[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1403-S1405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            GASOLINE PRICES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I mentioned yesterday on the Senate floor 
I spent a great deal of time in deep southern Illinois where some 
devastating and fatal tornadoes hit last week. As I said then and will 
repeat briefly now, the amazing outpouring of voluntarism and support 
from people far and wide was inspiring to me. It is great to know that, 
just as I had hoped, the people in my State rallied to help the 
victims.
  There were formal organizations such as the American Red Cross and 
informal organizations such as Operation Blessing which brought 
together churches from all over the area. There was a Methodist church 
from Carrier Mills with about 20 of their parishioners. Some were 
children with rakes doing everything they could to help clean up the 
mess. It was inspiring to see that. I was happy for that.
  I will tell you that in addition to the tornado issue we faced, the 
one thing that hit people between the eyes in Illinois this last week 
was gasoline prices. I was in the suburbs of Chicago on Friday evening 
and saw a gas station with regular gasoline for $4.09. I saw some lower 
prices over the weekend, but that was the high watermark or high 
gasoline mark in my State that I observed. People are very sensitive to 
this. Gasoline prices literally affect the lives of people individually 
and families as well. They also have a direct impact on business.
  I asked a vice president of Walmart about monitoring retail sales and 
how to increase retail sales, and he told me that with all of the 
hundreds and thousands of Walmart stores and employees, they literally 
monitor sales by the second in real time.
  He said: I can observe the sales pattern in a store somewhere in 
America and tell you within a few pennies or dimes what the price of 
gasoline is in

[[Page S1404]]

that community. When gasoline goes up, people put the money into the 
tank instead of on the counter, and they stay home instead of going out 
to shop. That is how the price of gasoline directly impacts economic 
recovery.
  I have listened to so many of the comments that have been made on the 
Senate floor by individuals on the other side, their approach on how to 
deal with the issue of gasoline prices and what to do with it. I see 
the Senator from California. I sometimes wonder if we are reading the 
same basic information.
  The Keystone Pipeline could serve a valuable purpose, but to believe 
that this is somehow going to have an immediate impact or any major 
impact on gasoline prices is not realistic. Currently, the pipelines 
from Canada that exports these oil sands to the United States are 
operating at less than 50 percent of capacity. So there is plenty of 
room for more oil sands to come to the United States for refinement. In 
fact, one of the pipelines goes directly to my State to the Conoco 
refinery in Wood River, and this refinery has the capacity that could 
be used to process these Canadian oil sands right now. So to argue this 
Keystone Pipeline is somehow holding back the export of Canadian oil 
sands that might have an impact on gasoline prices just does not work.
  I have noted there has been a significant increase in the amount of 
oil exploration and drilling that has taken place under this 
administration. I believe that is an indication of what we can and 
should do as a nation to deal with the problem of providing the oil 
resources in an environmentally responsible way. It is 2 years after 
the BP spill, and I think it is time for us to reflect on the fact that 
we never ever want that to happen again.
  The devastation that has been caused to so many lives, to so many 
businesses, and to so much in terms of wildlife will not be calculated. 
Perhaps it never will be. But we know we cannot allow that to occur 
again. We should not exalt speed over safety. We have to make certain 
that as we move forward to develop our energy resources, both oil and 
gas, we do it in a sensible way. I hope we can gather together and 
agree that is the way to approach it, along with the administration's 
proposals for more fuel efficiency in the vehicles we drive and for the 
development of alternative fuels which will be environmentally friendly 
and spark new innovation, new businesses, and new jobs in this country 
in the 21st century.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for putting the gas 
price situation into a larger picture and also note that one other 
factor playing a role is manipulation due to some of the instability in 
the world that our President is certainly dealing with, and many of us 
here, and the instability in Iran; the fact that we have sanctions, the 
fact that there is also a greater demand coming for this product from 
China and other very high-growth areas.
  I say to my friend, is he aware--I know he is, but because of the 
rules I have to ask it in a question--that we are producing far more of 
this resource, oil, in this country than we have done? Since 2008 we 
have many more rigs out there, and is my colleague also aware that the 
oil companies are sitting on well over 50 million acres of leases on 
which they are not drilling when they could? And, my last point, is my 
friend aware that we are exporting more than we ever have from America? 
That is also a very important point.
  To those who say, ``drill, baby, drill,'' that is not an answer if it 
is ``export, baby, export.'' The fact is we are drilling more, and more 
is leaving America.
  So I say to my friend, is he aware of all of these factors, and is he 
as concerned as I am about the other side playing more politics with 
this because ``drill, baby, drill'' is not the answer? We are drilling 
more than ever. We only have 2 percent of the world's proven supply of 
oil.
  I wonder if my friend could comment on those points.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California. In response, I would 
ask consent of the Chair to have printed in the Record the New York 
Times editorial of Monday, March 5, 2012, entitled ``Drill Baby Drill, 
Redux.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the New York Times]

                        Drill Baby Drill, Redux


   Republicans' tired remedy for rising gas prices won't fix anything

       It's campaign season and the pandering about gas prices is 
     in full swing. Hardly a day goes by that a Republican 
     politician does not throw facts to the wind and claim that 
     rising costs at the pump are the result of President Obama's 
     decisions to block the Keystone XL pipeline and impose 
     sensible environmental regulations and modest restrictions on 
     offshore drilling.
       Next, of course, comes the familiar incantation of ``drill, 
     baby, drill.'' Mr. Obama has rightly derided this as a 
     ``bumper sticker,'' not a strategy. Last week, he agreed that 
     high gas prices were a real burden, but said the only 
     sensible response was a balanced mix of production, 
     conservation and innovation in alternative fuels.
       There are lots of reasons for the rise in gas prices, but 
     the lack of American production is not one of them. Domestic 
     crude oil production is actually up from 5.4 million barrels 
     a day in 2004 to 5.59 million now; imports have dropped by 
     more than 10 percent in the same period. Despite a temporary 
     slowdown in exploration in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP 
     oil disaster, the number of rigs in American oil fields has 
     quadrupled over three years. There have been new discoveries 
     and the administration has promised to open up more offshore 
     reserves. To say that Mr. Obama has denied industry access is 
     nonsense.
       Equally nonsensical is the Republican claim that Mr. 
     Obama's proposed repeal of $4 billion in annual tax breaks 
     for the oil and gas industry--whose five biggest players 
     posted $137 billion in profits last year--would drive prices 
     upward. As is Newt Gingrich's claim that a proposal now 
     taking shape in the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
     fiercely opposed by refiners, to lower the sulfur content in 
     gasoline would add 25 cents to the cost of a gallon. Agency 
     experts say it would add about a penny.
       The truth is that oil prices are set on world markets by 
     forces largely beyond America's control. Chief among these is 
     soaring demand in countries like China. Unrest in oil-
     producing countries is another factor. The Times noted fears 
     in some quarters that gas could jump to $5 a gallon if the 
     standoff with Iran disrupted world supplies.
       Therein lies the biggest weakness in the Republican litany. 
     A country that consumes more than 20 percent of the world's 
     oil supply but owns 2 percent of its reserves cannot drill 
     its way out of high prices or dependence on exports from 
     unstable countries. The only plausible strategy is to keep 
     production up while cutting consumption and embarking on a 
     serious program of alternative fuels.
       American innovation is a big part of the answer. Two 
     byproducts of the automobile bailout were the carmakers' 
     acceptance of sharply improved fuel economy and a new 
     commitment to building cars that can meet those standards. 
     The new rules are expected to cut consumption by 2.2 million 
     barrels a day--more than America now produces in the gulf. 
     These and other measures are not nearly as catchy as Drill, 
     Baby, Drill. But they have a far better shot, long term, of 
     lessening this country's dependence on oil imports and 
     keeping gas prices under control.

  Mr. DURBIN. It answers specifically what the Senator just raised, and 
I would like to read a portion of it.

       Domestic crude oil production is actually up from 5.4 
     million barrels a day in 2004 to 5.59 million now; imports 
     have dropped by more than 10 percent in the same period. 
     Despite a temporary slowdown in exploration in the Gulf of 
     Mexico after the BP oil disaster, the number of rigs in 
     American oilfields has quadrupled over 3 years. There have 
     been new discoveries, and the administration has promised to 
     open more offshore reserves. To say that Mr. Obama has denied 
     industry access is nonsense.
       Equally nonsensical is the Republican claim that Mr. 
     Obama's proposed repeal of $4 billion in annual tax breaks 
     for the oil and gas industry--whose five biggest players 
     posted $137 billion in profits last year--would drive prices 
     upward. As is Newt Gingrich's claim that a proposal now 
     taking shape in the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
     fiercely opposed by refiners, to lower sulfur content in 
     gasoline would add 25 cents to the cost of a gallon. Agency 
     experts say it would add a penny.
       The truth is that oil prices are set by world markets by 
     forces largely beyond America's control. Chief among these is 
     soaring demand in countries like China.

  The Times noted fears in some quarters that gas could jump to $5 a 
gallon if the standoff with Iran disrupted world supplies.
  The editorial continues:

       Therein lies the biggest weakness in the Republican litany. 
     A country that consumes--

  As the Senator from California noted--

     more than 20 percent of the world's oil supply but owns 2 
     percent of its reserves cannot drill its way out of high 
     prices or dependence on exports from unstable countries. The 
     only

[[Page S1405]]

     plausible strategy is to keep production up while cutting 
     consumption and embarking on a serious program of alternative 
     fuels.

  Let me add to this conversation a topic which I think we have been 
loathe to address on the floor because of its political controversy 
which was driven home to me over the weekend. I believe our energy 
conversation has to parallel an environmental conversation. We have to 
talk about the consumption of energy and the impact it has on the world 
we live in.
  I would say to the Senator from California that in the Midwest, we 
live in tornado country. I was raised with them. I know how to run to 
the basement when we hear the air raid sirens, to protect our children, 
which rooms to go in, which corner of the house. It is just built into 
our lifestyle in the Midwest. So far this year, we have had over 272 
reported tornadoes, early in the tornado season. Last year, we had 50; 
so 272 to 50.
  I would just say to anyone who would like to come challenge me: Is 
this worth asking a question or two? What is going on with the extreme 
weather patterns we are seeing more and more? In a given year, one 
might say these things happen. But as these patterns emerge--last year, 
Chicago experienced the biggest blizzard in its history in February and 
then in June the largest rainfall in 1 hour in its history. We think to 
ourselves: This is not the world in which we grew up. Things are 
different out there. Are these within our control or beyond our 
control? I think we have to rely on experts and scientists to lead us 
in that conversation. But let's at least embark on that conversation by 
understanding the connection between energy and the environment.
  As we find more efficient ways to move our cars and move our economy, 
as we burn less energy in doing it, there is less damage to the 
environment. That is a positive. It also rewards innovation, creation 
and new business and industry so the United States can lead in this 
area as we have led in other areas before.
  I thank the Senator from California. She is on the floor now with a 
bill which she has spoken of time and time again, the new Federal 
Transportation bill. There is no single piece of legislation that will 
create more jobs--specific jobs that can be identified--than this bill. 
We have spent 2 weeks--2 weeks, if I am not mistaken, or 3--the Senator 
from California would know better--3 weeks on the floor of the Senate 
arguing about contraception on the Federal highway bill, arguing about 
whether we are going to embark on a foreign policy amendment to the 
Federal highway bill, so 3 wasted weeks trying to come to a conclusion 
about a handful of amendments. Unfortunately, this is what gives our 
Senate a bad name. We should have resolved this long ago and moved to 
this bill so we can say, if we want a real jobs bill--a real jobs 
bill--the Senate is leading the way. To do it, we need bipartisan 
support.
  At noon there will be a vote and those who are following the 
proceedings can take a look to see how many on both sides of the aisle 
will support moving forward on this bill. I think our earlier vote was 
85. If I am not mistaken, 85 Senators said let's move forward on this 
bill. I hope we can do that again.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________