[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11804-11813]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3044, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 3044, to provide energy price 
     relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable 
     for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and for 
     other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.


                            Filling the Tree

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment 
about a practice that is being employed on a widespread basis, which I 
believe undercuts the fundamental institutional integrity of the 
Senate. I am referring now to a procedure known as filling the tree. 
That is an expression used inside the beltway--inside the Senate 
Chamber--for action taken by the majority leader to establish a 
procedural situation where no Senator can offer any other amendment.
  The long tradition of the Senate has been it is an institution that 
encourages, harbors, fosters open debate, the presentation of issues, 
the discussion of matters, to bring not only in this limited Chamber, 
or beyond on C-SPAN2, if anybody is watching, but to the entire 
country.
  That is what distinguished the Senate from the House of 
Representatives, for example. In the House, they have what is called a 
rule, and Members may offer amendments only in a very limited, 
circumscribed way and then in a limited period of time. But under 
Senate rules, any Senator may offer virtually any amendment virtually 
at almost any time on any subject and speak in an unlimited way, as 
long as he retains the floor.
  Last week, the Senate took up legislation of great importance on 
global warming. There are many complex issues involved in that subject. 
We started off with legislation which had been offered by Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Warner that had been modified by Senator Boxer, 
the chairperson of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and 
there were many other

[[Page 11805]]

proposals in the wings waiting to be considered. One of those proposals 
was legislation prepared by Senator Bingaman and myself, the Bingaman-
Specter bill.
  In the consideration of global warming, there were many complex 
matters. I don't intend to go through all of them now, but illustrative 
of that is the issue of technology. Is the technology adequate to 
accommodate the goals and standards of Lieberman-Warner? What would be 
the economic impact on the provisions of global warming in terms of 
encouraging foreign countries to ship to the United States on 
exclusions where they might not have the same limitations?
  For example, in the steel industry. On that particular subject, I 
testified before the Finance Committee last February 14 about the need 
for the United States to be a leader on global warming, but at the same 
time not to sacrifice our industry to foreign goods, and noted that the 
Chinese wanted a 30-year exemption. If they had gotten that, there 
would not be any steel industry. But there were many issues.
  I came to the Senate floor a week ago today to speak on the subject 
on June 2. And then I returned to speak again on June 3. Then, by 
Wednesday, June 4, I found out that we were on our way to having the 
tree filled. Actually, I spoke on June 2, 3, and June 5 and found when 
there was no opportunity to offer amendments, I filed four amendments.
  I bring up that matter because then there was a cloture motion on 
Friday. A cloture motion requires 60 votes. If we are going to do it on 
a Friday, it is extremely difficult to find enough Senators to have an 
adequate showing as to what it means.
  In any event, the cloture motion vote was held, and the cloture 
motion fell far short. The majority leader took the bill down, and now 
we are no longer considering the question of global warming. That is a 
matter which, in my judgment, warrants very considerable time by the 
Senate. I don't know whether it is 2 weeks or 3 weeks or how many weeks 
it is, but I know it is a lot more than 4 days. And now it is gone.
  Regrettably, it is not just global warming which is involved. Not 
long ago, we have had the issue of the so-called Ledbetter Fair Pay 
Act, S. 1843, legislation which would change the statute of limitations 
on enforcing employment rights for equal pay. This bill was introduced 
because the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-to-4 decision, 
enforced a 6-month statute of limitations on a woman who wanted to 
claim her Federal rights to equal pay.
  It seemed to me the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States was wrong. The plaintiff was being foreclosed an opportunity to 
go to court to get equal pay when she didn't even know she had the 
cause of action or the right to do that.
  This issue then was the subject of a cloture motion. The motion to 
proceed failed on cloture 56 to 42. The bill was given no process. 
There was no committee referral, no debate, no opportunity for 
amendments, just talking points for Democrats, an illustration where 
cloture was filed.
  The tradition of the Senate has always been to have legislation 
offered, to have it debated. If there is objection, people oppose it. 
If people are very determined not to allow it to come to a vote without 
a supermajority--that is, getting 60 votes for cloture--then they 
filibuster. But in the course of that process, there is an awakening of 
the American people about what is going on.
  A good illustration would be the historic civil rights debates which 
went on in this Chamber for very protracted periods of time. But the 
American people hardly have any idea about what is involved in equal 
pay for women when the matter is called to the Senate floor and in a 
virtual nanosecond is dispensed with.
  Had the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act received extensive debate, had there 
been opposition, had there been discussion, had there been some idea by 
the American people about what was going on, there could have been some 
public opinion registered on that as a very important matter.
  The great difficulty is this is not a machination of the current 
majority leader. This is a practice which has been building up for a 
considerable period of time and, as with the case of so many matters, 
it is a matter of equal blame on both sides of the aisle, both 
Republicans and Democrats.
  In a survey by CRS, going back to 1985, it was used infrequently. 
Senator Dole used it five times in 1985 and 1986; Senator Byrd, three 
times in 1987 and 1988. Senator Mitchell did not use it at all in 1989 
and 1990. Then in 1991 and 1992, Senator Mitchell used it one time. 
Then in 1993 and 1994, Senator Mitchell used it nine times. In 1995 and 
1996, Senator Dole and Senator Lott used it five times. In 1997 and 
1998, Senator Lott used it three times. In 1999 and 2000, Senator Lott 
used it nine times. Senator Daschle then used it once in the next 2 
years. The following 2 years, 2003 and 2004, Senator Frist used it 
three times. Then in 2005 and 2006, Senator Frist used it nine times. 
And in the 110th Congress, so far, Senator Reid has used it 12 times. 
Every time that it is used, it totally undercuts the ability of the 
Senate to function in its traditional way.
  Senator Reid had this to say about this practice when he was not the 
majority leader but when he was the leader of the minority, the leader 
of the Democrats back on February 28, 2006. He was speaking in defense 
of a fellow Democrat's ability to offer amendments to the PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization. Senator Reid of Nevada said this:

       Of course, even a good bill can be improved. That is why we 
     have an amendment process in the Senate. I am disappointed 
     that he has been denied that opportunity by a procedural 
     maneuver known as ``filling the amendment tree.''

  Senator Reid goes on:

       This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic 
     nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free 
     speech and open debate. Rule XXII establishes a process for 
     cutting off debate and amendments, but rule XXII should 
     rarely be invoked before any amendments have been offered . . 
     . I will vote against cloture to register my objection to 
     this flawed process.

  Senator Reid made similar comments a short time later on March 2, 
2006, saying:

       Don't fill the tree . . . That is a bad way, in my opinion, 
     to run this Senate.

  Senator Durbin, speaking on May 11, 2006, on the 2005 tax 
reconciliation conference report said:

       The Republican majority brings a bill to the Senate, fills 
     the tree so no amendments can be offered, and then files 
     cloture which stops debate. So we cannot have this 
     conversation. We cannot offer other amendments.

  I cite Senator Reid and Senator Durbin with particularity because 
they are the two leaders of the Democrats at the present time.
  An eloquent statement on this subject was made by Senator Dodd on May 
11, 2006. Senator Dodd had this to say when he was speaking about 
health care legislation:

       I want to point out to our colleagues why I am terribly 
     disappointed with the procedures we have been confronted with 
     this evening dealing with this legislation . . . This is the 
     Senate. This Chamber historically is the place where debate 
     occurs. To have a process here this evening . . . to 
     basically lock out any amendments that might be offered to 
     this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of this body 
     . . . if you believe the Senate ought to be heard on a 
     variety of issues relating to the subject matter--when the 
     amendment tree has been entirely filled, then obviously we 
     are dealing with a process that ought not to be . . . the 
     Senate ought to be a place where we can offer amendments, 
     have healthy debate over a reasonable time, and then come to 
     closure on the subject matter.

  I could go on at considerable length with other Senators making the 
same point. But here we have issues of gigantic importance which are 
not being considered. They are not being debated. They are not being 
explained. They are not being subject to questioning on the Senate 
floor, one Senator on another.
  The educational process of telling America what the alternatives and 
prospects are for legislative change is not being explored. Not 
surprisingly, it is bipartisan. About the only thing that is bipartisan 
around this place is various mechanisms to gain political advantage.
  We have had furious debates over the issue of confirmation of judges, 
a subject on which I have spoken repeatedly

[[Page 11806]]

 and have noted that in the past 20 years, every time the Senate is 
controlled by a party opposite the President, there is a slowdown of 
the confirmation process. It happened during the last 2 years of 
President Reagan's administration in 1987 and 1988 when Democrats won 
control of the Senate in the 1986 election. It happened in the last 2 
years of the administration of President George H.W. Bush, and during 
the administration of President Clinton where we Republicans controlled 
the Senate for the last 6 years, it was exacerbated. It was even worse 
in blocking President Clinton's nominations.
  As I have said on this floor on occasion, I voted with the Democrats. 
I thought the Republican caucus was wrong and said so. But each time it 
has been exacerbated and become more intense.
  Then this body saw a very sharp debate in 2005 where there was the 
consideration of the so-called nuclear or constitutional option, which 
would have changed the filibuster rule from 60 to 51. Now we are, 
again, in a period of gridlock. There is no doubt that the very low 
public opinion ratings of us are due to the public realization, the 
public disgust about all the bickering that goes on here. The public 
sees it on many items, the partisanship and the effort at a partisan 
advantage. But I do believe the public does not have an understanding 
of these arcane rules, like filling the tree. They can hardly have an 
understanding since most Members of this body don't understand exactly 
how it works.
  Mr. President, this is not a matter that comes to me this afternoon 
or yesterday or the day before. I have been watching it for a 
considerable period of time, and 18 months ago, on February 15, 2007, I 
introduced S. Res. 83, a resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the 
Senate to prohibit filling the amendment tree. So far there has not 
been a hearing and not been any action on that, but I intend to press 
this issue. I intend to try to bring some understanding to the American 
people beyond the confines of this Chamber.
  I don't think I am going to have a whole lot of effect on my 
colleagues this afternoon because there are none of my colleagues here 
this afternoon, except for the--no, no, I know the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland is here--except for the distinguished Presiding 
Officer. And I compliment my colleague, Senator Ben Cardin, on his fast 
start in the Senate. Of course, he had a lot of advanced training 
having come from the House of Representatives and been a leader in the 
Maryland Legislature. I work with him on the Judiciary Committee, and 
he is a first-class Senator. That extract can be used--let's see, you 
ran in 2006--you can use it in 2012, 2018, 2024, and 2030, Senator 
Cardin, but beyond 2030, I am reserving my judgment.
  But Senators are busy, and I am not in any way critical of Senators 
not being here, but I intend to speak on the subject repetitively. I 
don't know that will do any good, but I intend to do that.
  For years, Senator Proxmire used to stand at his seat on the aisle 
speaking about genocide. Every day he came to the Senate floor, and he 
was motivated because there was no television at the time he was 
speaking about genocide. I think television came while he was still 
speaking on the subject. Senator Proxmire was a remarkable Senator in 
many ways. My recollection is that he had 17,000 votes, which he didn't 
miss. I am not sure about the exact statistic, but I am sure he spoke 
extensively on genocide, and he had an impact. And now we know that 
genocide has been picked up as a crime against humanity and has been 
the subject of prosecutions under the War Crimes Tribunal.
  So I intend to speak about this subject with some frequency, and I 
intend to press for a hearing on my resolution. I intend to press to 
see if we can get some action because if the American people knew what 
was going on, the American people would not like it. The American 
people live under the illusion that we have a United States Senate. The 
facts show that the Senate is realistically dysfunctional. It is on 
life support, perhaps even moribund. The only facet of Senate 
bipartisanship is the conspiracy of successive Republican and 
Democratic leaders to employ this procedural device known as filling 
the tree. It is known that way to insiders, and it is incomprehensible 
to outsiders.
  Once known as a unique legislative institution, the Senate was 
referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body because any 
Senator could introduce almost any amendment on virtually any subject 
and get a vote on it. That was, as noted, the distinguishing feature 
from the House of Representatives, which is tightly controlled by the 
Rules Committee to restrict the parameters on what amendments are in 
order.
  A principal reason, perhaps the main reason for the use of the 
procedural device of filling the tree, was to save the majority from 
taking tough votes. That backfired on Republicans in the last Congress, 
where the filling the tree rule was used in order to avoid bad votes. 
And, of course, we know the procedure backfired pretty hard for 
Republicans to lose control of the Senate. In the 2006 election we had 
to lose seven seats, a virtual impossibility, but we managed to do it.
  But more important than the partisanship, more important than the 
increased use by both Democratic and Republican majority leaders is the 
impact it has on this institution. And more important than that is the 
impact it has on the legislative process and the working through 
legislation, which ought to be considered and, where warranted, enacted 
for the benefit of the American people.
  Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the American people are very frustrated 
with the failure of Congress to act on the great problems facing our 
country, a lot of problems, but I believe they are especially concerned 
about surging gasoline and energy prices. They are angry. They do not 
believe we have done enough in this Congress, and I think when they 
find out the leadership of this Congress, the Democratic leadership, is 
proposing legislation that will raise, not lower gas prices, they will 
not be happy.
  Indeed, I received a note today from my staff that an experienced 
reporter at the Birmingham News, Mr. Tom Gordon, today wrote that my 
home county in Alabama, Wilcox County, again leads the Nation in the 
percentage of income that its citizens spend monthly on motor fuel, 16 
percent, because the county has low incomes and people drive long 
distances to work.
  It is a big deal. It is absolutely a real matter of importance. I 
think we need to do something about it. They want us to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, to produce more clean American energy, to 
show we are taking steps to contain and I think maybe even hopefully 
reduce the surging prices.
  These prices are threatening the family budget. They are threatening 
American jobs and the American economy. Turn on any news program and 
read any news magazine. We are on track to spend $500 billion abroad 
this year to purchase 60 percent of the oil we consume; 60 percent-plus 
is being imported. This balance-of-trade deficit weakens our dollar, 
requiring even more dollars to purchase the same amount of oil. With 
the dollar getting weaker, you need more dollars to buy the same amount 
of oil. We are creating jobs and wealth in nations around the world 
with our money when this missing wealth in our country that we send 
abroad reduces our own jobs.
  Families are routinely paying $50, $75, $100 more a month for the 
same or even less gasoline than they were a few years ago. When this 
added expense reduces the ability of hard-working middle-class 
Americans to purchase what they need to get by on, or to take care of 
their families, and when this reduction in spending on oil reduces 
spending on things other than oil that the

[[Page 11807]]

American people need, is it any wonder the economy is struggling, I 
ask? Is it any wonder millions of American are struggling to get by? Is 
it any wonder Americans from the suites in New York to the rural roads 
of Alabama are worried?
  What is it our constituents are asking us to do? I think they want us 
to get busy doing what we know works. What works does not mean this 
$6.7 trillion cap-and-trade plan that has been introduced here that 
will burden the American economy by driving up the cost of gasoline by 
another 50 cents in the next number of years, 20 years; driving up the 
cost of electricity by 44 percent; driving up the price of gasoline 
three times that 50 cents in the years to come in the distant future; 
and drive business away from America.
  It will make our manufacturing industry less competitive than the 
global marketplace at a time when we are already struggling to compete 
and stay up. As I have noted, it will drive up unemployment, and we 
unfortunately saw a very large surge in unemployment last week, to 5.5 
percent.
  First, it is not a horrible rate of unemployment, but a horrible 
increase in unemployment of five-tenths of 1 percent. As one economist 
said, I would not have been surprised to see 6 percent unemployment 
over the next 12 months. I did not expect to see half of that occur in 
1 month.
  People know we have a problem and they understand it. I guess the 
question is, is there anything we can do about it or are we hopeless? 
Is there something we can do to bring down the price of oil and make 
more sense in our economy to confront the danger that high energy 
prices, gasoline prices pose to America's well being?
  Yes, there is. There is. Fundamentally we need to do what works, and 
we know a lot of things work. It is past time to get started in taking 
the long road back to a sound energy policy that can and will bring 
down or at least contain the price of crude oil and gasoline.
  I propose that we work together on common ground, liberals, 
conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats. It is within our grasp and 
the people are ready for our leadership. We have an opportunity to 
address our Nation's crisis. The challenge is truly bipartisan in every 
way. After all, high energy prices affect Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents all in the same way. While conservation and increasing the 
production of American oil and gas in an environmentally sound way can 
help contain the surge in prices, we need to do that. We must seek 
common ground further to develop and deploy technological breakthroughs 
necessary to solve our Nation's energy crisis.
  We must commit ourselves as a nation to the production of clean and 
affordable energy sources. We must commit to policies that will move us 
beyond oil in a financially and prudent way. Only by championing 
national interests over any special interests will we be able to secure 
the common interests and lower energy prices and have a cleaner 
environment, both of which I believe are possible.
  But we are far behind. Business-as-usual policies crafted to benefit 
favored constituents are no way to develop sound energy solutions to 
our Nation's needs. That is why I am proposing legislation to direct 
the Department of Energy, which I think can do more and should do more, 
to evaluate the host of national incentives we have now on the books to 
create alternative sources of energy, some of which have worked well, 
and to recommend changes based on what is in the national interest.
  The national interest is to utilize those incentives to the maximum 
amount possible to create the most amount of clean American energy. 
Frankly, there is too much in some areas and not enough in other areas. 
We need to utilize incentives to jump-start industries that can help 
build a source of clean American energy. For example, we did succeed in 
creating an ethanol industry through a very sizable incentive. That has 
worked. We have drawn it down some now. The Agriculture bill that 
passed the Senate reduced some of those incentives. Perhaps they should 
have been reduced more since it has been such a healthy enterprise. 
That money could have been applied to other areas and other aspects of 
alternative energy that could jump-start those sources.
  Congress also suffers too often from a short-term focus on the 
pressing issues of the day. Too often, we fail to adequately plan for 
the future needs of the country. That is why I propose that the 
Department of Energy develop a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy 
to anticipate unforeseen needs and to promote continued development of 
innovative energy sources. In order to achieve these goals, the 
Department would have to report its recommendations to Congress 
frequently.
  I am not ashamed to say that I have a lot of issues on my plate. I am 
on the Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the 
Energy Committee. The Department of Energy has a huge staff, a large 
number of personnel. They spend all their time every day working on 
energy issues. We should have leadership from them. They should tell us 
what is working and what is not. They should help Congress set good 
policy. They could do more in that regard. They should not be timid 
about it. They should help us, step forward, make some proposals, and 
be more aggressive.
  There are many things we can do now to lower the price of gasoline 
and promote clean American energy. Indeed, progress will be made by a 
thousand steps, large and small, but they must be smart steps. They 
don't need to be steps that cost far more than they will ever return in 
terms of energy per cost. They don't need to be political pork.
  In 2005, Congress directed the Department of Interior to study the 
oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf. That is the deep waters 
off our coast, not right on the beaches. The study found that 8.5 
billion barrels of oil are currently known to exist off our Nation's 
shores. In addition, the study estimated that approximately 86 billion 
barrels of oil exist in these waters. We spend maybe $5 billion a year 
on oil. That includes the 60 percent we import. The U.S. Geological 
Survey and private industry also estimate that approximately 25 billion 
barrels of oil exist on shore in the lower 48 States and Alaska. This 
totals approximately 119 billion barrels of oil alone and would be 
enough to power millions of automobiles for a century--not every 
automobile in the country for a century, but it would carry us a long 
way until we continue to work hard to have those breakthroughs that get 
us off oil maybe completely. The sooner the better for me.
  These are not the only reserves known to exist from studies. These 
are reserves estimated from studies made 30 years ago. Further 
exploration and modern seismographic work will certainly locate far 
more reserves.
  The question fundamentally is, to the American people and my 
colleagues, do we import more and more of our oil and gas from places 
that produce it in the North Sea and the Persian Gulf and the Caspian 
Sea off the coast of Africa and South America or do we produce it 
safely off our own shores, where the money stays at home, where we are 
not sending $500 billion of American citizens' money to people who 
build palaces in the desert with nothing more than basically money they 
have taxed us with? The price of oil today is set in large part because 
OPEC has reduced production, creating a shortage in the whole world. 
That is the fundamental problem. There are a lot of others, but that is 
the fundamental problem. We need to fight back. The way we fight back 
is to keep more of our money at home and send it less to these 
countries. How simple is that? But the policies we are having here go 
the opposite direction. They are not allowing us to produce more oil 
and gas in America, safely and cleanly.
  We have and can move forward a lot of other sources of oil. One could 
be oil from oil shale. Some estimate those reserves to be approximately 
1.8 trillion barrels of oil--a lifetime of oil in oil shale. There are 
a lot of things that have to happen to make that be produced. We have 
to be sure it is done in an environmental way. But we have

[[Page 11808]]

major corporations that are willing to spend billions of dollars to see 
if they can produce it in that fashion. We blocked them from doing that 
last year. When I say ``we,'' I didn't agree to it, but the Congress 
slipped that in in conference committee and basically blocked that in 
the dead of night without any hearings to discuss the merits.
  For example, Saudi Arabia, which has the largest amount of oil known 
in the world, has only approximately 267 billion barrels of oil, 
whereas we have 1,800 billion barrels of oil in oil shale. It is 
primarily located in the West in governmental lands.
  What about coal? We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 25 percent 
of the world's coal reserves, which is enough to last approximately 250 
years at the current rate. Surely long before then, we will have 
developed alternatives to carbon fuels. Converting this tremendous 
resource into liquid transportation fuel using proven technology can 
bring down the price of gasoline. It really can.
  At this very moment, private companies are prepared to convert coal 
to liquid fuel and sell it to the Air Force for aircraft, sequestering 
the carbon so it is not emitted into the atmosphere, at approximately 
$85 a barrel. That is $40 less than the world market price of oil 
today, which is over $130 a barrel. They are prepared to do that. 
Somebody slipped in language to block that from occurring, so the Air 
Force now is in limbo as to whether they can enter into a long-term 
contract necessary to guarantee domestic sources of clean fuel made 
from American coal, all the money staying in the United States, helping 
enhance our national security. We need to repeal that provision. We 
need to let the Air Force go ahead with this. It would mean tremendous 
opportunity to affirm the Air Force's initiative and to verify as a 
practical matter whether this large amount of fuel can be converted 
from coal. The way they do it, they heat the coal, and off comes the 
gas, and then you can reconvert that back to a liquid. It comes out 
cleaner, just spotless clean. It cleans the engine instead of making it 
dirty. It is a fabulous fuel.
  Diesel fuel--let me share this with you. These are some things we can 
do and get busy now, that we should already have done. Diesel fuel is 
more efficient than other fuels. According to Popular Mechanics 
magazine--recently they did a comparison; I can't guarantee everything 
they said because the numbers are pretty astounding, but in a sense it 
is good news--the next generation already in existence of clean diesel 
engines runs approximately 38 percent further on a gallon of fuel than 
a similar size automobile that is a hybrid automobile. The magazine 
found that a 2007 Volkswagen Polo Bluemotion diesel automobile travels 
38 percent farther on a gallon of fuel than a 2007 Toyota Prius hybrid.
  We know for a fact that diesel gets 30, 35, 40 percent better mileage 
than a gasoline engine. In fact, Europe has 50 percent of its 
automobiles diesel. Why? Because it gets better gas mileage. We have 
gone the exact opposite direction. We only have 3 percent of our fleet 
diesel. Why are we not creating policies that will help Americans move 
to more fuel-efficient diesel engines and do something about this odd 
circumstance when diesel fuel is now considerably more expensive? It is 
about 15 percent more expensive, but it gets at least 30 percent better 
mileage. It is still a buy, even at the prices at the pump today for 
diesel. In addition to being fuel efficient, diesel-powered vehicles 
release fewer CO2 emissions than similar hybrids or gasoline 
engines; CO2, the global warming gas, less of that from a 
diesel engine. It is so much cleaner today than people's memory of 
smoky diesels in the past. It is an entirely new engine, an entirely 
new procedure.
  According to the Popular Mechanics field test, the Volkswagen model 
tested by the magazine emitted 5 percent fewer greenhouse gases per 
mile than a Toyota Prius. I was able to drive a Prius the week before 
last around Alabama. It was very impressive. Why are we not thinking 
about diesel as we seek to clean up our air and reduce our importing of 
foreign oil? Diesel engines today run on ultra-low sulfur diesel that 
is 97 percent cleaner than older diesel fuel. It is the cleanest fuel 
in the world. It is cleaner than the European fuel--the Europeans are 
environmentally conscious--and our own regulations require that.
  New diesel technology, the Mercedes BlueTec engine--I visited their 
Alabama facility last week--reduces carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, 
and particulates.
  According to the EPA, if 33 percent of American drivers switched to 
diesel vehicles, oil consumption would be reduced by approximately 1.5 
million barrels of oil a day, which would cut our imports 10 percent. 
They say if you drill in ANWR in Alaska, an area the size of the State 
of South Carolina--and they would like to explore for oil and gas in an 
area the size of Dulles Airport--if it comes in and it is only a little 
over a million barrels a day, that is about 10 percent of our import 
amount. So if we had more diesel and production in Alaska, that would 
reduce our imports 20 percent.
  Already Americans are conserving more. They have reduced consumption 
at least 5 percent this year. So now we are down 25 percent. That is 
the kind of thing we can do that will make a difference in the price of 
oil and help make this a stronger country.
  Now, ethanol represents a viable alternative energy source, I am 
convinced. According to the Congressional Research Service, 6.5 billion 
gallons of ethanol were produced in the United States last year. This 
amounts to approximately $19.5 billion--let me be sure I get this 
correct because my mind is probably like some of my colleagues. That is 
6.5 billion gallons as opposed to barrels I was talking about earlier. 
Mr. President, 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the 
United States last year. It amounts to approximately $19.5 billion that 
stayed in our country to create American jobs and pay good wages here. 
It did not go to buy oil from some foreign country so that the wealth 
goes there.
  It is estimated that we are on track to produce 9 billion gallons of 
ethanol this year. So we go from 6.5 billion to 9 billion gallons this 
year. We are soon reaching the maximum production, I think, for most 
ethanol that comes from corn, which most of this does. But that has 
been helpful to us, I submit to you. So this would result in 
approximately $36 billion that will be invested in America, paying 
wages to American citizens, who pay taxes to our cities and counties, 
for schools, and to the Federal Government. We want them to have good 
jobs with good wages.
  According to Renewable Fuels Association, the price of gasoline would 
rise approximately 31 percent if ethanol was eliminated. Is that right? 
That is an advocacy group for renewable fuels, but this week Barron's 
Magazine had an analysis and quoted figures similar to that and noted 
that consumers were saving several hundred dollars a year as a result 
of ethanol. Whether it is a great benefit to us in net reduction of 
CO2, we do not know. Originally, the environmentalists 
certainly believed so and advocated it. Some now question that. 
Regardless, as an economic matter and as a matter of national security, 
it has reduced our dependence on foreign oil, kept wealth at home, and 
helped protect our national security and create jobs.
  But there are limits on ethanol, so that is why we need to seek 
technological breakthroughs that will allow us to produce cellulosic 
ethanol on a commercial scale. Cellulosic fuel can be produced from 
sources that do not place strains on other end users.
  There is tremendous potential in our country to utilize waste wood 
from sawmills, paper companies, waste wood that is left in the forest 
from when the timber is cut and hurricane recovery. I talked to a FEMA 
hurricane emergency response official today about the potential of 
utilizing cellulose that is downed and thrown away in landfills after a 
hurricane, where thousands and millions of trees are blown down, to 
create energy. I think it is a realistic possibility. Every city and 
county in the country is constantly hauling out large amounts of wood 
and trees from their city. It cannot be utilized effectively for lumber 
or other uses. Instead of going to landfills, this could create energy. 
I think there is a great potential here.

[[Page 11809]]

  Auburn University has spent a lot of time on switchgrass, another 
cellulosic form. They will be bringing up, June 19, to Washington their 
gasification unit that is portable. It is the size of a tractor-trailer 
rig. You put wood chips in one end, the wood is heated, a gas comes 
off, and that gas is converted to a liquid fuel. It is proven it can be 
done. This is not impossible. What we need to do is accelerate the 
science to prove whether it can be commercially feasible. I think it 
can be. I am proud of Auburn. They have won a national award for that. 
They are No. 1 in the country in that area of research, according to 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  The next is the plug-in hybrid technology, which holds exceedingly 
great potential. By utilizing and improving current battery technology, 
plug-in hybrids will be able to travel father using less gasoline--
perhaps dramatically less gasoline--than conventional hybrids or any 
other kind of automobile. In addition to greatly displacing imported 
oil, plug-in hybrids can reduce the amount of pollutants and greenhouse 
gases in the air by relying on clean nuclear energy to recharge their 
batteries.
  Let's just talk about this briefly. We will talk a little more about 
nuclear energy. But if you have a commute each day of 10 or 15 miles 
and you can create a battery that will run 30 miles without any hybrid 
engine having to be turned on to charge and recharge the battery, a 
person could commute back and forth to work every day if that car would 
only run 30 miles. When they come home at night, they can plug it in 
and recharge the battery from the power socket. And particularly 
charging it from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., it will use base load power, often 
not even being fully utilized. If the power source is nuclear power, it 
emits no pollutants into the atmosphere whatsoever, and that will 
completely eliminate the need to utilize any oil or gasoline in the 
car. Now, that is close to being reality.
  Certainly, we will produce more wind and solar power. We support 
those energy sources. The Congress has provided incentives for that. 
Few would dispute that large increases in clean American base load 
electricity in large amounts is essential, and we cannot get there by 
conservation only because a number of things happen. No. 1 is that our 
population is going up. By 2050, we will have a substantial increase in 
the American population. So even if every American used less, the 
Nation is projected, by every expert I am aware of, to utilize more 
energy. Another thing that happens: You may well develop new 
lightbulbs, which I hope every American will utilize and turn off 
lightbulbs when they are not using them, but we have other things that 
come up. For example, how many of our people want to give up plasma 
TVs? They use a lot more electricity than the old kind. And computers. 
When we projected the increase in the cost of the utilization of 
electricity in the 1970s and early 1980s, we did not expect the size of 
the computer revolution and the amount of energy that would add. So 
there is always something out there. That is all I am suggesting. It is 
just not smart for us to project in a way that is contrary to the 
experts that we are going to utilize less electricity.
  So after much study--and I have spent a good bit of study on this--it 
is clear to me that nuclear-generated electricity is the serious 
solution for a clean energy future and an alternative to a future 
filled with ever-increasing regulations and more regulators and more 
lobbyists and more political fights such as this cap-and-trade bill--
all of which produce no energy but drain our American economy. Nuclear 
power is American based. It is a proven technology. It helps enhance 
our national security. It is competitive cost-wise. It is not 
outrageously expensive like some of the ideas that are being floated. 
It emits no pollutants into the air, neither NOX nor SOx nor 
mercury nor particulates. And it 100 percent meets our global warming 
goals, which is to reduce CO2, carbon dioxide--zero, zilch.
  Twenty percent of our electricity today is nuclear, and we have not 
built a plant in 30 years. France produces 80 percent of its power from 
nuclear power, and Japan is over 50 percent. They are heavily committed 
to nuclear power, and it is paying off for them. Britain just announced 
five new nuclear plants. So we are running behind.
  But the good news is that after the Energy bill Senator Domenici 
worked so hard on and the legislation he offered, 30 new applications 
for nuclear powerplants have been submitted. That is 30--up from zero 
just a couple years ago. But we must strive to ensure this nuclear 
renaissance continues and completes.
  There is this tremendous possibility that base load nuclear power, 
particularly in the night, offpeak time, could be utilized to charge 
automobile batteries so we could run our automobiles without any fossil 
fuel being burned. Nuclear power is the one energy source that could 
create large amounts of hydrogen, the hydrogen necessary if we are to 
develop effectively fuel cell hydrogen automobiles that also favor a 
clean concept. Both of these are postoil, postcarbon energy sources 
that can power our automobiles, which is where our crisis is today.
  Renewable energy sources also have an important role to play. 
According to the Department of Energy, renewable energy provided 
approximately 9 percent of the total U.S. electricity generation in 
2005. While this is not large, there is significant room for growth. 
Wind energy has led this growth, increasing from approximately 3,500 
megawatts in 2001 to almost 17,000 megawatts today. Solar power has 
also increased, although cost and storage remain serious issues. 
Geothermal energy has not expanded as rapidly as wind has, but it has 
potential. According to MIT, the United States has approximately 
100,000 megawatts of enhanced geothermal capacity which can be 
developed by 2050.
  A few weeks ago, this Senate voted on a plan that would have taken 
the first steps to produce many of these untapped energy resources by 
allowing more energy exploration off our coasts and in Alaska. But we 
do need to move beyond petroleum-based transportation fuels. We need to 
do some other steps, such as enhancing the batteries for electric cars, 
as this bill would have done, which could have allowed us to move to 
plug-in hybrids. I think that is within our grasp right now, and it 
would help clean up our environment.
  Mr. President, I see the majority leader on the floor. I will just 
conclude by noting that with prices at record highs, I think the 
American people can be excused for wondering what their Congress is 
doing. They expect us to get busy--to get busy now--to produce more 
clean American energy. That will be the only thing that is going to 
help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our ability to be 
hijacked by prices driven up by OPEC nations that are restricting 
supply.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to my friend from 
Alabama for giving up the floor.


            Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. President, this is a consent request to have a vote on three 
district court judges tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 10, after the cloture 
vote or votes with respect to S. 3044 and H.R. 6049, regardless of the 
outcome, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate then proceed to 
executive session to consider concurrently Calendar Nos. 539, 540, and 
541; that there be a total of 10 minutes equally divided and controlled 
between Senator Leahy and Senator Specter; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of 
each nomination in the order listed above; that there be 2 minutes 
between each vote, and after the first vote, the vote time be limited 
to 10 minutes each; that upon confirmation, the motions to reconsider 
be laid upon the table en bloc, no further motions be in order, the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate resume legislative session, without further intervening action 
or

[[Page 11810]]

debate, and the Senate then stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. for the 
respective party conference meetings.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3036

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that S. 3036 be 
returned to the calendar.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. There is objection. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, has my colleague from Alabama 
completed his remarks? You have?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Housing Crisis

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to take a few minutes 
to share with our colleagues the current condition of the housing 
situation and the steps being taken by the Senate Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs Committee--the steps we have taken in recent days and 
what I hope we can continue to do in the coming days over the next week 
or so, depending upon the agenda the leadership will set for us: our 
hope is to bring forth one more proposal that will complete the circle 
of the steps we can take as public policy setters in the area of 
dealing with the heart of the economic crisis, which is the housing 
crisis. The heart of the housing crisis is, of course, the foreclosure 
crisis. So this report I share with my colleagues is both a positive 
one--which includes the steps we are taking together to address the 
problem--as well as, unfortunately, a rather negative one in terms of 
the actual statistics and numbers that people are living with every 
day.
  When we talk about these numbers and statistics, they actually 
reflect what is going on in the lives of very real people in our 
country who are struggling economically to make ends meet. Home 
ownership and the value of homes is at the heart of not only the 
American family dream but also at the heart of their economic success 
in many ways. So as I have done regularly over the past several months, 
I wish to share with my colleagues some of the problems we are facing 
in our economy and some of the steps we are taking to address them.
  Three weeks ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, we were able 
to pass out of the Banking Committee the Hope for Homeowners Act and 
legislation to reform the Government-sponsored enterprises--the so-
called GSEs. These measures will help reduce foreclosures, 
strengthening the housing market and ultimately helping to restore our 
economy to healthy growth. We also added as part of that legislation an 
affordable housing program which will exist in perpetuity; not a short-
term, 4- or 5-year program but one that will be around for years to 
come to assist those who are in desperate need of adequate and decent 
shelter, including rental housing.
  The committee work in these major areas follows the work that the 
Senate accomplished earlier this spring when we passed the Foreclosure 
Prevention Act. That legislation contains several very important 
provisions to help homeowners, neighborhoods, and communities 
throughout our Nation. The legislation included $4 billion for 
communities to use through the Community Development Block Grant 
Program to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties in their 
communities. The act also included $150 million in additional 
foreclosure prevention counseling, on top of the dollars we had already 
appropriated earlier, to assist in that area. Counseling, I would add, 
is a proven and very effective program that has helped struggling 
homeowners avoid the devastating effects of losing their homes. 
Finally, the act includes legislation that would modernize the Federal 
Housing Administration so the FHA can play an enhanced role in allowing 
hard-working American families to pursue and achieve the dream of home 
ownership through a suitable and sustainable mortgage.
  I am continuing to work with our colleagues and the ranking member, 
Senator Shelby of Alabama, along with other members of the committee--
both Democrats and Republicans--and the Senate to enact comprehensive 
legislation that includes these and other provisions. These Members 
include Senators Baucus and Grassley, the chairman and ranking member 
respectively of the Senate Finance Committee, who have contributed very 
important tax provisions to the Foreclosure Prevention Act.
  There is no question in my mind that the almost daily information we 
are receiving on the performance of our economy should continue to spur 
action on the part of this Congress. Our economy has been limping along 
for the last 6 months, with growth well under 1 percent. If you take 
away the growth in Government and the buildup of inventories that 
occurs when the economy enters a recession, our economy grew by three-
tenths of 1 percent in the first quarter of this year. In other words, 
our economy is at best stagnant, and in the view of many economists and 
others, we are actually in a recession.
  Last week we learned that the unemployment rate in April rose by one-
half of a percentage point in 1 month. That is the largest monthly 
increase at that rate in 22 years. We have lost thousands of jobs each 
and every month this year so far, according to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. This year, our economy has lost just under 400,000 private 
sector jobs, and most economists expect they will continue to lose jobs 
as the economy struggles. That is why I think it is critically 
important that we ought to provide for extended unemployment insurance 
benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their 
own as part of our response to the economic challenges we are facing. 
Certainly if we weren't able to do this, it would be the first time in 
my experience in this body for a quarter of a century that we didn't 
extend unemployment insurance benefits to people who have lost their 
jobs during periods of economic hardship. That has never happened 
before in my tenure here, and it is my serious hope that we will 
provide those extended benefits to those who deserve them.
  The data we are looking at, as sad as it is, also confirms that the 
housing market continues to be mired in a deep recession as well. 
Residential construction fell by over 30 percent in the first quarter 
of this year. Sales of existing homes fell by 13 percent over last 
year. Now, let me quickly add some new data today for April that 
indicates sales may have finally picked up slightly, and we welcome 
that news. Most analysts, however, believe this uptick, if you will, in 
homes sales occurred only because home prices have continued to fall 
over the last several months. Regardless of that uptick, the number of 
new homes that remains unsold continues to rise, reaching the highest 
number in over a quarter of a century. Joining this growing number of 
new homes sitting vacant on the market unsold are homes where the 
previous owner has been foreclosed.
  Foreclosures have hit a new all-time record. According to the 
Mortgage Bankers Association--the MBA--this data shows that almost 1 in 
every 11 homes with a mortgage in our country is in default or in 
foreclosure as of March of this year. That is the highest level since 
the MBA began tracking foreclosures in 1979. Foreclosure rates have 
been growing at record levels for some time, and last year alone 1.5 
million of our fellow families in this country had their homes enter 
into a foreclosure.
  Each and every day, over more than 8,100 families enter foreclosure. 
Every single day, 8,100 families on average enter foreclosure. The 
projections are that foreclosure rates will remain at historic highs 
for the foreseeable future. The investment bank Credit Suisse just 
released a report in which they predict that 6.5 million homes will 
fall into foreclosure over the next 5 years. They state:


[[Page 11811]]

       The coming flood of new foreclosures could put 8.4 percent 
     of total homeowners, or 12.7 percent of homeowners with 
     mortgages, out of their homes.

  The scenario they are describing is one in which one out of eight 
American families with a mortgage could lose their homes. That is a 
chilling prediction.
  Robert Schiller, the widely respected economist from Yale University 
who helped invent the so-called Case-Schiller Index that is used 
throughout the country and the markets to measure the change in home 
values, gave a speech recently in New Haven, CT where he said there is 
a good chance that housing prices will fall further, perhaps by as much 
as 30 percent since their peak in the late part of 2006. If that were 
to happen, it would mean the decline in home prices would be greater 
now than it was during the Great Depression back in the 1920s and 1930s 
of the previous century.
  These are indeed historic times with historic challenges. Already we 
have seen home prices decline nationally for the first time since the 
Great Depression. For the first time since the Federal Reserve began 
keeping track of home equity in the 1940s, Americans today own less 
than half the value in their homes.
  The effect this is having on our economy cannot be overstated. Martin 
Feldstein, who served as President Reagan's chief economist, recently 
wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

       The 10 percent decline in home prices has cut household 
     wealth by more than $2 trillion, reducing consumer spending 
     and increasing the risk of a deep recession.

  That means American families have lost more than $2 trillion of 
wealth. Losses of that magnitude are staggering. That is almost 20 
percent of our Nation's GDP. Put another way, a national loss of wealth 
of $2 trillion means a typical family of four would have lost over 
$25,000 of wealth due to the current housing market crisis. This sharp 
loss in wealth for the average American homeowner comes at a time when 
they face record high prices for essentials of American life: Food, 
gasoline prices--as we have heard about today the cost of gas has been 
increasing every day--health care, and the cost of higher education. So 
the so-called foreclosure crisis is affecting far more than only those 
facing foreclosure. It is affecting nearly all of us in every 
imaginable way. As one home falls into foreclosure, the value of 
countless other homes in those neighborhoods is falling as well. If Dr. 
Schiller's predictions come to bear and home prices fall by 30 percent 
nationally, then the loss to American families will exceed $6 trillion. 
That is more than half of our Nation's annual GDP. It would mean the 
typical family of four would have lost approximately $80,000 of wealth. 
That is more than most American families earn in an entire year.
  The nationwide implications of this crisis help explain why consumer 
sentiment is at historic lows. Americans' expectations for future 
economic growth are at the lowest level in 35 years since the deep 
recession of the early 1970s.
  These negative views about our economic prospects are based on the 
real experiences of most Americans. The Pew Center conducted a recent 
survey of Americans' views not only on the economy as a whole but on 
their personal well-being. The Washington Post characterized the Pew 
Center's finding as:

       Offering the gloomiest assessment of economic well-being in 
     close to half a century, a new survey has found that most 
     Americans say they have not made progress over the past 5 
     years as their incomes have stagnated and they have 
     increasingly borrowed money to finance their lifestyles.

  By almost any measure, Americans are struggling more and more than 
they have at any time in recent memory. Real median family income has 
fallen this decade as the cost of gasoline, health care, and college 
tuition, have risen at levels far outstripping any increases in 
paychecks. To keep pace with these rising costs, Americans have turned 
to borrowing from credit cards and their homes. But now, as the crisis 
in our capital markets begins to threaten sources of liquidity for 
people, such as mortgages, student loans, and other types of lending, 
the American economy is in a precarious place, to put it mildly. That 
is why we need new policies and new action to prevent this recession 
from becoming more severe, and to lay the foundation for our recovery.
  The Federal Reserve is engaged in a series of interest rate cuts as 
they continue to aggressively use monetary policy to try and deal with 
the recession we are facing. But the Fed is running out of pages in its 
playbook to address the growing crisis of credit and confidence that 
has taken hold of our financial markets and threatens to undermine our 
Nation's economy. Until we more thoroughly address the core issue 
behind this recession--namely, the problems in the housing market and 
the foreclosure crisis--we are unlikely, in my opinion, to put our 
economy back on the right track. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke understands 
the seriousness of this problem. In a recent speech on the subject of 
foreclosures, he said:

       High rates of delinquency in foreclosure can have 
     substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the 
     financial markets and the broader economy. Therefore, doing 
     what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in 
     the interest of lenders and borrowers. It's in everybody's 
     interest.

  I pledge to continue to work every day--as I know my colleagues on 
the Senate Banking Committee will, as well as those in the House 
Financial Services Committee under the leadership of Congressman Barney 
Frank and as I am confident all of us in this Chamber will--to do 
everything we can to address these issues from the perspective of what 
we can do as part of the national legislature. That is why I am pleased 
to say that through these efforts, what we have brought to the floor of 
the Senate over the last several weeks has enjoyed broad-based 
bipartisan support. We will now be coming back again in the coming 
days. The leader of our Chamber, Senator Reid, has committed that we 
will get to this as soon as we possibly can, given the crowded agenda 
he has to deal with. But we cannot, in my view, allow this Congress to 
continue to move forward in the coming days without addressing the 
remainder of these issues.
  I cannot promise absolutely that everything we have offered is going 
to change the world dramatically. But there is one thing I hope it does 
do and that is restore confidence in the American families, whom the 
Members of this Congress serve, both Democrats and Republicans, are 
doing everything in their power to try and prevent foreclosures, 
restore confidence in the marketplace, and make it possible for the 
American dream of home ownership not to become the nightmare it has for 
far too many fellow citizens. It is at the core of everything else we 
are grappling with. We have seen the problem spill over into credit 
cards, financial services, commercial lending, student loans, and at 
the heart of all of this is the foreclosure problem.
  That is what every single responsible economist, regardless of 
political ideology, has concluded. They have said there are steps we 
can take to make a difference--those steps we have created in a 
legislative manner to bring to this body. Our hope is we will enjoy the 
kind of broad-based support we have had in our committee. Anybody who 
has watched this body knows that when you get a 19-to-2 vote in 
committee on a matter such of this, you get some indication of the 
willingness of members to work together to make a difference. Senator 
Shelby and I and the other members of the committee will continue to do 
that. We hope to put on the President's desk by July 4 this 
comprehensive financial services Banking Committee proposal, dealing 
with FHA, dealing with the government-sponsored enterprises, dealing 
with affordable housing, dealing with counseling, dealing with the 
community development block grant program, as well as tax ideas that we 
think could help, and the Hope for Homeowners Act, which is critical to 
try to put the brakes on this foreclosure problem.
  I wished to take some time this afternoon to share with my colleagues 
that this problem grows more serious. It is growing more troublesome,

[[Page 11812]]

spreading beyond our national borders, in terms of what the subprime 
market and the purchase of those mortgage-backed securities has done to 
the markets, not only in this country, but abroad as well.
  This is our major responsibility, in my view and I think we have a 
commitment to address it. Senator Shelby and I have worked very well 
together over the past number of weeks to try to fashion this 
legislative proposal.
  I commend Barney Frank, my friend from Massachusetts, who is chairman 
of the Financial Services Committee in the other body, and other 
Members for the job they are doing together as well. I hope that in the 
remaining days, before the July break--hopefully sooner than that--we 
will be able to present to our colleagues a final proposal bringing 
together these ideas for their consideration and support as we do our 
part to try to make a difference in getting this economy and the 
confidence of the American people back on track.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise this evening amid new and very 
pressing concerns about the future of our economy. Today, millions of 
Americans are struggling to keep their homes. The price of just about 
everything, from gas, college, health care, you name it, is on the 
rise, and families from coast to coast are wondering how they are going 
to make ends meet.
  Just last week, we saw new and shocking statistics illustrating this 
crisis. With the price of the American Dream going up, working families 
seem to be facing new challenges every day. Last week, it was a new 
report from the Department of Labor. They told us the overall 
unemployment rate rose from 5 percent to 5.5 percent in May, up from 
4.5 percent just 1 year ago. That is 861,000 new unemployed people in 1 
month, bringing the total to 8\1/2\ million people unemployed in 
America today in May. Today, there is even more bad news. Gas has, for 
the first time, hit an average of $4 a gallon.
  Madam President, the American people are hurting. While job creation 
and wage levels are dropping, prices are going up. Everything costs 
more, but families don't have enough money to spend. The bottom line is 
the American Dream is slipping through the fingers of too many 
Americans, and we have to do something about it.
  Now, this evening I want to talk specifically about oil and gas 
prices because this week the Senate is going to have an opportunity to 
take a step in the right direction and put consumers first. Tomorrow 
morning, we are going to vote on a Democratic bill that seeks to 
address the root causes of these high gas prices because we are 
committed to putting consumers first and to fixing the root causes of 
high gas prices so these solutions have a real lasting effect.
  We want to force big oil to pay its fair share and invest in clean 
and affordable alternative energy sources. We want to protect consumers 
from price gougers who rip off Americans and greedy oil traders who 
manipulate this market. We want to stand up to OPEC and countries 
colluding to set high oil prices. These basic, commonsense steps will 
attack the root causes of high gas prices, but they are only the 
beginning.
  Step 2 has to include a long-term strategy to decrease our dependence 
on oil and promote clean renewable energy. That is why later this week 
we are going to propose billions of dollars in tax breaks to promote 
those new energy sources. Our plan seeks to address the high price of 
gas at the pump now, but it will also help to ensure that energy is 
affordable for years to come.
  With gas prices on the rise, there has been a lot of finger-pointing 
in recent weeks, but you don't have to look very hard to see who is to 
blame and who is benefiting from these skyrocketing prices. While our 
working families have been scrimping, the economic downturn hasn't even 
registered for big oil. The major oil companies reported record 
increases in profits last quarter. ConocoPhillips recorded first 
quarter profits of $4.1 billion, beating their previous record by $600 
million, with Shell and BP also reporting huge gains.
  The reason is that over the last 7\1/2\ years, Republicans have 
backed an energy policy that does little but give oil companies tax 
breaks and special favors while our middle-class families pay the 
price. In the first month of the Bush administration, oil prices 
averaged $29.50 a barrel. Now, almost 8 years later, the price has more 
than quadrupled. It is over $130 a barrel this week and pushing toward 
$140 a barrel. When President Bush first took office, Americans were 
paying $1.46 a gallon to fill their tanks, and this week gas prices are 
averaging a whopping $4 a gallon. We have gone from $1.46 to over $4 a 
gallon in this Bush administration.
  What is most disturbing to me and to American families all across the 
country is how fast these gas prices are rising. Six weeks ago, I came 
on the floor of the Senate and spoke on the same subject, saying a lot 
of the same things, and at the same time I was saying how shocking it 
was to see the national average at $3.60 a gallon. But in just a few 
weeks prices have gone up another 40 cents a gallon. I am a little 
scared to do the math and see what increase that is going to translate 
into by the Fourth of July, just a few weeks away or, even worse, Labor 
Day. Instead, I think it is time we come together for action in the 
Senate.
  I mentioned the national averages already, but in my home State of 
Washington and the home State of the Presiding Officer, drivers are 
paying even more. The average cost of a gallon of gas in Washington 
State is now $4.22. Yesterday, in my State, I paid $4.29 a gallon. 
Right now, AAA is saying that gas costs $4.22 in my State. That is the 
average. That is 44 cents higher than just a month ago, 95 cents higher 
than a year ago, and 20 cents higher than the national average. And our 
truckers are being hit really hard. AAA found the average price of a 
gallon of diesel is $4.89 a gallon in my home State. That is 40 cents 
higher than a month ago and $1.84 higher than just a year ago.
  When I travel around Washington State, gas prices are the first thing 
people talk to me about, and they have written me countless letters 
asking for help. Everyone asks what we are going to do about this 
matter. While they are cutting back their budgets in my home State, 
they do not see any action in Washington, DC. And I have told them time 
and again that Democrats want to act, but we need help to do that from 
our Republican colleagues. They will have a chance to help us do that 
tomorrow.
  But I am concerned that Republicans are more interested, from what I 
am hearing, in just blocking our progress and whatever we want to do 
here than actually taking any meaningful action for the people who are 
hurting so badly at home today. In fact, for the past several days, we 
have already seen, from what I have heard, a parade of Republican 
Senators out on the floor complaining about high gas prices, and in 
many cases blaming Democrats for failing to address this crisis over 
the past 16 months. They are bringing out their charts and showing the 
price of gas when Democrats took over Congress and what the price is 
now, and they ask us all to simply forget the real reason for this 
crisis--the misguided energy policy that this administration has 
pursued for years.
  But I don't think the American people are going to forget that. They 
are not going to forget it was this administration that asked oil and 
gas companies to write their energy plan. The American people aren't 
going to forget the only real idea coming from the other side is to 
drill our way out of the problem. And they are not going to forget that 
this is an administration closer to the oil and gas industry than any 
in our history. We are not going to forget either, and that is why we 
are fighting for change. We have already won higher fuel economy 
standards and new investments in renewable energy sources, but we know 
we need to do

[[Page 11813]]

more because Americans know that we cannot rely--we cannot rely--on big 
oil to solve our energy problems.
  Madam President, the energy policy isn't the only area where 
Republicans have put special interests ahead of our American families. 
For 7\1/2\ years, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have 
chosen to stand by while our highways are crumbling, hundreds of 
thousands of our veterans go homeless every night, and millions of our 
families struggle to keep a roof over their heads. In the last year, 
our new Democratic majority has had to fight Republicans and the 
administration for resources to address everything from veterans health 
care to the foreclosure crisis our families are facing. I think the 
legacy of this administration is going to be nothing but red ink and 
broken promises.
  People in my home State of Washington are very worried about the 
future. They want to be sure their children will have economic 
security. They want a solution to our energy problems that are going to 
keep us safe and protect our environment for the long run. And the same 
is true, I know, across the country. Americans are hurting because of 
these high gas prices. It doesn't matter whether they are Republican or 
Democrat, they want help.
  I know Republicans and oil companies are not going to give up on the 
status quo easily here. But Democrats on our side have been fighting 
for policies that will help us cut those prices, create jobs, and keep 
our air and water clean and, most importantly, our Nation secure.
  We are committed to taking strong action that will stop rewarding 
these oil companies and start looking out for our American families. We 
are going to keep up that fight. If my Republican colleagues want their 
constituents to have help, if they want to take action that will stop 
this pain at the pump, the solution is very simple: Vote yes with us 
tomorrow morning so we can move to a bill that will begin to solve this 
problem.
  (Mr. Sanders assumes the Chair.)

                          ____________________