 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Thank you for contacting me regarding the high cost of gasoline. I appreciate hearing from you.
Over the last few years, limited supplies and an unprecedented growth in demand have sent the global oil
market itself teetering towards the edge of disaster. With our own Energy Department telling us that U.S.
demand for oil will jump 40% over the next twenty years and countries like China and India adding millions of
cars to their roads, the price of oil is approaching a breaking point. A few years ago, a barrel of oil cost $25.
Today, it is almost triple that price. Since the cost of oil affects the price of everything from gas to airfare to
groceries, analysts at Global Insight, an economic consulting firm, say that if we hit $100 a barrel, the U.S.
economy could well tumble into recession.
Hurricane Katrina showed us just how high our energy costs could rise if we experience even the slightest
supply disruption. Though prices have fallen since then, the American people, and our economy, remain
vulnerable, and the potential for an energy crisis worse than that wrought by Katrina is very real. Katrina cut off
only a small percentage of our gas supply. Given that 60% of our oil is imported from abroad – much from
volatile regions like the Persian Gulf, we must recognize that such a crisis could occur at any time. Had the
recent attempt by Al Qaeda to attack Saudi Arabia's largest oil processing facility been successful, for example,
post-Katrina gas prices would have seemed low.
The clear danger to our economy and national security from America's long-term dependency on oil will not
diminish unless we act now. In fact, it will only get worse. Only through a new openness to developing a
balanced, comprehensive, forward-looking national energy policy can the country break out of this dangerous
mindset, and meeting that challenge is one of my policy priorities here in the Senate. Gas prices will begin to
fall only when the country achieves some measure of energy independence, and control of our energy destiny
will occur only when we break foreign oil producers' current stranglehold on our national economy.
The second bill I introduced as a Senator established a tax credit to encourage service stations to install
pumps for fuel mixes of E-85, a fuel blend that contains only 15% petroleum. Ethanol is a proven response to
oil dependence, but our present problem is that we are in short supply of E-85 dispensing stations. This
proposal became law last summer in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). That legislation also included a
provision I cosponsored that requires refiners to nearly double the use of ethanol in gasoline over the next
seven years. These two provisions will help reduce our dependence on imported oil, as every gallon of home-
grown ethanol we use in our gasoline supply displaces the American dependence on foreign imported oil.
Such incentives for alternative fuel use, combined with individual commitments to conservation, must be the
cornerstones of any new national energy policy.
Several weeks after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, I joined several of my colleagues in proposing S. 2025, the
Vehicles and Fuel Choices for American Security Act. This bill would mandate seven billion barrels in oil-
savings over the next two decades, promote increased production of vehicles that run on alternative fuels or
hybrid engines, and encourage the construction of more alternative fuel pumps at gas stations. It would also
provide tax credits for manufacturers who adjust their facilities for advanced fuel technology vehicle production,
and, for the first time since the 1970s, establish fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and other “gas-guzzlingâ
€ vehicles.
I am particularly proud of legislation I recently authored with Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. This bill, the
American Fuels Act of 2006 (S. 2446), takes a number of important steps towards reducing America's
dependence on foreign oil. First, the legislation provides a tax credit for cellulosic biomass fuels production to
spur investment in commercial-scale production capacity over the next five years and requires that 2 billion
gallons of alternative diesels be mixed into the annual national diesel pool by 2015. Second, the bill would
increase consumer demand for alternative fuels by providing a short-term, 35 cents per gallon tax credit for E85
fuel and by providing automakers with a $100 tax credit for every E85-capable Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV)
produced. Third, it would require the government to allow public access to alternative fueling stations located
on federal government property, and would create a Department of Defense (DOD) "fly-off competition" to
encourage private sector companies to compete to find the most energy efficient alternatives fuels for defense
purposes. Finally, the bill would create a Director of Energy Security to oversee our progress towards energy
independence. The Director of Energy Security would serve as the principal advisor to the President.
To guard against future price increases similar or worse than those the country is experiencing, we must
recognize that our current energy habits are unsustainable, and truly commit ourselves to cutting oil
dependence and increasing conservation. Prices similar to those we paid in Katrina's wake are not only likely
to re-emerge in the years ahead, but also have the potential to be considerably higher. America must seriously
face its energy problems and realize that we cannot simply wish this problem away. We have already seen the
stakes of the emerging crisis on energy consumers' pocketbooks. It is time to concentrate on the pursuit of
energy independence as the great project of our time.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the war in Iraq. I appreciate the growing opinion in the
country that we should stop further funding of war efforts in Iraq and withdraw our troops immediately. And I
certainly am disappointed with much of the Administration's handling of this war and the effect of its cost on our
ability to meet important domestic priorities and on our nation's fiscal health.
When I ran for the Senate, I opposed the resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq. The threat was not
imminent. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. The Administration had no clear
strategy to piece Iraq back together. At the time, voicing opposition to the war in Iraq was not a politically popular
thing to do. I spoke out because I believed it was the right thing to do. The same principle of doing the right thing
is guiding my decision-making on Iraq today.
The Administration's handling of the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq have been badly mismanaged. This is
not a partisan assessment as several leading Republicans in Congress have been critical of the
Administration's efforts in Iraq. Also, last January, I visited Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Israel. While in Iraq, I was able
to meet with senior U.S. military commanders, Iraqi officials and our troops in Baghdad, Fallujah and Kirkuk. In
the aftermath of this trip, I continue to believe that the responsible course of action for the U.S. is to bring our
troops home as soon as possible, while giving the Iraqi people a reasonable chance to govern their own affairs
and preventing Iraq from collapsing into complete civil war and chaos. And I do not want to take any precipitous
action that might put our troops in any more danger than they already are.
Thus, as tempting as it is to call for an immediate and complete troop withdrawal or termination of funding, it is
important that we stage any eventual withdrawal so as to minimize the potential risk of widespread ethnic conflict
or harm to our service members. But with the December 15th elections behind us, the U.S. should move to
reduce its military footprint in Iraq. If the Iraqis are serious about keeping the country together, they must arrive at
the political compromises necessary to do so, and facilitate the objective of drawing down U.S. troops this year.
Thank you again for contacting me. You can be sure that your views will be on my mind as these issues are
discussed in the coming weeks.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Thank you for taking the time to contact me to express your views
regarding immigration. I appreciate hearing from you on this important
issue.
I understand your concerns about illegal immigration. I support efforts to prevent illegal entry into the United
States. I have voted for legislation that has boosted the number of Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents, strengthened the standards for the issuance of visas, and given the federal government
more authority to investigate the smuggling of illegal aliens. I also support efforts to level the playing field for
native U.S. workers by bringing the undocumented immigrant workforce out of the shadows and requiring
employers to comply with immigration, wage, and labor protection laws.
I believe that any immigration reform legislation that emerges from the Senate must provide a comprehensive
solution to the complex set of immigration-related problems we face. We must strengthen the security of our
borders through the use of advanced detection technology, increased manpower and resources for our Border
Patrol, and the targeting of illegal smuggling networks. We also must address one of the root causes of illegal
immigration: the willingness of American employers to hire undocumented workers. Comprehensive
immigration reform should create an effective electronic verification system for employees, and hold employers
accountable when they hire unauthorized immigrants.
While immigration reform must acknowledge that illegal immigrants have
violated the law, we cannot ignore the fact that millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States are
already part of our communities and our economy. Comprehensive immigration reform must bring these
immigrants out of the shadows so we can distinguish those who are contributing members of our society from
those who are a threat. We must also provide an opportunity for immigrants who work hard, pay taxes, have no
criminal records, and learn the English language to advance on the path toward legal permanent residence
and citizenship. In our nation, a path to earned legalization has always been open to immigrants pursuing the
American dream.
Finally, our government must protect Americans who provide humanitarian
aid and spiritual guidance to their neighbors, including illegal
immigrants. I will not support legislation that turns our priests,
doctors, and neighbors into criminals because they have helped those
around them in times of need.
On March 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, voted to
pass immigration reform legislation drafted by Senator Arlen Specter.
Senator Specter's legislation combines elements of various immigration
reform proposals, including the legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Kennedy and a bill (H.R. 4437)
passed by the House of Representatives. Senator Specter's legislation advances many of the goals I outlined
above, and it would establish an immigration system that is tough but fair. I voted for the Specter legislation in
committee and continued to support its principles on the Senate floor.
There is no doubt that our current immigration system is broken. We must replace it with one that is tough
and effective, but that is also fair and consistent with our values. I will continue to support legislation that
advances us toward these goals.
Thank you again for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/ds
P.S. If you are ever visiting Washington, please feel free to join Senator Obama and me at our weekly
constituent coffee. When the Senate is in session, we provide coffee and donuts every Thursday at 8:30 a.m.
as we hear what is on the minds of Illinoisans and respond to your questions. We would welcome your
participation. Please call my D.C. office for more details.
One reason Mark Kirk wins re-election is that he’s done a good job of hiding his real
voting record. He says he opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for
example, and when the spotlight is on a particular vote he will that way as long as the
outcome is in no doubt. But on other less noticed votes, when drilling has a chance to
be stopped and the vote is going to be very close, Kirk votes in favor of drilling.
He talks like a “moderate,” but votes like a “conservative.” And, for too long, he’s been
getting away with his self-created myth of being a “thoughtful, independent leader.”
That’s why Tenth Dems has started a series of brochures designed to let voters know
that Kirk is no moderate, and that Kirk is no friend of the environment.
If you would like some copies of the brochure to distribute, you can obtain them by
contacting Tenth Dems at 847-266-VOTE (8683), or e-mailing info@tenthdems.org.
Right now, we have two brochures available: “I Thought Mark Kirk was a Moderate,”
and “I Thought Mark Kirk was a Friend of the Environment.” If voters learn what the real
Mark Kirk is like, he can be defeated in this district…which backed John Kerry by a 53-
47 margin in 2004. You can help to spread the word.