[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 10, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5399-S5410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume the motion to proceed to S. 3044, which the clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 3044, a bill to provide energy 
     price relief and hold oil companies and other entities 
     accountable for their actions with regard to high energy 
     prices, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as I understand it, there is 1 hour 
divided equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 40 minutes divided 
equally.
  Mr. SCHUMER. And the addition of leader time. I ask that I be given 
7\1/2\ minutes of our time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hutchison be the leadoff speaker and she be allowed 7 minutes, and that 
I follow her with 15 minutes, and then we will see where it goes from 
there.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we all know that gas prices and the high 
price of oil and all oil products is the No. 1 issue in America. 
Everywhere we go--Legion halls, parades, weddings--this is all people 
bring up, and they demand action.
  Today, we in the Democratic majority are stepping to the plate with 
two comprehensive bills--one dealing immediately with the issue of gas 
prices and the oil companies and the speculation in the market and the 
second dealing with changing our tax policies so that we encourage 
alternative fuels. We are stepping to the plate because we know the 
problem America faces: $4-a-gallon gasoline. That is 267 percent higher 
than it was when President Bush took office in 2001. And we cannot pass 
any legislation?
  We want to debate this legislation now. We have our ideas. The other 
side has its ideas. But we wish to move forward and debate the issue 
and finally get something done, and the other side, the minority leader 
said vote no. He is telling the American people that he and his party 
want to do nothing. They don't even want to debate it. That is an 
incredible statement at a time when America is crying out for action.
  The bottom line is, we have had a White House, we have had a 
Republican minority that has taken zero proactive steps to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil for 7 years. If it wasn't for this new 
Democratic Congress to pass along an overdue small increase in fuel 
efficiency standards, President Bush would leave the White House with a 
record he would consider spotless, committing no sins against big oil 
or against OPEC.
  We on this side are not afraid to go after big oil when they are not 
doing the right thing, and we are not afraid to go after OPEC because 
they are a cartel that squeezes us. We are not afraid to do some 
strong, tough things that will, some in the short run and some in the 
longer run, bring down the price, the all-too-high price of gasoline.
  We are hurting as a country. We are hurting individually as 
Americans. We are hurting as an economy, as people do not have the 
ability to spend on other things. We are hurting in our foreign policy 
as every day we send over $1 billion to people we do not like, such as 
leaders of Iran, Venezuela, and other places. And we are hurting as a 
globe as we continue to send carbon dioxide into the air. And the other 
side says: Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue.

[[Page S5400]]

  I have heard some people talk about some things on that side. What 
about ANWR, Alaskan oil, which was defeated in a bipartisan way a while 
ago? We will debate ANWR. Nobody thinks it is going to do anything for 
7 years. I, for one, and many of us on this side supported drilling in 
the east gulf. It is beginning to happen because it would produce more 
oil and gas more quickly and do something about the price.
  So we are not against any domestic oil production or exploration or 
gas production or exploration if it is going to make some sense. But we 
cannot drill our way out of the problem. If we do not do conservation, 
if we do not do alternative energy, and if we do not tell the big oil 
companies they can no longer run energy policy in America, we will not 
succeed; plain and simple. We are finally telling them.
  There are many provisions in this bill, but there are four major 
provisions. One goes after OPEC, one goes after speculation, but the 
one that I helped write, along with the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, goes after the windfall profits of oil companies. They are 
making record profits, and we say take some of those record profits and 
require them to be placed into alternative energy.
  When the head of ExxonMobil came before the Judiciary Committee a 
couple of years ago, he said he didn't believe in alternative energy. 
Well, most Americans do. And unlike my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, we don't believe ExxonMobil should dictate our energy 
policy. They are doing great, but we, the American people, are not.
  If you want to get immediate production, do something about Saudi 
Arabia. They could in a minute increase supply by 1 million, 2 million 
barrels a day. This is not Alaska. A lot of people on the far right are 
saying: How can Schumer say increase Saudi production when he is not 
for Alaska production? Hello. One would pump oil into the system 
immediately and do something immediately if we could force the Saudis 
to do it. Some of us advocate not giving them arms until they do. One 
would take 7 years and, by many estimates, not do much to change the 
price because it is so long into the future.
  It is appalling. I am profoundly surprised by the other side seeking 
to block this bill. I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Might I ask the Chair how much time I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 10 seconds.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The windfall profits tax part of this bill, which I 
helped write, is a different windfall profits tax. It says when the 
level of profitability is very high, take that money and require that 
it be used for alternative energy. That is not too much to ask of 
ExxonMobil or of Chevron, Texaco, or any of these newly merged oil 
firms. It will not do all the things my colleague from Kentucky said 
but instead will force the oil companies that are not sacrosanct to 
start doing something to help get us out of this mess instead of just 
profiting from it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill before us is, pure and 
simple, a pathetic attempt to even call itself an energy plan. The 
American people are looking for leadership from the Congress. They are 
looking for something that will help small businesses not be eaten up 
with energy costs, the American family not be eaten up with the cost of 
gasoline at the pump, and what do they get in response? They get a bill 
that does not produce one ounce of energy. Not one ounce.
  This bill does three things: It enacts a windfall profits tax, it 
suggests that we sue OPEC, and it forms a commission to investigate 
price gouging. What the American people are looking for is lower 
gasoline prices at the pump and lower electricity costs in their small 
businesses.
  The Republican plan that was put forward so well by Senator Domenici, 
the ranking member of the Energy Committee, is a balanced plan that 
will produce results. What it does is what we have done in America for 
the last 200 years when we had a problem and that is use our ingenuity, 
use our natural resources, use our creativity, and come together to 
meet and beat our problems. That is what the Domenici plan does.
  We have passed legislation that gives incentives for renewable 
energy--wind energy and solar power--and those are great things. They 
are small, but they are great things. We wish to continue that. We wish 
to promote conservation, which we have done in past Energy bills. We 
wish to also expand nuclear power. We haven't had a nuclear powerplant 
open in this country in 25 years. So the Energy bill we passed under 
Senator Domenici's leadership does have incentives for investment in 
nuclear power because we know it can be done clean, it can be done 
efficiently, and it will bring down the cost of electricity.
  We have expansion of refineries in the bill that was passed 2 years 
ago, again under the leadership of Senator Domenici. We have to have 
expanded refineries because the problem in this country today is we 
don't have enough supply. Our refineries are running at full capacity, 
but we have not had expansion of our refineries because the regulatory 
environment has kept any sound management and business plan from being 
operative for an expanded facility. But we did pass legislation to 
expand facilities, again with environmental safeguards to do it right 
and expand the amount of energy we would have in our country.
  Our plan also creates a State option, so States will have the ability 
to explore off their Outer Continental Shelf and get a reward for it, 
get a royalty. That could produce as much as we import from Venezuela, 
and that is a modest suggestion of what we might be able to get. It 
could be much more.
  ANWR. Senator Reid said: Forget ANWR, we are not going to do that. It 
is not going to pass here. Well, no, it is not going to pass. As long 
as we have no leadership from the majority in the Senate, it would not 
pass. But it did pass. It did pass in 1995. If President Clinton hadn't 
vetoed it, we would be pumping almost the same amount of oil that we 
import from Saudi Arabia every day, and we would not have $4-a-gallon 
gasoline at the pump for hard-working Americans. So it can pass with 
leadership.
  We are talking about ANWR. In an area the size of the State of South 
Carolina, the area that would be drilled is 2,000 acres, the size of 
Washington National Airport. It is a grassy plain. It gets to 70 
degrees below zero in the wintertime. It is not part of the beautiful, 
pristine wilderness of ANWR. Yet it could bring gasoline prices down at 
the pump. Oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming. We have a balanced 
approach that will produce energy.
  What does the bill before us do today? Well, let us talk about the 
windfall profits tax. In 1980, Congress passed one. What happened? It 
increased imports, it increased our reliance on foreign oil for our 
energy needs, and it made America more reliant on foreign sources of 
energy for our country. That is wrong for our national security, and it 
is wrong for our economy. It exported jobs overseas. It was such an 
abject failure that Congress repealed it. Why would we be going 
backward to something that has been proven to take jobs from America 
and increase our dependence on foreign sources?
  OPEC. They say OPEC should be increasing its output. This is 
ludicrous. First, it ignores that OPEC could retaliate; that they are 
not going to abide by American law. At the same time the Democrats are 
saying we should sue OPEC for not producing more, they do not pass 
anything that would produce more of our own energy in our own country. 
Does anyone think OPEC is going to think that is a credible position 
for the Congress to take? Yet that is the position that is in the bill 
before us today.
  It is almost laughable that every proposal we put forward that would 
increase our output is defeated by Congress. Yet they want to sue OPEC 
for not increasing their supply. You cannot have it both ways. We don't 
want to drill here, but we want to drill there. It is the old ``you do 
it, we will talk about it'' mentality that will not work.
  What about forming another commission to investigate price gouging? 
We have had commissions on price

[[Page S5401]]

gouging, and they have turned up nothing. This is a bad bill. We should 
reject it, and we should look for leadership, bipartisan leadership, to 
solve this problem with our ingenuity.
  I yield floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes 
from the Democratic side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, do we need a windfall profits tax? You 
bet we do. The American people are sick and tired of paying $4 for a 
gallon of gas. In the Northeast, we are worried about how people are 
going to stay warm in the winter, while at the same time ExxonMobil has 
made more profits than any company in the history of the world for the 
past 2 consecutive years, making $42 billion last year alone.
  But ExxonMobil is not alone. In the first quarter of this year, BP 
announced a 63-percent increase in their profits. Shell's first-quarter 
profits jumped by 25 percent, to over $9 billion, and ConocoPhillips' 
profits increased by over 16 percent in the first quarter, to over $4 
billion. As a matter of fact, the five largest oil companies in this 
country have made over $600 billion in profits since George W. Bush has 
been President. Do we need a windfall profits tax? You bet we do.
  Let me say a word about what some of these oil companies are doing 
with these outrageous profits. In 2005, Lee Raymond, the former CEO of 
ExxonMobil, received a total retirement package of at least $398 
million. Yes, you heard that right, $398 million in a retirement 
package for the former CEO of ExxonMobil. But he is not alone. Let us 
not just pick on ExxonMobil. In 2006, Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental 
Petroleum, received over $400 million in total compensation. Oh, yes, 
we don't need to do a windfall profits tax. These guys are just 
investing their money ever so significantly.
  The situation is so absurd and the greed is so outrageous that oil 
company executives are not only giving themselves huge compensation 
packages in their lifetimes, but they have created a situation, if you 
can believe it, where they have carved out huge corporate payouts to 
their heirs if they die in office. I am not making this up. According 
to the Wall Street Journal, the family of Ray Irani, the CEO of 
Occidental Petroleum, will get over $115 million if he dies while he is 
the CEO. The family of the CEO of Neighbors Industries, another oil 
company, will receive $288 million if he dies while he is the CEO.
  If this were not so pathetic, if so many people all over our country 
were not hurting, it would be funny. But it is not funny, it is tragic, 
and we have to deal with this reality. Let me be clear, however. I 
believe oil companies should be allowed to make a reasonable profit, 
but they should not be allowed to rip off the American people at the 
gas pump, and that is why we need to pass a windfall profits tax, which 
is included in this legislation.
  We should understand that a windfall profits tax alone is not going 
to solve all our problems. Since 1988, the oil and gas industry has 
spent over $616 million on lobbying, and since 1990, they have made 
over $213 million in campaign contributions. In other words, if this 
Congress is going to stand up to the oil companies, it is going to take 
a lot of courage. These people have enormous power, and they have spent 
an enormous amount of money on lobbying and campaign contributions. But 
I think we owe it to the American people to represent their interests 
rather than just the interests of big money.
  Imposing a windfall profits tax is not the only thing we should be 
doing. We must address the growing reality that Wall Street investment 
banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase, and 
many hedge fund companies as well, are driving up the price of oil in 
the unregulated energy futures market. There are estimates that 25 to 
50 percent of the $134-a-barrel cost of oil is attributable not to 
supply and demand, not to the cost of production, not to the decline in 
the dollar but to the unregulated speculation which is currently taking 
place on oil futures. That is an issue we must address as well, and 
this legislation begins to do that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Parliamentary inquiry: How much time 
remains and who has time before the vote?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has secured 15 minutes 
for his own use, which would consume all the minority's time at this 
point, except for the leader's balance of that time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So that means I would use the remaining time, and there 
would be no time for anyone else before the first vote?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority still has 7 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That was my question. I didn't pose it right.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Plus, the majority leader or his 
designee's time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes and see how it 
works out. The Senator from Pennsylvania wanted some of my time. I 
don't know if I have enough to give him, but I will try, and I thank 
him for coming down so early in the morning.
  First of all, let me say to my fellow Senators but most of all to the 
American people that the Senate has a bill before us today we will call 
the Reid bill, named after the majority leader, and I think it deserves 
a simple little nickname. It should be the Democratic Party's ``No 
Energy Energy bill.'' It doesn't produce one ounce of energy. Clearly, 
the American people are looking to us to see how we can suggest that 
the price of oil might be stabilized or brought down.
  We are told by most experts we are going to be using crude oil for 30 
or 40 years to come, and we call that the bridge, the bridge between 
now and the future, where we are going to have to use crude oil. If we 
are going to have to use crude oil, then America should look to itself 
and see where and how can we produce oil that belongs to us so this 
bridge, this 30 or 40 years when we are going to have to use crude oil 
to get by, that we will have as much of ours as possible.
  It is a shame the majority party in the Senate is not looking to 
American resources, does not have a bill, will not let us vote on a 
bill, will not let us amend a bill that would produce more energy from 
the coastal waters off the shores of the United States, upon which we 
have put a moratorium. That moratorium says we cannot drill. Everybody 
knows there are literally billions of barrels of oil that belong to us. 
We could do whatever we would like. We could say 50 miles out is where 
we start, so it will harm no one, but let's open it and explore for 
American oil where there is an abundance.

  In addition, let's go ahead and convert coal to crude oil, coal to 
diesel. We know how to do that. Let's get on with it so we can send the 
right signal to the world.
  Let's take the moratorium off oil shale and get on with a 5- or 10-
year program to produce oil from those properties that belong to 
Americans that are laden with oil and are in the States of Colorado, 
Utah, and Wyoming.
  That is what we are looking for, not a bill that attempts to levy a 
windfall profits tax which everybody associated with that tax--
including those who helped put it on during the regime of President 
Carter--now comes over and joins us, saying: Don't do that. It will do 
nothing but raise the price of crude oil.
  Why do we want to pass a tax increasing the cost of crude oil when 
the American people are asking us to do the opposite? The majority here 
in the Senate believes the major oil companies--there are not very many 
left that are American oil companies. There are just a few of them 
left, and all the rest of the oil is owned by countries--not companies, 
by countries. They own it. We have five or six American companies. We 
ought to be grateful we have them. They are the only ones out there 
capable of competing with these countries to get oil and produce more. 
Yet the Democrats would like to make life onerous for those companies, 
would like to make it harder for them to produce oil, and try to let 
the American people think that if we tax them enough, somehow or 
another that will produce more oil.
  From my standpoint, this is a very simple debate. The Democrats have 
no

[[Page S5402]]

energy bill before us, in terms of producing energy. So they have a 
``no energy'' bill. We ought to say we don't want to debate that 
because it doesn't amount to anything. Then the House sent us a bill 
that imposes taxes. That is all it is. They impose taxes in order to 
put on a kind of energy stimulus for wind and the like. They want to 
tax in order to pay for it. We have never paid for it before. We have 
imposed those various incentives. They are good. We passed them 88 to 8 
one time. We are for doing that again, but we are not for doing that in 
the manner suggested by the legislation from the House which came over 
here. It is our second vote. We ought to just say no to that and say we 
are ready to extend those tax credits and we are ready to do that in 
exactly the way we have done it before, with no taxes added to the 
American people or to anyone--just go ahead and do those tax extenders, 
which we desperately need.
  Let me repeat. One of the most important things we need is an 
extension of those tax extenders. We do not need a tax bill that will 
pay for those extenders because we have already done it without taxes. 
We ought to do that again, nice and clean and quick. That would be a 
very good start toward an alternative energy policy or a continuation 
of one.
  Mr. President, I wish to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania at this point.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico.
  I have sought recognition to state my reasons for opposing the motion 
to proceed to cloture because this bill has too many facets. It was my 
hope that the majority leader would have separated this bill into the 
component parts. I cannot support legislation which would impede 
exploration for oil, which is what part of this bill is. But there are 
parts of this bill which are very important, and they ought to be taken 
up separately--for example, the legislation that defines and 
establishes penalties for price gouging by the oil and gas industry. It 
increases regulation of oil futures markets, and it includes the 
provision to eliminate the antitrust exemption for OPEC countries.
  It does not have to be said on the floor of the Senate that 
enormously serious problems exist today with the price of oil and with 
the price of gasoline at the pump. The newspapers are full of it. It is 
an atrocious situation that is happening, and we desperately need 
relief.
  There are very substantial indicators that a good bit of this problem 
is caused by price gouging. The legislation ought to be separated out 
so that we act on that. There are significant indicators that the oil 
futures market is causing speculators to jack up the price of oil. 
There ought to be regulation on that. We ought to take it up 
separately. When it comes to the antitrust exemption for the OPEC 
countries, it is atrocious. A few of these countries get together in a 
room, they lower production, and that increases prices. That bill was 
passed by the Senate with 70 votes. It has been passed by the House of 
Representatives. We ought to be taking that up separately. If we took 
up these measures separately, we would have an opportunity to give some 
relief to the American people.
  Candidly, it is incomprehensible to me why we are not taking up the 
cost of oil and the cost of gas at the pump, to try to alleviate the 
pressure on the American people--and for that matter, worldwide. If we 
were to eliminate the OPEC antitrust exemption--to which they are not 
entitled; it is not a sovereign immunity issue, it is a commercial 
transaction--we have the authority to do that. One Federal judge has 
already upheld that approach. If we worked on the approach, if we 
worked on what the traders are doing on speculation, we would have some 
real effect. We are not too busy to take up this issue, aside from a 
few minutes on the Senate floor. There is no reason it has to be joined 
with what is obviously a poison pill, where you talk about acting 
against the oil and gas industry to discourage exploration. We know 
exploration is vitally necessary, so I cannot support this legislation 
in its present form, but it ought to be divided. We ought to take up 
the antitrust exemption separately.
  We ought to move ahead on a matter of pressing importance. There is 
nothing more important for the American people, for the people of the 
world. I urge the majority leader, who sets the schedule, to reconsider 
and separate these bill so we can act in a meaningful and important 
way.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, every day Americans are watching the 
price of oil and gas shoot up higher and higher, and are watching as it 
gets harder and harder to make ends meet.
  This week, the national average price of gasoline broke the $4 per 
gallon mark. When George Bush took office, gas cost just $1.46 a 
gallon. This dramatic increase in oil prices has brought prices for 
food up along with it, and American families are faced with a painful 
financial choice when it comes time to fill-up--do they fill up their 
gas tank or do they forgo a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk?
  Businesses are cutting jobs. Families have already eliminated 
nonessentials and are now cutting back on meals. Some Americans are 
even contemplating quitting their jobs because they can't afford the 
gas to get there. It has become painfully clear: We are in an oil 
crisis. And we had better start taking action to get out of this mess.
  Fuel efficiency, alternative fuels, and mass transit are the long-
term answers that I will soon discuss, but consumers need immediate 
help, and the Consumer-First Energy Act will provide that relief.
  The first thing the Democratic bill will do is make sure that our 
commodities markets are functioning fairly. The supply and demand 
equation is roughly the same as it was 2 years ago and yet we have seen 
prices go through the roof.
  We all remember the damage Enron did to our Nation's economy by 
manipulating unregulated electricity markets. The Consumer-First Energy 
Act will make sure that oil is traded on well-regulated, transparent 
markets which are free from manipulation. It requires Commodities 
Futures Trading Commission oversight, sensible margin requirements, and 
standard participant disclosures.
  By making the oil futures market conform to usual standards and 
practices, we can combat excessive speculation and insure that the 
markets are free from manipulation.
  The Consumer-First Energy Act also makes sure that oil companies are 
not taking advantage of American consumers. The Bush energy policy was 
written by energy companies for energy companies. And while it has 
worked well for energy companies, it has completely failed the American 
public. The major oil companies made $124 billion in profits last year 
and will earn even higher profits this year.
  Are the oil companies using these enormous profits to give consumers 
a break at the pump? No. Are they using those profits to invest in new 
refineries or develop alternative fuels? No. Despite what my friends on 
the other side of the aisle might claim, big oil is not looking out for 
the American driver. Big oil is looking out for itself. Our colleagues 
on the other side offer more of the same.
  Yet, despite the fact that big oil is doing all it can to reap record 
profits at the expense of our economy, big oil is in line to receive 
over $17 billion in tax breaks.
  The Consumer-First Energy Act will fix this problem and make sure 
that big oil is paying its fair share of taxes, and isn't profiteering 
at the expense of American consumers. It includes a windfall profits 
tax which would raise revenue to invest in sustainable, domestic 
sources of energy and to provide relief to consumers suffering under 
high energy prices.
  We must act now to provide immediate relief to American families. But 
in addition to relief and protections included in the Consumer-First 
Energy Act, we also need to think about what we can do to reduce 
consumption and rein in costs in the long term.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to address this 
oil crisis. Indeed, they want to exploit it to try to provide even more 
Government help for their big oil supporters. They tell their 
constituents that the answer to our oil addiction is to drill,

[[Page S5403]]

drill, drill. But feeding the addiction by tapping another vein just 
drills us into a deeper hole.
  The fact is that the world's largest remaining oil reserves are in 
the hands of foreign governments. That means it is difficult if not 
impossible for us to control our supply of oil. But the one thing we 
can control is our demand. In the long term, we need to invest in 
alternative energy, mass transit, and increasing fuel efficiency.
  While we work to make alternative fuel technologies more affordable 
we need to drastically improve fuel economy. If we had increased fuel 
economy a modest 2 percent per year since 1981, our fleet would now 
average 34 miles per gallon. This alone would have cut our demand for 
oil by 30 percent while saving over 30 billion barrels of oil. 30 
billion barrels of oil. According to the Energy Information Agency that 
is more than the proven oil reserves remaining in the United States. It 
is commendable that we finally raised CAFE standards this year, but we 
are going to have to make our vehicles a lot more efficient to make up 
for lost time.
  We also need tax incentives for hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and need 
to support advanced battery research. Once our transportation 
infrastructure can run on alternative fuels like electricity or 
cellulosic ethanol, consumers will finally have a choice. We will be 
able to choose not to buy oil, and that will force gas prices back to 
Earth.
  The last, but perhaps most important, long-term solution to our 
current oil crisis is an immediate and substantial investment in mass 
transit. More people are taking commuter trains, buses, and even 
ferries now than in the past 50 years.
  For millions, having the option to use alternative transportation 
modes has been essential to getting to work affordably. It is time we 
finally fully funded mass transit at the level it deserves.
  It is time for a real cure, not the tired old policies of the past. 
This bill gives the American people what they need right now, to get 
through the immediate problem and start us down the path to real, 
sustainable, long-term solutions to our energy crisis.
  I hope our colleagues seize the moment, vote for the motion, and move 
us to the type of relief Americans are looking for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, am I correct in assuming that I have 2 
minutes, plus the leader's time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes and will reserve the 
remainder.
  Mr. President, the American people are clamoring for relief at the 
pump. In 1 year we have seen a 16-point increase in the percentage of 
Americans who seek more exploration and production of oil and gas in 
this country.
  Today, according to a recent Gallup poll, 57 percent of Americans are 
seeking more exploration and production of oil and gas here at home. I 
do not know what percentage of Americans would like to see higher 
taxes, increased prices, and greater imports, but I suspect it would be 
very low. But according to the independent Congressional Research 
Service, that is what the people will get if the Reid tax increase is 
enacted into law. They will get exactly what they do not want, because 
the bill will raise taxes, increase imports, and contribute to a 
pattern of sending more than half a trillion dollars overseas to 
hostile regions.
  I will oppose the motion to proceed this morning. I wish to start by 
looking at the windfall profits tax contained in this bill. The 
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found a windfall profits tax 
could have several adverse effects and could be expected to reduce 
domestic oil production and increase the level of imports. This group 
is not alone in their estimate. The Wall Street Journal predicts a 
windfall profit tax is a sure formula ``to keep the future price of gas 
higher.''
  It is not simply these two views that warn against a windfall profits 
tax. Former officials from both the Carter and Clinton administrations 
have spoken. The Under Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton 
administration recently said:

       A new windfall profits tax, however emotionally satisfying 
     it may seem, also harms most people saving for their 
     retirement or living on retirement savings. More than 40 
     percent of that cost would fall on tens of millions of 
     seniors and retirees who own oil stock directly or indirectly 
     through their pension plans and retirement accounts.

  An individual named Phil Verleger, the individual responsible for 
implementing the tax during the Carter years, recently called a 
windfall profits tax ``a terrible idea today.''
  There seems to be a consensus everywhere that the windfall profits 
tax is a bad idea, except in the halls of Congress and within the 
Chavez administration in Venezuela. It is not only conjecture that 
leads us to the conclusion that this is a bad idea but, rather, an 
understanding of history. Between 1980 and 1986 when the last windfall 
profits tax was in place, domestic oil production was reduced by as 
much as 8 percent and our imports rose from 32 percent to 38 percent. 
Revenues for the tax came in well below what was originally estimated, 
and the tax came to be called an administrative nightmare that stunted 
economic growth. It was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now, and 
it should be rejected. About that I am certain.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 10 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On the time I yielded to myself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to try to raise a concept and see if we can get 
this where more people would begin to discuss this idea. In a hearing 
about 8 days ago, a crude oil expert made the statement that we would 
be using oil as a bridge to the future for more than 30 years. Let me 
repeat. We will be using crude oil as a bridge to the future for more 
than 30 years, this expert said, perhaps 40 years or more.
  That is kind of common sense. Crude oil is used to make gasoline and 
things such as gasoline, and those are used in the importation 
industry. We cannot get rid of that quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is now using leadership time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will use 1 minute and then I will sit down. Let me 
repeat so everybody will get this. For something like 40 years, we will 
be using crude oil, our own or others, because we cannot get rid of the 
current mode of transportation any quicker. Cars will be cars, and we 
will be using them because we cannot wean them off the scene. As we 
move to a better era of a better life where we do not have to use crude 
oil in our daily lives so much, we will have to use the bridge which 
will be crude oil.
  Now, why do I talk about this? I do because it is important we 
understand that if we have any cards, playing poker, if we have any 
aces in our hands, we better go ahead and play them, and the aces are 
crude oil we might produce some way that is ours. We ought to go ahead 
and play the card. I submit that we do have a lot of aces. We have got 
a huge amount of crude oil that is in the Outer Continental Shelf that 
we ought to be exploring for forthwith. We ought to take the moratoria 
off and start at 50 miles out across this land. If we did that and sent 
that message for starters, it would be received in a terrific way. Take 
the moratoria that were put in the bill that has been referred to as 
the Domenici bill for production, and believe it or not, we would send 
a signal that America is coming back to life, and during that bridge 
time we are going to produce more oil on our own.
  Nothing will help us more in reducing the price and cost to our 
consumers than that idea we implemented. We must try to do it even if 
the Democrats do not want us to. We have got to try to force a vote so 
that people understand what we are trying to do.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking to preserve the 
leader's time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume the Chair is telling me that I 
cannot reserve any of the leader's time, so

[[Page S5404]]

I can sit down and take it at a later time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That requires consent. Consent was not 
granted. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right. I will use it now.
  Now, Senators today should have been--under anyone's understanding of 
the dilemma we are in with the price of oil scaring the American people 
to death, the amount of money we are sending out of our country to meet 
our energy needs, it is going to reach $600 billion a year. With the 
escalating price of crude oil, that is what it looks like next year. It 
will be what a full year will cost us, $600 billion. I would think with 
that in mind, there would be on the floor of the Senate some real 
proposals by the Democratic leadership and the majority party.
  Instead, what do we get? We get what I call a ``no-energy energy 
bill.'' It is a no-energy energy bill because it does not produce an 
ounce of energy; it raises the cost instead of lowering the cost of 
crude oil; it produces less rather than more crude oil. That is why 
there is nothing going on on the floor, because there is nothing 
exciting. The Democrats have offered nothing.
  We are begging them to try something. We are begging them to try 
something that would produce more American oil or oil substitutes. We 
know what they are. The distinguished Senator from Colorado knows what 
they are. We know that offshore, deepwater exploration around the 
shores of America could be put in effect by raising the moratorium, and 
we would have literally billions of reserves of oil and trillions of 
cubic feet of natural gas readily made available.
  We need to take off the moratorium that we put on ourselves, take it 
off and say to the people: Let's produce it. It would take a few years. 
But the signal would be positive. We would have the oil shale in your 
State and Utah, your sister State, if we said we are ready to set the 
final guidelines so the oil companies can invest. Someone down here 
prior to my speech said the oil companies will not do anything to help. 
Yes, indeed they will. One of them is investing $8.5 billion in oil 
shale and tar sands up in our neighboring country of Canada. Some 
people think that is terrible, because they did not want them to 
produce that kind of oil. But I do not think it is terrible, because it 
eliminates the potential for gouging, for prices being too high. 
Because if you have these great inventories of resources and they are 
yours and you can use them, you ameliorate the increasing price of oil, 
and we ought to be doing that.
  Instead of that, we are down here talking about a second bill. The 
second bill is a bill passed by the House, sent over here to us that is 
full of tax increases to pay for a series of tax incentives that we 
should pass without the tax increases. We have done it before, we ought 
to do it.
  That bill ought to be defeated, no question about it, because we 
ought to pass it. We need the incentives, but we do not need the tax 
increases. We have done it without tax increases twice before, and 
somehow or other the House keeps getting it put in their head if they 
send it over here with other tax increases, different ones, we will go 
for it. I think it is pretty clear we will not.
  So it is an interesting day. Instead of being here with some positive 
things we are going to do, we will be here defending some old ideas 
that are not going to help one bit, and we are saying, let's try them 
anyway.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, day after day record-high oil and gasoline 
prices are causing immense harm to millions of American consumers and 
businesses. Unless something is done to make energy more affordable, 
these record-high prices will continue to damage our economy, 
increasing the prices of transportation, food, manufacturing, and 
everything in between. Skyrocketing energy prices are a threat to our 
economic and national security, and the time is long past for action.
  My Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has conducted four 
separate investigations into how our energy markets can be made to work 
better. Most recently, last December, we had a joint hearing with the 
Senate Energy Subcommittee on the role of speculation in rising energy 
prices. As a result of these investigations and hearings, I have been 
advocating a variety of measures to address the rampant speculation and 
lack of regulation of energy markets which have contributed to sky high 
energy prices:
  First, put a cop--a regulatory agency--back on the beat in the energy 
markets to prevent excessive speculation and manipulation. That 
includes closing the Enron loophole and the London loophole and taking 
other steps to strengthen market oversight.
  Second, develop alternatives to fossil fuels to reduce our dependence 
on oil.
  Third, impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies that have 
profited from the massive price runup and use the money to help 
consumers, boost domestic energy supplies, improve energy technologies, 
and strengthen our energy markets.
  One of the major causes of our energy crisis is the failed policies 
of the current administration. The chickens have come home to roost on 
7 years of a business-as-usual energy policy, paired with fiscal and 
foreign policies that have pushed our growing energy problem close to a 
breaking point. Because the administration has proved itself unable and 
unwilling to take the necessary steps to provide affordable energy 
supplies to the American people, it is up to the Congress to try to 
jump-start a comprehensive solution to skyrocketing energy prices. 
Congress already has taken two important steps this year--we have 
closed the Enron loophole and we have stopped the administration's 
misguided program to keep on filling the SPR despite record-high 
prices--but more can and should be done. That is why I support 
enactment of the Consumer-First Energy Act now before us and will be 
voting for cloture on this bill.
  Last week the price of crude oil reached a record high price of about 
$139 per barrel. Sky-high crude oil prices have led to record highs in 
the price of other fuels produced from crude oil, including gasoline, 
heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. The national average price of 
gasoline is at a record high of just over $4 per gallon. The price of 
diesel fuel, which is normally less expensive than gasoline, has soared 
to a record high of nearly $4.60 per gallon.
  Rising energy prices increase the cost of getting to work and taking 
our children to school, traveling by car, truck, air and rail, and 
growing the food we eat and transporting it to market. Rising energy 
prices increase the cost of producing the medicines we need for our 
health, heating our homes and offices, generating electricity, and 
manufacturing countless industrial and consumer products. The 
relentless increase in jet fuel prices, which have added nearly $75 
billion to our airlines' annual fuel costs, has contributed to airline 
bankruptcies, mergers, fare increases, and service cuts. ``If fuel 
continues to go up, this industry cannot survive in current form,'' the 
president of the Air Transport Association said recently. Rising diesel 
prices have placed a crushing burden upon our Nation's truckers, 
farmers, manufacturers, and other industries. To make matters worse, 
our energy costs are rising much more quickly than energy costs in 
other countries, directly threatening our global competitiveness.
  In January 2001, when President Bush took office, the price of oil 
was about $30 per barrel. The average price for a gallon of gasoline 
was about $1.50. Since President Bush took office, crude oil prices 
have more than quadrupled, natural gas prices to heat our homes have 
almost doubled, gasoline prices have nearly tripled, and diesel fuel 
prices have more than tripled.
  It doesn't have to be this way. Just 7 years ago, at the end of the 
Clinton Administration, energy supplies were plentiful, and gasoline 
and other forms of energy were affordable. Once the Bush administration 
took office, however, it didn't take them long to eliminate the budget 
surplus by cutting taxes mainly for the wealthiest among us, creating a 
huge annual budget deficit, and driving up the national debt. This 
fiscal mismanagement has contributed significantly to a steep decline 
in the value of the dollar and soaring commodity prices. Because 
American currency is worth less, it takes more of them to buy the same 
barrel of oil. American consumers and businesses are forced to spend 
more and more of their hard-earned dollars to buy the same amount of 
energy.

[[Page S5405]]

  During the last years of the Clinton administration, the United 
States ran a budget surplus, totaling nearly $560 billion. But over the 
past 6 years of the Bush administration the annual deficits have 
totaled nearly $1.7 trillion, not counting the amount by which the Bush 
administration has been draining the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds. When this is counted, under this administration the total 
outstanding debt has increased by a whopping $3.2 trillion.
  When President Clinton left office, the dollar was worth more than 
the Euro. In January 2001, it took only about 90 cents to buy one Euro. 
Today, it takes about $1.60 to buy one Euro--a record low for the 
dollar. The fall in the value of the dollar is a result of a weakened 
U.S. economy, a high trade deficit and a worldwide lack of confidence 
in the Bush administration's ability to manage our Nation's economy and 
foreign policy.
  As long as this administration continues to insist on irresponsible 
fiscal practices--including tax cuts for people with the highest income 
and an open-ended conflict in Iraq that is costing $12 billion a 
month--the dollar will likely continue to decline in value. The 
marketplace has rendered a clear ``no confidence'' in this 
administration's fiscal competence.
  Besides the weak dollar, there are other factors at work that account 
for soaring energy prices. Some are beyond our control; others we can 
do something about. In global markets, for example, the combination of 
increasing demand from developing countries, coupled with a variety of 
political problems in supplier countries, has contributed to price 
increases. Growing demand for oil and gas in China, India, and other 
developing countries is contributing to an overall increase in global 
demand for crude oil. On the supply side, many oil producing countries 
are politically unstable and have not been fully reliable suppliers. 
For example, in Nigeria, which is a major oil-producing country, for 
several years tribal gangs have been sabotaging production and 
pipelines.
  While we can't do much about growing demand in China and India, other 
causes of high prices can be addressed. For example, one key factor in 
energy price spikes is rampant speculation in the energy markets. 
Traders are trading contracts for future delivery of oil in record 
amounts, creating a paper demand that is driving up prices and 
increasing price volatility solely to take a profit. Overall, the 
amount of trading of futures and options in oil on the New York 
Mercantile Exchange has risen sixfold in recent years, from 500,000 
outstanding contracts in 2001, to about 3 million contracts now.
  Much of this increase in trading of futures has been due to 
speculation. Speculators in the oil market do not intend to use crude 
oil; instead they buy and sell contracts for crude oil just to make a 
profit from the changing prices. The number of futures and options 
contracts held by speculators has gone from around 100,000 contracts in 
2001, which was 20 percent of the total number of outstanding 
contracts, to 1.2 million contracts currently held by speculators, 
which represents almost 40 percent of the outstanding futures and 
options contracts in oil on NYMEX .
  There are now 12 times as many speculative holdings as there was in 
2001, while holdings of nonspeculative futures and options are up but 3 
times.
  Not surprisingly, this massive speculation that the price of oil will 
increase has, in fact, helped fuel the actual increase in the price of 
oil to a level far above the price that is justified by the traditional 
forces of supply and demand.
  The president and CEO of Marathon Oil recently said, ``$100 oil isn't 
justified by the physical demand in the market. It has to be 
speculation on the futures market that is fueling this.'' Mr. Fadel 
Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer and Company, describes the oil 
market as ``a farce.'' ``The speculators have seized control and it's 
basically a free-for-all, a global gambling hall, and it won't shut 
down unless and until responsible governments step in.'' In January of 
this year, as oil hit $100 barrel, Mr. Tim Evans, oil analyst for 
Citigroup, wrote ``the larger supply and demand fundamentals do not 
support a further rise and are, in fact, more consistent with lower 
price levels.'' At the joint hearing on the effects of speculation held 
by my subcommittee last December, Dr. Edward Krapels, a financial 
market analyst, testified, ``Of course financial trading, speculation 
affects the price of oil because it affects the price of everything we 
trade. . . . It would be amazing if oil somehow escaped this effect.'' 
Dr. Krapels added that as a result of this speculation, ``There is a 
bubble in oil prices.''

  A fair price for a commodity is a price that accurately reflects the 
forces of supply and demand for the commodity, not the trading 
strategies of speculators who only are in the market to make a profit 
by the buying and selling of paper contracts with no intent to actually 
purchase, deliver, or transfer the commodity. As we have all too often 
seen in recent years, when speculation grows so large that it has a 
major impact on the market, prices get distorted and stop reflecting 
true supply and demand.
  Last month, Senator Jack Reed and I wrote a letter asking President 
Bush to appoint a high-level task force to evaluate how speculators are 
driving up prices through manipulative or deceptive devices. The task 
force should also evaluate whether there are adequate regulatory tools 
to control market speculation and prevent manipulation. Hopefully the 
President will act quickly to convene this task force.
  Excessive market speculation is a factor that we can and should do a 
better job of controlling. There are other long overdue actions as well 
that, if taken as part of a comprehensive plan, can combat rising 
energy prices.
  As to reining in speculation, the first step to take is to put a cop 
back on the beat in all our energy markets to prevent excessive 
speculation, price manipulation, and trading abuses. In 2001, my Senate 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations began investigating our energy 
markets. At the time, the price of a gallon of gasoline had spiked 
upwards by about 25 cents over the course of the Memorial Day holiday. 
We subpoenaed records from major oil companies and interviewed oil 
industry experts, gas station dealers, antitrust experts, gasoline 
wholesalers and distributors, and oil company executives. We examined 
thousands of prices at gas stations in Michigan, Ohio, California, and 
other States. In the spring of 2002, I released a 400-page report and 
held 2 days of hearings on the results of the investigation.
  The investigation found that increasing concentration in the gasoline 
refining industry, due to a large number of recent mergers and 
acquisitions, was one of the causes of the increasing number of 
gasoline price spikes. Another factor causing price spikes was the 
increasing tendency of refiners to keep lower inventories of gasoline. 
We also found a number of instances in which the increasing 
concentration in the refining industry was also leading to higher 
prices in general. Limitations on the pipeline that brings gasoline 
into my home State of Michigan were another cause of price increases 
and spikes in Michigan. The report recommended that the Federal Trade 
Commission carefully investigate proposed mergers, particularly with 
respect to the effect of mergers on inventories of gasoline.
  The investigation discovered one instance in which a major oil 
company was considering ways to prevent other refiners from supplying 
gasoline to the Midwest so that supply would be constricted and prices 
would increase.
  In March 2003, my subcommittee released a second report detailing how 
the operation of crude oil markets affects the price of not only 
gasoline but also key commodities like home heating oil, jet fuel, and 
diesel fuel. The report warned that U.S. energy markets were vulnerable 
to price manipulation due to a lack of comprehensive regulation and 
market oversight.
  Following this report, I worked with Senator Feinstein on legislation 
to put the cop back on the beat in those energy markets that had been 
exempted from regulation pursuant to an ``Enron loophole'' that was 
snuck into other legislation in December 2000. For 2 years we attempted 
to close the Enron loophole, but efforts to put the cop back on the 
beat in these markets were unsuccessful, due to opposition from the 
Bush administration, large energy companies, and large financial 
institutions that trade energy commodities.
  In June 2006, I released another Subcommittee report, ``The Role of 
Market

[[Page S5406]]

Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put a Cop on the 
Beat.'' This report found that the traditional forces of supply and 
demand no longer accounted for sustained price increases and price 
volatility in the oil and gasoline markets. The report determined that, 
in 2006, that a growing number of energy trades occurred without 
regulatory oversight and that market speculation had contributed to 
rising oil and gasoline prices, perhaps accounting for $20 out of a 
then-priced $70 barrel of oil.
  The subcommittee report I released in June 2006 again recommended new 
laws to increase market oversight and stop market manipulation and 
excessive speculation. I again coauthored legislation with Senator 
Feinstein to improve oversight of the unregulated energy markets. Once 
again, opposition from the Bush administration, large energy traders, 
and the financial industry prevented the full Senate from considering 
this legislation.
  In 2007, my Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations addressed the 
sharp rise in natural gas prices over the previous year and released a 
fourth report, entitled ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas 
Market.'' Our investigation showed that speculation by a single hedge 
fund named Amaranth had distorted natural gas prices during the summer 
of 2006 and drove up prices for average consumers. The report also 
demonstrated how Amaranth had traded in unregulated markets to avoid 
the restrictions and oversight in the regulated markets and how the 
price increases caused by Amaranth could have been prevented if there 
had been the same type of oversight in the unregulated markets as in 
the regulated markets.
  Following this investigation, I introduced a new bill, S. 2058, to 
close the Enron loophole and regulate the unregulated electronic energy 
markets. Working again with Senators Feinstein and Snowe and with the 
members of the Agriculture Committee in a bipartisan effort, we finally 
managed to include an amendment to close the Enron loophole in the farm 
bill that was then being considered by the Senate. The Senate 
unanimously passed this amendment to close the Enron loophole last 
December. The final farm bill that was passed by the House and Senate 
last month included language nearly identical to what the Senate had 
passed. Although President Bush vetoed the entire farm bill, both the 
House and Senate have overridden his veto. Our 5-year quest to close 
the Enron Loophole has finally been successful.
  The CFTC is now in the process of implementing the close-the-Enron-
loophole law. Among other steps, it is charged with reviewing the 
contracts on previously unregulated energy markets, like the 
Intercontinental Exchange or ICE, to determine which contracts have a 
significant effect on energy prices and must undergo daily oversight. 
Once that process is complete, the cop will be back on the beat in 
those markets for the first time since 2000.
  Closing the Enron loophole is vitally important for energy market 
oversight as a whole, and for our natural gas markets in particular, 
but it is not enough. Because over the last 2 years, energy traders 
have moved a significant amount of U.S. crude oil and gasoline trading 
to the United Kingdom, beyond the direct reach of U.S. regulators, we 
have to address that second loophole too. I call it closing the London 
loophole.
  There are currently two key energy commodity markets for U.S. crude 
oil and gasoline trading. The first is the New York Mercantile Exchange 
or NYMEX, located in New York City. The second is the ICE Futures 
Europe exchange, located in London and regulated by the British agency 
called the Financial Services Authority.
  The British regulators, however, do not oversee their energy markets 
the same way we do; they don't place limits on speculation like we do, 
and they don't make public the same type of trading data that we do. 
That means that traders can avoid the limits on speculation in crude 
oil imposed on the New York exchange by trading on the London exchange. 
It also makes the London exchange less transparent than the New York 
exchange. My original legislation to close the Enron loophole would 
have required U.S. traders on the London exchange to provide U.S. 
regulators with the same type of trading information that they are 
already required to provide when they trade on the New York Mercantile 
Exchange. Unfortunately, this provision was dropped from the close-the-
Enron-loophole legislation in the farm bill.
  The Consumer-First Energy Act, S. 3044, which the majority leader and 
others introduced recently to address high prices and reduce 
speculation, includes at my request a provision to curb rampant 
speculation, increase our access to foreign exchange trading data, and 
strengthen oversight of the trading of U.S. energy commodities no 
matter where that trading occurs. This provision would require the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, prior to allowing a foreign 
exchange to establish direct trading terminals located in this country, 
to obtain an agreement from the that foreign exchange, such as the 
London exchange, to impose speculative limits and reporting 
requirements on traders of U.S. energy commodities that are comparable 
to the requirements imposed by the CFTC on U.S. exchanges. I believe 
this issue is so important that I have introduced this section of the 
package as a separate bill, which is numbered S. 2995. Senator 
Feinstein is a cosponsor of that bill.

  Following the introduction of our legislation, the CFTC finally moved 
to address some of the gaps in its ability to oversee foreign exchanges 
operating in the United States. Specifically, the CFTC, working with 
the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority and the ICE Futures 
Europe exchange, announced that it will now obtain the following 
information about the trading of U.S. crude oil contracts on the London 
exchange:

       Daily large trader reports on positions in West Texas 
     Intermediate or WTI contracts traded on the London exchange; 
     information on those large trader positions for all futures 
     contracts, not just a limited set of contracts due to expire 
     in the near future; enhanced trader information to permit 
     more detailed identification of end users; improved data 
     formatting to facilitate integration of the data with other 
     CFTC data systems; and notification to the CFTC of when a 
     trader on ICE Futures Europe exceeds the position 
     accountability levels established by NYMEX for the trading of 
     WTI crude oil contracts.

  These new steps will strengthen the CFTC's ability to detect and 
prevent manipulation and excessive speculation in the oil and gasoline 
markets. It will ensure that the CFTC has the same type of information 
it receives from U.S. exchanges in order to detect and prevent 
manipulation and excessive speculation.
  However, in order to fully close the London loophole, better 
information is not enough. The CFTC must also have clear authority to 
act upon this information to stop manipulation and excessive 
speculation.
  That is why I have been working with the sponsors of the Consumer-
First Energy Act to include additional language to ensure that the CFTC 
has the authority to act upon the information it will obtain from the 
London exchange, in order to prevent price manipulation and excessive 
speculation. This new provision, which I helped author, would make it 
clear that the CFTC has the authority to prosecute and punish 
manipulation of the price of a commodity, regardless of whether the 
trader within the United States is trading on a U.S. or on a foreign 
exchange. It would also make it clear that the CFTC has the authority 
to require traders in the United States to reduce their positions, no 
matter where the trading occurs--on a U.S. or foreign exchange--to 
prevent price manipulation or excessive speculation. Finally, it would 
clarify that the CFTC has the authority to require all U.S. traders to 
keep records of their trades, regardless of which exchange the trader 
is using.
  It is my understanding that this new provision will be included in a 
substitute amendment that will be offered today or in a future debate 
on this bill, if cloture is not invoked today. I thank the bill 
sponsors for accepting this language to ensure that the CFTC has full 
enforcement authority over traders within the United States who are 
trading on a foreign exchange, just as the CFTC has over traders who 
are trading on a U.S. exchange. This clarification of the CFTC's 
enforcement authority over traders in the United States, together with 
the earlier provision setting standards for foreign boards of

[[Page S5407]]

trade wishing to place trading terminals in the United States, will 
fully close the London loophole.
  There is another problem with our energy markets that Congress has 
finally acted on. In 2003, a report issued by my Subcommittee staff 
found that the Bush administration's large deposits of oil into the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, were increasing crude oil prices 
without improving overall U.S. energy security. We found that in 2002, 
the Bush administration, over the repeated objections of its own 
experts in the Department of Energy, had changed its policy and decided 
to put oil into the SPR regardless of the price of oil or market 
conditions. By placing oil into the SPR while oil prices were high and 
oil supplies were tight, the administration's deposits into the SPR 
were reducing market supplies and boosting prices, with almost no 
benefit to national security, given the fact that the SPR is more than 
95 percent filled. The DOE experts believed that in a tight market, we 
are better off with keeping the oil on the market rather than putting 
it into the ground where it cannot be used.
  Following the issuance of this report, in early 2003, I asked the 
Department of Energy to suspend its filling of the SPR until prices had 
abated and supplies were more plentiful. DOE refused to change course 
and continued the SPR fill without regard to market supplies or prices.
  After DOE denied my request, I offered a bipartisan amendment with 
Senator Collins to the Interior appropriations bill, which provides 
funding for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve program, to require DOE to 
minimize the costs to the taxpayers and market impacts when placing oil 
into the SPR. The Senate unanimously adopted our amendment, but it was 
dropped from the conference report due to the Bush Administration's 
continued opposition.
  The next spring, I offered another amendment, also with Senator 
Collins, to the budget resolution, expressing the sense of the Senate 
that the administration should postpone deliveries into the SPR and use 
the savings from the postponement to increase funding for national 
security programs. The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 52 to 
43. That fall, we attempted to attach a similar amendment to the 
homeland security appropriations bill that would have postponed the SPR 
fill and used the savings for homeland security programs, but the 
amendment was defeated by a procedural vote, even though the majority 
of Senators voted in favor of the amendment, 48 to 47.
  The next year, the Senate passed the Levin-Collins amendment to the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the DOE to consider price impacts 
and minimize the costs to the taxpayers and market impacts when placing 
oil into the SPR. The Levin-Collins amendment was agreed to by the 
conferees and is now law.
  Unfortunately, passage of this provision has had no effect upon DOE's 
actions. DOE continued to fill the SPR regardless of the market effects 
of buying oil, thereby taking oil off the market and reducing supply by 
placing it into the SPR. In the past year, no matter what the price of 
oil or market conditions, DOE consistently found that the market 
effects are negligible and no reason to delay filling the SPR.
  Most recently, at the same time the President was urging OPEC to put 
more oil on the market to reduce supplies, the administration was 
continuing to take oil off the market and place it into the SPR. Until 
recently, the DOE was depositing about 70,000 barrels of crude oil per 
day into the SPR, much of it high-quality crude oil ideal for refining 
into gasoline. It defies common sense for the U.S. Government to be 
acquiring oil at $120 or $130 per barrel, in a time of tight supply, 
taking that oil off the market, and putting it in the SPR. That is why 
I cosponsored Senator Dorgan's bill to suspend the SPR fill, as well as 
a similar provision in the Consumer-First Energy Act.
  Finally, Congress had had enough of this senseless policy. The 
provision to stop the continuous filing of the SPR was pulled from the 
Consumer-First Energy Act and offered in the House and Senate as a 
stand alone bill. Congress enacted into law by an overwhelming vote. In 
response, the President finally called a halt to his policy and stopped 
filling the SPR. It is about time.
  The SPR fill policy, by the way, exacerbated yet another problem in 
our oil markets--the fact that the standard NYMEX futures contract that 
sets the benchmark price for U.S. crude oil requires a particular type 
of high quality crude oil known as West Texas Intermediate, WTI, to be 
delivered at a particular location, Cushing, OK. The standard NYMEX 
contract price, in turn, has a major influence on the price of fuels 
refined from crude oil such as gasoline, heating oil, and diesel.
  Because the price of the standard contract depends upon the supply of 
WTI at Cushing, OK, the supply and demand conditions in Oklahoma have a 
disproportionate influence on the price of NYMEX futures contracts. 
That means when the WTI price is no longer representative of the price 
of U.S. crude oil in general, the prices of other energy commodities 
are also thrown out of whack. In other words, we have an oil futures 
market that reflects the supply and demand conditions in Cushing, OK, 
but not necessarily the overall supply and demand situation in the 
United States as a whole.
  I have long called for reform of this outdated feature of the 
standard NYMEX crude oil contract. In 2003, the PSI report recommended 
the CFTC and NYMEX to work together to revise the standard NYMEX crude 
oil futures contract to reduce its susceptibility to local imbalances 
in the market for WTI crude oil. The subcommittee report suggested that 
allowing for delivery at other locations could reduce the volatility of 
the contract. It is truly disappointing that since our report was 
issued no progress has been made for allowing for delivery at other 
places than Cushing, OK. As the price of oil has increased, the 
distortions and imbalances caused by the atypical nature of the 
standard contract have gotten worse. It is essential NYMEX repair its 
crude oil contract.

  Putting the cop on the beat in our energy markets, strengthening 
oversight of U.S. energy commodities traded on foreign exchanges, 
stopping the SPR fill, and fixing the NYMEX crude oil contract all 
focus on problems caused by rising energy prices. These consistently 
rising gas prices also underscore the need to develop advanced vehicle 
technologies and alternative energy sources that will significantly 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  I have long advocated advanced automotive technologies such as hybrid 
electric, advanced batteries, hydrogen and fuel cells and promoted 
development of these technologies through Federal research and 
development and through joint government-industry partnerships. We need 
a significant infusion of Federal dollars into these efforts to make 
revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technologies. Such an 
investment will make technologies such as plug-in hybrid vehicles 
affordable to the American public and reduce our dependence on oil and 
reduce prices at the pump.
  We need an equally strong investment in development of alternative 
fuels that can replace gasoline. I have strongly supported efforts to 
increase our production of renewable fuels and to do that in a way that 
will also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We need a strong push 
toward biofuels produced from cellulosic materials, which requires a 
significantly greater Federal investment in biofuels technologies. 
Cellulosic ethanol has enormous potential for significant reductions in 
greenhouse gas emissions, but additional Federal support is required to 
make this technology financially viable. We need expanded Federal 
research and development grants as well as increased tax incentives and 
Federal loan guarantees to make cellulosic ethanol a viable replacement 
for gasoline. The Federal Government must do its part first to develop 
these technologies so that they will then in turn be within reach of 
the American public.
  One more point. The burden of higher energy prices is not being 
shared equally. To the contrary, it is falling hardest upon those who 
can least afford it. Large oil companies are reaping record profits at 
the expense of the average American who ultimately bears the full 
burden of these price increases. At the same time that average 
Americans are having to devote a greater and greater portion of their 
income to pay for basic necessities, such as gasoline, household 
utilities, and food, the major oil companies are reporting record 
profits and

[[Page S5408]]

their executives are taking home annual paychecks of hundreds of 
millions of dollars. Many of these profits have been generated without 
any additional investments into energy production. Rather, these 
companies have seen their profits rise with the flood of speculation. 
What is a high tide of profits for the oil companies, though, is a 
tsunami that is overwhelming millions of Americans.
  And what are these oil companies doing with these record profits? Are 
they investing in new technologies? The answer is that the oil 
companies are not increasing their exploration and development 
investments by nearly as much as their profits are increasing. Instead, 
they are devoting large amounts of their profits to acquiring other 
companies and buying back their own shares. On May 1 of this year, the 
Wall Street Journal reported that in the first quarter of 2008 
ExxonMobil spent $8 billion to buy back company shares, which ``boosted 
per-share earnings to stratospheric levels,'' whereas it spent less on 
exploration and actually reduced oil production.
  For these reasons, we need to institute a windfall profits tax on the 
oil companies. We should incentivize big oil companies to invest their 
windfall profits into things that will increase our own domestic energy 
production by reducing the amount of the tax for such investments. If 
they don't make these investments, a portion of that profit should be 
recouped by the public to help offset the outrageous prices they are 
facing at the pump.
  I have supported a windfall profits tax numerous times when we have 
voted on it in the Senate. The Consumer-First Energy Act, imposes a 25 
percent tax on windfall profits of the major oil companies. Windfall 
profits invested to boost domestic energy supplies would be exempt from 
the tax, which would encourage investments in renewable facilities and 
the production of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. It 
would also encourage oil companies to increase their domestic refinery 
capacity. Proceeds from the tax would be put toward measures to reduce 
the burdens of rising energy costs and increase our energy independence 
and security.
  Sky-high energy prices are causing immense financial pain to working 
families and businesses throughout this country and tying our already 
weak economy in knots. Congress cannot just stand by; we must act now 
to stop the pain. Immediate steps include putting the cop on the beat 
in all of our energy markets to prevent price manipulation and 
excessive speculation, strengthening oversight of U.S. energy 
commodities traded in London, fixing the key NYMEX crude oil contract, 
investing in advanced vehicle technologies and alternative energy 
sources, and imposing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. 
Longer range steps include fixing the fiscal policies undermining the 
strength of the U.S. dollar, including by eliminating tax cuts for the 
wealthiest among us, reducing the $12 billion a month spending bill in 
Iraq, and closing outrageous tax loopholes than enable tax dodgers to 
use offshore tax havens to avoid payment of taxes in the range of $100 
billion each year.
  We can fight back against exorbitantly high energy prices. But it 
will take all our energy--and determination--to do it.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that a minority 
of Senators blocked the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, which puts 
American consumers ahead of big oil companies and other corporate 
interests.
  This bill would prevent price gouging and market manipulation from 
driving up the price of gas. The anti-price gouging language, based on 
Senator Cantwell's bill that I cosponsored, would protect consumers 
from price gouging by sellers and distributors of oil, gasoline, or 
petroleum distillates during natural disasters and abnormal market 
disruptions. As a cosponsor of the Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act, I 
also strongly support closing loopholes that allow traders using 
overseas markets to secretively bid up the price of oil and saddle 
Americans with the price at the gas pump.
  Today's vote on the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 was an 
opportunity to stand up to the OPEC cartel and force big oil to pay 
their fair share. I have long supported the efforts of the senior 
Senator from Wisconsin to make oil-producing and exporting cartels 
illegal and make colluding oil-producing nations liable in U.S. court 
for violations of antitrust law. Our oil companies can also be part of 
the solution. This bill would have encouraged them to invest in clean, 
affordable, and domestically produced renewable alternative fuels, 
expanded refinery capacity and utilization, and renewable electricity 
production.
  Last year's Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy 
Efficiency Act of 2007 put our Nation's energy policy on a new path: 
one that encourages renewable energy, conservation of the resources we 
have, and American innovation. But we have more work to do, and today's 
vote is a step back in those efforts.
  I will continue to support both short- and long-term solutions to our 
Nation's energy needs that protect American consumers while working to 
invest in renewable and alternative energies and break our addiction to 
oil.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I will speak for 5 minutes. I would appreciate it if 
you would let me know when I have 1 minute.
  Mr. President, you know this is not complicated. You would have to 
not be walking around in the United States of America to not feel 
incredible pressure at this moment. I feel so lucky to be in the 
Senate, and I feel such a responsibility to communicate the pressure we 
are all feeling from people who are hurting.

  Let me run through a few facts.
  Since 2002, profits for the five largest oil companies have 
quadrupled. Let me say that again. Since 2002, profits have quadrupled. 
Last year, ExxonMobil made $83,000 a minute in profit--$83,000 a 
minute.
  Now, are they using all this profit to invest in alternative fuels? 
How about increasing refinery capacity? Oh, no, no. They have their 
hand out to us. This is the nerve. Insanity is doing the same thing 
over and over and thinking you are going to get a different result.
  We are paying oil companies right now. This is the largest package of 
corporate welfare this country has ever delivered. What nerve does it 
take for us to give oil companies $17 billion in taxpayer money with 
those kinds of profits?
  This is like the ``twilight zone.'' This cannot be real. We cannot 
honestly be standing here and saying to the American people: It is a 
great idea for us to keep giving them your money when they are making 
$83,000 a minute.
  I was reading the paper this morning, and nothing is more expensive 
than ads in the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent to show an ad 
in the New York Times this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. OK. This is it: a two-page spread. Do you know what 
this costs you? A half a million dollars. A half a million dollars 
Exxon spent this morning. And guess what. They spent it yesterday 
morning, and they are going to spend it tomorrow morning. It is a 
series--all about what a great job they are doing for the American 
people.
  They are spending $2.5 million in the New York Times this week, while 
Missourians in rural Missouri are scared they cannot go to work 
anymore. They have no bus they can take. They have no metro they can 
take. They are trying to figure out how they can drive to and from 
work, how they can put food on the table, and these guys are spending 
$2.5 million on PR. It is unbelievable.
  We have given big oil, in 2004 and 2005, tax breaks worth over $17 
billion over the next decade. What does the other side say? We need to 
give them more. We have to pay them to increase refinery capacity. 
Excuse me? We have to pay them--the taxpayers of this country? I do not 
know how out of touch we could be. We are not asking for a lot. Just 
take away the taxpayer money. We do not begrudge people profit.
  Now, here is what is unbelievable. I do not know how this bill would 
turn out if we debated it----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That Senator has used 4 minutes.

[[Page S5409]]

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I do not know how this bill would turn out if we debated it honestly, 
but I do know one thing. We have a choice in about 5 minutes. We can do 
nothing or we can work as hard as we know how to do something. If the 
choice--if the choice--is to do nothing, then I hope the people of this 
country rise up and scream like they have never screamed before. How 
dare us do nothing.
  That is what they are about getting ready to vote on. They are going 
to say: We are not going to even let you proceed to try to do something 
about this problem. It takes a lot of nerve. It takes a lot of nerve.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank you.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri for her comments. They were right 
on.
  I rise today to call for action by the Senate on an urgent problem 
facing this country, facing the State of Montana: gas prices.
  The national average now, we just found out last weekend, is $4 a 
gallon. I remember when gas was $1.46. It was not that long ago. It was 
before the Bush administration took over. That was before the war in 
Iraq, before speculators and market manipulators spiraled out of 
control, before that $17 billion Bush tax cut for our Nation's biggest 
oil companies.
  These gas prices hurt. They especially hurt hard-working people in 
Montana and across rural America. In my State, nearly everybody has to 
drive to work. There are not other options. We do not have a subway 
system. We do not have other means of mass transit. Whether it is on a 
tractor or behind the wheel of a truck, a lot of folks rely on 
horsepower and the fuel to supply that horsepower to get their work 
done.
  Of course, high gas prices means high prices for consumer goods. It 
means fewer jobs. Middle-class families are getting pinched hard by 
these high gas prices. For low-income folks, high gas prices are 
unbearable. They do not need to see headlines like in Newsweek this 
week to know our economy is in trouble. People are already feeling it. 
Yet we have seen no solutions from this administration.
  I am not even convinced this administration considers rising gas 
prices a problem. Earlier this year, a reporter asked President Bush 
what advice he had to consumers facing $4 a gallon gas. He was visibly 
surprised and asked the reporter where he had heard that.

  Well, working folks and small businesses have felt the pain for some 
time now. Our farmers all over rural America have known it for quite a 
while. Our trucking and transportation industry has felt it hard for a 
long time. The cost of diesel fuel that powers our tractors, our 
combines, and our trucks that take food to the grocery stores hit $4 
back in April. It is closing in on $5. Every working family and small 
business and farmer and trucker is taking a hit--a big hit--on these 
fuel prices.
  That is why I am supporting these two packages today that go to the 
root of the problems of high gas costs. They offer some solutions.
  The Consumer-First Energy Act will go after commodity speculators who 
are manipulating the market. It needs to be done. It will let the 
Justice Department go after the illegal OPEC oil cartel in court. It 
needs to be done. It will put a stop to the big tax giveaways the last 
Congress gave to big oil, which needs to be done. It will protect 
consumers from price colluders and price gougers. This needs to be 
done.
  This bill will immediately put a stop to the financial gimmicks that 
have driven up the cost of oil past the laws of supply and demand. If 
you do not think speculators are playing with the markets, and they are 
having a big impact, let me remind you of the Enron collapse, the dot-
com bust, and the demise of the housing market. It is all happening in 
oil right now.
  When Wall Street investment banks faced trouble a couple months ago, 
the Bush administration swiftly took action. But when American 
consumers have to tap into their savings or run up their credit card 
debt just to pay the price at the pump, the administration is nowhere 
to be seen.
  The Consumer-First Energy Act is about solutions. They are solutions 
we need to invest in right now. We have the opportunity in the United 
States to drill for oil in places that make sense--eastern Montana, the 
western Dakotas, the Bakken field. And wouldn't you know, it is the 
smaller companies--not the big companies--that are going after those 
reserves. It is the smaller companies innovating, investing in the 
future, boosting domestic oil production right now, working with the 
folks in those regions, boosting rural economies.
  My colleague, Senator Baucus, has again brought forward an energy tax 
package that will help extend some of the most successful and effective 
tax credits that are driving alternative energy development. He brought 
a similar package forward last year, only to have it narrowly defeated.
  I hope we have a different outcome this time because our future 
energy system depends on new solutions, not old solutions. We have the 
ideas and the ambition, but we need to get on with new innovations in 
the marketplace.
  It is time to resolve these energy costs and take a step toward 
solving our energy problems. We have to work together, and I am 
confident we can work together to find solutions to bring the costs 
back down.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  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 motion to 
     proceed to S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008.
         Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Patty Murray, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Benjamin L. Cardin, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack 
           Reed, Claire McCaskill, Christopher J. Dodd, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Patrick J. Leahy, Barbara A. Mikulski, Frank 
           R. Lautenberg, Carl Levin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) 
are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

[[Page S5410]]



                             NOT VOTING--6

     Byrd
     Clinton
     Graham
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the 
nays are 43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 3044.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is pending.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, because the subway was broken, it made it 
difficult for some Senators to make it here in time. We had to extend 
the vote for quite a long period of time.
  I have spoken to the Republican leader. I think we would be well 
served by having the vote on the next cloture motion. We will vote only 
on one of the judges now. We will come back after lunch and do the 
others. I will work the time out with the Republican leader. Hopefully, 
the first business we will conduct will be the votes on the other two 
district court judges. We won't have time to do them this morning. I 
will work with the Republican leader and we will come up with a time 
and give everybody ample notice about when the next vote will occur.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have the vote on the first judge, the 
judge from Virginia, now, and that we then have the vote on the two 
subsequent judges at a time to be determined by the majority leader in 
consultation with the Republican leader.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________