[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15488-15502]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    STOP EXCESSIVE ENERGY SPECULATION ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration to the motion to proceed to S. 3268, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 3268) to amend the 
     Commodity Exchange Act to prevent excessive price speculation 
     with respect to energy commodities, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, following up on the comments made by the 
majority leader, the American public is suffering record pain at the 
pump. Missourians are struggling with higher gas prices. They have said 
in poignant and perceptive letters to me that they are hurting.
  Carol Shoener, in Braymer, MO, northeast of Kansas City, wrote my 
office asking that the Senate take action swiftly to stop rising fuel 
prices. She has to drive 25 to 30 miles to the nearest town with a 
hospital, dentist or pharmacy.
  Juanita Highfill, of Bolivar, in southwest Missouri, is retired on a 
fixed income. She writes that the cost of gasoline is a real hardship 
for her family. Her son, a kidney transplant recipient with few job 
skills and limited ability, drives 30 miles one way to work a minimum 
wage job. His net monthly income is under $400, with gas taking $250 of 
that, leaving him with $150 per month for his life's expenses.
  Anthony Meis, of Pacific, MO, west of St. Louis, is on a fixed income 
too. He follows the markets and knows that ``once we pump more oil in 
our country, the speculators . . . won't have the same leverage of 
driving up oil prices.''
  It is time we get real about gas prices. The Democratic leader 
pointed out that there are areas where there is tremendous suffering 
across the country. Maybe it is time he realized we need to take some 
substantive, comprehensive approaches to the gas price problem. No more 
of these show activities, these empty promises, these peripheral 
issues. Let us hope he meant it when he said he would allow us to 
debate the issues and offer amendments. That is the problem.
  The majority leader has been acting as a Rules Committee such as the 
House has, which says we can only vote on the things he wants us to 
vote on. He is going to try to cram a package down our throats with a 
whole bunch of bills--and many are good ones--without having an 
opportunity to vote. I want cloture and I want to talk about an energy 
bill. I want to vote on it and have people go on the record and show 
whether they are for dealing with this crisis--the gas prices and oil 
prices and a whole range of energy prices.
  No more saying, no, we can't, to real action on gas prices. No more 
saying, no, we can't, to providing American families the relief they 
need. No more saying, no, we can't, to going after every option 
available, including increasing production.
  We must say, yes, we can, to real action on gas prices. Any plan that 
has a real chance of lowering gas prices must say, yes, we can, to 
increasing production; yes, we can, to increasing conservation; and, 
yes, we can, to addressing speculation.
  We Republicans have a plan that says, yes, we can, to each of these 
ways to increase production, increase conservation, and address 
speculation.
  I hope the other side will join us to allow our plan for real gas 
price relief to go forward. I hope we don't get shut out. I hope the 
majority leader doesn't fill the tree, as he has in the past. I hope 
they will let us act on these important measures.
  I hope the Members blocking real relief for the American people 
finally listen to what we are hearing from home. I hear it every day 
from constituents back home. Farmers, truckers, and families are all 
suffering from gas price increases. Families from the cities to the 
suburbs to our rural areas are all cutting their budgets to pay higher 
gas prices.
  At stake are good jobs in places far from affordable hospitals, the 
ability to live near good schools and the ability to share in the 
American dream. All of these need affordable energy solutions.
  Why are we refusing to help families any way we can? We are tired of 
hearing the other side of the aisle tell suffering families: No, we 
can't.
  Farmers--the great symbol of American bounty--are suffering. They 
provide for us. Why are we refusing to provide for them? They need 
affordable fuel to run their farm equipment, store their harvest, and 
ship their goods to market.
  One of the biggest costs of food is that of transportation. Why are 
we telling those who produce our food, package it, ship it--why are we 
telling them, no, we can't help them with their energy costs?
  Truckers across the country are suffering. Many trucking companies 
are small businesses. They are laying off workers and some are going 
bankrupt. Why are we telling struggling truckers, no, we can't?
  The American people understand what is going on. They are smart 
enough to know that if you don't have enough of something, you go out 
and get more of it. It is economics 101. If prices are too high, it is 
because there is not enough supply and too much demand. Yet the 
leadership on the other side of the aisle, and the Democratic Party, 
have done everything they can to prevent more production of the 
bountiful gas and oil resources we have in our country. Of course, 
there was the 1995 veto by President Clinton of the Republican 
authorization to open drilling in ANWR. He said it would take 10 years 
to produce oil. Well, 10 years was probably longer than it would have 
taken, but that time has long past. We are missing out on a million 
barrels of oil a day that would have come from ANWR.
  The Republicans have a plan. Our Gas Price Reduction Act takes real 
action on oil supplies. Right now, there are, at a minimum, 18 billion 
barrels of oil waiting for us off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. That 
is 10 years of supply we are blocking from ourselves, stopping 
ourselves from producing.
  The Gas Price Reduction Act will open these offshore areas and allow 
us to put the American oil to use for Americans.
  For those who say it would take years to get, they ignore the 
immediate price-lowering effect of the news of new supplies. It 
happened last week. After the President announced suspension of the 
Presidential moratorium on offshore drilling, prices are down $16 a 
barrel. It is now up to us in Congress to get off our duffs and do the 
same thing and bring immediate, long-term, lasting relief to American 
families and farmers. When Congress finally gets its act together and 
gives the go-ahead, we can see new wells being brought on, some in 
relatively short periods of time.
  For those States concerned with opening drilling off their shores, 
our plan would allow States to opt out. If California doesn't want to 
participate, that is fine. But that should not block States such as 
Virginia and Alaska, where they want to drill.
  For those concerned about the environment, as we all should be, the 
modern oil drilling technology the United States requires is so much 
more environmentally safe now than decades ago; it is so much safer 
than that which other countries require, and our environmental concerns 
can best be satisfied by allowing American production to go forward.

[[Page 15489]]

  The terrible tragedy of Hurricane Katrina at least proved that modern 
offshore drilling is environmentally safe.
  That hurricane blew over thousands of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, 
with scarcely a drop or a bucket spilled.
  Some say we need to use the oil leases we have before we can issue 
new leases. Well, welcome to the party, folks. That already is a 
requirement placed on current leaseholders. If the oil companies do not 
produce from a lease in 10 years--or even less in some leases--then 
that lease goes back to the United States and somebody else can try it. 
Many of the people making that argument lack a basic understanding of 
the lease program. There is a reason they call it exploration, because 
a lease is no guarantee that oil is actually present. You have to go 
out and use technology to find out if there is a good chance--drill a 
prospecting hole, after getting permits, to see if there is oil there.
  A lot of leases have no foreseeable production on them. Some would 
call them goat pastures because they are good for pasturing goats, not 
producing oil.
  Some claim their plans offer new supplies of oil. But they are only 
offering false hopes and half measures. Excuse me, I misspoke in 
calling them half measures. Half measures gives them far too much 
credit.
  One Democratic plan is to raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
divert 10 percent of its volume to consumers. Putting aside that the 
reserve is only for national emergencies, such as times of war, and 
there are great dangers where we might need that oil, their plan would 
provide us exactly 3\1/2\ days' worth of oil, and then we would have no 
reserve for extreme emergencies.
  The Republican Gas Price Reduction Act would provide struggling 
American families and workers the equivalent of 10 years of new oil 
supply versus a 3\1/2\-day supply. That is the most substantive 
production idea I have heard from the Democrats.
  The facts are clear. The Gas Price Reduction Act is the only plan 
that will lower gas prices with real amounts of new oil supplies. Of 
course, there is much we can and we must do to use less oil and 
increase conservation.
  The Gas Price Reduction Act includes incentives to foster domestic 
manufacturing supply base for hybrid vehicle batteries. I am 
particularly proud of the leadership role Missouri is playing in 
advanced vehicles and batteries.
  We make hybrid cars and trucks at Ford and GM in Kansas City. We also 
have world leaders in advanced batteries in Kansas City. We know more 
cars and trucks partially running on electric power would save more 
oil. We would conserve more.
  Kansas City autoworkers know the good pay such manufacturing jobs 
would bring. These families know the health care and retirement 
benefits those jobs bring. I wish to see us create more good-paying, 
middle-class-supporting manufacturing jobs making advanced batteries in 
the United States.
  Right now, most all of the advanced batteries that go into hybrid 
cars and trucks are made in Japan, China, and Korea. With Asia 
controlling the battery market, supplies are tight and prices are high. 
The availability is not always there.
  As we know, when prices are high, we need to increase the supply to 
meet demand. That goes for batteries as well as oil and gas.
  The Gas Price Reduction Act provides new financial incentives to 
increase the U.S. domestic manufacturing supply base for hybrid vehicle 
batteries.
  Mass producing hybrid vehicle batteries in the United States will get 
battery prices down, provide jobs for U.S. manufacturing workers, and 
reduce the demand for oil, helping us to conserve more and use less.
  We should also address excess speculation, and the Gas Price 
Reduction Act does that. While a lack of new oil supplies is the 
biggest reason for high prices, we should make sure speculators are not 
distorting or abusing the markets.
  When you look at the price of oil and the prospect of it going up, is 
it any wonder retirement funds are investing in long-term oil futures? 
CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, has 
invested billions of dollars for their public employees in a bet that 
over the long term, $145 oil would go to $200 to $250. Other public 
employee retirement systems are making similar investment decisions. We 
need to increase supply so they will not do it.
  Our farmers and commodity traders need buyers and sellers to make the 
market work. But we should never allow purely financial interests to 
abuse the market and make people suffer.
  The Gas Price Reduction Act addresses potential speculation problems 
by putting more commodity cops on the beat to make sure our rules are 
respected.
  We can also consider how to close loopholes that have sprung up to 
escape trading rules as markets have become ever more sophisticated and 
complicated.
  Most important, anything we do must not make things worse. So 
foremost on my mind will be protecting farmers, producers, and 
consumers who depend on commodity markets. Airlines depend upon being 
able to get future supplies.
  They have to be able to go after futures and not have them driven up 
by the expectation that there will be no more production out of the 
United States.
  It is time for us to say, yes, we can to real action to lower gas 
prices. The Gas Price Reduction Act says, yes, we can to new 
production, increased conservation, addressing speculation. The 
American people deserve this real relief. I urge its immediate 
adoption.
  I hope the Democratic leader will make good on his promise to give us 
the opportunity to have everybody vote on issues that will make a real 
difference; no more playing Rules Committee, no more saying I don't 
want this amendment or I am going to fill up the tree or I am only 
going to let you offer amendments I like.
  Let us debate it. Let us have votes to see who is real about getting 
gas prices down and who wants to go through a show of motion to pretend 
they are doing it and hope to fool voters.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.


                            Emmett Till Bill

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the 
majority's leader remarks on the 83 supposed filibusters. I take great 
issue with that point. The process of filing cloture when a bill is 
filed and then filing cloture on the actual bill 30 hours thereafter 
has taken away from the Senate tradition. At 5:15 tonight, I have an 
hour reserved to go through and talk about many of these issues.
  I wanted to take issue with the Emmett Till bill the majority leader 
mentioned. I actually support us spending money for that bill. What I 
don't support, and I don't think most Americans support, is the over 
$100 million worth of waste every year in the Justice Department that 
has been documented by the Congressional Research Service, the 
Congressional Budget Office, as well as the Government Accountability 
Office.
  The majority leader voted against an amendment when this bill was 
part of another bill less than a year and a half ago to take $1.36 
million out of waste in the Justice Department to pay for the Emmett 
Till bill. I met with Mr. Alvin Sykes. He is a hero of mine in terms of 
his fastidiousness and his commitment to accomplish a goal. And he is 
right.
  But the overall point is: Will we continue to grow the Government at 
the same time we have tremendous waste within the Government? The issue 
we are going to have over the majority leader's growth-in-Government, 
spend- more-money bill is about whether we

[[Page 15490]]

will do the same thing that families have to do, which is make tough 
choices and prioritize.
  It is easy to find $1.36 million in the Justice Department of all the 
waste that is there. However, we refuse to do that. The majority leader 
refuses to do that. He refuses to get rid of programs that are not 
working and instead adds more programs.
  This is a good program. I am totally for the intent of this 
legislation. What I am not for is sacrificing the future of America's 
children by us not doing our job, by us not making the hard choices and 
eliminating waste, eliminating duplication, eliminating fraud, and pass 
another authorization bill that will be spent when we have that kind of 
waste.
  So the point is not whether we should go after civil rights 
violations from the fifties and sixties. The point is will we do what 
the American people expect us to do?
  The majority leader claims this is a 99-to-1 issue. It is not. The 
real issue is that 91 percent of the American people don't have 
confidence in what we are doing. We ought to be a lot more worried 
about that, when we do not do what is expected of us--eliminate waste, 
eliminate fraud, eliminate abuse--and instead pass billions of dollars 
in more legislation.
  I will spend some time at 5:15 p.m. delineating the potential bill 
the majority leader is going to bring up on bills on which I and 56 
other Senators have holds. But it is inaccurate and undeniably in error 
to say I am opposed to the Emmett Till Justice Act. I am not. I am for 
it. I just believe we ought to do two good things instead of one good 
thing and one bad thing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from New Mexico be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to go back to the discussion about the 
subject we want to devote a lot of attention to this week, and that is 
gas prices. Senator Bond spoke to that issue a little earlier. We are 
going to be going to that issue tomorrow. It is critical that we 
address this problem before the August recess in a couple of weeks.
  Forty-four Republicans have cosponsored the Gas Price Reduction Act, 
about which Senator Bond spoke. It is a balanced approach to our energy 
crisis. It recognizes the need for additional production, as well as 
dealing with the demand side. In other words, use less, find more, and 
to do so here at home, to use American energy to solve this American 
crisis. That way we can have more control over our own destiny, a point 
I will be making in a moment.
  The other side, though, has decided to approach this problem with a 
very narrow and limited approach dealing with so-called speculators. 
Speculators are people who trade in crude oil. There is a view that 
speculators actually affect the price when they buy it or sell it.
  The first point I wish to make is the opposition always talks about 
driving up the price when speculators buy, but they never bother to 
mention that every time you buy, somebody else sells. So it is a little 
hard to see how speculators are responsible only for the increase. As a 
matter of fact, last week was the largest drop in oil prices ever in 
our history, at least in the last couple of decades, over $20. I don't 
think anybody blamed the speculators for the decline, or maybe I should 
say they didn't cheer the speculators for the decline or drop in oil 
prices. So it is a little odd every time the price goes up, it is the 
speculators' fault, but when the price goes down, well, maybe that is 
the market forces taking control. The reality is that for every 
purchase, you have to have someone who is selling.
  I did think it was interesting that the majority leader was here 
earlier and he actually attributed that decline to the fact that we 
were talking about legislation dealing with speculators. I see no 
evidence to support that claim and, in fact, I will cite some evidence 
quite to the contrary in a moment. But it reminds me of a great fable 
writer by the name of Stephen Leecock who tells the story about the two 
fleas on the back of the Roman chariot. They look back and say: My, 
what a fine cloud of dust we are creating. It seems to me that is 
pretty similar to contending this speculation bill caused the drop in 
prices. I think we all know what it was. When President Bush announced 
the end of the Executive moratorium on drilling, that is when the 
prices went down. As a matter of fact, Joseph Trevisani, who is the 
chief market analyst for a company called FX Solutions, said a few days 
ago:

       President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore 
     drilling on Monday and by Friday crude prices had completed 
     their sharpest fall in percentage terms since 2004.

  He went on to say:

       Oil traders are betting that this Congressional ban on 
     drilling which covers 85 percent of U.S. Continental waters 
     will not stand.

  That is the point. When we start seriously talking about eliminating 
the ban on production, that is when prices will go down. Why is that? 
Speculators are actually very smart researchers who are trying to 
figure out whether demand will exceed supply or supply will exceed 
demand some time in the future--16 months out, 18 months, 2 years, 5 
years, whatever it might be. They do a lot of research to try to figure 
this out. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you have a 
legal ban on more production and you lift that ban, obviously you are 
going to potentially produce a lot more crude oil. That increase in 
supply will obviously affect the price because it will then exceed the 
demand or at least it will keep pace with demand. That is simple market 
economics. That is what happened last week. It illustrates the fact 
that while there are those who say if we increase our production, it is 
going to take 3 to 7 years before we will see any of that production, 
the mere fact that we are getting serious about doing it was enough to 
reduce prices. I suspect if we actually pass a law that does it, the 
prices will decline even further and will continue to decline as 
progress is made toward increased production.
  The reality is that prices rise and fall depending on a lot of events 
that are outside our control, and we need to bring more of those 
decisions within our control. There is a hurricane in the gulf. Iran is 
rattling its sword in the Middle East. Those kinds of things cause the 
prices to go up because there is a suggestion that the supply may be 
interrupted in the future. Then by the same token, we react to good 
news, as occurred last week. When the President says we are going to 
remove the moratorium that by Executive order has been placed on 
production and Congress says we are considering legislation to remove 
the congressional moratoria as well, speculators react to that as well.
  The other side, which says it is all the speculators who are to blame 
for the rising prices, might as well blame the weatherman for bad 
weather. His job is to do the research and predict what the weather is 
going to be. Muzzling him and saying he cannot talk about the weather 
is not going to create sunny days next week. Those days are going to 
come because of weather factors, not because the expert in the field is 
predicting it one way or the other. It is the same thing with these so-
called speculators who are in the business of buying, whether it is for 
an airline or a pension fund or for whomever. Their job is to try to 
determine what the market price should be at any given time.
  I talked about trying to gain more control of it ourselves. 
Unfortunately, there are a lot of producers in the world that have an 
interest in increasing the price of oil and have the means of doing so 
by simply acting badly. I am speaking of countries such as Russia, 
Iran, and Venezuela. In Iran, we know they have rattled their sword in 
the past, and that not only advances their national policy goals, but 
it also has a tendency to cause panic in the market and, therefore, the 
prices go up because there is a view there may not be an adequate 
supply for the demand we have.
  For example, I note the fact that all of the oil through the gulf--it 
is not

[[Page 15491]]

just Iranian oil; it is from the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and 
other countries. About two-fifths of all globally traded oil goes 
through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran is on one side of the Strait of 
Hormuz. They have their ships in the area. At one time or another they 
have tried to interfere with the shipping traffic lanes through the 
Strait of Hormuz.
  For example, in June 2006, the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear 
weapon created quite a stir among New York traders, and that drove the 
price of oil up to nearly $80 a barrel. In 2007, five armed Iranian 
boats approached three U.S. Navy warships in international waters, 
taking aggressive actions. The Pentagon described it as ``reckless and 
dangerous.'' The incident only lasted about 20 minutes. As a result, 
there was a brief spike in oil prices as soon as that was reported on 
CNN.
  The reality is that a country such as Iran can have an effect on the 
price of oil. What we need to do is get away from that kind of 
situation. The same thing is true of Russia. I talked about this the 
other day. Russia has a tendency when it wants--by the way, it is the 
second largest producer ahead of Saudi Arabia--when it wants to affect 
the price of oil or national policy, it can cut off the supply of oil 
or natural gas, and that can result not only in shivers running through 
the countries of Europe, particularly Eastern Europe which relies on 
this natural gas and oil, but also affects the world price.
  I note that Gazprom, which is Russia's natural gas monopoly, controls 
a lot of other things as well. Its former chairman is Dmitry Medvedev, 
the new President of Russia. It alone accounts for 25 percent of the 
country's tax revenues. So this is a major deal.
  Russia has used Gazprom as a political tool in more than one 
situation when it affected Ukraine after that nation allegedly failed 
to pay debts to Russia, or other European countries, such as the Czech 
Republic when it said it would cooperate with the United States in 
missile defense.
  Let me conclude with Venezuela. President Chavez of Venezuela has 
repeatedly threatened to cut off oil from that country. A 2006 GAO 
report stated this cutoff could amount to increased oil prices of $11 
per barrel and would cut American GDP by $23 billion.
  The point here is that the United States needs to gain more control 
over its own destiny. We are the third largest producer in the world. 
We have vast resources of natural gas and crude oil, as well as other 
resources, such as coal, uranium, and others, but we have an aversion 
to produce in this country because of the not-in-my-back-yard problem 
associated with wherever that production might be. As a result, 
Republicans have proposed legislation that would remove the moratoria 
that currently preclude production and provide incentives to States to 
permit offshore. Even though it is far off of their State limits, in 
Federal waters, it would at least provide an incentive for them to 
agree to production offshore, thus enhancing American production and 
more control over our own destiny.
  That is the point I want to conclude with. It is time to gain control 
of our own destiny. It will enable us to affect the prices ourselves by 
producing more and, thus, reducing prices, not relying so much upon 
other countries, which can adversely affect the price by withholding 
production or creating conflict in the world. It will enable us to 
develop the resources safely in an environmental way, because we know 
how to do that. We know we can't conserve our way out of the problem. 
We know the so-called renewables can only meet a small fraction of our 
needs. And we further know that regulating speculators is not going to 
produce one additional drop of oil. So that is why Republicans have 
focused on more energy production--American energy for American 
consumers--as a way to become less energy dependent and affect the 
price in a meaningful way, a way which could permit us, as we saw last 
week, to drastically reduce the price of oil almost overnight if 
Congress were to pass this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues, when we take this matter up, as Senator Bond 
said, to permit a full and free debate, and amendments that we have to 
offer here, so at the end of the day Congress can complete our work 
over the next couple of weeks by passing meaningful legislation to 
reduce the cost of oil and, therefore, importantly for American 
consumers, the price we pay at the pump.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may state his inquiry.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator from New Mexico recognized at this 
point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I have 
completed my remarks, the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, the Senate will begin 
the process of moving to debate energy legislation--at least that is 
what we are told, and we hope we do in fact have a good, honest debate 
about energy and that we on this side, which constitutes 49 Senators 
out of the 100, have an opportunity to offer 1 or 2 or 3, or some 
reasonable number, of amendments so as to make the case for the 
American people that in fact we want to produce more energy; that we 
want to both save energy and produce more; and we have every reason to 
believe that can be done.
  With that in mind, we open the discussion, we begin the debate that 
should end up in a number of days of discussion on real energy 
legislation. And when I say real, I think the American people have 
awakened to the idea that Congress should and can pass legislation that 
will produce more oil for the consumption of the world and America, and 
thus have the strong potential for dropping the price of gasoline, 
lowering the price of gasoline at the pump. So we are here to begin the 
debate, a debate on how we might lower the price of gasoline at the 
pump by using less and producing more.
  Now, before I talk about my prepared remarks, I am going to say it is 
common knowledge in the oil and gas industry of America and the world 
that offshore--off the shores of the United States--be it California or 
Georgia, there exist large quantities of natural gas and crude oil, and 
that there are ways today to discover precisely where that oil is and 
to build platforms that are impregnable, onto which the apparatus is 
moved for the drilling of oil, and that from one such platform 10 or 12 
major wells can be drilled underground--way down, many feet, in fact 
miles below the surface--to produce oil and gas for the American 
people.
  As we begin this debate, it is interesting to note that it has been 
26, almost 27 years that these offshore oil and gas reserves owned by 
the American people have been locked up in a moratorium, either 
congressional or Executive. We note the other day the President lifted 
his moratoria, wherever they were around the United States. He lifted 
them. So what is left is the congressionally imposed, 1 year at a 
time--and we have imposed it for 26 years--moratorium on using this 
valuable resource because we were frightened and scared about the 
damage it might cause, the harm that might be caused by going out and 
drilling in the deep waters off the coasts of our country.
  We have since found out, without question--during this 27 years of 
getting oil elsewhere and expecting oil to be cheap--we found out 
during that period of time that we can indeed locate and find and drill 
for and produce and deliver oil and gas from the bottom, way down deep 
from the bottom of the coastal waters of America. Huge quantities of 
oil and gas can be removed, can be piped out, with no damage and no 
danger to anyone. That was proven with Katrina. When Katrina happened, 
America had a number of platforms, deep-water platforms in existence, 
because some parts of the offshore were open and yielded large 
quantities of oil and gas. None of them was disrupted. None of them was 
broken. None of the pipes were broken, and no environmental damage 
occurred from one of

[[Page 15492]]

the most severe problems that came with Katrina and the hurricane that 
followed, as we all know.
  Experts now tell us the price Americans are paying at the pump is the 
result of global oil supply and demand imbalance. Having worked as a 
leader on energy legislation for 36 years in the Senate, I can honestly 
say I have never seen a problem so big being met with proposals and 
proposed solutions that are so small. Again, experts tell us it is a 
supply and demand problem and the legislation that will be before the 
Senate does nothing to address supply and demand.
  Americans are clamoring for more energy production at home. They know 
this is a serious problem that calls for serious solutions. It has been 
81 days since I introduced a bill called the American Energy Production 
Act of 2008. Since that time, the Senate has failed to act on adding 
new supply measures. Since that time the price of oil has risen by 
nearly 15 percent, from $112 to $129 per barrel, even after last week's 
decline.
  Over that same time period, we have seen the other side offer a 
windfall profits tax that has been uniformly rejected by nearly all 
energy and economic experts across the ideological spectrum. In fact, 
the architect of this very concept in the Carter administration has 
said that ``it's a terrible idea today.''
  On price gouging, an issue once dismissed by top economic advisers to 
Senator Obama, the other side abandoned their flirtation with this 
issue after confirming it was grounded in fiction and unsupported by 
any evidence.
  Then the majority sought the authority to sue OPEC, the OPEC nations, 
in the Federal courts of the United States for withholding energy 
supplies. Perhaps the other side decided to abandon this concept when 
they realized how much energy supply the Congress was responsible for 
locking up.
  Finally, the majority sought to increase taxes on the domestic energy 
companies, believing that increasing their business costs would somehow 
make it easier to compete with much larger national oil companies in 
their quest for global commodities. Having failed repeatedly to achieve 
success in increasing taxes, the other side has now decided to do so 
under the auspices of additional production.
  I have said before on the Senate floor in much greater detail that 
the ``use it or lose it'' concept is an uninformed and ill-conceived 
policy that will harm all our energy security and increase our energy 
costs. In the midst of all these failed ideas, the majority brought a 
climate change bill to the floor of the Senate that was estimated to 
increase gas prices by as much as $1 per gallon over the coming years 
and would have resulted in even greater price increases for overall 
energy costs.
  The assertion that the majority knows how to deal with the problems 
of high energy costs is discredited by their continuous attempts to 
advance policies that will raise the prices even higher. That is how we 
have arrived here today. After a series of failed ideas and 
counterproductive policies and counterproductive policy proposals, the 
other side seeks to set up another smokescreen against the force of 
overwhelming public opinion, and Senate Republicans united to increase 
domestic energy production.
  The other side seems content to create another politically motivated 
diversion from the serious problem which stares us in the face. And lo 
and behold, as we start this discussion, the American people have seen 
through it all and they have come to the conclusion that it is time, as 
they put it, to drill for more oil and gas if it is ours. We have 
called it exploration off the shores of America, where much oil and gas 
has been locked up for 27 years, where we have imposed moratoria based 
upon our concern and our fears that should not have existed. We tied up 
the oil and gas that belongs to Americans, and they are saying ``get on 
with it.'' No more smokescreens, no more politically motivated 
diversions. Let's stare this problem right in the face and get on 
producing more and saving more. I repeat, in all my years in the Senate 
I have never seen a problem so big met with a proposed solution that is 
so small.
  But I do not come to the Senate floor simply to reject the ideas of 
the other side. I rise to speak today, to share with the Senate some 
ideas supported by facts about how we can address the serious supply 
and demand imbalance that confronts us. My proposed American Energy 
Production Act, as well as the Gas Price Reduction Act, introduced by 
our Republican leader, Senator McConnell, would help ensure an adequate 
and affordable supply of energy in both the near term and the long 
term.
  The legislation introduced by Senator McConnell and by the Senator 
from New Mexico, myself, would allow Atlantic and Pacific States to 
initiate oil and gas production from the deep seas, regions that are 
believed to contain, at a minimum, 14 billion barrels of oil.
  We know this is a minimum because we have not bothered to inventory 
these deep water assets for 20 or 30 years or more. We must understand 
that during this period of time, with new techniques, new technology, 
new ways of discovery and new ways of delivery, these underwater 
reservoirs are going to yield much more oil and gas than we ever 
imagined, as we looked at them with old-time techniques, 20 and 30 and 
40 years old.
  This legislation would reverse a congressional ban on regulations for 
oil shale leases--the ``rules of the road'' that industry must have 
before they will invest in significant resources. That is another asset 
we have which exists in three Western States. We need the rules of the 
road which have been locked up, again, by a moratorium imposed in the 
Interior appropriations bill in the dead of night, with no debate and 
no one to watch it. That must be removed so that giant potential for 
oil will be the source of investment by oil companies that seek new and 
innovative ways to turn that shale, which abounds in oil, into usable 
oil or usable diesel, which could certainly alleviate America's 
problems.
  We also propose establishing a program of direct loans and grants to 
accelerate the production of advanced batteries in the United States. 
These are crucial to advanced vehicles such as plug-in hybrids, which 
promise to reduce our Nation's consumption of oil and our greenhouse 
gas emissions. Thus, we will be producing more and using less because, 
with this battery research reaching fruition, producing batteries that 
give many more miles for the wheels that carry the electric cars--
clearly, when we get that we will be saving oil because we will not use 
as much gas to service our automobile fleets.
  These batteries are critical to advanced vehicles, the plug-in 
hybrids which we are talking about, and which hold so much promise.
  I am also willing to look at ways to improve the transparency of the 
markets and the ability of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to 
enforce its authority. The legislation introduced last month by the 
Republican leader would strengthen our oversight of the markets by 
adding more enforcement and increasing transparency. Republicans are 
open to working with the majority on speculation. It is time now for 
the majority to work with us on production. Production is a far bigger 
part of the solution to the American concern for ever-escalating prices 
of gas for automobiles and natural gas for use in various parts of our 
daily lives.
  I look forward to an open debate. Clearly, the issues we attempt to 
address on the production side and on the side of saving through 
electric automobiles are a much bigger part of the American problem 
than the problem that the majority leader attempts to solve in his 
antispeculation bill, which a number of us have had a chance to read 
now and to discuss with experts. We will have more to say about it. 
Suffice it to say that it would certainly not be a major part of 
solving the energy problem for the American people. There is no 
question about it. All you would have to do is submit the bill to 
anybody who knows about commodities and about futures markets, and they 
will tell you that bill we are going to talk about is not calculated to 
do a lot of good.

[[Page 15493]]

  As we move toward a new policy, it is important that we do so with 
every good intention. We want the majority leader to know we respect 
his approach to bringing up, through rule XIV, his bill. But we believe 
we are entitled to offer amendments to it--certainly not just one but 
enough amendments to make our case.
  The Democratic leader wants to talk about speculation. We say let's 
also talk about production. There is no question, if you are going to 
talk about the problem confronting the American people, and you put up 
a speculation bill--that you are not even sure will work, but it is 
there--that those who have some real interest in increasing production 
deserve an opportunity to offer their amendments and to be heard.
  To address this imbalance it is logical that we seek policies to 
increase our supply and decrease demand. I urge my colleagues on the 
other side to join us in this effort and do something big for the 
American people because the problem is big. It is not a little problem. 
It is a very big problem.
  I believe the next 3 or 4 days will shed some light for the American 
people on the issue of whether they, the American people, own the 
substantial quantities of oil and gas that are off our shores that in 
the next few years can be the subject matter of new modern techniques 
for drilling and gathering the oil and gas for use by the American 
people, thus reducing the heavy pressure put upon the world's supply of 
oil and natural gas.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is an interesting debate because it 
is really coming down to some different points of view. As both sides 
present their cases, I am sure the American people will listen 
carefully because there is hardly an issue we can discuss that hits 
each and every family and each and every person so personally. This is 
the sign that you see in front of the gas station every morning when 
you drive to work, every weekend when you start to fill up. This is 
what you face when you go to fill up that car or truck and reach into 
your wallet for your credit card or cash and realize this is the most 
you have ever paid for gasoline in your life.
  This is real. This isn't some theoretical possibility that it may 
affect your life. This debate is about reality. So it is important that 
the people who are following this debate understand there are two very 
different points of view.
  The view expressed by the Senator from New Mexico is one that I think 
most Republicans now espouse. It is this: if we could just drill more 
oil, we would have a larger supply, and it would bring down the cost. 
If the cost goes down, then the price of gasoline goes down and, thank 
goodness, we will get some relief at the gasoline pump.
  It is a good theory, and it is their starting point, but it has some 
weaknesses. The first weakness is, if you take a look at all of the oil 
the United States has within its boundaries and offshore, all of this, 
the estimate of all the oil we could reach at any given time in the 
United States represents 3 percent of the world's supply of oil. Most 
of our oil comes from other places--Canada, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia. Our 
oil, U.S. oil, is 3 percent of the world's total. How much oil do we 
consume in the United States? We consume 25 percent of the world's 
production. We cannot drill our way out if we drill every drop of oil 
available to us anywhere, onshore and offshore. We could not meet the 
clear demand of the largest economy in the world.
  Simply, drilling does not answer the challenge. It ignores the 
reality that China, India, and many other countries which, for the 
longest time, didn't use as much oil as the United States, now are 
starting to use more--more cars, more trucks, more industry. Their 
demand for that same world oil supply is putting a strain on the 
market. There is no question about it.
  The second question, obviously, is, is there a place, someplace in 
the United States--either onshore or offshore--where there is the 
answer to our prayers immediately, where we could say: For goodness 
sake, clear the decks, stop the regulators, get the derricks out, and 
let's drill. Bring out that oil and, for goodness sake, bring down the 
price of gasoline. Is there such a place?
  The answer is no, honestly, because those who are involved in the 
industry tell us anytime we decide to drill on another acre of land, it 
is a decision which will lead to production of oil anywhere from 8 to 
14 years from now--8 to 14 years. Why? They have to go in and map the 
land. They have to figure out where the oil might be. They have to do 
some testing. They have to find some equipment.
  Incidentally, all the oil equipment for offshore drilling right now 
is in use. There is nothing like an inventory waiting to be dragged out 
and put in just the right spot. It is not there. It takes years to get 
in the queue, to bring these oil exploration operations on line. Once 
they are on line, production starts slowly and builds. And that is the 
reality that explains the 8 to 14 years.
  So we do not have any oil in the United States to take care of 
ourselves indefinitely, and we don't have this mother lode of oil 
somewhere that if we could just tap it tomorrow, it is going to answer 
our prayers.
  Then there is the third issue. The third issue is the Federal 
Government, which controls a lot of land within the United States and 
off our shores, continually offers to the oil and gas companies the 
opportunity to lease that land and explore it for gas and oil. If you 
listen to the other side, you would think we are squandering--holding 
back all of these oil and gas assets from oil and gas companies and 
daring and defying them to go forward with exploration and production. 
That is not the case.
  President Bush and the Republicans and the oil companies want to 
greatly expand the available areas for drilling. But is it responsible? 
The Federal Government already offers tracts of land in offshore 
regions for oil and natural gas development. In fact, nearly 94 million 
acres of U.S. territory--that is a larger landmass than the size of the 
State of Utah--is currently under lease to the oil and gas companies 
who believe there is oil and gas to be found. That is twice the size of 
the State of Pennsylvania currently under lease.
  It is not as if access has been restricted. The Government leases 
millions of new acres every year. An additional 4.6 million acres of 
Federal land was leased in 2007. The Bureau of Land Management has held 
21 onshore lease sales already this year. Last week a sale was held for 
nearly 63,000 acres. BLM has 18 more lease sales scheduled through this 
year. Offshore lease sales have proceeded at an even faster pace.
  Since the beginning of 2007, the Minerals Management Service has held 
six lease sales for open areas off the Outer Continental Shelf in the 
Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska's Chukchi Sea.
  How much offshore oil land has been offered? It is 115 million acres 
that has been offered to the oil and gas companies for a lease on which 
to drill. How big a territory is 115 million acres?
  Most people, certainly in my State and around the country, know 
Interstate 80.
  It starts over here in New Jersey and ends in California. If you were 
to take a 628-mile swath along Interstate 80 from New Jersey to 
California, that would represent 115 million acres. That is what we 
have offered to the oil and gas companies to lease; land they can look 
at and explore and find oil and gas and produce it.
  The oil companies, that said they do not have enough land to look at 
for future oil and gas, have responded by saying they would like to 
have 12 million acres, that is the amount of seabed the oil companies 
put bids on, barely 10 percent of what we offered them.
  In my I-80 comparison, that would take you from New Jersey to 
Pennsylvania, about 310 miles. Look at the big stretch they are not 
interested in bidding on. We hear from the Republicans: There is no 
place for them to turn. But when we offered them the land, they turned 
it down. They are not using the leased land they currently have either. 
This next chart shows there are 68 million acres of Federal land 
currently

[[Page 15494]]

leased to the oil and gas companies. What you see is kind of a shot of 
the Western part of the United States. The leased land that is under 
production is the dark areas, the black areas.
  The red areas represent leased land by the Federal Government to the 
oil companies that they pay for--they do not force them to take it, 
they pay for it, they pay an annual lease for the right for oil and gas 
production. The red areas represent areas they lease and are currently 
not exploring or producing on.
  So you see the argument that there is not enough land out there for 
them to look at defies explanation. When we open it for bid, they will 
not bid on it. When they do lease it, they do not explore it and use 
it. Does that sound like there is a lack of supply here of land that 
they can turn to? That is the Republican argument.
  They do argue that there is one little spot, one spot in the United 
States of America where they can find oil, the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, 1.56 million acres. Now how much is there? I do not know. But I 
will tell you that next door to the ANWR is the National Petroleum 
Reserve of Alaska, which has been established specifically for oil and 
gas development.
  There are 23 million acres of land there available. We have held four 
lease sales in that area since 1999. So far they have leased 3.6 
million acres out of the 23 million. We are going to try to lease some 
more there to see if there is any interest. All this talk about Alaska 
being the answer to our prayers, they do not explain as well that it is 
10 or 12 years away, if there is any production, and when, if it ever 
came in, even at the wildest estimates, it would not have any impact of 
more than pennies or nickels on the actual cost of oil and the price of 
gasoline.
  I joined with Senators Dodd and Menendez to charge oil companies a 
fee for every acre they lease but do not use for production. I have 
heard critics on the other side say that is unfair to the oil 
companies. Why should they be able to tie up the land if they are not 
going to use it? Should not we make it available to oil companies that 
might explore and might produce on that land? Is that not what we need? 
Even the Republicans would have to agree with that argument.
  When it comes to offshore drilling, I mentioned the 68 million acres. 
The red areas are Federal offshore land leased to oil companies which 
they are currently not exploring or producing on. The dark acres, they 
are. There is a lot of land available.
  I wish to say a word about speculation too. We have offered to the 
Republicans the following. We have a bill, a bill which I was at least 
partially responsible for writing, which says we need more regulators 
to keep an eye on speculation when it comes to oil and its prices.
  I think that is something that is eminently reasonable. This is a 
good indication. In the year 2000, 37 percent of the oil futures market 
was for speculators. These are basically investment companies, 
investment banks. And 63 percent represented companies that were 
actually hedging the price of oil, because they used oil, such as 
airlines.
  Look how that has changed in the last 8 years. Seventy-one percent of 
the oil futures market is in the hands of speculators who literally 
never take control of the oil they are bidding on, and only 29 percent 
represent companies that use it for the purpose that most of us would 
agree it should be intended.
  So we know speculation is growing when it comes to oil, and we know 
the transactions have gone up 600 percent in the last 8 or 10 years. 
The size of the agency that regulates it has not; in fact, it has 
declined. We want to put 100 more regulators, overseers, in this agency 
to keep an eye on this energy futures market to see if there is 
excessive speculation or even manipulation and do something about it.
  The bill I introduced, and the one that is included in the Democratic 
plan, would increase by 100 the number of full-time employees involved 
in regulation. We would also put more money into computer technology so 
they can follow these markets even more closely. We would have more 
transparency when it comes to these markets so we understand who is 
trading what and when, so if we see big movements in the market, our 
people who are keeping an eye on it can look more closely.
  I think most agree we want to bring more markets into regulation, not 
just NYMEX in New York but the ICE exchange in London. They are 
agreeable to this regulation. We would also like to bring in, if we 
can, the over-the-counter markets, which frankly we do not even know 
the size of. There are companies that are involved in swaps and over-
the-counter trades, done almost on a private basis with no disclosure. 
We do not know what is going on in these markets. I think we should.
  So this kind of disclosure and transparency is part of it. We also 
try to make sure that as we do, in many other commodities, that we 
limit the size of trades. If you are involved in this futures market, 
because your airline needs to make certain that you are not burned by 
future oil prices, we want you to be able to trade. That is a so-called 
commercial use of the futures market, a healthy thing. Southwest 
Airlines has proven that. But for those in the market simply to play 
the game, to speculate, we think there ought to be a limit on how far 
they can go.
  I think that may be one of the major differences between the 
Republican and Democratic positions. But the point I wish to make is 
that speculation itself is not inherently evil. Excessive speculation 
should be followed carefully to make sure that it is not getting out of 
hand. Manipulation is absolutely unacceptable.
  Now, some on the other side--Senator Kyl of Arizona--got up and said 
what is happening in futures, as a matter of fact, is give and take, 
supply and demand, things happen, and people try to guess whether they 
are going to impact the price of oil.
  Well, there are a lot of experts who take a look at the future price 
of oil. This chart tells you that one of the Federal agencies that is 
involved in this, that we spend a lot of money on, has been giving its 
estimate since May of 2007 of what would happen to the price of oil.
  Here it was starting at $65 a barrel. They said in May of 2007, it 
was likely to go below $60. Then, in July of 2007, they made a new 
estimate. They said: Well, it is now $67, $68 a barrel, it will 
probably be going down to $66 a barrel, and so forth. So you can see 
the lines of their predictions. These are the experts hired by the 
Federal Government who took a look at market conditions, supply and 
demand, and made the flowing estimates on where the prices could go.
  This red line, incidentally, reflects what happened to the prices. 
This is how much they missed it. They did not see that it was headed 
north of $125 a barrel and did not even expect that to happen. They did 
not find any market conditions that would drive it up that high. That 
is why some of us want to ask the question: How much of today's current 
price of oil and price of gasoline has to do with market speculation?
  There are a lot of different points of view. Here is Secretary 
Bodman's point of view, June 11 of this year: The reason we are looking 
at these very high prices for oil is strictly supply and demand.
  That is the administration's position. No surprise. Our President and 
Vice President come from the oil industry. The oil industry has done 
pretty well under their watch. The people they have appointed to the 
Cabinet think this is the market at work.
  But there are others on the outside who see it a little differently. 
The New Jersey Star Ledger, January of this year: Experts, including 
the former head of Exxon, say financial speculation in the energy 
markets has grown so much over the last 30 years that it now adds 20 to 
30 percent or more to the price of a barrel of oil.
  And here is a specific individual, Stephen Simon, a senior vice 
president at ExxonMobil, testifying under oath before the House of 
Representatives, who said: The price of oil should be about $50 to $55 
per barrel.
  It is more than twice what it ought to be. So when we want to have 
more resources to look at speculation in the

[[Page 15495]]

energy futures market, I do not think it is unreasonable. I think we 
can protect the legitimate commercial application of the futures market 
for airlines and others, those that need it, and still do our best to 
slow down excessive speculation and manipulation that lead to higher 
prices.
  We have been trying to get an agreement with the Republicans about 
how to proceed because I think the worst thing that can occur is that 
we do nothing. We want to do something.
  First, address speculation with the Democratic bill. We have said to 
Republicans: Offer your version. If you do not want to offer a bill, 
vote against ours if you wish. But we offer you this opportunity to put 
your amendment on the floor on speculation, whatever it happens to be. 
We will go head to head, one amendment against the other. We will have 
a pretty good debate, I am sure. We will have the same vote requirement 
for both. We will let the Senate work its will. It is a 51 to 49 
Senate. It takes 60 votes to pass a measure of this complexity. Let's 
see what happens. I think that is fair. How can they argue? They get to 
write their own version of their amendment. If they do not think 
speculation is an issue, they do not have to offer anything.
  The second thing we offered them is: Prepare the Republican approach 
to dealing with the energy crisis, put it in a package. You write it, 
we have nothing to say about it, as long as it is clearly about energy. 
Put yours on the table. We will put ours on the table. Let's debate 
both of them. Let's vote on both of them. Let's have the same vote 
requirement for both of them. At the end of the day, let's see who 
prevails. I do not think that is unreasonable.
  Now, there are some on the other side, the Senator from New Mexico 
mentioned earlier, who want to offer more amendments. I am not opposed 
to more amendments. But there is a reasonable limit to this. We would 
like to end this in a timely fashion, so we can actually get something 
done.
  If there are those who want to filibuster or run out the clock on 
either side of the aisle, then I cannot say I am going to support that 
point of view. This could be worked out. It should start this week. 
This ought to be an issue we can resolve, at least the debate, before 
we leave next week. We can do it. I think if we have a meeting of the 
minds, and a fair approach, we can see that done in the very near 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me thank the assistant 
majority leader, the Senator from Illinois, for his comments. I was 
listening intently to his message, which I think is one that is very 
important for this Nation.
  The Senator talked about the fact that there is a significant amount 
of land currently available for drilling, and for reasons that are a 
little bit unclear, the oil industry has decided not to drill in those 
areas.
  He also expressed his confusion, as I do, as to why the Republicans 
have come forward and said: Let's talk about the energy issue, let's do 
something about it.
  But when it comes time to vote as to whether we can proceed on a bill 
that is important for our energy needs, the Republicans seem to vote 
against that so we cannot proceed.
  We had a bill before us that would have dealt with renewable energy 
sources and would allow us to deal with solar and wind and biomass and 
biodiesel. The Republicans refused to allow us to move forward on that, 
requiring the 60-vote threshold so we could not move forward on a major 
bill dealing with renewables, which is clearly an important part of an 
energy policy for this Nation.
  We had the Consumer-First Energy Act, legislation that would have 
brought forward a way to deal with the immediate cost of energy. The 
Republicans refused to allow us to proceed, used the filibuster to 
block that legislation that would have dealt with issues such as the 
oil cartel and the anticompetitive procedures they use to control 
supply and price of oil or to deal with price gouging or to look at 
ways we could take some of our resources and put them into renewables 
so we have a policy for the future or to deal with oil speculators.
  But, no, the Republicans used the filibuster to prevent a full debate 
on the floor of this body to talk about the energy policies of this 
country. So I return to the floor to tell Marylanders and the people of 
this Nation we need to do something about this. Marylanders are hurting 
today. I have talked about this before on the floor.
  I can take you to some homes of seniors who are making a very 
difficult judgment not to use air-conditioning this summer during these 
oppressive days, which may very well jeopardize their health, because 
they do not have the money to pay for their utility bills.
  They are making these tough decisions today in my State and States 
around the Nation. I could give you examples of independent truckers 
who are located in Maryland who do not have the money to fill their 
trucks with fuel because of the high cost of gasoline.
  They don't know what they are going to do, whether they will be able 
to stay in business. I can tell you of small business owners I have met 
who tell me they don't have any alternatives. They have to use their 
cars for business. They have to fill up the car with gasoline, and they 
can't afford to do it. They are using their personal credit cards, the 
most expensive way to borrow money, because of the high cost of 
gasoline. They are looking to us to do something so they can stay in 
business.
  I could take my colleagues to families who have to make tough 
judgments as to whether they can fill their gas tanks with gas or buy 
groceries because of the high cost of gasoline.
  I met with people from the nonprofit community. We had people in from 
Meals on Wheels, volunteers who deliver food to people who can't get 
out of their homes and depend upon a nonprofit in order to get meals. 
In these tough economic times, there is more and more demand for their 
services, but their volunteers can't afford to fill their tanks with 
gasoline. They are doing on it their own, because we are asking them to 
pay the extra cost of the fuel. They are having a tough time being able 
to carry out their nonprofit mission, which will put more pressure on 
governmental services.
  The list goes on and on as to why we need to deal with the energy 
crisis now and why we should have dealt with it before but for the 
filibusters Republicans have used.
  The Republican answer to this problem seems to be to drill. Let me 
take up that issue for a moment. Most recoverable offshore oil and gas 
is currently open to drilling. Today most of our offshore oil areas are 
open to drilling. According to the Minerals Management Service, 79 
percent of recoverable oil is currently open to drilling and 82 percent 
of recoverable natural gas is currently open to drilling. According to 
the Department of Interior, only 21 percent of the Outer Continental 
Shelf is actually in production. My friend from Illinois gave the 
numbers: 68 million acres of the 90 million acres of the Outer 
Continental Shelf are not in production today. There is plenty of area 
available for drilling, but the oil industry has chosen not to drill in 
those areas. Instead they keep on mentioning ANWR, the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. That is a pretty sensitive environmental area. We all 
know that. We know the risks involved in drilling in ANWR. It would 
represent .6 percent of the world's supply. The National Petroleum 
Reserve in Alaska, which has been set aside for oil exploration, 
currently has available but not in production more oil reserves than 
are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So this isn't a point about 
where we have oil, we need to drill in order to get it. We have oil 
available. But the oil industry has chosen not to do this.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, projections in 
the Outer Continental Shelf access case indicate that access to the 
Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern gulf regions would not have a 
significant impact on domestic crude oil or natural gas production 
prices before 2030.
  The reason is we don't have a lot of oil in the United States. If we 
include

[[Page 15496]]

all of the oil reserves, we have 3 percent of the world's reserves. We 
use 25 percent of the world's oil. We have 3 percent of the world's 
known reserves. So even if we produce at maximum capacity, we will not 
have a major impact on the pricing of energy.
  It is for that reason I want to show this chart showing remarks from 
T. Boone Pickens, who said:

       I have been an oilman all my life, but this is one 
     emergency we can't drill our way out of. . . .

  He goes on to point out:

        . . . But if we create a new, renewable energy network, we 
     can break our addiction to foreign oil.

  If we produce every drop of oil we have in the United States, we are 
still going to be dependent upon foreign oil. We have to break our 
dependency on foreign oil. As Mr. Pickens points out, either in the 
short term or long term, oil is not the solution to our energy problem.
  Having said that, I do believe we need to produce oil where we can. I 
am baffled as to why the oil industry is not using the 79 percent of 
currently leased area to produce more oil that would certainly be part 
of the solution to the energy problem. We can't drill our way out, but 
we certainly should produce what we can. Maybe this chart helps explain 
why the oil industry is not drilling where they can. The blue line 
represents the price of gasoline, showing when it was about $1.50 a 
gallon, going up to now where it is close to $4 a gallon. The red line 
represents the profits of the oil industry. It is amazing. As gasoline 
prices go up, oil profits go up. These are quarterly profits. So one 
might suspect that the oil industry is not exactly interested in 
bringing down the cost of gasoline. Their profits go up, as the costs 
go up. Maybe that helps explain some of the reason why production is 
not at the maximum capacity we currently could have.
  Let me urge my colleagues as to what we should be doing. In the short 
term, we need to look at a lot of different alternatives. Again, I am 
for producing what we can in an environmentally sensitive way, but I 
urge my colleagues to consider S. 3268, the excess speculation bill. 
Let me try to make this clear. We are dealing with what is known as 
index speculation. These are speculators who never take the product. 
They are allocating a part of their portfolio to oil futures. It is an 
investment for them. It is not a commodity transaction. These are not 
airline companies or trucking companies that do want to buy futures in 
oil because they need that for their business. They are going to take 
the product because they need the product. These are pure speculators.
  According to Michael Masters, a hedge fund manager, index speculators 
added to the supply equal to China's increase in demand of oil over the 
past 5 years. That is a dramatic amount of activity in the marketplace. 
It is equal to 70 percent of all the benchmark crude trading on the New 
York Mercantile Exchange; 70 percent is in index speculators. Just 7 
years ago it was 37 percent. So we see the dramatic increase over the 
historic levels of commodity trading.
  My friend from Illinois indicated that perhaps oil should be at $60 a 
barrel. Masters says $60 to $75 a barrel, if Congress fixed the 
loophole in index speculation. Edward Krapels, an energy security 
analyst, says it is 50 percent of the pump price. I am not an 
economist. I don't know what it is. But I do know this is something we 
can do, and it could have an immediate impact on the price of gasoline 
at the pump. That is what my constituents are asking us to do. This is 
something we should do. We should not let speculators add to the price.
  S. 3268 reins in index speculation. It provides higher margin 
requirements for those who speculate, more disclosure. This is common 
sense. Let's get this done.
  If we are looking for other things we can do to help in the short 
term, let me encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
withdraw their objections to the bill Senator Sanders has introduced 
that would add resources to the LIHEAP program. That is for energy 
assistance for low-income families. If we are looking for who has been 
hurt by the energy crisis, it is low-income families throughout 
America. Let's do something to help them. Let's target our relief to 
those who have been disadvantaged as a result of what has happened to 
energy prices.
  These are some things we can do that can have some impact in the 
short term. I must tell my colleagues, I hope we don't leave this 
debate without talking about what we need to do in the long term so we 
don't come back to this issue. I would hope that in the 1970s we would 
have learned our lesson, with long gasoline lines, and done something 
for energy security in America. But we need to become energy 
independent. We need to become energy secure. We need to do this for 
national security reasons. I need not remind my colleagues that we have 
committed our Armed Forces because of the vulnerability of America to 
oil. So for national security, we need to become energy independent.
  We need to become energy independent for our environment. Global 
climate change is real. Using less oil, fossil fuels will make us a 
cleaner country and will help our environment. It is something we 
should be doing.
  We came close this year to moving forward on a global climate change 
bill. We should do that for the sake of our environment and our energy 
policy. What we have learned over the last several months is that when 
we don't control our energy, when we are dependent upon other countries 
for our energy needs; i.e., oil, overnight we can see a huge increase 
in the price of energy which can have a devastating impact on our 
economy. I don't know what the right price is for energy, but I do know 
if we controlled our own energy sources, our economy would make that 
judgment, not some country halfway around the world that decides how 
much oil will be available to the U.S. consumer.
  For all those reasons, we need to become energy independent. One way 
we can do that--and we have all agreed--is to be more efficient in the 
use of energy. Last year we came together and increased the CAFE 
standards. If we had done that 10 years ago, the energy savings today 
from an increased CAFE standard on an annual basis would equal three 
times the amount of oil we could get from ANWR at maximum production. 
Energy efficiency works. It has to be part of our energy policy as we 
move forward.
  Yes, we have to deal with alternative and renewable sources. We have 
to deal with biofuels and wind and solar. I also believe we need to 
have responsible use of nuclear power. I think that is an important 
part of an energy policy that makes us energy self-sufficient. We can 
do that.
  We need a national commitment. We made that type of commitment, as we 
did before, when our national security was at stake during World War 
II. We can do it again. We can be equally successful.
  I have an offer to my colleagues. On behalf of the people of Maryland 
and of the Nation, let's get together on this. This is a national 
priority. It should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue Americans 
are asking that we deal with, that we become energy independent, that 
we do what is responsible in the short term to help those who have been 
victimized by the extreme increase in energy costs. Let's work to do 
that. Let's take out the profits of the speculators. Let's deal with 
those who have been victimized and then work together to develop an 
energy policy for America that will truly make us energy independent so 
that we can control our security, our economy, and be good 
international citizens on the environment. We can do all of that by 
working together and putting America's interests first.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I believe under the unanimous consent, I 
have an hour to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be allotted an 
hour to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. I want to spend a little bit of time this evening talking 
about

[[Page 15497]]

motivations, talking about a realistic assessment of where we are and 
then merge those two things with some of the actions that myself and 
others in the Senate are doing.
  One of the things we all know but we do not like to talk about is the 
significant, unsustainable course our country is on. Numbers can be 
really boring, but they are not boring when you apply what is going to 
happen to our children and grandchildren.
  This first chart I have in the Chamber shows Government spending as a 
percentage of GDP. It has gone higher than that at times of war in the 
past. But here is where we are today at 2008. We are right around 20 
percent. These are not my numbers. These are Government Accountability 
Office--these are the Medicare and Social Security trustee numbers. If 
we do not start doing something about wasteful Washington spending, 
about reform of waste, about elimination of fraud, about duplication of 
programs--2 or 3 or 20 doing the same thing, none of them doing it 
efficiently--what is going to happen to us under our current policy is 
that by 2038 we are going to have 35 percent of our GDP spent by the 
Government.
  Well, what does that really mean? What happens to us when 35 percent 
of everything we produce comes to the Government and the Government 
deals it back out? Well, what it really means is less liberty. What it 
really means is less freedom. Because what it does is it takes the 
resources of Americans out of their pockets and out of their families 
and transfers it to a government bureaucracy that then mandates how 
dollars will be spent.
  These numbers are not disputable. Nobody will dispute this is the 
roadmap we are on. As shown on this chart, this is where we are going. 
What happens is, the results of that become a markedly lower standard 
of living for our children and grandchildren. As we look at that, we 
see other things that are happening to us that are very harmful. As a 
matter of fact, they are affecting us greatly right now.
  The debt held by the public--that is debt that is exclusive of the 
money we have stolen from Social Security, from Federal employees' 
retirement funds, from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and from about 
60 other trust funds the Government continually steals excess money 
from and spends but does not recognize the debt--that is exclusive of 
all this. This is the debt that is out there that people have actually 
bought: T-bills or Treasury notes or Treasury bonds. About a third to 
40 percent is now held by foreign governments.
  If you think this cannot impact us as a nation, we need to think 
about what happened when France and England started to take the Suez 
Canal back from the Egyptians, and because we owned the majority of 
France's and England's debt, we said: If you do this, we will put your 
debt on the market. We will collapse your economy. So, consequently, 
two allies of ours did not do a very foolish thing and, through the 
economic power we had of owning their debt, we accomplished very 
powerful foreign policy objectives.
  Well, the reverse of that is about to be true for our country when we 
have $300 billion to $500 billion sitting in China today, when we have 
$300 billion to $500 billion sitting in the Middle East. What would 
happen if they decide to dump our debt? So by being less than fiscally 
proper, by not being frugal, what we have done is put our foreign 
policy at risk by having a larger and larger percentage of our debt 
held by foreign sovereign governments.
  As you can see by this chart, what is happening is, in 2008, we are 
at about 20 percent of our GDP being held by the public. But another 20 
percent is internal in terms of what we have stolen. As that rises, the 
risk to our children, the risk to our Nation, the risk to us for an 
effective foreign policy--because we are now leveraged by what someone 
might do with our debt--starts impacting us in a tremendous way.
  The other trend that is not sustainable and even more worrisome is 
the makeup of our GDP as a percentage of the Government, the things we 
really have not fixed or have not addressed. If you look at our total 
revenues, which are estimated to be around 20 percent, if they stay 
historically at that level, how much we take from the Americans--which 
we are not going to if we are going to maintain the programs of 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--but if you leave them there 
and then you look at the growth of Government that is mandated just on 
demography alone, just on the fact that the baby boomers--my age--are 
growing old, what we see is that Social Security rises, Medicare rises, 
Medicaid rises, but net interest becomes over 50 percent of everything 
we pay out. Notice all the other functions of Government actually 
decline. The things that make a difference in your life every day 
actually get squeezed down.
  So we are on an unsustainable course. There is no question we are on 
an unsustainable course, and we have before us today--the majority 
leader spoke about introducing a bill. I want to spend a little bit of 
time talking about the bill. We have not seen the bill. We are guessing 
what is in the bill--but a bill that is going to spend between $25 
billion and $50 billion more, is going to create over 77 new programs, 
is going to grow these numbers even more.
  That bill is coming about because myself and several other Senators 
have refused to allow those bills to go without debate on this floor 
and without the ability to amend them. Now, some of them are very good 
things we ought to be about. But we should not be about it until we are 
going to inculcate and act as Senators the same way every other family 
in this country has to act; that is, by making a decision based on 
priorities. If people get to take a vacation this year, they are taking 
that vacation because they have scrimped somewhere else to be able to 
afford the fuel, to be able to afford the cost. They have made a 
decision within their family budget that what they are doing is a 
priority compared to the other priorities. Well, the American public is 
not surprised we refuse to make priorities here. We just go on and pass 
bills.
  Now, you will hear the argument over the next 10 days to 2 weeks, as 
we debate this bill, that these are just authorizations, that it is not 
money that is actually spent until it is appropriated. But if you go to 
the Web site of all of the Senators who are supporting these bills, 
they have already sent out press releases bragging about what they have 
done. They intend to spend the money.
  So one of three things comes about from that. One is they plan on 
authorizing it and spending the money; two is they are just gaming 
their constituency, they are planning on passing the bill but never 
spending the money, which is highly unlikely, or three is they just 
want on the bill so they can get a positive parochial benefit and do 
not really care whether the money gets spent.
  Well, this is one Senator who really cares whether the money gets 
spent. And a lot of these bills we should spend money on. But some of 
the bills, to pay for them, we ought to get rid of the programs in 
those agencies that are either duplicative of what we are doing and 
eliminate the ones that are not working or we ought to pay for any new 
programs the same way a family does. They get rid of the things they do 
not think are important.
  But to pass somewhere between $25 billion and $50 billion worth of 
new authorizations for spending and not eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, 
and duplication means we think we are above the American people. Do you 
know what. The American people already figured that out because the 
latest survey on whether they think Congress is doing a good or 
excellent job is only 9 percent of the people in this country. And they 
are right; we are not. We are totally ignoring the things that every 
other person in this country has to do in terms of making decisions on 
how they live.
  The debate on this bill is going to be about priorities and choices.
  Also, this bill is going to be coming at a time when the No. 1 issue 
facing Americans is being able to afford enough money to put gas in the 
car to go to work. I would put forward that

[[Page 15498]]

we should not spend any time growing the Government in any way or 
authorizing any new expenditures until we have a comprehensive, totally 
inclusive energy policy that is going to work for this country for the 
next 30 years. The reason that is important is our national security is 
now at risk because we are energy dependent, we are energy insecure.
  You heard the majority whip talk about lands that were bid on but are 
not drilled on. It is the Willie Sutton phenomenon. He robbed banks 
because that is where the money is. People drill where the oil is. If 
there is not a high chance of getting oil, they do not drill there.
  Every available offshore rig in this country right now is either in 
repair or drilling. Every other working rig is either under contract or 
under repair or is out for contract. It would be surprising to most 
people where we get most of our oil drilling rigs today. Most people do 
not realize China produces most of them. We have lost our technologic 
advantage in terms of being competitive just on oil drilling rigs.
  The other thing that is disappointing is, we cannot have a debate 
about priorities in the Senate because we hide behind the fact that 
this is just an authorization. But the point is, if we think it is 
important enough to authorize it and we think it is a priority, we 
ought to think it is important enough to spend the money on. In fact, 
everybody thinks that except when they get on the Senate floor to 
debate the fact that they do not want to do the hard work of getting 
rid of waste, of get getting rid of fraud, of getting rid of abuse, of 
getting rid of duplication.
  For most of the bills that are going to be in here, my staff and I 
have offered legitimate spending offsets to them. But that is foreign. 
That is new. We have not always done it that way.
  Well, I refer to this chart and this other chart as evidence that we 
better start doing things a little differently. We better start 
deauthorizing programs that do not work. We ought to start getting rid 
of programs that are wasteful. We ought to start fine-tuning the 
programs that do work but are highly inefficient. And we ought to get 
rid of programs that are designed to be defrauded and abused.
  The Senate is an interesting place by historical standards. By 
historical standards, this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative 
body in the world. In the 110th Congress, 890 bills have passed--890. 
Fifty of them have had debate. Only 50 have had debate. And for most of 
those, the debate has been extremely limited and shortened through the 
power of the majority leader, by a technical process of filling the 
tree, 14 times, where no amendments were available except those of the 
majority leader, or by granting amendments that were only approved by 
him and limiting the total time of debate. Well, there is an 
interesting historical record that I will go through in a minute. But 
it lessens what our Founders intended for the Senate to be.
  From 1912 to 1972, only five times in the U.S. Senate was cloture 
invoked. That means the decision was made by the U.S. Senate to limit 
debate. Our Founders believed the whole purpose of the majority of the 
Senate was to be the reasoned body, to stand away from emotion, to 
stand away from the pressured responses of an election every 2 years, 
and have an open and vigorous debate on every issue.
  Two things happened from that. One is Members of the Senate became 
much better informed. The second thing that happens when we have 
vigorous open debate is the American people learn something about what 
is going on. So if we have passed 890 bills this year and 840 of them 
passed by this procedure called unanimous consent, you didn't hear any 
debate, there were no amendments offered, there was no vote taken on 
those bills. What a loss for the American people.
  Now, granted, 72 of them were naming post offices, but what a loss, 
that we don't have and utilize the tools of the Senate to inform the 
American people about what we are working on.
  There are two things that can come from that. One is, if we are doing 
a unanimous consent--a procedure where a bill passes and nobody raises 
an objection to it. It is a process where everybody says: I think this 
is a bill we ought to do. I think this is a bill we ought to not amend, 
and I don't think we should vote on it.
  So there have been 840 times or 850 times in the 110th Congress when 
we have said we don't need to do that. So the American people have no 
idea what we have passed, what the import of it is, because there has 
been no debate. What the majority leader hopes to bring to the floor is 
a bill consisting of 40 bills that says: Wait a minute. There are some 
of us who think we ought to debate these. There are some of us who 
think we ought to amend these. And there are some of us who think we 
ought to vote; that we ought to be recorded on how we stand on an 
issue.
  One of the things that has been put out in this debate by unelected 
staff members is that I have blocked the bills from coming to the 
Senate floor. Well, everyone in this body knows that isn't true. An 
individual Senator can't block a bill from coming to the Senate floor. 
The majority leader has the right to bring any bill to the floor any 
time he wants.
  What the staff members are saying is we want to bring a bill, but we 
don't want to debate it. We don't want to vote on it. We don't want to 
have it amended. We don't want the American people to know what we 
would rather do in secret, what we would rather pass without the 
American people knowing the details about our business.
  So is it any wonder that only 9 percent of the American public has 
any significant confidence in the Congress to put forward their 
interests? We are going to be doing this at a time when the No. 1 issue 
in this country is energy security and energy prices, but we are going 
to put a bill on the Senate floor that grows the Government, that 
creates 70 new programs, and spends somewhere between $25 billion and 
$50 billion.
  I would tell my colleagues that most people sitting down to their 
dinner table think we have our priorities messed up, and they are 
right. We do.
  The other thing that is concerning is our Founders made the House of 
Representatives very much different from the Senate. The Senate was 
designed to make sure the rights of the minority were always ever 
present in terms of debate and amendment. Earlier today the majority 
leader said we had filibustered--my particular party had filibustered--
83 times. That is an inaccurate statement.
  A filibuster is when someone says: I want to continue talking and I 
want to continue debating and I want to continue amending--to the point 
where you try not to pass a bill. The difference between what the 
majority leader claims and actual truth is, what the minority is asking 
for is we would just like to be able to amend bills and not have to go 
to the majority leader, who has now become the ``Rules chairman'' of 
the ``House,'' and says only with our approval can we offer an 
amendment to a bill. It undermines the total tradition of the Senate, 
but more importantly than that, it undermines truth and transparency in 
this country because, if you stifle debate, what you do is lose the 
benefit of the 100 Senators who are here who come from diverse 
backgrounds with vast and different experiences to have that input into 
the debate.
  So as we become the ``House of Representatives,'' where we don't 
allow amendments, where we don't allow an open amendment process--and I 
am not talking about political ``gotcha'' amendments; I am talking 
about real amendments to change real bills based on the facts of that 
bill, and I am talking about pertinent amendments--we are doing great 
damage to the institution of the Senate.
  I have also heard some of my colleagues complain that it is somehow 
undemocratic for one Senator to stand against 99 Senators. I would not 
be living up to my oath if I acceded on conscience to do what I thought 
was wrong for the very people of Oklahoma who sent me here, not to 
represent just their interests but to pay attention to what our oath 
says, which is to uphold

[[Page 15499]]

and fulfill the Constitution of the United States. It is interesting 
that in that Constitution, there is a section called the Enumerated 
Powers Act. It is very straightforward. It is very clear in terms of 
what it spells out, the rules under which the Congress is to operate.
  I have introduced, along with my colleague--several other colleagues 
in the Senate but also my colleague, John Shadegg, in the House--the 
Enumerated Powers Act. This act says we should fulfill article I, 
section 8. I wish to read that into the Record for a minute because I 
think as American families across this country and American workers and 
people struggle to meet either health care bills, food bills, or energy 
bills, the answer is that the Congress has gotten totally off course.
  Here is what our Constitution says:

       The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, 
     Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for 
     the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; 
     but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform 
     throughout the United States. . . .

  The Congress shall have the power to:

       [B]orrow Money on the credit of the United States;
       To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the 
     several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
       To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform 
     Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United 
     States;
       To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign 
     Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
       To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the 
     Securities and current Coin of the United States;
       To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
       To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by 
     securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 
     exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
       To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
       To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the 
     high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
       To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and 
     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
       To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money 
     to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
       To provide and maintain a Navy;
       To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land 
     and naval Forces;
       To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the 
     Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel 
     Invasions;
       To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the 
     Militia. . . .
       To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, 
     over such District. . . .
       To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
     carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . . .

  The 10th amendment to the Constitution says anything that is not 
listed right there is exclusively and absolutely the right of the 
States. That is how we got here. We have abandoned what the 
Constitution has taught us is our responsibility.
  I will tell my colleagues, my guesstimate of the 40 bills that are 
going to be bound in this omnibus grow-the-government, spend-more-money 
bill, half of those bills will violate the enumerated powers of the 
Constitution. Then we wonder how is it that we are bankrupting our 
children, how is it that we are undercutting their standard of living 
for the future, how is it that we have gotten to the point where we are 
at risk based on the loans that we have taken out to foreign sovereign 
governments?
  What we have missed is what is not controversial to the American 
people, which is that we should be living within our means because they 
have to live within their means. This bill is about not living within 
our means. It is going to be about a lot of other things--a lot of 
which I support--but mostly the bill is going to be about not living 
within our means, about growing the Government, spending more money, 
reaching into areas that are rightly the States' requirements because 
we have the power to do it.
  I wish to make one other point that I think in my lifetime--I am 60 
years old, and I have seen a great shift in the legislative bodies in 
this country. That shift is this: When you take your oath to be a U.S. 
Senator or Congressman, you take the oath to support and defend and 
uphold the Constitution of these United States. Nowhere in that oath 
does it mention your State. What has happened as we have evolved such 
great power to the Federal Government, the Members of Congress have 
become parochial. They have decided that in their wisdom, we should be 
about sending stuff home. We should be about violating the enumerated 
powers. One is because it feels good to help people--there is no 
question about that--but No. 2 is it has to do with being liked and 
getting reelected. It has everything to do with getting reelected.
  So what it has become, as opposed to what our Founders envisioned was 
a national legislature whose goal was long-term thinking to the benefit 
and the trust and the security for the Nation as a whole, it has 
devolved into a parochial legislature which spends half of its time 
trying to fix problems in individual States or communities that violate 
the enumerated powers listed in our own Constitution.
  So we find ourselves with the following facts. If you are born today, 
if you are born today and end up in a nice swaddling in your mother's 
arms, here is what you face: Your parents are going to have to raise 
you, they are going to have to try to afford your college education, 
which is going to be impossible in 20 years. The reason it is going to 
be impossible is because we have, out of this red line, put $400,000 of 
obligations on every child that is born in this country today and every 
day forward because we continue to grow the Government. We continue to 
violate the enumerated powers. We continue to refuse to make hard 
choices about priorities because someone might get upset.
  The interesting thing is the American people get it. You can see that 
in their level of confidence in this body. Ninety-one percent of the 
American people say: We don't get it. You are not working on what we 
want you to work on. You are not fixing the problems we think you 
should be fixing. It is because we are fixing what is best for the 
politicians, not what is best for the country.
  Let me give you a few examples of what I suspect will be in this 
bill. You as an American can decide if you think it is a priority for 
us right now, knowing that we are going to have at least a $600 billion 
deficit this year; we are going to borrow at least $600 billion from 
the Chinese and the Middle East. That is $2,000 for every man, woman, 
and child in this country.
  Here is the first one. Ice age, floods, National Geographic Trail 
Designation Act. That has to be a priority for us right now, when 
Americans cannot afford gasoline to get to work. It only costs $14.5 
million over the next 5 years, but it has to be a priority for us, it 
has to be something that has to happen right now. Why does it have to 
happen? It is because somebody will look good back home, not because it 
is a priority for the Nation--and it is certainly not a priority for 
our children.
  So do we need to do that now. Or do we intend to pass the bill, not 
fund it, and say we did something? Either one of them is dishonorable.
  Next is the Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial 
Commission Act. That will create a commission to celebrate the 
bicentennial and creation of the National Anthem. I don't think there 
is a problem with doing that. I think we ought to recognize the 200th 
anniversary of that. The question is, Should we spend $4 million doing 
it, when you can probably spend $100,000 doing it? Only in Washington 
does it take $4 million to have a party, to recognize a celebration. 
That is totally out of touch with the American taxpayers and the 
priorities they have to make.
  How about the Captive Primate Safety Act? It will add nonhuman 
primates to the list of species that are prohibited from being brought 
into the country for commerce. That commerce has to do with the 
scientific integrity and discovery and the utilization of subhuman 
primates because they are the best way we know to test things before we 
test them on us. But we are going to limit that. We are only going to 
spend $17 million doing that--only $17 million.
  There is $1.5 billion for the National Capital Transportation 
Amendment

[[Page 15500]]

Act. That is Metro. I think we ought to help Metro. But before we help 
Metro, we ought to demand some accountability and efficiency. They have 
gotten a billion dollars in Federal grants over the last 3, 4 years. 
Yet the problems that plague that institution haven't been fixed. They 
are not addressed in this bill. There is no accountability, no 
transparency. You cannot see where they are spending the money. There 
is nobody held accountable for the failure of the retrofit on the old 
rail cars that were retrofitted and now are not working.
  The other question American taxpayers ought to ask is: Why should 
every other taxpayer in the country pay for the rail transportation of 
the best paid people in the country, the Federal workforce? Should the 
average family who makes $33,000 in Oklahoma pay for the transportation 
to work of families who average $75,000 and are commuting on Metro? 
Inherently, there is something not quite right with that. Yet that will 
be in this package--$1.5 billion. We don't have the money, so not only 
are we going to have to subsidize it now, but we are going to charge it 
to our kids.
  I would say this bill the majority leader is going to bring up isn't 
going to fit with the priorities of the American people. There are some 
good things in it. But contrast that with the fact that we have an 
energy crisis, that we have families who now, compared to a year ago, 
are spending at least $2,000 more for energy. I would think the only 
thing we ought to be working on, the only thing the American people 
think we ought to be working on would be solving that problem in a 
comprehensive way. Instead, we are not; we are going to grow that and 
spend more. We are not going to do long-term solutions for our energy 
insecurity that puts our Nation at risk in terms of our national 
security.
  Even a cursory look at the history of the Senate shows that the 
majority leader's decision to construct an omnibus bill to get around 
true debate and true amendment objections to the broken hotline process 
violates the tradition of full and open debate and amendment. Following 
the Revolutionary War, the Founders created a system that protected the 
people from tyranny. The checks and balances provision was extended to 
the legislative branch, between the House of Representatives and the 
Senate. The Framers created the House of Representatives to pass 
legislation quickly. But the Senate was designed for the opposite 
purpose. It is supposed to be hard to pass a law up here because it has 
such a major effect on every American. It needs the cooling in the 
``coffee cup saucer.'' It needs to be thought about, debated, 
discussed, and it needs to be open toward the American people to where 
they can see it.
  James Madison said:

       The use of the Senate is consistent in its proceedings with 
     more coolness, more wisdom than the popular branch of 
     government. Its hallmark would not be the majoritism of the 
     House, but the emphasis on the rights of individual Senators 
     to consider and impact legislation.

  Impacting legislation is offering amendments. You cannot impact it 
unless you have the ability to amend it. By wrapping several dozen 
controversial bills into one omnibus, what the majority leader is 
attempting to do is override the best traditions of the Senate. But 
more important, it is to shortchange the American people about what we 
are doing.
  Since we have already passed 850 bills that you have no knowledge of, 
because they didn't have debate and amendments and they didn't have 
votes, why is it we should let another 40 bills come through without 
full debate and full amendments?
  There are two examples in history on how the Senate has operated as 
intended as a bulwark against hasty decisions and bad policy. First was 
the 1805 impeachment trial of Justice Samuel Chase, and the second was 
the 1869 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson. In order for 
the Senate to function as intended, it took courageous Senators to 
stand on principle in the face of adversity. In 1804, President Thomas 
Jefferson won reelection by a landslide, and his party then was known 
as the Republican Party--it is now the Democratic Party. They ended up 
with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. Only the judicial 
branch remained in control of the opposition party, the Federalist 
Party. The President, buoyed by strong public support, sought to 
impeach Federalist judges on the basis of their political stances and a 
variety of court opinions, leading Jefferson's Republicans to target 
Justice Chase as one of the most outspoken judges--in other words, to 
intimidate the judicial branch.
  With the distance of history, we can see clearly that Chase's 
conviction would have undermined the independence of the courts. It 
would have said we would not have a three-part government, each a 
careful balance to control the others. That would have gone out the 
window. In the House, Justice Chase was impeached 73 to 32. All of 
Jefferson's Republicans voted for it. In the Senate, votes from 23 of 
the 34 Senators were necessary for conviction, and 25 of those Senators 
were Jefferson's Republicans. Conviction seemed sure. Yet following a 
week-long trial in the Senate, 18 voted against conviction, while 16 
voted for it. They were five votes short to remove Justice Chase.
  Following the ordeal, Vice President Aaron Burr made the following 
observation:

       The Senate is a sanctuary, a citadel of law, of order, and 
     of liberty, and it is here in this exalted refuge--here if 
     anywhere--will resistance be made to the storms of political 
     frenzy and the silent arts of corruption.

  I hope my colleagues will consider that last phrase, ``the silent 
arts of corruption.'' When the American people look at this body, that 
is precisely what many Americans see. If any process was in the 
category of the silent art of corruption, the secretive hotline 
process, where bills come through with unanimous consent, fits that 
definition well.
  In 1869, in the trial of President Andrew Johnson, a similar matter 
unfolded. In the years following the Civil War, there was severe strife 
between the President and Congress over the best way to handle the 
rejoining of the South with the Union. The Congress, dominated by 
Members who were determined to humble the Confederacy, was pitted 
against the President, who was more interested in reconciliation than 
revenge. After 4 years of battling with President Johnson, the House 
overwhelmingly voted to impeach him. Every Republican had voted for 
impeachment. This was a different group of Republicans--the Lincoln 
Republicans. In the Senate, 36 votes were required for conviction and 
41 Senators were Republicans. Once again, conviction seemed sure. 
However, a group of seven Republicans saw between the momentary chaos 
and understood the consequences of impeaching Johnson. After it was 
revealed that the group of seven Republicans planned on voting against 
removal, a surge of public outrage was thrown down on the Senators. One 
Senator from Iowa, James Grimes, received so many physical threats that 
he suffered a stroke 2 days prior to the vote. Nevertheless, all 7 
Senators remained resolute and voted not guilty, making the final tally 
35 to 19, 1 short for conviction of impeachment.
  Both these examples, dealing with impeachment and not legislation 
specifically, call attention to how the Senate was designed to slow 
down bad policy. I believe what the majority leader is doing is bad 
policy, in terms of combining a multitude of bills--1,700 pages of 
bills that very few offices know the extent of--into one bill, and 
trumping all minority rights, which are a sacred and central feature of 
the Senate that should not be violated.
  Our Founders constantly warned about the tyranny of the majority. 
Madison called the Senate a necessary fence against the majority party, 
and the primary tool given to the minority was the informal principle 
of unlimited debate. Between 1917 and 1962, cloture--a motion to stop 
debate--only happened five times in this body--only five times. Eighty-
three times now the majority leader has filed cloture. Why has he done 
that? He doesn't want the debate. He does not want the debate. Opposite 
the best traditions of the Senate, the majority leader has filed 
cloture 83 times.

[[Page 15501]]

  One last point and I will finish. A hold on a bill is not blocking a 
bill from coming to the Senate floor. The rights are very clear of the 
majority leader. The majority leader can bring any bill to the floor 
anytime he wants. No Senator can stop it. So if you are holding a bill 
because you are saying I don't agree with a unanimous consent, which 
means I don't agree that we should not debate, I don't agree that we 
should not amend, and I don't agree that the public should not have a 
recorded vote on this bill, that does nothing to stop the bill from 
coming to the floor. What stops the bill from coming to the floor is 
the priorities of the majority, not the priorities of any other 
Senator.
  Debate, full, open, honest debate is great for this country. The 
hotline process with unanimous consent, passing bills in secret the 
American people don't know about, are not informed about, are not 
debated in the Senate, are not voted on in the Senate, goes against the 
tradition of the Senate. But it also robs us of freedom because the 
knowledge of what we do is as important as what we do. Without that 
knowledge by the American people, we are not the cooling saucer of 
thought, debate, calmness, and reason.
  The hold, which I have exercised, is the last check against the 
abusive hotline process. It may be that 70 or 80 Senators want to pass 
a bill, and that is great. Let's put it on the floor. Let's debate the 
bill. Let's have options to amend the bill and make people vote on 
commonsense items such as priorities, getting rid of waste, doing what 
every American has to do every day, and let's have that debate in front 
of the American people.
  There are 76 programs that are being held currently by a number of 
Senators. It comes to $70 billion of new spending. I have yet to have 
somebody from Oklahoma or any other State in the country tell me that 
with a $700 billion deficit this year, with $10 trillion in debt, with 
$1.4 billion in new debt a day and spending $1 million a minute in 
debt, that we ought to put $70 billion more on the backs of the 
American families. It may be that we need to put 70, but we need to 
take another 70 off.
  So the debate about the bill the majority leader will introduce is 
going to be a good debate. It will not stop the process. The rules are 
very clear. We will have a debate. The question will be: Will we have a 
debate that is open to true amendments, that is a full debate, and that 
will take the time to make sure every one of these 40 bills is 
thoroughly vetted with the American public?
  The final issues I wish to talk about are some of the bills that are 
in here.
  We reformed the National Institutes of Health last year. We said: 
Let's get politics out of it. Let's let peer-reviewed science tell us 
how we spend the money to the greatest benefit to help the greatest 
number of people. As soon as we passed that bill, we had five or six or 
seven new bills coming to tell them exactly where to spend the money 
because we could look good with constituencies, and yet we violated the 
very bill we passed that said we ought to let science guide us to make 
good decisions, make the priorities that are out there that help the 
most number of people with the greatest benefit in terms of science.
  There are going to be several bills in the one bill for that. I will 
gladly and readily defend my opposition to those bills. One is because 
they do not accomplish what they say they do. And No. 2 is they hurt 
other people by taking away limited resources, by placing them in a 
category that somebody else says is more important than what the 
science would say we can do best.
  There is the Emmett Till unsolved civil rights bill. I agree we ought 
to pass that bill, but I don't think we ought to add that money to our 
grandkids. I think we ought to get rid of the waste, fraud, abuse, and 
excesses at the Department of Justice and pay for it. It is a 
legitimate Federal role. It fits with the enumerated powers. Those were 
Federal laws violated in the fifties and sixties. But to pass that bill 
and not get rid of wasteful programs and not get rid of waste says we 
are only doing half the job. It is easier doing it that way. You don't 
make anybody mad or upset with you. But you don't do the best thing for 
our children and our grandchildren, and you certainly don't do the best 
thing for our country.
  It is interesting. I have sent two letters to the prime author of 
that bill. He has not had the courtesy to answer me once. He held a 
press conference that impugned I was a racist because I would not let 
that bill go through.
  The fact is, the statements are: You can't work and negotiate bills. 
We have offered amendments to pay for the bill, with which Mr. Sykes, 
the main supporter of this bill, agrees. What has happened is it is 
take it or leave it, no debate, no amendment, no working in the Senate 
to the best tradition of the body.
  So we have this statement made by Senator Harry Reid that you can't 
work with Coburn. I tell you, PEPFAR was a great bill. This Senate 
passed it. We were critical in terms of negotiating that bill. The 
Second Chance Act, which makes sure that we work against recidivism on 
prisoners throughout this country, we worked hard and changed that 
bill. On the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act, we negotiated well and got 
a great bill for every American so the insurance company can no longer 
discriminate against you if you have a genetic tendency and they cannot 
raise your premium. We have done a ton of things, but it is on the 
small bills which require people to work that we have not been able to 
accomplish that.
  I look forward to the next 2 weeks. I look forward to the weekend. 
Congress is about to go on vacation. Most Americans today with gas 
prices cannot go on vacation. And we are going to get a debate this 
weekend on these 40 bills. We probably won't have done anything 
significant yet about energy. So we are going to be debating spending 
$25 billion, $50 billion, maybe even $70 billion more, creating 50, 60, 
70 new programs, and you are still going to be paying $4.10 for your 
gasoline with no hope 10 years from now that things are going to be any 
different because we have our priorities wrong. We would rather look 
good to special interests and pass bills in the dark of night than 
debate them on the floor and put the priorities that should be in front 
of this country out there--energy, health care, Social Security reform, 
$300 billion worth of waste in the Federal Government every year. 
Nobody is doing a thing about it. Half the agencies will not even 
comply with the improper payments law. We have $3 billion a year spent 
at the Pentagon maintaining properties they don't want, but the 
Congress won't pass a true real property reform because it is held up 
by a homeless act, most of which none of the buildings are capable of 
being utilized by homeless individuals.
  What I say to my colleagues is let's have a debate. Let's see the 
rumble in America that thinks whether we are doing the right things, 
the right priorities. Do they want us to go down this road where we 
strangle the lifeblood economically from our children, we take away 
their ability to own a home, we take away their ability to get a 
college education, or should we be about real priorities? And if we are 
going to spend new money, shouldn't we be about getting rid of some of 
the $300 billion that is wasted every year right now?
  I don't have to take a poll about that one. That is a 90-plus-percent 
factor with the American people. It is only in the Senate that we don't 
get it, that we would rather spend time growing the Government and 
spending more money than fixing the real problems of this Nation.
  I look forward to the debate. I am excited about this weekend. My 
hope is we will have an open amendment process, one that does justice 
to the greatest traditions of the Senate but, more importantly, one 
that does justice to the American family and their children to come.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 15502]]


  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I have in my hand the bill Senator Reid 
just filed. There is no CBO score with this, and I object to the 
introduction of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________