Addressing The Issues

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. In response to the Republican leader's speech, I have three words: Drill, baby, drill. That was the chant we heard across the United States from the Republican side of the aisle during the last Presidential campaign. The notion was that if we just started drilling in every direction, we could solve America's energy problems. It was an irresponsible chant, failing to address the most fundamental issue of our time: the future of America's national energy picture.

What you heard this morning from the Republican leader is a return to the subject but ignoring the past. What we know is this: We know we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil. It costs us, as a Nation, $1 billion a day that we are sending overseas to other countries to buy their oil to sustain our economy. This dependence, unfortunately, leads to commitments we have to make--military commitments, political commitments, economic commitments--because of this dependence on foreign oil.

The second reality is this: We understand there is a new, emerging energy technology in the 21st century. It is an energy technology based on efficiency, economy, and the reduction of costs. There are other countries in the world that are taking the lead in this area, not the least of which is the nation of China.

I recently heard from MICHAEL BENNET of Colorado, who spoke to us at a Democratic Senate luncheon. He came up with a statistic which in many ways is hard to believe but equally scary, and here is what it is: The largest export of the United States of America of any product is in the aircraft industry. Look at Boeing. Look at all of the aircraft we are exporting around the world. It is our major export. Yet if you compare our major export to the export by China--by China--of energy technology to the world, they are now at 50 percent of the value of our annual aircraft exports. China has decided that the future of the world is based on new, clean energy technology, and they are doing something about it. They don't come to their leadership and squabble, at least not in a public fashion; they get focused--focused on creating businesses and jobs and being ready to compete in the 21st century.

The third premise of our energy policy goes to something on which the Senator from Kentucky may or may not agree with me. I happen to believe the activities of humans on this Earth make a difference when it comes to the planet. I happen to believe when we look at glacial melt around the world, it reflects the fact that the world is changing. Ever so gradually, it is getting warmer. As the Earth increases its temperature, it changes weather patterns, the currents of the oceans, the land we live on, the crops we grow, and our future. Some people don't accept that. Some don't see a connection. They don't believe any of the carbon released into the atmosphere creates a problem. I have met many of them. Some are people who in good faith don't come to the same conclusion I reach. I respect them, but I respectfully think they are wrong.

What have we learned from the gulf crisis? We have learned a lot. Yesterday I had one of the vice presidents of BP America in my office. I talked to him about how we have reached this point. I said: When we have reached the point where we are drilling deep, going after the tough, deep oil to fuel our economy and its needs, we are engendering more problems and more challenges than before. Had there been a spill of oil in downstate Illinois or in Alaska or Texas, it would have been terrible, but it could have been contained much more quickly than this gusher of oil coming from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. As we explore in new areas, tougher, more challenging areas, we run greater risk. That is a reality.

I take exception to the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky who suggested this administration is not doing everything in its power to deal with this spill in the gulf. Let's look at what we have done. This President called in BP and made it clear that the cost of this damage will be borne by that oil company, not by the taxpayers. I was pleasantly surprised when the Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, a man who in the past was as passionate in his beliefs as I am in my Democratic beliefs, came out and praised President Obama for sitting down with BP and getting a commitment of $20 billion in a fund to deal with the economic losses associated with this spill. BP has bought commercials that most of us have seen saying: We will pay for this, all of it. I don't know if the Senator from Kentucky thinks that is unimportant. I believe it is important.

Secondly, I am as troubled by the continuing spill as anyone. I know the President feels that has to end and end immediately. But as the Senator from Kentucky knows, we don't have a U.S. department of deep sea drilling. It doesn't exist. What we are relying on is the private sector's capacity, technology, equipment, and expertise to find a way to cope with this problem. I am as frustrated as any American that on day 75 of this spill, it has not come to an end. But it continues. The President focuses on this every day, as does his Cabinet.

Yesterday we had a meeting with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The man has spent day after weary day devoting himself completely to this. Carol Browner, an environmental assistant in the White House, was there talking about the massive commitment which we have made. She was asked pointblank: Are you providing the booms, the things they spread out in the water to stop the flow and spread of this oil, are you supplying all of the booms requested by all of the States in the Gulf of Mexico?

She said: We are supplying not only 100 percent of their requests but over 100 percent of their requests, and we are going to continue to manufacture and secure this boom to protect our shoreline. She said: Of course, we haven't done everything right, but when we see a problem, we move on it quickly to try to solve it.

We are talking about the commitment of thousands of vessels to skim the surface of the gulf and to try to salvage as much of this oil as possible. It is a massive national commitment by our government, by the private sector. The suggestion of the Senator from Kentucky that the President is not focused on it is not accurate nor fair.

I believe we need to focus on energy. We need to be honest about the future when it comes to energy. If we accept the premise that we will continue to be dependent on foreign oil indefinitely, that we will spend a billion dollars a day, sending it to many countries which not only disagree with us in terms of our values but turn around and spend our dollars against us to foster and to be patrons to terrorism, if we accept that, then we will do nothing about a national energy policy. If we accept the premise that we should do nothing about clean energy technology and all the potential for business and jobs it creates, that America is going to take a back seat to China and other countries, then we will do nothing about the national energy policy. If we accept the premise that there is no global warming and we should not lose a moment's sleep worrying about it, then we will do nothing about a national energy policy.

That is what we hear from the other side of the aisle, do nothing, say no. Over and over throughout this congressional session, the response of Senate Republicans has been say no. When we tackled the tough and controversial issue of containing health care costs, runaway costs that are affecting every business, every family and every level of government, Republicans said: No, we will not engage. We will not be part of that conversation.

When we went after Wall Street reform and said: After this recession, we have learned lessons; we will not allow these titans on Wall Street to repeat their mistakes and kill more jobs in the future, all but four Republicans said: No, we are not interested in that conversation. We don't want to be part of that effort.

Now we find again, in one of the most telling and important issues of the moment, unemployment compensation for the hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, Republicans have said, no, we will not lend a helping hand to the people of America out of work.

I look at the numbers of those who are unemployed across the country, who will lose their benefits because Republicans continue to say no. I look at States such as Kentucky, the home State of the Republican leader, where 22,600 Kentucky families had their unemployment cut off because Senator McConnell and his colleagues voted no when it came to extending unemployment benefits. In my State of Illinois, 80,000 families had their unemployment cut off this month because Republicans said no. One of my friends who is a woman out of work, with a family, called me over the weekend at home. We keep in touch. She said: Let me tell you, Senator, what it means. They are cutting off the utilities. I don't know what to do. Three kids in the house and a grandson, and they are cutting off my utilities.

That is the real world of the real votes cast by the other side of the aisle.

This morning the New York Times had an editorial which I want to make reference to. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. The New York Times editorial today reads: ``Who Will Fight for the Unemployed?''

I want to quote a few sentences from it:

Without doubt, the two biggest threats to the economy are unemployment and the dire financial condition of the states, yet lawmakers have failed to deal intelligently with either one.

Federal unemployment benefits began to expire nearly a month ago. Since then, 1.2 million jobless workers have been cut off. The House passed a six-month extension as part of a broader spending bill in May, but the Senate, despite three attempts, has not been able to pass a similar bill. The majority leader, HARRY REID, said he was ready to give up after the third try last week when all of the Senate's Republicans and a lone Democrat, BEN NELSON of Nebraska, blocked the bill.

Meanwhile, the states face a collective budget hole of some $112 billion, but neither the House nor the Senate has a plan to help. The House stripped a provision for $24 billion in state fiscal aid from its earlier spending bill. The Senate included state aid in its ill-fated bill to extend unemployment benefits; when that bill failed, the promise of aid vanished as well.

As a result, 30 states that had counted on the money to help balance their budgets will be forced to raise taxes even higher and to cut spending even deeper in the budget year that begins on July 1. That will only worsen unemployment, both among government workers and the states' private contractors. Worsening unemployment means slower growth, or worse, renewed recession.

I might add a comment here. This morning's newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times, at least the ones I have seen, and the Chicago papers as well, question what the reaction of our economy is going to be. They looked at the stock market yesterday. One day does not make a trend, but there is a growing concern that we are sliding back into a recession because of the failure of Republicans to support not only the President's stimulus package but also to send unemployment benefits to those needy people across America. This is a repeat, unfortunately, of a chapter in American history when after the Great Depression, President Roosevelt initiated the New Deal and injected into our economy massive amounts of money to create jobs so people would go to work, earn a paycheck, and spend it for goods and services, breathing life back into a dying economy, trying to turn it around. After 4 years of that effort, President Roosevelt, at the urging of more conservative political leaders, said: We better start focusing now on the deficit. They started tapping the breaks on spending, and the unemployment rate shot up again, creating a follow-on to the Great Depression which was not relieved until the beginning of World War II.

Sadly, it appears we are about to repeat that historical mistake. We know Republicans continue to argue that because of our deficit, we should not worry about the recession or spending money to stimulate the creation of jobs. The money we send out to unemployed people is turned around immediately into the economy. These people are living hand to mouth. Every dollar they receive is spent. As it is spent at a business, it creates business profits and small business jobs. One thing leads to another as the multiplier takes that dollar, respends it many times in our economy and breathes life back into an economy which has been fraught with a recession. That is the reality of the need today. The failure to meet that need will guarantee the deficit continues and gets worse. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy as Republicans turn down unemployment benefits, arguing that we can't afford it as a nation because of the deficit and, as a result, drive up unemployment in the country, driving up the very deficits they say they want to end. It is a lesson of history. Those who ignore history are likely and condemned to repeat it.

Returning to this New York Times editorial:

So if lawmakers are wondering why consumer confidence and the stock market are tanking (the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index hit a new low for the year on Tuesday), they need look no further than a mirror.

The situation cries out for policies to support economic growth--specifically jobless benefits and fiscal aid to states. But instead of delivering, Congressional Republicans and many Democrats have been asserting that the nation must act instead to cut the deficit. The debate has little to do with economic reality and everything to do with political posturing. A lot of lawmakers have concluded that the best way to keep their jobs is to pander to the nation's new populist mood and play off the fears of the very Americans whose economic well-being Congress is threatening.

Deficits matter, but not more than economic recovery, and not more urgently than the economic survival of millions of Americans. A sane approach would couple near-term federal spending with a credible plan for deficit reduction--a mix of tax increases and spending cuts--as the economic recovery takes hold.

This New York City editorial summarizes what I consider the situation. In a short period of time, after the memorial to our fallen colleague Senator Byrd, who served this Nation and West Virginia so well, we will probably have one vote tomorrow evening and then head back to our homes. For many people it will be a time of relaxation with family. For many Senators it is a rest that is needed after a lot of days spent in session in the Senate. As we return, in my home State, 80,000 families won't be celebrating the Fourth of July. They will be wondering how they are going to pay their utility bills and feed their families. For the rest of us who live in comfort, full-time employment, it may be a world removed. But for them, it is the world of reality they face every single day. Their life has become more complicated, and their burden is heavier because this Senate has failed to extend unemployment benefits.

Mr. President, 1.2 million Americans in the month of June will lose their unemployment benefits because not one single Republican would vote to help Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Where they would find permission to spend money on so many other things, when it comes to investing in American families who have fallen on hard times, they turn a deaf ear. That, to me, is sad and unfortunate. We need to address many issues in this Congress. It troubles me that we would consider going home for anything near a holiday or a relief from our Senate duties and ignore the burdens facing Americans who are in unemployed status or who have trouble in their families because of this weak economy.

I sincerely hope a handful--three or four Republicans--will consider voting for unemployment benefits for those across America who are out of work. We come to the aid of the American family when people are in need. When there is a natural disaster, we are there. This is an economic disaster. It requires an emergency response. We should not leave Washington without dealing with it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield briefly for a question, 21 years ago, I went up to Prince William Sound to see the Exxon Valdez spill. I say to the Senator, I know he knows, as a native of Alaska, firsthand how terrible these spills can be, the impact they can have in the short and long term. But I commend the Senator for his statement because we can do more than one thing if we are working together. If we are divided and at war politically, we do not accomplish much.

What the President wants us to do is deal with the gulf oilspill but also not ignore the need for a national energy policy that is going to make us stronger, create more jobs, and make us less dependent on foreign oil.

I thank the Senator from Alaska for his comments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source