Energy Policy

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 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.