A bill to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to accept, as part of a settlement, diesel emission reduction Supplemental Environmental Projects, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of this bill because the bill violates clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives which provides in pertinent part that ``it shall not be in order to consider any bill if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit'' over the 5- or 10-year budget scoring window.

This rule is commonly referred to as the pay-as-you-go rule or PAYGO and was enacted by the majority with great fanfare at the beginning of this Congress.

In reviewing the estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, I note that they have scored this bill as increasing the deficit by $14 billion over the next 5 years, and nearly $10 billion over the coming decade.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office appear at this point in the Record.

Madam Speaker, given this overwhelming evidence that this bill does have the net effect of increasing the deficit over both scoring windows, I must respectfully insist on my point of order that the bill violates the PAYGO rule.

Madam Speaker, on that I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra once said, this is like deja vu all over again. Yesterday after an 8-week delay, the House considered and failed to pass the legislation once again before us today. I continue to support providing extended unemployment benefits to workers who need it most. In fact, every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee supported extending unemployment benefits when this legislation was considered in committee 2 months ago; again, 8 weeks ago.

Again, Republicans want to extend unemployment benefits. And we want to help those who are hurting the most. We also recognize that it is time that we pass legislation that can become law.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is why I rise in strong opposition to the legislation before us today which does not satisfy the simple standard of helping those who need it most and who have worked a modest number of weeks to earn these benefits.

Yesterday, the Democratic leadership brought identical legislation to the

floor under a process normally reserved for naming post offices and honoring sports teams. This resulted in a take-it-or-leave-it approach to this very important issue of extending unemployment benefits, and the bill failed to gain enough votes, forcing us to return to the floor again today.

Now have our Democratic colleagues budged an inch? Absolutely not. Today we are considering the same legislation which once again fails to include a long-standing and reasonable policy requiring at least 20 weeks of work to qualify for extended unemployment benefits.

As several of us on this side of the aisle have noted, without this sensible requirement under H.R. 5749, workers could qualify for as many as 52 weeks of unemployment benefits, a full year, after having worked as little as one or two weeks. But whether someone worked two or 10 weeks or even 19 weeks, the simple fact is that current Federal law includes a straightforward rule that requires a modest minimum amount of work before someone can qualify for months, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 months of unemployment benefits courtesy of our taxpayers.

This 20-weeks rule is not too much to ask. It is fair, and it is inexcusable for the other side not to include such a reasonable, long- standing rule. In fact, to not include it, as the bill before us would do, is a radical, and I say that again, radical change, radical departure from current law.

My friends in the majority have called this issue a straw man. If it is just a straw man, why did they make the change? Why did they make this radical policy change that breaks 27 years of bipartisan policy which requires 20 weeks of work to qualify for a full year of unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I have a United States Department of Labor document that shows examples of States that would allow 1 year's benefits for only 1 or 2 weeks' work, including a State like Michigan where you would only have to work one week to be able to obtain, under this legislation, 52 weeks worth of benefits.

I would like to insert this Department of Labor document into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, would you share with us how much time remains on each side, please?

Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this legislation which makes a radical change, eliminating the Federal work requirement to qualify for federally funded unemployment benefits, I wish to yield 3 minutes to the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger of California.

Is the gentleman yielding time?

Well, I would first point out to my friend from Michigan that I represent the State of Illinois. And under the legislation which we offered in committee, my State of Illinois would receive extended unemployment benefits.

I would also state that the Republican minority on the committee supported extension of unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Ways and Means Committee passed a bill on unemployment benefits 8 weeks ago. And for 8 weeks, unemployed workers who've exhausted their unemployment benefits in Michigan and Illinois have gone without unemployment benefits during election-year politics.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate, this legislation before us, which includes a radical policy change, eliminating the Federal work requirement to qualify for federally funded unemployment benefits, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state that I share the Speaker's admiration for Mr. Rangel and Mr. McDermott. I consider Mr. Rangel very intelligent, and I enjoy working with Mr. McDermott as well, but I do disagree with the distinguished Speaker on a point that she made.

You know, she was talking about 5.5 percent unemployment, which in my view is too high, but I would note that it seems sometimes the definition of a bad economy is who's in the White House.

In 1996, President Clinton stood before us at the State of the Union in January 1996. Unemployment was at 5.6 percent, higher than it is today. President Clinton said the economy was the healthiest it has been in three decades. Well, today unemployment is lower than it was when President Clinton made that statement.

So, we all agree the economy needs to be improved, but President Clinton would say it's the healthiest in decades, if he were standing again before us based on his definition of a healthy economy.

I would also note, as my good friend from Washington has made the point, that why are we talking about energy. When I talk to the folks back home in Illinois at the local grocery store, at the gas station, and people are commenting about food prices and energy prices, they say that when you have over $4 gasoline, that's bad for the economy. There's people losing jobs because energy costs are so high.

As we talk about statistics, and the distinguished Speaker referred to statistics, I would note that the approval rating of the Democrat Congress today is 16 percent. Only 16 percent of the American people think the Democrat majority is doing a good job. Now, historically, that would tell us that today's Congress is the least popular in recorded history.

No Congress has had a lower approval rating than the current Democrat majority. Why? Because since the Democratic majority became the majority in 2007, gasoline prices have gone up $1.73. Think about that. The Democrat majority has refused to expand the supply of gasoline, has refused to expand the supply of oil. Why? Because they are locking away, under their policies, domestic sources of oil and gasoline, and continuing to make us more dependent on foreign sources of oil, people like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and sources in the Mideast that we're dependent upon because of the Democrat majority's policies.

Again, there's a reason this Congress is the least popular in recorded history, because gasoline prices have gone up $1.73 since our Democratic friends gained the majority.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

I would be happy to yield 1 additional minute to the gentlelady from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, as I had noted earlier, this Congress, the Democrat majority in the House today, has the lowest level of popularity, lowest level approval in recorded history, 16 percent. Why? Because of actions like today.

This legislation that is before us came out of committee 8 weeks ago. Eight weeks, 2 months, that those who are unemployed have exhausted their benefits and been asking for extended unemployment benefits. We in the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee said we want to work with our Democrat friends in the majority so we can pass a bill that's bipartisan, provides extend unemployment benefits and, frankly, becomes law.

I would note, there's a publication on Capitol Hill called Congress Daily. It shows that today's exercise is frankly just election-year politics, probably one more reason this Democratic majority has the lowest level of approval in recorded history of any Congress. This Democrat leadership today is quoted as saying, It's not what we had hoped. We'll keep trying. But ultimately this is clearly going to only be possible on the supplemental.

So, ladies and gentlemen, what we're doing today is an election-year exercise, and unfortunately, we've lost 8 weeks, which means that for 8 weeks, unemployed workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits have had to painfully wait for the action of this Congress. We want to work together in a bipartisan way. We want to pass legislation that will become law, and as my friend on the other side of the aisle knows, this bill isn't going to become law.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the newest Members of the House of Representatives, the distinguished Member from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, several speakers have suggested that there is plenty of funds in Federal unemployment accounts to support these benefits. Today, those trust funds include $35 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office suggests this legislation will spend about $14 billion over the next 2 years.

But that's just the start. This program will run from July through March of 2009; that's 9 months. But once started, such programs have always been extended. The average duration of these temporary programs is about 30 months. Do the math. That's more than three times as long as the legislation before us suggests. So this program could very well wind up costing at least three times as much as the score of this bill says. Three times 14 billion is 42 billion; 42 billion is more than the 35 billion in the current unemployment trust funds.

The last time Congress created a program like this that drained the Federal unemployment accounts in the 1970s, it had to create a temporary surtax that applies to all workers. That temporary surtax still exists today; it is more than 30 years old.

It's important to note, Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only adds to the deficit, but it's going to force a tax increase.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader of the House, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, as I would note, the legislation before us, as was so eloquently described by the Republican leader of the House, makes some radical changes. For 27 years, Republicans and Democrats have had in place a work rule requirement for federally funded unemployment benefits. It said, to qualify for up to a year, 12 months, you should work 20 weeks. That seems a fair trade off between work and benefits. And this legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, removes that requirement.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle refer to that concern as just kind of a straw man, it doesn't really matter. Well, why did they do it? Why is there a need to remove a 20-week work requirement to qualify for 12 months or a full year of unemployment benefits? We've had no hearings in committee. No one has explained why they're making this radical change. It just seems to be omitted from the presentations by the majority side of the aisle. So again we ask why. You know, under this policy that they're putting forward, someone would only need to work 2 weeks in a State like Michigan or Illinois and qualify for a full 1 year or 12 months of federally funded unemployment benefits. That's a radical policy change.

And let me just repeat what every Republican has stated: We want to extend unemployment benefits for those workers in hard-hit States who have exhausted their benefits. And we have repeatedly offered to our friends on the other side of the aisle saying we want to get a bill signed into law. Let's set aside election-year politics, let's work together, let's extend benefits for those who have exhausted their benefits another 13, and in some cases, 26 weeks. But we want to work together to get it done, because if we don't, and we just do the usual politics as usual, election-year politics, bring legislation to the floor we know is not going to become law, make speeches, the folks back home are going to be disappointed.

As has been noted by many, this Congress today only enjoys a 16- percent approval rating amongst the people of Illinois, the people of America. That is the lowest approval rating of any Congress in recorded history. Why? Because of the election-year politics that are being practiced today.

So I'm going to again offer to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, people who I am very fond of, people I enjoy working with, we need to work together because people are hurting. We need to work together to help those in our States who are unemployed and who have exhausted their benefits. And because of election-year politics, unemployed workers in States like Michigan and Illinois, who have exhausted their benefits, have gone without. Why? Because Congress has played election-year politics.

So let's work together. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation because it's not going to become law. I urge a ``no'' vote so that we work together to solve this challenge and quickly place on the President's desk legislation that will become law that extends unemployment benefits because we support extending unemployment benefits.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form I am.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit supports extension of unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed, those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. And this motion to recommit makes three simple changes to the legislation before us. It adds a requirement of 20 weeks of work for workers to qualify for the extended unemployment benefits. It targets benefits to high unemployment States, and it provides additional money to many of the newly hired individuals to help them deal with the high price of gasoline.

I particularly want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Kirk, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Bilirakis and others for the help that they have given in crafting this motion to recommit as we work towards extension of unemployment benefits to those who need help.

First, I would note that this motion reinserts the current law requirement that workers who qualify for Federal extended unemployment benefits must have worked at least 20 weeks before being laid off. This requirement was removed by the majority with the underlying legislation.

This commonsense Federal requirement has been in place since 1981 and was included in the temporary extended benefits program Congress created in 2002, our last extended benefit program.

Nearly every Democrat Member voted for that bill then, and as we have discussed on this floor for the last 2 days, there is no good reason, there is no argument that has been made by the other side to impose the reestablishment of this long-standing Federal policy now.

Second, this motion would specify that only individuals in States with unemployment rates above 5 percent or that have seen a sharp rise in unemployment would be eligible for 13 weeks of Federal extended benefits. As under H.R. 5749, individuals in States with unemployment rates above 6 percent would be eligible for up to 26 weeks of Federal extended benefits.

Today, 22 States have unemployment rates above 5 percent or have seen a sharp rise in rates, including six States above 6 percent. So workers in nearly half of the States would be eligible for extended benefits, which could rise, or more would be eligible if States experience a rise in unemployment rates.

In contrast with H.R. 5749, this motion would not extend benefits in States that currently have unemployment rates below 5 percent, and I would note that 5 percent is low by historical standards, and that have not been experiencing rising rates. They will continue to be eligible for their basic 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. So I would note that they will continue to have unemployment benefits available to laid-off workers.

Moreover, by targeting benefits to where they are needed most, this motion actually reduces the cost of the bill, reduces the deficit, and makes it much more fiscally responsible than the untargeted, unpaid- for, ``in violation of the House rules'' legislation that has been offered by the majority.

And third, we all know that every American family is struggling with record gasoline prices. That struggle is especially pronounced for unemployed workers and in particular the long-term unemployed. Those who return to work, however, may face high commuting costs, starting with the high price of gas they must put in their tanks to get to a new job.

And I would note that this Democratic Congress, which is the least popular Congress in recorded history because of its lack of action on energy, has refused to allow for increases in domestically produced fuels which we need to help our economy.

In fact, it is the Democrat policies in the last year and a half since January 2007 which are responsible for an increase in gasoline prices of $1.73, basically a doubling of gasoline prices since our Democratic friends gained the majority. That's why gasoline prices are over $4.

We want to help American workers. And that is why we are offering help to alleviate the high price of gasoline for unemployed individuals. This motion would provide 1 extra week of extended unemployment benefits for those who return to work without exhausting their extended benefits. On average, this would mean an extra $290 per eligible worker. So for an unemployed mother who goes back to work with two children, that could mean up to four tanks of gasoline at today's $4 gasoline prices, probably enough to get her to and from her first full month on the job. Especially for someone who might not have much money left after a long spell of unemployment, that is real relief where today it is desperately needed, at the pump and in the pocketbook.

Mr. Speaker, this motion provides timely, targeted and temporary assistance, something the Speaker herself called for earlier this year. So we talked about boosting the economy. I urge its adoption so we can send this bill to the Senate and down to the White House as soon as possible. As the President said, he will veto the underlying bill. Passage of this motion to recommit will give us a bill the President will sign, and it will become law, and we can help unemployed workers.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here on the Senate floor this morning with my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich. I want to reflect on what Senator Chambliss just spoke about with respect to energy.

There are a wide variety of things we need to do: create biofuels, conserve energy. I think we need to incentivize a greater reliance on alternative and renewable forms of energy, including solar, wind, and geothermal. I believe we need to incentivize--and we are incentivizing--a new generation of nuclear powerplants in this country. Nine applications are in. We expect another 30 or so over the next couple of years, a wide variety of things: plug-in hybrid vehicles, very low emission diesel engines, and the list goes on and on. We do not need any one of them. We, frankly, need to do almost all of them.

One of my colleagues, one of the people I most enjoy working with in the Senate, is a former Governor from Ohio. We worked together for many years in the National Governors Association. Now I have the pleasure of working with him in the Senate.

Among the issues we worked on, we served together on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He came to me about 3 years ago and said: Let's talk about diesel emissions.

I said: OK. And I said: What do you want to say?

He said--I will paraphrase what he said: There is good news and bad news about diesel emissions.

I said: What is it?

He said: The good news is, diesel engines last a long time.

I said: OK.

Then he went on to say, and the bad news is, diesel engines last a long time. The old diesels we have on the road today, and most of the diesels we have on the road are old diesels, and there are millions of them. They are in trucks and buses and ships. They are in locomotives. But mostly, though, diesels put out a lot of bad emissions, bad stuff, that we end up breathing.

What Senator Voinovich came up with in 2005--he was good enough to let me be the lead Democrat on the legislation--was the proposal that says: Why do we not create a grant program, through EPA, that provides incentive money for State and local governments, for school districts with buses, for private truck companies and so forth, to incentivize them to begin to use new technology that goes into the diesel engines and reduces diesel emissions by as much as 80, 85 percent?

I said: That sounds like a great idea. I would be pleased to be your Democratic lead sponsor. A number of others ended up joining us. I think that Senator Clinton was among them. But there were a variety of Republicans and Democrats who joined us.

I remember going to a press conference with Senator Voinovich about 100 yards from where we are today. We introduced the legislation that day. The next week there may have been a hearing--there may not have been a hearing. The next week after I think the legislation passed the Senate. Within a month or so, it was the law. I have never seen legislation move so quickly in my life.

We were here earlier this morning with one of the earlier discussions on the floor talking about filibusters and how our Republican friends are slow walking legislation, something that we were accused of doing when they were in the majority years ago.

But it is wonderful to have an example, once 3 years ago, with the passage of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, and more recently with a change to the act which actually makes it even better, to see that we can still work together, we can set aside our partisan differences, Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, actually address our problems and resolve them.

So that sort of sets the stage for today. I think each of us is going to be recognized for 10 minutes, and when I run out of time, I may ask for a little bit of extra time if there is not a press of colleagues who want to come to the floor.

But let me start off by laying the groundwork and to say a special thank-you to our colleagues in the House of Representative and in the Senate for passing S. 2146. It is a bipartisan bill that gives EPA the authority to accept, as part of air quality settlements, diesel emission reduction supplemental environmental projects.

What does that mean? That means, when EPA enters into some kind of enforcement action against a polluter, for example, and out of that enforcement action comes a requirement for the polluter to pay certain fines or charges, the idea is, how can that money be used by EPA?

We want to make sure that money can be used by EPA to further reduce diesel emissions; to install this technology, diesel emissions reduction technology, in buses, in trucks, in all kinds of emitters of pollution of diesels. So we ran into a problem with this over the last couple of years.

Today--actually yesterday--the legislation was passed. We resolved that problem. I also wish to thank some of our colleagues--Senators Inhofe, Clinton, Cardin, Alexander--for joining Senator Voinovich and me on this latest version of this legislation.

This is a small bill. This is a small bill with big consequences, big consequences for jumpstarting the effort to clean up our Nation's diesel vehicle fleet and making our air cleaner and toxin free. Like a number of our colleagues, I am a strong advocate for diesel engines, clean diesel engines. They are powerful, they are fuel efficient, and with the implementation of EPA's new fuel and engine regulations, they will also be a lot cleaner. However, dirty diesel emissions can be deadly. Reducing emissions from diesel engines is one of the most important air quality challenges facing our country. This week we are going to do something about it.

EPA estimates there are some 11 million diesel engines in America that lack the latest pollution control technology. When diesel engines are built today for cars, trucks, buses, and so

forth, they are required to have the latest technology. The fuel they use is very low in sulphur content today, so we end up dramatically reducing the kind of damage and threat to our public health.

But there are 11 million old diesels out on the road, and they are going out on the road for a long time. Taken together, these engines produce something like 1,000 tons of particulate matter every day. I will talk a little bit more about particulate matter in a moment.

As a result, dirty diesel emissions are linked to some 21,000 premature deaths, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, millions of lost workdays, and numerous other health impacts every year. In fact, diesel soot is linked to more premature deaths in this country than firearms, HIV, or drunk driving. The risks are nationwide, but they are especially high risk in urban areas.

I have a chart here. Let me see if I can point out a couple of things. First of all, here is Ohio. Here is Ohio, where I went to Ohio State University, along with my colleague, George Voinovich. Here is Cleveland, OH, where Senator Voinovich is from. This is dark red. This is dark red. In fact, much of Ohio is dark red.

Over here is Delaware. Delaware is in an area of our country which is dark red. If you look down at the color code, there from the lowest impact, which is pink in color, to the highest impact, which is like a dark red color. For Nebraska, our Presiding Officer's State, it is looking pretty good, part of it in the pink.

But what we want to make sure is that the whole country is in the pink; not in the dark red, not in the red, not in the dark pink. We want to make sure it is in the light pink. What that means is healthier air for us to breathe for us and our families.

Why is diesel so toxic? Let me take a moment to show this. This is a diesel particle. It looks big, doesn't it? But in reality they are very small. You cannot even see them with the eye. But we breathe them, nonetheless. The fact is, as we walk about Washington, DC, or wherever we live, we probably breathe some of these little babies as well.

But at the core is something called elemental carbon. Around that core are organic carbon compounds. Around that, in the yellow here, secondary sulphate and nitrate. Surrounding them are metals. Then surrounding that on the outer core are toxins.

Diesel exhaust is a mixture of vapors and fine particles. The small particles have a core of carbons, as I pointed out, with a layer of toxins, many of which can cause cancer.

Here we have a picture of the lungs--in fact, two lungs. We have in fine detail--some of this matter is hard to tell. This is called the alveoli. That is where the oxygen that we breathe in is actually transferred into the blood system. And when these particles get down this far, they get into the blood system. That is what causes cancer.

But the fine particles can get deep into our lungs to cause inflammation. They cause scarring of the lungs, and some of that leads to bronchitis. It can lead to asthma. But when they get down into the bloodstream itself, they get spread all over the body and cause lung cancer and spread cancer to other parts of our bodies.

If that were not enough, these carcinogens can cause not just cancer but death. And some of the 21,000 people who will die this year will die not from bronchitis, not from asthma or asthma attacks, but they will die from cancer. This is why poor air quality, caused by old, dirty diesel engines, can lead to higher than average cancer rates for those living along heavily traveled interstates, highways such as Interstate 95 which stretches all the way from Maine in the north down to Florida. It runs right through my State of Delaware and a bunch of other States, too, on the east coast. And what we have--notice this curve--what we have is the zone of greatest exposure.

When you have a highway such as I-95--or it can be Interstate 70 or any other interstate or densely traveled highway, especially one with a lot of buses and trucks on it, what you see is a concentration of diesel exhaust right around the highways. And the threat to our health is the greatest for those who travel the highways or live or work in the near proximity of those highways.

That is the bad news. Here is the good news. The good news is we now have the pollution control technology to greatly reduce these deadly diesel particles and therefore greatly impact human health.

In 2004, the EPA began to address these public health concerns by requiring that all new heavy-duty highway diesel vehicles had to install pollution control technology starting in 2007. We also changed the law with respect to sulphur content. It is 15 parts per million sulphur fuel that is sold, I think, after last year. It began last year. They had to reduce the sulphur content rather dramatically.

However, this ruling is a problem because it does nothing for the millions of diesel engines that are already on the roadways, as I said earlier. Reducing diesel emissions in the current fleet could save an estimated 100,000 lives between now and the year 2030.

In response to what the EPA did in 2004, Congress passed the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, which Senator Voinovich introduced, and was good enough to let me and others join him in doing that. That program, again, established the voluntary national and State grant loan program to clean up some of those old diesel engines in buses and trucks and trains and ships.

Our intention was to build upon a program that EPA already had in place which allowed air quality polluters to fund diesel cleanup programs as part of their settlement with EPA.

For example, in October of last year, EPA reached a settlement agreement with a company called American Electric Power. As part of that settlement, American Electric Power will spend about $21 million retrofitting diesel engines with pollution controls. In fiscal year 2008--that is the year we are in right now--Congress appropriated $49 million to help fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.

So we had, on one hand, a settlement with American Electric Power, a $21 million settlement, the moneys of which were to be used for diesel emission reduction technology. Then we provided an appropriation in 2008, $49 million, to help fund the same program.

Put that money together, I think it adds up to about $70 million. That is enough money to have a significant impact on diesel emissions and to improve our air quality.

Unfortunately, EPA determined that if Congress funds through an appropriation the Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, EPA could no longer accept diesel projects as part of air quality enforcement settlements. They could not use the $21 million they got in the settlement from American Electric to also help fund the program.

There is enough need. We could spend 10 times the amount of money we appropriated to help clean up diesel emissions. The need is huge. There are 11 million vehicles. We could spend money for a long time, and a lot more money than we are appropriating. But the idea of having $70 million versus $49 million is a big thing. We want to make sure we have and use the money from these settlements. So it does not make much sense to me or to Senator Voinovich.

The EPA said: Sorry, our hands are tied. We think this is the law, and we have to abide by it. What this bill does is it corrects the unintended consequence of successfully funding the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. As a result, we are going to be able to use settlement money. We are going to be able to use money that we appropriated for diesel emission reductions. We will be able to use the combined amount; parcel it out to States for grants and for loans and to get diesel emissions down and under control.

The House amended our bill and said: We want to add the District of Columbia to the 50 States that can participate in this grant program established by the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.

Let me close by saying, I do not think there is a silver bullet to reduce the environmental risks that lead to cancer, that lead to asthma, or to death. But cleaning up emissions from our Nation's diesel fleet is certainly a positive step. It is a diesel fleet that can help us use more judicially the resources that we have in this country, to use them more wisely but to be able to use that diesel engine in a way that doesn't threaten our health. That is a very good thing.

In closing, I thank Senator Voinovich for the terrific leadership he

provided over the years on this particular subject and for allowing others to work with him, to enact the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act and then to join me in coming back and saying the unintended consequence, where the EPA couldn't spend the settlement money and appropriations to finance diesel retrofits, that we had to take care of that. They can spend them both and reduce emissions.

Senator Voinovich and I sometimes lament how difficult it is to get anything done around here. On a day such as today, when it is a beautiful day outside, clear skies, beautiful day, walking from the train station, walking right up Delaware Avenue, seeing the Capitol at the top of the hill, the green trees, blue skies, the sun shining, it was beautiful. We wish to make sure that more days look like today, not only in Washington, DC, but all over the country, that the air is safe to breathe.

With this legislation, it will be a lot safer for years to come. I salute my friend, Senator Voinovich, for helping make it happen.

The Presiding Officer who is leaving the chair was Governor of Nebraska, and he had the opportunity to work with Senator Voinovich and myself at that time. Among the people we worked with was the father of our brand new Presiding Officer, the former Governor Casey. We have been reflecting back on the way it was and how we worked so well across party lines in those days. The legislation that we celebrated passage of yesterday is another indication we can still do that right here in the Senate.

I wish to ask a question, through the Presiding Officer, of Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich mentioned leveraging. Every dollar we appropriate in Federal dollars, EPA is now able to use for Supplemental Environmental Projects to install clean diesel technology to clean up emissions of diesel. He mentioned we actually leveraged some money from other sources, State and local governments, maybe school districts, private companies too. So for every $1 of Federal, we get another $3 to use from other sources. My recollection is that in terms of cost benefit--cost being how much it costs to install the technology--there is a health benefit that is a lot greater than the $1 we spend on the technology itself. I want to say it is $12, $13. I ask Senator Voinovich, if I may, through the Presiding Officer, is my recollection correct? Is there a 13-to-1 benefit in terms of a $1 investment in the technology and $13 in payoff, in terms of health benefits?

Mr. President, you were not presiding when we looked at this map earlier, but this is a map of the United States, obviously. This is a map that shows the mortality risks from U.S. diesel emissions. The best color to have is pink, and those States have relatively low diesel emissions and fairly low threats for whether it is bronchitis or asthma or cancer from diesel emissions.

If you happen to be from a State such as Ohio--where Senator Voinovich is from, and where I spent part of my youth and went to college--or if you happen to be from Delaware or happen to be from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, things are a bit grimmer.

What we have come up with, thanks in large part to Senator Voinovich's leadership, is a way to turn the dark red to pink. We want to get the whole country in the pink. Hopefully, in a relatively few years we, will.

The last point I want to mention--Senator Voinovich comes from a State that builds a lot of cars, trucks, and vans. Delaware has the only two automobile assembly plants that still exist anywhere up and down the east coast. We are fearful of losing our Chrysler plant at the end of next year, and we would be down to a single GM plant. Chrysler has invested in a new technology with Daimler, and their technology is for low-emission diesel vehicles--very low emission diesel vehicles. The emissions are so low and the fuel efficiency is so high, the people who buy those very low-emission diesel vehicles starting, I think, next year, will be eligible for the same kind of tax credit they would get by buying a hybrid vehicle today, with a tax credit anywhere from $500 to $3,500 per vehicle.

We want to encourage people to buy those low-emission diesel engines. But as people are buying those very low-emission, highly energy- efficient diesels, we want to make sure the other 11 million old diesel engines that are on the road--that are not as fuel efficient; that are not as clean burning--that we get to work at cleaning them up.

The good thing we have accomplished, working with House and Senate Democrats and Republicans, is we are striking a blow for clean air but not at the cost of energy efficiency.

With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor.

Again, I say to my friend, Senator Voinovich: On to more battles. We will take on more battles, and we will do good things.

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

I just did. I thank the Senator.

Gas Prices

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5749.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful debate. I love to hear the Republican talking points said over and over again. I have counted now the phrase ``8 weeks'' since we passed this bill out of the committee. I have heard it 19 times so far and I expect we will hear it at least nineteen-hundred times before we pass the bill.

But the fact is that the ranking member knows he could have voted ``yes'' when it came out of committee. He could have voted ``yes'' when it was on the floor on the 15th of May which is when we voted on this. We already have taken action on it once; and he had a chance yesterday to vote ``yes'' on it, but he said ``no'' again. And I suspect today-- well, we'll see what he does. Maybe he will change his mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume because it is a new day and we woke up with some bad news about the U.S. economy. The Washington Post has the story, ``A new report from the Federal Reserve paints a portrait of the U.S. economy under pressure from almost every sector. Across the board, the U.S. economy is deteriorating, including jobs.'' And here we are again today trying to help the American people by passing the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008.

Yesterday, 144 Republican Members ignored the will of the people and instead followed the whim of a lame duck President.

If three votes had switched, we would have had enough votes to pass this bill and give the American people the help they need. They didn't, so we're back here today because we're going to make it happen.

The economic data paint a compelling case for immediate action. But my Republican colleague stood at the podium yesterday, and did it again today, waving a veto threat from the White House.

This is the President who's given us this war that's put us in a terrible mess. He's given us bank problems and every other thing that's going on, gas prices. And now he waves a letter and says, we don't want to do anything for the unemployed who've exhausted their benefits.

They hid behind rhetoric that pretends to contend itself with people qualifying for benefits. They served up a real cold red herring for dinner last night for those people that exhausted their benefits, because they simply want to deny American workers unemployment benefits.

Remember, this money didn't come out of the tax base. It came from their employers who paid it into a trust fund for exactly this purpose; when they lose their job, they should have access to it.

Now, let me be clear. This 20-week rule that we hear yelled about here, that many Republicans want included in the bill, would mean that workers could work for over 10 straight months and be denied extended benefits, depending on the vagaries of the various laws in States across this country.

The Department of Labor has estimated that around 10 percent of those who've exhausted their benefits might be excluded from extended benefits if we were to include this 20-week rule. These workers are disproportionately low-wage, part-time, minority and women.

In other words, the Republicans propose to solve a problem by creating one. Instead of helping people, the Republicans' alternative is to penalize workers on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Very typical. Look at the tax cuts.

The American people need solutions, and that's what H.R. 5749 is about. It would immediately provide 13 weeks of extended benefits for workers in every State who've exhausted their benefits. It provides an additional 13 weeks of benefits in States with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher.

This bill is targeted. You hear them say we want a targeted bill. Of course it's targeted. It's targeted to do one thing, to help those people who need it the most.

Here's how it works. Anyone a State qualifies for unemployment benefits, and who has exhausted what the State has provided them, would be eligible for extended benefits of the same amount for half as long as the State provided them. So, if you received 26 weeks in your State from the State, and you run out, you get 13 more weeks of extended benefits. If you get 10 weeks from your State, you will get 5 weeks more of extended benefits.

The Federal Reserve outlook wasn't the only piece of information we received yesterday. A little while ago the Labor Department announced that initial claims for unemployment benefits jumped more than expected last week. The number of people filing for unemployment benefits last week increased 384,000 people, in 1 week. And all the Republicans want to do is wave a veto letter from the White House.

Helping the American people should not be a partisan issue; but the Republicans and the president are trying to make it just that.

Yesterday we had a bipartisan bill. Almost 50 Republicans voted for it. I urge my Republican colleagues to follow their conscience and not their caucus and vote with the Democrats to help the American people. The Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 is the least we can do for the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Levin from Michigan will have 3 minutes. I yield to the gentleman.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I walked into the wrong place or not. I thought we were talking about unemployment, but all I hear is a lot of talk about energy. Now, I don't know if the Members on the other side have forgotten what the subject is today or exactly what the problem is, but the fact is that we didn't wait 8 weeks. My ranking member, Mr. Weller, knows better than that. We voted on May 15 on this issue, and it's sitting over in the Senate. The Senate Republicans have got their foot on it. And the White House hasn't said ``boo'' to them.

So the Republicans are killing this proposal over there in the Senate. We're going to send it back to them another way. And I think they will have a second chance to think about it. The closer we get to the election, I think the more interested they will get in this issue.

But there's one issue here that I think somehow with the straw man that keeps getting put up here for everybody to look at, this person out there somewhere in Oregon or Illinois that worked for two weeks and is going to get unemployment benefits. We're

not talking about somebody on welfare here. We're talking about somebody who worked.

Now, my opponents on the other side keep sounding like we're talking about the dregs of the earth, people who are just stealing or somehow sneaking in and maneuvering and somehow getting something they're not entitled to. When they worked, their employer put money into the unemployment trust for their benefit.

Some people on the other side believe that we ought to have States' rights. States ought to be able to do stuff. Okay. States write the unemployment laws for their State. And in Illinois, it is true that if you work for two weeks, one week in one quarter and one week in another quarter, and your total wages are $1,600, so that means you worked one week and got $800; and then, just lucky, your next week of work was in another quarter, you got $800, you would be eligible in Illinois for $51 a week for 26 weeks for a grand total of $1,326. That comes from a letter from the Department of Employment Security signed by Joseph Mueller, which I will now insert into the Record.

Illinois, Department

of Employment Security,

Chicago, IL, June 12, 2008.

Mr. Indivar Dutta-Gupta,

House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,

Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Dutta-Gupta: With regard to the hypothetical you

pose, if worker X worked three weeks in IL, he or she might

well not be entitled to any unemployment benefits.

To qualify for unemployment benefits in IL, an individual

must have been paid at least $1600 during his/her ``base

period,'' receiving at least $440 outside the base period

quarter in which his/her wages were the highest.

Consequently, to qualify, worker X's three weeks of wages

would have had to straddle two base period quarters, with at

least $440 being paid in the ``low quarter.''

Assuming he/she did qualify, worker X's benefit amount

would depend upon the amount of wages he/she was paid during

his/her base period. A claimant's weekly benefit amount in IL

can range from $51 to $376.

If worker X just met the $1,600/$440 requirement, he/she

would be entitled to $51/wk for up to 26 weeks (a total of

$1,326).

To qualify for what is the current average weekly benefit

payment in IL, worker X would have had to receive over $4700/

wk.

As an aside, three weeks' worth of wages would not qualify

an individual receiving IL's current minimum wage of $7.75/

hr, even if the payments did straddle two base period

quarters.

In conclusion, it would be theoretically possible for an

individual with three weeks' worth of base period wages--and

49 weeks with no wages for employment--to qualify for

benefits in IL. However, the three weeks would have to fall

``just right'' and average over $500/wk. IDES's system does

not track the number of weeks individuals work. However,

based on anecdotal feedback from program staff, it does not

seem this theoretical possibility has been a common

occurrence, if it has ever occurred.

You also pose a hypothetical in which worker X works just

two weeks. It would be theoretically possible to qualify for

benefits with just two weeks' worth of wages. Again, however,

the wages would have to straddle two base period quarters

and, in that scenario, average $800/wk. It seems this has not

been a common occurrence either.

Sincerely,

Jospeh P. Mueller,

Legal Counsel.

I don't know. Maybe Illinois is a lot easier to live in than Washington State, but getting $1,326 for 6 months is not exactly a living wage. I mean, anybody who sits at home and waits for their $51 check and says, Oh great, I'm going to live on $51 this week. I don't know where they live in Illinois. I don't believe it is in Chicago. Must be way down somewhere in the south end of the State or somewhere. I don't know how you could live on that. To think that that person is a slug who's just sitting there and saying, Well, I have got this $51 check coming, I don't believe I'm going to go look for work, is implying that that person is not a responsible human being who's been trying to get work and has worked in the past and is getting benefits that they earned to which they are entitled.

Now, if that's the reason the Republicans want to hang it up and not vote for this bill and say we're not going to give those extended benefits because there's one person in Illinois somewhere who worked for 2 weeks and made the minimum benefit and gets 26 weeks of $51 a week, if that's what you're going to go home and explain on the campaign trail why you didn't extend unemployment benefits to people who had exhausted their benefits, that's going to be real interesting to watch because I don't think the people of Illinois or any other State are going to buy this kind of an argument.

When we asked this question in Oregon, they said it isn't true. There isn't anybody getting benefits like that.

Now, it seems to me that it just comes back to the point that you really don't want to vote for unemployment benefits. I understand it's been the party's policy since 1935. You have never liked it because you thought it weakened people's resolve. That is the talk of somebody who has never been unemployed. If you have lived in a house where somebody has been unemployed and have seen what it does to the family when the father or the mother can't bring home a paycheck, you don't look at those people and say, Well, they're taking something that isn't theirs, when they paid for this benefit into the unemployment trust. They are entitled to this. It would be the same as saying to old people, Well, you're taking that Social Security that was paid into the trust for you, and somehow you're not entitled to it.

We don't do that.

America looks after the weakest. That's how you judge whether a society is really strong or not.

I recognize the Speaker for 1 minute.

We have no more speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble following the logic that you would vote ``no'' because it isn't going to become law. Why don't you vote ``yes'' and put it over there, and maybe the Senate this time will come to their senses and do something with this proposal? It's been over there since May 15. And I think that it really is an issue that we ought to give them one more chance to come to their senses.

Now, when you compare the unemployment rate of today with 1996, I really appreciate that because during the Clinton administration there were 20 million new jobs created, and in 1996, they were creating hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. In this administration, over the last 5 months we've lost a quarter of a million jobs. This is a totally different time.

There are huge problems out there, and they're not getting any better. And they're not going to get solved here today by, ``let's open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.'' Even if we did that, the oil wouldn't be here for about 4 years, and a lot of people on unemployment would be pretty hungry waiting for that job in the oil industry 4 years from now.

Mr. Speaker, the American people should only have one question in their minds today: How bad does it have to get before the President and the Republican leadership decide to join the Democrats in extending a helping hand for unemployment benefits? The revised data released by the Labor Department today shows things are even worse than we thought. Now the decision is up to us.

I introduced this legislation and invited my friend and colleague, Republican Representative Phil English, to join me because helping the American people to survive during tough economic times should not be a partisan issue. People say it has become a partisan issue here. Well, yeah, the White House has made it a partisan issue. They've said there's no problem, and they will not sign a bill that we craft. They've made their mind up before they even have a chance to look at it.

But too many others on the other side have made it just that. The American people woke up this morning to some bad economic news, and our efforts to help them were derailed by the Republican obstructionists. Those headlines, ``Republicans kill extended unemployment benefits,'' you're going to have another set if you're not careful.

We talked a lot yesterday and today about unemployment rates exceeding 6 or 7 percent in several parts of the country, and the devastating impact of those rates. Now, I confess I'm not an economist--I know that's no surprise--but let me predict that the unemployment rate among House Republican Members will go a whole lot higher than 7 percent if they continue to refuse to help the American people in this growing economic crisis.

It's called the Emergency Extended Unemployment Insurance Act of 2008 because it is an emergency, and the time to act is right now.

A vote for H.R. 5749 is a vote to help the American people and the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I am kind of appalled. I didn't think they could write a motion to recommit that would be worse than already their public stance is. But this motion to recommit would deny extended unemployment benefits to long-term jobless workers in 31 States. As you know, Mr. Speaker, some Members may be in their offices. They ought to listen to the list.

Alabama gets nothing. Arizona gets nothing. Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland. Massachusetts is gone too. Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico. Why, it goes on and on. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont. The way they have written this, those States get nothing. They don't even get 13 weeks. Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. None of them get a single benefit from this bill if that amendment is adopted.

Now let's just talk for a second here about what we are talking about. New Jersey. Atlantic City has an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent right now. But since they are in the State of New Jersey where the unemployment rate is only 4 percent, in Atlantic City, people are tough out of luck. They aren't going to get a single benefit. Or if they live in Ocean City where it is 6.6 percent, or they live in Vineland, Millville or Bridgeton where it is 7.1 percent, not a single penny goes to those people because they live in a State where it is only 4 percent.

Now I would like to see the community meeting that the Members go to when they explain to people that they voted ``no'' on giving extended benefits to people who have unemployment benefits and have exhausted them in these States. This makes it much worse than the bill we have. It clearly confirms that the Republicans really want to give unemployment benefits to no one.

Now as to the question of whether or not we have given a reason, we took the 20-week provision out for a very simple reason, because it denies benefits to 10 percent of the people who are presently in our workforce. These are benefits they earned by having money taken out of their paycheck. Their employer said, ``I am not going to give you this. I am going to put this in the unemployment fund.'' That is how it works.

So those employees that had that money being put in there and now they lose their benefits because of the fact that they have worked 10 months and they didn't get to the right place in the right time to get their 20 weeks, it is simply a denial of benefits to women, to low-wage workers and to minorities. It is basically people at the bottom of the economic rungs. And the Republicans are pleased to do that. Not only do they take it away from them, but they also take it away from 31 States.

I urge the Members to think about the election when they vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Delaware. I wonder, through the Chair, if he needs to speak.

Mr. President, I have invited Tennesseans to send me e-mails or to write letters about how high gas prices are affecting their daily lives. I am hearing from a lot of them.

Pat Taylor of Morristown, TN, who is the director of the local Meals on Wheels program, tells me the drivers travel 1,100 miles a day to deliver meals, but food and gasoline prices could force many meal recipients into retirement homes if something is not done. Mileage reimbursements are not sufficiently covering the expenditures of drivers.

Dr. Kathryn Stewart, of Winchester, TN, tells me that the school nutrition director has had to raise school lunch prices 50 cents per meal to compensate for the rise in gas and food prices, but they will still lose money this year. She worries about the future of her business there.

Abbie Byrom, of Johnson City, TN--that is in the eastern part of our State--is a third-year medical student at East Tennessee State University. She lives on loans through the school system. But, she says, cost-of-living loans do not cover expenses on traveling to all the area hospitals and medical centers. She says most of her fellow students are living by maxing out their credit cards.

Jerry and Judy Wilson, of Monterey, TN, run a weekend concessions business, but sales have been cut in half because of rising gas prices. They say: People can't come to the events because of fuel prices.

Joshua Yarbrough, of Franklin, TN, moved his family with three children to a larger house in Franklin, outside Nashville, 4 years ago, and is now having trouble paying his mortgage because of rising gas prices.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, following my remarks, each of these letters.

So, Mr. President, given the extraordinary impact of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the people of Tennessee and the people of this country, they are looking to us in the Senate and the Congress to do something about this.

I noticed there are some interesting new professors of economics on the Democratic side of the aisle who seem to be trying to repeal the law of supply and demand. I have been studying this strange development, and I am trying to trace the source of it. It would appear that maybe the source of it is the young new chairman of the department of economics on that side of the aisle, because the New York Times reports this morning that Senator Obama opposes drilling in Alaska, and says he is ``not a proponent,'' in his words, of nuclear power, which provides 20 percent of our electricity today and 70 percent of our clean carbon-free electricity. He would consider banning new coal plants without clean coal technology. Coal produces 45 percent of our electricity today. In 2006, he voted against further exploration in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas, in a portion of the Gulf known as Lease 181. More than 70 Senators from both sides of the aisle voted for it, which, so far as I can tell, leaves Senator Obama with not much more than a national windmill policy, as opposed to a national energy policy, for this great United States of America, which consumes every year 25 percent of the energy in the world.

Of course, it leaves these new professors of economics with the demand

part of the supply-and-demand equation.

We Republicans also believe in demand. We are for green buildings. We believe most of the new buildings ought to be green buildings. That is probably the easiest way to save electricity. Japan has discovered over the last several years that most of its failure to reach the Kyoto standards it was trying to achieve came from the inefficiency of buildings.

Half of us on the Republican side voted for the fuel efficiency standards in December. That has to do with the demand side of the equation--using less oil, less energy. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists told me that the single most important thing we could do as a Congress would be to increase the fuel efficiency standards by 40 percent. That means the cars and trucks in America should average 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. We voted to do that in a bipartisan way. So we agree on that part of demand as well.

Then we Republicans, as well as many Democrats, I am sure, are ready to give strong support to the idea of plug-in electric cars and trucks.

I was in Nashville on Monday with Congressman Bud Cramer, who is a Democratic Congressman from Alabama. He and I cochair the TVA Congressional Caucus.

The question we presented for the hearing was, Will electric plug-in cars and trucks help lower $4 gas prices? I believe the answer is yes, and so did a lot of the people who came to see the cars.

One of the vehicles there was a plug-in electric car made by the A123 company in Boston. It is a Toyota Prius, of which there are now a million on the road, and the A123 company had converted the Prius, which is a 40-miles-per-gallon car, into an electric plug-in vehicle, and it is now a 100-miles-per-gallon car. All they did was replace the car's smaller rechargeable battery with a larger rechargeable battery, and they put a cord on the back of it and the driver plugs the cord in at night at his house in a wall socket and he charges it up for 60 cents. So instead of filling it up for $70, he is charging it up for 60 cents.

According to the General Motors Company witness who testified at our hearing on Monday, 75 percent of us drive fewer than 40 miles a day. I know I drive less than 40 miles a day going back and forth when I am in Washington, so if I were driving that electric plug-in car, I would be using no gasoline whatsoever.

So plug-in cars and trucks are a real prospect and a real important part of the demand part of the supply-and-demand law we strongly support on this side of the aisle, and so do many Democrats as well. It is 100 percent American energy. GM, Toyota, Nissan, Ford--all are going to be selling these cars to Americans in the year 2010, which is a model year that is about a year and a half away. Sixty cents is the cost of the charge for a 30-mile drive. It is about the same amount of electricity it takes to use your water heater for 1 day. It doesn't require new powerplants because the Tennessee Valley Authority chairman who was at the hearing told us that they have plenty of extra electricity at night when our lights are off, so we can plug in at night.

This involves trucks too. There were FedEx delivery truck witnesses at the hearing. They are already using hybrid delivery trucks, and they are planning to use that technology for big trucks.

If we were to electrify half our cars and trucks in America over time--which is 120 million, since we have about 240 million cars and trucks in this country--we could cut in half the amount of oil we import. That would cut from $500 billion to $250 billion the amount of money we are sending overseas to people, many of whom are funding terrorists who are trying to kill us. It would strengthen the dollar. It would certainly lower fuel costs for those who are plugging in their cars instead of driving them--or plugging them in instead of filling them with gasoline--and it would reduce the demand for oil so much that it would surely reduce the price of gasoline as well.

Plug-in electric cars and trucks would lead us to support a number of other initiatives: Smart meters so that in our homes we could pay TVA-- or whoever our electric utility is--a little more in the afternoon for electricity used at peak power, but at night we would have cheap power for our plug-in vehicles. Battery research. The additional cost of such a plug-in vehicle is determined primarily by how rapidly we can develop batteries that will take a charge to allow 40, 60, 80, 100, or even more miles each time because we will be running coal plants at night to provide this electricity. We would need to clean up our coal plants, but we should be doing that anyway, whether they are in Pennsylvania or Tennessee or Ohio. We need to get rid of the sulfur and the nitrogen and the mercury, and we need a crash program to find a practical way to recapture the carbon from coal plants if we are serious about dealing with climate change.

So there are a number of policy changes we on the Republican side of the aisle are ready to make to lower gas prices and to honor the law of supply and demand. But the problem is the new professors of economics on that side of the aisle, led by Senator Obama, are trying to take the word ``supply'' out of the law of supply and demand. If we are going to drive plug-in electric cars and trucks, we are going to need a supply of electricity, so we need to be building five or six nuclear powerplants a year. But the professors on that side say they are not proponents of that; they don't think it's part of the solution. It has to be a part of the solution in a country that uses 25 percent of all of the electricity in the world.

It would be embarrassing to say that France is ahead of us in this, but they are. Eighty percent of the electricity in France is from nuclear powerplants. It is clean--no mercury, no sulfur, no nitrogen, no carbon. They meet the climate change standards today, and if they shift in France to driving electric cars and trucks, they will have no problem. They can plug them in at night to recharge them. They will have no pollution problems. They will reduce their dependence on oil. They will save money in their pockets. They won't be exporting money to Middle Eastern countries or to others that may be funding terrorists. They will be ahead of us if we don't advance the technology we invented and begin to build five or six new nuclear plants a year for the foreseeable future.

We also need to take the ill-advised moratorium off oil shale. We have plenty of oil shale in the ground and new environmentally sound ways to get it out of the ground. That is a part of supply as well. Most of that is in our Western States.

We also need to give other States the opportunity to do what Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi already do, which is to explore 50 miles offshore for oil and gas. We have plenty of that. We could be producing an extra million barrels a day of oil and gas from offshore exploration, and by adding to the supply we would be reducing the price of gasoline and bringing it down below $4. We need to change the law and do that. Senator McCain says we need to do it.

What would it involve to give States that option? The Virginia State Legislature, for example, has said they would like to explore off the coast of Virginia, at least for natural gas. So we need to lift the Federal moratorium and the Presidential Executive order that keeps them from doing that offshore. If I were the Governor of Virginia, I would certainly want to do it. I would put the rigs 50 miles out where no one could see them.

We know we can do it in an environmentally clean way. We heard a lot of bad things as a result of Hurricane Katrina, but we didn't hear of one oil spill from any of the oil and gas rigs that are all in the Gulf of Mexico. So we know how to drill cleanly. The oil spills we have are from cargo freighters that are bringing oil from overseas to us. That is where the problem is. If we were exploring offshore for our own oil and gas, we would not only be lowering our gas prices, but we would be providing States and the Federal Government with additional revenue as well. Under the formula we passed in 2006 for Lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico, Virginia would get 37.5 percent of the dollars. What would that do for Virginia? They already have a good higher education system, but I think if I were the Governor, I would say: Let's put a lot of that in a trust fund for higher education and make the Virginia colleges and universities the best in the world

without raising taxes. Let's put some of it to nourish the beaches of Virginia. Let's maybe use some of it for roads or for health care or for lowering taxes. They could do all of that with their three-eighths of those revenues.

We also said that one-eighth of the money from that offshore exploration in Lease 181 would go to the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for city parks and greenways and open spaces in Pennsylvania and Tennessee and all across this country, which we have been trying to do for 40 years. The whole idea of the Land and Water Conservation Fund enacted in the 1960s was to say: We will fund it up to $900 million a year from money from offshore oil and gas exploration; we recognize that exploration is an environmental burden, so we will turn part of it into an environmental benefit. We have never fully funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and this is a way to do that.

There are other ideas--Senator Salazar, Senator Kyl, and I join in this as well--to take some of the excessive money from offshore drilling and fully fund the National Park Centennial Initiative that President Bush has proposed to celebrate the 100th anniversary of our National Park System. I know of the excitement around the Great Smoky Mountains National Park as we have added 55 new park personnel to that park and a lot of new private funding for park projects simply because of this Centennial Initiative the President has proposed. We need to fund it, and this would be a way to fund it.

So we need a supply of electricity if we are going to drive electric cars. We need oil shale if we are going to continue to produce oil, from which gasoline is made. We need offshore exploration--another way to increase the supply of oil.

I believe, as do many others on our side of the aisle, that we should also be exploring in Alaska. Jay Leno said the other night that the Democrats objected to that because they said it wouldn't produce any oil for 10 years. Well, as Jay Leno said, that is what the Democrats said 10 years ago. Presidents and Senators are supposed to look ahead, to look down the road. If we can add a million barrels of oil a day from Alaska; if we can add a million barrels of oil a day from offshore exploration; if we can add 2 million barrels of oil a day from oil shale, which we can do; if we can build five or six nuclear plants a year and help us create carbon-free, clean energy so we can electrify our cars and trucks and reduce our demand for oil, then we will have lower gas prices because we will be honoring the immutable law of supply and demand which says find more and use less.

The difference between us is that on this side of the aisle we believe in the law of supply and demand: find more and use less. On that side of the aisle, they seem to believe in a different economics, which is use less. They want to repeal supply and only insist on demand. So there is a fundamental difference.

I am glad Senator McCain must have gone to a different college of economics than the one I think I sense on the other side of the aisle. He has suggested that we do both, that we increase our supply and we reduce our demand by finding more oil and using less oil. He has specifically supported offshore drilling if States want to do that. He has specifically said we should lift the moratorium on oil shale and proceed in an environmentally responsible way to explore for that. He has said as well that we need to move ahead with five or six nuclear powerplants a year, and he has been a strong advocate for green buildings, for fuel efficiency, and for plug-in electric vehicles. At the same time, he has said he believes we need to take steps to deal with climate change, emphasizing the importance of nuclear power because that provides 20 percent of all of our electricity but 70 percent of our carbon-free power.

So I look forward to the debate over the next few months. It is beginning to come into shape. Two different views of economics: an attractive young head of the department from that side of the aisle who wants to change the law of supply and demand to only include demand, which apparently would leave us with a national windmill policy; or a more grizzled Senator who apparently went to a different college of economics who believes in the old-fashioned law of supply and demand and would like to focus on both.

This will be a debate worthy of the Senate. It will be important to all of those Tennesseans who are writing me wanting that $4 per gallon price to go down. My recommendation to them is to vote for Senators and vote for Presidents who will both increase our supply and reduce our demand--who will find more, use less, and not try to invent a new theory of economics which will leave us with our lights off and our gas prices high.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

From: Pat Taylor

Sent: Thu 6/12/2008 9:43 AM

To: Alexander,Senator

Cc: Susan Luker

Subject: Gas Prices Affect Meals On Wheels In East Tennessee

Dear Senator Alexander: My name is Pat Taylor. I am Program

Director for Douglas Cherokee Economic Authority Senior

Nutrition Program (Meals On Wheels). We are currently serving

hundreds of elderly and disabled citizens in the counties of

Cocke, Grainger, Hamblen, Jefferson, Monroe, and Sevier. I am

writing to you on behalf of all of these homebound clients

who receive our meals five days a week. We currently drive

1,100 miles per day to deliver these meals. With the increase

in food costs as well as gasoline prices, this has become a

burden for our program and our delivery aides. They use their

own vehicles to deliver. With gas prices rising daily, the

mileage reimbursement they receive desperately needs to be

increased in order for meal delivery to continue.

Anything you can do will be greatly appreciated. Many

elderly and disabled Tennesseans are able to avoid being

institutionalized because of the daily contact and nutrition

provided by the Senior Nutrition Program.

Sincerely,

Pat Taylor,

Director, Douglas Cherokee Economic Authority, Senior

Nutrition Program.

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

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

Mr. President, gas prices this summer could easily be triple what they were when President Bush took office. The dramatic increase in oil prices brought prices for food up along with it, and families are facing a painful financial choice when it comes time to fill their gas tank: Put a gallon of gas in the car or put a gallon of milk on the kitchen table. When Americans are paying this much to fill their gas tanks, it is a drain on the whole economy. Businesses are cutting jobs, families have already eliminated nonessentials, and many are now cutting back on meals. Some people are even contemplating changing their job because they can't afford the gas to get to work.

It has become painfully clear that we are in an oil crisis. Some of the forces driving up prices are beyond immediate control--such as the demand from China and India. But some of the factors offer opportunities for action.

First, market experts have testified before Congress that speculators are driving up prices far beyond where the natural forces of supply and demand should take them. Second, we can take steps in this country to reduce our demand and our dependence on foreign oil.

Last week in the Senate, Democrats brought legislation forward that would attack some of the root causes of the skyrocketing price of oil, cut down gas prices that are artificially high, and bring relief to drivers at the pump. That bill, the Consumer-First Energy Act, would have provided that relief by, among other things, ensuring that our commodities markets are functioning fairly so prices can come down from their artificial highs. The supply- and-demand equation is roughly the same as it was 2 years ago. Yet we have seen prices go through the roof. Experts say speculation could be adding anywhere between $50 and $80 a barrel to the price of oil.

In some respects, I am not surprised this is the one place in the market that doesn't seem to be regulated. We can see what happened under the administration of a President and Vice President whose politics have always been tied up with the oil companies for whom they used to work. Here you have the price of a barrel of oil that has risen from about $20 a barrel when President Bush took office to about $140 a barrel right now.

As we have seen that price rise, what happens? As the price of oil has risen, the profits of big oil companies have risen--from about $20 billion when President Bush took office to about $120 billion right now. The price of oil goes up and profits go up as well. And as the profits have risen for big oil, the price of gas that we pay at the pump has risen--from under $1.50 a gallon when President Bush took office, in many cases, to, in some cases, over $4 per gallon right now.

The Consumer-First Energy Act would have made sure that oil is traded on a well-regulated, transparent market free from manipulation. But my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle said no to that legislation. They said no to the American consumer because they obviously feel committed to say yes to big oil.

Yesterday, once again, the Senate had the chance to help free our country from the liquid shackles of foreign oil. The Baucus substitute amendment--had we been able to offer it, had we not been stopped by our Republican colleagues--would have spurred the development of renewable energy by providing almost $20 billion in tax incentives for investment in the production, transportation, and conservation of energy.

In order to encourage renewable energy industries to build to the scale we need them to, we have to send renewable producers the clear message that their product will have continued support in the future. So the bill would have extended investment tax credits for 6 years to ensure the continued development of solar energy, fuel cells, and microturbines, among others.

We have seen how important this is in my home State of New Jersey where the solar industry has created thousands of jobs and helped ``green'' the Garden State.

The bill would have encouraged the production of cellulosic biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol. It would have encouraged the development and use of biodiesel and renewable diesel, encouraged further investments in advanced technology vehicles, and created a tax credit for alternative refueling stations so that the infrastructure exists in our country to make those vehicles viable.

So in the face of a broad-based package to encourage new green energy sources that would have helped bring down gas prices and end our dependence on foreign oil, what did my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle say? They said no again. Republicans said no to helping American consumers because they could not help but say yes to big oil.

It is no surprise then when my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, delivered his big energy speech yesterday, where did he do it? He did it in the oil capital of the United States. The big plan President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are pushing is another example of big oil writing our energy policy, as they have done for the last 8 years.

And Senator McCain repeats it. That plan comes down to one thing: Drilling, drilling, drilling along the coasts of our country. When John McCain or George Bush talk about opening our coastline to drilling, they make it sound like gasoline is going to gush out from that drill straight out of the ground and right into your car.

What they either do not want to tell the public or simply ignore is that, in fact, it will take at least a decade--a decade--to see any production out of these areas, and even then, the Energy Information Department tells us this will be a drop in the bucket.

Why give the oil companies another handout when they are sitting on 68 million acres of land leased from the American people which they have yet to explore? I find it hard to believe that Senator McCain would say the Federal Government discourages offshore oil production when more than 80 percent of the oil that is offshore is already open for production, and oil companies own more than 30 million acres of leases in Federal waters they have not used--that they have not used.

The vast majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal land is already open for drilling, and it is not being tapped. Currently, oil companies are not producing oil or gas on 68 million of the more than 91 million acres of Federal land under their control. And 31 million of those 68 million acres are offshore.

Offshore, these companies are producing on only about 20 percent of the acres they hold, while onshore they are producing less than 30 percent of the acres they hold. So one has to wonder, when big oil pushes relentlessly for more and more land and water to drill, even when they have millions of acres they have yet to use, it makes us wonder if they are not just exploiting this oil crisis to expand the reserves on their books in order to inflate their share price. Certainly, the needs of American consumers are not what these CEOs are looking out for.

If the Senate does not act now, billions of dollars' worth of research and development tax credits will expire, impeding innovation and discovery. As the world becomes increasingly globalized and technology driven, we must increase our investments in research and development in order to maintain our position as a world leader in the 21st century.

If the Senate does not act, billions of dollars invested in alternative, clean sources of energy will cease, and so will our progress to become energy independent. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decry the rising price of gas and talk about developing alternative sources of energy.

But when they had the opportunity yesterday, once again they said no, as they said no last week on having market speculation taken out of the price of oil, therefore the price of gas.

By the way, what would have been offered yesterday had we been able to proceed--and hopefully we can proceed on today--is that millions of Americans subject to the alternative minimum tax, placing unfair and unnecessary tax increases on middle-class families, could have gotten a break under the Baucus substitute. That is all that would have been able to happen.

Finally, here is the bigger picture. We have 2 percent of this world's oil reserves, and we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. We are never going to meet growing domestic demand with shrinking domestic supply. The only way to make these numbers balance is to reduce our dependence on oil by increasing production of renewable fuels.

If we are going to have a secure energy future, there is a lot more we need to do to explore besides oil reserves. We had better start exploring the outer reaches of our creativity, not lining the inner pockets of the corporate oil elite. It is time to say yes to tapping our industriousness, harnessing our powers of innovation, and summoning up the will to change, that change that has made this country great.

We have an opportunity to break our dependence. We have an opportunity to tell the oil companies, too, by the way: Pursue the 68 million acres of land and water you already have licenses and leases for and stop telling us to go potentially risk our environmentally sensitive areas in pursuit of oil that will not be achieved for a decade, will not do anything about gas prices today, when you are not even moving on the 68 million acres to which you already have access. Ultimately, all it would do is increase your profits, but it would cause States, such as my State of New Jersey, where tourism is the second largest driver of its economy, to risk the possibility of an oil spill on the shores of New Jersey's beaches and kill billions of dollars that annually are generated as a result of that.

So I do not want to hear from the capital of big oil, our dear colleague and the presumptive Republican nominee tell us the solution to our problem is to drill more, when 68 million acres that the big oil companies have are already not being pursued, when ultimately it will not produce a penny of reduction in gas prices.

When we had the opportunity to make a real impact last week on the bill that would take the speculation out of the marketplace, stop price gouging, and at the same time, when we have an opportunity today, before the Senate, to make sure that we extend those renewable tax credits, give us better fuel-efficient vehicles, give us better renewable energy sources, and break our addiction to the reality that the reality is that the overwhelming part of oil in this world resides not here in the United States but abroad.

That is our challenge and opportunity. It is time to say yes to American consumers, time to say no to big oil.

I yield the floor.