American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008--Continued

Floor Speech

AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008--Continued -- (Senate - July 10, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to say to the Senator from New Hampshire that I agree with virtually every word he said about the urgency of this issue. Frankly, I do not understand why next week, as reported, if it is 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, which is the impact of high gasoline and high energy prices.

The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 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 is true. It is welcome news if that is, in fact, the case, and I would love to have the majority leader reassure us that is his intention.

I do not think it is responsible for Congress to adjourn for the August recess, I do not think it is 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, 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 our farmers to grow it, harvest it, and then get it to markets. It is hard for me to think of an issue that is more urgent in terms of our economy.

The housing bill which is on the floor today and which has been on the floor for a while is an important piece of legislation. But I tell you, Madam President, 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 the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 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 such as windfall profits taxes, which has been tried before and found to actually diminish domestic production in this country in a time when we ought to be encouraging more production so we rely less on imported energy from places such as the Middle East.

Then there is this idea which 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 are 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 a dramatic impact on our international relationships. But 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.

The fact is, if you talk to any impartial observer, you will find out there is rising demand for the oil that is being produced globally in countries such as China and India, with more than a billion people each. They are buying cars, they are consuming gasoline, and they are using more and more oil. The problem really is multifaceted but primarily driven by increased global demand because other countries want the kind of prosperity we have come to enjoy by making a claim to 20 percent of the oil being produced globally, using 20 percent of it right here in the United States.

I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire, who says we need a multipronged approach. We need to become less wasteful and more efficient and conserve energy because it makes sense to do so. It is the responsible thing to do. But then we need to deal with more than just the demand side. We need to deal with more supply.

It has been interesting to me to see polling that has been done over the last few months which has demonstrated a pretty dramatic change in attitude of the American people. It is 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 onto the western lands where the oil shale lies or to go to Alaska, to the Arctic, where Alaskans overwhelmingly want to allow production. It is one thing to say we are not going to do that when gasoline is at $2 a gallon. It is another to say we are not going to do that when gasoline is at $4.11 a gallon, which it is on national average today.

Of course, there is 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.

We do need, particularly as we transition to different types of alternative energy, particularly when it comes to transportation, things such as coal-to-liquid technology that has been used by the U.S. Air Force to make jet fuel to fly our B-1 bombers and B-52s. We know the technology exists, so why aren't we doing more of it? We need to be doing more of that, to find alternatives to dependency on oil.

We also need to be doing more when it comes to electricity generation because ultimately we are going to be driving around in a different fashion in the years to come than we are today, perhaps in vehicles such as plug-in hybrid cars, which are going to be introduced by many of the major car manufacturers come 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. 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. So I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire, we are 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 is not just a passive inaction; it is actually the fact that Congress has imposed a ban since the early eighties on about 85 percent of our domestic energy supply in America. On the oil shale out West, there was legislation slipped into a bill just last year that banned the development of that shale out in the West that could produce a huge volume of oil.

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. 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. 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. That is positive. I see the Gang of 14 who met previously on judicial nominations. Now we have a Gang of 10--5 Democrats, 5 Republicans--trying to come together in a bipartisan way and come up with a 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 have actually done something. For example, the issue of speculation on the commodities futures markets--there is a growing consensus on both sides of the aisle that we need to deal with this issue, but we need to be careful about it as well. Certainly, more transparency in the way this commodities futures trading system works is important. We need more cops on the street. We need more regulators to investigate to make sure there are not abuses of the commodities futures trading system.

If we are not careful, if we overreach, we could force some of that activity to other countries. I know that is not what we would want to do, is have an unintended impact of driving those jobs elsewhere.

I am more optimistic than I have been in a while about 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 make the Federal Government part of the solution and not part of the problem when it comes to imposing moratoria and bans on production of about 85 percent of America's natural resources.

Source