Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
OBAMA-MENENDEZ AMENDMENT.
WITH THAT I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT,
LAST WEDNESDAY I HAD THE
PRIVILEGE, AS DID MANY IN THIS
BODY, OF ATTENDING A TRIBUTE TO
TWO FORMER MAJORITY LEADERS OF
THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
HOWARD BAKER AND BOB DOLE.
IT WAS A GREAT EVENING.
PRESIDENT CLINTON SENT A VIDEO.
THE VICE PRESIDENT ATTENDED.
THE SECRETARY DEFENSE, THE
SERVICES.
ALL THE FORMER MAJORITY LEADERS
OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
IT WAS A LONG EVENING, BUT IT
WAS A GOOD EVENING.
AND ALONG WITH SENATOR BAKER WAS
FORMER SENATOR NANCY
KASSEBAUM-BAKER, HIS WIFE.
AND ALONG WITH SENATOR DOLE CAME
SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE, HIS
WYOMING SO IT WAS
-- HIS WIFE.
SO IT WAS A WONDERFUL EVENING.
IT WAS SPONSORED BY THE
AND IT WAS A REMINDER THAT WHILE
IN THIS BODY, WE HAVE
IN FACT, THIS BODY WAS CREATED
TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES.
PEOPLE SOMETIMES SAY TO ME, OH,
MY GOODNESS, YOU SENATORS ARE
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO
DO.
TO -- THE KICK UP
TO US OR OVER TO US ISSUES THAT
CAN'T BE RESOLVED OTHER PLACES
AND WITH RESPECT FOR EACH
OTHER'S POINTS OF VIEW, WE TRY
TO RESOLVE THEM AND WE OFTEN DO.
WELL, BOB DOLE AND HOWARD BAKER
WERE AMONG THE BEST AT WORKING
ACROSS PARTY LINES AND GETTING
RESULTS, AND IT WAS FOR THAT
SKILL AS MUCH FOR ANY OTHER
SKILL THAT THEY WERE HONORED.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CONSENT TO
PUT IN -- I WAS ASKED TO
INTRODUCE A SHORT FILM ABOUT
SENATOR BAKER AND I DID.
SENATOR ROBERTS OF KANSAS WAS
ASKED TO INTRODUCE A SHORT FILM
ABOUT SENATOR DOLE, AND HE DID.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CONSENT TO
PUT INTO THE RECORD MY REMARKS
INTRODUCED THE FILM.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
AND,
MR. PRESIDENT, SENATOR BAKER,
RECALLING THE STORY OF HIS
MAIDEN SPEECH, PUT HIS
REMARKS -- ASKED THAT HIS
REMARKS BE PUT INTO THE
"CONGRESSIONAL RECORD".
THE STORY WAS THIS.
, WHICH I TOLD THAT NIGHT.
SENATOR BAKER WAS HERE IN 1967
AND MADE HIS MAIDEN SPEECH AT A
TIME WHEN HIS FOARNL, -- HIS
FATHER-IN-LAW, EVERETT DIRKSEN,
WAS THE REPUBLICAN LEADER.
I WAS HERE AS HOWARD BAKER'S
YOUNG ASSISTANT RIGHT OUT OF LAW
SCHOOL.
AND HE WALKED OVER AND SAT DOWN
NEXT TO HIM AFTER WHAT HAD BEEN
MINUTES.
SENATOR BAKER LOOKED AT HIS
FATHER-IN-LAW AND SAID, SENATOR
DIRKSEN, HOW DID I DO?
AND SENATOR DIRKSEN SAID TO HIS
SON-IN-LAW, SENATOR BAKER,
HOWARD, "MAYBE OCCASIONALLY YOU
SHOULD ENJOY THE LUXURY OF AN
UNEXPRESSED THOUGHT."
SO SENATOR BAKER, RECALLING THAT
ADVICE, I ASSUME, ASKED THAT HIS
REMARKS TO BE DELIVERED THAT
NIGHT AT THE END OF A LONG
CEREMONY BE PLACED IN THE
"CONGRESSIONAL RECORD" AND I ASK
CONSENT TO DO THAT.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW REMARKS
ON THE SUBJECT THAT WE'RE
DEBATING HERE WHICH IS -- WHICH
IS ENERGY.
LAST WEEK, THE MAJORITY LEADER
SAID THAT HE WAS DISAPPOINTED
THAT WE WERE NOT MOVING TO THE
EX-IM BANK AND TO POSTAL REFORM
AND TO CYBER SECURITY, ALL OF
WHICH HE SAID ARE URGENT
NATIONAL ISSUES THAT THE UNITED
STATES EXPECT OUR SENATE TO DEAL
WITH.
THE REPUBLICAN LEADER SAID THAT
ON OUR SIDE, WE'RE READY TO DEAL
WITH ALL THREE.
AND THE REPUBLICAN LEADER
OFFERED TO JOIN THE MAJORITY
LEADER IN DEALING WITH EX-IM
BANK WITH A FEW RELEVANT
AMENDMENTS, WHICH MIGHT BE A
PRETTY GOOD WAY TO BEGIN OUR
PROCESS OF GETTING THE SENATE
BACK TO DOING WHAT THE SENATE IS
SUPPOSED TO DO, WHICH IS TO
BRING UP IMPORTANT PIECES OF
LEGISLATION, ALLOW SENATORS ON
BOTH SIDES TO OFFER THEIR
ON THEM.
IT'S EASIER TO DO IF THE
AMENDMENTS ARE RELEVANT TO THE
LEGISLATION THAT'S BEING
OFFERED.
SO WE WERE LOOKING FORWARD THIS
WEEK TO DEALING WITH THE POSTAL
REFORM BILL WHICH NEEDS TO BE
DEALT WITH.
WE'VE GOT A SEVERAL
BILLION-DOLLAR DEBT FOR THE POST
OFFICE WHICH HAS BEEN A PART OF
OUR LIVES EVER SINCE OUR COUNTRY
WAS FOUNDED AND WE HAVE
COMPETING PIECES OF LEGISLATION
ON THE ISSUE.
VERY GOOD SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE AISLE READY TO DISCUSS
YET SUDDENLY THE MAJORITY LEADER
CHANGED HIS MIND, WHICH HE HAS A
RIGHT TO DO, AND HE INSTEAD
BROUGHT UP LEGISLATION REPEALING
SIX TAX PROVISIONS FOR FIVE OIL
COMPANIES, PROVISIONS THAT FOR
THE MOST PART ARE TAX PROVISIONS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO MOST OTHER
COMPANIES IN AMERICA.
NOW, WHY WOULD THE MAJORITY
LEADER DO THAT?
WELL, IN THE SENATE, IT'S NOT
CONSIDERED TO BE GOOD FORM TO
INQUIRE INTO THE MOTIVATIONS OF
OTHER SENATORS SO I WON'T DO IT,
BUT I WOULD READ A PARAGRAPH OR
TWO FROM THE "NATIONAL JOURNAL"
THIS WEEK THAT SPECULATED ON
WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED.
AND I QUOTE -- "THE SENATE HOLDS
A PROCEDURAL VOTE THIS EVENING
EVENING" -- THAT WAS MONDAY --
"ON LEGISLATION SPONSORED BY
SENATOR MENENDEZ OF NEW JERSEY
THAT WOULD REPEAL TAX INCENTIVES
FOR THE COUNTRY'S BIGGEST OIL
COMPANIES.
IT WON'T PASS," SAID THE
"NATIONAL JOURNAL" "BUT IT WILL
CREATE A PLATFORM FOR DEMOCRATS
TRY TO REGAIN THE GAS PRICES.
JOHN PODESTA AND JEFF GERE NE
NOTES THAT THE VOTE -- QUOTE --
"OFFERS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR
PROGRESSIVES TO FRAME ENERGY
POLICY THROUGH THE GAS PRICE
DEBATE."
"DEMOCRATS WILL USE THE FAMILIAR
TACTICS" -- THIS IS THE NATIONAL
JOURNAL REPORTING -- "OF LINKING
HIGH GAS PRICES TO BIG OIL AND
BIG OIL TO REPUBLICANS WITH THE
AIM OF ATTACKING G.O.P.
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND
PUTTING THREE VULNERABLE
DEMOCRATS UP FOR -- VULNERABLE
REPUBLICANS UP FOR REELECTION,
IN TOUGH SPOTS."
THAT'S THE END OF THE
SPECULATION FROM THE "NATIONAL
JOURNAL."
NOW, MAYBE THAT WAS THE REASON
THE MAJORITY LEADER DECIDED TO
BRING THIS UP, BUT CLEARLY WE'RE
SPENDING A WHOLE WEEK ON A
POLITICAL EXERCISE.
IF THIS IS TRUE, IT'S BEING
BROUGHT UP TO FRAME AN ISSUE, TO
PUT REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO MAY
BE RUNNING FOR REELECTION IN A
DIFFICULT SPOT, WELL, THEN,
REPUBLICANS MUST NOT THINK SO,
SO WE ALL VOTED TO BRING IT UP.
SO INSTEAD OF DOING CYBER
SECURITY, INSTEAD OF DOING
POSTAL REFORM, WE'RE SPENDING
THE ENTIRE WEEK ON SOMETHING WE
ALL KNOW IS NOT GOING TO PASS
AND IT'S A MISUSE OF THE TIME OF
THE SENATE.
IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER IF WE
WERE USING THE TIME ON THOSE
OTHER ISSUES.
BUT AS LONG AS WE'RE DISCUSSING
LOWERING GASOLINE PRICES AND
LOWERING FUEL PRICES, I HAVE A
SUGGESTION TO MAKE.
HERE'S A PLAN TO LOWER FUEL
PRICES -- DOUBLE ENERGY
RESEARCH.
AND HERE'S A WAY TO PAY FOR IT
WITHOUT ADDING TO THE FEDERAL
DEBT -- STOP WASTEFUL LONG-TERM
THAT ARE EXCLUSIVELY
OR MOSTLY FOR BOTH BIG OIL AND
BIG WIND.
NOW, LOOK AT SHALE GAS.
THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA WAS
TALKING ABOUT SHALE GAS, WHICH
IS BEING PRODUCED THANKS TO MOVE
TECHNOLOGY FOUND THROUGH ENERGY
RESEARCH.
THIS IS A REMARKABLE DEVELOPMENT
IN OUR COUNTRY.
BUT AS DANIEL YERGEN, THE
LEADING EXPERT ON ENERGY REPORTS
IN HIS NEW BOOK, "THE QUEST,"
THE INNOVATION ON THIS BEGAN
OVER 20 YEARS AGO.
SOME OF IT FROM THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, SOME OF IT FROM
GOVERNMENT FUNDING.
BUT BASICALLY, WE FOUND A WAY TO
MINE NATURAL GAS AND OIL THROUGH
A PROCESS CALLED HYDRAULIC
FRACKING.
WORLD.
I WAS IN AUSTRALIA IN JANUARY.
THE AUSTRALIANS ARE DOING IT,
THE REMARKABLE DIFFERENCE FOR
THE UNITED STATES IS NOT JUST
THAT WE SUDDENLY HAVE A LOT MORE
NATURAL GAS BUT THAT IT IS CHEAP
GASOLINE.
INSTEAD OF BEING $15 A UNIT,
WHICH IT WAS WHEN WE PASSED THE
IN 2005, IT'S
$2 A UNIT OR $3.
AND MORE THAN THAT, WHILE
AUSTRALIANS ARE SELLING THEIR
GAS TO CHINA AND PAYING THE
WORLD PRICE AT HOME FOR THEIR
OWN NATURAL GAS, IN THE UNITED
STATES, IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT
WE'LL BE ABLE TO BUY OUR GAS AT
A UNITED STATES PRICE RATHER
THAN A WORLD PRICE.
NOW, WHAT DOES -- WHAT DOES THAT
THAT MEANS THAT NATURAL GAS IN
EUROPE AND IN ASIA IS GOING TO
BE WORTH FOUR TO FIVE TIMES WHAT
NATURAL GAS IS HERE.
SO CHEMICAL COMPANIES THAT WERE
THINKING ABOUT MOVING OVERSEAS
FIVE YEARS AGO IN ORDER TO BE
ABLE TO BUY CHEAP NATURAL GAS
FOR THEIR FEED STOCK, THEIR RAW
MATERIALS, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE
STAYING HERE, EXPANDING HERE,
THINKING ABOUT MOVING BACK.
OLDER PEOPLE WHO NEED TO HEAT
AND COOL THEIR HOMES CAN USE
NATURAL GAS AT A CHEAPER PRICE.
MANUFACTURING COMPANIES WHO ARE
ADDING UP THE COSTS THAT MAKE A
DECISION WHETHER THEY PUT A
PLANT IN MEXICO OR SOME OTHER
PLACE OR THE UNITED STATES CAN
PUT CHEAP ENERGY IN THEIR -- IN
THERE WITH THE NATURAL GAS.
FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, IT
APPEARS THAT NATURAL GAS IN
EUROPE AND ASIA IS GOING TO BE
FOUR OR FIVE TIMES WHAT IT IS IN
THE UNITED STATES, GIVING US A
TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE.
SO ENERGY RESEARCH, BOTH IN THE
GOVERNMENT AND IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, HAS GIVEN THE UNITED
STATES THE ADVANTAGE THAT, IF
TRUTH BE TOLD, HAS BEEN OUR
ADVANTAGE EVER SINCE WORLD WAR
II.
THE REASON WE -- THE PRINCIPAL
REASON THAT WE HAVE PRODUCED 25%
OF ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD
EVERY YEAR IS BECAUSE OF THE
INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGY AND
RESEARCH THAT HAS COME SINCE
WORLD WAR II.
AND IT'S HARD TO THINK OF AN
IMPORTANT ADVANCE IN BIOLOGICAL
OR PHYSICAL -- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM -- FROM
GOVERNMENT RESEARCH.
SO SHALE GAS IS ONE EXAMPLE OF
THAT.
HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
AN ALL-ELECTRIC NISSAN
LEAF AND PAY ABOUT $3 FOR THE
ELECTRICITY TO TRAVEL A HUNDRED
MILES, BETTER THAN SPENDING AN
EQUIVALENT 20 MILES ON GASOLINE.
NOW, RESEARCHERS AT BATTERY
MAKER ENVIA HAVE INVENTED A WAY
TO DOUBLE THE DENSITY OF LITHIUM
ION BATTERIES, HASTENING THE
ARRIVAL OF $20,000 CARS THAT
TRAVEL 300 MILES PER CHARGE.
THAT RESEARCH IS PERMITTING US
IN THE CASE OF SHALE GAS TO FIND
MORE AMERICAN ENERGY, AND IN THE
CASE OF ELECTRIC BATTERIES, TO
USE LESS OF IT.
THAT IS WHY I ARGUE THAT THE
UNITED STATES SHOULD LAUNCH A
SERIES OF MINI-MANHATTAN
PROJECTS WITH THE SAME FOCUS AND
DETERMINATION OF THE ORIGINAL
WORLD WAR II MANHATTAN PROJECT.
THIS TIME WITH THE GOAL OF
FINDING MORE ENERGY AND FINDING
WAYS TO USE LESS OF IT.
THE UNITED STATES HAS A RESOURCE
NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS -- DOZENS
OF MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES,
17 NATIONAL LABORATORIES THAT
CAN ADVANCE RESEARCH ON CHEAPER
SOLAR, BETTER BATTERIES,
RECAPTURING CARBON FROM COAL
PLANTS, BIOFUELS FROM CROPS WE
DON'T EAT, BETTER WAYS TO
DISPOSE OF USED NUCLEAR FUEL,
OFFSHORE WIND, GREEN BUILDINGS
AND EVEN FUSION.
TO PAY FOR DOUBLING THE
$5 BILLION THE UNITED STATES NOW
SPENDS ON ENERGY RESEARCH,
CONGRESS SHOULD END CURRENT TAX
BREAKS THAT ARE EXCLUSIVELY OR
MOSTLY FOR BOTH BIG OIL AND BIG
WIND.
AND OF EVERY $3 SAVED, USE $1
FOR MORE RESEARCH AND $2 TO
REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEBT.
FOR ALL WE HEAR ABOUT BIG OIL --
AND WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT IT --
YOU MAY BE SURPRISED TO LEARN
THAT SPECIAL TAX BREAKS FOR BIG
WIND ARE EVEN GREATER.
DURING THE FIVE YEARS BETWEEN
2009 AND 2013, FEDERAL TAXPAYER
FOR WIND POWER
DEVELOPERS EQUALED $14 BILLION,
ACCORDING TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE
ON TAXATION AND THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.
NOW, HERE I'M ONLY COUNTING THE
PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS AND THE
CASH GRANTS IN THE 2009 STIMULUS
LAW OFFERED TO WIND DEVELOPERS
IN LIEU OF THE TAX CREDIT.
AN ANALYSIS OF THAT STIMULUS
CASH GRANT PROGRAM, WHICH THIS
LEGISLATION THAT'S OFFERED HERE
WOULD EXTENDS, FOUND THAT --
WOULD EXTEND, FOUND THAT 54% OF
THE HIGHEST DOLLAR GRANTS
AWARDED, OR ABOUT $2.7 BILLION
IN SUBSIDIES, WENT TO PROJECTS
THAT HAD BEGUN CONSTRUCTION
BEFORE THE STIMULUS MEASURES
STARTED.
SO STEVE ELLIS, THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF TAXPAYERS FOR
COMMON SENSE, TOLD GREEN WIRE --
QUOTE -- "IT'S ESSENTIALLY
FUNDING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THAT
WOULD HAVE OCCURRED, SO IT'S
JUST A PURE SUBSIDY."
IT SOUNDS LIKE, IN THE
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, THAT BIG OIL
RECEIVES MULTIPLE TAX SUBSIDIES
THAT ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR BIG OIL
DOING AWAY WITH THEM, THEY SAY,
WOULD SAVE ABOUT $4.7 BILLION IN
THE FISCAL YEAR NEXT YEAR OR
ABOUT $22 BILLION TO $24 BILLION
OVER FIVE YEARS.
SO FAR IT SOUNDS LIKE BIG OIL,
WITH $22 BILLION IS BIGGER WITH
ITS SUBSIDIES THAN BIG WIND WITH
ONLY $14 BILLION, BUT HERE'S THE
CATCH.
MANY OF THESE SUBSIDIES THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS ATTACKING OIL
COMPANIES FOR HAVING ARE REGULAR
TAX PROVISIONS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE TO HUNDREDS, EVEN
THOUSANDS OF -- OF COMPANIES IN
FOR EXAMPLE, XEROX, MICROSOFT,
CATERPILLAR ALL BENEFIT FROM TAX
PROVISIONS LIKE THE
MANUFACTURING TAX CREDIT.
AMATEURIZATION, DEPRECIATION OF
USED EQUIPMENT THAT THE
SUBSIDIES.
AND, OF COURSE, WIND ENERGY
COMPANIES ALSO BENEFIT FROM MANY
OF THESE SAME PROVISIONS BUT THE
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT THAT
BENEFITS MOSTLY WIND IS IN
THE REGULAR TAX CODE
PROVISIONS THAT BENEFIT MANY
COMPANIES.
SO THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE A FAIR
COMPARISON IS TO LOOK AT
SUBSIDIES THAT MOSTLY BENEFIT
ONLY OIL OR MOSTLY BENEFIT ONLY
WIND AND BY THAT MEASURE BIG
WIND GETS MORE TAX BREAKS THAN
BIG OIL.
SO THE BIG PROPOSED BY THE
SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY THAT IS
LIMITED TO JUST FIVE BIG OIL
COMPANIES IS LIMITED TO THEM
EVEN THOUGH MANY OF THE TAX
BREAKS OR TAX CREDITS OR
DEDUCTIONS THEY RECEIVE ARE THE
SAME TAX CREDITS THAT MANY OTHER
COMPANIES RECEIVE.
AND THEN THIS BILL ALSO
EXTENDS -- EXTENDS -- MANY TAX
BREAKS, INCLUDING THE WIND
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT AND THE
1603 GRANT PROGRAM FOR RENEWABLE
ENERGY, WHICH MOSTLY BENEFITS
WIND.
NOW, TWO WEEKS AGO DURING THE
DEBATE ON THE TRANSPORTATION
BILL, THIS SENATE WISELY REFUSED
THE 20-YEAR-OLD
TEMPORARY PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT
WHICH MOSTLY BENEFITS WIND.
THAT WAS THE CORRECT DECISION.
WE SHOULD
ALLOW THIS TAX PROVISION TO
EXPIRE.
CONGRESS MADE A MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT DECISION LAST YEAR TO
ALLOW THE ETHANOL TAX CREDIT TO
EXPIRE, AND WE SHOULD HOLD OUR
GROUND AND DO THE SAME THING FOR
THE WIND PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT.
THERE ARE THREE REASONS WHY.
BIG WIND SUBSIDIES SHOULD GO THE
WAY OF THE $5 BILLION ANNUAL
ETHANOL SUBSIDY.
FIRST WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BORROWS
40 CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR WE
SPEND.
YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY SUCH A
SUBSIDY, ESPECIALLY FOR WHAT THE
U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY CALLS A
MATURE TECHNOLOGY.
ACCORDING TO THE ENERGY
INFORMATION AGENCY IN 2008, BIG
WIND RECEIVED IN SUBSIDIES 25
TIMES AS MUCH PER MEGAWATT HOUR
AS ALL OTHER FORMS OF
ELECTRICITY COMBINED.
SECOND, WIND TURBINES PRODUCE
RELATIVELY PUNY AMOUNT OF
UNRELIABLE, EXPENSIVE ENERGY.
WIND PRODUCES ABOUT 2.3% OF ALL
OF OUR ELECTRICITY.
A BETTER ALTERNATIVE IS CLEAN,
NATURAL GAS.
AN EVEN BETTER ALTERNATIVE IS
CLEANER, NUCLEAR POWER WHICH
NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS POWER OUR
NAVY AND PRODUCE 70% OF OUR
POLLUTION-FREE ELECTRICITY.
USING WINDMILLS TO POWER A
COUNTRY THAT USES ONE-FOURTH OF
THE WORLD'S ELECTRICITY WOULD BE
THE ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF GOING
TO WAR IN SAIL BOATS.
THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
HAS ERECTED 18 MASSIVE WIND
TURBINES ON A MOUNTAIN OUTSIDE
OF KNOXVILLE.
THE TURBINES HAVE DONE LITTLE.
THE WIND THERE BLOWS 19% OF THE
TIME, USUALLY AT NIGHT WHEN WE
DON'T NEED IT, AND IT'S ITS UNUSED
STORED.
FINALLY, THERE IS THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER IN THE NAME OF SAVING
THE ENVIRONMENT WIND TURBINES
ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT.
THESE ARE NOT YOUR GRANDMA'S
WINDMILLS.
THEY ARE TALLER THAN THE STATUE
OF LIBERTY.
THEIR BLADES ARE AS LONG AS A
FOOTBALL FIELD AND THEIR
BLINKING LIGHTS CAN BE SEEN FOR
20 MILES.
IN NASHVILLE, VANDERBILT AND THE
METROPOLITAN WATER SYSTEM ARE
ABOUT TO ERECT A SMALL WIND
TURBINE AS TALL AS THE PARTHENON
REPLICA WE HAVE IN NASHVILLE.
IT WOULD TAKE 1 MILLION OF THESE
TO EQUAL THE KNOTSBAR NUCLEAR
REACTOR.
IT COULD COST 15 TIMES THE COST
OF THE NUCLEAR REACTOR AND YOU
WOULD STILL NEED THE PLANT FOR
WHEN THE WIND DOESN'T BLOW.
WHEN T. BOONE PICKENS WAS ASKED
WHETHER HE'D PUT WIND TURBINES
ON HIS TEXAS RANCHES, HE
UGLY."
CUISINARTS IN THE SKY.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
HAS SET UP A PROCESS TO GRANT
LNGS FOR EAGLE TAKING, SORT OF A
A NEW DOCUMENTARY "WINDFALL"
CHRONICLES THE DEBATE OF UPSTATE
NEW YORKERS DEBATING WHETHER TO
BUILD TURBINES IN THEIR TOWN.
I ASK THE QUESTION, IF WIND HAS
ALL THESE DRAW BACKS, IS MATURE
TECHNOLOGY AND RECEIVES TUB --
RECEIVES SUBSIDIES, WHY ARE WE
SUBSIDIZING IT WITH BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AND WHY ARE WE NOT
INCLUDING IT IN THIS DEBATE?
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BIG OIL
SUBSIDIES AND NOT WIG BIND
SUBSIDIES?
OUR ENERGY POLICY SHOULD BE
FIRST TO DOUBLE THE $5 BILLION
IN FEDERAL ENERGY -- SHOULD BE
TO DOUBLE THE $5 BILLION ENERGY
RESEARCH BUDGET THAT WE NOW HAVE
ON NEW FORMS OF
CHEAP, CLEAN, RELIABLE ENERGY.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE 500-MILE
BATTERY FOR ELECTRIC CARS,
COMMERCIAL USES OF CARBON
CAPTURED FROM COAL PLANTS, SOLAR
PANELS INSTALLED, OR OFFSHORE
WIND TURBINES THAT WOULD BE
RESEARCHED.
SECOND, WE SHOULD LIMIT A
HANDFUL OF JUMP-START RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO TAKE
0IT FROM THE R&D STAGE TO THE
COMMERCIAL STAGE.
I'M THINKING ABOUT DARPA, THAT
LED TO THE INTERNED AND THE
STEALTH AND OTHER REMARKABLE
TECHNOLOGIES.
OR INCENTIVES FOR THE FIRST
200,000 ELECTRIC VEHICLES
PURCHASED IN AMERICA.
THESE ARE A STRICTLY LIMITED
NUMBER OF JUMP-START R&D
PROJECTS.
END WASTEFUL
LONG-TERM SPECIAL TAX BREAKS,
SUCH AS THOSE FOR BIG OIL AND
THOSE FOR BIG WIND.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TAX BREAKS
THAT ARE EXCLUSIVELY OR MOSTLY
FOR BIG OIL AND BIG WIND.
AND THIS SAVINGS FROM THOSE
SUBSIDIES SHOULD BE USED TO
DOUBLE CLEAN ENERGY RESEARCH AND
TO REDUCE OUR FEDERAL DEBT.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS BILL
DOES.
THIS BILL ENDS SUBSIDIES FOR
FIVE COMPANIES THAT MANY OTHER
COMPANIES RECEIVE, AND IT
EXTENDS SUBSIDIES FOR A FEW
COMPANIES THAT OTHER INDUSTRIES
DON'T GET.
THIS DEBATE ISN'T EVEN ABOUT AN
ENERGY PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT WE
SHOULD BE DEBATING WHEN GAS IS
AROUND $4 A GALLON RIGHT NOW.
HERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC PLAN:
INCREASE ENERGY RESEARCH, DOUBLE
IT.
DEFINE MORE AMERICAN OIL AND
MORE AMERICAN NATURAL GAS AND
MORE AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE FORMS
OF ENERGY.
INCREASE ENERGY RESEARCH TO
FIND WAYS TO USE LESS OF THAT
ENERGY.
I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE BEST WAYS
TO USE LESS AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED
A WAY TO PAY FOR IT.
I THANK THE PRESIDENT, AND I
YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
A COUPLE OF
WEEKS AGO AND JUST NOW MY
COLLEAGUE, THE SENATOR FROM
TENNESSEE, HAS BEEN SPEAKING ON
THE SENATE FLOOR IN OPPOSITION
TO THE WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION
TAX CREDIT.
OBVIOUSLY I HAVE GREAT RESPECT
FOR SENATOR ALEXANDER, A PERSON
WHO'S BEEN IN THE CABINET, A
PERSON WHO'S BEEN GOAFN OF THEIR
STATE, A PERSON WHO'S BEEN
PRESIDENT OF A UNIVERSITY,
PROBABLY A LOT OF OTHER
IMPORTANT POSITIONS.
HE CAN'T HELP BUT BE RESPECTED
KNOWLEDGEABLE SENATOR.
WHILE I DIFFER WITH HIM GREATLY
ON THIS ISSUE, I WILL CONTINUE
TO RESPECT HIM.
THE GREATNESS OF THIS BODY
ALLOWS FOR DEBATE AND
DISAGREEING POINTS OF VIEW TO BE
HEARD.
I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH MY
COLLEAGUE, AND IT MIGHT BE
NATURAL FOR ME TO DO THAT
BECAUSE I'VE CHAMPIONED THE WIND
ENERGY TAX CREDIT AS A WAY TO
PROVIDE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
RESOURCE.
AS A RESULT, IT HAS BECOME -- AS
A RESULT, WIND ENERGY HAS BECOME
MORE EFFICIENT AND
COST-EFFECTIVE.
THE COST OF WIND ENERGY HAS
DECLINED BY 90% SINCE THE
1980'S.
WIND HAS ACCOUNTED FOR 35% OF
ALL NEW AMERICAN ELECTRIC
GENERATION IN THE LAST FIVE
YEARS.
WIND HAS ALREADY PROVIDED 20% OF
THE ELECTRIC GENERATION IN MY
OF IOWA.
IT SUPPORTS AS MANY AS 5,000
GOOD-PAYING JOBS IN OUR STATE.
AS A RESULT OF THE TAX
INCENTIVE, THE WIND ENERGY HAS
ACTUALLY CREATED NEW
STATES.
TODAY 60% OF THE WIND TURBINES'
VALUE IS NOW PRODUCED IN THE
UNITED STATES COMPARED WITH JUST
25% SIX YEARS AGO.
THERE ARE NOW 400 FACILITIES
STATES.
THAT IS WHY A BILL IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES TO EXTEND THE
WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION TAX
CREDIT HAS 80 COSPORKS INCLUDING
18 -- HAS 80 COSPONSORS,
INCLUDING 18 REPUBLICANS.
IF WE FAIL TO EXTEND THE
INCENTIVE, THOUSANDS OF JOBS
WILL BE LOST IN WIND
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY.
UNEMPLOYMENT REMAINS HIGH AT
8.30%.
WHY WOULD CONGRESS EXACERBATE
IN OUR COUNTRY
BY FAILING TO EXTEND THIS
SUCCESSFUL INCENTIVE?
THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE HAS
CRITICIZED WIND TURBINES BECAUSE
HE BELIEVES THEY ARE UGLY AND
KILL BIRDS.
I HAPPEN TO FIND THEM MAJESTIC
LANDSCAPE.
THE SENATOR'S EXCLAIMS WERE
EVALUATED BY A FACT-CHECKING
OMPLETION THEY CONCLUDED THAT
THE ESTIMATES OF BIRDS KILLED BY
WIND TURBINES VARY WIDELY AND
THAT THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.
THEY DO POINT OUT THAT THE
400,000 BIRD ESTIMATE USED BY
SENATOR ALEXANDER IS THE
CONCLUSION OF JUST ONE PERSON.
IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE ESTIMATE.
IN FACT, THE U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE CITES FIGURES THAT ARE,
AT MOST, HALF THAT, IF NOT LESS
BY MUCH.
BY COMPARISON, 976 MILLION BIRDS
DIE ANNUALLY FROM COLLISION WITH
BUILDINGS, COLLISIONS WITH
HIGH-TENSION LINES KILLS BETWEEN
130 MILLION AND 1 BILLION BIRDS.
YEAR.
SO THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
REFERRED MANY TIMES TO THE WIND
PROJECT BUILT IN HIS STATE BY
THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
THEY CONSTRUCTED A 29 MEGAWATT
WIND FARM AT BUFFALO MOUNTAIN AT
COST OF $60 MILLION.
BUT IT ONLY GENERATES 6
MEGAWATTS BECAUSE IT GENERATES
ELECTRICITY ONLY 19% OF THE
TIME.
THE SENATOR CRITICIZED IT AS
BEING INOFFICIATE, WASTEFUL, AND
ILL ADVISED.
THE T.V.A. PARNTSLY
EXPERIMENT.
HE BLAMES THE FEDERAL INCENTIVE
FOR THIS FAILED WIND PROJECT.
THE BLAME IS TOTALLY MISPLACED.
I THINK THE BLAME SHOULD GO TO
THE TAXPAYERS WHO SUBSIDIZED
T.V.A. WHO PUT WINDMILLS WHERE
THERE WAS VERY LITTLE WIND.
WE DO AGREE THAT THE
TO RENEWABLE
ENERGY INCENTIVES IN THE
STIMULUS BILL OF 2009 --
SPECIFICALLY THE CREATION OF THE
1603 CASH GRANT PROGRAM -- IS IN
FACT BAD POLICY AND SHOULD NOT
BE EXTENDED.
HOWEVER, THE PRODUCTION TAX
CREDIT, WHICH I FIRST AUTHORIZED
IN 1992, PROVIDES THE INCENTIVE
ONLY FOR ELECTRICITY THAT IS
ACTUALLY PRODUCED.
UNDER THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT,
THERE IS NO TAX BENEFIT SIMPLY
GROUND.
ELECTRICITY MUST BE PRODUCED IN
ORDER TO GET THE CREDIT.
THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE WENT
ON TO SAY THAT THE TAX INCENTIVE
HAS ENCOURAGED DEVELOPERS TO
BUILD WIND PROJECTS IN PLACINGS
WITH INSUFFICIENT WIND
RESOURCES.
THE T.V.A. PROJECT IS THE ONLY
ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT WAS
BUILT WITH NO PROSPECTS OF
GENERATING ELECTRICITY.
FOR-PROFIT UTILITIES HAVE TO
LOOK OUTER FOR THE OUT FOR THE BOTTOM LINE.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE AN
INPVESTMENT IF IT DOESN'T MAKE
-- INVESTMENT IF IT DOESN'T MAKE
ECONOMIC SENSE.
A NONPROFIT LIKE T.V.A. CAN JUST
FRIRT AWAY MONEY, WHICH IS WHAT
THEY PARNTSLY DID IN THIS
THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE MIGHT
SPEND A BIT OF TIME CRITICIZING
THE LEADERS OF THE T.V.A. OVER
THEIR POOR DECISION TO BUILD
THIS WIND PROJECT IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
I'M NOT AWARE OF A POLICY
FORCING THEM TO DEVELOP WIND.
THERE IS NO MANDATE THAT THEY
BUILD A WIND FARM THERE IN THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE.
MOST INTELLIGENT BUSINESSES
DETERMINE WHETHER AN INVESTMENT
MAKES COMMON SENSE.
THE T.V.A. OBVIOUSLY FAILED IN
THAT REGARD IN RELATIONSHIP TO
THIS WIND PROJECT.
THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE MIGHT
USE HIS TIME GETTING TO THE
BOTTOM OF THIS LEADERSHIP
FAILURE AND SQUANDERED RESOURCES
BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.
I'M ALSO GLAD THAT HE RAISED THE
ISSUE OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.
MUCH OF THE CRITICISM AIMED AT
THE WIND PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT
IS THAT IT'S COSTLY, WAS MEANT
TO BE TEMPORARY, AND THAT IT
PROVIDES JUST A SMALL BENEFIT AT
A GREAT COST.
THOSE SAME ACCUSATIONS COULD
CLEARLY BE AIMED AT THE T.V.A.
REGARDLESS OF ONE'S OPINION OF
THE T.V.A., THERE IS NO DOUBT IT
IS A BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM
SUBSIDIZED BY ALL AMERICANS THAT
BENEFIT JUST A FIEWVMENT THE
T.V.A. WAS CREATED IN 193 3 TO
PROVIDE FLOOD CONTROL,
NAVIGATION SERVICES AND
ELECTRICAL POWER IN THE
TENNESSEE VALLEY REGION.
FOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS CONGRESS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS TO COVER
LOSSES BY THE T.V.A.
A 2009 ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY JIM
POWELL OF THE CATO INSTITUTE
NOTED THAT A STUDY ESTIMATED THE
ANNUAL COST OF CAPITAL SUBSIDIES
EXCEEDED $1.2 BILLION, INCLUDING
TAXES THAT THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY WAS ABLE TO AVOID.
1997, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
ISSUED A REPORT ENTITLED "FIVE
GOOD REASONS TO FORCE THE T.V.A.
INTO MANDATORY RETIREMENT."
THIS REPORT STATED, "THROUGHOUT
ITS HISTORY, THE T.V.A. HAS
BENEFITED FROM GENEROUS
SUBSIDIES, TAX BREAKS, AND
REGULATORY EXEMPTIONS THAT ALLOW
IT TO KEEP ITS POWER RATES LOWER
THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGES, YET
DESPITE ITS PROTECTIVE
GEOGRAPHIC MONOPOLY, SUBSTANTIAL
INDIRECT SUBSIDIES TOTALING
ROUGHLY 1.2 BILLION EACH YEAR
SWEEPING ACROSS THE BROAD
REGULATORY EXEMPTIONS, THE
T.V.A. HAS MANAGED TO AMASS A
DEBT OF WE WELL OVER $27 BILLION
AND A DISTURBING RECORD OF
WASTE, MISMANAGEMENT, AND
CHRONIC COST OVERRUNS."
THE PRIVATE NONPROFIT GROUP
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT
WASTE HAS SUGGESTED SELLING THE
T.V.A.'S ELECTRIC ASSETS AND
PRIVATIZING ITS NONPOWER
FUNCTIONS.
IN THEIR 2011 LIST OF PRIME CUTS
-- THAT'S A QUOTE, THE WORDS
"PRIME CUTS IS A TITLE."
THIS MOVE WOULD SAVE THE
TAXPAYERS $6.2 BILLION OVER FIVE
YEARS.
EVEN THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE LISTED THE T.V.A. IN ITS
REPORT ON SPENSDZING AND REVENUE
OPTIONS TO REDUCE THE NATIONAL
DEBT AND IEWNL DEFICIT.
WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
BORROWING 40 CENTS OF EVERY
DOLLAR WE SPEND, PERHAPS THE
TIME HAS COME TO REVIEW AN
ENTITY THAT BENEFITS 3% OF THE
POPULATION AT A COST OF OVER
$1.2 BILLION ANNUALLY.
AND I USE THAT 40 CENTS THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S BORROWING
OF EVERY $1 WE SPEND JUST LIKE
THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE A FEW
MINUTES AGO USED THAT VERY SAME
FIGURE AS A RATIONALE FOR
ELIMINATING CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES.
CASE, I APPLY
IT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
T.V.A.
RATHER THAN BLAMING THE TAX
INCENTIVES FOR AN ILL-SKAOEFPD
WIND PROJECT -- ILL CONCEIVED
WIND PROJECT, A THINK A REVIEW
OF THE SUBSIDY OF T.V.A. WOULD
BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
ON MANY OCCASIONS THE SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE ARGUED THAT THE
INCENTIVE SHOULD BE REVEALED AND
THE SAVINGS USED TO DOUBLE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY RESEARCH BUDGET
AND TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF
NEW NUCLEAR.
FIRST, I SUPPORT RESEARCH
EFFORTS TO DEVELOP CLEAN ENERGY,
BUT I DON'T SUPPORT IMPOSING A
TAX HIKE ON ONE ENERGY INDUSTRY
SO THAT WE CAN SPEND BILLIONS
THROUGH OUR FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY.
THIS IDEA IS NOTHING MORE THAN A
TAX INCREASE TO PAY FOR FURTHER
WASHINGTON SPENDING.
IT'S THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT
HELPED CREATE THE FISCAL MESS
THAT OUR COUNTRY IS IN RIGHT
NOW.
SECONDLY, I STRONGLY SUPPORT
IN FACT, I BELIEVE THERE ARE
FOUR CRITICAL ELEMENTS TO A
ENERGY POLICY.
THEY ARE DRILLING FOR DOMESTIC
OIL AND GAS, PROMOTING RENEWABLE
AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY,
SUPPORTING CONSERVATION, AND, OF
ENERGY.
NUCLEAR IS AN EMISSION-FREE
RESOURCE.
IT CERTAINLY SHOULD PLAY A KEY
ROLE IN PROVIDING OUR NATION AND
ECONOMY WITH A RELIABLE
EMISSION-FREE ENERGY.
HOWEVER, THIS DISCUSSION OF WIND
ENERGY VERSUS NUCLEAR ENERGY
SHOULD BE AN INTELLECTUALLY
HONEST DEBATE.
THE FACT IS NUCLEAR ENERGY IN
THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT
EXIST TODAY -- WOULD NOT EVEN BE
HERE TODAY -- WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
OVER 60 YEARS.
AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW NUCLEAR
IN THE UNITED STATES IS UNLIKELY
TO HAPPEN WITHOUT EVEN GREATER
SUBSIDIES.
AN ANALYSIS DONE BY THE
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
CONCLUDED THAT THE NUCLEAR POWER
INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES
RECEIVES ABOUT $9 BILLION
ANNUALLY IN SUBSIDIES.
THEY STATE THAT THE SUBSIDIES
STEM FROM THINGS LIKE FEDERAL
MANAGEMENT POLICY, RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT IN THE NATION'S
NATIONAL LABORATORIES.
THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS PUBLISHED A DOCUMENT
FEBRUARY LAST YEAR ENTITLED --
QUOTE -- "NUCLEAR POWER STILL
NOT VIABLE WITHOUT SUBSIDIES."
THEY CONTEND THAT THE
50-YEAR-OLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY HAS
BENEFITED FROM 30 SUBSIDIES.
THE PRICE-ANDERSON INSURANCE
LIABILITY POLICY WAS ENACTED IN
AN INFANT INDUSTRY.
IT WAS RECENTLY EXTENDED UNTIL
THE YEAR 2025.
THE CATO INSTITUTE PUBLISHED AN
ARTICLE JUNE 1993 ENTITLED --
QUOTE -- "NO CORPORATE WARFARE
FOR NUCLEAR -- WELFARE FOR
NUCLEAR POWER.
DESPITE CONTINUED GOVERNMENT
SUBSIDY, INCLUDING MORE THAN $66
BILLION IN RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ALONE, NO NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT HAS BEEN ORDER AND
END OF QUOTE.
BUT IT GOES FURTHER TO QUOTE,
"THE DECLINE OF NUCLEAR POWER IS
THE RESULT OF SEVERAL FACTORS.
THE THE THREE MILE ISLAND
DISASTER HEIGHTENED PUBLIC
SAFETY FEARS AND CITIZENS'
OPPOSITION TO THE SITING OF
PLANTS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD
GREW, BUT NUCLEAR POWER WAS
ULTIMATELY REJECTED BY INVESTORS
BECAUSE IT SIMPLY DOES NOT MAKE
ECONOMIC SENSE.
IN TRUTH, NUCLEAR POWER HAS
NEVER MADE ECONOMIC SENSE, AND
PURELY IS A CREATURE OF
INSTITUTE CITES AN ECONOMIST
THAT BELIEVES THAT EXISTING
NUCLEAR POWER SUBSIDIES ARE
EQUAL TO ONE-THIRD OR MORE OF
THE VALUE OF THE POWER PRODUCED
AND THAT THEY FACE A NEGATIVE
49% TAX RATE.
THERE ARE ONLY TWO NEW NUCLEAR
PLANTS ON THE DRAWING BOARD IN
THE UNITED STATES TODAY.
BOTH ARE RECIPIENTS OF LOAN
GUARANTEES PROVIDED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
ONE IS AN $8.3 BILLION LOAN
GUARANTEE AND THE OTHER IS $2
BILLION.
WHEN THE LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
WAS FIRST CREATED BY CONGRESS,
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
ESTIMATED THAT -- QUOTE -- "THE
RISK OF DEFAULT ON SUCH A LOAN
GUARANTEE TO BE VERY HIGH, WELL
ABOVE 50%."
NOW, THIS IS THE SAME PROGRAM
THAT BACKED SOLYNDRA.
CONGRESS ORIGINALLY SET ASIDE
$18.5 BILLION FOR LOAN
GUARANTEES FOR NUCLEAR.
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS REQUESTED
TRIPLING THAT AMOUNT TO $54.5
BILLION.
IT'S ESTIMATED THAT THIS $54
BILLION WOULD HELP CONSTRUCT 12
NUCLEAR PLANTS.
BILLION EACH.
CONGRESS HAS CREATED A
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT FOR NEW
WE CREATED PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT
FOR NEW NUCLEAR IN THE YEAR
NOW NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS
ADVOCATING A 30% INVESTMENT TAX
CREDIT FOR THESE NEW NUCLEAR
CONSTRUCTIONS.
THEY ARE ALSO ADVOCATING THAT
THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT BE
EXTENDED TO THE YEAR 2025.
THAT'S RIGHT.
THEY'RE SEEKING TO EXTEND FOR
ANOTHER 13 YEARS AN EXTENSION OF
A TEMPORARY TAX INCENTIVE.
TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE, IN
AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED JUST LAST
WEEK, CONCLUDED -- QUOTE -- "THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT AFFORD TO
SHOULDER THE HIGH PRICE TAG AND
LONG-TERM FISCAL RISK.
IF THE INDUSTRY CANNOT FIGURE
OUT A WAY TO MANAGE ITS
LONG-TERM RISK, THE TAXPAYER
SHOULD NOT STEP IN.
IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN THE
NATION IS STARING INTO A $15
TRILLION CHASM OF DEBT AFTER
MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF SUBSIDY
AND SUPPORT, IT'S WELL PAST TIME
FOR THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO
STAND ON ITS OWN TWO FEET."
I DO NOT RAISE THESE POINTS TO
UNDERMINE OUR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.
I'M NOT URGING MY COLLEAGUES TO
END THE ENTIRE BIG NUCLEAR GRAVY
TRAIN AT THIS TIME.
I SUPPORT THAT FORM OF ENERGY AS
ONE COMPONENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE
ENERGY PROGRAM.
I SUPPORT A REAL "ALL OF THE
ABOVE" APPROACH TO ENERGY
SECURITY.
BUT A FAIR COMPARISON TO FEDERAL
SUPPORT FOR WIND AND NUCLEAR
NEEDS TO BE MADE.
AND THAT'S THE POINT IN MY
REMARKS AT THIS TIME.
SO I SAY TO THE SENATOR FROM
TENNESSEE, AS HE JUST SPOKE AND
AS HE SPOKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS
AGO, IT'S INTELLECTUALLY
DISHONEST TO CRITICIZE WIND
INCENTIVES WHILE AT THE SAME
TIME IGNORING THOSE SUBSIDIES
THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
REFERRED TO A "WALL STREET
JOURNAL" EDITORIAL THAT
INCENTIVE.
IT CALLED INTO QUESTION WHETHER
WIND ENERGY COULD SURVIVE A
MARKET-BASED SYSTEM.
I WILL EAGERLY AWAIT AN
EDITORIAL IN THE "WALL STREET
JOURNAL" WHICH, BY THE WAY, WILL
NEVER APPEAR CALLING FORKED
GRAVY TRAIN FOR -- CALLING FOR
THE GRAVY TRAIN FOR BIG NUCLEAR
TO END WITH NO MARKET-BASED
TIMETABLE ON THE HORIZON.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
I ASK CONSENT THE
QUORUM CALL BE SUSPENDED.
PROMISE WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE SENATE PROCEED TO
EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 4:30 P.M.
TODAY AND THAT ALL OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE PREVIOUS
CONSENT REMAIN IN EFFECT AND
THAT THE PREVIOUS ORDER
REGARDINGED THE DIVISION OF TIME
ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED 2230 BE
MODIFIED TO REFLECT THIS
CONSENT.
THE TWO VOTES ORIGINALLY
SCHEDULED FOR 6:00 P.M. WILL NOW
BEGIN AT 5:30 P.M.
OBJECTION.
I ASK CONSENT TO
SPEAK IN MORNING BUSINESS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
RIGHT OUTSIDE THIS CHAMBER,
ACROSS THE STREET IS A HUGE
GATHERING.
IT'S THE THIRD DAY IN SUCCESSION
THAT PEOPLE FROM ALL ACROSS
SUPREME COURT.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT POINTS OF
VIEW.
THEY EXPRESS THOSE POINTS OF
VIEW IN VARIOUS WAYS: WITH
SIGNS, CHANTS, MUSIC, A VARIETY
OF OTHER COSTUMES THAT ARE WORN
TO EXPRESS THEIR POINT OF VIEW.
LET ME SALUTE THE FACT THAT THAT
OF PART OF AMERICA AND IT IS TO
BE PROTECTED.
WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.
IN SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD IT IS
AN EXCEPTION RATHER THAN A RULE.
IN AMERICA WE SHOULD CELEBRATE
IT EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE.
LET ME SAY A WORD ABOUT WHAT'S
GOING ON INSIDE THE BUILDING
ACROSS THE STREET.
THEY ARE CONSIDERING THE HEALTH
CARE REFORM BILL THAT WAS PASSED
BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
AND SIGNED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA.
SOME HAVE TRIED TO CHARACTERIZE
IT AS OBAMACARE.
FOR THE LONGEST TIME THAT WAS
THE BIGGEST APPLAUSE LINE AT
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL RALLIES
AS CANDIDATE AFTER CANDIDATE
STOOD UP AND SAID I WILL REPEAL
LET ME GUIDE THE DISCUSSION THAT
IS GUIDING THE ISSUE ACROSS THE
STREET.
EARLY THIS MORNING SEVERAL OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE WHO VOTED AGAINST THE
HEALTH CARE REFORM CAME TO THE
FLOOR TO EXPRESS THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THE NOTION OF A
HERE IS WHAT THE MANDATE IS
ABOUT.
CURRENTLY IN AMERICA THERE ARE
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO
SOME OF THEM BY CHOICE.
YOUNG PEOPLE THINK THEY'RE
INVINCIBLE.
THEY WON'T BUY IT.
SOME PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD IT.
BUT THE FACT IS THAT EVEN THESE
UNINSURED PEOPLE GET SICK.
AND WHEN THEY GET SICK, THE
VICTIMS OF TRAUMA, AUTOMOBILE
ACCIDENTS, DIAGNOSED WITH A
DISEASE, THEY DON'T STAY AT HOME
AND WAIT FOR DEATH.
THEY GO TO A HOSPITAL.
WHEN THEY ARRIVE AT THAT
HOSPITAL, THEY'RE TREATED.
EMERGENCY ROOMS, REGULAR
TREATMENT.
AND THEN THE BILLS ARE SENT
THEIR WAY.
AND WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE,
MANY OF THEM CAN'T PAY THE
BILLS.
A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AND A HALF
AGO I WENT IN FOR ONE NIGHT,
OVERNIGHT SURGERY IN CHICAGO.
FIRST TIME I WAS EVER IN A
HOSPITAL SINCE I WAS BORN.
EVERYTHING WORKED PERFECTLY.
THE ENDING WAS GREAT.
RESULT.
THE TOTAL BILL START TO FINISH
WAS $100,000.
LUCKY FOR ME, I'M A SENATOR.
I HAVE THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.
IT PAID FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING.
WHAT IF I HAD NO INSURANCE?
WELL, THEY WOULD HAVE SENT ME
THE BILL.
PERHAPS I COULD HAVE COME UP
WITH THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT.
BUT SOME PEOPLE CAN'T.
AND WHAT HAPPENS THEN?
THE HOSPITALS AND DOCTORS THEN
TAKE THESE BILLS AND SAY, WELL,
SO AND SO DIDN'T PAY THEIR BILL.
WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE SOMEONE
ELSE WHO IS PAYING MORE.
63% OF THE MEDICAL CARE GIVEN TO
UNINSURED PEOPLE IN AMERICA IS
NOT PAID FOR.
IT IS SHIFTED -- THAT FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY IS SHIFTED TO
UNDER GOVERNMENT INSURANCE
PROGRAMS.
AND WHAT IT MEANS IS FOR THOSE
OF US IN PRIVATE INSURANCE
PROGRAMS, WE PAY $1,000 MORE A
YEAR.
TO PAY OFF THE
UNINSURED.
THAT IS THE SUBSIDY WHICH
INSURED PEOPLE PAY TO COVER THE
UNPAID MEDICAL EXPENSES OF THE
UNINSURED.
THAT'S THE STARTING POINT.
UNTIL WE REACH THE POINT WHERE
EVERYONE IS UNDER THE TENT OF
INSURANCE, THIS WILL CONTINUE.
UNINSURED PEOPLE WILL GET SICK.
THOSE WHO BUY INSURANCE WILL PAY
FOR THEM.
THAT IS COST SHIFTING.
IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE DAY IN
AMERICA.
THE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL SAID
YOU HAVE TO HAVE HEALTH
INSURANCE.
IT IS A MANDATE.
BUT WE KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE
CAN'T AFFORD IT.
IF YOU'RE POOR, LOWER-INCOME
CATEGORIES, WE WILL ENROLL YOU
IN MEDICAID, SO YOU WILL HAVE AT
LEAST MEDICAID INSURANCE TO PAY
YOUR MEDICAL BILLS.
AT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER IN MY
HOMETOWN OF SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS, ED CURTIS, WHO RUNS
SAID TO ME,
SENATOR, IF YOU JUST DID THAT
ALONE, IF WE COULD JUST GET
MEDICAID PAYMENT FOR EVERYONE
WHO WALKED THROUGH THE DOOR, WE
WOULD BE FINE.
WHAT HURTS US ARE THOSE WHO PAY
NOTHING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
THE BILL THAT WE PASSED WENT ON
TO SAY THAT IF YOU'RE WORKING,
YOU WILL NEVER HAVE TO PAY MORE
THAN 8% OF YOUR INCOME FOR
HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
PEOPLE WOULD RATHER PAY NOTHING.
BUT 8% IS A LOT MORE MANAGEABLE
THAN PUT PEOPLE WHO ARE FACING
10%, 20%, 30% OF THEIR PAY GOING
TO HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
SO
WE BASICALLY HAVE CREATED A
REQUIREMENT TO HAVE HEALTH
INSURANCE BUT A HELPING HAND TO
REACH THAT GOAL.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO
ALREADY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE?
THEY ARE UNTOUCHED BY THIS
JUST CONTINUE ON.
LET LIFE CONTINUE.
YOU'VE MADE YOUR CHOICE.
YOU HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
DOESN'T AFFECT YOU.
WHAT I FIND INTERESTING ARE SO
MANY SENATORS, PRIMARILY FROM
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, WHO
COME TO THIS FLOOR CONDEMNING
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALTH
INSURANCE, GET THE GOVERNMENT
OUT OF HEALTH INSURANCE.
YOU HEAR THAT SPEECH OVER AND
OVER.
WHAT THEY DON'T TELL YOU IS
THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE
POLICIES ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, YOU AND I ARE
ELIGIBLE AS MEMBERS OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE -- SO, TOO,
ARE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE -- TO
BE PART OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES' HEALTH BENEFIT
PROGRAM.
THIS WAS CREATED DECADES AGO TO
PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR
PEOPLE WORKING FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
EIGHT MILLION PEOPLE AND THEIR
FAMILIES -- EMPLOYEES AND THEIR
PLAN.
WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED AS A NEW
SENATOR IS THAT THEY COME TO US
ONCE A YEAR AND THEY SAY,
DURBIN, YOU AND YOUR WIFE ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES'
HEALTH BENEFIT PROGRAM AND HERE
ARE THE PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS
YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM THAT ARE
ENROLLED IN OUR PROGRAM.
WE HAVE NINE CHOICES IN ILLINOIS
SO LORETTA AND I LOOK THROUGH
AND PICK THE PLAN THAT WE LIKE.
WE PAY PART OF MY INCOME AS
PREMIUM.
THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THE
IT IS A GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED
PLAN AND EACH YEAR WE HAVE OPEN
ENROLLMENT TO CHANGE, IF WE
WISH.
THIS PLAN HAS BEEN WILDLY
SUCCESSFUL AND POPULAR.
PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES
FIGHT TO ENROLL IN IT SO THEY
CAN COVER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
AND WE HAVE GOOD INSURANCE,
RELIABLE INSURANCE, AFFORDABLE
INSURANCE, INSURANCE THAT WE CAN
CHANGE IF WE DON'T LIKE IT.
A FEW YEARS BACK, ONE OF MY
EMPLOYEES NEEDED A SPECIFIC FOOT
SURGERY.
IT TURNED OUT HER HEALTH
INSURANCE DIDN'T COVER IT.
BUT SHE KNEW THE OPEN ENROLLMENT
PERIOD WAS COMING.
SHE WAITED AND ENROLLED IN A
PLAN THAT COVERED IT.
WHAT A LUXURY.
PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA WOULD
APPLAUD IF THEY THOUGHT THEY
COULD GET THAT TREATMENT.
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALTH
CARE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'VE WAITED
PATIENTLY NOW THROUGHOUT THIS
ENTIRE DEBATE FOR THE FIRST
REPUBLICAN SENATOR WHO CONDEMNS
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALTH
CARE TO COME TO THE WELL OF THE
SENATE AND ANNOUNCE THEY'RE
DROPPING THEIR OWN HEALTH
INSURANCE AS A MATTER OF
PRINCIPLE.
NO WAY.
I THINK PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA
ARE ENTITLED TO HEALTH INSURANCE
AT LEAST AS GOOD AS THE HEALTH
INSURANCE THAT MEMBERS OF
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A RADICAL
IDEA.
AND, IN FACT, THE HEALTH CARE
REFORM BILL THAT WE PASSED SAID
THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WILL BE
PART OF THE SAME INSURANCE
EXCHANGES WHICH WE ARE CREATING
ALL ACROSS AMERICA.
THAT IS ONLY FAIR.
I'M HOPING THAT IT OFFERS THE
SAME PLANS AS THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT PROGRAM,
BUT I'M SURE IT WILL OFFER ME A
CHOICE.
AND WITH THAT CHOICE, I'M SURE
MY FAMILY WILL GET GOOD
COVERAGE.
SO WHEN I HEAR THE DEBATES
ACROSS THE STREET SUGGESTING
THAT THE NOTION OF REQUIRING
PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE
OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I STRUGGLE
WITH THAT CONCEPT.
WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO -- REDUCE THE OVERALL COST OF
HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE
REQUIREMENT OF HAVING HEALTH
INSURANCE IS NOT THAT MUCH
DIFFERENT THAN THE REQUIREMENT
OF PAYING IN TO SOCIAL SECURITY
IF YOU GO TO WORK IN AMERICA.
OR IF YOU WANT ANOTHER PARALLEL,
IN MY STATE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE
INSURANCE TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE
THEY DON'T WANT YOU GETTING
INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WITHOUT
IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE OTHER
DRIVER, FOR ONE THING, LET ALONE
THE PERSON WHO MIGHT BE INJURED
IN THE CAR.
THESE ARE MANDATES UNDER THE LAW
RELATIVE TO INSURANCE, ONE FOR
RETIREMENT, THE OTHER FOR
LIABILITY, THAT ARE BUILT INTO
THE LAW AND WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE
MARCHING IN THE STREETS OVER
THEM.
WE'VE GOT TO REACH A POINT IN
THIS COUNTRY WHERE WE REACH
BALANCE, AND THE BALANCE
SUGGESTS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND IT MEANS THAT THE MILLIONS
AMERICANS WHO SHOULD HAVE,
WHO COULD HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE
WITH THE HELP OF A TAX BREAK,
WITH THE HELP, PERHAPS, OF
MEDICAID, SHOULD HAVE THAT
INSURANCE SO THAT THE BURDEN OF
THEIR MEDICAL BILLS DOESN'T FALL
ON EVERY OTHER FAMILY AND EVERY
OTHER INSURED PERSON.
THOSE WHO ARE SCREAMING FOR
FREEDOM OUGHT TO STOP AND THINK
OF SOMETHING.
THOSE WHO ARE ACCEPTING THE
RESPONSIBILITY, THE PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF HAVING HEALTH
INSURANCE, ARE EXERCISING THEIR
RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILY
AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THE
FREEDOM, THE PEACE OF MIND OF
KNOWING THAT THEIR NEIGHBOR, WHO
DIDN'T ACCEPT HIS PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WILL NOT PASS
HIS MEDICAL BILLS ON TO THEM.
THAT I THINK IS THE BASIS OF
WHAT WE ARE DEBATING ACROSS THE
STREET.
I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE A POINT,
IF I CAN, ABOUT A BILL THAT WAS
PENDING THIS WEEK.
IT WAS OFFERED BY SENATOR
MENENDEZ OF NEW JERSEY TO END
OIL SUBSIDIES, FEDERAL SUBSIDIES
TO OIL COMPANIES.
THIS LAST SUNDAY IN CHICAGO, I
WENT BY A B.P. GAS STATION ON
THE CONGRESS PARKWAY, CONGRESS
AND I SAW IT FOR THE FIRST
TIME -- MORE THAN $5 A GALLON.
$5,03 FOR ULTIMATE GASOLINE AT
THE B.P. STATION.
ILLINOIS, FOR REASONS I CANNOT
EXPLAIN, HAS THE HIGHEST
GASOLINE PRICES IN AMERICA.
WE HAVE REFINERIES ALL OVER OUR
STATE.
I DON'T GET IT.
BUT I KNOW THAT IT'S A RECURRING
PROBLEM AND A RECURRING THEME.
EVERY SPRING WE GO THROUGH THIS.
THE RUN-UP TO EASTER IS THE TIME
FOR EVERY POLITICIAN IN AMERICA
TO DUST OFF THE PRESS RELEASE
EXPRESSING OUTRAGE AT OUR OIL
THEY DO IT TO US EVERY YEAR.
AND THEY COME UP WITH CONVENIENT
EXCUSES.
"YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL ABOUT
UNCERTAINTY IN THE MIDDLE EAST."
HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN PLAYING
THAT CARD?
SEASONS.
YOU SEE, WHEN WE GO FROM WINTER
TO SPRING, WE JUST WEREN'T READY
FOR IT.
REALLY?
YOU WEREN'T READY FOR THE CHANGE
OF SEASONS?
OR, "THERE WAS A REFINERY
ACCIDENT IN SOME TOWN IN THE
MIDWEST 400 MILES AWAY AND IT
REALLY HAS DISRUPTED
WELL, I DON'T BUY IT.
I HAVEN'T OVER THE YEARS.
WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS WHAT THEY
CAN DO.
THEY RUN OF THE PRICE OF THIS
COMMODITY BECAUSE WE HAVE NO
UNTIL WE HAVE A CHOICE IN THE
VEHICLES THAT WE DRIVE OR IN THE
SOURCES OF ENERGY THAT WE USE,
WE'RE KIND OF STUCK WITH OIL
COMPANIES.
BUT WE'RE NOT STUCK WITH PAYING
A $4 BILLION ANNUAL SUBSIDY TO
THESE OIL COMPANIES.
THAT'S WHAT THE TAX BREAKS WE
GIVE TO OIL COMPANIES COMES TO.
SENATOR MENENDEZ OF NEW JERSEY
HAS SAID STOP IT, TAKE THE
$4 BILLION, INVEST IT IN
RENEWABLE, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
RESEARCH AND TAKE THE REST AND
REDUCE THE DEFICIT.
THE FIVE BIGGEST OIL COMPANIES
HAD PROFITS OF OVER $137 BILLION
LAST YEAR.
THEY WON'T MISS $4 BILLION.
AND WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED THAT WE
TO SHOVE SUBSIDIES AT
THEM WHEN THEY'RE SO PROFITABLE.
WHAT IS HAPPENING WHEN IT COMES
TO OIL EXPLORATION?
IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION.
WE ARE NOW AT AN EIGHT-YEAR HIGH
IN TERMS OF THE OIL PRODUCTION
IN AMERICA.
STARTING UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH,
CONTINUING UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA
WE HAVE MORE OIL AND GAS RIGS IN
PLACE WORKING TODAY IN THE
UNITED STATES THAN IN THE REST
OF THE WORLD COMBINED.
SO THOSE WHO SAY, IF WE JUST
DRILLED A LITTLE MORE, GASOLINE
PRICES WOULD COME DOWN.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.
WE ARE INCREASING THE SUPPLY YET
THE PRICES GO UP.
AND, SECONDLY, WE ALSO
UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN IT COMES TO
THESE GASOLINE PRICES, THAT EVEN
WHEN THE SUPPLY GOES UP, THE
PRICES ARE GOING UP.
DEFIES THE LAW OF PHYSICS.
RECESSION.
SUPPLY IS UP AND PRICES ARE
GOING UP.
THAT VIOLATES PRINCIPLES OF
ECONOMICS 101 THAT I STUDIED IN
COLLEGE.
SENATOR MENENDEZ IS
SUGGESTING IS A MOVE IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION, NOT JUST
BECAUSE WE CAN'T JUSTIFY ANYMORE
THE SUBSIDIES TO OIL COMPANIES,
BUT BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE
INVESTING IN NEW IDEAS THAT WILL
MOVE US FORWARD IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
THIS MORNING WE HAD A MEETING --
I THINK THE PRESIDING OFFICER
ATTENDED -- AND THE C.E.O. OF
CHRYSLER CORPORATION WAS THERE.
MARCHIONI.
AND HE'S A CURIOUS FELLOW.
I DON'T THINK HE OWNS A SUIT AND
TIE -- HE NEVER WEARS ONE.
C.E.O. OF A MAJOR CORPORATION,
SWEATER.
SEE HIM ALL THE TIME.
BUT YOU GOT TO GIVE HIM CREDIT.
HE TOOK CHRYSLER CORPORATION, ON
THE ROPES, STRUGGLING, NEAR
DISTINCTION -- EXTINCTION,
RATHER, AND TURNED THEM AROUND
COMPLETELY.
THEY ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE
THAN DOUBLING THE AUTOMOBILE AS
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE
SELLING.
THOSE WHO THOUGHT THAT THE
AUTOMOBILE BAILOUT, AS THEY CALL
TO THIS MAN.
CAN TELL HIM THE STORY OF
BELVEDERE, ILLINOIS, NORTHERN
ILLINOIS, BOONE COUNTY.
WE HAVE A CHRYSLER PRODUCTION
FACILITY THAT MARCHIONI CAME IN
TO ME AND SAID IS ONE OF THEIR
THEY'VE NOW GONE ON TO A SECOND
SHIFT, AND HE SAID BY THE END OF
THE YEAR, WE'LL GO TO A THIRD
SHIFT IN PRODUCING CARS FOR
AMERICA.
HE GETS IT.
AND WHEN YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT
FUEL EFFICIENCY AND FUEL ECONOMY
IN CARS, THEY'RE MOVING IN THIS
DIRECTION, THEY'RE COMMITTED TO
IT.
THE PRESIDENT BROKERED AN
COMPANIES THAT THEY WILL MAKE
MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES.
THAT'S GOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS.
WE NEED TO BE SUBSIDIZING
RESEARCH INTO BETTER, MORE
EFFICIENT FORMS OF ENERGY
INSTEAD OF SUBSIDIZING OIL
COMPANIES WITH RECORD-BREAKING
PROFITS.
YIELD FOR JUST A MOMENT?
I CERTAINLY WILL.
I THANK THE ASSISTANT
MAJORITY LEADER.
I HEARD HIS COMMENTS ABOUT
CHRYSLER AND THE C.E.O. IS IN
TOWN TODAY TALKING TO SOME OF
THE COLLEAGUES, AND ONE OF THE
UNTOLD STORIES OF THE AUTO
RESCUE IS NOT JUST THAT IN MY
STATE, 800,000 -- 800,000 PEOPLE
ARE -- WORK DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY FOR THE AUTO
INDUSTRY, 800,000 PEOPLE.
MOST OF THOSE ARE PART OF THE
SUPPLY CHAIN THAT SELL
PRODUCT -- THAT MAKE PRODUCTS
AND THAT -- AND SELL THOSE
PRODUCTS -- I MEAN, A LARGE
NUMBER OF THEM THAT SELL THOSE
PRODUCTS THAT ARE ASSEMBLED IN
LORDSTOWN OR IN TOLEDO OR
DIFFERENT PLACES IN OHIO.
BUT ONE OF THE UNTOLD STORIES IS
THAT NOT ONLY WERE THESE JOBS
SAVED AND THESE COMPANIES SAVED
FROM GOING BANKRUPT AND WHO
KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED
TO A SAY THE LIKE MINE WHICH
PRETTY MUCH OF THE STATE IS
DEPENDENT ON THE AUTO INDUSTRY.
BUT IN THE CASE OF THE TEE LOW
DOE JEEP PLANT, PRIOR TO THE
AUTO RESCUE, ONLY 50% OF THE
PRODUCTS, THE COMPONENTS THAT
WENT INTO THE JEEP WRANGLER WERE
MADE IN THE UNITED STATES, ONLY
AFTER THE AUTO RESCUE, AFTER THE
PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT
NEGOTIATED WITH THE AUTO
INDUSTRY AND -- AND THE AUTO
TASK FORCE AND THE HOUSE AND
SENATE WEIGHED IN AND SENATOR
DURBIN IS A LEADER OF -- LEADER
AS A LEADER OF THIS BODY,
WEIGHED IN, NOW 75% OF THE
PRODUCTS, THE COMPONENTS THAT GO
INTO THIS JEEP WRANGLER ARE MADE
IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO WE'RE NOT JUST SEEING THE
5,000 JOBS AT LORDSTOWN MAKING
THE CHEVY CRUZ OR THE JOBS AT
HONDA ASSEMBLY PLANTS IN
MARIESVILLE, OHIO, OR TOLEDO OR
FOR, WE'RE ALSO SEEING A LOT OF
THE -- OR FORD, WE'RE ALSO
SEEING A LOT OF THE SUPPLY
ARE MADE IN THE UNITED STATES.
AND THESE ARE GOOD-PAYING, OFTEN
UNION JOBS AND OFTEN NOT UNION
JOBS, BUT THEY'RE ALL
GOOD-PAYING INDUSTRIAL JOBS THAT
GIVE PEOPLE A TICKET TO THE
MIDDLE CLASS, HELPS THEM SEND
THEIR SON OR DAUGHTER TO SCHOOL,
OR BUY A CAR.
WITHOUT THAT, MY STATE WOULD
PROBABLY BE IN DEPRESSION, AS
THE ASSISTANT LEADER KNOWS.
I WOULD SAY TO THE
SENATOR FROM OHIO, THAT'S A GOOD
POINT AND ONE THAT WE OUGHT TO
MAKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
BECAUSE THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT
THE DOWNTURN IN THE RECESSION
FORCED THE MANAGEMENT OF THESE
AUTO COMPANIES AND THE WORKERS
TO STEP BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT
THE CHALLENGES THEY FACED.
MR. MARCHIONNE, THE C.E.O. OF
CHRYSLER, SAID THIS MORNING
WE'RE WHERE WE ARE TODAY BECAUSE
OUR U.A.W. WORKERS, UNION
WORKERS, SAT DOWN AT THE TABLE
AND SAID, WE'VE GOT TO AGREE ON
A FUTURE TOGETHER OR WE'RE SUNK.
THEY AGREED ON THAT FUTURE AND
HE SAID, NOW MY WORK FORCE IS
EXCITED AND PRODUCTIVE.
POINTED.
MORE BUSINESS -- YOU'VE JUST
MADE THE POINT.
MORE BUSINESS IS COMING BACK
FROM OVERSEAS.
IT'S A GREAT SUCCESS STORY.
I'VE BEEN TO THE
PLANT WHERE THEY MAKE THE ENGINE
FOR THE CHEVY CRU DISI, -- CRUZ,
I'VE BEEN TO SOME OF THE
ASSEMBLY PLANTS, NOT ONLY ARE
THE WORKERS EXCITED -- AND HE
THE WORKERS SACRIFICED A LOT --
ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE TOOK A LOT
WITH THE LAW -- WITH THE MANAGED
BANKRUPTCY OF THOSE TWO
COMPANIES, BUT -- BUT WE HAVE
SEEN NOT JUST THE AUTO INDUSTRY
BUT FOR 12 YEARS, FROM
1997-2009, NATIONALLY, AND IN MY
STATE -- AND I ASSUME IN
ILLINOIS TOO, OHIO, ILLINOIS,
ALL OVER THE COUNTRY -- WE LOST
MANUFACTURING JOBS IN THIS
COUNTRY FOR 12 YEARS.
FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, ALMOST
EVERY MONTH WE'VE GAINED
MANUFACTURING JOBS.
THE AUTO RESCUE'S NOT THE ONLY
REASON.
A PRODUCTIVE WORK FORCE, WE'RE
TRAINING WORKERS BETTER.
I HAVE A 55 COLLEGE PRESIDENTS I
JUST MET WITH THAT I BRING TO
WASHINGTON FOR A CONFERENCE.
IT'S THE FIFTH YEAR IN A ROW.
SENATOR PORTMAN JUST MET WITH
THEM, CONGRESSMAN SUTTON AND
SOME OTHERS.
AND THEY ARE MORE FOCUSED THAN
EVER ON MANUFACTURING, WORKING
TO TRAIN THOSE PEOPLE SO THEY GO
INTO MANUFACTURING.
I MEAN, THE STUDENTS THAT THEY
ARE EDUCATING ARE IN A WHOLE LOT
OF FIELDS BUT ONE OF THEM IS
FOCUSING ON HOW DO WE TRAIN
PEOPLE TO DO THIS HIGH-END, MUCH
MORE TECHNICAL, COMPLICATED
MANUFACTURING THAN A GENERATION
AGO?
AND IT'S STARTING TO WORK.
AND IT'S NOT LOST ON THEAMERICAN PEOPLE.