Summer Food Service Rural Expansion Act

What is the status of the floor?

For how long?

I am going to use leader time now, and I ask unanimous consent that the Democrats' 4 minutes be preserved.

Mr. President, we over here, the mighty band of Democrats, with the majority of 1--there are 51 of us and 49 of them--trying so hard to do something on energy. We have been trying for months now. I think we have done some things that would be good for the American people but for the fact that the Republicans have basically objected to everything we have tried to do.

What have we tried to do? We introduced S. 3044, called the Consumer- First Energy Act. It has some tremendously powerful things in it that relate to what the American people's problem is today: high gas prices.

In that legislation, we talk about price gouging. Do we have any reason to have in a provision of law an element that we can go after companies that price gouge? Of course. The oil companies, during the Bush years, have had net profits of $609 billion. So our price-gouging provision was, we thought, very key in doing something about energy.

In S. 3044, we had something dealing with the oil subsidies the oil companies have received, that perhaps they should be cut back. They are making these huge profits. In this bill, we had a provision that was bipartisan and has been pushed by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania--NOPEC is what it was called. It was a proposal to have the OPEC cartel be subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. That seems reasonable, since these countries have the absolute ability to so easily lock in prices and determine what prices are going to be charged around the world. Senators Kohl and Specter thought this was good legislation, and so did we. That is why we put it in our legislation.

We also had a provision in our legislation dealing with speculation. I will talk about that later. We not only had it in S. 3044, we had freestanding legislation dealing with speculation.

We also had in S. 3044 something dealing with a windfall profits tax, which should be part of the law of our country today. The American consumer agrees with that.

Mr. President, Senator Bingaman also prepared legislation, which has now been filed at the desk. It is very good legislation. We were asking for help from the Republicans and got none. Senator Bingaman is one of the most astute, hard-working, creative, and smartest Senators we have ever had in this body. In that legislation, S. 5135, we had some really good things. It wasn't ``take it or leave it'' legislation. With the 68 million acres the oil companies have, it called for due diligence. It said: With the 68 million acres you have, let's find out what you are doing with it, why you are not drilling in some parts of it, and report to the Interior Department and find out what is going on with that land. It is typical of Senator Bingaman because it was well thought out. Rather than the provision that some were talking about--use it or lose it--Senator Bingaman believed that was appropriate, and that is why he went through the trouble of coming up with this legislation.

He also had something in the bill that would be important which deals with building codes, making it so that in the future, when things are built, when construction takes place, it deals with the environment. There is so much that can be done to save huge amounts of electricity if we had buildings built properly.

We also had a provision on which the Senator from Minnesota spoke so eloquently which said that we want you to take the great resource we have--the more than 700 million barrels of oil we have in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve--and we want you to announce to the world that we are going to start using some of that. We are going to start using that to bring down the price of oil. We know it works. We know it works because the President's father did it, and it brought down the price of oil. We have asked that this be done on other occasions, but we put it in this legislation Senator Bingaman came up with.

The airlines tell us it is important to bring down the prices. The airline companies need to have oil, for these companies to be able to succeed, at about $100 a barrel. That is high, but they could succeed with that. Anything over that is a tremendous losing proposition for them. This would bring the price of oil down to at or near that price. But we got no suggestions from the Republicans that they cared about this.

Also, I thought what Senator Bingaman did was very important. He said there is about 25 million acres of land that is available now to be leased for oil exploration. All the administration has to do is tell the Interior Department to issue leases on it. It has already been determined that it has tremendous oil potential. Much of it is on- and offshore in Alaska. It would add another 25 million acres to the 68 million acres the oil companies already have.

There were other provisions in the Bingaman bill--good pieces of legislation. Again, we had no takers on that from the Republicans.

Today, we voted on H.R. 6049, and, of course, that was defeated because of another cloture motion that was necessary to be filed because of a Republican filibuster. The same with the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, S. 3186, LIHEAP. It was filibustered, and we weren't able to proceed to that. That is really unusually harsh. I have heard the Senator from Vermont talk about that on numerous occasions. I told him that more people die from exposure in the summer than in the winter because they become dehydrated. We need to have the ability for the old, disabled, and poor to have air-conditioning. In the winter, of course, they need heat. But this was rejected by the Republicans.

We asked--because it was certainly bipartisan every step of the way, the NOPEC bill, the Specter-Kohl bill--that we move to that alone. That was S. 879. It was rejected. Again, the Republicans refused to let us do that.

We had the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act, which we have dealt with for several weeks now. I spoke the night before last to the President of United Airlines. He said he has no question in his mind that one reason the oil prices have gone down by the barrel in recent days is because we are debating and talking about speculation. This would work. The Republicans have been listening to the monied interests of this country and have refused to allow us to do this.

Then, of course, today, we had the issue of the so-called extenders bill on which Senator Baucus worked so hard. It was rejected. It had many good provisions in it. He worked hard to try to get bipartisan support. There was disaster relief in it. There was finally something in there that we could pass to do the mental health parity, which is so long overdue. We had a provision to reestablish money that has been taken out of the highway trust fund, which is so important--to reestablish that. People are losing their jobs.

The most significant thing, from my perspective, in that legislation--even though there was much more--was that it would do something now, today, about taking care of the energy crisis in this country. It is not Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, talking; it is T. Boone Pickens--from a different political party and persuasion than Al Gore--saying we have to move to renewables. That is what this legislation is all about, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs,

construction jobs and other jobs, that lessen our dependence on foreign oil. As T. Boone Pickens said, ``You can't drill your way out of this crisis.'' We were blocked on that.

Mr. President, in the newspapers all over America and in other parts of the world, Thomas Friedman's column is running today. He is a person who has won all kinds of prizes around the world for his writing. He has had three bestselling books. For weeks, his books have been No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list. He writes with great preciseness, and he is right to the point. Here is what he said today:

Republicans have become so obsessed with the notion that we

can drill our way out of our current energy crisis that

reopening our coastal waters to offshore drilling has become

their answer for every energy question.

Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the

world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus

the dangers of climate change driven by our addiction to

fossil fuels, can see the clean renewable energy--wind,

solar, nuclear and stuff we haven't yet invented--is going to

be the next great global industry. It has to be if we are

going to grow in a stable way.

Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power

industry is going to most own the next great technology

breakthrough--the E.T. revolution, the energy technology

revolution--and create millions of jobs and thousands of new

businesses, just like the I.T. revolution did.

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-

drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me

of someone back in 1980 arguing we should be putting all our

money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric

typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC''

and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a

second-rate power and economy.

Mr. President, earlier this week, on Monday, I offered the Republicans, on the speculation bill, four amendments, and we would have a like number. That was rejected out of hand--offer made and they rejected it.

Yesterday, right after the Senate opened, Senator McConnell said to me: How about six amendments?

I said: I am happy to discuss amendments, but I am through discussing amendments unless we pass the extenders bill.

That was clear language. I said it directly, and I meant it. I am speaking for 50 other Democratic Senators. I am speaking for my caucus.

So Senator McConnell said: Well, fine, we will have Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Grassley, the ranking member, work on this.

I said that Senator Baucus said Senator Grassley has no authority to do anything.

He said: Yes, he does. I will instruct him that he has all the authority in the world.

They met for 2 hours last night. The only thing Senator Grassley wanted to discuss was having all of these extenders not paid for. So we are right back where we started. So that is gone. That was turned down overwhelmingly. The Republicans didn't support the extenders. So that is where we are.

My caucus demands that we focus on something to really make a difference: renewables, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs-- Friedman said millions; I am saying hundreds of thousands within the next few months. It will make a cleaner environment, and it will be good for the economy.

Mr. President, that is where it is. That is where it is.

Again, as Thomas Friedman wrote:

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-

drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th century fuel, remind me

of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all

our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric

typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC''

and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a

second-rate power and economy.

Yes.

All Democrats supported it, a handful of Republicans, mostly those who are in very difficult Senate races, I might add, for reelection.

The Senator is absolutely right, absolutely right. I can't express how the Republican Party, as I have always known it--when I went into politics, I had the idea that the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. That has long since gone. We are going to have a deficit this year of about a half trillion dollars, and that isn't a fair view of it because they are using the Social Security trust fund to offset and make the deficit look even smaller.

But I also will say this: Big oil during the Bush years has made a $609 billion profit--$609 billion. The Republicans side with big oil every step of the way. They have done it in all this energy legislation. They are beholden to big oil. Everyone knows that. I think it is time we start talking about something that will help; that is, we need to move to have energy created by the Sun, wind, geothermal, and we need to do it as quickly as possible.

That is where we are. I have said on a number of occasions--I said it earlier today--there was a lot of activity on the Senate floor-- understand, Mr. President, where we are. Because the Republicans have blocked everything--they have blocked energy for old people, sick people, disabled people; they have blocked everything we have tried to do here--we have a decision. They can make the decision. We have been fortunate enough to finish the Higher Education Act. We have been fortunate to finish consumer product safety. Both conference reports are finished. We can do those in the next couple of days. We can move to the Defense authorization bill. It is up to the Republicans what they want to do. But if they want to be here during August, more power to them because we will be here with them. We all have things to do, longstanding obligations during August, but those can be changed. If people want to debate during August the Defense Authorization Act, that is fine. They can go out and hold their press conferences that they would rather be doing something on drilling, drilling, drilling. They can continue to do that, or we can come back in September--there is going to be a bipartisan summit on energy prices, and maybe by the August recess, maybe some of my friends will be more willing to do some actual compromise.

Legislation is the art of compromise. If the art of compromise is not present, we cannot get the business done. There simply has been no compromise from my friends. That is why we have faced almost 90 filibusters.

Madam President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to S. 2035.

Mr. President, we finished a fourth vote on the tax extenders bill. As the great baseball philosopher, Yogi Berra, said: ``It's deja vu all over again.''

Here we are getting ready to vote and just finishing a vote for the fourth time on the motion to proceed to the House tax extenders bill. As I said, it is deja vu all over again and yet again.

The vote, I believe, was 51 to 43, so very short of what it takes to get business done in the Senate, which is to work a bipartisan agreement so we have more than 60 votes to get business done. This is a no-brainer, in this particular instance, to get an extenders bill and the AMT.

The futility of this exercise, which is motivated purely by partisan politics, makes this vote as silly as a ``Three Stooges'' episode. Instead of wasting time on such a silly exercise, the Senate Democratic leadership should be working on negotiating a bipartisan deal with Senate Republicans that can be signed into law by the President. The American people do not want another futile vote on tax extenders.

They want a bill that will be signed into law. That would provide the American people with the tax relief that is needed.

The extenders vote we had has already failed before. Albert Einstein famously stated the definition of ``insanity'' is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The Senate Democratic leadership has already done the same thing too many times and, of course, today sought to do it again. This is a waste of everyone's time. Everyone can see through the Democratic leadership's strategy for what it is: a partisan political exercise, designed solely to get 30- second sound bites for political ads.

Let's stop this nonsense. Let's work out a bipartisan compromise on the tax extenders bill. Let's reach agreement in a form that can be signed into law by the President. The President made it very clear today that he is not willing to sign what we had before us a few minutes ago into law. Of course, what I am asking is that the Senate Republican leadership has been trying to urge the Senate majority to move in this direction.

The Senate Republican leadership has made numerous offers to the Senate Democratic leadership to try to find a way to break the logjam on tax extenders. So far, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been unwilling to enter into a bipartisan agreement on a tax extenders bill that even attempts to address legitimate concerns of the minority party in this body.

As the Senate Democratic leadership engages in pure partisan politics by bringing up the tax extenders bill for yet another vote, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is probably grinning like a Cheshire cat, thinking of all the 30-second campaign ads they will be able to make. However, the people of New York are not grinning because they are not getting the benefit of any of these tax relief provisions. All the tax relief provisions that are very important to the American people, including even to the people of New York, are being held hostage as part of the political game of the Democratic Senate leadership having vote after vote on cloture to stop debate for whatever reason.

Some of these important tax relief provisions are the alternative minimum tax patch, the deduction for the State and local sales tax, the deduction of tuition expenses, and the deduction for expenses of school teachers. How is anybody going to find fault with the fact that these provisions should have been done a long time ago? In fact, the AMT patch should have been done because, since the first of the year, taxpayers who have had to file quarterly tax payments have been violating the law if they haven't taken into consideration that there are 24 million American families right now hit by the alternative minimum tax. That figure would include 3.1 million New York families. The provision for the State and local sales tax would help almost 11 million families. Also, the deduction for expenses for tuition and fees would help over 4.6 million families. In addition, the deduction for expenses of school teachers would help 3.4 million Americans. These hard-working taxpayers are more important than a 30-second sound bite to be used in the next campaign because of political games that are being played.

The bottom line is, when we have 24 million people being hit by AMT, 4.6 million people on the deduction of college expenses, and 3.4 million people hit by increased taxes because school teachers will not be able to deduct supplies from their income taxes, real Americans are being hurt while political games are being played, when everybody in this body knows the only way we get things done is in a bipartisan way.

The biggest divide between Republicans and Democrats regarding tax extenders relates to the issue of offsets, also known as revenue raisers, or I think we ought to be more intellectually honest and call these tax increases. In other words, tax increases on Americans generally to provide the extension of some policy that has been on the books for decades.

My party's position has been clear on this issue. We are perfectly willing to use offsets that make sense from a tax policy perspective to pay for new tax policy. However, tax relief provided by extending existing tax policy or expiring provisions, or somebody may call these sunset provisions, we do not feel they should have to be offset. We should not be raising taxes in order to pay for the extension of existing tax policy.

One reason I care about this issue is that there is currently a bias in favor of using this as an excuse to bring in more money to increase the size of Government. The pay-as-you-go rules apply to expiring tax provisions which are not built into the revenue base. On the other hand, if you have sunset of appropriations, these are built into the spending baseline. Therefore, in order to extend expiring tax provisions, the pay-go rules require an offset, and that happens to be a big tax increase. Whereas, if you have extensions of expiring appropriations provisions--in other words, spending provisions--they do not need to be paid for by decreased spending in other areas because they are assumed in the spending baseline. Therefore, pay-as-you-go rules apply to the extension of expiring tax provisions, but in an intellectually, inconsistent way do not apply to the extension of expiring spending provisions.

This inconsistent treatment makes no sense-- intellectually inconsistent; I say to the taxpayers of America, intellectually dishonest. It is biased to create ever larger Government. The money the American people earn, after all, is their money. We should only take the money from them that it truly takes to run the Government. We should not be using sunset tax provisions as an excuse to increase taxes, and that is all it is.

In addition, the Democrats' desire to use permanent offsets to pay for an extension of temporary tax provisions is extremely problematic. It creates a situation where the permanent offsets that can be agreed to on a bipartisan basis--in other words, the low-hanging fruit all gets used to pay for the extension of temporary tax provisions.

Under the Democrats' tax side only, pay-go obsession, once all the low-hanging fruit is used--and we are rapidly approaching that point-- then the choice becomes much uglier for them and much uglier for the American taxpayers. The choice becomes whether to extend existing tax policy that has broad support by increasing taxes in areas that will hurt Americans.

Nobody advocates the inconsistency of the pay-as-you-go rules more than the famed House of Representatives Blue Dogs, and they are all Democrats. The Blue Dogs portray themselves as fiscal conservatives. We agree with the Blue Dogs' goals of fiscal responsibility. They will have allies all over my side of the aisle if they want to control spending. The problem is the Blue Dogs are pursuing the same old tax- and-spend game under the cloak of fiscal responsibility. The Blue Dogs will fight tooth and paw over any tax relief that is not offset with a corresponding tax increase.

However, the same self-described fiscally conservative Blue Dogs are not willing to fight tooth and paw to seek the same equality for the taxpayers on the spending side of the ledger. They have a big appetite for spending. The Blue Dogs generally do not seek to offset spending increases with spending cuts in other areas. But in taxes, it is a whole different story. In fact, the Blue Dogs do not even seek to curb the amount of spending increases for which they hunger.

By portraying themselves as fiscal conservatives, while in reality playing the same old tax-and-spend game, the Blue Dogs remind me of the land shark character played by Chevy Chase on ``Saturday Night Live.'' This was many years ago, so maybe some of you will not remember. But we have a picture of the land shark skit with the theme from ``Jaws'' playing in the background.

The land shark knocks on a person's door. With the door still closed, the person would ask: Who is at the door?

The land shark would reply: Flower delivery.

The person answering the door then said: You are that clever shark, aren't you?

And in response, the land shark said: Candygram.

If you don't know how the skit ended, the person eventually let the land shark in the door because that person believed the land shark when the land shark said he was a dolphin. And, yes, the land shark ate that person.

The moral of the land shark story is, don't let yourself be fooled that the Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives because they are pursuing the same old tax-and-spend Washington game. Don't let the House of Representatives Blue Dogs' insatiable appetite for spending swallow the much-needed tax relief contained in the tax extenders.

I recommend that folks take a look at the cover story of the June 14, 2008, edition of the National Journal magazine about the Blue Dogs. It is very enlightening.

In trying to reach a bipartisan agreement on tax extenders, my party's leadership has made several offers to the other side's leadership. One of these offers is to pay for some new tax policy using offsets that make good tax policy sense. This is not simply a vague promise to look for such offsets. For instance, I have suggested we use the offset that closes the loophole that allows hedge fund managers to defer compensation for tax haven jurisdictions.

My time is up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.

I thank the Chair.

So we have offered something like closing a loophole that allows hedge fund managers to defer compensation in tax haven jurisdictions. However, we need to remove the huge charitable loophole that is contained in both the Democratic House and Senate extenders bill.

Let me try to explain something that is not explainable. I would be embarrassed if I had this in one of my bills. This charitable loophole allows hedge fund managers to deduct 100 percent of their deferred compensation that is donated to charity. In contrast, the ordinary American is only permitted to deduct charitable contributions of up to 50 percent of his or her income for that year. Everyone is obviously in favor of charity, but treating wealthy hedge fund managers better than the average American taxpayer makes no sense from a tax policy standpoint.

Also, the Senate Republican leadership suggested that some of the other new tax policy could be paid for by decreasing the scheduled increase in new spending, but that was not taken into consideration, even considering the fact that the present budget authorizes an increase greater than $350 billion over the next 10 years, and none of that is offset.

This extra $350 billion is like an extra checkbook that Congress is carrying around in addition to its already fat checkbook. This checkbook covers nondiscretionary spending and current levels of discretionary spending. We simply asked that they take a few checks out of this extra checkbook--not all of it, just a small part of it--to pay for some of these needed tax relief provisions. However, this suggestion was summarily dismissed.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are unwilling to even consider decreasing their increased nondefense discretionary spending that is above the President's budget. If the Blue Dogs of the other body are fiscal conservatives, they should come out and say they are willing to decrease this increase in the new extra nondefense discretionary spending. Instead, the Blue Dogs' position has been that all of the tax relief provided in the tax extenders package, even the extension of the existing tax policy, must be offset by an equal amount of tax increases on every other American. Why not look at curbing this new excess spending to pay for part of the much needed tax relief? So let us get back to square one. I invite my Blue Dog friends who claim to be fiscal conservatives to answer that question.

Back to where we started today--back to Yogi Berra. He also said: ``It ain't over 'til it's over.'' This extenders vote failed because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to negotiate toward a bipartisan bill that can be signed into law. Because of the Senate Democratic leadership's doomed plan, this extenders discussion ``ain't over 'til it's over.'' Let's get this over with. Let's negotiate toward a bipartisan agreement that can become law so the American people will benefit. So far, the Senate Democratic leadership has not done that. For that reason alone, people did vote ``no'' on cloture, as they previously had.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Ohio for allowing me the additional 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about my support and encourage my colleagues to join me in revisiting and passing what we tried to do earlier today, and that was supporting the Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008 on which we had a procedural motion. I find this bill, in these last couple of days of our working period before we leave to return to our States, one of the most important things we can do. Is it everything we can do? No, it is not. We can't do everything in one fell swoop. But there are a lot of things we can do to get started.

I applaud the hard work that was put into this package by the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Baucus. I also congratulate our counterparts in the House Ways and Means Committee for their tremendous efforts in putting together this very important piece of legislation that puts us off on a very sound footing and a good beginning, heading in the right direction of where we need to go.

The vote we took earlier today was the third time we have attempted to proceed to this very important package of tax incentives, the so- called tax extenders package, this year. Unfortunately, we do it every year. Unfortunately, we patch over every year the opportunity we try to have put forward by the Government, the incentives we need to create an environment. That is what government does. Government creates an environment where businesses, families, industries, and States can be successful. That is exactly what this bill does. It is what we tried to do earlier today. I hope we will continue to push forward in creating an environment where people and businesses can do for themselves in an environment that government has created, to take care of their issues, whether they be disasters or a competitive nature across this globe, but to use that environment to strengthen themselves, to build their businesses, their families, their communities in a way that has been consistent with the American spirit through generations of great Americans.

We tried three times, and I had so hoped that the third time would be the charm. Maybe it is the fourth time. Maybe it is the fifth. I very much believe this is something we have to do, and we should do it before we leave to head home to our States for the break. During the past few months I have talked extensively about this extenders package and some of the things I think are so important. There are many benefits here that working families will see, benefits for working families, communities, businesses, so many of which are so needed at this time. Under this legislation, some 1 million additional children will be covered by the child tax credit and more than 27,000 American businesses will be able to remain globally competitive through the use of research and development tax credits. We are talking about a time when gas prices are high. Food prices are high. People are finding that the dollars they are earning are not going as far. Yet they are still trying hard to keep their body and soul and their families together. They are still trying to do for their children and aging parents the things that need to be done. One million additional children would have been covered in this bill with the child tax credit. These are extremely important policy initiatives we need to be providing, now more than ever, for our American taxpayers.

In addition, there is almost $20 billion in incentives included in this package to move us toward energy independence. We have heard all of our colleagues coming down here talking about energy independence, talking about the dire straits working families are in. My State ranks 48 in the low-income category of hard-working Americans. I know because in recent studies we have seen back in May, on average Arkansans were paying 8 percent of their income toward gasoline and in some other, more desperate counties, they were paying up to 11 percent of their income for fuel, particularly for gasoline. They are being hit hard.

There are some things we can do. This package will provide long-term extension of our renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits so we can provide some certainty in these very important new industries that are job creators but also the hope for the future of where we go in terms of energy needs. It creates a tax credit for consumers who purchase new technology, highly fuel-efficient vehicles. It also continues our commitment of moving toward alternative fuels through the extension of the renewable diesel and biodiesel tax credit.

We know there are a lot of opportunities we have. Yes, trying to deal with the manipulation of markets by speculation is one route we need to take. Yes, we know that making sure we are taking advantage of new resources and old resources that exist in our oil and gas industry is important. We know there are multiple things we can do in renewable fuels and a host of other areas where we can turn to that we never believed we could get fuel from, everything from biomass to algae, a whole host of new technologies coming out, research that is proving to us that there is a whole new world out there of energy and energy sources. These are all initiatives in a bill that should have broad bipartisan support. We should enact them as soon as possible.

To be sure, there is certainly a lot more, whether it is speculation or drilling or other things, that we could be doing. There is more that can be done to deal with our energy crisis. But the almost $20 billion in incentives included in this package is quite a downpayment in moving us in the right direction. To my friends on the other

side of the aisle who have been here on the floor this week arguing for action on energy legislation before we leave for August, I agree with you. I think it is so important that we do something. We need to do something. We have to do something. This package we have seen come before us earlier today would have been a great first step. It still can be. We need to make sure we are passing an extenders bill, coupled with a host of other things that are essential for us to go home in August with to tell our constituents that we do hear the message they are sending. We could pass it with bipartisan support and get even more done when we come back in September.

People know we are not going to do everything at once. They don't expect that of us. But they do expect us to take, step by step, the opportunities we have to do something about the energy crisis.

We also have in this bill the highway trust fund. The needs in the highway trust fund are tremendous. Come next month, we are going to see a deficit there. We are going to see a crisis in our highway trust fund. We are going to have to deal with that. Why shouldn't we be dealing with it today or tomorrow but certainly before we leave?

Finally and most importantly, the chairman of the Finance Committee has included a package of tax relief for areas all across the country hit with horrific weather and declared Federal disaster areas. This will provide vital resources to help in recovery efforts all across the Nation; in 26 States, to be exact. I am extremely thankful for the inclusion of this piece in the bill because Arkansas has suffered from a string of tornadoes and record-setting floods. The series of natural disasters in my home State this year has been unlike any I have seen in my lifetime. It has left 62 of our 75 counties in Arkansas in need of Federal disaster assistance. Wave after wave of storms have rocked the residents of Arkansas and have left many shell shocked.

It started on February 5 when a band of tornadoes created a path of destruction, which we can see here, that stretched across 12 counties in Arkansas, killing 13 people, injuring 133, and destroying more than 880 homes. It was the deadliest storm in nearly 10 years. On that day, one tornado gouged a 123-mile path, hitting the ground, staying on the ground for that long a period. Along the way, around 5:30 that afternoon, it hit a family-owned boat factory in Clinton, AR, where 16 employees were in the factory at the time working late to load a shipment of boats on a truck. The F-4 tornado struck. Unfortunately, the life of Thomas Armstrong was lost. The building was totaled. The 20-year-old business that had produced 550 to 600 boats a year and provided $15,000 a week in salaries to its 45 employees was a complete loss. As we can see here, it was completely destroyed.

I traveled with Senator Pryor and Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe to assess the damage across the State. In Van Buren County in central Arkansas, 45 homes and countless businesses were destroyed. Conway County had 140 homes destroyed or that suffered major damage.

The hospital in Mountain View got hit as well. Within hours, hospital administrators and personnel, helped by volunteers, reacted swiftly to stabilize the area. They were able to use the emergency room for persons with serious injuries and evacuated patients with nonlife- threatening conditions to nursing homes and other facilities around the county. In the town of Highland in north central Arkansas, a facility that housed the equipment for the volunteer fire department was completely destroyed.

A little more than a month later, heavy storms hit Arkansas again. This time they brought rain and more rain and more rain. The result was flooding not seen in some areas for over 90 years. Thirty-five Arkansas counties were declared disaster areas from the storm. In the town of Pocahontas, the Black River crested at 26.5 feet, its highest level since August of 1915, and three breaks in its levees flooded homes and apartments. This is a scene from the Black River in Pocahontas in Randolph County.

In Des Arc, where I traveled with Governor Beebe, the White River crested at a little more than 33 feet, almost 9 feet above flood stage. Further up the White River, the community of Oil Trough got hit twice. The first time it was only a few homes. Ten days later, rains came a second time and flooded the entire city, forcing residents and businesses to completely evacuate.

On April 3, another set of tornadoes hit central Arkansas. Although not as deadly as the ones that hit us in February, four twisters touched down in a five-county area, including some of the counties suffering from those floods. In addition, two more rounds of tornadoes hit the State in May, bringing the total to 62 counties affected by these storms that hit this year.

All but 13 counties in my State have been declared Federal disaster areas, causing millions of dollars in property damage and at least 26 known deaths. While it has been a traumatic few months for thousands of Arkansans, I have been struck, of course, by the resiliency of my State's residents. I have always said the people of Arkansas are our greatest resource, whether it is to the rest of this country and what we have to offer or whether it is to one another. Their ability to pitch in and help their neighbors has been nothing short of extraordinary. But they need help to finish the job.

This bill we tried to pass earlier today and in weeks past provides needed assistance. That is why I am so grateful Chairman Baucus has included this tax incentive package for individuals who have experienced loss from these horrific disasters.

This tax relief will help my Arkansas families deal with expenses related to debris removal, cleanup, and repair. It will allow them to adjust their taxable income, taking into account property losses they have suffered. It will allow them to access their own savings they have tucked away in IRAs and other retirement plans penalty free. It will provide a credit for small businesses that continue paying their employees while their business is inoperable and being rebuilt. These important provisions, among others, will do wonders for my Arkansas families and businesses impacted by these unbelievable storms and flooding.

And I am not alone. Many of my neighboring States--Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky--experienced the same storms Arkansas did, and they are suffering in the same ways--not to mention the floods that impacted individuals in Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, and Kansas in recent months, who all would benefit from this.

I recognize this package of disaster relief may not be as generous as some may have preferred. But it is a good package. It is a consensus package. If passed, it will provide immediate relief for all of our storm victims.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the value in this package. I urge them to take a close look and recognize the benefits it will bring to their communities that are suffering so desperately.

We should stand together. We should all look around this room and understand we are here together as a body to represent this great land, each of our States, of course, but to recognize as neighbors we all have shared in much disaster. We should stand together to do the right thing and enact this package--if we get another opportunity--of broad- based tax relief that will help our working families, our businesses, and our damaged communities.

There is certainly a great opportunity here if all of us band together and realize that in the next 2 days before we leave we have this wonderful opportunity to come together to do something for our Nation. I hope we will. I encourage my colleagues to ask to be able to come back to that relief package as well as that tax incentive package that will do so much.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for filling in for me while I was caught up in a radio interview.

We are here today to talk about a real crisis, a rural America crisis. Rural America is suffering a gas price crisis. Rural America deserves action now to get gas prices down. Rural America knows this fundamentally is a problem of not enough supply to meet demand. We need to find more oil and use less to bring the real gas price relief rural America needs. Families, farmers, truckers across rural Missouri, my home State, are suffering record pain at the pump. At kitchen tables in the farmhouses of rural Missouri, farmers, dairy producers, and cattlemen are facing a gas price crisis. Farm costs are higher than ever. Farm fuel to run tractors and farm equipment is at record levels. Transportation costs to get goods to the market are at a record level. The ability of consumers to buy products is under record pressure. People are seeing higher food prices because food has to travel. The average item on the grocery shelf travels 1,300 miles. Record-high

diesel prices are adding to the price of food goods in the store.

All this means real suffering for rural Missouri and its farmers. Down country roads of rural Missouri, rural families are facing a gas price crisis. They have to cut budgets hit hard by high gas prices. Many of these families live in rural areas because they are of modest means. Maybe they are looking for cheaper housing than offered in big cities. Maybe they are fixed-income retirees staying in their own hometowns. Either way, when it comes time to cut the family budget, the cuts will go extra deep.

What will these rural families cut because of higher gas prices? With the school year coming, they have to get the kids to school. Will a rural family give up buying new clothes for their kids? Will struggling fixed-income seniors cancel doctors appointments or cut back on medication?

Truckers across Missouri are facing a gas price crisis. Many trucking firms are based in rural areas, where land and fuel were cheaper, but record diesel prices are hammering truckers and trucking companies. Mom-and-pop trucking firms are laying off drivers. Some are even going into bankruptcy. Many rural families and workers also depend on airlines for service and jobs. Airlines are facing record-high jet fuel prices. That is forcing airlines to lay off workers and cut back service. Many of the blue-collar workers who moved back to maintain planes and service airports are being affected.

American Airlines, for example, is set to eliminate some 6,500 jobs because of record-high oil prices. Airlines also cut low-volume routes to rural areas first. Airlines are trying to manage rising fuel costs by using the financial markets to hedge against risk. But their experts tell me the main problem is a fear that there will not be a supply there in the future. They say if the U.S. Government would take steps to increase supply, it would bring about a huge change in the market and bring prices down immediately. Why? Because the current price being paid on the hedging market for oil to be delivered in 3 years depends upon their expectation of what the demand and supply will be in the years ahead. Right now there is every reason to think that if we do nothing, if we are prevented from getting a gas price reduction bill that provides more and allows us to use less through this Senate, the price will not be just $140 a barrel. The price will not just be $185. It will be $200 or $250. So people's retirement plans, such as CalPERS, California Public Employees Retirement System, are bidding up the price in the future because they don't expect supply to go up. Bringing that price down will make a difference. It will make a difference in the price of oil today, just as President Bush's ending of the Executive moratorium on offshore drilling brought the price down from $145 to $120.

Bringing the price down could make a real difference between keeping jobs and service in rural America and letting go thousands of workers. The suffering of rural Missouri families, farmers, and truckers is why we are fighting so hard to lower gas prices. We are fighting to open new supplies of oil needed to get prices down. Real action to lower gas prices is the most important thing we can do to help rural America and rural Missouri. Fighting for real action to lower gas prices is the most important thing I could do to help rural Missouri. I have amendments to force gas prices down by opening new offshore oil reserves waiting for us. I filed an amendment to lower gas prices by opening access to the 18 billion barrels of oil waiting for us off America's Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These reserves could supply America with 10 years of additional oil supplies, if we would only allow ourselves to use them to change a 30-year policy the Democrats have imposed, that Senator Obama continues to champion, of no drilling, no refineries, no nuclear power. The decision to open our offshore oil reserves would immediately cause the price of oil to fall.

We know that because this happened earlier this month, when President Bush reversed the Executive ban and brought the price of oil immediately down $10 and, now, $20 a barrel. Nothing hurts speculators bidding up the price of oil more than news of additional oil supplies coming in the future. Congress must do our part to lower gas prices even further by opening new offshore reserves. However, the Democratic Party is blocking the Senate from considering my amendment to tap offshore oil reserves, even as I speak. I also cosponsored an amendment with several Senate colleagues to tap offshore oil reserves in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. There are almost 3 billion barrels of oil in the eastern gulf waiting to help bring gas prices down for rural Missouri. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is also blocking consideration of this amendment.

I also agree we must help America use less oil. I have an amendment that would relieve the pressure on gas prices by increasing conservation. My amendment would aggressively promote advanced vehicle batteries and their production in the United States for hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles. My amendment would provide new funds for hybrid battery research and development, battery manufacturing equipment and capabilities, and reequipping, expanding or establishing U.S. domestic manufacturing facilities for hybrid vehicle batteries. U.S. domestic mass production of hybrid batteries would get battery prices down, getting the hybrid vehicle prices down. But most importantly, it would give our auto companies access to the batteries we need. Right now many of the batteries have to be brought in from Asia. As the demand for more batteries goes up in Asia, I can assure my colleagues that American auto companies will not necessarily be first in line to get that production. We need to put American workers to work building the batteries, the advanced batteries that will go into the electric cars, the plug-ins, and the hybrid plug-ins. This would not only conserve oil. It would give jobs to blue-collar manufacturing workers and help the environment. It is going to be good for Missouri when we do it. The question is when.

Missouri is a national leader in hybrid car production, in batteries, and advanced vehicle batteries. We make traditional batteries across the State because we are the leader in lead. We mine a lot of lead in Missouri. When you are talking about environmental dangers, yes, lead has some dangers to it. There is only one simple reason we mine lead in Missouri, and that is because we have 90 percent of it in the United States. When people tell me they don't want to drill for natural gas because they don't like the sight of natural gas wells, but they have the natural gas, I say: If you will trade us your natural gas for our lead, I would be happy to let them drill in my backyard.

But Missouri, with all the battery specialists, the technical workers we have, the scientists, is on the cutting edge of battery technology, with firms developing safer, stronger lithium ion batteries. We are also home to a hybrid SUV assembly plant in Kansas City. This success does not have to be limited to Missouri. Communities across America can share in the drive to establish a domestic manufacturing supply base for mass hybrid car construction.

Rural communities, especially, can benefit from the good-paying manufacturing jobs that U.S. mass battery production would provide. Rural school districts would benefit from new tax revenues. Rural police and firefighters would benefit. Unfortunately, as I said, Democrats are blocking Senate consideration.

Now, what answers do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for rural America? Well they propose making things worse by suing oil-producing countries.

Folks back home in my part of rural Missouri may not know much about antitrust laws--most folks don't--but anyone with common sense would know, if you sue someone, they would likely take what they have and sell it to somebody else.

I guess this was an idea cooked up by trial lawyers who are eager to sue anybody they can. As you might imagine, there are not too many trial lawyers in rural Missouri.

Democrats also proposed raiding our emergency oil supplies in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Putting aside the fact that these emergency reserves are only meant to be used in times supply is cut off, such as during a war, this plan would only produce 3\1/2\ days of additional oil.

So while Republicans are offering rural America 10 years of additional oil

supplies, Democrats think rural America should get by on only 3\1/2\ days of extra supplies. This lack of sympathy for taking real action may be based on the fact that a lot of Democrats are fine with higher oil prices.

After all, the Democratic nominee for President, Senator Obama, said the problem was not that gas prices were so high, the problem was merely that gas prices had risen so quickly. That is akin to telling people it is OK to drown as long as the water rises slowly.

Today, in Springfield, MO, the Democratic nominee suggested we all make sure we properly inflate our tires. Big deal. I believe in all tires being fully inflated. But, frankly, that is the kind of hot air-- this hot air being into tires--that we have been hearing too much of on this floor.

Rural Missouri is suffering record pain at the pump, and the best thing he can come up with is more hot air--this time for our tires. Rural Missouri deserves more than the hot air from the Illinois Senator.

Senator McCain has come out very clearly and strongly in support of drilling, of exploring, of developing nuclear power.

We tried last year. Congress passed the largest increase in auto fuel efficiency requirements in a generation to bring down gas usage. Well, that did nothing to prevent record-high prices. That is because it will take years before more fuel-efficient cars are required. The Democratic candidate for President must want us to suffer through record-high gas prices until those conservation measures kick in.

I support increasing conservation, but we must not force a prescription of pain on America while we wait years for these conservation measures to kick in.

The Democratic candidate for President has suggested another stimulus package to help drivers through this price crisis. I am sure Missouri rural families would be happy to receive a few hundred dollars more in stimulus relief. But what they want is not to get a check from the Government--after the handful of tanks of gasoline that money could buy is spent--they want to bring down the price. They will be right back where they are, paying the full price of record-high gas prices, and we will do nothing but increase our deficit.

Rural Missouri and America deserve more than a prescription of pain to address the gas price crisis. We deserve more than half measures that will only produce a few days or months more of additional supplies. Rural Missouri deserves more than a Senate attempting to abandon them and this gas price crisis by moving on to other issues.

Rural Missouri and the people of America deserve real action now to lower gas prices. That means new offshore oil supplies to get prices down, new offshore oil supplies for Missouri families, new offshore oil supplies for Missouri farmers, and new offshore oil supplies for Missouri truckers. That is our only real hope for real gas price relief.

I urge my Senate colleagues to let us act on it and act now.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: Am I correct in assuming that I have 20 minutes?

Mr. President, I understand that time is allotted to the two Senators, the senior Senator from Tennessee and Senator Pete Domenici, the old man who is leaving the Senate soon.

I wish to tell the Senator from Tennessee, our new chairman of our Republican conference, what a great job

he has done as we have considered whether we should produce more oil for Americans from American-owned resources. That has been an exciting 8\1/2\ days. What disturbs the Senator from New Mexico is, even with the explanations the Senator from Tennessee and others have made, people the Senator has read about, the things he told us about in terms of what we ought to be finding and saving, we ought to be producing and conserving, and we ought to use our own resources, we have not been able to get meaningful amendments offered in the Senate to have a vote.

I have come to the conclusion that there are some--perhaps more than I ever imagined--Democrats on the other side of the aisle who don't want to produce more American oil. I really didn't think that was possible, but I have come to that conclusion. I am not saying everybody. There are some who are working very hard on new ideas on how we can produce. But I believe the majority leader has been bugged, bothered, and pursued by those who don't want to let a vote because they don't want to produce any oil on the offshores of America even though there is a lot of it there and it belongs to us.

Having said that, I wonder if the Senator will have a comment about statements that have been made by a couple of Democrats on the other side of the aisle who have said that there are Republicans who just want to drill, that is all they want to do, is drill for more oil. Do you know of any Republicans--you know the Republicans pretty well; that is why you have your job as chairman--do you know of any Republicans whose concern is nothing other than we drill for more oil?

I thank the Chair.

Yes.

I thank the Senator for the answer, and I want to repeat that supply and demand clearly is what affects the price. The truth is, anyone who thinks we don't have to use oil for a significant amount of time--I mean import it--is just not taking into consideration the reality that what we use most of this oil for is cars and trucks and airplanes and the like, and we just can't make a change overnight.

The Senator just mentioned one great way to lessen that, and Austin has a well-planned idea that would take 15 to 20 years to do half, to get rid of half of the automobiles and substitute electric cars. But what are you going to do during the 15 years or 20? You are going to use cars, today at least, using crude oil. You are going to use gasoline.

You bet. Just so we make it clear, if there are Members of the Senate who don't want to let a vote occur on producing more oil because they don't think we need to produce more oil--and I can't imagine why, but some people just say no more carbon; some people say no more oil--they have to understand that we are going to be buying more oil whether we like it or not, unless we just stop driving or shut down America. It is going to continue to bleed us dry.

So we didn't come down here after our majority leader offered an amendment, an amendment that he has been saying had an impact on the price of oil, if you can imagine that. It was an oil speculation bill. As we continue

this debate, the majority leader's solution to an enormous energy crisis facing our Nation--and earlier today the majority leader gave a speech. I don't know if the Senator heard it. In that speech he said many things, but one of the things he said is that oil prices are going down because the Senate is debating--debating--oil speculation.

Now, the Senator from Tennessee and I really work hard at legislating because we think legislation can have an impact. But on such a big world problem, to think that on oil supply and demand that you could come to the floor of the Senate and say in a credible manner that the price of oil has come down because a bill was introduced--and the bill was the speculation bill--you know, people haven't gone to sleep. The speculation bill has been written about, and the best thinkers have said: First, you don't need one; and, second, this one would not do anything.

I want to also say, Mr. President, I think some of us who work hard in the energy field know why the price of oil has dropped a little.

First, those of us who have worked at it are concerned about the supply and demand problem because we entered an era for a short time when, obviously, there was no more new supply on hand and the demand was growing. And guess what happened. The United States, the American people, not because we passed a lot of laws but because they felt the price of oil in their pocketbooks, changed the way they behaved, and as a result they saved enormous amounts of crude oil. We estimate right now that U.S. demand has been decreased by 4.3 percent, and that is about 1 million barrels a day.

When the Senator just spoke a minute ago, he was right. He gave the numbers, and 5 percent of that number would have been 1, and that is what we are at--1 million barrels. That came down. That lessened the demand, the world economy had some problems, less money was spent, and the demand came down. That was supply and demand working at its best.

Well, if you say just coming up with the idea would do it, then I would say no, the Senator is not right. But if we were to have done that, and it was a matter of law in America that we were going to find more because it was there--you know, Americans are pretty good at drilling. Americans don't mind using the word ``drill.'' They have told us now in the polls, in answer to the question, that they are, by 75 percent, for more drilling if it is on property we own. In fact, offshore has been the answer. So they want us to find more, and they also want to use less.

It is obvious that if we would have passed that--and anybody who says we could not have because we didn't have time is just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. How many days would it take to do that if we had the will and we were given 7 days and we made a deal? We can't make a deal on anything else, but if we made one and we were going to have 7 days to debate this bill, amendments come as they may-- take down the thing that the majority leader put up there because he didn't want us to vote--7 full days of debate--we could have produced a bill that would have opened the offshore permanently, except for the 15 percent that is already open, and we would have adopted the use less, find more provisions you have so eloquently brought to us from some of your experts, the experts you talked to, some of them at your National Laboratories.

Just think, after we passed that and had a signing ceremony at the White House to say: Here is what we have done, Americans. You are saving on your own, so you are using less, and we really think that is great, but we think there is still danger the price will go up, so we want to find more to keep it down--we are having the ceremony where we are celebrating both.

You were here, and we got three energy bills through. People think we did nothing, but we did. We had a 6-year span here where we did a lot for energy. We changed the CAFE standards for cars. What is that going to do? Use less.

And we did it with just one other item. It certainly didn't take as long as we have been down here talking instead of offering amendments--because we could not. We passed it, and there it is. Everyone knows it is great.

People are telling us: Don't worry about the offshore, it takes 10 or 15 years. Do you know what they told us about the ``use less'' provision that is so important, called new CAFE standards for American automobile fleets, all our cars? They told us that will not be totally effective for 20 years. The curve goes like this: you start--you don't save any, you don't save any, and then in the 15th and 20th years, you start to finally save.

Should we not have done it because it takes a long time to take effect? Of course not. We were told to get started on it because, as you said, it is the single biggest way to save gasoline and diesel fuel that anybody knows of.

Sure.

I want to talk to the Senator for a minute about whether we are capable of doing big things that affect the energy field. We had a chance here in the last 7 to 10 days to do something rather big. But do you know what we did 4 years ago? I was fortunate. I left the Budget Committee, where I was chairing--it seemed as though I was, at the pleasure of the Republicans, running that thing for so long, they never wanted me to step down. I finally got tired of it, and I took the Energy Committee. The first bill we passed addressed an issue that is part of this ``find more.'' It addressed the issue of why we did not build a nuclear powerplant for 27 years. We answered it in that legislation, didn't we?

Do you know how many applications there were when we passed that legislation, for all America? Zero. That meant something was awry.

We had not built any. You have to apply, and so you go there and look and you see whether there are any applications. As of today--I just got a briefing--do you know how many full-blown applications there are to build, locate, and design? You can put all that in one now. It takes a long time--4 years after you have done it. Sixteen American companies or consortia of companies, even though it takes a long time and they are going to have to have their money at risk for a long time, put their applications in and said: I want to get in line because I want to build, I want to find more energy.

We are really grateful; for once, we have one where we don't have to argue about pollution, right?

So, you see, when there is a will, there is a way. The problem is, there was no will on the part of the Democratic leader--and perhaps some behind him. I am not going to say all of them, but surely they didn't express any dissatisfaction with what was going on until, at the end, we started feeling there was some rumbling going on. Maybe they had some friction. But nobody over on that side seemed to be saying to their leader: We want to get busy here and have some votes. There was not a will, so you can't do it. You couldn't change nuclear power without a will.

In that same bill we were referring to, we changed a lot of things. I wanted to tell you, one thing you have been interested in is the electric grid because you are concerned about how we are going to get the electrical power when we cannot build powerplants. Certainly, it takes a long time to use this nuclear one as the way. It takes a long time. You can build coal fastest, but there are a lot of problems with EPA and others on that, right? Then you can build natural gas. That is pretty much--you and I look upon that as Senators and say: Yes, you can do it, but it sure is risky because we need that natural gas so badly. But that is the only way they built them in the last few years. That bothers you, right? Doesn't it? Aren't you worried about that?

I would think, if we could start using these words--we need a bridge to the future--and then we got together and thought about that and then said, What is that? Remember a while ago I told you how long it would take in the city of Austin before you would get all those cars that are using oil off the streets?

Half of them. And then all the other things we talked about, CAFE, how long it would take going up and then start down--that applies to so many things in America that the truth is we are not going to be in a position to look to new, brand new generation of energy to move cars and trucks. We can't do that for a decade. So there is a bridge taking place, a bridge from now until we do not need oil any longer. But what does the bridge consist of? It is oil. Oil is the bridge between now and the time we do not use oil.

I regret to tell you, for anyone who thinks there is no bridge--it just comes to me now--then they can walk into a canyon and drown in the water underground that is running there because they didn't walk on a bridge and they drowned themselves. I do not want to drown our country. I want to find new oil so the bridge will be less somebody else's and more ours.

I understand the Chair tells us we are out of time. We will behave very well. Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I heard President Bush's statement at the White House today, and I have to be very blunt. I think the President must think the American people are stupid. For 7\1/2\ years we have had two oilmen in the White House, with Republican majorities in Congress for 6 years, and we have seen gas prices go from $1.46 when President Bush took office to over $4--to about $4 now; it went over $4 at one point--per gallon. Now he would have us believe, after that 7\1/ 2\ years--Republican majorities for 6 of those 7\1/2\ years and having the oil industry write the energy policy with Vice President Cheney in the White House--now he would have us believe, in fact, that we are responsible for this.

It is a good lawyer's game. When you don't have the facts on your side, when you don't have the law on your side, you pound on the table and create a diversion. That is what they have done--tried to create a diversion. The American people are a lot smarter than that.

The fact is, Democrats cannot act as we want to on the energy crisis because the Republican Party simply won't allow us. We have a slim majority in the Senate, and by Senate rules, the

Republicans can filibuster to require us to get 60 votes for anything. That really means, in essence, for those watching, they have the ability to block any legislation they want, and they have used that power to the hilt. Over 90 times they have used this procedural tactic to block much needed legislation. Even though we are in the midst of an energy crisis, they are still blocking everything.

At first they said they were blocking us from our work because they wanted a vote on opening our shores to oil drilling--something I don't support--but the majority leader said OK. We will give you a vote on opening our shores to oil drilling.

Then the Republicans said: Oh, that is not good enough either. Instead, they claimed to want to vote on opening the shores to oil drilling, a vote on nuclear power, a vote on oil shale development, a vote on their larger package of proposals, and guess what. The majority leader said earlier this week: OK, you can have a vote on all of that. Yet, somehow, every time the majority leader offers the other side votes on exactly what they want, they keep saying that is not good enough. They simply won't take yes for an answer.

I hear their speeches. They all mention speculation. Well, we have had testimony that, in fact, speculation in the marketplace could raise oil by $50 per barrel. We even saw a company that was just taken by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission being charged with having manipulated the marketplace--made $1 million in 11 days and increased gas and oil prices. Yet they won't let us go to speculation. They say one thing, they do another.

The big issue they keep talking about is production, but the Republicans don't want production. They simply don't want us to have progress. That is their game plan. They have a political equation, and it is: Don't let anything be achieved.

On five separate occasions, they have had the opportunity to vote for energy production. They have had the opportunity to keep the rapidly developing wind and solar industries growing at an accelerated pace, but instead they decide to play politics. The Republican Party doesn't seem to take renewable energy seriously. It is true that renewables are essential for our environment, essential for our economy. What these industries really represent are an opportunity to produce massive amounts of domestic energy cheaply and at least 100,000 new high-paying jobs in America.

Now, if you don't think renewables are serious business, just ask landowners in Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, or Wyoming who are, in fact, receiving $3,000 to $5,000 per month for allowing a windmill to be sited on their property or ask oilman T. Boone Pickens, who is plowing billions of dollars of his own money into wind energy and a plan to use renewables to end our addiction to oil.

Now, somebody who has made a lot of money in oil doesn't all of a sudden plow billions of dollars of his own money into renewable energy unless he thinks there is going to be a payoff at the end. He understands.

In my home State of New Jersey we have windmills in Atlantic City, where the casinos are, generating a lot of electricity. Last year we installed enough turbines to power over 1.5 million homes. The solar power industry is growing at over 40 percent a year.

These technologies work. They are working now. They are in high demand. They produce an enormous amount of energy. We need to accelerate and expand that. If we extend the wind and solar tax credits so these industries can continue their rapid growth, we could add 150 gigawatts of installed capacity within 10 years. Now, what does that mean? That means that we would have enough electricity to power over 37 million homes. At that rate, by 2030, we could get over 25 percent of our Nation's electricity from wind and solar power.

The package of tax credits that the Republicans continue to block-- blocked again today--represents a solution also for the high price of oil. There is a large tax credit for the purchase of plug-in hybrid vehicles--cars, for example, such as the Chevy Volt, which will be able to run on electricity for the first 40 miles after being plugged in. That means a full three-quarters of all trips--all trips--driven by Americans would not use a drop of gas. If projections by some of the experts hold true, and half the cars on the road in 2030 are plug-in hybrids, we could easily cut our use of oil by 10 percent, and some would suggest that we could even displace much more. And by this time, we would be producing enough renewable energy to power all these cars and still have electricity to spare. If we want cheap gasoline and we want to be free from imported oil, we need to pass the tax credit extensions, and we need to build plug-in hybrids, solar panels, and winds turbines, to name a few. It is that simple.

It is time for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop exploiting our energy crisis for big oil's gain and let us vote on the things that will actually produce energy.

Instead, they insist on holding up everything for an absurd plan that, according to the Energy Information Agency, will not produce energy at all for 10 years and, in 2030, will only produce enough additional gasoline for the equivalent of a few tablespoons per American car.

Let me try to put their plan into perspective. Since April of this year, Americans seeing the high cost of gas have actually reduced their consumption by 800,000 barrels of oil a day more than we did year ago. This is the most significant and sudden drop in oil since the 1970s. But what happened, even though we have reduced 800,000 barrels of oil every day? Prices went up.

In recent weeks, in response to record oil prices, Saudi Arabia produced an additional half-million barrels of oil more each day. What happened? Prices went up.

So how does the Bush-McCain drilling plan compare to these recent events? Well, based upon the Bush administration Energy Information Agency's own analysis, if we open all our shores to oil production, the first drop of oil would not be seen for almost a decade, and offshore oil production would peak in the year 2030. Then it would peak at only 200,000 barrels a day.

So, in fact, if 800,000 barrels a day in reduced consumption combined with an increase of 500,000 barrels a day in extra production hasn't lowered gas prices one bit, it is clear that the production of 200,000 versus a combination of 1.3 million barrels in reduced demand or increased production--200,000 barrels in the year 2030--is going to do absolutely nothing about gas prices.

In fact, the Energy Information Agency says that adding those 200,000 barrels per day in production in 2030 will lower the price of gasoline by less than a penny per gallon.

Let me repeat that. The Republican production plan to open all our shores to drilling and risk the environmental consequences we saw, for example, in the Gulf of Mexico during Katrina and Rita, with 700,000 gallons of oil spilled and 7 million spilled on land by the facilities that bring that oil to the marketplace, would not lower gas prices but about a penny in 2030.

Let's compare these numbers with what renewables have to offer. Remember, if we pass the renewable energy tax extender credits, we could produce massive amounts of electricity from renewable technologies. We hear this constantly being discussed by the Republicans, but they don't let us vote on it. Remember that the tax extenders will help us rapidly deploy plug-in hybrid technology so we can use this electricity for transportation.

By some projections, this means that by 2030, the same time period they are drilling off the shore with the risk that comes to a $200 billion coastal economy, we could replace 2 million to 3 million barrels of oil per day with electricity. Compare 2 million to 3 million barrels to a measly 200,000 barrels per day by the drilling.

Some, such as the DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, projected we could actually displace 3 times as much, or 6.5 million barrels per day by 2030 versus 200,000 barrels in this big drill, drill, drill.

I don't quite get it. You can save the equivalent of 6.5 million barrels every day in energy by pursuing the renewables that they say they support but don't vote for or you can have 200,000 versus 6.5 million by virtue of drilling 30 years from now. So this, of course, means that for us to achieve this, we need to get beyond the Republican efforts to stop us from maintaining the

tax incentives we have. It means we actually have to get serious about our energy policies and start a serious effort to run our transportation fleet on electricity.

That is what voters have to decide on this fall. Do they want to vote for the party of big oil, the party that saw the dramatic increase in gas over the administration's lifetime, where they wrote the rules and the law at the White House, sitting with the Vice President of the United States--do they want to vote for big oil that has record profits, starting with ConocoPhillips? I can't wait for tomorrow, or the day after, when ExxonMobil puts out their record profits. We are talking about billions in record profits. Do they want to vote for big oil, which concocted a plan that does nothing but enrich the oil companies?

This is about one last grab before the administration goes out of office. They already have 68 million acres in this country that they have access to. Now they say we cannot do this or that. They have 68 million acres. They have millions of acres in the Outer Continental Shelf that are not subject to the moratorium. They have areas in the gulf they have not pursued.

The bottom line is that plenty of drilling can take place, and they have not done it. Even the President of the American Petroleum Institute says we don't have the infrastructure or the resources to do it. All this talk about drill, drill, drill, which would only produce 200,000 barrels in 2030 versus 6.5 million barrels of reduced demand in oil--that would do something about the gas prices--and not letting us take out the speculation in the marketplace, which would reduce oil $50 per barrel, some experts say, but they would not let us vote on that. They would not let us vote on the tax extenders.

So this is not about creating production, this is about stopping progress. This is about a Republican game plan that says we will send the Congress home without having done anything about dealing with gas prices, and the minority will face the consequences. They are so sadly mistaken that the American people will not see through 6.5 years of record gas prices, record oil profits, unwilling to allow us to deal with speculation or deal with production and what the energy tax extenders provide, unwilling to allow us to pursue conservation, unwilling to let the American people get the relief they want.

That is why I truly believe that if they continue on this course, the Nation will suffer and consumers will suffer. But they will suffer at the polls come November.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our half-hour be divided equally, with the first 15 minutes for myself, and Senator Nelson of Florida the other 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the Doha Round of World Trade Organization--the WTO--talks broke down yesterday. Given the tremendous problem with this Nation's trade policy, I don't know of many Ohioans who are going to be very upset, and I don't know of many of my colleagues who will be too troubled about World Trade Organization trade talks breaking down either.

The impasse at the WTO is no different from the pause we are in right now when it comes to trade. Americans are rightly skeptical about the course we are on when it comes to trade policy, and Congress reflects that skepticism. In the 2006 elections, voters all across the country told those of us in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, that they wanted a timeout on trade; that they wanted to see us go back and look at the success and failures of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement--so-called CAFTA and NAFTA--and they want us to look at what PNTR--Permanent Normal Trade Relations--with China has meant. They want us to look at Colombia, and Peru, and Panama, and South Korea, and what those agreements might mean to our country.

It is pretty clear that Americans are not satisfied with the status quo of NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO-modeled policies. One reason is our severely unbalanced trade relationship with the People's Republic of China. When it comes to competing with China, Ohio workers and manufacturers are playing with one hand tied behind their back. We shouldn't be playing under these rules.

Athletes at next week's Olympics will not be playing by these rules. Maybe there is a lesson there for the Chinese Government, for the United States Government, and for our trade policy. Workers, like athletes, can compete with anyone--good athletes and certainly American workers can compete with anyone where there is a level playing field and the rules are not rigged. But manufacturers and workers in Ohio are struggling to compete while our Government too often stands idly by while China games the system over and over and over.

This problem is urgent, as a new report from the Economic Policy Institute shows. This report finds that the United States is hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs at an alarming pace. Nothing new there. More than 366,000 jobs were lost last year alone because of our trade deficit with China--366,000 jobs in 1 year because of our trade relationship with one country. In all, EPI counts 2.3 million jobs lost to the China trade deficit since China joined the World Trade Organization less than a decade ago.

Unless China raises the real value of its currency--the yuan--by at least an additional 30 percent, and lets it float on the international currency exchanges, as most countries do, the United States trade deficit and job losses will continue to grow.

Labor rights are also a factor. The AFL-CIO estimates that repression of labor rights by the Chinese Government has lowered manufacturing rates by as much as 80 percent. To put it in perspective, my office receives at least two or three TAA certifications a week--trade adjustments from the Trade Adjustment Act on workers losing their jobs because of international trade. We receive from the Labor Department at least two or three TAA certifications a week for Ohio manufacturers. Each of these certifications represents, in most cases, hundreds of workers and their families.

What happens to a community when there is job loss? Think about a community. I was speaking to a gentleman from Tiffin in the last hour. Think about the town of Tiffin, or Chillicothe or Wilmington or Finley or Mansfield--towns of 15,000, 20,000, 30,000, or 50,000 people. When they lose a plant, a manufacturing installation--or what is

happening with DHL in Wilmington, which is way beyond that--even if they lose a plant with 300 or 400 workers, think about what it does, not just to a worker and his or her family, but what it does to the community at large, with the layoffs of police officers and teachers and firefighters, because there are significantly fewer jobs in a community of that size.

Last week, it was Ceva Logistics in Miamisburg that we got a TAA certification about--near Dayton; Acuity Lighting in Newark, and more Delphi workers. The same old story with Delphi and what has happened in the last year in Moraine, OH--again, near Dayton.

Yesterday, we got a TAA notice about Acklin Stamping Company in Toledo. The Labor Department certified that an increase in imports caused Acklin to lay off workers.

That was last week and yesterday. But how about today and how about tomorrow? Probably more TAA notices, because we get two or three almost every week. Probably more today, tomorrow, and next week, again because of a failed trade policy.

On my desk, I have a stack of auction notices from small tool and die manufacturers going out of business in my State and across the country. These notices are going-out-of-business sales. They are notices offering the sale of equipment from machine shops not just in my State but all over the country.

This week, I spoke with the CEO and the family owners of Norwalk Furniture in Norwalk, OH, a community between Cleveland and Toledo. We are trying to keep this 105-year-old company in business. Norwalk workers are represented by the Teamsters and United Steelworkers. It is a company playing by the rules, paying good wages in a small town in Ohio, with good benefits, trying to stay competitive despite having the deck stacked against it because of our trade policy with China.

Again, American companies are playing with one hand tied behind their back. China's undervalued currency and weak safety and environmental standards put American furniture manufacturers such as Norwalk at a huge disadvantage. Like many Ohio businesses, Norwalk Furniture can compete with China. It can and has competed with foreign competition. That is not the complaint. The reason manufacturers such as Norwalk Furniture are struggling and pleading for a change in trade policy is that they can't compete while the U.S. Government--the Bush Commerce Department, the Bush U.S. Trade Representative--stands by and allows China to game the system.

We see what these plant closings do to communities, which is why not only Norwalk Furniture is fighting back, but Mayor Lesch and others in Norwalk are joining them in this struggle. The trade deficit with China costs manufacturing jobs, and not just low-skilled jobs, as is commonly thought.

One very salient point from the EPI report is that it is not only apparel jobs we are talking about, and not only relatively low-wage jobs. We are getting into high-tech products, many integral to our defense industrial base. The report finds that more than a quarter of last year's record trade deficit with China was due to advanced technology products.

Last year, a $68 billion deficit in advanced technology products was responsible for more than 25 percent of the total United States-China trade deficit. Since 2001, the flood of advanced technology imports from China eliminated 561,000 United States jobs in computer and electronic products. So we are not just talking about textile and apparel jobs.

EPI also counts more than $8,000 in lost income for displaced workers. People who support U.S. trade policy--President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the Republican leadership in this body--say: Well, yes, prices are low as a result of U.S. trade policy, but when companies such as shoe manufacturers move out of the United States or a steel manufacturer moves out of the United States, I don't see steel or shoe prices dropping necessarily. So I don't know if that argument holds water.

Even if you concede it might affect prices some, EPI counts more than $8,000 in lost income per displaced worker. So what does that mean? It means someone working at American Standard in Tiffin, OH, or someone at the old Westinghouse plant in Mansfield, where I grew up, or a GM worker in Dayton or a DHL worker or ABX or ASTAR in Wilmington, when they lose a good-paying job making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, or $60,000 a year, the next job they have on the average makes $8,000--if they can find a job--makes $8,000 less than they were used to making. And lower prices don't give you much of a break when you have a new job at $8,000 less than your old job.

Proponents of China PNTR or NAFTA like to say that the jobs displaced from China are replaced with export-oriented jobs that pay better, or jobs in the service sector that pay better. Again, not true. The truth is that wages earned in United States export heavy industry paid 4 percent less than the jobs displaced by Chinese imports. So when we lose these jobs to Chinese imports, it is costing our workers that $8,000 we were talking about. Even if we are exporting some to China, the amount we are exporting to China versus the amount we are bringing in obviously is a huge chasm. It is the better paying jobs that are moving offshore or closing because of a flood of Chinese imports.

The failure of the WTO talks could, in fact, be a blessing. The DOHA talks long ago became more of a threat than an opportunity to American farmers and to American workers and long ago represented more of a threat than an opportunity for sustainable development abroad for our trading partners.

We have an opportunity now, because of the failure of DOHA, to step away, to evaluate what is working and what is not working and start again with a new trade model--for New Jersey, the State of the Presiding Officer, and for my State. I have introduced legislation, S. 3083, the TRADE Act, which evaluates our Trade Agreements Program, which allows for renegotiation and which sets forth principles for future trade deals.

In my State, in the last year and a half, I have held about 110 roundtables in 75 of Ohio's 88 counties where I gather a group of 20 or 25 people, a cross-section of the community, and listen to them talk about their hopes and dreams and what they wish and hope for in their community and what they are fighting for, for their families and their communities. Few issues in these roundtables get workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans--and I don't know people's party affiliations at these roundtables--few issues get them as worked up as our unfair trading relationship with China in deals such as NAFTA and CAFTA that protect Wall Street investors but don't protect labor, don't protect safety, don't protect the environment.

We have an opportunity, in the coming months and especially next year with the new President, to renew a consensus on trade. I look forward to working in my caucus and across the aisle on a better approach to trade policy for our workers, for their families, for our communities, and for our country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority control the time until 12:30, the Republicans control the next 30 minutes, the majority control the next 30 minutes, and the time until 6 p.m. be controlled in 30 minute blocks in an alternating fashion.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues, our assistant majority leader from Illinois

and the Senator from California, for speaking today, because we are quite astounded, I have to tell my colleagues. Coming from the great State of Michigan where we care about jobs--and I know the Presiding Officer does, coming from the great State of Pennsylvania--our folks are desperate for good-paying jobs, middle-class jobs that allow them to pay that mortgage and pay those outrageous gas prices and to be able to keep their families afloat and put food on the table.

What we had happen in front of us today was an effort to once again block the future of alternative energy jobs and block today, by stopping it, an investment in the highway trust fund that would keep 400,000 jobs going in our country. That is a lot of jobs--400,000 jobs.

Now, why would they do that? When you look around, since this President and Vice President have taken office, gas prices have tripled. Oil prices are four times higher. Families and businesses are being squeezed on every side. Why can't we get action? Who benefits? I wonder who would like this picture.

Well, let's look at who would like this picture. I only pick on one company because they happen to be the ones showing the highest profits. During this time that families and truckers on the road are trying to make a living, and businesses, small and large, are trying to hold it together, during this time of crisis, $185 billion profit since our President and the Vice President--two oilmen from Texas--took office. Mr. President, $185 billion in profits. What we have here is an oil agenda. We have had an oil company agenda since they took office on every step of the way.

The bill that was turned down today--it wasn't just turned down today; it was, in fact, turned down on June 10 of this year, June 17 of this year, July 29, and today. This isn't the only time. We have gone back as far as last year, a year ago. Tax incentives in the Energy bill were blocked twice by Republican colleagues on behalf of big oil on June 21, 2007, and December 13, 2007. We can go on. February 7 of this year, Republicans blocked adding critical energy production tax incentives to the stimulus that was passed. They are willing to give everybody a little bit of a check, a little bit of a rebate check, but when we are talking about creating jobs and investing in competition with the oil companies, oh, no. Oh, no.

Who wouldn't want that competition? Let me see. Maybe these folks wouldn't want that competition. Maybe they were the ones who said: No, no, we don't want to be focusing on electric vehicles and investing in battery technology or consumer credits for new vehicles. No, no, we don't want to be investing in solar and wind and geothermal. No, no. Getting off of oil? No, no, no, no. This is the oil administration. We don't want to get off of oil; we want to embrace it. We want to continue it.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened.

Record profits. The total combined net profits of the big five oil companies since our President took office are upwards of $556 billion. If I sound a little upset, I am because I have folks in my State who are just struggling to try to make it. Are they investing here at home with that $556 billion? The oil companies spent $188 billion buying back their own stock in the last 5 years. Exporting. A record 1.6 million barrels a day were exported, 33 percent higher than before.

We are in a global economy. Unfortunately, even though I think it is important to have a domestic oil supply, it is in a global economy. It is not necessarily going to stay here. The drill-only, the drill- forever crowd, that is the oil agenda. It is the oil profits agenda in a global economy.

Let me share for a moment some folks who are suffering under the oil agenda of this President and Vice President and the Republicans who have been in charge.

In South Haven, MI, a beautiful little town along Lake Michigan, this was in the paper. Early last month, Jeanne Fair, who is 62 years old, got her first hot meals delivered to her home in this little lake community in the rural southwestern part of the State. After two deliveries of meals, they stopped because the volunteers couldn't afford the gas to get her the food. ``They called and said I was outside of the delivery area,'' said Mrs. Fair, who is homebound and hasn't been able to use her left arm since a stroke in 1997.

Faced with soaring gasoline prices, agencies around the country that provide services to the elderly say they are having to cut back on programs such as Meals on Wheels, transportation assistance, and home care, especially in rural areas that depend on volunteers to provide their own gas. In a recent survey by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, more than half said they already cut back on programs because of gas prices. Ninety percent say they are expected to cut them back in 2009.

This is the United States of America, and we have volunteers who have to stop giving meals to people in rural Michigan so these folks can keep up this agenda here: $185 billion profit since George Bush took office. And our folks can't afford gas.

Let me share something else, a letter from a gentleman:

As my family's only breadwinner, I drive over an hour each

day to my job at LifeWays in Jackson . . . The reason I drive

over an hour each way is because jobs for professionals are

extremely rare in Hillsdale County where I live. Over 16 car

industry-related plants have closed in Hillsdale County in

the past 10 years, leaving the unemployment rate sky high and

wages extremely low. The newest hit is the high prices for

energy which are hurting me and my family. Not even looking

at the 55-cent increase per gallon of propane we were just

notified of, my commute costs me $28 a day and I drive a

midsized car. I urge Congress to act immediately.

Mr. President, we had a chance to act immediately today to do something that would make a difference, a real difference, and Congress didn't do it.

I also have one other letter from a 17-year-old high school student who has a job. She says: I make $7.15 an hour and put in about 20 hours a week. My job sometimes interferes with my education because I am trying to make money that I need. My job affects school because I need to work. It makes it difficult for me. I am paid every 2 weeks and spend about $100 a week on gas to get back and forth to school and work. She says: Even during school time, I ride the bus to try to save money, but now I probably won't be riding the bus because school districts are cutting back on transportation to school. They are doing this because they don't have enough money to fill up the buses' gas tanks.

What is going on? What is going on here? We are fighting for the people of this country who expect to be able to put gas in the schoolbus, who expect to be able to have seniors get Meals on Wheels, who expect to be able to drive to work. That is what this is about. It is about time we change the agenda of this country and who decisions are being made for. The reality is--I think it is, unfortunately, way too simple, but it is true--we have had 8 years of two oilmen in the White House and it has gotten us paying $4-a-gallon gasoline, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. That is the reality. We have seen over and over not only efforts on this floor to block what we are doing but on top of that, to add insult to injury, a free ride for the oil companies.

In January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration was allowing oil and gas companies to forgo royalty payments--forgo royalty payments--on leases in Federal waters, public waters in the Gulf of Mexico. It would cost American taxpayers more than $60 billion. Sixty billion dollars would equal 38 days of free gas for every American. How about that. So not only are they blocking us from creating alternatives, not only are they blocking us from taking taxpayer money--the same people I just read about are subsidizing the oil companies because we can't stop these subsidies going to the most profitable companies in the world--the world. We can't get that stopped when we are trying to say: Take those dollars and move them over to the future, which is alternative energy that will allow gas prices to go down, that will free us from foreign oil, get us off of a policy that depends on those around the world who aren't exactly our friends, and make us stronger in terms of national security. We can't get that done. Then, to add insult to injury, they waive oil and gas leases--$60 billion. I would love to have been able to waive some house payments. I would love to have been able to say to folks who were trying to

make it and not lose their house in foreclosure: We will give you 90 days, don't worry about it, because we care about families and we want to make sure you keep your house.

We finally have a housing bill. It is too late for many people, but we finally have one, thank goodness, that the President would sign.

Where are the priorities of this country? Who are we making decisions for? That is the question. Who are we making decisions for?

So I have extreme concern about the direction in which we are going. I have to tell my colleagues, as somebody who comes from a State where there is such a little bit of support right now, it would give us a whole lot more impact in the short run if we were to invest--and I know that. I am so grateful to our Senate leadership for supporting our efforts to retool our auto plants, to keep jobs in America for new vehicles. We are now focusing our talk so many times on this floor on what we are doing to support the advanced battery research and development so we are making those new batteries in America, not only for automobiles but for energy storage, and making sure we are the energy producers and creating the jobs of the future. A few investments we can do immediately within the next couple of years would tremendously impact us.

I know my time is up. Let me just indicate that it is time to change the agenda. The American people have had enough. This big-oil agenda which has been driving the train here on the Senate floor and which has been driving the train in the White House has to stop.

We have to take away their track and turn this thing around, so that we are focusing on what the American people want us to focus on to help them and their families in this country.

I yield the floor.