[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12416-12424]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ADDRESSING HIGH GAS PRICES

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, over the last several weeks, I have 
come to the Senate floor to discuss my ideas on how to address the high 
price of gasoline in this country. I understand the toll these high 
prices are taking on the American people, and I understand the grave 
consequences of continuing our cycle of dependence upon foreign oil.
  Americans are looking to us for some solutions and leadership. But, 
so far, all they are getting is gridlock and fighting. However, I think 
there are some things that we ought to be able to come together on that 
would truly address the fundamental global supply and demand imbalance. 
Today, I would like to talk about them with the Senate and anybody who 
is interested out in the hinterland of America.
  This morning, my friend, the senior Senator from New York, said the 
Republican leader was incorrect in his assertion that the Democrats do 
not want to increase American oil and gas production. I was glad to 
hear him say that because given the votes that the other side has 
taken, I had my doubts. Just in the last month alone, they have opposed 
exploring in Alaska, opposed deep sea exploration, opposed lifting the 
moratorium on final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shale, 
and they have opposed converting coal to liquid fuel. That liquid fuel 
could be used by the U.S. military, as an example. They will be using 
it in one way or another. They could use the liquid that comes from 
conversion from coal.
  In fact, in the past, a large majority of the other side of the aisle 
has opposed taking inventories on our U.S. lands to simply find out how 
much oil and gas we actually have. Why would that proposition be 
objectionable? Wouldn't it seem appropriate, with such large resources 
offshore, that we would inventory them, even if it costs some money? 
The amount we could find out there may be terrific and tremendous in 
size. Yet we have had objection to even doing that.
  If the United States were to explore in our deep sea and move to 
develop our vast quantities of oil shale--just those two things--we 
could completely shift our dependence upon foreign oil in ways I 
suspect my friends on the other side of the aisle don't even realize. 
The amount of oil shale potential alone in our Nation is massive. This 
morning, I met with officials from the Department of the Interior who 
told me that in the coming decades, American companies are predicting 
production of up to 3 million barrels per day from our American oil 
shale. That gives us a good idea of just how much our Nation has at its 
disposal that we are not taking advantage of.
  Nevertheless, my friend from New York pointed out that he supported 
my effort in 2006 to open a portion of the Gulf of Mexico to 
exploration. In fact, he even said he ``helped lead the charge.'' Well, 
if that was the case, then I invite him to help me once again lead the 
charge to increase domestic production. Everything I have tried so far, 
his side has said no to. Tell me, what proposal will get them to say 
``yes''? The Senator knows that I have been here a long time, and I 
have had a hand in passing many pieces of legislation. I understand it 
usually takes some bipartisan compromise to get something done. So I 
say to my friend, on the production side, how can we compromise?
  One reason I have been so discouraged about our ability to get 
something done is because even a limited, reasonable proposal to allow 
one single State to explore natural gas was rejected by the other side 
last year. My good friend from Virginia, Senator Warner--who you all 
know is respected for his bipartisanship--introduced an amendment a 
year ago this week, with Senator Webb's support, that would have 
allowed his home State to conduct natural gas exploration in the deep 
sea over 50 miles off the coast. He did this because the Democratic 
Governor of Virginia, and Republicans in the legislature expressed 
interest in possibly developing Virginia's coastal resources.
  It all sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? What is the harm in 
letting Virginia explore for natural gas if Virginia is interested in 
it? And yet Senator Warner's amendment was defeated by the Senate. Six 
Members from the other side of the aisle voted for it, and 39 voted 
against it--including my friend from New York.
  America has enormous oil and gas resources. Total offshore oil 
reserves are around 85.9 billion barrels of oil. Over 19 billion of 
that is completely off-limits for exploration. On shore, we have 30.5 
billion barrels of oil, and over 60 percent of it is considered off-
limits. We have over 1.6 trillion barrels of oil equivalent in oil 
shale, which is the equivalent of more than three times the oil 
reserves of Saudi Arabia.
  This policy of taking our own resources off the table simply makes no 
sense, especially when we face a price of $135 per barrel of oil and $4 
per gallon of gasoline. No other nation in the world deliberately 
prevents itself from using its own resources. Look around the world--
Brazil, Norway, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Russia and many others. 
They are producing their own oil and gas off of their own shorelines. 
So I sincerely hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will 
join with me to try to find a way to allow States that wish to explore 
50 miles off their coasts to be able to do so.
  The other side of the aisle frequently tells us that we can't drill 
our way out of this problem. This morning, the majority leader said 
that the ``answer to this is not drill, drill, drill.'' I agree with 
him. He is right. The answer to this problem is not just ``drill, 
drill, drill.'' There is no question that our long term future requires 
us to find solutions other than drilling. We need to reduce our 
dependence on oil from all sources. But we need to build a bridge to 
help get us there. On the far side of the bridge is a world in which 
cellulosic ethanol and plug-in hybrid vehicles are available and 
deployed on a wide scale basis. But in the near term our experts tell 
us we need oil to fuel our economy and our lives. So the question 
remains: is Congress going to choose to create jobs and revenues in 
America by exploring for our own oil and gas, or are we going to 
continue to increase our deficit by purchasing foreign oil in greater 
quantities?
  In order to get across this bridge I just described to secure an 
energy future, we need to develop our own natural resources. So let's 
build this bridge to a cleaner, more independent energy future by 
increasing domestic production here at home. It will take time and 
investments. Congress has already made great progress developing these 
resources for the long term and for the future of this country, but we 
are falling short in the near term. So let's come together in a 
bipartisan fashion to build a bridge to the future and begin to reduce 
our reliance on foreign oil.
  I truly believe that if we decided we could do this, the independence 
that would be shown to the world because of the great quantities we 
could say we would produce for ourselves, for the world inventory, 
would have an immediate impact on those who are speculating and those 
who are counting on a future of shortage. When they see the United 
States is going to do something about it, it can do something rather 
significant, I am convinced.
  We don't need to look at those other countries in awe when we have at 
home great resources that we are refusing to explore just because we 
refuse to do it. There should be no higher priority than the 
exploration of these resources, unless it is some great national 
interest that takes over and

[[Page 12417]]

takes place and displaces this enormous interest we have to stop 
sending $125 a barrel to a foreign country for every barrel of oil we 
use.
  I repeat what I have said before: We are growing poor--p-o-o-r. Our 
economy is not flourishing, and we are asking why. We are being given 
all kinds of reasons. This Senator says one of the big reasons is that 
we are approaching the time when we will have sent $600 billion a year 
to foreign countries just for the crude oil we consume at home. If we 
have some of that locked up offshore of our country, we should say: 
Where is it, and what damage will it do if we use it? The answer will 
probably be that we have plenty and there will be no damage to use it. 
And if we move it out 25 or 50 miles from the shoreline into deep 
waters, there will be no damage to anyone.
  This technology has been perfected. Hurricane Katrina hit a part of 
the offshore where we had many of these rigs. Some were old and some 
were brandnew technology. It didn't matter, the technology was strong 
enough to where there was no leakage, no oil was spilled.
  I believe my friend has been waiting; therefore, I will not use my 
last 2 minutes. I will certainly yield to my good friend from 
Connecticut. I told the Senator that if he lets me go first, good 
things would follow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Energy Production

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, who 
is a wonderful friend. I appreciate his kindness and generosity.
  I wish to speak, if I may, about the so-called Merida Initiative. 
This is a proposal which was made by President Bush, along with 
President Calderon of Mexico, to deal with the raging drug violence 
that is occurring along the Mexican border, particularly in Mexico 
itself. However, I also wish to briefly address, if I may, the issue of 
energy production.
  We had this debate earlier this week on energy issues. I know one of 
the arguments being raised is, of course, that we are denying the oil 
and gas industry the opportunity to drill for more of these products 
off our own shores, and if we did more of that, then we would be 
reducing our problems and bringing down costs.
  Let me announce to my colleagues that I intend to propose legislation 
directly addressing this issue of oil production and development. I 
commend the Members of the other body--Congressman Markey, Congressman 
Hinchey, Congressman Rahall, and Congressman Emanuel. They proposed a 
bill over there, which I will offer here, which addresses this issue.
  We hear this argument that if we allow production in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge and some of the coastal regions, we will be in 
great shape. But, Mr. President, there are 44 million offshore acres 
that have been leased by the oil companies, but these companies have 
put only 10.5 million of those acres into production. Of the 47.5 
million onshore acres under lease for oil and gas production, only 13 
million are in production. Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases 
to 68 million acres of Federal land and waters on which they are not 
producing any oil and gas, despite the fact they have the leases and 
could be drilling there. Compare that with just 1.5 million acres of 
ANWR that proponents of drilling say they want us to open. The vast 
majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal lands are already 
open for drilling, and they are not being tapped.
  I hear complaints about the 1.5 million acres closed off in ANWR, and 
yet we are sitting on roughly 68 million acres under lease but not in 
production--why don't they talk about that?
  So our bill is basically a ``use it or lose it'' lease idea. If you 
are going to sit on these leases and do nothing with them, then you 
ought to be paying a higher fee. In our proposal, this fee would be $5 
per acre per year for the first three years. We would then raise the 
fee, if the property remains unused, to $25 per acre in the fourth year 
and to $50 per acre in the fifth year and beyond. This will be an 
incentive to companies to put these millions of acres where leases have 
already been granted for oil and gas production to actually use this 
land they control. This is our answer to the great complaint: Let us 
drill in ANWR. Why not use the leases you have already been given?
  I will offer that legislation.
  By the way, the revenue that would come in from those production 
incentive fees would be devoted to the development of wind, solar, 
other alternative energy ideas, weatherization programs, and, of 
course, low-income energy assistance, to help with what is sure to be a 
staggering cost for moderate and lower income families come next 
winter.
  This is an idea that I think will debunk this notion that if we can 
only produce more by drilling in new areas, we will solve our energy 
problems. Well, why aren't you drilling on the millions of acres you 
have leases on already instead of complaining about 1.5 million acres 
or a few more offshore when there are literally millions of acres 
already under lease that oil companies are doing nothing with? If they 
are not going to drill on it, they are going to pay more.


                           Merida Initiative

  Madam President, I wish to address the Merida Initiative. As all of 
my colleagues are aware, this bilateral initiative, the Merida 
Initiative, is a proposal between the United States and Mexico designed 
to combat the shocking increase in drug-related violence in Mexico over 
the past year.
  Last weekend, I spent the weekend at an interparliamentary meeting in 
Monterey, Mexico, with our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Corker, at 
their annual meeting. This is the 47th gathering of the bilateral 
Members of Congress of the United States and Mexico to meet and talk 
about bilateral issues. I am pleased that this was my 20th or 21st year 
in which I participated in these bilateral meetings with our neighbors 
to the south. But the issue of the drug cartels and the violence they 
are causing in that country, not to mention our problems on the border, 
was the dominant theme of this past weekend's gathering. Much of the 
discussion, as I say, focused around this initiative, in large part 
because of the grotesque increase in drug-related violence in Mexico 
within recent months.
  While in Mexico, I expressed my condolences to the Mexican people on 
behalf of our colleagues here and the American people for what they 
have gone through. Some 4,000 people, police officers, military 
personnel, have lost their lives to the drug cartels in recent months, 
including the assassination of the chief of police of the country, 
Millan Gomez, who was gunned down inside his home. Cartel members 
waited inside his house to assassinate him. This would be tantamount to 
the Director of the FBI being gunned down in his home in the United 
States. That is how violent these cartels are. That is how unafraid 
they are of any retribution. So I think the notion of cooperation 
between our two countries is absolutely critical.
  Mexico, as I said, has been under siege, and they need and deserve a 
combined effort. Though it is the Mexican people who bear the brunt of 
so many of these problems they are facing, there are, indeed, common 
security challenges affecting both of our people. So let me say 
unequivocally that the United States is committed--I believe all of us 
are--to helping and working with our colleagues, our neighbor to the 
south, Mexico, to end such violence.
  President Calderon of Mexico made a very sincere gesture in reaching 
out to the United States for cooperation in this battle. Combating drug 
trafficking and related violence and organized crime through 
intelligence sharing, law enforcement, and institution building is 
critically important.
  But it was unfortunate that the proposal that was made to the Mexican 
Government by the Bush administration lacked any input or consultation 
with the respective two legislative bodies. That was not just a 
violation of good manners. Rather, if you are going to propose these 
kinds of initiatives, it is critically important that you invite the 
Members of Congress who will have

[[Page 12418]]

 to appropriate the money and be responsible for the oversight of these 
programs. So at the outset you need to involve Democrats and 
Republicans in both Chambers, not because you fear they are going to 
object to the proposal, but because you are going to need their ongoing 
support.
  In the case of the Merida Initiative, while all the good intentions 
are there, when you announce these proposals and do not invite input, 
you invariably end up with a train wreck that caused the problems that 
I had to listen to all weekend long in Mexico about whether we are 
putting conditions on these proposals, in some way limiting them or 
certifying this kind of financial assistance to Mexico, which was met 
with incredible hostility by every political party in the country--
political parties that rarely agree on anything, by the way, but on the 
response to the Merida Initiative, there was unanimity among the 
political parties in Mexico despite what I think is a clear desire to 
see the kind of cooperation we absolutely need if we are going to have 
any success at all in taking on these cartels.
  There also needs to be more accountability on both sides of the 
border. My primary concern is that Merida, as presented to both 
Congresses, focuses too much on the short-term fixes, which are of 
course needed, and very little on the longer term problems which we 
must address. I do not and would not object to this program on that 
basis alone, but I think it is important that we acknowledge this 
shortcoming.
  No one denies that we need well-trained and well-equipped police 
forces to confront the most violent criminals, and no one doubts that 
Mexico urgently needs assistance fighting these violent criminals. They 
are tremendously well financed, and they are incredibly well armed. 
They have equipment and armaments that would compete with almost any 
military in the world, let alone a police force.
  But what is equally needed is well-trained and well-equipped civilian 
judicial authorities and institutions to enforce and uphold the rule of 
law. We must work to combat corruption and do a better job of sharing 
intelligence.
  These are all commonly held goals. We must tackle the larger, 
systemic problems which only exacerbate the drug trafficking and 
violence we witnessed over the last number of months.
  Only by creating robust economic alternatives to the drug trade can 
the United States and Mexico together build the kind of future that 
reduces the number of people who enter into the drug trade either by 
force or by choice. That is why I am very supportive of an approach 
that more broadly promotes regional trade and political engagement, an 
approach that fosters sustainable growth through private investment, 
increased foreign aid, and supports regional institutions, such as the 
Inter-American Development Bank. Given our shared border of thousands 
of miles, the United States and Mexico must also deepen their bilateral 
partnership in ways that are mutually beneficial, such as more closely 
coordinating border security to ensure our goods and services can move 
through more effectively and efficiently. We should promote more 
business and cultural ties and more direct investment across the border 
as well. The United States must also support Mexico's integration with 
its southern neighbors as well and the role they play in both of our 
economies.
  While a bilateral approach will be necessary, given the interrelated 
nature of our economies, a regional approach will be required to ensure 
effective and sustainable economic growth over the long term.
  In addition to fostering sustainable economic development, we must 
also cooperate on financial intelligence and counter money-laundering 
programs and combat the black-market peso exchange which undermines the 
very economic alternatives we are trying to create on a bilateral 
basis.
  In addition, of course, our own country must take responsibility for 
our contributions to the growing insecurity and to the violence that 
occurs in Mexico.
  Though we often fail to admit it or take action to address it, one of 
the biggest markets for illegal drugs, and by far the largest supplier 
of weapons to some of the most violent cartels in Central South America 
and Mexico, is, of course, our own country. Any sustainable effort to 
reduce trafficking and violence in Mexico must seriously address 
problems on both sides of the border, and here, I think, Merida, while 
it is a very good proposal and idea, falls a little bit short.
  Despite all this, Merida is a very good first start, and I support 
it. Despite the failure of this administration to work with and consult 
Democrats and Republicans in both Houses, which should happen if we are 
going to succeed with this initiative, and despite the fact Merida is 
focused too much, in my view, on short-term fixes, and despite the fact 
Congress will most likely not be able to fully fund Merida as much as 
we would like--given problems in other places around the world, 
including Burma and Darfur, U.N. peacekeeping and food aid--this is a 
good beginning and it is deserving of our support--identifying the 
common concerns we share with our neighbor to the south.
  While in Monterrey, I heard many concerns voiced by our Mexican 
counterparts about some of the language in the Merida Initiative, 
particularly language which many of our friends to the south are 
calling conditions in the legislation. Let me be clear, at least for my 
own part. The intent of the Senate language is not to condition our aid 
but rather to insist--as Mexicans ought to as well--on accountability 
from both our administration and from the Government of Mexico.
  I, for one, am not going to sign off on a blank check that does not 
demand accountability from this administration. Of all the terrible 
lessons we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, surely one is that more 
accountability can only be a positive thing, not only to guarantee 
taxpayer money is being well spent but also to sustain these programs 
over the longer term. That said, I understand Mexico's sensitivity to 
the idea of conditions, and I agree with those sensitivities.
  Many in this Chamber will remember the arduous and contentious 
certification process we used to use to determine whether Mexico was 
cooperating in counternarcotics programs. My friend and colleague, 
Senator Pat Leahy, has been a hero on these issues, to me and many 
others, over many years. His concern about human rights and 
accountability of dollars is long-standing and never focused on any 
country, or one specific issue. He is concerned, as he should and all 
of us should be, to make sure we abolish the certification process.
  He was not only cooperative but also understood better than most when 
the debate raged in this Chamber about a certification bill, because 
rather then ensuring cooperation on counternarcotics operations, all 
certification ensured was that the United States and Mexico would 
simply feud day in and day out over what qualified--a development that 
benefitted no one but the drug traffickers.
  So as a joint effort, we were able to change that certification 
process. And cooperation improved dramatically as a result, I might 
add. So I support the work Senator Leahy is engaged in. I explained to 
our Mexican counterparts what his intentions were in regard to the 
Merida Initiative, and because of the negotiations we have had over the 
last number of days, I believe the Merida Initiative, as constructed, 
is going to work well and be received well.
  The people of Mexico, indeed, Latin Americans in general, have no 
greater friend than Patrick Leahy, a Senator who champions human rights 
and has worked throughout his career to foster closer ties and change 
in our hemisphere.
  The United States--including myself, Senator Leahy, and others--is 
committed to addressing many of the concerns voiced by Mexico and to 
reaching a compromise acceptable to everyone, a compromise that will, 
in the words of Senator Leahy, ``provide support for the Merida 
Initiative in a manner that addresses our shared interests and 
concerns.''
  So rather than characterize these ongoing talks with our friends in 
Mexico,

[[Page 12419]]

as some have in the United States, as ``rejecting Merida'' or 
``abandoning Mexico'' or an ``infringement on sovereignty,'' I believe 
we have an obligation--both countries do--to share responsibilities 
with our executive branch, to tone down the rhetoric, to lower the 
temperature, and to work together to craft an effective broad-based 
strategy that combats drug trafficking, takes on these cartels, and 
lets them know they are never going to prevail in the efforts they are 
using today to advance their narcotics trafficking.
  It is important that the cartels understand this debate about the 
Merida Initiative in no way should be construed as a retreat from our 
common goals to see that the cartels are soundly defeated; that they 
are wiped out as cartels trying to do what they do every day.
  Secondly, the audiences in our respective countries should understand 
that we will work cooperatively, that we will work together to advance 
this cause. I believe that is a sentiment that we all share in this 
Chamber, and that people across this country share too.
  So working together, I think we will get Merida right. I am confident 
that, in the end, we will produce an agreement that will be acceptable 
to both the Mexicans and Americans so we can join together in building 
a safer, more productive future and successfully combat those engaged 
in the violence within Mexico and along our border area. That is our 
shared goal. That is the kind of lasting change I think we all want. 
And through this process, this is what I believe we can produce 
together.
  I yield the floor for my colleague from Pennsylvania, who is here and 
ready to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                        U.S. And Iraq Agreements

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to discuss two agreements under 
negotiation between the United States and Iraq that have grabbed 
headlines in recent days as more and more Iraqi politicians announce 
their strong opposition to these agreements. The two agreements will 
shape the presence of American military forces in Iraq long beyond the 
tenure of the current administration. Unfortunately, the 
administration, in my judgment, is handling these negotiations in the 
same manner that has characterized its entire approach to Iraq since 
2003. Its approach is this: unnecessary secrecy, a disdain for 
congressional input, and an arrogant insistence that its course of 
action--the administration's course of action--is the only reasonable 
option.
  Let me talk about each of these agreements. The first agreement to 
which I am referring is a proposed Status of Forces Agreement, known by 
the acronym SOFA. The Status of Forces Agreement would define the 
authorities, privileges, and immunities of American troops on Iraqi 
soil and allow U.S. forces to remain in Iraq beyond December 31, when a 
U.N. Security Council mandate, authorizing the presence of coalition 
troops, is scheduled to expire. Administration officials insist the 
extension of the U.N. mandate, which has been repeatedly renewed on an 
annual basis, is no longer possible; the Iraqis seek to return to a 
normal status in the international system and no longer want to be the 
subject of a U.N. authorized military operation.
  The second agreement involves a more ambiguous ``strategic 
framework,'' which would lay out the broad political, security, and 
economic ties between our two nations. While the administration walked 
back from previous statements indicating the United States is prepared 
to offer a binding security guarantee to Iraq's Government to come to 
its defense in the event of foreign aggression or internal turmoil, it 
is still prepared to agree to ``consult''--consult--with the Iraqi 
Government under such circumstances. While the promise to consult, in 
the event of aggression, has been extended by the United States to many 
nations around the world, and is known in diplomatic jargon as a 
``security arrangement,'' it still raises concern when the United 
States maintains a large-scale troop presence in a nation. Any promise 
to consult with a foreign government takes on much greater weight when 
more than 100,000 troops are stationed there.
  The Congress and the American public first learned of these two 
proposed agreements when President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki 
signed a ``Declaration of Principles'' last November, outlining their 
shared intention to conclude negotiations by July 31. A week later--a 
week after July 31--joined by five other Senators, I sent a letter to 
President Bush expressing deep concern over the proposed security 
guarantees to the Iraqi Government and the insistence of the 
administration that it could conclude both these agreements without--
without--congressional input or approval. Since then, many Members of 
Congress, on both sides of the aisle, I might add, have expressed deep 
unease with the administration's approach. Some of the questions we 
have raised, including at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 
hearing in April, include the following: Here are a couple pertinent 
questions we should be asking and the administration should be 
answering.
  First, why the sudden insistence on a termination of the U.N. 
Security Council mandate for the U.S. and other coalition troops in 
Iraq at the end of this year? Why not simply extend the mandate for 
another year and allow the next President to negotiate a bilateral 
accord with the Iraqis instead of a lameduck President?
  Why would we accept a bilateral accord with the Iraqi Government that 
incorporates greater restrictions--greater restrictions--on U.S. 
troops, including limitations on the authority to conduct combat 
operations and detain prisoners of war than the current mandate? Why 
would we agree to that? I am a strong proponent of an open-ended U.S. 
combat presence in Iraq, but so long as American troops remain in Iraq, 
they should retain the discretion to conduct necessary operations to 
ensure their safety and security. American troops can never answer to a 
foreign government, especially one as dysfunctional as the Iraqi 
Government is now.
  Why has the Iraqi Government committed to submitting these agreements 
to the approval of the Iraqi Parliament, acknowledging a national 
consensus in Iraq must exist to support their implementation. Yet the 
Bush administration stubbornly insists the Congress of the United 
States--the Congress--can have no formal role in approval, even 
refusing to share a draft text with key Members of the Congress.
  Finally, why did the administration first characterize the Strategic 
Framework Agreement as a nonbinding ``declaration'' but has now changed 
its tune and has agreed, at the request of the Iraqis, to categorize it 
as an executive agreement that imposes binding obligations on both 
sides?
  At a news conference yesterday during his overseas trip to Europe, 
President Bush responded to a question on the ongoing negotiations by 
asserting:

       There's all kind of noise in their system and our system. I 
     think we'll get the agreement done.

  Well, this isn't noise, Mr. President. What you are hearing is 
bipartisan unease over the course of United States-Iraq negotiations 
and puzzlement over the supposed urgency of concluding these accords 
instead of merely extending the U.N. mandate.
  For the President of the United States to dismiss these concerns 
expressed by some of the leading foreign policy and national security 
voices in the Congress as mere ``noise'' is offensive and I think 
represents a fundamental misreading of our constitutional system of 
government.
  As on other issues, I encourage the President to listen closely to 
his Secretary of Defense. In a television interview yesterday, 
Secretary Gates responded to a question over congressional input on 
this issue and on these agreements by acknowledging:

       If it emerges in a way that does make binding commitments 
     that fit the treaty-making powers or treaty ratification 
     powers of the Senate, then it will have to go in that 
     direction.

  Let me conclude with this. There is no urgency to concluding long-
term agreements that define the future of

[[Page 12420]]

U.S. military presence in Iraq. There is even less reason to conclude 
agreements that impose unhelpful restrictions on American military 
personnel and obligate the United States to an ambiguous commitment to 
Iraq's future security. I urge the President to acknowledge the 
importance and essential role the Congress has to play. If the 
President insists on completing these agreements during the last days 
of his administration, he should fully involve the relevant 
congressional committees in the ongoing negotiations and agree to 
submit any final accords for congressional approval.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Preserving Access to Medicare Act. It was introduced by the ranking 
member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and I have 
cosponsored the act.
  Having practiced medicine for almost 25 years, I can tell you that 
our Nation's health professionals and our hospitals face tremendous 
pressures. If these pressures are not addressed, it can and it will 
impede access to quality health care services. That is why we must act 
now to stop the upcoming Medicare physician reimbursement cuts.
  But this is not just a physician issue, it is a Medicare access issue 
and a Medicare quality issue. If Congress does not act, many Wyoming 
physicians could be forced not only to stop seeing Medicare patients, 
some could decide to lay off staff, to restrict office hours, or may 
even leave rural America and move to the big cities.
  We, the Senate, must put aside partisan differences and craft a 
reasonable bill that President Bush can and will sign into law before 
June 30. But we have to act quickly. Senator Grassley has offered 
legislation that would allow us to do that. The Preserving Access to 
Medicare Act provides a \1/2\-percent physician update for the 
remainder of 2008. It also makes sure doctors will receive a 1.1-
percent update in 2009. These payment increases will preserve access to 
health care for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. But the Grassley 
bill accomplishes much more. It improves the quality of care and it 
gives doctors an incentive to report quality measures. Senator 
Grassley's measure also retains the Physician Assistance and Quality 
Improvement fund. Congress created that fund specifically to help stop 
future cuts. The bill that has been defeated eliminates this fund.
  The Grassley proposal promotes e-prescribing, it promotes electronic 
health records, and it returns ownership of oxygen equipment to the 
supplier, not the beneficiary. The bill curbs abusive Medicare 
Advantage marketing practices, but it does not make large across-the-
board cuts to Medicare Advantage. Doing so would disproportionately 
affect patients in rural areas and it would alter policies designed to 
maximize patient choice. Most importantly, the Grassley bill protects 
access to quality health care for rural patients.
  By now it should come as no surprise that rural health care issues 
are near and dear to my heart. I practiced medicine in Casper, WY, for 
almost 25 years, so I have some firsthand knowledge of the obstacles 
families face to obtain medical care in rural America. I also 
understand the challenges our hospitals and providers must overcome to 
deliver quality care to families in an environment with limited 
resources.
  In my maiden speech on the floor of the Senate, I made a simple 
pledge to the people of Wyoming. I promised them I would fight every 
day, I would fight every day to strengthen our rural hospitals, our 
rural health clinics, and our community health centers; that I would 
fight every day to increase access to primary health care services, and 
I would fight to help successfully recruit and retain health care 
providers in rural and in frontier America.
  Over the past year I have kept my word. Working with the bipartisan 
Senate Rural Health Caucus, I led and joined in several efforts to 
preserve and strengthen our Nation's rural health care delivery system. 
I believe the Federal Government must recognize the important 
differences between urban and rural health care providers and respond 
with appropriate policy.
  Senator Grassley's Preserving Access to Medicare Act includes a 
robust but responsible rural health package. Most importantly, the 
Senator from Iowa pays tribute to the late Senator Craig Thomas. The 
bill's rural equity title is called the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and 
Provider Equity Act. As Members of this body know, Senator Thomas 
honorably served as cochair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus for over 
a decade. In that position he worked closely with his caucus colleagues 
to advance rural and frontier-specific health care legislation. Due in 
part to Craig's efforts, comprehensive rural health care bills have a 
long history of collaboration and cooperation on both sides of the 
aisle and at both ends of this building.
  For example, when Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act of 
2003, it included a broad health care package specifically tailored for 
rural communities, rural hospitals, and with rural providers in mind. 
This was the largest rural health care provider payment package ever 
considered by Congress.
  The Medicare Modernization Act finally put rural providers on a level 
playing field with their neighbors in larger communities. With the 
passage of the act, Congress put into place commonsense Medicare 
payment provisions critical to maintaining access to quality health 
care in isolated and underserved areas. Rural and frontier America 
achieved a significant victory, and there was much to celebrate.
  The mission, however, is not complete. Several of the act's rural 
health provisions have expired and many are set to expire soon. The 
Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act, which is a title 
included in S. 3118, reauthorizes expiring health care provisions 
included in the Medicare Modernization Act. It also takes additional 
steps, steps to address inequities in the Medicare payment system that 
continually place rural providers at a disadvantage.
  First, the legislation recognizes that low-volume hospitals have 
considerably more volatility over time in the demand for in-patient 
services. This makes it very difficult for those hospitals to set 
budget and recruitment goals. Many small rural facilities are often 
backed into a financial corner. They are forced to convert to what are 
called critical access hospitals in order to make ends meet. This 
provision will help certain rural hospitals cover the higher cost per 
patient and stay within the prospective payment system.
  Second, the bill reinstates the ``hold harmless'' payments to rural 
sole community hospitals. This is a temporary fix until analysts can 
find out why some rural hospitals do not perform as well under the 
Medicare Program. S. 3118 extends the geographic practice cost index 
work floor. As we all know, Medicare payments for physician services 
are based on a fee schedule. There are three components to the fee 
schedule: liability, practice, and work. Physician work is defined as 
the amount of time and skill and intensity necessary to provide the 
medical services. Prior to the Medicare Modernization Act, the 
physician work component was lower in rural communities than it was in 
big cities. Rural physicians put in as much or even more time and more 
skill and greater intensity into their work as doctors in the big 
cities. Rural physicians should not be paid less for their work. This 
is a simple fairness issue and it is addressed in the Grassley bill.
  Additionally, the bill would allow independent laboratories to 
continue billing Medicare directly for certain physician pathology 
services.
  Finally, S. 3118 would help rural areas maintain access to lifesaving 
emergency medical services. Senator Grassley's bill makes sure that 
rural ambulance providers receive a 3-percent add-on payment. This 
extra payment is critical and it is critical because rural emergency 
medical service providers are primarily volunteers. They have 
difficulty recruiting, difficulty retaining, and difficulty putting the 
time and effort into educating the

[[Page 12421]]

personnel. They also have less capital to buy and upgrade essential 
equipment.
  The Grassley legislation clearly preserves the achievements gained in 
the Medicare Modernization Act. It also gives much needed relief to our 
rural hospitals and to our rural providers.
  The time has come to move beyond this political wrangling. We need to 
send a bill to the President that the President will sign. Wyoming's 
seniors and disabled patients are counting on us to get it right. We 
must enact bipartisan legislation now that protects seniors, that pays 
doctors fairly, and that strengthens the rural health care delivery 
system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                                 Energy

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, a few months ago I asked my 
constituents in the State of Vermont, and it turns out people around 
the country, a very simple question. We sent out an e-mail and said: 
Tell me, what does the decline of the middle class mean to you 
personally? Not in great esoteric terms, not in academic terms--What is 
going on in your life? Frankly, in my State we expected to receive a 
few dozen responses. We ended up receiving over 700 responses.
  Then I asked people in Vermont and also around the country: Tell me 
what these high gas and oil prices mean to you. We received 1,100 e-
mails that came in, 90 percent from Vermont but some from around the 
country.
  I want to do two things this afternoon. I want to read, in the words 
of ordinary people, what these high gas and oil prices are meaning, in 
terms of how they impact their lives; and what the decline of the 
middle class means in the words of people who are in the midst of that 
decline.
  For many years I have been very angry about the Bush administration 
talking about how strong the economy was, how robust the economy was. 
That is like the operation being a success except that the patient 
died. The economy has been so great except that the working people in 
the economy are seeing a decline in their standard of living. What we 
are seeing, generally speaking, in the economy is poverty increasing, 
the middle class shrinking, while the people on top have never had it 
so good since the 1920s.
  Let me read some e-mails that came to my office within the last 
several months, mostly from Vermont but occasionally from other parts 
of the country. This is what we heard recently:

       I am a single mother with a 9-year-old boy. We lived this 
     past winter without any heat at all. Fortunately, someone 
     gave me an old wood stove. I had to hook it up to an old 
     unused chimney we had in the kitchen. I couldn't even afford 
     a chimney liner--the price of liners went up with the price 
     of fuel. To stay warm at night my son and I would pull off 
     all the pillows from the couch and pile them on the kitchen 
     floor. I would hang a blanket from the kitchen doorway and we 
     would sleep right there on the floor.

  State of Vermont, United States of America, 2008.
  Another letter:

       My 90-year-old father in Connecticut has recently become 
     ill and asked me to visit him. I want to drop everything I am 
     doing and go visit him, however I am finding it hard to save 
     enough money to add to the extra gas I will need to get 
     there. I am self-employed with my own commercial cleaning 
     service and money is tight, not only with gas prices but with 
     everything.

  In other words, here is an instance where a 90-year-old father is ill 
and a son cannot even visit him because of the high price of gas.
  Another story:

       My husband and I are retired and 65. We would have liked to 
     have worked longer but because of injuries caused at work and 
     the closing of our factory to go to Canada, we chose to 
     retire earlier. Now with oil prices the way they are we 
     cannot afford to heat our home unless my husband cuts and 
     splits wood--which is a real hardship as he has had his back 
     fused and should not be working most of the day to keep up 
     with the wood. Not only that, he has to get up two or three 
     times each night to keep the fire going.
  Another story:

       I, too, have been struggling to overcome the increasing 
     cost of gas, heating oil, food, taxes, et cetera. I have to 
     say this is the toughest year financially that I have ever 
     experienced in my 41 years on this Earth. I have what used to 
     be considered a decent job. I work hard, pinch my pennies, 
     but the pennies have all but dried up. I am thankful my 
     employer understands that many of us cannot afford to drive 
     to work 5 days a week. Instead, I work 3 15-hour days. I have 
     taken odd jobs to try to make ends meet.

  Another story:

       I am 55 years old and worse off than my adult children. I 
     have worked since age 16. I do not live from paycheck to 
     paycheck, I live day to day. I can only afford to fill my gas 
     tank on my payday. Thereafter, I put $5, $10, whatever I can. 
     I cannot afford to pay for the food items that I would. I am 
     riding around daily to and from work with a quarter of a tank 
     of gas. This is very scary as I can see myself working until 
     the day that I die.

  Another story:

       I am a working mother of two young children. I currently 
     pay, on average, about $80 a week for gas so that I can go to 
     work; $80 a week just to go to work. I see the effects of the 
     gas increase at the grocery stores and at the department 
     stores. On average I spend about $150 per week at the grocery 
     store. And, trust me, when I say I do not buy prime rib, I 
     buy just enough to get us through the week, and I cannot 
     afford to make sure that we have seven wholesome meals to eat 
     every night of the week. Some nights we eat cereal and toast 
     for dinner because that is all that I have.

  Another story. This is an interesting story because I am sure it 
applies all over the country:

       As the chief of a small ambulance service, I have seen the 
     impact of rising costs. As the service is made up of 
     primarily volunteers, we have seen our numbers decline. When 
     soliciting for volunteers in the community, we have been told 
     that they are unable to put the time in due to the need to 
     work more to pay their bills.
       Our costs associated with running an ambulance

  --this is a volunteer ambulance service--

     have also risen in the last few years. When discussing with 
     our supplier fuel prices, they play a large part in the 
     increase both to the manufacturer and to transport.

  Here is another story. This is just incredible. It reminds us of all 
of the ways that this increase in gas and oil is impacting our people 
and our communities. Here is this story:

       My story involves my capacity as an oncology social worker 
     working with cancer patients in an outpatient clinic. I also 
     run an emergency fund through the Cancer Patient Support 
     Program which provides funds to cancer patients in need 
     during their cancer journey, including the initial diagnosis, 
     surgery, and treatment period in which they experience a 
     significant decrease in income during a medical leave.

  This is an oncology worker at a hospital.

       I cannot describe how devastating it has been for these 
     folks who need to travel great distances to get to and from 
     their cancer treatment and followup care with the way gas 
     prices have been. Many of these folks need to travel on a 
     daily basis to radiation therapy for several weeks, while 
     others come from surrounding counties every 1 to 2 weeks for 
     chemotherapy. The high price of gas has had a tremendous 
     impact on our ability to provide the financial assistance to 
     our emergency fund to all of those in need.

  Imagine someone living in a rural area dealing with cancer, dealing 
with chemotherapy, dealing with radiation, sick as a dog, worried about 
the future, and then having to worry about how they can afford to get 
to the hospital to get the treatment they need.
  Another letter:

       First of all, I am a single mother of a 16-year-old 
     daughter. I own a condominium. I have worked at the hospital 
     for 16 years and make a very good salary, in the high $40,000 
     range. I own a 2005 Honda Civic. I filled up my gas tank 
     yesterday, April 1. It cost me almost $43; that was $3.22 per 
     gallon. That was on April 1. If prices stay at that level it 
     will cost me $160 per month to fill up my gas tank. A year 
     ago it cost me under $20 to fill up my tank.

  On and on it goes. I think the message is that high gas and oil 
prices are having a devastating impact on tens of millions of Americans 
in every aspect of their lives and on our economy. As bad as it is all 
over this country, it is especially bad in rural areas where people 
have to travel long distances to work, and it is especially devastating 
in cold States where people have to spend a huge amount of money for 
home heating oil.
  It seems to me it is absolutely imperative that we get our act 
together and that we do everything we can to lower the price of gas and 
oil. In that regard, let me talk a little bit about some of

[[Page 12422]]

the events that have taken place on the floor of the Senate in the last 
couple of days.
  I think it is interesting that many Americans have already given up 
on any belief that the Bush-Cheney administration even understands the 
problem, let alone is prepared to do anything about it. It is amazing 
that no one even looks to the White House for leadership on this issue, 
and for appropriate reasons; that is, because Bush-Cheney, from the day 
they have been in office, have been much more concerned about the 
profits of large multinational corporations, including the oil 
companies, than the needs of ordinary Americans.
  There are a few points that I want to focus on at this time. First, 
it is a national obscenity that at a time when oil prices are off the 
wall, when people are paying over $4 for a gallon of gas, at exactly 
this same moment the major oil companies are enjoying recordbreaking 
profits and are giving their CEOs outrageous compensation packages.
  It seems to me that while there are multiple causes for why oil and 
gas are soaring, one of the reasons certainly has to do with the greed 
of these huge oil companies. And the time is long overdue for the 
Congress to say enough is enough and stop ripping off the American 
people.
  During the last 2 years, ExxonMobil has made more profits than any 
company in the history of the world, making over $40 billion in profits 
last year alone--$40 billion, one company.
  But it is not only ExxonMobil; Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP 
have also been making out like bandits. For example, in the first 
quarter of this year, BP announced a 63-percent increase in their 
profits--a 63-percent increase in their profits--and people are paying 
over $4 for a gallon of gas.
  As a matter of fact, the five largest oil companies, the five largest 
companies in this country, have made over $600 billion since George W. 
Bush has been President; 7 years, $600 billion in profits.
  Let me mention what these large oil companies have been doing with 
some of their profits. In the year 2005, Lee Raymond, who was then the 
CEO of ExxonMobil, received a retirement package of $398 million. Let 
me repeat that. Former CEO leaves his position, retirement package of 
$398 million.
  Workers all over this country, as indicated in the letters that I 
have read, are finding it harder and harder to fill their gas tank and 
get to work.
  In 2006, Ray Irani, who is the CEO of Occidental Petroleum--that is 
the largest oil producer in the State of Texas--received over $400 
million in total compensation, one of the biggest single-year payouts 
in U.S. corporate history.
  People here tell us, often my friends on the other side of the aisle 
say: Well, we have to trust the oil companies. They really are 
concerned about the American people.
  I do not think so. I think one has to be very naive to believe 
companies in the midst of this energy crisis, when people are 
struggling with these very outrageously high prices, when these 
companies are giving hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation 
packages to their CEOs, and then they tell us that the oil companies 
are concerned about the American people. I do not think so. I really do 
not.
  The situation is so absurd that there was an article the other day in 
the Wall Street Journal. Not only are these companies giving huge 
compensation packages to their CEOs, they now have a deal that if the 
CEO dies while he is CEO, their heirs and families will receive huge 
compensation packages.
  According to the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago, the family 
of Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, will get over $115 
million if he dies while he holds that job. The family of the CEO of 
Nabors Industries, another oil company, will receive $288 million.
  Meanwhile, in the northeastern part of this country people are 
saying: How am I going to stay warm this winter? Prices of home heating 
oil are soaring.
  We need a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. We need to tell 
them: Enough is enough. The windfall profits tax on the oil industry is 
not the only thing that we should be doing. We need to take a hard look 
at speculation that is taking place in the industry.
  As you well know, as I think the American people increasingly know, 
there are estimates out there that as a result of the activities of 
major financial institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP 
Morgan Chase, and others, there are estimates that between 25 and 50 
percent of the cost of a barrel of oil today has to do with speculation 
in oil futures.
  Earlier last week, George Soros told the Commerce Committee that 
rampant speculation in oil and gas futures is ``intellectually unsound 
and distinctly harmful in its economic consequences.''
  We have had representatives in the oil industry themselves who have 
told us that speculation is one of the reasons oil prices are so high. 
Mark Copper with the Consumer Federation of America told the Commerce 
Committee last week that the speculative bubble in the price of oil has 
cost the U.S. economy over a half trillion dollars over the past 2 
years and has cost U.S. families an average of a $1,500 increase in 
gasoline and natural gas costs.
  So I think those are two areas at which we have to take a hard look. 
Now, in terms of speculation, people say: Well, this sounds like a 
conspiracy theory. Well, let's talk about some recent history. In 2000 
and 2001, as the American people well know, especially the people on 
the west coast, Enron successfully manipulated the electricity markets 
and drove up prices by 300 percent.
  Now, what was interesting is during the debate over this terrible 
tragedy on the west coast, what was Enron saying? They were saying: The 
reason that prices are going up is supply and demand. It is the natural 
forces of the market. Do not blame us.
  That is what they said. I guess that is what some of the guys who are 
now in jail, after being convicted for massive fraud, told the public.
  It was not supply and demand, it was excessive manipulation. But it 
was not only Enron in 2000 and 2001, in 2004, energy price manipulators 
moved to the propane gas markets. That year the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission found that BP artificially increased propane prices 
by purchasing ``enormous quantities of propane and withholding the fuel 
to drive prices higher.'' That was the Commodities Future Trading 
Commission.
  By the end of February of 2003, BP had almost 90 percent of all 
propane delivered on a pipeline that stretches from Texas to 
Pennsylvania and New York. BP's cornering of the propane market caused 
prices to increase by 40 percent during the month of February 2004. And 
as a result of their illegal actions, our friends at BP paid a $303 
million fine.
  So we have Enron, those guys are in jail, having caused severe 
economic damage on the west coast. We have BP, a major oil company, 
paying a $303 million fine.
  But it goes on. In 2006, 2 years ago, energy manipulators moved to 
the natural gas market, when Federal regulators described that the 
Amaranth Hedge Fund was responsible for artificially driving up natural 
gas prices.
  Amaranth cornered the natural gas market by controlling as much as 75 
percent of all of the natural gas futures contracts in a single month. 
The skyrocketing cost of natural gas cost American consumers an 
estimated $9 billion. I should point out that the Amaranth hedge fund 
eventually collapsed, as a result of their illegal activity.
  When people say, let us take a hard look at speculation, this is not 
conspiracy theory. This is based on some very real economic realities 
which have taken place in the last few years.
  Today, the price of oil has more than doubled over the past 14 
months. We need to find out who is manipulating oil and gas prices. 
Right now, oil and gas futures are largely traded on unregulated 
markets and enormous conflicts of interest exist between investment 
bank analysts, energy traders, and employees involved with oil and gas 
infrastructure.

[[Page 12423]]

  The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has the authority and 
responsibility to prevent fraud, manipulation, and excessive 
speculation in U.S. commodity markets. Unfortunately, this authority 
and responsibility has largely been abdicated through the use of over-
the-counter energy derivatives that are largely unregulated and by 
foreign boards of trade that have received no action letters from the 
CFTC to operate terminals inside the United States, trading U.S. 
commodities to U.S. investors free from regulatory oversight. It is 
pretty complicated stuff. But the bottom line is, huge amounts of money 
in oil futures are being traded in an unregulated, below-the-radar-
screen market, and we don't know who is controlling what.
  Congress needs to end what some have referred to as the ``Wild West'' 
of energy trading by requiring anyone operating a trading terminal in 
the U.S. trading U.S. commodities to U.S. investors to register with 
the CFTC and be subject to CFTC oversight. We also need to 
substantially increase margin requirements for these trades to make it 
harder for speculators to manipulate oil prices.
  In addition, major conflicts of interest exist in the commodities 
markets. Goldman Sachs and other large financial institutions seem to 
have a corner on virtually every sector of this market. When Goldman 
Sachs and Morgan Stanley predict the price of oil will go up, so do 
their profits in the oil futures market. When ExxonMobil wants to sell 
or buy oil in the futures market, they go to Goldman Sachs or other 
large financial institutions. When Sovereign Wealth Funds, pension 
funds, or smaller dealers want to invest in energy derivatives, Goldman 
Sachs and other investment banks facilitate those trades. Goldman 
Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BP and other major institutional investors even 
co-founded the InterContinental Exchange that now trades West Texas 
Intermediate crude oil to U.S. investors free of U.S. regulatory 
oversight.
  And when Morgan Stanley and other investment banks need insider 
knowledge of the heating oil market to benefit their traders, they 
physically purchase large quantities of heating oil for storage and 
delivery. This is an issue that I am paying particular attention to. 
Heating oil prices right now are skyrocketing. Right now, fuel dealers 
in my State have told me that the residential price for heating oil 
would cost about $5 a gallon. If heating oil prices keep climbing there 
are a large number of my constituents who are in danger of freezing to 
death. We cannot let that happen.
  I want to know why heating oil prices are high right now and if 
Morgan Stanley or others are manipulating these prices through 
excessive speculation. We have got to get heating oil prices to go down 
before winter.
  We need to end these massive conflicts of interest in the energy 
markets. There are a number of ideas that I am exploring on this issue, 
but for starters, I strongly believe that the commodities market should 
have similar laws prohibiting insider trading that our securities 
market currently has.
  Further, we must once and for all begin to break up OPEC. OPEC is an 
illegal price-fixing cartel that is clearly in violation of 
international trade rules. The high price of oil is expected to 
increase OPEC's crude oil export earnings by more than $300 billion 
this year to a record of over $1 trillion. That is an astronomical 
figure.
  The time has come for the President to file a complaint with the 
World Trade Organization and demand the dismantling of OPEC. The ending 
of collusion with regard to oil production will result in increased 
production and lower oil prices.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, over the long term we need a 
strong program to break our reliance on fossil fuels once and for all. 
That means transitioning electricity generation away from fossil fuel 
power and demanding automobiles that get substantially more miles per 
gallon. Plug-in hybrid prototypes currently get in the range of 150 
miles per gallon. We need to get them out of the laboratory and onto 
the roads. We also have to invest heavily in mass transit, including 
rail and rural bus transportation. These steps can help break the power 
of the big energy companies, reduce damage to our environment, and 
create millions of good-paying, green-technology jobs across the 
country.
  The bottom line is this: Congress and the President can no longer sit 
idly by while Americans are getting ripped off at the gas pump, and 
ExxonMobil, greedy speculators, and OPEC are allowed to make out like 
bandits pushing oil and gas prices higher and higher. The time for 
action is now. We need to lower gas prices.
  That is something we must address, if the Congress is going to gain, 
perhaps once again--hopefully regain the confidence of the American 
people that we understand what is going on in their lives, we 
understand the absolute necessity of addressing this crisis of high gas 
and oil prices, that we understand the necessity of transforming our 
energy system away from foreign oil and our dependence on foreign oil, 
away from fossil fuels which is causing so many problems in terms of 
global warming, that we understand that the potential for moving toward 
energy efficiency, toward sustainable energy such as wind, solar, 
geothermal, biomass is sitting there right in front of us.
  Yesterday there was a conference right here in Washington where 
people were talking about plug-in hybrids that get 150 miles per 
gallon. These are the kinds of developments we need. There has been a 
lot of discussion about a so-called Manhattan project. I believe in it. 
I think if we focus and are aggressive and are prepared to transform 
our energy system, take on the big, powerful special interests, we can 
not only create millions of good-paying jobs, we can reverse global 
warming. We can address environmental concerns. That is what we have to 
do.
  The challenge we face is to understand that the oil industry and the 
coal industry have put hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying, 
campaign contributions, advertising. They are very formidable folks. 
They want the status quo. We have been represented by the people, 
presumably not by the special interests. Our job is to represent 
ordinary people. I hope we can do that. If we do the right thing, I 
believe not only can we lower gas and oil prices today, we can 
transform our energy system and create a much better tomorrow for our 
kids and grandchildren.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the high cost of gasoline has had a 
crippling effect on the economy of my State of Mississippi. The people 
in my State, where earnings are below the national average, are simply 
not able to keep up with the rising cost of living. High gasoline 
prices not only increase the cost of going to work, they also result in 
an increased cost of food and other consumables.
  As a constituent who called my office yesterday said: I can stand the 
high price of gas, but my utility bills have stretched me to the 
breaking point.
  The Daily Journal, a newspaper in northeast Mississippi, quoted 
another constituent, Jennifer Skinner, of Tupelo, as saying:

       Working class people can barely make it. I'm a single Mom 
     with three kids.

  We have been very fortunate that our farmers have been getting record 
prices for corn, soybeans, and wheat, other commodities as well, over 
the last 2 years. While the value of these commodities is high, energy 
costs have caused the inputs for farm operations to rise significantly. 
This has affected costs of fertilizer, pesticides, electricity, and the 
diesel fuel farmers use. As a result, some farmers who have worked so 
hard to produce food at a lower cost to the consumer than in any other 
country are not able to sustain their farming operations. These high

[[Page 12424]]

prices and high costs have created a cycle of higher food costs that 
have been added to the burden of my constituents.
  Crude oil prices are, of course, linked to supply and demand. While 
there are many other compounding factors, such as a weakened dollar, we 
must remember that at the root of the problem is the increased 
worldwide demand for energy. According to the Federal Highway 
Administration, Americans drove 12 billion fewer miles in the first 
quarter of this year compared with the same period last year. Americans 
are driving less due to increased costs. However, the decreased demand 
for energy in America has had little effect on the increased worldwide 
demand.
  We know that demands for oil will continue to escalate as more 
developing countries use crude oil. According to the International 
Energy Agency, between now and 2030, China and India will account for 
70 percent of all new demand for oil. The Congress and the 
administration must consider now how much future demands will increase 
in the coming years. While there are steps I believe the Congress can 
take to help cope with higher prices in the short term, our future 
demands for energy independence will require us to move to new sources 
of fuel. Americans are looking to their leaders for answers. They want 
to know what the Congress can do to help them through these hard times.
  As we consider energy policies that will ease the burdens of higher 
costs for our constituents and their struggling businesses, we should 
not impose policies that create higher tax burdens or costs for energy 
companies. Higher taxes will not lead to lower prices but will only 
serve to increase the expenses of doing business that will be passed on 
to the consumers. Our economy relies heavily on transportation. A 
policy that doesn't provide real long-term reforms to the way our 
country acquires and uses energy will not provide Americans with a 
better deal or a stronger economy.
  While we search for better energy sources, we must remember that 
until developing technologies are able to create affordable and 
efficient fuels, the short-term supply-and-demand problems will still 
exist. Some Senators have called for increased exploration and 
drilling. While I am always mindful of protecting our environment, I 
think we need to be reminded that advancements in drilling technology 
over the last several years mean we are much better able to protect our 
valuable natural resources as we explore for new energy.
  In addition to acquiring more crude oil within the United States--and 
offshore drilling provides another opportunity--we should do all we can 
to promote the exploration and use of oil shale. I know the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico talked about his views, which 
include the use of oil shale. It is already used extensively in many 
other countries.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, there is a potential 
equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil to be found in America alone. 
It is my hope the Congress, the administration, and private industry 
will come together, work together with those who are concerned about 
environmental consequences and impacts, deal with those challenges in a 
thoughtful and effective way, and proceed with exploration and 
extraction of oil shale. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 identified oil 
shale as a very important resource that should be developed. While 
progress in the development of this important resource has occurred, we 
should do more to make oil shale resources as a motor fuel into a 
reality.
  Peter J. Robinson, vice chairman of Chevron Corporation, recently 
testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
Global Warming. He said:

       The search for the next source of energy--whether it be oil 
     or next-generation fuels from renewable sources--takes 
     enormous capital, specialized expertise and the 
     organizational capability that characterizes Chevron. 
     Transforming raw materials into usable energy products and 
     delivering them to market some six continents takes 
     substantial financial strength, advanced technology, and 
     human energy.

  I think Mr. Robinson is correct when he says we face a huge 
undertaking in determining the next source of fuel. I also believe the 
Congress should not be in the business of trying to pick a winner for 
the next form of energy. Rather, we should be doing what we can to 
promote all forms of alternative energies that show promise through 
appropriated research dollars, grants, and public/private partnerships.
  In Mississippi, we are prepared to play a major role in the 
development of new energy. Our farmers have the knowledge and expertise 
to create renewable feedstocks such as corn, soybeans, timber, grasses, 
animal fats, and even wastewater. The University of Southern 
Mississippi, for example, is engaged in research to create more 
efficient and lower cost fuel cell membranes. The University of 
Mississippi is using termite research in an innovative approach to 
cellulosic energy research.
  In addition to researching alternative fuels that include waste 
water, timber, and other feedstocks, Mississippi State University 
students were winners of the 2008 Challenge X Competition. This 
competition is a partnership between the Department of Energy and 
General Motors. It challenges university students to create vehicles 
that are more fuel efficient and produce lower emissions.
  I am proud of my State's commitment and contribution to creating a 
better energy future, and I hope we can continue to work hard to make 
the ideas and efforts of these students and university researchers and 
our entire population in our State who are involved in this challenge a 
reality.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized with unanimous 
consent.

                          ____________________