as part of our proposal. Senator Bingaman 
put that in as part of his bill. So I relish the debate of our proposal 
and theirs. I suggested 2 hours. If they want more time, that would be 
fine. But they want to live yesterday. They want to live yesterday 
forever. The status quo isn't even good enough for them now.
  Mr. DURBIN. The last question I ask the leader is----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic 
whip--the Republican leader took a lot of time, and I have no problem 
with that. So I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic whip be 
allowed to finish his question.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. This will be my last question. I wanted to do a 
calculation. When we talked to the Republicans 2 days ago, they 
suggested that at that time they had 28 amendments they wanted to 
offer. We are hoping to wrap up this session without stopping for the 
weekend by going 10 straight days.
  I heard from the Republican leader that in a previous debate over the 
span of 15 days of debate on the floor of the Senate, there were 19 
rollcall votes. If I do the simple math here of 28 separate Republican 
amendments to start with 2 days ago, there is no way in 10 days we 
could finish this debate on the Energy bill before the August recess.
  I ask the majority leader, does the math work in terms of opening 
this to as many amendments as people can dream up and actually 
finishing within 10 days?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, that is what they want, 
and in the process housing is gone, it is a casualty; the Lou Gehrig 
registry is gone; the Reeve paralysis bill is gone; we don't do 
anything about LIHEAP to help the disabled and old people who are going 
to freeze this winter, and we don't do anything about renewables. But 
this would be in keeping with the 83 filibusters that have taken so 
much time, 83 Republican-led filibusters.
  They are not serious about this. We have tried. We have told them: 
Here is what we will do. They cannot take yes for an answer.

                          ____________________