Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to finally comment on some of these things and to do my opening statement.

I do want to say I was a little surprised by the speech of the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, about, primarily, the price of gas. I have to say, he has got it right. That is the biggest concern on the minds of people across this country. No matter what else we are talking about, it is about the price of gas. What I learned from his speech is we are going to be disrupted in this debate later today as the majority leader rule XIVs an energy bill.

I wish to congratulate Senator Domenici for his work on putting together an energy bill which we had a vote on this morning. I really think if that could have been voted on in pieces, a number of those pieces would have passed and made a difference to this country.

I can see that the main thrust of the bill we are going to be interrupted by later to take a look at is one to force Saudi Arabia to increase their production by a million barrels a day or give up some arms purchases from us.

Let's see, if we sell them arms--which I have not looked at enough to know whether that is a good idea--we get some money back. When we force them to do a million barrels a day, we give them $120 million a day. Part of that, which some people do not like, was ANWR. ANWR would produce at least a million barrels of oil a day from the United States. We would be paying people in the United States for the oil, not shipping it over to Saudi Arabia, and we have to worry about what they are going to do with the arms we sell them.

So I can understand they ought to be concerned about gas and are finally

concerned about gas and are going to interrupt us to be concerned about gas, but we had a proposal this morning that should have gotten a little bit more consideration and some of those provisions put into effect so we could actually solve some of our energy problem.

Let's see now, we are going to put the burden on Saudi Arabia.

My first encounter with higher gas prices happened back in 1973. I was president of the Wyoming Jaycees. We did some things to Saudi Arabia they were not very pleased about, and they cut us off completely. That produced the biggest crisis in this country in my memory. We had lines at the gas pumps. We had people who could not transport goods. We had people who could not get gas. We were trying to figure out ways to store gas should we ever get it again. It was because Saudi Arabia said: OK, if that is the way you are going to be, no oil.

Well, at any rate, I do not think we are carrying as big a stick on this as we think we are. We need to be looking at a number of the solutions.

Windfall profits tax--that was a good way for us to drive our companies overseas to do their work, to sell us oil. That does not bring down the price of oil. If I had my way, I would call the energy companies in. I would tell them I want to know what they are doing with however many billions of dollars worth of profit they are making. I want to know about it weekly. And I would report to the American people on a weekly basis. I do not suspect that would bring down the price of oil. I do suspect that would bring up the investment in energy, all kinds of energy. We need to have that done.

So I do not mean to go on and on about this, but as long as we are going to be interrupted in our debate on public employees, I want to make sure I have my say on it too.

Mr. President, I do rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 980, the so-called Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. The fact that this bill has come to the Senate today is just another example of the cynical calculus of election-year politics. We are still doing ``gotcha'' politics on this floor. How do I know that? I know we have not passed a bill that did not go through committee--not just the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that I am the ranking member of but the other committees. If it does not go through committee, it does not pass. But here we have an issue that I am told was passed last July by the House. Do you know how many hearings we have held on it? I looked back 4 years, and we have not had a hearing on this one--not a hearing on it.

What we do at hearings is kind of invite people in to tell us some specific points they want to make on a particular bill. Now, you will find that I am not a very big proponent of hearings because the chairman--and I used to be the chairman--gets to invite all the people to the committee except one and the ranking member gets to invite one. Then, people from both sides show up to beat up on the other witnesses. That is not very productive.

We did switch to a system, occasionally, where we have had roundtables. Roundtables are a little bit different than hearings. With roundtables, you invite in 10, 15, 20 people who have actually done something in the area, and you hear what the problems are and what the advantages are, and after all of them have spoken, then they interact with each other. They are not Senators asking clever questions. They interact with each other on ways their ideas fit with somebody else's idea. They come up with some good legislation.

Now, we have not ever had hearings--or roundtables on this issue. So how do you know what is really a good idea? How do you know what the effect is going to be on other people when you do not do anything to prepare for it and then you bring it right to the floor?

Another advantage of going through committee is that you can find out what the concerns are from the amendments when it gets to the markup process. From those amendments, you can say: Well, this might be a good idea, but we have to revise it a little bit. People go off and work on that part of the idea, and they bring it back in a workable fashion that will fit that both sides agree on.

You say it cannot be done on labor issues? Well, in the past we have. We passed a mine safety bill through here in less than 6 weeks, and it passed unanimously in the Senate, and it passed unanimously in the House. That is how we did it. We did it through the committee process. Now, that was the first change in mining law in 28 years, but it was done cooperatively, and it was done through the committee process.

This one has, I guess, purposely circumvented the regular order of the Senate and its committee process because the scrutiny of that process would expose some multiple flaws in the legislation. We are going to have some amendments that will point out what some of the flaws are in this legislation. Now, it is very difficult to do it here. I have to put in an amendment, and we kind of vote it up or we vote it down. We cannot go off and work it out so it is agreeable to both sides. It is a difficult process, especially when you involve 100 people with it. It is much easier to do it in committee.

So we have this bill, and once again we are going to play the election-year spin, going to do sound bites, probably do a lot of press. But I suspect the result may be the same as other things that did not go through committee.

Now, their calculation is simple: Since this bill involves unions that organize among police and firefighters, they will continue to simply claim that anyone who opposes this bill is against police and firefighters. You have already heard it.

Let's address that calculated untruth first. There is no one I know of--Republican or Democrat, supporter or opponent of this bill--who does not respect and value the work and dedication of our police, our firefighters, and other first responders. Their contributions to our communities are immeasurable, and our support for them is unwavering. However, this bill provides no benefit to any police officer, firefighter, or first responder. It does not provide a dime in Federal money to any State, city, or town to hire or to train or to equip any additional public safety personnel. In fact, it only imposes costs that will make that result less likely.

The bill does not contain a dime of Federal money or a word of language that would increase the pay or benefits of any firefighter, police officer or first responder or that would enhance their working conditions or that would make their job safer or make their retirement more secure. It only imposes totally unfunded costs on States, cities, and towns that will make those rules less--not more--likely.

Plain and simple, the only direct beneficiaries of this legislation are labor unions. This bill does nothing more than open new markets for unions, and it provides them with the opportunity for increased revenue from new dues-paying members. This bill does nothing for any police officer, firefighter or first responder, except to provide them with the dubious opportunity to share a portion of their paycheck with the labor union.

The real truth is there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about being fully supportive of our local police and firefighters and first responders and totally opposed to this bill. A vote against this bill is not a vote against first responders. Proponents of this bill would serve both the debate and themselves better by abandoning any absurd claims to the contrary. The public is simply not that gullible, and I think the public is fed up with a Congress that transparently panders to special interests, while trying to tell the rest of the world they are acting in everybody's interests. The old song is out of tune, but as long as some continue to sing it, there shouldn't be any surprise about the fact that the public opinion of Congress is at an all-time low.

Let me now turn for a moment to some of the serious and fundamental problems with this legislation. Over 70 years ago, the Congress passed what is now referred to as the National Labor Relations Act. That legislation has been amended numerous times over the many decades of existence, and it has become universally recognized as the embodiment of our national labor policy. A hallmark of that policy for eight decades has been the well-reasoned principle that the employment and

labor relations between a State, city or town and its own employees should not be a matter of Federal law, but a matter of local law. That bedrock principle is not only rooted in our national labor policy; it is firmly fixed in our Constitution and our traditions of federalism. For more than 70 years, Congress has repeatedly and consistently excluded State and local labor relations from Federal control and intervention. Yet today the proponents of this bill seek to overturn this hallmark principle and to radically change decades of unbroken Federal law and policy. The enormity of this change is only matched by the prospect that it could occur in the wake of an appalling lack of thought, total disregard for the processes of the Senate, and complete absence of any meaningful opportunity for rational debate.

This body has before it a bill that would overturn more than 70 years of unbroken precedent and law. It would raise profound constitutional issues. It would overturn law in a majority of States--in a majority of States--and completely reverse the fundamental and founding principle of our national labor policy. You would think the Senate would consider such a bill only after careful examination and due deliberation. But if you do think that way, sadly, you are wrong. This legislation, as I said, has not had a Senate committee hearing or markup this Congress. I looked back 4 years. I could not find a single hearing or markup on this bill. There has been no meaningful exploration by the HELP Committee this Congress of the important issues that this legislation implicates. This bill grants enormous power over States to a virtually unknown Federal agency that will make critical decisions about these people. Yet we have never so much as asked a representative sampling of State officials about their views, nor have we ever informally asked the Federal agency involved if it feels up to the job we are about to impose on it. These shortcomings alone are ample proof that this bill is being pushed not because it is good policy but only because we see it as expedient politics in an election year.

This bill would require that every State, every city, and every town with more than 5,000 residents would open its police, firefighters, and first responders to unionization. It would impose as Federal mandate-- not in the absence of any State consideration of this issue but in direct opposition to the legislative will of several States.

Proponents of this legislation have attempted to maintain the fiction that it actually does little to disturb State laws--a good way to pass a bill, I guess, but not true. It is simply not the case. Within the last 2 legislative sessions, some 13 States have officially considered and rejected legislative proposals similar to the law that would be federally imposed under H.R. 980. The proponents of this legislation have attempted to maintain the fiction that it wouldn't disturb State laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every expert who has reviewed this law has concluded it is clearly in conflict with the current law in at least 22 States, and the chart shows the 22 States. Some believe the number is as high as 26, and even the bill proponents freely concede it is at least 21. All of these States, their citizens, and their legislatures have expressly considered all the issues raised in this bill and have decided on a different approach--a different approach--than what would be required under this bill. Some States have decided to use meet-and-confer laws. Some have placed limits on the enforceability of agreements. Some have limited the subjects of bargaining. Some have made the issue one of local option, and some have decided to limit bargaining by employee function.

States, cities, and towns have done what they think best to provide for the safety and welfare of their own citizens in developing their labor relations policy for their own public safety employees. Yet we propose to clearly overturn the democratic judgment of at least 22 States through this legislation.

Let's be clear. We would take this action not because States have not acted; that is not the case. All these States made a conscious, democratic decision about what is best for their citizens. In fact, some 16 of these States have considered and rejected laws similar to H.R. 980 within the last few years.

Now, the impact, however, doesn't end there. Experts who have reviewed this legislation and existing State laws have identified at least 12 States where this bill would raise serious legal questions about one or more aspects of their existing collective bargaining law. You can see those filled in on the chart. These are States that supposedly have full collective bargaining statutes. Remember: The question of whether an existing State law complies with the requirements of H.R. 980 is going to be figured out later by a little- known Federal agency--the Federal Labor Relations Authority--that is devoid of any experience in State labor relations and isn't accountable to a single State government. I am sure all the technical and legal issues left unclear by this bill, which bear on whether a State law complies, will keep an awful lot of lawyers busy for a long time and guarantee a huge expansion of the Federal labor relations authority.

Now, the effect of this bill, however, goes beyond the States where the law is clearly overturned and where it is probably overturned and where the lawyers will fight about whether it is overturned. By federalizing State labor relations, this bill will affect every State, city, and town in the country. As a matter of State law, States have the authority to effectively take items off the union bargaining table. Many States with collective bargaining laws already do this, particularly in the area of public safety. Manning and staffing levels, training and job requirements, deadly force rules, drug testing, merit pay, job requirements, and promotion are a few of the examples of the terms and conditions of employment which must be bargained but could be exempted from bargaining by State action or a law. Now, once you federalize this law, States will lose that authority.

Look closely at both the Senate and the House language of this bill. It specifically lists only three things a State can exempt or take off the bargaining table: pension, retirement benefits, and in one version, health insurance. Everything else is on the table. That will be the Federal law over which a State can do nothing.

This is a critical problem for every State. States can't be responsible for the safety of their citizens when the Federal Government takes away the authority they need to accomplish the job. Here is one example. Suppose a State decides to implement mandatory drug testing for public safety officers. It can't just do that under Federal law if H.R. 980 passes. Any change such as that would require bargaining. Why would we ever require that any State, city or town bargain or horse trade over matters of public safety?

If you don't think this is a real problem, you need only look at today's paper. The city of Boston has for years sought to negotiate a drug-testing provision with its public safety union. Despite incidents of documented and suspected drug use by Active-Duty personnel, the city has not been able to implement a program. We have seen the same pattern reflected in the utterly shameful situation in Major League Baseball and the inability to achieve any meaningful resolution, despite years and years and years of collective bargaining. Now, here is the difference: Baseball is a game; public safety isn't.

So let us be completely clear about what we propose doing with this legislation. Any vote that advances this bill is a vote to overturn the law and the democratic will of citizens of a near majority of our States. Let me say that again. Any vote that advances this bill is a vote to overturn the law and the democratic will of the citizens of a near majority of our States to create unnecessary question and litigation over the validity of law in many other States and to forever tie the hands and limit the authority of every State to protect the safety of its citizens as it sees best. This legislation is not only directly contrary to over 70 years of Federal labor policy; it further violates the most fundamental, centuries-long principles of federalism and most likely runs completely afoul of the U.S. Constitution to boot.

With all this in mind, we should be asking ourselves: What price is this Congress willing to pay in an effort to ingratiate itself to organized labor?

Earlier this year, Congress transparently pandered to the special interests of organized labor and came perilously close to depriving workers of their democratic right to a secret ballot in deciding the question of unionization. Now we are at it again. This time, however, the price of congressional pandering is the sovereign authority of States and the integrity of their democratic process.

Since even these compelling facts are unlikely to stand in the way of politics, we need to look at the legislation itself. Since it has not been discussed and has not been marked up in the committee of jurisdiction, I suppose at least a few moments of legislative consideration is better than none at all.

In no particular order, here are a few of the multiple and fatal drafting and policy problems of this bill:

First, this bill is the height of hypocrisy by the Federal Government. This bill would require States, cities, and towns over 5,000 to provide full collective bargaining for all their public safety employees. However, while requiring this of States, cities, and towns, the Federal Government would continue to exempt itself from any collective bargaining obligation with regard to many of its public safety employees.

Let's see. We are going to tell States, cities, and towns what to do, but we don't tell ourselves what to do. That sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Second, this law would require States to bargain over wages of their covered employees. However, the Federal Government routinely exempts itself from bargaining over wages with its employees.

I wonder how many Senators bargain with their staff? Moreover, this bill would severely limit--in fact, virtually eliminate--the right of State governments to determine the appropriate subjects for bargaining with their employees--a right fully retained by the Federal Government with regard to its employees.

Third, this legislation forces collective bargaining on States but doesn't require or ensure fundamental employee rights. For example, Federal law preserves the right of the workers in the private sector to decide the issue of unionization by secret ballot. However, this legislation, which imposes collective bargaining on unwilling States, cities, towns, and their employees, not only fails to guarantee the right to a secret ballot in union elections, it specifically ratifies and approves State laws that strip public sector workers from this fundamental democratic right.

Fourth, this legislation is a gift to organized labor that comes with none of the obligations or safeguards of other federally mandated bargaining. Unionized workers, under current Federal law, have the right to information about their union's finances, and those unions must publicly report on their finances every year. This bill would force unions on States, cities, and towns but would not require union financial transparency or require that workers have access to this financial data.

Fifth, this is the gift that keeps on giving. Not only is there no requirement about union financial reporting and disclosure in this bill, this bill also fails to contain any guarantees to the workers about how their union dues money can be spent. For example, workers unionized under current Federal law cannot be required to contribute to a union's favorite political causes. This bill, which forces collective bargaining on States, cities, and towns that have rejected it contains no such guarantee.

Sixth, this bill would not only fail to provide any meaningful guarantee against the disruption of municipal services because of labor disputes, it practically guarantees the right of unions to cause those disruptions. The bill purports to have no strike guarantee. However, it goes to great pains to say it is not a strike when a public safety officer refuses ``to carry out services that are not mandatory conditions'' of their employment.

What does that mean? Who decides which duties of a firefighter or police officer or public safety officer--that is a pretty broad title-- are ``mandatory''? This provision appears to be nothing more than legislative code words specifically authorizing ``work to rule'' and a host of other types of disruptive job actions that have become all too familiar among public school teacher unions. This bill forces unions on unwilling cities and towns, and then gives those unions a legislative green light to disrupt municipal services.

Finally, there is the enormous problem in this legislation that relates to volunteer firefighters. It is no secret that the International Association of Firefighters, the principal firefighter union in this country, actively opposes the use of voluntary fire departments. It has consistently sought to prevent its members from volunteering their services. Its own union constitution provides for the discipline, fining, or discharge of members who do. The most effective way this union has to prohibit volunteering or, as they refer to it, ``two-hatting,'' is the union contract clause to that effect. They have sought and obtained this kind of clause in union contracts across the country and want to make sure they can continue to do so under H.R. 980.

Now, there is a clause in there that may be referred to. If you look at it, it is ``weasel'' words. It does not do what it is purported to do, and it will eliminate volunteer fire departments.

Members are being told this problem with the bill has been ``fixed.'' That is wrong. It is not. If you really wanted to make sure unions had no authority to kill off volunteer firefighting, you could write a plain provision that does exactly that. Instead, both the House and Senate versions use convoluted, double negative, lawyer speak in a deceptive effort to claim that the problem is solved. I guarantee you that it is not. Once you unwind the language, you will find both the House and Senate versions of the bill leave the door wide open to an all-out union assault on the use of volunteer firefighters.

In 25 States, volunteer firefighters account for all or most of the staffing in more than 90 percent of the departments statewide. In 14 States, volunteers account for all or most of the staffing in more than 80 percent of the departments. With just two exceptions, in the remaining 11 States, volunteers account for all or most of the staffing in more than 60 percent of the departments. No State can provide fire protection in its cities, towns, and rural districts without volunteer firefighters. Anyone who even considers advancing this legislation ought to be completely sure that it could not have a negative effect in their State.

These problems represent only the tip of the iceberg. This bill is quite simply a prime example of terrible policy being badly executed, without process.

Mr. President, I want to bring up another point regarding this legislation that is also of critical importance. This bill imposes an enormous unfunded Federal mandate on States, cities, and towns across the country. I want to take a minute and address this serious concern not only from my current position as a Senator but from my former position as mayor of Gillette, WY, a city of about 22,000 people.

As I look around the Chamber, not many here have had any experience with trying to balance the budget of a city or town. So I guess we should understand why they would pay so little attention to the very real financial consequences of their actions on thousands of municipalities. They ought to.

Just last week, after teetering on the brink of insolvency, the city of Vallejo, CA, finally declared bankruptcy. Everyone has acknowledged that the cause of Vallejo's financial problems was plain and simple: The spiraling costs of their police and firefighter labor agreements.

Vallejo is not alone. In the last few years, a number of other cities and towns have teetered on the brink or actually have been forced into bankruptcy: McCall, ID; Toledo, OH; Marion, MS; Moffet, OK; Duluth, MN--just to name a few.

Now, what we usually don't realize in this body is those bodies don't get to print their own money. They actually have to work with the revenue that comes in. Most of them have severe limitations on the ability to raise money. They could not raise taxes if they wanted to. So the revenue is limited, but the costs go up. What do you do?

Here is the reality. Without regard to pay or benefits, just the administrative costs alone of collective bargaining represent a very significant line item

that Congress now proposes to force on States, cities, and towns. Towns, particularly small ones, that currently don't have the resources to negotiate and administer multiple collective bargaining agreements must now hire and pay for these additional services. And this isn't just going to be one; it is multiple.

Towns and cities that do not devote the long hours of municipal time to the complicated process of bargaining and overseeing multiple union contracts and to administering contract provisions and resolving disputes under a collective bargaining system will be required to spend that time. Nobody should be fooled. Those additional manpower and manhour requirements are enormously costly and burdensome. This bill would impose those costs by Federal mandate but would not provide a single penny of Federal money to help offset those costs. Make no mistake, the Congress is proposing to buy organized labor a free lunch and stick America's small towns with the bill.

As a former mayor and as the only accountant in the Senate, I remind my colleagues about the cold realities of municipal finance. If you increase municipal costs, you have only two ways to meet those increased costs: You either increase revenues or decrease services. This bill will unquestionably place many municipalities in that difficult position of choosing between raising State and local taxes, which they probably would not have the capability to do, or decreasing and eliminating local municipal services, which they don't want to do.

Are the Members of this body so completely out of touch with the real needs of their constituents and the real fiscal problems that their cities and towns face every day that they would impose these unnecessary costs and burdens? With stagnant or declining property values and an endless parade of increasingly fixed costs, don't our cities and towns have enough on their plate without the Federal Government imposing yet another cost on them?

This isn't an imaginary problem. Remember Vallejo, CA, and the other cities and towns I mentioned across the country that make it clear that this problem is very real.

For all these reasons, Mr. President, I am opposed to H.R. 980. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. Hopefully, we will have a chance to make some corrections to this bill--particularly on the flaws that I have pointed out.

I will just recap. It didn't go to committee. It is an unprecedented intrusion by the Federal Government. It directly overturns existing laws in 22 States. It casts doubt on a dozen more. Sixteen States have recently considered and rejected legislation very much like this. It calls into question the constitutionality. We had no hearing or markup. It creates unfunded mandates. It would impose costs on small towns.

I don't know how many of you think 5,000 is a big city. Actually, in Wyoming it is; 3,500 is considered a first-class city. But 5,000 is not a very big town, and there isn't as much expertise.

I mention that another piece of the bill says the requirement is imposed when there are 25 employees. It doesn't say 25 public safety employees. It doesn't say 25 people who would be covered by this. It says a flat 25. I suspect there are a lot smaller towns than 5,000 that have 25 employees. That is a pretty small amount. That is not the same as public safety employees. So they either have to cut services or raise taxes or the city is going into bankruptcy.

The bill doesn't contain any worker protection for them getting to vote on whether they will have a union, and it puts in charge a little known Federal agency. Again, it is pretty hypocritical of us. We have not imposed this on the Federal Government, but we are willing to impose it on the little places back home. I think we will regret it, and it will remind us of the mistake we made here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues we are open for business. I know there are amendments that Members have they would like to be considered. I am more than happy, with my colleague, the ranking member, Senator Shelby, to try to consider those amendments and deal with them expeditiously.

Last evening, we entered a unanimous consent agreement which requires that all amendments be offered,

debated, and voted on by the close of business today. The close of business today can occur any time between now and midnight. I suspect most Members, knowing there may not be any votes tomorrow--I forget exactly what the leader said about that. I think there is a possibility of no votes tomorrow depending on the schedule and agenda. If that is the case, if we deal with these amendments between now and the early part of the afternoon, we can complete the business of this bill until next week when we will have votes on energy issues before final passage of the flood insurance bill.

Again, I am willing and anxious to consider the amendments. I know several people have amendments. They offered some of them last evening and debated them to some degree. So we are prepared to enter into a little more debate and get to some votes. My idea is, to satisfy the convenience of Members, to try to consider three or four of these amendments and then hold a period of 45 minutes or so to vote on three or four items at a time rather than bring Members over every half hour for a 15-minute vote. We will try to deal with several amendments and then have a period of voting before considering the second tranche of issues.

I know Senator Shelby is in the vicinity. We are here to entertain these proposals.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, in response to Senator Coburn's earlier comments, I thank him for his courtesy in withdrawing the amendment. He is raising a very legitimate issue about how we get greater compliance, as Senator Shelby pointed out, and achieve greater actuarial soundness in a program that is in desperate need of that.

The bill does something else. In fact, we voted on it last evening. I believe Senator Landrieu and Senator Dorgan offered an amendment that would have stripped out the mandatory requirements of people being required to pay premiums if they live in these high-risk areas. That amendment was defeated pretty soundly here. It is less than a dollar a day, about $316, I think, to a maximum of $350 a year under our bill for about 350,000 dollars' worth of coverage: $250,000 for the property, $100,000 for contents.

The House bill actually goes out a bit higher. Senator Vitter wanted to raise that number. Senator Shelby and I opposed that amendment. I am not unsympathetic to Senator Vitter's suggestion in certain high-cost areas that $250,000 ought to be a bit higher.

But the point Senator Coburn is making is that we want to get people here to contribute. We have 25 percent of the claims that are coming from these risky areas where only 1 percent of policies are actually being paid. So one out of every four dollars that is going out for coverage under the flood insurance program is in these areas, and yet less than 1 percent of the premiums are being paid out of those areas.

So, clearly, if you are going to be actuarially sound, you get that many claims out of that area, you have to get more compliance. How do you do that? Our bill does not go as far as Senator Coburn's does, but in our bill we require, as we do under a lot of similar areas, that the banks be required to collect these premiums, in fact, even hold them in escrow so we have a better assurance that we are going to get a lot more compliance with that approach.

But I am certainly sympathetic to the goals of ensuring that we get as much compliance as possible, and how you do that is a legitimate debate. I appreciate his raising the issue.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Coburn budget point of order occur at 12 noon today, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote equally divided and controlled by myself and Senator Coburn or our designees.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Let me underscore the point that, some 23 years ago, I was a new Member of this institution sitting in that last chair over in the corner, and I offered a pay-as- you-go budget. I think I got 24 votes in 1983 or 1984. I have strong feelings about whether we will be accountable and whether we pay for what we want to do. My colleague from Oklahoma certainly raises a point I have raised for as long as I have been here and tried legislatively to insist upon some accountability in how we do things. With this program, obviously the problem we are in is by attaching these additional costs onto the premium cost today, we make it prohibitive for a lot of people. So we were faced with a choice which was not one I would have preferred. But we have ourselves in a position in this country today where we are spending almost that amount of money every month on the conflict in Iraq, and we are not paying for it, something Harry Truman would not have tolerated. In the war in Korea, he said we would go to Korea provided the American taxpayer was willing to pay for it.

Every 8 weeks we are accumulating a debt and passing it on to my 3- year-old. The Senator knows I have young children. Every 8 weeks we are asking my daughter to assume the financial responsibility of this conflict. In addition to this program, we are trying to make a difference in people's lives, where they may lose their homes and their life's possessions. That is certainly one I would like to see us account for, but we are facing a situation today where I have to try and move this along. But I would hope that on a whole host of these issues, where we are talking about deficit financing or financing things without paying for them, that we would apply the same standards so we have this kind of uniformity to our concerns. And certainly, the $2 billion every week, the $12 billion every month, the $24 to $30 billion every 2 months is another example of what happens when we ask the American taxpayer in the future to assume a responsibility. It is a legitimate point the Senator raises. I identify with it. In my tenure, I have tried to do something about it. Hopefully, we have done that, Senator Shelby and I.

I appreciate his kind comments about our effort in this bill to put this program on the kind of footing that never causes us to come back here again under similar circumstances and make a similar request for excusing a responsibility that FEMA had to borrow from the Federal Government to meet that $17 billion worth of obligations after the storms of 2005, which devastated a good part of the country.

At the appropriate time, we will have a vote on the Senator's motion. In the meantime, we have some other amendments that I think are coming. I know Senator Nelson and Senator DeMint and others have some amendments. I am happy to consider those as soon as they come over.

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

Mr. President, I made this point about an hour ago. We all are familiar with what happens toward the end of the week here. I know Members are asking me what time we will be adjourning. That is a leadership decision, obviously. But we are required now, under the unanimous consent agreement of last evening, that all amendments will be considered by the close of business today. As I pointed out earlier, that close of business could occur at any point between now and midnight. But I suspect most Members are making plans to probably head back to their respective States for Mother's Day weekend sometime late this afternoon or early evening. If you have amendments on this bill, I urge you to come to the floor and offer them. Coming over at 3 o'clock, there is no guarantee that you are going to have the opportunity to make the case on behalf of the proposal, to the extent you would like.

I urge Members on both sides to come to the floor. I appreciate the fact that last evening several did make their case, and we are scheduling votes for early this afternoon on those matters. In the meantime, I would like to line up other votes on these matters so we could conclude work on this bill at a reasonable hour this afternoon that would allow Members to meet their travel obligations. In the absence of that, we may be here until very late this evening, which I know will throw a monkey wrench into people's plans. We are here. We have been here. We will be here. But we have been in a quorum call waiting for Members to come over with their ideas. Coming around 4 or 5 this afternoon and wondering whether we are going to leave 15 minutes later is not going to happen. I urge Members now to be here and make their case or let us know that you don't intend to offer the amendment, in which case we can clear the decks and get to the few votes we have remaining and move on. One way or the other, we are happy to accept.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I should begin.

Mr. President, let me first of all say on this motion by our colleague from Oklahoma that Senator Shelby and I, and I believe most of us here, don't have a philosophical disagreement. I think we all appreciate the fact that we have ourselves in a situation where we have massive deficits that are growing by the hour. We have seen it in a number of areas. This is one in which we are actually forgiving a debt. Obviously, to do so, it is going to require at some point for us to pay for this debt and obligation. Senator Coburn says we ought to be doing that under the pay-go rules. As someone who has over the years authored, in fact, legislation requiring pay-as-you-go proposals, I am very sympathetic to this idea. I would like to see us apply it more uniformly in many ways.

Senator Shelby and I are doing our best to take this program, which is absolutely critical, and to put it on a sound actuarial footing and, by doing so, move us forward. We can't do that if we don't have an excuse, if you will, on this debt that is out there today. We have raised the cost of premiums to a prohibitive level.

So I am moving to waive this point of order the Senator from Oklahoma is making, with the full understanding that it is a legitimate point he is making. But if we are going to succeed with this program and get it done, we can't do otherwise. We will be stuck with a program that will be far too costly.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support us on the motion to waive.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we have a window here. I see Senator Thune and he has the possibility of offering his amendment. I think Senator Boxer wants to express herself on that. She may be on her way over. If my colleague from South Dakota is prepared to offer his amendment, or talk about it, that would be helpful. Anybody else who has amendments who would like to offer them--I see the Senator from North Dakota.

I am glad the Senator clarified that. We have about five or six, based on what I know. There will be five or six votes at the most, as of now.

That is the Senator's problem.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I am familiar with the community. As my colleague will recall, at his invitation, I gave the commencement address at the University of North Dakota a few years ago and arrived a day or so early. I had an opportunity to visit the mayor and actually see the city that went through that remarkable devastation of flood and fire, simultaneously, in fact, and the rather remarkable recovery and great spirit that exists in that community.

Here is what we are doing. There are those who believe if you have any kind of a dike, dam or levee, that you should not have to pay for flood insurance. We cannot tolerate that in a sense. We have 130 dams, levees, and dikes that are at great risk of one kind or another in these residual risk areas. About 25 percent all the claims against the flood insurance program come out of these residual risk areas, not the coastline. Clearly, having dikes, levees, and dams help.

The fact is, the reason there is a dike, levee or dam is because it is in a residual risk area. Anything made by man or nature, there is no guarantee in perpetuity it is going to survive, even the 250 years about which we talked. What better example than Louisiana. We spent millions of dollars on a system down there that didn't work, ultimately. The idea of having someone pay a maximum of $350,000 worth of insurance--actually, the average cost is $316 a year. Less than a dollar a day for this kind of coverage is something we feel is dispersing that risk, bringing the cost in for the program.

Let me say to my colleague from North Dakota, he makes an interesting point. We are, in fact, in discussions with the other members of the committee on this very point, where you might be able to prorate, it seems to me, some of these costs based on the quality of that dam, dike or levee. I cannot subscribe to the notion of eliminating it altogether, but certainly when you have a state-of-the-art facility, then as a result of that, there is less of a risk. There still is risk. So you may bring down the cost of that risk.

We are negotiating about doing that as a way to recognize those kinds of contributions. So there would be some prorating.

I think it is a very good idea and suggestion and one about which I have not had a chance to get into a long conversation with Senator Shelby. I like the concept, the idea.

Remember this. The insurance program, putting aside whether you think the cost is high or low, without the insurance program, and if things don't work and you lose your home, there is no program of Federal disaster relief that rebuilds your home.

What the insurance program does for $316 a year is it gives you a chance to rebuild your home and the contents you lose. There is no disaster relief program the Senator from North Dakota and I have been a part of that provides that kind of assistance to homeowners affected by natural disaster.

This insurance program has great value to these people who live in these areas. It is a cost but actually has a value. I think the numbers ought to be higher than $350,000. I live in a higher cost area. So a $250,000 home in my State is less than the median cost of a home. I would like to see those values go up again. I presume in North Dakota $250,000 may be more a median cost of a home.

The idea that you are going to get for that $316 a year $350,000 back to rebuild that home of yours has value. I think prorating, based on the condition of dikes and levees, makes good sense. We will try to work on it.

I think we are on the same page.

I thank my colleague. It is a very good suggestion; once again, a very good suggestion.

The door is open for business. If anyone has amendments, we would like to have Members come over and offer the amendment. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes, I withhold.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, he raises a very good point. In fact, I had a discussion with Senator Dorgan on a similar issue, but the same point of an equity interest involving the cost of premiums where you have a very well-built levee and should the premium be the same as one with a 50-year-old levee--that is a legitimate point, it seems to me.

We talked earlier with Senator Vitter about costs and values. We disagree with him on that issue, but he makes a case, as the Senator from South Carolina does, that we need to strike this balance well so we are not locking in permanent costs, and not also falsely contributing to a rise in the cost of real estate in a time when we are dealing with oversupply and trying to move properties.

I am sympathetic with what my colleague is trying to achieve. There is an equity interest he has identified that I think has legitimacy. The question is, How do we satisfy that in a actuarially sound program?

I commend him for the idea. I am grateful to him for withdrawing the amendment. It gives us a chance to work on it and examine it in a way that will hopefully satisfy him. I cannot promise him this, obviously, because the Senator from Alabama and I have to deal with the House. I come with an open mind to the equity issue he raises with his amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to Durbin amendment No. 4715, as modified; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Durbin amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order except as provided in the previous agreement with respect to the McConnell and Reid amendments; that the previous order with respect to rollcall votes on Monday, May 12, be modified to reflect that the previously ordered votes occur on Tuesday, May 13, after the Senate convenes and following the opening sequence of events, there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the leaders, or their designees, prior to the commencement of the votes ordered under a previous order; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, each succeeding vote be limited to 10 minutes in duration; that other provisions of the previous order remain in effect; provided further that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 980, then all postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to proceed be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, after the vote on the Durbin amendment, there will be no further votes today, no session on Friday, and no votes on Monday. Let me turn to the Senator from Illinois.

Madam President, I think we are prepared to vote on the Durbin amendment.

Mr. President, I see my colleague from New York. I think he would like to speak on this issue, and then we will continue to balance off the speakers the best that we can to try to take into consideration the Members' schedules.

But we thank the Senator from New York. If he is prepared to speak, we would welcome his comments.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for extending the courtesy, because we have had some speakers on our side, out of respect for their schedules. We have welcomed their comments at this time.

But I wish to refocus attention to the subject matter at hand, the matter that is before the Senate, and to describe in greater detail this legislation and the reasons for it and the support for this important piece of legislation.

First, I commend the Senate for voting earlier today to take up the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. The House passed this bill last July by an overwhelming vote of 314 to 97. The Cooperation Act isn't just about protecting union rights. This bill is vitally important to each and every American because, at its core, it is about safety, the safety of our dedicated first responders and the safety of our Nation in this new era of heightened concerns about homeland security. The bill takes a major step forward in protecting our firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and other first responders from danger on the job. Public safety workers are on the front lines of our constant efforts to keep America safe. They are all on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, doing backbreaking, difficult work, and doing it with great skill, great courage, and great dedication.

We have seen all too often how dangerous these jobs can be. These charts illustrate the point. In 2006, more than 75,000 police officers were injured in the line of duty. Last year, 140 police officers paid the ultimate price and lost their lives in the line of duty. We see similar numbers with firefighters who put their lives on the line every day. In 2006, more than 83,000 firefighters were injured in the line of duty. Last year, 115 firefighters paid the ultimate price. Another 45 have lost their lives so far this year. This is dangerous work, life- threatening work. These are careers which men and women follow for years with great courage, dedication, and commitment to the public interest and to the families of America. Those are the individuals we are talking about with this legislation.

First responders can also face chronic long-term health problems as well. The courageous firefighters who rushed to Ground Zero on 9/11 now suffer from crippling health problems such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, and post- traumatic stress disorder. They often pay the ultimate price. Last year 250 public safety employees across the country lost their lives in the line of duty. Our public safety workers do not hesitate to rush into fires, wade into floods, put their lives on the line in other ways to protect our homes, our families, and our communities. They know better than anyone else what is needed to keep them as safe as possible on the job, and they deserve the right to have a voice in decisions that profoundly affect their lives and their safety.

When governments and public safety workers are unable to cooperate through collective bargaining, the workers' lives are put at needless risk. The numbers tell the story. Look at this chart. States without collective bargaining, which is the underlying issue before the Senate with this legislation, have 39 percent more fatalities. The reason primarily is because firefighters know how to work in ways that can protect the public and also can provide greater safety and security for the firefighters and first responders and police officials as well, based upon their experience, their knowledge of the task which is before them. Because of that, they are able to have a much better safety record. That is basically what we are trying to share, that kind of experience, with the other firefighters and police officials and first responders in other parts of the country who don't have these kinds of protections.

Behind those numbers are the tragic stories of lives that could have been saved with better communication or better cooperation of effort. A heartbreaking example occurred last year in Charleston, SC. Here is the story. In 2002, the Charleston firefighters association asked the city to begin following the National Fire Protection Association. That is an organization that makes recommendations with regard to safety and security in fighting fires. Unfortunately, there was no mechanism to ensure that these concerns could be heard and addressed. On June 18, 2007, nine Charleston firefighters died in the line of duty. In October of 2007, an expert panel hired by the city to investigate the loss recommended that the department begin following NFPA standards and begin meeting with workers.

That was their recommendation after experiencing the loss of lives. Afterwards we wanted to try to establish a procedure to avoid those kinds of circumstances in the future. We will never know how many lives might have been saved on that day in Charleston, if adequate safety standards had been in place, but we do know that in many other fire departments across the country, critical discussions about safety should be happening, but they are not. Unless public safety workers have a voice on the job, these problems will never be fully and fairly addressed. Without the protection of collective bargaining, workers are afraid to speak out for fear they will face retaliation. These fears are well founded because of countless examples of brave and dedicated first responders who have been harshly punished for raising safety concerns.

Consider the case of firefighter Stan Tinney of Odessa, TX. Here is his situation. In 2001, Stan Tinney, president of the Firefighters Association of Odessa, TX published a newsletter critical of the fire department's safety practices, including inadequate staffing and equipment. Tinney was suspended without pay, reprimanded, downgraded in a performance evaluation, and it took a Federal court that later found the Odessa officials violated Tinney's constitutional rights. It took a Federal case in order to do that. Think of all the other Stan Tinneys around the country who have been intimidated by that kind of action. We don't need that. We need to have suggestions. We need ideas. We need recommendations about how to protect our firefighters, our first responders, and our police community.

Tinney and four of his coworkers, when this incident took place, were questioned individually by city officials and Tinney was suspended without pay, reprimanded, and downgraded. A Federal court later found his constitutional rights had been violated, and the city settled Tinney's claim for $265,000. All that heartache and expense could have been avoided if there had been a mechanism in place for Tinney to express his concern. This legislation provides that.

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act will give Stan Tinney and countless others like him a voice in the decisions that affect their jobs, their health and safety, and their families. It will give them a safer workplace, and, just as important, it will give them a right to be treated with dignity and respect.

It is not just individual workers who will benefit from this important legislation. Enabling public safety workers and their employers to work cooperatively together makes our entire Nation safer.

In the past decade, we have seen dramatic changes in the way we protect our country. National security has become a local issue. Every city and town in our country--large and small, urban and rural--now has a vital role in keeping us safe from harm.

In this new and more dangerous world, State and local public safety workers are being asked to play an even larger role. We have asked them to become true partners with Federal security agencies in protecting our country from threats, and these dedicated workers have risen to the challenge. But year after year, we are failing to give them the support they need to do their vital jobs as effectively as possible.

Giving these brave men and women the voice they deserve at the bargaining table will facilitate cooperation between public safety workers and their employers. It will enable them to perform their jobs more efficiently and effectively. The benefits are obvious, and we see them in communities across the country that have already accepted the basic principles of public safety cooperation.

Take the example of Annapolis, MD. Until recently, scheduling rules for firefighters and paramedics in Annapolis, MD, often forced them-- these are the workers--to work 48-hour shifts, leaving workers vulnerable to exhaustion and dangerous mistakes. The local union worked with management through collective bargaining to change scheduling rules, shortening

shifts and improving safety for the workers and the public. It does not sound too complicated. It just sounds like common sense to me. And it sounds like an important step in order to provide greater safety and protection for families in Annapolis. Workers there were concerned about scheduling rules, and through a cooperative collective bargaining relationship, the union worked with management to negotiate a new schedule that met the city's needs, while reducing the length of individual shifts. These obvious changes resulted in better rested and more effective firefighters and paramedics, with real benefits to both the first responders and the communities they serve.

Such cooperation also gives State and local governments the flexibility they need to respond to changing circumstances.

Look at this chart. The economy in Tulsa, OK, was struggling after September 11. Through collective bargaining, the mayor and the firefighters agreed to defer payments into the firefighters' Health and Welfare Trust for 1 year. The deferral saved the city over $400,000, and the city was able to spread its repayment to the trust over a longer period of time, providing valuable flexibility that helped the city address its budget troubles--working together with the community and for the community, an important achievement and an important accomplishment.

Some of my colleagues argue that granting them collective bargaining rights will limit the ability of States and cities to respond effectively to an emergency. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have seen, in the most dramatic illustration, that all 343 firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty on September 11 were union members and with collective bargaining rights. There is no question about their courage, no question about their bravery, no question about their willingness to do their duty and do it heroically. When challenged, that has certainly been the evidence time-in and time- out. So we reject those suggestions and those observations.

In addition, for example, before 9/11, the Port Authority police officers worked 8-hour days, with 2 days off, each week. After 9/11, everyone worked 12-hour shifts every day and all vacations and personal time were canceled. This hard schedule continued for nearly 3 years, but neither the union nor any union member filed a single grievance about it. They did their duty, and they did it heroically.

Do we understand that? As to police officers for the Port Authority that has responsibility in the greater port area in New York, before 9/ 11 they worked 8-hour days, with 2 days off, each week, and after 9/11 everyone worked 12-hour shifts every day and all vacations and personal time were canceled. The hard schedule continued for nearly 3 years, and neither the union nor any union member filed a single grievance--not a single grievance--when they were called upon to meet their responsibility--not a single grievance. They did their duty, and they did it heroically.

Our families and communities deserve the best public safety services we can possibly provide, and achieving that goal starts with the strong foundation that comes with collective bargaining.

No one doubts that our communities and our country are living on borrowed time. We all hope the numerous other steps we are taking will be successful in preventing similar catastrophic attacks. It makes no sense not to make the basic rights granted by this legislation available to all of America's first responders. It is an urgent matter of public safety. I commend Senator Gregg for his leadership on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to give our heroes the respect and support they deserve by approving the Cooperation Act.

Mr. President, I see my friend from Utah. We did have three speakers on our side, and we are going to do the best we can to balance it. I think the Senator's side is next. How long does the Senator from Utah wish to speak? Then I will ask that the Senator from New York to follow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be recognized for 20 minutes following Senator Hatch.

Mr. President, we will recognize the Senator from New Jersey, but if he will yield a minute.

Mr. President, we want to permit others to speak. I will speak in a short time in response to my friend and colleague from Wyoming. If this legislation did what he suggested it did, I would not be a sponsor or support the legislation either. I will go into some detail in explaining what the legislation does do and what it doesn't do.

With regard to the Senator from Utah, this issue about having a secret ballot or nonsecret ballot, we leave up to the States. Rather than trying to mandate that--a lot has been talked about giving the States options as to how to proceed. We say on both items the Senator addressed that the States are the ones that should make the judgment and determinations.

We will have a longer time to debate this issue.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I always appreciate hearing from the Senator from New Jersey. I hope our colleagues will listen carefully to what the Senator from New Jersey has said because he comes to this debate as a former mayor. Mayors, as we all know, have had special relationships, obviously, with firefighters and police on the firing line. So when I hear the Senator from New Jersey talk about that value as a former mayor, he can see the value in terms of safety and security for the people in that community as a result of this legislation in terms of cooperative discussions and arrangements. That says a good deal.

Some have presented a situation--which, of course, is not accurate-- where this legislation is going to be imposing extraordinary hardships, additional burdens, and unfunded mandates on mayors, particularly in smaller communities, and do a great disservice, actually, in terms of the whole relationship between the public safety officers and the security of the community.

So I particularly value his comments on this aspect of the bill. There are obviously a number of other important aspects of it. But as it relates to small towns, I forget the actual population or the size of the community, the city that the good Senator was the mayor of, but, in any event, if he could elaborate on his views about this legislation and its importance to mayors as well as to firefighters, I think it would be very helpful because he speaks from very practical experience.

Would the Senator yield for another question?

I think all of us in this body know the good Senator represents the State of New Jersey in this case, which had suffered extraordinary loss at the time of 9/11. A number of those extraordinary firefighters lived in the Senator's State. So when he speaks about these issues, talking about the courage and the bravery of these firefighters, he talks about it with a good deal of background and understanding and an enormous sense of compassion for having gone through with many of these families their loss.

That is why, I believe, the Senator in his strong support for this legislation, as a former mayor and also someone who knows and has personal experience with these firefighters, can speak so authoritatively about what this legislation can mean in terms of the safety and security of the community and also with regard to the safety and security of the firefighters, police officers, first responders.

Does the Senator agree with me that those who were not lost on that day but in a very real sense brothers and sisters of the first responders who were lost on 9/11, many of whom were lost in his district, do they feel that legislation will help and assist providing safety and security to the people, whether it is in New Jersey, or in the communities they represent, and that they are supporting this legislation because they are very hopeful and prayerful we will never again face that kind of tragedy we faced but that they believe this legislation can help provide additional safety and security for their communities and for their fellow citizens?

I see other Senators wish to address the Senate. We have been reminded about how long we have been considering this legislation and how important it is that we do it at the present time.

As the Senator knows, this bill was initially introduced by our former colleague, Senator Mike Dewine, in 1999. The Senate even voted on it in 2002. We had a HELP Committee hearing on this same legislation in the 106th Congress in 2001.

So many of these brave responders have waited for a long time. This has gone on for some 8 years without coming to completion. It is a matter that has been before this body as well during this Congress.

So would the Senator not agree with me, finally, that the time is now to take action? This is the time. We are talking about homeland security; we are talking about first responders; we are talking about those firefighters and police officers. Now is the time to permit them to be fully engaged and involved in further advancing the safety and security of our colleagues.

Would the Senator not agree with me that this is a significant matter that we have full awareness of and knowledge of and should be ready to take action on?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership in this area. He was ahead of this. Before the crisis got to the pocketbooks of Americans, he was predicting what has happened. He has been proactive about this.

But can the Senator talk about the strategic reserve, the petroleum reserve? I know there is some bipartisan support for doing this, is that correct, for stopping putting our oil there?

How much is it expected to save? Is there an immediate impact we might expect in savings per gallon?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am going to speak on another topic

which is somewhat related to Israel's 60th anniversary. It is about energy security and climate change and the potential economic value to our country. The way it is related to Israel is this. As we look at the fact that we spend $600,000 a minute on foreign oil, much of that money going to countries that we might not want to be doing business with if we had a choice, Israel, like our country, is very interested in developing alternative energy. If we can cut our dependence on foreign oil, we will enhance our own security as well as Israel's security.

Last winter I visited the new headquarters of Great River Energy, one of the biggest electric co-ops in Minnesota, to talk about renewable energy.

Great River is building a new energy-efficient office complex in the suburb of Maple Grove, MN. But what I remember best about that day is the huge wind turbine that towers over the building, and the way its blades were rotating in the January winds. This is literally in the middle of a suburban shopping mall.

It might seem odd that a company would put up a wind turbine in the suburbs of Minneapolis--in fact, it has become a landmark for the commuters who drive past each morning and evening.

It might seem even more odd that an electric utility would erect that symbol of green energy in front of its new headquarters.

But what Great River understands--and what that wind turbine symbolizes--is that clean, alternative energy represents a huge opportunity for our country.

Great River is not alone among utility companies that can see the green future before us. Xcel Energy, based in the Twin Cities and in Colorado, already gets more than 10 percent of its power from wind. It has pledged to generate 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and reduce its carbon emissions by more than 20 percent over the next 12 years. In fact, Xcel was supportive of our state legislature which put in place one of the most aggressive renewable standards in the country.

Xcel's CEO, Dick Kelly, recently said that Xcel intends ``to push it to the max. But it would be nice to have a policy at the federal level, a national policy, so we all know what the rules are.''

As we prepare to debate the landmark climate-change legislation that will come before us in a few weeks, I hope we keep these two examples in mind.

Because here is what they show us: Global climate change represents a world of challenges. But it also represents a universe of opportunities--for American business to develop new products and technologies, for consumers to save money on their energy bills, for America to achieve greater energy security and independence.

First, there is opportunity for consumers.

The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that American motorists were able to cut their gasoline consumption by almost 15 percent annually as a result of the last fuel-economy standards that Congress enacted in 1975--standards that also reduced the emission of greenhouse gases. The new CAFE standards that we adopted in December will not only further slow the emission of greenhouse gases--but they will also save the average consumer as much as $1,000 a year at the gas pump.

We are developing the technology to take these efficiencies even further and they make savings at the pump even greater. The opportunities lie not only in producing cheaper and renewable sources of fuel, including cellulosic ethanol, the next generation of ethanol but in making our vehicles more efficient. Increased efficiency is perhaps our greatest opportunity to stretch a family's energy dollar-- $4-a-gallon stretches a lot further when it will take your car 50 miles instead of 25. The next generation of hybrid cars, as well as the development of cars powered by other renewable sources such as electricity or hydrogen, open a new world of opportunity for the American consumer; an opportunity for innovative American companies to be at the forefront; an opportunity to reduce our environmental impact while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Then there is electricity. If every American household replaced just one light bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, the country would save $600 million in annual energy costs, the nation would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year--and we would prevent greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars,

There is also opportunity for business.

The Safeway grocery chain decided recently to install solar panels on 23 of its supermarkets to provide energy for heating, cooling and electricity.

They estimate that they will cut their electricity costs by 20 percent and that they will remove 12.6 million pounds of carbon emissions every year.

General Electric, one of the biggest corporations in the world, has moved aggressively into what it calls ``green products'' such as energy-efficient appliances and components for wind turbines. Its sales of green products have doubled since 2005 to $12 billion, and the company aims for $20 billion of green products sales by 2010. This is our ``building a fridge to the next century.''

In my home State, the State of Minnesota, in the town of Starbuck, there is a small company called Solar Skies. There are just 10 employees at Solar Skies, but those 10 people decided to take a risk, to leave their jobs, and to go to work for a place that makes solar panels. Those employees are devoted to the idea that we can create a new energy future for all of us. They believe in their work and are now reaping the benefits of the opportunity created by this new energy economy. When I visited them, they actually had me jump up and down on the solar panels to show that they could withstand hail damage; I am sure they would welcome the Presiding Officer from the great State of Montana to do that as well.

Clearly, the people at Solar Skies are not the only ones to understand the opportunity. If you look at the leading indicator of American investment, venture capital, you will find that it reached $2.9 billion of investments in green technologies last year, up 78 percent from a year earlier.

Clean technology is not only the fastest growing portion of the venture capital market, it is now the third largest category, behind only biotech and computer software.

So today we have to ask ourselves, Does the United States want to be a leader in creating the new green technologies and the new green industries of the future or are we going to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by? I am determined that we will be a leader.

As you know, this is my third speech on climate change every week up through the debate. The first was an overview, and the second one was about leadership and the need to push this country forward, to be a world leader on this climate change issue and on technology. Today, we are talking about the possibilities of new jobs for this country, for our country as a whole.

This is also an opportunity to create an energy-secure future, to free our country from its dependence on foreign oil. We spend literally $41 million every hour on imported oil, and much of the money simply goes back to countries that are not our friends.

The Council on Foreign Relations recently studied this question, and they said:

America's dependence on imported energy increases its

strategic vulnerability and constrains its ability to pursue

foreign policy and national security objectives. The lack of

sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S.

foreign policy and U.S. national security.

But the report also concluded that a determined conservation effort could:

Unleash remarkable forces for innovation in this country.

Entrepreneurs are seeking new ideas for products and services

such as batteries, advanced oil and gas exploration and

production techniques and biofuels.

By reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases through conservation and new technology, we can reduce our use of imported oil and leave our country in a stronger international position. This is not only wishful thinking. It has worked before. Conservation initiatives enacted after the first OPEC oil embargo reduced the oil intensity of our economy, saving our country the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil

per day. Today, a comprehensive policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including higher fuel standards for cars and trucks, development of clean alternative sources of energy, and better energy efficiency standards for buildings, can do this.

Look at the Chevy Volt. Two years from now, the Chevy Volt will be available for purchase. You can plug your car in, you go 30 miles, and then it transitions over to fuel. In other words, if you are driving through Montana or Minnesota and it is 10 below zero, you are done with your 30 miles, and it is not going to stop, it transitions over to fuel, and hopefully that will be alternative fuel.

We can cut our oil consumption by as much as 35 percent by 2030--more than offsetting the oil we import from OPEC today--just by putting in place these higher fuel economy standards for cars and developing clean alternative sources of energy and better energy efficiency standards for our buildings.

A study last year by the McKinsey Global Institute concluded that projected electricity consumption in American homes in 2020 can be reduced by more than one-third if high-efficiency measures were adopted nationwide, including lightbulbs, water heaters, kitchen appliances, room-insulation materials, and standby power. But here is what is interesting. The report warned that market forces alone, even with higher energy prices, would not be sufficient to make the most of these energy-efficient technologies. What is required is leadership from Washington, leadership from this Chamber, leadership from the White House, a new national strategy to wean the country from fossil fuels, to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, and to set the stage for this new energy economy.

This is the heart of the climate change legislation that will come before us in the next few weeks: a strategy to cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then use a cap-and-trade system so that the private sector achieves these reductions in the most efficient way possible. The market is ready, but it needs leadership from us.

Last year, Minnesota's own Tom Friedman had a cover story in the New York Times Magazine, ``The Power of Green.'' It should be required reading for anyone who cares not only about the future of our environment but also our economic future and our future national security.

In the article, Tom Friedman asks: How do our kids compete in a flatter world? How do they thrive in a warmer world? How do they survive in a more dangerous world?

The answer is, in making the most of the economic and technological opportunities to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and the greenhouse gas pollution that comes from it, we do better.

Friedman said that clean energy technology is going to be the next great global industry. He went on to propose the Green New Deal, one in which the Government's role is not funding projects, as in the original New Deal, but seeding basic research, providing loan guarantees where needed, and setting standards and incentives and taxes that will spawn all kinds of new technologies.

We are trying to do that right now with the wind tax credit, the renewable tax credit, for geothermal and for solar and other kinds of renewable energy. I believe this is not all about cutting back or hunkering down, it is about seizing opportunity.

In his words:

It's about creating a new cornucopia of abundance for the

next generation by inventing a whole new industry. It's about

getting our best brains out of hedge funds and into

innovations that will not only give us the clean-power

industrial assets to preserve our American dream, but also

give us the technologies that billions of others need to

realize their own dreams without destroying the planet.

It is about making America safer by breaking our addiction

to a fuel that is powering regimes deeply hostile to our

values. And, finally, it is about making America the global

environmental leader, instead of a laggard.

Oponents of the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill say we cannot do this because it will somehow cripple our economy. I say we cannot afford not to enact climate change legislation because global warming will cripple our economy.

A recent economic study commissioned by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change concludes that, under at least one scenario, higher temperatures could cut more than $100 billion off American economic output over the next century, largely because of damage to agriculture, forestry, and commercial fishing.

Now, look at this. The temperature in the last 100 years is up 1 degree. That does not sound like much until you realize it has gone up only 5 degrees since the height of the ice age. Our EPA, using data, well-founded scientific data, projects that temperatures in the next century will go up 3 to 8 degrees.

So this idea that we can lose $100 billion off American economic output over the next century is not some farflung idea, it is based on scientific research. Unless we can confront this problem and confront it now, those costs will simply go higher and higher. We will also miss the opportunity for new jobs, for new products and technologies, new consumer savings, and a more responsible climate change policy. It is a big challenge. But meeting challenges is what our country does best. Just look at history.

When the space race began with the launch of sputnik in October 1957, American citizens listened with indignation and fear as the first manmade satellite, a Soviet satellite, beeped its way around the Earth. Yet it inspired our Nation and its universities to make a historic investment in math and science education. Within a decade, our country tripled the number of science and engineering Ph.D.s--tripled them.

In 1961, President Kennedy issued a challenge to our Nation: Put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. We answered the call. On July 20, 1969, what seemed impossible became reality when Neil Armstrong took that giant leap for mankind.

But the space program was not only a success because we put a man on the Moon before the Soviets, it also spurred countless other innovations in industry. I love saying this in front of our pages because I think they were not born when this happened. To them, this is commonplace, but back then we did not have these things. This is what it has spurred. It spurred industries and innovations such as weather satellites, solar technology, digital wristwatches, ultrasound machines, laser surgery, infrared medical thermometers, programmable pacemakers, satellite TV broadcasts, high-density batteries, high-speed long distance telephone service, automatic insulin pumps, CAT scans, radiation-blocking sunglasses, GPS devices, and the little chocolate space sticks my family would take when we went on camping trips in the 1970s. That all came out because we had a President who said we have a national goal, we are all part of the same Nation, and we are going to reach the goal. We can do the same thing with climate change and energy independence.

Today, it is not a Russian satellite streaming across our skies that should galvanize our Nation into action. It is the multiplying smokestacks in China, it is the receding glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, and it is the rapidly rising global temperatures, and it is being leapfrogged by countries like Brazil that are now fuel independent because their Government put in place a policy for alternative biofuels.

But just as sputnik sparked a new age of prosperity and opportunity, these trends can lead to opportunities for the strengthening of our economy and renewing our leadership in the world. In doing so, we will create a better economy for the next generation by developing whole new industries, which will not only help us preserve our American leadership in the world but will also help to deploy technologies billions of others need to realize their own dreams without destroying the planet.

I believe we have the responsibility to confront a grave threat to our environment and our health. I believe we have the opportunity to do a great service to the people of this country. I believe that before us now we have the opportunity to make our economy stronger and more efficient. But it is rare that we have the opportunity to accomplish all three at once, to accomplish so many good things in one bold stroke. This rare opportunity will come before us in a few weeks when we take up the landmark Lieberman-Warner bill to address the challenge of

global climate change. We must seize that opportunity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today, the Senate resume the DeMint amendment No. 4710, as modified, and that there be 20 minutes of debate prior to a vote with respect to the amendment, with 15 minutes under the control of Senator DeMint and 5 minutes under the control of Senator Dodd or his designee; that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Connecticut, how many amendments are remaining on this bill, based on what he knows at this time?

I am still trying to determine whether I can successfully offer an amendment. I know I have a right to offer it, but whether it is successful----

Mr. President, let me make a point again to the Senator from Connecticut and see if there is any mutual understanding on these issues.

To use one example, we had a city that was completely evacuated in my State by a flood 10 years ago--actually 11 years ago now. It was the largest evacuation of any city since the Civil War. A city of 50,000 was completely evacuated because of a flood. In the middle of that flood, there was a fire in downtown Grand Forks, ND. A city that was flooded and evacuated was on fire.

In the intervening 10 years, there has been a flood protection plan, a very expensive one, $416 million, built to protect that city. The residents of that city, I believe, paid 45 percent of the cost of that flood protection plan.

As I read title VII--I believe it is on page 9 of the legislation-- what is being said now is this city that has a 250-year flood plan, that is to protect against a 250-year flood, will be told: By the way, you residents, yes, you paid a lot of money for flood protection. It is blue ribbon, first rate, first class protection against a 250-year flood, but we have now decided you have to ante up $1 a day to buy flood insurance.

They are going to ask the question: What is this flood protection we paid for? We were told this was blue-ribbon flood protection. I know you have a 250-year flood protection levee; now we want you to buy flood insurance.

Is there anything in the legislation that allows FEMA to look at this situation, here is a levee that gives 100-year protection, here is a levee that gives 250-year protection, and here is one that doesn't give any at all? We have different kinds of insurance. Would FEMA be allowed to take a look at a new state-of-the-art, blue-ribbon, 250-year flood protection device and say those folks don't need to buy flood insurance, they just paid a substantial portion of the cost of a significant new flood protection device?

I ask the Senator from Connecticut, what is his intention with respect to that provision of the law?

I understand the notion of residual risk, and I think the Senator from Connecticut will agree those residual risks are different in different circumstances. I am not suggesting if you are behind a levee, wherever that levee is, you shouldn't have to buy flood insurance. But I am suggesting if you exhausted yourself and your community and your region producing a state-of-the-art flood control plan and spent a lot of money doing so, including your own money, and you are now told you have a 250-year protection, that when somebody from FEMA comes in and says, it doesn't matter a bit, it is irrelevant you built that, it

doesn't matter, you are going to be required to purchase what our friends from the committee have now enacted--if my colleague from Connecticut is saying this legislation either will or, as we might want to change it, could allow FEMA to take a look at that brand new 250- year flood protection plan and say, in this circumstance you have minimal requirements----

We don't have a problem with the merit and value of flood insurance. I think the program makes sense. We have an agreement, as it is currently written, and I hope we can perhaps modify it in a managers' amendment. On page 9, section 7, it appears to me FEMA would be required to come in and say: Ah ha, you are behind that levee; therefore, you must purchase this insurance. I hope what the Senator from Connecticut intends with this is that it be risk based because there will clearly be a different risk attached to someone who has a brand new levee system that they exhausted themselves paying for over the last 10 years. It is all done. They cut the ribbon, they celebrated, they had the town band out, in fact, but they are told by FEMA: That is not a factor.

Let's see if we can craft something between now and the end of the day. I would not offer the amendment; the Senator from Connecticut will offer it, and it represents our combined views about this issue.

I appreciate my colleague having this colloquy.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to make a point. I don't know yet if there is a markup this afternoon of the Appropriations full committee. If there is, I am intending to offer a couple amendments to that markup. I wish to describe one amendment that I plan to offer, and that relates to dealing with oil and gas prices.

The price of oil is way beyond that which is justifiable by simple supply and demand conditions. It is bouncing around like a yo-yo up around $120 and as much as $124 a barrel of oil. There is no justification in the supply and demand of oil for that price. It is damaging to the economy, and it hurts a series of industries in this country. The airline industry and trucking industry are just two examples. It hurts every American as they pull up to the gas pump to figure out where they are going to get the money to pay for the gasoline price.

What is happening? At the moment, a couple of things are happening.

One, we have an unbelievable bubble of speculation in the futures market. I have people say to me: That is not true. It is true. It is hard to justify the current price of oil given the physical elements of the market today. What we have is people entering the commodities futures market that have no interest in buying oil. They buy oil and sell it. They never take possession of it. They buy what they will never get from people who never had it. They are making money on both sides of the transaction because they are waging. To put it plainly, they are gambling. That is speculation. We have an orgy of speculation on the futures market.

We had people testify in the Senate and House that it adds $20 to $30 to a barrel of oil. Should we sit back and watch a bubble develop and say, ``Whatever the consequences, that is fine?'' The answer is no, of course, we should not. Buy stock on margin and it will cost you a 50- percent margin requirement. If you want to buy oil on margin in the futures market for crude oil, then you pay 5 to 7 percent.

We have hedge funds neck deep in the futures market. We have investment banks neck deep in the futures market. Are they are oil experts? Do they want to own oil? No, they want to speculate on oil and make money.

The fact is, it is damaging this country's economy. We ought to wring that speculation out of those commodity markets. We ought to be increasing margin requirements. I know it is hard to do, but we ought to do that. When we see this kind of speculation damaging our country by driving up oil prices and driving up gasoline prices, we ought to do something about it.

Second, we are now putting oil underground right now. We are taking sweet light crude oil off the Gulf of Mexico and sticking it underground in something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I think it is fine to have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if we run into trouble. It is nice to have an oil reserve. Yet, that reserve is 97 percent full. Still, this administration is taking up to 70,000 barrels a day, every single day, and sticking it underground.

They say it doesn't affect the price. Of course, it affects the price. We had testimony before the Energy Committee that because it is a much more valuable subset of oil, called sweet light crude, that it has as much as a 10-percent impact on the price of oil and gasoline. So, of course, it affects the price.

I think it is nuts for this country to be taking $124 barrel of oil and saying let's stick that underground and save it for a rainy day. I tell you what, it is a rainy day these days when you have to pay this price at the pump. It is a rainy day these days when you see four, five airlines go belly up because they cannot afford the fuel. It is a rainy day these days when truckers say that we have to park the truck because we can't afford the fuel. An entire industry is at risk.

The fact is, we have to do something about it. I mentioned two things, both of which are tangible and real and both of which are causing this increase, at least a significant part, in my judgment, in the increase in the ramp-up of the price of oil and gasoline.

The President believes that there is not much anybody can do in the near term. This is not a time to wring our hands, mop our brow, gnash our teeth and say there is not much anybody can do. This is a time for us to try to figure out what is happening and try to respond to it. It is doing great damage to our economy.

In the longer term, I believe that there are things we need to do. We are unbelievably dependent on overseas oil. We are unbelievably dependent on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Venezuela. Sixty percent of our oil comes from offshore. As I described before and others have, we stick straws in this planet and suck oil out of the planet. Every day we suck out 85 million barrels of oil. One-fourth of that has to be used in this country.

Let me say that again. The appetite of oil is this: One-fourth of all the oil we pull out of the planet every day is used in this little place called the United States of America. Sixty percent we get from outside our country. Seventy percent of it is used by vehicles. We have a lot to do.

After 32 years, we finally mandated an increase of 10 miles per gallon in 10 years on a range of vehicles. We also need to produce more. I and three others in this Chamber got the law changed to allow us to go into lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico and finally produce more oil and gas. Frankly, we ought to open up more of the Gulf of Mexico. That is the greatest potential reserve on the Outer Continental Shelf. I and three others introduced the legislation and got it passed and opened up lease 181. If you look at the Gulf of Mexico, California, and Alaska, and the East Coast, the greatest potential reserves are in the Gulf of Mexico.

We need to conserve more and produce more. We need greater efficiency for all we use, and we especially need to move into renewables.

I understand we have to do all of that. At the moment and in the short run, we have to take specific steps that will put downward pressure on prices. John Maynard Keynes said, ``In the long we are all dead.'' That is an economist talking. We can talk about the long run here, but let's also talk about the short run right now.

What can we do to address something that most Americans understand is a very serious problem? The issue is price of gasoline? I am just saying this, and there are those who disagree with me. Look at the commodities market and look at this orgy of speculation. This is a bubble. Wouldn't it be nice if someone had looked at that bubble as it built with respect to home mortgages and home prices? We have seen a lot of bubbles. We have seen the tech bubble. We have seen the bubble in home prices. Every bubble bursts. This one will. But in the meantime, how many additional casualties will we see on the side of the road? Look at what's happening with American families, American business, American industries. How many casualties? The big integrated oil companies go to the bank with a ``permagrin.'' They can't stop smiling because they are depositing our money in their bank accounts. But it is not only the big integrated oil companies, it is the OPEC countries. They are going to the bank everyday with our money because we recycle this money to provide for a bank account for the Saudis and others just like we do for the major integrated companies.

I do not think there is any justification for this price. This Congress is prepared to act. Senator Reid and others have joined together, and I am a part of it to deal with this issue of putting oil underground. We are going to stop it in its tracks. I introduced a bipartisan bill a couple of months ago to suspension the filling of the SPR. Our entire caucus is also behind the proposition. We believe it's time to begin to wring this speculation out of the futures markets and stop this insidious rise in oil prices.

While we need to move beyond oil, right now we still need oil. There is no question about that. We need to find more, and we need to use less, to the extent we can. That means more production and more conservation. In the meantime, when markets do not work and people are doing things that have no common sense at all, such as putting oil underground when oil is $120 a barrel, then this Congress has a responsibility to act. We need to get things straight. Let's set things right; let's stand up here on the side of the American consumer and on the side of American businesses who need this energy.

One final point: In yesterday's The Wall Street Journal, they wrote one of those editorials that must make those folks grin like Cheshire cats as they sit there with their gray suits on, behind horn-rimmed glasses, deciding what to write next in the Wall Street Journal about the Senate. Did you see what those folks did in the Senate--Dorgan, Schumer, and others? What they did is said we should put pressure on the Saudis because the Saudis want to buy precision weapons for their own security from us. We should say that maybe they need to be producing more oil. Of course, the Wall Street Journal had an apoplectic seizure over that.

Here are the points. The Saudis are producing 800,000 barrels a day less than they did 2 years ago. It is not lost on them what this is doing to price. It is not lost on them, or it should not be, what this is doing to our country. They are pumping 800,000 barrels a day less than they did 2 years ago and then they say to this administration we wish to buy sophisticated weapons from the United States because we have our strategic military concerns in our region. Maybe we say to the Saudis: The United States has strategic concerns in our country as well. Why are you pumping 800,000 barrels a day less when you could be putting more oil on the world market? Partnerships work both ways.

I am very concerned about arming the Middle East. I am going to speak about that at some point later. But our point to the Saudis and the point in the Middle East was simple. If you are pumping 800,000 barrels a day less per day and then demand weapons from the U.S. without reciprocating then it's not going to work.

That is a long statement to say it is time for us to act. Senator Reid, Senator Klobuchar, other Members and I have decided we are not going to sit here like potted plants. When something is happening in the futures market and when something is happening to take oil off the supply to put it in the SPR, then we have a responsibility to act. I intend to be a significant part of that.

If we have the markup in the Senate Appropriations Committee this afternoon, I intend to offer a couple amendments at that appropriations markup. Unfortunately, I understand it may well be canceled this afternoon.

I am happy to yield.

It is the case. I have introduced legislation here in the Senate. Fifty-one Democratic Senators, including Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, signed a letter to the President saying stop sticking oil underground for the rest of 2008. Also, a couple of weeks ago our Republican colleague, Senator Hutchison, led on a letter to the White House saying, yes, we agree. We ought to stop sticking oil underground at this time. There were 15 Republicans who sent that letter. Further, Senator McCain said it was nuts to stick oil in the SPR while on the campaign trail. When you add that up, that is 67 people in the Senate. That is a veto-proof majority.

There are several views on that, but we know it is a lot more than zero like the Administration assumes. We don't know exactly what the savings would be. We do know this: If today 70,000 barrels, especially the sweet light crude--which is the most valuable subset of oil--were put back into this marketplace, then people have testified in the Senate that it could impact as much as 10 percent of the price of oil and gasoline.

We know it would impact the price. Some say 70,000 barrels is not very much given what is used in a day. It is true, 70,000 barrels is not all that much, but this is sweet light crude which is very different. We had an economist named Dr. Verleger testify before the Energy Committee and make that very point.

This is a more important point. There are plenty of Members of the Senate who have now joined on this.

I was just informed the markup starting at 2 this afternoon has been canceled. This is where I was going to offer this amendment, so the amendment I expect to be able to offer will now wait until next week. We will get this done. We cannot sit around and allow things to happen. We have to make things happen, good things happen for this country and for the economy.

I yield the floor.