[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14643-14660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008--
                               Continued

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Request to be Excused

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
excused from the call of the Senate until the first vote that occurs on 
July 14.

[[Page 14644]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 ENERGY

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I want to take a moment to speak about 
one of the most important issues facing our country right now, and that 
is the energy crisis, in terms of the high cost of energy and the fact 
that people will be suffering very significantly this coming winter--in 
fact, this summer--if we do not address it.
  In that regard, on June 24, I introduced S. 3186, the Warm in Winter 
and Cool in Summer Act, to provide immediate relief to millions of 
senior citizens, families with children, and the disabled, who are 
struggling to pay their home energy bills. Specifically, this bill 
would nearly double the funding for the highly successful Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly called LIHEAP, in fiscal year 
2008, taking LIHEAP from $2.57 billion to $5.1 billion, a total 
increase of over $2.5 billion.
  I thank Majority Leader Reid for completing the rule XIV process for 
this important piece of legislation and placing it directly on the 
Senate calendar. My understanding is that we will have this bill on the 
floor before we recess for the August vacation. It is important we do 
that, and I thank Senator Harry Reid very much for allowing us to move 
forward in that direction.
  I also thank the 26 Senators who are cosponsors of this tripartisan 
legislation. This bill absolutely is a tripartisan piece of 
legislation. At this point, we have 18 Democrats on board, we have 8 
Republicans on board, and I expect more will be coming on in the coming 
days and weeks. I thank Senators Obama, Coleman, Leahy, Smith, Durbin, 
Snowe, Murray, Sununu, Landrieu, Collins, Murkowski, Clinton, Lugar, 
Cantwell, Gregg, Kerry, Cardin, Kennedy, Schumer, Brown, Klobuchar, 
Menendez, Casey, Bingaman, Stabenow, and Lautenberg for their support.
  This legislation not only has strong bipartisan support here in the 
Senate, it is also moving in the House, and it also has been endorsed 
by numerous groups all across this country, including the AARP, the 
National Grange, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National Community Action Foundation, the National Association of State 
Energy Officials, the Alliance For Rural America, the Northeast Public 
Power Association, the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its 
low-income clients, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Fuel 
Funds Network, and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
  I think we are going to show more and more support in coming weeks, 
but there is a widespread understanding that we are facing a crisis in 
this country and that the President and the Congress have to act.
  Let me read a support letter I received from the AARP, the American 
Association of Retired Persons. As you know, the AARP represents over 
39 million Americans, and this is what the AARP said.

       AARP fully supports the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer 
     Act. This legislation will provide needed relief for many 
     older persons who may not receive assistance--despite their 
     eligibility--due to a lack of funding. Older Americans who 
     are more susceptible to hypothermia and heat stroke know the 
     importance of heating and cooling their homes. They often 
     skimp on other necessities to pay their utility bills. 
     However, today's escalating energy prices and the Nation's 
     unpredictable and extreme temperatures are adding to the 
     growing economic hardships faced by seniors. LIHEAP is 
     underfunded and unable to meet the energy assistance needs of 
     the program's eligible households.

  I thank the AARP very much for their strong support of this 
legislation.
  Let me also quote from a very recent New York Times editorial. This 
is what the New York Times said the other day.

       A bill just introduced in the Senate would provide about 
     $2.5 billion under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
     Program. Half would be released to the States to help low-
     income residents pay their energy bills and half would sit in 
     a contingency fund that could be tapped at the discretion of 
     the President. When the bill comes up for a vote, likely 
     later this month, Congress should approve it and President 
     Bush should sign it into law. As the economy slows and oil 
     prices rise, helping Americans who cannot afford to heat 
     their homes is a matter of public health and safety as well 
     as a moral imperative. People without adequate heat are 
     vulnerable to illness, and people struggling to pay the 
     heating bills may be tempted to skimp on medicines and even 
     food. No one should have to choose between heating and 
     eating. If they act this summer, as they must, before the 
     Presidential and congressional campaigns send everyone home, 
     Congress and President Bush can help make sure that nobody 
     has to make that choice.

  That is from the New York Times, and I appreciate the support of the 
New York Times on this issue.
  Make no mistake about it, we have an energy emergency in Vermont and 
all across this country, and it is about time the President and the 
Congress treated this as the emergency it is. As many of my colleagues 
understand, the price of heating oil skyrocketed last winter, making it 
extremely difficult for some of my constituents and people all across 
this country to stay alive, especially when the temperature dropped 
well below zero. Next winter will even be worse.
  At this time last year, heating oil prices were about $2.50 a gallon. 
Today, they are about $4.50 a gallon. Fuel dealers in Vermont are 
telling me that if this trend continues, heating oil prices could 
surpass $5 a gallon by December. I must tell you, Madam President, that 
all across my State people are very worried about how they will in fact 
be able to adequately heat their homes next winter.
  Meanwhile, LIHEAP funding is 23 percent less than it was 2 years ago, 
completely eviscerating the purchasing power of this extremely 
important program. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, the Federal 
Government spent more money on LIHEAP 20 years ago than it is spending 
today. So we have a real crisis we have got to address.
  It is not an exaggeration to say this is a life-and-death situation. 
People use that phrase often, but in this sense we are describing the 
reality facing a number of people. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control, over 1,000 Americans all across this country died from 
hypothermia in their own homes from 1992 to 2002, the latest figures we 
have available. Over 1,000 Americans died from hypothermia. In other 
words, they froze to death in the United States because they were 
unable to afford to heat their homes. How many of these deaths were 
preventable? Well, the answer is, all of them, according to the CDC.
  We will probably not know for several years how many Americans died 
last winter because they could not afford to heat their homes, but 
clearly one death is too many. And everything being equal, if we do not 
act, I think we can reasonably expect the number of people dying of 
hypothermia in this country will only go up. If heating oil even 
approaches $5 a gallon by next winter, we will have a public health 
emergency throughout the northern tier of this country, and this is 
something we have to address.
  I wish also to point out that, although I come from a cold weather 
State--and I hope and expect all of my colleagues understand this--
LIHEAP does not only help constituents in the northern part of our 
country stay warm in the winter, it also helps people in the South and 
the West stay cool in the summer. Right now, many people in the 
southern and western States are suffering with temperatures frequently 
soaring past 100 degrees while their electricity prices are rapidly 
increasing.
  I was in Nevada last week, and the temperature there was something 
like 110 to 115 degrees. That is hot. I cannot imagine a frail or 
elderly person, somebody who is ill, trying to survive in that kind of 
weather. Those people are going to need help today as much as people in 
the North will need help when the winter comes.

[[Page 14645]]

  Recently, USA Today ran a headline on its front page and it said:

       Price jolt: Electricity bills going up, up, up.

  That was a headline, front-page story. According to this story:

       Utilities across the USA are raising power prices up to 29 
     percent, mostly to pay for soaring fuel cost. . . . The 
     spikes come after rising fuel prices already have driven up 
     utility bills nearly 30 percent the past 5 years, the 
     sharpest jump since the 1970s energy crisis.

  Let me give an example of why LIHEAP funding is vital, right now, for 
these hot-weather States. Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, and Florida have either exhausted all their LIHEAP funding 
or are on the verge of running out of funds. In other words, they will 
have absolutely no support from the Federal Government to help millions 
of senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with kids or 
the disabled stay cool this winter. They are running out of funds right 
now.
  As I have indicated, with the price of electricity going up and up, 
with the economy in the tank, people are having a harder and harder 
time paying their electric bills, air-conditioners are run on 
electricity, and if you don't have your electricity, you don't have 
your air-conditioner, and if you are old and you are frail and you are 
sick, you are in a lot of trouble.
  From 1999 to 2003, over 3,400 deaths in this country were due to 
excessive heat. All these deaths were preventable, and air-conditioning 
is the best way to prevent these deaths from occurring, according to 
the Centers for Disease Control. In fact, more people in the United 
States--and this is an interesting fact that I think many people are 
not aware of--more people in the United States have died from the 
extreme heat than from floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes combined, 
since 1998.
  CNN may not be in a senior citizen's bedroom when she expires because 
of heat exhaustion. They are there with the floods and hurricanes and 
cyclones and tornadoes--we understand that. But we need to reiterate 
that more people in the United States have died from the extreme heat 
than from floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes combined.
  Meanwhile, the Federal Government spends less money preventing these 
deaths from occurring than any other natural disaster we face, 
according to the CDC.
  My point is, hurricanes and floods certainly are emergencies. I have 
always supported efforts to address these emergencies. I want my 
colleagues to know that when the weather gets 20 below in Vermont and 
Maine and New Hampshire, that is an emergency. When the weather gets to 
110 degrees in California or Nevada, that is also an emergency. We have 
to act.
  My legislation will begin to move us in the right direction. If this 
legislation becomes law, as I certainly hope it will be, the State of 
Arizona would receive over $24 million, the State of Kentucky would 
receive over $34 million, the State of Georgia would receive over $70 
million, and the State of Florida would receive over $80 million to 
keep their residents cool this summer.
  The point I am making is, I don't want anybody to think that because 
I represent Vermont and we are from the Northeast, that this is simply 
a cold-weather issue. It is not. It is an issue for every region of 
this country.
  In addition to all that I have said, it is important to understand 
that tens of thousands of Americans have had their utility and natural 
gas service shut off this year, and millions more are in danger of 
having these services cut off because they are at least 1 month late in 
paying their bills. There is a lot of attention, obviously, on housing 
foreclosures that we have been focusing on. But let us not forget that 
as people lose their jobs, as people's wages decline, as utility bills 
go up, we are looking at utility cutoffs in a very dramatic way.
  Increasing LIHEAP funding will allow these Americans to turn their 
electricity and other essential utility services back on right now so 
they can cool their homes this summer and heat their homes next winter. 
According to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, a 
record 15 million American families, or nearly 15 percent of all 
households, are at least 30 days overdue in paying their utility bills.
  Let me conclude by thanking the 26 cosponsors, including 8 
Republicans, who are onboard this legislation. Let me thank AARP and 
the many national organizations that are supporting this. Let me thank 
Senator Reid for completing the rule XIV process.
  I hope very much that in a week or two, certainly before we break for 
the August recess, we will be voting on this legislation. I hope we win 
it by a very large majority.
  I thank Majority Leader Reid and all my colleagues who are supporting 
this legislation and look forward to, in the very short term, 
reassuring people throughout this country that we are mindful of the 
impact high energy costs are having on their lives, and we are here to 
do something about it.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask the question, are we in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in morning business.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Energy

  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are all aware of the impact rising energy costs have 
had on Americans and our economy. Every home and business in America 
has seen energy costs skyrocket. That is true with the price of home 
heating oil, electricity generated from natural gas or the gasoline and 
diesel for our cars and trucks, and probably a lot of other energy uses 
and sources of energy you could throw in there as well. These costs 
permeate through our economy by driving up costs for the transportation 
and production of food, to the manufacturing and industrial sectors of 
our economy. Obviously, those hurt most are the families who feel it in 
their pocketbooks when they pay their utility bills, fill their cars or 
trucks to get to work or take their kids to school, or even buy 
groceries. They do not have the ability to pass it on, as do people in 
the middle of the chain.
  A key component of a strong and vibrant economy is reliable and 
affordable energy. For businesses to grow, for productivity to 
increase, we need more energy. And in the process of more energy, I 
mean more sources of energy, but I do not preclude any way we can save 
energy, and an ethic to save energy as well.
  It is a fact of life that each American generation has lived better 
than the predecessor generation, and my generation and the next 
generation and the next generation expects to live a little better than 
the previous generation. That is the American dream; that is the 
American way. It is not going to happen if we do not have affordable 
energy. To have affordable energy, it is as simple as economics 101: 
when the price is high, with an increased supply, the price will go 
down.
  So all of this means that we need to use energy not only more but 
more efficiently. It also means you cannot rely just on fossil fuels. 
God only made so much of that. We need to develop alternative and 
renewable sources of energy. But renewable energy and energy efficiency 
are only a part of the solution. I guess I would say that when you talk 
about energy, you talk about three: No. 1, more sources of present 
fossil fuels; No. 2, alternative energy--and for a guy like me from 
corn country, I am not talking only about ethanol, but biodiesel, 
biomass, wind. I happened to sponsor, 15 years ago, the wind energy tax 
credit that now exists and which has brought vibrant wind energy to a 
lot of the Midwest. And also,

[[Page 14646]]

lastly, conservation. I am talking about not only a Government policy 
on conservation which we have in place in the sense of a tax incentive 
for fuel-efficient cars and also tax incentives for energy-efficient 
home appliances, to name two, but there is a personal ethic of more 
conservation that we are seeing in America right now. The latest 
figures I know of are March 2008 versus March 2007. Because of the 
increased price of gasoline, we drove 5 percent less miles this March 
than a year ago, and that is the largest decrease or greatest decrease 
in energy use since energy was this high on an inflationary basis back 
in 1979.
  So Americans are conserving price, they are conserving when they buy 
these fuel cell cars where you get the tax credit. But it cannot only 
be conservation. And too often I hear in this body: Do not drill; 
conserve.
  You have to do drilling and you have to do conserving. But you also 
have to have that third factor, which is very popular with a person 
like me, alternative energy, because alternative energy, in the case of 
ethanol as an example, is good for farmers, is good for the 
environment, and it is good for jobs in rural America. We never thought 
we would have these kinds of jobs where we set up a refinery in rural 
America to make alternative energy. It is good for our national 
security, and it is good for our economic security. So you have to have 
a broad base.
  One area in which we have done little, though, to help ourselves is 
the developing of domestic sources of traditional energy. For too many 
years, we have shunned the use of domestic affordable coal and we have 
hindered the expansion of our domestic nuclear energy. Why would we do 
that when France gets 80 percent of its energy from nuclear? Why would 
we not have the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel when they do it in 
other countries to reduce the necessity of finding a storage place for 
it to such a great extent as we have in this country?
  What is it that people, young people, would come to my office last 
fall and say: We ought to stop using coal. Well, when you generate 55 
percent of your electricity on average from coal, what do they expect--
that we should not have lights, we should not have electric motors on 
our air-conditioning, et cetera? Where do they get ideas like that?
  There is something wrong when there is not some reality to what the 
energy situation is in this country and you should not use coal and you 
should not use nuclear energy. Where does that sort of thought take 
you? It does not meet the commonsense test that we would establish in 
the Midwest of something being a good idea or a bad idea.
  As a result of our policies here in Washington, we have driven the 
exponential demand for clean-burning natural gas and pushed our oil 
dependancy to nearly 60 percent. Yet we have done very little to 
increase the supply of energy to meet new demand because of an attitude 
of ``no drill, no drill.''
  What is the sense of paying $140 for a barrel of oil, sending it over 
to some Arab nation where they are going to train terrorists to kill us 
because they do not like us? It would be better to keep that $140 here 
in the United States. It would be good for our economy. It would be 
better for our national defense. It would be better all around.
  It is intellectually dishonest to talk about the offensively high 
prices of home heating fuel or $4 gasoline for our cars while also 
opposing every effort to increase the supply of home heating oil and 
natural gas that would lower these prices, a la economics 101: if you 
increase supply, the price goes down. It seems to me that some of my 
colleagues whom I listen to here--the very same ones who are blaming 
high gasoline prices on the Bush administration are the very same ones 
who do not want to drill. It does not add up. That is why I say it is 
intellectually dishonest. It is disingenuous to clamor about the cost 
of crude oil and gasoline while ignoring half of the law of supply and 
demand.
  Members of this body continue to point out the outrageous burden to 
our citizens because of high energy costs. I would suggest that some 
should look closely at the votes they cast that limited the development 
of our domestic resources. We have a responsibility here in Congress to 
address the underlying causes of high energy costs. That includes 
increasing energy efficiency, producing alternatives and renewables, 
and developing domestic traditional sources. In other words, let me get 
back to the three-finger rule: No 1, more drilling; No. 2, Government 
incentives for alternative energy; No. 3, Government incentives for 
conservation and also what individuals can do in conservation.
  I point out something that is just irrational, irrational right here 
on Capitol Hill. I saw it--let's see, what time was it today? It was 11 
o'clock. I was out on the steps to meet with members of the Iowa FFA, 
the Future Farmers of America, the leaders who are here to study 
leadership and to learn about the political process. Lined up across 
this new brick area out here east of the Capitol were a whole bunch of 
black SUVs idling, parked and idling. Why can't we have an ethic on 
Capitol Hill, whether it is Ambassadors who are coming up here, whether 
it is the Vice President coming up here, or whether it is our own 
elected leaders who have chauffeur-driven cars, to turn off the cars? 
If you want to stay cool, come in this building and save the $4 gas. We 
have to promote some leadership on conservation here, and it can start 
right here with the Federal Government. I do not know who owns those 
black SUVs. I got a couple of license plates I am going to look up. But 
we can set an ethic here.
  But you have to have all three of these, and conservation is one of 
them. You can have tax incentives for conservation, but you can also do 
a lot of personal conservation. Even with my own staff sometimes, you 
drive up to park to go into a town meeting, and they sit there for 10 
seconds before they turn off the ignition. I have learned to reach over 
and turn it off just as soon as the car has come to a complete stop or 
even just a little bit before.
  Another problem we have in this country is the United States is the 
only country I am aware of that is choosing not to drill where we know 
oil and gas exist.
  How many times have we heard on the Senate floor: There is only 13 
billion barrels of oil in Alaska. It is going to take 10 years to 
access and get it down here. It is not going to make any difference.
  That is not supposed to be a big deal? If that isn't a big deal, how 
come just within the last year they found 5 or 6 billion barrels of oil 
offshore of Brazil, and it was a big deal, a big deal from the 
standpoint of energy efficiency for Brazil? And it was a big point for 
enhancing the inventory of known oil supplies worldwide because, just 
like money is fungible, oil is fungible. Wherever you find another drop 
of oil, it has some impact on the inventory. It has some impact on 
supply. So it ought to be just as big or twice as big of a deal because 
we have 13 billion barrels of oil in Alaska, as an example.
  Isn't this silly? Here in the United States, these lower 48, we have 
Mexico south of us, Canada north of us. They are doing everything they 
can to find every drop of oil they can; in Canada, getting it out of 
the tar sands. Yet what is unique about the United States? We are part 
of North America. We are right in the middle of North America. North 
and south of us is every attempt to get every drop of energy they can 
but not here. Isn't there something wrong with us when we take that 
attitude? But while you take that attitude, it is OK to ask the Saudis 
for more oil. It is OK to ask to be dependent on countries such as Iran 
and Venezuela for our economic security. It is OK to send $140 a barrel 
over there. But, boy, don't take a drop of oil out of the ground here 
where we are not drilling now and keep the $140 here. It is not OK to 
open areas at home where we know there is oil and gas.
  As I say so often, this defies common sense. I think my constituents 
know it because in every one of the 14 town meetings I had Monday, 
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of last week

[[Page 14647]]

in western Iowa, this issue of why we don't drill for our own oil has 
come up. For 4 years before that, I don't think I heard much about it. 
But it sure is a big deal waking up people. Maybe that is some 
advantage of $4 gas. It is harmful to the economy, harmful to middle-
income people, more harmful to low-income people, but it might wake up 
America to have a more balanced energy policy, which is threefold: 
drill, alternative energy, and conservation.
  There are some on the other side of the aisle who wouldn't be able to 
point to a single area where we should look for oil and natural gas. We 
have four or five people on my side of the aisle. So this is just not a 
Democratic thing, but there are more Democrats who believe that than 
Republicans.
  In 2006, Congress took action and voted to open 8.3 million acres in 
the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. However, when the Senate 
considered the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act in August of that 
year, 24 Democrats, including Senator Obama, or 57 percent of the 
caucus opposed that legislation. This was even after Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita ripped through the gulf without a single oil or gas incident.
  Today oil is more than $135 a barrel. Families, small businesses, and 
truckers are suffering from the increased cost of energy. Farmers have 
been forced to pay outrageous prices for anhydrous ammonia fertilizer 
this spring because of the cost of natural gas. Ten years ago we 
produced domestically nearly all of our fertilizer needs. Now we are 
dependent upon other countries for 55 percent of that fertilizer. 
Congress must act to develop our resources at home. We can take action 
today to develop in responsible ways our own domestic supplies of oil 
and natural gas What I am saying is, you can do this and not harm the 
environment.
  A bill I recently cosponsored, introduced by Senator McConnell, would 
take action to reduce gas prices. It would allow States to explore for 
oil or natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. It would allow 
Governors in coastal States to petition for a lifting of a moratorium 
within their State boundaries. The Pacific and Atlantic regions of the 
Outer Continental Shelf, which this bill would allow for leasing, hold 
an estimated 14 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 55 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas. But a moratorium currently prohibits 
production in those very areas. The Gas Price Reduction Act would take 
sensible action to allow these resources to be developed.
  It is time that we end the obstruction of reasonable, environmentally 
responsible development of domestic oil and gas resources.
  Bottom line: I hope my colleagues will recognize the extreme burden 
American consumers are experiencing. It is past time to take action to 
increase our energy supply, increase our economic and national 
security, and develop the resources that God gave us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the very serious 
energy situation. There is a crisis focused around gasoline prices that 
we face in our country. I want to start by complimenting the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa for doing the same, for focusing on 
this crucial priority that every American is facing, is struggling with 
in terms of dealing with the family budget. I certainly agree with my 
colleague, this is the No. 1 concern of every American I talk to. 
Literally everyone I talk to says this is the top priority. This is a 
true crisis. This isn't just hitting me in the pocketbook every day, 
every week, every month. This is threatening our future. This is 
threatening our economy.
  Given that, there is an obvious question that those same Louisianans 
and Americans are also asking. The question is, why isn't Congress 
acting? They hear us talking and making speeches and squabbling back 
and forth, but the obvious question they are asking is, why isn't 
Congress acting on this crisis that all of us face every day, every 
week, every month, that threatens our families' futures, that threatens 
our economy?
  I don't have a good answer. Congress should not only talk and make 
speeches and jabber about this, but Congress must come together in a 
bipartisan way and act. Congress must take the advice of the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa and not do either/or, this or that, no 
just this, no just that. We need to do all of the above. Our energy 
situation is so dire, we need to use less and find more right here at 
home. And we have the ability to do that. So, once again, why aren't we 
acting?
  Unfortunately, right now this question could not be clearer because 
while Americans in every State of the Union face this challenge every 
time they go to the gas station, every time they look at their family 
budget, the Senate is doing something very different. The distinguished 
majority leader is planning to turn from the legislation on the Senate 
floor now regarding housing and next take up not energy, not gasoline 
prices, but a bill that would triple the level of foreign aid that we 
send overseas in terms of AIDS relief. AIDS is a very serious worldwide 
problem. But let me say two things. First, under President Bush's 
leadership, the United States has led the world in addressing that 
issue, particularly in Africa, in a very aggressive way. I support 
that. President Bush has led that, with others in the private sector 
such as Bono. But we are doing that.
  The question I am bringing up is, is it really appropriate now at 
this moment to take up a bill to more than triple that foreign aid 
rather than taking up a bill to address energy and gasoline prices by 
using less and finding more right here at home?
  I can tell you what the American people would say. Everyone in the 
State of Louisiana, everyone I know across the country would say: that 
is not a close call. That is not a close call. Global AIDS is a huge 
problem, and we have acted aggressively to help address it. The United 
States has led in that effort. But what is hurting us every day, every 
week, every month, every time we go to the gas station, every time we 
have ever more painful discussions at the family kitchen table about 
the budget, what is impacting us is gasoline prices and energy. They 
would say that is not a close call.
  In this context, I urge the majority leader to turn to what is 
clearly the top priority of the American people. It is real simple. 
They elect us to come to the Senate, to come to the House and act 
together as grown-ups in a bipartisan way to solve real problems. It is 
also real simple: The biggest very real problem they face is gasoline 
prices and energy. Why aren't we acting? They are asking that over and 
over. Yes, we talk and speechify and jabber and often finger point, but 
why aren't we acting?
  I believe the solution is simple. As soon as we finish the matter 
which we will hopefully wrap up today, the housing bill, we should turn 
to what is by far the top priority, worry, concern of the American 
people. We should turn to legislation to directly address gasoline 
prices, the energy situation, by both using less at home and finding 
more right here at home to lessen our dependence on foreign sources.
  Again, that is a pretty clear choice. What do we go to next? The 
distinguished majority leader's suggestion is a bill to more than 
triple the foreign aid we already send overseas for HIV/AIDS relief. 
Again, that is a serious issue and a serious problem. We have been 
addressing it in a serious way: $15 billion for that program under 
President Bush's leadership. But the question is, what do we do next? 
Turn to a bill that would more than triple that or turn to a bill to 
address the top concern, bar none, of the American people, gasoline 
prices and energy? I would obviously suggest the latter.
  There are lots of ideas around about what we need to do on the energy 
front. The first consensus we should reach is that we should do a whole 
lot of these ideas. It is not either/or, one side or the other. It is 
not just conserve or just drill. It is, as the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa said, all of the above. We need to use less and find more and 
produce more right here at home.
  Many of us, well over 40 in this body, have come together around such 
a bill.

[[Page 14648]]

That bill is S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act. That bill is aimed 
to directly address this current gasoline price crisis and the current 
energy situation. It would do it in a broad-based way, not everything 
under the Sun. It is fairly focused, but it would do it in a broad-
based way by both using less and finding more, producing more right 
here at home. It has four main components, each of which is important.
  First of all, let me mention the component I worked very hard on. I 
drafted this component as a stand-alone bill, but the main outline of 
the provisions was also adopted in the broader bill; and that would be 
to open our vast, significant resources of oil and natural gas that lie 
in our ocean bottoms off the coasts of the United States.
  When I explain this to most folks in Louisiana, they are stunned that 
we have major, significant untapped resources in our ocean bottoms well 
off our coasts, but Congress has acted in the past to take almost all 
that off the table. In fact, of all those oil and natural gas resources 
we have in our ocean bottoms off our coasts, Congress has said we 
cannot touch 85 percent of it.
  Fifteen percent, yes. That is mostly in my part of the world, in the 
Gulf of Mexico, and mostly the western gulf. But for 85 percent, 
Congress has said: No. Can't touch that. Can't get that. Yes, it will 
lessen our dependence. Yes, we can do it in an environmentally 
sensitive way. Yes, we have new technology. Yes, we have lateral 
drilling, horizontal drilling, and the like, but you can't touch that. 
Eighty-five percent of that is off limits.
  The first component of our bill, S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction 
Act, would say we can go after those resources that are 50 miles or 
more off our coasts if the host State involved wants us to do that, and 
if we give a fair revenue share of 37.5 percent to that host State to 
compensate that host State for any difficulty and involvement and 
partnership involved.
  In so doing, that would be expanding on a very important precedent, a 
very important policy we set 2 years ago when we established that 
historic revenue sharing specifically--37.5 percent--in opening new 
areas of the gulf. So that is part 1 of the bill.
  Part 2 of the bill turns to the enormous resources we have on land in 
the United States. It turns to States in the Western part of the United 
States, where there are enormous shale resources, and says: We will 
allow production of energy in those shale deposits. If you think it is 
maybe the wrong policy to put 85 percent of our resources offshore off 
limits, in the instance of Western shale, it is worse. Congress has put 
100 percent of that energy off limits because of a bar, a moratorium, 
Congress has set saying: We cannot use any of that energy.
  Once again, the American people are stunned. They do not get this. 
They face a real crisis in terms of energy. They know more supply, 
particularly here at home, can stabilize prices, can increase our 
independence, and yet a majority in Congress is saying: 100 percent of 
that is off limits. That does not make sense. So part 2 of this bill, 
S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, would allow exploration in those 
Western shale deposits.
  Part 3 turns to the demand side because it is not either/or. It is 
not just one thing or just another. It is not drill, drill, drill, and 
do nothing else. But we also need to conserve and use new sources of 
energy. So title III of the bill would create major new incentives to 
push forward technology and bring it to market more effectively in 
terms of electric and plug-in cars.
  That is a very exciting technological development that is 
progressing. But we can push it along. We can create tax and other 
incentives to hasten the development of larger batteries so these plug-
in cars can be part of the answer in terms of our transportation issue, 
can lessen our use of gasoline, can lessen our reliance on dangerous 
foreign sources. The third part of the bill does that. It creates major 
incentives. It is a major push to the development of more plug-in, 
electric, and related technology cars that can lessen our demand.
  Then, the last part of the bill, part 4 of S. 3202, the Gas Price 
Reduction Act, would look at this very worrisome issue of speculation. 
It would give new power, new authority to the agency that has authority 
and a role in the regulation of speculators. It would put more 
policemen on the beat, if you will, to make sure there is not 
inappropriate, out-of-control speculation that may be running the price 
up even more than the normal forces of supply and demand.
  So that is part 4 of the bill, addressing legitimate concerns about 
speculation, putting more cops on the beat, giving more authority to 
those regulatory bodies which are supposed to be looking after that 
issue.
  These four components of this bill are not the only four good ideas 
out there. There are plenty more good ideas. There are plenty of other 
things we do need to do. I would like to open up ANWR, the Alaska 
National Wildlife Refuge. I would like to put additional incentives in 
place for fuel efficiency and conservation and new sources of energy. 
There are a lot of exciting possibilities in my own State of Louisiana 
for certain biofuels, including that produced from sugar, that produced 
from new crops with sorghum, and other very promising biofuels that do 
not have nearly the significant impact on food and commodity prices as 
ethanol does.
  So we need to do more. These four parts of this bill are not the only 
four good ideas out there. But we need to have this debate in a 
grownup, bipartisan way. We need to come together with all the good 
ideas out there and present them in the best tradition of the Senate, 
which is open debate and open amendments, and then--and this is the 
most important part--and then we need to act. We need to stop simply 
speechifying, simply posturing, simply talking, and act.
  So I believe we must turn to this top concern and priority of the 
American people next. I believe we should not move from this housing 
bill which we are on right now to a bill that would more than triple 
our foreign aid that currently goes overseas to combat the very serious 
problem of AIDS and HIV. But instead we should turn to the top priority 
of the American people: gasoline prices and energy.
  With that in mind, I offer a very simple and straightforward 
unanimous consent request. It would say: Yes, this is the top priority 
of the American people, so we are going to turn to it, and we are going 
to have an open debate, and we are going to let amendments come to the 
floor, we are going to have an open process and actually have debate 
and votes on all those amendments, and then we are going to act because 
that is what the American people want.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3202

  So, Madam President, in that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that 
upon disposition of H.R. 3221, the housing legislation, the Senate 
immediately proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 854, which is 
S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, a bill to address record-high gas 
prices at the pump; and I further ask unanimous consent that there be 4 
hours of general debate, equally divided, and upon the use of yielding 
back of that time, the Senate then proceed to consider amendments to 
the bill in a full and open amendment process, as is the tradition of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, on behalf of the Democratic 
leadership, who intends to bring a comprehensive bill to deal with gas 
prices to the floor, I have to object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my 
time, let me say that is very unfortunate. I am sure the American 
people are excited to hear that Congress might get to it someday. The 
problem is, they have been straining under these record-high prices for 
months and they have been looking at Congress and they have been seeing 
a lot of hot air and no action. Now what they see is the Senate taking 
up a bill to more than triple foreign aid that we send overseas for 
HIV/AIDS relief rather than taking up what is the most important 
challenge and crisis they face

[[Page 14649]]

every day: High gasoline prices and our energy situation.
  In my mind, nothing could underscore more clearly how out of touch 
the distinguished majority leader is from the concerns of the American 
people. We need to turn to this--not sometime, not in the future--we 
need to turn to this now. We need to recognize--not sometime in the 
future--that this is an issue. We need to recognize now that this is 
the top issue, bar none, of the American people, and we need to act.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand we 
are in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator, the Senate is considering a motion to 
disagree to two House amendments under cloture. But Senators have 
requested time to speak as in morning business.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me ask another parliamentary question: I am free to 
speak at this point without limitation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may speak for up to 1 hour on the 
question before the Senate or the Senator could request to speak as in 
morning business.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, I am going to speak on the motion, and that is the 
main purpose of my coming, but I do wish to say that, in fact, we will 
be having a gas price bill and dealing with those issues on the floor 
very soon. I know the Senate Democratic leadership intends to bring 
such a bill, but it will be a bill that is, hopefully, comprehensive in 
its nature and creates real opportunities to reduce gas prices and meet 
with the challenges.
  One of the factors we have today that we could get going on already 
is the 68 million acres that the oil industry already has access to and 
is largely not drilling on. So before we ask for more, why don't they 
move on that which they already have to drill on?
  Secondly--
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, after I make my statement, I would be 
happy to.
  Secondly, I think Americans would be shocked to know that a lot of 
the domestic production in the country is sold abroad. It is not used 
here at home. That is something we want to deal with as well, and that 
will be part of a comprehensive bill that will come forward.
  Those are two items that could be dealt with immediately. I think it 
is critical, and one of those two does not even need a legislative 
response, although, unfortunately, it is going to have to get one 
because the industry is not pursuing 68 million acres they already 
have. So that is alarming.
  I am glad to hear that some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle finally agree that market speculation is a critical part of this 
issue. We have been at this for some time, and this is the first time 
we have heard that is a critical component. It is a big part of what 
many of the oil industry executives have testified to before Congress.
  Finally, I would note it is interesting to me, we brought bills here 
on critical extenders in the area of making sure that renewable energy 
sources were incentivized and brought to the mass market concentration 
we need so we can break our dependency on oil, period, whether it would 
be foreign or domestic, and our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle objected. So you cannot have it both ways.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. My 
only question, which I propose through the Chair to the distinguished 
Senator, is, I am excited to hear we might turn to all these issues 
sometime in the future. I would like to know what that timetable will 
be. Specifically, will the majority leader give us assurance that we 
will turn to this in a full way, in an open amendment process, before 
the August recess?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, reclaiming the floor, I will be happy 
to give my observation. I do not pretend to speak for the majority 
leader in this regard, but I do believe that, in fact, we will see such 
action before this recess is over, maybe as early as next week. So I am 
very hopeful, and believe very much so, that it is every intent of the 
majority to deal with this in very short shrift.
  Mr. VITTER. Would the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield for one more question before 
I get to the focus of my statement.
  Mr. VITTER. That would be the second part of my unanimous consent 
request which is very important for consideration of these issues, to 
involve a full, open amendment process on the floor of the Senate, 
rather than the distinguished majority leader doing what he has done 
every time in the recent past, which is filling up the tree and 
blocking amendments.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time on the floor, let me simply say, it 
is always the majority leader's desire to have a full and open debate 
of the Senate. However, there are those of our colleagues who wish to 
use that full and open debate to pursue amendments that have nothing to 
do with reducing gas prices and dealing with our energy crisis or to be 
able to pursue a course that can bring conclusion to a bill and would 
give that type of relief to the American people but string it out and 
string it out on issues that are not relevant. That is when the 
majority leader has faced the necessity of moving in a different 
direction.
  So I do have the expectation that we will have a good debate and, 
more importantly, we will have a good bill that will be comprehensive 
and that will give relief to the people, and I am happy to have 
answered my colleague's questions.
  The main purpose for which I come to the floor as we debate the 
housing bill is to rise again to be a voice for those who have no voice 
in this housing crisis. Certainly, one of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle seems to not to hear the cries of children who are 
being, in one respect, punished through no actions of their own--2 
million of them in this country.
  I am not talking about homeowners, although I am certainly pleased 
that the bill we are considering today will have a powerful impact on 
our Nation's families. I am not talking about those on Wall Street, as 
they seem to be the first group the administration rushes to support. I 
am talking about our Nation's children.
  I rise on behalf of nearly 2 million children who will be directly 
impacted by the mortgage crisis. These children are not only taking a 
huge hit as padlocks get put on their front doors, but now they are 
likely taking another hit, as my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle threaten to block a critical amendment that could give them 
relief.
  My amendment authorizes $30 million in additional funding to the 
existing McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program to support these 
children. By the way, these children didn't decide to go out and get a 
mortgage. They had no legal authority to make those decisions. They are 
the ones who get swept up in this process. They are, for all intents 
and purposes, the worst victims of this process.
  As I said, an estimated 2 million children and young people, 
including 50,000 children in my home State of New Jersey, 20,000 in 
South Carolina, to mention one other State, and over half a million 
Latino children nationwide will be directly impacted by the foreclosure 
crisis, placing them at risk of poor school performance, behavioral 
problems, and other challenges as well. What happens is they lose not 
only their home, they lose the school they go to. They get moved 
around. They don't have a home and they get moved from school to 
school. If you are a student--and it is not so long ago that I can't 
remember--and you get yanked in and out of school, in and out of 
school, your ability to perform is simply undercut dramatically.
  In one school district in New Jersey, the number of homeless students 
doubled--doubled--this year, from 200 last

[[Page 14650]]

year to 423 this school year, and that is only in one school district. 
The foreclosure crisis is clearly having an impact, and the time is now 
to stop any more schoolchildren from being affected.
  An infusion of funds into the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education 
Program will help to ensure that students who become homeless and are 
forced to move from their homes do not also have to leave their 
schools.
  There are some who may be able to shrug this off as a small 
sacrifice. They are the victims of this process or they are the 
calamities or casualties of this process, but there is nothing small 
about the impact of changing schools during this type of crisis. These 
children are less likely to perform at grade level in math and reading, 
more likely to be held back, less likely to graduate. There are long-
term consequences to what for some may seem a short-term crisis.
  They are likely to have behavioral issues. One study found that kids 
forced to move frequently were 77 percent more likely to have behavior 
problems than their peers. Another study found they were 20 percent 
more likely to have violent behavior. Now, what is the cost going to be 
to us collectively in our society when that happens?
  At the end of the day, these children are forced to say goodbye to 
not only their home they grew up in and have had to leave their friends 
behind, but they also have had to leave behind familiar schools and 
supportive teachers and return to a strange home at night where their 
lives are often turned upside down. All stability is gone. They are 
thrown into a riptide with no lifevest, while we sit here in Washington 
hoping they survive the storm. Hoping is not enough. We have to do more 
than hope for them; we have to give them a lifeline. This funding would 
actually help these children.
  The McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program provides homeless 
students with a variety of supports such as transportation to school, 
tutoring, and counseling.
  Children are the voiceless victims of the foreclosure crisis. As we 
lower interest rates, as we support the home building industry, as we 
reform mortgage lending practices, several children's organizations and 
education organizations have asked for this amendment as a modest way 
that our Nation can support the nearly 2 million children who are 
suffering the consequences of decisions made completely outside of 
their control.
  The foreclosure crisis is damaging our economy, yes, but let us not 
forget the children are the real victims of this crisis, and--even 
worse--they are the silent victims. They can't speak up for themselves. 
They have no lobbyist here in Washington roaming the halls, advocating 
for them. It is not fair that these children get lost in the paperwork. 
They deserve our full support.
  This amendment is cosponsored by several of our colleagues, including 
Senator Murray and Senator Brown, and it has the full support of 
Senator Kennedy. I wish to thank Senator Enzi, who worked with me on 
the language for this amendment to make it acceptable, and Senators 
Dodd and Shelby, the chair and the ranking member of the committee, who 
agreed to include it in their provision in the managers' amendment. Had 
I known that in fact we were going to have the objection of one of our 
colleagues to a bipartisan package, I would have sought an individual 
vote, but I am beyond that ability today.
  In conclusion, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago 
Tribune have all written about this critical issue, and a number of 
respected groups also support this amendment, including First Focus, 
the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and 
Youth, the National School Boards Association, and the National 
Education Association, to name a few.
  We have an opportunity to do something for these children. I hear 
great speeches on the Senate floor about family and values and the 
value of families and the value of our children and how our children 
are, in fact, our No. 1 asset, and that is true as a nation. They are 
also our most vulnerable asset. Yet when it comes time to be able to 
help these children, the question is: Is Congress going to listen?
  Our colleague on the other side of the aisle seems to not be 
listening to their challenges and their pleas. One Member is likely 
going to block this and other important amendments, and the result is 
that our children, once again, are going to be unheard and are going to 
be the victims of something they had no role in creating; something 
that, in fact, where they are going to find themselves not only 
homeless but also having the foundation of their educational 
opportunities completely disrupted in a way that will more likely 
create failure than success.
  I hope my colleagues who talk about family values understand the 
important value of helping our children in this regard. We have to 
reconsider our priorities, and I, for one, don't intend to rest until 
these children receive our help and get our support.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Madam President.
  Legend has it that as Rome burned many years ago, the Emperor Nero 
stood on his balcony and fiddled. Now, we know he wasn't exactly 
fiddling because the fiddle was not invented until over 1,000 years 
later, but we do know that he became synonymous with people who don't 
get it, who don't get the urgency and the seriousness of the issues 
they are dealing with. If there has ever been an organization that fit 
that metaphor better than Nero himself, it is this Congress, because 
clearly Congress is fiddling while America is burning.
  Americans are hurting. It is no exaggeration. We hear it talked about 
here on the floor, but all we do is talk about it. Gas prices are 
literally tearing families apart. Electric utilities have announced 
they will raise their rates by over 30 percent because of the increase 
in the cost of fuels. The speeches here on the floor of the Senate have 
tried to blame everyone but the people who are responsible. We try to 
blame big oil or speculators or Bush, when anyone--any thinking 
American who looks in--can conclude immediately that over the last 20 
years this Congress has stopped the development of American energy and 
allowed us to be held hostage by other countries and has allowed prices 
to go up to the point that Americans are now being badly hurt.
  What do we do when it becomes obvious that our lack of energy and our 
dependence on foreign oil is raising the prices to the point that 
Americans can no longer live; that $700 billion a year is leaving our 
country, devaluing our dollars, and causing us to borrow more and more 
money as a nation? At a time of war, at a time of debt and economic 
downturn, what do we do? Well, I can hear the fiddling coming from the 
majority leader's office and the Democratic cloakroom. The fiddling is 
filling this place up because all we are doing is fiddling.
  We are talking about climate change legislation that would add huge 
taxes to energy in America and run more jobs offshore. We have spent 
this week talking about how we are going to bail out the mortgage 
industry which made loans that they shouldn't have made for people 
buying homes that were more expensive than they could afford. We want 
to bail them out. We want to borrow over $300 million from the future--
from our kids and grandkids. We are doing this while people at home are 
hurting because of the cost of energy and gas prices.
  Now, incredibly enough, the fiddling noise gets louder, because the 
majority leader wants to go to a foreign aid package. He wants to 
borrow $50 billion more and send it to different parts of the world--
with good reason, for good causes. Certainly HIV and AIDS in Africa and 
other parts of the world is a distressing problem that we would love to 
help with as Americans if we could. However, at a time when Americans 
are hurting, when we are at war, when the economy is in downturn and 
our country is facing debts we have never seen before, should we borrow 
another

[[Page 14651]]

$50 billion and spend another week debating while we fiddle instead of 
doing something to increase the energy supply here in America?
  It is time for us to act as a Congress. Americans expect us to act as 
a Congress to open up America's energy, to develop more supply as we 
develop alternatives and learn to use less. We cannot allow ourselves 
to be brought to our knees as a nation because we are so unwilling to 
do what anyone with common sense would tell us we need to do, and that 
is open our own energy supplies.
  It is incredible, if you look at the last 20 years, that we have cut 
off nuclear generation and natural gas development, oil and gasoline, 
and now we are trying to blame someone else. Congress does not get it. 
Congress does not recognize the seriousness of what is going on. We 
want to change the subject, and that is what the majority leader is 
trying to do now--go to another subject and spend another week doing 
something else, giving away more American resources, selling off and 
borrowing on our future. It is time that we do something. I agree with 
the Senator from Louisiana and his unanimous consent request.
  I advise the majority that I will make a unanimous consent request at 
this time. I am not sure if the Chair is ready to deal with this. Would 
the Parliamentarian advise me if I can make that request now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in my capacity as a Senator from 
Minnesota, on behalf of leadership, objects to that.
  Mr. DeMINT. Well, before we start fiddling, I have not made the 
request yet.
  I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of H.R. 3221, the 
housing legislation, the Senate immediately proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 854, which is S. 3202, the Gas Price 
Reduction Act, a bill to address record-high gas prices at the pump.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be 4 hours of general 
debate, equally divided; that upon the use or yielding back of time the 
Senate then proceed to consider amendments to the bill in a full and 
open amendment process, as is the tradition of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As Senator Menendez did, in my capacity as a 
Senator from Minnesota, on behalf of leadership, I object.
  Mr. DeMINT. Obviously, I am disappointed that we are still unwilling 
to address a very basic energy bill that would open deep sea 
exploration in our country and would allow us to access oil shale in 
the middle of the United States to help create incentives for electric 
cars.
  These are simple things that Americans know we need to do. We need to 
proceed to it immediately, and we need to stop fiddling. We don't need 
to spend another week talking about foreign aid when we have yet to 
help Americans who have elected us to support them in our own country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to 
disagree with the House amendment. Senators can request to speak as in 
morning business.
  Mr. GREGG. I will speak on the bill. I wish to associate myself with 
the comments of the Senator from South Carolina. I am not sure why, 
when it is costing $4.40 to put a gallon of gas in your car, when we 
are looking at a winter where energy prices may be as high as $5 a 
gallon, which is going to just overwhelm and create a horrific 
situation in parts of the country like my own, where people's ability 
to survive depends on their ability to buy heating oil, why we would be 
moving to a bill which essentially, dramatically expands an AIDS 
program in Africa.
  Now, the PETFAR Program has been a success, and I congratulate the 
administration for initiating it. We, as a people, are very 
compassionate. We have made a commitment to Africa and the nations 
there to help them with this terrible AIDS epidemic they are dealing 
with. There is no question but to take a hard look at this program and 
making some good decisions on improving it is appropriate. But 
certainly on our list of priorities it should not be above doing 
something substantive on the issue of how we increase supply in the 
area of energy in this country and how we energize more conservation in 
the area of energy in this country.
  We, as a people, need to pursue a course of more production--American 
production--and more conservation. There is much this Congress can do 
to assist in this area. It needs to be done now because--at least in 
production--there is significant lead time. But the one thing we could 
do which would affect the price of oil and which would impact the 
speculation in the marketplace that is occurring today is to make it 
clear that we, as a government, are going to support initiatives that 
are reasonable, environmentally sound, and will produce significant 
amounts of new energy through production. That will have an immediate 
impact on those folks out there who are driving up the price of oil.
  The price of oil is driven up as a result of people presuming that 
supply will be stagnant and will not expand and, therefore, demand, as 
it goes up, will increase price. If we can put in place policies which 
increase production, and therefore supply, and make an American 
product, we will do two very good things: We will reduce the 
speculation in the price of oil and thus cause it to go down. Secondly, 
we will actually be producing American product and spending American 
dollars--hard-earned dollars--in America rather than sending them over 
to nations many of which don't like us to begin with.
  So there are at least three major areas of production we should be 
pursuing and which we need legislation on to pursue. The first is 
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. We know we have years and 
years of supply in the Outer Continental Shelf. But it is locked up by 
legislation that was initiated by the other side of the aisle, which 
essentially took off limits almost all the new, available resources on 
the Outer Continental Shelf. What has been proposed and what is a 
reasonable approach is that States that believe they are willing to 
pursue drilling off of their shores--over the horizon, by the way, 50 
miles out in most instances--following the example of Louisiana, for 
example, and Mississippi and Alabama which already do this, States such 
as Virginia, for example, which has said they may be willing to pursue 
these resources, that they be given the option to do that and not be 
told they cannot do it, which is what the law says now. That is 
reasonable. It will open a huge amount of potential supply of both oil 
and natural gas.
  In addition, we know we have more oil reserves in oil shale in three 
States--Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah--than all of Saudi Arabia has. We 
have three times the amount of reserves Saudi Arabia has, and the oil 
shale can be recovered in an environmentally sound way, and the 
recovery doesn't require anything to happen at the surface. It is all 
done under the surface. The technology is there and it is viable and it 
is economically viable when oil exceeds $70 a barrel or maybe $60 a 
barrel. We know we can do it.
  But we are stopped from doing it by rules and regulations put in 
place by the Congress and by the prior administration. We ought to 
revisit those. We ought to debate those on the floor of the Senate. We 
ought to be willing, in my opinion, to pursue programs that will, in an 
environmentally sound way, use that oil resource, which is so huge--
huge--and which is American oil. We will be using American product 
rather than product that comes from nations that not only don't like us 
but, in some cases, want to do us harm.
  Thirdly, we have the issue of nuclear power. France gets 80 percent 
of its energy from nuclear power. China is adding new nuclear 
powerplants all the time. We have not added a new nuclear powerplant 
since the late 1980s. Nuclear power is clean energy. People who are 
concerned about the environment--as many of us are, and I think most 
people are--and about the issue of global warming, nuclear power is an 
energy

[[Page 14652]]

source that has no impact at all on global warming. It has no 
emissions.
  We know how to make nuclear powerplants that are safe. Nobody has 
ever died in a nuclear accident in this country. More important, when 
you look at nuclear power as an energy source, it is American made, 
American produced, and it means that instead of having to buy product 
from overseas to produce our electrical energy, we can produce it here 
with American product, made in America through nuclear powerplants. We 
should be adding nuclear powerplants. We made some improvements in the 
regulatory process, but it still is an extraordinarily long process to 
bring on line nuclear powerplants.
  In fact, in France, I think it takes something like less than 2 years 
to license and get a powerplant on line. In the United States, we are 
looking at 4\1/2\ years, or something like that, to license it, to get 
the plant under construction. It takes longer to construct them, 
obviously.
  So there are things we can do in this area. Those are the areas of 
production we should be aggressively looking at. They are 
controversial, and they should not be at a time when oil is at $140 a 
barrel and gasoline is costing us $4.50 a gallon and home heating oil 
is costing as much as $4.85 a gallon. At a time like this, we should be 
looking at those resources that can be produced in the United States 
and that will take the pressure off of our economy.
  One of the big problems with the price of oil and energy and 
gasoline, beyond the fact that it is stretching the average American's 
budget, people are legitimately worried and fearful about what will 
happen to them this winter. One of the other consequences of the price 
is that we are taking a huge amount of American capital, hundreds of 
billions of dollars' worth a year, and instead of retaining it in the 
United States where it can be used and reinvested and produce jobs, it 
is being sent overseas on a daily basis. Some of it is coming back 
through investments in our bonds, but we are then paying interest to 
foreign governments and foreign individuals.
  It would be much smarter of us to try to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil by increasing domestic production. We need to aggressively 
pursue programs of conservation and renewables also. That is why the 
Ensign-Cantwell bill on extending renewable tax credits is so 
important. I am sorry we have not been able to get to that and it has 
been blocked. That should be passed. Clearly, conservation needs to be 
aggressively pushed.
  So we should be producing more, and we should be using less. What we 
should be producing more of is American product. I think next week, 
rather than debating whether we should expand a foreign aid program by 
three times--the program was initially a $15 billion program, and it is 
proposed to take it up to $50 billion--rather than debating that, an 
authorization bill, we should be focusing on what America really needs 
to have done today, which is address the energy needs.
  I understand the Senator from Texas may make a unanimous consent 
request here. If he does, I certainly hope it will be accepted. It is 
reasonable that we should be pursuing and addressing those in the 
Senate--how we are going to produce more and use less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to say to the Senator from New 
Hampshire that I agree with virtually every word he said about the 
urgency of this issue. Frankly, I do not understand why next week, as 
reported, if it is true, we intend to turn to a foreign aid package of 
$50 billion, which is authorization for new spending which is not 
offset in any way--in other words, our children and grandchildren will 
end up paying the price--instead of dealing with what is the most 
urgent problem facing the country, which is the impact of high gasoline 
and high energy prices.
  The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, said it was the majority 
leader's intention to bring an energy bill to the floor sometime before 
we break in August. I hope that is true. It is welcome news if that is, 
in fact, the case, and I would love to have the majority leader 
reassure us that is his intention.
  I do not think it is responsible for Congress to adjourn for the 
August recess, I do not think it is responsible for us to go home 
having not done anything to help the American people with the pain they 
are feeling at the pump which, of course, is rippling through our 
economy in hundreds of ways, not the least of which is driving up the 
cost of food because of the increased energy consumption for our 
farmers to grow it, harvest it, and then get it to markets. It is hard 
for me to think of an issue that is more urgent in terms of our 
economy.
  The housing bill which is on the floor today and which has been on 
the floor for a while is an important piece of legislation. But I tell 
you, Madam President, I believe if we are successful in dealing with 
the subprime loan crisis and housing crisis, the economic impact of 
high energy costs may well dwarf the impact of that on our economy and 
the ripple effect, as I say, that it will have.
  I hope the Energy bill the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Menendez, mentioned that the majority leader plans to bring to the 
floor includes something other than what our friends on the other side 
of the aisle have proposed previously when it comes to so-called Energy 
bills, things such as windfall profits taxes, which has been tried 
before and found to actually diminish domestic production in this 
country in a time when we ought to be encouraging more production so we 
rely less on imported energy from places such as the Middle East.
  Then there is this idea which I can only characterize as crazy of 
suing OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, not the 
least of which I wonder where in the world you are going to find a 
court that somehow is going to accept jurisdiction of an antitrust 
claim against sovereign foreign nations and what the impact would be in 
terms of waiving of our sovereign immunity to allow suits to go forward 
in those other countries. I think it would have a dramatic impact on 
our international relationships. But assuming you could do it, what 
would you ask the judge? What kind of relief would you ask the judge to 
award if, in fact, we could have a lawsuit against the Organization of 
Petroleum Exporting Countries? The only one I can think of is ask the 
judge to order them to turn the spigot open wider, which does nothing 
to diminish our dependency, which does everything to increase our 
dependence.
  The fact is, if you talk to any impartial observer, you will find out 
there is rising demand for the oil that is being produced globally in 
countries such as China and India, with more than a billion people 
each. They are buying cars, they are consuming gasoline, and they are 
using more and more oil. The problem really is multifaceted but 
primarily driven by increased global demand because other countries 
want the kind of prosperity we have come to enjoy by making a claim to 
20 percent of the oil being produced globally, using 20 percent of it 
right here in the United States.
  I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire, who says we need a 
multipronged approach. We need to become less wasteful and more 
efficient and conserve energy because it makes sense to do so. It is 
the responsible thing to do. But then we need to deal with more than 
just the demand side. We need to deal with more supply.
  It has been interesting to me to see polling that has been done over 
the last few months which has demonstrated a pretty dramatic change in 
attitude of the American people. It is one thing to say we don't want 
to explore and produce oil from the submerged lands along the coastline 
of the United States or to go onto the western lands where the oil 
shale lies or to go to Alaska, to the Arctic, where Alaskans 
overwhelmingly want to allow production. It is one thing to say we are 
not going to do that when gasoline is at $2 a gallon. It is another to 
say we are not going to do that when gasoline is at $4.11 a gallon, 
which it is on national average today.
  Of course, there is really no indication whatsoever that prices are 
going

[[Page 14653]]

to continue to go anywhere but up because demand is going to continue 
to go up and prices are going to continue to go up if supply remains 
static. That is good old supply and demand.
  We do need, particularly as we transition to different types of 
alternative energy, particularly when it comes to transportation, 
things such as coal-to-liquid technology that has been used by the U.S. 
Air Force to make jet fuel to fly our B-1 bombers and B-52s. We know 
the technology exists, so why aren't we doing more of it? We need to be 
doing more of that, to find alternatives to dependency on oil.
  We also need to be doing more when it comes to electricity generation 
because ultimately we are going to be driving around in a different 
fashion in the years to come than we are today, perhaps in vehicles 
such as plug-in hybrid cars, which are going to be introduced by many 
of the major car manufacturers come 2010, where you literally will have 
a battery in a car you can plug into an outlet at night and drive that 
car the next day. Again, the electricity is going to have to come from 
somewhere. Right now, it comes from nuclear, natural gas, and coal.
  We know the pollution concerns about burning coal. So I agree with 
the Senator from New Hampshire, we are going to have to increase the 
use of nuclear power in order to get that electricity production up as 
our economy continues to grow.
  The consequences of Congress's inaction--and it is not just a passive 
inaction; it is actually the fact that Congress has imposed a ban since 
the early eighties on about 85 percent of our domestic energy supply in 
America. On the oil shale out West, there was legislation slipped into 
a bill just last year that banned the development of that shale out in 
the West that could produce a huge volume of oil.
  This is perhaps the most urgent issue confronting our economy, 
confronting our national security, and affecting working families in 
the State of Texas and around the United States. The fact that Congress 
would even dream of taking its August recess without addressing this 
issue and allowing for an opportunity for an appropriate debate and 
offering amendments and then voting on those amendments to me is 
unthinkable. So I hope the majority leader will not allow us to adjourn 
for the month of August before we address this issue in a realistic 
way. I do think there is some basis for a bipartisan compromise.
  I see the distinguished Democratic whip on the floor. I read--I trust 
these comments were reported accurately--that he said he was not 
opposed to domestic production. That is positive. I see the Gang of 14 
who met previously on judicial nominations. Now we have a Gang of 10--5 
Democrats, 5 Republicans--trying to come together in a bipartisan way 
and come up with a common ground and consensus when it comes to 
national energy policy.
  But I tell you, it would be a terrible mistake for us just to deal 
with one aspect of this issue and to pretend like we have actually done 
something. For example, the issue of speculation on the commodities 
futures markets--there is a growing consensus on both sides of the 
aisle that we need to deal with this issue, but we need to be careful 
about it as well. Certainly, more transparency in the way this 
commodities futures trading system works is important. We need more 
cops on the street. We need more regulators to investigate to make sure 
there are not abuses of the commodities futures trading system.
  If we are not careful, if we overreach, we could force some of that 
activity to other countries. I know that is not what we would want to 
do, is have an unintended impact of driving those jobs elsewhere.
  I am more optimistic than I have been in a while about the 
willingness of Congress to enter into some sort of bipartisan 
discussion, debate, and vote, and actually do something that will get 
Congress out of the way and make the Federal Government part of the 
solution and not part of the problem when it comes to imposing 
moratoria and bans on production of about 85 percent of America's 
natural resources.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The assistant majority 
leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Joseph Dunn

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the late Senator Paul Simon was my closest 
friend in politics. He was my boss for several years, and he is the 
reason I am in the Senate today.
  Paul Simon used to like to tell the story about Meriwether Lewis, 
half of the fabled exploration team of Lewis and Clark. In the story--a 
true story--Meriwether Lewis returns to his hometown after helping lead 
the historic journey of the uncharted West to the Pacific coast. At a 
dinner in his honor, Meriwether Lewis tells the people of his hometown:

       Patriotism is not words, it's work. It's what we do.

  Paul Simon believed that, and he surrounded himself with others who 
shared that belief. Patriotism is not words, it is works.
  For Joseph Dunn, that was the creed of his political faith. Most 
people in the Senate have not heard of Joe Dunn, but if you care about 
social and economic justice and the survival of small towns, small 
businesses, and family farms, you would have liked him. If you live in 
southern Illinois, there is a good chance your life is better today 
because of Joe Dunn.
  Joe was the quintessential smalltown American. He loved his family, 
his church, and his community. For 15 years, he, too, worked for Paul 
Simon in the House, then in the Senate. For most of that time, he was 
Senator Simon's downstate director in Illinois.
  When Senator Simon retired in 1996, Joe took a salary cut to work for 
the ICCS, the Illinois Coalition of Community Services. It is a 
nonprofit organization whose motto is ``helping communities help 
themselves.'' Two years later, Joe became its director.
  ICCS works with people in struggling communities in southern 
Illinois, mostly small farm belt and coal belt towns that have been 
losing jobs and residents for a long time. ICCS helps residents in 
those towns identify their community's specific challenges and 
strengths and work together for a better future.
  As a friend wrote:

       Joe believed there was no community without assets, no 
     individual devoid of talents. He spent his life working in 
     partnership with these communities and individuals, taking 
     advantage of their assets and talents. He was a kind, sweet, 
     thoughtful, passionate man.

  Last Friday, on the Fourth of July, Joe Dunn's caring heart stopped. 
He suffered a fatal heart attack while he was exercising at home. Joe 
was 55 years old. Joe learned the meaning of patriotism from his mother 
Johanna and his father Ben, a World War II POW and survivor of the 
Bataan Death March.
  Joe learned about community growing up in Gorham, a small town in the 
Mississippi River Bottoms of southern Illinois bordering on the Shawnee 
National Forest. This is how Joe described his hometown last year:

       The median household income of Gorham is a mere $22,750. 
     Kids have to be transported at least 12 miles to school. Most 
     residents who work must travel an average 34 miles to their 
     jobs. But in spite of this and the fact that you cannot buy 
     either a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas there, Gorham 
     remains.

  Joe went on to say it is not unique.

       The isolation that poverty has brought to Gorham affects 
     many, many other small communities in Illinois.

  Joe asked:

       What can residents in such towns do to combat their 
     isolation? They must organize . . . and be willing to work 
     very hard to keep their sense of community intact. . . . 
     [T]hey must also organize and join with the voices of others 
     to let our legislators and other decisionmakers know that 
     [residents of small towns] have the same human rights as 
     residents of more prosperous and affluent Illinois 
     communities.

  Joe Dunn was committed to the notion that America should be a land of 
opportunity for all, not just for some, and he spent his life working 
to improve the lives of others. He worked tirelessly to better the 
lives of people

[[Page 14654]]

living in poverty by changing public policy and providing creative 
community solutions.
  Like Paul Simon, Joe believed government could be a force for good. 
At Eastern Illinois University, where Joe earned a degree in political 
science in 1975, he was the student senate speaker. He was a political 
natural. He knew how to build and use political power. But he used his 
political and organizing skills to serve others, never himself.
  He brought joy wherever he went. His laughter was warm, his humor was 
quick but never mean. Joe always had a smile on his face.
  Joe was born with a condition that left him with a pronounced limp, 
but he was so full of energy that you quickly forgot he had any 
physical limitations, and he had so much faith in the ability of 
everyday people to change their lives so the people with whom ICCS were 
working forgot about their supposed limitations.
  Under his leadership, ICCS helped dozens of communities create 
community development programs, neighborhood cleanup and rehabilitation 
programs, community policing programs, and volunteer community 
libraries. Joe helped establish afterschool programs and school and 
summer lunch programs that fed tens of thousands of young people in my 
State. He helped create new partnerships between community and faith-
based groups, and new bridges between generations.
  Before joining Senator Simon's staff, Joe worked for the Illinois 
Farmers Union-CETA, and he coordinated summer youth programs in four 
southern Illinois counties. He was a member of the Governor's Rural 
Affairs Council, the Illinois Poverty Summit Steering Committee, the 
Illinois Collaboration on Youth and the Service Learning Task Force of 
the Illinois State Board of Education and the Steering Committee of the 
Alliance of Communities for Faith and Justice.
  Through these programs, and the people he inspired, Joe's work will 
live on.
  Days before he died, Joe sent some friends an e-mail that ended with 
these words:

       By the way, happy 4th of July, and remember that one of the 
     most patriotic things we can do is strengthen our 
     communities.

  He was a profoundly good man who made life better for many people and 
a great friend of mine. I can't tell you how many times we worked 
together on projects in communities around our State. We had this 
common political heritage in Paul Simon. It rubbed off, I hope, on me 
but certainly on Joe Dunn. I knew Joe was going to live up to those 
values, those Simon values that inspired so many of us over the years.
  What a tragedy it was to learn of his passing on the Fourth of July. 
When Kappy Scates in my downstate office contacted us, it was hard to 
believe. Joe was too young, too alive, too necessary. But now he is 
gone.
  In closing, I wish to extend my deep condolences to Joe's family, 
especially his wife Tempa; their daughters Abby and Katie, and the two 
grandchildren Joe loved so much, as well as his many friends. Joe Dunn 
has left his legacy in my State of Illinois. His caring heart may have 
stopped on the Fourth of July, but his caring for the people of my 
State will not end.


                         Republican Filibusters

  Mr. President, I listened a minute ago to the Senator from Texas 
talking about energy, and I thought to myself: Doesn't he remember that 
a few weeks ago we brought energy bills to the floor and we asked him 
and the Republicans to join us in a bipartisan effort to deal with the 
gasoline prices in this country? Is he suffering from political 
amnesia? Has he forgotten that we tried unsuccessfully over and over to 
get a bipartisan group of Senators to start the debate he is begging 
for today?
  I took a look at some of these rollcall votes to try to remember who 
was on which side when it came to bringing up the issues, and here we 
have, for example, a vote on June 10 of this year--June 10, not that 
long ago, less than a month ago--and we were trying to bring up the 
basic tax credits for energy development in this country--something 
that is about to expire and that we want to make sure will go forward. 
Unfortunately, we were stopped. On these tax extender votes of June 10, 
2008, we needed 60 votes to go forward. We had 50 votes.
  I looked to see what Republicans joined us in this effort. There were 
three. The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Corker, Senator Smith of 
Oregon, and Senator Snowe of Maine, which led to a total of 50. We 
needed 60. The Senator from Texas, unfortunately, voted against 
starting that debate.
  So he comes to the floor today and says that we surely can't leave 
for the August recess until we start a bipartisan debate. Sadly, on 
June 10, he voted against a bipartisan debate on tax extenders.
  But that wasn't the only time that day he voted against a debate on 
energy policy. I don't wish to single him out, but he came to the floor 
and made the speech, and I will make it clear that many others joined 
him. We brought up a bill that wasn't just an extension of tax 
incentives so companies could start building more wind turbines and 
research into renewable and sustainable sources of energy. It went 
further. In fact, I think it was a very balanced and proactive effort 
to bring down gasoline prices and to try to take control of an element 
that is not only hurting families and businesses but our economy. We 
came forward with the Consumer-First Energy bill, and we said we want 
to debate this on a bipartisan basis.
  Here is what it said. First, we are going to roll back the $17 
billion in tax subsidies that we are giving the oil companies. Listen, 
they are turning in and reporting the biggest profits in their history. 
They don't need subsidies from Federal taxpayers. We could put that 
money to better use. What if we gave consumers across America a helping 
hand in paying for gasoline? What if we gave independent truckdrivers 
several thousand dollars to defray the expenses they are running into 
trying to fuel their rigs and make a living? I would rather put $17 
billion in that kind of tax relief than in tax relief to ExxonMobil. 
But that is what we are doing. So the bill said, let's change that.
  The bill also said we were going to impose a 25-percent windfall 
profit tax on these oil companies to let them know the sky is not the 
limit when it comes to profit taking. There is a point where the 
Federal Government will take that money back for consumers, for 
investment in renewable and sustainable fuels.
  We also wanted to suspend oil shipments to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve for the rest of the year. Why do we keep buying this expensive 
oil, taking it off the market and sinking it in the ground, making it 
more expensive for our economy? It doesn't make sense.
  We also had a provision to protect consumers from price gouging. I am 
afraid that is going on here. This bill gave the President the 
authority to declare an energy emergency and set aside excessive price 
increases.
  We also set limitations on oil market price speculation. Most people 
understand that is part of the issue. We had it in our bill.
  We had a clear message to OPEC by allowing enforcement actions 
against companies that collude to set the price of oil and natural gas.
  Well, that was the bill. Those were the provisions. They could have 
made a difference. But in order to get that bill to the floor and to 
start debating it, we needed 60 votes. That is what the Senate 
requires, 60 votes. So we called it for consideration on June 10, 2008, 
and we had 51 votes. The following 6 Republicans joined 45 Democrats. 
Coleman, Collins, Grassley, Smith, Snowe, and Warner. The Senator who 
was just on the floor, who says we shouldn't go home in August without 
debating a bipartisan measure, voted not to debate a bipartisan measure 
on June 10, 2008.
  We tried again on June 17. We believe it is important. We tried to 
bring up these tax extenders again to encourage the kind of investment 
that is necessary. Well, unfortunately, again we couldn't get 60 votes. 
We had 52. Republicans voting with Democrats: Coleman, Collins, Corker, 
Smith, and

[[Page 14655]]

Snowe. Sadly, the Senator who spoke on the floor was not among those 
voting to go forward on June 17. On three separate occasions he refused 
to vote to start the debate on this energy issue, and now he is 
complaining that we should be starting the debate on the energy issue.
  Well, I hope he will reconsider his previous votes, and I hope he 
will join us in a bipartisan effort to go forward. But I must say that 
if we are going forward on this bill and others, then the policy and 
strategy of the Republican Senators has to change. This chart shows we 
have had 82 Republican filibusters so far in this session of Congress.
  Now, people say: Is that a lot? How many do you expect? In the 
history of this Senate, there have never been more than 57 filibusters 
in a 2-year period. So far, in a little over a year, we have had 82 
Republican filibusters. What is a filibuster? A filibuster is using the 
Senate rules to stop the debate on a bill, to stop the debate on an 
amendment or a nomination. Any Senator can stand and do that, and then 
you have to wait 30 hours and see if you can get 60 votes together to 
overcome that Senator's filibuster.
  Well, we have 51 Democratic votes. When you do your Senate math, you 
find out we need nine Republicans to join us to move forward on 
anything. Eighty-two times the Republican Senators have stopped debate 
on issue after issue. On the three separate occasions that I have made 
reference to, when the Democratic majority of 51 tried to get 9 
Republican Senators to join us in a bipartisan debate to bring down 
gasoline prices, to talk about investment in renewable and sustainable 
fuels, they refused. They give us just a few Senators. Coincidentally, 
most of them are up for reelection. They give us a few, but never 
enough to reach 60. That has been their strategy. That is the 
Republican strategy, the strategy of opposition to debate and moving 
forward.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for 
a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I have been listening 
over the last hour, as we have heard our colleagues from the other side 
come and excoriate us for not allowing them to bring a bill to the 
floor on energy and assailing the Senators on this side for prohibiting 
them from doing that.
  That was astonishing to me because, as the Senator from Illinois 
knows, I have been coming to the Senate week after week and saying how 
much I pay for gas when I go home. It is now up to $4.45 a gallon that 
I paid last Sunday. I have been a part of this majority that has tried 
to bring a bill to the floor to deal with renewable energy, to try to 
deal with the issue of speculation, and to try to deal with a number of 
issues. How many times now have we been blocked from bringing an energy 
bill to the floor to deal with these gas prices?
  Mr. DURBIN. In the last 6 weeks, we have been blocked three different 
times by the Republicans, who refuse to give us the necessary 60 votes 
to bring the bill to the floor--something they are now complaining 
about. Some of the Senators complaining the loudest voted against 
having a bipartisan debate on an energy bill.
  I guess they think the Congressional Record is written in 
disappearing ink; that we don't have a permanent record here of their 
votes. We do. We know where they have been. We know how they have 
voted.
  I wish to say something else for the Senator from Washington, and I 
am sure she will agree. They come and argue that the Democrats are 
against domestic exploration for oil. That is not true. I don't know of 
a single Democrat, I don't know of a single Senator who is against 
domestic exploration and production of oil. In fact, as the Senator 
from Washington knows, we have 68 million federally owned acres that we 
lease to the oil companies for exploration and production of oil and 
gas.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Well, Mr. President, if the Senator will once again 
yield, didn't we do a bill several years ago to actually add 8 million 
acres to that, to allow more drilling?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes. So we had the 68 million, and we added the 8 million 
just a year ago--in the Caribbean, if I am not mistaken--in offshore 
drilling. So there is this pool of opportunity for the oil and gas 
companies. They must be opportunities because they are paying us, the 
Federal Government, a lease. They believe there could be oil and gas 
there. But when you ask the question: Well, how much are they drilling 
of that 68 million, it turns out about a fourth of it. A fourth of it.
  So you have some 34 million acres offshore of Federal land available 
to the oil companies, and they could be drilling it right now.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield, if 
I am not incorrect, I believe that 68 million doesn't include the 
additional millions of acres off the shore of Alaska that they also are 
allowed to drill in and that they currently aren't drilling in.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is right. I don't know the exact number in Alaska, 
but there are a significant number of acres, millions of acres 
available off Alaska where they can be drilling.
  So I would say to the Senator from Washington, if they have so many 
millions of acres available for drilling, why is it that they are 
making the argument that they don't have any opportunities here for 
drilling and exploration? I think it is, frankly, because they have no 
other answer.
  What it boils down to is that for 8 years we have had two oilmen at 
the highest levels of Government in America. When you do the math, 8 
years, divided by two oilmen, equals $4 gas. That is what we are 
paying.
  I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for inspiring me. I helped him 
with the mathematical equation on this, but it was his inspiration that 
led to that last statement. I would say that is part of the problem. 
Any President looking at the mess in our economy and the hardship 
imposed on American families and businesses would have called the oil 
executives in a long time ago. Not this President. He used to be in the 
same fraternity. He was in the oil business. Many of them believe this 
is the way it works; this is the market at work.
  If this is the market at work, we better take a look at the market 
because it is destroying America's economy--cutting back on airlines, 
reducing the number of flights, reducing the number of employees. All 
that tells me is that we need some leadership. Leadership will not be 
served by Senators coming to the floor, who voted to maintain 
filibusters, and then beg us to start a debate. That is what it is all 
about. They had their chance and they didn't join us.
  I would say at this point, before I yield the floor, we need to 
tackle this issue. There is no more important issue facing America 
today. We need exploration. We need to have investment in new 
opportunities. We need to be aggressive. We need to move right now.
  We need, for example, to move to a point where we are not putting oil 
into SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but actually taking it out 
and selling it and the proceeds will be used to not only bring down the 
price of oil in that sale but the proceeds are used to help American 
consumers, families, and business get through this energy crisis we 
face as a nation. We have to stop this indefensible subsidy of American 
oil companies at a time when they are reporting the highest profits in 
history. Put that money back into the economy for the right 
investments. We need a windfall profits tax to stop what is going on 
there, excessive profit-taking at the expense of the people who get up 
and go to work every day, and stop the price gouging and speculation 
that is leading to higher prices for oil and gasoline. This is the kind 
of initiative we need.
  That was included in the bill on June 10 which the Senator from Texas 
voted not to take up and not debate. I want to take it up. I am ready 
to do that at any time the Senator from Texas wishes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for

[[Page 14656]]

coming and highlighting the number of times we have tried to bring a 
bill to the floor to deal with the very critical energy crisis that is 
in front of us. There is no doubt this is harming Americans today. For 
our friends at home and for all of us, when we have to pay $4.45 a 
gallon, as I did last weekend, that means we will not have as much 
money to spend on other things. We are hearing about people who are 
cutting back at the grocery stores, not being able to even go to work 
because they cannot afford the price to put the fuel into their car to 
be able to go to work. This has a huge impact. It has an impact on our 
schools and our communities, that are trying to get their schoolbuses 
ready for the fall and wondering how they are ever going to be able to 
budget for that. It is affecting our truckdrivers in tremendous ways as 
they try to get their goods to market. It is affecting every single 
American family, every single business, every single community, every 
single government agency.
  It is an issue that we on this side of the aisle believe we have a 
responsibility to address. We have tried to bring a bill to the floor, 
not once, not twice, but three times, and have faced a filibuster from 
the other side.
  We are going to keep working and keep trying to get to a point where 
we can finally address this. I think all of us recognize there are two 
oil men in the White House and it is going to take an election for us 
to get to the long-term issues we need to address in this Nation. But 
there are things we can do today. We want to do them today. As 
Democrats we are going to keep working because America deserves it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. 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. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to again urge 
my colleagues to join in the leadership of Senator Dodd and his efforts 
to address one of the crises of economics we have going on in America 
today and that is the housing crisis which is causing so much pain all 
across America, in each of our respective States. It is causing pain to 
those who own their homes and are losing their homes, but it is also 
causing pain to so many homeowners across America whose dream of home 
ownership is being torn asunder as they are seeing their home value 
decline in unprecedented ways. I think it is incumbent upon this 
Congress to take action to move forward to try to create an environment 
that puts together this cornerstone of our economy which has been so 
crumbled by all of the difficulties it has had over the last several 
years.
  In my home State of Colorado, we have seen a very significant 
increase in the number of foreclosures. In 2007 in Colorado, as you can 
see on this chart, approximately 1 per 45 households--1 per 45 
households--filed foreclosure. That is the equivalent to nearly 40,000 
foreclosures that were filed across my State of Colorado. That is up 
nearly 200 percent in a 5-year time period. If you look back at the 
years 2003 and 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, we see what is happening: The 
number of foreclosures is rising at an extraordinary level. That rise 
in foreclosure levels is not something we can say is over. We can't say 
this is an economic phenomenon we have been through and that we have 
already gotten to the end and, therefore, the times ahead of us are 
rosy. We are facing some difficult times ahead of us as we deal with 
the housing crisis.
  This next chart is a projection of where we see ourselves going in 
Colorado. This is information provided by the Center for Responsible 
Lending, which indicates that in the year 2008 and the year 2009, as 
the adjustable rate mortgages continue to adjust upward, we are going 
to see additional foreclosures in the State of Colorado. It is expected 
that this year, 2008, and into 2009, we are going to have almost 50,000 
additional foreclosures. So if we have an additional 50,000 
foreclosures in the State of Colorado, what is the consequence to 
others?
  First, there is a consequence, of course, to those who lose their 
homes. There are some from whom I have heard, including people who are 
in their 60s, who are not able to continue to make the payment on their 
homes and who end up in their later years of life essentially losing 
their dream of home ownership because they cannot afford the higher 
rates, the higher payment rates that come about through adjustment of 
the ARMs. So it definitely affects those people who have to go through 
foreclosure in huge, significant, and very painful ways. But it also 
affects others, because it is surrounding homes in the neighborhoods 
that are affected by the decline in home values. In my State alone, it 
is estimated that about 750,000 homes will have declining values over 
the next several years. That is almost half of the housing stock within 
the State of Colorado. So we have a lot of pain going on with respect 
to what is happening in the home world.
  There are many people who have seen these signs, I am sure, as people 
have driven through their neighborhoods throughout the State of 
Colorado. We see these kinds of signs. They are commonplace. We see 
them in counties such as Adam County, Denver, Conejos County; we see 
them in Pueblo County and all over the place where people have had a 
hard time selling their homes. We see these signs that say ``Price 
Reduced'' time and time again. That is, in fact, something which is 
commonplace.
  It is also true that there are things that can be done to help us 
address this issue. This is a sign from our foreclosure hotline in 
Colorado. That foreclosure hotline has been set up as our central 
source for people who are having a problem with respect to staying in 
their homes to be able to make a telephone call to try to see whether 
they can get some assistance to be able to stay in their home. We have 
had more than 29,000 Coloradans call this foreclosure hotline over the 
last several months. The foreclosure hotline in Colorado has been able 
to provide major assistance to the people of the State of Colorado who 
call in for assistance. About 80 percent of the people who call the 
foreclosure hotline end up creating some kind of negotiation with their 
lender that ultimately allows them to stay in their home. That is good 
for the homeowner because they can stay in their home, and it is good 
for the lender as well because they don't go through the things they 
have to go through with the costs incurred in foreclosing on a home, 
restoring the home, and selling the home.
  Senator Dodd and his committee have been working on trying to address 
one of the most significant pains affecting the people in America 
today--and rest assured, there is pain in America. This dream of our 
economic engine is somewhat teetering. When we look at what is 
happening with the high rise in the cost of gas, and we see what is 
happening with the high cost of health care, and all the rest of the 
costs that are economic pocketbook issues affecting America, they are 
saying why isn't our Government helping in terms of addressing some of 
the fundamental issues at stake here?
  The housing legislation, which has been crafted and worked on by 
Senator Dodd and others, is an effort to try to address this housing 
crisis. I hope we are able to move forward with that legislation very 
soon, because we need to start restoring confidence on the part of the 
American people that we can address some of these critical issues 
facing us in America at this time.
  This is not a Republican or Democratic or Independent issue. The 
issue of home ownership and the issue of having a strong housing 
market, a strong housing construction industry, that is an American 
issue, an American challenge we all face. So we need to come together 
to push this legislation and get it done and get it to the President 
for his signature as soon as possible.
  For those who will try to create obstruction along the way to have us 
continue to not be able to get to this are doing a disservice to the 
American people. We need to address this housing

[[Page 14657]]

crisis. Senator Dodd and those who have worked on this legislation for 
a long time are giving us that opportunity. I hope before the end of 
the day we will be able to take a significant step toward creating the 
remedy that will provide some relief to those suffering from this 
housing crisis in America today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will speak on another matter, if I may, 
but first I thank my colleague from Colorado for his kind comments 
about the efforts we made on the housing bill. I thank him for his 
observations about his own State and what is going on there with the 
people in the western part of our country.
  This issue is a national problem. I think there are occasions when 
people assume this is a localized issue in a few spots in the Nation. 
Unfortunately, we have all learned, painfully, with more and more news 
that comes out that this problem is in every State; in some, it is far 
more pronounced. In my State, we have had about 15,000 foreclosures, 
and another 12,000 are anticipated this year--in a State of 3 million 
people. Home values have come down.
  I appreciate the Senator's comments about what is going on and his 
appreciation of what we are trying to do with this bill. Every single 
day, between 8,000 and 9,000 people file for foreclosure. In the month 
of June, 250,000 people moved into that category. Those are the 
numbers. As I said this morning, those are families--a mother, father, 
and maybe children--who have to find alternative living conditions 
because they are about to lose their homes. Think about that on an 
individual basis, what it means, and the fact that we have had to take 
so long on this bill that could have been, frankly, passed a week or 
more ago. Colleagues on both sides of the political aisle have 
expressed strong support for our efforts. A handful of people here have 
slowed this down and done everything in their power to derail this 
effort.
  This morning's vote of 84 to 12 once again indicates the strong 
desire by most of us here to get something done on this issue. I thank 
my colleague for his generous comments and help in this effort.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dodd and Mr. Levin pertaining to the introduction 
of S. 3252 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Energy Crisis

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have noticed that late this afternoon a 
number of speakers have come to the floor of the Senate decrying the 
fact that there is not oil drilling here or there or elsewhere and 
suggesting that they and they alone have the answer to our energy 
problems. I wish to respond by saying this issue of drilling for oil is 
an important issue. I, along with my colleagues, Senator Bingaman, 
Senator Domenici, and Senator Talent, introduced the bill in the Senate 
that opened what is called Lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. That is now 
law. We now have companies exploring for oil and gas in Lease 181 in 
the Gulf of Mexico. Why? Because I think it makes sense to do that. If 
you take a look at the oil reserves in Outer Continental Shelf, in the 
Gulf of Mexico, off the west coast, and off Alaska, by far the majority 
of the available reserves are in the Gulf of Mexico.
  But having said all that, we are already drilling in a lot of areas--
including in North Dakota. I asked the U.S. Geological Survey to do an 
assessment of oil resources in what is called the Bakken Shale 
formation in North Dakota. I asked them to perform the assessment about 
2 years ago. They completed their report a couple months ago, and they 
estimated that there is 3.6 to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil 
using today's technology in eastern Montana and western North Dakota. 
So now we have nearly 80 drilling rigs drilling in western North 
Dakota. I don't know how many are in Montana, but there is a 
substantial amount of drilling activity, which I strongly support.
  This is the largest assessment of recoverable oil ever made in the 
lower 48 States. Let me say that again. The U.S. Geological Survey just 
completed its assessment that there is up to 4.3 billion barrels of 
recoverable oil using today's technology and we have oil companies 
there drilling and I support it. We are drilling in this country, in 
North Dakota, eastern Montana, and we have other oilfields. This 
happens to be a brand new one, the biggest assessment ever made in the 
lower 48. It is exciting, in my judgment.
  As I indicated, we have activity happening now in Lease 181 in the 
Gulf because we opened that. Off of Cuba, it is estimated that there is 
a half million barrels a day that is available for leasing by the 
Cubans. Many countries have leases there--Spain is there, Canada is 
there, India is there, and Venezuela is there. They are very 
interested. But our companies can't secure the leases because the Bush 
administration says, no, we can't drill in Cuban waters. We have this 
embargo with respect to Cuba. So there is a half million barrels that 
our oil companies can't produce.
  I say to my colleagues: You want to drill? Let's allow our companies 
to go access some of that off the coast of Cuba. China wants to be 
there, and India wants to be there, but we can't be there.
  The fact is we need to do a lot of things and do a lot of things well 
if we are going to address this energy issue. Now, the price of oil is 
bouncing around at $140, $144 a barrel. My understanding is that in the 
last 4 or 5 minutes of trading today, it went up, I was told, $4 or $5 
a barrel. There is unbelievable, relentless, in my judgment reckless, 
speculation going on in the oil futures market. Now, it wouldn't matter 
so much if these were future markets dealing with something that wasn't 
so essential to the economic well-being of our country, but our country 
desperately needs oil. We run on oil. The fact is we use a prodigious 
amount of it.
  I have described before, on many occasions, the way this works. We 
have a substantial amount of oil halfway around the world under the 
sands. That is where there is a lot of the oil. The largest reserve is 
in Saudi Arabia, second and third is either Iran or Iraq, depending on 
how you count reserves in those two countries. So the largest reserve 
is in Saudi Arabia, then Iran and Iraq. But where is the largest 
demand? Well, here in the United States.
  We suck out 86 million barrels a day from this planet. Of that 86 
million barrels of oil we suck out from these little straws called 
drilling rigs and pumps, we use one-fourth of it here in this spot on 
the planet called the United States of America. We are big users of 
energy.
  So what do we do to address this issue when oil prices spike like 
Roman candles to $140 a barrel, and it does enormous damage to our 
country, to our economy, and injures farmers, families, truckers, and 
airlines? What do we do? We do a lot of everything, it seems to me.
  I described that we are drilling exciting new wells in our region of 
the country. We are going to be drilling in Lease 181 in the Gulf of 
Mexico. But in addition to drilling, we need to do a lot more. We need 
substantial, aggressive conservation. We need significant efficiency 
and conservation. Everything we use throughout the day--if we turn a 
switch, push a button, dial a knob, turn a key--everything we do all 
day long has to do with energy. We get up in the morning and we want 
light, in the closet, in the bedroom. We use our finger to flip a 
switch, not understanding, of course, so much--because we take it for 
granted--that is energy. Perhaps we use an electric razor, then heat a 
pot of coffee, then put a key in

[[Page 14658]]

the ignition of a vehicle. Every one of those actions is using energy, 
and we never give it a second thought.
  Now, all the things we have--yes, including air-conditioners and 
refrigerators--can be made much, much, much more efficient. We are 
getting rid of the incandescent light bulb. It will not be long until 
you will never see another one because we can find ways to produce 
light for all our manufacturing facilities and our homes all across 
this country with 80 percent less electricity than we now use. So we 
need to engage in conservation, efficiency, and then renewables.
  Now, renewables represent something our country ought to say to the 
world: Here is where we are headed. Yes, we are going to drill some and 
do all these things. We are going to conserve and develop more 
efficient methods of using all this electricity. But it is also the 
case that renewables represent a significant opportunity. Renewables, 
with respect to wind energy and solar and biomass and biofuels.
  You know what we have done for renewables? Well, in 1992, the 
Congress put in place something called the production tax credit--a tax 
incentive for renewables. But it was short term and not very deep. So 
we have extended it five times, short term. By the way, the production 
tax credit will expire at the end of this year. We have extended it 
five times, and we let it expire three times. So anybody interested in 
investing in renewables will take a look at this country and say: You 
don't have much of a commitment to renewables. Look what you have done, 
stutter, start, stop. That is not a commitment.
  Here is what we did for oil. In 1916, we put in place tax 
incentives--big, juicy, fat tax incentives--and we said: We want you to 
go look for oil and gas. If you find them, good for you because that is 
good for our country, and you get big tax incentives. We put the 
incentives in place in 1916 and they have stayed forever. What did we 
do for renewables? Well, in 1992 we gave them a tax credit, which has 
gone through the phases of start, stop, start, stop, expire. That is a 
pathetic, anemic response by a country that acts like it doesn't care 
very much.
  I have introduced legislation in this Congress that says: You know 
what, we ought to put in place a production tax credit for renewables 
for 10 years. We ought to say to the world: Here is where we are 
headed, and you can count on it. Here is what we believe in, and you 
can count on it. This country is making a significant concerted effort 
for renewable energy, to be less dependent on the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, 
the Venezuelans, and others. That is what our country has a 
responsibility to do.
  So we need to do a lot of things. At the moment, however, I wish to 
concentrate on not the myriad of things we must do and do well, but I 
wish to talk about the urgent need to do something that addresses this 
spike, this unbelievable spike in oil prices and, therefore, gasoline 
prices that has happened in the last 12 to 14 months.
  There is nothing in the supply and demand of oil that justifies this 
kind of a price spike. Nothing. In fact, if anything, demand is down. 
Today's newspaper describes that we are using 2 percent less gasoline 
here in this country. The first 4 of 5 months in this country we had 
increased inventory of crude oil stocks. Inventory is up, demand is 
down. What happens to price? It goes straight up. Why? Because there is 
excess speculation in the futures market.
  Those futures markets were designed for a specific purpose and that 
was to allow producers and consumers to hedge risk of a physical 
product--perfectly legitimate and an important thing to do. It has now, 
in my judgment, been taken over by excess speculation. Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt warned about that in 1936, when he signed the legislation 
that created this market.
  Now we have unbelievable speculation in this market. The new pension 
funds and others that have come into this marketplace in a few short 
years have spiked from investing somewhere around $13 billion to $260 
billion. Are the people flooding into this marketplace wanting to hold 
a 5-gallon can of oil? No, these interests never want to touch oil. 
They never want to own oil. They want to do what Will Rogers talked 
about 80 years ago: They want to buy what they will never get from 
people who never had it and make money on both sides. And then walk 
around with a permanent grin, walking into the bank with our money to 
make their deposits. Yes, the OPEC countries do that and so do these 
speculators as they have driven up the prices. The problem is it 
injures this country's economy.
  It is devastating, for example, to various industries--the trucking 
industry, the airline industry, and farming to have such high oil 
prices. It's also devastating to ordinary consumers, trying to figure 
out how on Earth do I scrape up the money to fill my gas tank to be 
able to drive back and forth to work. How do I do that?
  Now, I think we have a responsibility to address this excess 
speculation. When markets are broken, we have a responsibility to 
address it. I have often said I taught economics ever so briefly in 
college. I taught a little economics, and I kid people by saying I was 
able to overcome that experience. Economics is psychology pumped up 
with a little helium. People think: Well, we know this produces that, 
there is an action and a reaction--supply and demand. We all understand 
that. The problem is, at the moment, if you take a look at this 
country, its economy, and what the psychology of the American people is 
as they look at what is happening in this country, there is a pretty 
good reason to be very concerned about the future and a pretty good 
reason to believe we need action that is urgent, important action that 
actually has some grip and some teeth.
  We have been through a subprime loan scandal. The credit markets were 
frozen. The fact is we had an orgy of greed in these credit markets and 
a lot of problems still exist. In fact, some of the resets on some of 
these bad mortgages are still in front of us. So take a look at that 
kind of a credit crisis and the subprime loan scandal and then combine 
that with the issue of the deficits, dramatic Federal budget deficits 
because we are fighting a war the President will not pay for. He says 
everything we use for this war, I want to borrow, and he has borrowed 
almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars for it. He refuses to pay 
for it. I will send the soldiers to war, and I ask the American people 
to go shopping, he says.
  The subprime loan scandal, unbelievable fiscal policy recklessness, a 
trade policy out of balance over $700 billion a year. You can't do 
that. Then, on top of that, the price of oil going to $144, and we 
think this economy is able to withstand that? This is a resilient 
economy, the American people are resilient people, but they expect and 
demand appropriate action by this Congress.
  Now, we have people who view themselves as a set of human brake pads. 
Their only role in life is to come to the floor of the Senate and say: 
Oh, no, no, no. You can't do that. We are going to dig in our heels and 
prevent anyone from doing anything. That is not public policy we should 
be proud of. We are trying very hard to construct some public policy in 
all these areas that give us a chance to move forward. I know there are 
reasons for some to object to certain activities. But we have seen, in 
the last 5 or 6 months, a steady stream of people coming to this floor 
and saying: My goal is to stop anything from happening. Meanwhile, all 
these issues pile up in a way I think is a danger to this country's 
future and a danger to our economy. It is starting with this issue of 
energy, as I began the discussion today.
  We have a responsibility in the short term, and I know the majority 
leader and others believe it as well.
  We have a responsibility to at least tackle excess speculation and 
the relentless dangerous speculation of this commodity futures market 
that is driving up the price of oil and injuring this country's 
economy.
  I have introduced legislation to do that. I hope to talk about it 
tomorrow. Some others have also introduced legislation. We ought to 
take the best of the legislation that exists and move

[[Page 14659]]

forward to address this country's problems.
  I yield the floor and 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2731

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have worked very hard tonight trying to 
come up with an agreement to move forward. We have been close, but 
close doesn't count on Senate business. We have a most important bill 
we are working on, which is the global AIDS bill. It is a bill that the 
President supports. We have been in touch with his people during the 
week. There are no requests of Democrats to offer amendments. We have 
been working with the distinguished Republican assistant leader, 
Senator Kyl. There has been a proposed 13 amendments, as I recall. We 
have agreed to seven of those amendments. The others, at this stage, we 
have been unable to work on. We have tried to work on ways of not 
having Senators come tomorrow and vote and wind up at the same place on 
Monday. But there has been a Senator--or two--on the Republican side 
who, I assume, wants to show that he has a lot of power as a Senator. 
Any one Senator has a lot of power. So at this stage, it appears that 
one Senator is going to require all Senators to come to vote tomorrow 
at 5:21 in the afternoon. That is when time runs out on the housing 
legislation. And following that, which will complete the housing 
legislation, we will send it back to the House. Following that, we will 
automatically have a vote on PEPFAR, the global AIDS bill.
  What we wanted to do is avoid those votes and come in Monday, and we 
would wind up at the same place. But we were not able to get agreement. 
So we will do directly what we could have done indirectly, but we would 
have wound up the same way.
  First, I appreciate everyone's patience. The Presiding Officer has 
spent a lot of time here. Senator Dodd, who is chairman of the 
committee, has been here because it is a housing piece of legislation. 
We have had a number of conversations with Senator Shelby. The staff 
has been tremendous. We have had staff working on trying to resolve 
these amendments. I really appreciate Senator Durbin, my friend and 
assistant leader, who has been here throughout the night.
  I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to 
proceed to S. 2731, the global AIDS bill, occur on Monday, July 14, at 
5:30, p.m., with the hour prior to the cloture vote equally divided and 
controlled between the leaders or their designees; that if cloture is 
invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to proceed be 
agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and the 
Senate proceed to consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I do object on behalf of Senator DeMint. Let 
me make a very brief statement.
  The distinguished majority leader is correct. It is almost 11:30 this 
evening, and we have been working since about 3 o'clock this afternoon 
to try to reach agreement on how to proceed with this very important 
bill. We have made a lot of progress. A lot of Members have been 
willing to make concessions to try to limit the number of amendments 
that would be considered so this bill could be completed sometime next 
week. But we haven't worked out everything. Unfortunately, because 
everything hasn't been worked out at this late hour tonight, it wasn't 
possible for us, one of our Members, to agree to this particular 
request. The majority leader is correct about how we will have to 
proceed as a result.
  It is my strong hope that because this is a very important piece of 
legislation--Members have different views about aspects of it--an 
agreement could be reached by which an appropriate number of amendments 
could be considered and debated and voted on next week and the bill 
finally disposed of at a point next week. There is a fairly 
constructive way to do this, and then there is a way to do it that 
isn't as constructive.
  So I appreciate the effort the majority leader and others have put 
into this tonight. It would be my hope that in that same spirit, we can 
continue to talk about this tomorrow and hopefully reach an agreement 
we would be able to proceed with in order to complete the bill sometime 
next week.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there was an objection, I understand, by my 
friend.
  There has been tremendous work on this bill for months and months. 
The principal workers on this bill have been the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Biden, and the ranking member, Senator Lugar. They 
have worked on this for months. I have, for more than a month, had 
statements made to me: Give us another day, another day. That has been 
going on for a long time. We are in a situation here where we ran out 
of days, and we had to move forward. Senator Lugar and Senator Biden 
have accepted numerous amendments from Members wanting to make this 
bill better. I am confident they did make the bill better. But the fact 
is--I want everyone to understand--the work on this bill did not start 
tonight. Senators Lugar and Biden thought all the work had been done on 
it.
  So we are where we are. Senators have a right to suggest changes to a 
bill, even though we have spent a lot of time on it.
  I say to my friend, the distinguished Republican whip, we are anxious 
to finish this bill. I personally think it is good legislation. I think 
it is something we as a country need to do. But also understand that we 
have been willing to accept on this piece of legislation any germane 
amendments that relate to this bill. We have even agreed tonight to 
work on some things that are not, but we have agreed to do that in an 
effort to move this forward. I hope over the weekend, perhaps even 
tomorrow before we leave, maybe something can be done. If not, maybe 
Monday we can do something. Otherwise, we find ourselves in this 
position. Monday we are on the bill. We would at that time, of course, 
have to file cloture on the bill itself.
  Now, I think we could constructively use some time. If there are 
Senators who want to change this legislation and do it in a germane 
fashion, we should spend that 30 hours--actually the 2 days it would 
take for cloture to ripen--on trying to improve the bill. We would be 
happy to do that. We would even be willing to consider, as my friend 
knows, the junior Senator from Arizona, amendments, as we have talked 
about tonight, that may not be technically germane. I hope we can do 
that.
  But as we have seen in this Presidential election year, we have two 
of our Senators running for President, and it makes it extremely 
difficult to legislate in a way that we perhaps would like to. But that 
is the process in which we find ourselves. So hopefully something will 
work out well during the night or, if not, maybe tomorrow or, if not, 
over the weekend. I hope we could spend our week constructively 
disposing of this legislation the President wants.
  We will finish the legislation very likely, one way or another, next 
week. I cannot imagine the President's own party would stop this bill 
from passing. But we have been surprised in the past. So we will do 
what we can to help the President. This is a bill I believe in. The 
vast majority of the Democrats--in fact, I do not know of a Democrat 
who does not like the bill. But we hope there would be some 
reasonableness on the other side to try to help the President's program 
also.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I make a point of clarification?
  Mr. REID. Sure.
  Mr. KYL. I think the majority leader will agree with this. When the 
majority leader speaks of accepting amendments, it is not a matter of 
accepting an amendment to the bill.
  Mr. REID. No. To debate and vote on them.

[[Page 14660]]


  Mr. KYL. But rather agreeing to allow an amendment to be offered, 
debated and voted on.
  Mr. REID. That is right. I am sorry I did not make that clear.
  Mr. KYL. No, No. I knew the Senator would want to be clear on that. 
There are some nonrelevant or nongermane amendments that have been 
proposed. It is certainly understandable that the majority would not 
want to have those amendments considered as a part of the debate. For 
those amendments, however, that are relevant to the subject matter at 
hand, that is what most of the discussion has been about, and we are 
hoping at the end of the day an arrangement can be agreed to where 
those amendments could be considered by the Senate, debated, voted 
upon, maybe rejected, but at least the Members would have had an 
opportunity to vote on the amendments, and, as I said before, and, as 
the majority leader said, to conclude the bill then sometime next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. So Mr. President, I have asked the first consent, which was 
that we have no votes until Monday. That was objected to.


                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. REID. So, Mr. President, now I ask unanimous consent that on 
Friday, after all the postcloture time has expired on the motion to 
disagree--that time occurring at 5:21 p.m.--the Senate proceed to vote 
on the motion to disagree to the amendment of the House adding a new 
title and inserting a new section to the amendment of the Senate to 
H.R. 3221; that upon disposition of that motion, the Senate then 
proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to 
proceed to S. 2731, the global AIDS bill; that if cloture is invoked, 
then all postcloture time be deemed expired, and on Monday, July 14, 
following a period of morning business, the motion to proceed be agreed 
to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the 
Senate then proceed to the consideration of S. 2731; that if cloture is 
not invoked, then a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was 
not invoked be considered to have been entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority whip.

                          ____________________