Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act--Motion to Proceed--Continued

Floor Speech

WARM IN WINTER AND COOL IN SUMMER ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - July 24, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to start off by saying how much I agree with my distinguished colleague from Maine. I think the LIHEAP program is one that is essential. There is a real possibility if we do not deal with the LIHEAP program, fellow Americans across the landscape of this country will find themselves in the cold, literally and figuratively, and they will be in such a situation where they will have to make desperate choices in their lives.

So this is something, among other things, on which we should be reaching across the aisle. As one Democratic Senator, I want the Senator from Maine to know that we are absolutely in agreement with her, and we believe this is essential to move forward.

I appreciate her comments about coming to common ground and common cause on those things on which, in fact, we can agree. There is much, at least from listening to the speeches on the Senate floor, that, in fact, we supposedly can agree on. We see there are elements of the Republican package that deal with market speculation. That is the essence of the underlying bill we are debating. Let's come together on that. Let's come together on the renewable energy tax credit extenders, something that we began, that existed, and we need to extend if we want to get the marketplace not depending on oil, whether it be foreign or domestic. Let's agree on that. That is apparently something we can agree on from speeches I heard. We should come together in that respect.

I heard conservation about using less. We agree on that issue. Let's come together on that. I agree with the Senator from Maine that while there may be differences, there are a lot of elements together that we do agree on, and if we can begin to move on those elements, maybe we could come to a point in which we could move forward on other items as well.

But why not allow those things that ultimately can make a difference in the short term and in the long term for our collective constituents? When you are cold, it doesn't have a Republican or Democratic label to it. When you
have to make a choice between a gallon of gas or putting a gallon of milk on the table, it doesn't have a Democratic or Republican label on it.

I agree with the Senator from Maine. I am glad to have been on the floor to listen to her. She is a voice of reason, and I appreciate where she stands on these issues, and I agree with her. Hopefully, we can move in that direction.

COASTAL DRILLING

Mr. President, I have come to the floor various times over the last couple of weeks to discuss opening our coastline to drilling. This is part of one of the marvelous beaches in New Jersey. You have to get off the New Jersey Turnpike to understand.

I had some colleagues say: Why are you so fixated on this drilling issue? Isn't your State one big refining place? They obviously never got off the New Jersey Turnpike.

If you get off the New Jersey Turnpike, you will see one of the most incredible parts of the United States coastline where not only millions of New Jerseyans go, which they consider a birthright, but people from throughout the region. Canadians come down and contribute to our economy because they want to go to the New Jersey shore.

The Presiding Officer, the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, understands what that Florida coastline means to his State and his economy. That is why he has been such a vigorous voice on the floor of the Senate.

Ever since I have been having to come down to the floor, ever since we have had these two oilmen in the White House, the Presidential candidate they support, and many on the other side of the aisle--not all but many on the other side of the aisle--have begun a very hard sell to the American people over an absurd notion that opening our coastlines to drilling will ever lower gas prices. They have grabbed on to a source of fear and frustration among American families, and there is no question that there is frustration and pain for our American families. But they are using that frustration and pain to pull a fast one on the American people.

Exploitation of pain at the pump to grab more land to build up stock prices, that is what this is all about. They are using it to sell a plan that in reality will bring absolutely zero relief to Americans but instead represents one last great big handout to oil companies that are already making astronomically staggering profits.

We just saw the beginning of that parade with ConocoPhillips, an incredible increase in profits. On one hand, you have American families who are getting absolutely slammed by high gas prices. On the other hand, you have oil companies counting their money, sitting on 68 million acres of public land that are not being put to use and focusing way more on taking that money and using it on stock buybacks that ultimately drive up the value of their shares than exploration or innovation.

It is not because I say that. Listen to what the President of the American Petroleum Institute said when he was asked: Why can't you create more production?

He said: We don't have the infrastructure and the rigs and the drills and all the pipeline and everything that is necessary to create more production. He didn't say why. One of the reasons is they haven't been investing the money to do that.

So all the suggestions to lift the moratoria and tomorrow out sprouts oil and, therefore, gasoline and prices plunge is simply not true. They cannot even pursue the 68 million acres, the extra area in the gulf, the extra area off the Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska that is not subject to any moratoria right now. They cannot even do that and haven't done it. What an incredible falsehood perpetuated on the American people. But I believe the American people know better.

If we listen to these proposals, you would think--I have seen some of my colleagues shake the legislation and say: There is no oil in here. Guess what. There is no oil in their proposals either. That is really laughable.

Who do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle choose to help? The oil companies have more money than the eye can see, and you don't even hear them talk about the oil companies. They never invoke their name unless it is to say: Oh, we need to give them more. We need to do more for them. We need to do everything for them. The average American wishes they were in the role of the oil companies--record profits, huge amounts of money. Let's give them more. Let's give them more.

We never hear from our Republican friends talking about the oil companies having any responsibility--I am not saying the responsibility, any responsibility--for some of our lack of production. I have just heard one too many speeches that are apologies for the oil companies. Multibillion profits--I am not going to be an apologist for the oil companies.

As we try to pass legislation to crack down on greedy oil speculation which could lower gas prices quicker than anything, they just say no, even though they include it as part of their proposals.

Back at home, people who are hearing these debates say: They keep talking about speculation. I know what speculation generally means.

What does it mean in the context to the average person? What it means is traders buy huge quantities of oil online, many times intentionally inflating prices. They then turn around and sell those very orders to other traders at even higher prices. These traders never intend to use the oil. This is not a purchase of oil because they are going to ultimately use it in distribution in the country and make sure people have, for example, home heating oil or they are going to refine it and have gasoline. No, they use these constant trades bidding up the price so they can ultimately cash in.

But who gets stuck with the bill every time we have to pay to fill our tanks and heat our homes? It is the American consumer.

We Democrats want to do something about it. For those who keep saying--even though it is part of their plan--oh, no, this is really not a problem, let me read to you from an article that appeared today, July 25, in the New York Times:

Firm said to manipulate oil market. Commodity regulators in Washington have accused a Dutch trading company of making roughly a million dollars in illegal profits by manipulating the prices of crude oil, heating oil--

What we are going to be using this winter--and gasoline--

Over what period of time? over an 11 day period of time.

One million dollars in 11 days in illegal profits. Oh, it is not a problem; speculation is not a problem.

In audio tapes uncovered in their investigation, regulators said one defendant described the scheme as an effort to ``bully the market''--

Bully the market-- by making a large number of trades at or near the end of the trading day to move closing prices.

But this is a marketplace that cannot be bullied. Therefore, we don't need to do anything about the speculative nature and unbridled speculation.

Well, guess what. One million dollars in 11 days, with their own voices saying that this is an effort to ``bully the market.'' Moreover, unlike many manipulation cases, this one accuses the defendants of actually succeeding in moving prices that were used as benchmarks for consumer markets--actually moving the benchmarks that are used for consumer markets, in essence, saying not only is it our intention to bully the market, but the regulators are saying yes, and they did bully the markets. They did bully the markets.

Now, the complaint that was filed in the Federal District Court in Manhattan says at least two of those attempts resulted in, guess what, higher prices for gasoline and crude oil. But our Republican friends say: Oh, no, market manipulation and speculation isn't a problem. But here is only one example, and this has been a reluctant regulator to pursue this. When they have heard the speeches on the floor and they have heard this going on for some time now, all of a sudden we grab one of these companies, 11 days, $1 million, bullying the market and doing it successfully.

That is why we need the legislation Senator Reid and the Democratic majority brought to the floor and that others only talk about, saying it is part of our package. Well, join us. Join us before more market speculation takes place.

What are Democrats trying to do about it? We are trying to add 100 new cops on the beat to the commission that oversees these traders. We are trying to create greater transparency, for the first time requiring--for the first time--detailed reporting of previously undisclosed trades. And oversight--stopping speculators from inflating oil prices by playing domestic and foreign markets off of each other.

We had testimony before the Congress, sworn testimony, as a matter of fact--and it is not often we have sworn testimony--from oil company executives. They were challenged as to why we are having these high prices. You tell us, in fact, it is the demand and the supply side. We said we have heard a lot of talk about supply and demand, and that largely over the last 2 years they have traced each other pretty closely together. Well then, what is the issue? And what is their response, these very oil company executives? Their response is: market speculation. But no, we don't have to go after that. It is not one of the most important issues, something that can be done now. So they say no.

I have to hand it to my colleagues for their political talent, to take an issue so vital to the daily lives of Americans and convince them they want to do something about it with a proposal that is more about oil company stock prices than gas prices. That is quite a feat, if you can pull it off. That is talent. But here is the problem. The facts always come out, and the facts ultimately always win.

It has been tremendously important to me, as a Senator from New Jersey, to come down here and give the facts about coastline drilling. It is not just the facts about drilling and gas prices, although that is how they initially make their plan popular, it is also the facts about oil spills, which they say are virtually impossible with today's drilling technology, virtually impossible.

That is exactly what they told us about the tanker industry that carries the oil. We don't have any rigs that I know of in the country, along the coastal waters of the United States, where there is drilling, that either don't have a pipeline system or don't ultimately have a vessel. And we were told: Don't worry about our tanker system. In fact, it is impossible to have any spills.

This is what happened with that impossibility. Workers there are cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound--a lot of oil there, obviously, a huge disaster. So if we could say that, and if it were true, that would surely be nice for the eastern and western coastlines of the United States. If it were true, in fact, that it is virtually impossible to have no spills, that surely would be nice for the $200 billion that our coasts generate each and every year in fishing and tourism revenues--$200 billion. And it surely would be nice if it were true for my home State of New Jersey and the millions of people who end up on the Jersey shore each summer and the half a million jobs in the State of New Jersey supported by the economy there between recreation, tourism, and the commercial and recreational fishermen.

It surely would be nice if an oil spill off the coast of Virginia didn't have the potential to affect the coastline from South Carolina up to New York. That surely would be nice, if it were true. But the facts always come out, and at the end of the day, the facts always win.

Earlier this month, the distinguished minority leader made this statement, echoed by several of his colleagues as part of their hard sell to the American people: ``Not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina.'' Not a drop of oil. Well, that surely would be nice, if it were true. But the fact is, we can see here from this U.S. Coast Guard photo that was published in the Washington Post on July 14 of 2008 what was happening with this spill and how they were trying to burn the spill up in order to try to deal with the disaster. Oh, but not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina. I guess this picture must be a fabrication of the Coast Guard.

Last month Senator McCain said: ``Not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage.'' Well, the same picture from the U.S. Coast Guard. That surely would be nice, if it were true. Last time I checked, 7.7 million gallons of oil is pretty significant, pretty significant.

And then in the last 24 hours, there was a stroke of poetic justice. Senator McCain was ready to fly out to an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico to stage a photo opportunity. He was ready to show how safe it is to drill for and transport oil these days. Nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, he should have known better, because the facts always come out, and the facts always win. Just as he was set to do this yesterday, there was an accident on the Mississippi near New Orleans in which a freighter rammed a barge and spilled 419,000 gallons of fuel oil. Next thing you know, the McCain photo-op was postponed. It seems they realized it is hard to make the case that oil drilling and oil transportation is completely safe when there are 419,000 gallons of oil floating around and washing up on the shore nearby.

Of course, now his representatives are saying it was postponed because of the hurricane that hit the southern tip of Texas yesterday that this event was cancelled. I thought: Well, that might be a legitimate reason. But then I checked the National Weather Service forecast. And what did the National Weather Service's detailed forecast say, which I have right here--satellite images?

The National Weather Service made the following forecast today for the Louisiana gulf coast: Partly cloudy. Scattered thunderstorms, mainly in the afternoon. Highs in the lower 90s. Southeast winds 5 to 10 miles per hour. Chance of thunderstorms, 30 percent.

I think the Presiding Officer has a pretty good sense that this is pretty tame weather conditions for this time of the year--certainly not hurricane weather.

So if you look up ``irony'' in the dictionary, I think you will find possibly that it might describe cancelling an oil drilling photo-op because a massive nearby oil spill took place. Having to cancel your big oil drilling photo-op because of a massive oil spill is like cancelling a crime safety photo-op because the house next door got robbed. In selling this absurd coastline drilling plan to the American people, Senator McCain and others have time and time again pointed to advanced technology that would supposedly eliminate the threat of massive oil spills. Well, this is the oil fire after Katrina. As he can now personally attest to, even with the most modern technology, we can't prevent massive oil spills such as the one currently devastating the Mississippi, just as we couldn't prevent a 7.7 million gallon oil spill after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And that is the type of straight talk we need about oil drilling and the type of talk the American people need to hear and that they deserve.

As to the claim that coastline drilling will lower gas prices, we know it simply won't. That is clear when we realize there are millions of acres already subject to oil exploration that aren't being pursued. In fact, the American Petroleum Institute president says: Well, we don't have the infrastructure and the rigs and the drills to pursue it. We can't do that overnight.

We know we have reduced 800,000 barrels a day in demand because of high gas prices. The Saudis have produced 500,000 barrels a day in extra production--a 1.3 million barrel a day shift in barrels of oil--and yet gas prices have done what? They have gone up. We opened the gulf--181--and gas prices have gone up.

So if 1.3 million barrels in either reduced demand or increased production haven't done anything about gas prices, imagine the very large sum of 200,000 barrels in the year 2030 at this risk. If 1.3 million barrels can't do it, how does 200,000 do it, and yet accept this risk? Accept this risk to this environment and to the $200 billion that is generated by the coasts of the east and west.

And, by the way, that 200,000 would mean that every State would have to agree, assuming we would give States an option, and we have already heard the Governor of California say: No way. They are one of the biggest parts of the coastline. I doubt you will get Oregon and Washington in that respect. We have heard some of their distinguished colleagues say that is not going to happen. New Jersey won't do it. So by the time you are finished, you are nowhere near even the 200,000.

Now, what is it we can do? Well, I agree with the comments of the distinguished Senator from Maine, who said: Let's do what is possible and what we agree to. And what is possible and what we agree to is very significant.

The Republicans say they are for a renewable energy source, and are providing the tax credits that existed and expired and should be brought back to life. They say they are for that. Well, they have said ``no'' twice, though. Twice we have brought that forward, and twice they have said ``no.''

The fact is that passing the tax credit extenders would create the incentives that are necessary to move us in a direction in which oil is not the issue, and risking the coastlines and the $200 billion economy is not the issue, and where we could do things in a tighter timeframe and better timeframe than the year 2030. That would move us toward renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and cellulosic ethanol, plug-in hybrids, which are critical. All of these things would move us in a direction long before 2030, which is when all of this production would take place, if it takes place.

We supposedly agree on moving forward on that, but our Republican friends have said ``no'' twice. Republicans say that speculation is part of their package. I talked about that earlier. We saw already one company being pursued--$1 million, 11 days, bullying the market and succeeding in doing it. Well, it is time to move on speculation.

Yet that is the very essence of the underlying bill. We can't seem to get them to agree on that. Most of the speeches I have been hearing is that they pooh-pooh speculation. When it made a difference in oil and gas prices, as that case suggests, I would simply say that is certainly not anything to be pooh-poohed. It is real and it is consequential, and even the testimony of the oil company executives says it could produce anywhere up to $50 per barrel more.

Republicans say that conservation is part of their package. We agree. So why not join us in that respect as well, with the conservation proposals we have put forward?

There are three very significant areas: renewable energy tax credits, speculation, conservation. Let's move forward. But instead, what we have is a series of noes. Then we have 18 amendments filed by Republicans, all to do what? To open the coastline of our country, which, as I have already discussed, will not achieve anything. But do you need 18 different amendments even to pursue what you think is an appropriate energy policy to open the coastline to drilling, to risk the consequences of this? OK, the majority leader said: Go ahead, we will give you an amendment. But you cannot take yes for an answer. We have to have 18 different amendments to do virtually the same thing.

You can repeat a big lie over and over. We have seen that in the history of the world, that you can take something that is not quite true, repeat it over and over, and try to give it the life it otherwise does not deserve--try to make it true. But saying it over and over doesn't make it true, saying over and over that drilling is the panacea, the solution to bring down gas prices.

The way I hear it, I hear: Pass the legislation, have the President sign it, tomorrow oil sprouts up, gas gets made, prices go down. I give a lot more credit to the American people than that.

The truth, crushed down to the floor, springs back up. The truth is that, in fact, we have the wherewithal to move our country in a much different direction. It is the can-do spirit of America. It is the pioneer spirit of America. It is the spirit that gets going--the tough get going when the going gets tough. That is the spirit we have. That is the spirit we should pursue. That is the renewable energy from tax credits. That is the conservation. That is stopping the speculation in the marketplace. That is ensuring that, in fact, we move to necessary renewable energy sources. That makes for a great America, a new economy--and do something about global warming all at the same time that we deal with the challenges of gas prices in the short term and liberate ourselves in the long term. That is what the debate is all about.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator has given an excellent exposition and debunking of a number of these myths. As to his recitation debunking the statements made by a number of Senators on this floor that there was no oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, I want to ask the Senator whether he had seen this particular report from the White House, ``The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina, Lessons Learned,'' February of 2006, after Katrina, in August of 2005.

I want to find out whether the Senator had seen this report:

In fact, Hurricane Katrina caused at least 10 oil spills releasing the same quantity of oil as some of the worst oil spills in U.S. history. Louisiana reported at least six major spills of over 100,000 gallons and four medium spills of over 10,000 gallons. All told, more than 7.4 million gallons poured into the Gulf Coast region's waterways, over two-thirds of the amount that spilled out during America's worst oil disaster, the rupturing of the Exxon Valdez tanker off the Alaskan coast in 1989.

That is the end of the quote from the very report on Katrina from the White House. Has the Senator seen that report?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I have. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Florida pointing it out. The words are powerful because there it is not a Member of the Senate saying this, not a Democrat saying this. This is the official report. I have used the pictures because a picture speaks better than a thousand words, and you cannot deny it as you cannot deny the report. The fact is that we had massive oilspills after Katrina and Rita.

This is a Coast Guard picture. That is the reality. The fact is, we were told we have the most highly technologically advanced--it is impossible to have any spills as a result of tankers.

The Exxon Valdez.

It simply is not true to suggest that there was not. How is it that it has been quoted here--

Not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage .....

At least that says ``significant spillage.''

Not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina .....

It is pretty tough to say that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina. This is why we have to be so cautious about risking the coastlines, the economy, the environment, when it will not produce a drop of oil for over a decade, it will not do anything about gas prices now or in the future, but can create an enormous consequence.

We need to be honest with the American people, and I hope this opportunity to get to the floor and talk about some of the facts and show some of the photos from the Coast Guard will make it very clear.

I yield the floor.

Source