[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17589-17624]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3001, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 732, S. 3001, a bill to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
     construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
     Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such 
     fiscal year, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12:30 shall be divided in alternating 30-minute blocks of time, 
with Republicans controlling the first block.


                                 Energy

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask if you would please notify us when 
10 minutes remain in our time so the Senator from Georgia can take the 
floor. We would like to continue with the colloquy.
  I know the Senator from Florida, Senator Martinez, is here. I know 
offshore drilling has been somewhat controversial in his State. I would 
like him to address that. But I would also like him to help us 
understand the bigger picture, and that is why the majority leader, who 
controls the agenda on the floor of the Senate, a Member of the other 
party, refuses to allow us to vote. I know Senator Obama has adamantly 
opposed any additional offshore exploration and production. One 
conclusion I guess you might draw is that the majority leader, by 
refusing an opportunity for Senators to vote, is somehow protecting the 
Presidential nominee, the presumptive Presidential nominee, from 
perhaps an embarrassing split in his own political party.
  I wonder if the Senator has any comments.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I am happy to comment on the situation in Florida and 
also what I think is an observation you made accurately in the larger 
political climate. They are related. The State of Florida has jealously 
guarded its offshore resources because we have a tremendous tourism 
economy, as does Texas in some parts of the State. However, $4 for a 
gallon of gas has caused a transformation in thinking. It has allowed 
us to see more clearly what is occurring. What is occurring to our 
Nation is not just that the people, the families, American families, 
are hurting at the pump when they go pump gas. Fortunately in Florida 
our winters are mild, but I understand the situation in New Hampshire 
and other cold States that is going to be coming up. This is hurting 
families. This is a problem to the American family, particularly those 
on fixed income, many of whom live in Florida.
  The problem becomes more acute because this also merges into our 
national defense, into our security as a nation. When the Persian Gulf 
war took place, Alaska increased its production of oil, and at that 
time they were producing at a capacity of 2.1 million barrels a day. 
Today they are only producing 700,000 barrels a day because the supply 
of oil in Alaska is dwindling because we are not allowed to develop 
additional resources there.
  What is occurring, essentially, is that the domestic supply of oil is 
ever decreasing, our percentage of dependence on foreign sources is 
ever increasing, while at the same time the price is going through the 
roof. It is a supply-and-demand problem that cries out for a solution.
  What has occurred? My own transformation has been that while I was 
adamantly opposed to any form of drilling, my own Governor took a 
forward-thinking position and decided maybe the time had come for us to 
reconsider and think a little differently about it. We still want to 
protect our coastline. We still want to protect our beaches. But at the 
same time, we have to recognize a new reality. That new reality 
requires us to adapt to the current circumstances. We are transferring 
wealth to the extent of $700 billion a year to foreign sources. It is 
unsustainable over a long period of time. America will be squandering 
its wealth purely to satisfy our demand for oil.
  Surely we have to do other things about renewables. We have to do all 
that. But at the end of the day, we have to do more on our own 
resources to produce more oil from America's soil.
  What has occurred is, in fact, the presumptive nominee of the 
Democratic Party and the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party 
have taken divergent points of view. Senator McCain, changing his 
position much as I have, has said: Times have changed. We have to drill 
in the offshore. Senator Obama remains stuck in the past. He is not for 
change. He is against change when it comes to taking care of America's 
oil resources. I believe what we are following is the dictates of 
higher powers. At the same time, the business of the Senate has ground 
to a halt. We have not been able to accomplish much because we have not 
been allowed to have the thorough debate we need to have on this very 
important issue.
  When I hear from Floridians today, they want us to move the business 
of Government, but they most of all want us to solve this problem. They 
do not want us to put it aside. They know they are hurting.
  They also realize, by the way, this is no panacea. We have no magic 
wand we can wave and lower prices tomorrow, but we can begin a trend 
that is going to trend in the downward direction if we begin to do 
something about opening America's resources to more drilling.
  Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Florida. In 
the real world, when the facts change, people are free to change their 
mind.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. That is right.
  Mr. CORNYN. I think $4 gasoline and $140-plus for a barrel of oil 
have caused a lot of people to rethink their prior positions. Gasoline 
was $2.33 when the Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007 but 
now is hovering around $4 a gallon, and I think it is only reasonable 
that people will reassess their decisionmaking. Indeed, I think we have 
seen that happen with the American people, if you look at public 
opinion polls, shifting to overwhelming support for exploration and 
production from the Outer Continental Shelf.
  I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, I know, as the Senator from 
Florida said, more oil is going to be a transitional step on our part 
because production globally is declining. Yet demand, especially from 
huge economies such as China and India, is going up. I know the Senator 
from New Hampshire is a big proponent of clean nuclear power. I wonder 
if he can comment on what he sees this transition looking like, in 
terms of starting with more American production but with

[[Page 17590]]

conservation, with renewable energy, and developing nuclear power.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Texas has been one of the best advocates 
on the floor for balance, which is what we need. The American people 
understand the basic common sense of an issue, which is we need to use 
all the different options we have at hand. We are a nation with great 
creativity, great ability to be innovative. We are also willing to push 
the envelope, to try to use technology to improve our situation.
  Not only do we need to find more, we need to use less. We need also 
to use our great strength in technology to advance our cause of 
delivering more American energy.
  Nuclear power is a classic example of that. We basically created 
nuclear power, the concept of it, and how to use it in a positive way. 
Yet for the last 27 years, because of the adamant and, in my opinion, 
inappropriate opposition of the most activist environmentalist groups 
in this country, we have not had a new nuclear powerplant application 
approved.
  New Hampshire, ironically, was the last State to bring online a 
nuclear powerplant. That occurred in the late 1980s. That nuclear 
powerplant was resisted by the Democratic leadership in the State and 
by the activist environmentalists in the State at a level which was 
basically civil disobedience. Thousands of people were arrested at the 
site where the plant was being built. It was delayed for almost 15 
years. The cost of it quadrupled--it went up by a factor of 10, I 
think.
  What happened in the end was the plant came online. What has happened 
since the plant has been online? It has produced safe, clean, reliable 
energy--not only for the people of New Hampshire but for the people of 
all the Northeast because it is producing so much energy it actually 
exceeds New Hampshire's needs. As a result, we have had an energy 
source which has saved us from having to buy thousands and thousands--
millions of barrels of oil. We should be doing that across the country.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. May I ask the Senator a question. This nuclear plant, 
does it produce greenhouse gases? Does it, in any way, harm the quality 
of air or produce the kinds of problems associated with global warming?
  Mr. GREGG. That is a good question and it is very important. Nuclear 
power is clean. It addresses the issue of global warming. It is the 
most effective energy we have for that. It has no emissions which 
basically go into the atmosphere and aggravate the issue of global 
warming, so it is the type of power we want. It is safe and it is ours. 
We do not have to buy it from some other country. It is very logical we 
should be aggressively pursuing nuclear power. Again, you have to 
appreciate the fact that the other side of the aisle and the leadership 
of the other side of the aisle, especially Senator Obama, are opposed 
to expanding the nuclear option for our Nation which, in my opinion, is 
cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is a very safe and 
usable form of energy which addresses the issue of global climate 
change in a positive way by still giving Americans American-purchased 
energy.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the Senator from New Hampshire, it does 
not make sense to me. The U.S. Navy, of course, as we know, has been 
using nuclear power for its aircraft carriers and submarines for, I 
think, 50 years and is able to do so safely and without incident.
  France generates 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power. 
In France, the environmental activists have actually cut a deal, as I 
understand it, with the nuclear power producers because they 
understand. They get the point the Senator from Florida makes, and the 
Senator from New Hampshire, that nuclear power is clean power. For 
those who are concerned about climate change, that would be one of the 
best things we could do to alleviate the pressure on the environment.
  I wish to get back, if I can for a second, because there has been a 
lot of talk, particularly the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, is 
talking about the need to develop new technology, to develop plug-in 
hybrid cars, battery-operated cars. I know there is a little confusion 
because right now we need transportation energy, which is basically oil 
and gasoline--aviation fuel to fly our airplanes. People wonder how 
does nuclear power or using coal in a clean way to generate electricity 
figure into that? The point we are trying to make is we need all of the 
above. We need to generate the electricity cleanly so we can use the 
new technology that we think will bring us into a clean energy future.
  I wish to ask both my colleagues to comment on a couple things. One 
of my constituents, T. Boone Pickens, is in town. He is a remarkable 
man. He has been very successful in the oil and gas business. He says 
we need a different way of looking at our energy future. He is 
advocating increased use of wind energy to generate electricity. He is 
advocating more use of natural gas because he says we have found ways 
to develop more of that here in America so we have to buy less--the 
point of the Senator from Florida. That is less money we have to send 
than the $700 billion we send overseas each year.
  Mr. GREGG. He also said, did he not, that we need to use everything. 
He didn't say don't use drilling; he said we have to drill everywhere 
we can in the United States, we have to use wind, we have to use solar, 
we have to use nuclear, we have to use everything, because we have to 
stop sending $700 billion, as the Senator from Florida mentioned, to 
people who do not like us--Venezuela and Iran. Let's keep it here, 
where we can use it to build our economy.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I remember him being asked: What do you feel about 
drilling? He said: I want to drill everywhere.
  Now, I am not there, because I don't want to drill everywhere. I want 
some beaches to be protected. But he was saying we need to drill, 
drill, drill. That is part of the answer. It is not going to get us out 
of the problem, but it is part of the solution.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have two points, and I would like to hear from both 
Senators. One is we hear from folks opposed to offshore drilling say we 
can't drill our way out of this.
  Other opponents of offshore exploration and production said: It is 
going to take too long.
  I wonder if the Senator from Florida and the Senator from New 
Hampshire have some thoughts about those. I happen to believe those are 
pulled out of context, particularly when it comes to Boone Pickens, 
because, as you said, we need it all. What is the best answer to that?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I would say that, no, we cannot drill our way out of 
the problem, but we can improve on the problem. Today, we use about 21 
million barrels of oil, and 5 million of those come from overseas. That 
is what turns into that $700 billion bill.
  What if we could add another million barrels to that production 
domestically? We will have ameliorated the problem by a significant 
percentage. What if we did 2 million barrels? All of a sudden, the 
equation is different and we can be more sustainable within our own 
resources.
  The second part of this is, it is not all about oil. It is about 
other things, such as oil shale. The Democrats oppose looking into that 
possibility. We have not been allowed to have a full discussion. 
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming should be allowed to develop this resource. 
I understand that we have an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil that 
can be produced from oil shale. So maybe we can drill our way out of 
this with enough creativity, enough technology, and enough resources 
being employed.
  So it is not going to just be about nuclear, although it ought to be 
nuclear. Florida has three nuclear powerplants built in the 1970s and 
1980s, and thank goodness for those because in Florida we cannot 
produce any oil, we do not have any hydro, and we depend on those 
nuclear powerplants to power ourselves. So thank goodness we have that.
  We also need to look at more production offshore. We need to do more 
oil shale, and the new technologies of wind

[[Page 17591]]

and solar and new battery technology--all of the above.
  My point is, we cannot drill our way out of this, but part of the 
solution is drilling. So it is not about suggesting that we should 
forget everything else and just drill, but it is to say that drilling 
as a component part of a comprehensive energy policy can move this 
country ahead, can move us forward.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, the point the Senator makes is extraordinarily 
valid. But there is an ancillary issue here, which is, not only do we 
need the energy to try to increase supplies and reduce the price, but 
it seems incomprehensible that we would not want to put in place 
programs which would relieve us from sending Americans' hard-earned 
dollars, you know, folks who are working every day, sending those 
dollars to Venezuela and Iran and other countries which hate us and 
want to do us harm. It seems that common sense would want us to produce 
American energy if we have American energy available to us and we can 
produce it in an environmentally sound way rather than send the money 
overseas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I want to ask the Senator from New Hampshire, the bill 
that was on the floor about 2 weeks ago was a bill to deal with 
speculation and the commodity futures market. Our point was, we should 
not just deal with part of it, part of the problem, we ought to deal 
with the whole problem. That is why we have insisted--in fact, we have 
demanded and we said we should not leave here until we have had an 
opportunity to vote on offshore production and those other good ideas.
  But I wonder if the Senator would address why the speculation 
component alone would be an insufficient response--may be part of the 
answer but certainly not the complete answer to the problems we face 
today?
  Mr. GREGG. The simple answer is that it does not produce any more 
energy. Yes, there is probably speculation in the market. Yes, we 
should have more transparency and more enforcement to make sure the 
market is not being abused. But that is not going to produce any more 
energy.
  We know there are 2.5 billion people between India and China, and 
they are starting to have much more high-quality lives, and so they are 
starting to buy cars, they are starting to buy motor scooters, they are 
starting to use energy. As a result, the demand for energy is 
accelerating dramatically. That is 2.2 billion more people than we have 
in the United States. So the simple math of it shows us we have to find 
more energy and we have to use less energy.
  That is why amendments brought to the floor which are directed at 
finding more energy--such as oil shale, drilling offshore, and 
nuclear--need to be addressed. We need to discuss them. I cannot 
understand why the other side of the aisle refuses to do that.
  I asked my staff to put together a chart which would summarize this 
in the most simple and stark way. Here is the chart. It is a big zero. 
It is a zero. Zero amendments are being allowed here. Zero new oil is 
being produced as a result of that. Zero new gas, zero new nuclear 
plants. Until we have some amendments on this floor which allow us to 
address these issues, we are still going to have zero as being the 
answer of the other party to how you produce more oil and more energy. 
It is not right. We should be getting down to the issue of what the 
American people want, which is to get the price of energy down by 
producing more and using less and producing more American energy rather 
than buying it from other countries that do not like us.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. The International Energy Agency painted a grim picture 
about the future. The report estimated that over 3.5 million barrels a 
day of new production will be needed each year just to hold the total 
production steady. So as India, China, and these other countries are 
rising in their demand, we need 3.5 million barrels a day of new oil 
just to keep the current standards of what we have. That is not just a 
U.S. problem, it is a global problem.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank my colleagues.
  We are going to relinquish the floor to the Senator from Georgia for 
the final comments.
  I would say in closing that I can anticipate what the argument is 
going to be when the majority leader comes out, and the whip--they are 
going to say it is all about Republican obstruction.
  But the problem is, we have insisted we are not going home, we are 
not going to quit, we are not going to change the topic until we get an 
opportunity to vote on what we believe will have the most direct impact 
on reducing gas prices: increasing supply and offering all of the above 
that we have discussed during this colloquy this morning. That is our 
position, and we believe that should be a bipartisan position. We 
invite our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in being 
part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the Senators from 
New Hampshire, Florida, and Texas, and would like to report an 
interesting occurrence that took place yesterday that kind of verifies 
exactly what Senator Cornyn said.
  After the vote on the media shield motion to proceed, I went back to 
my office and placed two phone calls, one to the president of the 
Georgia Press Association, the other one to the president of the 
Georgia Broadcasters Association. I told both of them: We have had 
conversations about the importance of media shield, and I know both of 
you are very interested in it. But I want to explain why a few minutes 
ago I cast a ``no'' vote on a motion to proceed to media shield.
  I said: The reason I did it, quite simply, is that for everybody in 
my State--and I would submit most everybody in the United States of 
America--the No. 1 issue is the high cost of energy and particularly 
the high cost of gasoline.
  Both men, both professional journalists, both presidents of their 
associations, said: We understand.
  The broadcasters said: Our talk shows are not calling in about media 
shield; they are calling in about the gas.
  The president of the press association said: Listen, I understand. 
Read our letters to the editor. I listen at the coffee shop. I know 
what Georgians are concerned about. It is the high price of energy and 
the high price of gas.
  So that is why I have remained committed to staying on the Energy 
bill until we find some way to bring Republicans and Democrats 
together. Both of us can give. I said in a speech the other day: We 
ought to put our donkeys and elephants in the barn and sit down and 
talk about ways to really meaningfully change the lives of the American 
people, not 20 years from now but today.
  The country is hungry for a Congress and for leadership that will say 
yes to more production, yes to more conservation, yes to a better 
environment, yes to a productive economy, all of which would be the 
result of a comprehensive, balanced approach toward energy. But a 
singular slingshot approach or a rifle approach, like just speculation 
or just drilling or just something else--we have to do it all. We have 
to do it comprehensively. We have it within our capabilities to do it 
right.
  As the Senators before me have stated, we have all kinds of 
resources. Many of these resources are not only abundant but they are 
cleaner than gasoline and they are cleaner than oil--nuclear energy, 
for example. In America, 19 percent of our electric energy is produced 
with nuclear; in France, it is 87 percent. Think about the difference 
that makes not only in the reliability and the cost of energy but the 
carbon-free emissions that come from nuclear versus the heavy carbons 
that come from the burning of oil or gas or coal or other sources.
  Ingenuity and innovation. The American people are a remarkable 
people. When confronted with whatever challenge, we have almost always 
come up with a solution. But sometimes those solutions either take 
inspiration or they take encouragement. When we needed to go to the 
Moon and win the space race, we had the inspiration of a great 
President, John Kennedy, to declare a goal to land a man on the Moon

[[Page 17592]]

and bring him back again before the end of the decade. We did not know 
how to do it, but we did it. We need a Congress that is just as bold 
today to say that $4 a gallon is too much for gasoline, carbon is too 
bad for our atmosphere, and fossil fuels are geopolitically not in our 
interest.
  It is time that we as America find ways through engineering and 
ingenuity to invent and to develop and to process those sources of 
energy that are clean, renewable, reliable, and less expensive. And we 
can do it. But you cannot do it if you stand in gridlock on the floor 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, unwilling to talk about 
all the issues.
  We all have our biases and we all have our prejudices, but all of us 
take an oath of office to represent the people of our State and to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and defend the 
domestic tranquility of our people. When your economy is tanking, when 
your debt is going up because of your addiction to foreign oil, and 
Congress sits here for 2 weeks and debates only one sliver of the 
solution without everything, then we are not living up to our 
responsibility.
  So if the Georgia Press Association understands, if the Association 
of Broadcasters understands, if the 17,488 people who communicated last 
week with my office about one issue--and that was cost of energy--
understand, why can't we in the Senate understand? We are all in this 
together. We are 100 coequals. We all have the same responsibility. And 
we ought to all have the same goal; that is, to find a way to thread 
the needle so we sit down and we develop a comprehensive energy program 
for the people of the United States of America.
  I did a talk show yesterday--actually, it was a television program 
where I was asked about this energy question. I was asked about the 
Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. I said that the Arab oil embargo of the 
1970s was an early warning. It gave us a second chance to address the 
energy question. But when prices went down in the 1980s and 1990s and 
the price of gasoline was not that high, we did not take that chance. 
Well, now prices have spiked to an alltime high.
  This is not a second chance for us in America, this is a last chance 
for us in America. A sustained cost of gas at $4 a gallon, oil at $120 
to $150 a barrel will break the U.S. economy. It will destroy the value 
of the U.S. dollar, and it will hurt the people of the United States of 
America.
  So it is time for us to put these prejudices aside, put them aside 
and sit down and be willing to agree. I will be the first person to lay 
on a table--I am willing to sit down and talk to anybody, anyplace, 
anywhere, about any singular facet of the energy crisis if they are 
willing to talk about the other facets of the energy crisis.
  As Boone Pickens said, drilling will not solve it, but it will help. 
Solar will not solve it, but it will help. Wind will not solve it, but 
it will help. Renewables will not solve it, but they will help. What we 
have to do is put together the pieces of the puzzle that are within our 
grasp and make sure the people of the United States have abundant 
energy at affordable prices. We are sitting on a ham sandwich, starving 
to death. We are not developing the resources we have at our disposal, 
and because of that, our citizens are paying a dramatic price.
  Anytime, anyplace, anywhere, let's start talking about solutions 
rather than continuing to perpetuate the problem.
  I yield back any time we have remaining, and I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the 
floor at 2 o'clock for the purpose of a colloquy between Senators 
Durbin, Murray, Schumer, Dorgan, and Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I don't think it will--we will have that happen at the half 
hour. I don't think we will use all the time. That is the Democratic 
time. We will just work the Republican time at 2:30 or 3 o'clock and 
thereafter.
  Is there an order in effect now as to what will happen after lunches 
as to the allocation of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The current order provides allocation of time 
until 12:30 p.m.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent--if I could have the attention of 
the distinguished Republican leader, the time has been allocated until 
12:30 today. So 11:30 is Republican time, from 12:30 to 1:00 would be 
the Republican time again; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. So I ask that the time be allocated every half hour until 5 
o'clock tonight, and that I be recognized at 2 o'clock for the half 
hour of Democratic time under the conditions I mentioned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would also say that if we have any 
conference reports that we can agree on, whoever's time it is, we will 
interrupt and try to do that--if, in fact, we get an agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. If we are in a quorum call----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in a quorum call.
  Mr. COBURN. I think I have until 11:45, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order as to time.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans control the time until noon.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, our side of the aisle has allowed me until 
11:45 to speak.


                              Katy French

  Mr. President, I am on the Senate floor for a lot of reasons at a lot 
of different times, but today is extremely unusual. I wish to spend the 
time talking about how important staff is in Washington. We are only 
capable of doing and accomplishing what we accomplish because we have 
staff here to help us.
  I have had the great fortune over the last 3\1/2\ years to have 
someone on my staff who has displayed character virtues like none other 
I have seen in my career. She will be leaving my staff. Her name is 
Katy French. She has a master's in public health from Harvard. She has 
been on the front lines of HIV/AIDS since the epidemic came about. She 
worked for both Senator Gregg and Senator Brownback. The 
characteristics about her that make her great--in Oklahoma we would say 
her ``plow runs deep.'' She is well-rooted in the principles of 
liberty.
  What she has done with that principle is recognize that if you are 
free, and you have liberty and yet you don't spend your life helping 
other people, the liberty is for naught. So she has been a great 
example to me and my staff over the last 3\1/2\ years for her tireless 
dedication--which all on our staff have--and for bringing with that 
well-rootedness, that deep-rootedness, the ability to challenge a 
Senator, to tell us what she thinks even though we may not like it, to 
bring forth ideas that aren't in the conservative realm yet are 
humanitarian, great ideas, the ideas to help people. The people who 
know Katy French know she means business, but that business has always 
involved taking care of people.
  One of the first things she did as my staff director on the Federal 
Financial Management Subcommittee was set up a hearing on malaria. What 
we know is millions of people today in Africa are being cured of 
malaria because we, in fact, changed that program. The oversight 
hearings we held changed the direction. I know the Presiding Officer of 
the Senate now, the Senator from Ohio, is very much interested in that 
topic. Through her work, millions of Africans are alive today who would 
not otherwise be alive because the program was changed where we 
actually made a difference.
  I can't think of any greater tribute to an individual who comes to 
work to

[[Page 17593]]

help us in the Senate than to measure the value of what they have done 
in terms of the lives that have been made better, made healthier, and 
have forgone a serious disease and dread. She also conducted more 
hearings in our subcommittee than any other committee or subcommittee 
in the entire Senate in the 109th Congress. Most staff directors of 
committees know--and subcommittees know--how hard it is to put together 
and hold hearings.
  Probably the greatest tribute to Katy is the fact that she didn't 
stop with that. When the Pope was here in his visit this last year, he 
called on America's youth to reach out and make a difference. Katy is 
in the middle of her career. She has made a big difference in the 
Senate for three separate Senators. She has made a big difference in 
terms of the PEPFAR legislation--the original legislation and the 
legislation that we just passed and the President has signed. She 
listened to that call to make a difference. So it is both a sad time 
and a happy time for me to know that Katy is joining a religious order 
to further her life in giving to other people.
  She is foregoing money. She is foregoing material things. In fact, 
she will be in an order that was established some 30 years ago 
associated with the Catholic Church out of Argentina that she will 
dedicate the rest of her life to, making a difference--a real 
difference--in other people's lives.
  She will be focusing on troubled urban youth. Her characteristics and 
multilingual talents will lead her in that direction. To me, the 
greatest compliment you can have as a Senator is to have a staff member 
leave for such a higher calling. For Katy and all of those who work in 
our office and on behalf of the Senate, and as a reflection of the rest 
of the staff of the Senate, we thank you for your efforts on behalf of 
freedom.
  I thank you, Katy, for your efforts on behalf of our office and what 
we are trying to do for the people of Oklahoma. Most importantly, I 
thank you for your grasp of faith and what it means to truly give up 
your life so that in the words of that man from Nazareth: ``He who is 
last will be first.''
  Katy French has lived that example. We will miss her.
  I thank the Senate for the time.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      American Energy Freedom Day

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to invite my colleagues to 
join me in supporting American Energy Freedom Day on October 1, 2008.
  On this day, the current prohibitions on oil and gas exploration off 
the Outer Continental shelf and in the oil shale fields of the West 
will expire, giving Americans the freedom to access their own energy 
reserves and providing them with relief from sky-high prices at the 
pump.
  Estimates indicate there are upwards of 18 billion barrels of 
recoverable crude oil in the off-limit areas of the Outer Continental 
Shelf, as well as more than 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In 
addition, estimates indicate that between 800 billion and 2 trillion 
barrels of oil can be drawn from American oil shale.
  Taking advantage of American resources will increase the worldwide 
supply of petroleum and bring down prices at the pump. The very access 
to these resources will send powerful price-reducing signals to the 
futures market, providing immediate relief for all Americans.
  For over 25 years, Democrats have denied Americans the freedom to 
access their own energy, making our Nation more and more dependent on 
foreign oil. Each year, they have continued the ban on American energy. 
Now it is time for them to get out of the way and open up American 
energy supplies.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support Energy Freedom Day and 
allow the prohibitions on American energy exploration to expire once 
and for all. We must actively oppose any attempt to extend these bans 
on American prosperity and security. Now is not the time to deny 
Americans access to their own energy.
  October 1 is going to be a great day for all Americans. I invite my 
colleagues to join me in supporting American Energy Freedom Day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                            renewable energy

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance 
of renewable energy and addressing our current energy crisis in the 
United States. We need a comprehensive approach to our energy problems 
in the United States. Renewable energy is one of the answers.
  Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from the State of Washington, and 
I have been working tirelessly together, in a bipartisan way, to get a 
renewable energy bill passed through the Senate, passed through the 
House, and onto the President's desk for a signature. I applaud her for 
her efforts in this battle.
  We passed our renewable energy bill--a bipartisan bill--back in 
April. We attached it to the housing bill that was done then. It passed 
this body with a vote of 88 to 8. Not too often around here do you see 
Republicans and Democrats joining together in such a bipartisan way. 
But it shows you the kind of support this body has shown toward 
renewable energy. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the House of 
Representatives blocked our renewable energy bill from being considered 
as part of the housing bill.
  Once again, we attempted, in July, to get our amendment added to the 
housing bill that would expand renewable energy, such as solar, wind, 
geothermal, and other types of green energy to the United States. We 
would have been able to attach that to the housing bill if the majority 
party had allowed us to have that kind of a vote. Unfortunately, they 
used the excuse it wasn't paid for and that the House of 
Representatives--the Democrats in the House--would block our piece of 
legislation from being considered in the final package.
  So we offered a compromise and we said, OK, we will pay for it, 
except that instead of raising taxes to ``pay for it,'' we will offer 
spending cuts. The Federal Government is too big anyway. We said let's 
have a very small ``haircut'' from nonveteran spending programs across 
the board. We will do across-the-board spending cuts--a tiny 
percentage.
  Once again, the Democratic majority said no. It was very 
disappointing. We need to come together in a bipartisan way to address 
the energy needs of this country. Republicans have been saying: Let's 
do a comprehensive approach; let's include renewable energy and more 
conservation, but let's also pass a comprehensive bill that allows us 
to drill in places such as our Outer Continental Shelf. Deep sea 
exploration is a great way for us to bring more oil and natural gas to 
the United States, to make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
  My colleague from South Carolina talked about oil shale. Up to 2 
trillion barrels of oil--which is three times more oil than Saudi 
Arabia has--is potentially available between Wyoming, Colorado, and 
Utah. Right now, we have a moratorium put on that. Why? Because the 
Democratic majority put that into law last year.
  We need to repeal that moratorium so that progress can go forward to 
make us less dependent on countries that--frankly, a lot of them don't 
like us. Whether it is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or some of the other 
more volatile regions of the world where we get a lot of our oil today, 
those are not exactly the places where we should be sending our money.
  Currently, the United States sends about $700 billion a year 
overseas, funding a lot of governments that are not our friends. We, as 
Republicans and Democrats, need to lay our party labels aside and 
become Americans. Let's do something that is right for the country. 
Let's bring more American energy production to America, so we are less

[[Page 17594]]

dependent on other governments around the world.
  I strongly believe we need to tap more of our coal reserves. That is 
one of our cheapest forms of power we have in the United States. There 
is exciting new technology for coal, called carbon recapture 
technology. Senator Kerry and I have a subcommittee--he is chairman and 
I am the ranking member--and we have done several hearings over the 
last couple of years on this carbon recapture technology to make coal 
even cleaner than it is today. That carbon recapture technology is 
exciting. We are talking about capturing 95 percent of all of the 
carbon produced by coal. It can produce more and more electricity for 
the United States.
  When we are talking about battery technologies for cars, or hybrids, 
you can also produce more electricity so that we can take natural gas 
away from some of these powerplants and convert some of our cars to 
natural gas. All of this will lower the price of gasoline, because we 
will need less.
  Today, the price of oil and gas is up so high because there is more 
demand than there is supply. The world is demanding more energy, 
including oil, than it is currently supplying. That is the reason the 
price has been going up. That is the reason prices will continue on 
their upward trend over the next several years, unless we bring more 
supplies. I would like more of those supplies to be right here in 
America. I think that is the right thing to do. It is good from a 
national security standpoint, from an economic security standpoint, and 
it is good for the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans across our 
country.
  I call on my colleagues to look at a comprehensive approach that 
would include renewables, more conservation, and looking for more 
American energy in the form of oil and natural gas. It is the right 
thing to do for the American people.
  It is time for us to act and to quit playing more politics. The motto 
on the Republican side has been to ``find more and use less.'' Well, 
the only way we are going to be able to do that, frankly, is for the 
Democrats to talk less and start voting more. We need to have 
amendments that are fully debatable on the Senate floor, because there 
are answers out there. There are no silver bullets, but in a 
comprehensive approach, we can have answers to bring down the cost of 
gasoline in the United States.
  Let's join together as Republicans and Democrats and act for the good 
of the American people.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


           One-Year Anniversary of the I-35W Bridge Collapse

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, tomorrow at 6:05 p.m. Minnesota time, 
it will be exactly 1 year since the horrific collapse of the I-35W 
bridge. It is a day and a moment when all Minnesotans will always 
remember where they were. They will remember what they were doing, they 
will remember what they heard, and they will remember the pictures. 
Minnesotans will even remember the weather and what it was like that 
day because as if to symbolize what was to come, that warm summer day 
started with clear skies, but by late afternoon, dark and ominous storm 
clouds had begun forming on the horizon, with thunder rumbling in the 
distance. Then after the bridge collapsed, as if to provide relief for 
the rescuers, the storms retreated.
  I know many people across America will also remember that day, and 
they will think about those who died and those who survived, 
miraculously, on that bridge.
  I know my colleagues in the Senate will also remember. I thank each 
and every one of them for their tremendous sympathy and concern for the 
people of my State following the bridge collapse. On behalf of all 
Minnesotans, I wish to say how grateful we are for the bipartisan 
support in the days after that bridge collapse, the immediate funding 
for emergency relief, and then the funding for the bridge so that 
bridge could be built again.
  This support from the Senate and the Congress helped lay the 
groundwork for the fast and efficient reconstruction of the bridge. In 
fact, a new bridge already spans the river. It is expected that by the 
end of the year, possibly within the next month or two, cars and trucks 
will again be crossing over the Mississippi River on the newly 
constructed 35W bridge. My home is only 6 blocks away. So my family and 
I look forward to, once again, driving across the 35W bridge.
  Not only in Congress but across the Nation, the catastrophic failure 
of this bridge provoked deep concern that it might not be an isolated 
incident, that there might be a broader problem with bridges across the 
country. That is because a bridge should not fall down in the middle of 
America on the 1st day of August in 2007, especially not an eight-lane 
interstate highway, especially not one of the most heavily traveled 
bridges in the State, especially not during rush hour, in the heart of 
a major metropolitan area.
  But on August 1 of last year, the 35W bridge in Minneapolis fell 
down. So tomorrow, 1 year later, we remember the 13 people who lost 
their lives on that bridge, and we remember the 145 people who were 
injured, many of them now living with serious and permanent injuries.
  Tomorrow we also remember the many people--the police officers, the 
firefighters, the paramedics, the citizen bystanders who risked their 
lives by running toward that catastrophe and not away from it.
  When I watched what unfolded that night, I was shocked and horrified. 
But as the evening wore on and the days went by, the entire world 
watched our State come together, and I was proud to be a Minnesotan.
  We saw the heroes. We saw them in the face of unimaginable 
circumstances. We saw the off-duty Minnesota firefighter, Shanna 
Hanson, who grabbed her lifejacket. She was off duty, but she was among 
the first on the scene. She was tethered to a yellow life rope and she 
was in the midst of broken concrete and shards as she swam from car to 
car, in and out, in and out of that river searching for survivors.
  We saw a school bus perched precariously on the falling bridge deck. 
I like to call it the ``Miracle Bus,'' perched on that falling bridge 
deck, on the side, ready to fall in. Inside were dozens of kids from a 
Minneapolis neighborhood who had been on a swimming field trip. Their 
bus was crossing the bridge when it collapsed. Thanks to the quick 
action of responsible adults and the kids themselves, they all 
survived.
  Now, with the perspective of a year, what can we learn from this 
catastrophe? Well, first, the emergency response to the bridge collapse 
demonstrated an impressive level of preparedness that should be a model 
for the Nation. You can never feel good about a tragedy such as this, 
but I do feel good about our police officers, our firefighters, our 
paramedics, and our first responders. Look at the scene they came upon, 
this enormous eight-lane highway in the middle of the water, a storm 
above them, and they dove into that water and literally saved hundreds 
of people.
  This week, the Hennepin County Medical Center, located only blocks 
from the bridge, was honored with a national award for extraordinary 
response to this crisis. As the Hennepin County attorney for 8 years, I 
remember meeting with the sheriff, the police chief, and other 
officials as we planned and practiced for disaster relief drills after 
9/11. Even though no one imagined a major bridge would collapse, the 
result of all that planning and the preparation was evident on the 
night of August 1 when our survivors were quickly rushed to the 
hospital.
  Second, we saw how important it was to move forward and build a new, 
safe bridge, and I will show you the bridge as it stands 1 year later. 
Again, it is 6 blocks from my house, so I have been able to watch its 
progress. You can see this bridge now. The last piece actually

[[Page 17595]]

was just added, and it is spanning this huge river, the Mississippi 
River. It is an eight-lane highway.
  So what happened in Washington? In 3 days, the Senate voted to 
provide $250 million in emergency bridge construction funding. 
Representative Jim Oberstar led the way in the House, and it was a 
bipartisan effort in the Senate as Senator Coleman and I worked 
together on the relief.
  I personally thank Senator Durbin and Senator Patty Murray for 
assisting me with this. I still remember the day the Senate voted for a 
billion dollars for bridge reconstruction across the country, but it 
didn't include the funding for our bridge. I came in early, and I sat 
at my desk, and I said I wasn't going to leave until we got our 
amendment to fund the construction on our bridge. The pages and the 
chaplain came in, and the Senate was starting, and Senator Durbin came 
and sat next to me and he said: Somehow I think you are here to do more 
than pray. He helped me, and we got that amendment through and we got 
it passed.
  Approval of this funding came with remarkable speed and 
bipartisanship. Capitol Hill veterans tell us it was a rare feat to get 
it done so quickly.
  What else can we learn from this bridge? Third, we must still get to 
the bottom of why this enormous bridge fell into the middle of the 
Mississippi River. It didn't happen because of a barge or some kind of 
electrical storm or tornado. It just fell down. Evidence is 
accumulating that the bridge's condition had been deteriorating for 
years and that it had been the subject of growing concern within the 
Minnesota Department of Transportation. This wasn't a bridge over 
troubled waters, this was a troubled bridge over waters. Still, as a 
former prosecutor, I know we must wait until all the facts and evidence 
are in before we reach a verdict. We will need to be patient as the 
investigation continues.
  Mark Rosenker, the Chairman of the NTSB, the National Transportation 
Safety Board, said the other day that the NTSB investigation is nearing 
completion and that a final report should be ready for public release 
within 100 days. Already, the NTSB has publicly released a number of 
documents, photographs, diagrams, and other evidence that are part of 
their investigation. We know this bridge had problems, and we look 
forward to the NTSB report to give us definitive answers.
  Finally, the bridge collapse in Minnesota has shown us that America 
needs to come to grips with the broader questions about our 
deteriorating infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge disaster shocked 
Americans into a realization of how important it is to invest in safe, 
strong, and sound infrastructure.
  As if we didn't know already, Minnesotans got a reminder a few months 
after the 35W bridge collapsed, because we learned another bridge of a 
similar design was inspected and found to be in serious trouble. That 
bridge is in St. Cloud, MN, a major regional city in central Minnesota, 
which is now closed with plans to replace it.
  Unfortunately, it took a disaster to put this issue of infrastructure 
squarely on the agenda of this Congress. According to the Federal 
Highway Administration, more than 25 percent of the Nation's 600,000 
bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. 
That is more than 150,000 bridges. When 25 percent of all American 
bridges are in need of serious repair or replacement, it is time to 
act.
  When we don't have enough money to build new bridges or repair the 
ones we already have, there is clearly a problem with our priorities. 
And when the American people question the integrity of the bridges they 
cross every day, we must act. Putting it all together with the bridge 
collapse in Minnesota, this should be a national call to action on 
infrastructure.
  Senator Durbin and I recently introduced the National Bridge 
Reconstruction and Inspection Act. This legislation has already passed 
the House and we hope it will move quickly in the Senate. This is only 
a start, but it is a good start, if the Senate will pass it and the 
President will sign it. I am hopeful it will get us headed in the right 
direction.
  In closing, I note one final lesson. What happened a year ago in 
Minnesota reminds us that disasters can bring out the worst or the best 
in people. They can divide us or they can unite us. I believe the 
catastrophe, the collapse of the I-35W bridge, brought out the very 
best in Minnesotans and it united us. We joined together for the 
rescue, we joined together for the recovery, and we joined together for 
the rebuilding. I hope that going forward the ultimate legacy of the 
35W bridge collapse can be something positive for our Nation. I hope it 
can bring out the best in all Americans and unite us as we address the 
pressing infrastructure issues facing our country.
  Tomorrow, as we remember and as we grieve for the bridge victims and 
their families, let us also look ahead and move forward and take the 
action necessary to make sure that no bridge ever again falls down in 
the middle of America.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time remains in this half-hour 
allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes remain on the Democratic time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I came expecting to be recognized at 
12:10, so I think what I will do, I believe my colleague from Minnesota 
apparently is seeking time as well. I assume my colleague from 
Minnesota is seeking time in the second half-hour allotted; is that 
correct?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I am seeking time to follow on the 
remarks of my colleague from Minnesota reflecting on the collapse of 
the bridge, but I will defer to my colleague from North Dakota.
  Madam President, how much time is left in the majority's time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes for the majority.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me, in the spirit of allowing the 
two Senators from Minnesota to be able to complete their discussion of 
the bridge collapse, which is truly a tragedy, let me ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from Minnesota be recognized for that 8-minute 
period, and that the majority side be allowed to claim 8 minutes in the 
next half-hour, if that is what the Senator is suggesting.
  The next half-hour belongs to the minority. If the Senator wishes to 
agree to a unanimous consent request that our side use 8 minutes in the 
next half-hour, I would be happy to have him go now.
  Mr. COLEMAN. No objection, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I first thank and applaud my colleague 
for the leadership she has shown in dealing with the challenges this 
Nation faces on infrastructure. We need to do something about it. She 
moved forward aggressively after the bridge collapse, and I joined her 
and applaud her for those efforts.
  Like everyone who suffers loss, the people of Minnesota have come to 
a tragic anniversary, a hole in the calendar where we confront the pain 
of our past. Friday, at 6:05 p.m., we commemorate the moment when the 
I-35W bridge collapsed, taking the lives of 13, injuring hundreds, and 
disrupting the lives of untold thousands.
  I have a few words to share as we observe this first memorial.
  So much of what Minnesota was, is, and will become is tied to our 
rivers and bridges. Before the roads and the railroads, rivers were 
Minnesota's fluid highways through difficult terrain. European 
settlement followed the rivers. Because of Minnesota's unique 
geography, our rivers flow out toward all the points of the compass, 
which is why we call ourselves ``The Headwaters State.''
  But rivers can be barriers as well as thoroughfares, so towns and 
cities grew up around bridges which allowed people to move 
perpendicular to the river flows. More than a century later, we

[[Page 17596]]

are a State of river towns and bridge towns.
  That is why the I-35W bridge collapse was so significant humanly and 
spiritually to Minnesotans. It fell not far from the Falls of St. 
Anthony, the head of navigation of one of the world's great rivers. It 
fell where Father Louis Hennepin became the first European to look on 
the area which comprises Minneapolis today. It fell where huge early 
19th century flour mills, textile mills, lumber processors, and 
railroad terminals met to create an economic boom which put Minnesota 
on the map. It fell at the heart of our heartland.
  It has been said that adversity doesn't create character, but it 
surely does reveal it. We witnessed that in the days following August 
1, and it continues to this hour. Preparation is a virtue, and our Twin 
Cities learned the valuable lesson of 9/11, that we have to get ready 
for the unthinkable. When it happened to us, there was an 
extraordinarily well-coordinated response from law enforcement, medical 
institutions, and other first responders. The speed and professionalism 
of their actions are a textbook case of emergency response.
  We also experienced amazing spontaneous acts of heroism. It is our 
natural instinct to run from pain and danger, and on this occasion, 
hundreds of regular Minnesotans ran toward the pain and toward the 
danger and saved many lives. In the days following the disaster, the 
364 days preceding today, we have seen an unprecedented unity of effort 
among all branches of government and levels of government, without 
regard to party or position. Our single goal has been to raise a new 
bridge over our old river that we can be proud of and that we can 
trust, as the pictures shown by my colleague from Minnesota reflect. 
Our goal has also been to care for those who have been injured, and we 
have done that.
  But this is a day to remember those who have been lost: Greg Joldstad 
of far northern Kanabec County, a construction worker on the bridge; 
Sadiya Sahal, her daughter Hana, and her unborn child; Paul Eickstadt 
of Mounds View, 10 miles north of the bridge; Vera Peck and her son 
Richard Chit, who had an inseparable bond; Scott Sathers, a young 
husband of Minneapolis; Peter Hausman, a computer security specialist; 
Christina Sacorafas, of White Bear Lake; Julia Blackhawk of Savage, MN, 
10 miles south of the bridge; Patrick Holms, also from Mounds View; 
Sherry Engebretsen, a wife, mom, and businesswoman from Shoreview; and 
Artemio Trinidad-Mena of Minneapolis.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence and reflection 
in their honor.
  (Moment of silence observed.)
  Madam President, sometimes a meaningful silence is the only answer.
  I conclude with the ancient words I have prayed many times this last 
year, the Hebrew Kaddish, prayed by Jewish mourners for centuries. It 
ends as follows:

       May there be abundant peace from Heaven and life upon us 
     all and upon all Israel, now say amen. He who makes peace in 
     his heights, may he make peace upon us all and upon his 
     Nation, Israel. Now say amen.

  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we may be hours or a day away from 
adjourning for the August recess. At the same time, many of us have 
said there is no more important issue for this Senate to be dealing 
with than the issue of energy and the price of gas at the pump. For the 
last year, the American consumer has gone through increasing price 
shocks as they have seen more and more of their family budget left at 
the service station or gas station every time they fill the family car. 
First it was $15, then $20, then $25, then $30, $40, $50, and in some 
instances now and in certain locations $60 to fill the family car. If 
that family car is also the vehicle in which they commute to their 
workplace and they have to fill it several times a week, it has become 
a dramatic hit on the American family in a way that has now clearly 
registered in polling across our country and in what we are hearing 
every day in our phone calls coming in from those distressed Americans 
out there who are paying more for energy than they ever have before.
  That is just one side of the energy equation. Our whole world, our 
whole economy runs on energy. The cost of that energy in that economy 
has to be felt--whether it is in the heating of the home or the 
processing, manufacturing, or growing of food. All segments of our 
economy feed on energy and feed, basically, on gas or hydrocarbons that 
are reduced into gas and diesel and oil and plastics and the refining 
of energy. All of them have also become factors for which the average 
American--and certainly the average Idahoan--is paying now at a higher 
price than they have ever paid.
  In my great open Western State of Idaho, we travel long distances. 
The majority of our people do not live downtown, don't live in the 
suburbs. They live out in the countryside. Going to town is a trip that 
is not unusual to rack up 50, 60, 70, 80 miles. I grew up on a ranch 
that was 30 miles from the nearest community. It was not unrealistic, 
when my mother went to town to acquire groceries or do the family 
shopping, to travel 60 or 70 or 80 miles in one round trip. That still 
goes on today in many of our Western States. So the cost for that 
family has gone up dramatically, also, simply by the character of where 
we live.
  Yet, for the last 2 weeks, in an effort to try to deal with this 
issue on the floor of the Senate by allowing the offering of amendments 
that would in many ways cause production to begin once again in this 
country in locations where we know oil exists today but they have been 
taken off limits for political reasons--in that debate over the last 2 
weeks, the leadership, the Democratic Party, the majority leader has 
stopped us from doing so on at least six different occasions.
  Why, I am not sure--why any leadership of the great Senate would stop 
this Senate from doing what the American consumer and the American 
voter are asking for is largely beyond me. I could speculate--and I 
have, on numerous occasions, in speeches on the floor over the last 
several weeks, as have my colleagues. But one thing is clear: On six 
occasions, the majority leader, the Democratic leader, has said: No, we 
will not proceed to offer amendments to allow or to cause this country 
to become once again a producing nation.
  Now we are about ready to try a seventh time. I am told that on the 
Defense Authorization Act, cloture has been filed. That is a procedure 
we use here in the Senate ultimately to force a vote on whether we will 
proceed to go to Defense authorization. We could vote on that today if 
we all agreed or we could vote on it tomorrow, as the cloture motion 
ripens--the term we use here in the Senate when all time has run out. I 
know what our vote is going to be. As important as Defense 
authorization is, we are going to say no. There is something even more 
important today to every American than that Defense authorization; that 
is, the price of energy at the pump which is literally sucking the 
family budget dry.
  What do we do? My guess is we are going to adjourn for the August 
recess having done nothing. Every Senator here is going to go home. I 
hope they go home to explain to their voters and to their State why 
they would not vote for increased production; why they will not allow 
this great country of ours to get in the business of producing energy 
once again.
  The President has responded. He removed the moratoria he had placed 
on Outer Continental Shelf drilling. Prices dropped a little as a 
result of that. Yesterday, the Interior Department initiated a 5-year 
oil and gas leasing program for the OCS. They are preparing, if we act, 
to expedite and allow these areas in which we believe production can go 
on to go on there sooner. We have heard the argument

[[Page 17597]]

here on the floor that it is 5 or 6 or 7 years away. No, it is not. In 
many areas, it could be as short as 2 or 3 years. And the anticipation 
of coming into the market in 2 or 3 years, in nearly everyone's opinion 
who understands oil markets--they would tell you it would bring the 
price of that product down now in the market.
  The price already is coming down--not because of our actions but 
because of a beleaguered consumer out there who simply cannot afford 
the price anymore. That consumer and his or her family are already 
making decisions to shrink their travel and shrink their gas budgets. 
They are doing so.
  In the last 4 months comparable to the 4 months of a year ago, the 
American family has driven 40 billion fewer miles. They didn't want to, 
they didn't want to alter their lifestyle, but they did. The reason 
they did is they just simply did not have the money to go forward. The 
price began to drop. Across America today, the gas price in many States 
has now dropped below $4 a gallon.
  You see the marketplace is out there, and what we have said about 
supply and demand is true in the market even though here in the Senate 
the action to deny production is to deny that the marketplace exists. 
What is going on today across America is living proof that market 
exists.
  What can we do? If we were able to act as we have asked our majority 
leader here in the Senate to allow us to do, we could gain access to 
what we believe is about 30 billion barrels of known oil reserves in 
the Outer Continental Shelf. We think there is an additional 85 billion 
barrels of undiscovered resources out there, simply, if we are allowed 
to explore and develop the resources we know are there that are off 
limits today--if.
  If I were allowed to offer an amendment, here is the amendment I 
would offer. I would go to what we call the eastern gulf that is now 
off limits and I would say: 50 miles out from the shoreline along 
Florida in the eastern gulf, this would be open for leases. We believe 
there are over 2 billion barrels of oil out there and trillions of 
cubic feet of gas. Right across here are the pipelines and the 
infrastructure we could connect to, which would go into the refining 
areas in Louisiana and Texas.
  Doesn't that make sense? Even Floridians who once said: No, we do not 
want any drilling, are now by their latest polling saying: Yes, we do, 
because we, too, are going broke at the pump. We want an opportunity to 
do so.
  Of course, what Floridians know is that if oil is discovered here, 
they will share in the money that comes from it, and that can go into 
their educational programs and their State budgets and potentially 
reduce the tax burden on the average Floridian, along with bringing the 
price of gas down at the pumps in Florida.
  I have offered that amendment. I filed that amendment at the desk. 
Yet the majority leader of the Senate has said no, that amendment will 
not be offered.
  Ultimately, it will be offered. Ultimately, someday the voter is 
going to say: We have had enough of this. We are not going to stand by 
and let the Senate of the United States block us from the resources 
that are ours as a nation, that need to be developed, that can bring 
the price of energy down.
  It is a pretty simple equation and, as many of us have said, this is 
an interim solution. Many of us have called it a bridge to the future. 
The Energy Policy Act we passed in 2005, and the new Energy Policy Act 
we passed in 2007, already the Senate of the United States was 
recognizing that the day of a nation living exclusively on oil as a 
form of transportation energy was a day that would ultimately end and 
that we would invest in hybrids and electric-powered cars and new 
technologies.
  I am very proud, in my State of Idaho, that, in part, we have led 
those kinds of technologies in our national energy laboratory in Idaho 
Falls. Hydrogen cars and hydrogen initial combustion vehicles and full-
sized electric cars have been experimented with and are being developed 
at that laboratory and in other facilities across the Nation.
  But that is not going to be available tomorrow. It takes billions of 
dollars and 10 or 15 years for a lot of this new technology to come 
online and be available to the American consumer. So do we sit idly by 
and allow the family budget to be drained away? Do we sit idly by and 
buy from foreign nations the billions of barrels of oil we currently 
buy from them and pay $1.2 billion a day to a foreign nation and drain 
not only our family budgets dry but our national treasure?
  It is a phenomenal dilemma we have put ourselves in. As you note, I 
used the word ``we'' put ourselves in because it is folks on the floor 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives across the Rotunda from 
us who have put these properties off-limits, who have put Alaska's oil 
off-limits, all in the name of the environment.
  We caused this crisis, and American families now know it. Eighty 
percent of American families and consumers out there are saying: 
Congress, fix it. For 3 weeks we have been on the floor trying to do 
that, and every time we try it, we are denied that opportunity in the 
raw name of politics.
  Well, we are about to go home. I hope in the raw name of politics, 
America's voters rise and say to their politicians: Go back to 
Washington and do your work and do it in a way that allows this great 
Nation of ours to once again become a producing Nation, not just a 
consuming Nation.
  We know the resources are there. Our national geologic survey says 
they are there. We know they are there because they have been put off-
limits in the name of the environment years ago when gas was cheap. But 
many of us who have worked in this area for a long while said the day 
would come when there would be a break point and no longer would 
America be sitting with cheap energy available in an unlimited way. 
That day is here.
  Yet, politically, we are bound up. We cannot move. I guess we will 
now not move to do what we ought to be doing for the American consumer, 
acting and allowing these resources to become available so we can 
develop them in a safe and clean environmental way for the American 
consumers to use.
  This is a challenge for all of us, but it is a challenge we are 
capable of meeting if we simply surpass the politics of the moment and 
get on with the business of this great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, are we in morning business at this 
point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to proceed to S. 3001, 
and the minority side has the 10 minutes until 1 o'clock.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that I might use a portion of 
that 10 minutes to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Honoring Korean War Veterans

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this week our Nation, and indeed nations 
throughout the world, paid our reverence to the men and women of a past 
generation who fought so valiantly to provide freedom for the Southern 
portion of the Korean Peninsula. They fought under the Commander In 
Chief at that time, President Harry Truman, a courageous man.
  It has been 55 years since that conflict. Today, the Senate Armed 
Services Committee held an extensive hearing on the current status of 
the Korean Peninsula, most specifically the progress we are making, in 
my judgment, with respect to North Korea.
  I played a very modest role in that war as a young Marine Lieutenant, 
for a period, 1951-1952, but my contribution and participation is of 
little consequence when you look at the extensive casualties our Nation 
took in that conflict.
  The total deaths were 36,574, the total wounded over 100,000, and 1.7 
million-plus men and women in the Armed Forces were in and out of that 
theater to preserve freedom.
  Today, South Korea is a flourishing nation, one with a very strong 
economy. It ranks, I think, 11th worldwide. It is a partner in world 
affairs in terms of its strategic importance and, clearly, a 
participant in trying to secure

[[Page 17598]]

freedom for others on that historic peninsula.
  I do hope, as the Senate begins to finish its work prior to the 
August recess, the Chamber will consider the nomination, which I 
understand is pending, of Kathy Stevens, a career diplomat of many 
years who has been nominated to become the new Ambassador to South 
Korea.
  I had the privilege of visiting with her, and I certainly felt that, 
in every respect, she is eminently qualified to take this important 
post.
  I wish to thank Ambassador Hill this morning, because he addressed a 
number of issues, most notably the question of the deprivation of basic 
human rights by North Korea to so many of its citizens. I support 
Ambassador Hill in his endeavor, and colleagues on both sides who, in 
the course of the hearing this morning, expressed our concerns about 
the human rights of individuals in North Korea and the environs. 
Senator Brownback, an internationally recognized spokesman on behalf of 
human rights, took an active role in today's hearing.
  I wish to note that Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin from 
Maryland, Congressman Steny Hoyer, and I met with a group of Korean war 
veterans who came to the Hill to talk, to memorialize the sacrifices of 
so many of their fellow service persons of that generation.
  I am so humbled and privileged to have had that very modest, brief, 
tour of service with that generation. My service was inconsequential 
compared to the extensive loss of life and limb by others during this 
conflict.
  But I do urge America not to forget those who served in Korea. The 
war is often referred to as the ``forgotten war.'' But they laid the 
foundation for the current freedoms in South Korea. Indeed, Harry 
Truman's decision to stop the spread of communism on that peninsula 
saved other small nations in the region. Today, those countries might 
not have the freedoms, they now have, had it not been for the 
sacrifices of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, and other 
nations fighting under the ``banner'' of the United Nations 
Organization.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Honoring Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, a few days ago the Birmingham, AL, 
airport announced plans to rename the Birmingham International Airport 
after Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth.
  I rise to honor the work of activist, legendary civil rights leader, 
the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth. For more than 60 years, Reverend 
Shuttlesworth has fought passionately for racial equality and social 
justice in our great country.
  Born in Birmingham, AL, Reverend Shuttlesworth became involved in the 
civil rights movement as a young pastor. He organized sit-ins and 
boycotts. He challenged the injustice for decades of Birmingham's Jim 
Crow laws, despite attempts on his life, and there were many by the Ku 
Klux Klan.
  In spite of repeated arrests, attacks by police dogs and firehoses, 
Reverend Shuttlesworth simply refused to back down. In 1957, Reverend 
Shuttlesworth joined the efforts with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and 
Ralph Abernathy to form the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. 
Members of the SCLC fought side by side to increase educational 
opportunities, to promote voter registration, and to promoting equality 
of opportunity for African Americans throughout the country.
  In 1961, Reverend Shuttlesworth took up the pastorate of Revelation 
Baptist Church in Cincinnati, OH, and continued his campaign for racial 
justice.
  Bringing the same fearless opposition to segregation he had displayed 
in Birmingham, he joined forces with other Black ministers to make 
William Lovelace the city's first African-American judge.
  For greater than a half century, Reverend Shuttlesworth spoke out 
against injustice. He has worked to increase minority representation in 
city government, he has expanded minority hiring by the local police 
department, and worked to improve access to housing in Over-the-Rhine, 
an area of Cincinnati, for needy families and throughout Hamilton 
County.
  Reverend Shuttlesworth has made great personal sacrifice, risking his 
life, risking his own health and the health of his family, so every 
American, without regard to race, would have access to equal 
opportunity to succeed.
  I announced my campaign for the Senate in 2005 at the church of 
Reverend Shuttlesworth in Cincinnati. I consider him a friend. I have 
met him many times over the last 15 or so years. He took me one day to 
a small room in his church, a room he called a museum. It was a room 
dedicated to the civil rights movement. It had so many wonderful 
examples of his courage, his bravery, his accomplishments, and the 
accomplishments of so many people he worked with to promote social 
justice, to promote economic justice, to promote civil and human 
rights.
  For that, I am especially proud of Reverend Shuttlesworth. I am 
especially proud of the role he plays in Cincinnati, always battling 
for racial justice. I am proud the Birmingham, AL, airport has named 
their international airport after the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Energy

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have been presiding in the chair 
listening to some of our friends across the aisle talk about oil and 
gas prices and lamenting that we may go home without taking action. I 
was blessed to be home yesterday and had the chance to be in rural 
Missouri. I talked to a lot of people who represent the heart of our 
country.
  I will tell my colleagues what they have figured out. They have 
learned to look beyond everybody talking about this stuff and to figure 
out who wants what. This is simple for the American people. All they 
need to do is ask about the solutions and who wants them.
  The Republican Party says there is only one solution. Even with the 
68 million acres they are not touching, they only need to have another 
10 or 20 million acres and our problems are over. Who wants that? Big 
oil.
  What this town has done for decades is give big oil everything it 
wants. This administration has given big oil everything it wants. For 
25 years, big oil has had its way with the Congress. The solution they 
are proposing is, once again, giving big oil its way.
  I don't know how one can look at today's financial news and not shake 
their head. ExxonMobil with $12 billion in profits, announced today, in 
the last 3 months; $11 billion the quarter before. They want to give 
ExxonMobil another tax break, and they want to give ExxonMobil what 
they want moving forward.
  It is very simple. We got in this mess because the Republican Party 
continues to do the bidding of big oil. We will only get out of this 
mess if we turn our back on big oil and start doing what makes sense 
for the future. If only we had been willing to say no to big oil in 
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, when the Vice President had 40 
meetings with big oil executives and one meeting with alternative fuels 
people.
  It is time we say no to big oil. America is sick and tired of being 
handcuffed by the demands of big oil.
  Democrats say no to big oil. We say yes to getting out from 
underneath big oil. We do that by extending tax credits for solar and 
wind, to which Republicans keep saying no. Of course, they

[[Page 17599]]

keep saying no to that; big oil doesn't want that. They called big oil. 
Big oil said no; they say no.
  We say: Let's do more alternatives and invest in technologies that 
will rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. America has 2 or 3 
percent of the world's oil and she consumes 25 percent. We will never 
drill our way out of this. The only way we will find relief for the 
American public is to say no to big oil.
  It is time. They to have muster the courage. The sky will not fall if 
they will only stand and say, for the first time on that side of the 
aisle, no to big oil.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        National Infrastructure

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I come to the floor today to remember the 
terrible tragedy that occurred 1 year ago tomorrow in Minneapolis, MN, 
when the bridge carrying Interstate 35W over the Mississippi River near 
downtown Minneapolis abruptly collapsed during the evening rush hour. 
At least 50 vehicles plunged some 60 feet into the Mississippi River, 
killing 13 people and injuring dozens more.
  As we approach the anniversary of this devastating event, my thoughts 
and prayers and those, I know, of all our colleagues are with the 
victims and their families, with Senator Klobuchar, our colleague, 
Senator Coleman, Representative Ellison, whose district the bridge is 
in, and all those affected by this terrible tragedy.
  The people of my own State of Connecticut can sympathize in a direct 
way with the people of Minnesota, as they prepare to remember: 25 years 
ago, a bridge carrying Interstate 95--the main thoroughfare along the 
east coast of the United States--over the Mianus River in Greenwich, 
CT, abruptly collapsed in the early afternoon. Four vehicles plunged 
into the Mianus River, three people lost their lives, and others 
sustained serious injuries. It remains one of the worst transportation 
disasters in my small State's history.
  The tragedy in Minnesota is the most recent example of our national 
infrastructure crumbling before our very eyes. Indeed, this is not a 
problem that only affects Minneapolis or Connecticut or--in the case of 
last year's steampipe eruption--New York City. These are problems 
affecting every single State, every single county, every single 
community in our Nation from San Diego, CA, to Bangor, ME.
  For far too long, we have taken all our infrastructure systems--our 
roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking water systems, 
wastewater systems, public housing properties--for granted. For far too 
long, we have failed to invest adequately in their long-term 
sustainability. Today, we find ourselves in a precarious position 
concerning their future viability--a precarious position that is 
costing lives and jeopardizing the high quality of life we have come to 
enjoy and expect as American citizens.
  The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 152,000 of the 
Nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally 
obsolete. Put another way, one out of every four bridges in our Nation 
is in a state of serious disrepair. The American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials estimates it would cost some $140 
billion just to repair the 152,000 bridges that are in that condition.
  The life-threatening problems are not confined to bridges. The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 
approximately 14,000 Americans die each year, at least in part, because 
our roads and bridges are no longer up to the task.
  Congestion on our highways causes tons of carbon dioxide and other 
pollutants to be pumped into the atmosphere every day. These emissions 
compromise the health of children and adults and contribute to global 
warming, which poses immense risks to the future of all of us. This 
congestion on our highways stems from the absence of mass transit 
systems or other adequate means to move people.
  Tens of millions of Americans receive drinking water in their homes 
every day from pipes that are, on average, over 100 years old. In our 
Nation's capital city, in the area of Georgetown--one of the city's 
most affluent neighborhoods--wastewater is still conveyed through 
wooden sewage pipes constructed in the 19th century.
  In the city of Milwaukee, over 400,000 people were sickened several 
years ago with flu-like symptoms caused by a strain of bacteria in the 
municipal drinking water system of that community. The bacteria strain 
was eventually linked to inadequate treatment of the drinking water.
  It is not just our health and safety that is affected by our 
crumbling infrastructure; in fact, our national prosperity is at stake. 
From the days of the Roman aqueducts to the present, a nation's ability 
to grow and prosper has always relied upon its ability to effectively 
move people, goods, and information.
  Ask any American today how we are doing in achieving this objective, 
and chances are the response would be the same: We are not doing very 
well, and we could be doing substantially better.
  When the average American spends 51.5 hours a year--more than 2 full 
days of one's life, per year--stuck in traffic congestion, then I think 
we can do better. When one out of three of our roads is in poor, 
mediocre, or fair condition, then I think all of us would agree we can 
do better. When the United States invests less than 2 percent of its 
gross domestic product on infrastructure, while nations such as China 
and India--the major competitors of this country in the 21st century--
invest between 7 and 12 percent, then I think all of us recognize we 
need to do better or we are going to find our country in a very 
weakened position very quickly. Infrastructure is not something you can 
correct overnight. The investments need to be made. It takes time to do 
it right. We are almost to the second decade of this century, and we 
remain way behind in this area.
  Tomorrow is also the 1-year anniversary of the introduction of the 
National Infrastructure Bank Act that I have offered along with Senator 
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. It is a bipartisan bill that has gained a 
number of cosponsors over the last year, and we would like more.
  The Infrastructure Bank would establish a unique and powerful public-
private partnership to restore our Nation's infrastructure. Using 
limited Federal resources, it would leverage the significant resources, 
both at home and abroad, of the private sector. If we don't talk about 
how we are going to finance this, it is not going to happen.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. We need to come up with a financing mechanism. We all 
understand the need for doing this. I think all of us recognize as well 
that we are not going to talk about doing this out of the 
appropriations process alone. There are not enough resources there to 
meet the $1.6 trillion currently needed to repair decaying 
infrastructure. We need a better mechanism to finance this. Senator 
Hagel of Nebraska and I have worked with the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies over the last 2\1/2\ years, along with Senator 
Bob Kerrey, the former Senator of Nebraska; Warren Rudman, the former 
Senator of New Hampshire; Felix Rohatyn, a well-known business 
individual from New York who is almost certainly responsible for 
getting New York City back on its feet years ago; and John Hamre, a 
former official at the Defense Department, and we have constructed a 
means by which a limited amount of Federal dollars could attract 
massive amounts of private capital to allow us to really begin this 
work.
  Absent some idea like this--and we think this is a good one--then 
year

[[Page 17600]]

after year we can give speeches about our infrastructure, but nothing 
much will happen. This bill is designed to deal with regional and 
national needs, not local ones. We leave those up to the local 
municipalities.
  We need to once again recognize that to grow as a people, to have our 
economy grow and provide the jobs and fulfill the aspirations and hopes 
of many Americans, we have to grow as well in our capacity to handle 
that kind of growth. The infrastructure needs of our Nation are 
daunting.
  So on this tragic anniversary of the events in Minneapolis and the 
reminder of what occurred in my own State, as well as the recognition 
of what is occurring every single day all across our Nation, my hope 
would be that in the coming Congress, whether we are talking about a 
McCain administration or an Obama administration, that infrastructure 
would be a high priority for our country, that we get on that track 
together, as Democrats and Republicans, and come up with some creative 
ideas on how we can invest in this needed aspect of our economy.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.


                                 Energy

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to urge action on what is clearly 
the single top priority, the single top challenge for American 
families; that is, sky-high gasoline prices and energy prices.
  In the real world, in every State of the Union, families are 
struggling with this enormous additional burden. Gasoline prices, the 
prices at the pump--all energy prices have obviously gone through the 
roof in the last several months. Yet, even faced with this true crisis, 
even faced with this outpouring of hurt on the part of the American 
people and call for action, we are not yet acting. We are not yet 
acting as grownups. We are not yet coming together. We are not yet 
acting on the issue. I urge us to do just that and to simply act in a 
full, bipartisan, and balanced way on what is clearly the single 
biggest challenge facing Louisiana and all American families.
  The good news is that at least there has been an energy-related bill 
on the floor of the Senate which has been the pending business that I 
think goes back to Tuesday, July 22--almost 2 full legislative weeks 
ago. The bad news is the distinguished majority leader has blocked all 
attempts to have an open debate and an open amendment process about 
energy.
  That bill--his bill--about the limited issue of speculation--and I 
urge us to act on speculation, but we clearly must act on other things 
as well--that speculation-only bill has been the business at hand on 
the floor of the Senate for almost 2 legislative weeks, and yet we 
haven't had a single amendment considered, certainly not a single vote 
on an amendment. What an enormous lost opportunity. What an enormous 
example of pure obstructionism in Washington and the sort of gridlock 
people are sick and tired of when the country truly faces a crisis. 
American families face enormous challenges based on energy prices. We 
need that real debate. We need that open amendment process. We need to 
act as grownups. We need to come together and act on energy.
  It is in that vein that I suggest two very specific things. First of 
all, in less than 24 hours, I assume there is going to be some move for 
us to go home for August. I don't think we should until and unless we 
take some reasonable action on energy. I believe it is a derogation of 
our responsibility to go home for any length of time when this crisis 
is hanging out there and this institution is failing to act. I think we 
should stay here and work. We should stay here and act in a fair and in 
a balanced way.
  We should consider a host of issues--yes, including speculation, but 
also fundamental issues that go to supply and demand on both sides of 
that equation: conservation, yes; greater fuel efficiency, yes; new 
technology, yes; renewable sources of energy and alternative sources of 
energy, yes. Also, we should be doing something on the supply side: 
finding more here at home and using our resources we do have right here 
at home. So I am against going home, going off on vacation, going on 
the August recess--however you want to put it--when we are not acting 
on the top priority and concern of the American people.
  Secondly, I certainly oppose moving off this topic, which has been 
what the distinguished majority has tried to get us to do over and over 
again. We will have an upcoming vote--his latest attempt to get us off 
this topic. He has filed a motion to invoke cloture to proceed to the 
Defense authorization bill. Defense is an extremely important issue, 
particularly in this time of war and terrorist threat. However, I can 
tell my colleagues the reaction the American people have to this choice 
of energy versus Defense authorization. They have the same reaction I 
have: Staying on energy, acting on energy in a meaningful, bold, 
positive, balanced way, is the single most important thing we can do to 
improve our security, to improve our defenses. Quite frankly, that is 
far more important for national security and for defense than any 
Defense authorization bill. So surely we should reject that attempt to 
move off the subject to take this vote and move to the Defense 
authorization bill when the single biggest issue that not only faces 
American families and hits their pocketbooks but also the single 
biggest national security issue is energy.
  So, again, I urge us to reject that attempt once again to move off 
the subject. We need to stay on energy but, more importantly, we need 
to act on energy. We need to reject that cloture vote. I urge us to 
stay here and work and act rather than go off on any August recess. We 
must address this crucial energy issue.
  As so many of my colleagues, I have important amendments on the 
topic. I specifically filed seven amendments. Those amendments address 
a number of key issues and a number of key questions, but they are 
balanced. They are not just about drilling because we can't just drill 
our way out of the problem. They have us use less and find more at the 
same time. That is exactly the sort of balanced approach we need, as I 
said a few minutes ago. Yes, use less. Yes to conservation. Yes to 
greater efficiency standards. Yes to new technology. Yes to renewables. 
Yes to biofuels. Yes to alternative fuels. Also, at the same time, yes 
to accessing greater supply right here at home, to accessing that 
energy we have here offshore, in Western States in shale deposits and 
elsewhere, to help ourselves rather than have to go beg, hat in hand, 
to Middle Eastern countries to cut us a break. We need to do all of the 
above. We need to act on the demand side and the supply side to 
stabilize, bring down prices, and help American families with this, 
their top challenge and their top concern.
  I have seven amendments. Unfortunately, under the rules of the game 
that the distinguished majority leader has laid out, I haven't come 
near any opportunity to call any of those amendments up, and certainly 
I have not been able to have a vote on those amendments. The majority 
leader at one point offered four votes on the entire issue; none of 
them would have been on my amendments. He then rescinded that offer, so 
we are back to an offer of zero amendments and zero amendment votes.
  Let's get serious about a serious challenge facing American families. 
Let's not only be on the topic on the Senate floor--so what. Let's act 
on it in a grownup way, in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way, 
addressing supply and demand, using less and finding more right here at 
home. Let's take up not just my amendments but any good ideas for 
debate and consideration and votes, and let's act on the single 
greatest challenge facing Louisiana families whom I represent and 
American families across the Nation. Surely we shouldn't vote to move 
to any other topic when we still have this tremendous challenge not 
acted upon.
  I think we shouldn't run home for the August recess to vacation or 
even to talk with our constituents when this enormously important 
pending business is not acted upon. Let's stay here. Let's work. Let's 
come together. Let's act for the American people. It is perfectly 
obvious to them that this is our

[[Page 17601]]

greatest national challenge. This is their greatest personal and family 
challenge as they try to live their real lives in the real world. We 
have to get that message and act on it here in Congress.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, the Federal Government has more acronyms 
for more Federal agencies that produce more economic statistics than 
anyone can reasonably be expected to comprehend in a single sitting. We 
have the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis--just to name a few.
  These agencies produce a wealth of information that we use to inform 
our policy decisions with facts and expert analysis; but I often find 
that the best advice I get on matters of public policy comes not from 
these experts and their reports, but from the wisdom and sincerity of 
North Carolinians who write to me.
  I received a letter recently that I think gets to the heart of our 
energy debate here in the Senate. It comes from a retiree who is living 
on a fixed income from his life savings, who resides in Lake Junaluska, 
North Carolina, a picturesque mountain town of 3,000 situated on a 
pristine mountain lake. I used to go to church camp there almost every 
summer when I was growing up.
  ``Too much energy,'' the letter reads, ``has gone into rhetoric and 
not enough into actually doing something about it. We have so many 
brilliant leaders and the ability to make major transformations, so 
let's concentrate on action and do whatever it takes to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.''
  My friend from Lake Junaluska is right. Indeed, too much energy in 
this energy debate has been spent on partisan rhetoric, and not enough 
on delivering real solutions to provide Americans with relief from 
these record high gas prices.
  Both sides bring important and worthwhile ideas to this debate. On 
one side, we see a focus on conservation and cracking down on alleged 
bad behavior in the energy market. On the other side, we hear more 
about energy exploration.
  There is no ``silver bullet'' that can solve our energy woes. We need 
every option on the table. We need to throw everything and the kitchen 
sink at our energy crisis. Conservation. Alternative energy. Energy 
exploration. Market fairness.
  There is no reason we can't develop a comprehensive strategy that 
includes the best ideas from both sides of this debate.
  The bottom line is that high gas prices are driven by too much demand 
and too little supply. Last year, global demand exceeded global supply 
by roughly one million barrels per day. Because of that, families in my 
home State of North Carolina are having to pay 30 percent more to fill 
their tanks than they did just 1 year ago.
  To truly solve this problem, we have to tackle both the demand side 
and the supply side. We need to find more and use less.
  On the demand side, we need to make major investments in alternative 
energy research and take a crash course in conservation.
  That is why I introduced legislation last week to repeal roughly $17 
billion in tax breaks to oil companies, and pour that funding into 
alternative energy research. With the price per barrel of oil at record 
highs, the market is providing petroleum producers all the incentive 
they should need to produce more oil. So, that funding would be better 
spent by investing in alternative sources of energy that are the key to 
our energy future.
  In the near term, we could also help decrease demand by incentivizing 
the purchase of hybrid and other clean fuel vehicles with point of sale 
rebates and by investing in better transit systems.
  While decreasing demand and investing in alternative and renewable 
forms of energy is certainly a necessary part of any comprehensive 
energy solution, it is by no means sufficient. We cannot simply 
conserve our way to energy independence.
  We must also increase supply by making better use of America's vast 
energy resources. We should open up 2,000 out of 19.6 million acres in 
ANWR to energy exploration. We should capitalize on our immense oil 
shale reserves, which could produce three times as much oil as Saudi 
Arabia's proven reserves. And we should also allow the States decide 
whether or not to permit offshore energy exploration at least 50 miles 
off their shores on the Outer Continental Shelf, where we could gain 
access to billions of barrels of oil.
  Of course, some will argue that bringing these energy resources 
online will take years to complete, and won't help provide the 
immediate relief that folks need. But, if anything, that means we 
cannot afford to let another day pass without pursuing them.
  After all, if President Clinton hadn't vetoed legislation in 1995 to 
allow energy exploration in ANWR, our current energy shortfall would 
already be reduced by roughly 1 million barrels per day.
  To provide immediate relief, we can release one-third of the 
strategic petroleum reserve to inject some much-needed supply into the 
markets, which will drive down prices in the near term and send a 
signal to market speculators that the American Government is dead 
serious about lowering gas prices.
  Because of enormous and unprecedented economic growth in developing 
countries like India and China, it is imperative that in this debate we 
keep our eyes fixed firmly on the ultimate goal of ending our 
dependence on foreign oil altogether. Facing an ever-dwindling global 
supply of oil and ever-increasing global demand for energy, this is not 
a goal or a debate that we can take lightly. When it comes to securing 
America's energy future, partisan politics need not apply.
  To lower gas prices and reach our ultimate goal of energy 
independence, we need every option on the table--everything and the 
kitchen sink.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3044

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 92 times this session, which is now in its 
19th month, Senate Republicans have filibustered critical legislation, 
everything and anything to maintain the status quo. Of course, it is an 
all-time record, 92 filibusters. It is more than 100 percent of what 
has been done in a full Congress--that is 2 years--and this has been 
done in a year and a half.
  For those unfamiliar with the language of the Senate, a filibuster is 
a stall tactic to give a Senator more time, but it prevents the Senate 
from debating legislation. A filibuster is not a ``no'' vote in the 
true sense of the word. It is an objection to even having a vote. A 
filibuster cuts off debate before there can even be a vote. Most 
importantly, it cuts off negotiation and compromise.
  Ninety-two times and more than 100 percent than has ever been done 
before, Republicans have filibustered America's priorities. Republicans 
have shown no favoritism on whom their filibusters harm the most. They 
have filibustered our troops, veterans, children, working families, 
small businesses, elderly, disabled, and recently stroke victims, those 
suffering from paralysis, those suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. 
The list is endless. Not a single American has escaped the harm of a 
Republican filibuster in this, the 110th Congress.
  Perhaps our country has been most damaged by Republicans blocking us

[[Page 17602]]

from addressing the energy crisis. CNN issued the results of a poll 
they took over a couple days very recently. Here is how the American 
people feel about major causes of high gas prices:
  No. 1, U.S. oil companies. Is that any surprise with the record 
profits being reported today by Exxon?
  No. 2, foreign oil producers, OPEC mainly.
  And, of course, speculators.
  One, oil companies; two, oil producers; three, speculators, and new 
demand from other countries, and the American people are very 
perceptive. We know there is a tremendous demand from India and China.
  No. 5, a major cause of higher gas prices, the Bush administration.
  No. 6, the war in Iraq.
  So if you only heard the faint outrage of our Republican colleagues, 
you might think it is the Democrats who spent the past 2 years blocking 
every effort to lower gas prices and reduce our dependence on oil. But 
the exact opposite is true. Republicans may talk about high gas prices 
and oil prices today, but they are late to the party and they have 
shown up empty-handed.
  The one idea they have come up with lately is more coastline 
drilling. But we all know it won't have any significant impact on 
prices, and some say in more than 20 years. That is according to the 
Bush-Cheney administration, which says the change in price will be in 
the year 2027.
  Yesterday, in the New York Times and in newspapers all over America, 
the most syndicated columnist in America, Tom Friedman, wrote as 
follows:

       Republicans have become so obsessed with the notion that we 
     can drill our way out of the current energy crisis that 
     reopening our coastal waters to offshore drilling has become 
     their answer for every energy question.
       Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the 
     world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus 
     the dangers of the climate change driven by our addiction to 
     fossil fuels, can see clean renewable energy--wind, solar, 
     nuclear, and stuff we haven't yet invented--is going to be 
     the next great global industry. It has to be if we are going 
     to grow in a stable way.

  Friedman went on to say:

       Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power 
     industry is going to most own the next great technological 
     breakthrough--the ET revolution, the energy technology 
     revolution--and create millions of jobs and thousands of new 
     businesses, just like the IT revolution did.
       Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-
     drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me 
     of someone back in 1980 arguing we should be putting all our 
     money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric 
     typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC'' 
     and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a 
     second-rate power and economy.

  He is not only the most well-read and the most well-spread columnist 
in America today but a man who is a prize winner for his best selling 
books, and his books are so tremendous because they see the world as it 
is going to be, not as it now is.
  Their one idea, more coastline drilling, is not the answer. It is no 
wonder Senator McCain said the plan was purely psychological, the 
Republican plan for more coastal drilling is psychological.
  This morning we came to the Senate floor. We were going to offer some 
consent agreements, but the time was inconvenient. I did not want to 
use leader time and throw off the sequence of time we had. So we are 
here this afternoon to offer Republicans yet another chance to end 
their obstruction and do the right thing. We will offer unanimous 
consent requests on seven Energy bills, each one of which is extremely 
important, a package of bills that would lower the price we pay at the 
pump while applying for the long-time transition away from oil and 
toward clean renewable fuels of the future Tom Friedman talked about.
  If past is prolog, Republicans will object to each of these 
proposals. If they do, and they probably will, it will be clear again 
for all Americans to see which party wants to only talk about our 
energy crisis and which party wants to solve it.
  The first I would like to offer is S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy 
Act. This is a very thoughtful piece of legislation which ends billions 
of dollars of tax breaks for big oil companies, and if there is ever an 
opportunity to recognize why they are unnecessary, look at those 
profits today and what they do with those profits. Do they do new 
energy exploration? No. Do they invest in renewables? No. They buy back 
their stock.
  It was announced today they made last quarter, Exxon alone, about $12 
billion. S. 3044 would force oil companies to invest some of their 
massive profits in clean, alternative affordable fuels rather than 
buying back their stock. S. 3044 would protect the American people from 
price gouging and profiteering. It would also stand up to OPEC 
countries that are colluding to keep prices high.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 743, S. 3044, the Consumer-
First Energy Act; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements 
relating to this bill be printed in the Record, as if given.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, this bill does not produce 
any new American energy and would increase the price of gas at the 
pump. Further, I agree with Chairman Bingaman that a windfall profits 
tax is ``very arbitrary'' and ``bad policy.'' For these reasons, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New York.


 Unanimous Consent Request--Energy Price Reduction and Security Act of 
                                  2008

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to speak about a proposal that 
has been at the desk for a period of time and was put together by 
Senator Bingaman which deals in a very real way with the issues about 
which so many of our colleagues on the other side of the floor have 
talked.
  First, it does increase domestic production by giving the Secretary 
of the Interior the authority to shorten lease terms and raise rental 
rates, requiring oil companies to comply with benchmarks. It would 
require the oil companies to drill rather than just hold property for 
decade after decade and not produce.
  It would also bring down prices immediately by selling about 70 
million barrels of high-quality light crude in the SPR, replacing it 
later with low-quality heavier crude.
  Mr. President, 90 percent of sales would be invested in LIHEAP. Even 
more importantly, it reduces demand. First, building codes, 40 percent 
of our energy is used by cooling and heating buildings. Certain States 
have put in building codes for decades and dramatically reduced demand. 
We also have research for batteries, so we might have electric cars and 
many other provisions.
  I cannot go into all of them because time is narrow. Why do my 
colleagues oppose something so rational? The bottom line is because 
they want to do what the oil companies want: give them record profits.
  What do the oil companies do with those profits? Do they promote 
alternative energy? Absolutely not. Do they drill domestically? We are 
hearing all this talk about drill. Look what the oil companies do with 
their profits. They buy back stock. That is very good if you are a big 
shareholder in ExxonMobil. It is very bad if you are a homeowner 
heating your home or a commuter driving your car.
  It does no one any good except a handful of people, mostly very well 
off, to raise ExxonMobil stock, raise Chevron stock, raise BP stock, 
and not put that money into production.
  Our proposal doesn't do what the oil companies want, but it increases 
production, domestic production, and reduces demand, exactly the slogan 
that my colleagues are talking about on the other side of the aisle. 
But it does it in a way not that the oil companies want but that 
America wants.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of a bill authored by Senator Bingaman, the 
Energy Price Reduction and Security Act of 2008, which is at the desk; 
that the bill be read a third time, passed, and

[[Page 17603]]

the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any 
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, as if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill does 
not open a single new acre for the production of American energy and, 
in fact, would place new regulations and fees on American energy 
production, which would raise the price of gas at the pump. For these 
reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant majority leader.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3335

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 68 million acres are currently open to the 
oil and gas companies, Federal land leased to them for oil and gas 
exploration. You would think, from the position and the statements on 
the Republican side of the aisle, that there was no land available and 
that we have to find new opportunities for oil and gas companies. They 
have 68 million opportunities they are not using today.
  Time and time again, over the last several weeks, the position of the 
Republicans on the energy question has come down to two or three very 
basic things: First, the Republicans in the Senate and Senator John 
McCain are stuck on old ideas. Secondly, they can't wait to go hat in 
hand to big oil--the oil companies--and ask them: What would you like 
us to do next? Well, the oil companies have a pretty good agenda. 
Before President Bush and Vice President Cheney leave town, can you try 
to find some way to provide even more Federal acreage we can drill on 
maybe in the future? We want to stock it in our portfolios and get to 
it another day. Can you make sure you do that before President Bush 
leaves town?
  That is the Republican agenda: More acreage beyond the 68 million 
they currently have and no vision for the future. It is an old agenda, 
an old idea. The Grand Old Party is stuck in an old way of thinking 
when it comes to energy.
  The bill I am about to talk about looks to the future. It is a vision 
for tomorrow. Of course, there is responsible exploration and 
production--there has to be and there should be--but it realizes that 
the energy future of America and the world has to be different. We have 
to get ahead of the curve. As Senator Reid said in quoting Thomas 
Friedman, it is time for us to think of the energy revolution we are 
about to engage in, one that is going to make a profound difference in 
our lives.
  Twice this week we have given the Republicans a chance to vote for a 
real energy package. Is it a bipartisan plan? Read this quote from 48 
Governors, Democrats and Republicans, across the United States.

       Securing our energy future must be a priority at both the 
     State and Federal levels. We strongly urge you--

  They are speaking to the Congress--

     to partner with States by passing legislation on a bipartisan 
     basis to extend expiring renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency tax credits that can be enacted this year.

  The Governors understand it. The American people understand it. The 
Democrats in the Senate understand it. It is only the Republican 
Senators who continue to object.
  Now, what are these incentives? They are incentives for renewable 
energy that will chart a course for America to find clean energy 
sources and the creation of new businesses and new jobs so America can 
again lead the world. The Republicans look in the rearview mirror at 
drilling for oil because that is where the big oil companies are--their 
friends, their allies, their inspiration when it comes to energy.
  This bill that came before us yesterday brought in five Republican 
votes. Only 5 out of 49 crossed the aisle and joined us to try to pass 
it. Not enough. They know it. Coincidentally, four out of five are in 
tough reelection contests. They understand when they go home that they 
can't sell this ``drill forever'' and the mentality the Republicans in 
the Senate have been peddling.
  The bill talks about incentives for biomass and hydropower, solar 
energy, biodiesel, advanced coal, electricity, demonstration plug-in 
electric cars, battery performance standards, idle reduction units for 
trucks, and so many other things that move us forward using those 
nonpolluting renewable sources of energy that are truly our future.
  Time and time and time again, the Republicans in the Senate have said 
no, no to these incentives for renewable energy and no to our future. I 
will give them a chance this time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable 
Energy, Job Creation Act of 2008; that the amendment at the desk, the 
text of which is S. 3335, be considered and agreed to, the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The minority whip.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the 
unanimous consent request be modified; that instead of adopting S. 3335 
as an amendment, the Senate adopt the McConnell-Grassley substitute 
which is filed at the desk. This substitute provides the AMT patch, 
extends all of the traditional tax extenders, some of them with 
modifications, it extends the many energy tax incentives, provides for 
Midwest disaster relief, and includes no tax increases.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify his request?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, the Republicans, the Grand 
Old Party that used to be the party of fiscal conservatism, refuses to 
pay for these tax breaks. We have come up with an approach that is 
reasonable and accepted by the business community and that puts the tax 
burden on companies that are shifting jobs overseas. The Republicans 
can't stand the thought of imposing taxes on companies that are sending 
American jobs overseas and that is why they object to our bill and that 
is why I object to their alternative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, 
yesterday, the majority leader said that legislating is the art of 
compromise, and indeed it is. There has been discussion here about the 
Grand Old Party--my party, of which I am proud--comparing it to the 
idea that oil is in the past, that oil is an old idea, we were told, 
and Republicans are stuck in the past. The Democrats are for 
renewables.
  If you can find me a renewable that runs on wind or on solar, I would 
be happy to think about the idea. But I do think that since legislating 
is the art of compromise, we ought to listen to each other's ideas, and 
that means each side moving off its hard-and-fast position, meeting 
somewhere in the middle.
  Republicans are ready and willing to negotiate a true compromise, and 
I hope we can instruct our respective staffs to work on compromise 
during August.
  I object to the original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3268

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the pending business of the Senate is S. 
3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act. That is currently the 
pending business. That has been objected to. I would like to try, once 
again, to see if perhaps we can do what every one of us as kids has 
been told by our parents to do--first things first. We need to do a lot 
of things and a lot of things well--produce more energy, produce 
different energy, and conserve more energy. I understand that. I think 
almost all of us agree with that. But first things first.
  We have a broken oil futures market, and let me describe it. Seventy-
one percent of those who are trading in the oil futures market are 
speculators. They don't know about oil. They do not want any oil. They 
do not want to carry a 5-gallon can of oil. They want to trade paper 
and make a lot of money.

[[Page 17604]]

  A couple months ago, the vice president of ExxonMobil says the price 
of oil should be about $50 or $55 per barrel. The CEO of Marathon Oil 
has said the same thing. Finally, in testimony before the Congress, 
Fidel Gheit, 30 years in this business at Oppenheimer and Company--the 
top energy person at Oppenheimer and Company--said:

       There is no shortage of oil. I am absolutely convinced that 
     the price of oil shouldn't be a dime above $55 a barrel.

  In speaking of the futures market, he said:

       I call it the world's largest gambling hall, open 24/7 and 
     totally unregulated. It's like a highway with no cops and no 
     speed limits and everybody going 120 miles per hour.

  The result. The price of gas has doubled in a year. There is nothing 
in the supply-and-demand relationship of oil that justifies doubling 
the price in a year. It is because the market is broken and infested 
now with oil speculators.
  We say first things first. We have crafted a bill to try to wring the 
speculation out of that market and preserve it for ordinary hedging, 
for which it was originally created.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Stop Excessive Energy 
Speculation Act, that we are recognizing as the pending business, we 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 882, S. 3268; 
that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, that any statements relating thereto be printed in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, this bill does not provide 
any new American energy, is flawed, and, in fact, the New York Times 
recently called it a ``misbegotten plan.''
  Senate Republicans believe we should continue to work on the bill so 
it would provide meaningful relief from high gas prices for American 
families. For this reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3186

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, no one in this country should have to 
choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. But 
with oil prices rising through the roof, more and more of our low-
income families and our seniors today need extra help to stay warm and 
healthy. The cost of heating oil has risen 162 percent over the last 8 
years, and by this winter it will have risen another 41 percent in the 
last year alone.
  As these oil prices have skyrocketed, some regions of the country, 
including some counties in my home State of Washington, have had to cut 
back on the amount of heating assistance they can provide to the people 
who live there. The Seattle Times, our hometown paper in Seattle, is 
today reporting almost 100,000 people in Washington State alone will 
pay hundreds of dollars more to heat their homes this winter. Many 
people are already planning on how they are going to get by without 
heat because they can't afford it.
  Last week, we had a chance in the Senate to double the funding 
available to help our low-income families and seniors to afford to heat 
their homes this winter. The Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, 
which is S. 3186, would have ensured our local governments were able to 
cover these additional costs and help those who need it most. We were 
all extremely disappointed that despite the fact that 13 Republican 
Senators were cosponsors of this legislation, they chose last week to 
say no, once again, on behalf of big oil.
  As we debate the refinements of how we are going to solve the short-
term crisis, it seems logical to me that we not leave behind the people 
who are hurting the most. For seniors, low-income Americans, people who 
are truly worried, can't we come together on this one issue and solve 
it as we try to take care of the large energy crisis before us?
  Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 
835, S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act; that the bill 
be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The minority whip.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be modified to add to the text of 
Senate amendment No. 5137, the Coleman offshore oil exploration and 
conservation amendment, so we can address the root cause of high energy 
prices that are hurting all Americans, particularly low-income 
Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to so modify her 
request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object to that, and I say to our 
colleagues that, as we continue to debate in this country, in a very 
clear manner, the different root causes and what we can do, it seems to 
me, without encumbering this in the larger debate, we ought to be able 
to at least deal with an oil heating crisis that is going to affect 
many Americans, and therefore I renew my unanimous consent request as I 
read it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there objection to my request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I did object, and I renew my original 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington objects.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair and I object as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a few minutes left until 2:30. I 
would, rather than take leader time, ask unanimous consent to take 
another few minutes past 2:30. I would say to my two Republican 
colleagues on the floor, what we would do is run over, and the next 30 
minutes in the next block of Democratic time would be cut by whatever 
time I use at this time. It will only be a few minutes; otherwise, I 
will use leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Kohl and Senator Specter have been 
talking quite a bit. They both have visited with me on more than one 
occasion because they believe they have one of the answers to the 
problems we have with oil, and that is let's do something about OPEC. 
It is a cartel, it is a monopoly, and they have no concern for the 
American people, and they are obviously in violation of antitrust laws. 
But it is a question of whether American law can take them into 
consideration.
  The legislation introduced by Senator Kohl and Senator Specter in the 
form of S. 879, the No Oil Producing Exporting Cartels Act of 2007, 
would make OPEC subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why shouldn't 
they? At the present time, we only have two entities that are exempt 
from the Sherman Antitrust Act: baseball and insurance companies.
  We know how we all feel about insurance companies, and how the 
American people feel about them, because they violate what would be 
antitrust laws all the time, but they are not subject to it.
  Mr. President, what this legislation is all about is let's have OPEC 
be subject to the antitrust laws. I agree with Senator Specter. I agree 
with Senator Kohl. This should be something the Senate does.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2264

  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
Calendar No. 169, H.R. 2264, that the bill be read three times and 
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any 
statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill does 
nothing to increase American energy independence but would increase our 
reliance on the Middle East. Further, authorizing our Government to sue 
OPEC could, as Chairman Bingaman said, ``get us into all kinds of 
trouble internationally'' and ``is not practical.''

[[Page 17605]]

  For these reasons, I object.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader, I yielded 8 
minutes to the Senator from Minnesota today in order that his statement 
could be coterminous with Senator Klobuchar. If you don't mind, this is 
the last unanimous consent request--and let me do that by saying I 
think all of us in this Chamber understand the way you produce energy, 
and we support virtually every mechanism and approach to produce 
energy. Drilling for oil is one of them. But drilling a hole in the 
ground is not the only way you produce energy. You can use turbine and 
blades to produce energy from the wind and produce electricity. You can 
take energy from the Sun and produce electricity. There is biomass and 
biofuels. There are many ways to produce.
  The problem is we do not aspire to set any national goal or national 
standard to require or to push that production of alternative energy.
  I think we need something around here that is game changing. Every 10 
or 15 years people are content to shuffle on the floor and talk about 
what do we do about the next box canyon we have ridden in. Then they 
say let's drill some more. I am all for drilling, but what about other 
ways of producing energy, wind and solar and the alternatives?
  I am going to offer a unanimous consent request on an issue that has 
been kicking around for a long time. I know some people oppose it 
strongly. I respect their views but respectfully they are wrong. We 
ought to have a national standard--many States now have it--to provide 
a renewable energy standard, saying when you are producing electricity, 
a certain percentage of that should come from renewable sources.
  This proposal at the desk requires a 15-percent renewable energy 
standard. If we are ever going to change the game, we have to do this 
by deciding that America is going to produce energy and produce 
different energy. So this would be a 15-percent renewable energy 
standard. Many States have taken the lead. I regret they have had to 
take the lead, but we ought to have a national set of goals and a 
national standard to say there are a lot of ways to produce. This is 
about producing energy for this country.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6049

  I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of a bill to establish the renewable electricity standard 
which is at the desk, that the bill be read three times and passed, the 
motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating 
to this matter be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we need more 
energy production to reduce costs. Republicans support it, Democrats do 
not. Tom Friedman, quoted by the Democratic leaders, is right about one 
thing, Republicans want more offshore drilling. Democrats do not.
  Second, and I respectfully correct the majority leader in this, 
Senator McCain did not say offshore drilling is only psychological. He 
advocates more offshore drilling both because of the energy it would 
produce and also because, he said, it would have a positive 
psychological impact on energy markets.
  This would increase heating and cooling costs for American homes. For 
that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the last half hour or so has been a 
microcosm of the 18 months of this Congress. Time and time again, 
Democrats have offered solutions to our energy crisis. Each time 
Republicans have objected. They have not come up with answers to 
specific objections to try to reach any sort of compromise. Basically, 
they said no. After 18 months of ignoring our energy crisis, and 
rejecting every Democratic effort--and we have talked about some of 
them today--they now claim to have seen the light. After a year and a 
half, all they want to talk about is gas prices. But as we have seen, 
all they want to do is, as I refer to part of what Thomas Friedman 
said:

       Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-
     drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th century fuel, remind me 
     of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all 
     of our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric 
     typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC'' 
     and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a 
     second-rate power and economy.

  I did not hear John McCain say drilling was psychological. All I did 
was read it in the press. It has been repeated time and time again.
  I would finally say, we believe in domestic production. We Democrats, 
all 51 of us, believe there should be more American production. There 
are ways of accomplishing that. We know we cannot drill our way out of 
the problems we have, but there are things we can do and we want to 
work to have that accomplished. We have seen that set forth in 
legislation that Senator Bingaman has offered. Of course we talk about 
the 68 million acres--that was, of course, talked about here during 
this half hour--but we also are aware of the ability the President has 
today to offer leases to oil-rich areas in Alaska, onshore and 
offshore.
  We believe in more domestic production. We call it American 
production. Hopefully the August recess will bring some ability of our 
friends on the other side of the aisle to start working with us. I hope 
we are going to see, a bit later today or tomorrow, a vote on a motion 
to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. That would be too bad, to 
have Republicans vote against that. That is the way we pay our troops 
and we refine what we do for our troops. It is a very important bill, 
led by two of the Senate's fine Senators, Senator Levin and Senator 
Warner, chairman and ranking member of the committee.
  We are 5 minutes over. I express my appreciation to my friends for 
being patient. If you care to, you can go over 5 minutes and we will 
take 25 minutes in our half hour. OK?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I thank the leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we had hoped to make significant 
progress over the last week or two to begin to address the most 
important issue in the country, and that is the price of gas at the 
pump. Regretfully, it seems we are bogged down here in trying to move 
ahead. So in order to try to facilitate progress, I have notified my 
friends on the other side that we intend to propound a number of 
consent agreements that virtually every Member of my conference 
believes would move us in the right direction and begin to address the 
No. 1 issue in the country.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 5137

  In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of a Senate bill to address drilling in the 
Outer Continental Shelf, the text of which is identical to the 
amendment No. 5137, filed by Senator Coleman to the Energy bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, 
the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements 
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
reality is the Democrats have been in favor of drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf in places such as the gulf coast, including votes we 
took here on a bipartisan basis 2 years ago. The reality is the 
Republican proposal here will not do anything in terms of addressing 
the gas price issue which we are facing here today because it will not 
be effective in bringing down the price of gas. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota is on 
the floor. The amendment I propounded in the form of a consent 
agreement was essentially the Coleman proposal to

[[Page 17606]]

open the Outer Continental Shelf. It was not geared to any particular 
price of gasoline at the pump. But I renew consent for the very same 
proposed consent agreement with one modification--that the enactment 
date is triggered when the price of gasoline reaches $4.50 a gallon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object for the 
same reasons we stated earlier, this again is creating a phantom 
solution to the reality of the energy crisis and the energy crisis we 
face as a Nation, and therefore I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, our good friends on the other side of 
the aisle apparently do not believe $4.50 a gallon gasoline is 
sufficient emergency to open the Outer Continental Shelf, those 
portions of it that are currently off limits which--by the way, 85 
percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is currently off limits. I renew 
my consent agreement with the following modification, that the 
enactment date is triggered when the price of gasoline reaches $5 a 
gallon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
object again, it is a phantom solution, and therefore I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if $5 a gallon gasoline is not an 
emergency, I am compelled to ask what is the definition of an 
emergency? Maybe it is $7.50 a gallon gasoline. Therefore, I renew my 
consent request with the following modification: that the enactment 
date which triggered the implementation of the amendment would occur 
when the price of gasoline reaches $7.50 a gallon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is 
clear the Republican leader wants to move forward with the opening of 
places in the Outer Continental Shelf. I would say, on the Democratic 
side, there are a number of us who supported opening places in the 
Outer Continent Shelf, including additional significant acreage in the 
Gulf of Mexico, the 8 million acres that were part of the lease sale 
181. We also know there are hundreds of millions of acres in Alaska 
that are not in a moratoria area, on which we support exploration and 
inventory of those places. What we are doing here with those triggers 
being proposed by the Republican leader again is not getting to real 
solutions that deal with the energy crisis we have and not coming 
together in a bipartisan way to move forward to have a package of 
energy legislation that would work for America. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to propound my consent 
agreement with a modification one more time and then I am going to 
engage in a colloquy with Senator Coleman. It is his amendment that he 
had hoped to offer, which I initially offered consent that we take up. 
Then these additional amendments were a different trigger, these 
additional consents were with a different trigger. I say to my friend 
from Minnesota, I will give our friends on the other side one more 
opportunity to maybe get their attention. Then we will discuss the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. President, I renew my request with the modification that the 
trigger be $10 a gallon at the pump.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, if we were moving forward with a package 
of energy legislation that would address the fundamental national 
security, economic security, and environmental security issues we are 
facing, and this were part of that kind of package, this might be very 
well worthy of consideration, including some of the triggers that have 
been mentioned. But it is clear to me this is another one of the 
tactics that essentially is wanting to get this Senate and this 
Congress to the point where we simply are not going to be able to get 
to a bipartisan energy package, and so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We know why we cannot get to a bipartisan energy 
package. The American people are saying--some 70 percent of them--that 
we ought to open the Outer Continental Shelf, those portions that are 
currently off limits, and it is my understanding that 85 percent of the 
Outer Continental Shelf is currently off limits. I have been proposing 
a series of consents, basically drafted consistent with the Coleman 
amendment that would have been offered had we had a chance to offer it.
  I would ask my friend from Minnesota if he would describe his 
proposal?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would say to the Republican Leader, 
first, I want to make it clear that if I understand the objection, the 
Republican leader has offered an amendment that if gas reaches $10 a 
gallon, more than double the record levels, the other side is objecting 
to opening areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, areas that would yield 
at least 14.3 billion barrels of oil and 55.3 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas at a minimum--at a minimum; there are other estimates that 
say if we opened all of these areas, up to 80 billion gallons of gas.
  So I understand the objection and that as a result of that objection, 
we cannot move forward on increasing the supply of oil, that we cannot 
then move forward and open these areas on the Outer Continental Shelf 
that could yield at a minimum over 14 billion barrels of oil. Is that 
the result of the objection placed by the majority?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Minnesota, I think he has it 
entirely correct. I have offered a series of consent agreements here to 
give us an opportunity to take up and pass the Coleman proposal with 
differing triggers, starting at $4.50 a gallon and going up to $10 a 
gallon. Our friends on the other side have objected to passing 
legislation even with those ascending triggers, leading me to believe 
there is opposition on the other side to opening the Outer Continental 
Shelf, 85 percent of which is currently off limits--and over 70 percent 
of the American people support that--even if gasoline reaches $10 a 
gallon.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would note to the leader that, by the 
way, the Coleman-Domenici amendment also has conservation pieces in it. 
I believe we will discuss that later.
  But as I listen to the objection from my friend from Colorado, 
talking about phantom solutions as we look at the issue of the rising 
price of oil, I think there is bipartisan understanding that part of 
the problem is the basic law of supply and demand; that demand is 
increasing, and if you want to somehow affect demand, I would take it 
that the supply piece is the other piece. And as I understand the 
Coleman amendment, this is an opportunity to increase supply.
  I would also note that part of the discussion has been about the 
issue of speculation, that there is money going into believing that oil 
is going to be scarce in the future, and that is somehow driving up the 
price of oil today. I would ask, then, if, in fact, we would open the 
Outer Continental Shelf, that we would increase supply, finding more 
oil of at least 14 to 15 billion barrels, would that not indicate that 
in the future there will be less scarcity because we are increasing 
supply, and would it make common sense that if there is going to be 
less scarcity, more supply, we are going to tap into America's 
resources, that would have an impact on the price of gas today?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Minnesota, it makes sense that 
if you were betting on the future, so to speak, which I guess is what 
the futures market does, if there were signs

[[Page 17607]]

of optimism, an indication that the United States of America was going 
to do something within its boundaries to deal with this problem, it is 
reasonable to expect that the markets would respond favorably.
  I might add--it was not alluded to specifically by my friend from 
Minnesota, but I might add that the underlying bill which we have been 
seeking to amend is actually opposed by the New York Times, the most 
liberal newspaper in America, as being ineffectual and actually making 
the matter worse. So clearly doing that alone runs the risk, according 
to the New York Times, of destroying or at least adversely impacting 
one of America's great markets. But also refusing to amend it to allow 
such reasonable proposals as the Coleman amendment means we would be 
making an ineffectual response to the issue that is the most important 
issue in the country.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have one more observation. First, I do 
wish to make it clear that when the Republican leader talks about the 
underlying bill, he is talking about the majority proposal on 
speculation, a proposal that does not do anything to increase 
production?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
  Mr. COLEMAN. A proposal that does nothing to deal with more 
conservation? A proposal that suggests it is going to focus on 
speculation only, and that is what the New York Times says would 
actually do more harm than good?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Minnesota is entirely correct.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would note that this issue of 
speculation is something that has come before the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations on which I am now ranking member and I 
was, in the past Congress, the chair. We looked at this issue. It has 
come before Homeland Security, a committee that works on a very 
bipartisan basis. I would tell the Republican leader that at least one 
of the witnesses has come forward and said: If we do all we can do, if 
we do conservation, if we let the world know we are serious about 
ending our addiction to foreign oil, that we are serious about not 
being held hostage to what Saudi sheiks or Chavez or Ahmadinejad does, 
the suggestion is that prices could drop like a rock.
  I am not going to suggest that I know. I would not suggest to the 
Republican leader that in fact they will drop like a rock. But common 
sense says that if we increase production, if we do those things, tell 
the world that we are not going to be stuck with scarcity, that we are 
going to use the great power of America to tap into our resources, 
that, in fact, would have an impact.
  I would also note, for those who say it is only going to have an 
impact in the future, would that be such a bad thing, for this Congress 
to be looking forward to the future? We are going to have this debate 
10 years from now if we do not do anything. In 10 years, we will be 
saying: If only 10 years ago we had opened the Outer Continental Shelf, 
we might today not be 80 or 90 percent dependent on foreign oil. I 
would suggest that we have the debate now.
  One final comment. We have not talked much about the issue of natural 
gas. I represent a State which is cold. The Presiding Officer 
represents a State that gets very cold in the winter. I would suggest 
that we are going to come back here in September, and the cost of 
heating our homes is going to start to go up as the leaves turn color 
and the temperature starts to drop. By October, the snows may hit. By 
November, they actually may be here. In December and January, it is 
going to be below zero. And the price of natural gas is going through 
the roof.
  My farmers in Minnesota have trouble today buying fertilizer and will 
next year because folks will not speculate on what the price of natural 
gas will be.
  I would then ask the Republican leader, that in objecting to the 
Coleman-Domenici proposal, the majority is not only stopping the 
possibility of tapping into billions of gallons of oil but also 
trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, a market that is much more 
susceptible in the short term to increases of supply.
  Is that the result of the Democratic objection, that we are not going 
to be able to tap into this and tell the world that there are trillions 
of cubic feet of natural gas available, and I cannot tell my folks in 
Minnesota, when it is cold in November and December and prices shoot 
through the roof, that we were not able to act because the Democrats 
objected to the unanimous consent offered by the Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, my friend from Minnesota is entirely correct. I 
learned from the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who has been 
our leader on energy issues for a number of years, that we can be 
entirely independent and sufficient in natural gas. We have enough here 
in the United States, if we would simply go get it, to take care of our 
natural gas needs.
  So, yes, we are walling off natural gas as well as oil, exacerbating 
all of these problems, driving up the price of fertilizer and every 
other product in which natural gas is used, refusing to exploit our own 
resources. It strikes the American people, and we know that by looking 
at all of the public opinion polls. It is not making any sense at all.
  I thank my friend from Minnesota for his observations.
  Mr. President, it is not only offshore that we have enormous 
potential to increase our production. It has been estimated that we 
have three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia right here in our country 
onshore in oil shale.
  Last year, this new Democratic Congress passed a moratorium on going 
forward with oil shale research and development. I think that 
moratorium was a foolish thing to do. It should be lifted.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 5253

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of the Senate bill to address oil shale leasing, the text 
of which is identical to amendment No. 5253 filed by Senator Allard to 
the Energy bill.
  I would further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third 
time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any 
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
remind the Republican leader that even the oil companies--Chevron Oil--
have said we do not even know whether the technology is out there to be 
able to develop oil shale. At the earliest, it is 2015, 2016 when we 
will know that. We had the Assistant Secretary of the Department of 
Interior, and in his testimony before the Energy Committee, he said the 
same thing.
  So the consequences of moving forward with the legislative proposals 
propounded here by the Republican leader essentially would do nothing 
more than to lock up millions of acres of land and millions of barrels 
of reserves to oil companies that already are getting the highest 
record profits of any company in the history of the world. That 
includes companies such as Shell, which reported a 33-percent increase 
in its second-quarter profit on Thursday, Exxon, and all the rest of 
the oil companies.
  So if this is about giving the national public resources away to the 
oil companies, then I would say we should support the Republican 
leader's unanimous consent. But it is not about that, it is about 
creating a new energy frontier for America. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Hampshire is 
on his feet with some observations about this objection.
  Mr. GREGG. I guess I am a little surprised at the objection. The 
first objection to your first amendment was that we did not have a 
comprehensive approach. Now you suggested another approach; we would 
add to a comprehensive approach that appears to be objected to.
  The gravamen of the objection appears to be that we do not know if we 
can produce oil shale, oil from oil

[[Page 17608]]

shale; that the technology and the location of the oil shale is not 
necessarily far enough along to be able to produce, and therefore we 
should not even look at it.
  As I understand the leader's amendment, it says simply remove the 
regulation which was put in place last year which barred the Interior 
Department from putting out regulations which allow us to find out 
whether the oil is there and whether we can remove it.
  So there seems to be an inconsistency here on the reasons why people 
would object to taking off that regulation which was put in place last 
year by the Democratic leadership.
  Secondly, the known reserves from oil shale are projected to be two 
to three times the known reserves of Saudi Arabia. That is a huge 
amount of oil, potentially. I do not think we want to not look there 
and say we are going to throw a sheet over our head and not look at 
this potential reserve which would give us as a nation more potential 
oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, that we are not going to allow the 
Department of Interior to begin the process of developing regulations 
that will, if the oil is there and if it can be used, expedite the 
production of that oil. That makes no sense at all.
  As I understand, the proposal that came earlier from the Democratic 
Party was to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is 3 days' 
worth of oil. If there is 2 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale, that 
is 40,000 days of oil. Well, I do not know. I would think the American 
people would like to have the opportunity to find 40,000 days of oil in 
the United States rather than have to buy it from Iran or from 
Venezuela, places that do not like us very much, even from Saudi 
Arabia. I think they would like to have the money kept here in the 
United States.
  Yes, the oil companies are making some big profits. They are spending 
it to look for oil also. But when they are not spending it to look for 
oil, they are actually paying some dividends. Who gets those dividends? 
Well, if they are American companies, I suspect that many Americans 
are, Americans who invested in pension funds, Americans who have 
401(k)s.
  Are we to say they shouldn't get those profits and we should, rather, 
send them to Saudi Arabia or to Iran or to Venezuela so Hugo Chavez 
gets the profits? How absurd. On its face it is absurd. We have 2 
trillion barrels of oil sitting there, and all the leader has asked for 
is to lift the regulation which will let us find out whether we can 
look for it and whether it is there.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield 
for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. I was propounding a question to the leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to our good friend, the other side had 
plenty of time to discuss their proposal.
  I say to my friend from New Hampshire, he is entirely correct. Why 
would we not want to look. Maybe we don't want to look because we might 
find something. If the potential is as vast as the Senator from New 
Hampshire portrays and as other experts have indicated, it seems to me 
we would be foolish in the extreme not to pursue this further. The 
American people simply would not understand.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Will the Republican leader yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Not at this time.
  I think the American people would not understand our reluctance to 
continue to explore this alternative given the vast potential it seems 
to possess.
  Mr. GREGG. If I may ask the Republican leader a further question: 
Have we not been on the floor now for 2 weeks, asking for the right to 
offer a series of amendments to address these issues that could be 
voted up or down, that would be fairly presented, where the minority 
would have the right to present its amendments so we could present to 
the American people the case for Outer Continental Shelf oil, oil 
shale, nuclear power, electric cars, for a variety of other options 
that might get us out from underneath this severe issue which is the 
price of oil? Have we not been asking for the opportunity to present 
those amendments in a fair and open manner in the tradition of the 
Senate and been denied that right? Are we not being denied that right 
one more time here today?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is entirely correct. All we are asking for 
is the way the Energy bill was handled last year, the way the Energy 
bill was handled in 2005, in which we had an open amendment process, in 
which Members from both sides of the aisle were given an opportunity to 
offer their amendments. Forty or fifty amendments were adopted on each 
bill. It ultimately led to a law. What we have been engaged in in the 
last 2 weeks is not designed to lead to anything other than a check-
the-box exercise and move on. That is why Republicans in great numbers 
have insisted that we stay on this subject, the No. 1 issue, that we 
continue our effort to both find more and use less. The only way to 
achieve that is with a balanced approach, not a sort of single-issue 
approach which is in the underlying bill.
  In addition to addressing gas prices directly, there are also a great 
many Members of the Senate on both sides of the of the aisle who 
understand we need to move in the direction of more nuclear power. A 
lot of us think the French have not done a whole lot right in recent 
years, but one thing they have done rather well is develop a nuclear 
power industry that supplies the vast percentage of their electricity. 
Had we been given the opportunity, we would have been offering a 
nuclear power amendment.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of a Senate bill to promote nuclear power 
generation, the text of which is identical to amendment No. 5179 filed 
by Senator Lindsey Graham to the Energy bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I was 
personally on the floor two or three times when Senator Reid offered to 
Senator McConnell to allow them to bring this amendment to the floor. 
They said: No, we want to talk it over. We have so many more 
amendments. Of course, time ran out. Now they are back again. We have 
given them ample opportunity to talk about nuclear power, to offer 
their amendments, offer their energy package. Each time they couldn't 
get it together. This is the gang that can't drill straight.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I will use leader time to allow us to 
get up to the same 30 minutes that was used by the other side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I was wondering if the leader could 
explain to me how the Democratic assistant leader could object to 
something the Senator didn't object to?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I know Senator Domenici and Senator Alexander both are 
knowledgeable about the nuclear industry. I see Senator Domenici, our 
energy expert in the Senate, on his feet.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, might I say to the Republican leader, 
I am here sitting down because you and the Senators on my side are 
doing such an excellent job of letting the American people know what 
has been going on. It has been a thrill to listen, because I would hate 
to be on the other side. It looks as if they are very anxious to make 
sure you don't finish your statements. They would like to take a little 
bit of your time. If I were in their shoes, I would too. Because the 
truth is, their leader changed the course for debate on energy, 
meaningful energy amendments, when he decided he would put all the 
amendments that the process would hold, he put them on so there could 
be none offered. That is why we are here today, because no amendments 
could be offered and voted on. Anybody who stands up and says we had a 
chance, what chance? If we would have offered something, the objection 
would have been: The tree is full. It is out of order. I already asked 
the Parliamentarian if an amendment would be in order, if I tendered an 
amendment

[[Page 17609]]

to such-and-such amendment, and the Parliamentarian said: You couldn't 
offer it. So that is why none of the amendments you refer to could have 
been offered.
  There has been one area in which we can all stand up and say we 
legislated in the normal way and got something good, and that is the 
current set of rules regarding nuclear power. We now have 16 nuclear 
powerplant applications filed and waiting their turn to start 
construction. We had zero when we started this process. We need some 
additions to that which are in the amendment you propose to make sure 
it works, to make sure this wonderful start of nuclear power for 
America hits the few things it still needs to be competitive. You have 
been denied the opportunity to discuss it. We are not talking about 
that, but to offer a full-fledged amendment that will require a little 
bit of debate and then vote. That is what we have been denied. That is 
why I am here saying the public is going to understand this. We should 
have voted on the Outer Continental Shelf, opening it, with amendment 
and full debate. We can't do it because they won't let us. It is that 
simple.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Madam President, what time remains on this side to achieve the 30 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 30 minutes has been consumed.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will use a few more minutes of leader time. If the 
other side wants to expand their time, it would be perfectly 
permissible with me.
  There is one other area that is important to me and to other Members 
on both sides and that is coal. We have vast reserves of coal in this 
country. There is a promising technology we know works to turn coal 
into liquid. We have a customer, the U.S. military. We have an 
interested potential customer in American commercial airlines. One of 
the amendments that would have been offered was related to coal to 
liquid.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of a Senate bill to promote coal-to-liquid 
energy, the text of which is identical to amendment No. 5131 filed by 
Senator Bunning to the Energy bill. I ask unanimous consent that the 
bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 
purpose of the amendment is laudable. For those of us who work on the 
Energy Committee, including the Senators from Montana, we recognize 
that coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia. There 
are ways in which we can advance the usage of coal, including coal 
gasification and carbon sequestration which we all support. But the 
proposal put on the table is not something that would get that kind of 
bipartisan support.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know the Senator from Texas is on 
his feet. I know he has strong feelings about this issue.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I say to the distinguished Republican 
leader, it sounded as though we were almost going to get to vote. The 
Senator from Colorado spoke so passionately about the importance of 
using coal. Of course, the big concern we have is coal can pollute. But 
the Senator is no doubt aware of a remarkable technology that has 
actually been around a long time that can take coal and convert it to 
synthetic fuel that the Air Force is now using to fly airplanes. Isn't 
it a fact that in terms of transportation fuels, talking about gasoline 
and diesel and aviation fuel, that represents one of the biggest 
challenges from an energy standpoint to this country and that actually 
coal-to-liquid technology, such as the leader described, represents one 
of the great opportunities for becoming less dependent on imported oil 
from the Middle East?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Absolutely. Of course, I come from a big coal-
producing State. The amendment I sought to call up is actually authored 
by Senator Bunning, my colleague from Kentucky. We are, not 
surprisingly, enthusiastic about this option. But putting aside the 
Kentucky-specific interest, the military is looking for a reliable, 
secure source of fuel for our planes. They don't want to be dependent 
on the Middle East.
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to the Republican leader, this is not just an 
energy issue, this is a national security issue. Let me ask the leader, 
since he comes from a State that produces significant amounts of coal, 
whether these figures given to me by my staff are accurate. It has been 
reported to me that the Air Force uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet 
fuel a year at a total cost of about $8 billion. That is $8 billion the 
United States appropriates and goes to the Department of Defense and 
the Air Force to buy jet fuel. It is estimated that for every $10 
increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the Air Force--and we can see 
in parentheses the U.S. taxpayer--spends an additional $600 million in 
fuel costs. Do those figures I have cited sound approximately correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am not an expert on the figures, but it sounds 
correct to me. I know the military has great desire for the kind of 
reliable, secure energy source this would provide.
  Mr. CORNYN. Are you aware or would you have any reason to disagree 
with the experts who say that synthetic fuels such as coal to liquids 
are competitive with $70 to $80-a-barrel oil, plus an additional 10 
percent that would be needed to figure out how to capture and divert 
the carbon dioxide that would be produced by the process? Do you have 
any reason to disagree with the experts on that?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Those are statistics I have heard in the past. It 
certainly underscores what a promising alternative this would be, were 
we willing to pursue it. I thank my friend from Texas for his thoughts.
  Madam President, I see the Senator from Tennessee is on his feet as 
well.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I had a brief question for the Republican leader.
  Nearly 2 weeks ago, when the Democratic leader brought the 
speculation Energy bill to the floor, isn't it true that we met and 
said we look forward to a balanced debate where we can get a result, 
and we believe in the law of supply, as well as demand, and, therefore, 
we think we should come up with a proposal for finding more and using 
less?
  On the finding more side, which we talked a lot about today, we had 
offshore drilling and oil shale, which would produce over time about 3 
million barrels a day. We talked about nuclear power for more American 
energy.
  But we have even more on the demand side, on the using less side. In 
our case, the idea was, was it not, to create an environment in the 
United States where, as rapidly as possible, we could encourage the use 
of plug-in electric cars. Is there not much support on the other side 
of the aisle for that?
  So my question to the leader is: Why is it that when Republicans, 
nearly 2 weeks ago, suggested a proposal for finding more that would 
produce 3 million more barrels a day, eventually--that is a third more 
production--and using less that would save 4 million barrels a day, 
which together would have cut in half, over time, our imported oil--why 
is it we have been unable, for the last 2 weeks nearly, to actually 
begin to debate and adopt such amendments and produce a bill that would 
send a signal to the world that the United States of America is taking 
an action to find more oil and to use less oil, which would bring down 
the price of gasoline? Why have we not been able to do that?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, 
I am perplexed. The American people do not understand taking a time out 
until next year. The senior Senator from New York, for example, was 
recently quoted as saying we are not going to do anything about this 
until next year. Well, the American people are paying these high prices 
now, and I do not think they sent us here to engage in a

[[Page 17610]]

2-week partisan battle and achieve nothing.
  The Senator from Tennessee is entirely correct when he says our goal 
from the beginning, on this side of the aisle, was, as he reminds us 
frequently--and as the sign points out--to both find more and use less. 
Virtually every member of our conference is in favor of almost every 
conservation measure you can think of.
  Our fundamental problem in here is it seems as if the other side does 
not want to do any finding of more. They may share our view about using 
less, but they do not want to find any more, as if somehow we could 
simply conserve our way out of this problem. I know of not a single 
expert in America who thinks we can, by conservation alone, solve this 
problem and get the price of gas at the pump down.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, before the Republican leader leaves the 
floor, I would like to reconcile the remaining time allotment.
  I understood he said we could have extra time in the next segment for 
Democrats, to make up for the additional time used by the Republican 
side; is that correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, that is fine.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, could the Chair indicate how much 
additional time was used by the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes ten seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, if I could ask unanimous consent, then, 
that the next segment be 40 minutes on the Democratic side and then we 
return to 30-minute segments on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.
  Madam President, for those who are following this debate, it is 
interesting because a friend of mine I used to work for in politics as 
a young man used to say: When politicians speak, there is a good reason 
and a real reason for the things they are saying.
  The good reason for the position taken by the Republicans is they 
believe more oil put on the market is going to mean more supply and 
lower prices. It is intuitive to us, in a supply-and-demand economy, 
that makes sense on its face. So the pillar of their argument on energy 
policy is we have to find more places to drill. We do not have enough 
places to drill for oil now. If we could find more oil, there would be 
more gasoline, and gasoline prices would come down. The logic is good. 
But it fails to tell the whole story. It fails to account for 68 
million acres of Federal lands currently leased by oil and gas 
companies that they have not touched. They have paid the Federal 
Government for this land to go drill for oil and have done nothing. The 
Republicans never mention the 68 million acres out there that the oil 
companies are not using.
  There is a second matter they never mention. If we decided today to 
start drilling for oil on the Mall--and sometimes I think in the 
speeches on the floor a few people might be for that--but if we decided 
to drill, they think it takes 8 to 14 years before you put the oil well 
into production--8 to 14 years.
  As you are paying for your gasoline each week and somebody says: Hey, 
hang on, in 14 years we are going to get this under control, you have a 
right to be a little impatient. But that is the Republican approach.
  So who would buy this approach? Well, the people who are buying this 
approach--the real reason behind the position on the Republican side--
this is the oil companies' agenda. This is the oil companies' answer: 
Keep drilling, give us more land, give us more options, let us put 
these in our portfolio--the same oil companies that are reporting not 
just recordbreaking profits for oil companies but recordbreaking 
profits for American businesses. No businesses in our history have ever 
reported the profits they have reported.
  Shell reports a profit jump. Despite reducing production of oil, 
their profits have gone up. Shell went up 33 percent this quarter; 
Exxon, 14 percent--recordbreaking profits for these oil companies, and 
the position they hold, coincidentally, is the same position as the 
Republican Party in the Senate.
  But an honest energy picture, one that looks forward, says we need 
responsible exploration and production. That means we do not go into 
environmentally sensitive areas; we do not pollute our beaches and our 
shore communities; we do the safe and the right thing but we produce 
oil and gas as we can in this country, realizing the entire inventory 
of oil in America represents 3 percent of the global supply of oil--3 
percent--and we consume 25 percent of the oil.
  We cannot drill our way out of this. We have to look beyond that. We 
have tried to do that. Twice this week we brought an energy policy bill 
to the floor. Twice this week the Republicans defeated it. They refused 
to vote for an energy policy that is comprehensive, that has just not 
exploration and production in it but looks to things that are our 
future: more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
  We cannot keep driving these gas hogs. We have to drive cars and 
trucks that are sensible, that meet the needs of our families and our 
economy and do not consume so much gas. I think my kids and my 
grandkids will be using plug-in hybrid cars. They will wonder why their 
old man used to use so darn much gasoline when he was growing up 
because they will have found ways to do it without gasoline, without 
diesel fuel, using these batteries and using plug-in hybrids.
  That is the future. That is what we asked the Republicans to join us 
on and vote for, and they refused. We asked them to join us in creating 
tax incentives for solar power and wind power and geothermal sources, 
all of which can serve our economy, serve our businesses, serve our 
families, and not create global warming. They refused. Time and again, 
the only thing they will vote for is the oil company agenda.
  The oil companies are pretty powerful. You may see some of their 
folks walking the halls out here, wearing pretty nice suits and shoes. 
You can't miss them. But that is not the future. That is the past. They 
have done their part. They will continue to play a role--a major role--
but the future is a future of vision, looking for clean energy and 
good-paying jobs right here in America, creating the kind of industry 
where we can have growth in manufacturing jobs so families across our 
country have an opportunity.
  The Republican view and the Democratic view are quite different. When 
we offered them a chance to come together, they refused. They would not 
do it. The last bill they defeated not only had the energy provisions I 
mentioned, it had a lot of other important provisions. There was 
disaster assistance for the poor people in Iowa. There was $8 billion 
to put in the highway trust fund so we can reduce congestion on our 
highways and create construction jobs across America.
  It even included the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act. Paul 
Wellstone of Minnesota passed away about 6 years ago. This was his 
passion, and we have never passed this bill. We have to pass it now so 
your health insurance covers mental illness, as it covers physical 
illness. They voted against that too. It was all part of the same bill.
  It is unfortunate we have reached this point, but that is the point 
we find ourselves.
  The final word in this debate is going to be on November 4, and the 
voters will have it. If the voters believe we need to look backward to 
the oil company agenda, they can agree with our Republican friends. But 
if they believe we need to look forward, with responsible exploration 
and production but also incentives for renewable energy that brings us 
into the 21st century in leadership, I hope they will consider voting 
for those who have brought that to the floor.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

[[Page 17611]]


  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I wish to make a few comments to 
clarify some of the colloquy that went on and what I consider to be 
some of the distortions that were spread.
  First, there is a misconception that the minority side is trying to 
spread: that Democrats are against drilling. If you go to my State of 
Colorado, you will find tens of thousands of natural gas wells and oil 
wells that are producing. If you look at the votes we have taken in 
this Chamber, there are many of us who have said we need to go and 
drill, and we need to explore, whether it is off the gulf coast or 
whether it is in other areas. So for them to try to use the brand that 
we are against the use of our conventional fuels and resources is 
simply wrong.
  I wish to comment on two or three specific matters. First, on the 
opening of the Outer Continental Shelf, it is true the President has 
said he wants to lift the moratoria. It is true Senator McCain has said 
it would have some kind of a psychological effect, perhaps, on the 
market. The fact is, there are some of us who say we ought to at least 
have an inventory of what is out there on the OCS.
  But no matter how you cut it, the Department of Energy and the Energy 
Information Administration has said we are not going to be producing 
anything out there for 7 to 10 years. So it is not going to have an 
impact on gasoline now. That raises the question: What is the real 
motivation of these amendments and these agendas on the Republican 
side? It is a stalling tactic to keep gas on the minds of people 
through the month of August so they play it for their own political 
advantage.
  I think the American people expect better of us. I think the American 
people expect us to come up with real solutions and not phantom 
solutions. Solutions that have been proposed here are, by and large, 
phantom solutions. There can be no greater phantom solution, frankly, 
than what we have seen countless times over the last 2 weeks: the 
assertion by my wonderful friends on the other side who have said that 
somehow out of this shale rock--which is shale; it is not tar; it is 
not sand; it is shale; it is rock--that somehow we are going to be able 
to develop 2 trillion barrels of oil out of that rock.
  Well, it has been tried for about 100 years. Nobody has figured it 
out. Even the oil companies are saying they cannot figure it out right 
now. We, contrary to the assertions made by my good friend from New 
Hampshire, opened the opportunity for oil and gas companies to go in 
and see whether the technology could be developed. So we have a robust 
research and development program that is taking a look at whether oil 
shale can be commercially developed in my State of Colorado, where 80 
percent of the reserves are located.
  So I would hope, as we move forward in what is one of the most 
important issues in the crucible of our times, that we look to the 
future to find real solutions that are so important for us on energy 
because, at the end of the day, what will drive us to that new energy 
world is the importance of national security, economic opportunity here 
at home, and the environmental security of our planet.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, a little earlier this afternoon, our 
leader came to the floor with colleagues and offered six different 
opportunities for the Senate to bring before it bills that include 
responsible drilling, investments in alternatives, investments in areas 
that will create jobs right away, which relate to my great State of 
Michigan, which is investing immediately in advanced battery technology 
research and development and retooling our plants for the new vehicles, 
which will create, within 2 years--not 15 years--changes that will 
allow us to move aggressively to hybrids and plug-in automobiles. We 
saw legislation put forward to deal with energy speculation and what is 
going on in the marketplaces.
  Each of those times, there was an objection to even moving ahead to 
consider those bills. Twice this week, we have tried to move forward on 
tax incentives for production, for alternative energy, and other 
options that will get us off foreign oil and bring down gas prices for 
good. Each time there were objections. In the month of June, two other 
times--we can go back a year--objection, objection, objection.
  Frankly, people watching the Senate get sick of this because they 
want action. They want something to be done. The question is: Who 
benefits by this blocking continually, by this stopping of us moving 
forward to alternatives to compete with oil companies or to tackle oil 
speculation or windfall profits tax proposals that would require you to 
pay an extra tax if you don't reinvest in alternatives or in drilling 
in America to create more supply? Who would benefit by these things?
  I think it is very clear from the announcement in the paper today. 
Today ExxonMobil reported second quarter profits of $11.68 billion, the 
highest ever for an American company. It did that last month--the last 
quarter: highest profits ever--ever--ever for an American company. All 
together, since President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, 
two oilmen, have been in the White House over the last 8 years, all 
together ExxonMobil has reached $212 billion in profits. That is a lot 
of zeroes: $212 billion in profits.
  I wonder who benefits from the inability of the Senate to get 
agreement to move to bills that would create competition with this 
company or deal with oil speculation or deal with other policies that 
would hold them accountable? It is right here. It is right here. This 
is very clear. As my kids say, it is as clear as the nose on your face 
of what this is all about. This is about an oil company agenda that has 
run wild for 8 years, and the American people are paying a huge price. 
Our economy is paying a huge price.
  Along with ExxonMobil, Shell has also reported profits of $11.56 
billion, bringing their grand total since this administration took 
office to over $157 billion. The total combined net profits of the big 
five oil companies since President Bush and Dick Cheney took office are 
upwards of $641 billion.
  What have they done with those profits? Well, oil companies have 
spent $188 billion in stock buy-backs and other spending, rather than 
investing it in supply here at home and abroad. We have heard so many 
times on this floor that there are 68 million acres available right now 
for exploration that are not being used. I have supported responsible 
drilling as part of the solution. We know there is no silver bullet, 
but we also know we have to be aggressively moving to the future and 
not stuck in what is an oil company agenda for this country.
  We also know we are in a global marketplace. Nobody knows that more 
than the people in my great State of Michigan. We are competing in a 
global economy. So that as there is supply created, as there is 
drilling, it goes into the global marketplace. If they drill in Alaska, 
it goes to China. To add insult to injury, we don't even know where the 
oil will be going.
  However, here is what we do know: In February of this year, according 
to the Department of Energy, shipments outside this country were 1.8 
million barrels a day--1.8 million barrels a day. Overall, in the first 
4 months of this year, the shipments of American oil outside this 
country--drilling here, going somewhere else in the world--were up 33 
percent.
  So clearly, the great oilman who has been all over our television 
sets, T. Boone Pickens, is right. We are not going to drill our way out 
of this in a global economy where you can drill here and it can go 
anywhere to the highest bidder.
  Here is also what we know: We know we have to get extremely serious--
and quickly--about those things that will make a difference, such as 
bringing accountability to the energy markets and addressing 
speculation, and focusing aggressively on those areas that will give us 
real alternatives and competition for these guys who have been doing so 
well.
  To add insult to injury, we take a look at the other ways in which 
this industry has received so many benefits from this administration. 
Eighteen

[[Page 17612]]

months ago, we heard in the New York Times that the Bush administration 
was allowing oil and gas companies to forgo royalty payments. They 
didn't have to pay their royalty payments on leases in Federal waters 
in the Gulf of Mexico. This decision by the Department of the Interior 
can cost up to $60 billion. They were supposed to make payments. Those 
payments were waived, for whatever reason, costing us up to $60 
billion. Sixty billion dollars is the equivalent of 38 days of free gas 
for every American. Right now, I know a lot of folks who would take 
that gladly.
  The reality is we have seen at every turn efforts to support this 
industry for the last 8 years, and where has it gotten us? Where has it 
gotten us?
  I wish to share with my colleagues some stories of folks from 
Michigan in terms of where it has gotten us--not only $4 a gallon at 
the pump, but when we look at what has happened to real people, it is 
an outrage, where this 8 years of a policy that has put oil companies 
first has gotten us. We know that everybody is affected. The folks 
going to work are affected. Yesterday I read a letter from a young 
woman who works after school and was concerned because she takes the 
bus to school and now the buses are being cut because they can't afford 
to put gas into the schoolbuses. What an outrage in the United States 
of America.
  Let me share today an article that was in the New York Times. Older 
poor people and those who are homebound are doubly squeezed by rising 
gas prices and food prices because they rely not just on social service 
agencies but also on volunteers. We have heard from our home health 
care agencies that do such a wonderful job in this country helping 
people to be able to remain at home and allowing them to receive 
services. In a survey of home health agencies, more than 70 percent 
said it was more difficult to recruit and to keep volunteers. We have 
heard that from Meals on Wheels. We have heard that from other kinds of 
volunteer programs that go into homes to help seniors, to help the 
disabled, to help those who need some assistance.
  Let me share with my colleagues one letter. Mrs. Fair, who has 
limited mobility because of diabetes, lives on $642 a month of Social 
Security widow's benefits, and relies on care from her son who often 
works odd hours, especially during blueberry season. We grow a lot of 
blueberries, and they are terrific, they are the best, in Michigan. It 
says: ``You belong in a nursing home.'' This is what her son said. ``I 
can't take care of you.'' The delivered meals she has been receiving 
have allowed her to eat at normal hours which helped her control her 
blood sugar levels. Last year, she lost her balance during a change in 
blood sugar and spent a month in a nursing home. With no meal delivery 
in her area now, she is going to have to find someone to pick up the 
frozen meals from the center in the next town. She says: ``If my aide 
can't get the meals''--a person who has been helping her--``maybe I can 
get my pastor to pick them up. I can't travel even to the drop-off 
center.''
  In Union, MI, a town among flat corn and soybean farms near the 
Indiana border, Bill Harman, who is 77, relies on a home health aide to 
take care of his wife Evelyn, who is 85 years old and she has 
Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Harman has had to use a wheelchair since 2000 
because of hip problems. Unfortunately, the person who has been coming 
to their house, Katie Clark, who is 26, may have to give up her job. 
She lives 25 miles away and drives 700 miles a week to provide twice 
daily visits, helping Mrs. Harman dress in the morning, get to bed at 
night, feeding her, doing chores around the house, and then she laughs, 
saying ``putting up with a grumpy old man.'' I am sure he is not that 
grumpy. Her weekly income of $250 is being eaten up by gas expenses, 
which come to $100 a week. ``Some weeks I have to borrow money to get 
here,'' says Ms. Clark, a single mom of two, ``but they are just like 
family to me.''
  For her work she receives $9 an hour and if she leaves, Mr. Harman 
has said he will not be able to care for his wife. He said when they 
married, she raised his five children as if they were her own. Mrs. 
Harman started to develop Alzheimer's 8 to 10 years ago. He said, ``I 
promised her, don't worry, I will take care of you as long as I can.'' 
But without a home health aide, he said, he was going to have to put 
his wife in a nursing home and he probably would need to live there 
himself.
  In the greatest country in the world, we have folks who are not able 
to get their Meals on Wheels. They are not able to get their home 
health aide now. Why? Because they can't afford gas. We have school 
buses that can't run because they can't afford gas.
  Let me share with my colleagues one other story. Sandra Prediger, who 
is 70 years old and who still drives a car, said higher gas prices hit 
her every time she needs to go to the doctor. From her senior apartment 
in South Haven, MI, she was barely able to pay her bills because gas 
prices rose. She said: ``I try to help some of the ladies around here, 
driving them to the doctor or to the store.'' But a round trip to her 
doctor or the beauty shop now costs $26 in gas. She has had to ask her 
friends to pay half. She said, ``I hate to ask because they have less 
than I do.''
  Her Social Security check arrives on the 3rd of the month. For the 
first few days before, her local gas station lets her write a postdated 
check to fill up. On July 2 she had no money and owed money to the gas 
station and she knew that in a few minutes her friend would be calling 
saying, could you please take me to the store to get the meals for my 
diabetes. What am I going to do?
  There is something wrong when we are in a situation where we have 
seen an agenda benefiting a special interest in this country, and in 
the world right now, where we have seen the highest profits in the 
history of the country that are creating numbers such as $641 billion 
in profits and we have seniors who have to write a postdated check at a 
gas station so they can pay for gas to get themselves and their friends 
to the doctor.
  The reality is that to be able to change that, we have to do more 
than drill more so the oil companies can make more of a profit in a 
global economy. We have to be able to create a situation where there is 
competition with other kinds of alternative energies so we have more 
than a choice of whatever price they put up at the pump. That is what 
this is about. That is what the crux of this is about, because if it 
weren't about this, we would have a compromise. We would have a 
solution. If it weren't about this, there wouldn't be objections going 
on day after day after day to be able to take up legislation on this 
floor, because under normal circumstances, if there weren't this huge 
amount of money at stake, people would come together. If they weren't 
backing up these huge interests, people would be willing to come 
together to be able to solve this problem.
  There are things we can do. I am very proud to be part of a group of 
people in the Democratic majority who have been working very hard to 
create an alternative vision for the future. Yesterday the Senate 
leadership, including Senator Byrd, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, laid out a jobs stimulus that we intend to bring forward for 
a vote in September. In there is a major investment of $300 million in 
advanced battery technology research and development. We are so close 
to having the electric vehicle on the road and mass produced. We are so 
close. There is work that needs to be done, but we are so close. Within 
18 months to 2 years, we can have a real alternative to oil on the 
road.
  Part of this package also includes a commitment to Americans and 
American jobs by helping to retool and make capital available, make 
credit available to companies to retool our plants for these new 
vehicles, so that we keep those jobs here.
  Our companies are competing with countries right now. Come to China, 
we will build a plant for you. Come to Korea, we will build a plant for 
you. We want those jobs here.
  I am very proud that the stimulus that has been put forward shows a 
commitment to American jobs and American manufacturing. I am very proud

[[Page 17613]]

that is part of the stimulus package we will be working on and voting 
on in September.
  Around the world, everybody else gets it that it is not just about 
oil and drilling. Everybody else understands. Every other country is 
racing to alternatives. Germany announced the great advanced battery 
alliance that will invest over $650 million in advanced batteries to 
help German automobile makers. South Korea spent over $700 million in 
advanced batteries and developing hybrid vehicles. We are in a race 
with them to get to the future, not the past. China has invested over 
$100 million in advanced battery research and development.
  In the next 5 years, Japan will have spent $230 million on this 
research, as well as $278 million on hydrogen research for zero-
emission fuel-cell vehicles. That is the future. That is the real 
competition, so when you go to the pump and look up and see that price 
for traditional gas, you have another choice. That is the future. We 
are working very hard to get us to that future. We need a White House 
that will help us get to that future. We need support from the other 
side of the aisle, not just to talk about it.
  In conclusion, part of what is talked about on the other side of the 
aisle in terms of supporting advanced battery research is a prize. If 
you go out and spend all this money--and Germany spends $650 million--
but if you, an individual or a business in America, figure out a way to 
get the capital to do this, we will give you a prize at the end. It is 
insulting that the presumptive Republican nominee and his colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have decided to run our economy like a game 
show.
  We have said we have to invest upfront in America, in American jobs. 
That is the future. That is the only way to create the opportunity for 
schoolbuses to be able to run, for seniors to be able to get to the 
doctor, for folks to be able to get home health, for folks to be able 
to get to a job, and to create the jobs we need in the future in 
advanced manufacturing.
  I hope before this week is out, our colleagues will come to the 
floor, stop objecting, and work with us. What we know is right in front 
of us--what we know can be done to bring down gas prices and create 
jobs in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.


                           State of Paralysis

  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes today to 
speak about the state of paralysis we seem to have found ourselves in 
on the Senate floor, and then also to make a brief comment about two 
nominations the Senate will be considering.
  First, we are paralyzed, obviously. The other side of the aisle has 
voted against a windfall profits measure for oil companies at a time 
when we have seen record profits for any company in American history, 
which has only increased. How did they get these profits? Certainly not 
by working any harder. In fact, as people have mentioned on the floor 
today, it seems a lot of production actually has gone down. I don't 
know how else you define a windfall than what has happened in the price 
of oil and the profits that have gone to the oil companies over the 
past 6 or 7 years. They will not give us a vote on the rampant 
speculation that has now taken place in the oil market.
  I have to say at the outset that I don't have a fundamental 
disagreement with a lot of the things that are being said on the 
Republican side about what we need to do. I think we very much need a 
comprehensive energy strategy in this country. I am not opposed, 
personally, to the idea of expanding exploration for oil and gas in 
those cases where it is appropriate, and to get down and find the 
assets that are available to us as a nation and increase our national 
security. This may not be, as some people say, the answer in the 
distant future, but it is certainly an essential transition for us as 
we reach toward that future.
  I personally support nuclear power and expanding nuclear power 
programs. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in more than 30 
years. There has been ample comment about that on the floor. I think 
nuclear power is safe. We are the best in the world at it. The 
experiences of the U.S. Navy at sea for at least a half century 
demonstrate that. It is environmentally clean, and we have gotten 
better technology, advanced technology, in terms of taking care of 
nuclear waste.
  I believe we can reach a point where we have cleaner coal. This 
requires new technology. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We are 
looking to improve national security, and we are looking for 
independence from countries where we have seen an enormous transfer of 
wealth from the United States. This transfer of wealth is going to 
result in better infrastructure for these other countries, and it is 
going to harm us in the long-term.
  I believe we need to support conservation and alternative energy 
programs of every sort. I went to high school in Nebraska. If you draw 
a line from Canada to northern Texas, where the winds come down from 
the Arctic Circle, you will see there is not a mountain in the way. 
There are actually trees in Oklahoma that bend toward the south because 
of the power of those winds. I believe we must invest, in terms of 
alternative energy technologies, whether it is wind, solar, or other 
areas.
  At the same time, when do we debate this? How do we develop a 
strategy? What should we be doing now, today, looking into the 
immediate future? The bill our leadership brought to the Senate floor 
is the best short-term fix, when we are talking about the incredible 
increase in the price of oil. If you go back 6 years to when this 
Congress voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq, oil was $24 a barrel. 
The price of oil went all the way up to $147 a barrel. It has tamped 
down a little since then, but that is a sixfold increase in 6 years.
  I can guarantee this is not simply a supply-and-demand issue. The 
demand didn't go up six times in the last 6 years. There are other 
interests, including the speculation market, that have driven the price 
of oil up that high. We have had testimony from oil companies' 
executives saying that, in a pure supply-and-demand environment, oil 
would probably be at $60 a barrel. That is an issue we can affect. We 
can affect it in the short term by regulating a market that has 
dramatically changed because of the participants in that market since 
late 2000. I hope we can have some sort of agreement on this. We should 
have a vote on the speculation issue. I compliment our leadership for 
having attempted to bring that issue before the Senate.


                          Pending Nominations

  Madam President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes about two 
nominations that are pending before the Senate.
  First, I express my appreciation to the senior Senator from Virginia, 
Senator Warner, today for the comments he made about Kathy Stephens, 
who has been nominated to be Ambassador to South Korea, has cleared the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and has been waiting for a vote on 
this floor. I know of very few people who have better qualifications to 
serve in that part of the world. I have spent a good part of my life in 
and out of Asia. She began as a Peace Corps worker in South Korea. She 
is fluent in Korean. I believe she is the best qualified person to 
address all of the issues that people on both sides have expressed 
their concerns about, in terms of politics, the culture, human rights 
issues, et cetera. I was very gratified to see Senator Warner mention 
his support for her nomination today. I hope we can find a way to get 
her out there doing her job in the very near future.
  The second nomination I want to mention is that, regrettably, I am 
unable to support the nomination for the Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force. This is an individual who, in an earlier billet, at a key time 
after the invasion of Iraq, was asked repeatedly to give answers to a 
question for which I personally believe there were answers. I was 
writing about it at the time. I have very strong feelings about this. 
Regrettably, I am going to be unable to support that nomination.
  I go back to what General Matthew Ridgway said some 50 years ago, 
when

[[Page 17614]]

he was describing the role of a military adviser. He said:

       He should give his competent professional advice on the 
     military aspects of the problems referred to him, based on 
     his fearless, honest, objective estimate of the national 
     interest, and regardless of administration policy at any 
     particular time. He should confine his advice to the 
     essentially military aspects.

  I believe if we do not insist on this standard in the relationships 
between the U.S. military and the Congress, then we are going to 
continue to have the same difficulties that we saw with attempting to 
get straight comment out of the U.S. military as we went into Iraq.
  There was a very wise Marine general who said, at the time I was 
entering the Marine Corps, ``It is very important in the United States 
to get the politics out of the military and to keep the military out of 
politics.'' I believe that, if we believe in that, we need to insist 
that those military officers who testify before the Congress abide by 
it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                      Condolences to Simon Family

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have had the good fortune of working 
with Senator Bingaman now for 26 years. He is such a wonderful man. His 
academic record is as good as anyone's in the Senate. His ability to do 
legislation is as good as anyone's in the Senate. Everybody knows what 
an easy man he is to deal with. He is now chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, which is so important to what goes on in 
our country. New Mexico is so fortunate to have his service in the 
Senate. He does so much for New Mexico and, of course, for our country.
  The reason I mention his name is that one reason Senator Bingaman 
does such a good job is he has a wonderful staff. I have worked very 
closely with them. At least 70 percent of Nevada is public lands--land 
owned by the Federal Government. Only 13 percent isn't private lands. 
Over 40 percent of the State of Nevada is restricted air space. You 
cannot fly an airplane over most of the State of Nevada. It is 
restricted to the military. So we have lots of dependence on the 
Federal Government. We are the most public land State in the country.
  As a result of that, I have worked closely with the Energy Committee 
all these many years. One of the people I have worked closely with over 
these years, for more than a decade, is the chief of staff of that 
committee, Bob Simon. He is a wonderful guy--quiet, intellectually very 
sound, a graduate of a small college in Pennsylvania called Ursinus 
College. He has a PhD from MIT in chemistry.
  I have followed very closely the travails of Bob Simon these last few 
weeks because he has a son by the name of Gregory, 16 years old, who 
was struck with a very bad bleed on the brain and died today. He was in 
the hospital in a coma. We thought he would pull through, but he did 
not. He died. It is devastating to Bob Simon, his wife Karen, and, of 
course, Anne-Marie, his daughter, and Catherine. Catherine is not here 
today, of course. Her brother passed away. She is in charge of the 
Democratic pages. She works very hard in that capacity.
  It is times such as these when you really understand that when we 
talk about a Senate family, we really mean it. Bob Simon is part of the 
family. He works with Democrats and Republicans. He is great for 
working on a bipartisan basis. When Senator Domenici was chairman of 
the committee, Bob Simon was the Democratic chief of staff. The 
committee with the two New Mexicans as the ranking member and chairman 
of that committee, one time as chairman, one time as ranking member--
one reason that committee functions so well is because of Bob Simon.
  There is nothing I can do other than to recognize what a good man Bob 
Simon is. There is nothing I can do to ease the pain of the Simon 
family, their friends, and loved ones.
  On behalf of the Senate, I extend my deepest condolences to Bob Simon 
and his wife Karen for their heartbreaking loss. Being the father of 
five children, I can only think how devastating this must be.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the leader yield a moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I heard the leader's comments about 
Gregory. I just want to say I am aware of the situation. I feel the 
same way the majority leader feels. I thank him so much for his 
graciousness toward Bob and his wife. I know how tough it is on them. 
We don't know it until something like that happens, but that is a very 
young, wonderful boy who died. Bob is a wonderful man. Everybody who 
knows him knows he is a dedicated, devoted father. It is just pathetic 
that this happened.
  I join the majority leader in every way in extending my most sincere 
regrets and hope and pray that the best will come of this. I know that 
sounds impossible, but at least we can ask for the best and that the 
Lord consider them and be merciful to them.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I did not know my friend from New Mexico 
was on the floor, but as he knows, I did mention his name and the great 
relationship Bob Simon has had with the committee. As I mentioned, not 
knowing the Senator from New Mexico was on the floor, I will repeat 
what I said, that the committee has functioned very well. Two New 
Mexicans run that committee, either as chairman or ranking member, back 
and forth, and they work so well together. One reason they do is 
because of Bob Simon. He is a very quiet, brilliant man, and it is very 
nice that Senator Domenici would say what is in his heart because we 
join in his wishes that, as he has indicated, the Lord will look down 
on his family with understanding and compassion, and hopefully, as time 
goes by, there will be some good that comes from this tragedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, as I understand it, time now inures to 
the Senate Republicans for--is it a half hour?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                                 Energy

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am here to lead off for the 
Republicans. There are two others. Senator Brownback is here, and there 
may be another Senator, Senator Allard. I say to them, I am only going 
to make a 2-minute or 3-minute statement and then yield to whoever 
wishes to go first. I would like them to hear what I say.
  Yesterday, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Byrd, issued what I believe to be a very telling and extraordinary 
statement. He said:

       It became clear that an attempt to add language to the 
     supplemental----

  That is the supplemental appropriations----

     repealing the two-decade-old ban on offshore oil and gas 
     drilling would be successful, resulting in the necessity of 
     having to produce 60 votes on the Senate floor to strip the 
     repeal.
       And so for that reason, the markup in the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee on two important bills that fund the 
     government was canceled.

  I will say that not only does this statement contradict claims of the 
majority about why the markup was canceled, it also crystallizes 
exactly why the last 9 days in the Senate have resulted in absolutely 
nothing. The majority is afraid of allowing the Senate to vote on 
increasing American production. They are afraid to let that happen 
because a vote just might yield results.
  We have spent 9 days debating this bill. During this time, we could 
have considered dozens of amendments, just as we did on the energy 
legislation in 2005 and 2007, and without a doubt, because the majority 
leader has taken sole control over the process, we have been held to 
zero votes. So zero votes, I say to my fellow Americans, cannot yield 
results. When you have no votes, you cannot accomplish anything. That 
means you cannot add to the offshore reserve that can be made available 
for oil and gas production. It remains as is, no matter how much is 
there, no matter how much we could end up drilling

[[Page 17615]]

for so the American people could look out and say: By producing our 
own, we don't have to waste all our money sending it overseas, and the 
price might come down.
  My last observation before I yield to my good friends is that I 
continue to hear comments from the other side that say we should not be 
drilling because all we say is drill, drill, drill, and that is the 
only thing, and we don't need to do that; we need alternatives.
  We can have all the alternatives we would like--and I am surely in 
favor--but we are going to be using crude oil or something much like 
crude oil for at least a generation--that means 20 years minimum--
because we cannot get off crude oil any faster. The oil products we use 
for our cars, our trucks, and our airplanes we cannot change over fast 
enough, so we have to use oil. And if we don't produce more of our own, 
we all know what we are going to do is buy from others and continue to 
send the money overseas.
  It is not just drilling because we want to drill, drill, drill; it is 
drilling because we don't have enough oil. And if we find more, we 
import less. That should be good, and the American people sense it is 
good. That is why so many of them have said let's open the offshore for 
drilling.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I would like to first thank my 
colleague from New Mexico and ask him a question, because this will be 
the last year he is serving in this body. He has served in it for many 
years, very distinguished. It has been my pleasure to get to know him. 
Senator Domenici can be irascible sometimes, but he is always fair. I 
find he will get on both sides, depending on which way he makes the 
call.
  I just saw this, too, that we are not having this Appropriations 
Committee markup. I am on that committee. I am a relatively new member. 
Senator Allard is on it, and Senator Domenici has served on it in a 
distinguished capacity for many years.
  This is really striking. I have not seen this take place. I have not 
been in the Senate that long, but I wonder if my colleague has seen 
that sort of move taking place to stop a major issue that is 
confronting the American public?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have not seen such a thing. In fact, 
I have said--not as direct as this, but I have said that in 36 years 
being a Senator, through thick and thin and bills I have managed, bills 
I have amended, whatever kinds, I have never seen anything where such a 
simple proposition--can we open lands that we own so they can be 
drilled, yes or no--I have never seen where it takes 10 days and they 
waste 10 days of time and still say no. I have never heard of that. Yet 
the majority, the leader of the Appropriations Committee says in the 
Appropriations Committee there are enough votes to end the offshore 
hindrance that has been there, it says, for two decades or three 
decades. If the amendments do that, they are awfully scared, right? 
Maybe that is why we didn't get the vote.
  I think it is other things. I don't think Members on that side wanted 
to vote, win or lose. They didn't want to vote. Now the American people 
can judge. That is how I see it. They can judge what happened and why.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator from 
Kansas to yield because I would like to add additional remarks.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I think the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, has 
done a fabulous job with the energy issue, not just this year when it 
is fashionable--and this is the big issue--but he has devoted his whole 
legislative career to energy, making it available, how we can use 
research and technology to meet the energy needs of this country. He is 
recognized not only by me but nearly all Members of this Senate for his 
hard work on energy. We all should appreciate that work.
  I join in the chorus of those who have congratulated Senator Domenici 
on a distinguished career. His dedication to energy--I cannot think of 
another subject one could pick up that would have more of a long-term 
impact on this country, whether we are talking about economic security, 
whether we are talking about military security, or whether we are just 
talking about a secure home where one can rely on utilities and 
everything to have a comfortable lifestyle in this country. The Senator 
needs to be recognized for that. It is a pleasure for me to do so, as I 
have served on several committees now with him. He is very articulate 
on this subject, and he does a great job.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, and 
I will add one supplement to it because he knows this and maybe we will 
just say it together here. I did devote 10 years, with three or four 
experts, to seeing if we could bring nuclear power back to life in 
America, instead of leaving it dead, for others to use it as we sit 
around having invented it and wondering what is happening. I did work 
on it for 10 years, and then when we did our big bill, we put in 
provisions that brought it back to life. That does make you feel good. 
You don't do that alone.
  We never had a single vote, I say to my friend from Colorado, not one 
vote was taken on any of the bills to try to negate the provisions we 
put in for nuclear power. One would have thought 5 years ago it would 
be the most contentious issue we could have brought to the floor. In 
that big Energy bill, there was a whole chapter on nuclear power. 
Nobody sought to amend it, change it, anything. That was really a 
credit to the Senators who worked so hard on nuclear power, and the 
Senator was one of them. Senator Allard has always said he has been 
proud of it. I don't know about the Senator from Kansas, but I assume 
so. He has a good brain, and if you have a good brain and you are a 
reasonable legislator, you couldn't be against nuclear. You just had to 
be one of these fringe people against everything, scared because we had 
an accident once.
  If you are scared because you had an accident once, you would not get 
up in the morning. That is what the doctor told my mother. She didn't 
want me to get out of bed because I had a bad knee. The doctor said: 
The best thing to do if you don't want him to get hurt is you be his 
maid. He can stay in bed, and you can serve him food for 25 years. Of 
course, he won't amount to anything. And that is true.
  I am talking on. It is getting close to the end of the day.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. 
I note that when the nuclear industry comes back, I hope one of the 
first powerplants has ``Pete Domenici'' written over the archway going 
into it.
  We have an excellent nuclear powerplant in Kansas called Wolf Creek. 
My colleague recognizes this. It has been in operation for 25 years. It 
had huge protests before it got built. People were protesting the train 
that carried some of the main core elements into this spot. It has been 
operating efficiently, cleanly. It doesn't put off CO2. It 
was a huge investment that has been fantastic for our whole State. And 
it was a capital expense. It was expensive on the capital side of it, 
substantially so, but, boy, does it run well. It has been good to see. 
And if we need to bring that back, we need to bring it back on a cost-
efficient basis, but that was one of our key elements on moving this 
forward and moving our car fleet with more electricity. But we are 
going to need that base power generation, and we want it clean, and 
here is a good spot to do it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There are 16 applications to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission as of the day before yesterday--16--for new nuclear 
powerplants; in some cases, two plants at one site, both construction 
and design applications. We had zero the day we adopted the new Energy 
bill. For once it seems as if we did something right; doesn't it?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I agree.
  Madam President, I join my colleagues from New Mexico and Colorado in 
talking about the energy issue, and I particularly want to associate 
myself with the comments of the Senator from New Mexico, who responded 
that we

[[Page 17616]]

are not just focusing on drill, drill, drill. The point of the matter 
is two numbers. Those two numbers are 25 and 3. Twenty-five percent of 
the world's oil is consumed by the United States, and we produce 3 
percent.
  Now, how long can we operate that way?
  You can say, as my colleague from New Mexico has pointed out: Well, 
OK, we are going to get off oil. We want some alternative. Lord knows, 
I want an alternative. I want more ethanol, which is produced in my 
State. I want it produced out of cellulose. The problem is, if we 
turned off oil tomorrow, we are not in a position to produce enough of 
that or virtually anything else. We are going to need to use oil for 
some period of time, and that 25 and 3 ratio doesn't work--our 
consuming 25 percent and producing 3 percent--when we could produce 
probably a good 50 percent more. Who knows what the actual number is. 
We know it is much higher than what it currently is.
  For every dollar we are not spending on oil here, we are spending it 
somewhere else. They are building these huge indoor sea complexes in 
Dubai in the Middle East and lavish buildings. They are building 
islands, whole islands, beautifully designed like a palm tree. That 
takes huge amounts of money.
  You sit there for just 2 minutes, and you think: Where is all that 
money coming from, I wonder? It is coming from our consumers' 
pocketbooks when people are pulling up at the gas station and paying 
100 bucks or more for gas to fill up. Hopefully, there are people who 
have vehicles that are using substantially less than that, but the 
point is, it is a huge transfer of wealth from here to there, and it 
doesn't have to take place when we can produce it here.
  I would rather that money be going to Kansas or Colorado to work on 
their oil shale or to Alaska or to offshore areas but certainly working 
here. We have a Federal deficit that is taking place. What if instead 
of us shipping $500 billion overseas for oil, we were spending that 
money here. Then 20 percent comes into our Federal coffers. That is the 
general figure. I think that is a bit high, but it is about that right 
now. So you have $100 billion coming here in tax revenues. It is just 
common sense.
  My dad farms, and I have been talking with him about this issue. He 
is paying a lot for diesel fuel because he runs the tractors on diesel, 
and he is paying more than he used to. He is saying: Why aren't we 
doing this here? And I have a hard time explaining to him why we are 
not doing it here, when we could do it here, when we have the capacity, 
the ability, and the technology in the market.
  I say: Well, some people don't want us to.
  Well, why?
  Well, they are scared of what is going to take place in the 
environment, even though we can do it environmentally sound. Someone is 
going to be doing it somewhere else. Are they going to do it more 
environmentally sound than us? I don't think so. I know they are not 
going to in some of the places I have seen around the world. The U.S. 
standards are the highest in the world.
  So I would plead with my colleagues that drilling is part of the 
answer. It is clearly part of the answer when our numbers are 25 and 3; 
when we use 25 percent of the world's oil and produce 3 percent of it. 
We have to get our numbers up. It helps to balance the trade, it helps 
our deficit, it helps our people, and it spends it here at home.
  That is why I continue to join my colleagues in voting that we stay 
on energy instead of going to other issues. I would like to solve some 
of these other issues as well, as would my colleagues on the Senate 
floor. I want to deal with them. I want to deal with all these issues. 
But when you pass up the biggest issue that is confronting most 
Americans, and you don't deal with it, and for 9 days you don't deal 
with it when you could be, we are just simply saying: Let's deal with 
the biggest one here, and then we will be happy to deal with these 
other issues. We need to deal with these other things, but not until 
you deal with the biggest one. If we don't deal with it now, are we 
going to deal with it this year? I don't think so. I don't think that 
will happen. We are not going to get more time, nor will we have more 
political will the closer it gets to the election.
  So now is the time, now is the place, now is when the American people 
want us to deal with this matter. So I join my colleagues in continuing 
to vote this way; that we take up these amendments to increase 
production in the United States.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before I leave, I want to say to the Senator from 
Colorado, who is standing here patiently, that he might recall that the 
Senator from New Mexico went up and visited Colorado and Utah to see 
the oil shale before we had the big bill, where we put everything 
together.
  Mr. ALLARD. I do remember.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was prompted to do that by you, to find out why we 
weren't doing anything with that shale. We found out that we didn't 
have any leasing laws that permitted it. I recall it was at your 
instigation that we put the first laws in the energy impact bill, the 
big bill, allowing leases for research and development. That is what 
has brought the development they are all worried about. It is a 
research and development lease.
  Now they don't want to have any, as you put it, rules or regulations, 
so they can stop it dead after we got a good start. We understood that 
Shell Oil was ready to try a new process. They were going to spend more 
than a few billion dollars on it, and we found that out and said: Well, 
we ought to at least give them a chance. And we did, thanks to you. But 
now they won't let us vote on getting rid of the moratorium, so that is 
dead in the water too--that great big resource.
  So I thank you.
  Mr. ALLARD. Well, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his 
gracious remarks and, again, it is a statement of his statesmanship to 
actually go and visit the site and find out what is going on. That is 
why he makes such a great legislator in the Senate.
  I am with my colleagues. I am sick and tired of delays. It is time 
for us to move ahead. I have a chart: There have been six attempts by 
the Democrats to change the subject from $4-a-gallon gas, all while 
people are suffering at the gas pump and we are having dramatic adverse 
effects on our economy. We are getting ready for the school year, and 
school districts are struggling with how they are going to get fuel for 
the school buses. We have farmers and ranchers starting to put up their 
crops, and they are wondering how they are going to get money to pay 
for fuel, which is a major cost. It just doesn't balance out for us.
  So I am very concerned that we have had these six attempts to move 
off of $4-a-gallon gas when it is such a vital issue. I can't think of 
another issue since I have been here that has had this profound an 
impact on people's lives. We shouldn't be delaying or stopping this 
matter.
  There have been other subtle attempts on the other side, even if we 
move forward, to delay the development of energy, and let me cite a 
couple of examples.
  One is the offshore drilling provisions, which we have in our Gas 
Price Reduction Act on the Republican side, where we look at the 
offshore drilling--the deep ocean drilling. We have had Members stand 
here on the Senate floor and say: Well, I am all in favor of that, but 
we haven't gone ahead and done the seismographic studies to figure out 
where our deposits are.
  Well, we have been trying for years, mostly through Senator 
Domenici's efforts, to try to get the money to do the seismographic 
studies so we know how much and where those deposits are. But there is 
delay before we actually get to it.
  So Members will stand up and say: Well, I am all for offshore 
drilling, but we need to do the studies. Well, they won't support the 
studies and the money to get it done. Let's take oil shale, for 
example. What we need to do is to put the regulations in place so

[[Page 17617]]

that when the technology is developed and we are ready to move forward 
with development, we can do that in a phased process. But, no, we are 
not going to let the regulations go forward, which ends up being an 
additional delay when the technology is ready to go.
  So I am hoping--and I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire, 
who had proposed the amendment I had made in the Appropriations 
Committee a little earlier this afternoon--it was objected to on the 
floor--where we said, let's move ahead with rules and regulations. Then 
in the amendment it says that we will delay development until 2011 
because the technology for development won't be in place any sooner 
than that. So that was acceptable. The Department of the Interior has 
got the rules and regulations. They are out there for public comment, 
but that is all the further they can go.
  If we continue what we have been doing year after year, we have 
stopped the development of oil shale dead in its tracks. Even worse 
than that, when it is ready for development, we will have delayed it 
that much more because we haven't done the things up front that will 
allow the oil companies to begin to look at what their lease agreements 
might be, as the Senator mentioned from his visit, or what the royalty 
payments might be or what the remediation issues may be when they move 
in with oil shale.
  I happen to think the technology we are developing in Colorado is 
environmentally friendly, and it is not a mining operation. You freeze 
out an area of the ground, you heat out the middle of it, and you get a 
high-quality fuel out of there which will help us meet our energy 
needs. The hydrocarbons we get out of the ground, I think all of us 
realize these are nonrenewable resources. At some point in time, we are 
going to have to do something else other than just rely on those. But 
right now they are the bridge. They are our bridge to renewable 
energies.
  I have heard comments on the Senate floor against the Republicans; 
that all we are interested in is drill, drill, drill. Republicans, to a 
person, believe that we need to use our hydrocarbons to bridge, and 
they understand we need the new technology. We are not saying exclude 
anything. On the other side they are saying: We will just go with 
renewables. We will let $4 a gallon stand. Who cares. Let it go to $5. 
Let it keep going to $7.50, even to $10 a gallon. We don't care because 
the high cost of gasoline will encourage conservation.
  I think there are other ways we can encourage conservation, and I 
think a lot of it is happening today. But that is certainly not the way 
to do it because it has such a dramatic adverse impact on our economy, 
and it has an adverse impact on the security of this country.
  Both my colleague from Kansas and New Mexico talked about how all of 
our dollars are going overseas, more than $700 billion a year going 
overseas to support the economies of our adversaries. They are the ones 
who don't support what we are trying to do: to spread democracy around 
the world. They would like to see us go away.
  So I think we need to take a serious look at our alternative 
energies, and we need to act now to do something to increase 
hydrocarbons and do something to reduce the price of gas at the gas 
pump.
  There is one area of the economy that I don't think we have talked 
much about, and that is the trucking industry. Talk about renewables. 
What is going to provide the energy for trucks? What renewables do we 
have for trucks? I know some trucking companies are looking forward to 
going to propane to help a little bit, but there is not much substitute 
out there on renewables for the diesel engine right now. The diesel 
engine is what we use in trains, in trucking, in farming, and it is not 
going to be an easy solution for us to come up with an alternative fuel 
for diesel. We need to do what we can to hold down the cost of those 
kinds of fuels because that new technology is going to take a while to 
develop. We can't just shut it off today and expect our economy to 
function when it is such a vital part of what is happening in this 
country.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I note that you just used a word a minute ago--
``bridge.'' I think you have heard me speak of the bridge. You see, the 
bridge is how you are going to get from where you are now, with an 
economy that is using hydrocarbons to move itself, to do all kinds of 
things; how we are going to get from there to an economy that has no 
more of that. That is a bridge.
  Most interesting, the bridge is going to be crude oil because the 
only way you can get there is to stay alive, to have an economy, to 
produce, to get things done. And to get across that bridge you have to 
have crude oil because there is nothing else to get you there. You 
cannot put everything in parking lots and in abeyance until you find 
what is on the other side of the bridge.
  The truth is, we have to produce crude oil for perhaps a decade. You 
said 10, 15, 20 years. That is my guess. Even if all these things work, 
the automobile where you can turn it on with a switch, everything that 
we can do, we are still going to be, what I say, stuck in the mud--the 
oil mud.
  Whether people like it or not, Americans have it right. They are 
saying drill some more, they are not saying drill less. Six months ago, 
everybody was afraid of the word. Now they are not afraid of it because 
people understand if you have more of that stuff called oil you might 
pay less. Costs might come down.
  I thank the Senator for his understanding, and I am pleased to be 
with him.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If my colleague from Colorado will yield as well?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. There is another bridge I would like to talk about, 
and that is the continuing resolution. I wish to point out to my 
colleagues these are annual limitations on drilling offshore, in the 
oil shale. These are annual things put in, these limitations. There is 
a building coalition and consensus of people saying I don't want those 
limitations put on this year's appropriations. We do a continuing 
resolution as a bridge. I am warning my colleagues if this doesn't get 
voted on and dealt with, I think you are going to see people starting 
to say: I am not willing to put that into that bridge funding into next 
year.
  I hope we can work this out on something on offshore drilling, on oil 
shale development of rules, before we get to that continuing resolution 
piece where this would normally, or often, be put in. People are saying 
I do not want that in this financing bill for the Government, the 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his support. I 
couldn't agree more with him. It is time we stop these tactics that are 
causing the price of gas to get so high. Obviously, before the summer 
break, it doesn't look like we are going to have an opportunity to deal 
with the issue of bringing down the price of gas. Come September, we 
are going to have to do something more dramatic than what we have at 
this point. If it means we have to stop the continuing resolution with 
moratorium language in it, I think at that point in time we may have to 
make a strong stand--at that particular point in time. I predict we are 
not going to see that much of a decrease in the cost of gasoline and 
diesel fuel at the gas pump.
  I thank the Senator from Kansas for his comments and for his support. 
We talked about how various aspects of the economy are being impacted 
by the high price of gas. I was at a press conference earlier. We had 
representatives speak on how the poor are getting adversely impacted, 
more than any other part of the population in the United States, 
because of the high cost of fuel. We had a member from the Congress of 
Racial Equality. We had Bishop Harry Jackson, who talked about the High 
Impact Leadership Coalition. We heard from the All Nations Pentecostal 
Church of God in Christ talk about how the poor they were dealing with 
were being so impacted by the high cost of fuel. We had a number of 
people from

[[Page 17618]]

all aspects of life, including veterans. We had also consumer groups. 
We had the Farm Bureau and we had Americans for American Energy, all 
there at that press conference, talking about how letting the price of 
fuel get so high was actually a war on the poor. I thought that was a 
rather dramatic way of putting it.
  We need to think a little bit about the fact, if we allow the price 
of gas to get high like this, there is a lower income section of our 
society that is going to be dramatically impacted because they do not 
have the reserve capacity to pick up the costs of fuel that is 
impacting their lives.
  We need to act now. We should not be putting it off. I have been 
disappointed that we have not been able, as Republicans, to put our 
amendments forward on the floor. The majority leader has changed his 
view--we will go up to four, we will let in some amendments--and then 
all of a sudden we are at none. We are back to the none right now.
  We need to move forward. I see my time is expiring.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be 
recognized for 5 minutes at this time, that Senator Leahy be recognized 
immediately following me for 10 minutes, and the remainder of the time 
be given to Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Higher Education Opportunity Act.
  There is no doubt in my mind that I would not be speaking here today 
if it were not for the kind of assistance we will be voting on today.
  I would not have been able to go from the small tenement apartment I 
grew up in to the halls of the United States Senate if it were not for 
our Federal Government's commitment to educating our young people, no 
matter what neighborhood they grow up in, no matter how much money 
their parents make, no matter what their ethnicity or the color of 
their skin.
  I was the first person in my family to attend college, and then law 
school, thanks to Pell Grants and Perkins loans. The fact that I could 
get a quality education and was willing to work hard-work meant that 
the American promise was real for me. And I believe that providing 
every child with the same opportunities I had--so they can achieve 
their God-given potential--should be the unalienable birthright of 
every American.
  Supporting our children's future isn't just a social responsibility, 
it is an economic necessity. Just a few decades ago, workers could find 
a good paying job and comfortably raise a family on the strength of 
their high school diploma. But times have changed.
  If we are going to stay on the apex of the curve of innovation, if we 
are going to be the economic power we were in the 20th century going 
forward into the 21st century--a century that increasingly belongs to 
those who innovate--we have to do all we can to educate our children 
and prepare them to compete.
  Unfortunately, we are in danger of falling behind. At the same time 
we are seeing higher education become increasingly more important, we 
are seeing it become increasingly less affordable.
  We are seeing students pass up the opportunity to go on for a higher 
degree, because they are so pressured to pay their bills today that 
they can't focus on what is best for them tomorrow. We are seeing so 
many students who do go to college leave with two pieces of paper that 
they will carry for the rest of their lives--their diploma in one hand, 
and the bill for their tuition loans in the other. What we need now is 
a brainpower stimulus package: a brainpower stimulus package that will 
make college more accessible and more affordable so that higher 
education is not reserved only for the wealthy; a brainpower stimulus 
package that will improve and modernize our Nation's colleges and 
universities so they will remain the greatest and most distinguished in 
the world; a brainpower stimulus package that will protect students 
from unscrupulous lenders and ensure they are getting the best deals 
possible when they invest in their education with private loans; and a 
brainpower stimulus package that will close the achievement gap, 
because in this great Nation, the darkness of your skin should not 
diminish the brightness of your future.
  The package we pass must honor and respect our soldiers and their 
families and provide them with the same opportunity and promise that 
they have given so much to defend.
  Today we have the opportunity, and the responsibility, to make 
education a national priority and commit ourselves to accepting nothing 
less than greatness from our educational system. The Higher Education 
Opportunity Act would take enormous strides to accomplish many of these 
goals by increasing Government assistance for students, families, and 
institutions of higher learning. Allow me to take a moment to point out 
some crucial aspects of this bill.
  Recognizing the dramatic increases in tuition over the years, this 
bill would increase Pell Grants and Perkins Loans would also permit 
low-income students to receive Pell Grants all year round, so they can 
afford to stay in school and earn their diplomas quicker. As tuition 
costs continue to skyrocket, we need to do everything we can to ensure 
that every child has the ability to soar to the highest heights of 
achievement.
  In the wake of the recent student lending scandal, we must protect 
our students from deceptive loans that often leave them mired in debt 
even before they receive their diploma. This bill would establish 
strong standards to prevent schools from playing favorites with lenders 
due to expensive gifts they were given and ensure students are given 
the best rates possible.
  This bill would work to narrow the achievement gap between Caucasians 
and minorities by investing in Minority Serving Institutions, Hispanic 
Serving Institutions, and enhancing vital programs such as TRIO and 
GEAR-UP.
  It would reauthorize funding for Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions and expand their 
masters programs, by providing $500,000 per year in mandatory funding 
to each of these institutions for 6 years.
  This bill would also honor the dedication and commitment of our armed 
forces and their families by helping servicemembers, veterans, and 
their families attend and pay for college by providing interest-free 
deferral on student loans while servicemembers are on active duty and 
in-State tuition rates if they are not stationed in their home State.
  Finally, it would establish new college scholarships of up to $5,000 
for children and family members of servicemembers who have died since 
9/11.
  When one of our brave servicemembers gives their life in defense of 
our country, they are not the only ones sacrificing--rather their sons 
and daughters; husband and wife; and often mother and father have also 
given the most precious thing in their lives for our country. Like 
their cherished loved one, they deserve more than anybody the 
opportunity and promise that makes this country so great and worth 
defending and sacrificing for.
  Our Nation faces great challenges to meet the demands of global 
innovation and competition, but as i true with all great challenges, we 
also have a great opportunity--an opportunity to invest in our most 
important resource: our children; an opportunity to spur our economy 
and develop new, innovative industries that create high paying jobs 
that cannot be outsourced; and an opportunity to prepare our students 
and strengthen our economy so America remains a leader in the world--
not just during the onset of the 20 century, but throughout it.
  A nation that is united in its purpose can answer that challenge, as 
we have so many times throughout our history. Just as an entire 
generation before us was once inspired to dream new dreams of reaching 
space and landing a man on

[[Page 17619]]

the moon, so must we set our sights to the heavens and be the next 
great generation of leaders and innovators.
  The time has come to make a robust, national commitment to the 
education of our youth at all levels, from kindergarten through 
graduate school, from technological institutes in our inner cities to 
centers of agricultural research in the heartland.
  New generations of doctors and lawyers, artists and engineers, 
captains of industry and commanders of our Armed Forces, are depending 
on what we do here today.
  This legislation has been in the works for a long time. We are a 
little late on the assignment, but we can still get an ``A'' for 
finally taking the time to turn it in.
  I certainly hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
allow us to make this happen today.
  I yield the floor and yield the remainder of any time I may have to 
Senator Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey. I wish to discuss two matters that involve the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                                Immunity

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Federal court evaluating the 
contempt charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers made 
a very significant ruling. The court's ruling is a complete rejection 
of the Bush administration's unprecedented and unfounded blanket claim 
of executive privilege and immunity. The Court's ruling is a rebuke of 
this White House's arrogant coverup and stonewalling, an arrogant 
coverup designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and even 
illegal actions of this administration. It is also a reaffirmation of 
the principle of separate, coequal branches of our Government, 
something that has guided our Republic since its inception and 
something this administration has tried to ignore by making its best 
efforts to accrue unchecked Executive power.
  I commend Judge Bates. He is a former prosecutor, a Republican 
appointed by President Bush. I commend Speaker Pelosi and Chairman 
Conyers for their steadfastness in pressing this matter.
  I have long pointed out this administration's claims of executive 
privilege and immunity, which White House officials have used to 
justify refusing even to show up when the Congress has subpoenaed them, 
are wrong. Last November, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I issued a 
ruling that the White House's privilege and immunity claims were not 
legally valid to excuse Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Josh 
Bolten from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to 
the Judiciary Committee's investigations into the unprecedented firing 
and manipulation of U.S. attorneys. Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten's continued 
noncompliance with the committee's subpoenas, even after my ruling, led 
the committee to vote to hold them in contempt of Congress. Even with 
that, they have put themselves above the law by refusing to appear and 
testify.
  This week the House Judiciary Committee also cited Mr. Rove for 
contempt. They had previously cited Ms. Miers for her failure to 
appear, as well as Mr. Bolten.
  It is long past time for senior administration officials to abide by 
the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony, testimony that 
is compelled by subpoena. This administration places themselves above 
the law. What the court said is none of us is above the law, not even 
the President of the United States, and especially not the people who 
work for and take orders from the President of the United States. They 
are not above the law. I commend the court for making that clear.
  In fact, the ruling by Judge Bates could not have been more plain. He 
wrote:

       [T]he Executive's current claim of absolute immunity from 
     compelled Congressional process for senior Presidential aides 
     is without any support in the case law.

  I will be sending letters to Karl Rove's lawyer and the White House 
counsel to schedule Mr. Rove's and Mr. Bolten's long-overdue 
appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, Judge Bates 
explained why the Bush-Cheney administration's blanket immunity claims 
were an unjustified encroachment upon the constitutional powers of 
Congress. The judge wrote:

       [I]f the Executive's absolute immunity argument were to 
     prevail, Congress could be left with no recourse to obtain 
     information that is plainly not subject to any colorable 
     claim of executive privilege.

  This result, which the court concluded was ``unacceptable,'' would be 
that the ``Executive's proposed absolute immunity would thus deprive 
Congress of even non-privileged information.''
  Many of us have said that this is an administration that considers 
themselves above the law, that the law applies to everybody except 
them. Well, the court has said the law applies to them just as it does 
to all other Americans. Despite the administration's attempts at every 
turn to short circuit Congress--even the courts--from being able to 
evaluate the executive privilege and immunity claims, Judge Bates's 
concurrence in these principles is a significant milestone.
  I will be sending a letter today to Attorney General Mukasey. I am 
going to ask when he intends to withdraw the erroneous Office of Legal 
Council opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to 
justify its noncompliance with congressional subpoenas since that 
opinion has been repudiated by a court and the court has said that this 
administration, the Attorney General, the White House--all have to 
abide by the law. In addition, I intend to ask the Attorney General 
whether the court decision will cause them to reevaluate the 
Department's memoranda and opinions that have supported overbroad and 
unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the 
investigation of the firing and manipulation of the U.S. attorneys but 
also in other matters, such as the claims used to block Congress when 
investigating warrantless wiretapping, or the leak of the name of 
undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, or even 
White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's 
decisionmaking to protect corporations at the expense of Americans' 
health.
  The court's decision undercuts the White House's blanket claims in 
all of these matters. The judge wrote that:

       Clear precedent and persuasive policy reasons confirm that 
     the executive cannot be the judge of its own privilege.

  That is why we have asked for over a year for the White House to 
provide us with the specific legal basis for those claims and their 
validity. What the White House has said is they do not have to obey the 
law. They can break the law, they are above the law, and when they are 
asked: What do you base that on? What is it that says you are above the 
law and the people who work for you are above the law? their answer is: 
Because we say so. That is it. They do not point to any statute, they 
do not point to any case law, they do not point to anything except 
their own arrogance in stonewalling the people of this country who want 
to know what they are doing. That is not the way to have a nation of 
laws. You cannot have one person decide the law will apply to you, the 
law will apply to me, the law will apply to everybody in this Chamber 
but will not apply to the President or the people who work for him.
  I will continue to ask whether the White House's continued assertion 
of executive privilege in this matter means the President takes 
responsibility for the decision to fire well-performing prosecutors. To 
date, after more than a year and a half, he has not done so. Instead, 
he seeks to have it both ways: Well, ``mistakes were made''--by others, 
of course, yet somehow, executive privilege still applies.
  The White House's other blanket assertion says there is no wrongdoing 
in the firings. We have asked: What was the basis for that? They 
provide none. If the White House has information that led the President 
and others to discount the evidence of wrongdoing the investigating 
committees have gathered so far, that should be produced. Otherwise, we 
have to conclude

[[Page 17620]]

they do not have any and it does not exist.
  To the contrary, the Judiciary Committee's investigation which led to 
the resignation of the Attorney General, the entire senior leadership 
of the Justice Department, and several high-ranking White House 
political officials has uncovered grave threats to the independence of 
law enforcement from political manipulation in the highest political 
ranks in the White House, including Karl Rove. The evidence shows that 
senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of 
Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough 
to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It has long been 
apparent that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as 
part of a cover up.
  The tragic and corrupt politicization of Federal law enforcement by 
this administration is wrong. Reports released by the Justice 
Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional 
Responsibility, the latest just this week, have shown the reach of the 
political operatives of this administration, infecting the hiring for 
career prosecutors and immigration judges with improper and illegal 
political loyalty tests designed to embed ``loyal Bushies'' throughout 
the Department. So far, neither the Justice Department nor the White 
House has taken responsibility. Apparently, the White House intends its 
excuses that ``mistakes were made'' and that there were just a ``few 
bad apples'' to suffice. What we have uncovered is a widespread effort 
described by the Department's own Inspector General as ``systemic'', 
one that involved the highest ranking office holders at the Justice 
Department funneling White House loyalists into career positions.
  The White House's response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's 
subpoenas has been to assert blanket claims of executive privilege and 
novel claims of absolute immunity to block current and former officials 
from complying. Based on these claims, neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Bolten 
even appeared before the Committee to respond to the subpoenas. Now, a 
court has said that they must.
  The effects of the White House's assertions of privilege and immunity 
have been unmistakable, amounting to the withholding of critical 
evidence related to the congressional investigation. And all along they 
have contended that their blanket claim of privilege cannot be tested 
but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word. Today's ruling 
from Judge Bates is a resounding rejection of this White House's 
attempt to thwart accountability and a reaffirmation of Congress's 
ability to conduct oversight and the right of the American people to 
learn the truth about their government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                                 Energy

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, those of us who serve in the Senate 
serve in a political system. John F. Kennedy used to say that every 
mother hopes a child might grow up to be President as long as they do 
not have to be active in politics. But, of course, politics is the 
process within which we make decisions--a very honorable process. But 
it is not new to the political system to hear evidence of false claims. 
In fact, it is a time-honored tradition in politics to hear at least 
some people in striped pants stand up and make all kinds of false 
claims.
  It has reached, I must say, some new heights on the floor of the 
Senate in the last couple of weeks. As I was listening to some of these 
things in the Senate, particularly on energy and some of the claims 
that have been made, I was thinking about when I was a little boy and 
the carnival would come to my small town of 300 people. You can imagine 
the size of a carnival that would come to a town of 300 and actually 
pitch a tent.
  One of the things I remember about a carnival coming to town is it 
had a sideshow. And the sideshow in every carnival, I suppose, is the 
same. They paint the canvas on the sideshow with unbelievably bright 
paintings, and then they have a barker, a carnival barker, and they 
say: Come in here and see the woman with two heads; come in here and 
see the world's fatest man; come in and see the sideshow and see the 
man born with an alligator's tail. And my eyes were like dinner plates, 
thinking, boy this is going to be something. And none of that was in 
there. I mean, it was, you know, these big old claims.
  Well, let me talk a little about big old claims that are not true 
here in the Senate. We have been hearing them now for 2 weeks.
  We have an energy problem. It is a significant problem. The price of 
oil and gas doubled in a year, bouncing up to $120, $140 a barrel. The 
price of gasoline--$4, $4.50 a gallon--doubled in a year.
  So our colleagues on the minority side come to the floor of the 
Senate. They have this voice track. It goes over and over and over; it 
is called looping. They say: Do you know what the problem is? We know 
what the problem is: The Democrats will not let anybody drill.
  Well, it is an interesting discussion but not true. It reminds me of 
Will Rogers, who said: It is not what he knows that bothers me, it is 
what he says he knows for sure that just ain't so.
  It is not true that people on this side of the Senate Chamber do not 
want anybody to drill. It is simply not true. I have brought out chart 
after chart showing so much that is open for drilling. In fact, I was 
one of four Senators who helped open what is called lease 181 in the 
Gulf of Mexico, 8 million acres. Four of us--myself, Senator Domenici, 
Senator Bingaman, and Senator Talent from Missouri--introduced a bill 
saying: Let's open 8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that has 
substantial oil and natural gas deposits. Let's open that. You know 
what, we did it, in a bipartisan manner. And 2 years later, there is 
not a bit of activity on that 8 million acres.
  Our colleagues rush over to the floor of the Senate and say: Well, 
the Democrats are at fault. They will not let you drill.
  It is not true. There are many areas that are open for drilling, and 
we have supported that. Oh, I do not support a goofy proposition that 
is ricocheting around here that says: You know what, let's go to the 
Outer Continental Shelf, which belongs to all of America and which is 
not yet open, and let's let Governors of States decide whether it 
should be opened. I mean, that stands goofiness on its head. The Outer 
Continental Shelf belongs to all of the American people. That does not 
belong to a State. That does not belong to a Governor. That is an 
absurd proposition.
  So they come to floor of the Senate with their chart, and it says: 
Produce more, use less. But you know what the problem is: the actions 
do not match the words. Let me describe what I mean by that.
  Let me say that I support producing more. I am fine with drilling 
holes. I am fine with finding oil and gas. But our colleagues have this 
mindset of yesterday forever. Every 10 or 15 years, they shuffle into 
this Chamber, sort of slouched over with their hands in their pockets, 
saying: Let's drill some more. That is just yesterday forever.
  I am for drilling, but what we ought to be doing is other things to 
change the mix, to change our energy future. You know, almost 65 
percent of the oil we use comes from off our shore, from the Saudis, 
Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela. That makes us enormously vulnerable. We need 
something that is game changing, that means different kinds of energy.
  Yes, let's produce more, then let's produce different energy, and 
let's conserve more as well. But when you talk about the issue of 
production, it is not just drilling a hole for oil. That is what our 
colleagues believe. Production is also taking energy from the wind and 
producing electricity. Production is taking energy from the Sun and 
producing electricity. Production is the biofuels from corn or 
cellulose to produce gasoline and ethanol. Production is biomass and 
geothermal. Production is all of that.
  Now, eight times in a little over a year we have had votes on the 
floor of the Senate to extend the tax incentives for renewable energy. 
Eight times,

[[Page 17621]]

those who come to the floor with their little charts talking about 
producing more, eight times they have said: No, we will not support it. 
Now, let me tell those who listen to this why they will not support 
it--because it costs some money in the short term to provide tax 
incentives to get people to invest in renewable energy.
  We ought to do renewable energy in a big way. This ought to be game 
changing. It ought to make us much less dependent on the Saudis and 
Kuwaitis and others. You do that, it seems to me, by changing the 
energy mix.
  My colleagues do not support that on the other side of the aisle. Do 
you know why? Because it costs money to provide tax incentives. So we 
pay for that. We are deep in debt in this country, but we pay for it 
because it ought to be paid for in the bill we have offered. So my 
colleagues vote against it.
  Let me describe why. One of our pay-fors to help provide these tax 
incentives for renewable energy is to shut down this unbelievable tax 
break that exists by which hedge fund managers can take their billions 
of dollars and move them through tax shelters overseas and avoid paying 
taxes to the United States of America. My colleagues oppose closing 
that loophole. They stand with the ability to move hedge fund income 
overseas to shelter it so they do not have to pay taxes. That is 
unbelievable. I mean, part of the process in this Chamber, at least, 
is: Who do you stand for? How on Earth do you want to go home and say: 
You know what, I decided to vote eight times against incentivizing 
substantial additional production of renewable energy, energy from the 
wind, from the Sun and so on, to make us less dependent on the Saudis. 
I voted against that because I demand and insist that hedge fund 
managers have a right to run their income through the Cayman Islands 
and avoid paying U.S. taxes.
  Get a chart. If you want to get a chart, print that up in a chart and 
take it to the Rotary Club and say: Here is who I stand with. Here is 
what I stand for. Explain that at home.
  How on Earth do you get by with that? I do not understand it at all. 
You bring a chart to the floor and say ``produce more.'' Well, let me 
tell you how you produce more--the renewable energy production tax 
credit.
  Let me tell you what we have done in this country. We said a long 
time ago, 1916: If you go looking for oil and gas, we like that. We 
want you to find oil and gas because we have an economy that needs it. 
So you go drilling, good for you; we give you robust permanent tax 
incentives. We have done that for nearly a century. Here is what we did 
for people who tried to do new technologies that take energy from the 
wind and the Sun and so on--a production tax credit for renewable 
energy.
  In 1992, we said: We will give you tax incentives to expand renewable 
energy, kind of shallow tax incentives. By the way, they are going to 
be short term, so they will expire. We extended them five times for a 
short term. We let them expire three times. It was stutter, stop, 
start, stutter, stop. It was an unbelievably pathetic approach.
  Some of us believe we ought to go 10 years and say: Here is where 
America is headed. You want to join us, we are going to be here for 10 
years trying to develop America's renewable energy so we can become 
less dependent on oil from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
  That is what we ought to be doing. But my colleagues from the 
minority come to floor of the Senate and have opposed it all along the 
way. They have opposed it eight times. In fact, the people who oppose 
this have come to the floor of the Senate and said: We need more 
electric-drive vehicles. We need to move toward plug-in hybrid 
vehicles. You bet we do. That means substantial investment in battery 
technology. That is in the bill, by the way, that you voted against. 
That means substantial investment in renewables. If you are going to 
drive electric vehicles, you are going to have to have electricity.
  They vote against that, vote against all of this, and then come to 
the floor and say: We need the product of this to do what we want to do 
to drive electric vehicles. It is unbelievable.
  I have described this probably 20 times in the Senate. Perhaps some 
get tired of it, but we are trying to do something here. We have been 
stopped, which is frustrating. It is the easiest thing in the world to 
stop progress. The minority has demonstrated that now for 2 weeks. I 
have described Mark Twain when he was asked if he would engage in a 
debate once. He said: Sure, I would be happy to engage in a debate, as 
long as I can take the negative side. They said: No one has told you 
the subject of the debate. Mark Twain said: The subject doesn't matter. 
The negative side will require no preparation.
  It doesn't require any skill or preparation to take the negative side 
of anything. So for 2 weeks we have tried to pass legislation to wring 
the speculation out of the oil futures market. Seventy-one percent of 
that market is now controlled by speculators who don't want a thing to 
do with oil. They wouldn't lift a quart of oil. They want to trade 
paper and make money. We are trying to shut down excess speculation. 
What we have found is our colleagues, when the question is, who do you 
stand with, they say: We will stand with the oil speculators. We will 
block that.
  Eight times we bring a bill to the floor that says, let's at least 
provide incentives to try to change the plan at this point and begin 
substantially increasing the use of renewable energy. Eight times our 
colleagues have voted against that.
  Let me go through what this would have provided, what we tried to do: 
a renewable energy production tax credit, solar and fuel cell 
investment tax credits, clean renewable energy tax credit bonds, tax 
incentives for plug-in electric drive vehicles. The list goes on and 
on, all things we should be doing. Eight times we have lost the vote to 
proceed because the minority, which says they support all of this, has 
decided they don't want to close the a loophole that allows hedge fund 
managers to run their incomes through the Cayman Islands and other tax 
havens in order to avoid paying taxes. We close the loophole to help 
pay for all of this, and our colleagues have an apoplectic seizure. You 
can't do that, they say.
  I don't understand. It is beyond me that they believe it is going to 
work to come to the floor of the Senate and make a claim that is a 
false claim that somehow the majority party doesn't support drilling. 
Of course we do.
  Let me describe it from a parochial standpoint. The biggest drilling 
play in America right now is in eastern Montana and western North 
Dakota. The U.S. Geological Survey did an assessment at my request. The 
U.S. Geological Survey and I announced about 3 months ago that that is 
the largest assessment of recoverable oil ever made in the lower 48 
States; 3.6 billion barrels to 4.3 billion barrels of oil using today's 
technology are going to be recoverable. We have up to 75 drilling rigs 
active right now, drilling a well about every 30 or 35 days, moving 
every 30 or 35 days to a new well site. It is the biggest oil play in 
our country. I fully support that. It makes a lot of sense. I was the 
one who got the U.S. Geological Survey to do the assessment. I was the 
one who helped get lease 181 opened up, 8 million acres in the gulf.
  It doesn't wash with me or my colleagues to have people come to the 
floor with their little charts talking about this side doesn't support 
production. Of course we do. But production by drilling a hole 
searching for black gold called oil is not the only way to produce 
energy. We are never going to get out of this fix of needing 65 percent 
of the oil we use from the Saudis and others, unless we change the game 
completely. That means completely changing our energy future.
  I have described often our situation. We have this big old planet 
that circles the Sun. We share it with about 6.6 billion people. We 
stick straws in the planet and suck oil out, about 85 million barrels a 
day, and 21 million barrels is destined for here because we need one-
fourth of all the oil produced on the planet. One-fourth of the oil 
coming out of this planet every day has to come to this country because 
we have a prodigious appetite for oil. The fact is, we need to continue 
to use oil, and will. But we need to find ways to

[[Page 17622]]

change our energy mix in the future. The only conceivable way to do 
that is to begin substantial research dollars and to pass these kinds 
of tax incentives to move toward other kinds of energy use, solar, 
geothermal, wind, and so on. You can add up all the money we spend on 
this sort of thing to change our energy future and make this country 
less dependent and more secure, and it's equivalent to what the 
Pentagon spends in 40 days. That makes no sense.
  If we are going to invest in this country's future, we have to pass 
legislation such as this. We can't have a Senate in which we have 
people who fashion themselves as human brake pads coming over here to 
stop everything just because they want to support hedge fund managers 
who want to wash their U.S. income through foreign subsidiaries and 
avoid taxes. That is not a sustainable policy, to continue protecting 
tax avoidance and stopping investment in renewable energy.
  This country can have a pretty terrific future, but we face big 
challenges. We are not going to solve or address this country's 
challenges unless we think in very different ways.
  I understand there will be some perfectly content for this Congress 
to adjourn or leave town and go on the August break having done 
nothing. I will be one of those who is not content. It makes no sense 
that there are those out there with projects on the shelf right now for 
new wind energy farms, for solar energy applications, for geothermal 
and biofuels, all of the other renewables, and they are not going to go 
ahead unless they have some notion that this country will extend the 
tax incentives for that renewable energy. On eight separate occasions, 
the minority has come to the floor of the Senate and said, when asked, 
will you extend these tax incentives, they have said: No, no, no, eight 
times. That is not in this country's interest.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 4137

  On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 
5:30 today, the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, and that 
there be 130 minutes for debate divided as follows: 50 minutes under 
the control of Senator Mikulski or her designee, 30 minutes each under 
the control of Senators Enzi and Alexander or their designees, and 20 
minutes under the control of Senator Coburn; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the 
conference report, without further intervening action or debate. I note 
for the Record that this agreement has been cleared on both sides of 
the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I know this is the Republican portion 
of the time, but until a Republican arrives, I will briefly say for 1 
minute that I am very pleased the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 
Act of 2008 is going to be coming through the Senate. We saw over 28 
million toys recalled in 2007. The Consumer Product Safety Commission 
is a shadow of its former self. This legislation is long overdue. It 
was a bipartisan effort. Many of us worked on this very hard, including 
the Presiding Officer. I am pleased we are able to get an agreement on 
what the Wall Street Journal has called the most significant consumer 
product legislation in 16 years. It is particularly important to my 
State where we had a 4-year-old boy die when swallowing a lead charm. 
It was the 99-percent lead, made in China. It should never have been in 
his hands. The lead in that charm went into his bloodstream over a 
period of time, in fact over a period of days. I was very proud that 
our staff, Kate Nilan and Tamara Fucile, was able to work on that 
provision and work with the committee. That is now the first provision 
in the bill.
  I thank the conference committee, under the leadership of Senators 
Inouye and Pryor, and all the conferees who worked on this in the House 
and Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                       Appropriations Legislation

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago today, the Committee on 
Appropriations marked up three fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills. 
Those bills would provide funding for programs ranging from 
agricultural research to veterans' health care and from foreign aid to 
the infrastructure that supports our men and women in uniform in our 
Armed Forces. While some members of the committee had concerns about 
the overall spending levels in those bills or individual provisions 
within them, the committee reported the measures by broad bipartisan 
votes. Those votes reflected the committee's collective belief that it 
has a fundamental responsibility each year to draft, debate, and report 
to the Senate its spending recommendations for the day-to-day 
operations of our Government.
  The markup on July 17 was the committee's fourth markup of the year 
to consider fiscal year 2009 bills. The bills reported at that meeting 
brought to nine the total number of fiscal year 2009 bills approved by 
the committee. There was every expectation the committee would complete 
action on the remaining three bills in July, as Chairman Byrd had 
publicly indicated. It was also expected the committee would consider a 
second supplemental bill.
  Despite complete inaction on appropriations measures in the other 
body and low expectations for timely enactment of the fiscal year 2009 
bills, the committee was fulfilling its responsibility to make 
recommendations to the Senate and moving toward completion of the only 
portion of the appropriations process under its direct control.
  So I give Chairman Byrd credit for getting the committee as far as he 
did, given the dim prospects for floor action. The Senate deserves to 
at least see the committee bills before making a judgment about whether 
it will allocate time to consider them.
  Unfortunately, progress in the committee came to an abrupt halt last 
week. The chairman announced the committee would not meet to consider 
the remaining fiscal year 2009 bills and would not meet to consider a 
second supplemental. At the time, the reasons given for the 
cancellation were not clear. It was clear, however--and has been 
explicitly admitted since--that further markups were canceled because 
the majority did not wish to discuss, debate or vote on amendments 
relating to domestic energy production.
  It is virtually unprecedented in our committee to cancel a markup to 
avoid a vote. The amendments that likely would have been offered in the 
committee are completely germane to the appropriations process. The 
appropriations bills in place for fiscal year 2008 contain at least two 
provisions that prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes and 
thereby inhibit the development of American energy resources.
  One of those provisions is a moratorium on further development of oil 
and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The other prohibits the 
issuance of regulations that would govern the development of our 
extensive domestic oil shale resources. Both of these matters would 
have been directly relevant to a fiscal year 2008 supplemental. It is 
also likely that one or both of these provisions would have been 
continued in the fiscal year 2009 Interior and related agencies 
appropriations bill, and as such would have been subject to 
consideration by the committee.
  Nobody is playing political games in wanting to offer these 
amendments. Members interested in offering these amendments had several 
opportunities to present them during markups of the other 
appropriations bills but withheld from doing so on the promise that the 
committee would meet to consider the appropriate bills. I thought this 
was the responsible thing to do, but perhaps I was wrong.

[[Page 17623]]

  Members are entitled to their own views about whether the moratorium 
on Outer Continental Shelf development should be continued. The same 
goes for oil shale production. But at a time when energy prices are 
dramatically affecting our economy and challenging the budgets of 
families across America, I do not think we as a Congress are entitled 
simply to sweep the issue under the rug--or attempt to--because it is 
inconvenient. We are not entitled to continue the moratoria for another 
year as part of a long-term continuing resolution without so much as a 
debate or a vote.
  In addition to increasing our domestic supply of energy, responsible 
development of the Outer Continental Shelf and of American oil shale 
will mean billions of dollars in royalties, rents, and bonuses that 
will be paid to States and the U.S. Treasury--money that otherwise 
would be paid to foreign governments, many of which have policies that 
are in opposition to U.S. interests.
  Responsible development of new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf 
and of American oil shale would not solve our energy problems 
overnight, but no one is claiming it will. But if we take action now, 
perhaps we can avoid a debate 10 years from now in which we try to 
adopt quick fixes or overcome our failure to even vote on these matters 
today.
  When last week's markup was canceled, all of the Republican members 
of the committee signed a letter to Chairman Byrd to express our 
disappointment and asked that he reconsider. I ask unanimous consent 
that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations.

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2008.
     Hon. Senator Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
       Chairman Byrd: We are profoundly disappointed by the 
     cancellation of this week's scheduled markup of the Fiscal 
     Year 2009 Interior and Legislative Branch appropriations 
     bills, and the second supplemental appropriations bill for 
     Fiscal Year 2008. It is readily apparent that the markup was 
     canceled entirely due to the majority's unwillingness to 
     consider and vote on amendments relating to domestic energy 
     production.
       The enactment of appropriations bills in recent years has 
     often involved departures from the regular order. Our 
     Committee, however, has a proud tradition of successfully 
     conducting that part of the appropriations process that is 
     under our direct control, i.e. the timely consideration and 
     markup of appropriations bills. You have been steadfast this 
     year in insisting that the Committee continue in this 
     fashion, for which we applaud you. We are therefore surprised 
     at today's turn of events.
       Energy prices are an issue of singular importance to people 
     across the country. The American people are looking to their 
     elected representatives in Congress to offer bold new 
     policies that will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
     by developing more domestic energy resources, and by reducing 
     the amount of energy we consume. We must act on all fronts. 
     The solution to our current problems will not come from any 
     single policy, or from any single committee. The Committee on 
     Appropriations, however, has an important role to play.
       The Fiscal Year 2008 Interior, Environment, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act contained provisions that 
     prohibit the production of oil and gas from large portions of 
     the Outer Continental Shelf, and that prohibit the issuance 
     of regulations that are necessary for the responsible 
     development of America's vast oil shale resources in the 
     Rocky Mountain west. It is likely that the chairman's mark of 
     the Fiscal Year 2009 Interior bill would have contained one 
     or both of these provisions. As such, it would have been 
     timely and entirely appropriate for the Committee to meet to 
     consider the merits of continuing these provisions in Fiscal 
     Year 2009, and to consider whether the provisions should be 
     modified or repealed in Fiscal Year 2008. Members of the 
     Committee might well have other energy-related amendments 
     that they wish to be considered.
       We urge you to reconsider your decision so that the 
     Committee can meet its responsibility to consider all of the 
     appropriations bills, and also do its part to help address 
     the energy challenges that face our country.
           Sincerely,
         Ted Stevens; Thad Cochran; Arlen Specter; Pete V. 
           Domenici; Mitch McConnell; Judd Gregg; Robert F. 
           Bennett; Richard C. Shelby; Larry E. Craig; Christopher 
           S. Bond; Kay Bailey Hutchison; Sam Brownback; Wayne 
           Allard; Lamar Alexander.

  Mr. COCHRAN. It is now obvious we will go out of session having not 
finished our work as a committee, having not met to consider 
appropriations bills that deal directly with the most pressing issues 
facing American families today.
  When we return in September, it is highly unlikely the committee will 
act on the remaining fiscal year 2009 bills or the second supplemental. 
Both the majority leader and the Speaker have indicated we will 
consider a second supplemental bill in September, but it is hard to 
imagine there will be enough time to act on that measure in committee. 
That is a shame.
  Yesterday, Chairman Byrd issued a press release outlining what would 
have been in the chairman's mark of the supplemental had the committee 
met to consider it. He outlined a bill that would appropriate some $24 
billion to respond to natural disasters, to improve American 
infrastructure, and for other purposes.
  The chairman included a number of items I had requested that are 
important in my State of Mississippi in our ongoing efforts to recover 
from Hurricane Katrina. He included a number of other items in response 
to requests by other members on both sides of the aisle.
  While there will justifiably be concern about the total cost of this 
proposal and some of its component parts, in my view, it is a measure 
worthy of consideration in the Appropriations Committee.
  But a press release is not a markup. It is not a draft of a committee 
bill. No Senator can amend a press release. No Senator can see the 
legislative language that would implement the spending described in the 
release, and no Senator can know what provisions might be included in 
the bill but not mentioned in the press release.
  I am the ranking member of the committee, and I do not know these 
things. If I thought we would return in September and hold a markup of 
the bill, giving the Senate time to debate it fully, perhaps I would be 
less concerned. But we know time is short once we return. Based on what 
we have witnessed on the floor in recent months, I have little 
confidence Senators will be allowed freely to offer amendments to the 
supplemental if it is taken straight to the floor.
  I wish to reiterate that Chairman Byrd has done an admirable job of 
trying to uphold the committee's responsibilities and prerogatives in 
the face of these circumstances. We both share the view that our 
committee has an important and fundamental responsibility to write and 
put forth bills that support the basic operations of our Nation's 
Government. As a Congress, however, we are getting into some very bad 
habits as it pertains to consideration of these bills.
  We are completely abandoning efforts to move the regular 
appropriations bills across the House and Senate floors, something 
which has nothing to do with filibusters. Nobody filibustered the 
fiscal year 2008 bills that were brought to the Senate floor. When we 
do manage to pass appropriations measures, the differences are resolved 
not by an open meeting of a conference committee but, usually, in 
closed-door negotiations, followed by an exchange of messages between 
the House and Senate. Now, apparently, we are starting to cancel 
committee markups based on an unwillingness to take votes on difficult 
issues. They may be entirely germane.
  So I regret these trends for the sake of our committee that is 
struggling to maintain its tradition of bipartisan cooperation and 
action. I regret it for the sake of millions of Americans who will 
simply not know why the Senate cannot manage to take votes and process 
its legislation and its appropriations bills in a straightforward and 
open manner. I regret the way we are letting things slide now into an 
unusual procedure that does not reflect credit on the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                                 Energy

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are about to adjourn for the August 
recess without having passed a single piece of legislation addressing 
the energy crisis

[[Page 17624]]

or the most important issue, which is the concern over rising gasoline 
prices.
  I attended the Fourth of July parade in my home State. In Utah, there 
is also a 24th of July parade celebrating the anniversary of the time 
when the first Pioneer settlers came into the valley. In both parades, 
I had things shouted at me. Politicians have that experience. Usually, 
we hope the things that are shouted at us are complimentary. In this 
case, the things I had shouted at me in the parades were: ``Why aren't 
you drilling? Why aren't you producing more American oil? Drill now.'' 
I said: We are discussing it. We are trying to do that. We are trying 
to get something done.
  If there were a parade scheduled now, I would have to go back and 
say: The Senate would not let us vote on any of the proposals to 
increase the supply of American oil. There are proposals coming in the 
form of letters from Senators to the President of the United States 
saying: Will you please go to Saudi Arabia and beg them to produce some 
more oil? There are suggestions that somehow we should sue Saudi Arabia 
or members of OPEC to get them to produce more oil. But we are not even 
allowed the opportunity to vote on proposals to produce more oil in the 
United States.
  A lot of my constituents are not aware that at one point, not too 
distant in the past, America produced more oil than any other country 
in the world and controlled the pricing power over oil. We could affect 
the world price by opening more wells in east Texas. But in the 1970s, 
that pricing power left our shores and was transferred from the Texas 
Railroad Commission to the Saudi royal family. Now we are in the 
posture of begging the Saudi royal family to produce more oil when we 
have the capacity to bring that pricing power back to the United States 
by producing more here.
  I wish to talk specifically about oil shale because I understand 
there has been an exchange on the floor about oil shale earlier, with 
the junior Senator from Colorado saying we are not ready, the 
technology is not finished, and, therefore, we should maintain the 
congressionally ordered moratorium on the Department of the Interior 
from promulgating the rules under which leases could be granted on 
public land.
  Now, let's look at that argument for a minute.
  The Department of the Interior has released draft rules. We know what 
they want to do. They have been prepared to do this, and are prepared 
to do it today. They cannot turn those draft rules into firm rules as 
long as the Democrat moratorium is in place. So when we wanted to lift 
that moratorium--we tried to in the Appropriations Committee--we were 
denied on a straight party-line vote. The Republican leader tried to 
lift that moratorium here. We were denied in a unanimous consent 
request.
  So let's ask ourselves: What are those rules? The best analogy to 
help people understand what those rules are is to talk about a fishing 
license. If you want to catch fish, you have to get a fishing license. 
You go in and you pay for it and it is for a specified period of time. 
Now, there is no guarantee the fish will respond to your efforts to 
catch them. There is only an opportunity to go forward with it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. All we are talking about, with respect to the rules of 
the Department of the Interior, is let's give companies a fishing 
license. If the technology is not ready, the companies will know that. 
They will find that out very rapidly. If the technology doesn't work, 
the marketplace will prove that it doesn't work, and companies won't 
invest in it.
  This is not a government subsidy for oil shale. This is not even a 
government support of oil shale. This is simply a fishing license to 
say: Go see if you can find some fish or, in this case, go see if you 
can find some oil. If you can, and you can produce it at an 
economically acceptable price and in an environmentally friendly 
manner, then go ahead.
  But in this body we are saying: No, we won't even let you look for 
it. We won't even let you move forward to try to find out if it will 
work.
  The Senator from Colorado said: We are not ready. I would say to him: 
We are in Utah. We have a program going forward in Utah on State land 
that shows every indication of producing oil by the end of this year. 
The reason they can't produce large amounts of oil is that we don't 
have enough State land to produce on a larger scale. If you are going 
to produce large quantities, you have to allow development on public 
lands, but there is a moratorium in place that says: We won't even let 
you look at these lands.
  The easiest thing we could have done this week in Congress would have 
been to lift the moratorium. The least we could have done would have 
been to let the Department of the Interior implement the rules and give 
companies an opportunity to look at the Federal lands to see if they 
want to get a fishing license to catch some fish or, in this case, oil. 
That is all we are asking for, but it has been objected to repeatedly 
and repeatedly.
  If I march in a parade again, I am going to have a hard time 
explaining to anybody why the Senate won't allow us to do that.

                          ____________________