Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
BRINGING RELIEF TO THE PUMP.
AND SEEING NO ONE WHO IS SEEKING
TO SPEAK -- DOES THE GENTLEMAN
SEEK TO SPEAK?
IF SO, I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT.
THE
SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.
REQUEST THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR UP TO
TEN MINUTES ON THE PENDING
ENERGY LEGISLATION.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I'M HERE TODAY TO
INTRODUCE A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT
TO THE MENENDEZ ACT WHICH IS
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION ON
THE SENATE FLOOR.
THAT IS SENATE BILL 2204.
THE AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE
TO -- THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT
BY LIKE TO INTRODUCE TODAY IS
LEGISLATION THAT I'VE AUTHORED
ALONG WITH SENATORS LUGAR AND
ALSO SENATOR VITTER.
IT'S LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
APPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
KEYSTONE X.L. PIPELINE AND
AUTHORIZE THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION
PROCEED.
THAT AUTHORITY IS PROVIDED TO
CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND
WITH GAS PRICES NOW CLOSE TO $4
AND GOING HIGHER, CONGRESS
NEEDS TO ACT.
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TURNED DOWN
THE PIPELINE, HE CONTINUES TO
BLOCK THE KEYSTONE X.L. PIPELINE
IS TIME FOR CONGRESS TO
ACT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
CONSUMER.
EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN, EVERY
HARD-WORKING AMERICAN, IS
FEELING THIS PAIN AT THE PUMP.
KEYSTONE X.L. PIPELINE WOULD
HELP US PRODUCE MORE SUPPLY,
MORE ENERGY SUPPLY FOR OUR
COUNTRY TO HELP REDUCE THE PRICE
OF GASOLINE AT THE PUMP.
IT WILL HELP US CREATE MORE JOBS
IN THIS COUNTRY TO PUT MORE --
CLOSE TO 13 MILLION AMERICANS
WHO ARE NOW UNEMPLOYED TO HELP
PUT THOSE AMERICANS, PUT MORE
OF THOSE AMERICANS BACK TO WORK.
AND, OF COURSE, TO HELP REDUCE
OUR RELIANCE ON OIL FROM THE
MIDDLE EAST.
THE FIRST CHART I HAVE WITH ME
HERE TODAY SHOWS WHAT'S
HAPPENING WITH GASOLINE PRICES
IN THE UNITED STATES.
PERIOD.
THIS IS OVER THE LAST THREE-YEAR
AND THIS SHOWS THAT THE GASOLINE
PRICE WAS ABOUT $1.87 WHEN
PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE
THREE YEARS AGO.
TODAY THE NATIONAL AVERAGE I
TRIPLE A IS ON THE
ORDER OF $3.91.
SO THE PRICE OF GASOLINE DURING
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S
TENURE HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED.
IT HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED.
I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING LIKE
EIGHT OR NINE STATES NOW WHERE
THE AVERAGE PRICE OF GLEENCH IN
THOSE STATES IS -- GASOLINE IN
THOSE STATES IS OVER $4.
IN PLACES LIKE CHICAGO, THE
PRESIDENT'S HOMETOWN, I BELIEVE
THAT THE AVERAGE PRICE IN
$4.68.
CHICAGO IS ON THE ORDER OF
IF YOU GO RIGHT DOWN TO THE
CORNER HERE RIGHT NOW THE
CAPITOL I FILLED MY CAR THE
OTHER DAY, COST MORE THAN $100
TO FILL THE TANK AND I THINK THE
PRICE WAS $4.39 A GALLON.
SO WHAT'S THE SOLUTION OFFERED
IN THE MENENDEZ LEGISLATION?
WHAT'S THE SOLUTION PROPOSED BY
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, WHAT
IS THE SOLUTION PROPOSED IN THIS
BILL WE'RE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW
HERE ON THE SENATE FLOOR?
WELL, WHAT THAT BILL WOULD DO IS
COMPANIES.
IT WOULD RAISE TAXES ON ENERGY
COMPANIES.
IT WOULD RAISE TAXES ON ENERGY
LET'S THINK ABOUT THIS.
WE'RE GOING TO RAISE TAXES ON
THESE ENERGY COMPANIES SO WE'RE
GOING TO INCREASE THEIR COSTS.
WHEN YOU ADD TAXES, THAT MEANS
IT NOT ONLY RAISES THEIR COSTS,
WHICH WILL CREATE EVEN HIGHER
COSTS AT THE PUMP FOR AMERICAN
CONSUMERS BUT ALSO TENDS TO
RESTRICT SUPPLY.
IF YOU WANT LESS OF SOMETHING,
AND IF YOU WANT IT TO COST
MORE, WHAT DO YOU DO?
YOU TAX IT.
SO THIS LEGISLATION DOES EXACTLY
THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WILL HELP
THE AMERICAN CONSUMERS WITH THE
PRICE OF GASOLINE AT THE PUMP.
INSTEAD WE NEED TO INCREASE
SUPPLY.
WE NEED TO INCREASE SUPPLY BY
PROVIDING MORE SUPPLY, WE HELP
CREATE DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON
GASOLINE PRICES.
THAT HELPS OUR HARD-WORKING
AMERICANS NOT ONLY TODAY BUT
TOMORROW AS WELL.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.
YOU KNOW, WHY ARE GAS PRICES
HIGH?
IT IS SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
THIS IS ECONOMICS.
THIS IS ABOUT SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
YOU INCREASE SUPPLY, YOU PUT
DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON PRICES.
YOU INCREASE DEMAND, YOU PUT
UPWARD PRESSURE ON PRICES.
GLOBAL DEMAND FOR OIL IS
GROWING.
WE KNOW THAT.
GLOBAL DEMAND IS GROWING.
SO WE NEED TO INCREASE THE
SUPPLY,WISE THAT GROWING DEMAND
CONTINUES TO PUSH GASOLINE
PRICES HIGHER.
HERE'S THE AMOUNT OF CRUDE OIL
THAT WE PRODUCE IN THE UNITED
STATES ALONG WITH OUR GOOD
FRIENDS IN CANADA TODAY.
THAT'S SHOWN IN THE FIRST BAR ON
THIS CHART.
AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S JUST BELOW
10 MILLION BARRELS A DAY.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.
WITH THE CURRENT POLICIES THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS IN
PLACE, WE WILL ACTUALLY PRODUCE
LESS SUPPLY IN THE FUTURE.
LESS SUPPLY IN THE FUTURE.
SO THINK ABOUT THAT.
IF GASOLINE PRICES ARE A
FUNCTION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND,
IT'S NOT ONLY THE SUPPLY AND
DEMAND TODAY, IT'S WHAT PEOPLE
ANTICIPATE THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND
WILL BE IN THE FUTURE.
IF YOU HAVE GROWING GLOBAL
DEMAND, WHICH WE KNOW WE HAVE,
AND WE HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION
THAT IS CONSTRICTING SUPPLY,
THEN NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE AN
ISSUE IN TERMS OF PRESENT SUPPLY
AND DEMAND BUT PEOPLE SAY
THERE'S GOING TO BE LESS
SUPPLY, GROWING DEMAND, THAT
PUTS UPWARD PRESSURE ON PRICES.
SO THE ACTIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE A DIRECT
IMPACT, A DIRECT CORRELATION
WITH THE PRICE OF GASOLINE AT
THE PUMP AND 2459S WHY I SHOWED
IN THE PREVIOUS PUMP UNDER --
UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION
DOUBLED.
GASOLINE PRICES HAVE MORE THAN
SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED
TO PRODUCE ALL OF THE ABOVE.
WE NEED TO PRODUCE ALL OF THE
ABOVE.
NOW, NOTE THAT I SAID PRODUCE.
I DON'T MEAN TALK ABOUT IT.
I DON'T MEAN BLOCK IT WHEN IT
COMES TO BUILDING NEEDED
INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE THE KEYSTONE
X.L. PIPELINE OR PREVENTING US
FROM DRILLING OFFSHORE OR
PREVENTING US FROM DRILLING
ONSHORE OR HAVING RED TAPE THAT
PRESENTS PERMITS AND A
REGULATORY BURDEN THAT PREVENTS
US FROM PRODUCING MORE ENERGY.
I MEAN ACTUALLY DOING IT.
NOT BLOCKING IT, DOING IT.
THIS THIRD BAR SHOWS THAT IF WE
JUST WORK TO PRODUCE MORE OIL
AND GAS IN THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, WE CAN PRODUCE MORE
THAN WE CAN CONSUME, THAN WE
CONSUME, WITHIN 15 YEARS.
THAT'S JUST OIL AND GAS.
ABOVE.
THAT'S NOT EVEN ALL OF THE
THAT DOESN'T COUNT PRODUCING ALL
THE NATURAL GAS WE HAVE IN THIS
COUNTRY AND IN CANADA OR
BIOFUELS OR OTHER SOURCES.
THAT'S JUST OIL AND GAS IF WE
START WORKING TO PRODUCE IT
RATHER THAN HAVING THE
ADMINISTRATION CONTINUE TO BLOCK
IT.
AND OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT WITH THE KEYSTONE
X.L. PIPELINE.
KEYSTONE X.L. PIPELINE, THE
THE PRESIDENT HAS STUDIED THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS STUDIED IT,
THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS STUDIED
IT, THE E.P.A. HAS
STUDDEDDITY -- STUDIED WIT FOR
THREE AND A HALF YEARS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS
COME OUT AND SAID THEY DID A
STUDY, JUNE OF LAST YEAR.
IN THEIR STUDY THEY SAID WE NEED
THE CRUDE IN THE UNITED STATES,
USE THE CRUDE IN THE
UNITED STATES AND IT WILL LOWER
GAS PRICES ON THE EAST COAST,
ON THE GULF OF GULF COAST AND IN THE
MIDWEST.
SECRETARY CHU'S DEPARTMENT
PRODUCED THE REPORT AND THAT'S
WHAT IT SAID.
AFTER THREE AND A HALF YEARS,
THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT'S NOT
LONG ENOUGH, THE ADMINISTRATION
NEEDS MORE TIME TO MAKE A
DECISION AFTER HIS STATE
DEPARTMENT DEPTH SAID THEY'D
HAVE A DECISION DONE BEFORE THE
END OF THE YEAR, BEFORE THE END
OF THE YEAR, THE PRESIDENT SAYS
WE NEED MORE TIME, MAYBE
SOMETIME AFTER THE ELECTION,
MAYBE.
DECISION.
SO WE NEED MORE TIME TO MAKE THE
SO CONGRESS SAID OKAY, WE'LL
HELP OUT.
YOU'VE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT
THE ROUTING OF THE PIPELINE
THROUGH NEBRASKA.
WE'LL PASS LEGISLATION TO KIND
OF GIVE YOU SUPPORT AND
ENCOURAGEMENT HERE THAT SAYS
THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND BUILD THE
PIPELINE AND WE'LL GIVE THEM
WHATEVER TIME THEY NEED TO
REPROWT NEBRASKA BECAUSE THAT'S
WHAT IDENTIFIED AS THE PROBLEM.
WE PASSED THAT AS PART OF THE
PAYROLL TAX CUT EXTENSION.
THE PRESIDENT DENIES IT.
TURNS IT DOWN.
BLOCKS IT.
AND HE CONTINUES TO BLOCK THE
KEYSTONE X.L. PIPELINE TODAY.
SO A COUPLE WEEKS AGO,
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION, THE
VERY SAME LEGISLATION THAT I'M
OFFERING IN THIS SUBSTITUTE
AMENDMENT, WE BRING TO THE
SENATE FLOOR.
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION.
WE HAVE 11 DEMOCRATS THAT VOTE
WITH US.
56 VOTES.
WELL OVER A MAJORITY.
56 VOTES.
AND THE REASON WE DIDN'T GET 60
VOTES ON THE LEGISLATION IS
BECAUSE THAT DAY THE PRESIDENT
WAS CALLING MEMBERS OF THIS
BODY, THIS SENATE BODY, TO GET
THEM TO VOTE NO.
SO WE GOT 56 VOTES INSTEAD OF
THE 60 WE NEEDED.
AND THE VERY NEXT WEEK, THE
VERY NEXT WEEK AFTER CALLING
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE TO GET
THEM TO VOTE DOWN THIS
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE
MOVING FORWARD SO WE COULD
ACTUALLY BRING OIL IN FROM
CANADA, BRING MORE OIL FROM MY
MY HOME STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA TO
REFINERIES, THE VERY NEXT WEEK
AFTER BLOCKING THE PIPELINE,
AFTER CALLING MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE TO GET THEM TO VOTE
AGAINST IT, THE PRESIDENT GOES
TO CURKING,LE OKLAHOMA --
CUSHING, OKLAHOMA AND TAKES
CREDIT FOR THE SOUTHERN LEG OF
THE PIPELINE PROJECT SAYING
SOMEHOW HE'S SPLIETING IT.
-- EXPEDITING IT.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH THAT'S THE
ONLY PORTION OF THE PIPELINE
APPROVAL.
THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE HIS
BUT AFTER BLOCKING IT HE GOES
DOWN AND TAKES CREDIT FOR
SOMEHOW EXPEDITING THE PORTION
ANYWAY.
THAT WAS GOING TO BE BUILT
WHILE HE CONTINUES TO BLOCK THE
TWO-THIRDS THAT ACTUALLY BRINGS
US MORE OIL.
SO GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID JUST A
MINUTE AGO.
WE NEED MORE SUPPLY.
IF THE POLICY OF THIS COUNTRY IS
TO SAY ALL OF THE ABOVE BUT THEN
BLOCKING OUR ABILITY TO
PRODUCE MORE SUPPLY, GUESS WHAT
HAPPENS -- PRICES GO UP.
ACTIONS.
BECAUSE WHAT COUNTS ARE THE
THE MARKET SAYS --
THE
SENATOR'S TEN MINUTES HAS
EXPIRED.
I ASK PERMISSION FOR
ANOTHER 30 SECONDS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
SO THE MARKET TAKES
THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND SAYS
LOOK, IF SUPPLY IS GOING TO BE
CONSTRAINED WE ANTICIPATE HIGHER
PRICES IN THE FUTURE WITH
GROWING GLOBAL DEMAND AND THAT'S
THE PUMP.
WHAT YOU SEE, PRICES RISING AT
LOOK, WE CAN'T HAVE -- CAN
COUNTRY.
HAVE ENERGY SECURITY IN THIS
WE NEED TO INCREASE OUR OIL
PRODUCTION IN THIS COUNTRY AND
WORK WITH OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE
NORTH, CANADA, RATHER THAN
HAVE THEM SEND THEIR OIL TO
CHINA WHICH IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN
IF WE CAN'T BUILD THESE
PIPELINES.
WE NEED TO INCREASE OUR USE OF
NATURAL GAS, WE NEED TO DO ALL
OF THE ABOVE, INCREASE
RENEWABLES WITH A MARKET-BASED
APPROACH, A MARKET-BASED
APPROACH AND USE TECHNOLOGY TO
DRIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION IN THIS
COUNTRY AND WORKING WITH CANADA
BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP.
WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, IN CANADA
OIL IS PRODUCED IN THE OIL SANDS
WITH IN SITU WHICH IS THE NEW
TECHNIQUE, SIMILAR TO DRILLING
RATHER THAN THE OLD METHODS,
MORE ENERGY, BETTER
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.
LOOK, WE CAN CREATE A MORE
SECURE ENERGY FUTURE FOR OUR
COUNTRY, WE CAN CREATE JOBS
HERE IN AMERICA AND WE CAN
REDUCE THE PRICE OF GASOLINE AT
THE PUMP FOR HARD-WORKING
AMERICANS BUT WE NEED TO TAKE
COMMONSENSE STEPS AND WE NEED TO
TAKE THEM NOW TO PRODUCE MORE
OIL AND GAS, TO PRODUCE MORE
COUNTRY.
ENERGY OF ALL KINDS IN THIS
AND WE'RE ASKING FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO WORK WITH US TO DO
JUST THAT.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK AT
THIS POINT, I HAVE A
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, WHEN THE
SENATE RESUMES CONSIDERATION OF
THE PENDING ENERGY THE TAX BILL
WITH WOULD IT BE IN ORDER FOR ME
TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT
WHICH WOULD APPROVE THE EXEEN
EXEEN PIPELINE TO HELP --
X.L. PIPELINE TO HELP
AMERICANS WITH THE PRICE OF
GASOLINE?
IF THE
PENDING QUESTION WAS S. 2204 IT
WOULD TAKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
OFFER AMENDMENT TO THAT MEASURE
BECAUSE THERE IS NOT AN
AVAILABLE AMENDMENT SLOT AT THIS
TIME THE.
SO NO AMENDMENTS
WILL BE ALLOWED.
MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK THAT
THAT IS UNFORTUNATE.
IT IS TIME, IT IS WELL PAST
TIME TO TAKE ACTION ON BEHALF OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM ALASKA.
I FOLLOW MY
FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE FROM NORTH
DAKOTA, WHO HAS BEEN A REAL
LEADER HERE IN THESE CHAMBERS
TRYING TO EDUCATE NOT ONLY THOSE
IN THESE CHAMBERS BUT REALLY
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE VALUE,
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE KEYSTONE
X.L. PIPELINE AND WHAT IT MEANS
TO THIS COUNTRY NOT ONLY IN
OF RESOURCE THAT -- THAT
WE NEED BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF
JOBS, NOT ONLY CONSTRUCTION
JOBS BUT WHAT IT MEANS TO FILL
UP A PIPELINE AND PROVIDE FOR A
PRODUCT THAT GOES DOWN TO OUR
REFINERIES.
AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
AN ECONOMIC BOOM HERE, WE'RE
BETTER -- WHERE BETTER TO LOOK
THAN TO OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE
NORTH, AND I THANK SENATOR
HOEVEN FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON
THIS.
I, TOO, WANT TO TALK ABOUT OUR
OPPORTUNITY AS A NATION TO DO
MORE WHEN IT COMES TO INCREASING
SUPPLY WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRY.
AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON THIS
FLOOR NUMEROUS TIMES TODAY,
NUMEROUS TIMES YESTERDAY, WE
ARE IN A POSITION AS A NATION TO
BE DOING MORE TO ACCESS OUR OWN
RESOURCES, TO MAKE US LESS
DEPENDENT ON COUNTRIES THAT
DON'T LIKE US, TO MAKE US MORE
ENERGY SECURE, LESS ENERGY
A TIME WHEN
THE GEOPOLITICAL SCENE IS SO
SHAKY, EVERY STEP THAT WE CAN
TAKE TO -- TO MAKE US MORE
SECURE FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY
PERSPECTIVE AND AN ENERGY
SECURITY PERSPECTIVE IS CLEARLY
-- IMPORTANT.
IMPORT
SO I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT
THAT I HAVE FILED THAT I THINK
IS IMPORTANT TO THIS DEBATE.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR ACCESS
TO SUPPLY.
WHAT I'M GOING TO DISCUSS HERE
IN MY TEN MINUTES IS -- IS NOT
NEW.
MEMBERS HERE HAVE HEARD ME TALK
OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT THE
PROLIFIC OIL RESOURCES THAT
RESIDE IN ALASKA.
ACCORDING TO THE ENERGY
DEPARTMENT, WE'VE GOT OVER
40 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL THAT
COULD BE PRODUCED UP NORTH,
PROVIDING NOT ONLY THE ENERGY
BUT THE ENERGY SECURITY, JOBS,
NEW REVENUES.
BUILT ALREADY.
WE'VE GOT A PIPELINE THAT IS
WE DON'T NEED TO DEAL WITH THE
PERMITTING ISSUES THERE.
IT'S JUST WAITING TO CARRY OIL.
AND WE'VE GOT OVERWHELMING
SUPPORT FROM ALASKANS ON THIS.
WE DON'T HAVE IS WHAT IS --
IS PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT AND
THAT'S PERMISSION FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACTUALLY
DEVELOP OUR HUGE OIL FIELDS.
AND THE BIGGEST ON THE CONTINENT
ANWR.
IS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
FOR YEARS WE HAVE SOUGHT TO
DEVELOP A TOTAL OF 2,000 ACRES
IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE 1002
AREA FOR WHICH CONGRESS SET
ASIDE BACK IN 1980 TO ACCESS FOR
ENERGY EXPLORATION.
THEY KNEW BACK THEN THAT THIS
AREA HAD GREAT POTENTIAL.
THE 1002 AREA IS PROJECTED TO
CONTAIN MORE THAN 10 BILLION
BARRELS OF OIL.
IF YOU WERE TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT
THIS WAY, 1 MILLION BARRELS A
DAY COMING DOWN THAT PIPELINE,
COMING TO US FROM ANWR.
THAT'S ENOUGH, MR. PRESIDENT, TO
REPLACE VENEZUELA OR SAUDI
IMPORTS FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS.
ABOUT 30 YEARS.
TO THINK THAT WE COULD GET OFF
OF VENEZUELA, THAT WE WOULDN'T
NEED TO GO TO SAUDI ARABIA, TIN
CUP IN HAND BECAUSE WE'RE
PRODUCING IT OURSELVES HERE.
THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS TO
US.
AND FOR THOSE WHO BRING ABOUT
THE SPECULATION ARGUMENT AND
WHAT THAT DOES TO PRICES, JUST
THINK HOW THIS WOULD MESS THE
SPECULATORS UP IF YOU ADD
A MILLION BARRELS A DAY ON-LINE.
BUT INSTEAD OF US AS A COUNTRY
EMBRACING THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY
, EVERY EXCUSE IN THE
BOOK HAS BEEN THROWN AT US
AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.
WE HEAR THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS
GOING TO BE DEGRADED, THAT
WILDLIFE WILL BE DISTURBED, THAT
DESPITE A BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL
RECORD THAN JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE
ELSE IN THE WORLD AT PRUDHOE BAY
, WE JUST CAN'T DO IT, THEY
DON'T TRUST US TO DO IT.
BUT FOR 20 YEARS, WE'VE BEEN
HEARING NOW, WELL, DON'T --
DON'T GO TOWARDS ANWR, DON'T
DEVELOP ANWR BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU TEN YEARS
TO GET THAT ON-LINE.
AND SO, THEREFORE, IT'S NOT EVEN
WORTH CONSIDERING.
EVEN THE LATE-NIGHT TV SHOWS,
JAY LENO JOKES ABOUT THAT NOW
AND HE SAYS, DEMOCRATS SAID IT
WOULD TAKE TEN YEARS, TEN YEARS
AGO.
WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, IF YOU
DON'T GET STARTED, IT'S NEVER
GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT MONEY
IN THE GROUND INDEFINITELY IF WE
DON'T GET MOVING ON IT.
SO I DON'T -- I DON'T ACCEPT THE
THE -- THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN TOSSED OUT BUT THEY HAVEN'T
ACCEPTED THE FACTS THAT WE'VE
PRESENTED.
SO I'VE GOT AN AMENDMENT
LITTLE BIT HERE.
THAT'S -- THAT'S CHANGED JUST A
IT IS -- IT'S DESIGNED TO REALLY
ADDRESS THIS DEBATE.
IT WOULD PROHIBIT SURFACE
DEVELOPMENT ENTIRELY AND YET IT
STILL ALLOWS FOR A VERY
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE OIL
TO BE ACCESSED FROM OUR STATE
LANDS WITH DRILLS REACHING
BENEATH THE COASTAL PLAIN.
AND WE DO THIS BY ALLOWING ONLY
SUBSURFACE OCCUPANCY.
DRILLING PRODUCTION.
WE USE EXTENDED HORIZONTAL
RIGHT NOW IT CAN REACH ABOUT
EIGHT MILES MIELZ UNDERGROUND --
DIRECTIONS.
EIGHT MILES UNDERGROUND IN ALL
AND AS THE TECHNOLOGY CONTINUES
TO ADVANCE MORE AND MORE, THAT
REFUGE'S OIL COULD BE TAPPED.
AND AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE
NOT GOING TO BE OCCUPYING THE
SURFACE.
THIS IS NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY, IS
THIS LEGISLATION.
ALL THE LAND-BASED STRUCTURES
STATE LANDS.
WOULD BE LOCATED ON ADJACENT
YOU WOULDN'T SEE PERMANENT ROADS
, WELLS, BUILDINGS,
PIPELINES.
WOULDN'T EVEN BE CONSTRUCTED ON
THE SURFACE OF THE REFUGE.
IF YOU -- IF YOU WERE TO PUT
TOGETHER A SLIDE SHOW OF -- OF
DEVELOPMENT, THE SURFACE -- THE
SURFACE WOULD BE UNCHANGED
BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER
PRODUCTION.
SO THIS IS -- THIS IS ANWR, THIS
IS PROBABLY IN THE SPRING
BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TUFTS OF --
OF GRASS THAT ARE COMING UP
THROUGH THE MELTING SNOW.
BUT THIS IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT IT
WOULD LOOK LIKE BEFORE, DURING
AND AFTER BECAUSE WE ARE
UNDERNEATH THROUGH THE
TECHNOLOGY.
SO THE AMENDMENT THAT I'M
OFFERING GIVES US HERE IN THE
SENATE A CHANCE TO -- TO PUT
REASON AHEAD OF RHETORIC, POLICY
ABOVE POLITICS WHEN IT COMES TO
IN THE STATE.
IT'S A CHANCE TO END THIS
DECADES-OLD DISPUTE ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT DEVELOPMENT CAN
PROCEED SAFELY.
WE -- WE HAVEN'T JUST MET THE
OPPOSITION HALFWAY HERE ON ANWR,
WE'VE MET THEM 90% OF THE WAY.
WE'VE WRITTEN INTO THE AMENDMENT
MORE -- MORE STRINGENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS THAN ON
ANY OTHER FEDERAL LAND
WE'VE SACRIFICED 90% OF THE
REVENUES, WHICH ALASKA IS
ENTITLED TO UNDER OUR STATEHOOD
AGREEMENT.
WE'VE PROPOSED A 50-50 FEDERAL
SPLIT.
AND -- AND NOW IT JUST SEEMS
WE'RE BEGGING TO ACCESS A SMALL
FRACTION OF THE RESERVES FROM
MILES AWAY.
IT JUST -- IT DEFIES LOGIC,
MR. PRESIDENT, TO THINK THAT,
AGAIN, AN IDEA, A CONCEPT LIKE
THIS WOULD -- WOULD BE KEPT OFF
THE TABLE.
I REALIZE THAT MANY ARE DUG IN
ON THISSISH -- ON THIS ISSUE SO
I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THE
DEBATE, CHANGE THE CONVERSATION.
I WOULD ASK THE SENATE TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO CONSIDER HOW FAR WE
COMPROMISED ON THIS
AMENDMENT TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT
IS DIFFERENT, AND I WOULD HOPE
THAT WE CAN GET A VOTE ON IT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK AT
THIS TIME IN -- AS A POINT OF
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, WHEN THE
SENATE RESUMES CONSIDERATION OF
THE PENDING ENERGY TAX BILL,
WOULD IT BE IN ORDER FOR ME TO
OFFER MY AMENDMENT, WHICH IS
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1976, AT THAT
TIME?
IF THE
PENDING QUESTION WAS S. 2204, IT
WOULD TAKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
OFFER AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE -- TO
OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THAT
MEASURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO
AVAILABLE AMENDMENT SLOT AT THIS
TIME.
SO THE PRESIDENT
IS TELLING ME THAT ALL OF THE
AVAILABLE AMENDMENT SLOTS HAVE
BEEN FILLED BY THE MAJORITY
LEADER?
THAT IS
CORRECT.
I THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE ANOTHER
ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO -- TO
BRING UP TODAY IN THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
I'VE GOT TWO OTHER AMENDMENTS
THAT I WOULD LIKE THE BODY TO --
TO CONSIDER.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU HAVE JUST
SAID, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
I THINK WE RECOGNIZE IS THAT
MUCH OF OUR COUNTRY'S PRODUCTION
CAN -- CAN LAG DUE TO
ACCUMULATION OF RED TAPE, DUE TO
PERMITTING ISSUES.
WE KNOW THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN'T NECESSARILY SET
GLOBAL COMMODITY PRICES BUT IT
CAN -- IT CAN CREATE A SITUATION
WHERE CAPITAL THAT MIGHT BE
INVESTED IN AMERICA MINERAL
PRODUCTION IS STRANDED FOR LONG
PERIODS OF TIME AND THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT WE SEE HAPPENING.
I THINK IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.
SO WHAT WE SHOULDN'T DO, THEN,
AND PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF
ENERGY AND MINERALS DEVELOPMENT,
IS -- IS TO SUBJECT PROJECTS TO
AN UNNECESSARILY LONG PERMITTING
PROCESS.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
BEGIN TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION
AND IT WOULD DO SO BY USING THE
VERY LANGUAGE THAT THE PRESIDENT
USED LAST WEEK WITH HIS
EXECUTIVE ORDER HE SIGNED ON
MARCH 22.
MY AMENDMENT INCORPORATES
PROVISIONS THAT HAVE ATTRACTED
PRETTY BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
ON THE PAST HIGHWAY BILL THAT
WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS BODY.
THESE PROVISIONS ARE ONES THAT
WILL WORK.
ACCORDING TO A SEPTEMBER 2010
REPORT BY THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION, THESE REFORMS
HAVE CUT THE TIME REQUIRED TO
COMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
IN HALF.
THEY'VE MITIGATED THE DELAYS
CALLS BY LAST-MINUTE LEGAL
CHALLENGES.
WHAT THEY DO MORE SPECIFICALLY
IS TAKE THE PRESIDENT'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER AND -- AND PUT
SOME TEETH TO THEM, IF YOU WILL.
THE PRESIDENT JUST SIMPLY ASKED
THE AGENCIES TO CONSIDER MAKING
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS, BUT WHAT I
HAVE DONE THROUGH MY LEGISLATION
IS -- IS ASK FOR A PROCESS FOR
STATES TO NO, MA'AM NATE ITEMS
THAT MIGHT BE SUBJECT -- TO
NOMINATE ITEMS THAT MIGHT BE
SUBJECT TO NEPA, ALLOWS FOR A
SHORTENING OF REVIEW PERIODS,
DESIGNATION OF A SINGLE LEAD
AGENCY.
BUT IT IS A SITUATION THAT I DO
THINK RESTS ON A GOOD PREMISE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SUGGESTED THAT
THAT -- THAT THIS IS AN APPROACH
THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED
WHEN -- WHEN, AGAIN, THEY'RE
MAKING SUCH IMPROVEMENTS.
I WOULD SUGGEST IF IT'S GOOD
ENOUGH FOR THE PRESIDENT, GOOD
ENOUGH FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION
EASE, AS WE'VE SEEN DEMONSTRATED
IN THE HIGHWAY BILL, THAT IT'S
GOOD ENOUGH FOR OUR ENERGY,
AS WELL.
MINERAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO CALL UP
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1985, WHICH
INCLUDES ALL OF THE PROVISIONS
THAT I HAVE DESCRIBED.
IS THERE
AN OBJECTION?
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
RESERVING THE RIGHT
TO OBJECT.MY FRIEND --
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.
MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE FROM
ALASKA, I WOULD JUST SAY WE HAVE
A BILL BEFORE US RELATIVE TO THE
SUBSIDIES, TAX SUBSIDIES BEING
COMPANIES
, $4 BILLION A YEAR TO
COMPANIES WHICH REGISTERED
$137 BILLION IN PROFIT LAST
YEAR.
IT IS SUCH A POPULAR MEASURE
THAT IT -- MOVING TO IT
ATTRACTED A 92-4 VOTE IN THE
SENATE AND WE ARE TRYING TO
BRING THAT TO CLOSURE AND GET A
VOTE ON IT.
I KNOW THE SENATOR HAS AN
AMENDMENT SHE FEELS IS VAWBILITY
VAWBILITY -- IS VALUABLE.
I DON'T KNOW THE MERITS OF IT.
I'M SORRY I WASN'T ON THE FLOOR
TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EXPLANATION.
BUT WE HAVE JUST GONE THROUGH A
TRANSPORTATION BILL WHERE AFTER
MORE THAN A WEEK ON THE FEDERAL
TRANSPORTATION BILL, WE
ENTERTAINED AN AMENDMENT FROM
YOUR SIDE ON CONTRACEPTION.
AND SO WE'D LIKE TO, IF WE CAN,
LIMIT AMENDMENTS TO RELEVANT
ISSUES AND LIMIT THEM IN NUMBER
AND TRY TO ACTUALLY PASS A BILL
IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
BE ALMOST HISTORIC.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN DO THAT
IN A BIPARTISAN WAY AND I INVITE
THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA TO JOIN
US IN CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.
BUT UNTIL WE CAN REACH AN
AGREEMENT ON THAT, I'M AFRAID
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO OBJECT.
OBJECTION
IS HEARD.
WELL,
MR. PRESIDENT, I DO THINK IT'S
UNFORTUNATE THAT WE WON'T HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY.
I KNOW THAT SEVERAL OF MY
COLLEAGUES WILL BE COMING DOWN,
HAVE ALREADY COME DOWN TO OFFER
UP -- UP THEIR AMENDMENTS.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE -- THAT
THE TREE HAS BEEN FILLED.
THE AMENDMENT THAT I AM
PROPOSING -- I ACTUALLY HAVE
TWO.
ONE, AS I HAVE DESCRIBED, IS
PROBABLY BROADER IN SCOPE BUT I
ACTUALLY HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT
THAT -- THAT LITERALLY TAKES THE
PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER
AND -- AND PROVIDES FOR -- WELL,
PROVIDES INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
AGENCIES TO DO A RULE-MAKING TO
IMPLEMENT THEM WITHIN ONE YEAR.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE
DESIGNED.
SENATOR FROM ALASKA HAS -- HAS
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER.
BUT I THINK IT IS DESIGNED TO
GET US TO A -- AN EXPEDITED
PERMITTING PROCESS SO THAT WE
DON'T HAVE THE LAG TIMES THAT WE
SEE, WHETHER IT'S ON
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE OR
WHETHER IT IS ON ENERGY ISSUES.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD MEASURE AND
I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
ILLINOIS, IN THE -- IN THE
EFFORT TO BE WORKING TOGETHER,
WHICH I APPRECIATE, TO TAKE A
LOOK AT THIS AMENDMENT.
A APPARENTLY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
INTRODUCE OR TO CALL UP
AMENDMENT 1986.
BUT AGAIN, WHAT THAT
LEGISLATION -- OR WHAT THAT BILL
WOULD DO IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
IT'S JUST TO CODIFY PORTIONS OF
ORDER.
THE PRESIDENT'S RECENT EXECUTIVE
IT'S ENTITLED "IMPROVING
PERFORMANCE OF FEDERAL
PERMITTING."
HE HAS SUGGESTED IT.
I THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE AND NOW
WE'RE URGING THE AGENCIES TO
PROVIDE FOR AN IMPLEMENTATION.
AGAIN, I DO THINK THAT THIS
DEBATE THAT WE'RE HAVING ON THE
DEBATE.
FLOOR THIS WEEK IS AN IMPORTANT
WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE ISSUES
THAT -- THAT PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
CONCERNED.
FOLKS BACK HOME ARE -- ARE VERY
I JUST MET WITH A GROUP OF
STUDENTS.
ONE YOUNG MAN, HIGH SCHOOLER
FROM YAKITAT, PROBABLY DRIVING
HIS FIRST CAR AND THEY'RE PAYING
IN EXCESS OF $5.50 AT THE PUMP.
WHEN YOU'RE A 16, 17-YEAR-OLD
BOY, THAT'S PRETTY HIGH.
WHEN YOU'RE A PERSON OUR AGE,
THAT'S PRETTY HIGH.
WHAT ARE WE DOING AS A CONGRESS
TO HELP ADDRESS THESE ISSUES?
SO I -- I -- I CAN'T OVERSTATE
MY -- MY DISAPPOINTMENT THAT AS
WE'RE DEALING WITH THESE VERY
DIFFICULT ISSUES IN WHAT WE ALL
KNOW TO BE A GREAT DELIBERATIVE
BODY, THAT WE -- WE CAN'T MOVE
TO A PROCESS WHERE WE COULD
ALLOW FOR -- FOR FAIR AND
GERMANE AMENDMENTS THAT I THINK
THE ENERGY PROBLEMS THAT WE
WOULD HELP TO ADDRESS SOME OF
FACE, RECOGNIZE WHERE WE ARE
TODAY.
I SEE THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM
LOUISIANA HAS JOINED US ON THE
FLOOR AND MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL YIELD THE
FLOOR AND THANK THE PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I ALSO COME TO THE FLOOR TO
OFFER AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, THROUGH YOU,
LET ME ASSURE OUR COLLEAGUE FROM
ILLINOIS, THEY'RE NOT AMENDMENTS
ABOUT CONTRACEPTION OR ANY OTHER
UNRELATED ISSUE.
THEY'RE ENERGY AMENDMENTS.
THEY'RE AMENDMENTS THAT GO
DIRECTLY TO ONE OF THE GREATEST
CHALLENGES ALL OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS, FELLOW CITIZENS
FACE, WHICH IS THE EVER-RISING
PRICE AT THE PUMP.
I'M GHAD WE'RE ON THIS MEN --
I'M GLAD WE'RE ON THIS MENENDEZ
BILL BECAUSE AT LEAST IT PUTS US
ON THAT MAJOR CHALLENGE THAT
FACES LOUISIANA MIDDLE-CLASS
FAMILIES, LOWER MIDDLE-CLASS
FAMILIES AND THOSE FAMILIES IN
COUNTRY.
ILLINOIS AND ALL AROUND THE
AND SO I BRING AMENDMENTS
DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THAT.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS TO DO
WITH SUPPLY.
YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME
MR. PRESIDENT, WHY I OPPOSE
THE MENENDEZ BILL.
IT'S BECAUSE WHEN YOU TAX
SOMETHING AT A HIGHER LEVEL,
WHEN YOU INCREASE THE TAX ON IT
YOU GET LESS OF IT.
RAND SO IT'SAND SO IT'S GOING TO PRODUCE
LESS ENERGY; IN PARTICULAR, LESS
U.S. DOMESTIC ENERGY.
AND WHEN YOU LOWER LOWER SUPPLY, YOU
INCREASE THE PRICE.
IT IS GOING TO INCREASE THE
PRICE, HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
I THINK THE OPPOSITE APPROACH --
WE NEED TO INCREASE SPLIERKS --
WE NEED TO INCREASE SUPPLY,
STARTING RIGHT HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES.
MY AMENDMENT OFFERED ALONG WITH
SENATOR MURKOWSKI OF ALASKA,
NUMBER 1965, WOULD DO THAT.
WHAT IT WOULD DO IS REPLACE
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CURRENT
FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING WITH
BASICALLY THE PLAN THAT EXISTED
PREVIOUSLY, WHICH IS DOUBLE
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PLAN.
SO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PLAN, WHICH
HE PUT IN PLACE AFTER COMING
INTO OFFICE, IS ABOUT HALF OF
THE PREVIOUS PLAN.
IT BACKS US UP, IT TURNS US
AROUND, MOVING US IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION.
AMENDMENT 1965 WOULD TURN US
BACK, MOVE US IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION AND ADOPT PRETTY MUCH
THAT PREVIOUS PLAN TO EXPAND OUR
ACCESS TO OUR OWN U.S. ENERGY
RESOURCES OFFSHORE.
AND SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WITH THAT
SAID, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT --
EXCUSE ME ONE MINUTE -- I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WHEN THE
SENATE RETURNS TO CONSIDERATION
OF S. 2204, THE PENDING ENERGY
TAX BILL, IT BE IN ORDER FOR ME
TO OFFER AMENDMENT NUMBER 1965
WHICH I HAVE AUTHORED ALONG WITH
SENATOR MURKOWSKI.
IS
THERE AN OBJECTION?
RESERVING THE
RIGHT TO OBJECT --
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
THE SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA & CAN I GET INTO
DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER TAKING $5
BILLION AWAY FROM FIVE OIL
COMPANIES THAT REPORTED $137
BILLION IN PROFIT LAST YEAR IS
GOING TO CHANGE PRODUCTION OF
OIL, BUS WE'LL SAVE THAT FOR --
BUT WE'LL STHAIIVE FOR ANOTHER
DAY.
THIS AMENDMENT NEEDS TO GO
THROUGH YOUR LEADER AND WITH
SOME UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHETHER
WE'RE GOING TO STAY IN THE
ENERGY FIELD OR GO FAR AFIELD AS
WE HAVE IN PREVIOUS BILLS.
I AM AFRAID I AM CONSTRAINED TO
OBJECT UNTIL THAT TAKES PLACE.
THE
SENATOR OBJECTS.
THAT'S
PARTICULARLY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE
EVERYONE KNOWS OUR LEADER,ERN,
EVERYONE ON OUR SIDE HAS
ABSOLUTELY AGREED TO OFFER
ENERGY AMENDMENTS AND GIVE THE
OTHER SIDE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
ENERGY AMENDMENTS AND WE'RE
AGREEABLE TO THAT, AND
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
IT IS IN THAT CONTEXT THAT I
BRING UP ANOTHER ENERGY
AMENDMENT, OUR NEMENT AUTUMN 199
-- OUR AMENDMENT NUMBER 1997.
THIS IS ANOTHER HUGE OPPORTUNITY
WE HAVE IN THE UNITED STATES
RIGHT HERE AT HOME, AND THAT'S
ENORMOUS OIL RESOURCES THAT WE
CAN GET FROM WESTERN SHALE.
ACCORDING TO THE INSTITUTE FOR
ENERGY RESEARCH, QUOTE, "THE
USGS ESTIMATES THAT
UNCONVENTIONAL U.S. OIL SHALE
RESOURCES HOLD 2.6 BILLION
BARRELS OF OIL WITH ABOUT 1
TRILLION BARRELS THAT ARE
CONSIDERED RECOVERABLE UNDER
CURRENT ECONOMIC AND
TECHNOLOGICAL CONDITIONS.
THESE 1 TRILLION BARRELS ARE
NEARLY FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF
OIL RESERVES, SAUDI ARABIA'S
PROVEN OIL RESERVES."
THAT'S THE POTENTIAL WE HAVE
RIGHT HERE IN THIS COUNTRY, NEAR
MUST RESERVES -- ENORMOUS
RESERVES AVAILABLE NOW,
RECOVERABLE NOW.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
WELL, ONE BIG PROBLEM IS THAT
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS
CANCELED ALL LEASES TO ACCESS
THIS OIL SHALE.
THERE WAS MOVEMENT TO PROPERLY,
RESPONSIBLY ACCESS THAT 1
TRILLION BARRELS.
THAT HAS BEEN CANCELED UNDER THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
MY AMENDMENT, NUMBER 1997 --
AGAIN, OBVIOUSLY, AN ENERGY
AMENDMENT; CAN AFFECT PRICE AT
THE PUMP -- WOULD EXPEDITE
MOVEMENT TOWARD THAT IMPORTANT
RESEARCH -- RESOURCE, AND WOULD
GET US MOVING AGAIN IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION, ACCESSING THAT U.S.
ENERGY RESOURCE.
AND WITH THAT SAID,
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT WHEN THE SENATE
RETURNS TO CONSIDERATION OF
S. 2204, THE PENDING ENERGY TAX
BILL, IT BE IN ORDER FOR ME TO
OFFER THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER
IS
1997.
THERE AN OBJECTION?
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
FOR THE REASONS
STATED EARLIER, I OBJECT.
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
MR. PRESIDENT, IF
I CAN WRAP UP, AGAIN, I THINK IT
IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT REPUBLICANS
ARE PERFECTLY WILLING TO LIMIT
AMENDMENTS.
OURSELVES TO RELEVANT ENERGY
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING, THAT'S
FLOOR.
WHAT WE'RE BRINGING ON THE
LEADER McCONNELL HAS OFFERED
THAT.
LEADER McCONNELL HAS OFFERED A
LIKE NUMBER OF ENERGY AMENDMENTS
FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE.
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS WE'RE BEING
COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN AND SHUT
OUT.
NOW, THE MAIN ISSUE IS NOT THAT
I'M AGGRIEVED -- THE MAIN ISSUE
IS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
BEING SHUT OUT, THE FOLKS I
REPRESENT, THE FOLKS ALL OF US
REPRESENT ARE BEING SHUT OUT OF
OFFERING GOOD, SENSIBLE IDEAS TO
AT LEAST DEBATE AND VOTE ON, TO
ACCESS MORE AMERICAN ENERGY,
MORE U.S. ENERGY, TO HELP SOLVE
THE PRESSING PROBLEM OF THE
PRICE AT THE PUFN IN THAT WAY.
LET'S CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY
THAT THAT WAY.
IT IS A SENSIBLE SOLUTION, A
MAJOR SOLUTION.
IT'LL MOVE US IN THE RIOTER
--
DIRECTION.
DIRECTION.
IT'LL MOVE US IN THE RIGHT
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
I AM GLAD TO SEE
THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS HERE
ON THE FLOOR TO OBJECT TO MY
NEXT PROPOSAL.
MR. PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW,
THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, FROM
TIME TO TIME, WE HAVE PASSED
LEGISLATION THAT IF THERE WAS
EVER A NEED FOR IT%, IT PASSED A
LONG, LONG TIME AGO YET IT
REMAINS ON THE BOOKS.
I THINK ONE OF THE GREAT AND
OUTSTANDING EXAMPLES OF THAT IS
A THING CALLED THE JONES ACT.
THE JONES ACT, I'M SURE, MAY
HAVE HAD SOME RATIONALE BEHIND
ENACTED.
IT BACK IN 1920 WHEN IT WAS
I'M NOT SURE THERE'S
ONE AMERICAN OUT OF THE THOUSAND
WHO HAS EVER HEARD OF THE JONES
ACT -- BUT THE JONES ACT HAS A
DIRECT IMPACT ON OIL SUPPLIES,
ON THE COST OF OIL, AND THE COST
OF OTHER PRODUCTS.
BECAUSE WHAT THE JONES ACT SAYS,
INCREDIBLY, IS THAT ANY SHIP
THAT GOES BETWEEN TWO U.S. PORTS
-- I.E., WHETHER IT BE HONOLULU,
HAWAII, SAN FRANCISCO OR, ONE OF
THE GULF COAST PORTS TO THE
NORTHEAST OR ANYPLACE BETWEEN
TWO U.S. PORTS -- CAN ONLY BE
TRANSPORTED BY U.S.-OWNED,
CRUDE VESSELS.
U.S.-BUILT, U.S.-OWNED, AND U.S.
SO, I MEAN, TALK ABOUT
PROTECTIONISM ..., I MEAN,
THERE'S PROBABLY NO GREATER
EXAMPLE THAN THIS.
SO THE JONES ACT ENACTED IN 1920
HAS COST
CONSUMERS, ESPECIALLY IN PLACES
LIKE HAWAII WHERE THE
TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS IS LONG
DISTANCES, ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF
MONEY.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE 19 --
FEBRUARY 2012 ENERGY INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION REPORT, THERE ARE
ONLY 56 TANKERS THAT MEETS THE
JONES ACT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH
ASKACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF
BOTH THE TOTAL NUMBER AND THE
TOTAL DEAD WEIGHT TONNAGES OF
TANKS TANKERS IN THE WORLD.
SO LESS THAN 1% OF THE TANKERS
IN THE WORLD ARE ABLE -- ABLE,
BY LAW -- TO OPERATE BETWEEN TWO
U.S. PORTS.
SO WHAT DOES THIS DO?
I THINK OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT SUPPLY AND
CAPACITY, IT DRIVES UP THE COST
OF PETROLEUM.
IN FACT, SOMETIMES IT'S TWO OR
A
FOREIGN-FLAGGED SHIP RATES --
AGAIN, ACCORDING TO THE ENERGY
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION.
NOT ONLY THAT, THE JONES ACT
TANKERS, THOSE 56, AREN'T
READILY AVAILABLE, SO THE COSTS
CAN BE EVEN HIGHER THAN WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
LET ME JUST GIVE YOU ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF THE HARMS THE JONES
ACT DOES -- THE HARM THE JONES
ACT DOES TO AMERICAN CONSUMERS.
1999 U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION, NOT A REPUBLICAN OR
DEMOCRAT OR LIBERAL OR
CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATION, THE
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION SAID THAT A REPEAL OF
THE JONES ACT WOULD LOWER
SHIPPING COSTS BY APPROXIMATELY
22%.
A 2002 ECONOMIC STUDY FROM THAT
STAPLE COMMISSION FOUND THAT --
FROM THAT SAME COMMISSION FOUND
THAT REPEALING THE JONES ACT
WOULD HAVE A EFFECT OF $665
ECONOMY.
MILLION OVERALL ON THE U.S.
THAT'S PROBABLY NOW GIVEN THE
PRICE OF OIL CLOSE TO $1
BILLION.
THE JONES ACT ADDS REAL DIRECT
COST TO THE CONSUMERS.
AS I MENTIONED, PARTICULARLY --
AND I NOTICED THE SENATOR FROM
ALASKA ON THE FLOOR -- TO HAWAII
AND ALASKA.
A 1988 G.A.O. REPORT FOUND THAT
THE JONES ACT WAS COSTING
ALASKAN FAMILIES BETWEEN $1,921
AND $4,820 ANNUALLY FOR
INCREASED PRICES PAID ON GOODS
MAINLAND.
THAT WERE SHIPPED FROM THE
IN 1997, THE HAWAII GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL ASSERTED THAT "HAWAII
RESIDENTS PAY AN ADDITIONAL $1
BILLION PER YEAR IN HIGHER
PRICES BECAUSE OF THE JONES
ACT."
THIS AMOUNTS TO APPROXIMATELY
$3,000 FOR EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN
HAWAII."
AGAIN, THOSE FIGURES ARE FROM 19
198 TO 1997 -- 1988 TO 1997, AND
OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE HIGHER TODAY.
NOW, EVERYBODY SAYS THERE'S
NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE
IMMEDIATELY ABOUT THE PRICE OF
OIL.
MY FRIENDS, IF WE REPEAL THE
JONES ACT, WE WOULD HAVE AN
IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON THE PRICE OF
OIL BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE
TRANSPORTING OIL FROM THE GULF
COAST TO THE NORTHEAST AND IT
COSTS TWO OR THREE TIMES MORE,
IF THAT SUPPLY IS RESTRICTED TO
BE TRANSPORTED ONLY BY THESE 56
TANKERS, THEN OBVIOUSLY,
ACCORDING TO FIGURES THAT ARE
ACCURATE, THAT IT COSTS TWO TO
THREE TIMES MORE, THEN BY
ALLOWING OTHER FOREIGN-FLAGGED
SHIPS TO MOVE THESE GOODS AND
SERVICES BUT PARTICULARLY OIL
TANKERS, YOU COULD CUT THE COST
OF OIL -- OF GASOLINE
IMMEDIATELY.
SO THE NEXT TIME YOU HEAR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OR MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE, THERE'S NOTHING
THAT CAN BE DONE NOW ABOUT
REDUCING THE PRICE OF A GALLON
OF GASOLINE, YOU CAN DO IT BY
REPEALING THE JONES ACT
IMMEDIATELY.
EVER -- IF
THERE'S EVER A LAW THAT LONG AGO
OUTLIVED ITS UTILITY OR
USEFULNESS, IF IT EVER HAD ANY,
IT WAS THIS LAW THAT WAS PASSED
IN 1920.
ONLY AMERICAN-BUILT -- YOU CAN'T
EVEN BUY ANOTHER ONE THAT IS --
A TANKER OR A SHIP THAT'S BUILT
IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AND NOT HAVE
IT FALL UNDER THE JONES ACT,
EVEN IF IT IS AMERICAN-OWNED, AN
AMERICAN CREW.
AMAZING.
SO OBVIOUSLY, WHAT I'M LEADING
TO, OBVIOUSLY, IS THAT WE REPEAL
THE JONES ACT.
AND IF NOT REPEAL IT, WAIVE THE
JONES ACT.
IF NOT WAIVE IT, WAIVE IT JUST
FOR THE TRANSPORT OF OIL, FOR
OIL AND GAS TANKERS.
IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, LET'S JUST
WAIVE IT FOR SIX MONTHS.
WE JUST DO THAT FOR SIX
MONTHS?
SO I KNOW WHAT THE RESPONSE OF
THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS IS
GOING TO BE, AND THAT'S HIS DUTY
HERE ON THE FLOOR, AND I RESPECT
THAT.
BUT, MY FRIENDS, IF WE'RE REALLY
SERIOUS -- IF THE PRICE OF A
GALLON OF GASOLINE IS NOW THIS
MARCH, ACCORDING TO MEDIA
REPORTS, THE HIGHEST THAT IT'S
BEEN IN HISTORY, AND DEPENDING
ON WHAT HAPPENS AND IN A LOT OF
DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE WORLD,
PARTICULARLY THE MIDDLE EAST,
WHAT HAPPENS WITH IRAN AND OTHER
THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THIS
VERY DANGEROUS WORLD THAT WE'RE
LIVING IN TODAY, IT COULD GO
CONSIDERABLY HIGHER.
SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE A
COMMONSENSE APPROACH AND AT
LEAST FOR SIX MONTHS WAIVE THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE JONES ACT
FOR ONLY OIL & AND GASOLINE
TANKERS FOR JUST SIX MONTHS?
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT WOULD
MAKE A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE.
OF MY
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS ON
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO BE
DENIED.
BUT, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT
--
THE JONES ACT SHOULD BE PREELD.
SHOULD BE REPEALED.
COMPLETELY.
BUT IF IT CANNOT CAN'T BE
REPEALED, COULDN'T WE AT LEAST
WAIVE THE JONES ACT RESTRICTIONS
ON COASTWIDE TRADE FOR OIL AND
GAS TANKERS?
IF WE CAN'T WAIVE IT
PERMANENTLY, CAN'T WE WAIVE
MONTHS?
THOSE RESTRICTIONS FOR SIX
AND IF NOT THAT, CAN WE JUST --
BECAUSE WE ARE DISCUSSING ENERGY
AND THE PRICE OF OIL -- WAIVE
THE RESTRICTIONS, THE JONES ACT
RESTRICTIONS ON COAST WIDE TRADE
FOR O EUL AND GASOLINE FOR --
FOR OIL AND GASOLINE FOR SIX
MONTHS?
WITH THE INDULGENCE OF MY FRIEND
FROM ILLINOIS, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT WHEN THE SENATE
RETURNS TO CONSIDERATION OF
S. 2204, THE PENDING ENERGY TAX
BILL, IT BE IN ORDER FOR ME TO
OFFER THEM
ALL, BUT OFFER MY AMENDMENT
1948, WHICH IS, AS I DESCRIBED,
WOULD WAIVE THE JONES ACT
RESTRICTIONS.
IN OTHER WORDS, ALLOW A FOREIGN
FLAG TANK TORE MOVE OIL AND
GAS -- TANKER TO MOVE OIL AND
GAS, A WAIVER FOR SIX MONTHS TO
MOVE JUST OIL AND GAS TANKERS SO
WE CAN IMMEDIATELY REDUCE THE
COST OF TRANSPORTATION, WHICH
WOULD THEN TRANSLATE ITSELF AT
THE PUMP AT EVERY GAS STATION IN
AMERICA.
IS
THERE OBJECTION?
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
RESERVING THE
RIGHT TO OBJECT, I BELIEVE THE
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY IN ARIZONA
IS ABOUT THE SAME SIZE AS IT IS
IN ILLINOIS, SO I DON'T COME TO
THIS ISSUE WITH ANY PARTICULAR
HOMETOWN OR HOME-STATE VIEW, AND
I'M OPEN TO THE SENATOR'S
SUGGESTION.
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT AT THIS
MOMENT WE ARE CLEARLY FOCUSED ON
THING, AND THAT IS
ELIMINATING THE $4 BILLION
ANNUAL SUBSIDY TO THE FIVE BIG
OIL COMPANIES WHO REGISTERED
$137 BILLION IN PROFITS LAST
YEAR.
MOVING TO THIS MEASURE WAS VOTED
FAVORABLY BY 92 SENATORS.
AND WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THIS TO
A VOTE, AND PERHAPS WE MOVE TO
ANOTHER ISSUE, THE ONES YOU'RE
PROPOSING, AT ANOTHER TIME.
BUT AT THIS POINT I HAVE NO
OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO OBJECT
TO MY --
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
ALWAYS ENJOY A LITTLE DIALOGUE
BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE SENATOR
FROM ILLINOIS.
I HOPE THAT HE WOULD HAVE THE
SAME PASSION CONCERNING ALL
SUBSIDIES, INCLUDING THE
OUTRAGEOUS AND DISGRACEFUL
SUBSIDIES -- AND THERE IS A LOT
OF SOLAR IN THE STATE OF
ARIZONA.
A LOT OF SOLAR.
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT -- AND
I'LL STOP HERE.
BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY,
IF WE'RE GOING TO REPEAL THE OIL
AND GAS SUBSIDIES, LET'S REPEAL
THEM ALL.
LET'S REPEAL THEM ALL.
AGAIN, THE LOGIC
THAT SAYS IF WE ARE ABLE TO
IMMEDIATELY REDUCE THE COSTS OF
OIL BY REPEALING THE JONES ACT,
WHICH THEN WOULD REDUCE THE COST
OF TRANSPORTATION, WOULD THEN
REDUCE THE COST OF GASOLINE, WHY
WE SHOULD OUT OF HAND REJECT
SUCH A NOTION, SUCH A MOTION OR
AN EFFORT TO DO SO.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
POSITION OF THE MAJORITY IS, AND
THE DISTINGUISHED DEMOCRATIC
LEADER.
SO I KNOW OTHERS ARE WAITING, SO
I THANK THE SENATOR AND I YIELD
THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM WYOMING.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
HOW MUCH TIME REMAINS ON OUR
SIDE?
NO TIME
REMAINS.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO SPEAK FOR UP TO FIVE
MINUTES.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT OBAMA
OFTEN BOASTS ABOUT OIL
PRODUCTION THAT HE REALLY HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH.
AND MY AMENDMENTS THAT I'M
BRINGING FORTH TODAY WOULD ALLOW
HIM TO BE PROUD OF HIS OWN
PREDECESSOR'S.
RECORD INSTEAD OF HIS
THAT'S WHY, MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WHEN THE
SENATE RETURNS TO CONSIDERATION
OF S. 2204, THE PENDING ENERGY
TAX BILL, IT WOULD BE IN ORDER
FOR ME 0 OFFER AMENDMENT NUMBER
1956 AND 1957.
AMENDMENT 1956 WOULD ACCELERATE
PERMITTING OF OIL AND GAS
EXPLORATION ON OUR FEDERAL
PUBLIC LANDS.
AND AMENDMENT 1957 WOULD REQUIRE
FEDERAL AGENCIES TO USE EXISTING
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS
FOR OIL AND GAS PERMITTING.
WITHOUT IS
THERE OBJECTION?
MR. PRESIDENT, I
OBJECT.
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
THE REASON I
HAVE COME TO FLOOR IS TO SPEAK
ON BEHALF OF OF THESE AMENDMENTS
I HAVE FILED, A FEW WEEKS AGO WE
LEARNED OIL PRODUCTION ON
FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS IS DOWN.
SPECIFICALLY, WE LEARNED THERE
WAS A 14% DECREASE IN OIL
PRODUCTION ON FEDERAL PUBLIC
LANDS AND WATERS FROM 2010 TO
DECREASE IN GAS
PRODUCTION FROM 2010 TO 2011.
ON MARCH 14, BOB ABBEY, THE
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, TESTIFIED ABOUT THIS
BEFORE THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE.
HE EXPLAINED THAT THERE HAD BEEN
-- QUOTE -- "A SHIFT IN THE OIL
AND GAS PRODUCTION."
A SHIFT, HE SAYS, "TO PRIVATE
LANDS TO THE EAST AND TO THE
SOUTH, WHERE THERE IS A LESSER
AMOUNT OF FEDERAL MINERAL
ESTATE."
THAT'S WHY AMENDMENT NUMBER 1956
WOULD ACCELERATE PERMITTING FOR
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION ON OUR
FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS.
AND THAT'S WHY I JUST OFFER
THAT.
SO I TAKE A LOOK AT THE
AMENDMENTS, THE DISCUSSION ON
THE BILL ON THE FLOOR, AND
THAT'S WHY SPECIFICALLY I
OFFERED AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
RESCIND THE ADMINISTRATION'S
RULES REQUIRING WHAT IS CALLED
MASTER LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT
PLANS.
THESE REGULATIONS WERE PUT INTO
PLACE OVER TWO YEARS AGO BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
IT IS UNCLEAR WHY THE SECRETARY
ISSUED THESE REGULATIONS.
THEY ADD MORE RED TAPE.
THEY CAUSE MORE BUREAUCRATIC
DELAY AND THEY SLOW DOWN
AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO
REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATION TO
SET GOALS FOR OIL AND GAS
LANDS.
PRODUCTION ON FEDERAL PUBLIC
IT WOULD ENSURE THAT THE UNITED
STATES MAINTAINS OR INCREASES
ONSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION.
I HAVE ALSO FILED THAT SECOND
AMENDMENT, 1957, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO USE
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
DOCUMENTS FOR OIL AND GAS
PERMITTING.
WE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT
AMENDMENT, THIS WOULD EXPEDITE
THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO
PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT, OFTEN KNOWN AS NEPA.
TOO OFTEN NEPA DELAYS ONSHORE
AND OFFSHORE EXPLORATION.
MY AMENDMENT PROVIDES A
COMMONSENSE SOLUTION.
IT REQUIRES AGENCIES TO USE IN
WHOLE OR IN PART AN EXISTING
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT IF
THE DOCUMENT IS SUBSTANTIAL THE
SAME AS THE PERMIT UNDER
CONSIDERATION.
THIS AMENDMENT DOESN'T EXEMPT
AGE SREUS -- AGENCIES FROM
COMPLYING WITH NEPA AND DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR CATEGORICAL
EXCLUSIONS.
IT PROVIDES FOR AGENCIES TO USE
THEIR PREVIOUS WORK SO THEY
DON'T HAVE TO REINVENT THE
WHEEL.
DISOPPONENTED THE MAJORITY
MADAM PRESIDENT, I AM
CONTINUES TO PREVENT THE SENATE
FROM DOING ITS JOB AND THAT WE
AMENDMENTS.
HEARD AN OBJECTION TO THESE
HIGH GASOLINE PRICES ARE CAUSING
HARDSHIPS FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES
AND AMERICAN BUSINESSES.
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND I
FILED A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TO
S. 2204.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE VOTES ON
THESE AMENDMENTS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE STEPS TO
INCREASE AMERICAN OIL
PRODUCTION.
INSTEAD, LIKE WE JUST SAW, THE
MAJORITY SAYS "NO."
NO TO MORE AMERICAN ENERGY, THEY
SAY.
NO, THEY SAY, TO JOBS.
AND NO, THEY SAY, TO
SECURITY.
STRENGTHENING OUR ENERGY
WE CAN DO BETTER,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
AND IT IS MY HOPE THAT WE WILL.
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
RECOGNIZED.
SENATOR FROM ALASKA IS
MADAM PRESIDENT, I ASK
PERMISSION TO SPEAK FOR UP TO NO
MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
SO ORDERED.
THANK YOU,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
I WANTED TO TAKE JUST A FEW
MINUTES THIS AFTERNOON TO THANK
MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE COME DOWN
TO THE FLOOR THIS AFTERNOON, AND
FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO OFFER WHAT
I BELIEVE ARE OUR VERY
SUBSTANTIVE, VERY MEANINGFUL
AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGISLATION
THAT IS BEFORE US.
I THINK WE CAN CONDENSE THE
MESSAGE THAT YOU'VE HEARD HERE
THIS AFTERNOON PRETTY EASILY.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT
THE BILL BEFORE US IS HIGHLY
MISLEADING AND I DON'T BELIEVE
IT WILL WORK.
THE LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED, S. 2204, IS NOT
FEDERAL
SUBSIDIES FOR OIL AND GAS
NONE.
PRODUCERS, BECAUSE THERE ARE
THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES HERE.
THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
ACTUALLY SENDS MONEY TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE TUNE
OF TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
EACH YEAR, AND IT'S NOT THE
OTHER WAY AROUND.
BASIC TAX DEDUCTIONS THAT ALLOW
BUSINESSES TO RETAIN MORE OF
THEIR EARNED DOLLARS IS NOT THE
EQUIVALENT OF HANDING THEM A
CHECK.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST
THING THAT WE NEED TO GET OUT ON
THE TABLE AND MAKE VERY CLEAR.
AND THE SECOND POINT THAT I JUST
WANT TO REINFORCE IS S. 2204 IS
SIMPLY NOT GOING TO WORK.
BY DEFINITION, INCREASING COSTS
WILL NOT LOWER PRICES.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT I CAN
THINK OF THAT IF WE TAX IT MORE,
IT WILL MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE
AND MORE ABUNDANT.
WORK THAT WAY.
AND JUDGING FROM BOTH HISTORY
AND SOME RECENT INTERNATIONAL
EXAMPLES, IT'S VIRTUALLY CERTAIN
THAT S. 2204 WOULD HAVE DAMAGING
EFFECTS ON THIS COUNTRY.
BACK IN 1980, THE CARTER
ADMINISTRATION IMPOSED A
REMEMBER THAT.
WINDFALL PROFITS TAX -- WE
THIS WAS A TAX THAT WAS IMPOSED
ON DOMESTIC CRUDE OIL.
AND ACCORDING TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,
PRODUCTION.
THAT TAX REDUCED DOMESTIC OIL
IT INCREASED OUR DEPENDENCE ON
FOREIGN NATIONS.
AND IT COLLECTED FAR LESS IN
REVENUE THAN WAS EXPECTED.
THE EXAMPLE THAT IS MORE CURRENT
ON AN INTERNATIONAL SCENE IS ONE
THAT I SPOKE TO YESTERDAY, AND
BRITAIN.
THIS IS THE EXAMPLE IN GREAT
A YEAR AFTER RAISING ITS OIL TAX
RATES, PRODUCTION DECLINES IN
GREAT BRITAIN HAVE INCREASED
FROM 6% PER YEAR TO 18% PER
YEAR.
SO, AS A RESULT, GREAT BRITAIN
IS REVERSING THAT COURSE.
THEY'RE NOW PLANNING TO OFFER
NEW INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE
PRODUCERS TO RETURN TO THE NORTH
SEA.
ALL WE NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT A
REALTIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT ONE
COUNTRY DID IN AN EFFORT TO DEAL
WITH HIGH GAS PRICES.
THEY INCREASED THE TAXES.
INVESTMENT AND PRODUCTION GOES
OVERSEAS.
NOW THEY'RE TURNING THE CORNER
ON THIS, AND THEY'RE WORKING TO
REDUCE THEIR TAXES.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK THERE
IS CLEARLY A BETTER WAY HERE.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAS
REFUSED TO EVEN CONSIDER
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL INCREASE
FEDERAL OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION,
CREATE GOOD JOBS IN THIS
COUNTRY, GENERATE BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OF FEDERAL REVENUES AT A
TIME THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED
THEM.
RESTRAIN, IF NOT, REDUCE
GASOLINE PRICES AND INCREASE OUR
DOMESTIC ENERGY SECURITY.
WE BELIEVE -- WE BELIEVE VERY
STRONGLY THAT THE SOLUTION TO
THESE MANY PROBLEMS SHOULD BE A
REASONABLE COMBINATION OF
INCREASED DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
FOR WHICH WE HAVE HUGE, HUGE
WORLD-CLASS UNTAPPED RESOURCES
WHICH ARE STILL LOCKED UP BY OUR
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AMERICA COULD BE THE WORLD'S
LARGEST OIL PRODUCER, AND WE
COULD BE INDEPENDENT OF OPEC.
THAT IS REAL, MADAM PRESIDENT.
THAT IS ACHIEVABLE.
BUT WE'VE GOT TO SET OUR MIND TO
IT.
WE'VE GOT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
AND WE'VE GOT TO HAVE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET OUT OF
THE WAY OR HELP US WITH THE
RIGHT INCENTIVES TO DO SO.
THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN FEDERAL REVENUES FROM
INCREASED PRODUCTION COULD AND
SHOULD HELP SUPPORT THE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT OF OUR RENEWABLE
RESOURCES, OUR ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY, AS WELL AS EFFICIENCY
AND CONSERVATION.
WE KNOW THAT BUILDING OUT THE
ENERGY OF THE FUTURE,
IS EXPENSIVE.
RENEWABLES, ALTERNATIVES, THIS
GOING TO FUND IT?
WELL, MANY OF US BELIEVE THAT
RESOURCES THAT COME FROM
EXPANDED PRODUCTION COULD HELP
US WITH THAT.
AND YET, WHAT WE'RE PRESENTED
WITH TODAY IS A BILL THAT DOES
NOTHING MORE THAN RAISE TAXES,
RAISE TAXES ON AN INDUSTRY THAT
HAS CREATED GOOD JOBS, IS
PROVIDING US WITH A RESOURCE
THAT WE NEED.
WE'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO OFFER
A SINGLE AMENDMENT TO PRODUCE
OIL.
ONE ADDITIONAL DROP OF AMERICAN
MADAM PRESIDENT.
THAT I THINK'S UNFORTUNATE,
I WISH THAT IT WAS OTHERWISE.
BUT I DO THINK THE DEBATE, THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE HAD ON
THIS FLOOR IN THE PAST COUPLE
DAYS HAS BEEN GOOD AND HELPFUL
IN HELPING TO EDUCATE THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC IN TERMS OF WHAT
WE TRULY HAVE AS A NATION IN
TERMS OF OUR CAPACITY AND OUR
CAPABILITY TO PRODUCE IF GIVEN
THE OPPORTUNITY.
AND WITH THAT, MADAM PRESIDENT,
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
RECOGNIZED.
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA IS
WHAT IS THE
PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION AT THIS
TIME?
THE
MAJORITY LEADER RETAINS 16
MINUTES IN TIME.
I'M CONFUSED A
LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE DIDN'T THE
MINORITY HAVE EXTRA TIME?
DID THEY ASK FOR EXTRA TIME?
SPOEUP SHE ASKED FOR --
SHE
ASKED FOR OBJECT AND NO ONE
CONSENTED.
I WOULD ASK
CONSENT THAT I HAVE AN
16.
ADDITIONAL 5 MINUTES ON TO THE
IS
THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I
THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT
WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO HERE.
THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA SAID
IT'S BEEN A GOOD DEBATE.
YEAH, IT'S BEEN A GOOD DEBATE.
BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHAT'S NOT
GOOD.
WHAT'S NOT GOOD IS THAT BIG OIL
IS GETTING CORPORATE WELFARE.
BIG OIL IS RIPPING US OFF AT THE
PUMP.
THEY NEVER HAD GREATER PROFITS.
WE'RE BEING ASKED TO SACRIFICE
AND PAY MORE AT THE PUMP BECAUSE
OF INSTABILITY IN THE WORLD,
BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS WITH THE
REFINERIES, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE
NEVER DRILLED AS MUCH AS WE'RE
DRILLING NOW.
BIG OIL EXPORTS OUR OIL NOW.
WE HAVE NEVER HAD AS MANY
EXPORTS AS WE HAVE NOW.
AND BIG OIL GETS BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OF SUBSIDIES, SO BIG
THAT I WILL TELL YOU $2 BILLION
A YEAR IN U.S. TAX BREAKS.
AND LET ME TELL YOU, TO JUST
EXPLAIN HOW THAT COMPARES TO
SOMETHING WE DO THAT'S VERY NEAR
AND DEAR TO MY HEART AND EVERY
MOTHER AND FATHER, GRANDMA,
GRANDPA OR AUNT AND UNCLE, WHICH
IS WE PUT ABOUT A BILLION
DOLLARS A YEAR INTO AFTER-SCHOOL
PROGRAMS, MADAM PRESIDENT.
WHEN WE HAVE MILLIONS OF
CHILDREN WAITING, $1 BILLION A
YEAR ON AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
WHERE WE GIVE AWAY $2 BILLION A
YEAR TO THE MOST, SHALL WE SAY,
SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES IN AMERICA.
SHOW YOU WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I DON'T
RHETORIC.
WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THIS IS
THESE ARE THE FACTS.
SO WHEN MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
COME ON THE FLOOR AND DEFEND
THESE PROFITS, LET'S TALK ABOUT
WHAT THEY ARE.
NOW, REMEMBER, WE HAVE BEEN IN A
DEEP RECESSION FOR SEVERAL YEARS
NOW.
REMEMBER, MADAM PRESIDENT, AS
WELL YOU DO, THAT PRESIDENT
OBAMA AND WE HAD TO CONFRONT THE
LAWS OF 800,000 JOBS A MONTH, A
MONTH.
AND NOW THANK GOODNESS HE'S
TURNED IT AROUND, WE HAVE TURNED
IT AROUND.
IT'S STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH, BUT
WE WERE IN THE WORST SITUATION.
DURING THAT TIME, SMALL
BUSINESSES WENT OUT OF BUSINESS.
PEOPLE LOST THEIR HOMES.
IF IT WASN'T FOR THE PRESIDENT'S
LEADERSHIP, WE WOULD HAVE LOST
THE AUTO INDUSTRY IN AMERICA.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, FOR
INDUSTRY IN
AMERICA, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND I WAS PROUD TO VOTE FOR THAT
EVEN THOUGH I HAD A LOT OF
PROBLEMS WITH THE AUTO INDUSTRY
NOT MOVING QUICKLY ENOUGH TO
FUEL-EFFICIENT CARS.
NOW THEY ARE DOING A GREAT JOB
WITH IT.
SO DURING THAT TIME WHEN
AMERICANS WERE SUFFERING, WE
WERE BLEEDING ALL THESE JOBS,
AND EVEN NOW JUST GETTING BACK
ON OUR FEET, WHAT HAS HAPPENED
TO BIG OIL?
WHILE THEY HAVE RAISED OUR
PRICES AT THE PUMP.
IN 2009, THIS IS ALL THE FIVE
OIL COMPANIES MADE $64 BILLION.
IN 2010, MADAM PRESIDENT, BIG
OIL MADE $74 BILLION.
AND IN 2011, THEY MADE A
WHOPPING $137 BILLION.
SO THEY WENT FROM $64 BILLION IN
2009 TO $137 BILLION IN 2011,
COLLEAGUES ARE
CRYING BITTER, BITTER TEARS FOR
THEM.
OH, LET'S KEEP GIVING THEM BACK
$2 BILLION A YEAR.
WHY?
WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?
WHEN WE ARE SACRIFICING AND OUR
CONSTITUENTS ARE PAYING MORE AT
THE PUMP AND BIG OIL IS
PROFITING FROM IT.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS KIND
OF AN INCREASE AT THE PUMP.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT.
LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
IF THEY JUST MADE THE NORMAL
PROFITS THAT THEY MADE, WE COULD
HAVE SOME RELIEF AT THE PUMP,
BUT OH, NO.
AND SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO REWARD
THEM, THE REPUBLICANS ARE, BY
ALLOWING THEM TO KEEP THESE
SUBSIDIES.
THAT STARTED A LONG TIME AGO.
WHEN DID THOSE SUBSIDIES START?
IN THE 1980'S, MOST OF THEM.
IN THE 1980'S.
BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HELP THEM
GET MOVING.
WELL, HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY HAVE
TO EARN BEFORE WE SAY THEY CAN
GET OFF CORPORATE WELFARE?
YOU TALK ABOUT WELFARE QUEENS,
HERE IT IS.
AND MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS DEFEND
GIVING THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
RIPPED US OFF AT THE PUMP
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
SUBSIDIES.
AND THEY ARE EXPORTING THE OIL
WE DRILL HERE.
COUNTRY.
THEY WON'T KEEP IT IN THE
WE HAD A PROPOSAL FOR THE
KEYSTONE X.L. PIPELINE, MADAM
PRESIDENT, TO KEEP THE OIL IN
THE COUNTRY.
MY FRIENDS VOTED AGAINST IT ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE.
THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY JUST WANT THESE COMPANIES
TO HAVE THEIR WAY, TO DO WITH IT
WHAT THEY WANT.
AND IF THEY WANT TO SEND OUR OIL
TO CHINA, FINE, THAT'S WHAT THEY
WANT, BUT THEY ALSO WANT TO KEEP
THEIR SUBSIDIES.
IT ISN'T RIGHT.
I WANT TO SEE THESE SUBSIDIES
SEE US
INVEST IN ALTERNATIVES TO THESE
BIG OIL COMPANIES THAT HOLD US
ALTERNATIVES.
BY THE THROAT AND HAVE
I HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THIS
COUNTRY LOOKING AT THE
ALTERNATIVES THAT WE'RE
DEVELOPING NOW.
WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IN BRAZIL,
THEY USE THE SUGAR BEET TO
CREATE THEIR GASOLINE, AND THEY
ARE COMPLETELY FREE FROM
IMPORTED OIL.
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WE NEED
TO DO.
I AM FORTUNATE THAT I DRIVE A
HYBRID VEHICLE, AND I GET
50 MILES TO THE GALLON, SO I
DON'T GO INTO THOSE -- FOR GAS
THAT OFTEN.
BUT WHEN YOU GO IN THERE, IT'S A
SHOCK.
WE WANT TO HAVE CARS AND LET
THEM BE BIG CARS.
IF PEOPLE NEED THAT FOR THEIR
FAMILIES, I UNDERSTAND IT.
I HAVE GRANDKIDS.
I KNOW WHAT IT IS TO PUT YOUR
GRANDKIDS IN A SMALL CAR.
IT'S HARD.
WE NEED TO HAVE THE LARGER CARS.
THEY NEED TO BE FUEL EFFICIENT.
WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE.
WE ARE GETTING THERE ALREADY.
SO ISN'T IT BETTER TO TAKE THAT
MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE
RIPPING US OFF AT THE PUMP, AWAY
FROM THE CORPORATE WELFARE
QUEENS HERE AND PUT IT INTO
ALTERNATIVES SO OUR PEOPLE ARE
NO LONGER VICTIMS TO THEIR
CRISIS, AND THAT'S THE FIGHT WE
ARE HAVING.
THAT'S THE DEBATE WE ARE HAVING.
AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEY SAY
DRILL, BABY, DRILL.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
I AM FOR DRILLING WHERE IT MAKES
SENSE.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ACRES THE
OIL COMPANIES ARE HOLDING NOW
THAT THEY HAVEN'T DRILLED UPON.
IT IS PRETTY AMAZING.
MY FRIENDS SAY OPEN UP THE
PRECIOUS
ENVIRONMENT, GOD GIVEN.
BELIEVE IT WAS DWIGHT
PLACED IN A REFUGE BY -- I
EISENHOWER.
AM I RIGHT ON THAT?
YES.
THEY WANT TO GO IN THERE AND
RAVAGE IT.
WHAT DON'T THEY DRILL ON THEIR
NONPRODUCING ACRES?
IT LOOKS LIKE 75 MILLION
NONPRODUCING ACRES ON SHORE AND
OFFSHORE THAT THEY HOLD LEASES
ON.
OH, NO, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH
FOR THEM.
THEY ARE ONLY DRILLING ON 25% OF
THE LEASES THEY HOLD, OF THE
ACREAGE THAT THEY HOLD IN THOSE
LEASES.
HOW ABOUT USE IT OR LOSE IT
INSTEAD OF DRILL, BABY, DRILL?
DRILL, BABY, DRILL IN HERE.
DON'T GO INTO THE COAST OF
CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY WANT TO GO
OR WASHINGTON OR OREGON WHERE WE
HAVE FISHING, TOURISM,
RECREATION.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SO MANY
PEOPLE HERE THAT I LISTEN TO
THAT MAKE THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE
OIL COMPANIES.
I AM SO TIRED OF IT.
HOW ABOUT SPEAKING UP FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING
BRUTALIZED AT THE PUMP.
HOW ABOUT SPEAKING UP FOR THE
PEOPLE WHO MAKE THEIR LIVING OFF
ENVIRONMENT.
OF A BEAUTIFUL, PRISTINE
OH, BY THE WAY, MANY, MANY JOBS
IN MY STATE, OVER 400,000 JOBS.
400,000 JOBS RELATED TO A
PRISTINE COASTLINE, AND THEY
DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT ON THE
OTHER SIDE.
THEY WANT TO OPEN IT UP, PUSH
THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THE WAY AND
CREATE A FEW JOBS BECAUSE THERE
ARE FAR FEWER JOBS CREATED FROM
DRILLING.
AND AS PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SAID
MANY TIMES AND THE OTHER SIDE
GETS RANKLED.
WE ONLY HAVE 2% OF THE WORLD'S
PROVEN OIL RESERVES, AND WE USE
ABOUT 20% OF ENERGY.
SO YOU DO THE MATH.
PRESIDENT SAID, YOU COULD
DRILL IN YOUR GRANDMOTHER'S
BATHTUB, YOU COULD DRILL IN THE
GREAT LAKES, YOU COULD DRILL IT
ANY WAY YOU WANT.
YOU WILL NOT FIND ENOUGH OIL.
SO LET'S GET OFF FOREIGN OIL,
LET'S TELL THE OIL COMPANIES TO
DRILL, BABY, DRILL WHERE THEY
HAVE THE ACRES, AND LET'S LOOK
AT THESE PRICES AND LET'S
UNDERSTAND, AND WE'LL LOOK AT IT
AGAIN, THE PROFITS OF BIG OIL.
THEY ARE CRYING ALL THE WAY TO
THE BANK, AS MY DAD USED TO SAY.
LOOK AT THIS.
IN THE HEIGHT OF THE RECESSION,
THEY ARE MAKING RECORD PROFITS
AND CRYING TO KEEP THEIR
SUBSIDIES, AND MY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS CRYING RIGHT ALONG --
OH, HERE, HAVE A TISSUE.
WE'RE SO SORRY FOR YOU.
WE'RE SO SORRY FOR YOU, EVEN
THOUGH WE HAVE TO TURN AWAY
MILLIONS OF CHILDREN FROM
AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE MORE THAN A BILLION
DOLLARS TO SPEND ON IT, THEY ARE
GIVING AWAY $2 BILLION A YEAR.
THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
I HOPE WE VOTE FOR THE MENENDEZ
BILL.
I HOPE WE VOTE TOMORROW ON THAT
TO STOP THE FILIBUSTER, TO VOTE
IT UP OR DOWN, BECAUSE WHAT A
MESSAGE IT WILL SEND OF HOPE TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE ARE
WILLING TO STAND UP TO THE
BIGGEST POWERS THAT BE, THAT WE
ARE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR THE
AVERAGE AMERICAN, THAT WE'RE NOT
IN THE POCKETS OF BIG OIL.
YOU DON'T NEED TO GIVE AMERICAN
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO BIG OIL.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALLOW THEM
TO DRILL IN PRISTINE AREAS WHEN
THEY WON'T EVEN DRILL IN AREAS
HAVE HAD UNDER LEASE
FOR YEARS.
AND LET'S STOP THEM FROM
EXPORTING THE OIL.
WE NEED IT.
LET'S KEEP IT HERE.
LET'S KEEP IT HERE.
AND BY THE WAY, IF THEY KEEP ON
RIPPING US OFF LIKE THIS, AND
GETTING REWARDED FOR IT FROM MY
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS, LET'S
RELEASE SOME OIL FROM THE
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE,
MADAM PRESIDENT, AND LET'S
INCREASE THE SUPPLY AND LET'S
SEE PRICES GO DOWN.
LET'S LOOK AT THE C.E.O.'S OF
BIG OIL FOR A MINUTE, THESE POOR
GUYS THAT ARE FIGHTING FOR THESE
SUBSIDIES, LET'S LOOK AT THEM.
C.E.O.'S FOR THE BIG FIVE MADE
MORE THAN $14.5 MILLION IN TOTAL
COMPENSATION IN 2010.
THIS IS IT.
AVERAGE COMPENSATION.
MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT'S 307
TIMES THE AVERAGE SALARY OF A
FIREFIGHTER.
THAT'S 273 TIMES THE AVERAGE
A TEACHER.
THAT'S 263 TIMES THE AVERAGE
SALARY OF A POLICEMAN.
THAT'S 218 TIMES THE AVERAGE
SALARY OF A NURSE.
BUT THEY NEED SUBSIDIES FOR
THEIR COMPANIES, AND THEY NEED
TO RIP US OFF AT THE PUMP SO
THEY CAN MAKE A LITTLE MORE
MONEY.
$14.5 MILLION JUST ISN'T ENOUGH
FOR A POOR OIL COMPANY
EXECUTIVE.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
AND STOP GIVING THEM A BREAK,
BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED THIS
BREAK.
SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
STAND UP FOR WHAT'S RIGHT, AND I
HOPE THAT WE TAKE IT BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW WE WANT ALTERNATIVES
TO BIG OIL.
WE WANT COMPETITION FOR BIG OIL.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO BECOME
ENERGY INDEPENDENT.
SO LET'S STOP THESE TAXPAYER
HANDOUTS.
DON'T NEED
THEM.
LET'S START INVESTING IN
AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE, WHICH,
BY THE WAY, THAT KIND OF
INVESTMENT CREATES MANY JOBS AT
A TIME THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT.
I WANT TO SWITCH TOPICS HERE IN
THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME AND
TALK A MINUTE ABOUT HEALTH CARE
AND THEN CLOSE WITH A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE HIGHWAY BILL OVER IN
THE HOUSE AND THE STRUGGLE OVER
THERE TO GET THEIR WORK DONE.
AND SO I WOULD ASK HOW MANY
MINUTES I HAVE LEFT.
SENATOR,
YOU HAVE SIX AND A HALF MINUTES
REMAINING.
WOULD THE CHAIR
ADVISE ME WHEN I HAVE TWO
MINUTES LEFT?
I WILL