Volume 158, No. 36 covering the 2nd Session of the 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“GASOLINE PRICES” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S1403-S1405 on March 6, 2012.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I mentioned yesterday on the Senate floor I spent a great deal of time in deep southern Illinois where some devastating and fatal tornadoes hit last week. As I said then and will repeat briefly now, the amazing outpouring of voluntarism and support from people far and wide was inspiring to me. It is great to know that, just as I had hoped, the people in my State rallied to help the victims.
There were formal organizations such as the American Red Cross and informal organizations such as Operation Blessing which brought together churches from all over the area. There was a Methodist church from Carrier Mills with about 20 of their parishioners. Some were children with rakes doing everything they could to help clean up the mess. It was inspiring to see that. I was happy for that.
I will tell you that in addition to the tornado issue we faced, the one thing that hit people between the eyes in Illinois this last week was gasoline prices. I was in the suburbs of Chicago on Friday evening and saw a gas station with regular gasoline for $4.09. I saw some lower prices over the weekend, but that was the high watermark or high gasoline mark in my State that I observed. People are very sensitive to this. Gasoline prices literally affect the lives of people individually and families as well. They also have a direct impact on business.
I asked a vice president of Walmart about monitoring retail sales and how to increase retail sales, and he told me that with all of the hundreds and thousands of Walmart stores and employees, they literally monitor sales by the second in real time.
He said: I can observe the sales pattern in a store somewhere in America and tell you within a few pennies or dimes what the price of gasoline is in that community. When gasoline goes up, people put the money into the tank instead of on the counter, and they stay home instead of going out to shop. That is how the price of gasoline directly impacts economic recovery.
I have listened to so many of the comments that have been made on the Senate floor by individuals on the other side, their approach on how to deal with the issue of gasoline prices and what to do with it. I see the Senator from California. I sometimes wonder if we are reading the same basic information.
The Keystone Pipeline could serve a valuable purpose, but to believe that this is somehow going to have an immediate impact or any major impact on gasoline prices is not realistic. Currently, the pipelines from Canada that exports these oil sands to the United States are operating at less than 50 percent of capacity. So there is plenty of room for more oil sands to come to the United States for refinement. In fact, one of the pipelines goes directly to my State to the Conoco refinery in Wood River, and this refinery has the capacity that could be used to process these Canadian oil sands right now. So to argue this Keystone Pipeline is somehow holding back the export of Canadian oil sands that might have an impact on gasoline prices just does not work.
I have noted there has been a significant increase in the amount of oil exploration and drilling that has taken place under this administration. I believe that is an indication of what we can and should do as a nation to deal with the problem of providing the oil resources in an environmentally responsible way. It is 2 years after the BP spill, and I think it is time for us to reflect on the fact that we never ever want that to happen again.
The devastation that has been caused to so many lives, to so many businesses, and to so much in terms of wildlife will not be calculated. Perhaps it never will be. But we know we cannot allow that to occur again. We should not exalt speed over safety. We have to make certain that as we move forward to develop our energy resources, both oil and gas, we do it in a sensible way. I hope we can gather together and agree that is the way to approach it, along with the administration's proposals for more fuel efficiency in the vehicles we drive and for the development of alternative fuels which will be environmentally friendly and spark new innovation, new businesses, and new jobs in this country in the 21st century.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for putting the gas price situation into a larger picture and also note that one other factor playing a role is manipulation due to some of the instability in the world that our President is certainly dealing with, and many of us here, and the instability in Iran; the fact that we have sanctions, the fact that there is also a greater demand coming for this product from China and other very high-growth areas.
I say to my friend, is he aware--I know he is, but because of the rules I have to ask it in a question--that we are producing far more of this resource, oil, in this country than we have done? Since 2008 we have many more rigs out there, and is my colleague also aware that the oil companies are sitting on well over 50 million acres of leases on which they are not drilling when they could? And, my last point, is my friend aware that we are exporting more than we ever have from America? That is also a very important point.
To those who say, ``drill, baby, drill,'' that is not an answer if it is ``export, baby, export.'' The fact is we are drilling more, and more is leaving America.
So I say to my friend, is he aware of all of these factors, and is he as concerned as I am about the other side playing more politics with this because ``drill, baby, drill'' is not the answer? We are drilling more than ever. We only have 2 percent of the world's proven supply of oil.
I wonder if my friend could comment on those points.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California. In response, I would ask consent of the Chair to have printed in the Record the New York Times editorial of Monday, March 5, 2012, entitled ``Drill Baby Drill, Redux.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Drill Baby Drill, Redux
Republicans' tired remedy for rising gas prices won't fix anything
It's campaign season and the pandering about gas prices is in full swing. Hardly a day goes by that a Republican politician does not throw facts to the wind and claim that rising costs at the pump are the result of President Obama's decisions to block the Keystone XL pipeline and impose sensible environmental regulations and modest restrictions on offshore drilling.
Next, of course, comes the familiar incantation of ``drill, baby, drill.'' Mr. Obama has rightly derided this as a
``bumper sticker,'' not a strategy. Last week, he agreed that high gas prices were a real burden, but said the only sensible response was a balanced mix of production, conservation and innovation in alternative fuels.
There are lots of reasons for the rise in gas prices, but the lack of American production is not one of them. Domestic crude oil production is actually up from 5.4 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5.59 million now; imports have dropped by more than 10 percent in the same period. Despite a temporary slowdown in exploration in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil disaster, the number of rigs in American oil fields has quadrupled over three years. There have been new discoveries and the administration has promised to open up more offshore reserves. To say that Mr. Obama has denied industry access is nonsense.
Equally nonsensical is the Republican claim that Mr. Obama's proposed repeal of $4 billion in annual tax breaks for the oil and gas industry--whose five biggest players posted $137 billion in profits last year--would drive prices upward. As is Newt Gingrich's claim that a proposal now taking shape in the Environmental Protection Agency, and fiercely opposed by refiners, to lower the sulfur content in gasoline would add 25 cents to the cost of a gallon. Agency experts say it would add about a penny.
The truth is that oil prices are set on world markets by forces largely beyond America's control. Chief among these is soaring demand in countries like China. Unrest in oil-producing countries is another factor. The Times noted fears in some quarters that gas could jump to $5 a gallon if the standoff with Iran disrupted world supplies.
Therein lies the biggest weakness in the Republican litany. A country that consumes more than 20 percent of the world's oil supply but owns 2 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way out of high prices or dependence on exports from unstable countries. The only plausible strategy is to keep production up while cutting consumption and embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels.
American innovation is a big part of the answer. Two byproducts of the automobile bailout were the carmakers' acceptance of sharply improved fuel economy and a new commitment to building cars that can meet those standards. The new rules are expected to cut consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day--more than America now produces in the gulf. These and other measures are not nearly as catchy as Drill, Baby, Drill. But they have a far better shot, long term, of lessening this country's dependence on oil imports and keeping gas prices under control.
Mr. DURBIN. It answers specifically what the Senator just raised, and I would like to read a portion of it.
Domestic crude oil production is actually up from 5.4 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5.59 million now; imports have dropped by more than 10 percent in the same period. Despite a temporary slowdown in exploration in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil disaster, the number of rigs in American oilfields has quadrupled over 3 years. There have been new discoveries, and the administration has promised to open more offshore reserves. To say that Mr. Obama has denied industry access is nonsense.
Equally nonsensical is the Republican claim that Mr. Obama's proposed repeal of $4 billion in annual tax breaks for the oil and gas industry--whose five biggest players posted $137 billion in profits last year--would drive prices upward. As is Newt Gingrich's claim that a proposal now taking shape in the Environmental Protection Agency, and fiercely opposed by refiners, to lower sulfur content in gasoline would add 25 cents to the cost of a gallon. Agency experts say it would add a penny.
The truth is that oil prices are set by world markets by forces largely beyond America's control. Chief among these is soaring demand in countries like China.
The Times noted fears in some quarters that gas could jump to $5 a gallon if the standoff with Iran disrupted world supplies.
The editorial continues:
Therein lies the biggest weakness in the Republican litany. A country that consumes--
As the Senator from California noted--
more than 20 percent of the world's oil supply but owns 2 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way out of high prices or dependence on exports from unstable countries. The only plausible strategy is to keep production up while cutting consumption and embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels.
Let me add to this conversation a topic which I think we have been loathe to address on the floor because of its political controversy which was driven home to me over the weekend. I believe our energy conversation has to parallel an environmental conversation. We have to talk about the consumption of energy and the impact it has on the world we live in.
I would say to the Senator from California that in the Midwest, we live in tornado country. I was raised with them. I know how to run to the basement when we hear the air raid sirens, to protect our children, which rooms to go in, which corner of the house. It is just built into our lifestyle in the Midwest. So far this year, we have had over 272 reported tornadoes, early in the tornado season. Last year, we had 50; so 272 to 50.
I would just say to anyone who would like to come challenge me: Is this worth asking a question or two? What is going on with the extreme weather patterns we are seeing more and more? In a given year, one might say these things happen. But as these patterns emerge--last year, Chicago experienced the biggest blizzard in its history in February and then in June the largest rainfall in 1 hour in its history. We think to ourselves: This is not the world in which we grew up. Things are different out there. Are these within our control or beyond our control? I think we have to rely on experts and scientists to lead us in that conversation. But let's at least embark on that conversation by understanding the connection between energy and the environment.
As we find more efficient ways to move our cars and move our economy, as we burn less energy in doing it, there is less damage to the environment. That is a positive. It also rewards innovation, creation and new business and industry so the United States can lead in this area as we have led in other areas before.
I thank the Senator from California. She is on the floor now with a bill which she has spoken of time and time again, the new Federal Transportation bill. There is no single piece of legislation that will create more jobs--specific jobs that can be identified--than this bill. We have spent 2 weeks--2 weeks, if I am not mistaken, or 3--the Senator from California would know better--3 weeks on the floor of the Senate arguing about contraception on the Federal highway bill, arguing about whether we are going to embark on a foreign policy amendment to the Federal highway bill, so 3 wasted weeks trying to come to a conclusion about a handful of amendments. Unfortunately, this is what gives our Senate a bad name. We should have resolved this long ago and moved to this bill so we can say, if we want a real jobs bill--a real jobs bill--the Senate is leading the way. To do it, we need bipartisan support.
At noon there will be a vote and those who are following the proceedings can take a look to see how many on both sides of the aisle will support moving forward on this bill. I think our earlier vote was 85. If I am not mistaken, 85 Senators said let's move forward on this bill. I hope we can do that again.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up