[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5462-5463]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. He has 
waited patiently all day. I didn't realize he had left for his office 
to come back. I thank him. It is generous of him to give me an 
opportunity to share some moments with reference to this bill and the 
issues raised on the floor.
  As I listened to the previous speaker, my colleague and friend from 
the State of Idaho, explain the energy problems of America, I certainly 
concur with his conclusion. The cost of energy is high. That is an 
input for business as well as for families. As those costs go up, it 
becomes more difficult for our businesses in America to be competitive. 
Frankly, families find themselves facing inflation and heightened 
expenses just to drive a car to work or to use the car in a small 
business. As energy costs, like the cost of gasoline, go up, this 
conclusion is inescapable.
  But I have to question the premise of the Senator from Idaho; that 
is, the problem is we are not drilling for enough oil in America. That 
certainly is one of the problems. Having an adequate supply is 
essential. Those of us who believe we have to continue to look for 
environmentally responsible sources for oil and gas think that should 
be part of a national effort and a national energy policy.
  What is missing in the speech from the Senator from Idaho was any 
reference at all to the conservation of energy. Over the weekend in 
Chicago I bought a copy of Consumer Reports, the April issue on the 
2004 automobiles. I went through it out of curiosity to find how many 
miles per gallon the most popular cars in America are getting. You will 
find time and time again that you are lucky to find a fuel-efficient 
car anywhere in the range of 20 miles per gallon. Very few of them are 
getting more than 20 miles per gallon.
  If you put this in historic context it means that in the last 60 
years we have decided, as a nation, in our buying habits and in the 
production of automobiles, that we want heavier, less fuel-efficient 
cars, and that we are prepared to be more reliant on foreign sources 
for fuel.
  We are paying the price for it. Now we are seeing shortages because 
we are not engaged in any discussion or commitment to conservation of 
energy or the fuel efficiency of our energy-using vehicles and 
machinery. We are paying the price for it.
  We cannot drill enough oil and gas to take care of our profligate 
habits when it comes to energy. Let me add, as we burn this energy 
without any concern for conservation, we are undoubtedly adding to 
global warming, air pollution, and serious environmental problems that 
we visit on our children.
  The Energy bill to which the Senator from Idaho referred must 
include, I would assume, some provision for greater fuel efficiency for 
cars and trucks. But, lo and behold, it does not. There is nothing in 
that bill to deal with fuel efficiency. The original bill wanted to 
propose drilling for oil in the ANWR. That was defeated on the Senate 
floor. But, sadly, the bill that finally came to us for a vote had 
little or nothing in it that would move us toward more fuel-efficient 
vehicles.
  My friend from Utah, who is seeking recognition at this point, is the 
model for the Senate. If you look at my tall, lanky friend from Utah, 
he goes out of this building, down the steps, and folds himself into a 
Prius, if I am not mistaken?
  Mr. BENNETT. It is an insight, and the question is whether or not the 
Senator wanted a ride in a car that throughout its history has a 53.1 
miles-per-gallon history.
  Mr. DURBIN. What a model Senator. I am happy to give him credit where 
it is due. I have watched him fold himself in and out of that car, and 
I have commended him in the past and I will continue to commend him. 
But isn't it ironic that you have to go to Japan to buy these hybrid 
vehicles? Finally, Detroit, in a year or so, may be producing them.
  My response to the Senator from Idaho is, yes, let's have a policy 
debate about energy in America. But for goodness' sake, let's not 
believe the key to

[[Page 5463]]

America's energy future is just finding more environmentally sensitive 
places to drill for oil--offshore, wilderness areas. Let's also commit 
ourselves to conservation of energy.
  Let me address another issue. If we are talking about the 
competitiveness of American business, it is not just the input of 
energy costs. You will find many businesses resist hiring new employees 
because they don't want to pay for their health insurance. Health 
insurance has become a breaker for businesses large and small.
  Those good American companies, patriotic companies, if you will, that 
provide health insurance for their employees, when they sell the 
product in competition around the world, have to bring into the cost of 
that product the cost of health insurance for their employees.
  The obvious question is, What are you doing, Senator? What is the 
Senate or House or Congress or the President doing to deal with these 
skyrocketing health insurance costs? The answer is: Nothing. For at 
least 3 years and even longer we have been afraid to even discuss the 
issue, as this system has fallen apart in front of our eyes.
  So if you are talking about businesses being more competitive and 
jobs being created and making certain that our products have a chance 
in world commerce, energy cost is important but so is the cost of 
health insurance. This Congress has done nothing.
  I have introduced legislation with Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln of 
Arkansas and Senator Tom Carper of Delaware that tries to create a 
system much like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program so that 
small businesses have access to the same private insurance pool as 
Federal employees across America. It would give them at least an 
opportunity for enrollment in a competitive atmosphere where prices 
could come down as a result.
  Let me address the bill before us, though, because it relates to this 
as well. Imagine the situation of the employees still working today--
thank goodness many are and have not lost their jobs, or are in low-
paying jobs--and they happen to have children. One of the concerns, of 
course, is what happens to the kids when these employees go to work. 
This bill before us is welfare reform. I voted for it when it first 
came out, but a lot of Democrats didn't.
  My friend and mentor and one of my best influences in politics was 
the late Paul Simon of Illinois, and he thought it was a terrible bill. 
I disagreed with him. I didn't very often, but I did on this bill, and 
I voted for welfare reform. Thank goodness the Clinton boom occurred 
right after we voted for welfare reform, and a lot of people came off 
welfare to find work.
  Now we are in the sad state of affairs under the Bush administration 
where we have lost more than 2.6 million manufacturing jobs since the 
President took office. We have lost manufacturing jobs for 43 
consecutive months. Frankly, as a result of that, the jobs remaining 
are not paying as well. So now you have a person struggling to get by, 
they have a low-paying job, and children; they are worried about 
daycare.
  This bill, thank goodness, has a provision that is going to be added 
by the Senator from Maine in a bipartisan amendment in which Senator 
Snowe has suggested that we add $6 billion for daycare. It is long 
overdue. Some 16 million children under the age of 13 live in low-
income families, and they need childcare. Only 1 in 7 are eligible to 
receive current Federal subsidies for childcare.
  The funding in the original Senate bill wouldn't even serve the 
children served today. So the bill that comes before us is not 
adequate. In 15 States there are waiting lists of families that cannot 
afford to pay for childcare, and they are hoping to get a subsidy which 
is not there.
  Let me also tell you it is an expensive proposition. Full-day 
childcare can cost between $4,000 and $10,000 a year. It is comparable 
to the cost of college tuition. These are low-income families 
struggling to deal with the reality of childcare. Twenty-five percent 
of America's families with young children earn less than $25,000 a 
year.
  We have to make certain we not only take care of the childcare but 
also afterschool care. A lot of kids today get out of school at 2:30 or 
3 in the afternoon and have nowhere to go. They are latchkey children 
who go home. What happens during that period before a responsible adult 
is on the scene? For some kids they watch television, they sit around 
and eat junk food; some do homework; some get in serious trouble--
involvement with drugs and gangs and guns and pregnancy. Problems 
occur. Afterschool programs mean kids are in a healthy environment 
where they can learn instead of being exposed to the streets or left 
alone in a circumstance where they might not come out of it in a 
positive fashion.
  Childcare works--not only childcare for smaller children but 
afterschool care as well. We need to make that commitment. If we are 
saying to a welfare mother we want her to step forward and change her 
life, let us accept the reality that if she is going to go, in good 
conscience, forward to get a job and acquire the skills and move 
forward, her first concern is her kid. Making sure her kids are taken 
care of in a safe way during the day and afterschool.
  Senator Snowe of Maine, my Republican colleague, has that bipartisan 
amendment which I hope is going to be adopted very quickly.
  How much time do we have remaining under the unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.

                          ____________________