[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 130 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7987-S8003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, all across America today, people are 
looking to Capitol Hill with astonishment. They are wondering how it is 
even possible that lawmakers who have been hearing from their 
constituents for months about the burden of record-high gas prices 
could fail to work out a sensible response.
  I don't blame them. High gas prices have triggered a crisis in 
American homes and in the broader economy, and the American people have 
a right to expect their elected representatives to do something about 
it.
  Every crisis is a call for leadership, and this one was no different. 
This was an opportunity for the Democrats who control Congress to 
demonstrate courage and resolve. They squandered it. In their hunt for 
more seats in Congress and control of the White House, they took the 
path of least resistance. They decided that they could increase their 
hold on Congress by avoiding tough votes, and then blaming the mess 
that followed on a party that wasn't even in charge.
  While Republicans were working out a legislation solution that 
addressed high gas prices head on, Democrats embarked on a concerted 
effort of pointing fingers and casting blame. Americans were looking 
for answers, and the Democrat answer was to make everyone accountable 
but themselves.
  First came the energy producers, who were threatened with higher 
taxes that would have passed along to consumers, making the problem 
worse. Then came the foreign oil producers, who were threatened with 
lawsuits unless they increased production, even though America sits on 
massive energy reserves that dwarf their own.
  Finally, it was the speculators. Citing the testimony of a lawyer 
whose previous statements on energy provoked a stinging bipartisan 
rebuke, the Democrats claimed that writing a few new regulations for 
speculators would solve the energy crisis. Republicans agree that we 
need greater transparency in the market and more cops on the beat. But 
the notion that speculators alone have led to a dramatic surge in gas 
prices is, according to every serious person, completely and totally 
absurd.
  The chairman of the Federal Reserve has rejected the idea that 
speculators alone were the cause of the oil shock. Warren Buffett, a 
prominent Democrat and perhaps the most successful investor of our 
generation, has said speculators alone are not the problem. The 27-
member International Energy Agency said speculators alone are not the 
problem. T. Boone Pickens, who has been cited by both sides in this 
debate, has said unequivocally that speculators alone were not the 
problem.
  When asked about high gas prices, all the experts seem to agree on 
two things: first, that speculators alone are not the problem. And 
second, that the high price of gas is primarily the result of increased 
demand and static supply. Increase supply, and the price of gas will go 
down. Keep it static and prices will continue to rise. That is why even 
the liberal New York Times derided the Democrats' speculators-only 
approach as a ``misbegotten plan.''
  Republicans didn't invent the law of supply and demand. It's as old 
as commerce itself. And it has the virtue of being perfectly 
straightforward: any serious proposal for bringing down high gas prices 
would have to increase supply. And any serious proposal that aims to 
decrease our dependence on Middle East oil would have to increase 
supply here at home.
  Every expert in America tells us that Americans will be dependent on 
fossil-fuels for decades to come. And until the day when we're all 
plugging in our cars or using alternative fuels, Americans can't be 
expected to shoulder the crushing burden of ever increasing gas prices. 
Congress has a responsibility to act, and that action must involve a 
comprehensive approach.
  This is why Republicans put together a solution to this crisis that 
seeks, first of all, to accelerate the day when America will no longer 
be dependent on foreign sources of oil. We do this in our plan by 
addressing not only the principal cause of rising fuel prices--
insufficient supply--but also by promoting new energy technologies, 
such as plug-in hybrid cars and trucks.
  We heard the concerns of the American people, brought together the 
best ideas from both sides of the aisle, and pressed forward, confident 
that here was a solution that would be embraced by Americans and 
acceptable to a majority in Congress who could claim shared credit for 
the result. But, in the end, the Democrat Leadership showed it would 
rather cast blame than share success.
  Americans are wondering why the Democrat Leadership voted to leave 
town last night without proposing a comprehensive solution of their own 
to $4-a-gallon gasoline. And they deserve an honest answer. The moment 
that gas prices became a major issue here in Washington, Democrats 
started to build a protective blockade around their Presidential 
nominee.
  Rather than come up with a comprehensive solution that would do 
something to lower the price of gas, they set out to insulate their 
candidate from ever having to take a difficult vote on the issue. They 
have done this because their nominee opposes expanding the domestic 
energy supply. Recall that his initial response to high energy costs 
was that Americans would have to learn to turn their air conditioners 
down and consume fewer calories.
  He has stated publicly that high gas prices are only a problem 
because America didn't have enough time to adjust to them. And just 
this week the junior Senator from Illinois unveiled his own 
comprehensive solution to the high price of gas: ``We could save all 
the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling,'' he said, 
``If everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-
ups.''
  This is the proposal of the man that Democrats in Congress want to 
lead us through the Nation's energy crisis: regular tune-ups. This is 
the answer the junior Senator from Illinois has proposed to the 
patients at the Woodland Dialysis Center in Elizabethtown, KY, who are 
now limiting their treatments because they can't afford the cost of 
getting to them. This is Senator Obama's answer to $4-a-gallon gas: 
issue some new regulations and go to Jiffy Lube.
  Add it to the growing list of laughably inadequate proposals that our 
Democrat friends have brought forward over the last few months. Some of 
them wanted to sue foreign countries as a way of forcing them to open 
up their supplies. Others proposed tax incentives for riding bicycles 
to work. But Senate Democrats really outdid themselves earlier this 
summer when they showed off a two-seat, electric-powered Tessla 
Roadster. It gets excellent mileage, and any American family can buy 
one of its own for a mere $109,000. These are the kinds of solutions we 
have heard from the other side.
  Over the last few weeks, the time for real action arrived. And when 
it did, the Democratic leadership blocked and stalled every attempt to 
advance a real solution to the energy crisis. They canceled 
appropriations hearings out of fear that a deep-sea exploration 
amendment to lower gas prices would be offered. They offered a 
speculation-only bill, which no serious person thinks is in itself the 
answer to $4-a-gallon gas. And then over the last 7 days, they tried to 
take us off the issue of high gas prices seven times. Seven times they 
have tried to take us off the issue of high gas prices, taunting 
Republicans for standing on principle rather than taking the bait. In 
every case, Republicans refused to turn their backs on the people at 
the pump.

  These last few weeks were a time for decision, and the Democrats made 
theirs. When Americans demanded action, the Democrats played games. 
They changed the topic so the man they want to lead our country would 
not have to make a public decision about high gas prices.
  Some on the other side may think this kind of behavior is acceptable. 
They might think it makes sense to block the Senate minority from 
offering a balanced solution to high gas

[[Page S7988]]

prices in order to protect one Senator and the 20 percent of Americans 
who think we should not use more energy from American soil. We couldn't 
disagree more.
  When faced with a crisis, the Democratic leadership opted instead to 
follow the political playbook of the senior Senator from New York who 
recently told a reporter that Democrats should wait until after 
Inauguration Day--when he hopes to see a Democrat in the White House--
before doing anything about high gas prices.
  This is precisely the kind of statement that frustrates the American 
people. They have waited for a solution long enough. They should not 
have to wait another day.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Midwestern Disaster Relief

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the benefit of leaders' offices, 
after I am done speaking about the flood situation in Iowa, I have been 
asked by the leader to make a unanimous consent request in regard to E-
Verify. So I want to notice the offices about what I am going to do. It 
will be down the road, in half an hour or so.
  Mr. President, last night I came to the floor to ask for unanimous 
consent on the tax bill we referred to as the Midwest flood disaster 
tax relief package. I was denied unanimous consent to bring that up. I 
did not make a long justification for the necessity of doing that, but 
I wish to speak to that point now. I am not going to further ask 
unanimous consent the same as I did last night; I am just going to 
speak about why I did it last night and why it was essential.
  There is one thing I want to put in the Record at this point, and it 
is in regard to one of the points that was made by the Senator from 
Illinois last night, Mr. Durbin, the Democratic whip. He said one of 
the reasons for denying my request for the tax relief package I am 
talking about for flood victims in the Midwest is because similar 
provisions were contained in S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families, and 
Disaster Relief Act of 2008, and that bill did not get 60 votes. 
Obviously, it didn't get 60 votes for the reason a lot of other bills 
have not gotten 60 votes on the floor of the Senate: We in the minority 
want to stay on the No. 1 problem affecting this country; that is, the 
high cost of gasoline and the energy crisis that is facing the Nation. 
We want the majority party to give us opportunities to offer amendments 
to increase the supply of energy in this country as opposed to paying 
$140 a barrel to buy oil and import it from overseas, giving money to 
nations that want to train terrorists to kill Americans. That is the 
reason S. 3335 did not get 60 votes. So we are technically on the 
Energy bill.
  But one of the things he said about that bill was to leave the 
impression that S. 3335 did everything that needs to be done for the 
disaster relief in the Midwest, and it doesn't, and I made that point 
last night, so I am not going to repeat that.
  But even if S. 3335 had passed, we had previously had a Statement of 
Administration Policy, and I am only going to quote one sentence from a 
longer Statement of Administration Policy that I am going to put in the 
Record, and that sentence is this: ``However, due to other objections 
to the bill, should it be presented to the President in its current 
form, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.'' So I think that 
when we are under a situation where we have the trauma of floods and 
people being homeless because of the flooding situation in the Midwest, 
it doesn't do much good to pass a piece of legislation that is going to 
be vetoed by the White House anyway.
  The point I was trying to make last night is that we shouldn't be 
adjourning for our summer August break and not taking care of things in 
the Midwest the very same way we took care of the situation for New 
Orleans caused by Katrina. Of course, the point is that the legislation 
we seek for the Midwest is the same as the legislation we sought and we 
actually accomplished for New Orleans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the full Statement of Administration Policy from which I quoted.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2008.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


    S. 3335--Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008

       The Administration supports responsible and timely 
     alternative minimum tax (AMT) relief as proposed in the 
     President's Budget. Congress should act quickly to protect 26 
     million American taxpayers from an unwelcome tax increase and 
     to avoid repeating the unnecessary administrative complexity 
     caused by congressional delay in 2007. In addition, the 
     Administration supports the extension of the tax credit for 
     research and experimentation (R&E) expenses, incentives for 
     charitable giving, subpart F active financing and look-
     through exceptions, and the new markets tax credit. In its FY 
     2009 Budget, the Administration proposed that several of 
     these provisions be made permanent, including the R&E tax 
     credit. However, due to other objections to the bill, should 
     it be presented to the President in its current form, his 
     senior advisors would recommend a veto.
       The Administration strongly supports continuation of tax 
     incentives for renewable energy, and in fact the President 
     recently proposed a more effective approach that would reform 
     today's complicated mix of incentives to make the 
     commercialization and use of new, lower emission technologies 
     more competitive. The President's proposal would consolidate 
     this mix into a single expanded program that would be carbon-
     weighted, technology-neutral, and long-lasting. This policy 
     would make lower emission power sources less expensive 
     relative to higher emission sources while taking into account 
     our Nation's energy security needs. It would take the 
     government out of picking technology winners and losers in 
     this emerging market. And it would provide a positive and 
     reliable market signal for technology investment and 
     investment in domestic manufacturing capacity and 
     infrastructure.
       Overall, the Administration does not believe that efforts 
     to avoid tax increases on Americans need to be coupled with 
     provisions to increase revenue. Although the Senate has 
     avoided pairing AMT relief with tax increases, the bill 
     contains a host of objectionable provisions. The 
     Administration strongly opposes the provision in the bill 
     that would subject U.S. companies to continued double 
     taxation by further delaying the effect of new rules for 
     allocating worldwide interest for foreign tax credit 
     purposes. The Administration also strongly opposes the 
     provision in the bill that would treat U.S. citizens with 
     deferred compensation from certain employers--in all 
     industries--more unfavorably than other U.S. citizens. 
     Together, these provisions would increase tax burdens, 
     undermine the competitiveness of U.S. workers and businesses, 
     and could have adverse effects on the U.S. economy. The 
     Administration also opposes the continued expansion of tax-
     credit bonds and the reinstatement of the exclusion from tax 
     of amounts received under qualified group legal services 
     plans. The Administration urges Congress to eliminate all 
     such provisions from the final bill.
       The Administration also strongly opposes the provision in 
     the bill to increase cash balances in the Highway Account of 
     the Highway Trust Fund by transferring $8 billion from the 
     General Fund. It is a longstanding principle that highway 
     construction and maintenance should be funded by those who 
     use the highway system. Instead, this provision is both a 
     gimmick and a dangerous precedent that shifts costs from 
     users to taxpayers at large. Moreover, the provision would 
     unnecessarily increase the deficit and would place any hope 
     of future, responsible constraints on highway spending in 
     jeopardy. This provision is unnecessary, because the 
     Administration has proposed a responsible alternative that 
     protects taxpayers.
       Finally, the Administration objects to a budget gimmick in 
     the bill that would raise revenues by modifying the tax 
     treatment of deferred compensation over the current budget 
     window, but allow this provision to expire so that it, like 
     the new rules for allocating worldwide interest for foreign 
     tax credit purposes, will return to be available as a 
     ``revenue-raiser'' in next year's ten-year budget window. 
     These types of gimmicks, done for so-called ``pay as you go'' 
     reasons, harm the integrity of the tax code and increase 
     uncertainty for taxpayers.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak to the point, just so you 
know, in Iowa the flood situation is very much in the headlines. I 
think one of the problems we are having in the Midwest, in getting 
Congress to pay attention to the problems that remain from the flooding 
of June, is that it is not constantly on television. It is not on 
television all the time. Of course, for 2 months, 3 months, the 
situation

[[Page S7989]]

in New Orleans was constantly on television, and Congress responded.
  Mr. President, I see the whip here, and maybe I said something to 
which he wants to react. If he does, I would be happy to yield for that 
purpose.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will wait until the Senator has completed. I would like 
to make a statement.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Anyway, we have here in the Des Moines Register a 
headline that says, ``Storm Hit One in Five School Districts,'' and 
then it has reports on how much it is going to cost to fix the schools. 
We have another headline here that says, ``At Least $30 Million Needed 
to Repair Roads,'' as an example.
  Then we have a statement that was printed in the Davenport newspaper 
that was written by Charlotte Eby. I am not going to quote the whole 
thing. I just want to speak to parts of it.

       While Congress puts off consideration of the flood relief 
     bill, it looks like the Iowa legislature will be rolling up 
     its sleeves to help out Iowa flood victims.

  It speaks about a growing sense that the Iowa legislature has to step 
in.

       The delay of a Federal response by Congress could also push 
     back the State response, a development that left Iowans 
     angry.

  It quotes the minority leader of the Iowa senate. Ron Wieck, 
Republican of Sioux City, said action cannot wait, and if that means a 
special session, he is for it. It doesn't quote him, but it says he is 
appalled that Congress will go home for the summer recess without 
passing a Federal flood relief package when floods left people in the 
Midwest homeless.
  Then the last paragraph is not anybody's quote except the author's, 
Charlotte Eby:

       Maybe the U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House 
     speaker Nancy Pelosi ought to walk the streets of Cedar 
     Rapids. They would think twice about heading home for their 
     August recess without lending a helping hand.

  Then I have a quote from Congressman King, who went to Cedar Rapids, 
I think, as recently as Monday of this week. He says:

       This is Katrina. I have walked into and out of those 
     buildings (in New Orleans) and I tell you, you wouldn't be 
     able to tell the difference.

  He means telling the difference between the destruction that went on 
in New Orleans in the 2005 hurricane and what happened in Cedar Rapids 
in June when it was hit by a 500-year flood.
  I do applaud Senator Obama because he was in Cedar Rapids yesterday 
campaigning, and he was also very attentive to the problems of Cedar 
Rapids in his town meeting. He said he came there and wanted to listen. 
I have not heard reports on what questions he received, what complaints 
he received. He may have been talking just to a friendly audience--I 
don't know. But he did say that he was there to listen, and I hope 
after he has listened to the situation in Cedar Rapids that he will 
tell friends in the Congress of the United States that we need to act 
quickly. I hope he would say we should have acted this week--which 
action now, of course, is impossible because we are breaking for our 
summer break.
  I am here once again to discuss the plight of my fellow Iowans and 
many others throughout the Midwest following a series of deadly 
tornadoes, storms, and floods. It is a multiple disaster, tornadoes and 
floods, and not just floods. Iowa has 99 counties. Of those, 80 
counties have been designated as a disaster area by FEMA.
  When looking at a map of Iowa, it is much easier to count the few 
counties that are not disaster areas than the vast majority that are 
disaster areas. Every weekend except for this past weekend since we 
were in session, I have been back in Iowa to meet with people affected 
by the storm and to see the devastation for myself. As I noted last 
week, estimates of damage are in the billions of dollars and are 
climbing every day.
  I thought nothing could match my frustration at seeing so many Iowans 
in such great need, but the fact that we have not been able to act upon 
both the appropriations bill, as well as this tax bill, has frustrated 
me. It seems because we do not see the storm on television all the time 
that there is an apparent lack of desire to help the Midwest recover 
from these deadly tornadoes, storms, and floods, quite contrary to the 
quick action that Congress took after Katrina.
  Before I go further, I want to display a few pictures of the 
flooding. The first will show one of many railroad bridges that was 
severely damaged. Businesses such as the one in this picture rely on 
this railroad track, this bridge, to receive their inputs and move 
their goods. Throughout Iowa there are similar bridges that are 
damaged. Iowa railroads play a vital part in moving our agricultural 
products and goods, to do it efficiently, and obviously in a more 
energy-efficient way. This infrastructure is important for Iowa's 
interstate commerce and international trade.
  I have another picture that shows the museum of art at the University 
of Iowa, Iowa City. This is the museum of art. I believe I have heard 
from the university officials that this building is going to have to be 
torn down.
  The next picture shows flooding along the Iowa River. You can see the 
tops of buildings. These are homes and businesses of people who just 
want their lives back. They are not asking for anything extraordinary 
or excessive, but they are in need of help to recover and rebuild. They 
are, in a sense, asking for the same help that New Orleans got after 
Katrina.
  I would like to use the phrase ``so that they can get things back to 
normal.'' However, it is very difficult to use that phrase. It will 
take years before Iowa recovers, and it will not be the same, although 
we will still be a very strong State.
  I can share, for example, the story of my hometown of New Hartford, a 
community of 670 just west of Waterloo, IA. An F5 tornado ripped 
through this area, destroying a whole section of town. The floods then 
came and inundated the town. Out of 270 homes in New Hartford, IA, 240 
had damage or were destroyed. Businesses were also harshly affected. 
Many of them are trying to decide if they want to stay in business or 
if they can afford to stay in business. Several have already decided 
not to reopen.
  The town I lived around all my life as a farm boy--and still as a 
farmer--will never be back to normal. It won't ever be the same. I 
think we will have a thriving community but, quite frankly, it won't be 
the same.
  The next chart shows you a picture of downtown Cedar Rapids. I am 
talking about a 500-year flood. The previous flood record was about 19 
feet. Levees could take up to 22 feet. But I think this flood got as 
high as 31 feet and has been referred to as a 500-year flood.
  As you look at this picture, think of all the homes and businesses 
that are severely damaged and destroyed. Downtown Cedar Rapids is not 
going to be the same. Since Cedar Rapids and other places in Iowa are 
not popular as vacation spots as are other cities, you probably haven't 
seen or heard much of the devastation except for the week of television 
when it was actually underwater. I can assure everyone that the people 
of Iowa and the Midwest deserve the same consideration that was given 
to the people of New York after 9/11 and the people of the gulf coast 
after the hurricanes of 2005.
  Last week I touched on how the response to the Midwest disasters has 
been different from the response to other disasters. I would like to 
elaborate on that point. These are some of the same points I made last 
night, but I only took about 2 minutes to make these points.
  On August 29, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the gulf coast, 
causing widespread devastation. The Congress was in recess at the time; 
however, the Republican Congress and the Senate Finance Committee 
sprang into action immediately at the staff level, even before we got 
back the day after Labor Day. We immediately started working with the 
Governors of the affected States and set out goals that we hoped to 
accomplish when we finally came back into session.
  On September 28, 2005, less than a month----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is speaking under a 10-
minute limit.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to continue my speech for as 
much time as I might consume.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to respond when the Senator is finished. Can 
he give some indication when he might finish?

[[Page S7990]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. About 7 or 8 minutes, I think.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. On September 28, less than a month after Hurricane 
Katrina, I chaired a hearing entitled, ``Hurricane Katrina: Community 
Rebuilding Needs and Effectiveness of Past Proposals.'' Governor Blanco 
of Louisiana, Governor Barbour of Mississippi, and Governor Riley of 
Alabama all participated.

  On October 6, 2005, I chaired another hearing titled ``The Future of 
the Gulf Coast Using Tax Policy to Help Rebuild Businesses and 
Communities and Support Families.'' Treasury Secretary Snow testified 
at that hearing.
  Congress also passed tax legislation very quickly. The Katrina 
Emergency Relief Act of 2005 was signed by the President on September 
23, 2005. This unoffset package cost more than $6 billion. That package 
was followed up by the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, which was 
signed by President Bush in December of 2005. This unoffset package was 
scored to cost around $8.6 billion. Neither of these packages were 
subject to a rollcall vote in the Senate, but both were passed by 
unanimous consent.
  I want to make it clear that we did the right thing by setting aside 
our planned agenda to help the people affected by hurricanes as quickly 
as we could. Some of the people still living on the gulf coast still 
need our help, and we should be helping them, and some of these tax 
provisions in what we call the extenders package continue some of that 
help. Passing these bills without offsets was also the right thing to 
do. As any of my staffers can tell you, I am very careful with the 
money. However, when people are suffering from a massive natural 
disaster, it is no time to be a cheapskate.
  I am also very frustrated by the desire of some House Democrats to 
offset this tax relief package for Iowans and other Midwesterners 
because that is a double standard. We did not demand offsets when we 
were trying to help New Orleans. I am not asking for anything more than 
the same consideration that was given to the victims of other major 
disasters.
  I have learned lessons from previous tax disaster packages. We 
learned we need to tailor the relief so more is targeted specifically 
for those who suffered damages and really need the assistance. 
Therefore, the package I introduced, that I tried to get unanimous 
consent on last night, called the Midwestern Disaster Tax Relief Act of 
2008, provides targeted assistance to families and businesses in 10 
States throughout the central United States to help those who suffered 
damage from these deadly storms and floods, to help them rebuild their 
lives.
  The estimated cost of the bill is less than $4 billion. We need to be 
prudent with our Federal money, and as I stated, my tax package is 
targeted to those who suffered loss and is a reasonable cost to help 
these victims of the storms and floods in the 10 States that were 
affected. From that standpoint, that is something we have learned in 
the last 3 years from the package that was passed after Katrina.
  There were people who took advantage of some provisions who were not 
harmed by the natural disaster, so we have tailored this bill so that 
only people who were harmed by the flood situation are the ones we will 
help. We had Senators Harkin, Bond, McCaskill, Coleman, Klobuchar, 
Durbin, Obama, Roberts, Brownback, Lugar, and Bayh all as original 
cosponsors of this bill. In the House, the Iowa Congressional 
Delegation introduced a companion bill, and the list of the original 
cosponsors to this bill shows this is a very bipartisan package. We all 
recognize the need for targeted relief for the Midwest. The problem 
seems to be the ability to get the bill up in a timely fashion like we 
did in the case of New Orleans. I have been hearing that the Democratic 
leadership in the House is insisting that the package be offset, which 
is completely different than how we responded to disasters in the past 
when we didn't worry about offsets. Normally when we have emergencies, 
they are emergencies; you get the bill passed to help the people who 
need it.
  Just yesterday the Senate voted against cloture on an extenders 
package put forward by Senate Democrats. It purported to include 
disaster relief. I am taken aback that the Senate Democrats would 
politicize the suffering of so many people just to try to get an 
extenders bill passed. The disaster relief in that bill was watered 
down. It provided substantially less assistance for Iowa and the other 
States in the central portion of the United States.
  The Senator from Illinois is here, and I hope he hears that because I 
want to emphasize that that bill is quite a bit different and doesn't 
do as much good. It is not targeted. It is not helping people who need 
to be helped right now.
  Its authors were apparently motivated by the twin misconceptions that 
the Midwestern disasters are not as severe as they really are and that 
we should undertake generic tax relief at the expense of the Midwest.
  When I say the proponents of the Democratic extender package think 
the disaster is not as severe as they are, I say that noting that their 
package provided less assistance to the Midwest than my bipartisan tax-
targeted disaster tax bill did provide.
  The Democratic disaster package also had a higher revenue score than 
my package. I told you we tried to scale this back so we did not make 
the same mistakes we did in the case of Katrina, where a lot of people 
who did not get hurt by the disaster were able to take advantage of 
it--not our intention. But because we probably hastened it through to 
get help to Katrina victims, some people took advantage of it.
  We tailored this so only people who have a disaster can benefit from 
it. It had a higher revenue score, as I said, than the Democratic 
alternative. They included the whole country instead of disasters that 
have not occurred. I am not arguing that we should look at putting 
generic assistance into the Tax Code to assist States when Federal 
disasters are declared the future. It seems to me that is a worthy 
thing for us to be discussing.
  However, I do not think it is right to slow down the help for the 
Midwest because you want a broader national policy. People in the 
Midwest and Iowa are suffering now and have been for almost 2 months. 
They have experienced a severe event that was well above the 500-year 
flood level. This is an extraordinary disaster. We need the help right 
now.
  The proper time to make a thorough a review of how we generally 
respond to disasters should not come at the expense of a specific 
massive natural disaster that has occurred and the people need 
immediate assistance. The author of the disaster package put forward in 
the Democrat's extender bill may have meant well, but I cannot help but 
feel that Iowa and the Midwest would be getting the short end of the 
stick.
  Their disaster package also included a provision that only benefitted 
New York, at a cost of more than $1 billion. This is the second-largest 
provision in that disaster relief package, when people are literally 
trying to rebuild their homes, their businesses, and lives in the 
Midwest. It is simply insulting and disgraceful to use the misery of 
others to play politics and gamesmanship at a time when we should be 
able to put politics aside, as we did in September 2005, to help people 
going through extraordinarily difficult times.
  However, there are apparently some who, because we do not see this on 
television or because they have other agendas, want to take advantage 
to get more. At the same time, I am trying to get help for my 
constituents.
  The correct question to put is simply: How can I help?
  The best course of action would be for the House and Senate to pass 
the Midwestern Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 and do it as we did in 
September 2005; do it by unanimous consent.
  We can discuss general disaster response as well, but right now the 
people of Iowa are suffering and the Midwest is suffering as well. We 
have a moral obligation to help them as we helped the people and 
citizens of New York after 9/11 and the gulf coast when they needed 
help.
  If anyone honestly believes Iowans do not deserve our help, then 
please come down to the floor, state your views, talk about it. I will 
encourage anyone who has doubts about the severity of this disaster to 
do like Senator Obama did yesterday, come to Iowa and I will be glad to 
take you around when you can come.
  I am ready to yield the floor, but I had previously made a statement 
that

[[Page S7991]]

I was going to make a unanimous consent request on the immigration 
bill. I am not going to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when Senator Grassley comes to the floor 
and speaks of the Midwestern need, he speaks of an issue of which I 
have intimate personal knowledge. In 1993, it was my district, my 
congressional district, inundated by these floods.
  I spent countless hours and days working with the brave volunteers 
and the National Guard and others to try to save buildings and homes 
and farms, filling sandbags and doing everything we could to fight off 
the flooding of the Illinois River and the Mississippi River.
  This flood, which was not supposed to occur 15 years later, matched 
the intensity of the 1993 flood, in some places it overwhelmed the 
intensity in others, particularly in the State of Iowa. The scenes 
Senator Grassley has depicted on the floor and have been described to 
me by Senator Harkin are absolutely heartbreaking.
  Cedar Rapids and so many other communities were devastated. I wish to 
make a point for the Record. It is this: In the 26 years I have served 
in the House and the Senate, I have never--repeat never--voted against 
emergency disaster relief for any part of our country.
  I have felt that when that occurs, we need to come together as an 
American family and help others, even if it did not affect my State of 
Illinois. Time and again, I have voted for that disaster relief, 
believing the day might come when I would need it for the people I 
represented. I sincerely believe that. I believe that what Senator 
Grassley has offered, in terms of additional assistance for Iowa, and 
perhaps even for my State, in the style that was offered to Katrina 
victims may be a good idea. I have not had a chance to study it. But I 
am inclined to support it.
  I believe it could be a valuable addition to the assistance which we 
provided.
  I wish to make it clear from the outset that what I am about to say 
does not reflect the fact that I could end up cosponsoring the bill 
offered by Senator Grassley and work and vote for it and probably will 
before it is all over.
  But I cannot understand what happened here last night. The Senate 
adjourned. We passed the adjournment resolution. Virtually everyone had 
gone. The floor was empty but for Senator Grassley, myself and maybe 
one other Member and the Presiding Officer.
  Then, at 10 o'clock at night, Senator Grassley came on the floor and 
made a unanimous consent request for this assistance for Iowa. Now, he 
is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. I do not serve 
on that committee. What he is asking for would be a measure that would 
be considered by his committee. I looked around for Senator Baucus, the 
chairman of the committee who works with Senator Grassley. He had left 
for the evening, as most other Members had.
  To think that at that moment in time, with virtually no one in the 
Senate, after the adjournment resolution had been passed, when the 
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was not on the floor, the 
Senator came and made his request.
  Now, any Senator can make any request at any time. But it was not 
made at a moment in time where one might expect success. This is a 
matter that should have been brought up weeks ago, weeks ago by the 
Senator from Iowa, and so many others, in the Senate Finance Committee, 
resolved and brought to the floor.
  But it was not until the Chamber was empty late at night that it was 
brought up. I spoke on behalf of Senator Baucus and I objected. I did 
because it concerned me that the day before, we had a measure on the 
floor to not only help Iowa, which truly needs help, but to help 
Illinois, to help all the States that have encountered disasters during 
the course of this last year.

  Senator Grassley's request relates primarily to the Midwestern area, 
which I am part of, and to disasters which occurred after May 20. There 
are many States that have faced many disasters which would not be 
helped by Senator Grassley's bill. He made that conscious choice. He 
wanted to help his own State and, of course, he would. I would want to 
help my State first too.
  But in the scheme of things, do we not owe an obligation to other 
States that have faced disasters to try to treat them fairly as well? 
How can some Senators on the Republican side come and vote against 
disaster relief on Wednesday or Thursday, and then come the next day 
and say: I want my own version of the bill--late at night--let's make 
sure we get it passed.
  The Senate does not work that way and it should not. We should be 
conscious of the disasters across the United States and be evenhanded. 
Now, the Senator raised my name in the debate this morning, referring 
to me as the majority whip. I had not planned on being on the Senate 
floor. But my staff said: The Senator from Iowa is making reference to 
you. I came to the floor. I wanted to make sure the Record is complete 
and at least reflects my own views of what happened last night and what 
should happen moving forward.
  The Senator from Iowa said this morning, and I wish to quote what he 
said because I think it is very important. The Senator from Iowa, in 
describing why he voted against S. 3335, which includes the energy tax 
extenders, $8 billion for the highway trust fund so 400,000 jobs across 
America would not be lost; money to protect families from the 
alternative minimum tax penalties; the Wellstone Mental Health Parity 
Bill; and, disaster assistance for the State of Iowa, the Senator voted 
against that.
  This morning here is how he explained it:

       We, the minority, want to stay on the No. 1 problem 
     affecting this country and, that is, the high cost of 
     gasoline and the energy crisis that is facing the Nation.

  That is how he explained his vote against the measure. Yet he comes 
to the floor and asks the Senate to move off that energy matter so his 
bill can pass. The Senator cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it 
both ways, when we bring a bill to the floor to help the State of Iowa 
and other disaster-stricken States and you vote against it saying, ``I 
do not want to move off the Energy bill,'' and then, while we are still 
on the Energy bill, make a unanimous consent to move off it to help 
your State.
  If we are going to be fair to all the States that have faced 
disasters, then we should pass this bill. I am going to give you a 
chance to help Iowa now.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6049

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy Job 
Creation Act of 2008, that the amendment at the desk, the text of which 
is S. 3335, be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read 
a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; that any statements be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to Senator Grassley for the purpose of his 
explaining his objection so the Senator's objection is in the Record. 
But do I not want to surrender the floor. Is that possible?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yes, I will take that opportunity. I 
hope I get to have an opportunity to offer a unanimous consent request 
as well for our side of the aisle, if you want to be completely fair. 
In the last few weeks in this body, we have not necessarily been fair.
  So let me take advantage of the majority whip's invitation to 
respond. First of all, he knows, because he is in the leadership, that 
I gave the majority party information, at least 48 hours ago, and maybe 
72 hours ago, that this week I was going to seek a unanimous consent 
request, and all day yesterday we were denied that opportunity, even at 
the point before adjournment and my speaking to Leader Reid about when 
can I do my unanimous consent request.
  You know what I was told? After the adjournment resolution. So do not 
say

[[Page S7992]]

I did not make an attempt to do it and do not say you did not know 
about it. If you wanted to cooperate with us, we could have had that 
cooperation. But there does not seem to be that sort of comity in the 
Senate anymore.
  Another point you made was that I had a chance to work for a tax 
relief package for flood victims. The bill you voted for and you asked 
unanimous consent on did less for your constituents than the 
legislation we had been working on for 2 weeks.
  Then, he brings up the point about not working through committee. 
Well, most of the work on this bill has been so we can get a consensus 
package, working with even Chairman Rangel's staff, so it is not only 
bipartisan but bicameral, so we can put together something and get it 
done very quickly in the same consensus manner that we were able to 
help the victims of New Orleans.
  Then, the other reason: Why would the Senator from Illinois cosponsor 
our bill if it was not the right bill for his State and for the Midwest 
and for this disaster?
  We have always tried to do things as quickly as can be done when 
people hurt. That is why when we got back after Katrina--on Tuesday or 
Wednesday--we had $10 billion that we were going to give to New 
Orleans. Before the end of the week was up, it was $60 billion, in 
2005.
  Now, do you think the committee had an opportunity to work its will 
on that? No. They were responding to need. Don't you think your 
constituents hurt across from Burlington? They may be still underwater. 
I do not know. A couple weeks ago, they were when I was talking on the 
radio station. In Burlington you had constituents who still had just 
the roofs of houses showing. Don't you think they need help right now?
  So I think, first of all, procedural-wise, either the majority whip 
does not know what is going on when I notify his cloakroom that I am 
going to offer it or else he does not care or he wants to mislead.
  The second thing is, he is not voting for the bills and pushing the 
bills that will help his constituents the most, and we still do not 
have the relief.
  So that is my response to the Senator from Illinois.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would just say to the Senator from Iowa, 
I was not part of his conversation with the majority leader as to when 
he was going to offer his unanimous consent request. He offered it 
after the chairman of the Finance Committee had left and virtually all 
the members had left.
  Whether he had an opportunity to do that before, I do not know. He 
did not make a request of me. I was not aware of it. But he certainly 
met with Senator Baucus during the course of this week and had ample 
opportunity to raise this issue. It is something that should have been 
resolved between the two of them before Senator Baucus left. I think he 
would understand, as I do, that is a problem for Senator Baucus to be 
gone and to make a unanimous consent request.
  One thing the Senator from Iowa did not say was why he objected to 
this bill. Again, he voted against it. Now he objected again--this bill 
that does contain assistance for my State and his State because of the 
recent flood disaster. The simple reason is, he disagrees with many of 
the other provisions of this bill and decided he would vote against it. 
That is his right as a Senator.
  I will tell him again, I may find his bill that he is offering today 
to be the right bill for my State and for his State as well and support 
him. Even if his unanimous consent request prevailed today, the House 
is gone. We will be gone in just a matter of hours. Nothing is going to 
happen to his request until we return in September.
  Maybe after the August break, and a little bit of time and 
reflection, we can come back and find what we need; that is, a 
bipartisan approach to helping a lot of innocent victims of this 
flooding in the Midwest and victims of other disasters across the 
United States.
  As much as I feel for my own home State and his State of Iowa, there 
are many other disaster victims who need a helping hand as well. I 
think we ought to consider all of them when we return.
  So at this point, Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor and 
say to the Senator from Iowa, we have worked closely on things before. 
But when he raised my name on the Senate floor this morning, when I was 
not present, I felt I had to come down and explain what happened last 
night and the situation we find ourselves in today.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2291

  Mr. President, I have one unanimous consent request to ask, which I 
do not think has an objection.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 869, S. 2291, the Plain Language in 
Government Communications Act; that an Akaka substitute amendment, 
which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a 
third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bennett, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The senior Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3322

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves 
the floor, I want to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill to which 
he is probably going to object. But I want him to know that people on 
this side of the aisle want to move things along.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance 
be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322, and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that 
the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, 
be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, and the bill be held at the desk pending further House 
action.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is the 
same request that was made last night.
  On behalf of Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, thank you very much.


                                 Energy

  Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about an issue we have 
talked a lot about in the Senate for weeks and now months, literally, 
and we have not reached a resolution on it. It is the question of 
energy and gasoline and what has been happening to our economy, what 
has been happening to our families.
  There is plenty of blame to go around. I am not here to do that 
today. But I do think that anything we talk about--and certainly 
anything we legislate on--has to pass two tests. One test is, will it 
provide short-term relief to families or short-term help to the 
economy? And, will it help long term? If it does not pass the short-
term and/or the long-term test, we should not be doing it. That is kind 
of the frame of what I want to use to talk about some of the issues I 
am going to raise this morning.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. CASEY. Sure.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I apologize for interrupting the Senator.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following the Senator's 
remarks for 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for 
reminding me what I promised I would do.
  Mr. President, I want to talk about this issue in terms of short term 
and long term because one thing that has been missing from this debate, 
frankly, on both sides, is sometimes not nearly enough honesty--a lot 
of charges and countercharges, a lot of finger pointing, and not enough 
progress. I think for one party or the other in the Senate to blame the 
other is not productive, nor is it accurate.
  So let's talk about short term and long term. There are some things 
we

[[Page S7993]]

can do short term to help this problem. No one here has a magic wand to 
say if we take this action, gas prices are going to go down in the next 
couple of weeks. Anyone who says that is probably not telling the 
truth--maybe not even over the course of a couple of months. But there 
are some things we should try to help in the short term before we 
abandon that and say all we can do is look to the long term, which we 
all know is renewable energy and all of these strategies. But let's 
talk about the short term.
  I think yesterday a number of Senators--I think the total is 36; I 
will stand corrected if I am wrong about that--at least 35 or 36 
Senators wrote to the President of the United States. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the July 31 letter to the President 
regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2008.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing today to urge you to use 
     your emergency authority to immediately release oil from the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Virtually no other action you 
     could take would have as positive or as immediate an impact 
     at the pump, lowering fuel prices for American consumers and 
     businesses. Unlike other proposals put forward in recent days 
     that would take 8 to 10 years to affect the price of 
     gasoline, an announcement of plans to release oil from the 
     Reserve could cause a decline in oil prices within hours. A 
     similar announcement made by your father, President George H. 
     W. Bush, in 1991 led oil prices to decline within a day of 
     the announcement, even though the actual release of oil did 
     not occur for two weeks.
       For the past two months, U.S. gasoline prices have topped 
     $4.00 per gallon--at least $1 more than just a year ago. 
     Diesel fuel has been even more expensive, now averaging $4.60 
     a gallon. This has had a devastating effect on American 
     families and businesses. Although gasoline prices have risen 
     165 percent since you have taken office, average gross income 
     has increased only approximately 24 percent. High 
     transportation costs are adding to higher prices in our 
     stores and supermarkets, too.
       Fuel prices have risen in direct response to rising crude 
     oil prices. The 40-percent increase in oil prices since the 
     beginning of the year is unprecedented, given that there have 
     been no unusual world supply disruptions. Instead, growing 
     worldwide demand, flat production, and uncontrolled market 
     speculation have put upward pressure on oil prices. This 
     crisis constitutes a severe energy supply interruption. It 
     requires an immediate response, and you hold it in your power 
     to authorize a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     that will immediately supplement our crude oil supply and 
     break the cycle of spiraling speculation.
       The Government Accountability Office recommended in a 
     hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources on February 26, 2008, that the Department of Energy 
     hold 10 percent of its Strategic Petroleum Reserve inventory 
     in heavy crude oil. The lack of heavy, sour crude oil in the 
     Reserve inventory poses a problem for refiners that use this 
     kind of oil, refiners upon whom we would rely in the case of 
     an emergency supply disruption. The Department has 
     acknowledged the benefit of holding heavier crude oil in its 
     inventory and stated its intent to acquire heavy crude oil as 
     it expands its inventory capacity.
       We ask that you take immediate action to begin to implement 
     this modernization of the Reserve by releasing 70 million 
     barrels of light, sweet crude oil, about 10 percent of the 
     current Reserve inventory.
       This would have an immediate effect on oil and gasoline 
     prices, unlike proposals that would open new federal land and 
     offshore areas for drilling, which would not add oil to the 
     market for many years.
       At an appropriate time in the future, the Reserve should be 
     replenished with lower-grade, heavy crude oil, in accordance 
     with the GAO's recommendation. Market conditions are 
     favorable for this exchange of light for heavy crude, as the 
     current high price differential between these two crude types 
     would allow the Department to generate considerable revenue.
       Given the benefits this step offers for the mission of the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the relief it would provide 
     to Americans suffering from record high fuel costs, we urge 
     you to direct the Department of Energy to release light, 
     sweet crude oil from the reserve to help Americans at the 
     pump now.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,
         Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Bill Nelson, John Kerry, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Kent Conrad, Debbie Stabenow, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, --
           ---- ------.

  Mr. CASEY. I won't read the whole letter, and I won't read all the 
signatures. But here is how the letter starts. The first line of the 
letter reads:

       Dear Mr. President:
       We are writing today--

  Meaning yesterday--

     to urge you to use your emergency authority to immediately 
     release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

  It goes on later in that paragraph to say:

       A similar announcement made by your father, President 
     George H.W. Bush, in 1991 led oil prices to decline within a 
     day of the announcement, even though the actual release of 
     oil did not occur for two weeks.

  So when that happened in 1991, oil prices went down very rapidly. The 
same happened with this President Bush in the aftermath of Hurricane 
Katrina. So what we ask is that the President--he does not need 
Congress; he does not need to get a consensus in Washington--the 
President has the authority today to release oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
  So the letter, toward the end, says:

       We ask that you take immediate action to begin to implement 
     this modernization of the Reserve by releasing 70 million 
     barrels of light, sweet crude oil, about 10 percent of the 
     current Reserve inventory.

  So I am quoting in part from the letter, but the point is, the 
President of the United States today--today--has all the power and the 
authority to take that action. Will it be a magic wand? No. Will it 
immediately lower prices? Probably not. But it has the potential 
because of the precedents of what happened before--the recent history 
on this--to bring down prices. So that is something that is short term 
that the President could do right now. I hope he would do that.
  But let's talk about long term. One thing we all agree upon, both 
sides of the aisle, we can fight and we can point fingers and we can 
have arguments and debates--and it is OK to debate--but one thing we 
all agree on, no matter what party we are in--and this is something the 
American people understand in their gut; they get this and they 
understand this--we have to take steps now that we should have taken 10 
years ago or maybe 20 or 25 years ago that we did not take to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil and to get to this question of 
renewables.
  We had that chance a couple of times in the last 18 months. We had 
that chance just a few days ago, but it was blocked. A lot of people in 
this body voted for it. We did not get enough votes, but here is what 
was blocked.
  Let me run through a quick list because sometimes when these votes 
occur and the vote is announced we forget what was voted on. Here is 
what was blocked a couple days ago: a new consumer tax credit for the 
purchase of plug-in electric vehicles, to move that tax credit from 
$3,000 to $5,000, plug in electric vehicles, that was blocked; a 1-year 
extension of a wind power tax credit, that was blocked; a 3-year 
extension of biomass, geothermal, and other renewable energy tax 
credits, that was blocked; an extension of the 30-percent investment 
tax credit for solar energy, that was blocked; an extension of the 10-
percent investment tax credit for fuel cells, that was blocked; a 5-
year extension of the tax deduction for energy-efficient commercial 
buildings--we know we have to do that--that was blocked; a 3-year 
extension of the tax credit for energy-efficient appliances, that was 
blocked.
  So on issue after issue that gets to this question of reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil, getting off of oil generally--not just 
foreign oil but getting off of the dependence on oil--working on all of 
those renewable energy strategies that everybody in the country knows 
we have to do, they were blocked a couple days ago, and we should 
remind people who are paying attention to this issue that actually 
happened.
  We have a debate currently about speculation. I am not going to spend 
a lot of time on that. It is not a magic wand. I have said that before. 
But it is one of the ways--probably more long term than short term, but 
it is one of the ways we have to provide some relief long term.
  So these are strategies that, whether it is speculation, cracking 
down, and providing more sunlight--that is all we are asking for, is to 
say: If you want to make a lot of money in the market, and we have a 
commodity futures entity that regulates your conduct, we

[[Page S7994]]

want to give them the authority to provide sunlight to that 
transaction. That is all we are asking. That is all we are asking on 
speculation.
  So speculation passes maybe both but at least one of the short-term/
long-term tests--one of that two-part test. This letter to the 
President on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--that certainly passes the 
short-term test that we can get some short-term help. It is not all the 
relief we want, not a magic wand, but it can provide some help.
  So what else do we need to talk about?
  We have been talking and talking a lot about drilling. Let's put some 
facts on the table. Some of these facts have not been on the table. It 
is important to do that. I know there are a lot of people out there 
saying: If we could just drill, we could have some relief provided. I 
would argue--and I think there is a lot of evidence to show this--that 
the drilling argument put forth by the other side does not pass the 
short-term test and does not pass the long-term test. It does not pass 
either test, and we know that.
  Here is what should be on the table in terms of facts. All these 
years since the President has been in office, the price of gasoline has 
gone up, and in my home State of Pennsylvania people are paying more in 
a year--almost $2,800 more--for gasoline than they were when the 
administration started. OK. That is just a fact. We know the price of 
gasoline has gone up. Everyone understands that.
  But while the price of gasoline was going up over the last couple 
years, guess what else was going up. This has not been talked about 
much. There has been a 361-percent increase in oil drilling. So we have 
increased oil drilling a lot. Some might argue we have never drilled 
more. There has been a 361-percent increase in oil drilling since the 
President came into office, and yet the price of gasoline has gone up 
at the same time. So this idea that oil drilling has been restricted or 
limited is contrary to the facts.
  So how can that be? If the other side keeps talking about ``drilling 
leading to relief,'' how can it be that we have had that increase, and 
whether you measure it by the increase in drilling or the leases, we 
have had a dramatic increase in the number of leases. So that is fact 
No. 1, a 361-percent increase in oil drilling since the administration 
started.

  Here is another fact: Seventy-nine percent of America's recoverable 
oil reserves are already open for drilling. Seventy-nine percent are 
open--open for business right now. So there is plenty of drilling going 
on; in fact, it has accelerated. Yet the price of gasoline has gone up.
  Regarding the 24-percent versus 3-percent argument that I and others 
have made, the Washington Post had a chart on Sunday, July 27, page A-
8, and I have the chart right here, a chart in red. It reads very 
simply: The percent of the world's oil consumed by the United States in 
2007: 24.4 percent. So we are consuming more of the world's oil. It is 
up to 24 percent. So if you want to drill your way to that 24 percent 
of the world's oil--because that is what the other side is saying--then 
we must be, I guess, hoping to produce enough to get there. Well, we 
know America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, so no 
matter what we do on drilling, even if we add to the massive increase 
we have had in drilling, it is not going to get us to the 24.4 percent 
consumption. That is why we have to get renewables.
  So when people across America say we can't drill our way out of it, 
that is not just a nice little phrase, it is the truth. You can't get 
to 24.4 percent if you only have 3 percent of the reserves, no matter 
what you do on drilling.
  Finally--and I won't spend a lot of time on this, but it is relevant 
to the discussion--one party involved but that hasn't checked in on the 
debate to give us a little help is the oil companies. Members of the 
House and Senate are debating and sometimes fighting, the American 
people are arguing about this, and all the while this debate is going 
on, guess who is getting our tax money--tens of billions--and guess who 
is also doing pretty well on their quarterly profits. Big oil. I have 
said it before and I will say it again. President Kennedy was right. 
Once in a while, we have to ask ourselves, what can we do for our 
country? I have to ask Mr. Big Oil: What are you doing for your 
country? While we are having this debate and while everyone is 
frustrated by gas prices--and rightfully so--what is big oil doing?
  Well, here is what they are doing. ExxonMobil released their 
quarterly profits: in one quarter, almost $12 billion in profits, and 
we are giving them tax breaks. So they get all the drilling they need, 
they are getting our tax money, their quarterly profit is $11 billion, 
and they are not checking in. They are not saying, you know what--or we 
are not saying to them with legislation--we want to do it, I want to do 
it, but we don't have enough votes on the other side to do it. We are 
not saying: You know what, Mr. Big, with big oil profits, you have 
enough. You have enough tax breaks, you have enough places to drill. 
You have enough profits. You have enough. It is time for Mr. Big Oil to 
give a little, to help us a little as we debate this, because until 
they check in and until they help the American people, or until we 
force them to help the American people, we are going to be missing a 
lot of opportunities.
  I will conclude with this. I think we should continue this important 
debate. I am happy the majority leader, who I think has shown great 
leadership on this issue, has continued to work in a bipartisan way and 
wants to have a summit, a meeting with both parties. That is important 
to get something done. I think we can. If we don't start dealing with 
facts and start dealing with that test, what will help us short term 
but, more importantly, what is going to help us long term--and that is 
renewables--until we get to the question of renewables and until more 
people on the other side start voting to incentivize the creation of 
renewable sources of energy, we are not going to make much progress. So 
I think we need to focus on that test and we need to make sure we are 
working in a bipartisan way to try to bring some relief to American 
families.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized for 20 minutes.


                                 China

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come today as a United States Senator, 
but also as the co-chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission 
on China. I wish to tell my colleagues that the Congress created the 
Congressional-Executive Commission on China in the year 2000 to monitor 
China's compliance with international human rights standards and to 
encourage the development of the rule of law there. I am proud to be a 
co-chairman of the Congressional Executive Commission on China. I think 
the role it performs is an extremely important one.
  I come to the Senate floor today in that role. I also come as well to 
say that at a time when there is so much criticism of almost everybody 
in the political system--and I have done my share of differing with 
various people in politics--I come today to say to President Bush that 
I very much appreciate the actions he took this week when he met with 
several dissidents from China, all of whom have been imprisoned in 
China for exercising the fundamental human right of free speech.
  The President met with the dissidents for the same reason I come to 
the floor of the Senate this morning. One week from today, the 2008 
Summer Olympics begin. It is a great pageantry and a great celebration, 
in many ways. It is a celebration of athletic achievement from all 
around the globe. We will have many Americans representing our country 
and demonstrating their individual achievements on the field of sport. 
We will have basketball players and tennis players and gymnasts and 
track and field participants. They will participate in these wonderful 
Olympic games that occur every 4 years.
  The Olympic games at this time, a week from now, will be held in the 
country of China. There was dispute about that and concern about China 
hosting the Olympics, but China convinced the International Olympic 
Committee that it would make significant progress in areas that reflect 
the ideals of the Olympics--especially human rights and human dignity. 
Because of the commitments it made, China was awarded the Olympic Games 
for 2008.

[[Page S7995]]

This is, it seems to me, not only an opportunity for athletes from our 
country and around the world to compete in sport, but it is also an 
opportunity, given that the Games will be held this year in China, for 
our country and for other countries to appeal to the Chinese government 
to open its system to greater human rights. It is also an opportunity 
to strongly urge the Chinese government at this point to address the 
issue of so many of its citizens--many of whom are its best and 
brightest citizens--sitting in dark prison cells, having been sent to 
prison for exercising the right of free speech.
  China is an extraordinary country. You cannot understand the wonder 
of China without visiting it. You can't help but stand on the Great 
Wall of China and think about the history of this incredibly 
interesting country. Visiting China is an extraordinary experience. 
But, it is also the case that China is not an open society.
  Our Congressional-Executive Commission on China has the largest 
database of prisoners, the most complete database of Chinese political 
prisoners that is accessible and searchable by the public. Why do we 
keep that database? So we can shine a bright light into the darkest 
cells of China, for those who have been imprisoned by the Chinese for 
exercising the right of free assembly and free speech, and to say to 
them: The world knows you are there. You are not forgotten.
  The international community has the opportunity at this moments 
during these Olympics to speak up and speak out. I complimented 
President Bush for meeting with the dissidents this week. I think it 
was exactly the right thing to do. I compliment him and support him for 
what he said to the dissidents. He said to the dissidents that he 
intended to not only care about freedom and liberty, but when he 
traveled to China, and to talk to the Chinese about freedom and 
liberty.

  All of the people President Bush met with this week have spent years 
in Chinese jails for advocating on behalf of religious freedom, human 
rights, freedom of speech in China. So when the President travels to 
China for the opening of the Olympics, it is vital, it seems to me--and 
I think I speak for the entire Congress--to say it is vital that the 
President express in the strongest terms possible to the Chinese that 
they need to address the human rights problems in their country that 
have been so deeply disturbing to the rest of the world.
  As I indicated, we have the names of 807 political prisoners known or 
believed to be currently detained, imprisoned or under house arrest. 
These 807 records of Chinese people in jail are a subset of the nearly 
4,500 records in the Political Prisoner Database. The rest of the 
records reflect release, death, or escape.
  Our commission works very hard to get information out about those who 
are being held in some of the darkest cells in China. We want the world 
to pay attention. The President of the United States committing to go 
to China and to talk to the Chinese leaders about these people is very 
important. We have sent President Bush the list of 807 prisoners now in 
Chinese prisons. Let me go through a few of them, because I think it is 
important to attach faces and names to this list of 807 people.
  This man is named Hu Jia. Hu Jia is a courageous activist who was 
jailed last December by Chinese authorities because he was invited to 
speak at a European Parliament hearing. At the hearing, he made 
comments in his testimony that were critical of China hosting the 
Olympics. The result was that he was put in a Chinese prison. His wife 
and infant daughter--and you see his wife and daughter in this 
photograph--were placed under house arrest for several months. In 
April, Hu Jia was sentenced to 3\1/2\ years in prison for inciting 
subversion of state power. Let me describe the charge again: ``Inciting 
subversion of state power.''
  I recently talked to a man who testified at that same European 
Parliament hearing and along with Mr. Hu Jia. This man, however, is not 
in prison because he is not a Chinese citizen. He also just expressed 
himself like Hu Jia. At the request of a hearing of the European 
Parliament, he testified and expressed himself. He expressed criticism 
of China for being chosen to host the Olympics. For that, Mr. Hu Jia 
will spend 3\1/2\ years in a Chinese prison.
  The next photograph is a photograph of Yang Chunlin. He has been 
repeatedly detained for helping farmers seek compensation for lost land 
in China. Last summer he organized a petition entitled ``We Want Human 
Rights, Not The Olympics.'' He was subsequently arrested and he was 
charged for inciting subversion of state power. We are told that he has 
suffered severe beatings, causing damage to his eyesight, all for the 
purpose of speaking out, exercising the right of free speech. He is a 
very courageous Chinese citizen who simply wants the opportunity to 
speak freely.
  Finally, Mr. Ye Guozhu. He is pictured in this photograph alone. 
Three generations of his family were evicted from their Beijing home in 
2003 to make way for the Olympic-related construction that occurred in 
Beijing. In 2004, because three generations of his family were evicted 
from their homes, he applied for permission to organize a protest 
against other alleged forced evictions in connection with preparations 
for the Olympics. He was arrested. He has been sentenced to 4 years in 
prison.
  Let me describe the charge. The charge for which he is serving 4 
years in a Chinese prison is ``provoking and making trouble.'' Because 
three generations of his family had been evicted from their homes to 
make room for the Olympics, he decided to circulate a petition to 
organize a protest against other alleged forced evictions, and he is 
now serving 4 years in prison. We are told he has repeatedly been 
tortured. He finished his sentence, by the way, and was supposed to be 
released from prison this week. But his release has been further 
delayed, presumably, because the Olympics are near.
  The President of the United States--and only the President--has the 
power to shine the brightest light in the world into the dark cells in 
China and say to these courageous Chinese citizens that you are not 
alone. This country knows about you, about your struggle, and about 
your efforts to secure freedom of speech and other fundamental human 
rights.
  We have said to the Chinese Government we want progress. They made 
representations to the Olympic Committee, in exchange for being able to 
host the Olympics, that they would make progress on human rights. I 
have shown photographs of some very courageous Chinese citizens who now 
sit in Chinese prisons precisely because their human rights have been 
violated.
  Again, I thank President Bush for meeting with the dissidents this 
past week. I am someone who, from time to time, doesn't agree with 
President Bush. I am often critical of his work. But today I commend 
him for meeting with the dissidents who had previously served time in 
prison in China. He met with them at the White House this week. It was 
the right thing to do. He made commitments to those dissidents that he 
is going to do all he can. I hope he will--when he goes to China--take 
that torch of liberty and freedom to President Hu in China and say that 
our country will not ignore these prisoners, we will not pretend they 
don't exist. China has a responsibility to move toward greater human 
rights.
  So this is the moment. I hope very much that President Bush will do 
what he told the Chinese dissidents he will. I commend him for that, 
and I hope that not just in the next 7 days, when the Olympics are 
prepared to start, but also during the Olympics and during the 
President's visit, he will offer some hope and encouragement to those 
who now spend their time in a dark prison cell for having the temerity 
to try to speak the truth in China.
  I strongly feel that if we miss this moment, we will have missed 
something very important. I support the Olympics. They are a wonderful 
opportunity for the world. But I strongly believe that when the 
Olympics are held in a country such as China, and the Government there 
makes certain representations about human rights not only to the 
Olympic Committee but also to those who will attend the Olympics, and 
especially the President of the United States, who will meet with 
President Hu, that he will bring that message of freedom, liberty, and 
human rights to the Chinese Government and describe our expectation and 
the expectation of the international community that their citizens be 
allowed full and genuine freedom.

[[Page S7996]]

  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota has 6 
minutes 20 seconds.


                                 Energy

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple comments about 
energy. There has been a lot of discussion all week--in fact, the last 
several weeks--on energy, and the reason is obvious. When you see the 
runup and doubling of price of gas and oil in a year, the American 
people are pretty apoplectic about that. They wonder what can they do 
to respond to it. How do I afford to fill my gas tank to go to work? 
The airlines wonder: How do we afford to put jet fuel in the airplanes 
we fly? The truckers wonder: How do I fill the saddle tanks and be able 
to afford it? The farmers wonder: How do I fill the fuel tanks for the 
harvest? This is a big hit to the American economy.
  The first step is to do the obvious thing. I have a letter, for 
example, from the chief executive officer of an oil refining company 
called Tesoro. They don't produce oil; they have to buy oil like 
everybody else to refine it. He believes there is a dramatic amount of 
excess speculation in the oil market. We need to wring out the excess 
speculation from the commodity markets. Seventy-one percent of what is 
happening in the oil futures market has nothing to do with people who 
want oil. They don't want a can of oil, a 5-gallon can or even a quart. 
They want to trade paper and make money. That market is broken and has 
been taken over by speculators. We should set that market right and 
wring out the excess speculation in that market. We have testimony 
before the committee that doing that can reduce the price of oil and 
gas by 20 to 40 percent. That is step 1. We ought to do the easy 
things, and then a lot of other things.
  My colleagues say drill. I say absolutely. Conservation is the 
cheapest form of energy. Saving a barrel is the same as producing a 
barrel. We waste a lot. Producing and drilling and conservation and 
efficiency. Every light switch we turn on, every thermostat, everything 
we do can be much more efficient and lose much less energy, no question 
about that. Conservation, efficiency, production--and especially a 
game-changing approach away from every 15 years shuffling in here like 
bags of wind in blue suits, talking about the plan we had 15 years ago 
and 15 years before that and 15 years before that.
  How about finding new energy and moving toward hydrogen fuel cell 
vehicles? Hydrogen is everywhere. Water vapor would come out of the 
tailpipe. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Battery storage technology, with 
substantial research, and moving to electric cars. How about doing all 
these things? Solar, wind, biomass, geothermal--we have so many 
opportunities. We can round up all the money we spend on all of it and 
research a different energy future, which equals what we spend in the 
war in Iraq in 40 hours. We ought to do everything and do it well; but 
we ought to decide that if we are addicted--and President Bush says we 
are--what do you do with an addict? Do you say I will quit tomorrow and 
pass the bottle tonight? That is not what you do. You decide you are 
going to have something that is game changing. You are going to go to a 
different kind of energy future.
  I wish to make a final point that is very important. I support 
increased production, all those things. But my colleagues in the Senate 
have blocked--some of them in the minority--through eight votes, our 
determination to provide tax incentives for renewable energy. Renewable 
energy is so important, and we put into place permanent, robust tax 
incentives in 1916 to say that if you look for oil and gas, God bless 
you, we need it. If you find it, you will get tax incentives. We have 
done that for almost a century. Do you know what we did for people who 
tried to go find and produce wind, solar, and other renewable forms? We 
put into place tax incentives in 1992--short term, kind of shallow--and 
we extended them five times, and we let them expire three times. Start, 
stop, stutter step. The fact is, we shut off all the investment every 
time they stop. They are set to expire at the end of the year. The 
minority has blocked, eight times, the extension of the tax incentives 
so we can move toward a different energy future.
  If we don't understand that when 65 percent of your oil comes from 
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and Venezuela and outside our country and 
that makes America vulnerable--if we don't understand that, we ought to 
go back to bed; you don't need to wake up. It has been pretty 
disconcerting to see people thumb their suspenders and stick out their 
stomachs and say we need to drill another hole someplace. We suck 85 
million barrels of oil a day out of this planet, and 21 million barrels 
of that are destined for this country. We use one-fourth of every drop 
of oil pulled out of this planet every day, and almost 65 percent of it 
comes from outside our country. If you don't understand the 
vulnerability of that, then you don't have the capability to understand 
very much, in my judgment.
  We need a robust, aggressive, new energy future. It must include 
virtually everything, but at its root and at its foundation, it must 
have a game-changing device that says that 10 years from now we are 
going to have a different energy mix, a different construct.
  Yesterday, I said John F. Kennedy didn't hang around in the early 
sixties and say: I am thinking of sending a person to the Moon or I am 
going to try to send a person to the Moon or I hope we can send a 
person to the Moon. That is not what he said. He said that by the end 
of the decade, we are going to have a person walking on the Moon. How 
about saying that in this country now on energy?
  By the end of the next 10 years, we will have substantially changed 
this country's energy mix, and we are going to make the investments 
necessary to do it, so we are not shuffling around here 10 years from 
now with the same tired arguments I call ``yesterday forever.'' How 
about something that does advance this country's long-term interest in 
energy? Let's do everything we can at this point. In the meantime, 
let's set a goal and meet the goal as a country that makes us less 
dependent on foreign oil and move to a different kind of energy future.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Oregon is 
recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am heading home for town meetings this 
weekend. There is no question that the dominant subject is going to be 
all the economic hurt we are certainly seeing in Oregon and across the 
country. People are concerned about their gas bills and their food 
bills and medical bills.
  Yesterday, Senator Grassley and I, in an effort to look at a fresh 
approach to holding down gas bills, released what we call a discussion 
draft, in an effort to solicit ideas and input from people who have 
expertise on this subject, about how we might change the tax laws so as 
to not encourage speculation in the oil business.
  The current Tax Code gives speculators tax incentives to bid up the 
price of oil. Essentially, the current tax law distorts our markets. It 
favors one set of buyers and sellers over another. Senator Grassley and 
I are going to be seeking ideas and suggestions over the month-long 
August recess in the hope that in the fall, when the Senate reconvenes, 
Democrats and Republicans can come together on a bipartisan basis and 
come up with more sensible tax policies, so we don't have a tax system 
that, in effect, creates incentives to drive up the price of gasoline.
  We have put out this proposal, and it is on my Web site. Again, we 
call it a discussion draft. It is, in fact, just that--a way to gather 
ideas and input and make sure people have a chance to be heard.
  On another economic hot button issue that is burning a hole in the 
pockets of our people, I wish to spend a few minutes talking about 
health care. One of the reasons health care is so expensive is that we 
pay for so much inefficiency in our health care system. This year, we 
are going to spend about $2.3 trillion on American health care. Dr. 
Peter Orszag, the head of the CBO, estimates that about $700 billion of 
that $2.3 trillion is essentially spent on health care of little or no 
value. So we

[[Page S7997]]

have to find ways to root out some of this inefficient health care 
spending if we are going to hold the costs down.
  Yesterday, a very remarkable hearing was held in the Senate Finance 
Committee on which I serve. Senator Baucus, chairman of the committee, 
to his credit, made it clear that he is going to dig into these big 
issues. It is clear, once again, that the Tax Code, as it relates to 
health care, is clearly driving up the cost for American families and 
for our people. In effect, the Tax Code encourages inefficient 
expenditures in American health. We have writeoffs for employers. We 
have breaks for individuals but they are not shared by all. The $250 
billion that is spent through these tax rules disproportionally goes to 
the most affluent in our society, rather than the people who need it 
the most.
  If you live, for example, in a small town in Ohio or a small town in 
Oregon, here is the way it works with the Tax Code: If you are well-off 
and you have a fancy health care plan, you can tuck a whole lot of your 
compensation into that health plan tax-free. So in a town in Ohio or 
Oregon, if you are going to buy a pair of designer eyeglasses or get a 
designer smile, you can write off the cost of those Cadillac benefits. 
But if you are somebody in a small Oregon town or in Ohio who has no 
health care, you don't get those writeoffs.
  It is unfair. It encourages inefficiency because the typical worker 
is in the dark about their health care. Even if they have a plan, most 
of the time they don't have the choice. Most individuals don't have a 
chance to hold down their health care costs the way we do as Members of 
Congress. As Members of Congress, we get to choose between a host of 
private plans. If you are lucky enough to have some employer coverage 
in our country, you hardly ever have a choice, No. 1, and, No. 2, if 
your money is being spent inefficiently, there isn't anything you can 
do about it as an individual. In fact, most people don't even realize 
the reason their take-home pay doesn't go up is because all of their 
potential increase in take-home pay when they are more productive seems 
to go to health care. In fact, Dr. Orszag of the Congressional Budget 
Office has said there is so much inefficiency in the health care system 
that nothing much is going to change until people realize they are 
losing out on take-home pay because their take-home pay goes to pay for 
their health care.
  What we have said as a group in the Senate--eight Democratic Senators 
and eight Republican Senators--is we want to change this system that is 
so profoundly unfair to working people and also rewards inefficiency. 
What we have proposed in our legislation--the Healthy Americans Act--is 
to take away the Federal tax subsidies for the Cadillac health care 
plans and use that money instead so every family in America can get a 
progressive deduction of $15,000 annually to buy their health care.
  It is our view that this amounts to a trifecta. Health care would be 
fairer because we would have taken away those Cadillac tax breaks and 
given them to the middle-class folks who are having difficulty 
affording their health care. It would be more efficient because people 
would have choices of their private health coverage and have new 
incentives to make purchases carefully. And there would be a 
progressive way to finance extending coverage for more of our people.
  I have watched with great interest the effort in Pennsylvania where 
wonderful people, such as Governor Rendell and committed State 
legislators, have been trying to expand coverage. One of the reasons it 
is hard to do at the State level is there is no progressive way to 
finance some of the extra coverage for people who are uninsured or 
underinsured.
  We have found that progressive financing in the Healthy Americans Act 
because we take away the tax breaks for those Cadillac plans used for 
designer eyeglasses or new smiles, or whatever, and we move that money 
to hard working families in Oregon and Pennsylvania and Ohio for 
expanded coverage.
  Our approach, as was noted by the head of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, would give 80 percent of the American people a tax cut. A 
typical family spends about $12,000 buying their private health 
insurance, if they can afford it. We would give a tax cut to 80 percent 
of the American people with our approach.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania and I sat in on a very good meeting 
yesterday describing some of the questions that accompany making change 
on big economic issues. People want to know how do you make sure it is 
not so confusing and your family doesn't get lost in red tape. For 
example, in health care, people want to know: If I like what I have, 
can I keep it? I like the idea of looking at alternatives, but if I 
have a plan and I like it and my employer wants to continue to offer 
it, can I do it?
  What we said in the Healthy Americans Act, sponsored by 16 of us in 
the Senate, was absolutely. If you want to keep what you have and your 
employer wants to keep offering it, so be it. But if your employer 
wants more choices and if you as a worker want more choices, we also 
provide that kind of opportunity. That is why I have said our proposal 
operates very much like what all of us--the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
the Senator from Ohio, and myself--have in the Congress. There is a 
period of time when we get to choose between the various private 
insurance policies. The insurers cannot cream skim. They cannot cherry 
pick and take only healthy people and send everybody who has a health 
problem somewhere else. We do that in the Healthy Americans Act. With 
our approach, we can get a lot more for our health care dollar. A lot 
of people in this country, say if they work for a small employer where 
they do not have much bargaining power or they are out on their own, 
cannot get that today.
  We set this up so it looks, in terms of its operations, pretty much 
like the way it works for us as Members of Congress in terms of making 
our private choices. There are places you can call for help in choosing 
a plan. And giving everyone these kinds of private choices injects 
competition and new opportunities to hold down costs into the system.
  The issue we talked about yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee, 
the Federal tax rules, I would guess there is probably not 1 out of 100 
people in the United States who knows much about this. But this is one 
of the biggest programs run by the Federal Government. It comes to 
about $250 billion a year. And to have the money go out the door in a 
way that so wildly favors the most fortunate and encourages 
inefficiency at the same time strikes me as bizarre.
  Yesterday, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Senator 
Grassley, conversation was started about a topic that I think is 
essential to this issue of fixing American health care. If we do it 
right, there is the opportunity for expanding coverage in a progressive 
way so that the next time, for example, the Pennsylvania legislature 
wrestles with this issue--this issue that Governor Rendell and 
Pennsylvania legislators tackled this last year and could not pass 
legislation on--they would be able to say some changes were made in 
Federal policy so as to fund in a progressive way some of the changes 
that need to be made.
  There is no question this needs to be done in a careful and 
deliberate way. We are talking about changing something that started in 
the 1940s. In the 1940s, it probably made a lot of sense. We were not 
dealing with a global economy, and people would go to work in Oregon or 
Pennsylvania at a young age and stay put until you gave them a gold 
watch and a retirement dinner. The typical worker today changes their 
job 11 times by the time they are in their early forties. So they need 
a portable health plan they can take from place to place. We have done 
that in the Healthy Americans Act as well.
  Chairman Baucus made a very important point in terms of making sure 
this is explained to people in a more simple and straightforward way 
than it has been in the past, certainly than as it was explained in 
1993. Then fundamentally it has to be a commitment the Congress makes 
to our people to say: If you like what you have and employers want to 
keep offering it, they can do it. I hope they will. But nearly 7 
percent of the employers have gotten out of the health business 
altogether in the last few years and thousands more have heaped on the 
copayments and the deductibles in the last few years.

[[Page S7998]]

  We need to have more choices, and 16 Members of the Senate are 
working toward this goal. This is the first time in the history of this 
debate, in 60 years of the Senate debating this issue, there has ever 
been a piece of legislation where a large number of Democrats and 
Republicans have come together. Senator Bennett in particular, the 
Senator from Utah, a member of the Republican leadership, deserves 
enormous credit for his efforts to help find common ground.
  Now we have a chance for the debate as we go into September, with 
Chairman Baucus holding additional hearings in September, and all our 
colleagues being home and folks asking: What is going to be done about 
health care? We have a chance now to start that discussion about what 
it is going to take to fix American health care.
  I submit that when people talk about their bills, they are talking 
about their gas bill, they are talking about their food bill, they are 
talking about their medical bill, and that medical bill is pumped up--
that is the only way you can characterize it--by $700 billion worth of 
spending that is inefficient and is of little or no value. The Federal 
Tax Code, as we heard from three of the experts yesterday, props up all 
that inefficiency. So reforming those Federal tax rules, as we seek to 
do in the Healthy Americans Act, is a key part of the solution.
  I thank Chairman Baucus for his leadership for being willing to 
tackle an issue that lots of people, frankly, have ducked in past 
years. And I submit that finding a bipartisan solution to these 
outdated, unfair tax rules--rules that show how broken the health care 
system is--is a key to holding down the costs that people are so upset 
about and assure that we attain our goal, which is all Americans have 
high-quality affordable health care.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have been in the House of Representatives 
and the Senate now for about a little over 15 years. One thing you can 
count on that I have seen over and over is you can always count on 
Republicans to stand up for Big Oil. We can look in recent memory. We 
can look at the Energy bill 3 years ago--earlier than that. We can look 
at the plan Vice President Cheney wrote in the White House bringing in 
all the energy executives, not bringing in consumer groups, not 
bringing in environmentalists, not bringing in small businesses that 
are hit so hard by high energy costs, not bringing in truckers, not 
bringing in people who are paying the bills, but bringing in the 
producers, writing an energy plan, that legislation then written by Big 
Oil and other big energy producers, pushed through a Republican House 
of Representatives 3 years ago and a Republican Senate, having given 
the President everything he wanted on an energy policy.
  That is obviously the best example of how always in my 15 years here 
I have seen Republicans protecting Big Oil. Most recently in the last 
year and a half, as the Senator from Pennsylvania said so well earlier, 
we have seen eight filibusters blocking any proposals we have had on 
energy--short-term proposals, medium-term proposals, long-term 
proposals.
  As the Presiding Officer, Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, talked 
about, there is no silver bullet, but there are things we can do 
immediately. We can open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, sell 10 
percent of the oil from that Reserve, bringing down prices pretty 
quickly. We can go after the speculators. I am not sure Senator Casey 
said this, but the President's Justice Department could go after the 
oil industry for some of the price gouging that many of us in this 
body, and probably most of the American public--certainly people in 
Steubenville and Lima and Zanesville, OH--think the oil companies are 
engaged in. We can do those things.
  A few minutes ago, when I was the Presiding Officer, I heard the 
minority leader say that the Democrats are offering legislation 
claiming it is only speculation that is driving up prices. We have 
never done that. We have said: Yes, speculation is a big part of it. 
Senator Dorgan said speculation is like a washcloth: you wring it out 
and you will get an immediate 20, 30, or 40 percent price decrease 
overall just by wringing out the speculation.
  But what the other side never talks about is that it is not just that 
we want to deal with speculation and open the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve and have the Justice Department go after the increasingly, 
immensely profitable oil industry on price gouging, but we also have a 
very specific long-term energy plan.
  As Senator Dorgan said, President Kennedy didn't say: Let's think 
about going to the Moon. He said: We are going to put a man on the 
Moon. It was the early 1960s, and he said we could do it by the end of 
the decade. And he did it. It happened by July 1969. I was 16 then. We 
had just gotten our first color television, I remember. My brother had 
convinced my parents that because of the Moon landing, we should get a 
color television. My parents didn't really know this wasn't going to be 
in color, but it was a good move by my brother, I must admit. But I 
remember looking up in the sky and not seeing anything other than the 
big white Moon, but how exciting it was that we could do this.
  The same thing could be true with the President on alternative 
energy. That is what the Democratic majority has been trying repeatedly 
to do, to take the money President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the 
Republican majorities in each U.S. House gave to big oil in 2005 in the 
Energy bill and put it into alternative energy development.
  Senator Whitehouse, speaking earlier this morning, mentioned that for 
every $10,000 in profits Exxon has made, only $1 of the $10,000 has 
gone to research and development for alternative energy and $3 has gone 
into advertising how green they are and how much they are doing on 
alternative energy. Senator Casey talked about the incredible increase 
in oil drilling in the last few years; that the oil companies are 
drilling plenty, but they understand how to keep prices up.
  So I am for more drilling, but I am not for drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf. I am for the oil companies drilling on the 68 
million acres of Federal lands on which they already have leases. Let's 
do that first, and let's see where we are on that discussion of 
drilling. We can't drill ourselves out of this, it is clear.
  Last point, Mr. President, and then I wish to speak for a moment 
about something related to energy; that is, throughout my time in the 
House of Representatives and the Senate in the last 15 or so years, I 
have always noticed that oil prices go up when one of four things 
happens: Either there is a refinery fire or there is a pipeline outage 
or there is a major catastrophe, such as Katrina, or there is an 
international incident that disrupts the flow of oil to our country. It 
is either a major refinery fire, a major pipeline outage, a major 
disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, or a major international incident 
that disrupts the flow of oil to our country.
  None of those things has happened in the last couple of years. Sure, 
China and India are using more oil, and that is a long-term, huge issue 
in terms of the oil crisis, but to see the kinds of oil spikes we have 
seen in the last year and to look at what we have seen, frankly, in the 
8 years of two oilmen in the White House--we know that story--nothing 
has happened that should have caused oil prices to go up that 
dramatically. If anything, that absolutely shows it is all, in large 
part, about speculation, and it is about the price gaming of the system 
that the oil industry and Wall Street have done.
  As we talk about energy, we often talk about what that means to our 
Nation's infrastructure. Today marks the 1-year anniversary of the I-35 
bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Our freshman colleague, Senator 
Klobuchar, has spoken eloquently about that and what we need to do 
about that. It took the lives, as we remember, of 13 people and injured 
nearly 100.
  The Minnesota bridge collapse was a rude awakening to Americans about 
the current state of our critical infrastructure and the importance of 
improving all aspects of bridge safety.

[[Page S7999]]

Corrosion, for example, which causes metal in bridges to rust and 
ultimately weaken, is a significant problem for our Nation's bridges 
but one that is resolvable if addressed by Congress.
  In 1998, there was an amendment to ISTEA, the highway bill. Congress 
commissioned a report about the cost of corrosion--a report from the 
Federal Highway Administration--and that report to Congress, conducted 
by CC Technologies of Dublin, OH, a community near Columbus, has 
estimated that corrosion costs the Nation an unbelievable 3-plus 
percent of gross domestic product annually, or $442 billion last year. 
In my State alone, corrosion ultimately cost Ohio taxpayers, in damage 
to bridges and highways and other infrastructure, $15.1 billion. For 
bridges alone, this country spent $13 billion and $500 million in Ohio 
in 2007. In that same report, the FHA estimated a third of that cost 
could be prevented through existing corrosion-control technologies.
  There are many bills pending before this Congress that would lessen 
or prevent future corrosion of our Nation's infrastructure.
  S. 3319 requires that any proposal to the Department of 
Transportation for bridge construction or modification or renovation 
include a corrosion mitigation and prevention plan. When a State 
highway department submits a proposal to the Department of 
Transportation about this, under this legislation--there is no demand 
or other mandate--it must include a corrosion mitigation and prevention 
plan that looks at how much money it will cost to do the corrosion 
prevention and mitigation and see how much money over the next 10, 20, 
or 30 years the taxpayers will save because these bridges will last 
longer and will be safer in the ensuing years. This plan would 
incorporate existing technologies to enhance the safety of bridges and 
save Ohio and the Nation billions of dollars a year at a time when 
highway funding is suffering severely from a dramatic rise in 
construction cost.

  The reason I talked earlier about energy and connected it to these 
highway issues and bridge issues and water and sewer issues is that the 
gas tax--which certainly funds much of our highway and bridge 
infrastructure, the construction and maintenance--the tax dollars are 
not increasing, and it is because it is not a percentage of the cost of 
oil, of the cost of gas, it is the cost per gallon of gas purchased. So 
as people are using less, revenues are down, and obviously construction 
costs are up as asphalt and other oil-based materials are included in 
the construction.
  S. 3316, a separate piece of legislation I have introduced, would 
provide a 50-percent tax credit to companies for the design, materials, 
and installation of corrosion-mitigation technology. The tax credits 
would encourage further work in corrosion mitigation, expanding beyond 
bridges to include all kinds of infrastructure affected by corrosion, 
including drinking water and sewer systems, motor vehicles, pipelines, 
and defense infrastructure.
  I know that the Senator from Pennsylvania, when he is in Erie or 
Sharon, close to my State, or when he is in eastern or central 
Pennsylvania, hears over and over from mayors, as I do, about the 
problems with infrastructure and what that means to the cost of 
people's water and sewer bills. Mayor Coleman of Columbus told me 
months ago what he was facing--more importantly, what consumers, what 
homeowners and renters in Columbus are facing--with the increased cost 
of water and sewer bills because of demands from the Federal Government 
on what we need to do to guarantee safe drinking water, demands local 
governments want to meet but at costs which they simply can't bear. So 
homeowners see double-digit increases in the cost of their water and 
sewer.
  I met recently with the mayor of Defiance, Mayor Armstrong, in 
northwest Ohio at a roundtable--one of the hundred or so roundtables I 
have conducted in most of Ohio's 88 counties--and I talked to him about 
what these costs are meaning to him in terms of sewer and water bills 
for residents of Defiance and Defiance County.
  A few months before that, I had a roundtable with the mayors of 
Fremont, Paulding, and Perrysburg, again in northwestern Ohio. Mayor 
Overmyer of Fremont, Mayor White of Paulding, and Mayor Evans of 
Perrysburg, where the meeting was conducted--Perrysburg City Hall in 
Wood County--were all telling me about the immense costs they were 
facing and, again, more importantly, their constituents were facing 
with the high cost of water and sewer.
  Corrosion protection plans of this type can make a big difference in 
relieving the cost of all kinds of infrastructure. The new I-35 bridge 
project is under heightened scrutiny from everybody--public officials, 
the media, and obviously Minnesotans who travel that bridge regularly 
to and from work. Their new bridge will be equipped with the best 
technology available, including built-in sensors to measure corrosion.
  With all these bridge projects in other places, we should have this 
level of attention and they should be outfitted with robust safety 
technology and anticorrosion technology. The technology is pretty far 
down the road. We are able to do an awful lot of things to arrest and 
almost stop corrosion and the aging of these bridges. Our legislation 
will not just utilize the technology that is available now, but it will 
spur on new technologies to arrest bridge corrosion.
  Anticorrosion and corrosion-detection measures save money and lives. 
It is nothing but shortsighted to bypass such measures. For too long, 
we have governed in a way that has sort of gotten us through the day, 
thinking that we have to figure out how to get through today and not 
looking ahead. Business doesn't look often enough beyond the next 
quarter, and government doesn't look often enough beyond the next 
election cycle. This is an opportunity for the Nation to use its 
research and development talent to address the unnecessary and 
enormously costly burden we bear as our infrastructure rusts away and 
needs to be replaced.
  We remember the Minnesota bridge collapse of 1 year ago. This body 
can honor the memory of those who died there and learn our lesson from 
looking ahead and helping local and State governments adopt these 
anticorrosion measures. It will ultimately save lives and billions of 
taxpayer dollars. It is something we can do, and it is something we 
should begin today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes, if I may, 
before we conclude business here today, and then basically I guess we 
will be in either adjournment or recess until the first week in 
September. I wish to take a moment or so and review the events of the 
past number of weeks, culminating in the vote a week or so ago on the 
housing legislation. Of course, the Presiding Officer played a very 
important and supportive role, and I appreciate immensely his 
participation on the Banking Committee and the effort we made together 
to achieve what I think is a fairly historic piece of legislation.
  The news from the housing and financial markets continues to be grim. 
Unfortunately, the new Case-Schiller Index--which most people are 
familiar with and which is used to determine the level of home values--
Case-Schiller data earlier this week shows that home prices were down 
15.8 Percent from May of last year, including a .9-percent, 1-month 
drop in the month of May alone. The 10-city price index, which dates to 
1988, dropped 16.9 percent, its sharpest decline on record since those 
numbers have been kept over the last 20 years. All 20 cities measured 
by the index showed annual declines in home values, and 10 cities have 
suffered double-digit percentage declines over the last year.
  Job data is not any better, I am sad to point out. It shows a loss of 
50,000 jobs. The unemployment rate now is at 5.7 percent.
  Earlier this week, the President signed the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act. I am grateful to him for that signature. He earlier 
indicated he was going to veto the bill but changed his mind. I, for 
one, appreciate that

[[Page S8000]]

change of mind, because I think it is an important message to send to 
markets about the importance of this bill. I wish to quickly point out 
that the President didn't like every provision in this bill, nor did I 
necessarily, for that matter, but he signed it into law and for that we 
are grateful.
  This legislation is a crucial response to the ongoing housing and 
economic crisis. Most of the legislation took effect immediately upon 
it being signed into law by the President. Already, the new regulator 
for the housing GSEs is on the job. We are not even a week into the 
bill and he is already there, preparing to write the numerous new 
regulations required by this law.
  On Tuesday, before the President even signed the bill, I met with 
members of the oversight board of the new HOPE for Homeowners program: 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke; the Chairman of 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair; the Secretary 
of the Treasury, Secretary Paulson; and the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development, Secretary Preston. We all met in my office as the 
oversight board. I urged them to get to work immediately. They assured 
me they were doing that. In fact, the very next day they were having 
the very first meeting of the oversight board. I commend them for that. 
Anywhere from 400,000 to 600,000 families can keep their homes if, in 
fact, that program works as we all hope it will.
  Next week, my staff is meeting with HUD staff to push them to 
complete the regulations to get out the $3.9 billion in Community 
Development Block Grant funds. For Connecticut, as well as Pennsylvania 
and other States, these dollars could be very valuable in restoring 
neighborhoods and homes that have been foreclosed, getting them back on 
the market and producing those tax revenues every community needs in 
order to provide services to its people. The law requires HUD to have a 
formula for the distribution of this money ready in 60 days, and I 
intend to make sure this deadline is met, hence the reason for the 
meeting with the HUD staff.
  The Housing and Economic Recovery Act has a number of provisions that 
will make a real difference in people's lives, and I want my colleagues 
to be able to explain them to their constituents as they travel around 
their States over the next several weeks. First and foremost, the bill 
establishes the HOPE for Homeowners Act to help 400,000 families keep 
their homes. It does so after asking both lenders and borrowers to make 
financial sacrifices, and it does so at absolutely no cost to 
taxpayers. This program will become effective on October 1.
  In addition to providing a much stronger regulator, the bill 
increases the loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to $625,000. 
These GSEs--government-sponsored enterprises--along with the Federal 
Housing Administration, have been about the only sources of mortgage 
credit available to most Americans. This will make this credit more 
widely available to more families seeking to buy or to refinance their 
homes.
  The bill modernizes and expands the Federal Housing Administration 
programs, raising the loan limits from $362,000 to $625,000, so that 98 
percent of the counties in our country and 85 percent of the population 
of our Nation will have access to this very critical program. FHA has 
proved its value over and over again, particularly in the current 
crisis, as it has continued to be a stable source of mortgage credit, 
even while many of the lenders have failed. By raising these loan 
limits, that credit line now becomes available, as I said, to more than 
85 percent of the population of our country.
  The bill also includes a permanent, affordable housing fund financed 
by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is the first time ever in the 
history of our Nation we have established a permanent affordable 
housing program. Ninety percent of these dollars will go for the 
construction of rental housing. This will take a little time to get in 
place and will not immediately come on line as other provisions of the 
bill will, but for the long-term needs of our country, including the 
ability to build affordable housing every single year as a result of 
GSE money, is going to provide great relief for those who can't afford 
a home, those who are starting out and need to have affordable rental 
housing.
  The bill includes new protections for elderly homeowners taking out 
the FHA-insured reverse mortgages so they are not deceived into using 
the proceeds from these loans to buy expensive and needless insurance 
products. It will require mortgage brokers to be licensed. Again, that 
is a major reform in this legislation.
  The bill expands the ability of the VA housing programs. It includes 
a number of provisions to help our returning veterans coming back from 
Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere to save their homes from 
foreclosure. Tragically, you would be amazed at how many of our service 
men and women serving in harm's way are at risk of losing their 
properties while they are serving overseas. This bill changes that by 
providing new housing benefits to our veterans.
  The legislation includes $3.9 billion, as I mentioned, in Community 
Development Block Grant funds. These are dollars that go directly back 
to our communities to allow them to rehabilitate homes and revitalize 
neighborhoods that have been devastated by the foreclosure problem. 
Remember, 8,000 to 9,000 people every day end up in foreclosure--8,000 
to 9,000 homes every day. Certain neighborhoods in our States and in 
our cities have been literally devastated by foreclosures. These 
dollars will help to get those neighborhoods back on their feet.
  Finally, the bill includes $150 million in counseling money to 
organizations out there trying to bring lenders and borrowers together.
  Let me take advantage of this moment to urge my colleagues to do what 
I am going to be doing in my own State, and that is doing public 
service announcements, asking my media outlets on a daily basis to 
inform people as to what they can do. If they are delinquent in their 
mortgages, they may very well qualify for this program we have passed 
in the Congress, where they can save that house. It is not going to be 
free of charge; they are going to have some obligations to meet. It is 
not for everyone. You have to be an owner-occupier. It is not for 
speculative investments people have made. I urge people to call their 
banks, call one of these nonprofits, call the office of your 
Congressman or Senator, and they will tell you how to get in touch with 
them, but don't allow another month or two to go by on a delinquent 
basis. You may end up losing a home that you need to have, and it is 
possible to save that property if you will step up.
  So I urge my colleagues, if they are interested in doing what they 
can for their constituents in the month of August, to find the time to 
talk about this program, let your constituents know it exists, urge 
them to step forward, urge your lenders to be in touch with borrowers 
to see if we can't avoid the kind of continuing foreclosure issues that 
are going to make our economic recovery difficult.
  I will end on this note: The heart of our economic problems, whether 
it is the unemployment problems, the staggering lack of commercial 
development that is going on, the problem with student loans--all of it 
relates back to the foreclosure issue. The sooner we can stop this 
hemorrhaging of foreclosures in the country, the quicker we are going 
to get back on our feet economically. So this is not just about saving 
homes or keeping people in their homes; it is also dealing with the 
contagion effect that has spread over to other aspects of our economy.
  I wanted to take advantage of these closing moments to talk about the 
bill, to talk about what is in it, and urge our colleagues--Democrats, 
Republicans--whether you are for the bill or against the bill, there is 
an opportunity now to make a difference for the people you represent.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Missed Energy Opportunities

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to put some facts on the

[[Page S8001]]

table about the high cost of energy. I know many of my colleagues have 
left town, but some are still here. And even though today is August 1, 
I doubt that it is the last we are going to hear on this debate. I 
expect that we will hear about it all during August.
  I come to the floor this afternoon to just put a few last remarks 
into the Record about what I think this debate has been about and what 
I think it will be about when we return. I know some of my colleagues 
have put out statements today about what they think we should do in 
moving forward. I think it is very important to address the issue of 
the high cost of energy and to put forth a realistic plan for our 
country to move forward.
  Many times this week we heard the slogan: Find more and use less. It 
reminds me of the slogans we hear on oil company commercials who spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars saying things such as ``beyond 
petroleum,'' and ``look at the future we are planning.'' They are 
spending all of that money trying to convince us they have a plan, when 
in reality they are keeping us addicted to oil.
  Mr. President, now is not the time to worry about big oil. They just 
posted astronomical second quarter profits. ExxonMobil alone made about 
$130 million a day--not bad for a hard day's work impacting consumers. 
In fact, since the Bush Administration came into office, oil industry 
profits have totaled $641 billion. And as this chart shows every year's 
profit was greater than the last.
  The complexity of this issue is that many colleagues really think 
that drilling more is going to solve our nation's energy crisis. But 
the clear facts is it is not going to; drilling more will just continue 
to add to the profits of these companies at a time when we should be 
investing in clean energy solutions.
  So now is not the time to give the American people the false hope 
that drilling is going to have any effect on oil prices or provide any 
drop of relief at the pump. Now is not the time to play politics and to 
try to continue to play the blame game.
  Instead now is the time to realize that our economy can't take much 
more of this. We simply have to get off of oil. It is time, after 8 
years of an administration with a dead-end oil policy, that we 
understand the long-term cost of our addiction to oil and how it is 
strangling our economy and our vitality. Because unless we change 
course, and change course soon, we soon will be sending $1 trillion 
abroad to cover our foreign oil addiction. No amount of drilling--no 
amount--in the United States will change that fact.
  Just a few years ago I would come to the floor and talk about how we 
were 50-percent dependent, heading toward 60-percent dependent on 
foreign oil. Now we are talking about being 70-percent dependent and 
even more unless we change course.
  I think it is safe to say that the last 8 years of this 
administration has done great damage to the continuation of our 
addiction to foreign oil. We have tried their approach. It doesn't 
work. So what we need to do today is move ahead.
  We need to admit the United States consumes one-quarter of the 
world's oil but only has less than 2 percent of the world's oil 
reserves. We will never, ever be able to affect the world oil price. 
Even if we drilled in every corner of God's creation in the United 
States, we would not be able to affect the world price of oil.
  Americans can do the math. They know we need to be aggressively 
putting new policies into place that will make us a 21st century leader 
in new energy solutions. That is what we should be doing in the Senate 
as well.
  Unfortunately, it seems as though many of my colleagues aren't doing 
this simple math. Instead, they are trying to exploit the current 
crisis and convince us that we should continue this oil addiction. That 
the answer is to give big oil one of their top legislative priorities--
one they have wished for for several decades breaking the quarter-
century-old moratorium on drilling off of America's pristine coast.
  Pro-drilling advocates and certainly the President of the United 
States seem perfectly comfortable perpetrating what I think is a cruel 
hoax on the American people. They are willing to imply, to insinuate, 
and to outright pretend that drilling off our coastlines will help 
provide some relief at the pump. They are willing to pretend that 
drilling will somehow lessen our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
  Though my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not like to 
admit this, the American people can listen to experts at the Department 
of Energy who say:

       Access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf Coast 
     regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude 
     oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

  We heard that 2030 is the magic year by which drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf would produce supply. But our own Energy Information 
Administration said that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern 
gulf coast regions would not have a significant impact on the price 
before 2030.
  I know we had a lot of discussion about the psychological impact, but 
oil industry experts have testified before Congress that the notion of 
more drilling would have no psychological effect on world oil prices. 
That is from oil analysts who have written books about oil and covered 
it for many years.
  But even in 22 years the offshore drilling scheme will not provide 
consumers relief. This is what the Energy Information Administration 
said:

       Because oil prices are determined on the international 
     market, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to 
     be insignificant.

  So the notion that somehow our drilling is going to help us relieve 
the price when we are such a small player on the world market is really 
a hoax. We are not going to be able to have any significant impact on 
the price.
  Even if we drilled in every last corner of our great Nation it would 
not have any impact. We will never be able to drill our way out of the 
fact that our addiction to oil leaves critical aspects of our economy 
in the hands of OPEC.
  We do not have 22 years to wait. We need to be aggressive in getting 
off oil and move ahead. I know many of my colleagues really think the 
drilling that has been talked about here will provide relief, and they 
assume that oil companies would invest the tens of billions of dollars 
it would take to drill up and down our coastlines. I guess we should 
ignore for the moment that these same oil companies are not even 
utilizing 83 percent of the leases they already have.
  But the truth is that all the drilling will do, even post-2030, is 
lead to 1 percent of what the United States needs. That is right, if we 
go ahead and lift the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf drilling 
and that process starts and we get to 2030, the United States will 
still need over 22 million barrels of oil a day. That is what our 
growth rate is expected to be under the status quo. Drilling in the 
600-million-acre moratorium areas would only meet 1 percent of U.S. 
needs in 2030. All that money, all that risk of catastrophic spills, 
all the years of waiting, and that is the payoff--1 percent.
  It is not good enough, and the American people need and deserve 
better solutions. That is what, when we return, we have to focus on.
  There is a way out of this hole. It is definitely not drilling 
deeper, and it is time to say enough is enough and that we have to 
change course. My colleagues who use a chart that says ``Find More, Use 
Less'' on the other side of the aisle have the same empty slogan as 
those oil company ads that pretend they are the solution.
  In fact, I think the solution my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle ought to consider is: Find more and hold up less. They ought to 
hold up less legislation that allows us to move forward on a renewable 
energy strategy. Find more renewable energy and sources of power and 
production for the United States that can impact the price consumers 
are paying now, can impact what they are going to have to pay in 2009, 
and what they can do to get us moving off our oil addiction.
  I say hold up less, because if we look at what has happened in the 
last year or two, we have had many proposals to move ahead off oil and 
on to clean energy sources that would have impacted the price at the 
pump. In fact, what this chart shows is the dozen times the other side 
of the aisle held up critical clean energy bills.
  Starting in June of 2007, when we had a $28 billion clean energy 
package that we tried to pass. This bill would have eliminated some of 
the subsidies that

[[Page S8002]]

oil companies got embedded in the Tax Code, because if we are at $126 
or $140 a barrel of oil, it is pretty hard to argue that oil companies 
still need tax incentives.
  One of the best parts of this legislative package created a consumer 
tax credit of up to $7,500 toward the purchase of plug-in electric 
vehicle. That was a provision I authored with Senator Hatch and Senator 
Obama. I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
talked a lot recently about the great promise of plug-in hybrids and 
electric vehicles as a way to get us off our addiction to oil.
  I talked about that 1 percent that was going to be supplied by 
drilling by 2030. If we invested in plug-in electric vehicles over 
roughly the same period of time, using electricity from our grid for 
fuel, we could have a 50-percent reduction in the amount of foreign oil 
we would need to import.
  So the Republican plan by 2030 is to drill everywhere to reduce 
foreign oil needs by 200,000 barrels of oil per day. Our plan, which is 
investment in clean and alternative energy solutions, like the plug-in 
electric vehicles would reduce foreign oil imports by 6.5 million 
barrels of oil a day over the same time period.
  The difference is unbelievable what we could have achieved if the 
Republicans would have stopped holding up these policies.
  And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying: We are 
not supporting plug-in electric vehicles unless you give us offshore 
drilling. They are saying we are holding hostage the great ideas and 
promise of the future of reducing our oil dependence unless you agree 
to continue the old, insane practices of giving incentives to oil 
companies with record profits to continue to provide the non-solutions 
to one of our nation's greatest problems.
  It is time to get the solutions out of the hands of the oil companies 
and into the hands of the American public who want tools to reduce 
their oil consumption.
  Literally, my colleagues voted no for cars that could get over 100 
miles per gallon on the equivalent of $1 of gasoline. That is right, 
that is what a plug-in hybrid will get you. That analysis and study is 
there, that our nation's electricity grid today has enough spare 
capacity to power 70 percent of cars on the road today if they were 
electric hybrids. So instead of paying $3.99 for a gallon of gas, you 
would only pay about one dollar for the same amount of electricity.
  This was just one realistic proposal the majority offered to move our 
nation to where we need to go. But every time they vote no on one of 
these proposals, we slow up the process. Voting no in June of 2007 was 
holding us up to going to that transition.
  So I am glad other people on the other side of the aisle realize the 
promise of plug-in electrics, but they are not voting to help us break 
through and implement these solutions that could help us today and 
break the shackles of big oil.
  As I mentioned, this was a bipartisan bill that Senators Hatch, 
Obama, and I introduced over a year ago. Our bill provides scalable 
credits that increase up to $15,000 for large vehicles. We had this big 
discussion about what cars Americans drive, how big, how small, safety 
issues, farm vehicles, big transportation vehicles. The great thing 
about plug-in hybrids and battery technology moving us forward is we 
can put those in any size vehicle. We are not going to be limited to a 
small car. The legislation would also provide assistance for automakers 
and parts manufacturers to retool their facilities to speed up the 
transition time.

  So the Hatch-Cantwell-Obama bill would have been very progressive in 
getting solutions out into the marketplace that could have gotten us 
toward that goal we need to get to quickly.
  Unfortunately, in December of 2007, there was another blocked attempt 
for us to change this policy. In December of last year, the majority of 
Senate Republicans blocked what would have created a renewable 
electricity standard. That is something even President Bush, when he 
was Governor of Texas, supported and today Texas is the nation's 
largest wind energy producer for our country. But Republican 
obstructionism cost us over 90,000 megawatts of new renewable energy 
capacity by 2020. That is the equivalent of 135 new coal-fired 
powerplants.
  If they had not blocked this legislation in December of last year, we 
could have been on our way in 2020 to reducing the amount of coal-fired 
powerplants that we would have had in our country and getting on to 
renewable wind energy. The billions of dollars in clean energy 
investment, tens of thousands of jobs could be making an incredible 
positive impact, more so than any drilling offshore could ever be.
  Then, just a few days later, there was another blocked attempt to 
move toward a clean energy transition when Republicans blocked a 
smaller clean energy tax incentive package that also would have ended 
subsidies to the big oil companies that have made these record profits. 
Even this scaled-back approach was too much for big oil, and they 
basically made their voice heard on Capitol Hill. Big oil refused to 
give up what was $13 billion in unwarranted tax breaks over 10 years, 
despite hundreds of billions in profits over the last 8 years.
  Mr. President, the American people should know that Senators that 
voted against that bill voted against solar power, against wind power, 
against making homes and our commercial buildings more efficient. 
Against incentives for homeowners to lower their home heating and 
cooling bills and against making the electricity grid smarter, less 
prone to blackouts, and against plug-in vehicles.
  Last February, there was another successful effort to block $6 
billion of clean energy tax incentives on the stimulus bill. This time 
we gave up and said: You know what, forget the oil company subsidies, 
we would like to get rid of them, but you don't want to get rid of 
them, so let's put this as part of the stimulus package and let's 
stimulate our economy by moving forward. The stimulus bill reported by 
the Finance Committee had $6 billion in clean energy incentives that 
would have provided a short-term extension of expiring tax credits and 
help us stimulate the clean energy economy instead of having it bleed a 
slow death.
  But we failed to pass that legislation. It would have helped us with 
the creation of 100,000 green-collar jobs and $20 billion in energy 
investment over the next year. If $20 billion was not stimulus and 
100,000 green energy jobs, I don't know what was. Yet that was another 
big hold on our ability to move forward.
  The bottom line is, we cannot keep up this slogan of saying: Find 
more, use less. We need to find more clean energy and hold up less 
legislation that will let us get there. Quit holding hostage clean 
energy legislation that is the truer predictor of domestic energy 
production, of if we are going to continue to be hostage to foreign 
oil, of if we are going to make progress of moving the United States 
forward. But again our colleagues held us up on moving to that 
legislation.
  In fact, it was interesting that during the time of this vote, some 
of my colleagues were actually out campaigning at a solar plant. The 
CEO at the solar plant during that debate said:

       The only question before us today is if the Senate, which 
     is debating an economic stimulus bill at this very moment, 
     understands green and can be green. Federal tax credits for 
     solar energy are about to expire which will send the growing 
     solar energy into a tailspin, especially here in California. 
     But the Senate can ensure we keep the economic engine moving 
     forward and extend the solar tax credits as part of the 
     economic stimulus bill.

  We know what the result was. We didn't pass that legislation. And the 
blockage continued.
  In June of this year, blocking continued on a tri-partisan bill on 
the Senate floor. That is right, a climate change bill authored by an 
Independent, Republican, and a Democrat that would have had a low 
carbon fuel standard in it that would have saved an estimated 5 million 
barrels of oil per day by 2020. That is equal to nearly 85 percent of 
our daily oil imports from OPEC. Another missed opportunity, because 
that legislation didn't pass.
  On June 10, we had another opportunity to try to pass clean energy 
legislation that would have helped us in reducing our critical energy 
needs. There were hundreds of businesses that were up here on the Hill 
asking for us to pass this legislation, telling us that new job 
creation and reduction of fuel costs depended on it, and yet, again, we 
had a blockage of this legislation. And it seemed, in fact, that many 
people

[[Page S8003]]

cared more about the hedge fund managers' ability to use offshore 
accounts to avoid paying taxes than they did whether we were going to 
solve this energy problem by making an investment in new energy. So 
again we had a blocked vote that prohibited us from taking action and 
taking our country in a new direction.
  That same day we tried a second vote and again were blocked in a 
comprehensive effort to get oil companies to either reinvest a portion 
of their astronomical profits into these needed areas of infrastructure 
or pay the tax so we could help clean energy solutions. And you guessed 
it, it was also blocked and held up.
  About 6 weeks ago, on June 17, there was another blocked attempt when 
we tried to come up with a resolution to the long overdue extensions of 
clean energy tax incentives. Again, a strict party-line discipline 
maintained a filibuster, and companies across America started to lose 
hope that we were going to keep this investment cycle.
  The problem is, without the tax incentives every year, where we have 
failed to produce a coherent policy on clean energy, we have seen 
astronomical drops in investment. As this chart of wind energy 
investment shows there was a 73-percent drop in 2001 to 2002, and a 77-
percent drop from 2003 to 2004, the two times Congress allowed the 
Production Tax Credit to expire. And this is where we have gotten in 
2007--this level of investment in wind energy resources. Yet now it is 
collapsing right in front of us because certain Senators would not pass 
legislation to make continued investments and continued predictable 
policy that the clean energy industry can use to put up new power 
plants.
  In fact, around this time I got a letter from a company that I think 
illustrates the mistake we made. It came from a solar company named 
Abengoa and the Arizona Public Service, a local utility company. They 
told me that the Senate's failure to pass clean energy tax incentives 
was going to lead to the cancellation of a 280-megawatt concentrating 
solar plant near Phoenix. That is a $1 billion investment down the 
drain, and 2,000 construction jobs that will not happen, as well as 80 
full-time jobs lost that would have run the plant.
  So we tried many times, but they continued blocking these critical 
bills. The filibustering just this week just further illustrates this 
issue.
  It is frustrating because we have even heard from those who have been 
in the oil industry such as T. Boone Pickens and others who say that 
unless we aggressively act to reduce our dependence on oil and get off 
of foreign petroleum, we could see, as Mr. Pickens told us at one of 
our Senate hearings last week, $300-a-barrel oil.
  I don't think any of my colleagues want to see that. So I hope my 
colleagues go home and understand that our future lies in providing 
opportunities to find more renewable production, not drilling hoaxes. I 
hope they will quit holding clean energy hostage for the oil company 
executives; quit holding up the good legislation that could move our 
country forward.
  I hope my colleagues will come back to the Senate in September with 
the notion in mind that reducing by 50 percent our dependence on 
foreign oil by accelerating the transition to plug-in electric vehicles 
should be our goal. That they will realize that holding up good 
legislation hostage for the 1 percent--the 1 percent--we might get from 
our Outer Continental Shelf drilling is risking our country's future.
  This is the time to make the transition, and I hope my colleagues 
will hear that and understand it is not time to keep perpetrating 
hoaxes backed by and focused on by the oil companies. Rather its time 
to stop the politics and get serious about implementing a plan that 
gets our country off our dependence on oil. So I hope when we get back 
in September the other side of the aisle will quit holding up these 
critical clean energy bills and work with us to move forward on a 
desperately needed new energy strategy for the United States that will 
provide real price relief for Americans.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________