[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8090-8091]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       DEMOCRATIC ENERGY PACKAGE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reading the morning papers, we learned 
a couple of key points about the energy proposal introduced yesterday 
by our friends on the other side. The most important point is that two 
central provisions of the bill are opposed by two of their own 
chairmen. In this morning's Albuquerque Journal, we learned that the 
Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy Committee does not like the 
so-called windfall profit tax. He called it ``arbitrary.''
  Now, we know this is a bad idea that does not work. The last time a 
windfall profits tax was tried in the 1980s, it reduced domestic 
production and actually increased our reliance on foreign oil, just the 
opposite of a rational policy to reduce gas prices to make America more 
energy independent.
  In the Wall Street Journal, we learned that the senior Senator from 
New York, the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, is raising the 
alarm about another central tenet of the Democratic energy proposal, 
the energy futures trading provision. The Journal reports the chairman 
is saying the energy futures trading provisions, as written, would send 
the bulk of the trading that is now done in America, and thus American 
jobs, to markets overseas.
  I agree with both of these chairmen. Two years have passed since 
Congressional Democrats said they had a ``commonsense plan'' to address 
high gas prices. This week Senate Democrats finally unveiled that plan, 
and their own chairmen do not seem to like parts of it. It is 
predictably high on taxes, more bureaucracy, and continued dependence 
on OPEC.
  Their proposal would do nothing to lower the price of gas. It will 
only serve to further reduce domestic supplies and increase our 
dependency on foreign oil at a time when we are trying to make America 
more, not less, energy independent.
  Republicans believe we should increase our supply of American energy

[[Page 8091]]

to bring gas prices down and to create American jobs. Apparently our 
friends across the aisle believe we should continue to ask OPEC to 
increase its supply, while opposing additional production of American 
energy.
  We will have an opportunity to vote on Monday on the proposal that 
the majority of Members on my side think would make an actual 
difference in the coming years. It is a fundamental difference of 
opinion. We can either proactively increase our domestic production or 
we can place greater dependence on foreign suppliers and further delay 
energy independence. Given the choice, I would rather produce more 
American energy and create more American jobs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to respond in 
leader time in the absence of Senator Reid.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator Reid could not be here this 
morning and asked me to come to the floor if a response was necessary, 
and a response is necessary.
  There are two fundamentally different approaches when it comes to 
America's energy futures between the Democratic side and the Republican 
side. The Democratic side believes that first we have to do everything 
we can to protect consumers of America from price gouging. We know what 
is happening. We cannot go to Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky, or Colorado 
and not run into people saying we cannot understand why gasoline prices 
are so high. We know the price of a barrel of oil has gone up to record 
high levels because of price manipulation by the Saudis, OPEC, and 
other countries, and the Republican approach to this totally ignores 
it. We know the oil companies across the United States last week 
reported record profits in the first quarter of this year. Since 
President Bush came to office, the profits of the oil companies have 
more than quadrupled and the price of gasoline has more than doubled.
  Does the Republican approach even address this? The answer is no. We 
have, in the Democratic approach, a windfall profits tax, which says to 
these oil companies: There is a limit beyond which you cannot go in 
gouging consumers and overcharging them for your products. As airlines 
are faced with bankruptcy, as truckers cannot afford to fill their rigs 
on the highways, as the cost of energy is passed on to us as higher 
food prices and the like, it is absolutely unconscionable that the oil 
companies continue to show record profits quarter after quarter, year 
after year, at the expense of our economy.
  The Democratic approach deals with that. We go to the fundamentals. 
The windfall profits tax says to the oil companies: There is a limit to 
what you can take. Beyond that, the Government is going to tax you and 
make it clear to you that raising prices is not the answer.
  Second, we are going to stop putting more oil at high prices into the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If there ever was a time we should not be 
taking oil off the market, this is that time. We also provide in our 
bill for going after this OPEC coalition, the price collusion that is 
going on at the expense of the American economy.
  We deal with price gouging to make sure the companies that engage in 
it know they are going to pay a heavy price for that kind of conduct. 
And we go after speculation, if it is excessive, to try to make sure we 
fuel any fires of speculation that might be adding to the cost of 
energy.
  What do the Republicans offer in return? Drilling, drilling, 
drilling. They do not understand one fundamental fact: The United 
States has within its grasp, in our territory and territory we control, 
only 3 percent of the world's supply of oil--3 percent. Each year, we 
consume 25 percent or more of oil produced. We cannot drill our way out 
of this situation.
  We have to stop price gouging on consumers. We have to hold oil 
companies accountable, and I think the Republican approach does 
neither. I am looking forward to this debate. I assume that by early 
next week we will have a vote and the American people will see where we 
stand.

                          ____________________