[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 71 (Thursday, May 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3655-S3689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2881, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2881) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for fiscal year 2008 through 2011, to improve 
     aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for 
     the national aviation system, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Rockefeller amendment No. 4627, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4628 (to amendment No. 4627), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4629 (to amendment No. 4628), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4630 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 4627), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 4631 (to amendment No. 4630), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the work done on this piece of legislation 
to bring it to the floor is a good piece of work. Democrats and 
Republicans worked together to move toward solving one of America's 
major problems, and that is dealing with our aviation system. Chairman 
Rockefeller, Senator Inouye, Senator Baucus, Senator Stevens, Senator 
Grassley, Senator Hutchison, and their staffs understood that ensuring 
the safety and efficiency of America's air traffic is too important to 
fall victim to politics, slow walking, or obstruction. It even appeared 
for a while that this bill was on the path to a relatively smooth and 
easy final passage.
  But now our Republican colleagues have signaled that they plan to let 
this bipartisan legislation fall victim to more obstruction. We could 
have moved to the bill yesterday, but the Republicans wouldn't let us 
do that. They forced us to spend more valuable legislative time not 
legislating, not trying to strengthen our country for the American 
people but simply overcoming procedural roadblocks that have been 
thrown at us time after time.

[[Page S3656]]

  As we have said on a number of occasions, but certainly it is worth 
saying again, Republicans broke the 2-year filibuster record in the 
history of this Senate in just 10 months. We are now up to 68 
filibusters. That is not normal filibustering, it is filibustering on 
steroids.
  Democrats want to change our country for the better. We want to 
change the status quo. We have an economy spiraling into recession. Gas 
and oil prices are at a record high. We have the war in Iraq that 70 
percent of the American people want to end. The problems we have faced 
and now face can't be solved easily.
  But it would not be solved at all if Republicans refuse to let us 
legislate. The distinguished minority leader raised questions about 
offering amendments to the aviation modernization bill. As I said 
several times yesterday, we welcome their amendments. We want them to 
offer amendments. We understand there is a Bunning amendment dealing 
with turning coal into aviation fuel. I don't know much about that, but 
it is something that appears to be germane and relevant to the bill. We 
should start to debate that amendment. But it appears no matter what I 
suggest, it is obvious the Republicans don't like this bill and are not 
going to let us pass it.
  It is my understanding that today they are concerned about at least 
two provisions in the bill. One deals with strengthening the passenger 
rail system we have in America and also doing something about the 
depleted highway trust fund, which is leaving States with no money to 
do road repairs, construction, and modernization. If that is the case, 
it seems to me the logical thing to do is to offer an amendment to take 
those provisions out of the bill.
  Long ago, when I was an assemblyman in the Nevada State Legislature, 
it didn't take long to understand that if you don't like something, 
just move to take it out. If you can muster the votes, that works. If 
your amendment doesn't pass, at least everybody knows you have tried. 
Here the Republicans don't even try. They want to just kill things by 
doing nothing.
  I told my Republican counterpart that Democrats are making every 
effort we can to allow amendments to be offered. We welcome relevant 
amendments on both sides of the aisle. That is how the legislative 
process is supposed to work. I even offered to the Republican leader 
that we can sit down and let him help me be the gatekeeper of what 
amendments should be offered. That is fair.
  Do I want to avoid amendments that have nothing to do with aviation? 
I don't even care much about that. I want to move this bill forward. 
The Republicans' obstruction and claims of unfair dealings are not 
reflective of the facts or reality. I made it clear that the amendment 
process will be fair, open, and take place in the light of day. This 
legislation is far too important to fall victim to the gamesmanship we 
are now seeing. Air travel is about getting from point A to point B, 
such as going from Las Vegas to San Francisco or from San Francisco to 
Chicago. That is what it is about--connecting to family and friends, 
getting goods to businesses, and connecting Americans to the global 
community.
  The Federal Aviation Administration is facing challenges like they 
have never faced before. A record 770 million passengers flew on U.S. 
commercial airlines in 2007--nearly double the number who flew just 20 
years ago.
  If these trends continue, the FAA told us we will have 1 billion 
passengers in just 12 years.
  Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport--the fifth busiest in 
America--now hosts 4 million passengers every month. At this rate, 
McCarran will reach maximum capacity in the next 3 to 5 years.
  Every American who flies understands what this new congestion means: 
longer lines, more delays, and a more stressful, less efficient trip.
  If growth in air travel in Nevada and throughout America is managed 
correctly, it represents a tremendous opportunity for airlines, 
tourism, and our economy. But the risks we face if we don't bring our 
aviation infrastructure up to speed are clear: Americans could be put 
at greater risk, our economy could suffer, and air travel could grind 
to a halt.
  This Aviation Investment Modernization Act will help ensure that we 
manage this growing challenge. It will help passengers take off sooner, 
land safer, help commerce flow with fewer interruptions, and help 
carriers lower their fuel costs--which will save us all money.
  The Aviation Investment Act will make air travel safer by upgrading 
aging airport infrastructure, enhancing oversight of airlines and the 
Federal Aviation Administration, and improving runway safety. There was 
an article within the past week that most airline accidents--the close 
calls--are on runways, not in the air.
  Right now, the GPS in your car is more sophisticated than the system 
that guides your flight in an airplane. That is why this bill 
modernizes an obsolete air traffic control system with modern 
technology. That is why this bill requires airlines to give passengers 
better information about arrivals and delays. That is why the bill 
incorporates elements of the passenger bill of rights to protect 
consumers and deal with the most egregious flight delays and 
cancellations. That is why this bill does things that make air travel 
safer.
  As Americans take to the skies in record numbers, they deserve to 
know the Government is doing everything possible to keep them safe. 
This legislation will give the American people that confidence. It will 
also make flying not only safer but less stressful, more efficient, and 
more enjoyable.
  We must not let a crumbling infrastructure grind our economy to a 
halt. That is what it is doing.
  I urge my colleagues, once again, to put politics aside, put 
obstruction aside, and work with us to pass the Aviation Investment 
Modernization Act.
  Mr. President, if somebody wants to offer an amendment to this bill, 
they can come down and do that. They can play all the political games 
they want, saying: Senator Reid filled the tree. This is something that 
is way inside the beltway, Mr. President. On this vehicle now before 
the Senate, people can offer amendments. All they have to do is come 
and give us an idea of what the amendment is. I have been in the Senate 
a long time, and it is no new theory that you would like to know what 
the amendment is. We always give our amendments to the minority and say 
here is what it is going to be. They should see it firsthand. This does 
not prohibit them from doing that.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 4636

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to commit the bill to the Finance 
Committee with the instruction to report back forthwith, with the 
following amendment, which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) moves to commit the bill 
     to the Committee on Finance, with instructions, with the 
     following amendment:

       The provision of this act shall become effective 2 days 
     after enactment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4637

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``2'' and insert ``1''
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3657]]

                            Spending Record

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to respond to some attacks relative 
to my integrity which were run today in a New York newspaper--I think 
it was the Daily News--which I presume were energized and orchestrated 
by the staff of the leadership--the Senate office of the senior Senator 
from New York. The editorial could not have had the fact pattern that 
it had, had it not been fed that information from the senior Senator's 
staff. So I think it is appropriate to respond to it.
  It implies, obviously, that I am inconsistent in my views on how I 
approach spending in this Congress. I think that will come as a 
surprise to most people in this Congress because I doubt anyone in this 
Congress--I am sure there are a few--does not think my record in trying 
to control spending and having some resistance to spending which I feel 
is inappropriate is fairly strong.
  As chairman of the Budget Committee, I tried to discipline spending. 
I tried to make our Government more affordable for our children. I 
tried not to pass on to our children debts which they should not have 
to bear so our children can have the opportunity to live as fulfilling 
a life and have as high quality a life as we have had.
  There is in this bill a proposal to spend $1.6 billion on an air 
train to Kennedy Airport. That is not an aircraft issue. It is clearly 
an add-on. This proposal is, ironically, paid for using the Tax Code in 
a very ingenious way. It gives a credit to the State of New York, or 
the city, for taxes which they don't pay over a period of time, which 
is fairly extensive. I think it will run into the period 2020. That 
credit totals about $1.6 billion, $1.7 billion. It is, under any 
scenario--I did not use this term when I spoke about it first, but I 
will use it now--it is under any scenario an earmark, and not a very 
good earmark, to say the least.
  The representation is that my opposition to this is an attack on the 
efforts of this country to address the very serious and legitimate and 
appropriate concerns of the city of New York that resulted from 9/11.
  After 9/11, the people of New Hampshire and the people of this Nation 
were committed and remain committed to making sure the city of New York 
is made whole, to the extent it can be. Obviously, it could never be 
after such a horrific event. We in our State were happy to take our tax 
dollars and put them toward the city to try to address those problems, 
and I voted for that. And we in our State were happy to support efforts 
to rebuild and continue to be happy to support efforts to rebuild 
Ground Zero because that is a place which has taken on sacred meaning 
to our Nation. But we are not interested, in New Hampshire--and I 
suspect most American citizens are not interested--in using dollars 
which were supposed to be used for 9/11 to help out some other, maybe a 
legitimate need--but I don't know whether it is--in the city of New 
York, and that is building a train. I call it the train to nowhere. It 
is a bit of an exaggeration, but since I was trying to put it in the 
context of an earmark that was of a questionable purpose, that seemed 
like a reasonable term to use. That has become sort of like the term 
``Xerox'' when you talk about an earmark about which you have serious 
questions. But building this air train to Kennedy Airport--by the way, 
I understand there is some significant disagreement within the city 
about whether it should even be built, but certainly it should not be 
on this bill as an attempt to basically get around an authorizing 
process or a process which would air whether this earmark is 
appropriate.
  It should also not use a brand new exercise in tax policy, which is 
totally inappropriate, of basically using the tax laws in a way that 
creates an earmark by saying that you get a credit for a tax you don't 
even have to pay. That is very bad precedent--horrific precedent, quite 
honestly.
  This earmark should see the light of day, and I don't think it can be 
defended on the grounds of 9/11. In fact, I think that really does 
serious damage to the historic and very human perspective of 9/11. To 
try to defend building an air train to Kennedy Airport and stand behind 
9/11 as your reasoning, and then claim, in a way that is most 
inappropriate, in my opinion, if somebody opposes that proposal, they 
are attacking the memory and the purpose and the sacredness of the 9/11 
event and the Ground Zero reconstruction, is just, even by New York 
standards of exaggerated politics, carrying it a step too far--more 
than a step too far, in my opinion. But that is what was done here.
  An earmark was created for something which has only marginal 
relationship to even downtown Manhattan--I guess you have to get there 
from Manhattan, so I guess it has a relationship--certainly no nexus 
with Ground Zero from the standpoint of an air tram construction to 
Kennedy Airport. Using the tax laws in an abusive way to generate this 
earmark and then claiming, when anybody raises the question of the 
legitimacy of it, that they are somehow acting in a way that is 
inconsistent with the commitment to the rebuilding of New York after 9/
11 and they are degrading the name of the 9/11 event is beyond the 
pale.

  But that seems to be the goal, the style, and the approach of at 
least the people who fed the information to the paper--which I presume 
was the staff of the senior Senator from New York. Maybe it was not his 
staff. I would like him to come down here and deny it if it wasn't. I 
would like him to come to the floor and deny it if he didn't basically 
give this information and set the tone of this position because, very 
clearly, in my opinion, he has.
  Let's return to the fact pattern as it exists. I will stop using the 
term ``train to nowhere'' because I can understand how that might 
irritate. I will accept that term was probably inappropriately applied. 
I will call it an earmark, a very questionable earmark for a lot of 
money which does not flow from the original commitment, in my opinion, 
to the rebuilding of New York--which the citizenry of America made and 
which we were happy to stand behind.
  In fact, ironically, the plans for this train, this elevated train, 
were begun in 1998, and the actual commitments that this train would go 
forward, as I understand it, were discussed as early as 1988. The claim 
this is tied into Ground Zero is to extend credibility quite a bit, in 
my opinion. To hide behind that and use it in such a personal way which 
basically questions another Member's integrity is obviously 
inappropriate.
  I think the Senator may have the votes to support his proposal to 
raid the Tax Code for $1.6 billion. Maybe he has the votes to do that. 
But it should not be on this bill. It is not an airplane issue. I can 
tell you right now, if I have anything to say about it, this bill is 
not going to move forward as long as it is on this bill.
  It had not been my intention to engage at this level, but, as, you 
know, people from New Hampshire know how to play politics. We know how 
to deal in this Chamber as well as people from New York. We may be from 
the country, but we know how to engage. It appears engagement has been 
called upon, so let us go forward and see who is right, see who has the 
equities on their side, and determine whether the American people 
believe building a train which was designed in 1988, was committed to, 
I believe, in 1998, about which there is considerable discussion 
whether it should even be going forward, which is an elevated train to 
an airport in, I believe, Queens, is an appropriate use of $1.7 or $1.6 
billion of their hard-earned income. Let's see what happens on that 
issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I remember those days in West 
Virginia when all the major airlines operating large jet aircraft 
served all of West Virginia's airports--jets, actual jets coming into 
West Virginia. Airline deregulation was a terrible mistake. It changed 
the very nature of air travel in this country for all. For millions of 
Americans in large urban areas, it ushered in an era of affordable air 
traffic. A trip to New York and Los Angeles went down. In fact, at a 
number of points, it became much cheaper to go

[[Page S3658]]

to Los Angeles from New York than to go from West Virginia to 
Washington. But for West Virginia communities, it meant a loss of 
service and convenience and often higher prices. It seemed to me that 
the big jets disappeared from West Virginia within days of 
deregulation. I remember those nice American, United, and Eastern jets 
sitting out there on the tarmac, people piling on. Deregulation--boom, 
they were gone.
  For 30 years, small and rural communities have had to cope with very 
limited and unreliable service. The Presiding Officer knows exactly 
what I am talking about. Over the last several years, these problems 
have been exacerbated by the weakened financial condition of the U.S. 
airlines, which is what this whole effort to get a bill going is about.
  After September 11, dozens of communities saw a dramatic decrease in 
the level of air service. It was measurable, noticeable, and 
depressing. Many lost service altogether. As the industry recovered 
from the dramatic downturn in the air traffic that tragic day sparked, 
small communities did not see the benefits of that resurgence because 
once they dropped something, it was easier to keep it dropped rather 
than to help.
  Small community air service is facing an unprecedented crisis. If we 
fail to act to address this problem, dozens of small communities across 
our Nation will face a future without air service. Consider that for a 
moment--small communities, viable industries, institutions, people who 
count. Americans are born equal, but then some don't have air service. 
That is what we have now. Without access to reliable air service, we 
throw into question their economic future.
  I do not come to the Senate to represent the diminution of 
possibilities for West Virginia's economic future. I have spoken about 
the weakened financial condition of our major airlines. But we must 
also recognize that small regional carriers that provide the air 
service to rural States such as West Virginia and Montana and parts of 
Ohio, I am quite certain, also provide the vast majority of air service 
to midsize communities across the country, and they are teetering on 
the brink of collapse because of high fuel prices.
  As Senator Baucus knows all too well, small airlines across the West 
have folded, leaving at least 17 communities with no air service at 
all. Seventeen communities would sort of make up the entire State of 
West Virginia. That is a terrible blow. So few regional airlines are 
willing to initiate service to small, isolated communities that, when 
one withdraws service, it is very hard to find replacement air service. 
In most cases, it is impossible. Hundreds of small and rural 
communities across our country are facing drastically reduced air 
service because of this financial turmoil in the industry. Even in the 
best of times, these communities face a difficult time maintaining and 
developing new air service options. Today, their challenge is 
preventing the complete loss of air service. That is effort No. 1: Hold 
on to whatever you might have. No matter if it is one flight a day, 
hold on to it. Fight for it.
  I strongly believe the Federal Government must continue to assist our 
most vulnerable communities stay connected to the Nation's aviation 
network, a network paid for by all Americans.
  The reduction or elimination of air service has been devastating in 
terms of its effect on the economic well-being of many of our 
communities across the country. Having adequate air service is not only 
a matter of convenience, it is a matter of economic survival. Without 
access to reliable air service, businesses will not locate their 
operations in these areas of the country, no matter how attractive the 
quality of life or the quality of the workforce. We have, for example, 
extremely low housing prices, low property taxes, and an 
extraordinarily highly productive workforce, with an average in 
manufacturing of 1 percent annual turnover. That is almost unheard of. 
Airports are economic engines that attract critical new development 
opportunities and the people who can make those things happen or 
continue to grow.
  West Virginia is a very good place to do business. Toyota and a 
number of other large industries, chemical and otherwise, have found 
that out. I can proudly state that countless large U.S. and 
international companies have facilities in my State. I can even point 
out that 20 Japanese companies have industries in the State of West 
Virginia, three in Wayne County, which the Presiding Officer is 
familiar with. From West Virginia, a business traveler can get to seven 
airline hubs and from these seven cities can get to any point on the 
globe. One-stop service to Tokyo, London, Dubai is critical if my State 
is going to compete in the global economy. West Virginia has been able 
to attract firms from around the world because corporate executives 
know they can visit their operations with ease. That is why we have air 
service. Rural and smalltown America must continue to be adequately 
linked to the Nation's air transportation network if its people and 
businesses are to compete with larger urban areas and around the world.
  When Congress deregulated the airline industry, we promised small and 
rural communities we would make sure they would remain connected to the 
aviation system. We have failed in our commitment to those promises. 
The Essential Air Service Program, which Congress established when we 
deregulated the airline industry, is not a huge program, but it 
provides money to attract airlines into smaller communities and is 
incredibly valuable.
  But, on the other hand, the essential air service has never met the 
true needs and expectations of rural air service or the necessary 
requirements of rural air service.
  In West Virginia, the essential air service has often been plagued by 
high fares and limited, sporadic service. For 10 years, I have worked 
to strengthen small community air service. I do that because I 
represent a rural State with hard-working people who have an enormous 
desire to succeed and to work and are deprived of what many other 
Americans take for granted. That is not fair in Internet connection; 
you cannot have a rural and urban divide. It is just as true in airline 
service; you cannot have urban doing well, rurals being left out 
because we are all Americans, all created by God to be equal.
  So I have worked to strengthen small community air service. In the 
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, which Congress 
enacted into law in the distant past of the year 2000, we began to 
address the need to improve air service in small and rural communities.
  I, along with many of my colleagues, supported the creation of 
something called the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot 
Program, a competitive grant program to provide communities with the 
resources they needed to attract new air service to their town. We try 
everything we can. We try absolutely everything we can. Over 100 
communities now have used these grants to secure and retain new air 
service options. That is good.
  I wish to highlight two success stories which happened in my State. 
Charleston received money under the program I have described and has 
used it successfully--Charleston is our capital--they have used it very 
successfully to attract a new service connection for our chemical 
industry to Houston. Why is that important? Well, our chemical 
companies do a lot of the training of their people in Houston and then 
they come back and they work in our chemical companies. Air service to 
Houston gave West Virginians an important gateway, in addition, 
therefore, to the markets of Latin America.
  Over the past 2 years, Tri-State Airport in Huntington has been 
reborn because of the money it received under this Small Community Air 
Service Development Grant Program. Prior to attracting a low-cost 
charter operator, the airport had seen a steep decline in the number of 
passengers using the airport. With fewer passengers, airlines cut back 
flights. Fewer flights meant fewer passengers. It was a death spiral.
  Once the community was able to secure a grant, matched with almost as 
many local dollars, airport officials were able to attract a new 
carrier that served the critical markets local residents wanted. For 
the first time in 20 years, large jets roared off the runways in West 
Virginia, in Huntington. The airport will have 100,000 passengers pass 
through its gates for the first time in decades.
  Now, that is not very impressive if you are from New York or Los 
Angeles,

[[Page S3659]]

but in West Virginia it shakes the world, and it gives people new hope. 
I was there when all this happened, and you could see a new sense of 
vigor and determination in the population. Air service attracts 
community ambition.
  Improving air service must be a collective effort. Communities are 
most successful in creating new air service options when everyone--
including the Federal and the State governments, airports, airlines, 
businesses, and citizens--works together to attract, promote, and use 
the service.
  One of the things we learned the hard way in West Virginia was you 
cannot treat an airport similar to something which is out there which 
people will automatically go to. We used to have a lot of our people 
from Charleston driving all the way to Cincinnati and actually not 
understanding that the cost of traveling to Cincinnati and the fuel and 
the overnight and all the rest of it actually did not give them that 
much of a financial break, but they looked at the cost of the airline 
and off they went. So 16 percent of Charleston's traffic disappeared.
  I am now proud to say West Virginia communities have been able to use 
this important program to rethink their air service needs, to think 
about marketing airports. You market airports like you market anything 
else. People have to be aware of it. You have to attract people to it. 
It is not something which is there. It is something which has to sell 
itself. LaGuardia does not have to do that. Newark does not have to do 
that. In West Virginia, we have to do that, and we are doing that.
  The FAA bill that is before us extends the authorization for these 
important programs for 4 more years.
  Four West Virginia commercial airports rely solely upon the Essential 
Air Service program for any service at all. We are extending that and 
enlarging the amount. No community wants to be dependent on essential 
air service. It is not a badge of honor. But it is a fact of survival. 
But for many, it is their only option to maintain air service.
  But as I mentioned earlier, the program has not met the needs of many 
communities. In 2003, as part of the last FAA reauthorization bill, I 
created a number of new voluntary pilot programs for essential air 
service communities. I modeled these initiatives after the Small 
Community Air Service Pilot Program by focusing on incentives rather 
than punitive approaches.
  Under this new plan, a community could receive funds to develop its 
own marketing plans rather than rely on the airline for one. It could 
use funds to increase service levels, opt to use different types of 
aircraft or investigate the use of alternative transportation service. 
In other words, it said: What is our problem? What are we going to do 
about it? We cannot wait on other people. We have to make these 
decisions ourselves. We are doing that in West Virginia.
  This year, we have added a number of provisions to strengthen the 
Essential Air Service program. We have increased the authorization 
level for the program by $58 million to $175 million a year. We have 
included provisions to help carriers that provide the essential air 
service so they can meet the cost of high fuel. It is essential. We 
have increased the flexibility of the program even further so 
communities can work with the Department of Transportation and air 
carriers to find air service that works for them.
  Small and rural communities are the very first to bear the brunt of 
bad economic times. It has always been so. It shall always be so. The 
Presiding Officer knows exactly what I am talking about. We are always, 
in West Virginia, at the end of the food chain on everything. We 
understand that. We do not like it, but that is our current 
destiny, and so that is why we have to fight harder and try to be more 
imaginative.

  The general economic downturn and the dire straits of the aviation 
industry have placed exceptional burdens on air service to our most 
isolated communities. The Federal Government must provide additional 
resources for small communities to help themselves attract air service. 
If you have to do the work yourself, you do it. You just do it. The 
Federal Government must make sure our most vulnerable towns and cities 
are linked to the rest of the Nation. It is an easy statement to make, 
but it is a huge statement. We have an obligation in this country to 
make sure all of our communities and our people are linked to the broad 
air service opportunities, hubs and spokes. It has to happen.
  My legislation builds on existing programs and strengthens them. We 
must continue to provide our constituents the tools and resources 
necessary to attract air service, and we are doing that.
  So, in closing, I should say a subsidy alone does not solve the 
problems of small community air service. If our constituents do not use 
that service, or the airlines take it away--airlines cannot operate 
unprofitable flights or flights that are marginally profitable, for 
which they could do better elsewhere. They make a little bit of money 
or they do not make a little bit of money, and they are gone because 
their situation is so dire.
  I do not know what the future of the U.S. airline industry will look 
like in 6 months, but our Nation needs a strong airline industry. Our 
communities need to be connected to the aviation system.
  That is why we are going through this most extraordinary exercise of 
no amendments to be voted on, a good deal of time to sit and talk, a 
great deal of frustration. But we are trying to pass something called 
the Federal aviation bill that will provide service to our people. If 
there is anything in the national interest, it is that. I will not go 
so far as to say it is more important than the interstate highway 
system, in terms of economic development and also reaching out to the 
world, which all our States need now to do on a two-way basis.
  So we fight. We continue to fight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, while the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia is on the floor, I wish to, first of all, commend him for 
his efforts on behalf of aviation in the United States. I associate 
myself with his remarks about rural and underserved areas. I associate 
myself with all the remarks he made in support of our aviation system.
  I am one of those people who are frustrated with our inability to 
deal right now with amendments. I understand a substitute was offered 
last night and the tree was filled so there are no germane amendments 
that were--the amendments that were filed yesterday are no longer 
germane; am I correct?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I say to my good friend, the 
Senator from Georgia, things have changed a bit this morning and 
decisions are being made on that side of the aisle that will determine 
whether we can move forward. I am hopeful about that process.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, in the hopeful event we can move 
forward, I wish to, for a minute, with the distinguished Senator, make 
him aware of an amendment I submitted yesterday but is not pending. It 
cannot be pending right now. I agree with the Senator entirely on the 
importance to the American economy of U.S. aviation. In the bill they 
put out, there is one element that was not addressed that I think 
should be.
  On December 31 of this year, the United States providing terrorism 
insurance to the airlines sunsets. If it is, there will be no access to 
terrorism insurance by U.S. domestic carriers because the only private 
insurers that will offer terrorism insurance offer it with an advanced 
cancellation provision, which basically means if we went to a code 
level orange or a code level red, the insurance company in advance of a 
terrorist attack could actually cancel the insurance. So the aviation 
industry would be without insurance.
  Our competition in Europe does not have that problem. They still have 
private insurance available for coverage of aviation terrorism. I 
submitted an amendment yesterday that would extend the date of December 
31 of this year--which is the expiration date--to make it December 31, 
2011, so airlines can continue to pay the U.S. Government for insurance 
against terrorism.
  If my understandings are correct, those premiums totaled $160 million 
in the last year and are a revenue source to the United States of 
America, as it should be. We should not be providing it without cost.
  So I would hope, when the meetings that are going on are concluded, 
and if

[[Page S3660]]

we can get back to the base bill and if amendments again become 
relevant, that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the 
Senator from Alaska, and the others who have worked so hard on this 
legislation will look favorably on an extension of terrorism insurance 
availability to domestic U.S. carriers.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I say also to my very dear friend 
from Georgia with whom I have a long and wonderful background because 
of his strong reaction to our plight in West Virginia with the coal 
miners--he doesn't have coal in his State but he came into our State 
and adopted it as his own and we adopted him.
  I also wish to tell him that what he is suggesting is something I 
very much support.


                Amendment No. 4642 to Amendment No. 4637

  Madam President, I believe there is an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes 
     an amendment numbered 4642 to amendment No. 4637.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``1'' and insert ``3.''
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Healthy Americans Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, there is now an historic coalition here 
in the Senate, a group of 14 Senators. Seven Democrats and 7 
Republicans are sponsoring a health bill guaranteeing all Americans 
quality, affordable health care coverage. There has never been such a 
coalition in the history of the Senate.
  Today our group got some historic news. The Government's go-to 
officials for budgeting and taxes have thrown decades of conventional 
wisdom into the trash can. They have informed our group that all 
Americans can have quality, affordable health care coverage without 
breaking the bank.
  Briefly, here is what the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation have found. They found that our legislation, the 
Healthy Americans Act, can be up and running in 2012. They found the 
legislation would become budget neutral in 2014. That means our 
legislation is self-financing in the first year that universal health 
care coverage would be fully implemented in our country. In the years 
after 2014, because the legislation holds down health cost increases, 
it starts to generate budget surpluses for the Federal Government.
  This analysis is fresh, independent evidence that health care can be 
fixed without massive tax increases or boatloads of additional 
Government spending. It is a chance, in my view, for Congress and our 
country to look at the issue of health care reform with fresh eyes, 
because what the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation have analyzed doesn't involve a set of lofty principles or 
some of the oratory from the campaign trail, but it is actual 
legislation.
  Because this report is a historic document, I ask unanimous consent 
that the letter dated today from the Congressional Budget Office and 
the Joint Committee on Taxation be printed in the Record. The report is 
available on the CBO Web site www.cbo.gov.
 There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      May 1, 2008.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert F. Bennett,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: At your request, the staffs of our two 
     organizations have collaborated on a preliminary analysis of 
     a modified proposal for comprehensive health insurance based 
     on S. 334, the ``Healthy Americans Act,'' which you 
     introduced last year. That modified proposal includes various 
     clarifications and changes that you have indicated you would 
     like to examine as part of the consideration of that bill. 
     Attachment A summarizes our understanding of your modified 
     proposal.
       The staffs of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the 
     Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have worked closely 
     together for the past several months to analyze your modified 
     proposal; this collaboration reflects both the novelty of the 
     undertaking and the intimate connection between the revenue 
     and expenditure components of this proposal. We have 
     summarized our conclusions in this joint letter; its purpose 
     is to give you preliminary guidance regarding an approximate 
     range of revenue and cost results that might be expected from 
     your modified proposal. This joint letter does not constitute 
     and should not be interpreted as a formal estimate of your 
     proposal's budgetary impact, which--for the purposes of 
     scoring under the Congressional Budget Act--would ultimately 
     be provided by CBO and would incorporate revenue estimates 
     prepared by the JCT staff.
       The basic thrust of your modified proposal is to require 
     individuals to purchase private health insurance and to 
     establish state-run purchasing pools and a system of Federal 
     premium collections and subsidies to facilitate those 
     purchases. The system's premium collection and subsidy 
     mechanisms would be based largely on income tax filings, and 
     the required benefits would initially be based on the Blue 
     Cross/Blue Shield standard plan offered to Federal workers in 
     2011 and then allowed to grow at the rate of growth of the 
     economy. Although employers would have the option of 
     continuing to offer coverage to their workers, nearly 
     all individuals who were not enrolled in Medicare would 
     obtain their basic health insurance coverage through this 
     new system. Most enrollees in Medicaid and all enrollees 
     in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 
     would have their primary insurance coverage shifted to the 
     new system.
       Your proposal also would replace the current tax exclusion 
     for employer-based health insurance premiums with a fixed 
     income tax deduction for health insurance. (In addition, 
     employers that had provided health insurance would be 
     expected to ``cash out'' their workers--that is, to increase 
     workers' wages by the average contribution that the employers 
     would have made for their health plan.) The proposal also 
     would require new tax payments from employers to the Federal 
     government and further would seek to recapture the savings to 
     state governments from reduced expenditures on Medicaid and 
     SCHIP.
       There are several important distinctions between the 
     proposal we analyzed and S. 334 as it was introduced. For 
     example, our analysis was limited to the operation of the new 
     health insurance purchasing system and did not take into 
     account most of S. 334's provisions regarding the Medicare 
     program or other provisions that would not directly affect 
     the new system. More fundamentally, the modified proposal 
     would tie the premiums collected through the tax system--as 
     well as the premium subsidies for lower-income households--to 
     the cost of the least expensive health plan available in an 
     area that provided required benefits, not to the average 
     premium amount, as under S. 334. Furthermore, the value of 
     the new tax deduction would not vary with the premium of the 
     insurance policy that was actually purchased, and the 
     schedule of employers' payment rates would range from 3 
     percent to 26 percent (rather than 2 percent to 25 percent) 
     of the average premium. Attachment B describes in more detail 
     the main differences between your modified proposal and S. 
     334.
       The preliminary analysis reflected in this letter is 
     subject to three important limitations. First, the staffs of 
     both JCT and CBO are in the process of enhancing our 
     capabilities to estimate the effects of comprehensive health 
     care proposals. Improvements in our methodologies or more 
     careful analysis of your modified proposal's provisions--
     particularly as you translate those concepts into formal 
     legislative language--could change our assessment of its 
     consequences.
       Second, any formal budget estimate will reflect the 
     macroeconomic assumptions and the baseline projections of 
     current-law tax and spending policies in effect at the time 
     it is issued. That baseline could differ materially from 
     today's baseline.
       Third, we focused our analysis on a single future year in 
     which the proposed system would be fully implemented. For 
     that purpose, we settled on 2014, the sixth year of the 
     current 2009-2018 budget window. Under an assumption that the 
     proposal is enacted in 2008, that timeline for full 
     implementation seems to us to be achievable but could be 
     optimistic, as we expect that it would probably take until 
     2012 for the new system to begin operation, and several 
     years after that for various phase-ins and behavioral 
     adjustments to take place. The new system would involve 
     temporary net budgetary costs in its initial years; we 
     have not analyzed the magnitude of those early-year 
     transition costs.
       Overall, our preliminary analysis indicates that the 
     proposal would be roughly budget-

[[Page S3661]]

     neutral in 2014. That is, our analysis suggests that your 
     proposal would be essentially self-financing in the first 
     year that it was fully implemented. That net result reflects 
     large gross changes in Federal revenues and outlays that 
     would roughly offset each other.
       More specifically, under your proposal, most health 
     insurance premiums that are now paid privately would flow 
     through the Federal budget. As a result, total Federal 
     outlays for health insurance premiums in 2014 would be on the 
     order of $1.3 trillion to $1.4 trillion. Those costs would be 
     approximately offset by revenues and savings from several 
     sources: premium payments collected from individuals through 
     their tax returns; revenue raised by replacing the current 
     tax exclusion for health insurance with an income tax 
     deduction; new tax payments by employers to the Federal 
     government; Federal savings on Medicaid and SCHIP; and state 
     maintenance-of-effort payments of their savings from Medicaid 
     and SCHIP. Attachment C provides more information about the 
     approximate magnitudes of those components.
       For the years after 2014, we anticipate that the fiscal 
     impact would improve gradually, so that the proposal would 
     tend to become more than self-financing and thereby would 
     reduce future budget deficits or increase future surpluses. 
     That improvement would reflect two features of the proposal. 
     First, the amount of the new health insurance deduction would 
     grow at the rate of general price inflation and thus would 
     increase more slowly than the value of the current tax 
     exclusion.
       Second, the minimum value of covered benefits that all 
     participating health plans had to provide would initially be 
     set at the level of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield standard 
     option offered to Federal workers in 2011 (we assume that the 
     system's inaugural year would be 2012); but under your 
     proposal that average value would from that point forward be 
     indexed to growth in gross domestic product per capita rather 
     than growth in health care costs. Because Federal premium 
     subsidies would be based on the cost of providing that level 
     of coverage, the cost of those subsidies would grow more 
     slowly over time.
       We hope this analysis is useful to you. Not surprisingly, a 
     number of uncertainties arise in attempting to predict the 
     effects of such large-scale changes to the current health 
     insurance system. Although we have provided a range of 
     results that reflect our current expectations about likely 
     outcomes, actual experience--and the results of a formal cost 
     estimate--could differ substantially in either direction. If 
     you have any questions about this analysis, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us; the staff contacts are Pam Moomau and 
     Nikole Flax for JCT and Philip Ellis for CBO.
           Sincerely,
     Peter R. Orszag,
       Director, Congressional Budget Office.
     Edward D. Kleinbard,
       Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I wish to touch on a few points with 
respect to this report. Obviously, the key to fixing health care is to 
contain costs. Our bipartisan legislation does that by making sure all 
Americans have more clout in the marketplace. We achieve that by making 
sure that everyone goes into a big pool, because if they are off by 
themselves, they don't have a lot of ability to get the best deal for 
their health care dollar. But if they belong to a bigger group, they 
have a lot better chance of containing costs. We cut the administrative 
costs of health care. We use a State and regional pooling approach that 
has been found to cut administrative costs. We get patients out of 
unnecessary hospital emergency room visits because more would get seen 
on an outpatient basis. We make progressive changes in tax law and we 
empower consumers, because for the first time, if they have employer-
based health coverage, they could actually find out what is being spent 
on their health care. Right now, basically all they know is they are 
not seeing their wages go up because health care costs are eating up 
all of the employers' resources. We think making sure that the worker 
knows what is being spent on health care provides them a new set of 
opportunities to get more for their health care dollar.
  My view is that today's health care system is largely driven by 
employers and insurance companies. Clearly, there is a significant role 
to play for them. But what we do in our legislation is provide a bigger 
role for individuals and especially their health care providers--the 
thousands of doctors and nurses and physician assistants. We make sure 
that everybody under our legislation could have a health care home. So 
instead of being lost in an incredibly complicated health care system, 
there would be one person who would coordinate each individual's care.
  A big part of what we are doing in this bill is to modernize the 
employer-employee relationship in the health care field. What we are 
doing in 2008 in health care as it relates to employers and employees 
isn't much different than what was done in 1948. The Chair can remember 
all of the efforts of President Truman to make changes in American 
health care. So we modernize that relationship. We continue to let 
employers who choose to offer coverage, but we give the workers more 
choices with respect to their health care and we give the employers 
much needed cost relief, which is especially essential at a time when 
they are competing in tough global markets.
  I want to mention all of my colleagues who are sponsoring this 
legislation with me. Senator Bennett of Utah, a member of the 
Republican leadership, is the principal cosponsor. Senator Bennett's 
knowledge of economics, in my view, has few equals and I could not have 
a better partner for this whole effort. We have seven Democrats and 
seven Republicans who are on the effort. I am particularly pleased that 
so many from the Senate Finance Committee, where Senator Baucus and 
Senator Grassley have worked in a bipartisan tradition for years, are 
part of our effort. From the Senate Finance Committee we have Senator 
Grassley and Senator Crapo and Senator Stabenow cosponsoring the 
legislation, all of them making a great contribution in this area.
  As we go forward in the days ahead, Senator Stabenow's expertise and 
interest, particularly in health information technology, is going to be 
instrumental. For example, Dr. Orszag, the director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, who brings great professionalism to this 
effort to look at health care, this morning when he briefed eight of us 
in the Senate on the legislation, mentioned the fact that the evidence 
suggests as much as 30 percent of the health care dollar is spent in a 
fashion that produces very little value. So what Senator Stabenow is 
trying to do with health information technology, electronic medical 
records, and other innovative approaches is to wring more value out of 
every health care dollar. Her contribution is so very important.
  Senator Grassley and I have worked together on many health care 
issues. Of course, the partnership we have on the Finance Committee 
between Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley is a very rare and a very 
beneficial alliance here in the Senate, and I so appreciate Senator 
Grassley's involvement.
  Senator Crapo is my partner in the West who has a great interest and 
long-standing involvement in rural health care, and we are very pleased 
that he is an additional voice on the Senate Finance Committee for the 
legislation.
  I would also like to credit the other Senators who are involved. We 
are very pleased that Senator Landrieu, who is helping to reinvent 
health care in her State as a result of destruction caused by Hurricane 
Katrina and all of the challenges they face, has been particularly 
interested in and creative in thinking about opening up new 
opportunities for entrepreneurship in her State and elsewhere. Senator 
Landrieu correctly points out that if you modernize the employer-
employee relationship in health care, that is going to mean we are 
going to have more entrepreneurs. It is going to be good for business. 
It is going to be good for our economy. We are going to be able to grow 
our economic base in the country. Senator Landrieu argues very 
eloquently, in my view, that if you provide some cost relief for the 
employers who got into the business of driving health care by accident 
in the 1940s, you are going to be able to create jobs and strengthen 
our economy.
  Senator Nelson, a former insurance commissioner, is one of our 
cosponsors. He has great expertise in insurance regulation. In fact, he 
pointed out this morning some of the tools that are going to be 
necessary to prevent price gouging in health insurance and is making a 
great contribution there.
  Senator Lieberman has a long-standing interest in this and is a 
cosponsor. Of course, his involvement is particularly critical because 
his State is a center of health insurance and technology and there are 
a variety of major economic concerns involved.

[[Page S3662]]

  We are very glad to have Senator Gregg, who is the ranking member on 
the Budget Committee and a driving force on keeping down health costs 
to make health care more affordable and available to all. We're also 
pleased to have the support of Senator Inouye, who as chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has shown his leadership in health 
care research for our soldiers and sailors with benefits for all 
Americans. We also appreciate the support of Senator Corker, who has 
been a leading advocate for reforming the tax code to make health 
insurance more available and affordable. And we're grateful for support 
from Senator Coleman, who has the world renowned Mayo Clinic in his 
state and himself has been a leader in the area of health technology. 
And we are especially pleased to have the support of two former 
governors, Senator Carper and Senator Alexander. The Healthy Americans 
Act gives a major role to the states in reforming our health system and 
it's critical to have the support of Senators with the knowledge of 
state government and executive leadership experience they have 
supporting our legislation. It is a group unlike any other we have seen 
in the history of the Senate. Fourteen Senators--seven Democrats, seven 
Republicans--actually cosponsoring together a piece of legislation that 
will guarantee all Americans affordable, good quality coverage.
  This legislation ensures that all of our people have choices such as 
we have here in the Congress. We have choices among a number of very 
good private sector packages. It ensures that coverage for the first 
time will be portable. You can take your coverage from job to job to 
job, which is something that millions of Americans desperately want.
  It is our future. The fact is that today, by the time you are 35 
years old, you are likely to change your job 7 times. Yet the system 
almost locks you into your present position. You cannot move. You 
cannot go to another opportunity. I think to have a portable health 
system where you can take your coverage from job to job to job and not 
worry about losing your coverage if you want to take a promotion or 
start your own business is particularly important.
  The best part about it is that the Joint Committee on Taxation and 
the Congressional Budget Office have said this can be done in a 
revenue-neutral way.
  We have had a number of Senators involved who have longstanding 
credentials in terms of being tougher on budgets and concerned about 
fiscal discipline. Now, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the 
Congressional Budget Office have said that, contrary to popular wisdom 
that universal coverage is going to break the bank and require tax 
hikes and new spending, it can be done in a budget-neutral kind of 
fashion.
  Finally, I want to add since I think I really didn't do him justice 
earlier--Senator Inouye has been a wonderful addition to our group. He 
and his staff have had a great interest in looking at a number of 
health reform issues, particularly ones that make better use of our 
workforce, focused on prevention and quality. We are thrilled to have 
him as well.
  Madam President, I note that one of our colleagues has come to the 
floor. I will wrap up simply by saying that I think the entire Senate 
should be very grateful for the outstanding work done by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, led by Peter 
Orszag and Edward Kleinbard. Those two organizations have never 
issued--in the history of their organizations--an analysis like the one 
they made available today. Never in the history of the organizations 
has there been such an analysis.
  I submit that if there had been an analysis like this done the last 
time the Congress debated universal coverage back in 1993 and 1994, if 
there had been a report like this one from the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, they could have moved 
forward on a bipartisan basis to actually pass legislation, see it 
signed into law, and end the disgrace that a country such as ours, 
which is good and strong and talented, hasn't been able to fix American 
health care.
  This time, I think we are up to it. Senator Bennett and I have kept 
apprised the leadership in the Senate on both sides of the aisle. It is 
our determination to work with colleagues of both political parties. We 
intend to work with the Presidential candidates. I have talked with 
Senators Clinton and Obama many times about the Healthy Americans Act. 
I talked to Senator Graham last night about the Congressional Budget 
Office briefing. We know of his involvement with Senator McCain. If you 
are going to deal with a big, important issue, it has to be bipartisan.
  Today, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation have made a significant contribution to our effort to move 
forward and actually enact universal health coverage that works for all 
Americans. We are indebted to their organizations.
  I am particularly grateful to colleagues who have joined as 
cosponsors in this effort. Senator Bennett and I will continue to work 
with colleagues like Senator Baucus, Senator Kennedy and others over 
the next 6 or 7 months so that this can be ready to go for the next 
President of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, what is the current state of the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering H.R. 2881.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 2953 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the statement by the Senator 
from Idaho with regard to the need for drilling has been articulated by 
a very respected columnist, Robert J. Samuelson, who recently wrote his 
column, published in the Washington Post, that in essence said we ought 
to put oil rigs off the protected shores of Florida and in the 
preserved wilds of Alaska.
  Once again, we are going to hear statements such as that of the 
Senator from Idaho and read statements in the written press by Mr. 
Samuelson as gas prices are hitting record highs. We are going to see 
the renewed push by the Bush administration and by the oil industry to 
drill in areas that are protected, such as the Gulf of Mexico off 
Florida, as articulated by the Senator from Idaho, as well as the area 
known as ANWR, which is in the preserved wilderness of Alaska. Drilling 
right away in environmentally protected areas was the centerpiece of 
Mr. Samuelson's solution to the rising gas prices.
  There is not one of us in this Chamber who does not want to do 
something about those gas prices. What Mr. Samuelson said in his column 
was that to oppose drilling in those protected areas--as indicated also 
by the Senator who has just spoken--to oppose drilling in those 
protected areas, he said, is sheer stupidity. And he said further it is 
a ``prejudice against oil companies.''
  That is the same thing the oil companies say every time there is a 
spike in prices. They have their long-term remedy that would expose 
these wilderness areas, and Florida's beach and tourism-driven economy, 
our areas of an environmentally sensitive nature, as well as the 
military interests I asked the Senator from Idaho to acknowledge, and 
they would put all that at risk. It is these same oil companies that 
are now, because of the high price of gasoline, going to make another 
end run--very possibly next week--and try to bust the ban, the 
longstanding ban on coastal drilling. Of course, they are going to cite 
what they do every time the oil prices spike high. They are going to 
cite the high gasoline prices.
  I am basing my predictions of what is going to happen in the next 
couple of weeks, I am basing this assertion on the oil industry's track 
record and on the comments made Tuesday by the President, renewing his 
call for drilling. I am basing it on the suggestions we see in this 
newspaper column.
  In advance of this likely new assault, this Senator wants to make 
clear oil that is still deep in the ground has no direct link--none--to 
today's pump

[[Page S3663]]

prices. Any oil in the ground will not be in the marketplace for 
another 10 years. More important, no matter what anybody says or what 
anybody writes, the United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil 
reserves while the United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil 
production. In other words, it is, to use Samuelson's term, ``sheer 
stupidity'' to think the United States can somehow drill its way out of 
the energy crisis.
  We are a nation that is hooked on oil. Drilling along the Florida 
shore or in wildlife preserves will not break the habit. By the way, 
one of the main reasons oil prices have gone up so sharply in recent 
years is the volatility of major producer nations, such as Iraq and 
Iran--not even to mention Venezuela and Nigeria. History reflects 
similar spikes, circa 1973, when we had an OPEC oil embargo related to 
a war in the Middle East; then again in 1979 with the Iranian 
revolution; again in 1990 with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the first 
gulf war; and again, since 2003, with the war in Iraq, concomitant with 
increasing Asian demand.
  The common denominator in all these spikes is they are fueled by the 
subsequent increase in oil speculation. The common denominator is 
trouble in the Middle East and especially in Iraq and Iran. More 
drilling along protected U.S. coasts, in bays and harbors and in the 
pristine wilderness of Alaska, will not stabilize Iraq and it will not 
guarantee Saudi Arabia's long-term friendship. Nor will it end the 
unregulated speculation that has driven the price of oil to more than 
$118 a barrel when the price should have been no more than $55 a 
barrel, based on present supply and demand, according to an industry 
leader's testimony before Congress. That means the law of supply and 
demand has been broken and we are paying at least $63 per barrel over 
and above what supply and demand would produce--a price of $55. We are 
paying that extra $63 per barrel to enrich investment bankers, 
speculators, and oil companies.
  As Mr. Samuelson says in his column: ``What to do?''
  The U.S. failed in the 1970s to enact a real energy program to get us 
off oil. The result is it is Brazil that runs on ethanol today--not the 
United States. Germany leads the world in solar power, not the United 
States. In the meantime, oil companies are awash in record profits, 
more than $155 billion in profits alone last year, at the same time not 
spending enough on refineries or alternative energy, while guess who is 
getting it in the neck: the consumers at the pump.
  Then, even worse, it took the United States more than 30 years to 
raise mileage standards on cars and trucks to a paltry 35 miles per 
gallon, something that will not even be in effect until the year 2020. 
And is it not interesting that most of Europe and the cars U.S.-based 
manufacturers sell there already average 43 miles per gallon, and in 
Japan the cars are approaching 50-miles-a-gallon.
  In other words, we are wasting, flat out wasting billions and 
billions of gallons of oil. So, again, what are we to do? Well, about 
half of the oil we consume goes into transportation, and it should not 
take a rocket scientist to realize that is where we ought to focus. So, 
first, if we start to enact serious conservation measures, and things 
such as a 40-miles-per-gallon mandate for the fleet average of our 
personal vehicles, and if we provided greater tax breaks for hybrid 
cars, and ultimately hydrogen-powered and electric-powered cars, then 
we are going to start making a difference.
  Second, the Government, our Government, led by our next President, is 
going to have to enact and subsidize a national energy program to 
transform us from our energy dependence on oil, especially foreign oil, 
to alternative and synthetic fuels to power much of the transportation 
sector.
  Members of the Senate, it has been done before. Remember in the 
1960s, President Kennedy led us to conquer the bounds of Earth, to go 
to the Moon and return, and all of that occurred within a decade. So we 
have got to act with the same urgency. And while we are at it, we are 
going to have to make ethanol, ethanol that we will make from things we 
do not eat so we do not reduce our food supply.
  While we are at that, we are also going to have to pay attention to 
how we power not only our cars and our trucks, but our homes and our 
industry. We are going to need to develop solar, wind, thermal energy, 
and hydroelectric. And who knows the advances of technology in 
harnessing renewable energy sources. We are going to have to look for 
electricity that is from safer nuclear power.
  Now, this is what our Presidential candidates ought to be hearing and 
ultimately before this election they ought to be making a pledge to the 
American people that they are going to do this. In the 10 years going 
forward that it would take to bring in new oil rigs fully to market, in 
that 10 years, if we are good stewards of what we have, we will have 
conserved more oil than we ever get out of the ground, and we will be 
mostly free from foreign oil by enacting this energy plan.
  Our future will not be realized by looking backward to the short-term 
polluting and dirty energy solutions of the last century, solutions 
they still offer for the future, solutions by people who do not want to 
change their ways, such as oil companies.
  So should we start drilling right now in very environmentally 
sensitive areas? To use Mr. Samuelson's words in his column, ``That is 
sheer stupidity.''
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the provision 
related to the New York liberty zone that appears in the FAA 
reauthorization bill. A few of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have called this provision an earmark. They have called it a fund 
to create a train to Kennedy Airport, even though that is not even 
mentioned in the legislation.
  I wish to fill in on the facts. First, after the devastating attacks 
of 9/11 which scarred my city and our country, Congress and the 
President generously agreed to provide $20 billion in assistance toward 
the rebuilding of lower Manhattan. It was a promise the President made 
to me and Senator Clinton the day after the attacks. It is a promise 
that, to his everlasting credit, the President has kept and has never 
wavered from. The President understood, I think all of my colleagues 
understand, what happened in New York. But we still live with the 
scars. That downtown has not recovered. There are fewer square feet of 
office space today than there were then in downtown. And the families 
who lost loved ones still grieve every day, as does just about every 
New Yorker.
  There has always been talk about wearing flags. I put this flag on my 
lapel on 9/12/2001. I have worn it every day since and, God willing, I 
will wear it every day for the remainder of my life in remembrance of 
what has happened.
  Now, of the $20 billion, the money was divided for various purposes. 
Some, of course, was to help the families who have lost loved ones. 
Some was for the cleaning up of the World Trade Center site. It was a 
massive undertaking--to visit the rubble a day later, to smell death 
and the burnt flesh in the air, and then to realize that people, not 
only from New York but from around the whole country came to help us 
help heal those wounds.

  Some of the money was put aside specifically so that downtown would 
recover; incentives to bring business back and money for 
transportation, because the entire subway nexus had been destroyed. At 
that point in time, people worried that people would desert downtown 
and never come back.
  New Yorkers, through efforts and valiance, have struggled, and so 
that is how the $20 billion came about. Was any part of the $20 billion 
an earmark? Is there any reason to equate it with a bridge to nowhere? 
Please. Please, my colleagues, I do appreciate that my friend from New 
Hampshire--I do consider him my friend--has retracted that specific 
statement. But to call the $20 billion, or a significant part of it, an 
earmark is unfair labeling, to be kind. Or the tax preferences for the 
gulf opportunity zone after Katrina,

[[Page S3664]]

were they earmarks? They were a benefit, a large benefit, designated 
for a specific region. When we help a disaster area, is that an 
earmark? No. And all the hallmarks of earmarks done for only one 
member, slipped in in secrecy, none of that applies here.
  In fact, this exact proposal is in the President's budget this year 
in the light of day for all to study because the President himself, as 
I said, has kept his word. Has it been done secretly? Obviously, no. 
This provision has been around for a while.
  As I will show in a few minutes, many of my colleagues who oppose it 
now have voted for it in other legislation. Why has New York had to 
wait so long for this provision? It is because it has passed the House 
a couple of times, it has passed the Senate once, but the bills that 
passed never hooked up and never made it to the President's desk.
  Are we going to tell those who argue that this is an earmark that any 
aid to any region, no matter how publicly talked about, no matter how 
desperate the need, is an earmark? With all due respect to my 
colleagues, it is not fair. It is not right. It is not up to the level 
of this body or this discourse. It is using a word that has a bad 
connotation and inappropriately labeling something that has been part 
of America's nobleness since 9/11.
  Let me give you a little bit of history here. After the $20 billion 
in aid was passed, some of the provisions were not fully realized, 
others were, and exceeded the amounts of money. So the New York 
delegation had talked with the President and with OMB leaders about how 
to make sure those dollars were most wisely spent, and in some places, 
the amounts of money changed.
  A consensus emerged as we went through this that the best way to 
support private enterprise, or one of the best ways to support private 
enterprise and rebuild lower Manhattan, was to improve transportation 
in and around the liberty zone.
  As a result, the city and State proposed supporting improvements in 
transportation infrastructure in or connected with the liberty zone. If 
you look at the Treasury blue book, my colleagues, it is on pages 47 to 
49. This is not something that was slipped in by any Member of the 
Senate, not by me or anyone else. It was the President who proposed it 
in this budget, as he has proposed it in previous budgets.
  It is not something that was slipped into the bill in the middle of 
the night. And to equate it with wasteful porkbarrel projects is an in 
insult to the families of those who survive, to every New Yorker, and I 
believe to every American.
  When New York was struck, we all rallied together. We have sort of 
kept that tone since, when it comes to helping areas that need help. So 
this is not about funding porkbarrel projects. This is about keeping 
our promises and our faith.
  Second, my colleague insists that this is a train to Kennedy Airport. 
I refer him to the language in the FAA bill. There is no reference to a 
train to Kennedy Airport. There is no reference to an air rail. As I 
said, it sounded good, but I appreciate the fact that the Senator from 
New Hampshire has pulled back from calling it a train to nowhere. I 
personally called him 2 days ago and read the language of the bill to 
him. It does not mention a rail project. There has been talk in 
Manhattan, among the mayor and Governor and the city leaders who would 
be in charge of spending this money, that that is a possibility. But 
there are many other possibilities as well.
  The one thing the legislation states is about improving and 
rebuilding transportation in the liberty zone. That is all. There is no 
specific project mentioned in the language. There is no particular 
project or projects I am supporting. To say otherwise is untrue. It 
would be totally within the law to use this for some subway 
improvements or other types of spending. That will be what the city 
will decide, in consultation with the Governor and the appropriate 
legislative bodies.
  As for the mechanism of funding which allows the city and State to 
keep part of the Federal income taxes withheld from city and State 
workers, we have tried various ways of designing this aid, and this is 
what the administration came up with, with our agreement and consent. 
If any of my colleagues would like to suggest another way for 
fulfilling the promise they would support, I am happy to listen. But I 
remind them that this is a solution supported by the administration. In 
fact, the Bush administration has supported the $2 billion trade-in for 
the liberty zone in four consecutive budget proposals. The details of 
how to do it, again, of how to spend the money, will be left up to the 
city and State. This is not new money, I remind my colleagues. It is 
the last part of a solemn promise made by President Bush and supported 
by this Congress in 2001.
  The current version of the language passed the full House in the most 
recent energy bill. It was part of a Senate energy bill that received 
59 votes last year and 58 votes earlier this year. It was also part of 
the FAA reform package that passed out of committee by broad bipartisan 
vote. This is not something that was snuck into the bill as it reached 
the floor of the House. It was passed and debated in the Finance 
Committee. In fact, two of my colleagues who have raised questions 
about this--my friends from New Hampshire and South Carolina have both 
voted for legislation in favor of enacting the liberty zone provision, 
when it has been previously considered as part of other legislation.
  So now to object to this, to the whole FAA bill because it has this 
provision in it, is a change of view. There was no objection to other 
legislation that had it on that basis.
  The junior Senator from South Carolina voted yes on final passage of 
two bills in the 109th Congress--S. 2020, and H.R. 4297--that both 
contained the liberty zone provision. Unfortunately, the provision was 
not in the final versions of these bills, and the remaining funds for 
Ground Zero were not allocated. By advocating against this current 
position, it is clearly a change. There was no specific vote on this 
rail link, but there were votes on larger packages that contained it, 
just as this FAA package is a larger package that contains it. The 
senior Senator from New Hampshire has voted in favor of the liberty 
zone tax provisions at least three times: First, in favor of the 
original bill, H.R. 3090; again, in favor of two separate bills--S. 
2020 and H.R. 4297--to complete the funding in the 109th Congress.
  So it is hard to understand, since this is not an earmark. This is 
not a specific project. This is supported by the President. It fulfills 
a promise that, frankly, this Nation made to New York, the last part of 
it. It is hard to understand why the views have changed. We have been 
working 4 years to finally complete this promise. Each time objections 
are raised. If someone doesn't like it on this bill, then make a 
commitment on what bill we can finally get it done because I am going 
to try to get this on any piece of legislation that moves in the Senate 
until the promise to the people of my city and, frankly, the people of 
America is finally fulfilled.
  I say this to the 98 other Senators not from New York: If 9/11 had 
happened in your State, you would be down here on the floor of the 
Senate making the same fight we are making. You would not allow 
anything to get in the way of a promise that had been made to a city or 
State, particularly when the arguments made don't really apply--not an 
earmark, not a train to nowhere, and not something that was done in the 
dark of night.
  I want to note again that the Bush administration has been 
supportive. I have many disagreements with the White House on a host of 
issues, but they have been helpful and true to their word on this 
issue. President Bush himself has. I have thanked him for it 
repeatedly. The President believes it is important to keep his promise. 
This body should feel the same way. That is why he put his proposal in 
four consecutive budgets. That is why when the administration issued 
its statement of administrative policy on this bill, they did not note 
any objection to this provision.
  I know there can be objections. That is part of what we do around 
here. But I haven't seen a good argument against this other than you 
don't believe New York City should get the money that was promised to 
it. This is about keeping a promise. I am going to make sure, to the 
best of my ability in this body, that this promise is kept. My 
constituents demand it. Fairness demands it. If this were about your 
State, you would demand it too.

[[Page S3665]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment that 
I hope to offer on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. It is an important amendment, and I want to discuss it 
so that my colleagues understand what this amendment is about.
  This is a picture of an airplane that was provided to my office by a 
U.S. safety inspector. A pilot for a Chinese carrier requested 
permission and landed in Frankfurt, Germany, for an unscheduled 
refueling stop. They were running low on fuel. This is what the U.S. 
safety inspector provided us. This is what German workers found--
seatbelts wrapped around fan blades.
  There is a seatbelt. There is a seatbelt, as you can see, and the 
structure behind. They did this to minimize turbulence because there 
had been an engine that had failed. The inspection found that a total 
of three engines had to be replaced before the plane was going to be 
allowed to take off again.
  What does this have to do with the amendment? In the latest audit, 
the Department of Transportation inspector general found that 67 
percent of the heavy maintenance--not talking about kicking the tires 
or changing the oil--of U.S. commercial aircraft is now being performed 
by foreign repair stations. In a series of reports, the inspector 
general has identified many gaps in FAA oversight for these foreign 
repair stations.
  What this amendment does is seek to apply the same standards of 
safety and security to all of these foreign repair stations that U.S. 
carriers are using. That is a pretty reasonable proposition. If you 
have a commercial carrier that is serviced in the United States at an 
FAA certified facility, it is likely an FAA inspector is onsite, a 
constant presence. There are requirements of drug and alcohol checks. 
There is perimeter security. There are standards that must be met in 
terms of these repair stations. How does it make sense that we don't 
demand those same standards for American carriers that are using 
foreign repair stations? Most Americans would be surprised to find out 
that we don't. That is what this amendment is going to fix.
  I thank Senator Specter for cosponsoring this amendment. I want to 
spend a little bit of time talking about what the amendment contains, 
but I want to make sure that not only is the problem just whether the 
work being done is not up to the standards we would expect in some of 
these foreign repair stations, I want to talk about security issues.
  My mom is going to be 80 this summer. She has had two knee 
replacements. She can't go through an airport without being wanded, 
many times her suitcase being opened. We all know that we have to check 
our shampoo. We have to not carry water bottles through security 
anymore. I think the American flying public understands and has 
accepted these incredibly intrusive measures because they want safety. 
They want security. They want to make sure that when they fly, they are 
safe. So they have said: OK, I am going to take a bunch of time at the 
airport. I will stand in lines. I will have a wand. I will have people 
patting my body. I am going to do all this because I want safety and 
security.
  In 2003, an inspector general report found that there was an al-Qaida 
member working at a foreign repair station in Singapore. The report 
discovered easy access to facilities by outsiders and found the FAA was 
leaving employee background checks and drug and alcohol testing up to 
individual airlines.

       We note that in December 2001 a senior aircraft technician 
     at a foreign repair station was found to be a member of the 
     terrorist organization Al Qaeda. . . .The aircraft technician 
     photographed U.S. aircraft as potential targets for a 
     terrorist attack.

  Really, is it fair that we all are worrying about whether we have 1 
ounce too much of shampoo when we have not taken the basic steps to 
make sure al-Qaida is not under the hood? I think most Americans would 
be shocked to see this inconsistency in our sense of urgency and 
caution when it comes to the safety of the flying public.
  What does this amendment do? It is pretty simple. First, it requires 
identification and oversight of foreign repair facilities that are 
noncertified. The FAA must submit a plan to Congress within 6 months of 
enactment to identify and expand its oversight of all noncertified 
facilities used by U.S. air carriers. Keep in mind, these U.S. air 
carriers are not just outsourcing the labor to foreign repair stations 
that are FAA certified in foreign nations. They are also outsourcing 
the work to noncertified FAA facilities.
  I keep asking the FAA in hearings: Why do we have certification? I 
will say: Do you think certification is important?
  The FAA officials will say: Yes, we think it is important.
  I say: Then why do we have it, if we don't require everybody to have 
it? What is the point? Why are we letting carriers use noncertified 
facilities if the certification is important to our safety and 
security? It doesn't make sense.
  This amendment would, in fact, require that those carriers use 
certified facilities if they are, in fact, going to use foreign repair 
stations. It will require the FAA to do two inspections a year. I do 
not think that is a heavy lift: two inspections a year of their 
facilities, wherever they may be.
  It will require drug and alcohol testing of employees performing 
maintenance at foreign repair stations. It has been interesting to me 
because we have had some push-backs from some places about this because 
of some countries that want us not to require this because they 
currently have work of U.S. carriers and they do not want America to 
require FAA oversight to this degree. One of the things they protest 
most--some of these nations--is the drug and alcohol testing. Well, 
with all due respect, I really do not think Americans are excited about 
the idea that we would waive drug and alcohol testing for people who 
are working on airplanes. I think that is a basic. It certainly would 
be a basic in this country. I think it is certainly something the 
American people would expect.
  It will also enforce the TSA requirements that foreign repair 
stations comply with security standards issued by the Transportation 
Security Administration.
  It will update foreign repair station fee schedules to ensure 
taxpayers are not subsidizing the outsourcing of this work.
  Here is the part that gets me a little bit cranky about this whole 
situation. It is one thing for companies to want to outsource labor to 
other countries because it is cheaper. Now, other than the need to fix 
our Tax Code, we do not encourage the outsourcing of jobs. It is not as 
if we can require corporations in our country to keep all their jobs in 
the United States. That is a tough thing for us to do in an open 
democracy, in a free market economy. I will tell you what we can do, 
though. We can sure make absolutely certain these companies are not 
doing it with the help of taxpayer dollars.
  Right now, as to the certified repair facilities that are in foreign 
countries, the U.S. taxpayers are underwriting the bill for those 
inspections and that certification. In other words, the companies can 
outsource the labor to a country where it is less expensive, and 
taxpayers are footing part of the bill for the safety and security of 
those facilities.
  Now, if you are going to go for a less expensive labor cost, it seems 
to me that you, at a minimum, ought to add to that savings the cost of 
the inspections by the U.S. Government. Why should the taxpayers foot 
the bill for FAA inspectors to fly over to Singapore to inspect a 
facility? That does not seem fair. So this makes sure the people who 
are using the foreign repair stations are absorbing the costs of 
inspecting and keeping those foreign repair stations up to our 
standards. Obviously, it requires the regular inspector general 
oversight of the implementation of this provision.
  This is very reasonable. The House has similar language in its bill. 
I think this makes sense. I think it is something, frankly, the 
American public would be surprised to understand, that we have this 
huge gap in our safety and security oversight for the flying public.
  I look forward to an opportunity for the Members to have a vote on 
this amendment. I think we all want trade. We all want to make sure we 
can export American products. We do not want trade agreements that put 
us at a

[[Page S3666]]

disadvantage or, frankly, we want to make sure we still have access to 
other markets. But we cannot outsource safety. We just cannot. This 
administration is willing to do that. This administration is willing to 
say: We are going to let these other countries worry about whether 
their facilities are safe. I do not think this is one area where the 
American people want this function of our Government outsourced. I 
think they want us to be on top of it. I think they want to make sure 
it is being done right. I think they want to make sure it is being done 
fairly. I think they want to make sure they are not paying the bill to 
outsource this work.
  At the end of the day, I think they have been cheerful, as Americans 
always are about what is asked of them, but I do not blame them for 
being a little worried that there has not been more sense of urgency 
about the safety and security of this situation in light of all of the 
money we have spent in the name of national security and, importantly, 
homeland security.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments 
today to discuss what is a catastrophe all across our Nation--and it 
certainly is in West Virginia--because of the price of gasoline and 
other transportation fuels.
  My State is not wealthy. I think it is either the third or fourth 
poorest State in our country, and I do not say that with shame, I say 
that with pride because it was, in a sense, one of the reasons I was a 
VISTA volunteer. I went there as a VISTA volunteer because I saw a 
place where I could at least try to help. The people are the best ever. 
When people have to struggle to make it, day-in and day-out, they are 
pretty solid people.
  As I am sure it is the case for all of my colleagues, for the past 
few weeks and months I have been hearing from my constituents 
constantly about rising gasoline prices and the resulting rise in the 
prices for goods and services throughout our economy.
  West Virginians are hurting. West Virginians will always find a way 
to persevere--always--but right now many are struggling to juggle 
expenses, making enormous sacrifices to feed and clothe their families, 
while trying to pay the cost of going to work. We have plants in West 
Virginia which people drive hours and hours every day to get to. Work 
is not easily found, so where it is, people have to drive. We are 96 
percent mountains, 4 percent flat. We have a lot of roads. People 
pretty much have canceled the occasional splurge for a movie. We have a 
baseball team in West Virginia. That has pretty much been pushed off. 
In other words, if it is a nonemergency purchase, they bypass it. It 
takes away from their happiness, their stability as a family, but they 
have no choice. Belts have been tightened just about as far as belts 
can be tightened.

  Yet, this week, we hear that oil company profits are again nearing or 
exceeding record highs and that these companies have no plan and these 
companies have no desire to increase domestic refining capacity--one of 
the very few things we know would actually help bring down prices.
  The Energy Information Administration and private sector energy 
experts tell us to expect gasoline and diesel fuel prices to continue 
to rise for the foreseeable future. I do not know what that means. I do 
not think West Virginians care very much what that means. It just means 
a long time. And a week, a month, is a long time. This is well beyond 
the usual cyclical annual price fluctuation. And the so-called summer 
driving season is not even here yet. But other than a brief dip in 
January, the price West Virginians have been paying at the pump has 
been climbing steadily since before Christmas--not as noticeable at 
first, now catastrophic.
  The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in West Virginia 
has risen from just over $2.70 a gallon in August 2007 to a price on 
the last day of April 2008 of $3.71. I do not have new wage data for 
workers in my State. I wish I did. But I am willing to stand on the 
floor of the Senate and assert that nobody's salary has risen to match 
that 37-percent increase.
  The idea of $4-a-gallon gasoline--which 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago would 
have sounded crazy--really now is a matter not so much of ``if,'' but 
``when.'' The timeframe I just mentioned is relevant, of course, 
because we are a country that has been at war in Iraq for more than 5 
years--spending money, letting people do corruption at all levels. I am 
always suspicious of oil companies. When our brave American forces set 
out to impose regime change on that country based upon the false--or at 
least unforgivably imprecise; I prefer the word ``false''--
intelligence, West Virginians were paying, on average, $1.63 for 
regular gasoline. That was not that long ago. It had been as low as 
$1.26 in the months leading up to the invasion.
  It should come as no surprise to anyone within the sound of my voice, 
but in that time oil industry profits have risen steadily: almost $60 
billion in profits in 2003, just over $80 billion in profits in 2004, 
approximately $110 billion in profits in 2005, just under $120 billion 
in 2006, and just over $120 billion so far in 2007. ExxonMobil, Shell, 
and ChevronTexaco have each had increasingly larger profits each of the 
last 5 years. BP and ConocoPhillips have done nearly as well. In all, 
the five largest integrated multinational oil companies have reaped 
almost $560 billion in profits since President Bush and Vice President 
Cheney came into town. I don't particularly want to do it that way, 
because I blame the companies more than I blame them, but there is lots 
of blame to go around.

  Anyone who looks at the numbers can make this about politics, of 
course. It is easy to do. But this is, in essence, for me, a former 
Vista volunteer in my 44th year in West Virginia, all about people. It 
is simply all about people and families who have been struggling 
anyway. The average salary for the average working family of four in 
West Virginia is $31,000. That is not a lot of money, before you get to 
all of this, and then it is even less.
  Today, if you are lucky enough to live or work near Sam's Club in 
Vienna, WV, which is on the Ohio River, and you can afford to become a 
member there, you can get a gallon of gasoline for $3.49. It is hard 
for anyone I know in West Virginia to think of that as cheap, but it is 
the lowest price reported in the entire State. Frankly, based on the 
data I have seen, it is so much lower than the rest of the State that 
you almost have to consider it an anomaly.
  If you are running low in Spencer, WV, a rural community, however, 
you need to be prepared to pay $3.82 at the Exxon station on Main 
Street. It is $3.79 in South Charleston. Residents of Huntington are 
paying $3.75. In Berkeley Springs, not far from Washington, it is 
$3.69. No West Virginia county--none--is reporting an average price per 
gallon of regular gasoline that is below $3.61. Only three of my 
States' 55 counties are reporting average gasoline prices lower than 
$3.67.
  Individual price quotes at individual stations are ominous enough, 
but the real stark numbers, the real telling calculation, is how much 
more West Virginians are paying for gasoline than they were in years 
past, and that is not even getting into the meteoric rises in food 
prices and the other costs essential to daily living. Even those in 
West Virginia who travel by air, which is the subject of the bill we 
are meant to be on, those prices have gone up.
  Since 2001, West Virginia households are paying almost $2,500 per 
year more for gasoline. If it is a household with children, that makes 
it $3,000. I take my colleagues back to the average salary for the 
average family of four, working family of four in West Virginia: 
$31,000. When you add on health care, food, rent, and all the rest, 
everything else, it is an enormous matter. If it is a household with 
teenagers, it is just below $3,600 more. Families, businesses, and 
farmers in West Virginia will spend $153 million more on gasoline in 
April 2008 than they spent in January 2001.
  If prices remain at current levels, $1.83 billion more will be spent 
on gasoline in West Virginia this year than

[[Page S3667]]

was spent in 2001. West Virginia consumers, farmers, and businesses are 
on a track to pay $2.96 billion for gasoline this year.
  So West Virginians are asking two questions: How did we get here; but 
to them, much more importantly, what can be done to fix this.
  Nobody in Government, academia, or the private industry can give us a 
single definitive equation for what makes the price of oil go up and 
down. We don't know why, but we can't. Generally, increased demand from 
China, India, and much of the developing world has set the stage 
obviously for prices that we have to take into consideration.
  Much of our oil comes from an unregulated and unresponsive cartel 
called OPEC. We also know that since the tragic terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001, the world price for petroleum has been affected by 
a global struggle against stateless thugs.
  The instability brought about by the invasion in Iraq has done 
nothing but raise the pump price. I don't know a single benefit to our 
Nation that has been accomplished there. But smaller factors have also 
had huge consequences. Instability in Nigeria and the outrageous 
behavior in Venezuela have contributed in similarly negative ways. The 
recent strike by refinery and pipeline workers in Scotland, unbeknownst 
to many of our citizens, will not help. Likewise for the very serious 
refinery explosion in Utah this week.
  Economists cannot pinpoint how much speculation in the commodities 
market is adding to the price of oil, but a congressional study in 2005 
suggested it was in the $20 to $25 per barrel range. A more recent 
study announced by Public Citizen said it is now closer to $30 a 
barrel. It doesn't matter. Every cent of that is being seen at the gas 
pumps in West Virginia and around the country, and it hurts, and trying 
to give a worldwide economic explanation for it doesn't solve anybody's 
problems or anybody's pain.
  We know, too, that the price is manipulated up and down the supply 
chain. Nobody will ever convince me that there is not a large amount of 
corruption and manipulation, deliberate, cozy and easy, that goes on 
around boardrooms in oil companies. From the huge oil companies that 
find the oil, through more markets and middlemen than we can keep up 
with, every player has the ability to force the price up for their own 
bottom line. There is manipulation beyond the reach of my people in 
West Virginia or the Presiding Officer's people in the State of 
Colorado. We are at their mercy. We pay the price, we are at the 
mercy--at the mercy of oil. Federal investigators cannot usually 
pinpoint collusion, but those acting independently to manipulate prices 
cost the people of West Virginia all the same. There are a lot of 
things Federal regulators never manage to find.
  In the long term, the things we need to do sound basic--and this is 
the final part of my remarks and the important part, other than the 
overriding theme of anger--such as increasing supply and 
reducing consumption, but achieving these goals has proved to be very 
difficult.

  I have long supported efforts to improve automobile fuel efficiency, 
and so have most other people--not all. We made a small and long 
overdue change last year, and I believe we will do more. I think CAFE 
standards are going to go up and up, as they should; cars will get 
smaller and smaller, as they should. That will not be good for my legs, 
but it will be good for my people. But even when Detroit catches up 
with the rest of the world's automakers on fuel efficiency--I repeat, 
catches up--we do need to add to our supply now.
  That is why in 2006, I supported Senator Domenici's legislation to 
increase oil and gas exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. When 
these new fields are fully on line, they will add 1.26 billion barrels 
of oil to our domestic supply. Now, I say that, but I also have to say 
in all honesty that I voted against virtually every other attempt to do 
drilling offshore and in ANWR, for example. ANWR to me has always been 
a shibboleth. People say: Well, we can get lots of supply there, just 
as many people or more say it is technically feasible or maybe it is 
economically feasible, but it is not both. In the meantime, the tundra 
continues to melt.
  That is why I have also consistently supported holding off on 
additional deposits in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is more than 
97 percent full as it is, and there is no economic rationale for 
filling it to the brim with $120 per barrel of oil. That product should 
be making its way into the market some place.
  I joined my colleagues earlier this year to ask the President to 
suspend deliveries into the petroleum reserve until the price of oil 
drops below $75 a barrel. Since the President persists in refusing to 
stop taking oil off the market, I will support legislation to force him 
to do it.
  I also support, as I have in the past on several occasions, the 
imposition of a windfall profits tax on integrated multinational oil 
companies. People say this won't have any effect. I would like to try 
that out to show that they are wrong and to send a message. The oil 
companies are making so much money maybe they won't even notice it. But 
I doubt that, because there are now 300 million Americans who are very 
angry about what very few of them are doing. As I have said, these 
companies are making huge, perhaps unconscionable--not perhaps--totally 
unconscionable profits off the hard-working people in my State and off 
the wages of struggling Americans everywhere. If they refuse to 
reinvest in additional refining capacity, which has been their habit, 
the least we can do is use some of those profits to shore up the 
highway trust fund for the road infrastructure and transportation 
projects that we need for the 21st century, and perhaps even for 
something called aviation. Those projects would create jobs.
  I will also reintroduce legislation this week that I first introduced 
in 2001. It is called the Low Income Gasoline Assistance Program, or 
LIGAP. This will provide some relief to Americans hardest hit by any 
rise in prices; to wit, the working poor, which describes a lot of my 
State. For many West Virginia seniors who have no means of getting to 
work, the grocery store, or to a doctor's appointment other than their 
cars or trucks, if they have them, LIGAP assistance for gasoline 
purchases will enable them to weather this crisis with a little more 
peace of mind. I say ``if they have them'' because many people in 
communities I have worked in throughout West Virginia don't have 
automobiles, so when they have to go somewhere, usually a pretty long 
distance, they have to hitch a ride. Even though our people are 
innately good and generous, because they depend on others as others 
depend on them, they will usually charge a fee for that ride. In any 
event, whether they can even take that ride will depend on whether they 
can afford the gasoline price to get there.
  So LIGAP eligibility would be linked to and modeled after LIHEAP, the 
very successful and efficient home heating and cooling assistance 
program. Funds would be distributed to States as additions to 
allocations under the existing community development block grant 
program.
  It makes sense. For everyone who qualifies, LIGAP would give stipends 
of between $100 and $165 a month. Hopefully, this may mean not having 
to scrimp on their children's food or cut back on prescription drugs 
and other family needs.
  Families are the basis of our country. People are the basis of 
everything we do. It is just that there are some sectors of our economy 
that choose to avoid that because they don't have to depend upon those 
people because those people have no choice but to buy their products.
  It is time for Congress and the administration to come together and 
stop bickering--it would be a majestic accomplishment--and stop 
fighting over turf, as we are doing on the aviation bill. While we 
engage in parliamentary tactics that most Americans don't give a hoot 
about--in fact, they hate us for doing it--West Virginians and citizens 
in every State are suffering, while oil companies are laughing all the 
way to their many banks. This must stop. I ask my colleagues to work 
with me to make this stop.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we import more than 12.5 million barrels 
a day of petroleum--over 60 percent of

[[Page S3668]]

our petroleum energy needs. As a matter of fact, I think it is higher 
than that now, in the last 2 or 3 days. This is why our economy and the 
value of the dollar has weakened and our energy costs have skyrocketed. 
With oil at $117 a barrel--and it is more than that today--the United 
States spends nearly $1.5 billion each day on foreign oil. That is $533 
billion each year that was not invested in our own economy.
  Instead, that money is being sent--along with jobs--to other 
countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. For every 
million barrels of oil we import, 20,000 American jobs are lost.
  Our country needs a real economic stimulus now. That stimulus will 
come when we stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to 
import oil and, instead, invest that money in our own economy by 
increasing domestic production of our energy resources.
  The area known as ANWR is a million and a half acres that was 
reserved for oil and gas development on the Arctic slope in 1980; it is 
the largest untapped oilfield in North America. We believe that is the 
largest trap for oil in North America. Oil companies estimate they will 
spend between $45 billion and $60 billion to develop this area. 
Combined with the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, 
which is expected to start soon, it will cost about $40 billion. These 
resources would deliver a massive influx of jobs and capital investment 
in the United States. Our economy would be stabilized, and the dollar 
would be strengthened.
  ANWR and the Alaska gas pipeline are only the beginning. This 
infrastructure would help lead to further development of Alaska's Outer 
Continental Shelf. We have more than two thirds of that Outer 
Continental Shelf. It has been expanded another 100 miles north of 
Alaska, as we discovered a further extension of the shelf. The Chukchi 
Sea holds an estimated 16 billion barrels of oil, and there is an 
estimated 7 billion barrels in the Beaufort Sea off our State. Bringing 
these resources on line would add even more jobs and capital to our 
economy.
  Full development of ANWR would result in at least 60,000 jobs. 
Opening ANWR alone would require the construction of a fleet of 19 new 
tankers to transport the oil to the Lower 48. Those would be American-
built tankers. Under the law, they must be--under the Jones Act. This 
alone would create at least 2,000 direct jobs in the U.S. shipbuilding 
industry and approximately 3,000 additional jobs in other sectors of 
our economy. The energy industry estimates the Alaska gas pipeline 
alone will create 400,000 new jobs nationwide.
  Senator Schumer made an interesting statement the other day. He 
suggested that opening ANWR would reduce gas prices by only pennies. He 
took a shot at the President, saying he takes out the old saw of ANWR, 
that ANWR would not produce a drop of oil in 10 years, and it is 
estimated that if we drilled in ANWR, in 20 years, it would reduce the 
price one penny.
  I am afraid that shows how little the Senator from New York 
understands the oil industry. He ignores the long-term economic 
stimulus domestic production will bring through investment in our own 
country--raising household incomes and individual buying power, rather 
than sending money overseas. Senator Schumer would ask other nations, 
such as Saudi Arabia, to increase their production as a solution to our 
energy crisis.
  I agree that increased production would help solve our problem but 
that production should occur in our own country. I think the Senator 
should realize what is happening in terms of the oil industry, and the 
key driver now to the cost of gasoline is not the supply and demand, it 
is the value of the dollar and the value of oil per se. The value of 
oil now is represented by paper on the New York Stock Exchange, which 
has replaced gold. People are speculating in oil. That is also what is 
causing the price of gasoline to go up at the pump. Senator Schumer 
should visit NYMEX and ask them to do something about that and stop the 
speculation in oil. I think it should be unlawful to speculate in 
anything related to energy in this country. I think soon we will do 
that.

  This production has to come from our own country. The position of the 
Senator from New York would send more money in tax and royalty revenues 
outside our economy. I don't know how that will strengthen our dollar 
or lower prices at the pump at all. It is not a question of supply and 
demand, it is a question of a long-term commitment to restore our 
capability to produce oil and gas in this country.
  Had President Clinton not vetoed the ANWR bill before, we would be 
producing at least 2 million barrels a day more out of Alaska right 
now. I don't like to be chided by the Senator from New York about why 
we don't have more production in this country. He is suggesting we ask 
the foreign producers to produce more oil and send it to us. That will 
send more money out of the country and take more of our jobs. I don't 
understand that.
  In 1995, when we approved the amendment allowing development of the 
Arctic Plain, President Clinton vetoed that legislation, and we are 
paying for the consequences of that today. Had he not vetoed the 
legislation, the Trans Alaska Pipeline--which currently operates at 
less than 50 percent of capacity--as a matter of fact, it is even worse 
than that, about 38 percent of capacity. We are sending out about 
700,000 barrels a day instead of 2.5 million barrels a day. We could 
easily have that pipeline--we call it a barrel--full and offset imports 
and keep our trade deficit down and keep jobs and money in our economy. 
In the long run--not short run--increased production does affect the 
price at the pump. We would continue to increase domestic production of 
oil and that, in effect, would give us competition against the price 
set by foreign producers, and we would be able to reduce the price at 
the pump in the long run.
  Between the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, the National Petroleum 
Reserve in Alaska--which is now ready to be leased--and the resources 
remaining in Prudhoe Bay, we believe we would have at least 45 billion 
barrels of oil left to produce. That is an estimate. When they 
estimated how much oil was in Prudhoe Bay, they estimated 1 billion 
barrels. We produced 18 billion. I remind the Senate of that. So we 
have produced more than that, and it is still producing. At full 
capacity, we ought to be able to deliver at least 2.5 million barrels 
to the daily market. We have oil from outside the Arctic, by the way. 
We can reduce the impact of sending more and more money out of the 
country and affect the American economy as we spend that money here at 
home. That money would generate tax and royalty revenues, fund research 
into alternative energy sources, create jobs, help strengthen the 
dollar, and lower our energy prices in the long run.
  The weak dollar is what is causing speculation in oil futures and 
increasing the price of oil and gas at the pump. We need investment in 
our own country, which develops our own resources, instead of relying 
on those from other countries. By increasing domestic production, we 
would meet our own Nation's needs, strengthen the economy, and begin 
creating jobs and generating revenue, which would be reinvested back 
into our economy. That is the way to a strong economy, a stable dollar, 
lower energy prices, and to reduce the demand on foreign oil and the 
cost of gasoline at the pump. We have to stop sending our money abroad 
and sending jobs abroad to pay for energy resources, when we can use 
the money at home to develop the vast resources we have.
  Alaska is the storehouse of energy for the future. It should not be 
cast aside as it has been. I hope we will find a way to vote on ANWR 
this year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the pending business 
is on the FAA reauthorization bill; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I hope no one is out of breath this week 
as a result of working on this bill. We had

[[Page S3669]]

one vote on Monday at 5:30 p.m. and have not voted since. With 
legislation this important to this country, why are we not able to move 
ahead and cast votes and finish this legislation?
  This is about FAA reauthorization which includes the issue of 
modernization of our air traffic control system, which is very 
important. We read in the newspapers these days about the additional 
inspections that are required of airlines. We read about airlines going 
bankrupt because of fuel costs. We read that the FAA system for air 
traffic control is archaic. We are told that the GPS system in your car 
is more sophisticated than the system by which we move airplanes around 
this country in the air traffic control system. We hear the problems 
with the air traffic controllers, the contract problems they have had 
with the FAA, the shortage of air traffic controllers, the number who 
will retire in the near future, and the need for training of additional 
controllers. We read about all these things in the news. We read about 
systems that still use vacuum tubes in the air traffic control system 
because it is that old.
  The question for this Congress is, can we pass legislation that 
reauthorizes the FAA functions and then provides the funding to 
modernize this system of ours?
  We have a lot of people who visit this Capital city, and most of them 
fly in by airplane. This country moves back and forth quickly from 
coast to coast using, in most cases, commercial air transportation. 
They don't think very much of it, frankly. You can fly from one coast 
to the other in 5 or 6 hours. It is not unusual to leave one part of 
this country and end up in another part before lunch. It is a wonderful 
thing to have this system of commercial air travel. The fact is, this 
system will not survive for a number of reasons under the current 
circumstances.
  As I indicated the other day, I believe there are four airlines that 
have declared bankruptcy in recent weeks. We also understand, in 
addition, what high fuel costs are doing to the airlines, and we are 
talking now about the airlines in this legislation before us. But I 
could talk about the trucking industry, or I could talk about families 
and farmers. I can talk about what the high fuel prices are doing to 
all of this country. There is no heavier user of fuel than an airline.
  What is happening is the fuel prices are undermining the opportunity 
for many of these airlines both to continue operating, in some cases, 
and, in other cases, to continue operating serving smaller areas or 
less populated areas of the country. So fuel prices are a serious 
problem.
  The other issue is the modernization of the air traffic control 
system, the system by which we provide for the safety of the American 
people. There is going to be a catastrophe one of these days, and then 
everybody is going to stand around thumbing their suspenders, 
scratching their heads, and saying: Why didn't we do something about 
it?
  We have a bill on the floor of the Senate right now to try to address 
this situation, to try to modernize this system, and we have been at 
parade rest since Monday because we are not allowed to move forward. 
Everything is blocked. Everything is plugged up. This is unbelievable.
  This is important. Some people around here treat the serious things 
far too lightly and then treat the light things too seriously and never 
understand the difference. Why is it on a Thursday that legislation as 
important as this, that should have been passed in previous years, 
cannot even get amendments up and cannot get votes off because we have 
people who have decided they are just going to block everything?
  I told a group in North Dakota a while back about Mark Twain. Mark 
Twain once was asked if he would engage in a debate. He said: Oh, sure, 
as long as I can take the negative side.
  We haven't even told you the subject of the debate.
  He said: It doesn't matter, the negative side is going to require no 
preparation.
  The negative side never requires preparation. Those who are out here 
saying, no, you can't, they want to block it. That requires no 
preparation. What requires preparation is to advance public policy that 
is in the interest of this country. Does anybody really think 
modernizing our air traffic control system is somehow a back-burner 
issue? We see what is happening in the skies in this country. They are 
absolutely clogged. In fact, because of fuel prices and other reasons, 
we have airlines now switching to smaller planes, these little regional 
jets skirting around the sky, hauling as many people but just takes 
more planes to do it. So that puts an unbelievable strain on the air 
traffic system.
  The question is, Are we going to modernize it? Are we going to do 
what is necessary? Are we going to provide the funding? Are we going to 
finally get off this delaying nonsense that is going on and allow 
legislation to move forward that is essential for the safety of the air 
traveling public?
  I hope the answer at some point soon is yes. This includes items such 
as the Airport Improvement Program, what is called the AIP, investing 
in infrastructure in this country. That is very important. Land at some 
of these airports and take a look at the infrastructure and ask 
yourself whether we need this investment.

  It is interesting, if you travel around the world. If you go to 
Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and then get in a car and drive to Juticalpa. 
Take a look at the roads and ask yourself whether infrastructure 
matters. Land in some of the airports in some of these remote areas and 
take a look at what you are landing on and the infrastructure needs of 
that airport. Then ask yourself whether infrastructure is important.
  We have always prided ourselves in this country on the investment in 
infrastructure. When you come to America, you see infrastructure that 
is maintained. We have always prided ourselves on that until recently, 
and now somehow infrastructure doesn't matter. It takes a back seat.
  In my little subcommittee on appropriations that I chair, the 
President says: Let's cut water funding by $1 billion from last year's 
levels for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. These 
agencies fund much of the nation's water projects and were cut by $1 
billion, even as we have 950 water projects in this country which we 
are paying for in Iraq. Think of that. Let's cut water projects in this 
country and investment in the future of this country by $1 billion, the 
President says. However, let's have 950 water projects that the 
American taxpayers will pay for in Iraq.
  I think it is time to start taking care of a few things at home. One 
of them is the legislation on the floor of the Senate right now, and 
that is the FAA Reauthorization Act and the investment and the 
modernization of the air traffic control system. If we do not pay 
attention to that, we are going to run into very serious problems. I 
might also say, tragic problems because there is going to be some sort 
of spectacular tragedy, and then we are all going to sit around and say 
that somebody should have done something.
  We are trying to do something. The fact is, we cannot even get a vote 
on an amendment on the floor of the Senate. It is unbelievable. As I 
said in the Mark Twain example, the easiest thing in the world is to 
oppose. It takes no talent, it takes no time to prepare, just oppose, 
oppose everything.
  My hope is in the next couple of hours, perhaps there will be some 
here who wish to move ahead. I know Senator Reid has been on the floor 
offering unanimous consent requests. He has talked with the minority to 
see if there are conditions under which we might be able to move 
forward and get something done on some legislation. I understand it 
takes a while to get things done. I understand we should be 
deliberative. I understand there should be enough research so we don't 
have unintended consequences to what we do. Nobody has ever accused 
this body of speeding, ever, But this is ridiculous. This makes a 
glacier look fast.
  My hope is that those of us who are elected to come here, who try to 
make some improvements in this country, who do what is necessary for 
the health and safety of the people of this country will soon 
understand that the FAA reauthorization bill is not just some other 
piece of legislation, that it is an optional piece of legislation. The 
modernization of the air traffic control system is not some option that 
we ought to consider like any other bill. This is urgent and necessary 
and timely, and we ought to do it now.

[[Page S3670]]

                                 Energy

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about energy. Several 
colleagues have spoken about energy prices, and I related energy prices 
to the airline industry a few moments ago. I mentioned several 
bankruptcies that have occurred recently, intensive heavy users of 
energy in the airline industry, and what it might mean. This country 
needs a commercial airline industry that works. Without it, there will 
be devastating consequences to our economy. The question is, What do we 
do here?
  My colleague from Alaska made a point with which I agree. He talked 
about the speculation in these markets with respect to energy. I wish 
to talk about that issue. I have some charts.
  This is a chart that shows the speculator activity in the oil futures 
market from January 1996 to April 2008. This is the activity by 
speculators in the futures markets. These are not people who want to 
buy oil or hold oil. They have no tanks in which to put oil. They are 
not interested in oil. They want to buy what they will never get from 
people who never had it. This is what speculating is about.
  Here is the increase in speculation in the commodities market for 
oil. It is an unbelievable ramp-up, an orgy of speculation, having 
nothing to do with the fundamentals of oil supply and demand. There is 
no justification for the current price of oil if we simply look at 
supply and demand. Supply is up a bit; demand is down a bit. There is 
no justification with the current fundamentals of supply and demand 
that would seriously justify the current price of oil.
  So then what has changed? What is different? Why is this price $115 
or $120 a barrel for oil, acting like a yo-yo at the upper end? A 
couple issues have changed, especially this. We have hedge funds that 
are now neck deep in the commodities markets speculating on oil. We 
have investment banks that are speculating on oil. For the first time 
in history, I believe, investment banks are actually buying oil storage 
capacity to buy oil and take oil off the market to sell it later when 
it is more expensive. This is speculation, raw speculation. I suppose 
everybody is making money. The brokers are making money, the investment 
banks, the hedge funds--they are all wallowing to the bank full of 
cash, driving up the price of oil beyond what the fundamentals would 
suggest the price should be.
  We know those people who are winning, but who are the losers? Well, 
our country. This is something that is providing great damage to our 
country's economy. Families drive up to the gas pumps, and it hurts to 
fill the tanks. Farmers, heavy users of energy and fertilizer that 
comes from energy, are losers. It is an unbelievable burden on family 
farmers. Airlines, they just cannot fly through this storm. They go 
belly up. The list goes on and on.
  If this is what is happening with the ramp-up of speculation and it 
is causing an increase in prices, here is what has happened to oil 
prices. No one needs a chart to know this, but oil prices doubled in 
just over one year. Speculation goes up, up, way up, and oil prices 
have doubled in one year.
  Let me cite some folks who have talked about this issue. Stephen 
Simon, senior vice president of ExxonMobil, April 1, a month ago:
  ``The price of oil should be about $50-$55 per barrel.'' This from an 
executive in the oil company. I do not think his company is complaining 
about where the price is. He is just being candid. According to him, 
the price of oil ought to be about $50 or $55 per barrel, assuming 
current fundamentals.
  Clarence Cazalot, CEO, Marathon Oil, October 30, 2007:

       $100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the 
     market.
       Experts, including the former head of ExxonMobil, say 
     financial speculation in the energy market has grown so much 
     over the last 30 years that it now adds 20 to 30 percent or 
     more to the price of a barrel of oil.

  Think of that.
  Speculation in the energy markets has grown so much over the last 30 
years that it now adds 20 to 30 percent or more to the price of a 
barrel of oil.
  I understand the need for a marketplace futures market. It is 
required for hedging. It is required for liquidity. I understand it is 
necessary, and I understand we want one that works so there needs to be 
a futures market, but I also understand that when the futures market 
becomes something much more than just something that provides for 
hedging and liquidity. When it becomes an object of intense 
speculation, then there is a requirement for some intervention. No one 
quite knows what that intervention should be, but everyone ought to 
know that it is unhealthy when you have an unbelievable amount of 
speculation.
  There are books written about bubbles in speculation. We have been 
through recent speculations. The tech bubble that occurred almost a 
decade ago. The bubble in housing prices is occurring. We have seen and 
understand about bubbles. This is a bubble of speculation.
  Go back 500 years and read about tulip mania. If you have not read 
about it, I encourage to you do it. Yes, tulip mania. There was a time 
you could buy a tulip bulb for $25,000. With the hindsight of 400 or 
500 years, we can understand how unbelievably absurd it was, but it was 
a bubble, a financial speculative binge that was almost indescribable.
  What is happening in this marketplace now--and most experts will 
agree--is we have this unbelievable amount of speculation in the 
futures market that does not justify the current price. The American 
people and American industry deserve to have a government, in those 
cases, that steps in and says: There is something wrong here, and we 
are going to find a way to set it right. This is one of the areas.
  This man--in fact, I talked to this man last evening--Mr. Fadel 
Gheit, the top energy analyst for Oppenheimer Company. He has been 
there 30 years, he has testified before the Congress, and he is a very 
interesting fellow.

       There is absolutely no shortage of oil . . . I'm absolutely 
     convinced that oil prices should not be a dime above $55 a 
     barrel. . . . Oil speculators include the largest financial 
     institutions in the world.

  He said further:

       I call it the world's largest gambling hall . . . it's open 
     24/7 . . . unfortunately it's totally unregulated . . . this 
     is like a highway with no cops and no speed limit and 
     everybody's going 120 miles an hour.

  That is pretty well said, it seems to me. It describes this bubble of 
speculation that does damage to our economy and needs to be addressed 
by this Government. It is not the case that everybody hurts as a result 
of this.
  This is a Wall Street Journal article of February 28, 2008. This is 
Andrew Hall. I wouldn't know Andrew Hall from a cord of wood. I just 
see his picture here. Over the past 5 years, Mr. Hall's compensation 
has totaled well over a quarter of a billion dollars.
  What does Mr. Hall do? He makes money by speculating in the 
commodities market, according to this article. He is not alone. I 
pulled this because it is an article about him and he has made a lot of 
money. He has made a lot of money as someone who speculates in these 
commodity markets.
  Is speculation something that is good for these markets? Absolutely 
not. When you have a speculative binge that drives these prices way out 
of sight, well above that which would be justified, it can be 
devastating to the country's economy.
  That describes what is happening with respect to speculation. To 
address the issue of energy, it requires a lot of things. We must do 
this. If we do not address the issue of speculation, we are not going 
to solve the problem. We are just not.
  But there are other things to do. For example, this administration is 
putting close to 70,000 barrels of oil a day, every single day, 
underground. It is being put in something called the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a pretty good 
idea because it saves some oil for a rainy day. But just not for any 
rainy day, for an emergency, strategic emergency, something 
unanticipated, so we developed it for this purpose. That makes sense to 
me. But should we take oil when it costs $115 or $120 a barrel and 
stick it underground, 70,000 barrels? Of course not. That is absolutely 
nuts. Why would you take the highest priced oil in history, take it out 
of the supply, stick it underground and by doing so increase the price 
of oil and increase the price of gasoline?
  A man named Dr. Philip Verleger testified before the Congress. He is 
an economist and energy expert. He said that, by taking a 
disproportionate amount of oil, a subset of oil called

[[Page S3671]]

sweet light crude, out of the supply chain, it has increased the price 
of oil by 10 percent. You know, with more than $100 a barrel oil, that 
is at least $10 a barrel for light sweet crude. It is the most 
Byzantine thing one can imagine.
  I have a piece of legislation to stop it. There are now 67 U.S. 
Senators who have declared themselves to be in support of my approach. 
There is also a very similar bill that was introduced just the other 
day by some in the minority, and John McCain running for President out 
in the country said he supports it. So I have 51 who have signed a 
letter saying they support suspending the SPR fill for 2008. On top of 
that, some Republican Senators numbering 15, led by Senator Hutchison, 
also sent a letter to the President. That takes it to 66. John McCain 
is out there saying he doesn't believe we should do it, so there are at 
least 67. That makes it a veto-proof margin. So I say let's do it. End 
the speculation, and there are ways to do that. Second, stop putting 
oil underground. That ought to be important.

  In addition to all of that, let me just say the other menu of issues 
is not really very complicated either. Should we produce more? My 
colleague from Alaska says you have to produce more. I don't disagree 
with that. I was one of four Senators here in the Senate who introduced 
legislation, now law, that opens up Lease Sale 181 of the Gulf of 
Mexico. It opens up an opportunity to substantially increase our 
production of both oil and natural gas in a new region of the Gulf of 
Mexico. Frankly, if you look at the offshore capability of the Gulf of 
Mexico and compare it to the offshore options off the West Coast, East 
Coast or in Alaska, by far the most significant reserves that are 
achievable by us are in the Gulf of Mexico. We have not even tapped the 
potential of the Eastern Gulf either.
  I and three others initiated the legislation that opened up a portion 
of the Gulf of Mexico, Lease Sale 181. But there is a lot more to do 
because it got too narrow. Ought we go back there and produce? You bet 
we should. There is more production to be had.
  In addition to that, conservation is unbelievably important and so is 
efficiency. Production, conservation, efficiency, and then renewable 
energy.
  Again, we have new technology that allows us to take energy from the 
wind. I come from a state that has the most wind potential in America. 
My state has a distinction of being No. 50 in trees, so we are last in 
America in trees, and we are first in wind. I am not sure where the 
merits are there, but all of us who live there lean to the northwest 
because it blows almost every day. We are the Saudi Arabia of wind, as 
the Department of Energy suggests, and with the new modern wind 
turbines, we will continue to take energy from the wind and produce 
electricity.
  We have a great experiment going on in which we produce electricity 
from wind energy and use that electricity in the process of 
electrolysis, separating hydrogen from water and storing hydrogen for 
vehicle fuel. It all makes a lot of sense and helps contribute to our 
energy future.
  There are a lot of things we can and should do. This is not some 
mysterious illness for which we do not know the cure. This is not some 
strange disease for which we have no cure. We understand what is 
happening here, and with a little common sense, perhaps a deep 
reservoir of common sense, we could begin to fix it. At the very least, 
we ought to begin to take immediate action to stop putting oil 
underground, and stop it now. It is time to take some action to stop 
the unbelievable orgy of speculation in the futures market, and do that 
soon. Those are the first two steps, and they will reduce the price of 
gasoline. There is much more to do beyond that, but those are the first 
two sensible steps we ought to accomplish now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to speak on climate 
change. Before I do that, I commend my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for 
all of his good work on this oil and gas issue. We have been working 
together on a number of things he talked about and I do believe that, 
while I will talk today about the long-term solutions to our energy 
crisis and the way this can work hand in hand with climate change if we 
show the kind of leadership we need to show, there are also short-term 
issues. That means, as he said, cutting down on the speculation, 
putting things in place, closing down the Enron loophole. In terms of 
enforcement, to have the Justice Department get some meat on the bone--
as a former prosecutor, I know how important that is--and pushing those 
OPEC nations with which we have business dealings. If we are going to 
have business dealings with them, then they should not be cutting down 
or artificially keeping low the production of oil.


                             Climate Change

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I think there are a number of things we 
can do in the short term, but I am here today to talk about the long-
term energy future and climate future for this country.
  In 1944, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt invited delegates from 
the Allied Powers to a remote New Hampshire resort called Bretton Woods 
to discuss the future of the global economy. Although the world was 
locked in a terrible war, these leaders had fresh memories of the Great 
Depression, a worldwide panic that had left the world's major economies 
in tatters. They wanted their countries to emerge from World War II on 
a more stable financial footing.
  Over the course of 3 weeks, they created the World Bank and the 
International Monetary Fund to battle world poverty and to avert 
currency crises of the sort that had led to the worldwide economic 
meltdown in the 1920s. It worked. Both the World Bank and the IMF have 
had their share of controversies in the last decade, but they succeeded 
in stabilizing the world's financial systems so that in the ensuing six 
decades there has never been a global financial disaster comparable to 
the Great Depression.
  I draw on this chapter of history because today the world faces 
another grave international threat that demands imagination and 
leadership. This time, the threat is environmental. I am speaking, of 
course, of global climate change.
  The heating of the Earth is a threat every bit as grave as the 
financial catastrophe that threw the developed world into chaos 80 
years ago. The science is clear. Global temperatures are up 1 degree in 
the last century. That doesn't sound like much, 1 degree in the last 
century. To put it in perspective, they have risen only 5 degrees since 
the height of the ice age. The Environmental Protection Agency of this 
country predicts that temperatures could rise another 3 to 7 degrees in 
the next 100 years. The consequences are frightening: rising ocean 
levels, which we are already seeing, increased drought, wildfires, and 
destructive weather patterns.
  The Presiding Officer knows from being in the Midwest that our 
constituents aren't as focused on rising ocean levels. But I can tell 
you, in Minnesota they are focused on the fact that last year Lake 
Superior was at the lowest level in 80 years. Why would the oceans be 
high and Lake Superior be low? That is because Lake Superior, as you 
know, is a lake, and when the ice that forms on that lake melts 
quicker, the water evaporates and the water level goes down. Why do we 
care about that? You think, are you going to swim in that cold lake? A 
lot of Minnesotans, probably not, but it matters because our barges 
cannot get through and it has had a severe economic impact for barge 
traffic and the economy in the Duluth area.
  You can see the rising impacts of global warming and what we are 
seeing across the country: increasing wildfire risk--remember the fires 
we had this year in California? We had some in northern Minnesota as 
well--decreasing water availability. That is in 2007. You go up to the 
2020s, increased mortality from heat waves, floods, and droughts; in 
the 2050s, millions more people face flooding. You go up, if we do not 
do anything, to some profound and very serious consequences.
  Two weeks ago, President Bush gave a speech in the Rose Garden to 
announce a new initiative on global warming. To be perfectly blunt, I 
really didn't see anything new in the President's announcement and no 
initiative that had not been discussed before. The President has 
proposed that we wait

[[Page S3672]]

until the year 2025 before we even stop the increase in the emissions 
of greenhouse gases.
  He did not call for a cut in emissions that was immediate. He did not 
call for concrete steps to meet the goals. He said it would be unwise 
to do it at this time.
  I believe Americans are leaders not followers. When the world faces a 
crisis, they do not wait for someone else to go first. Our country has 
always stepped in and taken leadership. When we see a problem in our 
own backyard--and my people in Minnesota see shrinking wetlands and 
endangered wildlife, they have seen what has been going on with our ski 
resorts and ice fishing--they do something about it.
  Our friends across the seas in Europe have recognized the challenge. 
They have introduced a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions covering 27 
countries. It is a plan covering more than 12,000 industrial sites in 
27 countries. And they did it using a concept known as cap and trade.
  This was actually started in our country. That is how we reduced acid 
rain. The European Union did not do everything right. They will be the 
first to admit that. Their emissions targets were too high. They issued 
too many carbon permits. But they are getting it back into equilibrium. 
I believe we are going to learn from what they did, and we will do 
better when we do it in this country. But the point is, many of these 
European countries rose to the challenge and took leadership.
  Here at home, our country's private investors and business leaders 
already recognize this challenge. Nationally, venture capital 
investments in green and clean technologies have increased 
dramatically. In 2006, venture capital investment in green technologies 
in the United States reached $2.9 billion, up 78 percent from a year 
earlier.
  Not only is clean technology the fastest growing venture capital 
sector, it is now the third largest category of venture capital 
investment. So when we talk about some of the things Senator Dorgan and 
I have been talking about with energy, and we mentioned wind, we 
invented a lot of that wind technology in our country. But now we have 
fallen behind in wind production to other countries that have 
government policies in place that pushed that investment.
  From what I can see, wind is going to bring jobs across our country. 
So is solar. So is biofuels. All of these things that cut our 
dependency on foreign oil and invest in the next generation of new 
technologies, that money is starting to filter into that area. But I 
think we can do better in our country.
  CEOs from major corporations such as DuPont, Duke Energy, and General 
Electric see the opportunities, and they are making investments of 
their own. More than 200 major U.S. corporations such as American 
Electric Power and DuPont have started buying carbon offsets that are 
now traded on the new Chicago Climate Exchange. You can see the global 
investments I talked about in renewable technologies that have been 
increased in wind, in solar, and other kinds of renewable technologies.
  A company subsidizes a project that reduces greenhouse gas pollution, 
building a wind turbine, for example, then recoups its investments by 
selling that offset to another company on the Chicago Exchange. The 
Chicago Exchange is new, but it reports that it kept 10 million tons of 
carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere over the last 4 years.
  Meanwhile our Nation's Governors and mayors have also stepped up to 
the challenge. Governors in five Western States, including California 
and Arizona, have announced they will work together to reduce 
greenhouse gasses by setting regional targets for lower emissions and 
establishing a regional cap-and-trade system for buying and selling 
greenhouse gas credits.
  California alone plans to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent 
by the year 2020. The Western Greenhouse Gas Initiative builds on other 
regional initiatives, especially the landmark New England Regional 
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, with seven Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic 
States that have also agreed to a regional cap-and-trade system set to 
take effect next year. You can see all of the States that have been 
involved.
  In my home State of Minnesota, we have one of the most aggressive 
renewable electric portfolio standards in the country; a 25-percent 
reduction. We did this on a bipartisan basis. We did it with the 
support of ExelEnergy, our biggest electricity company. We did it the 
way we do things in Minnesota, with a focus on results and getting 
things done--Leadership.
  There is also the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. More 
than 400 mayors representing over 59 million Americans have pledged to 
meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas reduction goals in their 
own communities. Among the signatories to this agreement are cities in 
my home State of Minnesota: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, and 
Duluth.
  I admire these States and communities that have signed onto this 
agreement for their initiatives and what they are doing. They should be 
an inspiration for this Congress for national action. There is a famous 
phrase, ``the laboratories of democracy.'' That is what Justice 
Brandeis said in one of his most famous opinions when he described the 
special role of States in the Federal system.

  He said:

       It is one of the happy incidents of the Federal system that 
     a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve 
     as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic 
     experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

  But Brandeis did not mean this would serve as an excuse for inaction 
by the Federal Government. We have States all over this country, 
Governors, legislatures that have been brave, that have been courageous 
in taking action on climate change. But never, when Justice Brandeis 
talked about the one courageous State going above the norm, doing 
something different, did he mean there should be inaction by the 
Federal Government. Good ideas and successful innovations are supposed 
to emerge from the laboratory and serve as a model for national policy 
in action. That is now our responsibility in Congress.
  In about 1 month we will have the chance to take up that 
responsibility. We will have the opportunity to vote in the Chamber on 
landmark climate change legislation, the Lieberman-Warner bill. I thank 
my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman, for their hard 
work on this bill. I thank our chairwoman, Senator Boxer for her 
leadership as it moves forward. At this very moment we are listening to 
Members make changes to the bill, doing everything we can to make the 
bill as strong as possible.
  The truth is, we can no longer delay. I have been to Greenland and 
have seen those humongous icebergs melting in the ocean, and I have 
seen the effect of this in my own State.
  The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates if we start today and cut 
emissions by just 4 percent a year, we could achieve an 80-percent 
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But if we wait just 10 
years, we would have to double that annual rate of reduction.
  This is forward-looking, bipartisan legislation. It is comprehensive, 
and it is carefully tailored. It is our opportunity to show the 
leadership for which Americans have always been known.
  I pledged last week I was going come to the Senate floor and give a 
speech about this legislation on different aspects of why it is so 
important to move forward and to show leadership on climate change. 
Today, I think it is obvious that as we face these long-term 
consequences of doing nothing with our energy policy, when it comes to 
electricity or oil, this is our chance. This climate change legislation 
will play a major role in developing the new technologies we need.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I will yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota talked about 
the importance of renewable energy, which I certainly agree with her. 
Is it the case with renewable energy that we have done a pretty 
pathetic job as a country to incentivize renewable energy?
  In 1916, we put in place tax incentives to produce oil and gas. They 
have been in place permanently for almost a century now, tax incentives 
to produce oil and gas. By contrast, with wind and solar and renewable 
energy, we put them in place in 1992 short term incentives. We have 
extended them short

[[Page S3673]]

term five times and have let them expire three times. It has been a 
pathetic response to renewables.
  The current tax incentives expire at the end of this year, and I have 
introduced legislation to extend the production tax credit for 10 
years. I believe our country ought to say to the world and to 
investors: Here is where America is headed for a decade. Count on it. 
Believe in it. Renewables, solar, wind, and so on need a clear signal 
for investment. You can count on these investments because this is 
where America is going.
  Is it not the case, I would ask the Senator from Minnesota, that we 
have not nearly done the job in incentivizing renewables and 
establishing a national policy. Does she agree?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Senator Dorgan, that is completely accurate. When you 
look at what we have done with oil companies, with the giveaways that 
we had for years and years and years, this Senate was one vote short of 
blocking a filibuster. We tried to change that, tried to take some of 
those oil giveaways and put them in the hands--we see record profits 
from the oil companies--put them in the hands of some of these 
renewables producers.
  We were one vote short, but we have another opportunity. That is what 
the Senator from North Dakota is talking about, extending the tax 
credits for wind energy, solar, geothermal, and other kinds of 
renewables.
  We did it in the last bill we passed through this Senate. We were 
able to, with some of the economic work we did with the mortgage 
crisis, extend that tax credit for 1 year. But we would like to do it 
for longer. Senator Dorgan has a bill for 10 years. I have a bipartisan 
bill with Senators Snowe and Cantwell expanding it for 5 years. The 
problem is, it has been a game of red light, green light. It goes on 
again, off again. It is hard to follow that investment, to follow in 
the way that we would like and the way that happens in other countries 
because they never know. You can show, 8 months before these tax 
credits go off, that the investment decreases.
  This is no way to run a national energy policy. It is no way to run a 
national environmental policy. And that is why today I spoke about the 
leadership and the potential for leadership in this country.
  We once put a man on the Moon. With that came not just winning the 
race against Russia, with it came all kinds of technology: the CAT 
scan, the space sticks that my family would take on camping trips in 
the 1970s. With that came technology. That is what we are trying to do 
with this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.


                          Drugbusters' Summit

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Minnesota and the Senator from North Dakota for their comments on 
renewable energy and climate change. That is definitely an issue I hope 
we take up sooner rather than later, and hopefully we will have some 
commonsense solutions to the problem so we can move this country 
forward both in the area of reducing our effects on climate but also 
economically because it is a tremendous opportunity with the right 
piece of legislation.
  I rise today to urge the inclusion of the JAG/Byrne grant funding in 
the emergency supplemental that we will consider in the coming weeks. A 
week ago, I organized a summit of drugbuster law enforcement in my home 
State of Montana. I asked all of the leaders of Montana's drug task 
forces to come together to talk about Federal funding. It is a 
critically important issue.
  Many of them drove hundreds of miles across the State in a spring 
blizzard to take part in this summit. The drug task forces are made up 
of dedicated law enforcement officers from every part of Montana: 
sheriffs' deputies, narcotics officers, local and State police, and 
undercover agents. They work together across jurisdictions to bust drug 
smugglers, as well as those who grow or manufacture instate.
  Our State of Montana has 56 counties. There are, of course, a lot of 
different regions that deal with the task forces, that deal with 
catching the drug manufacturers and smugglers. It is critically 
important that these folks work together.
  There is cause for concern because the President proposes slashing 
$350 million from the drug task forces nationwide. If that happens, 
Montana will lose a staggering 70 percent of its national drug fighting 
money for the upcoming year, and the task forces would probably have to 
lay off 27 agents, leaving only 22 agents to battle drugs statewide. In 
a State the size of Montana that is impossible.
  We should not let that happen. We should find a way to fund these 
drug task forces in this supplemental, this spending bill that we are 
going to be considering in a few weeks. If we do not, these cuts will 
cripple the progress that we have made up to now in the war on drugs in 
rural States such as the State of Montana.
  These drug task forces are success stories. The officers who are on 
the front lines keep drugs, the drug smugglers, and the drug dealers 
off our streets. They make our communities safer; they reduce crime, 
and they make a place like Montana a whole lot safer to live and raise 
a family. These drug busters work together to get the job done.
  Because drugs are not limited by borders, these tasks forces rely on 
Federal funding to facilitate the cooperation across the many 
jurisdictions of Montana, and it works.
  Last weekend, folks picking up some trash in Havre, MT, stumbled 
across a dumped meth lab. They called the police, and within minutes 
the task force agents were there on the scene to help clean it up and 
keep the community safe.
  A week ago Monday I heard about a drug operation busted in a remote 
part of southeastern Montana; so remote, in fact, the task force needed 
the help of the National Guard helicopter to find it. Officers found 3 
pounds of methamphetamine.
  Last summer, the Northwest Montana Drug Task Force investigated a 
case that took them across State lines to Salt Lake City, UT. In the 
end, they seized 2 pounds of cocaine. They took 20 illegal weapons off 
the streets, and they say they couldn't have done it without their 
ability to work across jurisdictional lines and work together. For 
example, one task force busted a meth lab in a home. Through 
surveillance, they knew children were present. They took the 
precautions not to put the children in any more danger. When the bust 
was made, one child inside tested positive for meth because he was 
living in a house where they were cooking meth. Even his toys were 
covered with meth resin. This case set the standard for the way 
officers deal with and protect children in harm's way. In only 1 year, 
Montana'a drug task forces rescued 84 children from homes where they 
were being exposed to drugs and drug dealers.
  To me, restoring this funding is a no-brainer. As one of the officers 
put it: We will end up spending much more money in the future if we 
have to play catchup.
  During the summit last week in Montana, officers told me again and 
again that without Federal funding our small communities will be 
devastated. Our children will be exposed to more drugs and, therefore, 
more crime, and families will be torn apart.
  I hope we can all work together to restore this funding. Montana and 
the Nation cannot afford to do otherwise. Americans deserve better.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam 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. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Energy Prices

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to 
discuss what has become a very tortured topic for the entire country; 
that is, the prices for oil and gasoline and diesel.
  I would like to respond, first, to the President's misstatements 
about Congress's role in this situation. These

[[Page S3674]]

are misstatements he made on Tuesday at his press conference. Then I 
would like to talk about what I believe are some of the real causes of 
the energy situation and what constructive steps we can take to address 
those causes.
  First, with regard to the President's statements, on Tuesday he 
suggested the Congress is to blame for the current price situation 
Americans are seeing when they go to fill up at the gas pump. He cited 
three reasons to conclude that.
  First of all, he was blaming Congress for preventing oil companies 
from exploring for oil and gas in the United States. Second, he was 
blaming Congress for blocking efforts to build more refineries in the 
United States. Third, he was blaming Congress for blocking increases in 
the U.S. nuclear electricity production capacity.
  Frankly, I think the President's comments are disappointing in 
several regards. First, of course, they are very partisan. But second, 
the charges the President made are simply not borne out by the facts.
  On exploration and production of natural gas in this country, 
Congress has taken significant steps on a bipartisan basis to enhance 
oil and gas production. Through enacting the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act of 2006, Congress made available 4.74 trillion cubic feet 
of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil off the Florida 
Panhandle.
  Ironically, Congress was required to pass that law because of steps 
that were taken early in the Bush administration. In her first year in 
office, in 2001, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton cut the size of 
the scheduled Outer Continental Shelf lease sale in the area by 75 
percent. So with the stroke of a pen, the Secretary of the Interior, in 
2001, put off limits over 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and over 
1 billion barrels of oil from an area that had been proposed for 
leasing by the Clinton administration, I would say, with the 
concurrence of our former colleague, Lawton Chiles, who was then the 
Governor of Florida.
  So while, undoubtedly, a politically popular stance for the Bush 
administration in Florida when this action was taken by Secretary 
Norton, this was hardly an action that was intended to enhance oil and 
gas production in the country.
  In fact, large areas of the Outer Continental Shelf are currently off 
limits to oil and gas development and production not just because of 
congressional moratoria but because of Presidential withdrawals that 
were first put in place, in 1990, by the first President Bush. This 
current President Bush could exercise real leadership in this area, if 
he wished to, by eliminating these Presidential withdrawals that were 
first put in place by his father.
  We are talking about a significant area. There are some 574 million 
acres of the OCS, or Outer Continental Shelf, that are unavailable for 
leasing, and virtually all that is covered by Presidential withdrawals, 
which could be eliminated by this President with the stroke of a pen.
  The Arctic Refuge is another issue raised by the President. He failed 
to mention drilling in the Refuge will do nothing to address the high 
price of gas people are faced with today. I think everyone who has 
looked at the issue recognizes that not a single drop of oil would come 
to the lower continental United States from the Arctic Refuge for at 
least 10 years.
  The Energy Information Administration has estimated that production 
from the Arctic Refuge would, at its peak, reduce our reliance on 
imports by about 4 percent, from 68 percent to 64 percent. That is the 
estimate the Energy Information Administration has given, which, of 
course, is part of our own Department of Energy.
  Other areas of Federal lands that are much more appropriate for 
development can and should be drilled. In fact, of the 45.5 million 
acres of Federal onshore lands currently under lease by industry, there 
are over 31 million acres of those lands that are not currently being 
produced. Likewise, there are 33 million acres of Federal Outer 
Continental Shelf that are under lease; that is, the Government has 
done what it should do to make these areas available, but they are not 
being produced.
  The processing of drilling permits on Federal lands has surged over 
the past several years. It has more than doubled between 2001 and 2006. 
At the same time, the administration reported that in five key basins 
in the Rocky Mountain States, 85 percent of oil resources and 88 
percent of natural gas resources are currently available for leasing 
and for development.
  Congress has also funded important research and development programs 
to enhance the best of production. It is simply inaccurate finger 
pointing to say that Congress is impeding oil and gas development in 
this country.
  On refinery capacity, which is the second point the President made in 
his press conference, refining capacity has increased by about a 
million barrels per day during President Bush's tenure, from 16.6 
million barrels per day in 2001 to 17.5 million barrels per day in 2007 
through capacity expansion and existing refineries. There have been no 
efforts from Congress to try to slow down that expansion. Refiners have 
been asked whether they would like to build new refineries as opposed 
to expanding capacity at existing refineries, and those refiners have 
told us in hearings before our Energy Committee that they would rather 
expand capacity at existing refineries. We have never heard support 
from anyone inside the oil industry regarding the President's curious 
plan to build refineries on former U.S. military bases. As far as I 
know, no Member of Congress objects to that; it is just that the 
companies that are in the business of constructing refineries have not 
decided that it makes good sense for them from an economic point of 
view.
  The economics of refining are not very good at the moment, as 
gasoline prices are not yet fully reflecting the jump in crude oil 
prices. U.S. refining capacity is at about 85 percent utilization at 
the current time, as many refiners are losing money on every gallon of 
gasoline they produce. Clearly, constraining refinery capacity is not 
our current problem.
  The third issue the President attacked the Congress about was nuclear 
energy production. Here again, Congress is not standing in the way of 
increasing nuclear production capacity. In fact, Congress over the past 
3 years has put in place one of the most favorable sets of incentives 
for nuclear power development anywhere in the world.
  For example, if a nuclear plant is proposed for licensing and is 
delayed because of a lack of action by Federal regulators, the 
proponents of the plant can get Federal payments to compensate for that 
delay. Now, that was part of the 2005 legislation we passed. No wind 
power developer can get that kind of a subsidy. No solar power 
developer can get that kind of a subsidy. We also provided tax 
incentives for the construction of new nuclear powerplants. So if the 
Congress passes global warming legislation--I know the administration 
and the President are opposed to that, but if we do, according to the 
Energy Information Administration, the most significant impact of that 
global warming legislation would be to provide a powerful new incentive 
to promote more nuclear power development in this country.
  So let me move on from the discussion of the President's charges to a 
short discussion of what I consider the real causes of current oil 
prices. I think to understand what is going on here, it is critical to 
put these oil prices in the broader economic context. The current 
increase in oil prices is, to a large degree, a symptom of our ailing 
economy. Oil prices and the value of the U.S. dollar have been very 
strongly linked over the last year. As the value of the dollar 
declines, oil prices go up.
  We have heard recent testimony before our Energy Committee that 
confirms that investors are seeking protection from inflationary risks 
associated with the weak dollar and from credit and wider financial 
markets in which they have lost confidence. As one witness put it, oil 
has become the new gold, and that is why speculators and others are 
investing in oil. Higher oil prices in turn weaken our economy, so we 
are caught in a downward spiral in which a weak economy is resulting in 
high oil prices, and high oil prices are, in turn, further weakening 
the economy.
  So the question is how do we stop this downward spiral. This is a 
large task. It requires, first and foremost, a return to rational 
fiscal policy that will restore balance and investor confidence in our 
markets. That includes

[[Page S3675]]

an honest accounting of the costs of the war in Iraq, a figure that we 
now know is going to be in the trillions of dollars. Spending has also 
been accompanied by the administration's tax policies which have been 
extremely damaging to the country's long-term fiscal health. Every 
American family that sits around the kitchen table and tries to balance 
a budget recognizes the simple fact that spending more than you earn or 
more than the revenue you can bring in results in, after a period, your 
creditors eventually coming calling. That is what is happening to the 
dollar today. Apparently, the stewards of the U.S. economy and this 
administration have failed to absorb that simple reality.
  Let me talk a little about policies to reduce oil prices in the short 
term. There are modest but important measures we can enact to increase 
our oil supply and reduce our demand. On the supply side, we need to 
immediately stop removing oil from the market to fill the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. It simply makes no sense to be putting $120 per 
barrel oil underground. According to the most recent Energy Information 
Administration forecast, oil demand in the United States is expected to 
decline by 90,000 barrels per day in 2008. This is the kind of signal 
we need to send to the market in order to see some relief from current 
prices. However, we are taking 70,000 barrels per day off the market to 
add to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which we all recognize is about 
97 percent full right now. We are basically wiping out any positive 
effects from the decrease in demand. This is a policy completely 
wrongheaded and should be stopped immediately. I compliment all three 
of the candidates for President for embracing this recommendation that 
we eliminate the filling or we suspend the filling of the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. I wish the administration would support that simple 
measure.
  On the demand side, we need to decide whether we are ready to get 
serious about educating consumers to take more responsibility to reduce 
consumption. We know that 5 miles per hour slower that a person drives 
will increase our fuel efficiency for that individual by about 7.5 
percent. We also know that energy-efficient, properly inflated tires 
increase fuel efficiency by about 4 percent. Regular car maintenance 
can increase fuel efficiency by about 2 percent. So Americans 
individually could use about 10 to 15 percent less gasoline by adopting 
these commonsense measures. But to see we do that, we will need 
publicity out there to educate folks on the simple steps they can take 
to reduce consumption. In the medium term, we need to ensure there is a 
cop on the beat on the oil markets.

  There are two key steps we should take to improve Government 
oversight of the oil markets. First, the Secretary of Energy needs to 
have a role in overseeing oil markets. It troubles me that the people 
at the New York Mercantile Exchange on which oil is traded and the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission which regulates that exchange seem 
to be the only people who think that speculators are not influencing 
oil prices.
  Here is a quote from the Wall Street Journal on March 21 of 2006. It 
says:

       Hedge funds are taking ever-larger bets in a futures market 
     that is smaller than the stock or bond markets, and the funds 
     are using borrowed money to maximize their bets, magnifying 
     the impact on energy market prices.

  So clearly, the Secretary of Energy and the 500-plus employees he has 
there in his Energy Information Administration who work every day to 
analyze energy data, forecast energy supply and demand, and prices 
should at a minimum provide insight and advice to market regulators at 
the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. Perhaps this could help the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission come to understand the role of 
speculators in that market.
  Second, we need to shed light on the so-called dark markets. Markets 
that trade U.S. oil or are located in the United States should be 
subject to U.S. regulation. It is unacceptable that an exchange that is 
based in Atlanta, GA and trades U.S. crude oil that is delivered in 
Oklahoma is regulated in the United Kingdom, not subject to the laws 
and regulations that we in Congress put in place to govern the U.S. 
futures market. It is also unacceptable that over-the-counter markets 
are regulated neither here in the United States nor in the United 
Kingdom. There is simply no regulatory body that can see these over-
the-counter transactions.
  Let me also say a few words about policies that will not reduce 
gasoline prices. First, there is a proposal to suspend the tax on gas 
and diesel. While I can appreciate the temporary public relations 
success that might accompany this tax suspension, it would come at the 
expense of fiscal common sense and sound energy policy. I agree that 
high gasoline and diesel prices are hurting consumers, but additional 
deficit spending will only help accelerate the downward trajectory of 
our economy as a whole. This is simply the latest in a long line of 
proposals that seek to score political points during an election year 
at the expense of good energy policy.
  There are three main objections to the proposal. First, it would 
increase deficit spending by nearly $10 billion while saving motorists 
about $25 per person. If you do the math, you find that even if all of 
the savings are passed on to the consumer, which is a very unlikely 
outcome, the savings per person is negligible.
  If you assume that the average motorist drives 12,000 miles per year 
and gets 22 miles per gallon, you can calculate that the amount the 
average person would save in a 3-month period is $25.50. So adopting 
the fuel efficiency measures I have discussed earlier, including 
shaving a few miles per hour off the top highway speed, would be much 
more effective in reducing the cost of gasoline to the average 
consumer.
  Madam President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I believe the Senator has used his 
15 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the second argument I wanted to raise 
related to this proposed suspension of the gas tax is the idea that it 
would be reinstated in September when prices might well be as high or 
higher than they are today would be very difficult and very unlikely to 
occur, frankly. We are talking about reinstating the gas tax in 
September. I think that is the proposal the Senator from Arizona has 
made: Let's suspend the gas tax now, or at Memorial Day, and let's 
reinstate it on Labor Day. Well, the problem with that is Labor Day is 
about 2 months before the election. It would not be politically 
feasible to have a single-day price increase on September 1st of 18.4 
cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel. I don't think 
anybody--any politician in his or her right mind--would vote to impose 
that kind of a tax increase at that time. Prices could easily be as 
high or higher on September 1 as they are today. It is simply not 
possible to me that Congress will then choose to increase the price 
that consumers pay at the pump.
  The third argument is that this tax suspension would stimulate demand 
for motor fuels without increasing supply. In fact, we would see 
something in the nature of a price increase. The best explanation of 
this was done by Paul Krugman, a respected economist who writes for the 
New York Times and teaches at Princeton, in an article he did on April 
29. He said in that article, I think the conclusion was, the McCain gas 
tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies disguised as a gift to 
consumers.
  The obvious point he was making is that under the basic rules of 
economics, the fact that Congress would suspend the gas tax would do 
nothing to ensure that consumers benefited from the suspension of the 
gas tax. The whole notion that you are going to see the price of gas at 
the pump drop 18 cents because Congress says the tax is all of a sudden 
suspended is not realistic.
  In conclusion, we as a country and we as a Congress need to get 
serious about energy policy. It is an election year. While there is 
always a tendency to take rhetorical stands in the runup to an 
election, the American people understand that. I think they discount 
what they hear from Washington as the

[[Page S3676]]

election date begins to arrive. That is one reason they don't always 
hold Congress in the highest esteem. Proposals that are mostly feel-
good propositions do not fool voters for long--if they fool them at 
all.
  That said, there are a number of concrete steps we can take that will 
help. We should freeze the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--
suspend that for the time being. We should take some effective actions 
to bring the oil markets under better control with U.S. laws and 
regulations. Let's be sure consumers know what they themselves can do 
to reduce their own demand. I hope that with oil at $110 to $120 per 
barrel, which it has been for several weeks and which it may well be 
for several more weeks or months ahead--or even a longer period--I hope 
we will give this topic the serious attention it deserves.
  I yield the floor and 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. CORNYN. Madam 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. CORNYN. Madam President, today, marks more than 2 years--by my 
count, 738 days--since Speaker Pelosi said:

       Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down 
     skyrocketing gas prices.

  That was on April 24, 2006--738 days ago. I think it is important to 
look at what has happened to the price of gas and to see whether her 
prediction was correct.
  Lo and behold, we find the average price of a gallon of gasoline in 
America at $3.62, up $2.33 from the time when Speaker Pelosi became 
Speaker in January of 2007. Again, that is a rise from $2.33 a gallon 
to $3.62 a gallon.
  I will tell you we have been asking and waiting, and the American 
people have been waiting and watching, to see what Congress is going to 
do to help relieve some of this pain at the pump. The American people 
want us to work together to try to find commonsense solutions to help 
them with this increasing pain they are feeling in the family budget.
  Do you know that taking the difference between $2.33 a gallon and 
$3.62 a gallon represents roughly a $1,400 increase in the cost for 
gasoline for the average American family? Of course, I don't have to 
tell anybody here, or anybody listening, that this is necessary for 
driving the kids to school, driving to work; it is necessary also to 
provide fuel for the airplanes Americans fly in. This is an American 
problem, and I suggest we need to come up with an American solution.
  The problem has been that about 60 percent of our energy needs in 
this country are now satisfied by imported oil and gas from other parts 
of the world. That is a national security challenge because, of course, 
to the extent which others supply our energy needs, it means they can 
turn off the spigot; or if hostilities were to occur that would, let's 
say, for example, block the Strait of Hormuz, there could be an 
economic body blow to the United States as a result of the restriction 
on our energy supply.
  We need to recognize there are certain things that are irrefutable 
or, I should say, maybe unchangeable by Congress. We can pass a lot of 
laws and repeal laws, but we cannot change the law of supply and 
demand. Try as we might, Congress has neglected that for these many 
years. While we have done some good things on conservation, passing 
fuel efficiency standards recently, and we have also supported 
renewable fuels, which are an important part of the energy supply, you 
cannot put wind energy in your tank to drive your kids to school.
  We need to recognize that with a fixed supply of oil, which is 70 
percent of the price of gasoline, we are competing globally with 
countries such as China and India, rising economies where people want a 
better quality of life, and they realize one key to that is affordable 
energy. America has not had that exclusively, but we have had it pretty 
much to ourselves, and others want what we have, which is a good 
quality of life and standard of living. That comes with affordable 
energy.
  So what are we going to do about satisfying the laws of supply and 
demand? Of course, we know Congress is the primary culprit when it 
comes to obstructing access to American natural resources. I remember 
that when I was growing up, we would talk about different countries in 
school and about how some were blessed with abundant natural resources 
and how that was a good thing because the citizens of that country 
could use those natural resources to enhance their quality of life--in 
this case, provide for affordable energy. But we have simply, by our 
inaction--and I would say to the extent it applies--actually acted 
affirmatively to place our natural resources out of bounds in a way 
that has exacerbated and not solved the problem.
  I know how popular it is these days to say it is all big oil's fault. 
The blame game. Then we have people saying we need another 
investigation. Well, the blame game and investigations are important, 
and investigations and oversight is for Congress, but that is not 
producing a single drop of additional energy. We need to do that and we 
need to act today.
  A moment ago, a group of Senators announced an omnibus energy bill 
that would satisfy America's need for more American solutions to our 
energy supply. My hope is that by taking advantage, for example, of the 
million-barrel-a-day capacity Alaska could supply, by taking advantage 
of the Outer Continental Shelf, such as we have in the Gulf of Mexico, 
with the vast oil deposits there, and by taking advantage of our 
abundant natural resources in the form of oil shale in the West, we 
could relieve our dependence upon imported oil in this country to the 
tune of some 3 million barrels a day.

  I know there are environmental and safety concerns with developing 
our oil and gas resources right here at home. But I invite the people 
who are concerned about that and who do not believe we can do so to 
come to Fort Worth and see the Barnett shale, which is an abundant, 
plentiful source of natural gas being developed right in the city of 
Fort Worth. As a matter of fact, if you fly into DFW Airport, you will 
see drilling rigs on the airport property. The tract of land in Alaska 
that is going to be explored and used for producing this million-
barrel-a-day-plus oil that is located in the Arctic is going to be on a 
postage stamp-size piece of property.
  I see the distinguished ranking member of the Energy Committee. I was 
saying the city of Fort Worth is producing the Barnett shale and 
actually drilling gas at DFW Airport and that you can see the rigs 
there.
  I suggest that if we can produce those natural resources in Texas and 
in Fort Worth on the DFW Airport property, American energy producers 
can do it in Alaska. People are concerned, as they should be--and I 
wish they would act on those concerns and not just complain about it--
about $120-a-barrel oil. It has been projected that if we were to take 
advantage of the natural resources God has blessed us with in the 
Arctic, we could produce oil there that costs roughly $55 a barrel. So 
$120 a barrel or $55 a barrel? You pick.
  If we are talking about developing oil resources from the Outer 
Continental Shelf, even beyond the horizon, as we did in lease sale 181 
in the Gulf of Mexico--it is 300 miles off the coast of Texas. You 
cannot even see it. Yet we have a way of producing those abundant 
resources. If Congress will simply quit the blame game, the finger-
pointing and wake up to the fact that the American people are feeling 
pain not only at the pump but in their family budgets--they are looking 
for Congress to get out of the way and let the American people produce 
the natural resources we have been blessed with, in a way that will 
satisfy the laws of supply and demand, by producing as much as 3 
million barrels of additional oil, which will then have a dramatic 
impact at the pump and help American families meet their energy needs 
at a reasonable price.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't hear the Senator from Texas say he was 
finished.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2958 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page S3677]]

  Mr. CORNYN. Yes, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the floor 
time now be given to Senator Kennedy, who has been patiently waiting, 
for which I am grateful.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
New Mexico. We will not have a chance today to talk about mental health 
parity. But whenever I see him speak on the floor I am further inspired 
to make sure we are going to get that legislation passed in this 
Congress. I thank him for all of his good work in that undertaking. We 
are strongly committed to ensuring that this very important health 
policy issue is going to be addressed in the Congress.
  I see my friend from Illinois. I know he was seeking the floor. I ask 
unanimous consent that he be recognized after I finish.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Unemployment Insurance Extension

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, tomorrow we are going to have the 
report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the unemployment figures 
in this country. Those unemployment figures may be statistics to some, 
but they are lost hopes and dreams to millions of our fellow citizens. 
They are a key indicator of the state of our economy. I think most of 
us who have had the opportunity to travel our States and listen to 
working families understand the extraordinary pressures these families 
are under, the incredible anxiety that goes to the heart and soul of 
these families. They really wonder if somehow they are guilty in some 
way for not being able to deal with the economic challenges they are 
facing, whether it is the increased cost of gas at the pump, or whether 
it is the increasing cost of tuition, the increasing cost of health 
care, or the challenges they are facing with their mortgages.
  This afternoon I want to speak for a few minutes about the issue of 
unemployment and how that has impacted so many of our fellow citizens 
and what the implications are for so many of our fellow citizens. Even 
though we do not have the figures, I think we can reliably suggest 
there is going to be a further increase in the number of unemployed 
Americans when we get the figures tomorrow morning. These are the 
figures so far this year: we see 76,000 jobs lost in January; in 
February, 76,000; some 80,000 in March--232,000 jobs were lost over the 
period of these 3 months. There were 50,000 construction jobs lost. 
That sends a message in and of itself.
  If we look at this chart, we see the total number of unemployed. 
These are the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. In March of 2008 we 
have 7.8 million unemployed and only 3.9 million jobs. That's two 
workers for every job. Here we have individuals, Americans, who have 
worked hard, played by the rules, and, through no fault of their own, 
because of the failure of fiscal and monetary policy, they have lost 
their jobs. Yet when we look back at the total number of job openings, 
they are limited. These Americans are getting squeezed. How are they 
going to be able to find jobs when the jobs are not available even if 
they have the skills? We are going to come back to that in just a 
moment.
  These families are hurting. That is why it is so important that we 
have an increase in the unemployment compensation program that is now 
in surplus of about $35 billion. That fund has actually been paid into 
by American workers. They have paid into the fund $35 billion, and the 
reason they paid in was for circumstances such as this, a fiscal and 
monetary economic policy which has failed them. They are entitled to 
receive the unemployment compensation. Yet we have an administration 
which has consistently opposed extending unemployment benefits. I am 
going to come to that in just a moment too.
  Here are recent veterans who having served, are having a hard time 
finding work. The total workforce, 5.1 percent unemployed; for these 
veterans serving after 2001, we can see their unemployment is 6.1 
percent. And the young male veterans, serving after September 2001, are 
at 11.2 percent. These are all veterans, but this is young men--11.2 
percent. These young Americans were the ones who had the burden of 
conflict and now they are facing the burden, at home, of an economy 
that will not serve them and serve their interests. Where is the burden 
falling? It is falling on our young veterans, and it is falling 
particularly hard.
  This chart indicates where the burden of this economy is falling. We 
are finding out it is increasingly falling on adult women, who are 
seeing a sharper rise in unemployment rates than men. There is a 21-
percent increase for women, and 15 percent for men, between March of 
2007 and March of 2008. Do we understand how it is squeezing women? 
Women are more likely to have subprime mortgages than men, despite 
having slightly better credit scores. Women are having their homes 
foreclosed at a more rapid rate than men, their unemployment rates are 
going up, and their savings are lower. They are the ones who are taking 
the brunt of this recession along with young veterans.
  Here we find women's earnings are falling faster than men's. Men's 
median income in 2007 fell one-half of 1 percent for men, women's fell 
3 percent. We see increasing numbers of women are unemployed, and the 
wages of women who have jobs are being adversely impacted to a much 
higher and more significant degree.
  We see what has happened generally with regard to the economy. The 
stock market lost $2.7 trillion in value since May of 2007. This crisis 
has wiped out $2.7 trillion in home values. The dollar has lost one-
third of its value, and the Federal debt has nearly doubled since this 
President took office. Again, we are looking at home values, which is 
the wealth for so many middle-income and working families--$2.7 
trillion effectively has been wiped out during this last year.
  All these figures show middle-income families, working families, are 
taking the heavy brunt of the recession we are facing. We should ask 
ourselves what are we doing about this. If we look at what we have done 
at other times, we have granted extended unemployment benefits. Look at 
the last recessions we have had, from January 1980 to July 1980, and 
then July 1981 to November 1982, the average number of weeks of 
unemployment was 16 weeks. And we extended unemployment compensation.
  The next recession we had was July 1990 to March of 1991. The average 
weeks of unemployment was 13.9 weeks, but we had an extension of 
unemployment compensation.
  In March 2001 to November 2001, 15 weeks was the average number of 
weeks of unemployment, and we had an extension of the unemployment 
compensation.
  Here, look at this: 16.2 weeks is the average number of weeks workers 
are unemployed today--16.2 weeks--and this administration refuses to 
say the $35 billion that is in the unemployment compensation fund that 
you have worked for and contributed into that fund, should be available 
to you when we have adverse economic conditions. These are just the 
kind of conditions that they are there for. This administration refuses 
to do anything about it. It is a striking difference for working 
families who are trying to make it and provide for their families.

  Very briefly, this chart demonstrates that during a recession, among 
the limited economic stimulus measures, unemployment compensation is 
among the most promising investments--every dollar we invest in 
unemployment compensation has the effect of $1.64; for infrastructure 
it is $1.59 for every dollar invested; and it is $1.73 in food stamps. 
This is from Moody's chief economist. There is much less impact, 
obviously, for the Bush extended tax cuts.
  We should look at what is happening in food stamps--we do not 
frequently think about the numbers of our fellow American citizens who 
are dependent on food stamps, but we should pause now. We certainly 
should if we have been back home and listened to those who have been 
running the food banks in our States and we find out the condition of 
those food banks. 28 million Americans are projected to receive food 
stamps in fiscal year 2009--28 million Americans are going to be 
eligible for food stamps in 2009. Look at the indicators. This is 
another indicator

[[Page S3678]]

about what is happening in the economy, the kind of pressures that 
middle-income and working families have.
  We could also ask, Why aren't we trying to provide training for these 
workers who are struggling to find a job? If we improve their skills, 
they will be able to find a job--is that right? No, it is wrong. What 
we are finding is Americans cannot access job training programs. This 
administration has been cutting back virtually every year on job 
training programs.
  Look at this. In Massachusetts alone, for every available slot in a 
job training program there are 21 workers on a waiting list. Do we 
understand? There are 21 workers on a waiting list. These are American 
men and women who want to work, have worked, want to provide for their 
families, and they cannot even get the training in order to be able to 
fill the jobs. We have 83,000 jobs in my State that are not being 
filled today, but we have cut back. This administration has cut back on 
the training programs. This is the kind of misstep this administration 
has taken time in and time out.
  I just remind the Senate about action that we took just yesterday 
with regard to students and the student loan program. One urgent step 
that we must take to ensure that the slumping economy does not prevent 
young people from going to college is to provide some help and 
assistance, and we did yesterday.
  Right now, in May, students and their parents are applying for 
financial aid and the loans they need to attend college in the fall. 
This is happening just as some banks have said they are no longer 
offering student loans. We cannot allow the slumping economy to limit 
the horizons of a new generation of Americans. Students and parents 
need to know we will do everything we can to guarantee that every 
single student who needs a loan to go to college in the fall will get 
one, even in these troubled economic times. We will increase the amount 
of grant aid available to relieve the debt burden on needy students.
  Yesterday the Senate passed legislation to do just that. The House of 
Representatives also passed the legislation just a few hours ago, and 
President Bush has indicated that he will sign it into law. This is 
what the emergency legislation does: For students, if private loans 
through the banks dry up, they can get lower cost government-guaranteed 
loans to take their place. So no matter what happens in the private 
loan market, the government loans will be there, and they will be there 
for them.
  This guarantee comes in two ways. First, the bill expands the amount 
of Federal loans available for a student for 4 years of college from 
$23,000 to $31,000, an $8,000 increase. Second, it ensures that 
students will have easy access to Federal loans.
  If banks are not willing to make these loans to students, State-
based, nonprofit agencies, called the guaranty agencies, will take 
their place.
  So for every student, there will always be someone to provide the 
loans, either through the private sector or through the Government.
  Also, for thousands of low-income students, we increased the grant 
aid by up to $1,300 a year for underclassmen and $4,000 a year for 
upperclassmen. That is not a lot, but it is a part of an ongoing 
commitment to help low-income college students avoid the crushing 
burdens of debt that inevitably distort their choices for the future.
  The bill also helps parents by providing them with better options and 
better access to the low-cost Federal PLUS loans alternative. This 
provides help to parents. It allows the parents to delay the repayment 
on the loans until their child has graduated from college. It makes it 
easier for parents who have been hit by the mortgage crisis to obtain 
these low-cost loans; help for the students, help as well for families.
  Finally, the bill helps stabilize the overall student loan market by 
authorizing the Secretary of Education to purchase outstanding federal 
loans, allowing private lenders to replenish their capital so they can 
make new loans to students and parents.
  For the 6 million students and over 700,000 parents currently relying 
on low cost federally subsidized loans, these steps mean they will 
continue to have ready access to these funds, even as the credit 
markets discourage lender participation in the Federal program. In 
other words, students and parents will now have multiple avenues to 
obtain low-cost Federal loans.
  Fortunately, Congress has taken prompt action to prevent college 
students from becoming the next victims of our failing economy, and I 
commend President Bush for urging us to do so. I am grateful to Senator 
Enzi, Congressman Miller, Congressman McKeon for their partnership on 
this legislation, and for the support and assistance of the Secretary 
of Education.
  I hope we can replicate this bipartisan effort in tackling other 
urgent economic issues. There is much work to be done to ensure that 
Main Street is insulated from the problems of Wall Street. It is clear 
that the Nation faces a serious ongoing economic challenge. We know 
what we have to do to put our economy and our country back on track. To 
do that we need to seize the moment and act immediately to help the 
millions of Americans who need our help the most.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I see the Senator from Michigan on the 
floor. I know she is here to address the same topic as the Senator from 
Massachusetts, and she has a 5 o'clock conference committee on an 
important bill pending before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that 
she be allowed to speak in my place and that I follow her.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank our distinguished assistant majority leader for 
allowing me to do this. It is very important. I thank my colleague and 
friend, the champion from Massachusetts, for all of his efforts as they 
relate to the efforts to make sure college loans are available. Also I 
want to speak to the fact that we are working together to extend 
unemployment insurance benefits, and I greatly appreciate his 
leadership.
  I want to specifically today speak to that piece of the effort we are 
working on together. Because since my colleagues across the aisle 
blocked extending critical unemployment benefits from the part of our 
first stimulus package, frankly, the situation has only gotten worse 
for families in Michigan and all across the country.
  National unemployment is on the rise, with our Nation losing 80,000 
jobs in March. It is stunning to me when we look at what is happening 
across the country. I have to say, these are not new kinds of numbers 
for us in Michigan. We have been seeing these kinds of numbers now for 
a number of years but we see nationally, in this last January, 76,000 
jobs were lost; in February, 76,000 jobs were lost; in March, the 
highest number, 80,000 jobs were lost; 232,000 jobs cut in the past 3 
months.
  I remember coming to the floor and having colleagues say: Well, 
overall unemployment is not high. We do not have a problem. It is below 
5 percent. Well, now it has crept up above 5 percent, and we are being 
told by Goldman Sachs and the Bureau of Labor Statistics that by 
January, this coming January, the national unemployment rate will be 
6.5 percent.
  We in Michigan would actually consider that a decrease, because ours 
is at 7.2 percent. But nationally when we look at that kind of steep 
increase in those people who are out of work, we need to be paying 
attention to this. Families, middle-class families, who have worked 
hard all their lives are finding themselves in a situation, due to no 
fault of their own, where they are looking for work, trying to keep 
their family together and, in fact, are looking for us to do what we 
have always done in times such as these, which is to extend 
unemployment benefits across the country for families, and particularly 
for those States that are hardest hit.
  We have 10,000 people right now in Michigan every month who are 
losing unemployment benefits. That for us relates to the fact that we 
are one of the highest States in mortgage foreclosures, why people 
cannot afford to pay for their mortgage. So the ripple effect 
throughout the economy is staggering when we look at the fact that on

[[Page S3679]]

top of what is happening to people who are losing their jobs and cannot 
afford their mortgage, their gas, when we look at what is happening 
with gas prices.
  We in the majority have been coming to this floor and have been doing 
everything we can in putting forward proposals to deal with the high 
gas prices. We have not been able to get support from colleagues to 
truly address this, what needs to be addressed, and even putting food 
on people's tables and health insurance.
  Everything is going up in the wrong direction, including the fact 
that people are now losing their unemployment benefits. We have been 
suffering in Michigan through several years of high unemployment, as I 
mentioned. We have 7.2 percent unemployment right now. In the first 
half of this year, over 72,000 people exhausted their unemployment 
benefits. But we are not alone. This is not only a Michigan problem 
anymore. Alaska, California, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Nevada, 
Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, all have unemployment 
rates at or above 5.7 percent. Across the country, millions of 
Americans are losing what are insurance benefits. We are not talking 
about public assistance, we are talking about an insurance system that 
they paid into, that employees come into for these circumstances.
  We have not seen the President's willingness, up to this point, to 
support extending unemployment benefits and, subsequently, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This makes absolutely no 
sense. Frankly, from an economic standpoint, it makes no sense.
  Moody's economy.com chief economist Mark Zandi estimates for every $1 
spent on unemployment benefits, the economy is stimulated by $1.4. We 
knew that when we passed the original stimulus package. Rather than a 
rebate, many of us were arguing that the best way, the fastest way to 
stimulate the economy was to give dollars directly to people out of 
work, struggling to make their payments, who on average make 40 percent 
of their wage from this unemployment insurance system. The people would 
have to turn right around and go to the grocery store, buy clothes for 
their children, spend the dollars they receive in unemployment benefits 
in order to be able to keep going. What we have heard over and over 
again from colleagues on the other side of the aisle is: We should 
wait; we should wait; it is not that bad; it is not bad enough. I do 
not know how many times we have heard the President say, up until 
recently, ``Well, the underlying fundamentals of the economy are good'' 
or ``Things really are not as bad as people think.''
  Well, they are. They are. The American people know that when they are 
being hit on all sides with rising costs and lower wages. So I am here 
today to urge my colleagues to come together to understand what 
American families are going through, and to support, strongly support, 
an extension of unemployment compensation.
  Let me say in conclusion that this unfortunately is a pattern we have 
seen over and over again when it comes to blocking those programs that 
are critically important for American families. Over and over again we 
see colleagues filibustering issues, stopping us from moving forward on 
what makes a real difference in people's lives.
  It is not only extending unemployment insurance for families and 
workers in Michigan and across the country, but it is part of a pattern 
of blocking and obstructing what is important to families in this very 
difficult economy. Last year my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle blocked an energy tax bill that would have increased the 
production of renewable fuels and helped bring more advanced technology 
vehicles to the marketplace to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 
begin to address what is happening on the gas price side of things.
  But, unfortunately again, these efforts were blocked time and time 
again when we brought forward proposals that relate to energy and 
pricing and accountability for the industry. Moving tax breaks from oil 
companies to alternative fuels or to consumers, we have been blocked. I 
have to say also in conclusion today that once again, a critical issue 
to this safety of the American public has been blocked, and that is the 
question of whether we are going to modernize air service in this 
country; whether we are going to truly have a passenger's bill of 
rights; whether we are going to update a system that is clearly 
overloaded, clearly in crisis. We have been trying all week to bring to 
the floor critical changes to upgrade the American airline system, and 
once again these efforts have been blocked and blocked and blocked. We 
have a whole range of needs in this country that are urgent for the 
safety of those of us who are flying with our families and are counting 
on the fact that everything that is being done to make sure that system 
is the best in the country and it is safe.
  We see that families are struggling with gas prices. We see in my 
home State again 10,000 people a month losing unemployment insurance 
who are trying to figure out how to make ends meet while we see 
blocking after blocking, filibuster after filibuster, here in the 
Senate stopping us from moving forward on important legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the folks at home and what they are 
going through, and to join us to extend unemployment insurance, to 
address what are outrageous gas prices, and also make sure we are being 
serious and responsible about important issues such as airline safety.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. My thanks to my colleagues from Massachusetts and 
Michigan for bringing to our attention the struggle this economy 
presents to many families across the United States.
  You would almost find it hard to imagine that this Senate could meet 
with such regularity and not address these issues directly. But this 
administration and its economic policies have not focused on working 
families. They have focused on tax breaks for those in the highest 
income categories in America. That is something they do without 
embarrassment. They suggest that if the wealthy people in America have 
extra money to spend, it will be good for everyone else. That is a hard 
message to deliver and even harder to believe.
  Elizabeth Warren is a professor of law at Harvard Law School in 
Cambridge, MA, and has become a good friend and adviser to many of us. 
She recently made a presentation to a number of Senators and showed an 
analysis which she had done relating to the middle of the middle class. 
Professor Warren took a look at real middle-income families and 
basically asked the question: What has happened to them during the last 
7 years?
  Her findings are troubling. From 2000 to 2007, she writes, the 
American family lost ground. Measured in real dollars, incomes declined 
while basic expenses skyrocketed. By the time today's family makes a 
few basic purchases--housing, health insurance, food, gasoline, and 
phone--it has about $5,700 less than it had been in 2000.
  Now, this is a family that is making in the range of $40,000 to 
$45,000. So a decline in buying power of $5,700 over the last 7 years 
causes real hardship. By every measure, incomes are down for the same 
hypothetical family for this same period of time; down for fully 
employed males, fully employed females, down for households.
  Adjusted for inflation, median household income has declined across 
America by $1,175. Prosperity has not arrived to the working class, the 
working families of America. In fact, the opposite has been true.
  Of course, the biggest thing we face going home is the increasing 
cost of gasoline. The increase in the cost of gasoline has more than 
doubled since President Bush became President. In that same period, the 
profits of the oil companies have more than quadrupled. It is no 
coincidence. They are making more money as families, rich and 
especially poor, reach deeper into their pockets to pay for gasoline. 
Families have reduced driving. They have to spend an average of $2,000 
more a year for gasoline than they did back in the year 2000, when 
President Bush was elected. Our friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle like to talk about cutting people's taxes, sending out rebate 
checks. Of course, those are all well and good. But it turns out the 
expense which has been passed along to working families for the cost of 
gasoline

[[Page S3680]]

since President Bush became President is more than $2,000 a year. There 
is a tax. It is a tax families have to pay if they have to drive to 
work or if they want to take their family on vacation.
  Increases in mortgage costs took another big bite out of middle-
income families, almost $1,700 each year. Health insurance, food, 
telephone, appliances, another $750 a year knocked out of the family 
budget. The increases mean the average family is spending $4,564 more 
for basic expenses now than they did in 2000. How about families with 
kids? Childcare costs under this President have gone up by $1,321 a 
year, more than $100 a month; afterschool care, $511 a year. All 
parents, regardless of the age of children, see the rising cost of 
college. Under this Presidency, the net cost of college, including 
scholarships and grants, has increased by more than $1,000. Is it any 
surprise, when Members of the Senate and the House go home over the 
weekends and run into these families, they want to talk about the 
latest outrage, which happens to be the price of gasoline?
  My understanding is ExxonMobil made its report of quarterly earnings 
public today. It was a little bit off for them. Their earnings only 
increased 17 percent, hardly keeping pace with the recordbreaking 
percentage increases of the past. But trust me, there will be no tag 
days for those CEOs and members of the executive board and management 
of the biggest oil companies in America. They are doing quite well. The 
question is whether this Congress can do well by American families who 
pay the price for those profits. That is a challenge we will face.
  President Bush is going to send us a supplemental appropriations 
bill. It is because of the emergency in Iraq. He is going to ask for 
$108 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. He is not going to ask for the 
emergency in America, and there is one. He will not be asking for 
increasing unemployment compensation for families out of work, watching 
unemployment rates rise by the day. He will not be asking for tax 
breaks for those struggling families I have described. He focuses on 
the Middle East.
  I am from Illinois. I focus on the Middle West. I try to look at the 
whole Nation, but I start with my obligation at home. When I look out 
the window in the morning, I see America. When this administration 
looks out the window in the morning, it sees Iraq. So when it comes to 
emergency spending, drop everything, highest priorities, it is not 
about America. This administration focuses on the Middle East.
  I think that is unfortunate. We need to understand a strong America 
begins at home. It begins with a strong economy, strong families, 
strong churches, strong temples, strong neighborhoods, strong cities, 
strong communities that build a great nation. They are suffering at 
this moment.
  During the course of this week, there has been precious little done 
on the floor of the Senate. Senator after Senator has come to talk 
about their concerns about energy costs. That is good. We should raise 
awareness of this particular issue. But we need to do more than give a 
speech, come up with a quick gimmick or a quick idea. We have to focus 
on changing some fundamentals, and it ought to start with the Tax Code 
and programs that help working families.
  Mr. President, I have a friend in Illinois whose name is Harold 
Ramis. Harold Ramis and I share a birth date and a lot of friends. 
Harold Ramis has done quite well for himself. He ia a writer, a 
producer of movies. Harold got started writing ``Animal House,'' went 
on to write ``Caddyshack'' and a few others. But one of his most famous 
movies, which he released over 15 years ago, was a movie called 
``Groundhog Day.'' I bet every American has seen it. It is hard to 
believe it has been more than 15 years since it was released. In that 
movie another Chicagoan, Bill Murray, wakes up every morning in 
Punxsutawney, PA, and looks over at the clock radio as Sonny and Cher 
are singing ``I Got You, Babe,'' and relives the same day over and over 
again, until finally it stops at the end. A fascinating movie, it has 
been analyzed by so many people. What is the message of the movie? I am 
not sure. I sure enjoy it and continue to watch it. I drive my wife 
crazy when she says: How many times have you seen that movie? But I 
like it a lot.
  I am reminded of that movie when I think about what is going on in 
the Senate. It is almost like ``Groundhog Day'' around here because 
every day that you get up in the Senate and every week, it is the same 
music playing. It is the same script playing. The script that is 
playing is the strategy on the other side of the aisle, on the 
Republican side of the aisle. Their strategy is very simple. It 
involves the use of a filibuster.
  A filibuster is a uniquely Senatorial institution that says, 
historically, any Senator can stand up at any time and stop anything--a 
nomination, a bill, anything. It gives us a lot of power. But 
unfortunately, that power can be misused. ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington,'' Jimmy Stewart on that famous set, the brandnew Senator 
who stood up and filibustered until he dropped right next to his desk, 
we all remember that image. It doesn't quite happen that way anymore. I 
have not seen anybody fall to the floor in the middle of a filibuster, 
but it does eat up a lot of time, and it slows things down.

  In the history of the Senate, there is a record book. The record book 
says that in the history of this great body, in a 2-year period, the 
maximum number of filibusters is 57; 57 times in 2 years there was an 
effort to stop the debate, stop a nomination, and a filibuster was 
initiated.
  For those who follow the history of the Senate, they are watching a 
historic session. Because in the last year and 4 months, the 
Republicans in the Senate have broken the record. They have gone beyond 
57 filibusters. At this point, they are now up to 68 Republican 
filibusters and still counting. On 68 different occasions, they have 
initiated a filibuster to stop us from taking up legislation.
  You say to yourself: Maybe that had to be done. Not until you look at 
the legislation involved. Two weeks ago, we had something called a 
technical corrections bill. This is a bill that notices there were 
spelling errors and grammar errors in a highway bill that passed 
several years ago. They change it with technical corrections. It 
usually is a bill which passes with no debate, no comment, and not even 
a record vote. It just goes through when we have to clean up some 
problems we had in previous legislation.
  In this new era of Republican filibusters, they decided to filibuster 
the technical corrections bill. If there was ever an embarrassing 
moment in the history of the Senate, it is the notion that we would 
filibuster a bill that corrects grammatical and spelling errors, but 
they did it. They held the Senate in session for a full week while we 
waited to complete the technical corrections bill. Then came the 
veterans' health benefits bill. Veterans' health benefits? Is this an 
issue anyone contests, that we would not provide all the benefits 
promised and all we can afford to the men and women who have served our 
country so valiantly and continue to? We brought this bill to the floor 
figuring this was an easy one, a bipartisan bill. It would pass. It was 
the subject of a Republican filibuster that held that bill on the floor 
for a full week.
  Time and again, we came to the floor and said to the Republicans: Let 
us call up this bill. If you have an amendment, if there is something 
you want to change, then let's do it. No. Day after weary day this 
``Groundhog Day'' script played out. We got up every morning. We didn't 
hear Sonny and Cher. We heard the Republican minority leader singing 
the same song every morning: We are going to try to get around to 
looking at this bill. Days passed.
  If the Senate was paid for piecework as opposed to a general annual 
salary, we would be hurting at this point. We don't do much around 
here, and that is unfortunate. By the end of the week, after they had 
burned another week off the calendar, a week where we didn't consider 
the problems with our Nation's energy policy, where we didn't do a 
thing about gasoline prices but were stuck in a Republican filibuster, 
we had one vote on one amendment and passed the bill virtually 
unanimously when it was all over.
  There was no controversy.
  The object from the Republican side: Slow everything down. Stop it if 
you can.

[[Page S3681]]

  So this week comes another bill. This bill is 288 pages. This is the 
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. Unfortunately, 
it is now subject to a Republican filibuster. A motion for cloture is 
about to be filed. This week in the Senate, for those who want to keep 
up with the ongoing and developing saga of our ``Groundhog Day'' 
script, Republicans are blocking safer, more efficient air travel. We 
have spent the entire week here and had one vote. I know it is not a 
secret. It is in the Congressional Record. But it is embarrassing. We 
tried time and again to get Senate Republicans to give us an amendment, 
call it up for a vote. Let's get moving on this bill. No, let's wait 
until next week.
  Is there anything else we could have been considering in the Senate 
this week? We should have passed this in a hurry. First, it is a 
bipartisan bill. Is it necessary or important? For those of us who live 
on airplanes, you bet it is. Twenty-five million more passengers flew 
on U.S. commercial air carriers last year than the previous year. 
Almost 800 million passengers flew on U.S. commercial carriers in 2007, 
double the number of 1985. The FAA predicts the aviation system will 
transport more than 1 billion airline passengers annually by 2020. 
There is a problem though. As modern as the airplanes may be, as new as 
some of the airports may be, we are running our air traffic system on 
radar that was established during World War II. This technology is not 
equipped to handle the volume increase in air travel we anticipate. We 
are already seeing it in airports across the country. Passengers are 
feeling it in my home State in the great airport at O'Hare, where I 
spend a large portion of my waking hours.
  U.S. News and World Report placed O'Hare recently at the top of the 
airport misery index. In defense of that great airport, we are in the 
process of modernizing it and things will get better. But it is fat. 
The magazine cited that almost 30 percent of flights in and out of 
O'Hare are delayed. One of the main reasons is the incapacity of our 
air traffic control system to deal with this increase in volume. We 
need to move to a more modern, satellite-based air traffic control 
system. This technology, known as NextGen, will give pilots and air 
traffic controllers the ability to accurately pinpoint aircraft in the 
sky to avoid any problems, to monitor traffic, to move things more 
smoothly and efficiently.
  The second reason for the increase in delays comes from the lack of 
capacity in our airports. O'Hare Airport was designed in the 1950s and 
built in that era. It doesn't handle, as it should most efficiently, 
the aircraft of today. We have a big expansion under way. But the bill 
that has been held up all week in the Senate, a bill that was brought 
to us on a bipartisan basis by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West 
Virginia, who has worked his heart out to pass this bill, and Senator 
Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who helped in crafting this bill, will 
provide funding for programs to give airports the money they need to 
expand and handle the growth in air traffic.
  Lastly, the FAA bill also provides important provisions giving 
passengers rights when they are stuck in airplanes on the tarmac. Has 
it ever happened to you--stuck out there for an hour, if you are lucky? 
It used to be a lot longer. There are some horror stories that have 
come out of this. I will not go into the details other than to tell you 
we try to provide in this bill basic protections for airline 
passengers. We never want an airline to hurry into a circumstance that 
might compromise safety, but we do believe they should inform their 
passengers about what is going on and be mindful of the need for basic 
human comforts that passengers need when they are stuck on the runway 
for hour after weary hour. That is in this bill. You will not get a 
chance, if you look at the Congressional Record of this week, to hear 
any debate about it. We did not get to it. We were stuck in a 
filibuster--stuck for I think it will be the 69th filibuster of this 
senatorial session.
  I believed when I came here that this was the world's greatest 
deliberative body. Maybe it is self-promotion for us to continue to say 
that because we have precious few amendments, very little debate, and 
we really lack the kind of legislative activity that has, I guess, been 
the hallmark of the Senate for as long as it has existed. We have 
ground to a halt because we are facing the slowdown strategy from the 
other side of the aisle.
  When you think about how many important issues we need to work on for 
this country, for the families of this country, important decisions we 
need to make, it is sad that the Senate rules allow this to continue.
  Well, we will return next Tuesday, after a long weekend. After having 
one vote this week, we need a rest. I hope you understand. We will come 
back Tuesday in the hopes we can start up this bill again. Maybe in the 
second week this bipartisan bill just might draw an amendment from the 
other side of the aisle, just might draw some debate on the floor, and 
just might get passed, so we can move on to the next issue, which I 
believe will be energy policy. And I can just guarantee you, it is 
likely to face another filibuster from the Republican side of the 
aisle.
  The GOP is the, I guess, nickname for the Republican Party. It stands 
for the ``Grand Old Party.'' When you watch the progress, or at least 
the strategy of the Republicans in the Senate, you come to believe that 
GOP stands for ``Graveyard Of Progress.'' That is what they see the 
Senate. That is unfortunate.
  There is a lot of work we need to do. The American people sent us 
here to do it on a bipartisan basis. I hope we can get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the custom is to alternate to each side. 
Senator DeMint is here. After he has concluded his remarks, I ask 
unanimous consent to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I need to start by expressing my disappointment at the 
misleading and distorted information that was just presented on the 
floor. Actually, I was amazed at what was just said.
  The Commerce Committee had come up with an aviation modernization 
bill with strong bipartisan support. But, like many other bills we have 
faced with our Democratic colleagues in the majority, some of my 
Democratic colleagues chose to add special provisions for some interest 
groups and very wasteful and questionable earmarks, tax earmarks, using 
unprecedented methods to fund things through changing our Tax Code, 
things that there is a lot of consternation about: changing a pension 
plan.
  The reason this bill has been held up is the majority decided to add 
things to it that had nothing to do with aviation. We want this bill to 
come through, and it has strong support.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, no, I will not. I have been down here 
several times today, and I will continue my remarks. But I will be glad 
to have the Senator say anything after I complete my remarks.
  The Senator mentioned the technical corrections bill for 
transportation. He said this was just typos. This bill added hundreds 
of millions of dollars of new earmarks to our transportation budget. It 
was not a technical correction bill. It was an opportunity for the 
majority and some others to add things that did not need to be a part 
of this bill. The Senator even knows, on bills such as consumer product 
safety where special provisions were added for manufacturers in that 
bill, we had to slow the bill down in order to get those things taken 
out.
  So there is a reason the majority has not been able to move any 
significant legislation. It is because they tend to clutter it up with 
wasteful special interest earmarks that need to be taken out. 
Hopefully, we can come to an agreement to take out these unnecessary 
and unprecedented tax provisions in our aviation modernization bill so 
we can get this thing done.


                              Health Care

  Mr. President, I did not come down to talk about aviation 
modernization, as I hope the majority will clean this bill up so we can 
get it through. But I want to talk a little bit about health care.

[[Page S3682]]

  Health care is a priority for the Nation. Americans deserve access to 
affordable health insurance. Yet we are wasting time here and not doing 
anything to help with the health care crisis in this country today.
  Fortunately, one of our colleagues, John McCain, has come out this 
week strongly for a health care plan that would help every American to 
be insured. He talks about guaranteed access to health insurance--plans 
people can own and can afford and keep, plans they choose for 
themselves and that are not chosen by the Government. This is the 
direction we need to move.

  Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues--at least many of them--do 
not want everyone to be insured with personal health insurance 
policies. They would much rather the Government take over the whole 
health insurance industry and decide for us what type of health plans 
we are going to have. The evidence of this is abundant.
  There are a number of efforts Republicans have made to try to improve 
access to private health insurance. One is to allow people in this 
country to buy health insurance from anywhere in the country. Right 
now, they are restricted to buying it in the State where they live. So 
a few insurance companies have a monopoly on the business. We have had 
a Health Care Choice Act that would give Americans a chance to shop 
anywhere in the country. Yet the Democrats have blocked this bill.
  Only a couple weeks ago, we had an amendment to the budget bill that 
would allow individuals to deduct the cost of health insurance, just as 
businesses do. But I believe every Democrat in the Senate voted against 
that, to give some kind of fair tax treatment to individuals who are 
buying health care. They blocked it. Yet they complain about 
individuals being uninsured. They do everything they can to keep 
individuals from owning health insurance.
  Now the Democrats are trying to destroy health savings accounts. It 
started in the House with a bill that will change the way health 
savings accounts are set up. The fastest growing way for the uninsured 
to get insurance is new types of health plans that have health savings 
accounts and insurance, where people can buy most of their health care 
with their own dollars or in dollars their employers put in this health 
savings account that is tax free. It gives them a lot more choices and 
flexibility, and it takes out, importantly, the cost of third-party 
administration.
  Health savings accounts are a way to restructure health insurance 
plans so that every time you go to the doctor or the hospital, there is 
not a third-party insurance company filing claims or dealing with 
billing and running up the cost of administration. We know today there 
are more administrative people in a doctor's office or a hospital than 
there are health care providers. The reason for that is, every time we 
use the health care system, there is a third party involved, whether it 
is private health insurance or Medicaid or Medicare, and there are a 
lot of administrative costs.
  Health savings accounts not only give people more flexibility, but 
they begin to take the cost of administration out of health care. It 
allows an individual to make their own decisions with their doctors or 
with their pharmacists as to their health care, and they do not need 
approval from some health insurance company or from some Government 
bureaucrat whether they are going to spend this money. Certainly, the 
way health savings account dollars are spent is restricted to real 
health care, and that is the way it is working.
  But, unfortunately, a company that provides this service of 
substantiating the way health care dollars are spent has come to 
Washington and convinced Democrats that we need a third party to 
determine whether a health savings account spending event can be 
substantiated. This is definitely a special interest provision that the 
Democrats have bought into. But what it does is it adds the 
administrative costs back to health savings accounts and takes away the 
flexibility we are giving to individuals.
  Keep in mind, people who are uninsured and people who did not have 
insurance before and a number of people who are switching from 
traditional plans--and we have gone from 1 million people covered by 
health savings account-type plans to over 6 million in the last few 
years. It is the fastest growing type of health care plan because that 
is the kind of plan people want.
  Let me just read some statistics. The reason for all this is the 
Democrats have inserted, on the House side, in the bill they call the 
Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act, provisions that would put 
an administrative burden on health savings accounts. They are trying to 
kill health savings accounts so we will all end up with Government 
health care.
  I already mentioned that we have gone from 1 million people covered 
by health savings account plans in 2005 to over 6 million today. 
Thirty-one percent of the people who have these health savings account 
plans plus insurance were previously uninsured. Eighty-four percent of 
health savings account policies in the group and individual market 
provide first-dollar coverage for preventative care. So this claim that 
health savings accounts keep people from seeking preventative care is 
totally bogus because the plans are designed that when someone seeks 
preventative care, diagnostic care, the insurance pays for it and it 
does not come out of the health savings account.
  Health savings accounts give people better access to the type of 
health care they want. We found that it even helps with chronic-disease 
management. If people have access to $1,000 or $2,000 more per year to 
use the way they need to for their own health, then they can manage 
their diabetes or congestive heart failure or other types of illnesses 
that are often restricted by traditional health insurance.
  I want to encourage my colleagues--my colleagues who really believe 
Americans should have the freedom to own their own health insurance and 
not have to go to the Government for their health care--to help us 
preserve and promote and expand health savings accounts for those who 
want them.
  I want to make it clear, health savings accounts are health 
insurance. They are just health insurance plans that have savings and 
insurance with them, so that most of health care can be accessed with 
dollars of patients doing direct business with their physician, with 
their pharmacist, with the hospital. It will save millions--even 
billions--as a nation in administrative costs. Already, Americans have 
well over $3 billion saved in health savings accounts for future health 
care needs.
  This is an idea we need to expand across the country, not to destroy. 
I would ask particularly my Democratic colleagues on the Senate side 
not to take up this provision that the House included that will hurt 
and probably destroy the whole idea of health savings accounts.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing me to speak, and I 
yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are here today in the midst of another 
filibuster in which the FAA reauthorization bill is before us, but we 
have to wait for a cloture vote and we have to wait many, many days 
past, I think, what was appropriate. But it does give us an opportunity 
to talk about the issue that is of most concern to Americans at this 
moment; that is, the economy.
  We have an economy that is heading, unfortunately, toward recession. 
Some economists have already declared it here. Over the last few 
months, I have spoken about the situation and particularly, I say to 
the Presiding Officer, in our home State of Rhode Island where, as we 
go about, we are stopped constantly by our constituents, our neighbors, 
our friends who, quite rightly, complain about the current economic 
situation.
  The Senator from Illinois was very accurate and very insightful when 
he noted that the incomes of most Americans have not risen over the 
last decade or more and that these individuals--and we are not talking 
about low-income Americans, entry-level workers; we are talking about 
going way up close to $100,000 or more--they have seen no real income 
growth. But what they have seen is accelerating prices.
  Now, for several years, they thought they would be buttressed against 
these

[[Page S3683]]

accelerating prices and slow income growth by the value of their homes. 
But, as we know now, we are seeing a huge recession in the real estate 
market. The values of homes are beginning to fall. They certainly are 
not rising as they were. The foreclosure situation is deepening 
everywhere. Again, in Rhode Island, there were traditionally a few 
notices each week in the paper. Now it seems there is a whole section 
devoted to foreclosures in the Providence Journal. It is evidence of 
the worsening of the economic situation.

  Now, the pressure of flat wages, flat incomes, housing values 
falling--these accelerating prices are becoming very difficult to 
endure by Americans everywhere.
  According to a review, a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, 
fewer Americans now than at any time in the past half century believe 
they are moving forward in life.
  One of the great aspects of my youth in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s 
is not only did families deal with moving forward, they also were of an 
unshakeable belief that their children would have a much better life 
than they enjoyed. That belief is being shaken today, seriously. Many 
parents--again, we are not talking about low-income workers; we are 
talking about a range of Americans--believe that unless we take 
positive and effective action, we are going to be in a situation where 
the next generation of Americans will have it even more difficult than 
we do today. That is why it is very difficult to bear these filibusters 
because ultimately, this is not about parliamentary maneuvering. It is 
about whether we can provide the leadership and the policies to reverse 
course in America today and provide for that better future for our sons 
and daughters tomorrow.
  Seventy-nine percent of Americans today believe it is more difficult 
to maintain their middle-class standard of living. In fact, one of the 
great hallmarks of this country in the last century was the creation 
and the expansion of the middle class. Again, there are many people who 
are sensing that the middle class is not expanding any longer, but that 
it is shrinking. It is shrinking on the load of increasing prices, flat 
incomes, and decelerating housing values. That is not just the sum of 
statistics and analysis and reports; that is what people are talking 
about everywhere in this country.
  In Rhode Island, for example, with respect to prices, the average 
price of gasoline is soaring to record levels. Regular unleaded is 
currently at more than $3.60 per gallon. Diesel is getting close to 
$4.50 per gallon. For our trucking industry, for all of the businesses 
that depend on moving their goods around, for the service people who 
have to get to their service calls, when prices go up--gasoline and 
diesel--that is an additional business cost. It is an additional tax on 
them because of, I think, the failed policies of this administration, 
and it is a tax that is taking a big bite out of their well-being and 
the welfare of their families.
  One thing we can do, and I think we should do--we could do it 
immediately--is we can refrain, at least temporarily, from filling the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That seems to be a very simpleminded 
approach to lessening, at least in a small way, demand for oil at a 
time that oil is surging to around $119 per barrel. I think it also 
will send a signal that we are at least doing something to relieve the 
pressure on working families, and that can be done with the signature 
by the President and ordered by the President, and it should be.
  At the same time families across this country and businesses across 
this country are seeing extraordinary price increases, oil companies 
are seeing extraordinary profits. I think we have to take action, and 
that action, once again, stalled on the Senate floor several months ago 
to eliminate some of the tax breaks that oil companies are receiving. I 
thought that at $119 a barrel, there would be sufficient incentives to 
go drill, but apparently the oil companies need tax incentives as well. 
I thought the market would be working in this case, but apparently it 
works in strange ways for these oil companies.
  I think we also have to think about a windfall profits tax. We have 
huge expenditures. The President, as the Senator from Illinois pointed 
out, is sending up a supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq for 
billions of dollars. All of that is expended, and yet we can't tax some 
of the extraordinary profits of companies that are doing very well and 
don't seem to be reinvesting it robustly in drilling or searching for 
alternative sources.
  I think we also have to protect consumers from price gouging at the 
pump, and something else--and that is speculation in the world oil 
markets. There are experts who suggest that more than 25 percent of the 
cost of crude oil may be the result not of supply and demand but of 
market speculation. We need to give the principal regulator for the 
energy-commodities markets, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, 
the tools they need to review these transactions and to ferret out 
unscrupulous conduct in speculation.
  That is why I support the Close the Enron Loophole Act that has been 
introduced by Senator Levin. It has been included in the Senate-passed 
farm bill, and I continue to advocate that provision should be adopted 
very quickly because without it, I don't think we can effectively 
provide regulation to a market that is exacting, in some estimates, a 
25-percent premium, not because of supply and demand but because there 
are financial forces at work speculating in these commodities, and that 
speculation will go on until we authorize the appropriate regulatory 
authority to begin to supervise, regulate, and review those 
transactions.
  The price of food is also, in many cases, spinning out of control for 
so many working Americans. Since March 2007, the price of eggs has 
jumped 35 percent, a gallon of milk is up 23 percent, a loaf of white 
bread has gone up 16 percent, and a pound of ground chuck is up 8 
percent. Overall, food prices in 2008 are expected to rise 4 to 5 
percent, about double the increase of recent years.
  Again, this is not just an economic statistic. Talk to the bakers--
and the Presiding Officer knows these families, such as the Calise 
family and other families in Rhode Island who have been baking 
Italian bread for 70 or 100 years--they have never seen the increase in 
wheat prices they have seen over the last several months. It is 
affecting their ability to make ends meet for their businesses. When 
you have accelerating energy prices, oil prices, gasoline prices, 
accelerating commodity prices such as wheat, a business such as that, a 
family-owned bakery, it is very difficult. It is extremely difficult 
for those families who are struggling to get by to get, frankly, to the 
supermarket, fill up their basket, and not walk out very much 
impoverished by the experience.

  That is why I have requested the Senate Agriculture Committee to hold 
a hearing on the food versus fuel balance in U.S. agriculture policy. 
We have been encouraging ethanol production. That would bar us using 
some of our commodities, our agricultural commodities, but I believe we 
have to begin to focus on the tradeoff between energy production and 
food production.
  I have also sent a letter to the Agriculture Secretary expressing 
concern with the cost of wheat, as I indicated, based upon comments I 
received from our bakers in Rhode Island, and requested that the 
Secretary work with the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Department of Energy to look at the need to develop a mechanism to 
balance this tradeoff between food production and fuel production, and 
requesting information about how the Department of Agriculture is 
managing the wheat stockpile--which is something that will influence 
the price of wheat--as well as requesting information on how it is 
monitoring new speculative investment in commodities and its impact on 
prices. All of this has to be done.
  What is becoming also more difficult to bear on top of everything we 
have talked about--flat income, rising prices, declining home values--
is the fact that now we are seeing unemployment begin to accelerate. In 
Rhode Island, we are unfortunately experiencing a 6.1-percent 
unemployment rate--higher than the rest of New England. It is causing 
real problems, and it is something we have to address. I think we have 
to begin to recognize that as we lose jobs, we have to think seriously 
about employing people again.
  As I mentioned, Rhode Island has a 6.1 percent unemployment rate 
right

[[Page S3684]]

now. It is close to the highest unemployment rate in the United States, 
only behind Michigan, Alaska, and California. It is the highest 
unemployment rate in Rhode Island since August of 1995, more than 12 
years ago. There are 35,100 people in Rhode Island who are unemployed, 
and this is a trend that has been going up, unfortunately, not down.
  We have also seen a shift in employment recently from February to 
March of 2008. In just a single month, 3,100 less people were without 
jobs in Rhode Island, a decrease in 3,100 jobs. For a State with a 
population of just 1 million, that is a significant factor. It adds not 
only to the decline in the unemployment, but the velocity of that 
decline. Things seem to be trending much quicker downward than 
rebounding.
  Now, it is no wonder that the Labor Department announced today that 
the number of first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose to 
380,000 nationwide. That is the highest level in 4 years. Today's 
announcement concluded that Rhode Island had one of the largest 
increases in initial claims numbering 1,779. The direction is 
unfortunate, and it is the wrong direction. Approximately half of those 
unemployed workers were eligible to collect unemployment insurance 
benefits, and of this number, nearly 19 percent face long-term 
unemployment.
  The number of Rhode Islanders in 2008 who continue to collect 
unemployment benefits has also increased--14.1 percent above the number 
of the same period last year. As a result of this situation of 
deteriorating employment and longer term unemployment, a significant 
number of Rhode Islanders are exhausting their benefits. They are 
receiving their final payment. That has occurred for more than 1,900 
people, and that percentage is increasing also.
  All of these numbers suggest something very obvious: more and more 
people need unemployment insurance. More and more people are on 
unemployment longer. The economy is not responding to their needs. This 
economy is not generating jobs, it is shredding jobs. That ultimately 
leads to the fact that the benefits run out if we do not extend 
unemployment insurance benefits.
  Now, I think that is something we have to do. I think we have an 
obligation in this economy--which is getting worse, not better--to go 
ahead and provide extended unemployment benefits. By the way, these 
benefits are one of the best stimulus programs we have because the 
proportion of the money that is expended that gets reinvested quickly--
respent in the economy--is significantly higher than other programs.
  I was pleased the Senate passed and the President signed into law the 
Economic Stimulus Act in February. I voted for this package. It will 
provide tax rebate checks. They are on their way out to many families 
across the country. But given the historically high unemployment in 
Rhode Island and in other parts of the country, I believe we need to do 
much more. This is a national problem. It needs attention. That is why 
I believe we have to extend unemployment benefits. In those States that 
are hit hard by this economic crisis, individuals should be eligible 
for benefits for an additional 13 weeks and another 13 weeks of 
emergency benefits in States where the unemployment rate is 
exceptionally high.
  I pressed, as so many did, for inclusion of these extended 
unemployment insurance benefits last February, and I commend my 
colleagues who have fought also for this benefit, including Senators 
Kennedy and Durbin and Stabenow.
  As I indicated, many economists have also pointed to the extent of 
unemployment benefits as not only something that helps the individual, 
but it provides further stimulus for our economy. An extension of these 
benefits provides a very high rate of return on the money expended, 
generating approximately $1.64 in gross domestic product per dollar 
invested in this program. This is especially helpful when we are 
looking for ways to get the economy moving again.
  We get news each day of declining economic statistics. The last 
notice of our gross domestic product for the last quarter was a very 
unimpressive .6 percent. We need urgent action to move the economy. We 
need urgent action to help families who are struggling. They have 
worked. They have worked hard, and they are running out of their 
benefits. We can't run out on them.
  That is why we need an economic stimulus package that will not only 
recognize obligations overseas, but we will recognize obligations at 
home. I hope we will enact a very robust extension of unemployment 
benefits for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                                Ethanol

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate hearing my colleague from 
Rhode Island. I am standing here thinking: Thank goodness we have 
ethanol. Without ethanol--we are supplying 8 percent of our fuel 
needs--it would drive up gasoline prices another 15 percent. I am 
certainly pleased we have that.
  We had a hearing in the Joint Economic Committee today on the price 
of corn and its impact on food prices. It is interesting from the 
standpoint that economists are putting it in front of us that a 40-
percent increase in corn prices would only lead to a 1.3-percent 
increase in the price of food, and that is because corn goes into a 
whole bunch of different substances. Thankfully, with the corn-based 
ethanol we have, we are holding gasoline prices down approximately 15 
percent.
  A Merrill Lynch analyst estimated oil and gasoline prices would be 15 
percent higher, or $4.14 a gallon at today's prices, if biofuel 
producers weren't increasing their output. That is significant in this 
marketplace. Thankfully, we have that.
  I also note that on wheat prices something is significant in Kansas. 
We have had a fall of $4 a bushel in the price of wheat since January, 
from $12 a bushel to $8 a bushel. Plus, in a loaf of bread, you 
probably have 10 cents' worth of wheat. I hope they would say the farm 
is not the problem in the system.
  Our oil prices are high and we need to hold them down. Part of the 
answer to that is domestic production--more oil and gas production in 
the United States but also biofuels. That is not the reason I came to 
the floor to speak. It was a good use of time to be able to put that in 
the Record, though, because we are going to debate, apparently, the 
role of biofuels in the economy and around the world. I wanted to note 
it has a positive impact.
  Mr. President, I will speak on the FAA reauthorization bill. I thank 
the chairman and ranking member of the relevant committees for bringing 
to the floor a balanced FAA reauthorization bill. It takes into account 
the needs of the air traffic control system and pays for them and 
distributes that in a fair manner.
  I am not pleased we are not able to move the bill forward. I wish it 
wasn't loaded up with extraneous provisions but, rather, that it would 
stay with the FAA.
  I am particularly happy to see the bill contains no user fees for the 
general aviation industry. It would have placed an inordinate burden on 
what has been and continues to be a thriving American industry, a true 
domestic manufacturing success story. I might note to people here and 
those watching, we are recruiting for jobs. We need people in this 
industry. We have a number of manufacturing jobs in my State. I have 
traveled around and they are saying we need more people coming in to 
work. Some in Hays, KS, were telling me they need a thousand people for 
jobs they have.
  The aircraft industry is recruiting individuals and, hopefully, we 
can keep that moving forward with a good FAA reauthorization bill. I 
think it helps the industry further if you don't put a tax on the 
industry; it will hurt it. This is a domestic industry, and we need to 
take care of it.
  Importantly, however, this bill provides for the needed upgrade of 
our Nation's air traffic control system, which has been outdated for 
many years and the technology is outpaced by many countries around the 
world. That should not be the case.
  Aviation and manufacturing are very important to my State. We have 
five major aviation companies located there, including Cessna, Hawker 
Beechcraft, Bombardier Learjet, Spirit AeroSystems, and Boeing 
Integrated Defense Systems.
  The aviation industry has a huge ripple effect. Every manufacturing 
job

[[Page S3685]]

created adds 2.9 other jobs. It is a vibrant industry that, for the 
first time this past year, exported more of its product than it sold 
domestically. This is the first time we have been able to do that.
  However, I wish to note some disturbing trends on things I think we 
need to attack so we don't lose this domestic industry. This is one 
that a lot of people in the world are trying to get a big piece of. 
Honda is coming into the aviation manufacturing sector, and others are 
coming into it. It has high-paying manufacturing jobs of a key product 
used around the world.
  In 1985, the United States produced 80 percent of the world's new 
aircraft. This past year, that number was down to 60 percent--from 80 
to 60 percent. There is increasing competition, and I hope we can 
address this trend as we move forward. To that end, I intend to offer 
an amendment to the bill that would create a blue-ribbon commission of 
experts in aviation manufacturing to study the current trends in the 
industry and recommend ways in which we, as a Government, can respond 
to those trends and ensure the vibrancy of this important commercial 
sector.
  Parenthetically, one of the things we should not be doing is 
exporting our aviation defense jobs--such as sending the major tanker 
contract to Europe and to Airbus, rather than having it done in the 
United States. This is a major battle that will engulf this Congress--
whether that $40 billion contract, that the base plane should be an 
Airbus plane, made primarily in Europe, or if the base plane should be 
a plane primarily made in the United States. It is a key part of the 
long-term trends of this industry, and we are already losing a lot of 
that, even as the industry continues to do well and is exporting well. 
We are not maintaining the market share we have had internationally 
because the Europeans, through government subsidies, are buying into 
this, and other countries are following as well.
  I think as we look for what can help support our overall exports in 
our economy, aircraft sales can continue to be that. Presently, they 
provide a $56 billion trade surplus for our country. We sold $76 
billion in airplanes and parts to foreign buyers. I think we need to 
watch and I think we need to be very aggressive to protect and see that 
this industry grows. One of the needed things is the FAA 
reauthorization program. We need a modern air traffic control system, 
and we need to have a fee structure that doesn't penalize general 
aviation.
  There is one final note. One of my colleagues from Missouri is 
talking about bringing up an amendment that I think would have some 
positive impact on a repair and maintenance program but would have in 
it some features--if it continues in the way I have seen it--that could 
harm our aviation industry domestically. If that amendment comes up, we 
are going to look very critically at it, with the possibility of 
putting forward second-degree amendments to make sure we don't 
unintentionally harm the domestic U.S. aviation industry.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Military Housing

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there is a colossal waste of 
taxpayers' money that is occurring at Patrick Air Force Base in the 
State of Florida near my home of Melbourne, FL. Happily, the Senate 
Armed Services Committee has addressed the issue to try to expose the 
spotlight on the problem to get the U.S. Air Force to come clean as to 
what has happened in this huge fiasco of waste of taxpayers' money.
  It is born out of the privatization of housing for military families. 
Throughout the country, there has been some success at other military 
bases, but on a particular contractor, a contractor who got the 
contract to build housing for the Air Force on four Air Force bases, 
including Patrick Air Force Base and three others in other places such 
as Georgia and Arkansas, the contractor went belly up and now, in order 
to try to keep some semblance of housing being built, what is happening 
is the Air Force now wants to use all of the land that is supposed to 
be for housing at Patrick Air Force Base as the equity to build the 
houses on the other bases in three other States.
  You will be surprised when I tell you how bad this is. There were 300 
acres on the barrier island south of Patrick Air Force Base. This is in 
the town of Satellite Beach in Florida. It is near Cape Canaveral and 
the Cape Canaveral Air Force station. The 300 acres were basically 
given by the Air Force to a joint venture, a corporation, that included 
this developer that ultimately went bust. The deal was so bad that the 
Air Force agrees, of the 300 acres, they are going to outright give 100 
acres to the developer. The developer goes off and sells it for 
something like $13 million or $15 million and pockets the cash. On the 
remaining 200 acres the developer is supposed to build 550 new homes 
for airmen and their families and commensurately tear down the old 
dilapidated housing that had been there for several decades.
  The developer only builds 163 houses and then stops, and all these 
other old dwellings are there, of which the developer has the authority 
to rent on the market, and since they are run down, almost slum-like 
conditions, you can imagine the kind of tenants you are now getting 
living next to Air Force families.
  The Air Force's idea of rescuing this is to say we are going to take 
that remaining 200 acres, we are going to give it to a new developer, 
and that equity is going to help that developer build additional 
houses, but not at Patrick, no, in these three other States.
  So Patrick Air Force Base and our Air Force families who thought they 
were going to get 550 new homes now only have 163 homes sitting next to 
slum dwellings, and the Air Force is going to give away the rest of 
this 200 acres?
  Well, something smells awfully fishy. Fortunately, this has come to 
this Senator's attention. I am happy to say I had to strain and grunt a 
little bit to get my point of view across to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee yesterday in a markup, but when the test came on a recorded 
vote, it was 22 to 0 in favor of the amendment that would require the 
Air Force to do a cost-benefit study before they can transfer the 
property. That is the policy set forth in the Defense authorization 
bill.
  I want to say a word to the U.S. Air Force: No, technically, you 
don't have to pay attention because legally you can go on and transfer 
that property now because our Defense authorization bill is not law. It 
has only been passed out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But it 
is going to be law once it gets through the House and the Senate and 
goes to the President for signature.
  I strongly suggest to the U.S. Air Force, and I am memorializing 
these comments in a letter to the Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary 
Wynne: Withhold, forbear on any transfer of the title to a new 
developer utilizing that very valuable asset of barrier island, 
oceanfront land until you do the cost-benefit analysis so we can bring 
this out into the full light of day and we will know how we can best 
protect the taxpayers' investment.
  We want to serve the U.S. airmen and their families, we want to serve 
the U.S. taxpayers and their families, and the best way to do that is 
get this story out in the open with this cost-benefit analysis.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The distinguished 
Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                                 Energy

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in the last several weeks in a number of 
venues, I have met with hundreds, in fact thousands, of Vermonters, and 
to nobody's great surprise, the issue that is uppermost on their minds 
is the very high price of gas and the price of oil. I know that is true 
in all 50 States in this country and in thousands of communities. It is 
especially true in rural States because in rural States, especially 
cold-weather States, it is not uncommon for people to travel 50 miles 
to their jobs and then 50 miles back. If you drive 100 miles to work, 
the mileage runs up.
  I should mention, I know it probably didn't snow in Florida, but it 
did snow

[[Page S3686]]

in Vermont. We had a small amount of snow. That simply indicates that 
people know when it gets cold in Vermont it gets very cold. We have a 
lot of elderly people right now wondering how they are going to heat 
their homes next winter. We have a combination of working people in a 
rural State--this is true all over rural America--paying outrageously 
high prices in order to get to work and, in colder weather States, 
people very worried about whether they can stay warm next winter.
  The arithmetic is not really hard to figure out. If you put 25,000 
miles on your car going to work every year and you are paying a buck 
more than you used to and you get 25 miles per gallon on your car, that 
is a thousand dollars. If you make $30,000 a year and you get a 3-
percent raise, that is 900 bucks. So all of your raise, all of your 
cost-of-living increase on your job is now in your gas tank. That is 
happening to millions of American workers. Then these same workers are 
paying more for health care, are paying more for food, more for 
education, which, added together, is why the middle class in America is 
collapsing.
  For many years, as good-paying jobs have gone to China, as our people 
are struggling to make ends meet, people have been worried about how 
they are going to survive economically. On top of that, we now have the 
foreclosure crisis and we have the escalating cost of gas and oil in 
this country, which then leads some 80 percent of the people in this 
country to believe this country is going in the wrong direction, and 
one wonders, really, what the other 20 percent are thinking. Clearly, 
for the middle class in this country, we are facing a very serious 
problem.
  I did an interesting thing a few weeks ago in Vermont. We were having 
some town meetings on the economy. We brought a professor from Harvard 
Law School, one of the best writers in America on the economy. Her name 
is Elizabeth Warren.
  In preparation for that meeting, we sent out an e-mail to people in 
my State and said: Tell me what is going on in terms of the collapse of 
the middle class and how that impacts your life. Frankly, we expected a 
few dozen people to reply. As of today, we have received over 700 
responses. This is doubly surprising because in Vermont people are 
quite reticent, not wanting to talk about personal aspects of their 
lives--700 people. I recommend you and Members of the Senate read some 
of these responses. They are up on our Web site. The tales people are 
telling are heartbreaking, they are poignant, they come from the heart, 
and there are hundreds of them.
  Let me just read a few segments of some of the letters we have 
received and how they touch on gas prices and the general collapse of 
the middle class in our country.

       We are hard-working people. We want to pay our bills. We 
     want to keep what we worked so hard for. The constantly 
     increasing cost of gas, oil, groceries are drowning us. I 
     hear the same thing from most of our friends on a daily 
     basis--hanging on by a thread, robbing Peter to pay Paul. It 
     is such a stressful way to live. There are days when I get so 
     discouraged I just want to call the banks and say just take 
     it all. I don't have it in me to fight for it anymore.

  This is a family in the State of Vermont.
  Here is another one. This comes from an elderly couple in Vermont:

       My wife and I are both 77, retired and living on a very 
     limited income. We live in the country, and driving the 60-
     plus miles round trip for shopping and health care has become 
     a financial hardship.

  Traveling 60 miles for shopping and health care has become a 
financial hardship.

       Even though we drive a car that gets 35 miles to the 
     gallon, a tankful of gas eats up an awfully large amount of 
     our disposable income.
       That is true all over America. You have older people who 
     get in their car, they go out to buy groceries, they go to 
     the doctor, and suddenly they are finding that just getting 
     into their car and going where they have gone their whole 
     lives is now a very expensive proposition, in this case 
     eating up a large part of their disposable income.

  Another family writes:

       I live in the Northeast Kingdom, which is a very rural area 
     in the northern part of Vermont near the Canadian border, and 
     I have to drive a 30-mile round trip to work in Morrisville 
     and even farther to Stowe, where most of the jobs are now. 
     With the gas prices high and most employers paying $8.50 to 
     maybe $10 per hour, you spend much of your paycheck traveling 
     to and from work.

  In other words, in the real world, there are millions of people in 
rural Vermont and all over this country and in Florida who are making 
$8.50, $9, $10 an hour, and if you are paying $3.50 a gallon to get to 
work and you have to travel any kind of distance, what do you have 
left? Not a lot.
  The average price for a gallon of gas recently hit a recordbreaking 
$3.62 a gallon, which is more than double what it was when President 
Bush first took office. The price of diesel fuel is now averaging over 
$4.17 a gallon, which is more than $1.36 higher than it was just a year 
ago. The price of oil is now $110 a barrel. I think these prices say it 
all. They tell every Member or should tell every Member of Congress 
what the American people understand, which is that we have a national 
emergency on our hands. If we do not act boldly and rapidly to lower 
gas and oil prices, the economic situation for millions of working 
families will only deteriorate even further.
  What we are talking about is not just the worker who can't afford to 
fill up his gas tank, it is the entire economy. It is small businesses, 
it is farmers, it is truckers. The trucking industry is convoluting 
right now with these high prices. It is the increased cost of 
groceries, it is tourism. People come to Vermont and people go to 
Florida to enjoy vacations. They are not going to be able to drive 
there with these prices. In fact, what we are looking at is a major 
economic crisis impacting every segment of our economy.
  Sadly, as in so many other areas regarding the needs of ordinary 
Americans, when it comes to gas prices the Bush-Cheney administration 
is just not there. This is an administration where, in area after area, 
you can count on them to stand up with the large multinational 
corporations. You can count on them protecting the wealthiest people in 
the country. Now, when the middle class is in crisis, when people 
cannot afford the rapidly rising costs of gas and oil, they are nowhere 
to be found.
  What is particularly interesting, of course, as most people know, is 
both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have backgrounds in the 
oil industry. That is what they did before they assumed the Presidency 
and Vice Presidency.
  Ironically--and this would really be almost funny if it weren't so 
sad--when President Bush ran for office in the year 2000, he touted his 
experience in oil as one of the reasons he should be elected President. 
He knew the oil industry. He would make the energy situation better 
based on his experience.
  Here is a direct quote from what candidate Bush said in the year 
2000, in his first campaign, regarding how he would improve our 
relations with some of the OPEC countries. This is what he said:

       I will use the capital that my administration will earn 
     with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis and convince them to open the 
     spigot.

  That is what candidate George Bush said in the year 2000.
  Then he said, also in that campaign:

       The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC 
     Members to lower the price.

  End of quote from candidate George Bush in the year 2000. That was 8 
years ago. When then-candidate Bush made those comments, the price of 
oil was $30 a barrel. Today, after 7\1/2\ years of the Bush-Cheney 
administration, the price of oil is now $110 a barrel.
  It seems to me that it is imperative that among many other things, 
many other actions Congress must take, one of them is to do what 
President Bush talked about in 2000 but never did, and that is we must 
demand that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait produce the kind of oil they can. 
We must also move forward as a Congress to address the reality that 
OPEC is a cartel. That is their reason for existence. A cartel is 
formed in collusion in order, in this case, to prevent production of 
oil, control the production of oil in order to artificially keep prices 
high.
  This Congress must demand two things: that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait 
and other OPEC members increase their production so we can lower 
prices, and second, we must be aggressive in telling the World Trade 
Organization that OPEC is a cartel; it must be disbanded.
  Back to President Bush.
  In 2004, when Saudi Arabia led the fight within OPEC to cut 
production

[[Page S3687]]

and raise prices, the Miami Herald reported that President Bush 
``refused to lean on the oil cartel'' and ``refused to even personally 
lobby OPEC leaders to change their minds.''
  It is true that last January President Bush did visit Saudi Arabia to 
ask OPEC nations to increase production, but guess what. The Associated 
Press reported that President Bush's request was ``ignored.''
  In 2000, as a candidate, he told us he was going to open the spigot, 
he was going to get them to produce more oil, but that, of course, has 
not happened.
  Last March, after meeting with Saudi Arabia's oil minister, the Wall 
Street Journal reported that ``Vice President Dick Cheney suggested 
there is little more Saudi Arabia can do to increase oil production and 
relieve price pressures in global markets.'' But Stephen Brown, the 
energy economist at the Federal Reserve, has disputed this. He has said 
that ``Saudi Arabia is restraining its production, probably by about 
1.8 million barrels a day. And OPEC is probably holding back 2.3 
million barrels a day altogether.'' In other words, despite all of the 
rhetoric from President Bush, all of his experience in the oil 
industry, the reality is that Saudi Arabia is not producing the kind of 
oil it should be producing and we are hurting as a result of that.
  Many of us are tired of waiting for the Bush administration to act. 
Congress must act. There are a number of things we must do in order to 
lower the price of gas and oil in this country. One of them is to 
demand that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the other OPEC countries start 
producing the quantity of oil we know they can produce.
  That is one thing we can do, but it is certainly not enough. The 
national oil emergency we currently face in our country and in many 
other countries demands both short-term and long-term solutions.
  Long term, I think many people in the Senate and the vast majority of 
the American people understand that we must break our dependency on 
fossil fuel. We must move to energy efficiency. We must move to such 
sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and others. 
In my view, the potential is absolutely staggering in terms of the 
amount of energy we can produce through sustainable energy and the 
amount of energy we can save through energy efficiency.
  Not only that, obviously we need to significantly improve public 
transportation. Our railroads today lag far behind Europe and Japan. In 
doing that, building a broad mass-transportation system, we can break 
our dependency on the automobile.
  In terms of automobiles, people are just now beginning--and we must 
help them--to move to electric cars, move to hybrid plug-in cars. There 
is just enormous potential out there. Clearly, that is the long-term 
solution of where we have to go.
  But I sometimes hear my friends coming here and they talk about a 
long-term solution and yet they forget about what is going on in 
America today for a family making $30,000 or $40,000 a year, and maybe 
they have two cars because they have two workers, and those people are 
going broke today.
  So I do not think it is an either/or. I think we have got to be 
aggressive right now in moving toward energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy, but we have also got to be aggressive today in lowering the 
price of gas and oil. It is not an either/or. We move forward in 
parallel tracks.
  One of the steps we have to take is to put pressure on OPEC nations 
to increase the production of oil. I think also we have got to break up 
OPEC, and let the free market work in that area. But that is only one 
of the things we have got to do.
  Second, I believe it is absolutely imperative that we impose a 
windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry. The American people 
do not understand, nor do I understand, why they are paying record-
breaking prices at the gas pump, while ExxonMobil has made more in 
profits than any corporation in the history of the world for the past 2 
consecutive years.
  I know ExxonMobil and their propaganda machine will no doubt explain 
it. But the average person does not believe it and the average person 
should not believe it. ExxonMobil and the other major oil companies are 
ripping off the American people. That is clear. We need a windfall 
profits tax to address that.
  Last year alone, ExxonMobil made $40 billion in profits, and rewarded 
its CEO Rex Tillerson with a $21 million compensation package. That is 
nothing. He is getting shortchanged, because the guy who went before 
him, when he retired--his name was Lee Raymond--got a $400 million 
retirement package. So my suggestion to Mr. Tillerson is: Go back to 
your board. You are getting ripped off 21 million bucks. How are you 
going to make it on that?
  Here you have a company charging record-breaking prices, having given 
its former CEO a few years ago $400 million in a retirement package. 
But ExxonMobil is not alone. Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP 
have also been making out like bandits. In fact, the five largest oil 
companies in this country have made over $600 billion in profits since 
George W. Bush has been President. Not bad, $600 billion in profits in 
7.5 years. And people in Vermont and Florida cannot afford to fill 
their gas tanks.
  Last year alone, the major oil companies in the United States made 
over $155 billion in profits and, not surprisingly, those profits 
continue to soar. Today, ExxonMobil reported a 17-percent increase in 
profits, totaling $10.9 billion, $10.9 billion for one quarter.
  Earlier this week, however, BP, British Petroleum, announced a 63-
percent increase in their profits. Shell's first quarter profits jumped 
by 25 percent to over $9 billion; one quarter, 3 months. 
ConocoPhillips' profits increased by over 16 percent in the first 
quarter to over $4 billion.
  It is hard to come up with the words to describe it, because I know, 
and I am sure you know, Mr. President, the problems middle-class people 
are facing today and what these high oil and gas prices are meaning to 
families, and at the same time this is going on, these major oil 
companies are enjoying obscene levels of profit. With their profits, 
among many other things, they are very lavish in the kind of benefits 
and salaries they provide their CEOs. Last year, Occidental Petroleum, 
one of the ``smaller'' companies, gave its CEO $34.2 million in total 
compensation. The CEO of Anadarko Petroleum received $26 million. 
Chevron's CEO made $15 million, as did ConocoPhillips' CEO. He made 
$15.1 million in compensation.
  Let me be clear. I believe oil companies should be allowed to make a 
reasonable profit and CEOs of big oil companies should enjoy decent 
compensation. That is a tough job and they should earn a good salary. 
But they should not be allowed to rip off the American people at the 
gas pump, especially at this moment in our history when the middle 
class is stressed out and in many ways collapsing.
  The time has come to impose a windfall oil tax on those companies so 
they cannot continue to gouge the ordinary people of our country. 
Unfortunately, however, imposing a windfall profits tax on big oil will 
not be easy. I think we all know the reason, and that is, since 1998 
the oil and gas industry has spent over $616 million on lobbyists.
  And dare I say that right now on the floors of the Senate, and on the 
floors of the House, you have very well paid lobbyists, former 
congressional leaders, big-time law firms, floating all over this place 
right now trying to convince Members of the House and the Senate to 
leave big oil alone. Not only have they spent, since 1998, $616 million 
on lobbying; since 1990 they have spent over $213 million in campaign 
contributions. That is the way the world goes--lobby, campaign 
contributions from powerful multinational corporations.
  What is the end result? Their profits are soaring and ordinary 
Americans are hurting. The time has come, it seems to me, for the 
Senate to stand with working families all over this country, to have 
the courage to stand up to this very powerful industry and say ``yes'' 
to a windfall profits tax and ``no'' to the continued urges of the oil 
and gas industry to pat them on the back and do nothing.
  While it is true that oil companies and their executives are making 
money hand over fist, it is also true they are not the only culprits in 
this situation. We must begin focusing on the very powerful speculators 
and hedge fund managers who have also been making obscene sums of money 
by speculating

[[Page S3688]]

on futures and driving an unregulated market up and up and up.
  There are some people who estimate, in fact, that half of the 
increase in oil costs is attributable to the cost of production but to 
the speculation that takes place.
  In my view, Congress must act to rein in greedy speculators by 
closing what has been referred to as the Enron loophole and increasing 
oversight over the energy futures industry.
  The Enron loophole was created in 2000 as part of the Commodity 
Futures Modernization Act. At the behest of Enron lobbyists, a 
provision in this bill was inserted in the dark of night and with no 
congressional hearings. Specifically, the Enron loophole exempts 
electronic energy trading from Federal commodities laws. Virtually 
overnight, the loophole freed over-the-counter energy trading from 
Federal oversight requirements, opening the door to excessive 
speculation and energy price manipulation. Since the Enron loophole has 
been in effect, crude oil prices jumped from $33 a barrel in 2000, 
after adjusting for inflation, to over $110 a barrel today.
  Last January, a veteran oil analyst at Oppenheimer estimated there is 
as much as a $57 a barrel ``speculative premium'' on the price of oil. 
In other words, he estimates that about half of the price of a barrel 
of oil is due not to the production and distribution of that product 
but simply to speculation.

  The CEO of Marathon Oil said late last year that $100 oil is not 
justified by the physical demand in the market. In other words, those 
guys see that the price of oil is being driven up by speculation.
  Closing the Enron loophole would subject electronic energy markets to 
proper regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation.
  I thank Senators Levin and Feinstein. I know Senator Dorgan and 
others have been involved in producing legislation and ideas to close 
this loophole. We must move forward and pass that type of legislation 
as soon as possible.
  In addition--and this is an issue where there appears to be a degree 
of bipartisan support--some of our Republican friends also agree the 
Bush administration must stop the flow of oil into the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and in my view, my view, immediately release oil 
from this Federal stockpile to reduce gas prices.
  This action has been taken in the past. It is not a new idea. Goldman 
Sachs has estimated that continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve has increased gas prices at the pump by as much as 25 cents a 
gallon, and that clearly is unacceptable.
  Releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the past, under 
both Democratic and Republican administrations has, in fact, lowered 
the price of gas and crude oil. For example, when President Clinton 
ordered the release of 30 million barrels from the SPR in 2000, the 
price of gas fell by 14 cents a gallon in 2 weeks.
  When President George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush, released 
13 million barrels of crude oil from the SPR in 1991, crude oil prices 
dropped by over $10 per barrel.
  Let me conclude by saying that the issue we are dealing with today, 
in my view, is not only the high price of gas and oil. As serious as 
that is, and as much impact as that is having on our economy, the 
deeper issue here is the degree to which people in our country, the 
hard-working citizens of our country, will or will not continue to have 
faith that their Government represents them.
  It is no secret that President Bush will likely go down in history as 
perhaps the least popular President and, in my view, one of the worst 
Presidents we have ever had. But it is also true that the ratings of 
this Congress are extraordinarily low; they are even lower than where 
President Bush is.
  I think the reason for that is people are suffering terrible problems 
right now. In almost every area you can think of, this country is going 
in the wrong direction. The middle class is hurting. We talked about 
oil prices, food prices, the loss of good-paying jobs, the health care 
system, Social Security falling apart, people are paying 25, 30 percent 
interest rates on credit cards. People are in trouble. In a Democratic 
society, when people are in trouble, they look to the people whom they 
elected, to their Government, to protect their interests. They are 
looking to Washington right now. They are looking here. They are 
hurting, and they are asking whether the Congress of the United States 
has the courage to stand up to the very powerful financial interests 
which have so much influence over what goes on here.
  So I hope very much we have the courage to once again earn the 
confidence of the American people, that we understand the pain they are 
feeling, and that we act properly, that we lower gas prices, that we 
lower oil prices.
  We can do this with bold action, and we can move this country to a 
new energy policy dealing with energy efficiency and sustainable 
energy. I think the American people want us to do that. I think that 
is, in fact, what we should do.
  I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is really difficult for me to comprehend 
the reasoning of my friends on the other side of the aisle. All week we 
have done nothing. One of the most important bills that has been 
brought before this body this year, the Federal Aviation Administration 
reauthorization, as we speak there are thousands of airplanes going all 
across the United States. The equipment that allows those airplanes to 
take off and land is antiquated and way out of line for making air 
travel in America as safe as it should be. This legislation is very 
important and would be good for America, good for passengers.
  We have in this legislation the passengers bill of rights, money to 
replace antiquated equipment. But the Republicans have stopped us from 
legislating. We have tried virtually everything.
  I wanted to have an orderly process, which I think is not 
unreasonable. So last night I said: We have filled the different trees 
to allow amendments, but if you want to offer one, come on. No.
  I said: Well, give us a list of the amendments you want to offer. No. 
They said: Bunning has an amendment. Let us see it. That went on all 
day yesterday. Finally, they told us today the subject matter of that 
particular amendment. When I learned about the subject matter, I said 
fine. It is something about coal being changed so they can use the fuel 
for flying airplanes. No.
  I said: I will tell you what we will do. We will take down the tree. 
You can offer anything you want. No.
  We heard what they didn't like were provisions that would allow rail 
service in this country to be updated and modernized. They didn't want 
that. There was some language in the bill that would do something to 
help make highway safety paramount. Don't want that. Offer an amendment 
to take it out. No.
  Finally, I came to the conclusion that their objection was to a 
provision contained in the President's budget. I couldn't make up a 
story that is more ridiculous than the one I am relating, which is the 
truth. There is a provision in this bill that gives the State of New 
York the final amount of $20 billion that was promised them after 9/11 
by President Bush. That amount of money is in his budget for this year, 
which he gave us. I talked to the distinguished Republican leader and 
said: Offer an amendment to take it out. This is in the President's 
budget. We still oppose it, is what I was told.
  So it is obvious. The Republicans don't want to do anything to 
improve, to modernize the Federal Aviation Administration. I hope 
people who are within the sound of my voice think about that when they 
are flying across the country.
  We are not going to be able to do it this year, more than likely. 
There will be room made in the schedule by the Republicans to take up 
$170-odd billion for funding the war in Iraq from now until a year from 
this June. With glad hands, they will all come to the Senate floor and 
spend more money in Iraq. I

[[Page S3689]]

guess they don't want to pull the plug on spending $5,000 every second. 
Maybe they are trying to up the ante. I will have more to say about 
this tomorrow, but it is really a disappointment.
  This is not a victory for the Republicans to maintain the status quo, 
is it? Of course not. Would it be a big victory for the Democrats to 
pass the Federal aviation reauthorization? No. It would be something 
good for the American people. I hope the American public sees this for 
what it is. We Democrats are in the majority. It is a slim majority. It 
is 51 to 49. The Republicans obviously are upset over the fact that we 
are in the majority. They want the record to show that this Congress 
accomplished nothing.
  In spite of the obstacles and their obstruction, we have still 
accomplished quite a few things. We are proud of what we have 
accomplished, considering all the hoops we had to go through to get 
where we did.
  I never give up hope. I hope there will be a new day in Washington 
starting next week. One way we can have a new day: We give all the 
blame to the Republicans in the Senate. They certainly are the ones who 
are on the firing lines. But do you know how much it would mean if the 
man down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would call the Republican leader 
and say our country needs this FAA reauthorization? We need it. The 
President could call down here and break this logjam, as he could have 
done on all the other legislation they have stopped. How in the world 
do these people go to bed at night not worrying about the air traffic 
system falling apart, because it is going to. It is in desperate shape.
  Out in this parking lot there are new automobiles that have GPS 
systems in them. That is better equipment than the FAA has moving all 
the airplanes around the country.


                            Cloture Motions

  I send a cloture motion to the desk to the substitute amendment No. 
4627.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 4627 to H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization.
         Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller IV, Barbara Boxer, Kent 
           Conrad, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark L. 
           Pryor, Sherrod Brown, Patty Murray, Ken Salazar, Max 
           Baucus, Thomas R. Carper, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, E. Benjamin Nelson, Richard Durbin, Blanche 
           L. Lincoln, Daniel K. Inouye.

  Mr. REID. I now send to the desk a cloture motion on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 2881, the FAA 
     reauthorization.
         Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller IV, Barbara Boxer, Kent 
           Conrad, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark L. 
           Pryor, Sherrod Brown, Patty Murray, Ken Salazar, Max 
           Baucus, Thomas R. Carper, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Blanche L. Lincoln, E. Benjamin Nelson, 
           Richard Durbin, Daniel K. Inouye.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on the substitute amendment No. 4627 occur at 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, 
May 6; further, that the mandatory quorums for both motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.

                          ____________________