Lebanese Temporary Protected Status Act of 2006

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, thank you so much for your courtesy--and my colleagues. I wanted to be heard on this bill. I haven't spoken on it. It is a bill that I call a drilling bill; I don't call it an energy bill. I rise to speak against it, and I am against it for three very simple reasons.

First, I have no assurances--nor does Senator Feinstein--that the California coast will continue to be protected from new offshore oil and gas drilling. That protection is crucial to my State, to my State's economy, and, of course, it is crucial to the promise that we made to our children and our grandchildren--that this coast will be forever protected. It is one of God's greatest gifts to our State. Every history book that writes about California talks about the beauty of our State--and it starts with the ocean. We know if we lose that beauty it is irreplaceable.

I also wanted to make a point to my friends that in our State, offshore oil drilling is an issue that unites the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats. They do not want to see it happen, whether it is our Governor or our Democratic candidate for Governor. They are in full agreement. This is an issue that unites California.

Clearly, we know that our economy is heavily reliant on tourism. It is reliant on fisheries. And offshore oil drilling threatens both of those economic engines.

Second, this bill will drain billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury. That is indisputable. And it does nothing to help us meet the critical goal of reducing America's dependence on oil. As a matter of fact, this bill deepens our dependence on oil.

Achieving real energy independence must be more than just a slogan. In this unbalanced bill, we admit our addiction to oil. As a matter of fact, I heard many colleagues say we need more oil, that we need this oil. But with this bill, we continue to feed this habit.

I personally believe there are places in this country where you can drill off the coast. I respect Senator Landrieu very much, and I don't have a problem if there is unanimity that there ought to be drilling off her state's coast. And I support her efforts to have some conservation fund to restore the area. But what are we getting on the other side? We are getting drilling, we are feeding the addiction to oil. It seems to me we are getting nothing because we are not allowed to amend this bill with some forward-thinking amendments. We are getting, for sure, a greater and greater deficit and a greater and greater debt.

How would we better balance this bill? We should promote vehicle technologies that get better gas mileage. We can develop and incentivize the use of alternative fuels. We can encourage energy conservation.

We have seen countries such as Brazil just within a 10-year timeframe become independent of foreign oil--become energy independent. But guess what. Because the Republican leadership won't allow it, we cannot offer any amendments to alter this bill. It is either drilling and giving four States a ton of money to reward them for that, causing the Federal deficit to swell, or it is nothing.

It is sad because this is a great country. It is a country of great ideas. Yet the ideas on both sides of the aisle take a back seat to the same old, same old, drill, drill, drill.

We can't drill our way out of this problem. As tempting as the mirage of a quick fix might be, we must not endanger the California coast with new drilling. And that is what will happen if this bill is merged with the House drilling bill.

If the House would take the Senate bill, then I would breathe a sigh of relief for my State--and the west coast and the east coast can also breathe a sigh of relief. But we don't have any assurances that the Pombo bill, which will open up the door to drilling in the most beautiful areas, will not become part of this bill.

Let me tell you that Californians--again, across party lines-- rejected coastal drilling long ago. Even in the days when our State was a red State, we rejected offshore oil drilling across party lines.

It was because we had a devastating Santa Barbara rig blowout that contaminated our ocean waters and beaches almost 40 years ago. The memories of that are still ever present. The memories of that also became a warning sign that we want to preserve our precious coast.

The people of California decided that the potential benefits of future offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures and our most important tourist industry that draws millions and millions to our coast.

I ask anyone listening to this debate: Is there a time when you visit California that you don't go to the coast? Everyone comes to our coast. What you do there is observe the wonder of an unspoiled coastline. There are certain areas where we do have drilling. But for many years we have kept the moratorium in place. When you go to our coastline, from the very far north of the State, down to the south, what you see is God's beauty. When you come to our State and you stay in our beautiful hotels and our bed and breakfasts and go to our restaurants, often having a view of our ocean, you can't help but come away in awe that this is a gift that has been given to us, and a gift that we must preserve. It brings dollars to our State.

This is one of those times when it is the right thing to do economically to keep that coast beautiful. It is the right thing to do spiritually. And, it is the right thing to do environmentally. The California State legislature understands it. In 1994 they passed a law that permanently prohibits oil and gas exploration in our State's waters. I thank them for that. We learned the lesson that drilling is dangerous. We learned it the hard way.

The Senate bill, if it is merged with the House bill, could be disastrous for the California environment and economy. We know it is disastrous for the Federal Treasury. By the year 2017, four States in our Nation would be entitled to $590 million per year; by 2022, $1.2 billion per year. These States will get part of the Federal Treasury. We cannot afford this kind of imbalanced fiscal policy at a time when the Federal deficit is expected to be $300 billion this year and the national debt is over $8.4 trillion and growing.

I think back to the year that President Clinton left office. The budget projections were that we were going to be debt free. Since my friends on the other side have taken control, deficits are back in full bloom. The debt is back and this bill adds to the debt and the deficit. How could we possibly do that today? Sadly, we are not only doing it with the energy bill, we are doing it in another bill I will talk about in a minute.

How about this? No amendments allowed to this bill. What is the other side afraid of? We might have an amendment that will pass? We might have an amendment that increases fuel economy for our automobiles? We might have an amendment that makes sure we have flex-fuel vehicles? We might have an amendment pass that invests in cellulosic ethanol so we can have more farmers get into this act and produce ethanol from products other than corn? That would not use up as much energy to produce.

Americans are paying $3 per gallon at the pump. By the way, in my State, in San Diego, I saw gas at over $4 for full serve. Talk about sticker shock, picture that one. There is not one thing in this bill about going after the gougers. What are they afraid of on the other side of the aisle? That we will go after the people who are essentially holding us up at the pump every single day?

They say the gas prices are going through the roof because of unrest in the Middle East and Nigeria and companies are simply passing along higher costs. If that were true, it would be one thing. It isn't true. How do we know?

While the American people are suffering, the oil companies are raking in record profits. If this were simply about passing along higher costs, the oil companies' profits would be flat.

I used to be an economics major. It is pretty basic. If you are passing along costs, your profits are flat. But if you are passing along costs plus a huge increase in profit, your profits are up.

Yes, Senator Cantwell, who had a great provision to go after the gougers, was not allowed to offer it as an amendment.

Oil executives prosper. We have seen them, by the way, come before our committee. Senator Cantwell and I tried to swear them in. The Republican chairman would not allow us to swear in the oil company executives. I found that to be a bit disgraceful. So they were not under oath. By the way, they did not tell the truth, either. The fact is, transportation fuel costs for families have doubled since the Bush administration has taken office. Yet we cannot offer an amendment to go after the oil companies because the Republicans, who run the House, who run the Senate, and run the White House, do not want the oil companies to face the music. Pretty simple.

I thought we were a country of, ``by and for the people.'' It turns out we are a country of, ``by and for the oil companies.'' You do not learn that in your textbooks.

We have to do better. Democrats have written a bill called the Clean EDGE Act that would require increases in flex-fuel vehicle production, that would make price gouging a Federal crime, would provide incentives for manufacturing hybrid cars, and would set minimum fuel economy standards for tires.

Why do you need standards for tires? Efficient tires on cars and keeping them inflated to the proper pressure improve mileage and would cut oil consumption by 160 million barrels per year. But we cannot offer an amendment. No, we cannot offer an amendment. They are protecting the oil companies. Why are we surprised? The President is an oil man. The Vice President is an oil man.

My Democratic colleagues and I have worked with Republicans to raise CAFE standards. That is the corporate average fuel economy. That is what CAFE is. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act would raise CAFE standards for all vehicles, including SUVs, from 25 miles per gallon to 35 by 2017. This is a bill written by my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe, but they cannot offer their amendment. Why? Because the Republicans want to protect the oil companies as the price for gas goes up.

By closing the SUV loophole, we could save the equivalent of one Alaska National Wildlife Refuge every 7 years. We do not have to drill our way out of this crisis in the God-given wild places. We just need to be a little smarter. We can do it.

I had amendments I would have offered that would have said the Federal Government has to purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles available. It is kind of a no-brainer, but I cannot offer it. The President could issue an Executive Order today requiring that. He won't do that because he supports the oil companies, folks. Follow it, all of it; it leads back to that one point.

The average fuel economy of the Federal fleet was an abysmal 21.4 miles per gallon. I have had, for many years, a hybrid car. The new model, if it is driven properly, gets over 50 miles per gallon. Surely, we can do better than 21.4 miles a gallon.

I would have offered an amendment to promote research for cellulosic ethanol, a type of fuel produced by agricultural waste. Promoting this innovative fuel will reduce our dependence on oil and provide our Nation's farmers with new income sources. No, I could not offer it because they are protecting the oil companies. It all comes back to that.

With no amendments, we have a narrow drilling bill that busts the budget. We had an opportunity to work together across the aisle and come up with a comprehensive energy bill. But instead, we are going to protect the oil companies.

So we have more of the same failed policies that, in the end, could, in fact, endanger all of our coasts.

Once again, we call on the Republican leadership to start standing up for an energy policy for this country; not a narrow drilling bill that busts the Federal budget but an energy policy that will save the budget of the American people and help our economy by being on the cutting edge of these technologies.

If a country such as Brazil can do it, aren't we a little embarrassed that we can't? We are so far behind, it is extraordinary. I guess when you run the Senate for the oil companies, that is what you get at the end of the day.

I find it incredible that this Republican Congress that is supposed to care about fiscal responsibility has thrown fiscal responsibility out the window.

You have this bill that will drain the Treasury of over $1 billion a year over time. Then we have this grand compromise in the House headed our way that is going to make changes in the tax laws that impact the top 8,200 wealthiest families in America. It will cut their taxes and, again, rob the Treasury of billions of dollars. Guess what they say. They didn't care too much about that.

Let me tell the truth about what is headed our way, folks. The moderates on the House side went over to the leadership and said--these are the Republicans--we need to vote on the minimum wage because we may lose our seats. We are looking crass and cold because we have never had the ability to vote for the minimum wage because you never let us get it through. So we need to pass a minimum wage increase.

The leadership said: We have not done that in 10 years. We are not about to do it now. But maybe we could figure out a way to twist that around and cut back on that minimum wage increase and let those people at the bottom of the ladder struggle a bit longer while we give tax breaks to the wealthiest 8,200 families. But we will send it over to the Senate, and if they vote no because they decide they do not want to bust the budget, they will look bad because they have been calling for an increase in the minimum wage.

A long time ago when I was a girl, there was a great man who went up against Senator Joe McCarthy. He said to him: Have you no shame? We ought to bring out those words again. I say to my friends, have you no shame? People who work at the minimum wage have not had a raise in almost 10 years. You, Senators, have had a raise almost every year. How about tens of thousands of dollars of raises?

Finally, because you are caught between a rock and a hard place, you decide to pass an increase in the minimum wage, but you do it over 3 years. I never heard any Senator say: I will take my raise over 3 years. Never, and we get thousands of dollars in 1 year. I never had a colleague come over from the other side of the aisle against raising the minimum wage, saying: We will take our raise in 3 years. We will wait 3 years for another increase. No, we get our cost-of-living adjustment, while minimum wage workers are going to wait 3 years.

By the way, for some the House bill will be a pay cut. Some States, such as my State, where employers cannot reduce the state minimum wage paid just because a worker receives tips, will now be allowed to cut that worker's wages.

Have you no shame? Anyone in this Senate live on $10,000 or $11,000 a year? Do you think if you work your fingers to the bone you should be stuck at that level for 10 long years, while people at the top, like us--and, by the way, we are not at the very top, but we are at the top 1 percent or so--we get our cost-of-living adjustments every single year.

I have so much respect for working people. I have tried every year since I have been here to give them a pay raise. I want to give them a pay raise where they can hold their head high and support their families, not tell them they have to wait 3 years to get their full increase after being held to $5.15 an hour for 10 years.

By the way, there are many Republicans who do not believe in any minimum wage. There are some I have heard who have been here 20 years and have voted against it every time. So if they had their way the minimum wage would be $2.25 an hour. I am waiting for the Republicans to come up and tell me they want to take their cost-of-living adjustment over 3 years. Then I am waiting for them to say, if they have a spouse who works: If my spouse gets a little extra money, I will give back some of my raise--as they have done with their tip policy.

I say to those at the very top of the income ladder, the billionaires out there: You are not asking for this. The truth is, many of us here are very willing to say, on the estate tax, that the exemption should be lifted. We have said that. I am on an amendment to do that. Because it is true that the price of houses has gone up, and we do not want to have this estate tax be an onerous burden to anyone--not to a family, not to a farmer--and we can work it out. But what is coming to us in this ``minimum wage train'' is a lot more than an increase in the minimum wage. It is a cruel hoax because it does not give minimum wage workers that raise in a year--after they have waited for 10 years.

And for those workers that receive tips, it may actually decrease their wages if they live in one of six states, including California, that doesn't reduce the minimum wage employers must pay because they get tips. And, of course, it is coupled with this big gift to the richest families of America, which means, at the end of the day, millions--hundreds of millions--and eventually billions of dollars will be drained from the Federal Treasury. And the very people who claim to be fiscally responsible are at it again, adding to the deficit, adding to the debt.

This is really a time for people to stand up and be counted. This is really a time to speak the truth. This is a tough time in the world. All of us are heartsick about what is going on in the world, and we all pray for an end to the fighting, not only in Lebanon and in Israel but in Iraq where things are deteriorating every single day. Hard times. In the middle of these hard times, is this the time to say to the wealthiest 8,200 families: ``We are worried about you''?

And we will have less money for our troops and we will have less money for our kids. This Senate and this Congress has underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act. Oh, everyone said this was the greatest thing since sliced bread. And I voted for it. I really thought George Bush and my Republican friends would fully fund it. I wrote the afterschool section there. We have a million kids on waiting lists. We cannot take them. Funding for that program has been frozen for years now. This President signed the largest increase in student loan costs ever and the biggest cuts in education ever, but they are going to give a big tax break to the richest 8,200 families. I do not get it. I do not think the American people get it. We are going to find out pretty soon.

We have an energy bill that Leader Frist would not let us amend. He is not letting us offer any amendments to slow our oil addiction, to go after the oil companies, to create a bold, new energy policy, get us on the path of energy independence. And then, with Democrats calling for an increase in the minimum wage for 10 years, they give it to us over a 3-year period, when they take their raises to the bank. It is an outrage. Have they no shame? Have they no shame? I do not know. I do not know.

I always say here, sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland, and I feel that way today. But my voice will be raised on these issues. And the American people will be the judge if these are the kinds of priorities they want: a drilling bill, no energy independence, no antigouging legislation; a minimum wage increase, long overdue, that takes away money from some minimum wage earners; and two budget-busting bills--this one and the one that has the estate tax cut--that are going to add billions and billions to our debt. By the way, in closing, we should know who carries that debt: foreign countries, folks. They pick up the bonds. If they decide to take their money and go home, we are left in a mess.

So I hope the American people are listening in on these debates. I look forward to discussing these matters as they come up before the Senate.

I thank my colleague very much for his patience.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida leaves the floor--and he may be staying through the debate--he has been extremely essential and instrumental and vital to the compromise that has come forward. I want to thank him for his leadership. As he alluded to, the five States in the gulf coast came together--the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and the State of the presiding officer, Texas, and he did an outstanding job as part of the coalition as well--with an arrangement that would have many mutual beneficial parts. One, it is going to provide oil and gas, and particularly natural gas. That is in such short supply. The Senator from Florida knows and all of our colleagues from Florida understand that natural gas is a raw material that is used to literally produce almost every product in America that you can think of, from rubber tires, to the automobiles themselves, to the products of ethanol, to fertilizers, chemicals--you name it, natural gas is used as a raw material.

The prices are too high. They have to come down. The industry is doing a

very good job of conserving, but we must open domestic supply, as well as--unfortunately, because the demand is so high--import liquefied natural gas, now that the technology has presented itself. But before we establish another network of dependency, let's at least do our part and produce the natural gas we have here. So on this bill, the Gulf Coast States have come together to open up 8 million new acres, four times more than the original bill--in the compromise we provided, four times more than the original bill to open natural gas for the country.

The other beneficial aspect of this bill is establishing a strong and reliable, trustworthy partnership between the Federal Government and the Gulf Coast States--the four producing States, of which Texas is one--and to say the infrastructure that we provide, basically allowing the Federal Government to access the land it owns--and there is no question that this land off the coast of the United States is owned by everybody, not just the States along the coast. But, frankly, as you know, without our highways and helicopter pads, and our sheds, and our boat launches, and our shipping facilities, and fabrication facilities, the Federal Government could not even access the minerals. So, basically, by providing the servitude and the services and the platform, if you will, to host this great industry, we are saying let us share in all future revenues--as you know, 37.5 percent. That is the second most important thing in my mind that has been established.

For Louisiana's purposes, and according to the way the bill is currently structured for all of the Gulf Coast States, we will use that money to restore a great coastline, to secure and buffer America's only energy coast. We don't have to roll the reels back or rewind the tape of Katrina and Rita. We know what megastorms can mean for the gulf coast. We have all lived through them. We have watched our families struggle. We have watched our constituents struggle, having lost homes, churches, and schools, having seen the great infrastructure, the huge pipelines and facilities, drilling ships, and oil rigs and platforms bent by the great winds and waves. We know how important it is to take a little bit of that money we are paying in taxes and reinvest back into the gulf coast to strengthen the infrastructure, not just for the people who live there in the big towns such as New Orleans and Creole, LA, and midsize towns such as Beaumont and Galveston, and Gulfport, and Pass Christian, but for the whole Nation, because the Nation needs the gulf coast to be strong and secure in these storms.

So using this money to restore the great wetlands, which our scientists know we can do--but, frankly, we have not had the money to do it. People say, Senator, get a plan. I could almost fill up this Chamber with plans our people have had--or I can say dreams our people have had.

We have dreamed all we can dream. We have thought all we can think about this. We need money to turn the dirt and restore the wetlands. The technology is there to do it.

That is another great reason that we can have industry and the environmental community support this bill shoulder to shoulder, because the uses of the revenue sharing are going to be of such benefits to our communities.

Besides the drilling and the additional revenues for the gulf coast and the additional gas for the Nation, we also have the benefit of directing these revenues to a great purpose, which is the restoration of these wetlands.

Just a little more on that subject that might bring this home to those who are listening. When Katrina and Rita hit--and we are just about a month away from the anniversary, August 29 for Katrina and about 7 weeks away from the anniversary of Rita--we lost an area the size of the District of Columbia to open water, 100 square miles. The District isn't 100 square miles today, as you know, Mr. President, because a portion was given back to Virginia, but about 70 square miles is the District of Columbia now. We lost in a matter of a few days that amount of expanse. It went from marsh to open water because of the catastrophic loss of this great wetland. At that rate, all of our communities along the gulf coast will eventually be threatened.

I laugh at my colleagues from Arkansas because the reason they are very supportive of this bill is because they told me privately: Senator, we don't want to be a coastal State; we like Arkansas the way it is.

I know that is a little bit of an exaggeration, but, Mr. President, you have been down to east Texas, to Padre Island, to Galveston and coastal communities in Texas. You understand the wetland losses that are occurring. Ours in Louisiana are exacerbated because we are the mouth of the Mississippi River. We are truly a delta, not just a coastal wetland, which you find all over our coast from the east to the west. But the delta, the mouth of the river system, is strong, yet fragile, and these wetlands are leaving us in extraordinary numbers. This money, this sharing of revenues we are going to get from this bill, will go a long way to build on the science and technology that is there to restore these wetlands. We know we can do it.

Mr. President, 37.5 percent will go to the gulf coast producing States for these purposes; 12.5 percent will establish a great stream of revenue for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that benefits the whole Nation.

I see the Democratic whip on the floor. I will wrap up my remarks in just a moment. I think I am scheduled later to speak.

I am very grateful to particularly Senator Salazar and others who stepped up--Senator Alexander--and said: Senator Landrieu, why don't we try, with Senator Domenici's leadership, to see if we can restore the real purpose of the Land and Water Conservation Fund when it was created in 1965.

I wish I could take credit for creating it. I didn't, but I have been determined since I got here to help fund it so we can live up to a promise we made to America's Governors a long time ago: If you want to build parks, we will help you. If you want to build recreational opportunities for your community, we will help you. The Federal Government said that and then backtracked year after year until today we are spending less than $40 million a year nationally. I would say that is a disgrace, $40 million nationally. The program is authorized at $450 million. At $450 million, it is still not enough, but at least it gives a few million dollars to each State to match private donations, to match faith-based donations, to match literally the pennies children collect for the planting of a tree in a park or the expansion of a bike path that means a lot to them. We can at least do our part in Congress, and this bill will do that.

Then finally, 50 percent will go to the Federal Treasury. So as those revenues come in, we can help reduce the deficit, help encourage drilling where people will accept it. Maybe they won't accept it everywhere. We have made a lot of mistakes in Louisiana, we admit it. We have learned from our mistakes. We have perfected the technology, and we believe we can minimize the environmental footprint and maximize the benefit to the Federal Treasury. There are many benefits.

I yield the time to those scheduled to speak as well. I have some time reserved later in the day. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Senator. I know our colleague from Massachusetts is here to speak on another subject, but I would just ask a question of the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

First of all, I would like to thank him for the bill he has introduced. I know in the form of an amendment it won't be appropriate in this debate, but I thank him for that.

Would the Senator just explain briefly for maybe a minute or so the feelings of people in Virginia--your legislature has done a lot of good work--about the possibilities of opening additional drilling, perhaps at a later date, and how that might affect the neighbors of Maryland, Delaware even, and perhaps even the Carolinas? Could the Senator just comment for a minute about how those negotiations are potentially moving forward, if not for this bill, then maybe at a later time?

I thank the Senator for his comments.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator is absolutely correct.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute for the chairman.

The Senator is on to a very excellent point. I was wondering if he could remind those listening, getting ready for the vote, one of the reasons the debate was restricted is so that we could move on this very important piece of legislation. But if the Senator would remind those of the good things that were done in last year's Energy bill on conservation so that we didn't need a broad debate, we did so many good things, as the Senator will recall, in the last Energy bill to conserve, promote renewables. The Senator is well aware of the many things since he led that fight.

Mr. President, I think we are going to vote around 5:30. I may need 10 minutes to speak, and others may follow suit. I wanted to follow up on what Chairman Domenici said, as a member of the Energy Committee--and, Mr. President, you serve so ably on that committee, as does the Senator from Florida--to say exactly that point.

Some people have been critical of this debate, questioning why it is so limited. The answer is because almost everything was included in last year's Energy bill, which we debated for 10 years--a lot of debate, over weeks and months, over a 10-year period. This part was the part that was left out--actually increasing the supply of gas. As the Senator from New Mexico said earlier, today is probably a propitious day to be debating this because the price went up over a dollar.

Earlier today, the manufacturing association, the agricultural interests, and the paper and pulp industry shared a press conference. The equivalent price of gas to oil, when gas went up earlier to $15--it is now today at $8, yesterday at $7. But at $15, which is what our industry folks pay, and residents pay as well--that high price of gas-- it was the equivalent of a $7-per-gallon price of gasoline at the pump. So if you are thinking, because all of us know when we fill our tank up how expensive that $2.89 or $3.10 or $3.25 is--can you imagine the shock of going to the pump and having it say $7.50 a gallon? Imagine that. That is how high the price of gas got this year in the United States of America.

So the reason our farmers are supporting this bill, the reason rural communities are supporting this bill, the reason the manufacturing industries are supporting this bill, the reason the chemical association is supporting this bill, and many environmental groups as well, is because we must find more domestic supply to reduce the price of natural gas.

We are going to also have to import, unfortunately, more liquefied natural gas. I say ``unfortunately,'' although my State benefits from those imports. I can honestly say that I really belong to the group of Senators who believe we can be energy independent, and we should. This bill is the piece that didn't get done in the last energy bill, and it must get done before we begin writing another comprehensive energy bill, which we can and will do because there is always room for improvement.

I wanted to answer the critics about why just focus on this. It wasn't done in the last bill, so it needs to get done today. Why the gulf coast? Because the gulf coast Senators came together, working with Senator Domenici, and figured out our neighborhood. We live in the neighborhood of the gulf coast. Five States share the gulf; four of us drill and one doesn't. Maybe that one will one day, but who knows? That is for the State of Florida to decide. We will defer that debate. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama came together and decided we wanted to stay in the business despite the fact that there have been difficulties to our coast. We believe in drilling and strengthening America's domestic reserves. We want to continue to serve the coast, but we can and will not any longer do it for free.

My critics say: Well, Senator, you are not thinking about all the jobs you get and about the taxes. I am thinking about the jobs created, and we are grateful. I am thinking about the taxes we get from onshore drilling. But I am also thinking about the $150 billion in royalties that have been paid by the offshore industry to the Federal Government, of which Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama got zero.

When I think about our beaches, our coasts, our marshes, our great fishing places, and our beautiful marshland, it is compelling that we would enter into a smarter partnership for the future than the one we failed, for many reasons, to enter into in the past. So I am proud to have argued and helped with our gulf coast Senators to negotiate a good deal, a square deal for the gulf coast, and a good deal for the Federal Government.

I also repeat that the country needs the gas now. The gulf coast needs the revenues now, the country needs the jobs now, and the companies in the industry need the competitive edge now. Today, again, at that press conference earlier, it was shocking to see how many manufacturing jobs have been lost. When the price of natural gas for our manufacturing sector exceeds the price of labor, we have a serious problem. That problem is getting addressed at 5:30 today when the Senate votes to open, for the first time, almost 8.3 million new acres of rich natural gas and send a positive signal to the markets and to the industry that we are serious again about finding resources right here.

Fifth, the companies in these industries need to gain a competitive edge. The States will get a reliable partner in conservation. Mr. President, you have done more to spearhead that debate since you came to the Senate. You did it as Governor of Tennessee, as a Secretary for our country. You have been a leader in conservation. I have spoken many times about the coast and wetlands. I am not quite as passionate or articulate as you, but I share your enthusiasm for the fact that this Nation is a great nation of the outdoors. It separates America from our European neighbors. It sets us apart from places like Japan. We have great open spaces. It is the character of America, as I have heard you say many times.

If we don't work harder to preserve those open spaces, they will not be there because they just don't happen; they are dreamed about, nurtured, and created, and not by words, not by wishes, but by money that buys and sets aside land. I know we cannot do it in every place and for the Federal part, but for the States, for our 50 Governors who are looking to the Federal Government to be a good partner and want to work with nonprofit organizations to expand conservation, I say to my colleagues that this bill finds balance.

We tried to do this in 1965 when some great Senators, such as Scoop Jackson from Washington and others, created the Land and Water Conservation Fund--the first time ever that the Federal Government said: Let's create a fund to help the States. It wasn't much of one. You could barely see this little dot. It was probably $10 million for all the States. That is just pennies. But it was a beginning. We went up to $75 million and back down to $50 million, and we kept trying, through the budgets, to get a little bit of money set aside for our parks and bike paths and soccer fields where our kids play. I am not just talking about suburban areas, I am talking about urban areas, such as small city parks in New Orleans or the large Central Park in New York. We did a pretty good job over time, and we have fallen off the wagon, if you will. It is time to get back up in the saddle and fund the Land and Water Conservation. That is what this bill does.

To some undecided Democrats who are thinking: What should I do, please consider that the country needs the gas, manufacturing needs their competitive edge back, the gulf coast could certainly use the revenues, the country needs the jobs, and the States need a reliable, steady stream of revenue for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that our Governors, legislators, mayors, county commissioners, and parish officials in Louisiana can certainly count on to help. It is down to $40 million, one of the lowest levels it has been.

Under this bill, it will go up $450 million a year. Not right away, but over time it will go up to its full authorized funding. We are going to do what we can between now and the time the bill gets to the House to make these adjustments in these early years to get these numbers up. We will see. We cannot make any promises because there is a lot to be done. The idea is to pass this bill today and get something to the President's desk that he can sign.

I thank the administration for supporting the framework of the Senate bill, for Secretary Kempthorne's visit to Louisiana and Mississippi, to the gulf coast. I thank all Senators who have come down--almost all of them now have come before the anniversary of Katrina--and seen firsthand the great needs America's only energy coast has.

I want to show a final picture of the gulf coast because this is what I have shown so many times when I have come to the Senate floor. This is America's only energy coast. I am not making this up. This is a USGS satellite view of the Gulf of Mexico. You see the great boot of Louisiana, the mouth of the Mississippi River here, Mobile Bay, Galveston, and the great expanse of the Texas coast. This is America's energy coast. All of these are pipelines that are out into the gulf. There is no way to get oil and gas from this part of the gulf unless you connect it to someplace on land. Whether it is Port Fourchon, Venice, Buras, Gulfport, Pass Christian, Morgan City, Beaumont, Cameron--all of these towns and communities support this industry.

When I see people come to the Chamber and say this doesn't belong to the States, this belongs to the Federal Government, I am not even making the argument; I know this belongs to the Federal Government. What I am saying is the Federal Government could not access what it owns without a right-of-way through the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. It is as simple as that. You can own all the valuable land you want; if you cannot access it, it is as if you don't own it. That is what we are talking about, sharing these revenues to protect this great coastline. We most certainly need every penny we can get to build these levees to protect these people so we can keep the lights on in the Chamber.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander and Senator Hagel be added as cosponsors to S. 3711.

Mr. President, I yield back the time in the event there are any other Senators wishing to speak for or against the measure.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that it be equally divided between the two sides.

On behalf of the leader, I object.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in strong support of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. This is commonsense legislation. It will have a powerful and positive impact on one of the truly most important challenges facing our country today: we need to reduce the price of gas. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It needs to be reduced for our competitiveness. We need to reduce the dependence on energy for our national security, especially the amount of foreign oil we get from the Middle East.

American households, families, and businesses are paying high prices for gasoline. They are paying high prices for natural gas as well as diesel. Our country, the United States of America, is far too dependent on a single source of energy which is primarily located in a hostile, unstable region of the world, 8,000 miles away.

This dependence that we have on the Middle East needs to be reduced. We have paid a very high price for our energy dependence, not just in the actual cost of energy--which has skyrocketed in the last year, harming individuals, harming families, harming manufacturing jobs, having an adverse impact on our farmers and small businesses--we have also, as Americans, paid a high price in terms of our national security since our economy is becoming increasingly vulnerable to the whims of some Iranian mullah or some dictator in Venezuela.

Moreover, there is increasing demand around the world. Every barrel of oil produced in Saudi Arabia or Iran or anywhere else is in competition with the growing economies in Central Europe, and the very large growing economies in India and China--all competing for that same barrel of oil.

This dependence on foreign oil is a serious problem, a serious challenge which requires and demands a serious long-term solution. The old brain-dead energy policies of the past are not

going to work in today's innovative and expanding global economy. We need to adopt a comprehensive, 21st century energy program that will increase energy affordability, energy reliability, and, above all, our mission of energy independence.

The best way to strengthen our energy independence is through more American energy diversity. We need to adopt a flexible, diverse portfolio of energy options. That, also, of course, first and foremost, must include increased domestic energy production, including American oil and natural gas. As to clean coal, American coal, we are the ``Saudi Arabia'' of the world in coal, and we ought to be using clean coal technology for electricity generation as well as gasifying coal or making it into a diesel-like fuel. We also ought to be using American advanced nuclear power for electricity generation.

We need to increase our refinery capacity. Right now, refineries are going at 100 percent capacity. When they shift from one formulary to another, there is disruption, increased prices, some shortages, and not just at the refineries but also in the pipelines. So we need more refineries in this country.

We need, as Americans, to conserve and become more efficient and smart in the use of our energy and our methods and even the engines of propulsion. We also need to unleash the power to free, creative minds and free markets right here in America. We have to unleash the best scientists, the best engineers, and the best technicians in the world. It is time to put them to work to develop a 21st century energy program.

Fuel cells can be part of it. Hybrids, clean-burning natural gas, the use of biofuels, whether that is soy diesel or ethanol, are part of the innovative ideas. Also, with advancements in nanotechnology, materials can be lighter and stronger, needing less energy to propel that particular vehicle. Nanotechnology is also making solar photovoltaics much more of a part of our options. Lithium-ion batteries are moving forward, and that is another method of propulsion for the future.

We have to adopt, we have to be determined, and we have to move forward with a comprehensive 21st century energy independence policy focused on energy production, innovation, and diversity. When we do that, we will see lower gas prices for American consumers. We will see more jobs for American workers and a stronger, more competitive and safer America in the world.

I believe that the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which is designed to expand deepwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, is an important first step toward a long-term energy solution. Although, I know there is much more to be done--and I will be offering an amendment to allow other States to have the same options as well--but this is a bipartisan measure, a bill crafted by Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, with the support of Senators from, expectedly, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and also breakthrough leadership from the Senators--including the Presiding Officer, Senator Martinez--from Florida.

This measure is going to permit energy exploration of 1.7 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, otherwise known as lease sale 181. It would also lift the production moratorium or ban for 6.3 million acres south of that area. Experts estimate that by permitting exploration of this area, we will eventually extract 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

This home-produced American energy can run our cars, heat our homes, power our factories. And, best of all, the money stays right here in America instead of being sent outside of America. This will have a big impact on jobs.

People wonder: Why does it matter for jobs? Well, the natural gas aspect of this is very important. Our manufacturers of chemicals and fertilizers--which affects so many of us, particularly the farmers, but everything we use--those manufacturing jobs could be anywhere in the world, whether it is for chemicals, whether it is for fertilizers, manufacturing tires in Danville, VA, at the Goodyear plant. Those tires could be manufactured anywhere. And the cost of natural gas, the affordability, the reliability of it matters a great deal.

Plastics can be manufactured everywhere. But plastic manufacturers rely a great deal on petroleum-based products as well as natural gas. Forestry products for paper, cardboard, and lumber use natural gas. Again, it is very important we have affordable natural gas to keep those jobs in America rather than going overseas.

Now, as a former Governor, I believe a large portion of the royalties from the new deepwater exploration should be shared with the adjacent States. That is why I am supporting the revenue-sharing portion of this legislation, notwithstanding opposition from the White House. In this legislation, as much as 37.5 percent of the available revenues will go to the Gulf Coast States, many of which were severely damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Now, these revenues will free up money for worthy projects, such as education, transportation, and coastal shoreline erosion remediation. This is an outstanding bill. It will increase jobs and income, obviously, in the Gulf Coast States. It will help Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and Florida, but also the whole country. What is most important is that for the whole country this will increase the affordability of energy. It will increase our reliability of having energy in every State in our Union.

This bill will not harm our environment. I would remind my colleagues that hundreds of deepwater oil rigs were in the paths of Hurricane Katrina and Rita, and although these rigs were shut down and disabled by the roaring winds and the rising seas, not one of them released oil into the Gulf of Mexico. So this is a good record of performance that should alleviate any concerns about environmental safety.

I believe so strongly in this measure and this program that I want my own Commonwealth of Virginia to participate in it. This is why I am offering an amendment. And I will continue in the months and years ahead to allow not only the Gulf of Mexico States to share in revenues, and to permit those folks to have the deepwater exploration, but I want to permit and allow the people of Virginia to explore for oil and/or natural gas 50 miles off of our coastline and no closer than 25 miles from any neighboring State.

It would be a completely voluntary arrangement. My amendment allows deepwater exploration if that is the will of the people of Virginia. It simply gives the people an option. It gives the people a choice. And I sincerely believe the people of Virginia will choose to allow deepwater exploration once they are conversant with the facts and the opportunities. In fact, the General Assembly of Virginia, 2 years in a row, has passed legislation, with bipartisan support, to allow deepwater Outer Continental Shelf exploration far off the coast of Virginia.

Here are the facts. In the far part of the eastern seaboard, 45 miles off of our coast, Cuba is exploring for natural gas. Then in Canada, off the Grand Banks and the Maritime Provinces, they are exploring for oil and natural gas.

Now, for the U.S. area, and near Virginia, according to the Minerals Management Service, there are 1.23 billion barrels of oil and 11.68 trillion cubic feet of natural gas along the Mid-Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. This remarkable, significant amount of energy is just sitting there, waiting for us to use it. Yet Federal law prevents the people of Virginia and America from using it.

Now, the gasoline prices are surging at over $3 per gallon. It is, to me, unbelievable and irresponsible to continue this obstructionist, detrimental restriction and regulation on Virginia and other States.

In my amendment, I have ensured that the people of Virginia are able to reap the benefits of any successful deepwater exploration far off our Virginia coast. Using Senator Domenici's legislation as a model, I have established that 37.5 percent of revenues would be allocated to Virginia. I recommend that half of these revenues would go to much needed transportation projects in Virginia. It could be for the third crossing down in Hampton Roads or for the widening of a variety of interstates across our Commonwealth. That would get half of the revenue.

A quarter of the revenue would go to reducing instate tuition at our Virginia colleges, and another quarter of the revenues would go to the coastal communities which are the counties on the eastern shore of Northampton and Accomack and to Virginia Beach, which they may want to use for shoreline or beach, sand replenishment.

Now, how much money are we talking here? Experts estimate that it could be nearly $3 billion over a period of time. That's right, $3 billion--all paid into Virginia's treasury, benefiting all Virginians, whether it is in education, whether it is for the shoreline, or improving our transportation.

Now, if Senators from other States think to themselves: I wouldn't want to have those jobs and those billions of dollars for my State, I would only say to them: Fine. That is your choice. I respect that choice. But please allow us in Virginia to make a choice as well, a choice that helps us and does not hurt any of the other States at all.

We did not get into this energy dependence challenge and predicament overnight, and we are not going to get out of it overnight. This legislation is a vitally important aspect of bolstering our energy security for generations to come. I support it, and I strongly advocate its swift passage because it is a long stride forward toward our ultimate American goal of America's energy independence. And for the future, I encourage my colleagues to support what I consider to be my fair, commonsense approach to empower the people of Virginia to explore for oil and/or natural gas in the deep water off our Outer Continental Shelf, if they so choose to do so.

This expanded proposal is consistent with the principles of federalism and free choice, and it respects the will of the people. It is a win-win situation for jobs, competitiveness, and, most importantly, it will incentivize and encourage the people of the States to join in with our national mission of energy independence.

I hope the underlying bill passes, of course. And I look forward--I see the chairman is here. I commend him for his outstanding work in a bipartisan manner. And I see Senator Landrieu here from Louisiana as well. This is a long stride forward. But please understand, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to continue fighting for Virginia. It is good for Virginia. It is also good for America because we need to have America independent from foreign sources of energy, particularly that from the Middle East. I say to the Senator, thank you for your leadership.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I am certain.

If I may, Mr. President----

Will the Senator yield?

I would say to the chairman of the Energy Committee, I wanted to get on that committee in this session because I really do believe energy independence, energy security is the most important issue facing our country. The Senator has provided great leadership, working with a variety of different forces, and getting things done on a bipartisan basis. I agree that Senator Martinez was absolutely crucial in this bipartisan effort. I would hope, though, that you recognize that while I am introducing this amendment, I know my colleague, Senator Warner, has a different sort of amendment, trying to get to the same point. I hope I can count on you, and I hope the American people can count on you to work in a bipartisan fashion in the future, whether this year or future years, to allow the people of Virginia, if they so desire, to explore off our coasts and use this as a model in sharing revenues with the States because I think sharing of revenues with the States will be an incentive for States to help the national mission of energy independence and not allow that good energy to stay there fallow in deep water off our Outer Continental Shelves.

Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes at this point.

Mr. President, let me say, before the distinguished Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, here is how I see the situation in terms of coastal waters and the tremendous resources that are along the coast today, including the Senator's State. I see us on the verge of making the first breakthrough in 25 years. If this breakthrough occurs and this bill passes and this bill gets signed, the breakthrough is that your State and your people--openly and bright--might want it, too. In fact, you have been talking about that.

The point I am making is, we are doing this right. Let us get this one done, as you have said, and you certainly have not said we should not. I don't imply that. But the right thing for the country, in fact, of these prolonged moratoria is to pass 181 before us because it is big. It is real. It is right. It is now. It will happen and it will hurt no one. Besides, you will see bids to open with short periods of time saying: We will drill. You will see companies announcing what they are going to do. That will be the stimulus. I am not a football expert, but it is sort of like if the goal is to maximize, eventually, over time, the coastal production of America from a venue of stagnation, if that is the goal--and I am not there yet, but if that is the goal--what you do is you make the first 10 yards right now. This is the first 10 yards. This is the breakthrough.

Now you are going to see it, and you can say: Man, we can make it. Then your State will come, and other States will come. So I am very pleased we chose to limit it to the four States plus Florida and to this big piece called 181, plus 181 south, which you have lauded here today.

I will close by telling you something that you can now tell your people when this bill passes. On the day of the vote, for those who don't think this is a good bill, I want to remind them, and you can remind them, that it was just announced that natural gas had its biggest gain this year. Bloomberg announced that natural gas rallied to its biggest gain this year in the U.S. on a record-breaking heat wave, and the prices went up. So right now we are celebrating something very negative, that the supply is not sufficient. And with the excess heat, the price went up. What we want to tell them is, pass this bill. Start using these resources. Put them in our inventory, right? Get our businesspeople out there investing to drill, and we will have natural gas coming from 181, this big piece of real estate, energy laden, 6 trillion cubic feet on this one piece, enough for 6 million homes for 15 years, 1.2 billion barrels of oil on just this one piece. Get started, right? That is why we are going to do it.

I think we have the votes. But if you know anybody who is not for it, I say to the Senator, you tell them we celebrated the wrong thing today because we have been doing things wrong. It is time to do it right. That is what I think, and that is what this bill is. You are on the right track, and I commend you. This bill will get us started. I hope you understand that.

We can't do it all at once. I am so pleased we picked the right one. And with the help of that man sitting in the chair, the Presiding Officer today--we call him ``President'' today, but he is actually a Senator--with his help, because he had a little guts, he decided to talk to his people instead of echoing. He went out there and talked and said: Let's do something. They agreed to this, after years of dilly-dallying, right? We are doing something for the country. The Presiding Officer, Mel Martinez, the junior Senator, is part of this three or four or five people who led this actual attack on this moratorium. Moratorium has something to do with death. That is what the moratorium was, death for us, this crazy idea that these resources should be locked up when you could drill for them and not hurt anybody. It is finally going out the window, little by little, with this bill. Two windows going out. We will see how it works. The public is going to say: Boy, it works. And then some more windows will go out later. And that is what you are talking about.

Thank you so much.

I yield to the Senator. I have the floor.

Yes.

I thank the Senator.

In response to what the junior Senator from Virginia just said, obviously, this bill sets not only the precedent of getting rid of the moratorium for deep water drilling off the coast of Florida, but it also sets a precedent of revenue sharing with the coastal States that surround the activity. That is what the Senator is talking about. Obviously, the Senator from New Mexico favors that. I don't have to answer his question specifically. I favor that. I took a gamble and said: I am one to do that. I started off saying, I think I can get it done. I think we can get it done without it. That is where I started, right, I ask the Senator from Louisiana? I reported a bill out, found out we probably would get nothing. I am not sure of that, but probably the country would get nothing, the coastal States would get nothing, the Treasury would get nothing, the coastal repair would get nothing. And we would be right back here telling the public: We can't do anything.

So when the coastal States and the Senator from Florida started negotiating with us about the coastal States and about Florida's linear protections, distance protections, I had to move from no coastal revenues. I am very pleased with the way it turned out because I believe over the long run we have by at least 10, maybe 20 years, accelerated the timeframe for coastal exploration. I am not saying forever because I think sooner or later reality had to set in. I think we are just pushing reality here and pushing hard, saying: OK, we are going to share, but we are going to get the resources.

We might be ready soon to have hearings in the committee, have other bills, move in other directions. But for right now, this is the best bill to clear the Senate.

We have this terrible 60-vote threshold in this place. You are aware of that. It is no longer a majoritarian place. There are 60 votes for everything. You ask for a motion for a pin to drop, and somebody says: I am going to filibuster. Right? You have to have 60 votes. Appointment of conferees is filibustered now. Somebody like Senator Byrd will say: Senator Domenici, don't think that is new. That was around forever. Of course, it was. But it wasn't used very much.

But you know that is being used now. A motion to appoint conferees on a bill is now an acceptable measure on which to have a filibuster. The point is, this is no turkey shoot, passing a bill in the Senate. You don't just have to sharpen up and hit one; you have to get 60 votes. That is why it is so important you know how to put it together. That is why we did this. That is why some people, looking down on this bill, wondering how far can you go--you know where that is coming from--how far we can go and still get something passed--have to understand, the 60-vote threshold probably, if we make it tonight, and even if we break it, the point is, it is fragile. You fool around with it and change it and you could go back down to 59, 58, and be dead again.

So if you want some energy for America, not big time, not like a whole new country has been invented, we still have a lot of coast left, a lot of other places left, but this is a big one. If you want this, you have to remember, you have to get 60 votes. We have got to get 60 votes here tonight. We have got to get 60 votes later on. And we better not be thinking too far ahead of our nose or we will find out we don't have the votes.

So I want to close by reminding everybody that the price of natural gas increased by a record amount. The public can note that. They might be thinking: Why didn't you do something about it? We want to tell them we are trying tonight to do something about it. We have a ways to go, right? We have to get it passed, and we have to get it past the House. But we are trying to do something about this report that says the price went up the highest amount. We are trying to do something about it. We don't guarantee anything, but we guarantee you that we are going to help if we add 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the inventory of natural gas for Americans from this piece of real estate off the coast of Florida, off the coast of Louisiana that belongs to the people, that had a moratorium on it, that had a death wish on it: You can't do anything with it.

We are taking that off, and that is why it is important.

It is also important that everybody knows it is not easy to do because in the Senate you need 60 votes. No, you don't, people told me the other day. What is the matter with you, Senator? Fifty-one votes will do that.

I said: Well, we changed business in the Senate. Almost everything is a filibuster. I just explained that to you. This bill was filibustered. No question. So we have this fancy-named thing called cloture. That means a request that the filibuster be restrained. We are going to vote on that. Do you want to throw out the filibuster tonight? That is what the vote is going to be about. But that is the 60 votes. People should know that, and they should know that about our bill, whomever it is. This is tough sledding. Don't be thinking that we could change it helter-skelter. And if they are wondering why we have been tough on amendments, just remember with us, who knows what amendments would do to this bill.

It is a good bill like it is. Sorry to fellow Senators who want to offer amendments for a week. I am sorry. I wish you could preside, Mr. President, over wonderful debates, about 20 amendments or 30 on this bill. I hope we don't have to because I hope we close it up with the cloture vote, a couple of hours after that, maybe tomorrow, vote on final passage, send this bill to conference, and then take a little while with the House and have this same message to them: 60-vote problem in the Senate. Can't send them any old thing or we will get nothing.

I think my friend from Louisiana knows that. She is here. She knows what I am going through. I mean, she can comment on that. She does. It is not easy to get this through, if you are worrying about adding things to it or changing it.

I see the Senator would like to speak.

Of course.

The Senator is absolutely correct. I have been referring to

the Chair and the Presiding Officer in one way because it was the Senator from Florida, talking to him as the Senator from Florida. He has taken a seat as a Senator. Another Senator from the committee, Senator Lamar Alexander, has taken the Presiding Officer's seat.

(Mr. ALEXANDER assumed the Chair.)

The question fits right in with all four. Lamar Alexander is on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, as is the Senator from Florida. A big participant is the Senator from Tennessee. I am looking at the Senator who took on the issue of natural gas, the Senator from Tennessee. We knew we could not do this on that bill, so we put it off. We did 10 or 15 major things that are still having an impact on America--everything from seeing to it that all possibilities for the alternative of shale being turned into oil be given a chance. It might happen. We promoted coal to gas, coal to liquid. The only thing keeping that from happening is the uncertainty of investment because the price of $70 is not certain. If we can address that issue, we will fix that, too. Ethanol came out of that bill. The whole idea of hybrid automobiles came out of that bill. Scores of that are in the area of conservation, which were promoted even before I was chairman; they are on that bill and are done. So this is a followup for some supply. That is why it is important that we get it done.

I thank the Senator for the question. There are many other things we could list. I thank the Senate for yielding me additional time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Yes, the Senator from Tennessee is correct. Those who want to make sure our citizens have access to the great American outdoors have long advocated the principle that some of the funds from offshore oil and gas drilling should become a royalty for conservation and outdoor recreation, providing a reliable and permanent stream of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This basic concept was proposed in 1962 by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission--also known as the Rockefeller Commission--and it was also a primary recommendation of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1986. This legislation is an important first step in the right direction, one that has been 40 years in the making.

No, it would not. The LWCF stateside program will continue to be eligible to receive funding in the appropriations process just as it is currently. The mandatory funding stream established under this bill would not replace appropriated funding, and does nothing to disadvantage the program in the appropriations process.

I was pleased that the Senate Committee on Appropriations included $30 million for the stateside program in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This was a significant improvement over the President's budget request and the House Interior bill, both of which zeroed out stateside for the second straight year. Still, there is room for improvement. I would share the Senator's interest in adding to the stateside funding in the Senate committee mark if appropriate offsets can be found. In fiscal year 2007, zero revenues will be allocated to stateside LWCF from this conservation royalty because it will take time for the new areas to be brought on line and begin producing. So we will need to appropriate funding in fiscal year 2007 to fill that gap.

Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes under the previous time agreement.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan.

I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Dorgan, to address the amendment before the Senate based on legislation that Senator Dorgan and I introduced regarding drug importation.

First and foremost, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for his relentless and dedicated leadership on this very important question which we hopefully can address once and for all here in the Senate and in the overall Congress because it certainly is an issue that deserves consideration. But more importantly, it deserves to become law because it is so important to the interests of the American people.

We have been joined on this legislation by a broad coalition of 30 of our colleagues and many of the leaders of the importation effort, along with Senators Grassley, Kennedy, McCain, and Stabenow unified with us in advancing this bipartisan legislation. Our voice has echoed those 7 out of 10 Americans who have called for the lifting of the ban on prescription drug importation. We have worked together to see that this legislation is considered in the Senate, and we have had 10 related hearings on this very matter in the Senate since 2004.

When we recently considered the Homeland Security appropriations bill, over two-thirds of the Senate responded to the increase in seizures of medications from Canadian pharmacies earlier this year by voting to stop impeding safe access to affordable medications.

Today, we must do more to respond to this issue. We must pass the legislation we have introduced which will ensure Americans have a safe and effective system to provide access to affordable medications. Our constituents are suffering as the cost of health care is rising rapidly in America, and prescription drug costs have led to that increase.

In response to a request of Senator Wyden and myself to track the price of medications most used by seniors, the GAO has repeatedly reported that the cost of these medications has increased at two to three times the rate of inflation as indicated by this chart. In fact, AARP reported recently that the fact is this the highest third-quarter increase in the cost of brand drugs since they began these studies. We can see here two to three times the rate of inflation in the cost of medications.

As a nation, we are growing older, and as we do we use more prescription drugs. At the same time, relentless price increases have made access to lifesaving drugs more and more unaffordable for Americans. The problem of affordability is shared by everyone. If you have prescription drug coverage, rapid price increases drive up your premiums. If you are one of the millions without drug coverage, the situation is far worse. You bear the full cost of the world's highest prices for medications.

Today, even with the new Medicare prescription drug benefit in place, over 46 million Americans are saddled with the burden of exorbitantly priced medications. A drug can be safe and effective, but what good is it if you can't afford to take it? That is why we simply cannot afford to postpone action any longer on this legislation. We have acted before repeatedly in the Senate and in the overall Congress. It has been law since 2000, when Congress last acted to allow importation.

We have also required certification by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the HHS Secretary must certify the safety of importation. Unfortunately, that has been the caveat and a disguise for blocking the importation measure. It has denied access to importation. The Department of Health and Human Services has not taken steps to ensure that we can allow Americans to import drugs safely from other countries--and in particular Canada. While the FDA was unable to point to any single individual harmed by Canadian drugs, they have actually denied importation from Canada. In Europe, in over 30 years of parallel trading of pharmaceuticals, no death or injury has ever been documented because they know it is safe.

While our constituents have found importation offers them access to lifesaving drugs, we have repeatedly heard from FDA how the practice threatens health. Opponents claim importation will cause harm, but they fail to note that the greatest prescription drug threat to the safety of Americans--that is, the inability to take drugs that are prescribed--exacts a toll of thousands of American lives every year. As Dr. Peter Rost--a former Pfizer executive up until a few months ago-- who joined Senator Dorgan and I and others in a press conference, observed, ``Holding up a vote on reimportation, stopping good reimportation bills has a high cost, not just in money but in American lives.'' He is a former executive of Pfizer who actually had the courage to make that statement.

Today, thanks to the intensive reporting of health professionals, we are seeing more evidence of the cost of unaffordable medications. In my own State of Maine, one of our physicians reported hospitalizing two patients in a single month--one of them in the intensive care unit with a dangerous heart arrhythmia simply because they could not afford to refill a prescription.

But Americans recognize the value of prescription drugs, and they have turned to affordable sources of these medications so they can preserve and protect their health. Many of my Maine constituents have used Canadian pharmacies and found both savings and safety. But dangers do exist. There are certainly those who would exploit consumers with dangerous or counterfeit medications. It is imperative that we work proactively to ensure that the importation of prescription drugs is safe.

That is why Senator Dorgan and I, along with our colleagues, have comprehensively addressed the various concerns that have been raised over the months and years about drug importation--so that we can get something done. But certifying safety isn't the answer; any measure should actually make it safe. And there are two key issues we must address as we consider importation legislation. First and foremost, is it safe? Second, will the legislation be effective in delivering real savings for consumers? Our legislation which is incorporated in the amendment before us today does both.

Our constituents have taken action to purchase the drugs they could afford--mostly in Canada--and have demonstrated that importation can be safe. In Europe, with over 30 years of parallel trading of pharmaceuticals, no death or injury has ever been documented. They know it is safe.

Dr. Rost, as I said, who was a Pfizer executive up until several months ago, stated from his own firsthand experience in Europe--and I quote:

I think it is outright derogatory to claim that Americans

would not be able to handle reimportation of drugs when the

rest of the educated world can do this.

And I agree. Under our legislation, Americans will receive imported drugs from 30 countries. In most cases, Americans will purchase imported prescription drugs from their local pharmacy. The pharmacist will receive those drugs from a U.S. wholesaler which imports them. These wholesalers will be registered, inspected, and monitored by the FDA. This higher level of safety is also a first step in establishing a higher standard for the handling of all medications in the United States.

Our legislation also allows individuals to directly order medications from outside the United States when using an FDA registered and approved Canadian pharmacy. Again, just as with wholesalers handling prescription drugs, the FDA will examine, register, and inspect these facilities on a frequent basis. The FDA will assure the highest standards for such essential functions as recording medical history, verifying prescriptions, and tracking shipments. But regardless of whether one purchases imported drugs from the local pharmacist or uses a Canadian pharmacy, we assure that a legitimate prescription and a qualified pharmacist will be vital ingredients in ensuring safety.

Toward that end, we have also worked with Senator Feinstein to incorporate provisions of the Ryan Haight Act to assure that as we provide safety in an importation system we do not ignore the need to assure safety and integrity in domestic internet pharmacies. These provisions will assure that properly licensed pharmacies and pharmacists are behind Web sites offering prescription drugs and that we no longer see prescriptions issued based on a submitted form or a telephone conversation. There must be integrity and a proper professional relationship between medical professionals and patients.

For those who say the consumers could unwittingly purchase an unapproved or suspect drug, our legislation assures that the drug received will always be FDA approved. If any difference exists in a foreign drug, even the most minute, our legislation assures FDA will evaluate the product and determine its acceptability.

We provide a process to assure imported drugs are the same FDA- approved product, and if a minor difference exists, such as a coloring or inactive ingredient is different, and has no effect on the efficacy of the drug,

our legislation assures that it will be tested and labeled so that differences are known. So there will not be motivation for a manufacturer to game the system by making a minor change in order to make a product unapproved and thus unimportable.

For those who say that counterfeiting is a threat, our legislation requires the use of anticounterfeiting technologies to protect drugs. The fact is, we can employ technologies like the one now used on the new $20 bill. We can do the same with prescription drugs. Moreover, this bill supports the development of future anticounterfeiting and track-and-trace technologies which we hope will be used to protect all prescription drugs.

For those who say consumers won't know who has handled an imported prescription drug, our bill requires that a chain of custody--a ``pedigree''--be maintained and inspected to help ensure the integrity of the imported prescription drugs. A pedigree for medications was mandated by law, believe it or not, back in 1988--that is correct, in 1988--and we still await its implementation by the FDA. Almost 20 years later, the FDA has yet to implement that requirement to establish a pedigree for medications to ensure that we have a chain of custody so we understand how they have been handled from the initial process of manufacturing.

Some even attempt to alarm Americans about the countries from which we import drugs, citing Latvia, Estonia, and Slovakia, members of the European Union. Another member is Ireland, where Lipitor is made.

I call your attention to this chart on which the European Union and other countries from which we would import is in blue. These countries meet or exceed our standards. In contrast, we have in red many additional countries in which the FDA inspects pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. These include China, India, Bulgaria, Jordan, and others with lower standards.

For those who say importation isn't safe, we show that it will be, and this legislation sets a model of improving safety in the handling of all prescription drugs. The safety has been attested to by none other than the former FDA Commissioner, Dr. David Kessler. He said our legislation `` . . . provides a sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective. Most notably, it provides additional resources to the agency to run such a program, oversight by FDA of the chain of custody of imported drugs back to FDA-inspected plants, a mechanism to review imported drugs to ensure that they met FDA's approval standards, and the registration and oversight of importers and exporters to assure that imported drugs meet those standards and are not counterfeit. Some say the consumers will not see significant savings, but drugs imported under this program will be labeled as imports, and consumers will be able to compare the side-by- side savings. With increasing consumer awareness of foreign prices and competition between importing wholesalers, we are confident of consumer savings.

Let me say in conclusion, I hope the Senate will give due consideration to this legislation. In the final analysis, it incorporates every issue regarding safety concerns, every measure, every standard that could be put in place to ensure we can have safe drug importation and accomplish the ultimate goal, ensuring affordable medications to the American people. They deserve it.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I appreciate all of the Senator's leadership on this issue, but would the Senator agree it is so important for our colleagues to recognize the savings that would be realized for our American consumers? Their counterparts in other countries pay 35 to 55 percent less, so this is an enormous savings both in terms of the U.S. Government and the $50 billion the Senator has mentioned, but also more than $6 billion in direct savings to the Federal Government and to the U.S. budget. Not only do we save $50 billion, with $6.1 billion of that in savings to the U.S. budget according to the CBO, but we begin to address the fact that the American consumers are paying $87 billion more than counterparts in other countries.

This is an enormous savings in all respects. Would the Senator not agree this also would advance those savings to American consumers but, as well, to our Government?