Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 100 (Wednesday, June 30, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 30, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5638-S5641]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ADDRESSING THE ISSUES

Mr. DURBIN. In response to the Republican leader's speech, I have
three words: Drill, baby, drill. That was the chant we heard across the
United States from the Republican side of the aisle during the last
Presidential campaign. The notion was that if we just started drilling
in every direction, we could solve America's energy problems. It was an
irresponsible chant, failing to address the most fundamental issue of
our time: the future of America's national energy picture.
What you heard this morning from the Republican leader is a return to
the subject but ignoring the past. What we know is this: We know we
have become more and more dependent on foreign oil. It costs us, as a
Nation, $1 billion a day that we are sending overseas to other
countries to buy their oil to sustain our economy. This dependence,
unfortunately, leads to commitments we have to make--military
commitments, political commitments, economic commitments--because of
this dependence on foreign oil.
The second reality is this: We understand there is a new, emerging
energy technology in the 21st century. It is an energy technology based
on efficiency, economy, and the reduction of costs. There are other
countries in the world that are taking the lead in this area, not the
least of which is the nation of China.
I recently heard from Michael Bennet of Colorado, who spoke to us at
a Democratic Senate luncheon. He came up with a statistic which in many
ways is hard to believe but equally scary, and here is what it is: The
largest export of the United States of America of any product is in the
aircraft industry. Look at Boeing. Look at all of the aircraft we are
exporting around the world. It is our major export. Yet if you compare
our major export to the export by China--by China--of energy technology
to the world, they are now at 50 percent of the value of our annual
aircraft exports. China has decided that the future of the world is
based on new, clean energy technology, and they are doing something
about it. They don't come to their leadership and squabble, at least
not in a public fashion; they get focused--focused on creating
businesses and jobs and being ready to compete in the 21st century.
The third premise of our energy policy goes to something on which the
Senator from Kentucky may or may not agree with me. I happen to believe
the activities of humans on this Earth make a difference when it comes
to the planet. I happen to believe when we look at glacial melt around
the world, it reflects the fact that the world is changing. Ever so
gradually, it is getting warmer. As the Earth increases its
temperature, it changes weather patterns, the currents of the oceans,
the land we live on, the crops we grow, and our future. Some people
don't accept that. Some don't see a connection. They don't believe any
of the carbon released into the atmosphere creates a problem. I have
met many of them. Some are people who in good faith don't come to the
same conclusion I reach. I respect them, but I respectfully think they
are wrong.

[[Page S5639]]

What have we learned from the gulf crisis? We have learned a lot.
Yesterday I had one of the vice presidents of BP America in my office.
I talked to him about how we have reached this point. I said: When we
have reached the point where we are drilling deep, going after the
tough, deep oil to fuel our economy and its needs, we are engendering
more problems and more challenges than before. Had there been a spill
of oil in downstate Illinois or in Alaska or Texas, it would have been
terrible, but it could have been contained much more quickly than this
gusher of oil coming from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. As we
explore in new areas, tougher, more challenging areas, we run greater
risk. That is a reality.
I take exception to the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky who
suggested this administration is not doing everything in its power to
deal with this spill in the gulf. Let's look at what we have done. This
President called in BP and made it clear that the cost of this damage
will be borne by that oil company, not by the taxpayers. I was
pleasantly surprised when the Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, a
man who in the past was as passionate in his beliefs as I am in my
Democratic beliefs, came out and praised President Obama for sitting
down with BP and getting a commitment of $20 billion in a fund to deal
with the economic losses associated with this spill. BP has bought
commercials that most of us have seen saying: We will pay for this, all
of it. I don't know if the Senator from Kentucky thinks that is
unimportant. I believe it is important.
Secondly, I am as troubled by the continuing spill as anyone. I know
the President feels that has to end and end immediately. But as the
Senator from Kentucky knows, we don't have a U.S. department of deep
sea drilling. It doesn't exist. What we are relying on is the private
sector's capacity, technology, equipment, and expertise to find a way
to cope with this problem. I am as frustrated as any American that on
day 75 of this spill, it has not come to an end. But it continues. The
President focuses on this every day, as does his Cabinet.
Yesterday we had a meeting with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The
man has spent day after weary day devoting himself completely to this.
Carol Browner, an environmental assistant in the White House, was there
talking about the massive commitment which we have made. She was asked
pointblank: Are you providing the booms, the things they spread out in
the water to stop the flow and spread of this oil, are you supplying
all of the booms requested by all of the States in the Gulf of Mexico?
She said: We are supplying not only 100 percent of their requests but
over 100 percent of their requests, and we are going to continue to
manufacture and secure this boom to protect our shoreline. She said: Of
course, we haven't done everything right, but when we see a problem, we
move on it quickly to try to solve it.
We are talking about the commitment of thousands of vessels to skim
the surface of the gulf and to try to salvage as much of this oil as
possible. It is a massive national commitment by our government, by the
private sector. The suggestion of the Senator from Kentucky that the
President is not focused on it is not accurate nor fair.
I believe we need to focus on energy. We need to be honest about the
future when it comes to energy. If we accept the premise that we will
continue to be dependent on foreign oil indefinitely, that we will
spend a billion dollars a day, sending it to many countries which not
only disagree with us in terms of our values but turn around and spend
our dollars against us to foster and to be patrons to terrorism, if we
accept that, then we will do nothing about a national energy policy. If
we accept the premise that we should do nothing about clean energy
technology and all the potential for business and jobs it creates, that
America is going to take a back seat to China and other countries, then
we will do nothing about the national energy policy. If we accept the
premise that there is no global warming and we should not lose a
moment's sleep worrying about it, then we will do nothing about a
national energy policy.
That is what we hear from the other side of the aisle, do nothing,
say no. Over and over throughout this congressional session, the
response of Senate Republicans has been say no. When we tackled the
tough and controversial issue of containing health care costs, runaway
costs that are affecting every business, every family and every level
of government, Republicans said: No, we will not engage. We will not be
part of that conversation.
When we went after Wall Street reform and said: After this recession,
we have learned lessons; we will not allow these titans on Wall Street
to repeat their mistakes and kill more jobs in the future, all but four
Republicans said: No, we are not interested in that conversation. We
don't want to be part of that effort.
Now we find again, in one of the most telling and important issues of
the moment, unemployment compensation for the hundreds of thousands of
Americans out of work, Republicans have said, no, we will not lend a
helping hand to the people of America out of work.
I look at the numbers of those who are unemployed across the country,
who will lose their benefits because Republicans continue to say no. I
look at States such as Kentucky, the home State of the Republican
leader, where 22,600 Kentucky families had their unemployment cut off
because Senator McConnell and his colleagues voted no when it came to
extending unemployment benefits. In my State of Illinois, 80,000
families had their unemployment cut off this month because Republicans
said no. One of my friends who is a woman out of work, with a family,
called me over the weekend at home. We keep in touch. She said: Let me
tell you, Senator, what it means. They are cutting off the utilities. I
don't know what to do. Three kids in the house and a grandson, and they
are cutting off my utilities.
That is the real world of the real votes cast by the other side of
the aisle.
This morning the New York Times had an editorial which I want to make
reference to. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, June 30, 2010]

Who Will Fight for the Unemployed?

Without doubt, the two biggest threats to the economy are
unemployment and the dire financial condition of the states,
yet lawmakers have failed to deal intelligently with either
one.
Federal unemployment benefits began to expire nearly a
month ago. Since then, 1.2 million jobless workers have been
cut off. The House passed a six-month extension as part of a
broader spending bill in May, but the Senate, despite three
attempts, has not been able to pass a similar bill. The
majority leader, Harry Reid, said he was ready to give up
after the third try last week when all of the Senate's
Republicans and a lone Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska,
blocked the bill.
Meanwhile, the states face a collective budget hole of some
$112 billion, but neither the House nor the Senate has a plan
to help. The House stripped a provision for $24 billion in
state fiscal aid from its earlier spending bill. The Senate
included state aid in its ill-fated bill to extend
unemployment benefits; when that bill failed, the promise of
aid vanished as well.
As a result, 30 states that had counted on the money to
help balance their budgets will be forced to raise taxes even
higher and to cut spending even deeper in the budget year
that begins on July 1. That will only worsen unemployment,
both among government workers and the states' private
contractors. Worsening unemployment means slower growth, or
worse, renewed recession.
So if lawmakers are wondering why consumer confidence and
the stock market are tanking (the Standard & Poor's 500-stock
index hit a new low for the year on Tuesday), they need look
no further than a mirror.
The situation cries out for policies to support economic
growth--specifically jobless benefits and fiscal aid to
states. But instead of delivering, Congressional Republicans
and many Democrats have been asserting that the nation must
act instead to cut the deficit. The debate has little to do
with economic reality and everything to do with political
posturing. A lot of lawmakers have concluded that the best
way to keep their jobs is to pander to the nation's new
populist mood and play off the fears of the very Americans
whose economic well-being Congress is threatening.
Deficits matter, but not more than economic recovery, and
not more urgently than the economic survival of millions of
Americans. A sane approach would couple near-term federal
spending with a credible plan for deficit reduction--a mix of
tax increases

[[Page S5640]]

and spending cuts--as the economic recovery takes hold.
But today's deficit hawks--many of whom eagerly
participated in digging the deficit ever deeper during the
George W. Bush years--are not interested in the sane
approach. In the Senate, even as they blocked the extension
of unemployment benefits, they succeeded in preserving a tax
loophole that benefits wealthy money managers at private
equity firms and other investment partnerships. They also
derailed an effort to end widespread tax avoidance by owners
of small businesses organized as S-corporations. If they are
really so worried about the deficit, why balk at these
evidently sensible ways to close tax loopholes and end tax
avoidance?
House lawmakers made an effort on Tuesday to extend jobless
benefits but failed to get the necessary votes, and it
remains uncertain if an extension can pass both the House and
Senate before Congress leaves town on Friday for a weeklong
break. What's needed, and what's lacking, is leadership, both
in Congress and from the White House, to set the terms of the
debate--jobs before deficit reduction--and to fight for those
terms, with failure not an option.

Mr. DURBIN. The New York Times editorial today reads: ``Who Will
Fight for the Unemployed?''
I want to quote a few sentences from it:

I might add a comment here. This morning's newspapers, the Washington
Post and the New York Times, at least the ones I have seen, and the
Chicago papers as well, question what the reaction of our economy is
going to be. They looked at the stock market yesterday. One day does
not make a trend, but there is a growing concern that we are sliding
back into a recession because of the failure of Republicans to support
not only the President's stimulus package but also to send unemployment
benefits to those needy people across America. This is a repeat,
unfortunately, of a chapter in American history when after the Great
Depression, President Roosevelt initiated the New Deal and injected
into our economy massive amounts of money to create jobs so people
would go to work, earn a paycheck, and spend it for goods and services,
breathing life back into a dying economy, trying to turn it around.
After 4 years of that effort, President Roosevelt, at the urging of
more conservative political leaders, said: We better start focusing now
on the deficit. They started tapping the breaks on spending, and the
unemployment rate shot up again, creating a follow-on to the Great
Depression which was not relieved until the beginning of World War II.
Sadly, it appears we are about to repeat that historical mistake. We
know Republicans continue to argue that because of our deficit, we
should not worry about the recession or spending money to stimulate the
creation of jobs. The money we send out to unemployed people is turned
around immediately into the economy. These people are living hand to
mouth. Every dollar they receive is spent. As it is spent at a
business, it creates business profits and small business jobs. One
thing leads to another as the multiplier takes that dollar, respends it
many times in our economy and breathes life back into an economy which
has been fraught with a recession. That is the reality of the need
today. The failure to meet that need will guarantee the deficit
continues and gets worse. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy as
Republicans turn down unemployment benefits, arguing that we can't
afford it as a nation because of the deficit and, as a result, drive up
unemployment in the country, driving up the very deficits they say they
want to end. It is a lesson of history. Those who ignore history are
likely and condemned to repeat it.
Returning to this New York Times editorial:

So if lawmakers are wondering why consumer confidence and
the stock market are tanking (the Standard & Poor's 500-stock
index hit a new low for the year on Tuesday), they need look
no further than a mirror.
The situation cries out for policies to support economic
growth--specifically jobless benefits and fiscal aid to
states. But instead of delivering, Congressional Republicans
and many Democrats have been asserting that the nation must
act instead to cut the deficit. The debate has little to do
with economic reality and everything to do with political
posturing. A lot of lawmakers have concluded that the best
way to keep their jobs is to pander to the nation's new
populist mood and play off the fears of the very Americans
whose economic well-being Congress is threatening.
Deficits matter, but not more than economic recovery, and
not more urgently than the economic survival of millions of
Americans. A sane approach would couple near-term federal
spending with a credible plan for deficit reduction--a mix of
tax increases and spending cuts--as the economic recovery
takes hold.

This New York City editorial summarizes what I consider the
situation. In a short period of time, after the memorial to our fallen
colleague Senator Byrd, who served this Nation and West Virginia so
well, we will probably have one vote tomorrow evening and then head
back to our homes. For many people it will be a time of relaxation with
family. For many Senators it is a rest that is needed after a lot of
days spent in session in the Senate. As we return, in my home State,
80,000 families won't be celebrating the Fourth of July. They will be
wondering how they are going to pay their utility bills and feed their
families. For the rest of us who live in comfort, full-time employment,
it may be a world removed. But for them, it is the world of reality
they face every single day. Their life has become more complicated, and
their burden is heavier because this Senate has failed to extend
unemployment benefits.
Mr. President, 1.2 million Americans in the month of June will lose
their unemployment benefits because not one single Republican would
vote to help Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of
their own. Where they would find permission to spend money on so many
other things, when it comes to investing in American families who have
fallen on hard times, they turn a deaf ear. That, to me, is sad and
unfortunate. We need to address many issues in this Congress. It
troubles me that we would consider going home for anything near a
holiday or a relief from our Senate duties and ignore the burdens
facing Americans who are in unemployed status or who have trouble in
their families because of this weak economy.
I sincerely hope a handful--three or four Republicans--will consider
voting for unemployment benefits for those across America who are out
of work. We come to the aid of the American family when people are in
need. When there is a natural disaster, we are there. This is an
economic disaster. It requires an emergency response. We should not
leave Washington without dealing with it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from
Alaska is recognized.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Illinois, I was
presiding for about a half hour. I was not planning on speaking. I know
my staff right now is getting very nervous that I am speaking on the
floor of the Senate without their knowledge, but I do want to say a
couple things.
I say to the Senator, one, he is absolutely right on unemployment
benefits and what we need to do in the next day or so. But I want to go
back to his first comment. I was at the meeting yesterday with the
President, and I sat next to Senator Alexander and heard the question
on the oilspill issue. The comment from the Republican leader was that
the President just brushed it aside. I am not here to defend the
President. He can do his own job defending himself. But the point was,
we

[[Page S5641]]

were doing everything in a very bipartisan way on the oilspill.
Tomorrow we have another briefing with the Coast Guard. We had a
briefing yesterday. There is a committee meeting I am supposed to be at
right now on some liability issues around the Deepwater and what is
going on with offshore. There are meetings all over this place.
I know the Republican leader was not at the meeting, so I am sure he
got the information secondhand. But I was. It was not brushed off. I
think all of us, I do not care what State we are from--I am from an oil
and gas State--believe in the development of oil and gas, but we are
all concerned about the problems down in the gulf and the tragedy and
the 11 lives that were lost there. So we are 100 percent committed in
this body in a bipartisan way.
What I found amazing--and the Senator's point was we can do more than
one thing in this body. I believe I can. I know everyone around me and
around my caucus believes that. So we are going to work on the
oilspill. Absolutely we want to cap it. But that is going on now. They
are 16,000 feet down on a second drill, a relief drill. They are about
1,000 feet away. We know that is being worked on.
But the reality is, we have to have a comprehensive energy plan in
this country. The fact is, if we want to talk about jobs and job
creation in the future, that is a huge potential for us.
This debate, when we get to it--I know some want to make it cap and
tax, cap and trade, cap and cap, cap and something. But the reality is,
this is about a comprehensive energy plan. This is about creating a
plan that gets us more secure for our national security. I say to the
Senator, he talked about the amount of money we spend overseas going to
countries that do not like us. They spend that money against us. It is
in our best interests to develop a comprehensive plan, not using the
excuses that have gone around this place for the last 40 years. We need
to get busy and do it for the consumer, do it for our national
security, do it for our economic security, and do it for the future of
job creation in this economy.
So if we want to talk about the oilspill, absolutely. We will work
double-time on that. We are doing it from every end of the Capitol and
all across this country. As a matter of fact, today another report came
out. A multinational effort, a multicountry effort from around the
world has come to our assistance in the gulf. But we also need to be
dealing with a comprehensive energy plan.
In Alaska, we are doing it. By 2025 we intend to have 50 percent of
our energy produced by renewable energy. Even though we are dependent
on oil and gas for the economic viability of our State, we recognize
the diversity that has to happen: In Kodiak, AK, 10 years ago, zero;
today, almost 85 percent renewable energy. The largest Coast Guard
station in this country is in Kodiak, AK, which will be run by
renewable energy: biofuels, hydro, wind energy.
We have to be real about this issue. I understand the politics of
November is coming. Everyone wants to be for something, against
something so they can figure out what constituencies they win or lose
in an election. The people who will lose if we do not get a
comprehensive energy plan is the public. It does not matter if we are
Democrat or Republican, Green Party, Independent. You name it. We are
going to be affected because we will continue to import from foreign
sources that do not like us. We will continue to put our country at
risk from a national security perspective, and we will not recognize
that we are now No. 2, No. 3 when it comes to energy technology and
China is beating us.
That is unacceptable for this country to be No. 2 or No. 3 on this
issue. We should be No. 1. For people to come down wanting to pigeon-
hole this and claim we do not have the capacity in the Senate to do
more than one thing is unbelievable. We will work double-time on the
oilspill. But we must work double-time on developing an energy policy
that moves us to better security for our country, our economic
security, and to make sure we see the future. The future is a new
energy economy that creates new jobs in this country.
So I was not planning to speak, I say to the Senator from Illinois,
but he sparked me. I get agitated sometimes when this body--not the
Senator, obviously, but the Republican leader--when they want to just
do one thing. It is like when a person gets a meal on a plate, and one
person just likes to eat the corn first, complete it all, and then they
move to the next thing. We have the capacity to do many things in this
Senate. We have spent 40 years--from the last major embargo in 1974--
twiddling our thumbs and doing small, little, special interest
legislation for energy. Now let's do the right legislation for the
American people and do it right for our national security.
So I will stop on my rant. My staff is probably sweating bullets
right now. They had no idea I was going to be down here doing this. I
am off to a committee hearing.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield briefly for a
question, 21 years ago, I went up to Prince William Sound to see the
Exxon Valdez spill. I say to the Senator, I know he knows, as a native
of Alaska, firsthand how terrible these spills can be, the impact they
can have in the short and long term. But I commend the Senator for his
statement because we can do more than one thing if we are working
together. If we are divided and at war politically, we do not
accomplish much.
What the President wants us to do is deal with the gulf oilspill but
also not ignore the need for a national energy policy that is going to
make us stronger, create more jobs, and make us less dependent on
foreign oil.
I thank the Senator from Alaska for his comments.
Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Senator for sparking me for the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
While I will be speaking on the subject of Senator Byrd, I, too, want
to join my colleague from Illinois in commending our Senator from
Alaska on this issue and so many others. The Senator's staff does not
have to worry. He speaks fluidly, eloquently, and without flaw. But,
second, I think his courage on this issue has helped inspire our caucus
to move forward.
We come from different States. For some States it is easier; for some
States it is harder to take on this issue. Probably for Alaska it is
one of the two or three hardest States to do it, and the Senator has
done it with courage, with intelligence, with drive, and I think
ultimately with success.
So I thank the Senator.

____________________