add to del.icio.us			digg this		print		email

Floor Statement: Energy Policy

Energy Policy - Thursday, July 10, 2008 View video | Can't view the video?

I want to say to the Senator from New Hampshire, I agree with virtually every word he said about the urgency of this issue and I frankly don't understand why next week, as reported, if it's true, we intend to turn to a foreign aid package of $50 billion, which is authorization for new spending, which is not offset in any way. In other words, our children and grandchildren will end up paying the price, instead of dealing with what is the most urgent problem facing the country today, and that is the impact of high gasoline, high energy prices.

Now, the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, said it was the Majority Leader's intention to bring an energy bill to the floor sometime before we break in August. I hope that's true. It's welcome news, if that's in fact the case. And I would love to have the Majority Leader reassure us if that is his intention because I do not think it is responsible for Congress to adjourn for the August recess, I dont think it's responsible for us to go home having not done anything to help the American people with the pain they are feeling at the pump, which is of course is rippling through our economy in hundreds of ways, not the least of which is driving up the cost of food, because of the increased energy consumption for farmers to grow it, to harvest it and then to get it to markets. So it's hard for me to think of an issue that's more urgent in terms of our economy.

The housing bill that's on the floor today and has been on the floor for a while is an important piece of legislation, but I tell you, I believe if we are successful in dealing with the subprime loan crisis and housing crisis, the economic impact of high energy costs may well dwarf the impact of that on our economy and the ripple effect, as I say, that it will have. I hope the energy bill that the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, mentioned that the Majority Leader plans to bring to the floor includes something other than what our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed previously when it comes to so-called energy bills.

Things like windfall profits taxes, which has been tried before and found to actually diminish domestic production in the country at a time when we ought to be encouraging more production so we rely less on imported energy from places like the Middle East. Then there's this idea that I can only characterize as crazy of suing OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, not the least of which I wonder where in the world you're going to find a court that somehow is going to accept jurisdiction of an antitrust claim against sovereign foreign nations and what the impact would be in terms of waiving of our sovereign immunity to allow suits to go forward in those other countries. I think it would have dramatic impact on our international relationships. But assuming you could do it, assuming you could do it, what would you ask the judge -- what kind of relief would you ask the judge to award if in fact we could have a lawsuit against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries? The only one I can think of is ask the judge to order them to turn the spigot open wider, which does nothing to diminish our dependency, which does everything to increase our dependence.

And the fact of the matter is, I think you talk to any impartial observer, and you'll find out there's rising demand for the oil that is being produced globally - in countries like China and India, more than a billion people each. They're buying cars. They're consuming gasoline. They're using more and more oil. And the problem really is one, a multi-faceted problem but primarily driven by increased global demand because other countries want the kind of prosperity that we've come to enjoy by making a claim to 20% of the oil being produced globally, using it, 20% of it right here in the United States.

So I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire who says we need a multi-pronged approach. We need to become left wasteful and more efficient and to conserve energy, because it makes sense to do so. It's the responsible thing to do. But we need to deal with more than just the demand side. We need to deal with more supply. It's been interesting to me to see polling that's been done over the last few months which has demonstrated a pretty dramatic change in attitude of the American people. It's one thing to say we don't want to explore and produce oil from the submerged lands along the coastline of the United States or to go into the western lands where the oil shale lies or to go to Alaska, to the Arctic where Alaskans overwhelmingly want to allow production. It's one thing to say we're not going to do that when gasoline is at $2 a gallon. It's another to say we're not going to do that when gasoline is $4.11, which is it is on national average today. Of course, there's really no indication whatsoever that prices are going to continue to go anywhere but up, because demand is going to continue to go up and prices are going to continue to go up if supply remains static. That is good, old supply and demand.

So, we do need to, particularly as we transition to different types of alternative energy, particularly when it comes to transportation, things like coal-to liquids technology that's been used by the United States air force to make jet fuel to fly our B-1 bombers and B-52's. We know the technology exists, so why aren't we doing more of it? We need to be doing more of that; find alternatives to dependency on oil. And we also need to be doing more when it comes to electricity generation, because ultimately we're going to be driving and we're going to be getting around in a different fashion in the years to come than we are today, perhaps in things like plug-in hybrid cars which are going to be introduced by many of the major car manufacturers come about 2010, where you literally will have a battery in a car you can plug into an outlet at night and drive that car the next day on the electricity. But, again, the electricity is going to have to come from somewhere. Right now it comes from nuclear, natural gas, and coal.

We know the pollution concerns about burning coal. And so I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire. We're going to have to increase the use of nuclear power in order to get that electricity production up as our economy continues to grow. The consequences of Congress's inaction -- and it's not just a passive inaction -- it's actually the fact that Congress proposed a ban since the early 1980's on about 85% of our domestic energy supply in America. On the oil shale out west there was legislation slipped into a bill last year that banned the development of that shale out in the west that could produce a huge volume of oil and gas -- oil, I should say.

So, this is perhaps the most urgent issue confronting our economy, confronting our national security, and affecting working families in the state of Texas and around the United States. And the fact that Congress would even dream of taking its August recess without addressing this issue and allowing for an opportunity for an appropriate debate and offering amendments and then voting on those amendments, to me, is unthinkable. And so I hope the Majority Leader will not allow us to adjourn for the month of August before we address this issue in a realistic way. I do think there is some basis for a bipartisan compromise.

I see the distinguished Democratic whip on the floor. I read, I trust these comments were reported accurately, that he said he was not opposed to domestic production. I think that's positive. I see the "Gang of 14" that met previously on judicial nominations. Now we have a "Gang of 10" -- 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans -- trying to come together in a bipartisan way and come up with common ground and consensus when it comes to national energy policy. But I tell you, it would be a terrible mistake for us just to deal with one aspect of this issue and to pretend like we've actually done something.

For example, the issue of speculation on the commodities futures markets. I think there's a growing consensus on both sides of the aisle that we need to deal with this. But we need to be careful about it as well. Certainly more transparency in the way this commodity futures trading system works is important. We need more cops on the street. We need more regulators to be able to investigate to make sure there are not abuses of the commodities futures trading system. But if we're not careful, if we overreach, we could well force some of that activity to other countries. And I know that that's the last thing we would want to do -- is have an unin -- to do is to have an unintended impact of driving those jobs elsewhere.

Mr. President, I am more optimistic than I have been in a while about the ability, or the willingness of Congress to enter into some sort of bipartisan discussion, debate and vote and actually do something that will get Congress out of the way and the Federal government -- and make the Federal government a part of the solution and not part of the problem when it comes to imposing moratoria and bans on production of about 85% of America's natural resources.