[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12683-12696]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for 
     energy production and conservation, to extend certain 
     expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       The Rising Cost of Energy

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss once again the rising 
cost of energy for Georgians and all Americans. My constituents 
continue to suffer due to the ever-increasing price of fuel. They are 
facing very difficult choices--between food and gasoline--between 
driving to work to earn money for their families and driving to the 
grocery store to feed their families.
  I would like to take just a moment to read some of the letters I have 
received from my constituents that I think shed light on the real-world 
impact high gas prices are having on all Americans.
  Mr. John Broomfield from Lawrenceville writes:

       We are conserving, recycling, buying compact fluorescent 
     lamps, driving less and slower, but we cannot do this alone. 
     You in Congress must have the foresight and vision to pass 
     policies that will actually help us. Please make it possible 
     for our oil and energy companies to search for and extract 
     our own natural resources. No matter where they are!

  Mrs. Betty Byers from Marietta writes:

       Dear Senator Chambliss,
       I appreciate all you can do to help develop a program that 
     will allow the exploration of our country's energy sources 
     without materially affecting our environment. We need to 
     break away from relying on other countries (even our enemies) 
     for our energy supplies. The rising price of gasoline is 
     hurting ALL Americans. PLEASE--put our families first before 
     environmentalists. We are all hurting from the rising cost of 
     gasoline. Please do something ASAP.

  I was pleased to hear yesterday both President Bush and Senator 
McCain highlight their support for oil and gas leases in the Outer 
Continental Shelf. I think their public support for this effort will 
raise the profile of this important way in which Congress can act to 
help increase our supply of oil and gas to help lower gas prices for 
all Americans.
  Is this the only answer? Absolutely not. But certainly this is the 
right direction to go.
  The Department of the Interior released a comprehensive inventory of 
OCS resources in February 2006 that estimated reserves of 8.5 billion 
barrels of oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet--tcf--of natural gas. 
Congress has imposed moratoria on much of the OCS since 1982 through 
the annual Interior appropriation bills.
  Some contend that lifting the moratoria would pose unacceptable 
environmental risks and threaten coastal tourism industries.
  First, that is simply not true. In 2005, we suffered significant 
damage in the gulf coast region of our country as a

[[Page 12684]]

result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Yet off the coast of Louisiana, 
off the coast of Mississippi, off the coast of Texas, off the coast of 
Alabama, where Hurricane Katrina came through, we saw not one drop of 
oil spilled even though there are hundreds and hundreds of oil-
producing platforms in that region of the gulf.
  I come from a coastal State. There is nothing I would ever do that 
would in any way endanger the pristine beaches in my State or the 
coastal regions of any other State. But, simply stated, we now have the 
technology in place to ensure that type of thing never happens.
  Second, we can do this in a way that ultimately lets the individual 
coastal States decide whether or not to opt out of this moratorium. So 
instead of politicians in Washington dictating what will happen off the 
coast of my home State of Georgia, the people of Georgia and the 
Governor of Georgia will get the ultimate decision. I am hopeful the 
Senate will come together to take this first step to increase our 
supply.
  Would I like to see more development? Sure. I support the 
development, not just of the OCS but in other regions of our country 
too, where we know we have vast resources of energy. We need to make 
sure that when we do explore, we do it in the right way, that we do 
nothing that will endanger the environment of any part of our country. 
But we do have the technology to make sure that happens--whether it is 
on the Outer Continental Shelf, whether it is in the shale of the Rocky 
Mountains, or whether it is in the ANWR region of Alaska or other areas 
of this country where geologists are fairly certain that we do have 
additional resources. This will add to the supply we have so that, long 
term as well as short term, we can see gas prices in this country 
stabilize and hopefully begin to come back down to something more 
reasonable than what we are looking at today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


            Diesel Supplemental Environmental Projects Bill

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here on the Senate 
floor this morning with my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich. I 
want to reflect on what Senator Chambliss just spoke about with respect 
to energy.
  There are a wide variety of things we need to do: create biofuels, 
conserve energy. I think we need to incentivize a greater reliance on 
alternative and renewable forms of energy, including solar, wind, and 
geothermal. I believe we need to incentivize--and we are 
incentivizing--a new generation of nuclear powerplants in this country. 
Nine applications are in. We expect another 30 or so over the next 
couple of years, a wide variety of things: plug-in hybrid vehicles, 
very low emission diesel engines, and the list goes on and on. We do 
not need any one of them. We, frankly, need to do almost all of them.
  One of my colleagues, one of the people I most enjoy working with in 
the Senate, is a former Governor from Ohio. We worked together for many 
years in the National Governors Association. Now I have the pleasure of 
working with him in the Senate.
  Among the issues we worked on, we served together on the Environment 
and Public Works Committee. He came to me about 3 years ago and said: 
Let's talk about diesel emissions.
  I said: OK. And I said: What do you want to say?
  He said--I will paraphrase what he said: There is good news and bad 
news about diesel emissions.
  I said: What is it?
  He said: The good news is, diesel engines last a long time.
  I said: OK.
  Then he went on to say, and the bad news is, diesel engines last a 
long time. The old diesels we have on the road today, and most of the 
diesels we have on the road are old diesels, and there are millions of 
them. They are in trucks and buses and ships. They are in locomotives. 
But mostly, though, diesels put out a lot of bad emissions, bad stuff, 
that we end up breathing.
  What Senator Voinovich came up with in 2005--he was good enough to 
let me be the lead Democrat on the legislation--was the proposal that 
says: Why do we not create a grant program, through EPA, that provides 
incentive money for State and local governments, for school districts 
with buses, for private truck companies and so forth, to incentivize 
them to begin to use new technology that goes into the diesel engines 
and reduces diesel emissions by as much as 80, 85 percent?
  I said: That sounds like a great idea. I would be pleased to be your 
Democratic lead sponsor. A number of others ended up joining us. I 
think that Senator Clinton was among them. But there were a variety of 
Republicans and Democrats who joined us.
  I remember going to a press conference with Senator Voinovich about 
100 yards from where we are today. We introduced the legislation that 
day. The next week there may have been a hearing--there may not have 
been a hearing. The next week after I think the legislation passed the 
Senate. Within a month or so, it was the law. I have never seen 
legislation move so quickly in my life.
  We were here earlier this morning with one of the earlier discussions 
on the floor talking about filibusters and how our Republican friends 
are slow walking legislation, something that we were accused of doing 
when they were in the majority years ago.
  But it is wonderful to have an example, once 3 years ago, with the 
passage of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, and more recently with a 
change to the act which actually makes it even better, to see that we 
can still work together, we can set aside our partisan differences, 
Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, actually address our 
problems and resolve them.
  So that sort of sets the stage for today. I think each of us is going 
to be recognized for 10 minutes, and when I run out of time, I may ask 
for a little bit of extra time if there is not a press of colleagues 
who want to come to the floor.
  But let me start off by laying the groundwork and to say a special 
thank-you to our colleagues in the House of Representative and in the 
Senate for passing S. 2146. It is a bipartisan bill that gives EPA the 
authority to accept, as part of air quality settlements, diesel 
emission reduction supplemental environmental projects.
  What does that mean? That means, when EPA enters into some kind of 
enforcement action against a polluter, for example, and out of that 
enforcement action comes a requirement for the polluter to pay certain 
fines or charges, the idea is, how can that money be used by EPA?
  We want to make sure that money can be used by EPA to further reduce 
diesel emissions; to install this technology, diesel emissions 
reduction technology, in buses, in trucks, in all kinds of emitters of 
pollution of diesels. So we ran into a problem with this over the last 
couple of years.
  Today--actually yesterday--the legislation was passed. We resolved 
that problem. I also wish to thank some of our colleagues--Senators 
Inhofe, Clinton, Cardin, Alexander--for joining Senator Voinovich and 
me on this latest version of this legislation.
  This is a small bill. This is a small bill with big consequences, big 
consequences for jumpstarting the effort to clean up our Nation's 
diesel vehicle fleet and making our air cleaner and toxin free. Like a 
number of our colleagues, I am a strong advocate for diesel engines, 
clean diesel engines. They are powerful, they are fuel efficient, and 
with the implementation of EPA's new fuel and engine regulations, they 
will also be a lot cleaner. However, dirty diesel emissions can be 
deadly. Reducing emissions from diesel engines is one of the most 
important air quality challenges facing our country. This week we are 
going to do something about it.
  EPA estimates there are some 11 million diesel engines in America 
that lack the latest pollution control technology. When diesel engines 
are built today for cars, trucks, buses, and so forth, they are 
required to have the latest technology. The fuel they use is very low 
in sulphur content today, so we end up dramatically reducing the

[[Page 12685]]

kind of damage and threat to our public health.
  But there are 11 million old diesels out on the road, and they are 
going out on the road for a long time. Taken together, these engines 
produce something like 1,000 tons of particulate matter every day. I 
will talk a little bit more about particulate matter in a moment.
  As a result, dirty diesel emissions are linked to some 21,000 
premature deaths, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, millions of 
lost workdays, and numerous other health impacts every year. In fact, 
diesel soot is linked to more premature deaths in this country than 
firearms, HIV, or drunk driving. The risks are nationwide, but they are 
especially high risk in urban areas.
  I have a chart here. Let me see if I can point out a couple of 
things. First of all, here is Ohio. Here is Ohio, where I went to Ohio 
State University, along with my colleague, George Voinovich. Here is 
Cleveland, OH, where Senator Voinovich is from. This is dark red. This 
is dark red. In fact, much of Ohio is dark red.
  Over here is Delaware. Delaware is in an area of our country which is 
dark red. If you look down at the color code, there from the lowest 
impact, which is pink in color, to the highest impact, which is like a 
dark red color. For Nebraska, our Presiding Officer's State, it is 
looking pretty good, part of it in the pink.
  But what we want to make sure is that the whole country is in the 
pink; not in the dark red, not in the red, not in the dark pink. We 
want to make sure it is in the light pink. What that means is healthier 
air for us to breathe for us and our families.
  Why is diesel so toxic? Let me take a moment to show this. This is a 
diesel particle. It looks big, doesn't it? But in reality they are very 
small. You cannot even see them with the eye. But we breathe them, 
nonetheless. The fact is, as we walk about Washington, DC, or wherever 
we live, we probably breathe some of these little babies as well.
  But at the core is something called elemental carbon. Around that 
core are organic carbon compounds. Around that, in the yellow here, 
secondary sulphate and nitrate. Surrounding them are metals. Then 
surrounding that on the outer core are toxins.
  Diesel exhaust is a mixture of vapors and fine particles. The small 
particles have a core of carbons, as I pointed out, with a layer of 
toxins, many of which can cause cancer.
  Here we have a picture of the lungs--in fact, two lungs. We have in 
fine detail--some of this matter is hard to tell. This is called the 
alveoli. That is where the oxygen that we breathe in is actually 
transferred into the blood system. And when these particles get down 
this far, they get into the blood system. That is what causes cancer.
  But the fine particles can get deep into our lungs to cause 
inflammation. They cause scarring of the lungs, and some of that leads 
to bronchitis. It can lead to asthma. But when they get down into the 
bloodstream itself, they get spread all over the body and cause lung 
cancer and spread cancer to other parts of our bodies.
  If that were not enough, these carcinogens can cause not just cancer 
but death. And some of the 21,000 people who will die this year will 
die not from bronchitis, not from asthma or asthma attacks, but they 
will die from cancer. This is why poor air quality, caused by old, 
dirty diesel engines, can lead to higher than average cancer rates for 
those living along heavily traveled interstates, highways such as 
Interstate 95 which stretches all the way from Maine in the north down 
to Florida. It runs right through my State of Delaware and a bunch of 
other States, too, on the east coast. And what we have--notice this 
curve--what we have is the zone of greatest exposure.
  When you have a highway such as I-95--or it can be Interstate 70 or 
any other interstate or densely traveled highway, especially one with a 
lot of buses and trucks on it, what you see is a concentration of 
diesel exhaust right around the highways. And the threat to our health 
is the greatest for those who travel the highways or live or work in 
the near proximity of those highways.
  That is the bad news. Here is the good news. The good news is we now 
have the pollution control technology to greatly reduce these deadly 
diesel particles and therefore greatly impact human health.
  In 2004, the EPA began to address these public health concerns by 
requiring that all new heavy-duty highway diesel vehicles had to 
install pollution control technology starting in 2007. We also changed 
the law with respect to sulphur content. It is 15 parts per million 
sulphur fuel that is sold, I think, after last year. It began last 
year. They had to reduce the sulphur content rather dramatically.
  However, this ruling is a problem because it does nothing for the 
millions of diesel engines that are already on the roadways, as I said 
earlier. Reducing diesel emissions in the current fleet could save an 
estimated 100,000 lives between now and the year 2030.
  In response to what the EPA did in 2004, Congress passed the Diesel 
Emission Reduction Act, which Senator Voinovich introduced, and was 
good enough to let me and others join him in doing that. That program, 
again, established the voluntary national and State grant loan program 
to clean up some of those old diesel engines in buses and trucks and 
trains and ships.
  Our intention was to build upon a program that EPA already had in 
place which allowed air quality polluters to fund diesel cleanup 
programs as part of their settlement with EPA.
  For example, in October of last year, EPA reached a settlement 
agreement with a company called American Electric Power. As part of 
that settlement, American Electric Power will spend about $21 million 
retrofitting diesel engines with pollution controls. In fiscal year 
2008--that is the year we are in right now--Congress appropriated $49 
million to help fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.
  So we had, on one hand, a settlement with American Electric Power, a 
$21 million settlement, the moneys of which were to be used for diesel 
emission reduction technology. Then we provided an appropriation in 
2008, $49 million, to help fund the same program.
  Put that money together, I think it adds up to about $70 million. 
That is enough money to have a significant impact on diesel emissions 
and to improve our air quality.
  Unfortunately, EPA determined that if Congress funds through an 
appropriation the Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, EPA could no 
longer accept diesel projects as part of air quality enforcement 
settlements. They could not use the $21 million they got in the 
settlement from American Electric to also help fund the program.
  There is enough need. We could spend 10 times the amount of money we 
appropriated to help clean up diesel emissions. The need is huge. There 
are 11 million vehicles. We could spend money for a long time, and a 
lot more money than we are appropriating. But the idea of having $70 
million versus $49 million is a big thing. We want to make sure we have 
and use the money from these settlements. So it does not make much 
sense to me or to Senator Voinovich.
  The EPA said: Sorry, our hands are tied. We think this is the law, 
and we have to abide by it. What this bill does is it corrects the 
unintended consequence of successfully funding the Diesel Emission 
Reduction Act. As a result, we are going to be able to use settlement 
money. We are going to be able to use money that we appropriated for 
diesel emission reductions. We will be able to use the combined amount; 
parcel it out to States for grants and for loans and to get diesel 
emissions down and under control.
  The House amended our bill and said: We want to add the District of 
Columbia to the 50 States that can participate in this grant program 
established by the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.
  Let me close by saying, I do not think there is a silver bullet to 
reduce the environmental risks that lead to cancer, that lead to 
asthma, or to death. But cleaning up emissions from our Nation's diesel 
fleet is certainly a positive step. It is a diesel fleet that can help 
us use more judicially the resources that we have in this country, to 
use them more wisely but to be able

[[Page 12686]]

to use that diesel engine in a way that doesn't threaten our health. 
That is a very good thing.
  In closing, I thank Senator Voinovich for the terrific leadership he 
provided over the years on this particular subject and for allowing 
others to work with him, to enact the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 
and then to join me in coming back and saying the unintended 
consequence, where the EPA couldn't spend the settlement money and 
appropriations to finance diesel retrofits, that we had to take care of 
that. They can spend them both and reduce emissions.
  Senator Voinovich and I sometimes lament how difficult it is to get 
anything done around here. On a day such as today, when it is a 
beautiful day outside, clear skies, beautiful day, walking from the 
train station, walking right up Delaware Avenue, seeing the Capitol at 
the top of the hill, the green trees, blue skies, the sun shining, it 
was beautiful. We wish to make sure that more days look like today, not 
only in Washington, DC, but all over the country, that the air is safe 
to breathe.
  With this legislation, it will be a lot safer for years to come. I 
salute my friend, Senator Voinovich, for helping make it happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, ordinarily I don't come over and speak 
in morning business. As so with many Members of the Senate, I could be 
at three places at the same time and justify each one of them. I came 
today because of the fact that our colleagues and the citizens of this 
country need to know there are many instances where both Republicans 
and Democrats can come together and get something done. I have been 
very fortunate over the years to know the Presiding Officer, a former 
Governor, to know Governor Carper, now Senator Carper. We worked 
together in the National Governors Association. I think sometimes we 
were more effective as Governors getting things done than as Members of 
the Senate.
  The fact is, we came together a couple of years ago and realized that 
one of the most significant sources of pollution, in terms of 
particulate matter, were emissions from diesel engines. As Senator 
Carper pointed out, we now have new vehicles on the road that are much 
cleaner than anything we have seen before. We also knew there were some 
11 million on- and off-road vehicles that would be around a long time 
and that if we were going to make significant improvement in reducing 
emissions from diesel engines, we needed a new program. We got together 
and supported the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a bipartisan bill. We 
must have had 25 or 30 sponsors, over 150 groups supported it. That was 
the fastest bill I have ever seen passed around here. I think we had it 
done in 45 days.
  The program today is currently supported by over 250 environmental, 
industry, and public interest groups. When DERA was announced, the EPA 
estimated the 5-year program, $200 million per year, would achieve $10 
billion in health benefits. Senator Carper has done a very good job of 
talking about how these particulates are harmful. As a matter of fact, 
I am going to check into a program that is being funded by the EPA in 
Cincinnati, where they are measuring the impact of diesel engines on 
infants in urban areas. Preliminary information I have received 
indicates it is a very serious problem. Anything we can do to deal with 
reducing these emissions is significant. In addition, we talk about 
doing something about pollution. This legislation, if fully funded, 
will result in the most significant reductions of particulates of any 
program in the country. It will help communities, such as mine in Ohio 
and others around the country, to meet new requirements that have come 
out for ozone and particulate matter.
  The need for this program from fiscal year 2003 to 2005 was great, 
but EPA was only able to fund 25 percent of the applications under the 
Clean School Bus Program. A lot of school buses need to have this kind 
of technology. Without it, they are carting kids around, and when they 
stop, the stuff is being poured out. It is very significant.
  Over that period, from 2003 to 2005, only a third of Ohio's 
applications were funded, 5 out of 15, but broad support for DERA is 
changing this situation. People are starting to realize this is a neat 
program. It is really working. For fiscal year 2008, DERA was funded at 
almost $50 million. The House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has 
acted to increase DERA funding to $65 million for 2009.
  The thing that is neat about this is that we look at supporting 
programs. I always asked the question, as I am sure the Presiding 
Officer did when he was Governor and Senator Carper when he was 
Governor: How much more money do you leverage with the money you are 
spending? In other words, the State puts money in, and how many other 
people are willing to kick in and make a difference? In this program, 
we have 50 States participating. In order for the States to 
participate, they have to create their own State-level programs. States 
can get more Federal funding by adding State dollars. So if the State 
matches the Federal allocation dollar for dollar, it will receive an 
additional 50-percent allocation. This is a real incentive for States 
to get involved. When we first put this program together, we thought, 
for every dollar we put out, we would leverage another $3 from State 
and local government. Also, the private sector is really interested in 
this program. My State has taken a leadership role in that effort. A 
coalition of groups have come together in Ohio to use the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the CMAQ Program, as we 
know it, to fund diesel retrofits. CMAQ provides State and local 
governments funding for transportation projects to help meet air 
quality requirements, and the funds are apportioned to State 
transportation agencies based on population and air quality programs in 
the region.
  Still more money is needed. Enforcement settlements have been a good 
source of funding for diesel retrofits. For example, from 2001 to 2006, 
EPA entered into diesel emission reduction Supplemental Environmental 
Projects valued at $45 million. In 2007, an enforcement settlement with 
AEP, American Electric Power, a company in my State, included 
approximately $21 million for diesel retrofits. In other words, 
companies that have been fined have been able to take the money they 
have been fined and put it into this fabulous program that reduces 
diesel emissions.
  Last July, though, the EPA issued a policy that eliminated the use of 
this money to finance diesel retrofits. It is hard to believe. This 
policy was based on the Agency's interpretation of the Miscellaneous 
Receipts Act and prohibits the Agency from accepting SEPs that fund 
activities for which the Agency received funds through appropriations, 
a lot of gobbledygook. EPA's inability to enter into diesel emission 
reduction SEPs has eliminated an important tool for environmental 
protection. What this bill basically says is, we are going to amend the 
Miscellaneous Receipts Act and say that in addition to the money we 
appropriate for this program, they can also use SEP money for this 
program. Everyone believes this is a very meritorious action we are 
taking. It will increase substantially the amount of money that is made 
available.
  I am hopeful that in the next several years, we will see one of the 
most robust programs in the world underway with the diesel emissions 
program. We pass stuff around here, we debate it, but so often nothing 
happens. Here is a perfect case of where Republicans and Democrats have 
worked together on something that means something. It is going to help. 
It is the kind of program I can go back to Ohio and say, when they are 
complaining about the ozone and the particulate and what are you doing 
to help us: We have the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act that is going to 
make a difference for you and your community. Hopefully, working 
together, as I mentioned, we will see some significant reductions in 
emissions and significant improvement in

[[Page 12687]]

public health, particularly for our children.
  Again, I publicly acknowledge the great partnership Senator Carper 
and I have had. There are so many things we work on. When we finally 
get to them, such as the Clean Air Act we had a couple years ago, we 
just missed making it happen. But on this one, we did make it happen. I 
am hopeful that Senator Carper and I, working in the Clean Air and 
Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, will be able to collaborate on other 
significant legislation that will make a real difference for our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. The Presiding Officer who is leaving the chair was 
Governor of Nebraska, and he had the opportunity to work with Senator 
Voinovich and myself at that time. Among the people we worked with was 
the father of our brand new Presiding Officer, the former Governor 
Casey. We have been reflecting back on the way it was and how we worked 
so well across party lines in those days. The legislation that we 
celebrated passage of yesterday is another indication we can still do 
that right here in the Senate.
  I wish to ask a question, through the Presiding Officer, of Senator 
Voinovich. Senator Voinovich mentioned leveraging. Every dollar we 
appropriate in Federal dollars, EPA is now able to use for Supplemental 
Environmental Projects to install clean diesel technology to clean up 
emissions of diesel. He mentioned we actually leveraged some money from 
other sources, State and local governments, maybe school districts, 
private companies too. So for every $1 of Federal, we get another $3 to 
use from other sources. My recollection is that in terms of cost 
benefit--cost being how much it costs to install the technology--there 
is a health benefit that is a lot greater than the $1 we spend on the 
technology itself. I want to say it is $12, $13. I ask Senator 
Voinovich, if I may, through the Presiding Officer, is my recollection 
correct? Is there a 13-to-1 benefit in terms of a $1 investment in the 
technology and $13 in payoff, in terms of health benefits?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I think it is much more than that. If 
you look at the numbers I used in my presentation, it is much greater 
than that in terms of the public health benefits that are derived as a 
result of the program.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, you were not presiding when we looked at 
this map earlier, but this is a map of the United States, obviously. 
This is a map that shows the mortality risks from U.S. diesel 
emissions. The best color to have is pink, and those States have 
relatively low diesel emissions and fairly low threats for whether it 
is bronchitis or asthma or cancer from diesel emissions.
  If you happen to be from a State such as Ohio--where Senator 
Voinovich is from, and where I spent part of my youth and went to 
college--or if you happen to be from Delaware or happen to be from the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, things are a bit grimmer.
  What we have come up with, thanks in large part to Senator 
Voinovich's leadership, is a way to turn the dark red to pink. We want 
to get the whole country in the pink. Hopefully, in a relatively few 
years we, will.
  The last point I want to mention--Senator Voinovich comes from a 
State that builds a lot of cars, trucks, and vans. Delaware has the 
only two automobile assembly plants that still exist anywhere up and 
down the east coast. We are fearful of losing our Chrysler plant at the 
end of next year, and we would be down to a single GM plant. Chrysler 
has invested in a new technology with Daimler, and their technology is 
for low-emission diesel vehicles--very low emission diesel vehicles. 
The emissions are so low and the fuel efficiency is so high, the people 
who buy those very low-emission diesel vehicles starting, I think, next 
year, will be eligible for the same kind of tax credit they would get 
by buying a hybrid vehicle today, with a tax credit anywhere from $500 
to $3,500 per vehicle.
  We want to encourage people to buy those low-emission diesel engines. 
But as people are buying those very low-emission, highly energy-
efficient diesels, we want to make sure the other 11 million old diesel 
engines that are on the road--that are not as fuel efficient; that are 
not as clean burning--that we get to work at cleaning them up.
  The good thing we have accomplished, working with House and Senate 
Democrats and Republicans, is we are striking a blow for clean air but 
not at the cost of energy efficiency.
  With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor.
  Again, I say to my friend, Senator Voinovich: On to more battles. We 
will take on more battles, and we will do good things.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 12 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Delaware. I 
wonder, through the Chair, if he needs to speak.
  Mr. CARPER. I just did. I thank the Senator.


                               Gas Prices

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have invited Tennesseans to send me 
e-mails or to write letters about how high gas prices are affecting 
their daily lives. I am hearing from a lot of them.
  Pat Taylor of Morristown, TN, who is the director of the local Meals 
on Wheels program, tells me the drivers travel 1,100 miles a day to 
deliver meals, but food and gasoline prices could force many meal 
recipients into retirement homes if something is not done. Mileage 
reimbursements are not sufficiently covering the expenditures of 
drivers.
  Dr. Kathryn Stewart, of Winchester, TN, tells me that the school 
nutrition director has had to raise school lunch prices 50 cents per 
meal to compensate for the rise in gas and food prices, but they will 
still lose money this year. She worries about the future of her 
business there.
  Abbie Byrom, of Johnson City, TN--that is in the eastern part of our 
State--is a third-year medical student at East Tennessee State 
University. She lives on loans through the school system. But, she 
says, cost-of-living loans do not cover expenses on traveling to all 
the area hospitals and medical centers. She says most of her fellow 
students are living by maxing out their credit cards.
  Jerry and Judy Wilson, of Monterey, TN, run a weekend concessions 
business, but sales have been cut in half because of rising gas prices. 
They say: People can't come to the events because of fuel prices.
  Joshua Yarbrough, of Franklin, TN, moved his family with three 
children to a larger house in Franklin, outside Nashville, 4 years ago, 
and is now having trouble paying his mortgage because of rising gas 
prices.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, 
following my remarks, each of these letters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. So, Mr. President, given the extraordinary impact of 
$4-a-gallon gasoline on the people of Tennessee and the people of this 
country, they are looking to us in the Senate and the Congress to do 
something about this.
  I noticed there are some interesting new professors of economics on 
the Democratic side of the aisle who seem to be trying to repeal the 
law of supply and demand. I have been studying this strange 
development, and I am trying to trace the source of it. It would appear 
that maybe the source of it is the young new chairman of the department 
of economics on that side of the aisle,

[[Page 12688]]

because the New York Times reports this morning that Senator Obama 
opposes drilling in Alaska, and says he is ``not a proponent,'' in his 
words, of nuclear power, which provides 20 percent of our electricity 
today and 70 percent of our clean carbon-free electricity. He would 
consider banning new coal plants without clean coal technology. Coal 
produces 45 percent of our electricity today. In 2006, he voted against 
further exploration in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas, in a portion 
of the Gulf known as Lease 181. More than 70 Senators from both sides 
of the aisle voted for it, which, so far as I can tell, leaves Senator 
Obama with not much more than a national windmill policy, as opposed to 
a national energy policy, for this great United States of America, 
which consumes every year 25 percent of the energy in the world.
  Of course, it leaves these new professors of economics with the 
demand part of the supply-and-demand equation.
  We Republicans also believe in demand. We are for green buildings. We 
believe most of the new buildings ought to be green buildings. That is 
probably the easiest way to save electricity. Japan has discovered over 
the last several years that most of its failure to reach the Kyoto 
standards it was trying to achieve came from the inefficiency of 
buildings.
  Half of us on the Republican side voted for the fuel efficiency 
standards in December. That has to do with the demand side of the 
equation--using less oil, less energy. The Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory scientists told me that the single most important thing we 
could do as a Congress would be to increase the fuel efficiency 
standards by 40 percent. That means the cars and trucks in America 
should average 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. We voted to do 
that in a bipartisan way. So we agree on that part of demand as well.
  Then we Republicans, as well as many Democrats, I am sure, are ready 
to give strong support to the idea of plug-in electric cars and trucks.
  I was in Nashville on Monday with Congressman Bud Cramer, who is a 
Democratic Congressman from Alabama. He and I cochair the TVA 
Congressional Caucus.
  The question we presented for the hearing was, Will electric plug-in 
cars and trucks help lower $4 gas prices? I believe the answer is yes, 
and so did a lot of the people who came to see the cars.
  One of the vehicles there was a plug-in electric car made by the A123 
company in Boston. It is a Toyota Prius, of which there are now a 
million on the road, and the A123 company had converted the Prius, 
which is a 40-miles-per-gallon car, into an electric plug-in vehicle, 
and it is now a 100-miles-per-gallon car. All they did was replace the 
car's smaller rechargeable battery with a larger rechargeable battery, 
and they put a cord on the back of it and the driver plugs the cord in 
at night at his house in a wall socket and he charges it up for 60 
cents. So instead of filling it up for $70, he is charging it up for 60 
cents.
  According to the General Motors Company witness who testified at our 
hearing on Monday, 75 percent of us drive fewer than 40 miles a day. I 
know I drive less than 40 miles a day going back and forth when I am in 
Washington, so if I were driving that electric plug-in car, I would be 
using no gasoline whatsoever.
  So plug-in cars and trucks are a real prospect and a real important 
part of the demand part of the supply-and-demand law we strongly 
support on this side of the aisle, and so do many Democrats as well. It 
is 100 percent American energy. GM, Toyota, Nissan, Ford--all are going 
to be selling these cars to Americans in the year 2010, which is a 
model year that is about a year and a half away. Sixty cents is the 
cost of the charge for a 30-mile drive. It is about the same amount of 
electricity it takes to use your water heater for 1 day. It doesn't 
require new powerplants because the Tennessee Valley Authority chairman 
who was at the hearing told us that they have plenty of extra 
electricity at night when our lights are off, so we can plug in at 
night.
  This involves trucks too. There were FedEx delivery truck witnesses 
at the hearing. They are already using hybrid delivery trucks, and they 
are planning to use that technology for big trucks.
  If we were to electrify half our cars and trucks in America over 
time--which is 120 million, since we have about 240 million cars and 
trucks in this country--we could cut in half the amount of oil we 
import. That would cut from $500 billion to $250 billion the amount of 
money we are sending overseas to people, many of whom are funding 
terrorists who are trying to kill us. It would strengthen the dollar. 
It would certainly lower fuel costs for those who are plugging in their 
cars instead of driving them--or plugging them in instead of filling 
them with gasoline--and it would reduce the demand for oil so much that 
it would surely reduce the price of gasoline as well.
  Plug-in electric cars and trucks would lead us to support a number of 
other initiatives: Smart meters so that in our homes we could pay TVA--
or whoever our electric utility is--a little more in the afternoon for 
electricity used at peak power, but at night we would have cheap power 
for our plug-in vehicles. Battery research. The additional cost of such 
a plug-in vehicle is determined primarily by how rapidly we can develop 
batteries that will take a charge to allow 40, 60, 80, 100, or even 
more miles each time because we will be running coal plants at night to 
provide this electricity. We would need to clean up our coal plants, 
but we should be doing that anyway, whether they are in Pennsylvania or 
Tennessee or Ohio. We need to get rid of the sulfur and the nitrogen 
and the mercury, and we need a crash program to find a practical way to 
recapture the carbon from coal plants if we are serious about dealing 
with climate change.
  So there are a number of policy changes we on the Republican side of 
the aisle are ready to make to lower gas prices and to honor the law of 
supply and demand. But the problem is the new professors of economics 
on that side of the aisle, led by Senator Obama, are trying to take the 
word ``supply'' out of the law of supply and demand. If we are going to 
drive plug-in electric cars and trucks, we are going to need a supply 
of electricity, so we need to be building five or six nuclear 
powerplants a year. But the professors on that side say they are not 
proponents of that; they don't think it's part of the solution. It has 
to be a part of the solution in a country that uses 25 percent of all 
of the electricity in the world.
  It would be embarrassing to say that France is ahead of us in this, 
but they are. Eighty percent of the electricity in France is from 
nuclear powerplants. It is clean--no mercury, no sulfur, no nitrogen, 
no carbon. They meet the climate change standards today, and if they 
shift in France to driving electric cars and trucks, they will have no 
problem. They can plug them in at night to recharge them. They will 
have no pollution problems. They will reduce their dependence on oil. 
They will save money in their pockets. They won't be exporting money to 
Middle Eastern countries or to others that may be funding terrorists. 
They will be ahead of us if we don't advance the technology we invented 
and begin to build five or six new nuclear plants a year for the 
foreseeable future.
  We also need to take the ill-advised moratorium off oil shale. We 
have plenty of oil shale in the ground and new environmentally sound 
ways to get it out of the ground. That is a part of supply as well. 
Most of that is in our Western States.
  We also need to give other States the opportunity to do what Texas, 
Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi already do, which is to explore 50 
miles offshore for oil and gas. We have plenty of that. We could be 
producing an extra million barrels a day of oil and gas from offshore 
exploration, and by adding to the supply we would be reducing the price 
of gasoline and bringing it down below $4. We need to change the law 
and do that. Senator McCain says we need to do it.
  What would it involve to give States that option? The Virginia State 
Legislature, for example, has said they would like to explore off the 
coast of

[[Page 12689]]

Virginia, at least for natural gas. So we need to lift the Federal 
moratorium and the Presidential Executive order that keeps them from 
doing that offshore. If I were the Governor of Virginia, I would 
certainly want to do it. I would put the rigs 50 miles out where no one 
could see them.
  We know we can do it in an environmentally clean way. We heard a lot 
of bad things as a result of Hurricane Katrina, but we didn't hear of 
one oil spill from any of the oil and gas rigs that are all in the Gulf 
of Mexico. So we know how to drill cleanly. The oil spills we have are 
from cargo freighters that are bringing oil from overseas to us. That 
is where the problem is. If we were exploring offshore for our own oil 
and gas, we would not only be lowering our gas prices, but we would be 
providing States and the Federal Government with additional revenue as 
well. Under the formula we passed in 2006 for Lease 181 in the Gulf of 
Mexico, Virginia would get 37.5 percent of the dollars. What would that 
do for Virginia? They already have a good higher education system, but 
I think if I were the Governor, I would say: Let's put a lot of that in 
a trust fund for higher education and make the Virginia colleges and 
universities the best in the world without raising taxes. Let's put 
some of it to nourish the beaches of Virginia. Let's maybe use some of 
it for roads or for health care or for lowering taxes. They could do 
all of that with their three-eighths of those revenues.
  We also said that one-eighth of the money from that offshore 
exploration in Lease 181 would go to the State side of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund for city parks and greenways and open spaces in 
Pennsylvania and Tennessee and all across this country, which we have 
been trying to do for 40 years. The whole idea of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund enacted in the 1960s was to say: We will fund it up 
to $900 million a year from money from offshore oil and gas 
exploration; we recognize that exploration is an environmental burden, 
so we will turn part of it into an environmental benefit. We have never 
fully funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and this is a way to 
do that.
  There are other ideas--Senator Salazar, Senator Kyl, and I join in 
this as well--to take some of the excessive money from offshore 
drilling and fully fund the National Park Centennial Initiative that 
President Bush has proposed to celebrate the 100th anniversary of our 
National Park System. I know of the excitement around the Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park as we have added 55 new park personnel to that 
park and a lot of new private funding for park projects simply because 
of this Centennial Initiative the President has proposed. We need to 
fund it, and this would be a way to fund it.
  So we need a supply of electricity if we are going to drive electric 
cars. We need oil shale if we are going to continue to produce oil, 
from which gasoline is made. We need offshore exploration--another way 
to increase the supply of oil.
  I believe, as do many others on our side of the aisle, that we should 
also be exploring in Alaska. Jay Leno said the other night that the 
Democrats objected to that because they said it wouldn't produce any 
oil for 10 years. Well, as Jay Leno said, that is what the Democrats 
said 10 years ago. Presidents and Senators are supposed to look ahead, 
to look down the road. If we can add a million barrels of oil a day 
from Alaska; if we can add a million barrels of oil a day from offshore 
exploration; if we can add 2 million barrels of oil a day from oil 
shale, which we can do; if we can build five or six nuclear plants a 
year and help us create carbon-free, clean energy so we can electrify 
our cars and trucks and reduce our demand for oil, then we will have 
lower gas prices because we will be honoring the immutable law of 
supply and demand which says find more and use less.
  The difference between us is that on this side of the aisle we 
believe in the law of supply and demand: find more and use less. On 
that side of the aisle, they seem to believe in a different economics, 
which is use less. They want to repeal supply and only insist on 
demand. So there is a fundamental difference.
  I am glad Senator McCain must have gone to a different college of 
economics than the one I think I sense on the other side of the aisle. 
He has suggested that we do both, that we increase our supply and we 
reduce our demand by finding more oil and using less oil. He has 
specifically supported offshore drilling if States want to do that. He 
has specifically said we should lift the moratorium on oil shale and 
proceed in an environmentally responsible way to explore for that. He 
has said as well that we need to move ahead with five or six nuclear 
powerplants a year, and he has been a strong advocate for green 
buildings, for fuel efficiency, and for plug-in electric vehicles. At 
the same time, he has said he believes we need to take steps to deal 
with climate change, emphasizing the importance of nuclear power 
because that provides 20 percent of all of our electricity but 70 
percent of our carbon-free power.
  So I look forward to the debate over the next few months. It is 
beginning to come into shape. Two different views of economics: an 
attractive young head of the department from that side of the aisle who 
wants to change the law of supply and demand to only include demand, 
which apparently would leave us with a national windmill policy; or a 
more grizzled Senator who apparently went to a different college of 
economics who believes in the old-fashioned law of supply and demand 
and would like to focus on both.
  This will be a debate worthy of the Senate. It will be important to 
all of those Tennesseans who are writing me wanting that $4 per gallon 
price to go down. My recommendation to them is to vote for Senators and 
vote for Presidents who will both increase our supply and reduce our 
demand--who will find more, use less, and not try to invent a new 
theory of economics which will leave us with our lights off and our gas 
prices high.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

     From: Pat Taylor
     Sent: Thu 6/12/2008 9:43 AM
     To: Alexander, Senator
     Cc: Susan Luker
     Subject: Gas Prices Affect Meals On Wheels In East Tennessee
       Dear Senator Alexander: My name is Pat Taylor. I am Program 
     Director for Douglas Cherokee Economic Authority Senior 
     Nutrition Program (Meals On Wheels). We are currently serving 
     hundreds of elderly and disabled citizens in the counties of 
     Cocke, Grainger, Hamblen, Jefferson, Monroe, and Sevier. I am 
     writing to you on behalf of all of these homebound clients 
     who receive our meals five days a week. We currently drive 
     1,100 miles per day to deliver these meals. With the increase 
     in food costs as well as gasoline prices, this has become a 
     burden for our program and our delivery aides. They use their 
     own vehicles to deliver. With gas prices rising daily, the 
     mileage reimbursement they receive desperately needs to be 
     increased in order for meal delivery to continue.
       Anything you can do will be greatly appreciated. Many 
     elderly and disabled Tennesseans are able to avoid being 
     institutionalized because of the daily contact and nutrition 
     provided by the Senior Nutrition Program.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Pat Taylor,
            Director, Douglas Cherokee Economic Authority, Senior 
     Nutrition Program.
                                  ____

     From: Kathryn Stewart
     Sent: Fri 6/13/2008 2:19 PM
     To: Alexander, Senator
     Cc: Dr. Kathryn Stewart
     Subject: Gas Prices
       I am the School Nutrition Director for our school system. 
     The rise is food and gas prices has pushed me to raise school 
     lunch prices $.50 per meal, and I still project I will lose 
     $250,000 this year, I have always been in the black. I worry 
     now many people will not be able to pay the increased price 
     for school lunches, and I will lose even more. I have no 
     solutions. What can I do? How can you help us?
                                              Dr. Kathryn Stewart,
     Food Service Supervisor, Franklin County Board of Education, 
     Winchester, TN.
                                  ____

     From: Abbie Byrom
     Sent: Wed 6/11/2008 11:45 PM
     To: Alexander, Senator
     Subject: Gas Prices
       My name is Abbie Byrom. I am a third year medical student 
     at Quillen College of Medicine. Currently, we are able to get 
     loans for cost of living based on a budget set by the State 
     University system. During our

[[Page 12690]]

     third year of medical training, we rotate through the Johnson 
     City Medical Center and hospitals in Kingsport and Bristol. 
     For those of us who live in Johnson City, traveling to these 
     other towns costs $250-500 a month (reported from 
     classmates). This is not to mention the students in the rural 
     tract who travel to rural towns such as Mountain City and 
     Rogersville. The cost of gas and groceries has been 
     overwhelming and our governed budget is not covering the 
     costs (transportation allotment, which includes expected car 
     maintenance, is approximately $283 per month). My classmates, 
     with whom I have spoken about these issues, report that they 
     rely upon credit cards to survive toward the end of the 
     semester. Many of them pay off the credit cards when they 
     receive their next loan check, which leaves them over budget 
     once again at the end of the next semester.
       On a personal note, my family lives in Tullahoma, TN. 
     During my first year of medical school, I was unable to 
     travel to Tullahoma as often as I would have liked due to a 
     very busy schedule. Now the limiting factor is the cost of 
     gasoline, and that's just sad. Please help me and my fellow 
     colleagues make it through the semester without accruing more 
     debt.
       And, please help me see my family.
           Sincerely,

                                               Abbie R. Byrom,

                                      Registered voter since 1999,
     Johnson City, TN.
                                  ____

     Sent: Wed 6/11/2008 6:03 PM
     To: Alexander, Senator
       Dear Senator Alexander: We run a concessions business just 
     on the side (weekends) to help supplement our income. Other 
     years this has helped us to achieve more than we could've 
     with just our jobs. This year our costs have gone up 
     astronomically, and sales are down by more than half. People 
     can't come to the events because of fuel prices!! It has 
     resulted in us not having made one cent of profit yet this 
     year!! It is discouraging to work hard and not get ahead at 
     all. We do not believe that ``punishing'' (taxing) the oil 
     companies will do any good; the companies will expense that 
     cost and pass it right on to us and cut production! We must 
     drill in our country and develop new technologies.
       Thanks for giving us the opportunity for input.
           Sincerely,
                                            Jerry and Judy Wilson,
     Monterey, TN.
                                  ____

     From: Josh Yarbrough
     Sent: Thu 6/12/2008 10:09 PM
     To: Alexander, Senator
     Subject: Gas Prices/Drilling Efforts
       Dear Senator Alexander: I appreciate your efforts to help 
     Congress see how the American public is affected by high 
     gasoline prices. My story is that I am married with 3 
     children. Four years ago, we moved to a larger house in the 
     city of Franklin, TN from farther out of town. Of course, we 
     purchased a home that stretched us a little, but we felt that 
     after 4 or 5 years of living here, it would be like our first 
     home--able to make extra payments due to increases in salary 
     over the 5 year period. Last month, we spent $300 at the 
     pump. So, what I'm seeing is that the gas prices are eating 
     into money that I would either be able to save or put toward 
     the house. Having this money available would help all 
     Americans, not just those that over-extended themselves with 
     the whole sub-prime mortgage/adjustable rate mortgage 
     ``crisis''.
       I applaud the Republicans' efforts to make it possible for 
     Americans to drill for more oil in our own country. 
     Certainly, I agree that researching other forms of energy is 
     a good thing, but the fastest way to be independent of 
     foreign oil is to act decisively now by allowing for more 
     drilling in America. Further, I believe that the government 
     should not be heavily involved in finding the alternative 
     energy sources. I would much prefer to leave that to the 
     private sector. Why should my tax dollars be used for this, 
     when companies who seek profit are willing to do the 
     research?
       Again, thank you for standing firm in your support of 
     drilling efforts in America! We are proud to have you 
     representing us!
           Sincerely,
                                              Joshua L. Yarbrough,
                                                     Franklin, TN.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Large Defense Contract Awarded to Airbus

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 3 months ago, our U.S. Air Force made a 
decision that is going to affect our military for decades. Our Air 
Force awarded one of the largest defense contracts in history to the 
European company Airbus.
  As my colleagues know, I have been here many times to talk about my 
numerous concerns about this contract and about whether it is in the 
best interest of our taxpayers and our service men and women for Airbus 
to supply our next generation of aerial refueling tankers. Those 
tankers refuel planes and aircraft that are stationed across the world. 
As long as we, the United States, control the technology to build those 
refueling tankers, we control our skies and our own security. But the 
Pentagon has yet to justify this decision to give that contract to the 
European company Airbus.
  Within the next 24 hours, we expect the Government Accountability 
Office to issue a ruling on one overarching question that has been 
raised about this contract and that is whether the Air Force followed 
the letter of the law when it made that decision. This GAO decision 
will not answer whether Airbus will supply the best plane for our 
military, and it will not answer whether buying the Airbus tanker would 
do permanent harm to our aerospace industry.
  So I rise today to urge my colleagues to join with me and continue to 
fight to get those answers. It is common sense that before we, the 
Congress, finalize a $35 billion contract, we need to know why the Air 
Force chose a plane that is much bigger and less efficient than it 
asked for--one that cannot use hundreds of our runways, ramps, and 
hangars and one that costs billions of dollars more in fuel and 
maintenance.
  We, as Members of Congress, and the people we represent need to know 
whether our Government should buy a plane that even the Air Force says 
is ``less survivable.'' That means it is less able to keep our men and 
women who are in them safe. We need to know what the effect on our 
economy will be and the effect on our national security if we turn this 
critical technology over to a company that is owned by a foreign 
government.
  I was out on the Boeing 767 line the day the Air Force announced its 
decision. I will never forget the shock and dismay I saw on our 
workers' faces. After all, they have been making our Nation's refueling 
tankers now for more than 50 years, and they know how important those 
tankers are to the military. In fact, I remember so well this one woman 
rushing over to me on the factory floor to tell me her son actually 
flies those refueling tankers for the Air Force and that she--an 
American mom--wanted to be the one making them for him. She and workers 
across this country want to know why. Why would we give this contract, 
this Air Force contract, to a subsidized European company controlled by 
foreign governments that just want to put America's aerospace industry 
out of business and take away her job?
  The U.S. Trade Representative is so concerned about the subsidies 
Airbus receives that it has brought a case against the EU before the 
World Trade Organization because of those illegal subsidies. We need to 
know why in the world we would accuse Airbus of unfair trade practices 
on one hand and then turn around and hand them a major piece of our 
defense industry. We, as Members of Congress and representatives of the 
American people, need to know why our Government would hand them this 
contract now.
  In May, employers cut 49,000 jobs. It was the largest 1-month jump in 
unemployment in this country in 22 years. Yet at the same time our 
administration is sending 44,000 U.S. jobs overseas to build our Air 
Force refueling tankers, when we are hemorrhaging jobs at home in this 
country. It does not make sense to me.
  Some of our colleagues are saying we need to move this process along 
quickly so we can get those planes into the hands of our airmen and 
airwomen. I agree. They need these planes. But this is a contract that 
will affect our military, it will affect our taxpayers, and it will 
affect our decisions in this country for years to come. So we had 
better be thoughtful, conscientious, and thorough. Members of Congress 
have a responsibility to thoroughly evaluate whether we are buying the 
best plane

[[Page 12691]]

for our taxpayers and our men and women who fly those planes. So I hope 
my colleagues, as we hear from the GAO in the next 24 hours, will stand 
with me and ensure we get this contract right.
  I see my colleague from Maryland is here to speak, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                 Moving Forward With Energy Legislation

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the people of Maryland and around the 
Nation are angry and frustrated. Every time they fill the tank of their 
vehicle with gasoline or look at their utility bills, they get worried. 
I must tell you, they are frustrated and so am I as to why the 
Republicans are blocking an opportunity for us to even take up this 
legislation to deal with the rising energy costs and to deal with the 
energy policies of this country.
  Republicans have blocked consideration of S. 3044, the Consumer-First 
Energy Act, and H.R. 6049, the Energy and Tax Extenders Act containing 
renewable energy incentive programs. People in Maryland and around the 
Nation know that when George Bush took the office of President, the 
price of gasoline was $1.46 a gallon. It is now over $4 a gallon. They 
know the impact this is having on their lives. There are people in 
Maryland; in Pennsylvania, the State of the Presiding Officer; and 
around this Nation who literally cannot afford to fill their tanks with 
gasoline. They are having to make tough decisions today.
  There are small businesses that are going out of business because 
they can't afford the increased energy cost of running their small 
businesses, and they do not have options as to how to shift costs in 
order to deal with these rising costs without putting it onto the 
consumers. So this is having a dramatic impact on our economy.
  The people of our Nation are asking us to put aside our partisan 
differences. This is too important a subject for the security of our 
country, for the economy of our Nation to continue partisan fighting. 
We need to debate these issues and vote on these issues.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 3044, which provides some 
immediate help to our consumers on energy cost. It deals with a limited 
number of subjects, but they are subjects that can have an impact on 
energy costs now. It would repeal the tax subsidies that we give the 
oil industry--the tax subsidies. We are providing $17 billion of tax 
relief to the oil industries while they have record profits. Their 
profits are at record numbers.
  President Bush said on April 14, 2005 that if the cost of crude was 
at $55 a barrel, the oil industry didn't need additional incentives. 
The President said: I will tell you, with $55-a-barrel oil, we don't 
need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty 
of incentives. That was the President of the United States. Well, the 
price of crude oil now is at $140 a barrel, so we certainly don't need 
to have taxpayers subsidizing the profits of the oil industry. This 
legislation says: Let's use that money to make America secure. Let's 
put it into renewable energy sources here in America.
  The legislation would also allow the President to impose a windfall 
profits tax. I have heard a lot about that from my colleagues, but it 
simply says that if you are making obscene profits, you should pay some 
additional taxes. You could avoid the windfall profits tax. All you 
need to do is invest the profits in clean, affordable, and domestically 
produced renewable energy. In other words, invest in America's future 
and in America's security.
  The legislation also goes after speculators. A large part of the cost 
at the pump today for gasoline is because we have investors speculating 
in oil futures, but they are not subject to the normal investment 
rules. They should have margin requirements to be able to speculate. We 
need energy, we need gasoline at the pump, we don't need it held by 
speculators, and this legislation would deal with that situation to 
help bring down the cost of gasoline.
  It also deals with the collusive practices of the oil-supplying 
countries. Let's subject them, to the extent we can, to fair antitrust 
laws.
  So this legislation would have an impact in trying to bring down the 
cost of gasoline today.
  I know the President is going to make a statement saying we can drill 
our way out of this problem. We can't drill our way out of this 
problem. America has 3 percent of the world's reserves in oil, and we 
consume 25 percent. We can't drill our way out of it. ANWR, which is 
the sensitive land in Alaska the President wants us to drill in, 
contains .6 percent, less than 1 percent, of the world's reserves. We 
have millions of acres that are open for exploration and drilling 
today. The oil industry could use those millions of acres to obtain 
more energy, and it still wouldn't be enough to deal with our needs, 
but it would help us on a temporary basis. ANWR represents only a very 
small part of that.
  There are plenty of ways in which we can drill today, but it would 
not solve our problems. Let me give you one comparison. If we had 
passed the increased energy efficiencies for our automobiles 20 years 
ago rather than last year, we would have energy savings in America 
equivalent to more than three times the amount of oil we could get from 
the ANWR reserves.
  So in the short term, the bill we have before us is our best hope to 
bring down costs. It will help our consumers. But we do need an energy 
policy for America. We need to be energy secure, and H.R. 6049, of 
which the Republicans are blocking consideration, that deals with 
renewable energy, would help us obtain that. We need an energy policy 
in America that makes us secure from foreign imported oil. We have to 
be an energy-independent America. We have to produce our own energy in 
America so we can get off oil for the sake of our national security. We 
shouldn't be financing countries that disagree with our principles and 
our way of life. We need to be energy independent for our economy so we 
don't have these unpredictable changes in energy costs in America.
  One of the most frustrating things for American business is they need 
to plan for their costs. They can't plan today because we don't control 
our own energy. So we have to be energy independent for the purposes of 
our economy, and we also need to be energy independent for the sake of 
our environment. Global climate change is real and so we have to get 
off oil.
  So for all those reasons, we need to invest in renewable energy, we 
need to invest in better efficiencies, and H.R. 6049 allows us to move 
forward in doing that. Together we can enact legislation to help those 
frustrated Maryland consumers and drivers and those who live in 
Pennsylvania, the Presiding Officer's State, who are worried about 
whether they will be able to get to work with the rising cost of 
energy. We can help them today by putting aside our partisan 
differences and debating and voting on these issues.
  This Nation can accomplish anything, if we set our minds to it. I 
know we have support on both sides of the aisle for an energy policy 
that makes us energy independent and secure. Let's deal with the 
immediate problems of the gasoline and energy costs, let's deal with a 
long-term energy policy that is in the best interest of this Nation, 
and let's start by debating these issues. Let's put aside the 
filibuster, move forward, bring these bills to the floor of the Senate 
so we can do what Americans expect us to do--debate and act on this 
critical issue to the future of our country.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       OIL PRICES AND EXPLORATION

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, gas prices this summer could easily be 
triple what they were when President Bush took office. The dramatic 
increase in oil prices brought prices for food up along with it, and 
families are facing a painful financial choice when it comes time to 
fill their gas tank:

[[Page 12692]]

Put a gallon of gas in the car or put a gallon of milk on the kitchen 
table. When Americans are paying this much to fill their gas tanks, it 
is a drain on the whole economy. Businesses are cutting jobs, families 
have already eliminated nonessentials, and many are now cutting back on 
meals. Some people are even contemplating changing their job because 
they can't afford the gas to get to work.
  It has become painfully clear that we are in an oil crisis. Some of 
the forces driving up prices are beyond immediate control--such as the 
demand from China and India. But some of the factors offer 
opportunities for action.
  First, market experts have testified before Congress that speculators 
are driving up prices far beyond where the natural forces of supply and 
demand should take them. Second, we can take steps in this country to 
reduce our demand and our dependence on foreign oil.
  Last week in the Senate, Democrats brought legislation forward that 
would attack some of the root causes of the skyrocketing price of oil, 
cut down gas prices that are artificially high, and bring relief to 
drivers at the pump. That bill, the Consumer-First Energy Act, would 
have provided that relief by, among other things, ensuring that our 
commodities markets are functioning fairly so prices can come down from 
their artificial highs. The supply- and-demand equation is roughly the 
same as it was 2 years ago. Yet we have seen prices go through the 
roof. Experts say speculation could be adding anywhere between $50 and 
$80 a barrel to the price of oil.
  In some respects, I am not surprised this is the one place in the 
market that doesn't seem to be regulated. We can see what happened 
under the administration of a President and Vice President whose 
politics have always been tied up with the oil companies for whom they 
used to work. Here you have the price of a barrel of oil that has risen 
from about $20 a barrel when President Bush took office to about $140 a 
barrel right now.
  As we have seen that price rise, what happens? As the price of oil 
has risen, the profits of big oil companies have risen--from about $20 
billion when President Bush took office to about $120 billion right 
now. The price of oil goes up and profits go up as well. And as the 
profits have risen for big oil, the price of gas that we pay at the 
pump has risen--from under $1.50 a gallon when President Bush took 
office, in many cases, to, in some cases, over $4 per gallon right now.
  The Consumer-First Energy Act would have made sure that oil is traded 
on a well-regulated, transparent market free from manipulation. But my 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle said no to that 
legislation. They said no to the American consumer because they 
obviously feel committed to say yes to big oil.
  Yesterday, once again, the Senate had the chance to help free our 
country from the liquid shackles of foreign oil. The Baucus substitute 
amendment--had we been able to offer it, had we not been stopped by our 
Republican colleagues--would have spurred the development of renewable 
energy by providing almost $20 billion in tax incentives for investment 
in the production, transportation, and conservation of energy.
  In order to encourage renewable energy industries to build to the 
scale we need them to, we have to send renewable producers the clear 
message that their product will have continued support in the future. 
So the bill would have extended investment tax credits for 6 years to 
ensure the continued development of solar energy, fuel cells, and 
microturbines, among others.
  We have seen how important this is in my home State of New Jersey 
where the solar industry has created thousands of jobs and helped 
``green'' the Garden State.
  The bill would have encouraged the production of cellulosic biofuels, 
including cellulosic ethanol. It would have encouraged the development 
and use of biodiesel and renewable diesel, encouraged further 
investments in advanced technology vehicles, and created a tax credit 
for alternative refueling stations so that the infrastructure exists in 
our country to make those vehicles viable.
  So in the face of a broad-based package to encourage new green energy 
sources that would have helped bring down gas prices and end our 
dependence on foreign oil, what did my colleagues on the Republican 
side of the aisle say? They said no again. Republicans said no to 
helping American consumers because they could not help but say yes to 
big oil.
  It is no surprise then when my distinguished colleague from Arizona, 
Senator McCain, delivered his big energy speech yesterday, where did he 
do it? He did it in the oil capital of the United States. The big plan 
President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are pushing is 
another example of big oil writing our energy policy, as they have done 
for the last 8 years.
  And Senator McCain repeats it. That plan comes down to one thing: 
Drilling, drilling, drilling along the coasts of our country. When John 
McCain or George Bush talk about opening our coastline to drilling, 
they make it sound like gasoline is going to gush out from that drill 
straight out of the ground and right into your car.
  What they either do not want to tell the public or simply ignore is 
that, in fact, it will take at least a decade--a decade--to see any 
production out of these areas, and even then, the Energy Information 
Department tells us this will be a drop in the bucket.
  Why give the oil companies another handout when they are sitting on 
68 million acres of land leased from the American people which they 
have yet to explore? I find it hard to believe that Senator McCain 
would say the Federal Government discourages offshore oil production 
when more than 80 percent of the oil that is offshore is already open 
for production, and oil companies own more than 30 million acres of 
leases in Federal waters they have not used--that they have not used.
  The vast majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal land is 
already open for drilling, and it is not being tapped. Currently, oil 
companies are not producing oil or gas on 68 million of the more than 
91 million acres of Federal land under their control. And 31 million of 
those 68 million acres are offshore.
  Offshore, these companies are producing on only about 20 percent of 
the acres they hold, while onshore they are producing less than 30 
percent of the acres they hold. So one has to wonder, when big oil 
pushes relentlessly for more and more land and water to drill, even 
when they have millions of acres they have yet to use, it makes us 
wonder if they are not just exploiting this oil crisis to expand the 
reserves on their books in order to inflate their share price. 
Certainly, the needs of American consumers are not what these CEOs are 
looking out for.
  If the Senate does not act now, billions of dollars' worth of 
research and development tax credits will expire, impeding innovation 
and discovery. As the world becomes increasingly globalized and 
technology driven, we must increase our investments in research and 
development in order to maintain our position as a world leader in the 
21st century.
  If the Senate does not act, billions of dollars invested in 
alternative, clean sources of energy will cease, and so will our 
progress to become energy independent. I have heard my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle decry the rising price of gas and talk 
about developing alternative sources of energy.
  But when they had the opportunity yesterday, once again they said no, 
as they said no last week on having market speculation taken out of the 
price of oil, therefore the price of gas.
  By the way, what would have been offered yesterday had we been able 
to proceed--and hopefully we can proceed on today--is that millions of 
Americans subject to the alternative minimum tax, placing unfair and 
unnecessary tax increases on middle-class families, could have gotten a 
break under the Baucus substitute. That is all that would have been 
able to happen.
  Finally, here is the bigger picture. We have 2 percent of this 
world's oil reserves, and we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. We 
are never going to meet growing domestic demand with

[[Page 12693]]

shrinking domestic supply. The only way to make these numbers balance 
is to reduce our dependence on oil by increasing production of 
renewable fuels.
  If we are going to have a secure energy future, there is a lot more 
we need to do to explore besides oil reserves. We had better start 
exploring the outer reaches of our creativity, not lining the inner 
pockets of the corporate oil elite. It is time to say yes to tapping 
our industriousness, harnessing our powers of innovation, and summoning 
up the will to change, that change that has made this country great.
  We have an opportunity to break our dependence. We have an 
opportunity to tell the oil companies, too, by the way: Pursue the 68 
million acres of land and water you already have licenses and leases 
for and stop telling us to go potentially risk our environmentally 
sensitive areas in pursuit of oil that will not be achieved for a 
decade, will not do anything about gas prices today, when you are not 
even moving on the 68 million acres to which you already have access. 
Ultimately, all it would do is increase your profits, but it would 
cause States, such as my State of New Jersey, where tourism is the 
second largest driver of its economy, to risk the possibility of an oil 
spill on the shores of New Jersey's beaches and kill billions of 
dollars that annually are generated as a result of that.
  So I do not want to hear from the capital of big oil, our dear 
colleague and the presumptive Republican nominee tell us the solution 
to our problem is to drill more, when 68 million acres that the big oil 
companies have are already not being pursued, when ultimately it will 
not produce a penny of reduction in gas prices.
  When we had the opportunity to make a real impact last week on the 
bill that would take the speculation out of the marketplace, stop price 
gouging, and at the same time, when we have an opportunity today, 
before the Senate, to make sure that we extend those renewable tax 
credits, give us better fuel-efficient vehicles, give us better 
renewable energy sources, and break our addiction to the reality that 
the reality is that the overwhelming part of oil in this world resides 
not here in the United States but abroad.
  That is our challenge and opportunity. It is time to say yes to 
American consumers, time to say no to big oil.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Warner and Mr. Webb pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 3147 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 3148 
and S. 3149 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')


                         Mount Hood Wilderness

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the important work of 
my Oregon colleagues--Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer, and 
Wu--who are coming through today for an Oregon icon, our special Mount 
Hood. Last year, Senator Smith and I introduced the Lewis and Clark 
Mount Hood Wilderness Act to create an additional 128,000 acres of 
wilderness around the mountain. Our Mount Hood legislation has passed 
committee, and I am confident that now, with the House of 
Representatives, the other body, going forward with a companion 
measure, it is going to be possible to get this measure enacted and 
move on to a host of additional important land issues for my home 
State.
  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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Alaska.


                            Oil Speculation

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as Americans travel with families over 
the Fourth of July and for summer vacations--on cruises, RV trips, or 
on sightseeing tours, to Alaska, hopefully--they are going to be 
shocked by the price of fuel at the pump. This is because the consumers 
of fuel--from airlines to truckers to the fishing captains of the boats 
off the Pacific in my State--must in effect bid against speculators in 
the oil markets, speculators who will never take delivery of fuel but 
bid up the price and turn it into an inflated profit. Some people will 
be forced to cancel summer plans--or worse, close their businesses--
primarily because fuel costs have increased so much.
  Today, the average price of a gallon of gas is $4.08. In some parts 
of our State of Alaska, the price of a gallon of gas is over $8. I 
believe Congress must take action now to address this issue before 
Americans can no longer afford even basic activities and the goods they 
need.
  Most foreign producers believe Americans will pay any price for oil, 
and Congress validates this each day we fail to implement a 
comprehensive energy strategy. Americans are being taken advantage of 
not only by OPEC but by speculators right here in our own country who 
are exempt from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 
Historically, this has not been a bad problem. Only recently has 
speculation reached these unsustainable levels.
  Some speculation when oil consumers use oil futures is bona fide. For 
instance, an airline might buy fuel at an advanced price for delivery 
in the future to make certain that it has a supply in the future. That 
is legitimate. There is no problem with brokers facilitating even this 
type of purchase. But Congress must recognize that speculators who are 
not consumers of oil have taken control of our market. Ultimately, the 
price Americans must pay for oil and other fuels skyrockets because of 
their speculation. Even major institutional investors have taken up oil 
futures markets as a major asset class in their financial portfolios. 
In the last 5 years, investments in commodity index funds have jumped 
from $13 billion to $260 billion due in large part to oil futures. Let 
me repeat that. Investments in the commodity index funds jumped from 
$13 billion to $260 billion due in large part to oil futures.
  Excessive speculation in oil futures is causing our economy to 
continue its decline. Congress must mandate the CFTC to stringently 
regulate these exchanges.
  Let me show this chart, Mr. President. This shows the period from 
1986 through 2007. The gold marks on the chart are actual trade volumes 
of oil futures in NYMEX and red is the price of the oil that was paid 
on those deliveries. It is easy to see that as these spikes have 
occurred, they have not been related to the delivery of oil, they have 
been related to the price of oil--just speculation in terms of the 
future delivery of our oil. One economist told me that 30 to 35 percent 
of what we pay at the pump for gasoline today is caused by 
speculation--these so-called investors. I call them speculators, and I 
think they all ought to be in jail. This is a terrible situation, 
actually.
  Our oil crisis has combined with our economic instability and 
excessive oil speculation to become a vicious cycle. As energy prices 
continue to cripple our economy, inflation rises and the dollar 
weakens. One of the few places that investors see a safe bet is in the 
energy market. They know that worldwide oil demand is increasing and 
will continue to increase, and so they bid higher and higher for 
speculative purposes on the delivery of that oil to our own country.
  Three weeks ago, I stated on the floor that the IEA predicted world 
oil demand to increase from 85 million barrels a day to 116 million 
barrels a day. If that is the future of oil, of course the investors 
want to increase their position in oil futures. Who wouldn't want to do 
that, particularly when there is no control over them at

[[Page 12694]]

all on how much they can raise the price just by trading paper that 
represents future delivery of oil?
  I believe that immediately the CFTC needs to conduct a review to 
examine where unregulated trading in oil futures has adversely affected 
the market--the price we pay at the pump--and to determine what 
regulations need to be adjusted. I would also like to have full 
disclosure from any entity or person taking part in the oil speculation 
game so that the American people can see who is buying and selling 
their energy but never even hoping to accept delivery. They are just 
buying pieces of paper to represent the future delivery of oil and they 
are speculating and raising the price to the entity that needs the oil 
in the future.
  There should be a limit on the extent to which investors in petroleum 
futures can increase their positions in this important commodity 
market. It should be a crime when spectators knowingly manipulate oil 
prices and drive up the price of fuel at the expense of the American 
family. Such actions undermine our country's energy stability and our 
energy security. American consumers are at the mercy of foreign oil 
sellers and domestic oil buyers already, and they should not be forced 
to pay so much more because of speculation.
  Last year, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and I each 
crossed party lines, to a certain extent, to get together to pass a 
change in the CAFE standards. That was the first Federal increase in 
vehicle fuel efficiency in three decades. Senator Feinstein has been a 
champion of conservation, and I applaud her.
  Now we are working together again, on S. 3131. Under the terms of 
this bill, the CFTC will be required to identify and crack down on the 
oil commodity futures markets that have spun out of control. This may 
involve the New York Mercantile Exchange, the Intercontinental 
Exchange--so-called ICE--and even foreign markets, if necessary, to 
address this serious problem. Our bill probably needs to be improved to 
make it even more certain that speculators in oil futures will be 
charged with a serious crime, and they should have serious penalties.
  The time is now to act against speculators. I hope the Senate will 
lead in this and try to crack down on speculators. I predict that if we 
do, we can break this bubble. If we can reduce the price by at least 30 
percent by prosecuting the speculators, I think we should do it, and we 
should do it before we go home next week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                     THE FINANCIAL CONSUMER HOTLINE

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that is 
being introduced in this body by Senator Schumer and myself that is 
designed to help people throughout our country who are having 
tremendous difficulties navigating the various financial institutions 
and who they should talk to when they have various complaints. Right 
now there are five different institutions of Government that oversee 
financial institutions throughout our country. I am on the Banking 
Committee, and I will tell you that if I had a complaint or something I 
wanted to ask about a financial institution in the State of Tennessee, 
I would have no idea who I should call in regard to that particular 
institution. It is not known to the public generally whether 
institutions are governed by State charter or governed by Federal 
charter or by which Federal charter they might be governed.
  We have introduced a bill called the Financial Consumer Hotline. What 
this will allow people throughout the country to do is to dial a toll-
free number and someone on the other end of that toll-free number would 
direct that call immediately to the right place. Right now, the FDIC 
has to redirect 54 percent of the calls it receives to other entities. 
You can imagine, if you are a consumer in Tennessee or a consumer in 
Maryland or a consumer in Virginia, how frustrating that would be, to 
have an issue and to have to take time, if you will, to find out about 
that issue and to not know who to call.
  When I was mayor of the city of Chattanooga, we had a similar problem 
in that people did not know how to access city government regarding the 
myriad of issues with which they had to deal. They did not know which 
department of government to contact. We realized that and established 
something called a 311 number. Cities all across the country have done 
the same thing. What that has done is allow people to dial one number 
and call in about any issue and have that registered and know that is 
going to be dealt with.
  I certainly appreciate the tremendous partnership we have established 
on this issue with Senator Schumer from New York, who also serves on 
the Banking Committee and is also aware of the tremendous complications 
people go through in trying to get to the bottom of whatever issue it 
is.
  This bill has been introduced. I hope my colleagues in the Senate 
will consider this legislation. It is something that, by the way, does 
not cost the taxpayers of this country a dime. There is an entity that 
is directed through regulatory bodies to do this. This is something 
that does not come out of the taxpayers' pocket. It does not come out 
of our Treasury. I think it will enhance the ability of people 
throughout our country to navigate and get to the bottom of issues they 
might have with financial institutions.
  I notice no one here wishing to speak, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Energy

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you travel into Maryland or Illinois or 
anywhere across America and ask people what is on your mind, they are 
going to tell you it is gasoline prices. Why? Because they have to fill 
the tank each week and cannot believe how much they are paying with the 
credit cards and cash in their wallet going out in record amounts to 
fill their cars and trucks and try to get on with their daily lives.
  Then you go driving down any street in America, there is that big 
sign right in your face: $4.08, $4.25. It is a constant reminder of the 
problems we face. We have tried, on the Democratic side, to move some 
legislation to deal with this situation. We tried last week to deal 
with the energy security bill that would have found a way, we think, to 
start creating an environment to bring down these prices.
  It was an effort that most people agree is long overdue. There is a 
$17 billion subsidy to the oil industry. Why would you do that when 
this industry is recording record profits, not just for their industry 
but for any American business?
  We have also tried to deal with energy tax incentives for wind power 
and solar power and things that are the source of power and energy for 
America's economy in the future. Twice now, not once but twice, the 
Republicans have refused to join us in even bringing these measures to 
the floor. They keep stopping us cold.
  The Senate's 51 Democrats and 41 Republicans, with absences, with a 
60-vote requirement for most major legislation, is within the power of 
the Republicans to stop debate. They have done it repeatedly.
  There is also a concern across America because the response from the 
Republican side, not just from our colleagues in the Senate but from 
Senator McCain as well as the President, has been to call on us to 
drill our way out of this problem.
  I am afraid people who suggest we can drill for more oil in America 
and

[[Page 12695]]

take care of our problems do not understand basic math. The United 
States uses 25 percent of the world's oil supply; we are big users for 
a big economy. Do you know what we have in oil reserves out of all the 
known oil reserves in the world? We have 3 percent, 3 percent of the 
reserves and 25 percent of the usage. You cannot drill your way out of 
the situation.
  They do not understand as well that currently there are Federal lands 
available for drilling that are not being put into production; lands 
that have already been leased by oil companies. These are lands owned 
by the people of the United States, and the right to drill for oil and 
gas has been leased to a private company that sits on it and does 
nothing.
  You say to yourself: Well, it cannot be too much because we need oil, 
it is so valuable these days. Oil and gas companies--let me show this 
chart--hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of Federal land that are 
not producing oil.
  This land could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil every day. That is 
six times the peak production of any drilling in Alaska for the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. Every time you ask a Republican what is the 
problem, they say: Man, if we could drill in Alaska, everything would 
be just fine. Do you know how many acres are in Alaska? There are 1.5 
million. The oil companies are sitting on leases for 68 million acres 
now that they are not drilling.
  If they did not think they were valuable, they would not have bought 
the leases. But they did. They wait year after year, sitting on these 
leases and keep throwing in our face: Alaska, Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, not telling us it would take 8 to 10 years to bring the first 
barrel of crude oil out of Alaska, and it would have a minimal impact 
on the price of gasoline.
  Let me show you some charts which kind of tell the story about these 
68 million acres in more graphic terms. There are 68 million acres 
leased to oil companies. These are offshore, 33.5 million leased acres 
unused offshore; 34.5 million leased acres unused onshore.
  Take a look at the Gulf of Mexico region. I know it is hard to pick 
this up in my presentation. But the red areas are areas currently under 
lease that are not producing oil and gas, owned by the Federal 
Government, leased to private oil companies, and not in production.
  The blue dots are in production. Look at all the opportunity. So when 
the President has a press conference, or Senator McCain has a press 
conference, and says: We need to have offshore drilling, the obvious 
question, Senator, Mr. President, is: What about all these lands, 68 
million acres of which are under lease right now for drilling and not 
being used?
  Take a look at this as well. I see Senator Dodd has arrived on the 
floor. He has been one of the proponents of this particular point of 
view. I thank him for this. He is welcome to take a look at the charts 
and use them at any time in the future.
  Here are 34.5 million acres leased to companies on the onshore site. 
Look at the Western part of the United States. All this red area is 
Federal land currently leased to oil companies for production not in 
production. Now take a look at Alaska, 1.5 million acres. That is what 
they cannot wait to get into.
  The honest answer is the oil companies have opportunities now to 
produce more oil and gas. It is time for us to stop hearing the 
excuses. We have to look to the reality. The reality is the oil 
companies are making profits at recordbreaking levels. The reality is 
speculation is driving up the price of oil, and the reality is the 
President of the United States has yet to call the oil company 
executives into the Oval Office to tell them they are wrecking the 
economy.
  He has yet to call them in and say: For goodness sakes, start 
drilling on the land you already lease from the Federal Government. 
Instead, it is always the next horizon--if we could just get into 
Alaska, if we could just get into the Outer Continental Shelf.
  We shouldn't have to compromise our health or our environment to make 
sure our economy is strong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes in 
morning business and that time not be deducted from the already 
reserved morning business of 2 hours on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Have no doubt, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge isn't going to have a dramatic impact when it comes to the 
world's supply of oil. Even the Department of Energy's Energy 
Information Administration admits that. By the time the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge would be at peak production, which wouldn't take place 
until the year 2030, 22 years from now, refuge oil would make up only 
six-tenths of 1 percent of the world's oil. If one listens to some of 
the political rhetoric, they would think there is this vast resource of 
oil in Alaska that is going to come to our rescue. It is not. It is a 
drop in the bucket when we consider today's high gasoline prices. In 
fact, the effect at the gas pump wouldn't be felt for over 20 years, 
and then it is only pennies a gallon.
  The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is one of America's last pristine, 
untouched areas. It is home to more than 200 wildlife species, 
including polar bears, musk ox, and caribou. President Dwight 
Eisenhower set this area aside over 50 years ago and said: This is 
something we need to preserve. This is a once-in-a-lifetime-and-beyond 
opportunity to protect some treasure for future generations.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I have been listening to the Senator's statement. Today 
I understand the President wants to lift bans on drilling; is that 
correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is my understanding.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I missed part of the Senator's statement. Don't the 
massive oil companies already have substantial acreage they could start 
drilling on right now?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Maryland is correct. There is 68 million 
acres currently under lease to oil companies, Federal land owned by the 
people for which oil companies are paying money each year for the right 
to drill for oil, 68 million acres and no drilling taking place. So 
when the President announces: We just have to find more Federal land to 
drill on, the obvious question is, why aren't they drilling on the 68 
million acres offshore and onshore they currently have under lease?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I find that shocking. I note that the 68 million acres 
is about six ANWRs.
  Mr. DURBIN. If we consider the 1.5 million acres on which they want 
to drill in ANWR, it is 50 times.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is not fuzzy math.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is not fuzzy math. This 68 million acres would be 
the size of my home State of Illinois and its adjoining State of 
Indiana together. That is how much they currently have under lease to 
drill for oil that they are not touching.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator agree, rather than change policies to 
prevent gouging of consumers and speculation in the market, they would 
rather change the subject?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is clearly what they are doing. Anyone who has had a 
crying baby knows what a pacifier is. You try to get the pacifier in 
the baby's mouth so they will calm down. They may still be hungry or 
crying for some other reason, but you try to quiet them down. That is 
what we are hearing in response.
  When people say drill in Alaska or drill offshore, they want to quiet 
us down because when we look at the numbers, the numbers do not 
compute. If we are going to be honest about energy sources, there is a 
limit to how much we can drill in territory controlled by America. 
There is much more we have to do to lessen our dependence on foreign 
oil. We are talking about domestic sources--ethanol, biofuels, diesel. 
We are talking about renewable and sustainable sources of energy such 
as wind power and solar power that would not destroy the planet with 
global warming. That is the big challenge.

[[Page 12696]]

  Sadly, for 7\1/2\ years, this administration has ignored it. Now we 
are in a terrible situation. I wish this President would show 
leadership and bring in the oil company executives, sit them down in 
the White House, and tell them they can't keep demanding these high 
profits at the expense of American families and businesses. Tell them 
to start drilling on lands they are currently leasing; try to challenge 
America to move forward in a fair way to have affordable energy.
  I am glad the Senator from Maryland joined me in this conversation. I 
know she has an important agenda she will initiate now.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of 
legislation that I think will help to address some of the most 
important challenges facing our Nation's economy today. The Renewable 
Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 is a critical step toward forever 
breaking the crippling hold that foreign oil has on our Nation. It will 
provide American entrepreneurs with incentives to develop new, 
environmentally safe energy technologies and create jobs that will stay 
in the United States, while strengthening all our communities. The bill 
will also provide important tax breaks for middle and lower income 
families at a time when the economic pressures on them are enormous.
  To be sure, Americans are waking up to bad news about the economy 
each and every day. For months now we have watched as prices for gas 
and food have climbed. We have witnessed a foreclosure crisis that has 
ravaged our economy, and put 7,000 to 8,000 Americans in danger of 
losing their homes each day to say nothing of the 15,000-16,000 
Americans who become neighbors to homes in foreclosure. As if this did 
not paint a dismal enough picture, since January of this year the 
American labor market has hemorrhaged more than 324,000 jobs and the 
number of people seeking unemployment benefits has hit 8.5 million.
  The time has come to change how our economy operates--and that starts 
with what our economy largely runs on. The time has come to end our 
dependence on oil.
  Each day new energy technologies are being developed and advanced, 
and these technologies need help to grow and become viable, cost-
effective alternatives to oil. For nearly a century, technological 
innovation and the intellectual capital of our industries have been the 
engine driving American prosperity. But this administration's repeated 
quest to open more of Alaska and more of Florida's coast to drilling 
comes at a high price indeed--not only at the cost of our environment 
but also long-term economic stability.
  By extending tax provisions such as the research and development tax 
credit, the solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credit and the 
renewable energy production tax credit, we make a bold statement to the 
world. We would be saying that the United States is dead serious about 
clean, sustainable, energy independence.
  The State of Connecticut is home to firms who are at the cutting edge 
of wind and solar energy development. These firms are creating new 
jobs, in emerging industries, that will be serving all Americans--jobs 
that cannot and will not be outsourced, like so many have been under 
the Bush tax regime.
  Of course, this bill provides so much more than energy tax breaks. It 
also extends the child tax credit, the qualified tuition deduction and 
other provisions that help lower and middle-income families make ends 
meet, and afford higher education costs. According to the Joint 
Economic Committee, from 2000-2007 the median household income in 
Connecticut has increased by a mere 1 percent. Meanwhile, the cost of a 
gallon of gasoline in our State consistently tops the national average, 
and the cost of going to college in the State has risen by 29.1 percent 
since 1999.
  For Connecticut, the need to act is clear. And with this bill, we 
are.
  This legislation is paid for. The cost of these tax provisions will 
not, as the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did, merely pass the cost on 
to our children and grandchildren. This bill provides crucial 
incentives for job creation, as well as middle-class tax relief, but it 
also pays for these benefits. It does so by changing the tax rules for 
executive compensation, and delays a rule that would provide incentives 
to firms operating abroad. And so not only do we hope to offset some of 
the economic ills that America is currently struggling with, this 
legislation also offers a big step toward restoring fiscal 
responsibility to our government, which this administration has utterly 
abandoned.
  Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are opposed to 
this fiscally responsible legislation for no other reason than that 
they are opposed to paying for tax breaks--opposed to the belief that 
future generations should not be stuck with our bill.
  I see it differently--as does the business community of our Nation 
which supports these offsets for a simple reason:
  Because they recognize the benefits that this legislation will 
provide not just to their bottom lines but to our economy.
  Unfortunately, some in this body remain unconvinced--unconvinced that 
these tax provisions will spur new job creation, move us further 
towards energy independence, and restart our economy.
  On June 9, a consortium of more than 300 different American 
businesses signed a letter to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member 
Grassley urging the Senate to work together in a bipartisan manner to 
pass this bill. These businesses represent some of the largest 
employers in our Nation, and at this moment the partisan paralysis that 
is affecting this body has put them in an awkward position. Many of 
these provisions are set to expire in December, and now is the time 
many of these employers are working to plan ahead and solidify new 
contracts, and sign new employees. They are making decisions about 
their futures. A recent study estimated that if we do not extend the 
tax provisions in this bill, we will not only lose $19 billion in clean 
energy investment, but also 116,000 potential green jobs.
  It is time for us to recognize that to get our economy back on track, 
we must lead. We must make critical decisions about the future of our 
Nation. And above all, we must put politics aside and work on behalf of 
not our political parties but the American people. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this critically important legislation.

                          ____________________