A New Energy Future

Floor Speech

A NEW ENERGY FUTURE

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I recently returned to Illinois and traveled across the State. It is interesting to me that there is one pervasive issue that you run into in every corner of my State and that is the cost of energy, because while I was home people were still reeling from high gasoline prices, and announcements were being made about dramatic increases in natural gas costs over the winter, which means record breaking home heating fuel costs. That is going to cause as great a hardship as the high gasoline prices on many individuals and families and businesses large and small. People are changing their spending habits and driving patterns to try to offset the high cost of gasoline. Co[Page: E2190] GPO's PDFnsumers are now paying about $2.75 per gallon of gasoline. That is up over 80 cents from a year ago. Americans are now bracing for the record-high energy prices they will face when cooler weather arrives and the cold sets in.

The Energy Information Administration recently predicted nearly a 50-percent increase in home heating costs this winter. That is going to cause an extraordinary hardship on many people--those on fixed incomes, those on very limited incomes, and those who happen to live in old dwellings that do not have a lot of insulation.

I met with families all across Illinois who are struggling with these high energy costs and their family budgets. They want to know what Congress is going to do. They know we spend a lot of time on the floor of the Senate talking about a lot of things. They would like to think that 1 hour of 1 day would be spent on one issue that really makes a difference in their lives, and I think if they had their choice at this moment in Illinois, it would be the energy issue. They want to know how much profit is enough for ExxonMobil and BP before the former oil executives now in the Bush administration are shamed into action.

In the last 6 months, it is estimated that the top five oil companies in America collectively had $52 billion in profits--recordbreaking profits. So when you start to fill up the tank and you watch that gas pump go out of control in terms of the cost, the money is going directly to the profit margins of these oil companies. Where is the voice in Washington for the consumers who are paying these gasoline prices? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say that is what happens in a free market? The high profiteers step in.

Sadly, that is the only response we have heard from this administration. These high prices are hurting everyone--families, farmers, already having a tough year in my home State, small businesses, municipalities, school districts. In the meantime, these oil and gas companies are reaping record profits. In my State of Illinois, consumers have already spent nearly $2.5 billion more this year for gasoline than last year--$2.5 billion. By the end of the year, that figure could more than double to over $5 billion--spending more than $5 billion more for gasoline this year than last year, coming right out of family budgets and the budgets of a lot of businesses, large and small.

At the same time, in the first half of this year, the big oil companies--ExxonMobil, Chevron-Texaco, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Royal Dutch/Shell--recorded a combined $52 billion in profits compared to a record $39.5 billion in the first half of 2004. They were doing pretty well last year with the lower prices we were paying. Look at this year--$52 billion in profit taking. That is not sales. That is $52 billion in profits at a time when Americans are worrying about how they are going to get to work and how they are going to heat their homes this winter.

Soon third-quarter earnings will be coming out. I suspect it is going to show the oil companies are doing quite well, thank you.

Who is paying the price? For one, airlines. Today, three airlines in the United States are in bankruptcy largely because of high fuel costs. Second, American consumers. Consumers are paying an additional $600 to $1,000 a year so they can drive to work or school. Take an average American, someone who drives 15,000 miles a year, averages 20 miles a gallon. An 80-cent increase in the price of a gallon of gas this past year equates to an additional $600 out of pocket for that one driver this year, that's at today's gasoline price. Consider for a minute what this means to people of modest means.

We have a pending amendment in the Chamber about raising the minimum wage in America. I think it has been about 8 years since we touched that one. What is it, $5.15 an hour. So people get up every morning, go to work, doing the right thing, trying to care for their families at $5.15 an hour, and for 8 years we have run into resistance from people in the Senate who say: That is plenty. That is enough. We don't need to guarantee any higher minimum wage.

Think about it. I ran into a fellow in Illinois who said: I don't understand how a person on minimum wage filling up the tank of an old car trying to get back and forth to work comes ahead at all. And that is the reality of life for so many people who are literally going to work and falling behind every single day. And the high gasoline prices, sadly, are now part of the major problem these people face. At today's gas prices, total fuel costs for one vehicle is $2,000-plus each year. Double that for a family who needs two cars to commute to work. Fuel costs for that family are over $4,000.

Think of a low-income family. At $5.15 an hour, gross take-home pay for the year is about $10,000. Now take out $2,000 for buying gasoline before you pay any income taxes or other charges against your payroll. Imagine, if you will, these are people in our country, vulnerable people who are asking if there is anybody in Washington listening. They are knocking on the door of the Senate, and nobody is opening the door. Historically, the end of the summer driving season meant there would be some relief from summer gas price hikes. While we witnessed a slight drop, consumers will see no relief from energy costs.

Unfortunately, as I said, gasoline prices are just part of the problem. Heating costs are expected to be significantly higher this year. Nationwide, 55 percent of all households depend on natural gas as their primary heating fuel. In the Midwest, according to the Energy Information Administration's most recent outlook, about 75 percent of households rely on natural gas to heat their homes. This winter, those households can expect to pay nearly 50 percent more than last year for natural gas. Weather forecasts suggest this coming winter may be colder than last year, which means even higher home heating bills. High gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil prices are forcing a slowdown in consumer spending, an increase in consumer prices, more inflation, and the greatest increase in the number of people who are delinquent in paying credit card bills since the 1970s energy crisis. These high energy costs are rippling through the American economy, and they are hurting a lot of hard-working families.

We passed the so-called Energy bill this last August. It was signed by the President with great ceremony. What did that bill do? Primarily it funneled billions in subsidies to oil companies--to the same oil companies that are experiencing record profits? Why in the world aren't we focusing on things that can literally and really make a difference when it comes to America's energy future?

Let me tell you the impact some of these energy prices are having. In the second quarter of 2005, this year, the American Bankers Association reported that the percentage of credit card bills 30 days or more past due reached the highest level since they began recording information 32 years ago. People are falling further and further behind, and the ABA's chief economist cited high gasoline prices as a major factor.

I can't forget the fellow I ran into back in my hometown of Springfield, IL, just a few days ago who said: Senator, I understand my credit card company is going to require me to pay 4 percent, 4 percent of my balance each month. Now it only requires 2 percent. I don't know if I can pay 4 percent.

How in the world can that poor fellow and his family ever get ahead? Their debt keeps increasing as they run up the cost for gasoline for this fellow to get back and forth to work. There is no end in sight.

Earlier this year, the Democrats in the Senate offered an amendment to the Energy bill that would have finally put America on a path to reducing consumption of foreign oil imports by 40 percent in the next 20 years. Is that a good thing for America, for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? You would certainly think so. Should it be a partisan issue? Should Democrats and Republicans disagree on that? Why would they ever disagree? But they did, all but two.

We are going to continue to support this measure on this side of the aisle. I hope that since that vote a few months ago, my friends on the other side of the aisle will take another look at it. This should be the underpinning of our energy policy in America, to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We know America can do better than be held hostage to high energy bills dictated by Saudi sheiks and big oil CEOs. President Bush even rejected a modest 1-million-barrel-per-day oil saving provision that was written in the Senate Energy bill. We tried to at least move just ever so slightly toward conservation, energy efficiency. It was rejected.

We understand the President and Vice President have close ties personally and in their background with the oil industry. But shouldn't our national priority of more energy independence have been more important than that? Just before the Senate recessed to work back in our States, I joined my colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush requesting him to call on his friends and allies in the oil and gas industry to sit down with them and make it clear that their profiteering at the expense of the average person in America is killing the American economy and causing extreme hardship to honest people going to work every single day. We still haven't seen the first indication of action from the White House.

In August, before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when gas prices were about $2.55 a gallon, I joined my colleagues, Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Cantwell of Washington, in a letter to President Bush asking him to show Presidential leadership in reducing fuel prices, including profiteering and price gouging. Still no response from the White House.

We proposed a set of principles on the Democratic side of the aisle. We believe these put America first. We believe that American consumers, businesses, and farmers should be better protected from multinational corporations reaping record profits at the expense of the average consumer and the average business in America.

In the next day or so, I am going to introduce legislation to help address some of these issues, including a desperately needed funding bill for the LIHEAP program. LIHEAP is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We should tax the windfall profits of these huge oil and gas companies that are recording billions upon billions of dollars of profit at the expense of families and consumers across America. We should transfer part of this money to a LIHEAP trust fund so that the poorest folks across America, the most vulnerable, have a chance to heat their homes this winter. That is pretty basic. This fund would ensure that there are resources available on top of what has already been appropriated by Congress for families hurt by high energy costs. We are proposing other measures on the Democratic side to protect consumers as well. Senator Cantwell and 26 cosponsors have introduced a bill to ban gasoline price gouging and improve market transparency. This all fits under the basic idea of protecting America's consumers.

Senators MIKULSKI, PRYOR, SALAZAR, BILL NELSON, HARKIN, CORZINE, STABENOW, and OBAMA have introduced an amendment to the appropriations bill calling for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate nationwide gas prices that we witnessed immediately after Hurricane Katrina to see if there is clear evidence of profiteering.

Senators KERRY and REED of Rhode Island offered an amendment to add funds for the LIHEAP program so low-income families most affected by record energy prices can heat their homes this winter.

Senator Bingaman and 14 other cosponsors proposed an amendment to the Energy bill that would require 10 percent of electricity generated be produced from renewable sources by the year 2020. This measure would ease the stress on natural gas and help to alleviate the high prices we have currently witnessed.

Senators SCHUMER, CANTWELL, and LAUTENBERG introduced a bill to increase national fuel efficiency which would also save energy.

I have introduced a bill as well, the Strategic Gasoline and Fuel Reserve Act of 2005. We already have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve--that can hold 700 million barrels of crude oil the President can turn to in times of national emergency. But when we have refining capacity compromised by a hurricane, crude oil is not going to be released and make it to the market very quickly. So I am proposing that the United States, like some European countries, create a strategic gasoline and jet fuel reserve. Let's set aside refined product, gasoline and jet fuel, around the United States so the President has another tool to use when we see these price spikes to help businesses like America's airlines and other businesses overcome these skyrocketing prices.

America needs a long-term plan to diversify our energy resources. We have to do this to improve energy efficiency, conservation, and to prevent the energy giants from market manipulation and price gouging. It does not appear there is any cop on the beat in Washington. There is no one who is either threatening or punishing the profiteers who are raising the price of energy unconscionably. For a long time, the finger of blame was pointed at the OPEC cartel and the Saudi sheiks, but we know now that their profit increase is modest, about 46 percent over last year, compared to the dramatic and obscene record profit increases by the big oil companies of 255 percent over last year. That is where the money is going. It is going to the boardrooms of the largest oil companies in America.

This administration and this Congress are mute. They definitely do not want to rock the boat when it comes to their friends in these big oil companies. Instead, the only response from the administration is a plea by the Secretary of Energy for a campaign to conserve energy. Well, that is a good thing. But should not the administration also be there to protect consumers and to punish profiteers in addition to preaching conservation?

This is what the President said:

We can all pitch in ..... by being better conservers of energy.

Here are some suggestions: Drive less, replace traditional light bulbs with more efficient light bulbs, keep your car well maintained, and your tires properly inflated, and seal leaky windows and doors; all very nice and practical suggestions. But would it not be nice if these practical ideas of conservation were accompanied by some effort by this administration to hold the oil companies responsible for profiteering at the expense of American consumers? Not a word.

I strongly support conservation efforts. Changes in that way can make a significant difference and save Americans millions of dollars. But President Bush's plea for conservation is like putting a gallon of gas in a Hummer and expecting to drive 50 miles.

While small conservation steps will help manage the current energy crisis, we need a broader policy change that includes a long-term commitment to expanding and diversifying energy sources. We have to expand the use and access to alternative fuels, create a more efficient transportation sector, increase the efficiency of our homes, and promote conservation. We need energy policies that place national interests before corporate interests, that put the well-being of the American family before energy CEOs, and make investments to strengthen America's energy security, instead of providing tax cuts to make America's wealthiest individuals and corporations even wealthier.

This administration will not consider such measures, and in many cases they blatantly rejected them. Before the recent call for conservation, the Bush administration had done virtually nothing to develop long-term energy solutions and promote efficiency and conservation. While President Bush now calls for conservation, his own Department of Energy quietly helped prevent advancements on new building efficiency standards for insulation, standards that would have increased efficiency in new homes, saving billions of dollars in energy costs for Americans over the next few decades.

The other thing we have to do, as a fundamental policy when it comes to energy in policy, is to focus on the fuel efficiency of the cars and trucks we drive. When we faced the oil crisis in the 1970s, we understood we were driving cars and trucks that were not adequately fuel efficient. The fleet average of fuel economy for cars and trucks across America was about 14 miles a gallon. So Congress knew there were two ways to push the automobile manufacturers toward more fuel-efficient cars. One was if the price of gasoline went up dramatically, people would make the decision on their own they needed a more fuel-efficient car, but of course that involved a lot of economic pain in the process. The other was to establish federally mandated standards for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks in America.

So what was the response of the Big Three in Detroit when we said in 1975 that they should double the fuel economy of cars and trucks in America from 14 miles a gallon to 28 miles a gallon over 10 years? They said as follows: It is technologically impossible; the cars and trucks that we build will be so unsafe you will regret the decision pushing for more fuel efficiency, and this will definitely drive more imports into America because the Japanese and others will focus on making those more fuel-efficient cars.

Thank goodness Congress rejected those three arguments by the automobile manufacturers and in 1975 imposed the CAFE standards. As a result, 10 years later, the average fuel efficiency had doubled in the United States. All of the ominous warnings from Detroit notwithstanding, we as a nation did the right thing. The one wrong thing we did was to carve out an exemption for trucks. It turned out that exemption was so broadly worded that they drove the big old Hummers and SUVs right into it as they were exempt from the highest standards.

And what happened next? America got this voracious appetite for these huge hunks of metal on the highway which burn up the gasoline as fast as the tank can be filled, and we watched the average fuel efficiency in 1985 go down from 28 miles a gallon to about 21 miles a gallon today. We have gone in the wrong direction. We are burning more gasoline for the same miles that we drove in 1985.

What have we done in Congress since then to establish new CAFE standards for America's cars and trucks? Absolutely nothing. When I called for an amendment in the Energy bill debate to establish national CAFE fuel efficiency standards over the next 10 years, improving fuel efficiency by 1 mile a gallon each year for 10 years, the amendment was defeated, with only 28 Senators supporting it. Americans I have run into, and certainly people in my home State of Illinois, shake their head when they are told that story. They ask, what are these Senators thinking? Why would we not move as a national policy toward more fuel-efficient vehicles?

Well, the automobile dealers have realized that. They have car lots full of SUVs and heavy trucks that consumers are walking right by, saying, well, what is the fuel efficiency of that car? How many miles per gallon on that truck? They are asking the hard questions now because gasoline prices are going up. I think it is time to return to this debate on CAFE and to put honest fuel efficiency standards on the books in America, to demand that those in Detroit and others take into consideration the fact that we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and we need to give consumers an opportunity.

Earlier this year my wife and I were considering buying a car. We wanted an American car. My wife drives it more than I do. She takes it on the highway so we wanted a larger car, but we did not want an SUV. Try to find that highway-type car made in America that is fuel efficient. We finally found one, the Ford Escape hybrid. We bought one. How many were made in the United States this year? Only 20,000. There is a long waiting list for people to buy these cars. Ford says they hope in years to come they will start producing more of them.

Meanwhile, Japanese automobile manufacturers are making these hybrid cars and selling them as fast as they make them. It is a shame again that Detroit was asleep at the switch and they did not see this coming. They tend to react a little too late and, sadly, that is one of the reasons they face the financial difficulties they do.

While increasing efficiency of our vehicles is no longer an option, it is a necessity. Consumers are demanding better fuel efficiency, and unfortunately American auto companies are realizing a little too late that they did not think ahead.

In the past month, General Motors witnessed a 24-percent decline in sales over the same month last year. Ford sales were down 20 percent, while U.S. sales of Japanese automobiles increased 10 to 12 percent. Sales of hybrid vehicles soared. In the past month, Honda Civic hybrid sales increased 37 percent. So while the Senate does not get it when it comes to fuel efficiency and fuel economy of cars, consumers get it and they are saying with their checkbooks and credit cards they are going to buy the vehicles that make more sense.

I believe American ingenuity can meet this test, can produce the cars and trucks we need to keep our economy moving forward with safe cars that are much more fuel efficient.

We also need to invest in the production of alternative fuels and provide incentives for their use. We need to break the stranglehold of big oil, open the market to real competition, and give American consumers real energy choices. Ford recently announced more production of its dual fuel vehicles. That is good news, but we know there is only a small number of vehicles on the road that actually use these alternative fuels. The gas-saving potential of these vehicles is largely wasted. We should be promoting the actual use of alternative fuels that can reap the benefits of new gas-saving technologies.

The fact that we included language in the Energy bill to increase ethanol production and biodiesel is all good, but it is only a small part of the battle. We need to make sure that ethanol reaches the market and that there are cars equipped for E-85 and ethanol compliance so consumers can take advantage of the benefits of their homegrown fuel.

America has 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. We can never, ever drill our way out of this challenge. There is no way we can find energy independence by drilling away in the pristine areas that have been protected around America, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is a sad indictment on this administration and this Congress that instead of accepting the challenge of conservation and fuel efficiency, instead of asking for sacrifice and a dedicated commitment from the automobile companies as well as American consumers, we are going to run willy-nilly into a national wildlife reserve that was created by President Eisenhower over 50 years ago and say the only way we can meet our needs is to start drilling away for oil, the environment be damned.

The big oil companies and many of my colleagues want to open this Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have been there. It would be a tragic mistake. Sadly, if we do it, over 20 years it will produce less than 1 year's worth of oil supply for the United States. This is not the answer to our prayers. In fact, we should be condemned for turning our back on this great piece of America that we are willing to exploit because of our own bad energy policies. Instead of destroying this national habitat, we should think strategically and creatively to find new ways to meet our future energy needs.

America can do better, and when it comes to our energy policy it is clear we are missing the responsibility that Members of Congress should share. We need to protect America's consumers. We need to punish the profiteers and we need to promote, on a national scale, efficiency, conservation and alternative fuels. America can only do better with leadership and a clear energy policy and a plan. We have to look beyond the quarterly profits of the big oil companies and the clout they have on Capitol Hill and remember that we are serving the public, voters across America, who have to face every single day these skyrocketing gasoline prices and the prospects of a very cold and expensive winter.

I believe in American creativity and innovation, and I know that together we can create a better future for our country.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first commend my colleague from Missouri.

For those who are witnessing this, it is becoming dangerously close to real debate on the floor of the Senate. This is history in the making. It almost never happens that two Senators who disagree on an issue will stand and argue their point of view back and forth. One of the reasons I wanted to run for this body was because I could come over here and engage in debate. I certainly respect the Senator from Missouri. We have much different views on energy, and I think he has articulated his point of view as clearly as one could hope for with a moment's notice. He didn't know I was coming to the floor to talk about energy. He did an excellent job.

I would like to clarify a few things. The first point is this: It was the wisdom of our Founding Fathers which said that every State in the Union would have two Senators, which means the State of Missouri has two Senators and the State of Illinois has two Senators. I wish the very best for the St. Louis Cardinals, and I am certain that the two Missouri Senators are rooting every moment of every day for their victory. But this Senator from Illinois is backing an Illinois baseball team known as the Chicago White Sox. They were successful in winning the American League pennant. I hope they go all the way in the World Series. Despite my boyhood roots, I am rooting for the Illinois baseball team. I had better say that clearly on the record or I can't go home.

The second thing I say is when it comes to energy, I listened carefully to what the Senator from Missouri had to say. In virtually every instance, he suggested there were ways to find new and better and larger sources of energy to take care of our problem. I listened closely for any suggestion from him that we should have conservation and efficiency as part of a national energy policy. If he said it, I missed it.

I think it is a critical part, because we have to understand that the conservation of energy means not only that we reduce the costs for families and businesses to provide the same level of goods and services, we also reduce the pollution that is a product of burning energy across America. It is a ``two-fer.'' If you believe we can keep finding new energy sources, whether it is oil in a national wildlife refuge up in Alaska or drilling off some of the coasts where Governors--both Democrats and Republicans--have said we do not accept that as something we want as part of our State's economy, if you keep looking for these new energy sources, you are ignoring the obvious. And the obvious is that fuel efficiency and fuel conservation should be part of what we do in America. We have learned that over the years. We haven't compromised our lifestyle while we found more fuel efficiency in so many different areas of our life every part of every day.

I will concede that the Senator from Missouri did join the Senator from Michigan in putting together an amendment that at least mentioned the words ``fuel efficiency'' and ``conservation'' in the last Energy bill. But I have to say in all fairness that is all it did. It didn't put any requirement on the automobile manufacturers to make more efficient cars and trucks across America.

Every time you talk about CAFE standards and fuel efficiency, we get a history lesson about what the Soviet Government was all about--top-down government, mandating these policies, forcing rugged individuals who would like to go their own way to march in close rank and march in line.

I have to say I view this a lot differently. Left to their own devices, the major automobile manufacturers in America made hundreds of thousands of cars and trucks which Americans don't want to buy. They are now crowding our lots with heavy trucks and SUVs, and Americans are walking right past them. Instead, we should have thought long ago about establishing standards that would give consumers a choice in America.

Why is America coming in second when it comes to automotive technology? When it came to hybrids, the Japanese automobile manufacturers, Honda and Toyota, got the jump on the United States. Are they smarter than we are? I don't think so. Many of their engineers and research scientists went to school in the United States and went back to their countries to build the cars and trucks Americans wanted to buy. For some reason, Detroit is always a little behind the curve, and in
this situation, it is dangerous because they are so far from profitability and they have such dramatic costs that they made a terrible calculation by sticking with these heavy vehicles as the price of fuel and energy went up across America. I don't think it is the heavy hand of Government. I think it is good public policy for us to move forward on a policy for CAFE standards that increases fuel efficiency. The argument that that means unsafe cars I don't accept. I happen to believe that in an era of new technologies for safety and otherwise, there are ways to improve the cars and trucks we drive in terms of safety without compromising fuel efficiency.

There are things we can do--creative approaches already recognized by the scientific agencies in Washington--that could be part of cars and trucks in the future. They are not, and they should be. For us to move forward on that as a national policy is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If you believe, as I do, that is a worthy national goal, then conservation and fuel efficiency have to be part of it.

The second issue which I raise, and which the Senator from Missouri mentioned, was a bill that could come before us soon, already having passed the House, that would suggest that in order to have the oil we need in America, in order to expand oil refinery capacity, we have to waive the pollution rules when it comes to air pollution and water pollution, and we have to waive the environmental standards refineries have been held to in America. The argument is, if you do not waive these environmental standards, we will not have enough gasoline, and you will have to pay more. It is a classic ``your money or your life'' argument, because these environmental and pollution standards are there for a purpose.

I invite my colleague from Missouri and all of my friends to visit any classroom of any school in America and ask the following question: How many students in this classroom know someone who has asthma? Watch the hands go up. Do you know why? Because across America these lung problems that air pollution has some relation to are becoming epidemic. Visit a major hospital in St. Louis or Chicago--a children's hospital in particular--and ask in the emergency room what the No. 1 diagnosis is of children brought into their emergency room. I can virtually guarantee it is going to be asthma. What are we going to do? We are being asked to waive the air pollution standards for certain industries and for refineries so we can get cheaper gasoline while we breathe dirtier air. What a terrific bargain for America. Is that as good as it gets with this administration? They cannot meet the energy needs of America without asking us to compromise our public health, to compromise the safety and quality of water that we drink, to compromise environmental standards that have been established for years.

This morning, a major company from Illinois--I spoke to one of their representatives--said several years ago under the Clinton administration they agreed to a reformulation of diesel fuel in America, a long-term project that would make diesel fuel cleaner in America. Do you know what diesel fuel looks like, or used to look like as it came with billowing smoke out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks? They want to move to the point where it is much cleaner. Years ago, we made a commitment as a nation to move to reformulating diesel so it is cleaner for America.

One of the bills before the Congress today waives that reformulation requirement after 6 years of investment in cleaner diesel fuel and cleaner diesel engines. This administration says we have to abandon that, go back to more air pollution from diesel use in order to have cheaper gasoline we can buy across America. What a tradeoff, what an abdication of leadership. America can certainly do better than that.

To have this administration tell us that the only answer to affordable energy is to compromise the public health and to put up with more air and water pollution is a completely unacceptable alternative. I wouldn't want to go to the Senator from the State of Florida, who is in the chair, and tell him that the Federal Government is going to mandate drilling off the coast of Florida. I can tell you that the Governor of Florida, who happens to share the same last name as the President, doesn't think that is a very good idea.

For the suggestion that may have been made here that we need to start moving and burning and drilling off the States that don't want oil drilling and gas drilling off their coasts is a major move by this administration.

Again, you have to ask the basic question: Why would we do anything that radical from Washington to deal with energy before we even discuss the possibility of conservation and fuel efficiency of the cars and trucks we drive? I think we have to accept responsibility. It isn't just a question of answering every challenge in America by saying, party on, you know we are going to find some more energy for you, just keep using it up, don't pay any attention until tomorrow. I think America understands, and our younger people understand better, that we need a serious energy policy that challenges every single one of us as consumers not only to turn down the thermostat, but be smarter in the cars and trucks we buy, challenge the manufacturers in Detroit to produce cars and trucks that are mindful of energy needs across America and the increasing costs of that energy to families and our economy. We need a government with the leadership that is responsive to this national challenge.

The last Energy bill didn't do it. The ink was hardly dry in August until the Members of the Senate said we had better get back and write a new energy bill.

For goodness sakes, that is the greatest single condemnation of the substance of that bill I can think of. We all know it is true. That last energy bill didn't do it. In a few isolated areas, as I mentioned earlier, it is a good bill. But, by and large, it didn't address the fundamental problem facing us today and for years to come.

The last point I will make is this: America's most serious competition in the world today comes from one country, China. China right now is mushrooming in growth. They are building new industries right and left. If you walk into a Wal-Mart to buy a product, you are walking into the largest importer of Chinese goods in America, Wal-Mart selling all across the United States. The obvious question is this: What is China doing about its energy needs? First, it is doing something we are not doing. It is imposing higher fuel efficiency standards on its cars and trucks than we do in America. The Chinese are thinking ahead. They understand that inefficient cars and trucks are not part of a bright energy future.

The second thing they are doing is fighting us tooth and nail in every site around the world where energy can be purchased. They are now our competition for the purchase of energy. Twenty years ago, we didn't even think about it. They did not have an economy that used that much energy. They weren't producing goods and services. That world has changed.

Now, as we continue to be dependent on foreign oil, we are going to have to continue to fight the Chinese and others for affordable fuel. That is the reality of global competition.

Does it make sense for us now to take a step back and say as a national energy policy we ought to figure out ways to keep the American economy moving, businesses thriving, and jobs being created, but also build into that energy conservation and efficiency?

That to me is so obvious. Every time I bring it up in a town meeting in Illinois, people shake their heads and say, You are honestly debating that in Washington; it seems so obvious. We are debating it. So far I have lost that debate. But as energy prices go up and people realize that the energy policy of this administration has failed, I hope we revisit this important issue.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I am from all of Illinois.

The Presiding Officer must face the same thing in the State of Florida with your loyalties for sports teams. You cannot win in the State of Illinois. No matter where you go you will run into opposition--whether a Cardinals, Cubs, or White Sox fan.

I think we have made that issue. At least my position on that issue is clear as we can.

I say in closing, and I certainly invite the Senator from Missouri to respond, we ought to ask ourselves the basic question: If you have a business in America that is unsuccessful, and the business has a loss in one given year, we provide in our Tax Code that business can carry that loss forward from the year that it was experienced, so next year's profits can be reduced accordingly. Your tax liability is reduced accordingly. It is a carry-forward provision for business losses.

It seems to me consistent to say that those corporations which have extraordinary profit taking--as we see with these major oil companies--would be subject to additional taxes.

I am sure the Senator from Missouri disagrees with me. But we have now seen virtually--I am trying to figure the calculation--roughly 30 percent increase in profits for the major oil companies in the United States of America, over the last 6 months, over last year. Last year was a big year for them. Last year, in the same 6-month period, they had about $39 billion in profits. This was with $40-a-barrel oil. This year it is up 30 percent over last year's profits.

Why? We know why. When we go to the gas station, we know why. The price at the pump has gone up dramatically.

The Senator from Missouri thinks this is holy ground, that we should not touch that money: My goodness, these people were brave enough and creative enough and entrepreneurial enough to raise gasoline prices, and we ought to accept that as the reality of capitalism.

But the Tax Code says even if you are profitable you pay taxes. My position is that if you have these windfall profits at the expense of our economy and families and businesses you should face a windfall profits tax. The money should come back to consumers. The money should come back to fund the LIHEAP program. The money should come back to create an incentive for automobile manufacturers to make fuel-efficient cars. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take.

If the oil companies know that every dollar they make in profits by raising the price of gasoline at the pump is subject to a 50-percent tax, maybe they will slow down a little bit. Maybe they will not raise the prices as high next time. Wouldn't that be nice if there was some disincentive for these prices being skyrocketed and kited on the average family and business? I don't think it is unreasonable. When we consider the alternatives we are facing in this town right now, it makes a lot of sense.

We have arguments being made now that to pay for Hurricane Katrina we have to cut basic programs in this country for the most vulnerable Americans. The idea of cutting food stamps and health care for the poorest people in our country in order to pay for the victims of Hurricane Katrina strikes me as unfair to the nth degree. Why in the world would we help the poor people of Katrina by hurting other poor people in America and look the other way when it comes to the profits of oil companies?

For goodness' sake, a windfall profit tax I have proposed could generate about $40 billion. That is a big chunk of the $60 billion we have heard appropriated for Hurricane Katrina.

Is it unreasonable that these oil companies would help to pay for the greatest natural disaster in modern memory? At least something good would come of it, and we would not be cutting the programs and the basic policies that help the most vulnerable people in America.

I didn't mean to try to get the last word in. I wanted to give the Senator from Missouri that opportunity, but because he is chairman of the subcommittee it means he will ultimately have the last word on this bill and anything else that comes before the Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Source