Senate Proceeding on Jul 31st, 2008 :: 5:07:16 to 5:28:28
Total video length: 6 hours 58 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:451 Duration: 0:21:12 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

5:04:51 to 5:07:25( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Pete Domenici

5:07:13 to 5:07:25( Edit History Discussion )

Pete Domenici: let us. it's that simple. thank you, mr. leader. mr. mcconnell: i thank my friend from new mexico. madam president, what time remains on this side to achieve the 30 minutes that we -- the presiding

5:07:25 to 5:07:38( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: officer: the 30 minutes has been consumed. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i'm going to use a few more minutes of my leader time. and if the other side wants to expand their time it would be perfectly

5:07:25 to 5:08:39( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Mitch McConnell

5:07:38 to 5:07:53( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: permissible with me. there is one other area that i would say is important to me and i would say to members on the other side, and that's coal. we have vast reserves of coal in this country. there

5:07:53 to 5:08:04( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: is a promising technology that we know works to turn coal into lick liquid. we have a customer, the united states military. we have an interested potential customer in the american commercial airlines.

5:08:04 to 5:08:18( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: one of the amendments, madam president, that would have been offered is related to coal and liquid. i ask unanimous consent that the senateroceed to immediate consideration of a senate bill to promote

5:08:18 to 5:08:25( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: coal to liquid energy, the text of which is identical to amendment 5131 filed by senator bunning to the energy bill. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion

5:08:25 to 5:08:39( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. salazar: madam president? the presiding

5:08:39 to 5:08:52( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: officer: the senator from colorado. mr. salazar: madam president, the purpose of the amendment is laudable and for those of house work on the energy commit, including -- committee, coal is to the

5:08:52 to 5:09:03( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: united states what oil is to saudi arabia. there are ways to advance the usage of collin colluding coal gasification and carbon sequestration, which we all support. but the proposal that has been put on the

5:09:03 to 5:09:15( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: table is not something that would get that kind of bipartisan support, so i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the -- mr. mcconnell: the senator from texas is on his feet and i know

5:09:15 to 5:09:30( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: he has strong feelings about this issue. mr. cornyn: madam president, i would say to the distinguished republican leader, it sounded like we would almost get the vote of the s enator from colorado. he spoke

5:09:30 to 5:09:43( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: so passionately about the importance of using coal. and i would just say that, of course, the big concern that wee have is that coal can pollute. but the senator is no doubt aware of a remarkable

5:09:30 to 5:10:43( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: John Cornyn

5:09:43 to 5:09:58( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: technology that has actually been around a long, long time, that can take coal and convert it to synthetic fuel that the air force, or the united states government, is now using, as you stated a moment

5:09:58 to 5:10:16( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: ago, to fly airplanes. and isn't it a fact that in terms of transportation fuels, we're talking about gasoline and diesel and aviation fuel, that represents one of the biggest challenges from an energy standpoint

5:10:16 to 5:10:29( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: to this country and that actually goal to liquids technology, such as, the leader described, represents one of the great opportunities for becoming less dependent on imported oil from the middlee east.

5:10:29 to 5:10:43( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: mr. mcconnell: absolutely. of course i come from a big coal producing state. and the amendment that i sought to call up is actually authored by senator bunning, my colleague from kentucky. so we're not surprisingly

5:10:43 to 5:10:59( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: enthusiastic about this option. putting aside kentucky's specific interest, the military is -- and i know my friend is on the armed services committee, is looking for a reliable, secure source of

5:10:59 to 5:11:11( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: fuel for our planes. they don't want to be dependent on the middle east. mr. cornyn: i would ask the republican leader, this is not just an energy issue. this is a national security issue. and let

5:11:11 to 5:11:24( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: me just ask the leader, since i do come from a state that produces significant amounts of coal, whether these figures given to me by my staff are accurate. a it's been reported to me that the air

5:11:24 to 5:11:43( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: force uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel a year, a total cost of about $8 billion. that's $8 billion that the united states congress appropriates and goes to the department of defense and

5:11:43 to 5:11:56( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: the air force just to buy jet fuel. and it's estimated that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the air force, and you can see -- say that the united states taxpayer, spends an

5:11:56 to 5:12:10( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: additional $600 million in fuel costs. do those figures that i just cited sound approximately correct to your recollection? mr. mcconnell: i'm not an expert on the figures. it sounds correct to me. and i

5:12:10 to 5:12:31( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: know that the military has great desire for the kind of reliable, secure energy source that this would provide. mr. cornyn: and i would just ask the distinguished leader, are you aware or would

5:12:31 to 5:12:45( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: you have any reason to disagree, let me put it that way, with the experts who say that synthetic fuels is up as the coal-to-liquids is competitive with $70 to $80 a barrel oil plus an additional --

5:12:45 to 5:12:58( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: additional 10% that would be needed to figure out how to capture and divert the carbon dioxide that would be produced by the process. do you have any reason to disagree wh the experts? mr. mcconnell:

5:12:58 to 5:13:12( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: that are the statistics i heard in the past and it underscores what a promising source this would be if we were willing to pursue it. i thank my colleague from texas for his thoughts. madam president,

5:13:12 to 5:13:30( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: i see the senator from tennessee is on his feet as as well. mr. alexander: i have a brief question for the republican leader. nearly two weeks when the democratic leader brought the energy speculation

5:13:30 to 5:13:44( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: bill to the floor, isn't it true that we met and said we look forward to a balanced debate where we can get a result and we believe in the law of supply as well as demand and therefore we think we should

5:13:44 to 5:14:00( Edit History Discussion )

Lamar Alexander: come up with a proposal for finding more and using less. and on the finding more side, which we've talked a lot about today, we had offshore drilling and oil shale, which would produce, over time,

5:14:00 to 5:14:14( Edit History Discussion )

about three million barrels a day. we talked about nuclear power for more american energy. but we had even more on the demand side, on the using less side. in our case the idea, was it not, to create

5:14:14 to 5:14:29( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: an environment in the united states or as rapidly as possible where we could encourage the use of plug-in hybrid electric cars? and is there not much support on the other side of the aisle for that?

5:14:14 to 5:16:56( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Mitch McConnell

5:14:29 to 5:14:47( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: so my question to the leader is: why is it that when republicans nearly two weeks ago suggested a proposal for finding more that would produce three million more barrels a day eventually, that's

5:14:47 to 5:15:00( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: a third more production, and using less, that would save four million barrels a day, which together would have cut in half, over time, our imported oil, why is it that we've been unable for the last

5:15:00 to 5:15:12( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: two weeks nearly to actually begin to debate an adopt such amendments and produce a bill that would send a signal to the world that the united stas of america is taking an action to find more oil and

5:15:12 to 5:15:24( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: to use less oil which would bring down the price of gasoline? why is that -- why have we not been able to do that. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i would say to the senator from tennessee, i'm

5:15:24 to 5:15:41( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: perplexed.| the american people don't understand taking a time-out until next year. the senator senator from new york, for example, was recently quoted as saying, we're want going to do anything about

5:15:41 to 5:15:54( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: this until next year. well, the american people are paying these high prices now. and i don't think they scene us here to engage in a two-week partisan battle and achieve nothing. and the senator

5:15:54 to 5:16:08( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: from tennessee is entirely correct when he says our goal from the beginning on this side of the aisle was, as he remind usrequently -- and as the sign points out -- both find more and use less. virtually

5:16:08 to 5:16:21( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: every member of our conference is in favor of almost every conservation measure you can think of. our fundamental problem in here is it seems as if the other side doesn't want to do any finding of more.

5:16:21 to 5:16:38( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: they may share our view about using less but they don't want to find any more, as if somehow we could simply conserve our way out of this problem. i know of not a single expert in america who thinks

5:16:38 to 5:16:47( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: that we can, by conservation alone, solve this problem and get the price of gas at the pump down. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator

5:16:47 to 5:16:56( Edit History Discussion )

Mitch McConnell: from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: before the minority leader, the republican leader leaves, i would like to reconcile the remaining time allotment. i understood that he said we could have extra time

5:16:56 to 5:17:07( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: in the next segment for democrats to make up for the additional time that was used by the republican side; is that correct? could the chair indicate how much additional time was used by the republican

5:16:56 to 5:23:59( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Richard Durbin

5:17:07 to 5:17:25( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: side.e the presiding officer: 10 minutes and 10 seconds. mr. durbin: if i could ask then the next segment be 40 minutes on the democratic side and then return to 30-minute segments on each side. the presiding

5:17:25 to 5:17:38( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: thank you very much. madam president, for those who are following this debate, it is interesting because a friend of mine i used to work for in

5:17:38 to 5:17:53( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: politics as a young man used to say when politicians speak, there is a good reason and a real reason for the things that they're saying. the good reason for the position taken by the republicans is that

5:17:53 to 5:18:03( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: they believe that more oil put on the market is going to mean more supply and lower prices. it is intuitive to us in the supply-and-demand economy that that make sense on its face. and so their pillar of

5:18:03 to 5:18:19( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: their argument on the energy policy is we just have to find more places to drill. we don't have enough places to drill for oil now. if we could just find more oil there, would be more gasoline and

5:18:19 to 5:18:30( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: gasoline prices would come down. the logic is good but it fails to tell the whole story. it fails to account for 68 million acres of federal land currently leased by oil and gas companies that they

5:18:30 to 5:18:40( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: haven't touched. they have paid the federal government tore this land to go drill for oil and -- for this throond go drill and oil and done -- land to go drill for oil and done nothing. the republicans

5:18:40 to 5:18:53( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: never measure the 68 million acres out there that the oil companies aren't using. there's a second thing they never mention. if we decided today to start drilling for oil on the mall -- and sometimes i think

5:18:53 to 5:19:03( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: from the speeches here on the floor, a few people might be for that -- but if weecided to drill, they think it takes 8 to 14 years before you put the oil well into production. 8 to 14 years. and as you're

5:19:03 to 5:19:17( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: saying for your gasoline each week and somebody says, hey, hang on, in 14 years we're going to get this under control. you have a right to be a little impatient. but that's the republican approach.

5:19:17 to 5:19:28( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: so who would buy this approach? well, the people who are buying th approach, the real reason behind the position on the republican side, this is the oil companies' agenda. this is the oil companies'

5:19:28 to 5:19:38( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: answer: keep drilling, give us more land, give us more options, let us put these in our portfolio. the same oil companies that are reporting not just record-breaking profits for oil companies but

5:19:38 to 5:19:52( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: record-breaking profits for american businesses. no business in our history has ever reported the profits that they have reported. shell reports a profit jump despite reducing production of oil,

5:19:52 to 5:20:06( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: their profits have gone up. shell went up 33% this quarter. exxon, 14%. record-breaking profits for these oil companies and the position that they hold coincidentally is the same position as the republican

5:20:06 to 5:20:25( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: party in the senate. but an honest energy picture, one that looks forward says we need responsible exploration and production -- that means we don't go into environmently sensitive areas, we don't pollute

5:20:25 to 5:20:38( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: our beaches and our shore communities, we do the safe and the right thing, but we produce oil and gas as we can in this country realizing that the entire inventory of oil in america represents 3% of the

5:20:38 to 5:20:49( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: global supply of oil. 3%. and that we consume 25% of the oil. we cannot drill our way out of this. we've got to look beyond that. we've tried to do that. twice this week we've brought an energy

5:20:49 to 5:21:01( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: policy bill to the floor. twice this week the republicans defeated it. they refused to vote for an are energy policy that is comprehensive, that has not just exploration and production in it but looks to

5:21:01 to 5:21:16( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: things that really are our future. more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. we can't keep driving these gas hogs. we have to drive cars and trucks that are sensible, that meet the needs of our families

5:21:16 to 5:21:28( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: and our economy and don't consume so much gas. i think my kids and my grandkids will be using plug-in hybrid cars. they will wonder why their old man used to use so much gasoline when he was growing

5:21:28 to 5:21:38( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: up because they will have found ways to do it without gasoline, without diesel fuel by using these batteries, hybrids. that's the future. that's what we asked the republicans to vote for and they

5:21:38 to 5:21:50( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: refud. we asked them to join us and create tax incentives for solar power and wind power and geothermal sources, all of which can serve our economy, serve our businesses, serve our families and not create

5:21:50 to 5:22:02( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: global warming. they refused. time and again the only thing they'll vote for is the oil company agenda. well, the oil companies are pretty powerful. you may see some of their folks walking the halls

5:22:02 to 5:22:16( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: out here. pretty nice suits and shoes. can't miss them. but that isn't the future. that's the past. they have done their part. they'll continue to play a role, a major role, but the future is a future

5:22:16 to 5:22:26( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: of vision, looking for clean energy and good-paying jobs right here in america, creating the kind of industry where we can have growth in manufacturing jobs so that families across our country have an

5:22:26 to 5:22:37( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: opportunity. the republican view and the democratic view is quite different. and when we offered them a chance to come together, they refused, they wouldn't do it. the last bill that they defeated not

5:22:37 to 5:22:48( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: only had the energy provisions i mentioned, it had a lot of other important provisions. there was disaster assistance for the poor people in iowa. there was $ billion to put in the highway -- $8

5:22:48 to 5:22:59( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: billion to put in the highway trust fund so we can reduce congestion on our highways and create construction jobs across america. it even included the wellstone mental health parity act. paul wellstone

5:22:59 to 5:23:08( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: of minnesota passed awa about six years ago, and this was his passion. and we've never passed this bill. we've got to pass it now so that your health insurance covers mental illness as it covers physical

5:23:08 to 5:23:17( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: illness. they voted against that too. it was all part of the same bill. it is unfortunate we have reached this point but that's the point we find ourselves. the final word in this debate is going

5:23:17 to 5:23:29( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: to object november 4 and the sloarts have it. and if the voters believe we need to look backwards to the oil company agenda, they can agree with our republican friends. but if they believe that

5:23:29 to 5:23:36( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: we need to look forward with responsible exploration and uks -- production but incentives for renewable energy that brings us into the 24th century in leader shirntion i hope they'll consider --

5:23:36 to 5:23:46( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: leadership, i hope they'll consider voting for those who brought that to the floor. and i yield the floor. mr. salazar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized.

5:23:46 to 5:23:59( Edit History Discussion )

Richard Durbin: mr. salazar: mad am president, i wa, nt to just make a few dmoants clarify some of the colloquy that -- comments to clarify some of the colloquy that won't and what i consider to be some of the distortions

5:23:59 to 5:24:09( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: that were spread. first, there is a misconception i think that the minority side is trying to spread that democrats are against drilling. if you go on my state in colorado, you will find tens of thousands

5:23:59 to 5:27:16( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Ken Salazar

5:24:09 to 5:24:20( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: of natural gas wells and oil wells that are producing. if you look at the votes that we've taken in this chamber, there are manufacture us who've said we need to go and drill and we -- many of us who've

5:24:20 to 5:24:32( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: said we need to go and and drill, whether it's in the west coast or other aas. so for them to try and put the brand that we are against the use of our conventional fuels and resource is -- is simply wrong.

5:24:32 to 5:24:44( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: i want to comment on just two or three specific things. first, on the opening up of the outer continental shelf, it is true that the president has said he wants to lift the moratoria. it is true that

5:24:44 to 5:24:54( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: senator mccain has said that it would have some kind of a psychological effect perhaps on the market. and the fact is that there are some of us who say we ought to at least have an inventory of what's out

5:24:54 to 5:25:04( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: there on the o.c.s., but no matter how you cut, it no matter how you cut it, the department of energy and the energy information administration has said we're not going to be producing anything

5:25:04 to 5:25:16( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: throughout for 7 to 10 years. and so it's not going t have an impact on gasoline now, so that really raises the question, what's the real motivation of these amendments and these agendas on the republican

5:25:16 to 5:25:29( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: side. and it really is a stalling tactic to keep gas on the minds of people through the month of august so that they flay for their own political advantage. you know, i think the american people expect

5:25:29 to 5:25:38( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: better of us. i think the american people expect us to come up with real solutions and not phantom solutions. and the solutions that have been proposed here are by and large fan some solutions. and

5:25:38 to 5:25:48( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: there can be no greater fan some solution, frank willing, than what we have seen count -- frankly, than what we have seen countless times over the last two weeks, the assertion by my wonderful friends

5:25:48 to 5:26:01( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: on the other side who have said that somehow out of this shale rock, which is shale, it's not tar, it's not sapped, it is shale, it is rock, that somehow we're going to be able to develop 2 trillion

5:26:01 to 5:26:12( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: barrels of oil out of that rock. well, it's been tried for about a hundred years. nobody has figured it out. even the oil companies are saying they can't figure it out right now. and we, contrary

5:26:12 to 5:26:23( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: to the assertions made by my good friend from new hampshire, opened up the opportunity for oil and gas companies to go in and to see whether the technology could be developed so we have a robust research

5:26:23 to 5:26:36( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: and development program that's taking a look at whether or not oil shale can be commercially developed in my state of colorado, where 0% of the reserves are -- where 80% of the reserves are located.

5:26:36 to 5:26:48( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: so i would hope that as we move forward in what is really one of the most important issues in the crucible ofur times that we look to the future to find real solutions that are so important for us

5:26:48 to 5:27:00( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: on energy. because at the end of the day, what will drive to us that new energy wor is the importance of national security, economic opportunity here at home, and the environmental security of our

5:27:00 to 5:27:16( Edit History Discussion )

Ken Salazar: planet. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. a senator: thank you, madam president. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. a little earlier

5:27:16 to 5:27:27( Edit History Discussion )

Debbie Stabenow: this afternoon, our leader came to the floor with colleagues and offered six different opportunities for the united states senate to bring before us bills that include responsible drilling, investments

5:27:16 to 5:48:28( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Debbie Stabenow

5:27:27 to 5:27:41( Edit History Discussion )

Debbie Stabenow: in alternatives, investments in areas that will create jobs right away, which relate to my great state of michigan which is investing immediately in advanced battery technology research and development

5:27:41 to 5:27:57( Edit History Discussion )

Debbie Stabenow: and retooling our plants for the new vehicles this will create within two years, not 15 years, changes that will allow to us move aggressively to hybrids and plug-in automobiles. we saw legislation put forward

5:27:57 to 5:28:12( Edit History Discussion )

Debbie Stabenow: to deal with energy speculation and what's going on in the marketplaces. each of those times, there was an objection to eventi moving ahead to even consider those bills. twice this week we have tried to move

5:28:12 to 5:28:24( Edit History Discussion )

Debbie Stabenow: forward on tax incentives for production of alternative energy and other options that will get us off of foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good. each time there were objections. in the month

5:28:24 to 5:28:42( Edit History Discussion )

Debbie Stabenow: of june, two other times -- we can go back a year, objection, objection, objection. you know, and fnkly, people watching this get sick of this because, you know, they want action, they want something to