A joint resolution disapproving a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to delist coal and oil-direct utility units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak in opposition to the so-called Energy bill that we have before us, on which we will be voting cloture later this afternoon. I want to make my position very clear. I am certainly not against drilling for oil and gas here in the United States or in the Gulf of Mexico. Fossil fuels are an essential component of our Nation's energy infrastructure, and I support appropriate steps to build our supply and use. For example, I have repeatedly, for several years, called for the construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline. I voted for last year's Energy bill which contained numerous incentives and provisions for the development of fossil fuels. In fact, I voted for previous Energy bills over the past several years.

However, unlike those previous Energy bills, the bill before us today is not comprehensive. Far from it; it is a narrow bill, focused strictly on drilling for oil and gas in certain portions of the Gulf of Mexico. There simply is not that much gas being made available under this bill.

I mentioned a moment ago the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Every day, they are reinjecting into the ground gas already discovered in Alaska that could be shipped to the lower 48 if we had a pipeline in place. In fact, if we had started on this several years ago we would just about be completed with that pipeline right now. The pipeline is projected to provide some 2.2 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable gas each year for the next 100 years. But the bill before us today would provide perhaps 5 or so trillion cubic feet lasting less than 3 years.

What does that all mean? It means there is about 40 times the amount of natural gas in Alaska than we would ever get from this bill before us in the Gulf of Mexico. That may not even be including the Mackenzie gas bill in Canada.

The Minerals Management Service indicates the gas made available under the bill before us, if you project 50 years into the future, could be about 2\1/2\ months of supply. In other words, of all the natural gas we are going to need for the next 50 years, the bill before us will provide about 2\1/2\ months of supply. Over the next 15 years-- another way of looking at it--we get about 9 days' worth. And we won't get any at all until 2012. This is not going to have any significant impact on our supply.

As Senator Bingaman noted, in order to get access to this very modest amount of gas--as I said, perhaps 5 trillion cubic feet--we are locking away 21 trillion cubic feet in the eastern gulf until 2022 by placing these areas under a 16-year moratorium. What a deal for the American consumer. What a deal. We can get 5 trillion cubic feet, but in exchange for that we are going to lock away, for 16 years, up to 21 trillion cubic feet that could be made available in the eastern gulf. That is not a very good deal for the American consumer.

I think the better bet is for Congress to find a way to get the Alaska natural gas pipeline built. Yet we have done nothing on that. Unfortunately, key parties in the State of Alaska are not getting the job done, and we have not done anything to really move them in that direction. My understanding is that the legislature there is not satisfied with the concurrent contract proposal negotiated by the Governor, and he is not satisfied with them. It goes back and forth and back and forth.

Earlier this year, Senator Snowe and I wrote a letter to the Energy Committee asking them to investigate this and hopefully to come up with some suggestions so that in some way we here in Congress might break that logjam.

Anyway, there is little hope for them getting it settled by the end of the year, but we are focusing on this--5 trillion cubic feet, when we have 40 times that amount in Alaska that could be piped down. That is just one facet of how bad this bill is.

Second, this drilling legislation would drain the Federal Treasury of billions of dollars in lost revenue that would otherwise be available for urgent national priorities--priorities, I might add, such as agricultural and rural development assistance, health care and education, in addition, of course, to real energy security.

I know a number of farm groups--my farmers--need more natural gas. We use it to make fertilizer. We use a lot of it to make ethanol, also. The point here being that the amount of money we are going to lose under this bill means that we are going to be draining money away from the Federal Treasury that we will need in the next farm bill, which is coming up, which we are going to need for a safety net for farmers, which we are going to need for conservation payments, which we are going to need to provide more incentives for ethanol and biodiesel and biomass production.

Again, the offset is not good. Agriculture really comes up a loser.

The reason I say that--one other bad facet of this bill is that it provides 37.5 percent of the revenue from the new leases in areas beyond their areas to four Gulf Coast States. In other words, four States are going to get 37.5 percent of all the revenues from gas and oil that is way, way beyond their territorial waters.

I can't blame my friends from those States for fighting hard for this bill. I can't blame the Senators from Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama--they are making out. This is a heck of a deal for them. Like I said, I can't blame them, but what about the rest of the Senators here? We represent other States.

This is not unique. This came up once before back in 1952, when the President of the United States was Harry S Truman, from Missouri. The issue again was, to whom do these minerals, oil and gas, in the Gulf of Mexico belong? I want to read this for the Record. Here is what a courageous, gutsy President had to say:

The minerals that lie under the sea off the coast of this

country belong to the Federal Government--that is, to all the

people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and

reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States . . .

I am quoting Harry Truman. He said:

If we back down on our determination to hold these rights

for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great

national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They

want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of

States, where the powerful oil interests hope to exploit it

to suit themselves.

Talk about corruption. Talk about stealing from the people.

That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a colossal scale.

It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.

I got a letter from a fellow in Texas today, who is a

friend of mine, and he was weeping over what the

schoolchildren of Texas were going to lose if Texas didn't

get its oil lands 9 miles out from the shore.

Nine miles. Here we are talking about 100 miles, and more. This was 9 miles. Listen to what Truman was saying about the oil and the gas 9 miles off the shore:

And I composed a letter to him, and then didn't send it. I

said what about the schoolchildren in Missouri and Colorado,

and North Dakota and Minnesota and Tennessee and Kentucky and

Illinois, do they have any interest in this at all? Evidently

not, it should all go to Texas. Well, it isn't going there,

if I can help it.

Boy, why don't we have a President like that today? Talk about telling it like it is. And Truman did veto it.

Here is his closing.

I can see how the Members of Congress from Texas and

California and Louisiana might like to have all the offshore

oil for their States. But I certainly can't understand how

Members of Congress from the other 45 States can vote to give

away the interest the people of their own States have in this

tremendous asset. It's just over my head and beyond me how

any interior Senator or Congressman could vote to give that

asset away. I am still puzzled about it. As far as I am

concerned, I intend to stand up and fight to protect the

people's interest in this matter.

President Harry Truman, May 17, 1952.

Where is Truman when we need him today? Yet we read history and look back and say: Boy, that Truman, he was brave, he was courageous, he fought for real people. He was on our side. How, he said, can Members of Congress from other States--Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois--how can they vote for something like this to give away a national asset to four States? Truman said it in 1952. Here we are back again, back again.

As I said, 37.5 percent goes to these four States. As Truman said-- how did he say it? He said here, ``Talk about corruption. Talk about stealing from the people. That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a colossal scale. It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.''

Truman had it right then. He is right today, too.

Another reason to be opposed to this bill is it is such a narrow and controversial bill when we consider the components of what we really need for a 21st century sustainable energy policy for our Nation. By that I mean an aggressive and continuing effort to promote conservation and to ramp up renewable energy. It is as true today as it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. It is cheaper right now to conserve a barrel of oil or a trillion cubic feet of natural gas than it is to go out and drill for it. It is easier and cheaper--cheaper to conserve. Yet we have this bill before us, this very narrow bill, very contentious bill, that gives all this--37.5 percent of these royalties--to these four States.

You might say the average American out there listening to this debate would say: Harkin, why don't you amend it? If you feel so strongly about this, offer an amendment; see what happens.

Guess what. We can't offer any amendments. Yes, that is right. You may wonder, Is this the Senate? You mean we can't offer an amendment? That is right. I cannot offer an amendment to this bill because of the games the leader on the other side played in terms of how he brought it up under cloture and filled the tree, as they say. That is just gobbledygook, meaning the majority leader is able to engineer the way the bill is brought up so we cannot offer amendments to it. When the bill comes up for a vote, it is up or down. We can't even offer an amendment. We can't offer an amendment on conservation or renewable energy or to say maybe it shouldn't be 37.5 percent for four States, and maybe other States something else. Fifty amendments were filed on this bill. None of them will be considered.

We have time to talk for days around here about flag desecration and about gay marriage. I am not saying those aren't important issues. But let's get real, folks. We are talking about something here that affects every American every day. People are hurting out there with an unusually hot summer. People are struggling to pay these big gasoline prices--upwards of about close to $3 a gallon, 71 cents more than a year ago. Natural gas prices are the highest of anywhere in the world right here in America. Yet how do we go about achieving some energy price relief for my Iowans or other Americans? How do we go about it?

We have this bill--this very narrow bill. We should be discussing other parts of what we need for energy. The Senate leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, were asking last week that we include a period for energy debate while addressing the measure before us. Again, we spent all this time this year debating this and that. And if we have time for those, we surely have time to debate America's energy security challenges, offer our amendments, debate them, and let's see what comes out of the process.

I filed two amendments to this bill. One contains the Biofuels Security Act. It is a bipartisan measure to improve our ability to deliver renewable fuels to motoring consumers. I am not going to explain every little bit of it, but basically it would increase the amount of renewable fuels we make.

Second, it would make E-85 ethanol available at gas stations across America.

Third, it would require the automobile companies to make more flexible fuel cars such as they are doing in Brazil right now so we could have E-85 pumps across America.

I filed a second amendment that would require the EPA to adjust the fuels standards to meet a 10 billion gallon target by 2010. That shouldn't be too much. We are going to meet that, anyway. We should do it higher.

We need to spur growth of cellulosic biofuel production--fuels made from fibrous materials such as corn stover, wheat straw, wood waste and switchgrass.

Lastly, in terms of conservation, I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Obama and others to increase vehicle fuel economy standards for the first time in two decades. Imagine that. We have not increased fuel standards in this country in 20 years. Yet here is a bill on energy and we can't amend it.

Conservation of energy coupled with increased availability of renewable fuels is the pathway to the future while at the same time doing what we can to increase our natural gas production.

The best thing would be the pipeline from Alaska.

As I said, I am not opposed to drilling for gas and oil in the gulf, but I am the way this bill is set up. If you do not have a component in the bill for renewable energy production, biomass, biofuels, wind energy for electricity and others, photovoltaics as a component of it, and also conservation, all this bill says is basically we are going to continue to do what we have been doing in the past--getting more fossil fuels. We may need fossil fuels, but the sad truth is that this bill before us is a missed opportunity to do big things for our energy future and our energy security.

Again, I assume that the votes are cut and dry on this the way they have it. I just want to make sure people know we can't offer amendments. We are being precluded from doing so. But hopefully we will be back and hopefully we can have a more serious discussion and debate about how we provide for America's energy security in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, by unanimous consent I understand the Senator from New York has reserved the time coming up. I visited with him. He needed to attend a meeting, so I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed, to be followed by Senator Schumer.

Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi counseled me to stay calm. I am a reasonably calm guy. I don't get too excited about much of anything--at least that is what my wife would suggest. But let me tell you something that happened to me last night that caused me to be a little less than calm.

I drove, like most Americans, to a gas station. I pulled up to the pump, I swiped my credit card, and $39 later I filled an economy car full of $3.25 per gallon gas.

I must tell you and tell the Senator from Mississippi, I wasn't calm. This Scotchman's blood began to rile a bit when I realized that I and all other Americans are paying more for their gas today than ever in the history of this country and it is Government policy that caused it.

It is an attitude over the last 20 years that somehow America was going to conserve its way out of this problem. We didn't have to produce, we didn't have to refine, and, by the way, you can go out and buy a bigger car and it will burn a little more, but don't worry about it, it will be there. We lulled ourselves into this sense of false security that somehow gas is always going to stay at $1.25 or $2 a gallon.

While we were in a sense of false security, we did something else that was politically stupid. Where the greatest potential for domestic oil production exists today, we said take it out of bounds, take it offline. Seventy-five percent of the Outer Continental coast of America today, where our greatest reserves exist, is off limits, all in the name of the environment, even though we have applied technology, science, and engineering in a way today that was proven during the tremendous storm of Katrina when we knocked thousands of wells offline in the gulf, and not one drop of oil was spilled.

Why, then, did we do this all in the name of the environment if, in fact, we can retrieve oil from our deep waters off the Continental Shelf and coast

today and not damage the environment? It was the politics of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. During that time, not only was gas relatively inexpensive compared to today's prices, but our consumption levels went up and we began to buy more and more oil from foreign supplies, foreign producers, dominantly from the Middle East but some from Central and Latin America.

Today, with all of these red areas off limits, where there are potentially billions of barrels of oil, we said ``no'' and we find ourselves dependent today with speculative oil prices going through the roof because wars are being fought, people are killing people in one of the most insecure areas of the world, an area we have grown to become dependent on for the supply of our primary economic resource, oil. What is wrong with that picture, America?

Pogo once said: I have found the enemy and the enemy is us. Maybe that is to paraphrase it a little bit. The enemy for oil prices is us, if I can say it in those terms. It is not only public policy in America today that has created the ``no'' zone to production, it is the attitude in America that somehow energy prices are always going to stay inexpensive and we don't have to produce anymore, even though our rate of consumption continues to grow.

Then along come the late 1990s and the early 2000s and the Chinese economy takes off, the European economy takes off, and the Indian economy takes off, and they are now all large consumers of oil. We all buy it from the same pool, and the price goes up.

Today, before the Senate, this afternoon at 5 o'clock, we have an opportunity to begin to slowly but surely correct a very big problem we built up in the decades of the 1970s, the 1980s, and 1990s, a self- inflicted wound we can now bind up and heal while we work our way out from increasing dependence on foreign resources. That legislation is S. 3711.

What does it do? It takes us right down here to this tiny little green square in the Gulf of Mexico called lease sale 181.

We say to the oil companies of America: You can go out there and bid and lease and drill. Our geological survey determines that there are trillions of cubic feet of gas out there and, potentially, billions of barrels of oil. We can bring it on line and send it to our gulf coast refineries and begin to process it and move it into our distribution systems. And for a moment in time we will become just a little less dependent on Saudi Arabia or Iraq or anywhere else in the world in which we are buying oil today.

Why did we do it? Times change. Attitudes shift. Technology changes. Today, there is absolutely no reason to have a no-zone around the United States because we not only can produce it, we can do it in an environmentally sound way. Here is what we believe--not me; we, the U.S. Geological Survey, our Federal agencies that study where our oil reserves and potentials are--here is what they say we can do. They say there are, potentially, in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge--2,200 little acres that we can drill out of millions of acres--potentially, tens of billions of barrels of oil up there; and in the OCS, 115 billion barrels of oil, of which this one little spot down in the gulf we call lease sale 181 that is embodied in this legislation, S. 3711, will be able to reduce this maybe down to 110 billion barrels because maybe we can get 5 billion barrels out of there.

Of course, a few months ago I came to the floor and said: Why are American companies not being allowed to drill in the northern properties off Cuba--where Cuba is now leasing that area out to China to drill, 50 miles off the U.S. shore. Why are not Americans out there doing that? That is another potentially 4.6 billion to 5 billion barrels of oil.

Add it all up, if we were able to use our skill, our talent that we have developed in the decade of the 1990s, and 2000 and beyond, for deepwater drilling, we could bring this much oil on line in a relatively short period of time.

But California says no. Florida, in large part, has said no, although the Senators from Florida have worked with us, and Mel Martinez has done a beautiful job striking the balance to protect the environment of Florida and to drill in lease sale 181 off the coast of Florida.

But, then again, in these areas up through here, where there is tremendous potential off of the northeastern coast of our country, what do Vermont and Maine and New Hampshire and Rhode Island and Connecticut say? No, even though their consumers are paying $3.25 to $3.30 a gallon for gas. Where is the logic? Where is the sensitivity of that? Where is the sensibility of it?

I know America wishes we could snap our finger and this energy problem or crisis would be over. And it will not be. It took us 30 years marching down a path in which production was a negative, in which we said we simply did not have to produce; we could go someplace else and buy it. It is going to take a while to turn that around.

Last year, this Senate made a major step to turn that around. The National Energy Policy Act of 2005, known as EPAct, today, is bringing ethanol refineries or distilleries on line all across the Midwest as a part of producing into the whole energy supply of our country. Twenty percent of America's corn crop, being raised right now in the fields of Illinois and Iowa and Kansas and other places, will be used for ethanol production to go into the gas tanks of the American automobile. So we are moving in the right direction.

Last year at this time, as it relates to electrical production, we had about two reactors on the drawing board; that is, nuclear reactors. Folks, today there are 24 on the drawing board. Ten or 12 of them will be built, but it will take 10 or 12 years to build them. You do not overnight correct the problems you have created over the last 30 years.

The American consumer, in their sense of frustration, today is saying: Fix it. We like inexpensive energy. And I do not blame them. So do I. Last night, at $3.25 a gallon for that regular gas I put in my gas tank, I did not like it one bit. That is the bad news: high gas prices. The good news is: high gas prices. Today, we would not be on the floor debating lease sale 181 if gas were still $1.25 a gallon or even $2 a gallon. It was at $3 a gallon when the folks in Florida scratched their head and said: Maybe we could allow a little drilling out there. Maybe we could bring a little more on production. Maybe we ought to sit and listen to the reality of the environmental skills that our deepwater drillers have today in the production of oil, and we can do that and protect our environment at the same time. And we can. This legislation is going to do just that.

That is why what we pass this afternoon is critically important to the long-term stability and security of this country, to the strength and security of the average American family and consumer out there. It isn't that they will pay less after we do it; it is that they probably will not pay more.

In trying to level these prices and get this country back into production, I would hope that Americans quit saying no. I would hope that Senators would quit saying no and look at all of the alternatives out there today in a diverse energy portfolio of ethanol, of gas, of hydrogen, of nuclear generation for electricity, of wind and solar, and all the things we ought to bring into production in this country that we are working hard to do at this time.

I am not going to ask Americans to be patient. We are not a patient people. We are very impatient as a country. But it is going to take some time. It is going to take the concerted efforts of Senators such as Pete Domenici and myself and Mel Martinez and others who have worked this issue as hard as we have to convince this Congress, that oftentimes is very resistant to change or very resistant to having to go out and face the very powerful environmental community and say: You know, you are just flat wrong. We can produce energy, and we can produce it cleanly for Americans, and provide it abundantly at a reasonable price--if we let the marketplace work, we put the parameters around it as it relates to what we expect from them in the safety and security of our environment but we do not say no. And for too long we have.

Finally, this afternoon, at around 5 o'clock, we are going to vote on S. 3711 and, hopefully, we will say: Yes, let's bring it on line. Let's produce it. Let's put trillions of cubic feet of gas into the gas pipelines and let's bring billions of barrels of crude into the refineries of the gulf coast.

Senate: Say yes. You have been too long saying no. Americans are frustrated and angry they are now having

to pay a price they are not used to, and certainly have an abundance and a sense of security that most Americans have come to enjoy and expect of themselves living in this great country of ours, living with a system that works, and with a government that tends to be responsive to their needs. That is what this legislation is all about this afternoon.

So when the Senator from Mississippi counsels patience, I am an impatient guy, especially when it comes to my pocketbook. And I know most consumers are. I don't like paying $3.25 a gallon. I would like to find the boogeyman and blame somebody for it. We have ourselves to blame because the no-zone was created by public policy, not by the big oil companies. No. They would like to be there drilling and using the latest technology. No. The no-zone was created by public policy: no to the billions of barrels of oil that exist, as shown on this chart, in Alaska, in the Outer Continental Shelf, in the northern area off from Cuba, and in lease sale 181.

The reason we are not there today is public policy, is an environmental attitude that simply says ``we don't have to produce any more.'' Well, we do have to produce, but we need to do it cleanly, responsibly. That is what this legislation is about. That is what the energy policy of last year was about. This Government, thank goodness, has been listening and has finally heard the consumer and his and her frustration.

I would hope this afternoon we turn a no vote into a yes vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for S. 3711. It means a lot to the average family who is paying the price today for bad policy at the gas pumps of America.

I yield the floor.

I ask that we yield 3 minutes to Senator Thomas.

Mr. President, I would like to yield 8 minutes to probably the Senator who knows more about air quality and the Clean Air Act than any of the rest of us, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.

Let him go ahead.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Delaware is in the Chamber. If he would like to go ahead, it would be acceptable.

Thank you, Mr. President.

First, let me advise everyone where we are right now. We will be having a vote at the conclusion of my remarks on the motion to proceed. Tomorrow there will be actually a vote on the resolution. And tomorrow is the significant vote. There has been a lot of talk about today's motion, but tomorrow's is very significant.

I have to say it appears to me this is highly politically charged, that we would be talking about this at this time. Of course, we have the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, as the Senator from Vermont knows. He is very diligently involved in that confirmation process. We have the catastrophe down in Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana. Yet we are taking time to do this.

I have to ask the question, Is there anyone in this Chamber who believes the President would sign legislation to repeal his own administration's rule? As the Senator from Ohio pointed out, the President has already announced he is going to veto this resolution in the event it passes. So we are not really accomplishing anything.

I have to say, this is hardly the time to discuss overturning an existing clean air regulation that relies on an approach that is proven to be effective. There were sceptics back when acid rain came along as to the cap-and-trade procedure. It has worked; we know that.

Let's look at the economics for a minute. No one has talked about that.

This resolution is intended to force the Environmental Protection Agency to impose a very costly and potentially devastating regulation in place of the existing Clean Air Mercury Rule, which relies on an already well-proven market-based approach, as I just mentioned. The current EPA approach will cut mercury emissions by 70 percent--70 percent--at an estimated cost of $2 billion. Supporters of this resolution prefer a maximum achievable control technology--MACT-- standard which is not nearly as cost effective.

Supporters also want the MACT standard to cut mercury by 90 percent. The independent Energy Information Administration has found that the implementation of a 90-percent MACT standard within 3 years would cost up to $358 billion. I did not say ``million,'' I said ``billion.''

The additional $356 billion of the MACT--which is much more than the current rule will cost--is projected to only reduce mercury deposition in the United States by about 2 percent more than the current regulation. As we can see from the chart that is behind us, 22-percent higher electricity prices and costs would be $358 billion.

A 90-percent MACT would have devastating consequences on natural gas supplies which are already in a crisis. According to the EIA, the Energy Information Administration, it could increase by 10 percent the natural gas used by utilities that are forced to fuel switch. The Senator from Ohio talked about the fact they would have to switch from coal to natural gas. I think everyone understands that would happen.

This would also cripple industries that rely on natural gas, such as the chemical industry, which has already lost 90,000 jobs since the year 2000 due in large part to the rising cost of natural gas. We have talked about that on the Senate floor. We discussed that in our committee, the EPW Committee.

This last weekend I was in Lawton, Altus, and Frederick, OK. That is in the far southwestern part of the State. The farmers down there have received through their organizations what would be the increased cost of fertilizer. One of the main components of fertilizer is natural gas. They really cannot take any more hits. So it goes far beyond just the chemical industry.

The most effective, most flexible, and least burdensome way to achieve mercury reduction is to build on the most successful part of the Clean Air Act, the acid rain program. Many Senators resisted the acid rain program, saying there would be hot spots and compliance problems, yet there have been no hot spots and, unlike with most of the Clean Air Act, virtually no enforcement problems. As the senior Senator from Vermont said in 1999:

When we were debating controls for acid rain, we heard a

lot about the enormous cost of eliminating sulfur dioxide.

But what we learned from the acid rain program is that when

you give industry a financial incentive to clean up its act,

they will find the cheapest way of doing it.

I think he was correct. That is exactly what the current rule under which we are operating does, the cap and trade, similar to the successful program that was used in acid rain. Moreover, supporters of the resolution that is under consideration assume the cap and trade mercury rule would be replaced with a 90-percent MACT rule. When the EPA first proposed the cap and trade approach last year, it also proposed a MACT approach. The MACT it proposed as complying with the law would only cut mercury emissions by 29 percent--not 90 percent, 29 percent. Yet here we have a rule that cuts mercury by 70 percent, and it costs less because it uses cap and trade. Why would the sponsors of this resolution want to get only a 29-percent reduction in mercury?

Actual deposition and its variety of sources are rarely discussed. Mercury emissions are not exclusive to powerplants. In fact, U.S. powerplants contribute but 1 percent of the global

total, according to Josef Pacyna of the Norwegian Institute of Air Research, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An enormous amount originates in Asia. More than half of mercury emissions are nationally occurring. Given that statistic, mercury will be present in the human bloodstream regardless of whether powerplants are regulated by a cap and trade emissions reduction program or the more costly but less effective MACT standard--or, for that matter, even if all powerplants and manufacturing facilities in the country were to be shut down altogether.

EPA data shows that eliminating U.S. powerplants from the mercury deposition equation would have virtually no effect on reducing actual deposition. Throughout New England, for example, the range of deposition levels would be unchanged. With or without powerplants, deposition levels are between 10 and 15 micrograms per square meter in the overwhelming majority of the area. Where there is a reduction, the amount is negligible.

These four charts created by the EPA using state-of-the-art computer modeling tell the story. As you can see in chart No. 5, throughout the country mercury deposition from all sources ranges from as low as 5 to 10 micrograms, up to more than 20 micrograms per square meter. The next chart, in contrast, shows that powerplants contribute less than 1 microgram per square meter for most of the country, including virtually the entire United States. Nonetheless, it is true that in most of the East, powerplants are responsible for 1 to 10 micrograms per square meter of the deposition. In a small region of the country, they cause as much as 10 to 20 micrograms. That is why the EPA has issued its regulation.

The next chart, however, is revealing. With the EPA's rule, powerplants will contribute less than 1 microgram in the vast majority of the country and less than 5 micrograms anywhere else. Clearly, the EPA rule is effective. Yet despite the effectiveness of the EPA rule, some are advocating overturning a 70-percent emission reduction in the hopes of eking out a slightly greater reduction of 90 percent.

This last chart, No. 8, completes the story. Even if all powerplants in the country were shut down, mercury deposition would be at least 5 to 10 micrograms; that is, if we shut down all powerplants. All we are addressing now is powerplants, and a lot of people are deceived into thinking that powerplants is where you get your problem with mercury. That is not it. One percent of the total is in powerplants. Even if all powerplants in the country were shut down, mercury deposition would be at least 5 to 10 micrograms. In half the country, it is 10 to 15 micrograms. In a significant portion of the country, it ranges from 15 to more than 20 micrograms.

Look at this chart. Now go back to chart 3. It is incredible that some Senators are willing to roll back EPA's current rule when deposition from powerplants will be negligible compared to other sources. EPA believes we should act now to reduce emissions of mercury from the powerplants so we can achieve the progress you see in chart No. 7. Repealing the section 111 rule would be a step backward in our efforts to regulate mercury emissions from powerplants. It would create enormous uncertainty for the States. Keep in mind that prior to 6 months ago, when the President came out with a cap and trade restriction on mercury, we had no restriction on mercury in powerplants. It was nonexistent. In the absence of the mercury rule, there will be no Federal regulation of mercury from existing powerplants, at least in the foreseeable future. Repealing EPA's rule would roll back the 70-percent reductions required by the agency and eliminate incentives for the development of new mercury-specific control technologies.

It is not appropriate for Congress to address this issue. The very people who claim that EPA acted improperly have asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to review the EPA's action to determine if their actions were proper or improper. The court would thoroughly review the legal and factual basis for the EPA's determination. There is no reason for Congress to interfere with this process. Congress can take affirmative action on mercury emissions by passing the Clear Skies legislation.

We went through this. We have been working for 2 years to get the President's Clear Skies legislation passed. Clear Skies legislation mandates a 70-percent reduction in SOX, NOX, and in mercury. And for some reason those individuals who claim to be concerned about the environment would rather have no mandated reduction at all. We have the opportunity now to do that. Clear Skies cuts mercury emissions from the power section by 70 percent. The President's Clear Skies legislation is a more effective, long-term mechanism to achieve large scale national reductions of not only mercury but sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Clear Skies legislation applies nationwide and is modeled on the highly successful acid rain program, a program many people have said was not going to work, was not going to be effective. Yet we all now realize it was effective.

We are not talking about just mercury. We are talking about sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide. I believe it would be totally irresponsible to somehow roll back the first attempt that we have to regulate mercury in powerplants. Keep in mind, prior to 6 months ago, it was not regulated at all. That is what this is all about.

Tonight is a vote on the motion to proceed. I don't care about the motion to proceed. Let's go ahead and vote in favor of that. Tomorrow is the main vote. That is a significant vote. I think we need to proceed to that vote tomorrow.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of our committee.

I rise to ask my colleagues in the Senate to think about raising energy costs on American families and workers when we are suffering a significant energy problem. The American people already are struggling with high gasoline prices. The natural gas prices are going to go even higher. Winter is approaching, with heating bills regrettably expected to go through the roof.

This, in my view, is no time to hit our families with even more energy price hikes. To borrow a slogan from the other side, those are not family friendly.

Supporters of using the Congressional Review Act to overturn EPA's new mercury regulation will not mention the higher energy costs they will bring. The problem is, voting for this motion requires an impossible solution. The technology does not exist to accomplish what proponents want. They want to reduce mercury from coal emissions by 90 percent. The administration wants to reduce it by 70 percent. If I had a magic wand, I would be happy to wave it and support a 90-percent reduction. But I don't. And the hard-working workers and vulnerable families in Missouri and all the other States represented here would not be able to take the higher costs that would come with this.

Sponsors claim the technology exists and is used in Europe. But they might not mention the technology is used on municipal waste. The last time I checked, orange peels and coffee grinds were a little different from coal. Sponsors may say the technology is starting to be pilot tested in the United States. What they are testing it on is Eastern coal, Appalachian coal, not Western coal, which is a different chemical makeup. It may still seem like coal to you and me, but it makes extracting tiny amounts of mercury very difficult. Western coal is used overwhelmingly in Missouri, and many of our Western States do not respond to the same technologies pursued by the motion's sponsors.

Therefore, generators serving my State of Missouri and many other Western coal States would be forced to shut down their coal plants and switch to natural gas to make electricity.

Natural gas prices are three times what they were just a few years ago. Using it to make electricity, one Nobel laureate scientist said, is like burning your antique furniture in your fireplace to heat your home.

Manufacturers and employers who depend upon natural gas for a raw material are outsourcing their operations to China and other low-cost natural gas areas. That means Missouri workers and workers in States of my colleagues who make plastics, automobiles, chemicals, and metals will be losing jobs. Do we want to see even more workers hurt?

Farmers everywhere are already facing high prices for natural-gas- dependent fertilizer. Terrible drought has struck the Midwest's corn and soybean crops. On top of this, the Midwestern barge traffic is crippled by Hurricane Katrina. Do we want to put more burden on the agricultural sector?

Fixed-income seniors have little room in their monthly expenses for higher air-conditioning, power, and heating bills. Do we want to hurt these seniors even more?

Our low-income breadwinners must drive long distances from rural or urban low-cost housing to get to their good-paying jobs. Their gasoline bills have imposed a heavy tax. Do we want to hurt these vulnerable families more?

We all deserve clean air. We need waters free from contamination. We must have food safety. That is why this President imposed the first mercury emissions cuts in our Nation's history. The last administration had to be sued to take action on mercury. Now President Bush is requiring mercury cuts--70 percent cuts for acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide, 70 percent for smog-causing nitrogen oxides, and 70 percent for mercury.

Under the President's Clear Skies plan imposed by regulation, nearly every American city will return to clean and healthy air. They will achieve Federal air quality standards without having to impose their own State or local regulations, killing jobs and hassling citizens.

We all care about the environment. Together, by defeating this motion, we can protect the environment, protect family budgets, and protect workers' jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the underlying resolution. We do not need to disapprove this regulation that would move our environmental cause significantly forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. President, mercury contamination is a critical environmental health issue. This is why I could not be more disappointed about the Environmental Protection Agency's so-called ``Utility Mercury Reductions Rule'' which was finalized in March of this year. The rule jeopardizes the health of our citizens, which is why I have cosponsored Senate Joint Resolution 20, a resolution that disapproves of the Administration's fatally flawed mercury rule. I will include for the Record a letter signed by 15 States, including Wisconsin, which urges passage of S.J. Res. 20.

The need for stringent mercury controls has never been more urgent. We know that mercury is a neurotoxin and that mercury exposure can cause a wide range of neurological problems and developmental delays. EPA's own scientists have discovered that twice as many American children are born at risk from mercury exposure than previously thought and the EPA has reported that 1 out of every 6 women of child-bearing age has so much mercury in her blood that it poses a risk to a developing fetus. These risks should not be overlooked. We are talking about the increased potential for developmental delays, lowered IQ, and attention and memory problems, as well as learning disabilities. In addition to the obvious and enormous emotional and psychological toll of such problems, a recently released peer-reviewed Mount Sinai School of Medicine study found that mercury-related brain development problems in children cost the United States more than $2 billion annually. Despite the well-documented health risks posed by mercury emissions, especially to women and children, the administration has moved forward with this flawed rule.

Thirteen million acres of lakes and 760,000 miles of rivers across the country have been contaminated by mercury emissions. In fact, in an attempt to protect their citizens, 45 States across the country have issued fish consumption advisories related to mercury. Anglers are warned against eating the very fish they catch because of widespread mercury contamination. Sadly, every one of the 15,057 lakes in my home State of Wisconsin is under a mercury-related warning, so I understand this problem all too well. And even if Wisconsinites didn't eat the fish they caught inside our State, many of them would still be at risk, according to EPA and Food and Drug Administration warnings, if they decided to consume saltwater species like tuna, shellfish, or swordfish. Given the situation in Wisconsin, I was not surprised when the State joined nine other States earlier this year in a lawsuit to force the

administration to scrap the mercury emissions rule. And still, even in the face of widespread mercury contamination of our streams, rivers, lakes, and even oceans, and outcry from many States, the administration refused to reconsider.

Unless Congress acts to disapprove the administration's rule, reduction in the amount of mercury emitted will be substantially delayed. Under the Clean Air Act, utilities are required to use the maximum available control technology to reduce mercury emissions by 2008. The rule we debate today--and that I hope we void--would turn that clock back by 10 years to 2018 and then wouldn't even achieve a target reduction of 70 percent. A 70 percent reduction would not be met until 12 years later. Clean air and water are critical to every individual's health and we cannot put off meeting our original deadline. Cost effective pollution control technology exists to limit mercury emissions and companies are already moving forward on installing such equipment. We should encourage this innovation and move forward to quickly reduce the health risks we know to be associated with this neurotoxin.

The administration's final mercury rule, with its cap and trade emissions proposal, also falls far short of what the Clean Air Act requires to protect people all across the country. This is in part because, as noted by a National Academy of Sciences study, ``hot spots'' of mercury are the inevitable result of such a cap and trade program. Companies wouldn't be required to control emissions at their source and could instead simply buy their way out of compliance. Although trading programs may work with other pollutants, it will not work with mercury. This flawed approach will lead to highly toxic areas peppered throughout each state instead of across-the-board emissions reduction at each site.

I am not only disturbed by the substance of the EPA's mercury rule but also by investigations that have determined that the process by which the rule was drafted was badly flawed and by the failure of EPA to consider all available data. First, in conducting its investigation of the mercury rule making process and prior to finalization of the rule, the EPA's Inspector General reported the rule's development was ``compromised and, therefore, may not represent the lowest emissions level that could be achieved.'' Second, and before the rule was finalized, the Governmental Accountability Office issued a report that severely criticized the EPA's rulemaking process, finding that it violated the Agency's own policy, as well as OMB guidance and presidential executive orders. Finally, the EPA chose to ignore a Harvard study, which had been commissioned by the EPA, that demonstrated substantial public health benefits to a more stringent mercury rule. Taken together, the three process problems are unacceptable and cause for serious concern. Discouragingly, even in the face of these reports and data, the administration forged ahead with its flawed rule.

Senate Joint Resolution 20 is the first step in protecting our citizens and the environment from the harm we know follows from mercury emissions. I am saddened that we must take this step, but I hope that we can quickly reverse the administration's rule. Swift action by this body and the House will reassure Americans that we are acting with their well-being in mind, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to join the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in cosponsoring the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. This bill is a much- needed solution to the daunting problem of ensuring the privacy and the security of our personal data, which has become such a precious commodity.

As we enter the 21st century, several forces are converging to make our personal information more valuable--and vulnerable--than ever. The world is going digital, and so is our personal data. In this day and age, almost everything we do results in a third party creating a digital record about us--digital records that we may not even realize exist. We seek the convenience of opening bank accounts and making major purchases over the Internet, often without ever speaking to another person face to face or even over the telephone, making identity theft easier and more lucrative. Businesses, nonprofits and even political parties are personalizing their messages, products and services to a degree we've never seen before, and they are willing to invest significant amounts of money in collecting personal information about potential customers or donors. And we are living in an age where identity-based screening and security programs can be vitally important, resulting in more information being collected about individuals in an attempt to identify them accurately.

As a result, personal information has become a hot commodity that is bought, sold, and--as so often happens when something becomes valuable--stolen.

We are at a crossroads. We all know about the security breaches that have been on the front pages of newspapers all over the country for the past 6 months. They have placed the identities of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk.

But this is about much more than just information security. Until California law required ChoicePoint to notify individuals that their information was compromised and they might be vulnerable to identity theft, many Americans had never heard of this company. As news stories focused on the data broker business, many Americans were surprised to discover that companies are creating digital dossiers about them that contain massive amounts of information, and that these companies sell that information to commercial and government entities. The revelations about these security breaches highlighted the fact that Americans need a better understanding of what happens to their information in a digital world--and what kind of consequences they can face as a result.

When I am back home in Wisconsin, I hear from people who do not understand why companies have the right to sell their sensitive personal information. I hear from people who are shocked to discover that personal information about them is available for free on the Internet.

There is no question that data aggregators facilitate societal benefits, allowing consumers to obtain instant credit and personalized services, and police officers to locate suspects. But these companies also gather a great deal of potentially sensitive information about individuals, and in many instances they go largely unregulated.

Too many of my constituents feel they have lost control over their own information. Congress must return some power to individual Americans so that we can all better understand and manage what happens to our own personal data.

The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act takes a comprehensive approach to the privacy and security problems we face. It gives consumers back some control over their own information. The bill requires data brokers to allow consumers to access their own information, and to investigate when consumers tell them that corrections are necessary. And it requires companies to give notice to affected consumers and to law enforcement if there is a serious security breach, so that individuals know their identity may be at risk and can take steps to protect themselves.

In addition, the bill increases penalties for those who steal our identities. It provides grants to State and local law enforcement to help them combat data fraud and related crimes. It requires companies that buy and sell information to have appropriate data security systems in place. It provides protection to Social Security numbers by prohibiting the sale, purchase or display of Social Security numbers, with certain exceptions, and preventing companies from requiring customers to provide their Social Security numbers in order to purchase goods or services. These protections will help safeguard against future privacy violations and security breaches in the commercial data industry. But that is not all this bill accomplishes.

The bill also contains some critically important privacy and security provisions to govern the Government's use of commercial data. This is an aspect of the data broker business that has not yet gotten as much attention in the wake of the recent security breaches. The information gathered by these companies is not just sold to individuals and businesses; Government agencies of all stripes also buy or subscribe to information from commercial sources. The most recent example was the discovery that the Pentagon has a contract with a marketing firm to analyze commercial and other data about high school and college students.

While I believe the Government should be able to access commercial databases in appropriate circumstances, there are few existing rules or guidelines to ensure this information is used responsibly. Nor are there restrictions on the use of commercial data for powerful, intrusive data mining programs, an issue I have been particularly concerned about. The Privacy Act, which governs when Government agencies themselves are collecting data, does not apply because the information is held outside the Government and is not gathered solely at Government direction.

As a result, there is a great deal we do not know about Government use of commercial data, even in clearly appropriate circumstances such as when the agency's goal is simply to locate an individual already suspected of a crime.

We don't know under what circumstances Government employees can obtain access to these databases or for what purposes. We don't know how Government agencies evaluate the accuracy of the databases to which they subscribe, or how the accuracy level affects government use of the data. We don't know how employees are monitored to ensure they do not abuse their access to these databases, or how those who misuse the information are punished. And we don't know how Government agencies, particularly those engaged in sensitive national security investigations, ensure that the data brokers cannot keep records of who the Government is investigating, records which themselves could create a huge security risk in light of the vulnerabilities that have come to the forefront in recent months.

That is why I am so pleased that this bill includes provisions to address the Government's use of commercial data. A comprehensive approach to data privacy and security would be incomplete without taking on this piece of the puzzle. The bill recognizes there are many legitimate reasons for Government agencies to obtain commercially available data, but that they need to be subject to privacy and security protections. It takes a commonsense approach, pushing Government agencies to take basic steps to ensure that individuals' personal information is secure and only used for legitimate purposes, and that the commercial information the Government is paying for and relying on is accurate and complete.

Specifically, the bill would require that Federal agencies that subscribe to commercial data adopt standards governing its use. These standards would reflect long-standing basic privacy principles. The bill would ensure that Government agencies consider and determine which personnel will be permitted to access the information and under what circumstances; develop retention policies for this personal data and get rid of data they no longer need, minimizing the opportunity for abuse or theft; rely only on accurate and complete data, and penalize vendors who knowingly provide inaccurate information to the Federal Government; provide individuals who suffer adverse consequences as a result of the agency's reliance on commercial data with a redress mechanism; and establish enforcement mechanisms for those privacy policies.

The bill also extends to other screening programs the existing protections that already are in place to govern the Transportation Security Administration's possible use of commercial data for its identity-based airline passenger screening program, Secure Flight. If the Federal Government is going to rely on commercial data to screen Americans and decide whether to permit them to travel by air or engage in other common activities, it should do so only subject to explicit congressional authorization, as this bill provides. In addition, agencies should have to provide a redress process for those wrongly affected, and should have to operate under rules that govern the access, use, disclosure, accuracy and retention of that data.

The bill also directs the General Services Administration to review Government contracts for commercial data to make sure that vendors have appropriate security programs in place, and that they do not provide information to the Government that they know to be inaccurate. And it requires agencies to audit the information security practices of their vendors.

These are basic good Government measures. They guarantee that the Federal Government is not wasting money on inaccurate data, and that vendors are undertaking the security programs that they have promised and for which the Government is paying.

We live in a new digital world. The law may never fully keep up with technology, but we must make every effort we can. I am proud to be involved in this comprehensive, reasoned approach to privacy and security. I congratulate Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for their excellent work on this bill. This bill is important and it deserves very serious consideration by the Senate.

Mr. President, yesterday, while the Senate was voting for cloture on S. 3711, a bill that could ultimately lead to exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf of the Georges Bank in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Maine lobster industry gathered on a picturesque fishing pier in Maine to launch the ``Certified Maine Lobster'' initiative that could bring an added value to the State's $300 million lobster industry. My State accounts for 80 percent of lobster landings and is known for its lobster boats, lobster shacks, lobster buoys and lobster dinners along its scenic coastline. As a matter of fact, the Maine Lobstermen Association was formed to fight OCS drilling off the coast of Maine.

It is because of its very pristine value that fisheries and tourism are important economic engines for the State

and I cannot stand by and let these natural resources be compromised through exploration and drilling. Last year, Maine lobstermen hauled in more than 60 million pounds for a boat price of $296 million.

While supporters of, S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, say that this bill is only about the Gulf of Mexico, while at the same time stating that the bill is the first step toward opening up more areas to production. One supporter was even quoted as saying, ``The goal is to maximize over time the coastal production of America from a venue of stagnation.'' This does not sound like the bill pertains only to the Gulf of Mexico, as its supporters have stated and this has rightfully alarmed the people of my State, many who make their living directly or indirectly from the sea. Scientists, economists, and fishermen have worked for 20 to 30 years to restore the magnificent fish runs off the New England coast. To them, lifting the moratorium and allowing oil and gas drilling on the 185-mile-long broad, shallow and productive fishing ground of Georges Bank that stretches from Nova Scotia to Cape Cod is unconscionable.

As chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard, the prospect of drilling in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank and risking New England's fisheries is unacceptable to me as well. I, along with Senator Menendez, wanted to offer a simple amendment to ensure that drilling within 200 miles of the coast of Maine and other coastal States would continue to be prohibited until 2022--the same protection as is given the State of Florida in this bill.

However, without following the usual amendment process, there can be no assurances that Maine's coast will be protected when this legislation is approved by a conference or that the Joint Ocean Commission's recommendation to convert current OCS revenues for ocean fisheries research will occur, and without those assurances, I have not supported moving forward.

I am extremely disappointed that the decision was made to prevent amendments during debate that ignores the need to address conservation. We were told it would take a week to get through amendments that would have been offered. Well, this bill was brought up 1 week ago, and, instead of having true and fair debates on conservation amendments this past week and up or down votes, we have spent it on moving to cloture and getting to final passage.

I believe that considering the leasing of additional OCS waters for oil and gas drilling should only be done with utmost caution and deliberation, and at the same time, I believe that our national energy policy should seriously focus resources on the development of renewable energy and an expansion of energy efficiencies as part of a national energy policy.

I have filed an amendment to this bill that is also my stand alone bill, S. 3628, the EXTEND Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2006, that would extend the EPAct 2005 energy efficiency tax incentives until 2010--they currently expire at the end of next year having been shortened by the House in conference. Experts have calculated that, if fully implemented, the EXTEND Act will, by 2010, save 7 trillion cubic feet, Tcf, of natural gas while the Gulf of Mexico drilling bill before us would extract 5.8 Tcf by 2010. We simply cannot continue to drill ourselves out of this problem, and threaten our natural resources--we can do it with bold ideas that save much more than we can get from drilling.

A reliance on only fossil fuels retards progress in developing a sustainable and comprehensive 21st century energy policy. Furthermore, the recent fluctuation of the world oil and natural gas markets indicates that this commodity is not a reliable long-term energy source. There are uncertainties involved with fossil fuels that threatens the energy security of the United States and it is important that our nation recognize the situation and develop a diverse, sustainable and progressive energy plan through a market basket of fossil fuels, renewable energy and energy efficiencies.

Senator Feinstein and I were not allowed to offer our 10 in 10 bill as an amendment to this bill to require U.S. automakers to increase their average CAFE standards by 10 miles per gallon in 10 years. The bill would save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2025, the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf; and 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, the equivalent of taking 90 million cars--or 75 million cars and light trucks--off the road in one year. Again, we can save rather than drill.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest traded oil company, just reported a 36 percent gain in 2nd earnings. Exxon has prospered because of the high gasoline prices bolstered by the demand for supply. Increasing CAFE standards will decrease demand, lower prices and begin to put some of this money in the pockets of consumers rather than the large oil companies, who have increased output and taken advantage of the increase in oil prices, which remain over $70 a barrel.

The small increase from the latest NHTSA rule for CAFE standards for SUVs does little to save gasoline and only gives lipservice to an issue that deserves more serious consideration. Even a modest increase of only five miles per gallon in the fuel efficiency of our domestic automotive fleet would save approximately 23 billion gallons of gasoline each year and reduce oil imports by 14 percent.

This percentage is more than the 11 percent Venezuela provides for U.S. oil imports. The GAO reports that the U.S. is inadequately prepared to face the possibility of President Hugo Chavez' threat to cut off its oil imports to the U.S. The GAO reports that this disruption would cause an increase of $11 per barrel. So we are allowing Chavez to put us over a diplomatic oil barrel, so to speak. Why are we taking this risk with the trust of the American people and the economy when there are options that can be put in place to make us independent of Venezuela's oil--and political maneuvering?

Currently, the combined fleet average for all automobiles, SUVs, light trucks and passenger cars, is approximately 25 miles per gallon-- that is down from the peak of 26.2 miles per gallon in 1987. The Feinstein-Snowe-Inouye-Chafee 10 in 10 bill would increase that combined fleet average to 35 miles per gallon by Model Year 2017--or ten mpgs 10 years from today.

Also, according to the 2002 National Academy of Sciences Report on CAFE, adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. The NAS concluded that automakers can meet higher CAFE standards with existing technologies. We have the technologies today to increase our fuel economy standards. We have hybrids, more efficient engine technology, improved transmission technology, and composite materials that reduce the weight of the vehicle will all increase fuel economy standards without sacrificing safety.

I fear that the Senate conferees will come back from a conference with many of the provisions in the House bill, the Deep Ocean Resources Act, H.R 4761, a bill that replaces the moratorium that currently protects most of the nation's coastline from oil and natural gas drilling and develops a leasing system that would provide the option for states to allow drilling within 50 miles of their coastlines and allow drilling throughout the OCS beyond 100 miles. Currently, the moratorium protects the coastal area up to 200 miles out.

In passing this OCS drilling only bill today, the Senate has created lost opportunities that could have addressed how much we could save-- along with how much we can drill. This is what the consumers want to hear--that we are addressing every avenue possible to keep money in their pockets the next time they go to the gas pump or pay their electricity bill or purchase heating oil for the coming winter. The Senate has let the consumers down once again. And, the bill does nothing to protect Maine's tourist and fishing economies and its 3,500 miles of coastline.

Mr. President, I rise today during National Home Ownership Month to introduce the Housing America's Workforce Act.

Affordable and safe housing plays a vital role in creating and sustaining healthy communities and a vibrant workforce. The Housing America's Workforce Act creates incentives to expand employer-assisted housing initiatives across the Nation. I thank Senators Smith, Martinez, Reed, and Durbin for their co-sponsorship of this important legislation. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez for her leadership in introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives.

The sad truth is that across our Nation, working full-time no longer guarantees that a family will be able to afford a secure and comfortable home. The shortage of workforce housing has become a national crisis as housing costs have far outgrown the rate of inflation in many markets and as the gap between wages and housing costs widens. The result is that affordable housing is out of reach for a growing number of working families. As a result,

people who provide the backbone services for our communities--teachers, firefighters, police officers, and nurses--often cannot afford to live in the communities in which they serve. A recent workforce housing study released by the National Association of Home Builders found that for the most part, workers who provide these vital community services can only find housing they can afford in less than half of the nation's top 25 metropolitan areas.

Across the Nation, the number of working families with critical housing problems (defined as those paying more than half of their income for housing and/or living in dilapidated conditions) has increased by 67 percent between 1997 and 2003 to approximately 5 million families. Families that spend more than half of their income on housing have little income left over for other essentials such as food, healthcare, and transportation.

And despite overall improvements in home-ownership trends since 1978, working families--employed households with children earning less than 120 percent of Area Median Income--have actually experienced a decrease in homeownership rates. A 2004 Center for Housing Policy study shows that the homeownership rate for working families with children was at 62.5 percent in 1978, and only 56.6 percent through 2001.

Employer-assisted housing, EAH, is a local, innovative solution that a growing number of employers are using to meet the housing needs of their employees while increasing the competitiveness of their businesses. There are several types of EAH products, including homebuyer education, down payment assistance, rental assistance and loan guarantee programs. Employers often combine these products to meet their employees' specific needs in the most effective ways.

The benefits for employees and employers are impressive. The employee, in addition to receiving financial support from an employer to buy or rent a home closer to work, also regains extra time--formerly spent in traffic--for family or community life. The employer likewise benefits from a more stable workforce when employees live near work. They enjoy the advantages from the improved employee morale, lower turnover rate and reduced recruitment costs result in bottom line savings that the increased proximity brings. Furthermore, EAH programs benefit not only the workers and employers, but also the entire community. As former commuters buy homes near the jobsite, the surrounding community which previously suffered from traffic congestion, now enjoys new investment and property tax revenues.

The Housing America's Workforce Act is inspired in great part by lessons learned in States and local communities across the Nation, where EAH has proven to be an effective tool to promote housing affordability for working families and community revitalization. Through EAH programs, the private sector becomes part of the solution, investing in housing assistance for employees while experiencing bottom line benefits. This is clearly a public-private partnership that is proven and makes sense.

The Housing America's Workforce Act provides incentives to increase private sector investment in housing in three important ways. First, it offers a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar that an employer provides to eligible employees up to $10,000 or six percent of the employee's home purchase price, whichever is less, or up to $2,000 for rental assistance. Second, to ensure that employees receive the full value of employers' contributions, the Act defines housing assistance as a ``nontaxable benefit,'' similar to health, dental and life insurance. Third, the act establishes a competitive grant program available to nonprofit housing organizations that provide technical assistance, program administration, and outreach support to employers undertaking EAH initiatives.

In New York and in other parts of the country, EAH has caught on with the local business community, elected and appointed officials, and the broader housing arena. Its expansion indicates a growing understanding among the private sector that it pays to invest in workforce housing. I have worked with employers across my State to launch county employer- assisted housing programs in places such as Long Island, Rochester and Westchester.

I have met many of the families that have already benefited from Long Island's EAH program, which I helped launch in 2002. People like the Isaacs family, who were able to buy their first home in North Amityville in 2002 thanks to their employer's participation in the program. Pamela Isaac, like so many employees on Long Island, works as a Dietician at Our Lady of Consolation, part of the Catholic Health Services Network. Catholic Health Services' participation in the employer assisted housing program enabled Pamela and her husband Bartholomew to stay on Long Island and raise their three children in their own home.

I also worked in collaboration with Mayor William A. Johnson of Rochester to jumpstart the City of Rochester's EAH initiative. The City provides $3,000 for its own employees and also encourages other employers to provide a home purchase benefit by offering to match that benefit dollar for dollar up to a maximum of $3,000. Therefore, if an employer offered the maximum benefit of $3,000, he or she would produce a $6,000 benefit for his or her employees with the city's matching funds.

The Westchester County EAH, which was spEAHheaded by the Business Council and Fannie Mae, brings together the following Westchester County nonprofit organizations: Housing Action Council, Westchester Residential Opportunities, Westchester Housing Fund and Community Housing Innovations. Each of these nonprofits provides standardized, comprehensive education and counseling support to participating employers. The initiative also provides matching funds of up to $3,000 from Westchester County or from the cities of Yonkers, New Rochelle, White Plains or Mount Vernon. In addition, the nonprofit collaborative offers down payment and closing cost assistance programs that can match employer contributions.

The creation of Federal incentives to expand employer-assisted housing has been a consistent recommendation of experts in the broader housing arena, including the Millennial Housing Commission. In addition, former HUD Secretaries Henry Cisneros and Jack Kemp, along with Nic Retsinas and Kent Colton of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies recently released a bipartisan platform for national housing policy, which includes EAH as one of its recommendations.

According to the Society for Human Resources Management's 2004 Benefits Survey, 12 percent of employers offered home ownership assistance in 2004, up from 7 percent in 2002. Since 1991, Fannie Mae has offered a nationwide EAH program through participating lending institutions and employers. Fannie Mae has helped about 750 employers of various sizes implement EAH programs and nearly 570 have been launched since 2000. Freddie Mac launched a similar national program in 1999, which it expanded in 2004. Several states have enacted EAH tax incentive programs, including Illinois, Connecticut, Missouri, and New Jersey.

Employer-assisted housing programs offer a fresh approach to addressing our Nation's housing challenge by allowing the private sector to play a direct role in promoting housing affordability. I hope every Senator will recognize that the Housing America's Workforce Act will create opportunities for us as a Nation to expand these public- private partnerships and will make a profound impact in the lives of our workforce, and I hope that you will support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to strongly support S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, and I also rise to put its provisions in perspective and to dispel some of the myths and simple inaccuracies that, unfortunately, have been propagated in many places, including on the Senate floor.

It is important to understand what this important Energy bill does because it does do significant and important things, and it is also important to understand what this bill does not do because it does not do several things that opponents have claimed. So let's go down these two simple lists.

This Energy Security Act does many important things. It brings new sources of domestic energy to the market over the next few years. All of us should agree that is a very important and necessary component of securing our energy future--not the only component, not the only thing we must do but a very important component of what we must do.

This bill generates new revenue for the U.S. Treasury. There has been enormous misinformation about that. There have been claims that the producing States are somehow raiding the Federal Treasury. What the States are doing is producing more Federal revenue for the Federal Treasury. If that is a raid, let the raids begin, and we will soon erase the deficit.

This bill promotes parity with nearly 90 years of onshore energy production policy by recognizing the importance of reinvesting in our offshore energy-producing areas to ensure the sustainability and liability of domestic energy production and independence.

For decades and decades, producing States onshore, on Federal land, have shared 50 percent of the royalty produced on those Federal lands. This begins to achieve some parity with that by allowing coastal producing States 37.5 percent.

This provides dedicated revenue streams for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That fund makes grants available to all of our States for 50 percent of the costs of parks, soccer fields, and other recreational opportunities.

This fully complies with the budget resolution we passed last year and the reserve fund amendment I included in the Senate's budget resolution this year, and it all reduces America's dependence on volatile foreign energy sources.

Those are all very important goals. Those are all goals achieved by this bill.

Just as importantly, there are many things this bill does not do which opponents have confused in the debate.

This bill does not in any way affect offshore California, the west coast, the Northeast, or anywhere on the east coast. This bill is focused on the Gulf of Mexico and has the support of the Senators from all of those Gulf Coast States.

This bill does not change offshore policy in any area other than the Gulf of Mexico, which today provides up to 30 percent of our energy.

This bill does not raid the Federal Treasury of funds from current revenue streams. It does not increase the deficit. As I said, what this bill does is the opposite. It allows production activity which would not occur otherwise. What does that mean? That means increased Federal revenue--$1 billion toward deficit reduction--not decreased Federal revenue.

This bill does not provide funds for the expansion of Federal land acquisition programs through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

I find, quite frankly, the opposition to this bill enormously frustrating. So many of these same Members of the Senate--others in the broader debate--are some of the loudest voices about high, increasing energy prices, oil prices at the pump, natural gas prices and what that does to our competitiveness. I agree with those concerns. Those are very legitimate concerns. Yet we bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that can absolutely have a short-term impact, a positive impact, bringing prices down, and, no, they have to oppose it. That is not good. That cannot be part of the solution.

The cost of natural gas has increased 400 percent over the last several years. Natural gas is a mostly continental commodity. Its importation through LNG is possible, but that alone cannot have enough of an impact to bring down prices the way we want to see them come down. So we need to produce more domestically. This bill will do that and help bring down natural gas prices.

Gasoline prices have increased from $1.28 in 1996 to over $3.60 in some areas of the country today. Of course, these surges were exacerbated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

These huge spikes don't impact us just at the gas pump or when we pay our heating and cooling bill. They affect us everywhere--at the grocery store, when we buy clothes, at the hardware store, the airlines when we go on trips, restaurants when they pay higher energy bills, and also in the job picture. When we decry jobs moving overseas, high natural gas prices in this country are a huge factor, particularly in select industries such as our chemical industry.

Yet, again, the folks who run to the floor of the Senate to beat on these issues and try to take advantage of them politically the most are among those who are opposing this bill. It makes no sense to me, and it is enormously frustrating to me.

They also seem to be opposed to this bill because they are just opposed on virtual religious grounds on more oil and gas production.

We need to do a lot of things to secure our energy future, and certainly that involves research and new technology and new forms of energy. But as we do that--and we are doing that, and we will do more, and we must do more--as we do that, the fact is, for the next several years and several decades we will have an economy in some ways dominated by oil and gas.

So if we want to give consumers relief, if we want to secure our energy independence in the short term, we also at the same time need to attack that side of the question, and this bill does that, domestically increasing our independence.

It is just completely irresponsible for people to say we can't address that side of the equation. We must, as we must address the longer-term side of the equation, with new technology, new sources of energy, new science and engineering. Those both have to be necessary components of a solution.

I would have a little more sympathy with some of these arguments if Senators from many of these other States,

not in the directly affected region in the gulf, were producing at least other forms of energy. They don't like oil? They don't like natural gas? There are other things folks in different parts of the country can do. There is nuclear. There is solar. There is windpower. The fact is, so many of the critics from these other places do not contribute to the Nation's energy needs in any of these categories.

The Department of Energy has some interesting statistics. State by State, what does a State consume in energy and what does it produce? California consumes eight times more energy than it produces. Massachusetts is the winner. It consumes 65 times more energy than it produces. Florida consumes 11 times more energy than it produces.

This is not being part of the solution. This is not sustainable. It is particularly ironic when some voices from these very same places decry a bill as we have on the floor which can be part of the solution, which can lower energy prices even in the short term and can get us to the longer term as we transition to new energy sources.

Finally, as I mentioned, there is a whole myth that many of these same opponents bring up that somehow we are raiding the Federal Treasury. If bringing in more Federal revenue is raiding the Federal Treasury, then let the raid begin. That is what this bill does. It increases Federal revenue--$1 billion more for the Federal Treasury, $1 billion more of deficit reduction. That is the plain and simple fact. Why is that? Because this bill expands production which expands revenue which, even in the new rules of revenue sharing under this bill, increases Federal revenue and decreases the deficit.

For any opponents to claim that this somehow increases the deficit and raids the Federal Treasury is simply untrue. It is factually incorrect. There is more Federal revenue, bringing down the deficit.

S. 3711 is positive. It is concrete, it is taking action now. It is a step forward. It can have an impact that can make life better for average Americans, even in the short term, and help bring down energy prices, help increase our energy independence, help produce new revenue, not just to the producing States; but also to the Federal Treasury--help reduce the Federal deficit.

This is a win-win-win-win, and I urge my colleagues to support this important energy legislation.

I yield the floor.