Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act

Mr. President, as recent events in neighboring Virginia have made all too clear, this country faces a number of troubling questions about whether we are prepared to address the growing problem of drug-resistant, bacterial infections. Indeed, while recent media reports have raised the visibility of this issue, infectious disease doctors have been sounding the alarm for years.

Now, Senator Brown and I are sounding the alarm as well.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that resistant strains of infections have spread rapidly. This alarming trend continues to grow and treatment options are sorely lacking.

Senator Brown and I have collaborated to develop legislation that takes a science-based approach to this problem. This legislation, the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act or STAAR Act S. 2313, should be seen as a measure to catalyze a greater Government focus on a frightening, growing, public health problem which should be of concern to each and every one of us in this Nation.

One of the things that Senator Brown and I have found in our considerable study of this issue is that there is not adequate infrastructure developed within the Government to collect the data, to coordinate the research, and to conduct the surveillance necessary to stop drug-resistant infections in their tracks.

We believe that jump-starting a greater, stronger, organizational focus at the Department of Health and Human Services will help our Government and our scientists develop an infrastructure that can grow as science develops.

At the same time, we make perfectly clear that our bill is not the sole answer to the complex, vexing problem of antibiotic resistance. At a minimum we need better testing, better hospital controls, better medications, and better funding to support these efforts, particularly the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Institute of Medicine, the Resources for the Future, the Centers for Disease Control, and many others have been sounding the alarm about the growing threat from resistant microorganisms.

Congress must listen.

In fact, it its seminal report, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs'', the Infectious Diseases Society, IDSA, said:

Drug-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands

of Americans every year and a growing number of individuals

are succumbing to community-acquired infections. An epidemic

may harm millions. Unless Congress and the Administration

move with urgency to address these infections now, there is a

very good chance that U.S. patients will suffer greatly in

the future.

Indeed, the seminal IDSA report points out a number of compelling facts.

As the report notes, infections caused by resistant bacteria can strike anyone, young and old, rich or poor, healthy or ill. However, the problem of antibiotic resistance is especially acute for patients with compromised immune systems, such as persons living with HIV/AIDS.

The scope of the problem is equally of note. As IDSA has calculated, about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals each year and as many as 90,000 die as a result. More and more, public health experts are finding infections developed in the home or community as well. Infections in both settings are increasing, and the resultant drug resistance shows no sign of lessening.

This is a costly problem, costly for patients, for society, and potentially threatening to our global security.

And, in fact, health care providers are running out of treatments as the resistance problem grows.

Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg said it well: ``We are running out of bullets for dealing with a number of bacterial, infections. Patients are dying because we no longer in many cases have antibiotics that work.''

Indeed, last week, noted Utah infectious disease expert Dr. Andy Pavia told me about a 14-year-old boy he had treated who had bone, muscle and lung infections from MRSA, an aggressive, difficult to treat, form of staph that has spread rapidly within communities. Half of the children he sees with severe MRSA infections acquired their infection at home.

This young man, Dr. Pavia relates, was forced to undergo multiple surgeries and 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. MRSA infections are steadily increasing in Utah, as well as across all other States.

Fortunately, that young man is on the road to recovery. But the statistics indicate it is just as likely that he would not be.

We are not only talking about MRSA. Dr. Pavia also cites the real crisis growing with resistant gram-negative bacteria, which he calls the ``Rodney Dangerfield of the infectious disease world''--in other words, ``it don't get no respect.''

We are also seeing increases in extensively drug-resistant, XDR, tuberculosis. There are numerous reports of soldiers returning home from Iraq with Acinetobactor--a resistant infection that is especially difficult to treat, and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic.

Senator Brown and I have worked on this issue for many months, starting with our collaboration on provisions in the Food and Drug Act Amendments recently signed into law by the President. We are also working with our colleagues in the House, foremost among them Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, author of the House STAAR Act.

Our conclusion is that the solutions to this problem are manifold, but they must start with a stronger Government effort. That is the genesis of the STAAR Act.

Let me review briefly what our legislation does.

The bill makes a series of congressional findings which layout the problem and the need to address it.

In particular, we note that while the advent of the antibiotic era has saved millions of lives and allowed for incredible medical progress, the increased use and overuse of antimicrobial drugs have correlated with an increase in the rates of antimicrobial resistance.

An important component to this problem is the fact that scientific evidence suggests the source of antimicrobial resistance in people is not only the overuse of human drugs, but also it may be from food- producing animals, which are exposed to antimicrobial drugs.

As scientists have found, nearly 70 percent of hospital-acquired bacterial infections in the U.S. are resistant to at least one drug; in some cases, the rate is much higher. In fact, each year nearly 2 million people contract bacterial infections in the hospital, and it is estimated that 90,000 of them die from the infections.

There seem to be no recent data on the costs associated with this problem, but a 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found that six different antimicrobial-resistant strains of bacteria accounted for $1.3 billion in nationwide hospital costs--almost $1.9 billion in 2006 dollars!

Here is how our bill attempts to address the problems I have just laid out.

First, the bill establishes a new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Department of Health and Human Services. That Office will work with the Task Force to issue biennial updates to the Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, including enhanced plans for addressing the problem here and abroad. As appropriate, the Office's Director will establish benchmarks for achieving the plan's goals, assess patterns of antimicrobial resistance emergence and their impact on clinical outcomes, determine how antimicrobial products are being used in humans, animals and plants, and recommend where additional federally-supported studies may be beneficial.

Second, we renew the Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force authorized in section 319E of the Public Health Service Act. The Task Force, whose authorization lapsed last year, is comprised of representatives from the following Federal agencies and offices, plus any others the Secretary deems necessary: the new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance established in the bill; the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response; the Centers for Disease Control; the Food and Drug Administration; the National Institutes of Health; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and State.

It is important to note that Senator Brown and I gave careful consideration to the location of this new Office.

We considered locating it at the CDC, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), and in the Office of the Secretary, OS. There are benefits and drawbacks to each. Indeed, had OASH its previous organizational structure, that is, line authority over the Public Health Service agencies, that decision would have been easy. But since a change was made many years ago to devolve most of the OASH functions to the separate PHS agencies, OASH was not the natural locus for the new Office, we decided. Our final conclusion was that it was most appropriate to locate the new office in OS, both for reasons of prominence and flexibility.

Third, S. 2313 establishes a Public Health Antimicrobial Advisory Board, a panel of outside experts who will advise the Secretary on ways to encourage an adequate supply of antimicrobial products that are both safe

and effective; help determine what research priorities should be, what data and surveillance are necessary to be collected, and assess how the action plan can be updated and strengthened.

It is very important to Senator Brown, if I may speak for him, and to me that our measure be seen as a collaborative effort that draws on the strengths of existing organizations and catalyzes their efforts for greater good.

So, fourth, our bill requires the Secretary--working through the new Office, the CDC and the NIH, in consultation with other appropriate agencies--to develop a antimicrobial resistance strategic research plan that strengthens existing epidemiological, interventional, clinical, behavioral, translational and basic research efforts to advance our understanding of the emergence of resistance and how best to address it.

Fifth, the bill authorizes establishment of at least 10 Antimicrobial Resistance Clinical Research and Public Health Network sites, geographically dispersed across the U.S. The sites will monitor the emergence of resistant pathogens in individuals, study the epidemiology of such pathogens and evaluate the efficacy of interventions, and study problems associated with antimicrobial use. In addition, we are asking the network to assess the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness of surveillance and screening programs in differing health care and institutional settings, such as schools, and evaluate current treatment protocols and make appropriate recommendations on best practices for treating drug resistant infections. It is my hope the network will be able to take into account successful models for surveillance and screening such as inpatient programs of the Veterans Health Administration, work done in States such as Illinois, New York and the Utah Aware program, and experience overseas in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. Our bill authorizes $45 million for these networks in fiscal year 2008, $65 million next year, and $120 million in fiscal year 2010.

Finally, I would like to speak about data collection activities in S. 2313.

It has become obvious to me that there is a pressing need for better surveillance of antibiotic resistance and better data collection that is shared both within States and across States. From my long work on public health issues, it is equally clear to me that there is a need for the government to give guidance--guidance, not a mandate--on uniform ways in which those data should be collected so that all of the agencies are talking the same talk, so speak.

Our bill asks the Office of Antimicrobial Research to work with the Task Force and member agencies to develop those uniform standards for data collection. In drafting S. 2313, Senator Brown and I were very sensitive to the jurisdictional needs of other Committees. At the same time, it is clear that any serious effort to address antimicrobial resistance must be spread across the many agencies of Government, each of which has a role to play in our collaborative effort. It is for that reason that our bill asks the Office and Task Force to work with the other agencies, some of which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee. If this language needs to be strengthened as consideration of S. 2313 progresses, it is our hope to work with the other committees which have an interest in the bill.

A second issue related to data collection is the fact that there is a pressing need for epidemiologists and other public health experts to begin to see data showing how many antibiotics are being distributed and used by patients so that they can evaluate the amount of resistance that is emerging. In writing our bill, we were sensitive to the need to provide scientists with these data, while at the same time working to make any new reporting provisions the least burdensome possible, while protecting both the national security and propriety aspects of those data. For that reason, our bill builds on current reporting to the FDA of pharmaceutical distribution data. Those data are currently submitted by manufacturers on the anniversary date of the product's approval. Our bill would move that reporting date to 60 days after the beginning of each calendar year, thus allowing epidemiologists to compare data from year to year. Our second concern, that of potentially harmful release of data, was addressed in the following way. Our bill precludes the release of data which are proprietary in nature and whose release could have the perverse result of providing a disincentive to antibiotic development. This strong section, section 7 of the bill, also precludes release of data which could be harmful to our national defense.

In closing, I wish to commend S. 2313 to my colleagues and ask for their serious consideration of this measure. For those who doubt the need for this legislation, if there are any doubters among us, I ask the following questions:

Where do we begin to get serious to address this concern?

Where do we begin to recognize that it will take literally years to develop an effective response?

What are we doing to develop the collaboration across agencies to assure the American public we are developing an action plan to combat the problem?

It is our hope that STAAR Act will begin to catalyze that response.

That is the motive behind our introduction of this legislation.

We look forward to working with our colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as consideration of this legislation begins and we remain available to our colleagues to answer any questions or concerns they may have about this legislation.

Mr. President, as recent events in neighboring Virginia have made all too clear, this country faces a number of troubling questions about whether we are prepared to address the growing problem of drug-resistant, bacterial infections. Indeed, while recent media reports have raised the visibility of this issue, infectious disease doctors have been sounding the alarm for years.

Now, Senator Brown and I are sounding the alarm as well.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that resistant strains of infections have spread rapidly. This alarming trend continues to grow and treatment options are sorely lacking.

Senator Brown and I have collaborated to develop legislation that takes a science-based approach to this problem. This legislation, the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act or STAAR Act S. 2313, should be seen as a measure to catalyze a greater Government focus on a frightening, growing, public health problem which should be of concern to each and every one of us in this Nation.

One of the things that Senator Brown and I have found in our considerable study of this issue is that there is not adequate infrastructure developed within the Government to collect the data, to coordinate the research, and to conduct the surveillance necessary to stop drug-resistant infections in their tracks.

We believe that jump-starting a greater, stronger, organizational focus at the Department of Health and Human Services will help our Government and our scientists develop an infrastructure that can grow as science develops.

At the same time, we make perfectly clear that our bill is not the sole answer to the complex, vexing problem of antibiotic resistance. At a minimum we need better testing, better hospital controls, better medications, and better funding to support these efforts, particularly the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Institute of Medicine, the Resources for the Future, the Centers for Disease Control, and many others have been sounding the alarm about the growing threat from resistant microorganisms.

Congress must listen.

In fact, it its seminal report, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs'', the Infectious Diseases Society, IDSA, said:

Drug-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands

of Americans every year and a growing number of individuals

are succumbing to community-acquired infections. An epidemic

may harm millions. Unless Congress and the Administration

move with urgency to address these infections now, there is a

very good chance that U.S. patients will suffer greatly in

the future.

Indeed, the seminal IDSA report points out a number of compelling facts.

As the report notes, infections caused by resistant bacteria can strike anyone, young and old, rich or poor, healthy or ill. However, the problem of antibiotic resistance is especially acute for patients with compromised immune systems, such as persons living with HIV/AIDS.

The scope of the problem is equally of note. As IDSA has calculated, about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals each year and as many as 90,000 die as a result. More and more, public health experts are finding infections developed in the home or community as well. Infections in both settings are increasing, and the resultant drug resistance shows no sign of lessening.

This is a costly problem, costly for patients, for society, and potentially threatening to our global security.

And, in fact, health care providers are running out of treatments as the resistance problem grows.

Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg said it well: ``We are running out of bullets for dealing with a number of bacterial, infections. Patients are dying because we no longer in many cases have antibiotics that work.''

Indeed, last week, noted Utah infectious disease expert Dr. Andy Pavia told me about a 14-year-old boy he had treated who had bone, muscle and lung infections from MRSA, an aggressive, difficult to treat, form of staph that has spread rapidly within communities. Half of the children he sees with severe MRSA infections acquired their infection at home.

This young man, Dr. Pavia relates, was forced to undergo multiple surgeries and 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. MRSA infections are steadily increasing in Utah, as well as across all other States.

Fortunately, that young man is on the road to recovery. But the statistics indicate it is just as likely that he would not be.

We are not only talking about MRSA. Dr. Pavia also cites the real crisis growing with resistant gram-negative bacteria, which he calls the ``Rodney Dangerfield of the infectious disease world''--in other words, ``it don't get no respect.''

We are also seeing increases in extensively drug-resistant, XDR, tuberculosis. There are numerous reports of soldiers returning home from Iraq with Acinetobactor--a resistant infection that is especially difficult to treat, and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic.

Senator Brown and I have worked on this issue for many months, starting with our collaboration on provisions in the Food and Drug Act Amendments recently signed into law by the President. We are also working with our colleagues in the House, foremost among them Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, author of the House STAAR Act.

Our conclusion is that the solutions to this problem are manifold, but they must start with a stronger Government effort. That is the genesis of the STAAR Act.

Let me review briefly what our legislation does.

The bill makes a series of congressional findings which layout the problem and the need to address it.

In particular, we note that while the advent of the antibiotic era has saved millions of lives and allowed for incredible medical progress, the increased use and overuse of antimicrobial drugs have correlated with an increase in the rates of antimicrobial resistance.

An important component to this problem is the fact that scientific evidence suggests the source of antimicrobial resistance in people is not only the overuse of human drugs, but also it may be from food- producing animals, which are exposed to antimicrobial drugs.

As scientists have found, nearly 70 percent of hospital-acquired bacterial infections in the U.S. are resistant to at least one drug; in some cases, the rate is much higher. In fact, each year nearly 2 million people contract bacterial infections in the hospital, and it is estimated that 90,000 of them die from the infections.

There seem to be no recent data on the costs associated with this problem, but a 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found that six different antimicrobial-resistant strains of bacteria accounted for $1.3 billion in nationwide hospital costs--almost $1.9 billion in 2006 dollars!

Here is how our bill attempts to address the problems I have just laid out.

First, the bill establishes a new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Department of Health and Human Services. That Office will work with the Task Force to issue biennial updates to the Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, including enhanced plans for addressing the problem here and abroad. As appropriate, the Office's Director will establish benchmarks for achieving the plan's goals, assess patterns of antimicrobial resistance emergence and their impact on clinical outcomes, determine how antimicrobial products are being used in humans, animals and plants, and recommend where additional federally-supported studies may be beneficial.

Second, we renew the Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force authorized in section 319E of the Public Health Service Act. The Task Force, whose authorization lapsed last year, is comprised of representatives from the following Federal agencies and offices, plus any others the Secretary deems necessary: the new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance established in the bill; the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response; the Centers for Disease Control; the Food and Drug Administration; the National Institutes of Health; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and State.

It is important to note that Senator Brown and I gave careful consideration to the location of this new Office.

We considered locating it at the CDC, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), and in the Office of the Secretary, OS. There are benefits and drawbacks to each. Indeed, had OASH its previous organizational structure, that is, line authority over the Public Health Service agencies, that decision would have been easy. But since a change was made many years ago to devolve most of the OASH functions to the separate PHS agencies, OASH was not the natural locus for the new Office, we decided. Our final conclusion was that it was most appropriate to locate the new office in OS, both for reasons of prominence and flexibility.

Third, S. 2313 establishes a Public Health Antimicrobial Advisory Board, a panel of outside experts who will advise the Secretary on ways to encourage an adequate supply of antimicrobial products that are both safe

and effective; help determine what research priorities should be, what data and surveillance are necessary to be collected, and assess how the action plan can be updated and strengthened.

It is very important to Senator Brown, if I may speak for him, and to me that our measure be seen as a collaborative effort that draws on the strengths of existing organizations and catalyzes their efforts for greater good.

So, fourth, our bill requires the Secretary--working through the new Office, the CDC and the NIH, in consultation with other appropriate agencies--to develop a antimicrobial resistance strategic research plan that strengthens existing epidemiological, interventional, clinical, behavioral, translational and basic research efforts to advance our understanding of the emergence of resistance and how best to address it.

Fifth, the bill authorizes establishment of at least 10 Antimicrobial Resistance Clinical Research and Public Health Network sites, geographically dispersed across the U.S. The sites will monitor the emergence of resistant pathogens in individuals, study the epidemiology of such pathogens and evaluate the efficacy of interventions, and study problems associated with antimicrobial use. In addition, we are asking the network to assess the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness of surveillance and screening programs in differing health care and institutional settings, such as schools, and evaluate current treatment protocols and make appropriate recommendations on best practices for treating drug resistant infections. It is my hope the network will be able to take into account successful models for surveillance and screening such as inpatient programs of the Veterans Health Administration, work done in States such as Illinois, New York and the Utah Aware program, and experience overseas in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. Our bill authorizes $45 million for these networks in fiscal year 2008, $65 million next year, and $120 million in fiscal year 2010.

Finally, I would like to speak about data collection activities in S. 2313.

It has become obvious to me that there is a pressing need for better surveillance of antibiotic resistance and better data collection that is shared both within States and across States. From my long work on public health issues, it is equally clear to me that there is a need for the government to give guidance--guidance, not a mandate--on uniform ways in which those data should be collected so that all of the agencies are talking the same talk, so speak.

Our bill asks the Office of Antimicrobial Research to work with the Task Force and member agencies to develop those uniform standards for data collection. In drafting S. 2313, Senator Brown and I were very sensitive to the jurisdictional needs of other Committees. At the same time, it is clear that any serious effort to address antimicrobial resistance must be spread across the many agencies of Government, each of which has a role to play in our collaborative effort. It is for that reason that our bill asks the Office and Task Force to work with the other agencies, some of which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee. If this language needs to be strengthened as consideration of S. 2313 progresses, it is our hope to work with the other committees which have an interest in the bill.

A second issue related to data collection is the fact that there is a pressing need for epidemiologists and other public health experts to begin to see data showing how many antibiotics are being distributed and used by patients so that they can evaluate the amount of resistance that is emerging. In writing our bill, we were sensitive to the need to provide scientists with these data, while at the same time working to make any new reporting provisions the least burdensome possible, while protecting both the national security and propriety aspects of those data. For that reason, our bill builds on current reporting to the FDA of pharmaceutical distribution data. Those data are currently submitted by manufacturers on the anniversary date of the product's approval. Our bill would move that reporting date to 60 days after the beginning of each calendar year, thus allowing epidemiologists to compare data from year to year. Our second concern, that of potentially harmful release of data, was addressed in the following way. Our bill precludes the release of data which are proprietary in nature and whose release could have the perverse result of providing a disincentive to antibiotic development. This strong section, section 7 of the bill, also precludes release of data which could be harmful to our national defense.

In closing, I wish to commend S. 2313 to my colleagues and ask for their serious consideration of this measure. For those who doubt the need for this legislation, if there are any doubters among us, I ask the following questions:

Where do we begin to get serious to address this concern?

Where do we begin to recognize that it will take literally years to develop an effective response?

What are we doing to develop the collaboration across agencies to assure the American public we are developing an action plan to combat the problem?

It is our hope that STAAR Act will begin to catalyze that response.

That is the motive behind our introduction of this legislation.

We look forward to working with our colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as consideration of this legislation begins and we remain available to our colleagues to answer any questions or concerns they may have about this legislation.

Mr. President, I am happy we are here. Let me ask a question, if I may, of the floor manager, Senator Dodd.

I just walked onto the floor from a hearing we are having in Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Do I understand we have agreement now to proceed to the bill? I don't have an amendment to offer, but I understand we are ready to accept amendments.

That is good news. What did we have for the vote yesterday?

We are wasting way too much time on the floor. I am delighted that we finally have agreement to go to the bill. I thank you and Senator Shelby for leading us here today.

Hurricane season in the Atlantic opens officially on June 1. Today is May 7. That is about 25 days from now--less than a month. Thousands of homes, actually tens of thousands of homes along our coast, from Florida up to New York, probably, and down around the gulf coast, are going to be at risk from flooding from what are likely to be more devastating storms. You don't have to live along one of our coasts to be at risk. Many will recall, earlier this year, parts of Missouri, parts of Illinois faced the worst flood they have seen in decades.

In Government, we are often asked to respond to terrible natural disasters, and we do, providing, among other things, emergency shelter and financial aid for people who lost a lot, maybe in some cases have lost everything. Today, we are being asked to step up before the next disaster strikes by overhauling our Nation's flood insurance program.

I was talking with a member of my staff walking over here about how long ago this National Flood Insurance Program was created. It has been 40 years. As I recall from my Bible study as a youngster, that is about how long Moses led the children of Israel through the wilderness trying to look for the Promised Land.

We have been looking for the ``Promised Land'' with respect to the right balance of premiums, risk abatement, flood mapping--you name it-- we have been looking for the ``Promised Land'' for the National Flood Insurance Program for about 40 years.

For the first 25, maybe 35 years, 37 years of the program, we kind of muddled along. The program pretty much paid for itself but not entirely. There were some efforts back some 20 years ago to actually change the program to try to bring it into the 21st century, and we ultimately were not successful.

About almost 3 years ago--remember the story of the Red Sea, the children of Israel going through the Red Sea in hot pursuit by the Egyptians? The Israelis made it through and the Egyptians did not, as I recall. About 3 years ago, as to the National Flood Insurance Program, we did not make it through the ``Red Sea.'' In fact, we did not make it through Katrina. In fact, the program was engulfed by water, by floodwaters, and to the tune of about $20 billion. That is the amount of money FEMA had to borrow from the Treasury in order to try to write this program. Now we are spending more money. The program is marginally self-supporting. We have a huge interest payment to make on it, the $20 billion loaned by the Federal Government.

So, in any event, enough of my Biblical analogies today. But actually it is not a bad one. We need to find the ``Promised Land.''

I am encouraged today by the debate on this bill. It is a good bill. It was worked on a year ago in the Banking Committee. It was reported out. It got through the House, got through the Senate, and died. We cannot let that happen again.

But when the flood insurance program was established some 40 years ago, it was established as a three-pronged program involving three things: One, insurance; two, mapping, flood maps; and, three, smart land use.

Today, that same flood insurance program provides insurance to more than 5 million property owners across America.

Before Hurricane Katrina, as I said earlier, the flood insurance program was marginally self-supporting. But the now famous 2005 hurricane season, which included Katrina--not only Katrina but other big storms as well--caused the folks at FEMA to go out and borrow $20 billion from the Treasury. When the Treasury lends $20 billion to FEMA, they do not say: Here, take $20 billion tax free or interest free.

You have to pay the interest. The interest on that debt eats up a big part of the premiums paid by those 5 million property owners.

For 20 years prior to Katrina, the flood insurance program needed to be reformed. It needed to be overhauled. This week, finally, at long last, we can do that, and I hope we will.

Some 20 years ago, I was in the House of Representatives, a Congressman and a member of the House Banking Committee. At that time, Hurricane Hugo was bearing down on the east coast. I was part--along with some of my other Banking Committee colleagues in the House--of an effort to overhaul the National Flood Insurance Program two decades ago.

At the time, we were concerned about a couple matters. We were concerned about the low participation in the flood insurance program. We were concerned that too few people were participating. That meant too big a risk, in my book, for the homeowners as well as the Federal Government, which often bore the cost.

At the time, I proposed to increase participation by requiring mortgage lenders to escrow flood insurance payments, just like they escrow payments for homeowners insurance.

In addition to the low participation rate, we were also concerned that a small percentage of properties had been responsible for more than one-third of all claims, costing roughly $200 million each year to rebuild or repair properties.

To help correct this, our proposal back then included a call for floodproofing or removing from the program high-risk properties, while reserving a small amount of funds collected from the flood insurance premiums to pay for this.

In addition, in 1988, 1989, we sought to limit new construction in coastal areas that were quickly eroding. Our proposal also sought higher risk-based premiums for those who lived in the most vulnerable locations.

In 1989, a bill to reform the flood insurance program passed both the House and the Senate. It was not as far-reaching as the original proposal I and others worked on. I called it at the time ``flood insurance reform lite,'' but it was, nonetheless, a step in the right direction. But, unfortunately, that modest bill never made it to the President's desk, and for almost another 20 years the flood insurance program has continued pretty much as it was--broken and in need of repair.

Last year, the Senate Banking Committee, under the leadership of Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, approved a truly comprehensive flood insurance reform bill. This is not ``flood insurance reform lite.'' This is the real deal. There is nothing ``lite'' about it.

Unfortunately, the bill we approved was reported out, came to the Senate floor and stalled and was withdrawn. I think I said earlier our legislation a year ago passed the House and Senate. I was thinking about 20 years ago. That legislation passed the House and Senate, only to die, as I recall, in conference. This flood insurance reform initiative started last year made it to the Senate floor and stalled out.

Today, the Senate has the opportunity to breathe new life into this badly needed legislation. It is imperative we seize the day or, as we say in Delaware, carpe diem: seize the day.

Where are we today? Today, almost 3 years after Hurricane Katrina, and almost 20 years since our attempts in the late 1980s, we have another chance to put the National Flood Insurance Program on solid footing.

So what are our main concerns in 2008? Well, the low subscription rate, for one. The relatively small number of properties that continue to flood year after year is another. And the subsidized premiums that do not reflect the vulnerability of many properties insured under the program remain a big concern.

We need legislation that will require us to better consider where we build

and rebuild in this country, how we build, and how we allocate risk.

The bill that is before us today, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2008, is a bipartisan bill, reported unanimously out of the Senate Banking Committee about a year ago.

I wish to take a moment, if I can, to highlight some components of this bill, some of the major aspects of this bill.

The devastating 2005 hurricanes resulted in FEMA, as I said earlier, borrowing almost $20 billion from the Treasury to pay flood claims. That is more than the flood insurance program has paid out in its entire history. In order to pay their claims, Congress increased FEMA's statutory borrowing authority from about $1.5 billion to some $20 billion. Annual interest on this debt owed by FEMA to the Treasury is about $1 billion a year.

In order to pay the interest on the current debt, flood insurance premiums would have to increase significantly. To prevent that, this bill takes the step of forgiving $20 billion of debt owed by FEMA to the Treasury. This bill also requires that FEMA set aside in a reserve fund an amount equal to 1 percent of all insurance in force to serve as a financial buffer for future disasters. This bill mandates that more property owners be required to purchase flood insurance, including those who live behind levees and dams and property owners in the 100- year flood plain.

Homes in flood plains are in greater danger of flooding, even if there is a levee. Families need to be protected whether the levee works or not. This bill requires that property owners pay the actuarial rate.

No longer will vacation homes and businesses be allowed to pay a subsidized rate, as they have been under the program for years. This is a fair and needed change. Why should vacation homes and businesses pay less than the residents who sit adjacent to them?

Perhaps, most importantly, this bill will compel FEMA to modernize its flood maps. Technology now allows the creation for exact detailed flood maps. Because many of these maps are now decades old, we do not even know who is in danger of flooding and who needs flood insurance in many cases. This has to change. Under this bill, it will.

Again, this bill is a bipartisan product. It seeks to move the flood insurance program to the 21st century before the next ``Katrina'' strikes.

We have been joined on the floor by Senator Shelby. I know it is something that is near and dear to his heart. He and I actually served on the House Banking Committee a few years ago. I think he may have actually come to the Senate by the time we were working on this legislation in the House at the time. I know this is something he cares a lot about, and he has been heavily involved in shaping this legislation that is before us today. I especially commend him for the good work he has done.

But for almost 20 years I have worked, along with a bunch of my colleagues, to make some meaningful reforms--badly needed meaningful reforms--to the flood insurance program.

Katrina exposed the problems with this program. Actually, we were aware of them before that time, but it showed the problems for what they are. Now it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and finally fix this program.

Abraham Lincoln used to say: The job for Government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. This program is a good example of that. People cannot go to the private sector--homeowners, businesses cannot go to the private sector--and get the kind of flood insurance this legislation provides. This is taking Lincoln's admonition to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves and actually put it into law. It has been part of the law for 40 years. We can do better, and we need to do better with respect to this program. That was driven home very clearly in the summer of 2005.

Going back to my Old Testament example, it has been 40 years since this legislation was passed. For 40 years, those children of Israel were following Moses, trying to find the Promised Land. We have been looking for it too in terms of actually the right kind of language, the right kind of legislation, the right kind of law to meet the insurance needs for folks--businesses, homes, and residents--who face the danger of floods. It has taken us 40 years to get it right. This is an effort I have been involved in for 20 of those years.

Looking out across from the ``mountaintop'' today, I see the ``Promised Land,'' and I see the ``Promised Land'' written on a piece of paper that we are going to be voting on today and tomorrow. My hope is a couple days from now--if we do not finish this legislation today-- we are going to pass it and we are going to send it over to our friends in the House of Representatives and they will take it up and move it expeditiously.

We can do good for the taxpayers of this country who are literally having to underwrite the cost of this program, and they should not be doing that. We are going to better protect the folks whose businesses and homes are at risk, and we will do it in a way that harnesses common sense, harnesses economic forces and market forces. That will be a very good result.

Mr. President, I yield back the floor.

Mr. President, Senators Kennedy and Enzi have recently said that early in 2008 the Senate will consider whether to authorize No Child Left Behind.

That law, which was enacted in 2001 as a part of the regular 5-year reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, required every State to set standards for math and reading and to test each child once a year in grades 3 through 8, and once in high school, in order to measure their progress toward meeting these State standards. In addition, the law requires States to report the results in a disaggregated way, meaning according to racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status, disability, and limited English proficiency, report the status of the children so it would be clearer whether groups of children are being left behind in their academic progress.

So my purpose today is, first, to announce my support for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act but ask that we find a better way to do the job of reporting results. We should be trying to catch schools doing things right rather than seeming to penalize them for doing things wrong.

Second, to introduce legislation providing for greater flexibility in administering the law for up to a dozen States, if those States agree to maintain a high level or increase the rigor of the program, their standard-setting process, and reporting requirements.

Third, to express my concerns about early drafts and proposals of reauthorizing legislation that seem to require more Federal control and less State responsibility for results--the reverse of what we should be seeking to achieve.

Finally, I wish to call attention to several parts of the legislation that need to be strengthened and expanded: Support for teaching American history; the Teacher Incentive Fund; charter schools, which I know the Presiding Officer has been very interested in for a long time; and State collection of data to aid States in measuring student progress.

First, support for reauthorization. I have decided to cosponsor the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007, which has been authored by Senators Burr and Gregg, because I believe it represents a sound foundation for eventual reauthorization of the legislation. This legislative draft leaves in place the framework of the 2001 law: high goals, State standards, and disaggregated reporting of results, and it addresses some obvious deficiencies in the existing legislation, including more flexibility in helping children learn English, in measuring the progress of children with disabilities, and in how to report the progress of children who make great progress but still fall behind their goals. This bill--the Burr-Gregg bill--does not retreat from the bold goal that all children will be proficient in reading and math according to each State's standards by the 2013-2014 school year. Some have argued that sets schools up for failure. I would argue it is the American way to set high goals and then to

attempt to reach them. Our Declaration of Independence does not say ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' for 80 percent of us. Our national character is not that some things are possible. Rightly or wrongly, we Americans uniquely believe that anything is possible for all of us, and much of our politics and debates in this body are about dealing with the disappointment of not reaching high goals that we set for ourselves, and then, of course, we set out and try again to achieve them.

I do think we would be wise to find a different way to talk about the progress of schools in reaching those high goals. Most schools, at least today, are succeeding in reaching their State's No Child Left Behind standards. There are more than 100,000 schools in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education, over 20 percent of those--21,000--did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those 21,000 schools, about one-fourth missed their goals by one subgroup of students.

The same is true in Tennessee. According to our Department of Education, there are 1,710 public schools. There were 245--or 15 percent--which did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those, 127 didn't do it because of one subgroup.

Therefore, I suggest we find a different way to talk about progress. Schools that reach their goals might be called ``high-achieving schools.'' Schools that do so for more than 1 year in a row might be called the ``highest achieving schools.'' Schools that, on the other hand, miss their goal by only one subgroup might be called ``achieving schools,'' and those that do not do as well might be called priority schools.

Second: A new State contract for flexibility. I am introducing today the State Student Achievement Contract which I will work to make a part of No Child Left Behind. The idea is simple: Now that we have 5 years of experience with No Child Left Behind, we should toss the ball back to at least some States and see whether those States can implement the law with at least as much rigor in reporting, more flexibility, and more innovation.

I know if the Presiding Officer and I were still Governors of our respective States, we would want to try that over the next 5 years.

This proposal would allow up to 12 States to negotiate with the U.S. Secretary of Education to enter into a State student achievement contract, which would permit States to improve their own systems of accountability, and in exchange, receive the necessary flexibility to innovate on finding ways to close the achievement gap.

In other words, instead of saying: ``Do it exactly this way'' to the States, the Federal Government would be saying: ``Give us results, and we will give you more flexibility.''

In determining which States would be eligible for this new contract, the Secretary would expect States to increase their standards, assessments, and expectations of students.

Washington, DC, itself is not going to make schools better in Wilmington, Maryville, Kansas City, and Sacramento. This can only happen locally, when parents, teachers, communities, and State officials take charge. In fact, No Child Left Behind is simply an extension of the State standards movement that began in the 1980s in most States. While it requires the setting of standards and requires public reporting, the solution to the problem of low-achieving students is left in the hands of communities, where it must be left. In fact, only 8 percent of funding of public schools comes from the Federal Government.

So this proposal seeks to recognize that solutions are local, to encourage those States that are trying the boldest programs, and to permit the flexibility needed to achieve those results.

Third, creeping Federal control. One reason I have introduced the State contract proposal is I don't want the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to become a vehicle for increased Federal control of local schools. In fact, now that the first 5 years of confusion and learning the new law are completed, there ought to be fewer Federal requirements, not more. After all, the law is essentially a requirement for State standards and reporting disaggregated results.

But, unfortunately, Washington doesn't work that way. Our motto seems to be: Once we have stuck our noses into something, we will meddle with it forever. In some of the early drafts of No Child Left Behind, I have seen examples of increased Federal regulation that in my view offer the prospect of more Federal control and less local accountability. It ought to be the other way around.

Finally, there are three special provisions of No Child Left Behind that, based upon the first 5 years' experience, need to be expanded.

One, teaching American history. The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said the rationale for a public school is to teach immigrant children the three Rs and what it means to be an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. Yet the lowest test scores for American high school seniors is not math or reading or science, it is U.S. history. Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and I have worked to create some new provisions for this reauthorization which would encourage putting the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. These provisions include: The teaching traditional American history provision. That was put in 5 years ago. It is a program of grants to school districts to encourage professional development and teaching of American history. It has been very successful. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have had a major part in this law.

Next, Presidential and congressional academies. The pilot programs for these summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of American history have been low cost and very successful. It is my hope that in a partnership with States and the private sector, these can be expanded to a total of 100 each summer. They are very much similar to the Governors' schools many States have for students and for teachers. David McCullough has suggested perhaps we can match up the 10-year centennial program for national parks with these summer programs for students and teachers of U.S. history. Imagine what it would be like for a group of U.S. history teachers to spend a week with David McCullough at the Adams House in Quincy, MA.

Finally, a 10-State pilot program in U.S. history NAEP. Currently, the National Assessment of Education Progress--the Nation's report card--only measures student achievement in history every 4 years. We don't get State-level data; only a national sample of student achievement. Senator Kennedy and I have offered legislation to create a 10-State pilot program so there can be State-level data for 10 States, which will reflect the importance of this subject to our Nation and call attention to student progress or lack thereof in American history.

A second area of special emphasis that ought to be considered when we reauthorize No Child Left Behind is the Teacher Incentive Fund. After parents, nothing is more important to a child's success than the classroom teacher. In every hearing we have in the Senate, a witness emphasizes the need to attract specially equipped teachers for math, for science, for children with disabilities, for inner-city schools, for gifted students, and other special needs. Yet we struggle in this country with an across-the-board pay mentality that will not allow schools to lift themselves up when it comes to attracting and keeping outstanding classroom teachers.

Finding fair ways to pay teachers more for teaching well is not easy. I have tried it. But during the last 5 years, the Teacher Incentive Fund has helped at least three dozen cities, usually working with local teachers' unions, to find new ways to train and reward outstanding teachers and principals. We need to do as much of this as we possibly can. I wish to thank and acknowledge Senator Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, for working with me to make certain that appropriations for this program continue.

Then, charter schools. I mentioned earlier the Presiding Officer was a national leader on charter schools when he was Governor of Delaware. Last year, I visited a charter school in Memphis. It was the Easter holiday, except those ninth graders weren't on vacation, they were in class. To be specific, they were in a ninth grade advanced

placement biology class. What was special was these children had come from so-called low-performing schools. To be blunt, they were labeled the least likely to succeed, except they were succeeding. This was because they were getting extra help during holidays, longer school days, Saturdays, and from special teachers.

The idea of a public charter school is simply to give teachers the freedom to use their common sense and their skills to help the children who are presented to them--freedom from Federal, State, and union rules so they can do it. It is nonsensical to me that we don't encourage, rather than discourage, such public charter schools.

Most of our children are learning, but for the 15 percent or so who are having genuinely special challenges in learning, it will take different kinds of schools, even better teachers and different methods. In this reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, we must do all of these things to cause that to happen.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter addressed to Senator Kennedy be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I compliment the minority leader for stepping forward on the issue of meeting the energy needs of our country and the provision he has just proposed as an amendment to this particular bill.

I think it is very important that we move forward with creating more sources for energy. We have done a lot in this Congress to encourage and promote the development of renewable energy resources. In fact, as chairman and founder of the Energy Renewable Caucus, I have pushed that personally. I think it is extremely important. We have done a lot to promote this new technology, but the reality is, if we want to see pain at the pump immediately relieved, we have to do more.

What we do in the particular amendment that was introduced by the minority leader, we begin to open the more traditional sources of energy that we have here in this country--sources that are supported by an infrastructure that is already in place. Although we do need more of it, there is some degree of it already there. Also, it is supported by technology we have already pretty well developed, to one extent or another, although more technological advances need to be done. Those are the

traditional sources we find in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where we have more than 1.2 trillion barrels of oil, and the Outer Continental Shelf, the extent of whose value and resources is huge. I don't know as anybody has ever been able to really anticipate how great are the resources we have, because we have a huge amount.

The provision also provides for opening the oil shale reserves we have in the State of Colorado--it is not only the State of Colorado, it is in the State of Utah and Wyoming. I am told we have well over a trillion barrels of petroleum that could be extracted from this resource. There is a total of somewhere around 1.7 trillion in that basin. Totally in the United States, we have well over 2 trillion barrels of shale.

The technology has been developed now where, in my State, the companies that have been working on it--primarily Shell--have indicated they have come up with a pretty high-quality jet fuel. It needs some additional refining, with sulfur and nitrogen. This particular amendment begins to address that.

In addition, we suspend the filling of the Petroleum Reserve. Right now, I am told there are about 70,000 barrels of oil being put in that Reserve on a daily basis. That will reduce the consumption of the petroleum products we have.

Also, it repeals permitting and drilling fees that have acted as a disincentive for oil companies and gas producers when this particular provision was passed in the 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill. Also, it encourages coal-to-liquid fuels and also talks about increasing our refinery capacity.

Right now, with all the various blends of fuel--some States have mandated 15 percent, in some cases as high as 20 percent--each time you have a different blend requirement mandated by a State, you have one refinery that gets dedicated to that particular blend. So we have a number of different States that are driving different blends of fuel. Then you have a different requirement for diesel fuel. What you do is you create a shortage of refiners. It kind of funnels down, and then, even if you increase production, you don't have the refineries available to kick out the particular blends we need to meet demands.

We need to do a lot in advancing our battery technology. Where you have intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, the Sun doesn't shine all the time, the wind doesn't blow all the time. We need to have a good battery technology that will carry and supply energy at the times we don't have the adequate supply of wind and solar to carry on the demands on that particular system.

We need to work more on biofuels. I am very excited. We put in incentives in this particular amendment to address that. I am excited; in Colorado, we have a biodiesel plant that takes the oil and grease and fats from restaurants, puts it together, and comes out with a biodiesel. It is a self-sustaining plant; they use the diesel they generate back into the plant to run their own electricity. It could be independent of the power lines, could be a stand-alone facility. It also helps us get rid of a byproduct out there that is a problem for our county dumps and whatnot. The exciting thing about this particular technology is it is to the point where they do not have to have government subsidies, which I think is a huge jump.

I mentioned the oil shale moratorium, removing that, which was in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill.

It also provides some reasonable approaches to the regulatory process so we can increase production on an emergency basis because we are facing an emergency situation in this country with the high prices we are facing here in America--and all over the world, as a matter of fact.

We all know the Senate has limited time left this year to debate important legislation. It is becoming more apparent and more clear to me that the Democratic leadership is staunchly opposed to doing anything that would alleviate the seemingly endless upward pressure on energy prices. That is why I am so excited about the fact that the minority leader has introduced this amendment.

Given their unyielding desire to increase taxes on much of the energy industry, I can only assume that the Democrats in Congress believe that steadily increasing energy prices provides political fodder upon which they can capitalize. Democrats in both Chambers appear beholden to the environmentalist agenda, a radical agenda that wholly disregards America's economy. Oblivious to prices at the pump and indifferent to from whom we import our oil, far-left environmentalists and their cohorts in Congress are failing their duty to the American public. The Congress has stymied efforts to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, trillions of barrels of oil, and prevented the construction of new refineries, new powerplants, and hydroelectric facilities. This is bad policy.

America's economy may be struggling, but despite hard times, American businesses and consumers still demand energy. In oil alone, we consume over 20 million barrels a day. Since we only produce over 8 million barrels a day, the gap must be made up by purchasing oil from hostile and undemocratic nations such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria to meet our energy needs. We spend over half a trillion dollars each year importing foreign oil and it is far past time to rectify this unhealthy dependency.

The global price for petroleum reaches new highs every day and petroleum-related import have caused our trade deficit to increase by billions of dollar, According to a study by the Congressional Research Service in 2005 and 2006 alone, our trade deficit rose by $120 billion. As oil prices continue to rise and domestic energy production is further obstructed, America's trade balance will only fall deeper into the red.

As a senator from energy rich Colorado, I am on the front lines of the battle to increase our domestic energy production.

The Democrats continue to delay efforts to tap into a natural gas reserve below the Naval Oil Shale Reserve--often referred to as the Roan Plateau--that contains approximately 8.9 trillion cubic feet. We need this clean source of energy now.

Moreover, below the vast lands of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming lies roughly 1.5 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. This amount dwarfs the reserves of Arabia and other petro-rich nations and new technologies that are continually emerging would allow us to responsibly extract this oil to help meet our demands. The benefits to Colorado and the American economy would be tremendous.

Something else that I don't believe we're talking enough about is the economics of this. Colorado, just like every other state is trying to find a way to pay for the many responsibilities and priorities set by the state legislature. Taxpayers are tapped out and there are still shortfalls. I would think that an infusion from a steady income source would be welcome. The BLM estimate that Federal royalties from production of natural gas within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve would be $857 million to $1.13 billion over the next 20 years.

Because these royalties are split with the state we are talking about--probably conservatively--$400 to $500 million going to Colorado. I think our school districts benefits from that kind of money.

I think that local police forces, fire departments, hospitals, roads and other state and community services benefit from that kind of money. I think the taxpayer benefits from that kind of money.

All of us here also know that national environmentalist groups have succeeded in pressuring members of Congress to mandate a lock down of what could be an immense treasure chest of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only have these groups subverted the widespread local support of Alaskans by prohibiting the potential extraction of oil, environmentalists stubbornly resist even moving forward with comprehensive testing that could result in the environmentally responsible development of parts of the ANWR.

There could be 5 to 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil there. There could also be much more, or much less. The point is we do not know because extremist environmentalists have convinced their friends in the House and the Senate to prevent us from finding that out. It makes one wonder what they are afraid we might find.

Moving to another part of the country, in April, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that 3 to 4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil exists below North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation. This is 25 times more than what was estimated to exist in 1995.

These numbers are staggering and there are other examples where our aversion to responsible development defies common sense. Of course, we must continue our dedicated efforts to explore alternative sources of energy to meet our demand.

We have long advocated for a more diversified energy portfolio. But I do believe it is possible to develop sections of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, extract natural gas from the Rocky Mountains west and harvest resources in economically feasible ways that also protect our natural wonders.

We should not take increased production of any domestic energy source off the table. The longer we completely deny access to domestic supply, the more we exacerbate our current energy shortages. Possibly most concerning to me is the fact that the less we are able to produce our own energy sources, the more we will rely on foreign and possibly hostile sources for it.

We cannot solve the problem of soaring gas prices facing Americans today with any one solution, but we certainly should not allow the relentless push or environmentalists' narrow agenda to make this crisis even worse.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to wrap up my comments.

Yesterday the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $3.62. What will the average gallon of gasoline in America have to cost for the leadership in Congress to step up to the plate with a comprehensive solution for consumers?

It is time for Congressional leaders to be a part of the solution and not the problem. It is time to put every idea on the table and responsibly develop some of the vast energy resources we have right here at home. It is time for common sense to prevail.

I yield the floor.