[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 77 (Monday, May 12, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4010-S4014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             PUBLIC OPINION

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, so far, the 110th Congress has failed to 
address some of the biggest problems confronting our Nation today. 
While some may be content to simply point the finger of blame, I think 
it is time for the Senate to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
  I was struck by a poll I read which I would like to share with my 
colleagues dated April 9, 2008. This is a Rasmussen poll which said 
that just 13 percent of likely voters believe Congress is doing a good 
or excellent job--13 percent. The respondents to the poll were also 
asked whether they thought Congress had passed in the last year any 
legislation that was designed to make their life a little bit easier. 
Incredibly, only 12 percent of these likely voters said Congress had 
passed any legislation to improve life in America during the last year. 
Fifty-nine percent said we had not. Fifty-nine percent of the 
respondents said Congress had not passed any legislation in the last 
year that had made their life better.
  This is quite an indictment. Frankly, I think we are going to have a 
chance tomorrow morning to demonstrate that either these respondents to 
this poll had gotten it all wrong or we are going to prove them exactly 
right, depending on the vote we have tomorrow morning on this important 
energy legislation I want to talk about in a moment. But first I wish 
to offer some suggestions on why it is that Congress is so poorly 
thought of by the American voter. Frankly, I think there are a number 
of examples. I have four examples of inexplicable delays in how 
Congress has failed to take care of the Nation's business.
  First of all, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Certainly, 
one of the most important jobs of the Federal Government is to make 
sure the American people are safe and secure. Our national security is 
job No. 1 for the Federal Government.
  Over a year ago, our intelligence community alerted us to the fact 
that an outdated foreign intelligence surveillance system was causing 
our intelligence gatherers to operate essentially blind to new threats. 
Despite this urgent plea from the intelligence community, the Speaker 
of the House has denied an opportunity for the House of Representatives 
to vote on a bipartisan piece of legislation that came out of the 
Senate. In fact, this authority has expired for new threats some 87 
days ago. Without the critical reform to our foreign intelligence 
surveillance system, we will not have access to time-critical 
information that will help protect not only our troops who are deployed 
around the world but also the American people at home as well. It is 
just a crying shame that the House leadership would have delayed 
passage of this important legislation. Again, legislation that was 
bipartisan and voted out of the Senate is now bogged down and blocked 
because the Speaker of the House has denied an opportunity for this 
important legislation to come up.
  There is another example, unfortunately, justifying the American 
public's low opinion of the Congress, and this has to do with the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. We have been waiting 538 days--that is 
the second number on the chart, 538 days--for Congress to consider the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. After more than a year of trying to 
negotiate with Congress, President Bush finally submitted this 
important legislation for fast-track approval. But in a stunning 
display of just how far Speaker Pelosi is willing to go to delay this 
important agreement, she opted to rewrite the rules of the House of 
Representatives in order to avoid having to vote on the bill within the 
expedited timeline of our trade promotion authority.
  This act would have ensured that farmers in my State, the State of 
Texas, as well as manufacturers and small businesses--it would have 
provided them a duty-free entry into the markets of the nation of 
Colombia in South America. Right now, those goods and services bear a 
tariff of up to 80 percent on their products, notwithstanding that my 
State of Texas, last year, sold $2.3 billion worth of goods and produce 
to the nation of Colombia and the people in Colombia. It is one of our 
best trading partners in South America. So why should our American 
goods and produce be discriminated against because of these high 
tariffs? Well, we had a way to solve that 538 days ago, but the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives has simply refused to allow the House 
to vote on it.
  Recently, American businesses crossed the $1 billion mark in money 
lost to tariffs in Colombia as a result of the refusal to consider this 
important legislation. That is $1 billion that could have been saved 
and invested in our economy, and it is opportunities lost to small 
businesses and large businesses in America--such as farmers--to sell 
their goods and produce in Colombia without a tariff.
  Well, it is also important because Colombia is one of our very best 
allies in South America in the fight against the drug cartels and 
terrorist organizations. Just last week, Colombia extradited a reputed 
drug kingpin, Luis Hernando Gomez Bustamante, to America. This man is 
believed to head an organization responsible for 60 percent of the 
cocaine in America. He is finally now in custody pending trial in 
America, thanks to the Colombian Government. We need to support 
Colombia and President Uribe in their fight against men such as Luis 
Gomez Bustamante who are bringing deadly drugs to our streets. But, 
instead of the kind of cooperation and reinforcement and appreciation 
you would expect one friend to show another friend, our friends in 
Colombia have gotten nothing but a stiff arm from the Congress in a 
refusal to act on important legislation that would benefit them and 
would benefit us and would tell the world what it means to be a friend 
of the United States: beneficial trading relationships that are to the 
mutual benefit of the trading partners. But that was 538 days ago, with 
no action, and the clock is still ticking.

  Mr. President, 683 days is another important example of mismanagement 
of the opportunity we have been given to serve the interests of the 
American people. It was 683 days ago that Peter Keisler was first 
nominated for a judicial appointment by the President of the United 
States. Unfortunately, he is not the only nominee who continues to 
languish while the majority continues to drag its feet in providing an 
opportunity for an up-or-down vote for these judicial nominees.
  Today, as our colleagues from North Carolina have already pointed 
out, is the 300th day since Judge Robert Conrad's nomination came to 
the Senate, and he has not even been given the courtesy of a committee 
hearing--300 days after his nomination came to the Senate.

[[Page S4011]]

  So far this year, the Senate has approved a total of one circuit 
court judge--just one. That by any standard is abysmal. While we 
continue to delay the confirmation of judges, there are 46 judicial 
vacancies in the Federal judiciary, 13 of which are considered judicial 
emergencies. And what does Congress do? What does the Senate do? Well, 
not much, almost nothing to deal with the judicial emergencies and 
these vacancies and to provide an up-or-down vote on these nominees.
  The American people depend on fully functioning courts to find 
justice. The Senate's failure to do its constitutional duty to confirm 
or at least to allow a vote on qualified nominees for these vacancies 
has a very real impact on communities, on businesses, on the residents 
of the areas in which those courts have jurisdiction, and crime victims 
to have access to justice. But having no judge who can sit and hear the 
case is essentially like locking and chaining the front door to the 
courthouse.
  Finally, how long will it be before the majority makes good on its 
promise that Speaker Pelosi made 749 days ago? It was 749 days ago when 
she promised the American people that if the Democrats were given the 
majority, they would have a commonsense solution to rising gas prices. 
Well, last week, after waiting more than 2 years, Democrats did unveil 
a plan. The irony is that it has become all too commonplace to find 
that these energy plans do not have one drop of additional energy but, 
rather, they recommend, really, more of the same--more taxation, more 
litigation, more investigations--but not one single drop of additional 
energy, not one single watt of new energy.
  While oil and gas prices have hit record highs virtually every day--
today hitting $3.72 a gallon--on January 4, 2007, when Speaker Pelosi 
and our friends on the Democratic side took charge of both the House 
and the Senate, that price of a gallon of gas was $2.33. Now it is 
$3.72. That is about a $1,400-per-family increase in the cost of 
living. And Congress continues to do next to nothing to deal with it, 
notwithstanding the promise Speaker Pelosi made some 749 days ago.
  Well, the irony is that we have heard, in the plan that has been made 
by some on the other side of the aisle, that all we need to do is to 
raise taxes on the domestic oil producers and that will somehow find a 
way to solve our lack of oil and gasoline. Unfortunately, some of these 
ideas have been tried before and found to be total and abject failures. 
For example, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research 
Service, this same tax idea was tried back during the Jimmy Carter 
administration. If you are too young to remember what happened during 
the Carter administration, there were shortfalls in the supply of 
gasoline, resulting in interminable lines waiting at gas stations. As a 
result, the Congressional Research Service said that domestic 
production--that is America's energy production--fell by roughly 5 
percent, resulting in an overall increase in the dependence on imported 
oil from foreign sources. Is that what our friends on the other side of 
the aisle want, an increase in our dependence on imported oil? Well, I 
would think not. So why would they come up with these tested and failed 
schemes to increase our reliance on imported oil? I noticed the 
distinguished Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, 
Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, has expressed it in words that 
perhaps I think are prophetic when he says this windfall profits tax is 
very arbitrary and bad policy.

  Now, while this plan would help further line the pockets of OPEC, the 
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and anti-American 
foreign leaders such as Hugo Chavez, this bill would also authorize the 
American Government to sue OPEC to demand that they increase oil 
production.
  Now, we ought to think about that one a minute. OPEC, after all, is 
composed of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Algeria, 
Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, and the United Arab 
Emirates. What our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed 
is we file a lawsuit against Iran and Venezuela and tell them to turn 
the spigot all the way open. What that would do, of course, assuming it 
were possible, is it would mean that we were even more dependent on 
imported oil from our enemies such as Iran and Venezuela--not less. 
This would only make us more dependent on OPEC--not less.
  Now, I believe there is a better solution, and that better solution 
is to take advantage of the natural resources God has given this great 
country of ours, one with which we have been supremely blessed. If, in 
fact, our friends on the other side of the aisle would allow us to pass 
the Domenici energy amendment--the American Energy Production Act--it 
would have the potential of producing as much as 3 million additional 
barrels of oil a day from American natural resources. This bill would 
open domestic resources such as shale oil in the Arctic and offshore 
deposits to domestic energy producers. It would immediately send a 
message to the speculators and commodity investors that there is going 
to be an additional amount of oil available in the future, up to 3 
million barrels a day, and I believe have an immediate downward effect 
on the price of oil--a barrel of oil which, of course, is 70 percent of 
the cost of gasoline.
  One thing is for sure: By taxing and penalizing our own domestic 
producers, that is not a solution, and we need to do everything we can 
in our power to lower prices and not to play additional games by 
trotting out tired and failed efforts of the past to try to bring down 
prices. We know the law of supply and demand is one Congress cannot 
repeal, so that is why we ought to pass the Domenici amendment 
tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are debating two very different 
amendments on gas prices that are up for a vote tomorrow. We have the 
proposal of the minority leader that is full of old ideas that will not 
work and will do absolutely nothing to affect gas prices now or in the 
future. In fact, the only provision in the minority leader's amendment 
that would do anything to lower gas prices is lifted directly from the 
Democratic plan to lower gas prices. This is the provision to 
temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In 
response, the majority leader has offered a clean amendment to 
temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is 
one of the few options we have to address the pain at the pump our 
constituents are facing right now.
  Every time my friends on the other side of the aisle decide to pay 
attention to our energy crisis, their solution is always the same: help 
big oil. In 2005, they authored energy provisions that gave ExxonMobil 
and other oil giants lavish subsidies that totaled over $14 billion, 
and these companies are reaping the rewards with record profits 
announced every quarter. ExxonMobil recently announced $11 billion in 
profits over a 3-month period. To put that in context, this means 
ExxonMobil's yearly profit this year might well be almost twice the 
annual budget of the Department of Energy.
  The authors of these proposals argue that if we simply shovel more 
taxpayer money in the direction of oil companies, this money will 
eventually trickle down to the people. But, as we have all too often 
seen, it does not. Gasoline prices are now over $3.70 per gallon, and 
the specter of $4-per-gallon gasoline is looming around the corner. 
While oil companies hoard their windfall profits, the American people 
are suffering.
  Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want real relief 
for the country; they only want to protect big oil's huge profits at 
any cost by opening every environmentally sensitive area in the country 
to drilling. Now, President Bush was right when he said we are addicted 
to oil, but what amazes me is the President's party is unaware they 
continue to act like addicts. Instead of supporting real plans to 
conserve oil or even transition to sustainable fuels, they go out in 
search of their next oil fix.
  Some claim the way to lower gas prices is to end a bipartisan, 26-
year moratorium to open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration 
and drill, drill, and drill. But the Energy Information Administration 
projects that even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf to 
drilling off the east coast, off the west coast, and opened the entire 
eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing would happen to gas

[[Page S4012]]

prices. Why? First, because production would not begin before the year 
2017. The infrastructure to drill for oil is not just a large oil 
platform but a network of hundreds of miles of pipeline to transport 
oil from the platform onto land and then to refineries. This kind of 
infrastructure simply does not exist on the east coast and in only 
limited exceptions on the west coast.
  The second reason why opening all our shores to oil drilling will not 
lower gas prices is because by the time full production actually ramped 
up, in 2030, drilling off all our coasts full tilt would only result in 
a whopping 3-percent increase in domestic production. And even in 2030, 
as our continent is rung all the way around by oil platforms, all of 
this new supply will be eaten up by a 7-percent increase in domestic 
demand. The Energy Information Administration predicts that: ``Any 
impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.''

  So even opening all of our coasts to drilling, as the minority leader 
proposes, will have no impact on gas prices at all. As my colleagues 
can see by this chart, the Federal Government has been issuing more and 
more leasing permits for drilling, but at the same time the price of 
gasoline has continued to rise. In fact, over 80 percent of the 
resources in the Outer Continental Shelf are already open for 
exploration. Since 2001, the Bush administration has issued over 100 
new leases. Many of these leases are in the eastern Gulf where the oil 
industry already has much of the infrastructure necessary to go into 
production but only 12 of these new wells have been drilled. The 
industry is only developing a small fraction of the area already open 
for drilling. Why isn't ExxonMobil pumping some of its profits into 
developing these areas? If companies are not interested in developing 
the large fields already open in the Gulf of Mexico, why is it so 
critical to open environmentally sensitive areas to more drilling?
  One might say it is to be expected that those on the side of big oil 
would use this sort of rhetoric in an election year, but it is much 
worse than that. The McConnell amendment could be both economically and 
ecologically devastating. If you look at a picture here taken after a 
recent oil spill in San Francisco, this is what we can routinely be 
facing if we allow widespread drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. 
We could see our beaches closed for business because of oil spills.
  In my home State of New Jersey, our shore is a priceless treasure 
that my State would protect at any cost, but the shore also generates 
tens of billions of dollars in revenues each year and supports almost 
half a million jobs. It simply makes no sense to jeopardize a tourism 
and fishing economy worth tens of billions of dollars in exchange for a 
cumulative total of only a half year's supply of oil. The people of New 
Jersey cannot afford the risk of millions of gallons of oil washing up 
on our beaches.
  This is not just a New Jersey problem. Florida's beaches generate 
billions of dollars each year. In South Carolina, Myrtle Beach alone 
brought in $3 billion in revenues. Do we want oil washing up onto the 
pristine Cape Hatteras National Seashore? What about Virginia Beach? 
Can Maryland's famous blue crab survive yet another environmental 
assault?
  The bottom line is the minority leader's proposal will do nothing to 
lower gas prices, but it will jeopardize coastal economies all along 
both coasts. Is there anything we can responsibly do to ease the pain 
of such high gas prices? The answer is a resounding yes.
  One important way to address oil prices that I hope we will be 
debating more fully in the next week or so is to better regulate oil 
markets. Many analysts who have testified before the relevant House and 
Senate committees agree that based on pure supply and demand, the price 
of oil should be somewhere between $50 and $70 a barrel. So why are we 
hitting $125 a barrel? In part, it is because of excessive speculation 
on futures markets, and unlike other markets such as the commodities 
involving corn or soybean futures, oil is being traded around the globe 
with little or no oversight by the U.S. Government. If the Enron 
disaster teaches us anything, it should be that markets cannot be 
allowed to operate without real oversight. In the upcoming weeks when 
the Senate debates the comprehensive Democratic plan to address runaway 
gas prices, one of the most important aspects of that package will be 
increased regulation of oil markets so we can effectively combat excess 
speculation and any possible market manipulation.
  Another important measure to bring short-term relief to the pain at 
the pump is the majority leader's amendment to be voted on tomorrow. 
This amendment would suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at 
least through December 2008. When the people of this country are 
suffering with almost $4-a-gallon gas, when the price of oil has broken 
$125 a barrel, why would we be burying this precious commodity when we 
need it the most? We should stop pouring all that oil into a hole in 
the ground until the price of crude oil recedes to $75 or less. This 
will truly help drive gas prices back down by increasing supply and 
offering some immediate relief to Americans.
  It is very important that we look at these proposals. Even Jim 
Woolsey is fond of saying, by buying oil in such huge quantities and at 
such high prices, we are funding both sides of the war on terror. So it 
seems to me that if we want to do something about kicking our 
addiction, we don't go after more of it; we move in a different 
direction. We suspend the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is already 
97 percent full. We will have that opportunity tomorrow. Then we look 
at market speculation and these other elements of a truly broad-based 
effort that preserves our natural resources, preserves the economy that 
those natural resources generate, as the New Jersey shore does, and 
then ultimately achieves the goal of not only driving down the cost of 
gas but at the same time move us in a different direction to break our 
dependency.
  So what are the real long-term solutions to ending our dependence on 
oil and greening our transportation fleet?
  The first thing we need to do is drastically improve fuel economy. In 
1976, our cars and trucks got 13 miles per gallon. Because of the Arab 
oil crisis, we passed laws to improve the fuel economy of our passenger 
vehicles. From 1976 to 1981, we saw a rapid increase in fuel economy. 
In 1981, our fleet had improved to 21 miles per gallon. But since 1981, 
without the political will to improve fuel economy standards and the 
rising popularity of SUVs, the average fuel economy of our passenger 
vehicle fleet actually declined to 20 miles per gallon in 2006.
  What would have happened if we had kept slowly improving the fuel 
economy of our vehicles from 1981 to the present? If we had increased 
fuel economy a modest 2 percent per year during that time, our new 
fleet of vehicles would now average 34 miles per gallon. While this is 
certainly a huge improvement over where we sit today, it was definitely 
achievable since this figure is still well below standards set in Japan 
which are over 40 miles per gallon.
  Astonishingly, if we had followed this course, our current demand for 
oil would be over one-third less than it is today, down over 2 billion 
barrels of oil per year. Cumulatively, we would have saved over 30 
billion barrels of oil. Thirty billion barrels of oil is more oil than 
the entire proven oil reserves remaining in the United States. This 
means that this sensible and achievable policy could have saved us more 
oil than we could ever hope to gain from domestic drilling. It is 
commendable that we have finally raised fuel economy standards, but we 
must make even further reductions if we want to make up for lost time.
  Of course, fuel efficiency is just part of the answer to solving our 
addiction to oil. We also need tax incentives to increase the producion 
and use of superefficient vehicles already out there--such as hybrids. 
We need a massive investment in cars that can run on sustainable 
alternative fuels like electricity or cellulosic ethanol. Once we truly 
have a choice of fuels, the grip of our oil addiction will finally 
loosen.
  This country also needs to invest in our mass transit infrastructure. 
This weekend the New York Times reported that mass transit is up all 
over the country. We need a huge investment in mass transit to make 
sure that we all have multiple transportation options so we are not so 
reliant on driving.

[[Page S4013]]

  But while most of the Democratic Party supports these sensible policy 
reforms, my friends on the other side of the aisle are stuck in the 
past advocating old positions from previous Congresses. Mr. President, 
I hope that this will be the last time I need to rise in this Chamber 
to point out that more oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas 
is not the answer to our oil addiction. It is time for an intervention.
  It is time for a real cure based on a tough examination and 
reordering of our energy priorities--and not the tired old policies of 
the past.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is time for us to get real about energy. 
It is time for us to get real about gas prices. Withholding from the 
American people new oil supplies needed to get gas prices down will 
only hurt our families and our workers more.
  American families are suffering from record pain at the pump. 
Truckers and shippers face layoffs and losses. Farmers, processors, and 
packagers are sending their food to market with higher prices and 
higher costs, and airlines are once again threatened with bankruptcy.
  Whether you drive a car, a big rig or a tractor, you know personally 
what I am talking about. With average gas prices now topping $3.70 a 
gallon, you have a right to demand some answers about our energy 
future. Your pain and suffering demands we supply you with relief. 
Relief comes in the form of economics 101. Folks, every time prices are 
too high, there is too much demand and too little supply. Now, maybe 
some of our colleagues did not take the economics course, but I believe 
in common sense, and I believe the American people have common sense. 
They realize that when you don't have enough of something, and the 
demand keeps going up, the price goes up.
  That is how our system works. Answers that focus only on demand and 
not on supply are not enough to fix the problem. So we are where we are 
today with record high gas prices inflicting record pain at the pump.
  Don't get me wrong. I support good, strong measures to reduce the 
demand for oil. Last year, I supported Congress's measure to increase 
aggressively but achievably high standards for corporate average fuel 
economy, or CAFE. That would force better gas mileage from cars and 
trucks. But those new fuel efficiency requirements will take years 
before they have an effect. In the meantime, families and workers will 
suffer through years of higher gas prices. Auto makers cannot go out 
tomorrow and build a new fleet of high gas mileage cars and trucks. New 
cars take years to design and build.
  Even if highly efficient cars were available tomorrow, families in 
the middle of 4-year car loans probably cannot go out and buy a new 
car. They have to wait until they can purchase a more fuel-efficient 
car. In the meantime, these families will suffer through more years of 
higher prices.
  We can cut demand with more people riding mass transit, and I have 
supported mass transit. I will continue to do so. But if you don't have 
mass transit in your area, such as where I live and where a whole lot 
of people in rural America live, you cannot move to the city or get a 
different job. In the meantime, you will suffer through years more of 
higher gas prices.
  We can cut demand by subsidizing hybrid vehicles. Congress supported 
those tax credits, as I do. But hybrid cars are too expensive now and 
will take too many years to become affordable to most families. We are 
working in Missouri to get much more efficient, much lighter batteries 
that can help meet the needs for hybrid and plug-in cars. In the 
meantime, while we are working on those technologies, families will 
suffer through years more of higher gas prices.
  I, for one, am unwilling to allow families to suffer years more of 
higher gas prices, while we wait for demand strategies to work.
  To address supply, some say we should take our hat in hand and beg 
our Middle Eastern suppliers to produce more oil. Since when has 
increasing our dependence on the Middle East ever been a good idea?
  Some propose raising taxes on suppliers searching and developing new 
domestic oil supplies. Since when has taxing something more ever 
increased its supply or lowered its price? Never. When we put taxes on 
those who are searching and developing for new domestic oil supplies, 
we ensure that there won't be as much and the price will be higher.
  Some say we should investigate suppliers to probe what is making 
prices so high. I too support investigating wrongdoing, but since when 
has investigating something ever increased its supply or lowered its 
price?
  The American people deserve more than begging, taxing, and 
investigating. American families and workers deserve real actions 
toward real solutions. America doesn't need to look that far. Indeed, 
the solutions to America's supply problems are right here in our own 
backyard. America's lands, ocean floors, and mountains hold billions of 
gallons of oil waiting for us to come and get it.
  We have millions of gallons of oil beneath the frozen tundra of 
northern Alaska. Had there not been a veto in 1995 of the development 
of the sources above the Arctic circle in Alaska, we would be getting a 
million gallons of oil a day from Alaska. You cannot tell me that would 
not lower the price. It would have a huge impact. We also have millions 
of gallons of oil beneath the seabeds miles off our coasts. We have 
billions of gallons of oil trapped in the shale beneath our Rocky 
Mountains.
  Tapping these new U.S. supplies will help relieve prices immediately. 
While it is true it will take years before new supplies will come on, 
we will send an immediate signal to the speculators in the oil trading 
markets that new suppliers are on their way. They cannot continue to 
push prices higher.
  Today's prices built on limited supply and a world dependent on 
trouble spots will see America deciding to open vast and safe new oil 
supplies. Oil prices, built on predicting the future, will have no 
choice but to fall in the face of a future safe, new supply source for 
America.
  We can also face the future using new technologies. America owns, and 
uses every day, environmentally friendly oil technologies that are 
cleaner than ever before for exploring, developing, and producing. We 
can drill sideways deep underground to avoid sensitive areas above. We 
can drill many locations from a single site to avoid sensitive areas 
around.
  Environmentally friendly operations in northern Alaska can drill in 
the winter and be gone long before any animals are active in the 
spring.
  Environmentally friendly operations could drill in the ocean and 
survive hurricanes such as Katrina with no spilled oil or gas. Does 
anybody recall the spills resulting when Hurricane Katrina tore through 
the Gulf of Mexico drilling rigs? No, because they didn't happen.
  To say we would repeat the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s with the 
same 40-year-old technology is like saying we will all continue to call 
ourselves on rotary telephones or write each other on typewriters.
  Another source of transportation fuel from new technology is coal to 
liquids. The technology to turn coal into liquid jet fuel or diesel has 
been around for a hundred years. We now have the technology to capture 
carbon emissions and make it cleaner than refining conventional oil 
and, in addition, providing a greater supply.
  We are also developing even cleaner and more affordable forms of 
biofuels. Technology giving us clean-burning corn ethanol today will 
give us cellulosic ethanol tomorrow with grasses and wood chips.
  In my State of Missouri, gas is 10 cents cheaper than it otherwise 
would be because we require 10 percent ethanol in all pumps. This will 
save Missouri drivers $285 million this year. Some people say ethanol 
is driving up prices. Ethanol is a lot cheaper to produce, and it uses 
fermentation, not the cat cracking that goes into regular gasoline. It 
brings down prices; it doesn't drive up the price of the fuel. The 
overall shortage of fuel has driven up the price for food. But most 
importantly, the Government hoarding food is driving up the price. 
Don't make farmers the scapegoats. They are responding to the demand 
Congress made of them to go out and build ethanol-producing plants and 
produce the ethanol to get cleaner, cheaper, domestically-produced 
energy. That is what they are doing.

[[Page S4014]]

  Now the future is brighter in many areas because of new, cleaner 
technologies. We can have a brighter future of energy supplies if we 
let all these new technologies work for us.

  We can also have a brighter future of energy supplies if we stop 
being selfish and start thinking about the collective good. Too many 
individuals are willing to say ``not in my backyard,'' even if it means 
the group suffers. Too many groups pursue NIMBY strategies even if it 
means the Nation suffers.
  Nobody here is trying to force Alaska to do something Alaska doesn't 
want to do. Alaskans want to open more of their oil reserves. But it is 
people in places such as Massachusetts saying no to Alaska.
  No one here is trying to force Virginia to do something it doesn't 
want to do. Virginians want to explore for oil and gas off their 
coastline. It is people in places such as California and New Jersey 
saying no to Virginians.
  Nobody here is trying to force Colorado to do something it doesn't 
want to do. Colorado wants to tap the shale beneath its mountains. It 
is people in places such as Washington, DC, saying no to Colorado.
  This type of NIMBY sentiment must end. This type of selfishness must 
end. This type of inflicting multiyear pain waiting for demand 
strategies must end. We must no longer deny Americans the new supply 
solutions they need. We must no longer refuse American families and 
workers the lower gas prices they demand.
  We must not only suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, we must also open new oil supplies in northern Alaska, open 
new oil and gas supplies under our oceans, and open new oil shale 
supplies under our mountains, and open our ability to refine more oil. 
We must open the ability of U.S. workers to manufacture more hybrid 
batteries.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Republican amendment and 
provision that will be coming tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues have spoken 
about the energy challenge and the crisis we face. I look forward to 
supporting Senator Reid's amendment tomorrow. That amendment has been 
outlined in great detail during the course of the afternoon. I am in 
strong support of that amendment.
  We are facing a national challenge, and if you look back, 
historically, when we have been facing a national challenge--and this 
time is a wartime--not to say all of this crisis is from the war, but 
whether it is adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or bidding up 
prices in other parts of the world, it is unconscionable that we have 
these extraordinary windfall profits that are out of the pockets of 
working families. And the indifference of this administration to the 
plight of these working families is appalling.
  I applaud our leader for the legislation we will have a chance to 
vote on tomorrow and, hopefully, we will have a strong vote in support 
of it. It is inevitable that we are going to be successful because the 
American people are not going to tolerate the indifference and the 
extraordinary profiteering that is being experienced in this country at 
this time. I thank our leader for his efforts and his recommendations 
to the Senate, and I look forward to voting in support of that 
tomorrow.

                          ____________________