[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7579-S7583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            HIGH GAS PRICES

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, $4 gasoline is the subject before the 
Senate. It has been the subject before the Senate since the week before 
last. I am very encouraged that yesterday the majority leader indicated 
we might be able to move from talking to acting; in other words, to 
begin to offer amendments, debate on those amendments, and come to a 
result which would help lower gasoline prices.
  Each week, for the last several weeks, I have been reading to the 
Senate e-mails and letters I have received from Tennesseans who have 
been hurt by the high price of gasoline.
  For example, Jason from Friendsville, TN, which is a Quaker town near 
where I live, is a firefighter with the Blount County Fire Department. 
He says that currently five of their stations have only one person in 
them. They rely on volunteers for the rest of their support, but since 
gasoline is so high, response from volunteers has been very small, and 
they have to allow other jurisdictions to respond. He is not sure how 
he is going to be able to keep driving across town to help other people 
when he can barely help himself.
  Gina from Elizabethton is a single mother who is spending about $65 
each week to drive to and from work. She can barely afford groceries 
because everything is so expensive. She says they have been living on 
noodles to get by. She is very concerned that Congress and the 
President are doing a lot of talking but not doing anything about the 
problem, and she says, ``This country is in such a mess.''

[[Page S7580]]

  William of Riceville is on disability and his wife is unable to work 
due to health problems. Rising gas prices have made them choose between 
driving to the doctor or paying for their medicine.
  Tina from Nashville is a single mother struggling to support her 
daughter. They can't even afford to go out to the movies on the 
weekend, she says, because gas and food prices have risen so much. She 
says that right now she is spending about $200 each month on gas and 
prices keep going up, but her paycheck isn't going up at all.
  Judy from Joelton is a 61-year-old grandmother struggling to support 
her daughter and granddaughter who live with her. The gas to take her 
granddaughter to kindergarten is costing $115 each month, and they are 
struggling to keep her in school. Judy says she is scared for her 
family. She has never seen it this difficult to get by.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, 
these letters and e-mails from constituents in Tennessee be printed in 
the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, the Senate 
could have, since the week before last, been bringing up amendments 
from the Democratic side and the Republican side with proposals for 
dealing with $4 gasoline. Hopefully, the majority leader and the 
Republican leader are coming to a conclusion today which will permit us 
to start doing that. We don't expect every amendment we offer to be 
adopted, but we do represent millions of people who want us to try to 
solve the problem.
  We have before this Senate a very specific proposal for bringing down 
the price of gasoline. It is based upon the law of supply and demand: 
finding more and using less. Now, on this side of the aisle, we usually 
instinctively talk about finding more; that is, offshore drilling and 
oil shale, but it is also important to emphasize that part of our plan 
is using less.
  The United States of America uses 25 percent of all the oil in the 
world. The fastest way for us to bring down the price of $4 gasoline, 
if it depends upon finding more--supply--and using less--demand--is to 
use less. What is the most promising way to reduce, by a large amount, 
the amount of oil we use? Give Big Oil some competition. We believe it 
is plug-in electric cars and trucks. There are a great many Democrats 
who believe the same thing. That is part of our plan. That is what we 
would like to have had on this floor for the last 10 days to discuss.
  The bottom line is this: major auto companies--Ford, General Motors, 
Nissan, Toyota--have told us that in 2010, they will begin selling to 
us cars and trucks that can be plugged into our wall sockets at home 
and filled for 60 cents or so instead of filled with gasoline for $80 
or so.
  Now, most of these cars and trucks will be hybrids; in other words, 
they will have a gasoline engine and they will have an electric engine. 
Because there are new, more powerful batteries, these cars will be able 
to go, in effect, about 100 miles per gallon. These are not being 
produced by the Government; these are being produced by the car people, 
so they are coming.
  In addition to that, we have plenty of electricity. We see a lot on 
television from Mr. Boone Pickens, who has a plan, and it would require 
building a lot of new, large wind turbines for electricity, which might 
be a good plan. Our plan doesn't require building anything for 
electricity because we already have it. About half our electricity at 
night is idle. We are not using it for anything. We are asleep. Our 
lights are off. Computers are down. We are not using a lot of our 
electricity, so we can plug in our cars at night--the electricity would 
be cheap--run our cars on electricity instead of oil, and here would be 
the result: We would be trading, car by car, foreign oil for unused 
electric capacity.
  Ninety-eight percent of our transportation is oil. Two percent of our 
electricity is oil. Half our electricity at night is not being used. So 
we could begin, year by year, gradually converting cars and trucks to 
electricity, instead of gasoline made from oil. If we converted the 
whole fleet of cars and light trucks, that would take many years and 
probably we would never convert them all, but if we did, we would get 
rid of 10 million of the 13 million barrels of imported oil we have 
today. Or, if we converted half the fleet--which is a realistic 
assumption over a number of years--we would reduce by 40 percent our 
imported oil and cut by 25 percent our total oil consumption.

  So plug-in cars, which the car companies are making and which we 
would like to create the environment to support, are coming, and we 
have the electricity. In other words, the cars are coming, we have the 
electricity; all we need is the cord, and that is the most promising 
way to reduce oil.
  I see the Senator from Texas is here. The use less part is something 
that both sides of the aisle probably can agree on, although I don't 
know why we haven't been fashioning a program over the last 10 days to 
do that. We could have been debating whether to have tax credits, 
whether to have advanced battery research, but we haven't. Where we get 
stuck is over whether we need more supply.
  Our formula is pretty simple: Offshore drilling, oil shale, and plug-
in cars and trucks. I say to the Senator from Texas, it seems that 
whenever we get to the question of needing more American energy, that 
is where we have a difference of opinion with the other side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. CORNYN. I agree, Mr. President, with the Senator from Tennessee. 
The way I have heard it expressed, it certainly explains my point of 
view, and I think the facts, as they are, are that we need all of the 
above. We need to use less, we need to conserve, and we need to find 
more energy.
  I ask the Senator from Tennessee: To me, it seems as though the 
problem sort of boils down to how do we generate more electricity and 
then how do we come up with ways to power our vehicles and fly 
airplanes. As the Senator points out, 98 percent, I believe he said, of 
the energy used for transportation is oil-based at present. The Senator 
from Tennessee has come up with a very commonsense approach--forward-
looking--to try to figure out a way, as the car industry has, to do 
more using of electricity and to reduce our dependency on oil.
  It would be helpful to look back at how we got where we are today, 
not necessarily to point the finger of blame but to point to the fact 
that it is not likely to get better in the future.
  I ask the Senator from Tennessee, isn't it true that growing 
economies, such as China and India, are demanding more and more access 
to energy which has fueled their economic growth and, in his view, is 
it likely that is going to reduce anytime soon or just get worse? In 
other words, is this something that is going to go away--a temporary 
problem--or is this something that is going to become more and more of 
a problem as time goes on?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I think the Senator is exactly right. In the 
newspapers today and yesterday was the story of how in India they are 
introducing a new car which will be sold for $2,500. Now, there are 
more than a billion people in India. They have a middle class that is 
bigger than the whole population of the United States of America. When 
suddenly tens of millions of people in India begin to drive cars that 
are powered by gasoline, what happens to the demand for oil in that 
country? The demand goes up, and if the supply doesn't go up, too, the 
price goes up.
  We have the same thing in China. There is a story in the Washington 
Post today, which is part of a series, about how the Chinese, actually, 
for status purposes, like driving Hummers. They like big cars. Here we 
Americans are going to small cars and the Chinese are going to big cars 
and there are a lot of them as well. We know the demand for oil and 
gasoline is going up around the world, and we are in the world market. 
So for the foreseeable future, as we move to a different kind of 
economy--a different kind of energy picture--we are going to need at 
least as much oil as we have today.
  I say to the Senator, I think the question is: Are we going to be 
sending $600 billion or $700 billion overseas to buy it, or are we 
going to be paying ourselves to use it during the next 10, 20, 30 years 
while we are moving to a different type of energy environment?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know there are some who have suggested 
we ought to demand that Saudi Arabia

[[Page S7581]]

and OPEC actually open the spigot wider, but it seems to me the Senator 
from Tennessee is exactly right. The problem is our dependency on 
imported oil from the Middle East and other countries around the world, 
when we have oil reserves right here in America that can be developed 
but that Congress has, in fact, placed out of bounds. About 85 percent 
of the oil here at home could be produced, if Congress would simply 
allow it, by lifting the ban or the moratoria on development of that 
oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and the submerged lands along our 
coastline, and that could help us. I think Senator Domenici has talked 
about it as a bridge to a clean energy future, where we have more cars 
that run on battery electricity and we wean ourselves from our 
dependency--not only on foreign oil but on oil, period, because with 
the growing demand globally, the price pressure on that oil is going to 
get nothing but worse, rather than better.
  I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I know there has been a lot of 
commotion on the floor over the last few weeks about whether we stay on 
this issue or whether we move off it to talk about other issues. I know 
this side of the aisle has insisted that high energy prices and high 
gasoline prices is the most pressing domestic issue facing our country 
today. We have been pretty clear that we are not going to leave, and we 
are not going to move off this issue to something else and leave this 
unresolved.
  I ask the Senator from Tennessee: Is that an approach he agrees with, 
and does he agree that this is the single most pressing issue facing 
our country from a domestic standpoint in our economy today?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Not only do I agree with the Senator from Texas, but 
so does Jason from Friendsville, TN, and Gina from Elizabethton and 
William from Riceville and Tina from Nashville. Tennesseans want us 
focused on $4 gasoline. I think the Senator is being generous when he 
says our position is that the Senate should stay on $4 gasoline until 
we are finished.
  Our position is we wish to get on it. We have been talking about it. 
We have a right to talk, but until the majority leader creates an 
environment so we can begin to offer amendments we can then vote on and 
come to a result on, we cannot act as a Senate. To his credit, 
yesterday he made such a proposal. I understand he is talking about it 
with the Republican leader. But we could have been doing this ever 
since a week ago Friday.
  I say to the Senator from Texas, sometimes I hear people say, well, 
it won't do much good to drill offshore. The debate will probably be 
between some senators who will say let's do a little more drilling 
where we already allow ourselves to drill, in the 15 percent, and those 
of us who will say let's give States the option to drill 50 miles 
offshore in the 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf, where we 
can't drill today. By most conservative estimates, that will create 
over time about a million barrels of oil a day. Some say that is not 
very much in the whole world, but I think of it this way: Every million 
barrels of oil we produce here at $130 a barrel is 1 million times $130 
we are not sending over there to somebody else. If the third largest 
producer, the United States, adds 1 million barrels a day to its 
supply, that is a significant addition on the supply side. So it seems 
to me that our contribution, in terms of offshore drilling, both would 
reduce our dependence upon foreign oil, keeping money in this country, 
and make a contribution to the supply side, which helps bring down the 
price in the world.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee said earlier if 
we were all to make the decision in 2010 to move to hybrid plug-in 
vehicles, it would take some time to replace the internal combustion 
cars in this country. Some said if we were to open up ANWR, the 2000-
acre plot of land in a 19 million-acre frozen tundra in Alaska, or if 
we were to open up the Outer Continental Shelf, it would take years 
before the oil would flow into the pipeline.
  I ask the Senator, if Congress were to send a message today that we 
were going to allow the development of as much as 3 million additional 
barrels of American oil a day, whether it is from the oil shale out 
West, or from ANWR, or from the Outer Continental Shelf, what in your 
view would be the message to the commodities traders who trade oil as a 
global commodity, and who buy and sell futures contracts for the 
delivery of oil? In your opinion, would that have a rather immediate 
impact on the price of oil and, thus, the price of gasoline?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The answer is yes. I appreciate the Senator's question 
very much. His figure of about 3 million barrels a day is realistic. He 
mentioned ANWR, the area in Alaska, which is actually the most readily 
available to us. The history on that is going back to 1980, when 
President Carter agreed that 17 million or so acres would be put in the 
Arctic Refuge and off limits to any sort of drilling, but that 1\1/2\ 
million could be drilled. When they were finished drilling, they would 
go into the refuge. So that has been in place for a long time. There is 
a pipeline there. Also, one well is there. So that oil would be coming 
quickly. There is infrastructure around many of the areas where we 
would do offshore drilling in the United States. But the answer is yes 
to the Senator's question. If the United States added 3 million barrels 
to our production, that would be more than a third of an increase in 
the production capacity of the third largest producer in the world. 
What if we heard that Saudi Arabia was going to increase production by 
a third? The effect on buyers and sellers of oil would be immediate. 
Martin Feldstein, a former chairman of President Reagan's Council of 
Economic Advisers, pointed out that today's price of oil depends upon 
the expected supply and demand of oil. So if we elect, as the U.S. 
Government, to say we are going to significantly increase our supply by 
a third, and we are going to reduce our use of oil by about a third, 
over time, from the day we announced that new energy policy, I believe 
it begins to stabilize and drive down the price of oil.
  I see the Senator from Arizona here. The issue often comes up about 
what role speculation has in all of this. Of course, that is what 
buyers and sellers of oil do. They are guessing: Will the price go up 
or go down?
  My view always has been that the way you deal with speculation is 
increase the supply or reduce the demand, because the expected future 
price, supply, and future demand affects today's price.
  The Senator from Arizona is an expert on taxation and financial 
matters. I wonder what his view is on the effect of speculation on 
today's oil prices.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will answer that question, but I will 
decline to take the position as an expert on financial matters. I will 
turn to a paper with which I don't always agree and yet it is one of 
the leading newspapers in the country. The New York Times editorialized 
on this issue yesterday. Therefore, I will perhaps answer by quoting 
about four sentences from this July 28, New York Times editorial, 
called ``Gas Price Follies.'' The bottom line is they agree with the 
Senator from Tennessee:

       Yet all evidence suggests that speculation has little to do 
     with the rising price of crude. From rice to iron, commodity 
     prices are all rising, even without much financial 
     speculation, due to a variety of factors, including a weak 
     dollar and growing demand from China and India.

  They go on:

       A report by government agencies--including the Commodity 
     Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Reserve and the 
     Treasury and Energy Departments--found that speculative 
     trades in oil contracts had little to no effect on the rise 
     in prices over the last five years.

  They concluded with this:

       Oil futures are financial contracts for future delivery of 
     oil. Their price has been responding to the same factors: 
     growing world demand in the face of stagnant supply and 
     the expectation that this dynamic will continue.

  So it is precisely the point the Senator from Tennessee was making. 
These buyers, investors on the market, look to see whether demand is 
going to be greater or less than supply. If it is going to be greater, 
the price is obviously going to go up. That is the bet they place when 
they buy futures contracts.
  The best single thing we can do to respond to this and drive the 
price down is found on the chart of the Senator from Tennessee: find 
more and use less. The Times makes that point, by the

[[Page S7582]]

way. If we can reduce consumption, that will reduce demand, but, far 
and away, the biggest answer is to find American energy sources to 
solve the American energy crisis. We have a huge volume of both natural 
gas and crude oil right here in the United States, primarily off our 
shores, which is why both the Senator from Texas, the Senator from 
Tennessee, and I, and most of my colleagues here support more offshore 
drilling to expand the production of American energy to meet this 
crisis.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 6 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. If supply and demand is the major way to deal with 
speculation, I believe the Republican legislation, the Gas Price 
Reduction Act, has in it a couple of legislative suggestions for how we 
might appropriately deal with speculation, without interfering with 
supply and demand. The Senator from Texas helped to author that piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. CORNYN. The Senator knows we tried to find a consensus or common 
ground we could hopefully agree upon and asked some of our friends on 
the other side to join us and, rather than talking about the issue, 
actually try to solve the problem. So we did include, as part of the 
``find more, use less'' formulation a title on speculation, where we 
say there needs to be certainly transparency so we can see what is 
going on; and to the extent the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
needs more cops on the beat, more resources to do their job, then we 
need to supply those analysts, investigators, and resources to be able 
to make sure abuses don't occur.
  I remember when the Senator from Arizona was talking about this. 
Warren Buffett has been quoted recently as saying that speculation is 
not the problem. He agrees with the New York Times. He says it is a 
matter of supply and demand. T. Boone Pickens, my constituent, who has 
made quite a splash with his energy plans, said if all you are going to 
do is focus on speculation, that is a waste of time.
  So we tried to come up with a commonsense approach to this and one 
that could develop a critical mass of bipartisan support. Until now, 
the majority leader, who controls the floor in the Senate, has decided 
not to allow us that opportunity. Yesterday--I agree with the Senator 
from Tennessee--it looked as though there was a little speck of light 
in the darkness; a little hope was there that the majority leader would 
perhaps modify his position.
  I hope we don't leave here this week without doing something 
meaningful to bring down the price of gasoline. We are certainly 
willing to listen to the ideas our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have. I suspect that if they have the opportunity to vote, a 
number of them would agree with us. Maybe they would have ideas we 
would agree with, in an effort to build a bipartisan solution. We have 
to do something and, frankly, Congress has been part of the problem. We 
need to be part of the solution.
  Mr. KYL. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
  Mr. KYL. Would it be fair to characterize the Republican approach to 
this as, in effect, all of the above, and that we recognize there is a 
role to beef up the agency that deals with speculation and make sure 
they can do their job, and to provide as much new production as 
possible offshore or oil shale--anywhere we believe we can find that 
production--and that we also appreciate the fact that there is another 
side to this, not just transportation, which is energy production, 
electricity production. We are going to see our electricity costs go up 
and, clearly, nuclear power is a key factor in that, as well as, 
potentially, coal liquification or gasification. As part of all of 
these--the ``use less'' part, which is to try to eventually convert at 
least our automobiles to battery-powered vehicles--obviously, it would 
be more difficult to do that with jet planes and our shipping right 
now. But we could begin that process.
  So the Republican view is literally all of the above--to have a 
balanced approach that recognizes there is no one single thing but that 
offshore drilling would be the best, most immediate way to increase our 
production. Would that be a fair characterization?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona. That is a fair 
characterization. Unless we include new American sources of energy, our 
electric prices are going up, gasoline prices are going up, and our 
jobs are going overseas. We need both--to find more and use less--and 
we need to do it now. The $4 gasoline price we are suffering from today 
is the first recognition that in addition to losing less we have to use 
more new American energy. For us, that includes offshore drilling, oil 
shale, as well as plug-in cars and trucks.
  Mr. CORNYN. May I ask the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from 
Arizona one question. We passed a massive housing bill, a $158 billion 
economic stimulus package, because we are all concerned about the 
economy. Let's assume we are successful in dealing with those problems. 
Do you see the rising costs of gasoline and oil and energy as a big--or 
maybe even a bigger--threat ultimately to the economy, and that it 
might have the very direct effect of putting us into a bona fide 
recession?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may respond briefly, there was an 
article in the Wall Street Journal, I believe, yesterday. In any event, 
the point of the article was that while we may not have technically 
been in a recession, the definition of which is two quarters of 
negative economic growth consecutively, the reality is that because of 
inflation, primarily fueled by high fuel costs, which reflects itself 
in everything from higher food prices to higher transportation costs, 
which find their way into the products we buy--because of that 
inflationary pressure, the reality is that for most Americans, we are 
feeling the same effects as if we were in a recession, and at the heart 
of this is the energy problem.
  If we could solve the energy problem in a balanced way, from 
electricity production, through nuclear power, and offshore drilling, 
and reducing our demand, that would affect our future economic health 
and every American family in this country.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. We should work across party lines to find more 
American energy, use less, and that would bring down prices.
  I thank the Senators from Arizona and Texas who yielded.

                               Exhibit 1

     To: Alexander, Senator (Alexander)
     Subject: Gas Prices
       Hello My Name is Jason from Friendsville, TN. I am a 
     Firefighter with the Blount County Fire Department. If you 
     dont know we only have 1 man at 5 of our stations we have 7 
     stations and the rest of the time we depend on volunteers to 
     respond to our emergency and help us, and for the full timers 
     that is a great chunk of our yearly income is running calls 
     on our day off. Because of gas prices our response to some of 
     the emergencies has been very small we have been calling on 
     other departments for help and that ties up their resources 
     should they have an emergency in their jurisdiction. I know 
     they say supply and demand but it is almost like a monopoly 
     they can charge whatever and we have to pay. Someone has to 
     go help put the fire out how much profit do you need to make 
     to live comfortably. I am not sure but just because you say 
     oil is up is no reason for you to raise prices to keep your 
     income the same while ours greatly decreases. I heard our 
     president say we have to stop our dependency on oil and then 
     ! he gets on a jet a jumbo jet with some guide planes and 
     flies all over the place to accomplish nothing but say they 
     have us over a barrel and it is our fault, and then gets on 
     that same jet and flies home to Texas for a day or two to 
     help relieve the stress. I am not saying he has done a 
     horrible job I just think he is failing us greatly in this 
     regard. The gas prices are killng a family of 5 who lives off 
     of a fireman's income and a wife's who does medical billing I 
     am not sure how long I can drive across town to help someone 
     when I can't help myself. The emergency would have to be in 
     my back yard if this keeps up.
                                  ____

     Subject: How Gas Prices Are Affecting Me
       Dear Mr. Alexander, I will be happy to share my story . . . 
     I'm a single mother of 1 child. I don't have a car payment . 
     . . it's paid off. I drive a Honda Passport . . . small SUV. 
     I live in Elizabethton and drive to Johnson City (25 miles 
     one way) Monday thru Friday to work. It takes $65 a week now 
     for my gas and that is only to and from work. (That's $260 a 
     month) I don't have any credit card debt, or outstanding 
     debt. I pay for my home and utilities. I am taking from my 
     grocery money, that I have budgeted, to make up for the gas. 
     AND I am buying my groceries now at the General Dollar Store. 
     I can't afford meat . . . so we are living on Ramen noodles 
     and the bare necessities. I bet nobody in Congress/Senate is 
     having to do that! I am so disgusted with the economy

[[Page S7583]]

     right now. I have always voted Republican . . . I don't know 
     if I can vote that way anymore. I can't vote for Obama . . . 
     I would have voted for Hillary, because at least when she was 
     in the White House with Bill the first time . . . the economy 
     was great! But now there is no one to vote for. I wish the 
     nation would make a clean sweep and put everybody out of 
     office because it's the ones that are in there now that have 
     gotten us into this mess.
       And another thing . . . if we sell or trade anything to 
     those nuts over across the sea that are selling oil for $128 
     a barrel . . . then anything that we sell them should be the 
     same price! I don't care if it's just one paperclip . . . it 
     should be the same price.
       This is ridiculous! I also think that because this country 
     is in such a mess, NOBODY should be able to spend more than 
     10-12 years in office as a senator or congressman. That needs 
     to change.
                                                             Gina,
     Elizabethton, TN.
                                  ____

     Subject: Gas Prices
       Senator Alexander my family lives on a fixed income i am on 
     disability and my wife is unable to work due to her health 
     yet she has been turned down for her disability she is 
     practically bed riden. these high gas prices affect the way 
     we live dramatically we have to decide wether we buy gas to 
     go to the doctor and then not be able to buy the medicine or 
     wether we get to buy something to eat. this not right people 
     should not have to live this way. i have 2 children also so 
     you can imagine the delema this causes when the kids need 
     something and you have to either tell them no because we have 
     to have gas to go to the doctor or the store or medicine, i 
     dont know how you think people on social security are 
     supposed to make ends meet when the ends keep moving further 
     apart. it is not right maybe you senators and congressmen in 
     washington should come down to reality in my world and try to 
     live on less than 2000.00 dollars a month my truck has not 
     been near half a tank in so long it would probably quit 
     running. thank you for your time. my name is William.
       i would be surprised to hear from you. I would like to 
     speak with you on this matter. By the way if there is 
     anything you could do to help my wife with her disability i 
     would greatly appreciate it it would help us greatly thank 
     you
     William.
                                  ____

     Subject: My Story
       Gas prices are affecting me as a single Mom in more ways 
     than one. Because I have to work, I have had to give up 
     things such as prescription medications that I need monthly 
     (no insurance coverage as of June 30th) and grocery items. My 
     daughter and I cannot afford the luxury of leaving the house 
     on most weekends, and if we do, it is only for necessary 
     items. We cannot afford a simple outing such as a movie or a 
     day trip. My vehicle was repossessed in December 2007 because 
     I had not worked since January 2007 and I simply cannot 
     afford to buy the gas to get to work. It is cyclical. I have 
     to work to pay the bills, but cannot afford to get to work.
       I have noticed that items at the grocery store have risen 
     as well due to gas prices, so there are many things I simply 
     cannot buy anymore. My daughter has had to sacrifice time 
     with her friends because I have to save every extra penny to 
     make sure I can get to my new job that may not work out 
     because it is costing, at this moment, more than $200 a month 
     in gas. When gas prices increase lately, it is usually .10 a 
     gallon. My income has not increased so every month I get 
     further into a black hole that I may not get out of and could 
     possibly lose my home.
       If there is not some type of relief soon, there won't be 
     anything left to provide for my daughter.
                                                             Tina,
     Nashville, TN
                                  ____

     Subject: Impact of Gas Prices
       Dear Senator Alexander, I am a 61-year-old grandmother 
     struggling to support my mildly disabled daughter and a five-
     year-old granddaughter who live with me in Joelton, TN. Anna, 
     the five-year-old, has been attending a public magnet 
     Montessori school; she has been there for two years. The gas 
     costs $115 per month just to take Anna to school. With gas 
     prices so high, we are trying to figure out how to be able to 
     buy food and basics and still be able to buy gas to get Anna 
     to kindergarten.
       I have no health or life insurance, because there is just 
     not enough money to go around. I also have no retirement and 
     no more savings left, and because of my daughter's illness, 
     have accumulated a sizable debt.
       I was a self-employed professional woman and did OK for 
     most years of my life. I never imagined it would come to this 
     level of difficulty. I'm really scared.
     Thanks for asking.
                                                              Judy
                                                       Joelton, TN

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the time controlled by the majority be divided as follows: 10 minutes 
for myself, 15 minutes for Senator Bingaman, and 5 minutes for Senator 
Schumer.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________