National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 - Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - July 31, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3335
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 68 million acres are currently open to the oil and gas companies, Federal land leased to them for oil and gas exploration. You would think, from the position and the statements on the Republican side of the aisle, that there was no land available and that we have to find new opportunities for oil and gas companies. They have 68 million opportunities they are not using today.
Time and time again, over the last several weeks, the position of the Republicans on the energy question has come down to two or three very basic things: First, the Republicans in the Senate and Senator John McCain are stuck on old ideas. Secondly, they can't wait to go hat in hand to big oil--the oil companies--and ask them: What would you like us to do next? Well, the oil companies have a pretty good agenda. Before President Bush and Vice President Cheney leave town, can you try to find some way to provide even more Federal acreage we can drill on maybe in the future? We want to stock it in our portfolios and get to it another day. Can you make sure you do that before President Bush leaves town?
That is the Republican agenda: More acreage beyond the 68 million they currently have and no vision for the future. It is an old agenda, an old idea. The Grand Old Party is stuck in an old way of thinking when it comes to energy.
The bill I am about to talk about looks to the future. It is a vision for tomorrow. Of course, there is responsible exploration and production--there has to be and there should be--but it realizes that the energy future of America and the world has to be different. We have to get ahead of the curve. As Senator Reid said in quoting Thomas Friedman, it is time for us to think of the energy revolution we are about to engage in, one that is going to make a profound difference in our lives.
Twice this week we have given the Republicans a chance to vote for a real energy package. Is it a bipartisan plan? Read this quote from 48 Governors, Democrats and Republicans, across the United States.
Securing our energy future must be a priority at both the State and Federal levels. We strongly urge you--
They are speaking to the Congress--
to partner with States by passing legislation on a bipartisan basis to extend expiring renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits that can be enacted this year.
The Governors understand it. The American people understand it. The Democrats in the Senate understand it. It is only the Republican Senators who continue to object.
Now, what are these incentives? They are incentives for renewable energy that will chart a course for America to find clean energy sources and the creation of new businesses and new jobs so America can again lead the world. The Republicans look in the rearview mirror at drilling for oil because that is where the big oil companies are--their friends, their allies, their inspiration when it comes to energy.
This bill that came before us yesterday brought in five Republican votes. Only 5 out of 49 crossed the aisle and joined us to try to pass it. Not enough. They know it. Coincidentally, four out of five are in tough reelection contests. They understand when they go home that they can't sell this ``drill forever'' and the mentality the Republicans in the Senate have been peddling.
The bill talks about incentives for biomass and hydropower, solar energy, biodiesel, advanced coal, electricity, demonstration plug-in electric cars, battery performance standards, idle reduction units for trucks, and so many other things that move us forward using those nonpolluting renewable sources of energy that are truly our future.
Time and time and time again, the Republicans in the Senate have said no, no to these incentives for renewable energy and no to our future. I will give them a chance this time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy, Job Creation Act of 2008; that the amendment at the desk, the text of which is S. 3335, be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The minority whip.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the unanimous consent request be modified; that instead of adopting S. 3335 as an amendment, the Senate adopt the McConnell-Grassley substitute which is filed at the desk. This substitute provides the AMT patch, extends all of the traditional tax extenders, some of them with modifications, it extends the many energy tax incentives, provides for Midwest disaster relief, and includes no tax increases.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify his request?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, the Republicans, the Grand Old Party that used to be the party of fiscal conservatism, refuses to pay for these tax breaks. We have come up with an approach that is reasonable and accepted by the business community and that puts the tax burden on companies that are shifting jobs overseas. The Republicans can't stand the thought of imposing taxes on companies that are sending American jobs overseas and that is why they object to our bill and that is why I object to their alternative.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.
Madam President, for those who are following this debate, it is interesting because a friend of mine I used to work for in politics as a young man used to say: When politicians speak, there is a good reason and a real reason for the things they are saying.
The good reason for the position taken by the Republicans is they believe more oil put on the market is going to mean more supply and lower prices. It is intuitive to us, in a supply-and-demand economy, that makes sense on its face. So the pillar of their argument on energy policy is we have to find more places to drill. We do not have enough places to drill for oil now. If we could find more oil, there would be more gasoline, and gasoline prices would come down. The logic is good. But it fails to tell the whole story. It fails to account for 68 million acres of Federal lands currently leased by oil and gas companies that they have not touched. They have paid the Federal Government for this land to go drill for oil and have done nothing. The Republicans never mention the 68 million acres out there that the oil companies are not using.
There is a second matter they never mention. If we decided today to start drilling for oil on the Mall--and sometimes I think in the speeches on the floor a few people might be for that--but if we decided to drill, they think it takes 8 to 14 years before you put the oil well into production--8 to 14 years.
As you are paying for your gasoline each week and somebody says: Hey, hang on, in 14 years we are going to get this under control, you have a right to be a little impatient. But that is the Republican approach.
So who would buy this approach? Well, the people who are buying this approach--the real reason behind the position on the Republican side--this is the oil companies' agenda. This is the oil companies' answer: Keep drilling, give us more land, give us more options, let us put these in our portfolio--the same oil companies that are reporting not just recordbreaking profits for oil companies but recordbreaking profits for American businesses. No businesses in our history have ever reported the profits they have reported.
Shell reports a profit jump. Despite reducing production of oil, their profits have gone up. Shell went up 33 percent this quarter; Exxon, 14 percent--recordbreaking profits for these oil companies, and the position they hold, coincidentally, is the same position as the Republican Party in the Senate.
But an honest energy picture, one that looks forward, says we need responsible exploration and production. That means we do not go into environmentally sensitive areas; we do not pollute our beaches and our shore communities; we do the safe and the right thing but we produce oil and gas as we can in this country, realizing the entire inventory of oil in America represents 3 percent of the global supply of oil--3 percent--and we consume 25 percent of the oil.
We cannot drill our way out of this. We have to look beyond that. We have tried to do that. Twice this week we brought an energy policy bill to the floor. Twice this week the Republicans defeated it. They refused to vote for an energy policy that is comprehensive, that has just not exploration and production in it but looks to things that are our future: more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
We cannot keep driving these gas hogs. We have to drive cars and trucks that are sensible, that meet the needs of our families and our economy and do not consume so much gas. I think my kids and my grandkids will be using plug-in hybrid cars. They will wonder why their old man used to use so darn much gasoline when he was growing up because they will have found ways to do it without gasoline, without diesel fuel, using these batteries and using plug-in hybrids.
That is the future. That is what we asked the Republicans to join us on and vote for, and they refused. We asked them to join us in creating tax incentives for solar power and wind power and geothermal sources, all of which can serve our economy, serve our businesses, serve our families, and not create global warming. They refused. Time and again, the only thing they will vote for is the oil company agenda.
The oil companies are pretty powerful. You may see some of their folks walking the halls out here, wearing pretty nice suits and shoes. You can't miss them. But that is not the future. That is the past. They have done their part. They will continue to play a role--a major role--but the future is a future of vision, looking for clean energy and good-paying jobs right here in America, creating the kind of industry where we can have growth in manufacturing jobs so families across our country have an opportunity.
The Republican view and the Democratic view are quite different. When we offered them a chance to come together, they refused. They would not do it. The last bill they defeated not only had the energy provisions I mentioned, it had a lot of other important provisions. There was disaster assistance for the poor people in Iowa. There was $8 billion to put in the highway trust fund so we can reduce congestion on our highways and create construction jobs across America.
It even included the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota passed away about 6 years ago. This was his passion, and we have never passed this bill. We have to pass it now so your health insurance covers mental illness, as it covers physical illness. They voted against that too. It was all part of the same bill.
It is unfortunate we have reached this point, but that is the point we find ourselves.
The final word in this debate is going to be on November 4, and the voters will have it. If the voters believe we need to look backward to the oil company agenda, they can agree with our Republican friends. But if they believe we need to look forward, with responsible exploration and production but also incentives for renewable energy that brings us into the 21st century in leadership, I hope they will consider voting for those who have brought that to the floor.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source