[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7029-7037]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume the motion to proceed to H.R. 2881, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 2881) to amend title 
     49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2008 through 
     2011, to improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide 
     stable funding for the national aviation system, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at 5:30 this afternoon, the Senate will 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the 
reauthorization of the airport and airway trust fund, also known as the 
aviation trust fund. I urge my colleagues to support getting to this 
important bill.
  Before getting to the specifics of the bill, however, I would like to 
give some perspective on our current aviation system. And I will start 
with the story of Sir Robert Watson-Watt.
  Robert Watson-Watt was born in Scotland in 1892. He was a descendant 
of the steam-engine pioneer James Watt. Robert was a student of 
science, with a fascination for radio waves and how they might be used 
to transmit information. After finishing school, he got a job as a 
meteorologist at the Royal Aircraft Factory, not far from London. He 
worked on developing methods of using radio waves to help British 
airmen locate and avoid thunderstorms.
  After years of work, in 1935, Watson-Watt produced a report called 
``The Detection of Aircraft by Radio Methods.'' The report suggested a 
new idea. The idea was that people could use shortwave radio to detect 
not only bad weather, but also aircraft, including bombers.
  Watson-Watt's superiors tested his theory, and it worked. They called 
his new gizmo RADAR, an acronym for radio detection and ranging.
  By the time that World War II broke out in September 1939, the 
British Government had installed radar all along the English Channel 
and the North Sea coasts. That gave the British advance warning of 
Hitler's bombers. Acclaimed historian A.J.P. Taylor said he doubted 
that Britain could have survived the Second World War without Watson-
Watt's invention.
  Next, radar was ready for commercial application. All civil aviation 
needed for dramatic growth was a faster set of planes. That happened 
with advent of the jet engine in the 1950s and 1960s.
  In 1952, what is now British Airways introduced the de Havilland 
Comets. Those were 36-seat British-made jets that could fly as fast as 
500 miles an

[[Page 7030]]

hour. Six years later, the Boeing 707 entered commercial service. Pan 
Am flew it from New York to Paris in just under 9 hours--twice as fast 
as a propeller plane.
  It took Charles Lindberg 33 hours--almost four times longer.
  Seven years after that, in February 1969, the world's first wide-body 
jet--the Boeing 747--made its inaugural flight. With seating for up to 
450 passengers, the 747 was 80 percent bigger than the largest jet of 
that time. The era of mass aviation was in full swing.
  But as air travel flourished, growing pains ensued. And by the late 
1960s, public concern over air-traffic had spilled into the headlines: 
Here's a news story from 1967.

       Thicket in the Skies. . . . When a passenger hops a 
     commercial plane to get from here to there quickly, he soon 
     discovers that man does not live by one means of 
     transportation alone. The Labor Day weekend congestion and 
     peril underscores the point. . . .

  And here's another story, from May 1969:

       FAA Predicts Summer Air Jam. . . . [The FAA] forecast 
     yesterday that, despite Federal restrictions that would limit 
     flights at five major airports beginning June 1, air 
     travelers might have another summer of frustrating delays.

  In short, the air transport system had grown beyond anyone's 
expectations. Change was needed. Congress responded by passing 
groundbreaking legislation.
  In May 1970, Congress passed the aviation trust fund. Congress built 
on a Nixon administration proposal to adopt a law in which users of the 
aviation system paid for its upkeep. The new law imposed taxes on 
tickets, fuel, cargo, and the like. And the law established the 
aviation trust fund to provide a stable source of funding for our 
Nation's aviation needs.
  Despite some ups and downs over the last 38 years--including a lapse 
of the Trust Fund in the early 1980s--this system of funding air 
traffic has by and large succeeded. The rates of the taxes have 
changed. And some--like those on aircraft tires--have been phased out. 
But generally, this Trust Fund has managed to finance the needs of the 
air-traveling public.
  Not anymore. Our system needs modernization, to improve efficiency 
and safety. Our 2008 trust fund, born in the 1970s, is paying for 1930s 
technology. That will change with passage of this bill. That will 
change with the adoption of NextGen.
  And that brings us to the bill in connection with which we will vote 
this afternoon--the reauthorization of the airport and airway trust 
fund, also known as the aviation trust fund. The trust fund finances 
the U.S. aviation system, with about $12 billion per year in user-based 
taxes. The Senate substitute amendment would provide an additional $800 
million to the trust fund over the next 3 years. The bill would provide 
needed funds to modernize our aviation system.
  The Senate substitute amendment is a compromise product. It 
represents months of work on the part of the Finance and Commerce 
Committees. Its passage promises improvements in safety and efficiency 
for air travelers.
  Key to that improvement is NextGen. NextGen is the Federal Aviation 
Administration's plan to modernize the Nation's air-traffic system. 
NextGen would address the effect of air traffic growth. It would 
increase air-traffic capacity and efficiency. And it would improve 
safety and reduce the effect of air travel on the environment.
  Generally speaking, NextGen involves the use of satellite-based 
technology. This includes items like Automatic Dependent Surveillance 
Broadcast. ADS-B would allow aircraft to continuously transmit 
location, speed, and altitude to other planes, pilots, and controllers. 
And that would improve the efficiency and safety of air traffic.
  Instead of using Watson-Watt's radar to tell where they are, planes 
equipped with ADS-B get their exact location from Global Positioning 
System satellites. They then broadcast their flight number, speed, and 
heading--automatically and continuously--to ground control and other 
planes within 150 miles. This is a sea change in air-traffic 
technology. And we need to invest in it now.
  So how do we pay for NextGen? The Finance Committee passed a bill to 
pay for NextGen this way:
  First, we set the tax for General Aviation jet fuel at 36 cents a 
gallon. That is up from the current 21.9 cents a gallon. This proposal 
was agreed to by the General Aviation community. And it will raise 
about $240 million a year in additional funds for NextGen. Note that 
this proposal does not affect those who fly planes using ``avgas,'' 
such as a propeller-powered Cessna.
  Second, we moved partially owned planes--known as ``fractional'' 
aircraft--from the commercial taxation regime to that of General 
Aviation. Fractional owners expressed concern that without this change, 
their ability to fly and land in Europe would be hampered. The European 
Union has strict rules governing which airports commercial flights can 
use. And this change should allow fractional aircraft to be considered 
as general aviation not commercial aviation. This change comes with a 
cost to the fractional users.
  The Senate substitute amendment drops a proposed increase on the tax 
on international departures and arrivals. The Finance Committee bill 
proposed raising that rate--currently at $15.40--by $1.55 each way. 
That is just over $3 roundtrip. We argued that if someone had the 
wherewithal to travel overseas, then the cost of a Starbucks at the 
airport was a reasonable price to pay for contributing to a modernized 
air traffic system.
  But given the state of the commercial airline industry, Senator 
Rockefeller and I agreed to drop this provision. In the face of 
dramatically higher fuel prices and mounting financial losses, we 
agreed that this was not the time to raise extra funds from the 
commercial industry.
  All told, the package in the Senate substitute amendment raises an 
additional $800 million over the next 3 years. More may be needed, 
especially given the rapid state of technological change. I know that 
both the Finance Committee and Commerce Committee plan to monitor 
NextGen's implementation. And since this is just a 3-year 
reauthorization, we will be back at this again before long.
  Finally, I will note that this bill is not just about aviation. The 
Finance Committee package also contains other critical infrastructure 
items, including a direly needed fix to the highway trust fund. The 
highway trust fund will run a deficit in 2009, unless Congress acts to 
repair that deficit.
  In a time when our surface transportation suffers as much as--if not 
more so--than our air transport system, it is imperative that Congress 
act to restore needed monies to the highway trust fund. We need to 
finance construction and repair of our Nation's roads and bridges.
  Taxes on gasoline, diesel, and heavy trucks finance the highway trust 
fund. The highway trust fund is thus sensitive to changes in the use of 
these items. As Americans drive less, and as vehicle fuel-efficiency 
increases, the highway trust fund's balance has taken a significant 
hit.
  A highway trust fund deficit is projected for 2009. And even worse 
projections are expected for 2010 and beyond. As we get nearer to the 
next highway bill, it's important that we at least make the highway 
trust fund whole going into 2009. The Senate substitute amendment would 
do that. And I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, we'll have a vigorous debate this week. And I look 
forward to it.
  But before that debate begins in earnest, I want to thank my 
colleagues--particularly Senators Rockefeller and Inouye--for their 
willingness to seek common ground. I think that the Senate substitute 
amendment is a good package.
  So let us help to bring air travel from Robert Watson-Watt's 1935 
idea into the 21st century. Let us adopt NextGen to improve safety and 
efficiency in the skies. And let us vote to move to this bill this 
afternoon.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided between 
the two sides.

[[Page 7031]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe it is absolutely crucial 
and probable, perhaps, but crucial that we have a vibrant and strong 
aviation industry and aviation industry discussion on the floor of the 
Senate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Nation's economic 
well-being depends on the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
aviation industry moving millions and millions of people and tons of 
cargo every single day.
  I just landed at Washington National Airport, and it was absolutely 
jammed. I am trying to think what it will be like in 10 years. Even on 
the very best day, the Federal Aviation Administration struggles to 
operate the most complex airspace system in the world, a job made 
harder by an extremely antiquated air traffic control system which 
nobody else in the industrial world has, but we do. It is akin to using 
an x ray instead of an MRI. It is antiquated, it is pathetic, it wastes 
a lot of time, and it creates a lot of waiting for passengers.
  Bad weather, mechanical problems, lax oversight by the Federal 
administrators can end up stranding hundreds of thousands of 
passengers--and it has--increasing jet fuel costs and making it harder 
and harder for airlines to operate. I particularly refer to legacy; 
that is, to the commercial airlines, which is the heart and soul of our 
system. All this amounts to a perfect storm that can and very may well 
wreck our aviation system.
  An aviation expert predicts the situation is going to get much worse 
and very soon. By the year 2015, delays will become so bad that none of 
the 1 billion people predicted to fly that year will ever get to their 
destinations on time. More planes will be needed, and that will lead to 
greater congestion in the skies, a meltdown of the air traffic control 
system, and it will put passenger safety at extreme risk. If the FAA 
cannot manage the current situation, how can we expect them to deal 
with the challenges of the future.
  Clearly, we need to take steps to turn this situation around. We must 
be prepared to take bold action and chart a course toward modernizing 
our aviation system and improving passenger safety. Again, I remind my 
colleagues, we are far behind every other industrial country in the 
world in our capacity. Toward that end, the Aviation Investment and 
Modernization Act truly lives up to its name. It is called S. 1300. It 
will establish a roadmap for the implementation of the next generation 
traffic control system. That is a GPS digitalized instead of an analog, 
x-ray type of system we have now. It will adequately and fairly fund 
this system, invest in our Nation's airport infrastructure, and 
continue to improve small community access to the Nation's aviation 
system.
  S. 1300 is a product of compromises, not all of them pleasing to me. 
It is a good bill that has been made stronger. I have no doubt it will 
be further strengthened as it is considered by the full Senate.
  In crafting this legislation, then-Senator Lott and I listened to the 
industry stakeholders. Each had their own opinion on how to best 
improve the aviation infrastructure, which was basically based upon the 
premise that they did not want to pay any more for anything. The one 
common theme from everyone was the urgent need to modernize our air 
traffic control system to meet the growing surge of passengers and to 
deal with the enormous increase in general aviation, particularly high-
end jet aircraft. I will have a lot more to say about that in the next 
few days.
  However, in recent months, that sense of urgency has been replaced 
with a debate over who should pay and how much as we work through how 
best to fund the modernization of our air traffic control system. The 
far more critical point of just how severe the problem has become, 
therefore, has been lost. Everyone is looking at how much they are 
going to do about this or do about that, and the general situation, the 
crisis we are facing all across this country, is not being looked at. 
Our air traffic control system relies on radio and radar to direct the 
hundreds of thousands of planes in the skies. It is a relic of the 
1950s. The sad truth is that the GPS device in our cars or cell phones 
is more sophisticated than the hardware used to guide passenger and 
cargo planes in the air. That should not make Americans happy.
  In this Senator's judgment, our air traffic control system is a 
national embarrassment. Unfortunately, the administration does not 
share this view. They seem to be prepared to accept the status quo. 
More to the point, they don't seem to care and have not shown up. 
Before Senator Murray assumed control of the Appropriations 
Transportation Subcommittee, the administration, in fact, proposed a 
$600 million cut in the FAA's--and this is just a technical term--
facilities and equipment account, which funds the whole question of a 
new air traffic control system, a digitalized GPS-based one.
  To reverse this course, S. 1300 provides over $12 billion to 
modernize the Nation's aging air traffic control system to allow the 
FAA to meet the projected increase in passengers over the next 10 
years. Overall, this will probably cost between $40 and $60 billion in 
the long run. I believe S. 1300 lays the necessary foundation for 
developing the next-generation air traffic control system. We create a 
stable and guaranteed level of funding for FAA's capital investment 
accounts. That is what the current situation desperately needs. As a 
result, passenger safety should improve, commerce will flow more 
efficiently, and air carriers will see their fuel costs reduced. I say 
that with my fingers crossed.
  What should not get lost in all this talk about runways and air 
traffic control systems and financing is the human element of air 
travel. The U.S. aviation system is, in fact, the safest in the world. 
But underneath those statistics lie lurking a lot of danger. We have to 
stay vigilant if we want that record to continue. This act, called the 
AIM Act, includes a number of provisions to improve safety by providing 
the FAA with the resources to conduct thorough oversight of air 
carriers and foreign repair stations and upgrade the existing 
infrastructure at our airports. It is arcane stuff, but at the heart of 
our commerce system.
  S. 1300 authorizes approximately $65 billion for all of FAA's 
operations and programs and provides approximately $16 billion for 
airport infrastructure grants to meet airport safety and capacity 
needs.
  The bill also reaffirms our commitment to rural America, and it 
increases the authorized funding level for the Essential Air Service 
Program. Most won't know what that is, but those of us who live in 
rural areas know that we have no connection with the outside world 
without the Essential Air Service Program. If we want to connect with 
the rest of the world, we have to have that.
  This bill extends the Small Community Air Service Development Program 
for 4 more years. What is that? I will not explain it fully now, but 
this program has provided dozens of communities with the resources 
necessary to attract and retain air service.
  As a Senator from West Virginia, I know how incredibly crucial both 
of these programs are in keeping our rural communities connected with 
the national aviation system. We have to be a part of that blood flow 
or else we shrink up. Without these important subsidies, air carriers 
would have no incentive to operate in and out of the most rural parts 
of many States--not just West Virginia, not just Iowa, but Texas, 
California, all kinds of places--New York. Rural is everywhere. Rural 
airports are everywhere. People should not be discriminated against 
because they come from rural areas as opposed to urban areas.
  These two subsidies--the Essential Air Service Program and the 
Community Air Service Development Program, the airport development 
program--have made an incredible impact

[[Page 7032]]

on the economic development in West Virginia. Having flights connected 
with Atlanta, Dulles, even Detroit, have helped attract international 
investors to our State--for example, Toyota. It is absolutely 
essential, moving forward, that we raise the authorization for these 
two programs so that people everywhere can continue flying and get to 
where they need to go.
  Our bill strengthens passenger protections by incorporating elements 
of the Passenger Bill of Rights to deal with the most egregious flight 
delays and cancellations. For example, the industry would be required 
to provide passengers with information regarding ontime arrivals and 
chronically delayed flights.
  Aviation incorporates so many of the things that are so critical to 
us. It connects people to distant family members, links businesses to 
businesses, and joins the world which has already shrunk and allows 
people easily to interact on a global scale. It is still amazing to me 
to be able to board a plane one morning in West Virginia and to be 
halfway around the world that same day. But really, what railroads and 
highways were to the 19th and 20th century air transportation is to the 
21st century. But I know that if we do not make investments in our 
Nation's aviation system now, then we will fall far behind the rest of 
the world. Falling far behind the rest of the world is a relative term. 
I just want us to be good and safe. I want us to be good and safe. We 
are not now. Our commercial airlines are just barely hanging on--
barely.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to S. 1300, 
the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2008.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The distinguished Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator how 
long his presentation is?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. As I told the Senator, I have to be upstairs in 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized immediately following the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, transportation is an important part of 
the American economy. It is vital to all rural and urban communities 
that people are able to travel in a timely, safe, and cost efficient 
manner. Whether it is the businesswoman traveling to meet her clients 
or visit her company's plants, the tourist who wants to experience the 
beauty and uniqueness of our country, or the grandparents visiting 
their grandchildren; efficient, affordable, and safe travel is 
imperative.
  For several years we have been working on reauthorizing the aviation 
bill. While this process has not always been easy, I am pleased that we 
reached a bipartisan agreement and have a good bill before the Senate.
  All of us have a vested interest in ensuring a stable, dependable, 
and predictable revenue flow to the airport and airways trust fund. 
Aviation has changed since the last time Congress considered aviation 
legislation. This bill reshapes our system to better reflect today's 
realities. It provides more funding to further modernize our air 
traffic control systems, airports, and facilities. It also provides for 
more efficient and safe travel to reduce delays and ease congestion in 
our skies.
  While the United States has one of the best records for aviation 
safety, we need to continue to do better. We are back to the level of 
air traffic that we saw before 9/11 and we will likely see this number 
grow tremendously.
  In light of these capacity issues and the 1950s equipment being used 
to manage our skies, our Nation needs to move as quickly and prudently 
towards the next generation of air traffic control systems. This bill 
provides more funding towards this project. Now is the right time to 
replace the old radar technology with real time GPS technology. The 
American people deserve our investment in this new system.
  This bill also takes an honest look at the diversity of our airport 
system. It structures funding for the safety and fairness of every 
airport in America.
  Rural States, like Iowa, have many communities that rely on our 
elaborate air transportation system. People who live near hub airports 
have the opportunity to take advantage of air travel somewhat 
efficiently and at a reasonable price. However, those in rural areas 
have more difficulties. This challenge has become even more difficult 
after 9/11 when most small communities were reduced to one air carrier 
with less frequent flights. Commercial carriers only fly into 
approximately 500 airports, although that is a business choice and 
there are other airports they could serve. It is more expensive to do 
business in rural America. This bill will continue the vital programs 
that our rural communities rely on to keep competitive in the worldwide 
marketplace.
  Over the past decade, a new prong has developed in the aviation 
industry. Traditionally, the focus has been on just two main 
categories, commercial aviation and the private airplanes for 
individual or corporate use. Today, we have a growing new class of 
business aviation, which includes the new dynamic of fractional jet 
ownerships. The new business class is anticipated to grow at a faster 
rate than other segments of the industry. This new prong is providing 
valuable opportunities for businesses to enhance efficiencies and 
productivity, and is also a potential way for rural areas to have more 
transportation opportunities.
  While business aviation is good for and may be a saving grace for 
struggling rural economies, the growth of business aviation is creating 
more stress on our national air traffic system. This bill provides more 
equity by having the business sector contribute more to the funding of 
our aviation system.
  This bill not only addresses important aviation policy, it also 
provides the needed funding for Congress to meet the funding 
commitments made in the 2005 highway bill.
  Currently, we fund highway infrastructure through fuel and other 
excise taxes. With record high gas prices and more fuel efficient 
vehicles, the highway trust fund has not had the receipts that were 
anticipated in 2005. Therefore, a shortfall is anticipated for fiscal 
year 2009 and for future years.
  It is vital that the highway trust fund is kept whole through the 
life of the current authorization, SAFETEA-LU, so Congress can look to 
long-term financing solutions to meet our surface transportation needs. 
We need to have an important national dialogue in the next year so 
Congress can act in a prudent and expeditious manner on the next 
highway bill.
  Provisions included in this bill will fill the funding shortfall for 
fiscal year 2009. Offsets are provided so this funding will not add to 
the overall budget deficit. Our States need to have the certainty that 
this funding will be in place so they can continue with vital projects 
to improve safety on our Nation's bridges and roadways.
  In conclusion, I want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Finance 
and Commerce Committees in working together to bring this important 
bill to the Senate floor. This bill is good for Iowa and the Nation.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I come to the floor today as the 
ranking member of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee. I am going to 
encourage my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed to 
consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization 
bill.
  I have been working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and 
the Finance Committee to develop a bill that we can all agree on. On 
the main parts of the Commerce Committee bill, and the main parts of 
the Finance Committee bill, we have come to agreement. There is one 
major part that was put in at the last minute that I think will bring 
everything down if we are not able to negotiate it. I am going to 
discuss that in a minute.
  But I believe we have been able, in the main Commerce committee bill, 
of which Senator Rockefeller is the chairman, I am the ranking member 
of the Aviation Subcommittee that put together the package, and in the 
main part of that bill, we have struck a balance that would finance the 
modernization of the FAA airport development,

[[Page 7033]]

rural air service that is so important in our country, and the labor-
related provision.
  If we want a final bill, I tell my colleagues that we must keep that 
balance. We cannot load up this bill with controversial provisions, 
many of which are in the House bill, which is the bill we are going to 
go to cloture on, after which there will be the substitute on with the 
Commerce bill.
  The House FAA bill already has a veto threat against it, and the 
prospects of a multiyear reauthorization for the FAA will diminish 
quickly if we do not resist the temptation to make this a political 
document. We have the opportunity to pass critical funding increases 
for the modernization projects, timely improvements for the safety 
programs at FAA, improvements to small community air service, and 
consumer and passenger protections.
  Senator Boxer and I have worked on the passenger protections, 
especially when an airplane is sitting on the runway unable to take 
off. In the bill we have before us, which we will talk more about when 
the substitute is put forward, there is a 3-hour limit on how long an 
airplane can stay on the ground without letting passengers off. We 
think this is a major step in the right direction.
  What I am going to be looking at, as we go through the week, is that 
we cannot do further harm to the aviation industry in this country. 
Rising fuel prices, tight credit markets, and the slowing economy are 
wreaking havoc on our U.S. carriers. There is not one that is saying: 
We are doing well.
  As we move forward, I hope we will keep that in mind, rather than 
adding burdens that cannot be maintained. If this bill is going to 
throw any one of our airlines into a bankruptcy position, we will have 
failed.
  Now, I am very concerned about the pension provision that was put in 
at the last, I guess in the last couple of days, that would take away a 
careful balance that was passed by this Congress last year. We worked 
very hard to make sure that the airlines that have kept their defined 
benefit plans, meaning they give full pensions to their members, are 
not held in a position that would be detrimental versus carriers that 
have gone to a defined contribution or 401(k) plan.
  The new pension provision that was put in the Finance section of the 
FAA reauthorization bill does create an inequity for carriers trying to 
maintain their defined benefit plan. The language would create a 
disincentive for the airlines to fully fund their pension liabilities, 
because the new proposal would disallow past excess contributions being 
carried forward in future years as currently allowed.
  To put this in perspective, for instance, American Airlines currently 
has about a 93-percent funding level in their defined benefit plan. 
However, the required level of funding for their plan is 80 percent. So 
they have a significantly higher level of funding than is required.
  In difficult times, which everyone should see all of the airlines are 
in, they would be allowed, under present law, to use the excess funding 
level to meet their ongoing obligations like a downpayment.
  Unfortunately, the language that was put in the Finance Committee 
bill strips that ability to use these excess contributions and instead 
forces them to fully fund their ongoing obligations at 100 percent. So 
rather than owing roughly $80 million for their annual contribution, 
they would instead owe $350 million. Over 3 years, that would be almost 
about $1 billion, even though they are 93 percent funded on their 
obligations.
  This penalizes companies for having done the right thing in providing 
significant prior funding for their pensions, and it changes the rules 
of a carefully balanced congressional directive.
  I hope we can work this out before we come to the point at which we 
are trying to put the Finance Committee portion of this bill with the 
Commerce Committee portion. I very much hope our members will become 
very educated on this issue, because if we are going to do this kind of 
harm, we should not be passing an authorization bill at all and instead 
do a long-term extension of the FAA authorization bill, and try to work 
these issues out so that no airline will be harmed or put in a 
significantly disadvantaged position relative to their competitors.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for 2 minutes in favor of bringing this bill 
forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased that Senator Rockefeller, Senator 
Baucus, and their ranking members of the subcommittees and the full 
committee, the Chairs of Finance and Commerce have worked together to 
bring us to this moment where we can reauthorize the FAA bill. It has 
reached the time.
  I was very pleased that Senator Hutchison mentioned the Passenger 
Bill of Rights that I was so pleased to author along with Senator 
Olympia Snowe. I was so pleased to have the support of so many on the 
committee. I wanted to remind everyone, it is important that we move 
forward on this bill.
  There are so many things we have to consider now. We see what is 
happening with our air service. When it works right, it is terrific. 
Myself, today, it all worked right. I had to take two planes to get 
here all the way from California. It was smooth. But there are times 
when it is not smooth. We all know that.
  But what we want to make sure of is that passengers are treated 
fairly, and without the heavy-handed Federal Government in everything. 
We make sure that the system works. That led me to author the Passenger 
Bill of Rights.
  Kate Hanni was one of the people who got trapped on a plane for, I do 
not remember if it was 8 or 10 hours with her two little boys. There 
was no food for them. There were overflowing restrooms. It was a 
nightmare. People could not access their medicines. They were not 
allowed to, and certainly people did not have an option to get off the 
plane. And this happened over and over again.
  I think we have all had experiences like that or we know someone who 
did. There is no excuse for this. People have to have adequate water, 
adequate food, and be able to use a clean restroom and get access to 
their medicines.
  It seems to me that ought to be a basic rule of the airlines. It is 
not. And that is why we wrote this Passenger Bill of Rights, and the 
committee supported it in the underlying bill, and people will be 
granted those what I consider very minimum rights.
  We think we are going to offer a perfecting amendment, because at 
this point what happens is, we put in there a 3-hour rule. That is the 
maximum time on the runway, with certain exceptions: safety, weather, 
other things. But we say: If an airline does not agree to a 3-hour 
rule, 3 hours of people trapped in the aircraft on a runway, that they 
have to submit an alternative to the FAA; but we do not require that 
the FAA sign off on it.
  So we may want to strengthen that. I would alert colleagues. I hope 
they support us. I know I have no time remaining. I hope we will give 
this a strong ``yea'' vote.
  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.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The time is now 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the

[[Page 7034]]

     Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close 
     debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 383, H.R. 
     2881, the FAA reauthorization bill.
         Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Barbara Boxer, Patty 
           Murray, Byron L. Dorgan, Edward M. Kennedy, Christopher 
           J. Dodd, Daniel K. Akaka, Benjamin L. Cardin, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Bernard Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Richard Durbin, Ken Salazar, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Max Baucus.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is: Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Martinez), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Martinez
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 88, the nays are 0. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes, to be followed for 10 minutes by Senator Klobuchar, as in 
morning business and for it to count postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          America's Workforce

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, America's workforce is facing immense 
challenges. Our country has lost 230,000 jobs in the first 3 months of 
2008. Many of those jobs are in the Presiding Officer's State of 
Michigan and my State of Ohio. The national unemployment rate has gone 
to 5.1 percent. In Ohio, unemployment hovers around 6 percent. Early 
this year, Congress passed an economic stimulus package--a necessary 
step but only a small step and a first step.
  Wall Street projects an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent by the end 
of 2009. It will likely be higher in my State. We have not acted on 
extending unemployment insurance. The Republicans filibustered 
extending unemployment insurance when we passed the stimulus package 
earlier this year. The Republicans again have stopped our efforts and 
have refused to extend unemployment benefits.
  Over 2.6 million Americans--35 percent of all unemployed workers--
have already exhausted their unemployment benefits over the past 12 
months. These are people who want to work, who have tried to find other 
jobs, who simply have been unsuccessful in finding decent jobs.
  Workers have paid into the unemployment system for years and deserve 
protection now. Again, these are workers who have paid into this fund. 
This is an insurance fund. It is not a welfare fund. These workers 
deserve the compensation to help during their difficult times as they 
search for jobs. I urge my colleagues to end their filibuster and to 
work on extending unemployment insurance.
  The President continues to push for a Colombia trade deal. We have 
not even acted on trade adjustment assistance which provides vital 
assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade. The 
President has actually threatened to veto the House trade adjustment 
assistance package.
  Whether we have another trade deal, one thing is certain. Trade 
assistance needs to be reformed, and it needs to be expanded to workers 
who cannot, in every case, prove they lost their jobs because of trade, 
even though they probably did. It should be expanded to service workers 
who have lost their jobs.
  Last week, Senate Republicans staged a filibuster to prevent even 
having a debate on giving a woman a day in court when she faces 
discrimination in the workplace. Today, women and victims of 
discrimination, based on race or age or disability or religion, are 
denied a remedy when they are denied equal pay for equal work. It 
should not be a partisan issue, but the Republicans have made it one.
  Today is Workers Memorial Day--a day set aside every year to honor 
workers killed and hurt on the job. Trade unionists around the world 
mark April 28 as an International Day of Mourning.
  The most recent data shows that in the United States, there were 
5,840 fatal workplace injuries in 2006. Over 5,800 Americans were 
killed on the job in 2006, over 100 more than in 2005. This includes 
196 workers in my State of Ohio.
  Under this administration, workplace inspections have declined. The 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration has not vigorously 
enforced current laws and regulations on the books. It has not set any 
standards except by court order. It continues to rely on ``voluntary'' 
compliance to protect workers in many of the most dangerous 
occupations.
  OSHA has dragged its feet on the butter flavoring chemical in popcorn 
that has caused a fatal lung disease known as popcorn lung disease.
  That is too late for Keith Campbell in Caledonia, OH, who is 50 years 
old but has the lungs of an 80-year-old because of exposure to the 
chemical at the popcorn plant in Marion, OH.
  The point is, it has taken decades of struggle by workers and unions 
to improve conditions in the mines, in the meatpacking plants, and in 
the metal stamping shops--in all kinds of plants where workers get all 
kinds of occupational injuries and illnesses.
  This progress has been slowly, and sometimes not so slowly, unraveled 
by the Bush administration.
  Through budget cuts and a shift in emphasis to voluntary employer 
programs, the administration is essentially telling workers they are on 
their own. It hearkens back to an era when workers were treated like 
disposable goods.

[[Page 7035]]

  In election years, some candidates give drive-by speeches in towns 
that are hit hard by unfair trade deals and tell them the ownership 
society is working. In some sense, it is true. More and more, workers 
``own'' responsibility for their own safety, their own retirement, and 
their own health care.
  We hear some candidates sometimes talk about how if only taxes on the 
wealthiest Americans were lower, companies would not outsource 
production to China or Mexico or to any other country. I don't think 
that argument is passing the straight-face test these days.
  Middle-class families aren't buying it because they see perfectly 
well what is happening around them. The message of the ownership 
society coming from the White House is that every man and woman is 
responsible for himself or herself. But the result of the policies 
pursued under that banner of the ownership society is the greatest 
concentration of ownership in the hands of a few that we have seen 
since the Great Depression. It is ownership all right but only for 
those in high society.
  Over the past 8 years, we have seen an administration that neither 
values nor rewards hard work. We have seen an administration that 
simply doesn't value manufacturing. Manufacturing changed the face of 
America and created a middle class that used its strength and power to 
change the course of society.
  The progress in labor rights, women's suffrage, antitrust laws, 
conservation, and the social safety net would not have happened without 
manufacturing and would not have happened without rewarding our work.
  When the Bush administration fails to value these manufacturing jobs 
in the first place, why should we not be surprised when it doesn't 
value safety in industries such as construction, mining, 
transportation, and manufacturing?
  Our Nation is struggling. We struggle because of the Federal 
Government's wrongheaded tax policy, and because our trade policy all 
too often encourages investors to move jobs overseas.
  In the last 14 months, I have traveled my State extensively and held 
roundtables with community leaders, workers, activists, teachers, 
farmers, and veterans in almost 100 different places in 62 of Ohio's 88 
counties. It is clear to me that Ohio workers are fighting back to 
build a decent standard of living for themselves and for others to 
provide opportunities for their children and to construct a more 
prosperous State, one where smart and hard work is rewarded.
  I listened to a woman, Dee Dee, who sat in negotiations representing 
1,200 janitors in Cincinnati--1,200 men and women who work hard, raise 
their children, and who contribute to their community; and in this case 
they are not earning much more than the minimum wage.
  Joined by several others at the bargaining table, Dee Dee helped 
reach an agreement with Cincinnati's office building owners. Over the 
next 3 years, 1,200 janitors will get between a $2- and $3-an-hour 
raise, health benefits, and they will get a small pension.
  In northwest Ohio, in the farmland of Henry County, Mark Schwiebert, 
a very productive farmer in an increasingly competitive environment, 
told me his story. He is proud of his farm, to be sure, but he also 
takes his role seriously as an American citizen. He is an advocate for 
family farmers and for fair trade, understanding that the prosperity of 
Ohio depends on a vibrant rural Ohio where young people want to stay 
and work in their communities.
  Ohioans and workers across the country are fighting back. They did 
not go away after this Chamber voted down the Fair Pay Act, again a 
victim of Republican filibuster. They did not go away last year when 
Republicans mounted yet another filibuster to prevent the Senate from 
considering legislation to level the playing field for unions trying to 
represent new groups of workers. They would not go away just because 
this administration has ignored worker safety and is forcing more 
families to mourn loved ones on Workers Memorial Day.
  We need an ownership society, but it needs to be one in which workers 
own a greater share of the profits from their productivity, and the 
Government and employers own a greater share of responsibility for 
their safety and their well-being.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.


                             Energy Policy

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, Spring is finally arriving in 
Minnesota, even though we had snow last week. Spring does get to our 
State a little later than in Washington. This is the time of year when 
people start thinking about putting their boats in the water and start 
thinking about making a trip to their cabins. We call it the lake 
season. It is also the time of year when farmers are preparing to put 
their crops in the ground.
  But this year is going to be different. The average price of gas just 
hit $3.45 a gallon in Minnesota, and it is $3.56 per gallon nationally. 
The price of diesel fuel is at $4.14 per gallon nationally. Of course, 
the price of crude oil is at an unbelievable $118 per barrel.
  People cannot afford to do the things they used to do. I don't think 
people usually think of going up to a small lake cabin as a luxury, but 
it becomes one when gas is this expensive.
  I have heard from constituents who are having to cancel their family 
road trips or their summer vacations up north because they cannot 
afford the gas they need to get there. I have heard from farmers who 
are having a hard time making ends meet, even in spite of the high 
commodity prices, because the cost of their inputs--diesel fuel for 
farm equipment and fertilizer made from natural gas--has spiraled out 
of control. Of course, it is particularly hard on middle-class and low-
income families because when they have less disposable income and gas 
goes up to these levels, it is very difficult for them to get by.
  The high price of energy has inflated the price of everything from 
groceries to transportation to home heating, as the occupant of the 
chair knows, as he is from Vermont. It has impacted every sector of our 
economy, from manufacturing, to forestry, to farms and small 
businesses.
  In cold northern States such as Minnesota, Spring is when a lot of 
people--especially senior citizens living on their own--are trying to 
pay off their natural gas bill from the winter. They are too afraid to 
think about how they are going to pay their heating bills next winter, 
if this trend continues.
  Middle-class families are struggling with the high cost of health 
care and a college education already, and they cannot afford this 
increase in the price of gas. I just heard an expert a few weeks ago 
talk about, if you look at the past 8 to 10 years, a regular, average 
middle-class family--their costs for everything from daycare, to home 
heating, to gas has gone up about $8,000 to $10,000 a year. But their 
wages have not gone up. They don't have a choice, Mr. President, about 
how they are going to get to work. In my State, many don't have a 
choice. They have to drive. They have to get to work, get to school, 
and they have to get to the doctor. Any wage increase they may have 
gotten last year goes straight into their gas tanks. And more often 
than not, there haven't even been any wage increases.
  Not a day goes by when I don't hear about the struggle from my 
constituents in Minnesota. So it is hard for me to understand how 
recently the President seems taken aback when someone asked him about 
$4 gas. The President said--remember, this was February 28. The 
President said:

       You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline? That's interesting. 
     I hadn't heard that.

  To the people in my State, $4 a gallon for gas isn't ``interesting.'' 
It is a budget-buster for many middle-class families in our State.
  The fact is, this administration has failed to provide Americans with 
a meaningful energy policy that would provide relief from high gas and 
energy prices.
  This country needs a bold energy policy for the future, a policy that 
will stabilize prices and give consumers more alternatives, reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, and provide us with

[[Page 7036]]

the next generation of home-grown biofuels.
  Brazil has already achieved this energy security. They have 
leapfrogged in front of our country. They can do it with sugarcane. We 
don't have that much sugarcane here, and we have to go to the next 
generation of biofuels, cellulosic, switch grass--many different 
things. But we have to put the reserve and incentives into place. We 
can do this, but we need the will, and we need to pursue a forward-
looking energy policy with the same sense of urgency we used to put a 
man on the Moon nearly 40 years ago.
  In the long term, this is going to mean strategic investments in 
research on hybrid electric cars, new solar technology, cellulosic 
ethanol, and other forms of energy from biomass.
  We should be investing not in the oil cartels of the Middle East but 
in the farmers and workers of the Midwest. We need better fuel 
efficiency standards in our cars. We already have a start on that with 
the Energy bill and the 10-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency 
standards. We need to do more. We also need a renewable energy 
electricity standard, a portfolio standard for the Nation, like we have 
in Minnesota where the requirement is 25 percent of our electricity 
will come from renewables by 2025. It has spurred investment in wind. 
We are third in the country in wind now because we have been willing to 
take that step.
  There is also much that we need to do in the short term, Mr. 
President. We can put a stop to oil company giveaways by ending the 
giveaways and tax breaks going to the oil companies and putting them 
into a futuristic energy policy focused on renewables. We tried to do 
that in the Energy bill, and we were one vote short of blocking the 
filibuster. I still believe we can do it.
  We also have to look at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We can stop 
diverting 50,000 barrels of oil every day into that Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. Of course, we need to have a petroleum reserve to protect our 
country in times of emergency. But the time to fill it is not when oil 
prices are at record highs.
  Here is what the staff at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve had to say 
on the subject 6 years ago, in 2002:

       Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high, and 
     economic growth is slow. The Government should avoid 
     acquiring oil for the reserve under these circumstances.

  If this was true in 2002, it is doubly true today. Maybe I should say 
it is triply true because gas prices are more than triple what they 
were then. That is why I was proud to join with my colleague, Senator 
Dorgan of North Dakota, and others in sending a letter to the President 
asking him to halt inputs into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 
provide some relief for consumers.
  Next, OPEC. Another area where we can take immediate action is in our 
dealings with the OPEC nations. OPEC is a cartel of oil-producing 
countries that meets and decides how much oil to produce and thereby 
control prices. They make no pretense of having a free market system. 
They don't obey the laws of supply and demand. They gather together and 
set production, which determines prices.
  As a former prosecutor, I call that kind of behavior ``collusion.'' 
It is illegal in our country. But the members of OPEC are foreign 
governments and so far they have gotten away with it.
  As oil exporting nations, the members of OPEC could provide us with 
some relief. They have the spare capacity to increase production of oil 
and ease the pain being felt by American consumers and businesses. But 
OPEC recently met, as you know, and decided not to increase production, 
at least until the fall, after the summer driving season.
  Not only that, Saudi Arabia has actually decreased production since 
2005. So I have joined with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Dorgan, 
and you, Mr. President, in calling on the President to demand that OPEC 
nations increase their oil production to provide American consumers and 
businesses with much needed relief.
  Think about it: This country spends $600,000 every minute on imported 
oil. That is money leaving the pockets of American drivers going into 
the coffers of foreign countries. By refusing to step up production, 
OPEC nations are saying we don't think prices are too high yet; we want 
them to go even higher.
  I don't think that is right. It is time this administration stepped 
up and did something about it. If we are going to be doing business 
with Saudi Arabia and some of these countries, this administration 
should have the leverage to push for more oil from OPEC.
  Another short-term solution: Current prices are simply not justified 
by supply and demand. The administration likes to tell us nothing can 
be done, that it is a case of supply and demand. But that answer does 
not hold true any longer. Listen to what the oil company executives 
themselves have to say about this matter.
  On October 30, 2007, the CEO of Marathon Oil said:

       $100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the 
     market.

  That is exactly what he said:

       $100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the 
     market.

  Let's look at what another CEO said. Here we have the CEO of Royal 
Dutch Shell. The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell said:

       The oil fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as 
     they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel.

  On April 1, a senior vice president of ExxonMobil testified before 
the House that the price of oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel. 
He said:

       The price of oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel.

  That was April 1, 2008. I note that is April Fool's Day, but he did 
say the price of oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel. Why is it 
trading at $118? If supply and demand doesn't explain the high price, 
what does?
  According to the experts, there is a frenzy of unregulated market 
speculation in the oil futures market that is driving prices up to 
record highs. I would like to share a quote from an energy market 
analyst with Oppenheimer who was recently named by Bloomberg as the 
top-ranked energy analyst in the country. He said:

       I'm absolutely convinced that oil prices shouldn't be a 
     dime above $55 a barrel . . . Oil speculators include the 
     largest financial institutions in the world. I call it the 
     world's largest gambling hall . . . It's open 24/7 . . . It's 
     totally unregulated. . . . This is like a highway with no 
     cops and no speed limit, and everybody's going 120 miles per 
     hour.

  That makes you feel good. It makes the people filling up their gas 
tanks paying that nearly 4 bucks a gallon feel good, like a gambling 
hall.
  Why are these trades in a commodity as vital as oil unregulated? Back 
in 2000, a provision was inserted into the Commodity Futures 
Modernization Act that exempted electronic energy trades from Federal 
regulation. In the absence of oversight, what was once a small niche 
market became a booming industry, attracting rampant speculation from 
hedge funds and investment banks. Oil and natural gas prices became 
volatile. The provision has become known as the Enron loophole because 
it made possible the many abuses that triggered the Western energy 
crisis and cost the economy $35 billion and nearly 600,000 jobs.
  The Federal Government has a critical role to play in conducting 
aggressive oversight of changing energy markets. History has shown us 
that when enforcement is lax, consumers ultimately pay the price.
  Simply put, we need to close the Enron loophole and strengthen 
Federal oversight of energy trading. I am pleased to say my colleagues, 
Senators Feinstein and Levin, have succeeded in including this 
provision in the farm bill. It is another reason we need to get the 
farm bill done.
  I commend my colleagues, Representative Collin Peterson, from 
Minnesota, and Senator Harkin and Senator Conrad for getting this 
provision done.
  A final short-term solution. After the collapse of Enron, the 
President formed a Corporate Fraud Task Force at the Department of 
Justice. The task force has since produced more than 1,000 convictions 
by aggressively pursuing corporate fraud under existing law. What this 
shows us is good laws in and of themselves are not enough. We need 
enforcement. We need a cop on the beat. Any prosecutor can tell you 
that.

[[Page 7037]]

That is why I joined my colleague, Senator Cantwell, in calling on the 
President to establish a new division of the Corporate Fraud Task Force 
specifically to apply to energy markets. This new Oil and Gas Market 
Fraud Task Force would allow us to focus combined efforts of the 
Department of Justice, FTC, SEC, and the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
  In conclusion, the cost of energy is hurting Americans from all walks 
of life and businesses. I don't think we need one silver bullet. As we 
say in my State, we need a silver buckshot. We need a bold energy 
policy, first of all, in the short term, that focuses on temporarily 
suspending deliveries of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that 
pressures OPEC nations to increase oil production, that closes the 
Enron loophole to eliminate that speculation, and to establish the DOJ 
Oil and Gas Market Fraud Task Force.
  Then we need for the long term--Mr. President, you know this well we 
need to increase vehicle fuel efficiency, make a national commitment to 
generate electricity from renewables and invest in research in cutting-
edge technologies for alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy 
sources. This is what we need to do.
  The time is now for Congress to take strong steps toward creating 
that bold energy policy. Americans are depending on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Klobuchar for her 
comments. I agree with so much of what she had to say. When you go out 
and talk to real people and see the impact on their lives of these huge 
prices, you begin to analyze where we are.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he will withhold. 
I think the plan is that I am to end the session and he is to speak.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That sounds fine to me. I did not hear that. I yield 
the floor, before I complete bragging on the Senator's comments.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind 
words.

                          ____________________