[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 10, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5418-S5431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the debate 
time on the motion to proceed to S. 3044 be divided in blocks of 30 
minutes for the next 2 hours, with the majority controlling the first 
30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the next 30 minutes, and so 
on; that at the expiration of the 2 hours debate time be limited to 10 
minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Renewable Energy and Jobs Creation Act

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my strong support 
to the Renewable Energy and Jobs Creation Act. I wish to applaud the 
incredibly hard work that was put into this package by the Finance 
Committee and particularly Chairman Baucus. I also wish to congratulate 
our counterparts in the House Ways and Means Committee for their 
efforts in putting together this important piece of legislation.
  I am so very disappointed--as we tried early this morning--that our 
friends on the other side of the aisle chose to block progress on this 
bill. It would have provided much needed tax relief to individual 
taxpayers and to businesses alike. I don't know about other Senators, 
but when I travel home people look to me and say: What are you doing to 
help us with this economy? We are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline to 
get to our jobs, to get to school, to get to all of the things we need 
to tend to. We are concerned about the jobs we have lost in our State. 
We are concerned about the increase in unemployment. We have to do 
something about this economy. We have to do something about stimulating 
the economy of our country to grow on behalf of all of the millions of 
Americans out there who need us to help them.
  This bill on which we were trying to proceed this morning could have 
done just that. It could have provided just the stimulus we needed to 
jump-start our economy. It would have been a good start. I think it is 
particularly frustrating not to be able to move on it in light of all 
of our current economic downturns. Taxpayers need this relief and they 
need it right now. We need to provide them every opportunity to keep 
this economy turning.
  One of the things I think that comes from our businesses and 
individuals across my State--and certainly across this country--is the 
concern of the unknown. We try to create in our Tax Code the types of 
incentives that will incentivize different cultural activities, such as 
the purchasing of a home and home ownership, but we also want to 
incentivize businesses to be able to grow and be competitive. If they 
don't know they are going to have that same tax treatment for more than 
6 months, or in 6 months it is going to expire, how are they going to 
be able to make the reasonable business decisions to take the capital, 
which right now is very hard to come by, and invest in certain areas of 
their industry, to grow those jobs, and to grow those businesses that 
are out there in this great country?
  This package would have done just that. It provides businesses that 
make investments in research and development with a tax credit. We are 
falling behind every year. Other countries across the globe are working 
hard to provide the kind of research and development they need to move 
into new industries for multiple reasons: job creation, obviously, as 
well as our environment. Look at nations, such as Brazil, which have 
lessened their dependence on foreign oil from 80 percent to 11 percent. 
They have invested in research. They have invested in developing 
renewable fuels. We have to do that too. This is the bill that would 
have started us moving on that pathway to investing in companies that 
cannot only provide us the good types of industries that would help us 
clean our environment but would have created the jobs that would have 
made the difference.
  It also encourages infrastructure investment. One of the ways it does 
that is through the extension of the short-line rail credit which 
provides an incentive for the maintenance and expansion of our short 
line rail systems. When you come from a rural State as I do--we are 
very fortunate to have the major lines that come through our State to 
reach out to all of those small communities where we desperately need 
to create jobs--we need those short line rails that can connect to the 
major main line rails to take our goods and our services all across 
this great country into the ports that will take it to other countries 
with which we can compete. We need to give them the incentive to invest 
in themselves.
  In talking to one of my short line rails, they said to me: You 
wouldn't believe the number of jobs we could create, the investment we 
could make, if we just simply knew that Congress was supporting us, 
that they are going to help us with that incentive we have had in the 
past and we want to continue.
  The unknown is very frightening to businesses in this world we live 
in and in the economic times in which we are living. The margins right 
now are so slim, limiting their ability to compete with other modes of 
transportation, but without a doubt they can provide a service to 
industries that are competing with industries across the globe.
  This bill would have kept jobs at home through incentives to 
encourage domestic production of films, as one particular example. We 
are seeing our films being sent overseas and offshore because other 
countries are offering greater incentives. When you look at rural 
America, one of the strongest ways--and the quickest ways too--to see 
the investment and the revitalization of these small communities and 
their little downtown Main Streets is when somebody comes in to produce 
a film. They come in to produce a film, and they put a good picture on 
redoing that Main Street area. They bring in jobs; not only jobs with 
filmmaking, but they also come and eat in our cafes, and they use the 
shops and the other amenities that are there, keeping businesses at 
home.
  But we can't do that if those film companies don't know that they are 
going to get good treatment, at least as good as they get in other 
countries. They have a bottom line to meet too. They take their film 
crews and all the dollars they are spending in making those films, and 
they go into other countries. We need to keep them at home. Those are 
good jobs for electricians and contractors, plumbers, and a whole host 
of other people.
  I have a retired man at home, and they did a film--a made-for-TV 
movie--in my former Congressional District on the eastern side of my 
State, and he had two antique cars. You wouldn't have believed the 
difference it made in his life to be able to rent those two cars, those 
two antique cars to be featured in a vintage film and what it meant to 
his pocketbook as well.
  The bill we have been trying to bring forward and were prevented this 
morning from bringing forward allows our financial services businesses 
to remain competitive globally through the extension of the subpart F 
exceptions for the active financing income. It provides access to 
capital to our communities that need it the most--our rural and low-
income communities--through an extension of the new market tax credit, 
enabling our businesses to be viable overseas, and also making sure 
that the new and innovative businesses we want to see in our small and 
rural communities can actually happen, that they can be a part of this 
global community, and that they will have the same kind of advantages 
that other industries and other businesses in bigger parts of our 
Nation may have. All of these provisions provide a huge benefit to our 
American businesses and would most definitely help to stimulate our 
slowing economy.
  In addition, the bill we were trying to bring up this morning 
provides very important relief for individual taxpayers. It includes 
tax cuts for college students, their families, and our teachers. With 
twin boys who are finishing

[[Page S5419]]

the sixth grade and starting the seventh grade, right now in my mind I 
have a tremendous appreciation for our teachers and what they give day 
in and day out, being able to offer them the opportunity of a Tax Code 
that is going to reward them for this incredible job they do.
  I ask my colleagues--just as was my experience in the public schools 
of Arkansas--to look back and think of those wonderful teachers who 
have affected their lives. There are great teachers out there right 
now, and they need us because it is an institution and a business that, 
unfortunately, we are not seeing enough. We are hitting a brick wall. 
We are seeing more teachers who are retiring than we are seeing new 
teachers. What a great way for us in this country to show how much we 
believe in those teachers.
  It includes an incentive for our senior citizens who want to take 
part in charitable giving. That is the IRA rollover. Every week I get a 
call in my office from the same gentleman. He took advantage of the IRA 
rollover to be able to give to his church. Every Sunday morning he goes 
to his Sunday school and talks to the people in his Sunday school class 
about this great opportunity of being able to give through these IRA 
rollovers. Well, all of his friends in his Sunday school class want to 
know if this is going to be the law. Can we do this? Should we do this? 
Is this something that is going to continue?
  We can't even tell them that. We are being held back from doing so 
many productive things that would encourage not only individual 
involvement in being able to generate our economy and put the emphasis 
back on our economy from individuals, but also our businesses who need 
our help.
  The bill also includes an AMT patch to ensure more middle-income 
taxpayers aren't going to be hit by the AMT this year.
  It also has tremendous incentives for green jobs that we can grow in 
this country and looking at renewable fuels and all the many things we 
can do with those renewable fuels but also things such as wind--and we 
have had tremendous tornadoes in Arkansas--and wind mills, and energy 
from wind is not something we are really noted for doing. Our 
topography is not necessarily meant for that, like some other States. 
But we produce the blades for the windmills. That is hundreds of jobs 
in my State. Let me tell you, do you think those industries are going 
to want to continue to make the capital investment in the manufacturing 
of something that may or may not be used, because those other 
industries that are building and making that energy from wind don't 
know if they can depend on the tax credit--a tax incentive in the code 
that encourages the behavior of moving to a renewable energy source?
  Mr. President, we have to move forward. We cannot keep standing here 
fighting and bickering over whether we are going to proceed to talk 
about these things. We have to move forward and talk about them.
  Most important is an issue I have worked on for years which includes 
a provision very near and dear to my heart, and that is a patch to the 
refundable child tax credit, to ensure that thousands of hard-working 
low-
income families aren't locked out of this credit. I wish to take a few 
minutes to explain the child tax credit provision, which I have worked 
on with my good friend and colleague, Olympia Snowe.
  As some colleagues may be aware, to be eligible for the refundable 
child tax credit, working families must meet an income threshold. If 
they don't earn enough, they don't qualify for the credit. The problem 
is, some of our working parents are working full time, but they still 
don't earn enough to meet the current income threshold to qualify for 
this tax credit, much less to receive a meaningful refund from it.
  When first enacted, the income threshold for the refundable child tax 
credit was set at $10,000. The threshold is indexed for inflation and 
thus has increased every year. For 2008, it is going to be $12,050. 
Unfortunately, as many of us are aware, wages are not increasing at 
that same pace. For example, a single mother who earns the current 
minimum wage and works a 35-hour-a-week job, 50 weeks out of the year, 
fails to qualify for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. 
Even after the minimum wage increases next month, that mother still 
will not meet the income threshold.
  That is what we want to encourage. We want to encourage people to 
work, to be able to change the cycle of poverty that exists for welfare 
today. We want to make sure individuals are encouraged to go to work, 
so that they can still take care of their children. Our children are 
our greatest resource. Why would parents who want to care for their 
kids not want to incentivize that.
  It is absolutely wrong to provide this credit to some hard-working 
Americans while leaving others behind. The single working parent who is 
stocking shelves in a local grocery score is every bit as deserving as 
the teacher, accountant, or insurance salesman who qualifies for the 
credit in its current form. It is imperative that we address this 
inequity, and we must ensure our Tax Code works for all Americans, 
especially those working parents who are forced to get by on minimum 
wage.
  I am extremely frustrated that our friends across the aisle chose to 
block action on this bill. I hope that we will reconsider this 
position, that we will look at the important value in all of these 
pieces of this legislation, and that we will come back again and go 
back to the drawing board and figure out how we can make this bill a 
reality.
  Again, I applaud our committee chairman for putting this package 
together and trying to move it through the Senate in a timely fashion. 
There is absolutely no reason we should not see this package. It is a 
commonsense package. It makes sense for everybody concerned. We owe it 
to our American businesses that are trying to remain competitive. We 
owe it to our teachers, students, and the families paying college 
tuition. We owe it to our communities that are desperately in need of 
infrastructure and jobs. We owe it to our working families with 
children. No one should stand in the way of this package that truly 
will bring relief to so many Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak today--as many of us have 
been doing--not just about the high price of gasoline but all of the 
pressures on American families that come with that. When I say 
``families,'' I mean in the broadest sense of the word. The Presiding 
Officer has advocated on behalf of people who are suffering under the 
weight of high gasoline prices. He has been an articulate and forceful 
advocate for action. We are finally at the point where we are at least 
debating the action we should be taking.
  I wanted to talk about prices. When the average American family goes 
to the grocery store or they go to fill up their tank or they try to 
pay for college or health care--just fill in the blank--it seems as if 
everything in their lives is going up when their wages are flattening 
out or sometimes actually going down. The price of everything is going 
through the roof, and at the same time we have record job losses. I 
don't know the exact number to date, but we have had tens of thousands 
every month, month after month after month. Some believe the most 
recent monthly job loss number is a record. But even if it is not a 
record or if we are off by a couple thousand, it is still far too high.
  In Pennsylvania, this is not just a problem in inner cities where a 
lot of people's incomes are low; this is a problem across a State such 
as Pennsylvania. We have a State that has some large cities and bigger 
communities population-wise, but we have a very rural State. We have 
millions of people in Pennsylvania who live in so-called rural areas by 
the demographics. They have to travel great distances to get to the 
grocery store or to make transactions for business or to get their 
families to where they have to go. So gas prices, in some ways, 
disproportionately adversely affect those who live in rural areas or in 
small towns.
  In Pennsylvania, we have--more than maybe any other State and 
sometimes as many States as you can talk about combined--a lot of two-
lane roads. So the distance between one place and another isn't just 
the mileage but it is the roads you take. On a two-lane road, you 
cannot go as fast, and that adds to the difficulty and the reality of 
gas prices.

[[Page S5420]]

  We also have a State that has a tremendous agricultural economy. All 
of those costs--the cost of energy and the cost of transportation and 
distribution--are going up for our farm families.
  While all this is happening--and we know there are no easy 
solutions--we also see that, lo and behold, the big oil companies--in 
the last 5 years, the profits of the five largest oil companies--in 
2002, the profits of the five largest oil companies was a measly $29 
billion. Last year, 2007, big oil had profits of $124 billion. So it 
went from $29 billion to $124 billion in just 5 years. I think there 
are very few, if any, American families--especially middle and lower 
income families--who are under the weight of these costs I just talked 
about who have had their incomes go up three, four, or five times.
  The reality is that big oil has gotten too much. Over and over again, 
their profits are going through the roof. This Government gave them tax 
breaks a couple of years ago to the tune of $17 billion. So just at the 
time when their profits were taking off in a record way, this 
Government gave them, back in 2004 and 2005, $17 billion in breaks. We 
have talked about taking away those breaks and allowing us as a 
government, as a family, to be able to say there is another part of the 
family over here that is hurting and we want to help them. I will do it 
very briefly in terms of our approach.

  Basically, what Democrats have tried to do is to say: Look, we don't 
have to pretend we are helpless and sit back and say there is nothing 
we can do. We don't have a magic wand and there is no easy solution, 
but the idea of doing nothing and saying it is OK for oil companies to 
get these profits at a time when we could use that revenue for 
something else is ridiculous. Everybody out there knows it. They know, 
for example, that we can say we should have an excess profits tax. That 
makes sense. Now, if a big oil company comes in the door and says: You 
know what, we are going to do our best to reduce our country's 
dependence on foreign oil, we are going to be more efficient and put 
more into research and development and do the right thing for the 
American consumers, we are going to say: OK, then maybe your excess 
profits tax--the hit against an oil company--is not going to be as 
high. That is reasonable.
  At the same time, a lot of people know that a high percentage of the 
increase in the price of a barrel of oil is from speculation by people 
on Wall Street who have money, power, influence, and the ability to get 
information like that and make a huge financial profit. We should crack 
down on speculation. We can do that. The Federal Government can do 
that. We should give the Federal Government the authority to do that. 
We should give the President--any President--the authority to crack 
down on price gouging.
  So there is much we can do. Listening to the other side of the aisle, 
their solution is that we can drill our way out of that situation. 
Nobody believes that. There is no evidence that we can drill our way 
out of this. If anything, that keeps us dependent on oil--not just 
foreign oil.
  I think this idea that we sit back and do nothing is really not 
worthy of a long argument. We have to end our addiction to oil. We have 
to take specific, targeted steps to not just reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil but to provide equity here for the American families.
  I believe a lot of the solutions Democrats have talked about have 
been very practical--an excess profits tax, taking away those 
tremendous billions in breaks oil companies have had, and also getting 
tough on the speculators, the people making a lot of money in the 
market, is another very practical way. Democrats have offered a 
practical set of solutions. We are waiting for the other side to come 
up with their solution to the pressure felt by the American family.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to come to the Senate floor 
and join my colleagues in talking about the unfortunate votes that were 
cast this morning--one to go ahead and consider legislation to try to 
deal with the price of gasoline. That was the first vote where, 
unfortunately, we rejected the effort to proceed to that bill. The 
majority of Republican Members chose not to proceed to that bill, which 
was unfortunate. The second vote was to proceed to a bill that has the 
effect of extending the provisions that are currently in the Tax Code 
and particularly to extend tax provisions that are intended to 
encourage clean energy development. I wish to talk about that second 
bill in particular because it is one I have been involved in and have 
followed and supported for some time now.
  The incentives we have in current law to encourage alternative energy 
development--wind energy, wind energy farms, wind turbine farms, solar 
energy developments in this country--most of those incentives were put 
into place in the current form in 2005 when we passed the Energy bill. 
There was great fanfare and rejoicing when we passed that. The 
President signed that bill in my home State of New Mexico, in 
Albuquerque. He rightfully took credit for the fact that this was being 
enacted, and he talked about the importance of these energy tax 
provisions.
  I did not realize when we did that in 2005 that it was the 
administration's intent to allow those tax provisions to expire at the 
end of 2008. I thought the idea was that we would keep those in place 
long enough that we would provide incentives for people to pursue these 
alternative options.
  We have now tried three times in this Congress to extend those energy 
tax provisions, and we have failed three times. So I rise to express 
deep disappointment and frustration with that vote. The implications of 
the vote are profound if we cannot persuade our colleagues to change 
their position. Clearly, if it is going to be our national policy that 
we are not extending these tax provisions, then we are going to suffer 
environmental consequences from continued reliance on power generated 
from fossil fuels; our efforts to reduce America's dependence on 
foreign oil will be cut short; our ability to create high-paying green 
jobs in these new energy sectors will come to nought; and our effort to 
promote research and development in these new industries will certainly 
not materialize. It is a sad day for us in the Senate; we are not able 
to move ahead and do this.
  The first time this issue came up, the first time we tried to extend 
these tax provisions, the argument was that the offsets are the 
problem; you folks are trying to reduce the tax benefits enjoyed by the 
oil and gas industry in order to provide revenue to pay for these 
alternative energy tax provisions, and that is the objectionable part.
  I did not agree with that argument. I voted to extend the alternative 
energy tax provisions and pay for it in that way, but I think the House 
of Representatives has heard that message and the House of 
Representatives has now sent us a bill, which is the bill we were 
trying to proceed to today, which does not try to pay for these 
extensions of alternative energy tax provisions by reducing tax 
benefits for the oil and gas industry. It leaves the oil and gas 
industry alone, and it finds some alternative ways to make up that lost 
revenue. The alternatives are ones which, to my mind, are very 
meritorious.
  Of course, under our rules in the Senate that we have adopted in the 
Congress, we have to find a way to make up the revenue being lost. That 
is why we are pushing to do so, and it is the responsible thing to do. 
The alternative, of course, is to borrow more money from our friends 
overseas, to run up the deficit and let our grandchildren worry about 
it at some point down the road. That is not a responsible course.
  One of the bill's offsets that we were trying to proceed to today 
would delay a tax benefit known as the worldwide interest allocation. 
That is a tax benefit that has not gone into effect. We would delay the 
effective date of it, again, for some period. There are a lot of 
corporations that have indicated to us they would support going ahead 
and delaying that benefit. This is not a tax increase from current law; 
this is keeping current law where it is.

[[Page S5421]]

  The other offset would be to close a loophole that enables hedge fund 
managers to defer compensation by investing wages in offshore 
investment funds. This proposal would end that deferral, would require 
the hedge fund managers recognize the compensation that they receive as 
income when it is paid. This proposal does not increase taxes; it 
simply changes the timing of tax liabilities.
  Describing this loophole, the New York Times says:

       Many hedge fund managers are enjoying not only 
     extraordinary profits, but the extra benefit of a system 
     almost encouraging them to set up offshore accounts.

  What we were trying to do in this legislation is to say let's not 
encourage them to set up offshore accounts by giving them tax 
incentives to do so. That is a reasonable position, and it is one that 
we should definitely be enacting into law. I know 44 Members of this 
Chamber voted ``no'' in our effort to proceed to consider this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I do not see additional colleagues 
here. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate it. As I said, 44 Members of the Senate 
voted not to proceed to consider this bill and instead, I gather, to 
protect a handful of hedge fund managers from having to pay the normal 
tax that ought to be levied on each American when they get compensated.
  Clearly, I think we have lost sight of our priorities. I know this is 
an election year. I know there are powerful special interests that are 
always saying just vote no, always resist whatever is proposed. The 
simple fact is, if we are going to turn the page, if we are going to 
turn the corner on our future energy needs, we are going to have to 
move ahead and put in place some policies that will encourage 
alternative energy development. We have fallen short in doing that now 
three times in this Congress. I hope we do not continue to fall short. 
I urge my colleagues to reconsider this, and I hope the majority leader 
will find a way to bring this issue back to the full Senate, even this 
week, if possible, so we can get a positive vote to proceed with this 
legislation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I rise today to warn the American 
people. There is a Trojan horse riding across our country and onto the 
Senate floor. Its creators want everyone to believe that their climate 
tax proposal will clean the planet while causing minimum impact on our 
lives. They want us to believe that everyone will live happily ever 
after. However, this is not a legend or a fairy tale. Hiding inside 
this Trojan horse is a monster of a tax increase to pay for the largest 
expansion of the Federal Government since FDR's New Deal.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this 
proposal will cost the American taxpayer $1.2 trillion dollars in taxes 
over just the first 10 years of this bill. And that tax bill is only 
expected to rise with time. With the hefty price tag and a huge 
expansion of bureaucracy, the legislation actually does very little, if 
anything, to improve the environment. The American people cannot afford 
to pay for this reckless attempt at energy policy. Instead, we should 
let American ingenuity lead the way toward exploration of American 
energy, expansion of renewable energy, and increased conservation.
  This Climate Tax bill imposes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that 
can be released into the environment by certain businesses, and this 
cap will gradually reduce every year until 2050. The bill creates 
allowances that gives companies the right to emit specific amounts of 
these greenhouse gases.
  Some of the allowances will be distributed for free to various 
entities. The rest of the allowances will be auctioned to the highest 
bidder. These allowances can then be sold, traded, or transferred. The 
cost incurred by businesses to obtain these allowances will be passed 
on to consumers, hitting low-income households the hardest. But before 
we talk about the revenue windfall for the Government and about the 
people celebrating this legislation, let's discuss the victims.
  First and foremost, this Climate Tax bill will cost our economy and 
our working families greatly. Restricting carbon dioxide emissions 
drives our energy supply down. Just as the bill hopes to do, the price 
of energy would increase. With gasoline prices already over 4 dollars a 
gallon and predicted to continue rising, we will all be hurting.
  According to the EPA, this bill will increase the price of gas by at 
least 53 cents a gallon. 53 cents. In my home State of Nevada, this 
would translate currently into about $4.68 a gallon at today's average 
price for regular gasoline. And gas prices aren't the only thing that 
will go up. Electricity bills will increase by 44 percent or more.
  And the cost to our overall economy would be devastating. By 2030, 
the annual loss to the United States' gross domestic product could 
reach nearly a trillion dollars. The proposal is called America's 
Climate Security Act, but with millions of jobs being destroyed because 
of this bill, not many Americans are going to be feeling secure. Many 
of the jobs lost are going to be in the manufacturing and mining 
industries that support so many of our smaller and rural communities. 
These valuable jobs will be forced to move overseas to countries like 
China and India, where companies will continue to emit greenhouse gases 
freely and without constraint. In case you haven't noticed, we all 
occupy the same big greenhouse--the planet Earth. So Americans lose 
their jobs, but our air on our planet is still polluted.
  In fact, this bill makes such a minor impact on the worldwide 
greenhouse gas emissions that any reduction in the United States is 
swallowed up by the uncontrolled and rapidly growing emissions of 
China, India, and other developing nations.
  If emissions continue to increase in these countries, the problems 
resulting from the global warming predicted by many scientists may 
still occur.
  It just does not make sense for us to dramatically restrict our 
greenhouse gas emissions if China and India do not do the same.
  If this bill isn't good for our families, our economy, our workers or 
our environment, who is it good for? The special interests and 
Washington lobbyists. By auctioning off carbon emission allowances and 
giving away even more for free, there will be more than $6 trillion 
dollars worth of allowances and offsets and funds to dole out to a 
hungry and a fierce pack of special interests. It's being called 
``environmental pork,'' and the wolves are going to be ready to pounce. 
Hundreds of billions of dollars of that pork won't even stay here in 
America. Instead, it will be given away to foreign governments and 
companies.
  So do we stand by as the proponents trot around this plan that means 
new taxes, higher gas prices, higher electricity bills, and more 
bureaucracy? In fact, the only thing this proposal reduces are the jobs 
of hard-working Americans and our standard of living.
  Now, don't get me wrong, we absolutely need comprehensive energy 
reform. Americans are hurting at the pump and their budgets are being 
busted by rising cooling and heating bills. As a Nation, we are too 
dependent on Middle Eastern oil--a resource that is too often in the 
hands of brutal dictatorships.
  But as is often the case in our Nation's history, we must look 
forward to a policy that unleashes the innovative spirit of Americans, 
takes a commonsense approach to our challenges, and rallies everyone to 
the cause.
  We do this by encouraging conservation, efficiency, and renewable 
energy expansion through incentives, not by imposing unworkable 
mandates and impossible timelines.
  As we spend time debating this legislation today, crucial tax credits 
that encourage innovation in solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, and 
other alternative energy technologies are scheduled to expire. 
America's energy security needs those tax credits, and Congress should 
act to extend them immediately without offsets. The Senate

[[Page S5422]]

took an important step toward that objective by voting 88 to 8--to 
include the bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, which I sponsored 
as part of the Senate-passed housing bill. Now the House must act so we 
can send a bill to the President that can be signed into law as soon as 
possible.
  With exciting energy technology on the horizon, we can't afford to 
let these tax credits expire. In Nevada, some innovative projects have 
already begun harnessing the power of the Sun and to provide energy to 
our residents.
  Nevada Solar One in Boulder City is one of the largest capacity solar 
plants built in the world and generates enough electricity to power at 
least 14,000 households a year.
  Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas has the Nation's biggest 
photovoltaic solar power system, which supplies 30 percent of the 
energy needs at that base.
  Henderson has Nevada's first solar home community, where each home 
has a rooftop solar electric system that generates 4,400 kilowatts 
hours per year. And late last year, Ausra, Inc., selected Las Vegas as 
the site of the first U.S. manufacturing plant for solar thermal power 
systems.
  The world's largest geothermal power producer is headquartered in 
Reno.
  And Nevada is home to the only associate degree program in the Nation 
in energy efficiency.
  This is the innovative spirit that has powered American progress for 
centuries and will continue to drive us toward energy security for the 
21st century and beyond. Renewable energy is a large part of that 
security, and my renewable energy bill encourages further investment in 
all these technological advances.
  I believe that energy efficiency is the key to increasing 
conservation of our nation's energy resources. For this reason, my 
bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act contains a number of 
meaningful incentives to put us on the path to greater energy 
efficiency and independence. My bill encourages Americans to make 
energy efficiency improvements to their homes and businesses. This bill 
also encourages appliance manufacturers to produce more energy-
efficient appliances.
  But we also need to grow America's energy supply so that our economy 
and our wallets are not in the hands of unpredictable and unyielding 
hostile nations. What can we do? We can open a new frontier in American 
energy. I'm talking about responsible exploration in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, recoverable oil in deep-sea 
resources, opportunities with oil shale, a new era of nuclear energy, 
and a push toward clean coal.
  I know these projects are controversial. When I first started 
considering exploration of ANWR, I had serious concerns. Proponents and 
opponents have been very vocal on this issue. I sought out neutral 
information so that I could make an informed decision. When you really 
get to the bottom of the debate over ANWR, you learn a few things.
  Exploration of ANWR, which would not impact habitat and wildlife, 
would be limited to a tiny area, roughly the size of a postage stamp on 
a football field. With such a limited environmental impact, the benefit 
would be great. ANWR could generate more than 10 billion barrels of 
oil, enough to replace decades' worth of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. 
ANWR alone could save the United States $40 billion dollars annually in 
money now spent buying oil from overseas. It would also create hundreds 
of thousands of jobs. Thirteen years ago, President Clinton vetoed 
legislation that would have opened ANWR for exploration. If he had 
signed it into law instead, 1 million barrels of domestic oil would be 
flowing into the United States every single day.

  This is American oil that would create American jobs. I'd say that is 
a much better investment than filling the coffers of countries that 
despise America and use our money to further that hate.
  And we can access more American energy through deep-sea exploration 
in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This doesn't mean we set up oil 
rigs on our beaches and our shores. Development would take place at 
least 50 miles offshore, well beyond the visibility from land and at 
the discretion of coastal State Governors. Again, with very limited 
environmental impact, the benefit would be great.
  There are about 8\1/2\ billion barrels of recoverable oil and 29.3 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas available through such deep-sea 
exploration.
  Oil shale is another promising supply of American energy that could 
make us more self-reliant and less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Oil 
shale can be mined and processed to generate oil. By far the largest 
deposits of oil shale in the world are found in the United States in 
the Green River Formation, which includes portions of Colorado, Utah, 
and Wyoming. If we estimate there are about 1.8 trillion barrels of oil 
from oil shale in the Green River Formation, it is three times greater 
than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It is also important to 
note that more than 70 percent of oil shale acreage in the Green River 
Formation is under federally owned land. Another positive attribute of 
oil shale resources.
  America has more than a 230-year supply also of coal. Making us the 
Saudi Arabia of coal. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore this 
valuable resource that is abundant and affordable. With the progress 
being made in clean coal technology, we need coal to balance our energy 
portfolio and make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
  Another energy supply that we can take advantage of right here on 
American soil is nuclear energy. America was once the leader in this 
technology, but we are so far behind today that if we don't make 
drastic changes in our policy, we may never catch up.
  Nuclear energy is clean and safe. It causes no air pollution, no 
water pollution, and no ground pollution. Nuclear energy in the United 
States has never caused a single injury or death. Unfortunately, only 
20 percent of our electricity is coming from nuclear reactors. Doesn't 
make a whole lot of sense, does it?
  We have several challenges when it comes to nuclear energy. President 
Carter outlawed nuclear recycling back in 1977. Another terrible blow 
came with the requirement that all radioactive byproducts be disposed 
of in a nuclear waste repository. Today, Britain, France, and Russia 
are recycling their nuclear waste, negating the need for a 
controversial repository, like Yucca Mountain. France has actually used 
nuclear power to produce 80 percent of its electricity for the last 25 
years. France also manages to store all its high-level nuclear waste in 
a single room.
  On the other hand, lawmakers in the United States have been throwing 
billions of dollars at a mountain in Nevada that is unsafe and unfit 
for nuclear waste storage. And why on Earth would we bury material that 
could be recycled into more energy? I also believe we must create 
incentives for the private sector to tackle the challenge of spent fuel 
storage. We know that Yucca mountain is not an option. For this reason, 
I plan to introduce a bill to establish monetary prizes for 
achievements in the research, development, demonstration, and 
commercial application of spent fuel storage alternatives. In the past, 
prized competitions have been very effective ways of encouraging 
creative solutions to address difficult technological challenges.
  Technology has led to tremendous progress when it comes to nuclear 
energy, coal, and many other energy fronts. As ranking member of the 
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and 
Innovation, I have had the opportunity to delve into the latest 
advances, and they are exciting. I can tell you technology and 
innovation will be keys to overcoming our energy challenges into the 
future. No other single road--renewable energy, conservation, domestic 
supply--can get us there. But technology, together with these American 
energy resources, will help lift us from the control of unconscionable 
nations.
  These are the answers to our energy challenges, not some ill-
conceived fantasy legislation called America's Climate Security Act, 
that will only drive us into greater energy insecurity. We can, 
however, learn from history and if we open this Trojan horse, we 
shouldn't be surprised to be engulfed by hidden tax hikes, $5 dollar-a-
gallon gasoline, and an army of new Washington bureaucrats.

[[Page S5423]]

  Instead, let us put our resources into American ingenuity. The 
innovation that has always come out of our inventors, scientists, and 
entrepreneurs will fuel our quest for energy security in the 21st 
century.
  Ronald Reagan once said:

       Preservation of our environment is not liberal or 
     conservative challenge, it's common sense.

  We need to come together to address this issue because it impacts 
every facet of our lives. I know that we can be champions of a 
commonsense energy policy that is environmentally responsible as well 
as economically responsible. Let's not look back on another 13 years 
and wish we had acted today. The price for inaction is clearly too 
steep.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding we have the floor 
until 4:36, if I am correct, which means I would not have time to make 
a presentation I wish to make on the bill that was pending, the one 
that we, fortunately, voted against cloture on earlier today. But let 
me make a couple comments, since I would not have time to do that.
  First of all, I believe strongly that something wonderful happened 
last Friday. We have been fighting this battle for so long. People have 
been saying manmade gases--anthropogenic gases, CO2, and 
methane--were the major causes of climate change. I have to say, I 
believed that back 7 years ago, when I became chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. At that time we found out how 
much it would cost if we were to ratify the Kyoto treaty and live by 
its requirements. Fortunately, that amount we did not ratify.

  As time went by, I noticed in 2005 we had the McCain-Lieberman bill, 
also a cap-and-trade bill, which also tried to pin the problem on 
manmade gases--CO2. I remember standing down here on the 
floor and some of the proponents of the bill were down here. In 5 days, 
only two Republicans from the Senate came down and joined me in this 
fight. It was lonely for 5 days. We explained to people, No. 1, the 
science wasn't there; and, No. 2, the cost to the average American 
would be comparable to a $330 billion tax increase.
  Then I went back and looked at the tax increase of 1993. It was 
called the Clinton-Gore tax increase that was, at that time, the 
largest tax increase in the last 20 years. That was only $32 billion, 
so this would have been 10 times greater than that tax increase.
  Then of course we came up with the bill in 2005. After 5 days we 
defeated it, but only two Republicans came down and joined me. I am so 
gratified that last week when we defeated the Lieberman-Warner bill, 25 
Members came down and showed that they were not afraid to stand and 
tell the truth about the causes of global warming--the accusation of 
global warming, because global warming has not been taking place now 
since 2001. It never took place in the southern hemisphere. Last time I 
checked, that was part of the globe.
  The problem was that no one would come down, but last week they came 
down, 25, and we defeated it. That would not have been comparable to an 
annual tax increase or cost to the public of $330 billion, as the Kyoto 
treaty would have, it would have been some $471 billion--a huge tax 
increase. But we did in our wisdom reject that. I feel very good about 
that.
  There is something that has not been said that I think is necessary 
to talk about and that is we knew this was coming. The Senator from 
Nevada, Senator Ensign, talked about President Clinton's veto of the 
ANWR opening, the bill that was in December of 1995. What he didn't say 
was that we had voted in both October and November of 1995. The Senate 
voted to implement a competitive leasing program for oil and gas 
exploration and the development and production within the coastal plain 
of ANWR. That was actually passed. It was passed again on November 17, 
1995. I will always remember that date because that is my birthday. It 
was voted on. Then of course a month later the President vetoed it.
  Right down on party lines, in both November and in October of 1995, 
the Democrats voted against it, the Republicans all voted for it. 
Republicans want to increase the supply of energy in America. Those 
were three votes that show it. Again, in 2005--fast forward 10 more 
years: on March 16, 2005, the Senate voted on an amendment to the 
budget to strike expanding exploration on ANWR. The amendment to strike 
failed, 49 to 51. All the Republicans voted for the exploration, all 
Democrats voted against it.
  Again, on November 3, 2005, 7 or 8 months later, the Senate voted on 
an amendment to prohibit oil and gas leasing on the coastal plain. The 
amendment failed 48 to 51; 48 Republicans voted against it and 40 
Democrats voted for it.
  June 2007--2 years later--the Senate voted on the Gas Price Act as an 
amendment. That was mine. You could have all the exploration you want, 
all the oil and gas you want, but if you cannot refine it, you are not 
going to be able to use it, so the Gas Price Act, I thought, was pretty 
ingenious. What we did was take those ailing communities that were 
adjacent to military communities, military bases that had been shut 
down by the BRAC process, the Base Realignment and Closing process, and 
would allow them to change that vacated area into refineries. It would 
save a lot of money because the Federal Government wouldn't have to 
clean them up to the standards of playgrounds; they could just be to 
the standards of refineries. It also provided that the Economic 
Development Administration would provide grants so people would be able 
to start up refineries. It was killed right down party lines. Again 
that was 2007.
  Then in 2008, May 13 of 2008, the Senate voted on an amendment to 
expand exploration in ANWR and to authorize drilling in offshore 
coastal waters. Again, it failed down party lines. I could go on.
  The next one I had was 2 days after that the Senate voted on a motion 
to instruct the budget conferees concerning increased exploration on 
the Outer Continental Shelf.
  What I am saying is this: The first thing we learn when we go to 
school is that at least American symbols are very strong. They help us 
to understand that supply and demand is still alive and well in this 
country. It still means something. If we do not expand the supply of 
energy in America, then the price is not going to go down, it is going 
to go up. That is exactly what the Democrats have done by refusing to 
let us explore for oil and gas as well as nuclear, clean coal 
technology, and the other forms we need to use.
  When it gets down to it, we know the cause of it. We know also we do 
not want to use the Energy bill. I am very glad the Democrats' energy 
bill--which didn't have any energy in it, zero, none--went down. Now we 
want an opportunity to introduce an amendment we have that does allow 
us to increase the availability and the amount of energy in America--
either oil and gas, nuclear, or clean coal technology, and all the 
rest, wind, and all the renewables also. We need to do that. It is a 
simple thing. We need to quit blaming each other. We know how we got to 
this position. Now we need to change our behavioral pattern.
  Americans right now realize--gas is $4 a gallon. I can assure you--I 
am not sure how it is in California and other States--in Oklahoma that 
is the No. 1 issue. In Oklahoma they understand supply and demand. We 
need to understand it in this Chamber too.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it my understanding the Democrats now have 30 minutes 
reserved? Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I was interested to hear my friend from 
Oklahoma, the ranking member on my Environment and Public Works 
Committee, talk about how much the Republicans care about gas prices 
after they just tanked our effort to deal with them. It is 
extraordinary what we are seeing here, right before the eyes of the 
American people.
  Last week they said ``no'' to global warming legislation. Global 
warming is real. The Senator from Oklahoma reminds me of the people who 
kept saying: No, the Earth is flat. No, cigarettes don't cause cancer. 
He is lining up with those people.
  The vast majority of scientists tell us global warming is real. He 
bragged

[[Page S5424]]

about how he beat us last week. Let me take a look at that. He said it 
was a wonderful thing that happened on Friday, when the Senate didn't 
get 60 votes to continue the debate on global warming and address it. 
He said it was a wonderful thing. I want to say to the 89 percent of 
the American people, who believe global warming must be addressed, 
because it is a moral issue that is facing us, because we have to 
protect this planet for our grandkids, because we need to get off 
foreign oil, have alternatives to foreign gas--and yes, in my State it 
is well over $4--we have to address it. He is celebrating the fact that 
we fell short.
  Let me tell you we fell short by only six votes. We fell short by six 
votes. We had 46 Democrats for dealing with global warming now, plus 8 
Republicans--54. We needed 60. He is celebrating.
  We are going to be celebrating come November because we are going to 
have a President who is going to work with us on global warming 
legislation and we are going to have six more votes here in the Senate, 
I can predict. Because my friends on the other side of the aisle--with 
a few exceptions, very few--are fierce defenders of the status quo.
  Let me repeat that. The leadership in the Republican Party and the 
vast majority of Republicans, save a handful, are fierce defenders of 
the status quo. They say no to global warming legislation which will 
get us off foreign oil, which will get us off big oil. They say no, 
today, to going after the speculators, going after big oil, making them 
disgorge some of that money so we can invest it in alternatives; going 
after OPEC and saying: If you are colluding, you are going to be held 
accountable.
  They said: No, no, no. Yes, to the status quo; no to positive change 
for the American people.
  They come down to the floor and they are happy about it. It is 
unbelievable to me.
  The wonderful thing that did happen on Friday is we reached a high 
water mark. We reached 54 votes. The last vote on the global warming 
bill, it was 38.
  The even more wonderful part is out of the people who were absent, 
who sent in letters who said they were with us, were the two 
Presidential candidates. So all that talk about celebrating the fact 
that we stopped global warming legislation is kind of a death rattle, 
in my opinion, for those people who do not believe they have to address 
this challenge of our generation.
  I am looking at the young people here today, their beautiful faces. 
They deserve to have a good life in the future. I want to say to them 
today: You are here in an historic time because the window is closing 
for action. With global warming, if you don't act, you lose valuable 
time, because the carbon stays in the atmosphere for so long it becomes 
more difficult to get it out of the atmosphere.
  Last week we came up six votes short even though we reached a high 
water mark on the bill. At the end of the day we now have a roadmap for 
change--46 Democrats voted yes to tackle global warming, 8 Republicans 
voted yes. What does that tell you about the two parties?
  When I took the gavel in January after the Democrats took back this 
majority by only the slimmest of margins, I said I wanted to put global 
warming on the map because under the leadership of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle we did nothing to address it. The President has 
basically--and we know this for sure--interfered with the scientists in 
his own administration and not allowed the facts to be told. So we had 
25 hearings.
  The second thing I wanted to do is make it bipartisan. John Warner 
said, ``I am with you. I care about my grandkids. I care about national 
security.'' The Naval Academy did a very important study that this is 
going to be the No. 1 cause of wars in the future as we have desperate 
refugees running away from droughts and famine and flooding and all the 
rest, and rising sea levels. When John Warner came across, I knew I had 
accomplished that. He did it for me. He made it bipartisan.
  Then we got the strong bill out of the committee, we improved it, we 
got it to the floor, and we knew it had a lot of work. We got a letter 
from 10 people who voted for it who said: Look, Senator, and Harry 
Reid, we need to work on it. We understand that is what we have to do 
when our next President says let's go, let's get a bill through. So I 
think it is appalling that my ranking member of the Environment 
Committee would come down here and celebrate the fact that we were not 
able to move forward on global warming legislation, and furthermore 
said it is not real. He brought that out again.
  I do thank those who engaged in the debate, both pro and con. It was 
a landmark debate. I only regret that the Republicans filibustered and 
we had to take the bill off the floor because we could have gotten a 
very good bill. It was a very good bill to start with and we could have 
worked on it and made it even better.
  But, come November, we will see whether I am right or wrong. I think 
I will be right. One of the reasons I am right, and I believe we will 
have Senators here who are going to be hospitable to global warming 
legislation, is because we also need Senators who are hospitable to 
doing something about gas prices.
  This is an amazing chart. Since George Bush got into office--do we 
remember this? He and Dick Cheney were oil men. One of the reasons they 
urged for getting elected is: We know how to deal with the oil 
companies; leave it to us. We know how to deal with the Saudi Arabian 
princes; leave it to us. We will deal with it.
  They dealt with it. There was a 250-percent increase in the price of 
gas--$3.94. This is old. It is now $4. This I used last week. It is 
already old; today it is $4. In my State it is about $4.40. You can't 
keep up with the increases in the price of gas. This is what we are 
facing.
  So in the Senate today we said: All right, they said no to global 
warming legislation--which was a long-term answer to big oil.
  What we would have done is we would have had a cap-and-trade system 
that would have put a price on carbon, gone between the free 
marketplace, and that would have led to trillions of dollars, I say to 
my friend, trillions of dollars in investments by the private sector, 
cellulosic fuel, automobiles that get 150 miles per gallon, electric 
cars, all the rest. That is the long-term solution pushing down demand. 
We all know that. Pushing down demand.
  Now, the other side will say if you drill in a wildlife refuge it 
will solve your problems. No, it is false. Put aside that Dwight 
Eisenhower, a Republican President, set aside the Alaskan Wildlife 
Refuge and said this is a precious gift from God; set it aside. What 
are you going to do to God's creatures by drilling over there? Forget 
it.
  Put it aside for the moment and talk about what you get. You get 6 
months' worth of oil. You cannot drill your way out of this. Someone 
said--I think it was Senator Menendez who made a great analogy. He 
said: Everybody says we are addicted to oil. Even our own President 
says we are addicted to oil. Let's say someone was addicted to drugs. 
Is the way to get them off drugs to give them 6 months' more worth of 
drugs? Does that help? No. No. No.
  We need to figure out a way to get off of foreign oil, get away from 
big oil, because we know the developing nations are gobbling it up. And 
we also know we have done so little, so little to address the issue of 
energy efficiency, fuel technology. It is a sad thing. We have lost so 
much time.
  Today at gas stations across the Nation, the American people are 
suffering. They are facing sticker shock. They are having to choose, 
choose between something they might buy at the store for dinner and 
filling up the tank. That is a fact. That is a fact.
  I will never forget when Vice President Cheney first sat down for his 
closed-door meetings with oil executives and energy industry lobbyists, 
and we said: We want to know what you are talking about, Mr. Vice 
President. What is going on behind those closed doors?
  And he said: Oh, I am working to make energy affordable.
  You know what gas was? It was $1.50. That is when he sat down with 
his friends in oil companies. We cannot find out what they talked 
about, but I can tell you this: Whatever they talked about was good for 
them, was good for the oil companies, was good for big oil. Gas is 
$4.40 a gallon in many California locations. I have seen gas prices as 
high as $5 in my State. So we have secret meetings with Dick Cheney 
with

[[Page S5425]]

the energy people, and gas went up 250 percent.
  Again, these are old numbers. It is even worse. Gas went up 82 cents 
since January--82 cents since January. Again, it is even more than that 
now. It is way more than that, close to 90 cents.
  In every case, you see the Bush administration saying they are going 
to do something. They never did anything. A lot of talk, a lot of yack, 
a lot of visits with Saudi Arabia, a lot of kissing on the cheek with 
the princes, holding hands. We saw the picture. What happened? This. 
Straight up. Two oil men in the White House. Is it any wonder?
  Many of us said at the time, other people said: It is terrific, two 
oil men at the White House. They will know how to deal with the oil 
companies. Well, they sure knew how to deal with the oil companies. The 
oil companies never had it so good. And my Republican friends right 
here, with few exceptions, have fallen all over themselves to give 
those very same companies huge tax breaks, even as they are making 
record profits.
  Listen to this: Last year the oil companies pocketed $124 billion in 
profits, up from $29 billion in 2002. That means they have quadrupled 
their profits since 2002, four times. Let's think about it, America. 
What happened to your salary? Did your salary quadruple? I think we 
know the answer to that.
  We know Americans are losing ground. The average family is losing 
ground, thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Their salaries are not 
keeping up with inflation. The price of gas is out of sight. It is hard 
for them to get health care. Health care costs are out of sight. Food 
prices are going up. Everything is going up--tuition.
  But what do my friends on the other side say? They want to give oil 
companies these great big tax breaks. They did in 2004 and 2005. 
Believe it or not, they gave them tax breaks worth over $17 billion 
over the next decade. And these tax breaks are free and clear. We did 
not even say--they did not say in the legislation oil companies have to 
invest in renewables, improving infrastructure, increasing capacity. 
No. You know what they did with the money? They spent $185 billion on 
stock buybacks instead of investing in clean, alternative fuels or new 
refinery utilization.
  And as my friend in the chair said today, they are spending more on 
public relations than the average family spends in a lifetime because 
they know, when the American people really understand this, what the 
American people will think. Have you seen those beautiful commercials 
by the oil companies? We really care. We are doing so much.
  Do you think they are doing all of these wonderful things? No, most 
of the money is spent on buying back their stock.
  Unchecked speculation. I have heard some experts say that about one-
third of the price of oil a barrel is due to speculation. We tried to 
pass a bill today that, first of all, said to the oil companies: That 
is the end of your break. You need to either invest your profits in the 
future, in other technologies, or give it back to us, and we will do it 
on behalf of the American people.
  They said no. They will protect big oil until they have to pay the 
political price. Protect big oil, protect foreign oil. They protect 
foreign oil, OPEC. We said the Attorney General should be able to sue a 
foreign company or foreign country if they colluded on the price of 
oil. Oh, no, they could not do that to big oil either. They are in love 
with big oil over there. They are in love with foreign oil.

  My people are saying: Enough is enough is enough is enough. It is no 
wonder that the American people want change, and they are going to get 
change. They are going to get it in November. They are going to bring 
it to us. They are going to bring us change.
  The former oil men in the Bush administration have been uninterested 
in taking on the unchecked speculation. This vote reflects the 
administration. That is it. They all marched together.
  Well, I think they are marching off a plank. The American people are 
smart and getting smarter every day. They know the pain they are 
feeling at the pump has a cost. They understand the speculation on 
futures. We address that. We address that in the legislation on which 
they voted no.
  We said: You cannot take money and speculate on futures in an out-of-
town market, an out-of-country market. You have to have transparency. 
Oh, no, they do not want transparency. That would be bad for the oil 
companies.
  If anyone ever says to you: There is no difference between Democrats 
and Republicans, look at the debate we had on global warming, look at 
the vote on global warming, and look at the vote we had today. There is 
an enormous difference. And it has to do with whose side you are on. In 
the case today, it was are you on the side of big oil and foreign oil 
or are you on the side of the American people? It is pretty clear.
  You have to look at Iraq. We have been in Iraq more than 5 long 
years. Do you remember what President Bush said when he went in? He 
said Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. He did. And 
look at what we have spent on this war. We are going broke on this war. 
We are into it longer than we were in World War II.
  We are looking at trillions of dollars at the end of the day in the 
actual cost of the war, the cost of the reconstruction, the cost of 
taking care of our beautiful, brave, courageous, and incomparable men 
and women who are coming home in desperate shape.
  What happened to George Bush's promise? They stand up, we stand down. 
Well, I think they are standing up. Why are we not standing down? And 
why did the oil not work out? Why were we not able to pay for 
reconstruction from the price of the oil?
  It is very simple: We have had a destabilization in the region 
because of the war, and that contributed to these high oil prices. What 
a disaster--a disaster, a disaster, a disaster.
  We would have today, had we had the opportunity to move forward on 
our legislation, not only sent a signal which could have done 
something, we could have investigated these companies for the kinds of 
illegal actions I believe some of them are taking. We could have gone 
after companies and countries for collusion. We could have gone after 
these excess profits and said: Look, we want everyone to do well, but 
let's have some fairness. I will tell you, the American people are not 
going to stand for it.
  So we have had a very interesting few days. And my friend, the 
ranking member from Oklahoma, says how he is so excited. Friday was his 
best day--his best day--his best day--when a majority of the Senate 
said, yes, let's take up global warming legislation, and he opposed it.
  His days are numbered on this point. All we need is six more Senators 
who are different than the many on the other side, and we are going to 
get that. People want this. We know 89 percent of the people want us to 
address global warming.
  When we do it in the right way, we will send a signal that America is 
ready to lead. America is ready to work with the world so that we get 
off of foreign oil. We are not dependent on countries we do not want to 
be dependent on; we are not dependent on big companies that can care 
less about our families. They do not care one whit about our families. 
The executives are making millions and millions and millions of dollars 
every year on salaries, on bonuses, on expense accounts.
  Well, the average family in America is struggling. So I hope the 
American people are watching. Last week we had a monumental vote, the 
high water mark. But they stopped us. Today, we had a good vote also, 
but they stopped us. They stopped us from doing anything about gas 
prices, and their answer is drill in a wildlife reserve which, at most, 
gives us 6 months of oil, and, by the way, destroys a gift from God 
that a Republican President said is not an answer.
  That is feeding the addiction. Are there places in America we could 
drill? Yes, there are. But what we need is a whole different long-term 
strategy. And that long-term strategy and fighting global warming will 
throw us off this dependance. That will make us a leader in the world. 
That will create green jobs, technologies we can export, and we will 
have an economic renaissance in the Nation.
  We will be the leader the world again when it comes to the 
environment and the good-paying jobs. In the short

[[Page S5426]]

term, we need to go after the speculators like we wanted to do today. 
We need to go after companies and countries who are colluding. These 
are the things we need to do.
  We were ready, willing, and able to do it today. In closing I will 
say this: Whose side are you on? That is a question that every one of 
us has to ask ourselves. It ought to be: I am on the side of the 
American people, of America's families, of America's middle class, who 
is getting squeezed.
  It ought not be: I am on the side of big oil. And my Republican 
friends on the other side again, on the vote last week and this vote, 
have chosen sides. And the American people will decide who they want to 
have leading the country.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had some unusual developments in 
the Senate in recent days. No sooner had the majority in the Senate 
moved to the cap-and-trade bill, for which they were demanding the 
debate be limited and utilizing a procedure by the Democratic majority 
leader to basically fill the tree, which eliminates free debate of 
amendments on the bill--this was a piece of legislation that was 
claimed to be one of the most important to be offered in the Senate.
  In the early 1990s, when the clean air act amendments were passed, 
131 amendments were disposed of during that debate, and it took 5 weeks 
on the floor. This bill has more far-reaching and pernicious 
ramifications than the Clean Air Act Amendments. Yet they were going to 
end the debate and begun to spin the issue as if the Republicans were 
filibustering the bill. That is what they said repeatedly: Republicans 
were filibustering the bill. But in truth we wished to talk about the 
bill. We asked to be able to do so and use the 30 hours which Senate 
rules allow to discuss the legislation, and our request was treated 
with great horror, as if this were somehow a plan to reject a 
discussion of the legislation.
  Well, no sooner had we done that and gotten through that, and the 
majority leader filled the tree to limit real amendments on the bill--
amendments he did not approve--then, the majority leader came forward 
and moved to move off the bill, to move away from cap and trade--the 
centerpiece of their philosophy about what is happening in energy in 
America today--and he wanted to move to their Energy bill, which I 
think can legitimately be referred to, in utilizing senatorial license, 
as a no-energy bill. I will talk about that in a minute.
  It is not an energy bill. It is not going to produce any energy. It 
is weak to a degree that is breathtaking. It is not what the American 
people are upset about. It would not come close to helping us deal with 
the serious problems we face.
  So I would say, this is a weird kind of event here. The no-energy 
bill I understand they would like to move to--and wanted to move to--
would authorize the U.S. Government to sue OPEC nations that are 
withholding and reducing supplies of oil on the world market in the way 
we would sue an American company that was manipulating the market by 
withholding products or otherwise colluding to fix prices. Now, that is 
exactly what OPEC is doing. What they are doing is unacceptable, and it 
needs sustained, relentless leadership by this administration and this 
Congress to stand up to OPEC and confront that because they are 
effectively raising the price of oil by restricting supply. I 
understand other nations are seeing declines in production as well, 
including Mexico and Russia. So we are creating shortages in the 
marketplace, allowing people to make large amounts of money--
corporations and others--but the people who are primarily making the 
money are oil-producing nations. Go look at the skyscrapers they are 
building in the desert, the billions and billions of dollars they are 
receiving from us as a result of these high prices, as a result of 
tripling the price of oil on the world marketplace from the forties 
just a couple years ago to now over $130 a barrel. So you were getting 
$40 for each barrel of oil one year, and a couple years later you are 
now getting $130 for each barrel in your small country. The bigger 
countries, of course, make more money because they produce and sell 
more oil.
  We are sending overseas each year from our Nation $500 billion a year 
to purchase the oil that comes into our country. It is half the trade 
deficit we have--half of it--just to purchase this oil. It is not 
getting better, and we have no policy before us to legitimately do 
something about this other than the one Senator Domenici and Senator 
McConnell and the Republican leadership offered a few weeks ago, which 
was rejected.
  Let me explain what this no-energy bill and its NOPEC provision would 
do. We would sue OPEC nations for refusing to increase their 
production. Now, how you get jurisdiction over a sovereign nation--the 
Presiding Officer, a former attorney general, as I have been in a 
previous life, knows jurisdiction may sound like a little thing. It is 
not such a little thing to get jurisdiction over a sovereign nation to 
order them to produce more oil out of their ground.
  But I would submit to you, the idea is so weak and so implausible and 
so unenforceable that it would be a laughable thing if it were not so 
serious because we do have a problem with OPEC nations and others who 
are fixing the price of oil.
  See, oil production is an essential part, I would suggest--and I 
think most any court would conclude--of sovereignty. A sovereign nation 
can produce as much of its oil as it wants to produce. You cannot make 
them produce more oil because you would like them to. They are not like 
an American corporation, subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Part 
of the protections of the laws of America, they become subject to 
lawsuits--but not a foreign nation.
  We do not want them suing us to say: You ought to open ANWR--or 
perhaps we might. Open Alaska. Open offshore. Now, that has, perhaps, a 
lawsuit that might have some merit. Or maybe sue the Congress for 
voting not to produce more oil and gas off our shores over the years. 
At least you could get jurisdiction over Congress.
  So this is not a serious response, I will say to you. It is not.
  Now, in addition, they propose in this Energy bill to tax the oil 
companies, but taxing the oil companies will not produce more energy. 
You can take this to the bank. It is a concept of universal acceptance. 
When you tax something, you get less of it. What we need in this 
country is more energy, not less. We need more cleanly produced, clean 
American energy. That is what we need more of. That is what people are 
complaining to me about.
  When I go back home and talk to my constituents, they are upset. They 
are outraged. According to the national reports that came out 
yesterday, the people in my home county in Alabama--the citizens 
there--pay a larger percentage of their income to buy gasoline than any 
other county in America. It is because they are rural, they have low 
wages. They do not compete with the big-city wages, and they have to 
travel so far to work.
  That is a very painful thing. It brings it home to me personally. I 
filled up our smaller car this weekend, and it cost $61. People have 
larger cars. They bought them years ago. They cannot just go out and 
sell their SUV today--what price would they get?--sell it so they could 
buy some Prius. Where are they going to get the money to do that? We 
would like them to. We would like them to move to those kinds of 
vehicles in the future, but it is not possible today.
  So the ``masters of the universe'' who think we can pass a bill and 
allow the price of energy to be exceedingly high and that the people 
will adjust their habits so they can reduce the price of oil, are not 
in the real world. Let's get with it.
  I tell you, my constituents are unhappy, and they want us to do 
something to confront, in a realistic way, the surge of prices that are 
impacting their budgets very seriously. They also understand these 
rising prices that are taking money out of their budget are also 
impacting the businesses they deal with and see and, perhaps, work for 
and it is making us less competitive in the

[[Page S5427]]

world marketplace and it places us in a position to see our economy 
sink in general and it puts at risk their job. It affects how many 
hours they might work a week and whether they can get overtime or 
whether they get a bonus. That is what people are worried about.
  So what do we have before us? A cap-and-trade bill that is 
guaranteed, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, to drive 
up the cost of gasoline $1.40 a gallon to meet Kyoto-type agreements we 
did not sign and we have not approved. That is not what people are 
telling me they want us to do. They want us to produce more clean 
American energy.
  Well, I hate to be partisan about this, but I think we need to talk 
about how we got here, what happened in this country to get us in as 
bad a shape as we are. The trends have not been good in terms of a 
rising demand for oil and energy and a not-rising-so-fast supply, but 
there are things we could and should have done and some things we did 2 
years ago that are being reversed.

  In 2005, for example, this Congress, when Senator Pete Domenici 
chaired the Energy Committee, recognized the potential of oil shale in 
the Energy Policy Act that became law. The act identified oil from the 
shale rock out in the West as a strategically important asset and 
called for its development. Yet, last year, the Democratic-controlled 
Congress, led by the House of Representatives, put in language that 
blocked and reversed the development of this abundant resource despite 
the surging price of oil and gasoline.
  In the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act, the 
House-sponsored section 526 prohibits any Federal agency from 
contracting to procure any alternative or synthetic fuel that produces 
greater life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than those produced from 
traditional fuels. This language prohibits the Federal Government from 
contracting to produce and use oil shale and coal-to-liquids. This 
provision is misguided and should be repealed immediately.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues--I know the Presiding Officer is 
familiar with a number of these issues--a representative of U.S. Air 
Force was in my office a few weeks ago discussing a contract they had 
with a company that would take coal--we have 250 years of coal in 
America. It is an American energy source. You can heat that coal and 
off comes a gas which can be converted through a known and proven 
process to a liquid, and they were going to use it in their airplanes 
to fly U.S. aircraft with it. But the Air Force representative told me 
the language in section 526 had blocked them. Coal-to-liquids derived 
fuel is a fabulously clean fuel. It actually cleans the engine, so when 
you use this fuel, the pollutants and waste products have been taken 
out, and it is a very pure fuel they burn, and the Air Force was 
expecting to be able to bring this fuel into the U.S. Department of 
Defense for around $85 a barrel. That is well below the more-than-$130 
a barrel cost that is on the world marketplace today, and it is a 
source of energy that does not leave the U.S. Air Force dependent on 
foreign sources of oil to fuel our Nation's aircraft in the defense of 
America. But this effort has been blocked by the Democratic majority.
  The 2005 Energy Policy Act, which Senator Domenici led when he was 
chairman of the Energy Committee, also directed the Bureau of Land 
Management to lease Federal lands for oil shale research projects. 
There are approximately 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale rock, 
but it is hard to get out. It is not easy to get out. It takes some 
effort to produce that, but some major companies are prepared to invest 
billions of dollars to prove that it can be brought out well below the 
current world price of oil. I would have thought we would have been 
delighted to see this go forward--at least in an experimental way--and 
see how that would work out. But oh, no. This Congress, again with a 
Democratic majority, acted to block the development and the carrying 
out of this provision that would promote oil shale. The Senate-
sponsored section 433 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act--this was 
the monumental appropriations bill that was about this thick. They 
slipped language in, in conference, to take care of that. It would 
prohibit funds from being used to implement any leasing program 
directed to the Bureau of Land Management, as had been approved in 
2005, effectively stopping this program.
  I will just say that is frustrating. We are sort of in a manner of 
disconnect here to an extraordinary degree. The American people want us 
to do something. Oil shale: Well, it is not going to be easy, but this 
is not a dreamland idea. It absolutely can work. One company is using 
the same technology that was used by the oil sands industry in Canada 
that has proven to be quite commercially feasible. We need to be 
testing this because 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale would be 
enough for 100 years of oil--actually, 200 years of oil at our current 
rate. So oil shale, if we could make that breakthrough, would make us 
completely independent of foreign oil. We have huge reserves offshore, 
as the Senator from Louisiana knows. He is out there. He is in 
Louisiana, and he sees the production that survived Hurricane Katrina, 
and as a result, we were able to get those systems back on line with no 
oil spills or damage to the environment.
  I thank the Chair for letting me share this frustration. I don't know 
where we are going now, but I know one thing: This Congress does not 
need to leave this energy debate without creating some policies that 
allow for more production of clean American energy. We can do that. We 
are going to continue using oil and gas for many years to come. Why in 
the world would we want 60-plus percent of it to be foreign oil? Why 
wouldn't we want to at least produce what we can at home--and really we 
can produce quite a lot at home. It is very frustrating that attempts 
to do that have been blocked by persons whose thinking, I believe, on 
this issue is confused and not in the public interest.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in the year 64 A.D., there was a 
tremendous fire in Rome, and legend has it that the Emperor Nero 
fiddled while Rome burned. Well, I am afraid that if we continue to 
fiddle in the Congress while gas prices continue to go up and up and 
hurt all of our constituents in a deep abiding way, Nero will outpace 
us in terms of his legendary action compared to our inaction.
  We are truly fiddling while this enormous crisis of rising gasoline 
prices hits every family we purport to represent. We are doing nothing 
significant, nothing important to address this crisis.
  Why do I say that? Well, when this new Democratically led Congress 
took office a couple of Januaries ago, prices at the pump were about 
$2.33. That new leadership of the Congress--the Democratic leader in 
the Senate as well as the Democratic leadership in the House--said that 
this was unacceptable. They vowed that this was a major issue they 
would address, that they would attack in a focused, meaningful way. 
Well, a year and a half later, things have changed. The price at the 
pump is now about $4 a gallon. It has gone up and up, and this Congress 
has done little to nothing.
  To add insult to injury, the Democratic leadership in the Senate 
proposed legislation today that centered around major measures that can 
clearly change the price at the pump, such as a windfall profits tax 
and language to sue OPEC. I find this insulting, and I believe the 
American people do, because that sort of political demagoguery and 
posturing is no substitute for real energy policy.
  Yesterday, I was in my home State of Louisiana. I had two townhall 
meetings. About a week before that, I was all around the State; I had 
nine others. Folks asked again and again: When is Congress going to 
act? When is Congress going to do something meaningful about these 
escalating gasoline prices? I laid out my ideas. They were reacted to 
in a very positive way, particularly the need for us to do more for 
ourselves right here at home to produce more energy.
  Certainly nobody in those audiences had very kind words to say about 
OPEC. Nobody was standing up and lauding the big oil companies. But by 
the same token, they know the difference between political rhetoric and 
posturing and real energy policy. They certainly know that a bill to 
sue OPEC and try to impose a Carter-era windfall

[[Page S5428]]

profits tax on big oil companies isn't going to do a darn thing, at 
least on the positive side of the equation, to stabilize and lower 
gasoline prices at the pump. It is going to have no meaningful impact, 
certainly, to produce more energy and bring those prices down.
  So I come to the floor to urge all of us--Democrats and Republicans--
to come together to get real and to act in the face of what is a true 
economic crisis for millions upon millions of American families.
  As I say, it is easy to agree that OPEC or big oil is a cheap 
political target. It is easy to agree that it may be popular 
superficially to kick them around and to politically bash those easy 
targets. But I truly believe the American people are smarter than that 
and can distinguish between political posturing, political rhetoric, 
and a real energy policy. I think it is particularly true with the 
windfall profits tax proposed by the Democratic leadership today.
  Now, why do I say that is not a real energy policy and it won't lead 
to stabilizing and reducing prices? Well, there are three main reasons:
  First, the entire notion of a windfall profits tax is a misnomer. Oil 
company profits are very big when you look at them in dollar terms. Why 
is that? Mostly for one simple reason: Oil company activity--
exploration and production--is enormously expensive. As a result of 
that, the major oil companies are enormously big companies--big 
economic actors--so the dollar terms we bandy about having to do with 
their activity is enormous. But, of course, when you talk about profit, 
you can't talk in simple dollar terms; you have to talk in percentages.
  So what are those percentages? Are they, in fact, windfall profits? 
Well, the last year for which we have data is full calendar year 2007, 
and in that calendar year oil and gas companies' profits were, on 
average, 8.3 percent. How does that compare to everybody else? Well, 
for all of the U.S. manufacturing sector--a sector we always decry as 
in decline, being outsourced, being out-competed by competitors such as 
China and India coming on line--that entire sector had a profit of 
about 7.3 percent. If you take out U.S. auto companies, which have 
historically low profits, unfortunately, then the entire U.S. 
manufacturing sector made a profit of 8.9 percent. So these outrageous 
windfall profits folks talk about of the oil companies are, in fact, 
very much in line with that: the whole manufacturing sector, 7.3 
percent compared to 8.3 percent. Take out auto manufacturers, and, in 
fact, then the profit rate is higher, 8.9 percent compared to 8.3 
percent.
  The second reason this entire focus and argument is silly and not 
real energy policy is when you look at whom you are hurting. Now, the 
proponents of these sorts of measures talk about going after windfall 
profits as if oil company executives own it all. Well, they own some--
1.5 percent of the companies we are talking about. Who owns the rest? 
Well, over half of oil company shares are owned by mutual fund 
companies which are widely owned by Americans. That manages to account 
for nearly 55 million American households. Median income of these 
households, by the way, is $70,000 or less.
  Pension funds, both public and private, hold 27 percent of the shares 
in the energy industry. That means 129 million pension fund 
participants, who have accounts worth an average of about $63,000, own 
the companies we are talking about. Twenty-eight million of those 
pension funds are for public employees, including teachers, police, 
fire personnel, soldiers, and government workers. So these are the 
folks who own these companies that we are supposed to go after.
  The final and most important and compelling reason this notion of a 
windfall profits tax is a red herring is that it won't produce more 
energy. It won't stabilize or lower prices at the pump. It won't help 
the situation. It will, in fact, make it worse.
  Why do I say this? Because we have historical experience to turn to 
to see what happened. Under President Carter, we tried this experiment. 
In terms of boosting energy production, stabilizing or lowering prices, 
it was a miserable failure. From 1980 to 1988, we had a windfall 
profits tax. That reduced domestic oil production by up to 8 percent, 
while dependence on foreign oil grew over that time up to 13 percent.
  So instead of this sort of tax approach to the oil companies' tax 
approach to energy, we need to produce more energy, more supply, to 
stabilize and lessen prices. As my colleague from Alabama mentioned a 
few minutes ago, one of the first rules of economics is, if you tax an 
activity, you are going to drive it down, lessen that activity; you are 
not going to drive it up.
  If somehow this tax plan--windfall profits tax--or the myriad other 
tax proposals the Democratic leadership has brought to the floor would 
help solve our energy problems, I would be all for it. But it is going 
to make us produce less energy, not more. What will that do? That won't 
stabilize or lower gasoline prices at the pump. It will drive them up.
  Let's get serious for once. As the American families we represent 
face a true crisis, let's put people ahead of politics. Let's put sound 
policy ahead of political posturing. Let's focus on what can make a 
positive impact. We need to do much in this regard, on the supply side 
as well as the demand side--conservation, greater efficiency, more R&D, 
and new fuel sources. But at the same time we need to focus on the 
demand side, on what can help us produce more safe, clean energy here 
at home. We have those resources here at home. We can access them 
safely and in an environmentally friendly way. But in order to do that, 
Congress needs to get out of the way and allow States and private 
industry to do just that.
  Offshore is a big piece of that puzzle. That is why I have brought to 
the Senate floor my proposal that says if these outrageous prices at 
the pump actually hit $5 a gallon, then we will allow exploration and 
production in our ocean bottoms off our U.S. coast--but only if two 
things apply: First, the host State involved would have to want this 
activity. So the Governor and State legislature in that host State 
would have to say, yes, we want this activity off of our coast, we want 
to be part of the solution to help meet the Nation's energy needs. 
Secondly, that host State would get a fair share of the royalty, or 
revenue, from that ocean bottom production, 37\1/2\ percent, building 
on the precedent, the policy we set 2 years ago in opening some limited 
new areas in the Gulf of Mexico. That actually does something about 
energy. That actually would increase supply right here at home, would 
lessen our dependence on dangerous foreign sources, would help 
stabilize and bring down prices at the pump--something the political 
posturing of suing OPEC or putting in a windfall profits tax, a Carter-
era idea, on the big oil companies would not do.
  Let's not fiddle while Rome burns. Let's get serious. Let's act 
respectfully to the situation, the real crisis so many Americans face. 
Let's come together in a bipartisan way and act, not posture, and 
debate and talk but act with real energy solutions. We need to do this, 
as I said, across the board, on the supply side and on the demand side 
to lessen demand through conservation, increased fuel efficiency, and 
new energy sources.
  We need to come together and act now, rather than simply giving 
political speeches and endlessly posturing and going after easy 
political targets.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about American 
energy independence, energy self-sufficiency, and specifically to talk 
about clean coal and clean coal technology.
  I have introduced a number of constructive amendments to the 
Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation. But one of the most 
important of those was the need to address the future of clean coal 
technology.
  If this body chooses to pursue cap-and-trade legislation, we need to 
ensure that the Senate includes provisions to bring about the energy 
security our Nation needs. The so-called cap-and-trade legislation 
would impose greenhouse gas emissions and mandates that are unrealistic 
in scope and in timing.
  In a time of high energy prices, in a time of housing deflation, in a 
time of food inflation, taxpayers cannot afford misguided policies that 
hamstring our economy. Our competitors--India and

[[Page S5429]]

China--are not constraining their economies with carbon limits. Global 
issues deserve global responses. Blindly imposing Government 
regulations will force heavy burdens on utility consumers, on labor, 
and on American families.
  Last week, the record was clearly laid out that this proposal raises 
consumer prices through Government mandates. I believe most Americans 
favor policy approaches that balance America's need for energy with 
environmental protection.
  In order to avoid substantial economic fallout, Federal funding is 
not only warranted to help American commerce meet this challenge, it is 
essential.
  Despite the recent pace in developing clean coal technologies, 
America cannot afford to simply give up on this challenge. Coal is 
abundant. Coal is affordable. Coal is reliable. Coal is secure as an 
energy source. Coal can also become a very clean fuel.
  As noted in the May 30 front-page article in the New York Times, 
America will continue to rely heavily on coal-fired electric generation 
for decades to come. The New York Times reporters are merely 
recognizing what is abundantly evident from official Government 
predictions.
  The article also aptly notes that coal-fired generation holds great 
promise for reduced carbon dioxide emissions. America's energy policy 
must not simply deliver sustainable energy; America's energy future 
must incorporate a vision for a safer, cleaner, and healthier 
environment. Clean, coal-fired electric generation must be an integral 
part.
  The challenge before us is significant. Reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions from coal-fired powerplants will be possible through first 
capturing carbon dioxide emissions and then sequestering them 
underground. Both will take time and both will take money.
  In order to achieve this challenge, the Federal Government and 
private industry must partner in funding research and technological 
innovation. Timing is critical. America needs to make a serious and 
substantial investment in research and developing commercial 
technology.
  In order to achieve energy security and a clean environment, the 
Federal Government must demonstrate its commitment with targeted, 
upfront financial support. We must show leadership, not merely dictate 
flawed policies and hope for the best.

  What does this mean? If Congress mandates reduced emissions, it is 
incumbent upon us to also provide the policies to allow our own economy 
to succeed.
  Proven, commercially available, cost-effective technologies must be 
developed with respect to carbon capture and sequestration. These 
technologies must be efficient, effective, and allow America to 
continue to compete globally.
  The amendment I have filed would direct $50 billion in revenue from 
emission allowances--$40 billion for the demonstration and deployment 
for carbon capture technologies, and $10 billion for large-scale 
geologic carbon storage demonstration projects.
  This is an enormous investment, but it is also necessary. This 
amendment is technology neutral. It would not rely on Government to 
dictate the favored type of carbon capture mechanism. Incentives would 
be provided by the choice of the recipient as a loan guarantee, through 
incremental cost sharing, or in the form of electricity production 
payments for each kilowatt hour produced.
  This amendment includes aggressive but achievable technological 
milestones. It also establishes a timeline for new projects over the 
next 7, 8, or 10 years. This amendment is reasonable, rational, 
aggressive, and achievable.
  Making this investment comes down to a choice between two things: 
one, Congress taking responsibility for the mandates proposed; two, 
regulating the economy and turning its back on ratepayers, on 
manufacturers, and on American families.
  Without investment in coal, it will mean higher heating and higher 
cooling bills that will continue to ripple through the economy, picking 
winners and losers.
  Last week, some Members of this Chamber insisted upon policies that 
would raise prices at the pump through regulation. Today, they tried to 
address the runup in gasoline prices by raising taxes.
  I will tell you that the rising prices of gasoline are hurting the 
people of Wyoming and the people across this country--truckers, 
ranchers, commuters, and all American families.
  I adamantly disagree with the so-called ``solutions'' proposed by the 
majority, which were higher taxes and more regulation. I urge my 
colleagues to allow real solutions to today's energy prices, including 
American exploration and investment in American technology. It is time 
to enact a prosperous path for the future of America's energy and 
America's economy.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his 
comments. He is well aware of the spirit of community in Wyoming, which 
relies on jobs, like everywhere else. He makes points about how 
important all of the energy sources in Wyoming are, and particularly 
coal, and the opportunities we have for the American people to make 
coal even better, even the clean coal we have in Wyoming.


             Tribute to David Trowbridge of Lingle, Wyoming

  Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about some of that 
spirit of community in Wyoming. It also has to do with the spirit of 
community in Mississippi.
  Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, I went to visit down there and see 
what had happened. I definitely had to admit that Louisiana had been 
drowned. Then I got to see Mississippi, and I saw they not only were 
drowned but they were blown away. I saw one place where there were oak 
trees that were easily 2 feet in diameter that had been snapped off 
about 6 feet above the ground from the wind. The devastation down there 
is almost impossible to imagine. I always say a picture is worth a 
thousand words, but being on the ground is worth a thousand pictures. 
We got to see that. It still is an area that is in recovery.
  Today, I wish to recognize the actions of one Wyoming man who left 
his home out West to go help his fellow Americans down South. He has 
done more than simply lend a hand to a small Mississippi town 
devastated by Hurricane Katrina. He lent his heart, and he is an 
example for all of us to follow.
  David Trowbridge of Lingle, WY--one of our small towns--is quite a 
hero. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast in 2005, 
he joined a group of volunteers from his church on a trip to Bay Saint 
Louis, MS, where they provided aid to storm victims. There, David 
witnessed firsthand the utter destruction of the hurricane--the lost 
loved ones, the wrecked homes, and the destroyed livelihoods.
  Upon returning to Wyoming, Mr. Trowbridge vowed to go back to 
Mississippi and help as many people as possible. I have learned from 
members of his small church in Lingle that Mr. Trowbridge is a man of 
his word. He did go back, and he is still there helping.
  In June of 2006, he purchased a motor home, loaded his tools and 
moved from Wyoming to Bay Saint Louis indefinitely. I have to tell you, 
we hope he comes back before the census because Wyoming can use the 
population. Since then, Mr. Trowbridge has spent his time working with 
First Baptist Church to help others rebuild their homes and their 
lives.
  In all, he has worked on 62 houses in the Bay Saint Louis area. From 
roofing and laying tile to painting and plumbing, Mr. Trowbridge has 
provided critical building repair services to many grateful families. 
He has also played an integral role in training the thousands of 
volunteer teams that flocked to Bay Saint Louis to assist with the 
rebuilding process. He teaches the volunteers the skills they need to 
repair homes. Then he works side by side with them, helping the 
volunteers to finish their projects and achieve their goals.
  Mr. Trowbridge has changed countless lives through the giving of his 
time and labor, and he has done it all without asking anything in 
return. His work is completely volunteer. Aside from a few donations 
here and there, Mr. Trowbridge has funded this journey through personal 
savings. He has reached into his own pockets to give new hope to people 
who lost theirs in

[[Page S5430]]

the storm. That goes to show the depth of his selflessness.
  Mr. Trowbridge represents the true spirit of giving that we in 
Wyoming know so well, and I am proud he is sharing that Wyoming sense 
of community with those affected by Hurricane Katrina. He is an 
inspiration of hope and generosity, and his effort serves as a 
testament to what just one man can accomplish when he sets out to make 
a positive impact on other people's lives.
  Mr. Trowbridge is a man of faith and heart, and we can all learn from 
the example he set. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking 
him for all the work he has done and the hope he has brought to Bay 
Saint Louis, MS.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming for bringing to the attention of the Senate the good works of a 
man who embodies compassion, sacrifice, and service.
  A few weeks after Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi gulf coast, 
David Trowbridge of Lingle, WY, traveled with a group of his fellow 
church members to Bay Saint Louis, MS, to help the victims of this 
terribly destructive disaster. Because of the extent of the destruction 
he saw and the enormous challenges that confronted the storm victims, 
David Trowbridge purchased a motor home and moved to Bay Saint Louis so 
he could devote full time to the recovery effort.
  He helped rebuild properties that had been destroyed or seriously 
damaged, including housing for other volunteers who needed a place to 
stay and help. His carpentry skills have been a valuable resource, not 
only to help rebuild homes but which also enabled him to train hundreds 
of unskilled volunteers to assist in the rebuilding efforts. These 
volunteer teams have worked on over 1,400 homes in the communities of 
Bay Saint Louis and Waveland.
  People in Bay Saint Louis refer to David as a fixture of the 
community. They have praised him as a hero. In fact, he is on a first-
name basis at homes and businesses all over town.
  The Mississippi gulf coast was devastated by Hurricane Katrina and is 
still struggling to recover. But were it not for the unselfish, hard 
work and dedication of David Trowbridge, my State would not be as far 
along as we are in the recovery process.
  Thank you, David Trowbridge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
joining me in this tribute today for David Trowbridge. We do this as a 
reminder that there are still problems that need to be fixed from 
August 2005. The people down there are very appreciative of the help 
they get. Of course, we are reminded, as there are tornados hitting all 
over the United States, that there are people in other parts of the 
country who need help as well.
  It is the American spirit to reach out and help other people. Often 
it is done without any kind of a call, any kind of notice. People hear 
about these needs and they show up and they do the work. We need to 
keep them all in our minds and our prayers and, when we get the 
opportunity, to give a little bit of special mention of somebody who 
goes out of their way, takes money out of their own pocket to help out. 
That is what America is about--people helping people. David Trowbridge 
is an outstanding example of that.
  I thank the Senator from Mississippi, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Dole pertaining to the introduction of S. 3108 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
whatever time I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, to review where too many families are 
today in our great country, we have 324,000 people--324,000 people--who 
have lost good-paying American jobs just since this January. Just this 
January, not last January, not the January before or the January before 
but just in the last few months, 324,000 more Americans--middle-class 
Americans, working hard every day and trying to keep up with the gas 
prices, trying to keep up with the mortgage payment, pay for food, send 
the kids to college, probably having a bigger health care bill--have 
lost their job and gone, probably, on unemployment compensation to be 
able to help their family to be able to continue. And, Mr. President, 
72,000 of those individuals and families impacted come from my great 
State of Michigan, with 49,000 jobs having been lost since May, 17,000 
of those lost in Michigan since April.
  At the same time, we all know gas prices are now at $4 and going up, 
foreclosures nationally are over 702,000 homes this year, with over 
31,000 of those in Michigan.
  All of that is to say that we have a picture now of middle-class 
Americans, of those who believe in America, who are and who have been 
working hard every day, who want the American Dream for themselves and 
their families finding themselves being hit over and over again with 
one cost after another. Even those who have not lost their jobs are 
concerned that they may. Will the plant stay open? Will the employers 
keep the same number of people on when their costs are going up? Too 
many people have gone from $28 an hour to $14 an hour, or $30 an hour 
to $10 an hour.

  What we are seeing across the country is people who are desperately 
concerned about their ability to keep their standard of living and to 
remain in the middle class of this country. In many cases they are 
desperately concerned about simply being able to put food on the table, 
being able to get the money to put the gas in the gas tank so they can 
go look for the next job.
  With this backdrop--and with millions of Americans saying: What about 
me? What about my family? What about some kind of action that will help 
my family, and understand what we are going through right now? With all 
of that as a backdrop, what we have seen today, once again, is 
absolutely outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. Two very important 
bills were brought forward where we simply asked to be able to proceed 
to discuss them, and once again the Republican minority has said no. 
They blocked everything, stopped everything. No. No.
  There is no sense of urgency, no sense of urgency about gas prices, 
no sense of urgency about getting off of foreign oil and energy 
independence. There is no sense of urgency about what is happening to 
families every single day.
  It is amazing to me, when we look at the numbers. We have in fact had 
so many Republican filibusters we have to Velcro the chart. In the 
interests of conservation, in the interests of not having to print up 
multiple charts a day and waste good old posterboard, we actually have 
had to Velcro the numbers because they change so much. Twice today--we 
have now well exceeded what was a 2-year high in previous Senates in 
the over 200-year history of our great country. We did that last year.
  What does that mean? This all sounds like insider process kinds of 
things--it is just folks talking about partisan politics. The reality 
is we are talking about whether the Senate is going to be able to move 
forward to debate issues and solve problems that people care 
desperately about. They do not care whether this is an election year or 
not an election year. They don't want excuses. They want us to get 
something done because they are trying to figure out how in the world 
they are going to be able to keep things going and make ends meet for 
their family in this great country we call America.
  We have seen 75 different times that there have been filibusters that 
have been blocking our ability to actually get something done. What was 
filibustered today? What efforts were made to block us today? First, a 
very important bill, the Consumer-First Energy Act, to take on what is 
happening on gas

[[Page S5431]]

prices. I know, talking with my family, home this weekend--folks were 
looking at me, saying: What in the world is going on? What can be done?
  We have put together legislation multiple times to address it, short 
term and long term, as it relates to gas prices which are so 
outrageously high. But over and over again we are blocked. Why? Because 
the oil companies do not like it. That is what this is about. 
Unfortunately, the oil companies do not want to see us move in the 
direction of being able to tackle issues of whether there is, in fact, 
price gouging; whether there are in fact issues around speculation; 
whether we are going to have competition with alternatives to oil. They 
do not want us to do that. They do not want us to tackle the issue of 
the tax subsidies they receive.
  What we see instead of action, as we could have had today, we see 
this past week oil prices at $140 a barrel, almost twice the price from 
last year. It is almost twice the price from last year, and OPEC says 
it could be $200 this year. Think about that when you are trying to get 
to work, trying to maybe take the kids to camp for that week or maybe 
trying to go to the grocery store or go looking for work or maybe take 
mom or dad or the kids to the doctor. We are talking about a huge 
burden that is building up and up.
  Unfortunately, while gas prices now go over $4 a gallon, we are 
seeing an effort to, one more time, block commonsense efforts to do 
something about it for the families of America. Unfortunately, on the 
other side of the aisle, there has been a desire to make sure that we 
continue big oil tax breaks rather than addressing what our families 
need. Last year the big oil companies pocketed $124 billion in profits. 
It is fine to make a profit. We want companies to do well, to make a 
profit. But we also want to make sure when that is happening they are 
reinvesting in the economy, reinvesting in creating more supply. We 
want them to be reinvesting in new energy. Unfortunately, that is not 
happening.
  We also want to have tax policy that makes sense in terms of where we 
want to invest in new technologies. The oil companies are doing pretty 
well, I suggest, right now. I do not think my tax money or your tax 
money or the tax money of any of the folks here or any of the folks 
around the country needs to be used to incentivize big oil, which is 
exactly what is happening right now.
  They are doing pretty well. We have been trying and we have been 
blocked through Republican filibusters, to take away subsidies, 
taxpayer subsidies for oil companies and move them over to subsidize 
new, growing industries, green options, alternative energy--wind, 
solar, advanced battery technologies, consumer tax credits to buy the 
next generation of vehicles, the next generation of appliances. Those 
are the kinds of tax credits that encourage people to focus on energy 
efficiency and conservation in their homes, those things that will move 
us in the right direction. That is what we have been trying to do. And 
we have been blocked.
  The bill that was stopped also creates a permanent tax on windfall 
profits for the major oil companies. If they are not going to invest in 
America and invest in our future and buy the next airplane or put it 
into more big bonuses, then we need to have a windfall profits tax that 
will redirect those dollars back so we can take them and invest in the 
future.
  I see our distinguished leader on the floor and I am going to suspend 
for a moment, if I might. I know he has some important business he 
needs to do.
  I yield to our leader and ask that I later be recognized to continue 
my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much my friend from 
Michigan allowing me to do a little business here on the floor of the 
Senate. She is such a tremendous Senator. I had the good fortune to be 
able to be in Michigan this weekend with her and Senator Levin. What a 
team they are. The people of Michigan realize that. It was a wonderful 
experience, being there with these two Senators.
  The State of Michigan has lots of problems. No one articulates it 
better than Senator Stabenow, talking about what is happening to our 
country with the loss of manufacturing jobs. Of course, sadly, Michigan 
is a poster State for what is happening in the loss of manufacturing 
jobs. This is something we must stop, stop the hemorrhaging of these 
manufacturing jobs.
  I had the good fortune yesterday of meeting with the National 
Association of Manufacturers. They recognize, although they have been a 
Republican organization in years past, that they are going to have to 
start working with us. That doesn't mean they will not keep working 
with the Republicans--of course they will--but we have to start working 
together and realize the bad shape of our manufacturing sector.

                          ____________________