Wolf Livestock Loss Prevention and Mitigation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak today on an issue that is on the forefront of most Americans' minds this week, and that is the issue of tax day. Yesterday was the filing deadline, April 15, which comes around every year, and for most Americans it is greeted with a great deal of trepidation and anxiety.

April 15 represents the annual call of Uncle Sam, the tax collector, knocking on the doors of hard-working taxpayers, and it highlights the real tax burden that is placed on American families.

This year, Americans will work 74 days to pay their Federal taxes, 74 days to pay their Federal tax burden alone. In order to pay State and local taxes, Americans will work an average of 39 additional days. What that means is that the typical hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding American in this country will have to work an average of 113 days to pay taxes in 2008.

If we look at a calendar, that pretty much takes care of the months of January, February, March, and April, up to the 23rd of this month. If you think about it, every American is still working this year to pay the tax man. They have not gotten to that point in the tax year when everything they make can then be dedicated to the expenses they have for their families, for their children's education, for retirement, for fuel costs--all the things we deal with in our daily lives. We are still at a point on the calendar where none of what we make can be applied to those necessities of life because we are still at a point on the calendar where everything we earn and make in this country is dedicated to paying the tax man. Literally 113 days of the calendar year of this year up until April 23, which will be next week, is dedicated to pay the tax man.

What does that mean? Another perspective: If you put it into an 8- hour work day, taxpayers are going to work 1 hour and 37 minutes every single day to pay Federal taxes, and an additional 51 minutes to pay State and local taxes.

Put that into perspective. All other categories of consumer spending pale in comparison to the annual tax burden. In fact, Americans only need to work 60 days to pay for annual housing costs, 50 days for health and medical care, 35 days to pay for their annual costs, and 29 days to pay for transportation.

So the expenses most people deal with in their every-day lives, whether, again, that is the cost of housing, health care, food, or transportation--all are basic necessities--pale in comparison to the number of days the American taxpayer works every single year to pay their tax burden.

That is a pretty remarkable chart, I think you would have to say, when you look at the tax burden and the number of days you have to pay relative to the things we spend the rest of our money on.

This year, the statistics are probably better, if you can imagine that, than they were a few years ago. In 2000, before the historic tax cuts took effect, taxpayers had to work an all-time high

of 123 days to pay their tax burden. We have gone from 123 days down to 113 days.

In that same year 2000, a record 33.6 percent of the Nation's income was dedicated to paying taxes. After the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Americans were able to work an average of two fewer weeks to meet their Federal tax burden. That is why we find the average American working 113 days to meet their tax liability as opposed to 123 days a few short years ago. That is attributable to the tax relief that was enacted in 2001 and 2003.

Aside from paying taxes, filling out tax returns is a burden in and of itself. We have a Tax Code that is out of control, out of date, and is imploding under its own weight. The U.S. Tax Code spans over 54,000 pages. Some of the current provisions of the code were created 40 years ago. Each year individuals, families, and businesses spend needless hours poring over IRS forms and regulations trying to make sense of the endless exercise of filing taxes. In fact, in total, taxpayers dedicate over 6 billion hours to file their taxes and spend over $140 billion a year in compliance costs.

I read a story a couple of days ago that those who still fill out their own tax returns take an average of 34 hours to do so. That is almost a week. That is a workweek almost for most people to comply or fill out the tax return--for those who still fill out their own tax returns.

Bear in mind that a lot of Americans have gotten to the point where it is so complex, burdensome, and complicated they turn it over to a tax preparer. For those who still fill out their tax returns, 34 hours is the average they spend in complying with the Tax Code in this country.

Ironically, the complexity and uncertainty of filing taxes is only amplified by congressional action. Since 1986, we have made--I say we, the Congress--have made 15,000 changes to our Tax Code, or approximately 2 every single day. Many of these changes focus on 1- or 2-year extensions of expiring provisions.

For example, last year, Congress was unable to extend the alternative minimum tax until the IRS had published its 2007 tax return forms. Because of this delay, 13.5 million taxpayers had to wait until February 11 to file forms relative to the alternative minimum tax.

Only Congress can create a complex tax provision, such as the alternative minimum tax, and actually make it more complicated by extending it after the IRS publication deadline.

Unfortunately, the congressional leadership is simply either oblivious or unsympathetic to the tax burden on American families. Last month, the Senate Democrats called for the largest tax increase in American history. Under the Democratic budget, the reduced individual tax rates are set to expire in 20 months.

As millions of Americans have now finished coping with this year's April 15 deadline, I think it is important to point out that this deadline is going to be even more painful under the Democratic budget that passed the Senate earlier this year.

If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not extended, on January 1, 2011, the 10-percent tax bracket will expire, the tax bracket that was put into effect that impacts low-income earners, lowers their tax liability and took literally millions of American taxpayers completely off the tax rolls. The 25-percent tax bracket that currently applies to earners in that tax rate bracket is going to go up to 28 percent. The 28- percent tax rate will increase to 31 percent. The 33-percent tax rate will increase to 36 percent. And the 35-percent tax rate will increase to 39.9 percent.

On top of the increased tax rates that will happen on January 1, 2010, unless we take steps to extend and prevent those tax cuts from expiring, the increased child tax credit will expire as well. Families with children are going to see their tax burden increase substantially when the $1,000 tax credit is reduced to $500 after the year 2010.

Additionally, the marriage penalty is reinstated. The 3l million filers who report dividend income and the 26 million filers who report capital gains income also will see their taxes on their investments go up.

Finally, the death tax will be reinstated at pre-2001 levels of $1 million. In other words, you can exempt $1 million worth of your income, the wealth you acquired over the years, from the death tax liability. If we think about how that impacts small businesses, farmers, and ranchers--and I can share that as someone who lives in a rural State where we have a lot of farm and ranch families. We have a lot of people with lots of assets, lots of land, lots of equipment, but they are very cash poor. When you take $1 million anymore, with land values being what they are in a place such as even my State of South Dakota, you are going to have an awful lot of people who are going to be hit very hard by the death tax when it becomes reinstated at a $1 million-level exemption.

Attach to that a maximum statutory rate of 55 percent--which, incidentally, is one of the highest death tax rates in the world. So literally you are going to have for people now who worked their whole lives--small businesses, farmers, ranchers--to accumulate some things to pass on to the next generation, all but $1 million of that would be taxed at a rate as high as 55 percent.

Think about the impact that is going to have on family farm and ranch operations in this country and many of our small businesses, which is where most of the jobs in the country are generated.

In total, the average family is going to see their taxes increase by roughly $2,300 per year. That is enough to buy several months of groceries or several months worth of health care.

It does not have to be this difficult. Congress can work in a bipartisan manner to fix our broken Tax Code and to ease the tax burden for families and small businesses.

Commissions have been convened, hearings have been held, studies have been published, and yet another tax day has passed without comprehensive tax reform.

Streamlining our Tax Code will strengthen our economy, it will improve the competitiveness of our businesses, and it will greatly ease the tax burden for all American families.

The problem is not that Washington taxes too little. The problem is that Washington spends too much. The American people, when they start spending virtually a third of their year to pay the tax burden that is imposed on them at the Federal level, the State level, and the local level, we are asking way too much and imposing way too much a burden on the working men and women in this country and those small businesses that are creating the jobs and those who are trying to pass on those operations to the next generation so we can keep family farms, ranches, and small businesses in the family, contributing, creating jobs, and paying taxes. With a confiscatory death tax, which will happen if we do not take steps to extend the tax cuts, we are going to see a lot of those farms, ranchers, and small businesses go by the wayside.

I hope the sentiment in this body, the Senate, and the House of Representatives will change to the point that we recognize the importance of extending the tax relief that was enacted in 2001 and 2003 so we do not see these steep increases in income rates and return of the marriage penalty and a decrease in the per-child tax credit, dividend, and capital gains income being taxed at much higher rates, and the death tax being reinstated. If we are successful in extending those tax cuts, I think we will see an economy that, although experiencing an economic downturn right now, will improve, will start to grow again and create jobs. If we allow these tax cuts to expire, I think it is ``Katy, bar the door'' in terms of the adverse economic consequences and impact it will have on this economy and on the working men and women of this country and the entrepreneurs who make it work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

over an hour each way is because jobs for professionals are

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

industry-related plants have closed in Hillsdale County in

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

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

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

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

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

midsized car. I urge Congress to act immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes here on a Wednesday afternoon. We are not toward the end of the week yet, but as most people know who observe the Congress and Senate in session, once you get to Wednesday afternoon, you sort of have a feel for how much you are going to be able to accomplish during the week.

I think it is fair to say we have not been able to accomplish much so far this week. This is sort of a last-ditch effort to encourage us to try to do something constructive before we leave town, before the August recess.

Let me try to put this debate in the general terms that I understand it. There are two packages of legislation that relate to our energy challenges which we have been talking about--two notional packages of legislation. One--and this is the one most of the speeches are probably about--relates to the general problem of high gas prices, which is a serious problem for all Americans. This set of speeches is not about a particular bill because we don't have a bill that has come out of any committee in the Senate dealing with this problem of high gas prices. There are bills the Republican leader has introduced on the subject, and there is the bill to deal with the part of the problem relating to speculation, which the Democratic leader has introduced, the majority leader. We have not been able to move ahead on that. There have been repeated efforts, and we have been blocked at every turn.

The other package is the one I wish to talk about. I spoke about it briefly yesterday. I wish to talk about it again because I think it is extremely important. It is, in my opinion, the most important legislation we could pass and take action on this week. This relates to the extension of various tax provisions that are currently in the law or that have been in the law but expired this last year. I will briefly talk about that.

Some of those tax provisions relate to energy. Many of them do not. Many relate to other items, other matters that are extremely important as well. Let me talk about how important this legislation is to our economy, to American jobs, and to our energy challenge as well. First, I will talk about the provisions in the tax law that expired at the end of last year. These are provisions we need to extend in order that Americans will not face substantially higher taxes when they go to pay their taxes next spring. I am talking about things such as the alternative minimum tax.

Most Americans don't have to worry about the alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, the way it is written today, unless we pass legislation such as what I will argue for here, we are going to have millions of Americans have to calculate their taxes pursuant to the AMT and actually pay increased taxes because of the alternative minimum tax this next year if we don't pass that legislation.

We have a provision for a child tax credit. You would think there would be strong support for maintaining the child tax credit that Americans believe is part of the Tax Code. Unfortunately, it expired at the end of last year. If we don't pass legislation such as what I am talking about, such as what we tried to pass earlier today, the child tax credit is not part of the law.

The qualified tuition deduction for higher education expenses, again, this is something that is very important to many families in this country who have children or where one spouse or the other is going to school and they need that tuition deduction for higher education expenses.

Also, there are the provisions for retirees to be able to make tax- free IRA rollovers to qualified charitable organizations. These are examples of provisions that Americans think are in the Tax Code--and they are, except they expired at the end of last year. We need to go ahead and legislate to reestablish those so people can take advantage of them when they file their tax returns next year.

All of that is contained in this legislation that failed earlier today on the Senate floor--failed in our efforts even to proceed to consider the legislation, in order to be specific about it.

Let me talk about the energy provision. There are also, in the tax law today, several important provisions to encourage production of energy from alternative sources--production of energy from wind farms, wind turbines, from solar concentrating facilities, and production of energy from photovoltaic cells that people put on their homes. This is legislation that was enacted--most of it--in 2005. I was honored to be present in 2005 in my home State of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, when President Bush traveled there and stood with Senator Domenici and myself and others at the time to announce that he was signing the 2005 Energy bill.

There are some who criticize that bill, but I think there were many good provisions in it, and some of those provisions are these I am talking about right now--the production tax credit for wind energy, the investment tax credit for solar energy. Those provisions, unfortunately, were only enacted through the end of 2008, and that is about, as we can all tell by looking at the calendar, 5 months down the road. So companies that are thinking of investing in projects--under the law, the way we wrote those provisions, the project has to be actually completed and in operation prior to the expiring of the tax credit in order for them to get the tax benefit.

Obviously, companies are now looking at this expiration date of December 31 coming up and they are saying: Wait a minute, hold off, we are not going to build that wind farm, we are not going to construct that concentrating solar power facility, we are not going to put those photovoltaic solar cells in place because we don't know if Congress is going to extend this provision or not extend this provision.

The vote we had earlier today is not encouraging at all in that regard because it is a signal to the business community that, in fact, Congress is not going to be able to generate the votes necessary to extend that provision.

As I understand it, all Democrats who were present voted for proceeding to the bill so we could bring it up, debate it, pass it--at least I hope pass it. I believe five of our Republican colleagues joined us in that effort. But we need more. We cannot get to the 60- vote threshold that is needed without more support from our Republican colleagues.

The arguments used against going ahead are numerous, and they are changing all the time. Let me briefly go through these arguments.

A main argument is they like the provisions, they support the provisions, they just don't like the so-called offsets. They don't like the idea that we are generating revenue somewhere else to offset the lost revenue from extending these provisions. That is the argument.

There are variations on that. One variation is, these are temporary tax provisions, and we are making changes in the Tax Code of a permanent nature in order to offset the loss of revenue. At any rate, we tried to fix that, and I think we have fixed that in the bill Senator Baucus offered earlier today.

Another argument is these are in current law. We don't want to offset anything in current law. We want to extend current law from now on even though we were not able to do it under the original budget we are operating under. So that argument is being made.

The other argument that is being made, unfortunately, at this point is that somehow or other there is a procedural advantage to refusing to allow us to deal with this legislation. There is some advantage that is being argued accrues to the Republican side in their larger debate about drilling offshore; somehow it helps their position that we ought to drill offshore if they deny us the right to extend these alternative energy tax provisions, the research and development tax provision, the child tax credit, and a variety of other provisions. I have trouble understanding that argument, but it is being made, and somehow it seems to be persuasive to an awful lot of our colleagues.

Let me briefly review the bidding here. As far as I understand, the procedure we have gone through this week is on Monday, the majority leader offered debate and votes on domestic production and other matters. I believe the Republican leader at that time indicated he would respond later.

On Tuesday, I believe Senator Vitter from Louisiana announced that he had seven amendments on energy that he would like to have considered. Tuesday afternoon, the Republican leader rejected Senator Reid's offer of four amendments on each side. Tuesday afternoon, Senator Reid stated that we would not go forward with amendments on the general subject of energy if we could not go ahead and deal with this extender package. That had to be done first, I think because of his great concern and my great concern that this is an urgent matter. This has languished too long. We need to act on it.

In the last 24 hours, we have had filibusters on this effort to move ahead with the tax extender package a couple of times. We also, of course, had a filibuster on the effort to move ahead with the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, which is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, trying to increase the level of direct assistance to low-income families in anticipation of the very high costs they are going to face this winter.

I don't know if there is a way to get the Senate to move ahead. I compliment the majority leader for the heroic effort he has been making in trying to do that. Obviously, he has not prevailed as yet.

The timeline for trying to get action on this tax extender package, or some version of it, is as follows:

In June of 2007, we had a bipartisan energy tax package that we brought to the Senate floor, and it got 57 votes. That was not enough to allow us to go ahead.

On December 13, 2007, we had a bipartisan package that got actually 59 votes. But, again, 59 votes is not enough to let us proceed in the Senate.

On April 18, we did pass a package of provisions of this type with no offset contained. That was a useful thing to do. We have been told in clear and unequivocal terms that we cannot get support to pass such a bill through the House. So we are back trying to get some agreement on how we can pass this package of tax extenders, how we can pass this package of tax provisions related to alternative energy production and related to energy conservation before we leave for the August recess.

This is a high priority. Projects are being canceled and delayed as we speak because of our inaction on this matter. I felt it important to come to the Senate floor and try to urge action once again before the week ends.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to begin by noting that, again, it is fire season in Montana.

Right now, major wildfires are threatening homes in a small town called Red Lodge. The Cascade fire has been burning and has burned about 6,000 acres. It is burning uncomfortably close to the Red Lodge Mountain ski area.

The hot, dry weather forecast over the next week means there are likely to be more fires and more acres of rangeland and forest lost.

Fire season in Montana officially runs from August until the first snow in fall. So, once again, we are off to an early start.

Wildfires are becoming a fact of the West. We accept it. We deal with it.

The good news is Montana is blessed with outstanding firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service, Tribal Nations, and the State Department of Natural Resources, as well as first responders from local volunteer and paid fire departments.

When they need reinforcements, they turn to the Montana National Guard. Last year, more than 200 guardsmen were mobilized to help fight wildfires in Montana. While no guardsmen have been mobilized yet this year, it will happen at some point--just as they are mobilized every year to protect people and homes, dig out fire lines, smother embers, and provide all manner of hands-on support to this team effort.

There are not too many jobs in this country where the work is as varied as service in our National Guard. This summer we can expect that hundreds of National Guardsmen in Montana and throughout the West will be mobilized to help fight wildfires. It has already happened in California, where the Governor called up 200 Guardsmen.

This is a vital role in our Nation's homeland security.

And just as the Guard answers the call for homeland security missions, they answer the bell when it comes to national security.

In 2004 and 2005, more than 1,500 of my State's National Guard deployed to Iraq. They did yeoman's work over there, and we can all be very proud of their service and grateful for it as well. Today, there are nearly 23,000 National Guardsmen serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another 3,000 Guardsmen from all over the country work hard to protect our southern border, helping the Border Patrol get a better handle on securing that border. Four hundred Montana Guardsmen were a proud part of that important effort earlier this year.

So as the National Guard in Montana prepares for the inevitable mobilization fight against wildfires here at home, I think it is appropriate we stop to thank the 3,500-strong members of our Montana National Guard for what they do both abroad and here at home.

As wildfires continue to threaten Montana's countryside and our communities, I wish to pay tribute to all the brave men and women who put it on the line to fight our fires.

Energy

Mr. President, I wish to comment on the energy debate we have been having in the Senate. Every Tuesday morning, for 2\1/2\ hours, I get to preside over this great body, and I get to hear folks from both sides of the aisle talk about issues of importance.

The energy debate has been particularly intriguing because I have seen folks on the other side of the aisle hold up signs that talk about drilling more and using less.

They are quick to support oil production. But on the other hand, they will not support alternative energies or conservation methods. They talk about drilling more as if it is going to change the price of gasoline tomorrow.

The fact is, the United States has less than 3 percent of the world's reserves of oil. We use 25 percent of the supply. As far as drilling goes, we are drilling now like there is no tomorrow. In fact, in Montana, you would be hard-pressed to find a drilling rig if you wanted to punch a hole.

In Montana, we have offered over 3 million acres of leasing since 2000. We have increased our oil production two and a half-fold. We have drilled 4,870 wells in the last 5 years. Yet we continually see the price of oil go up and up and up. Why? Well, a lot of it has to do with the fact that the major oil companies last year made hundreds of billions of dollars off the consumers' back.

What can we do? What can we do to help bring the price of oil down? Sure, we are going to continue to drill, and I support that effort. But we need additions to our energy portfolio. If we continue to rely on oil as our chief supplier of energy, we are going to be continuing to be beholden to Saudi Arabia and OPEC forever. That ought not be the direction we go.

My good friend, my comrade, Senator Baucus, put forth a tax extenders bill earlier today. Yesterday, we had a chance to vote on one from the House. They were both defeated. They were not allowed to move forward. There was a majority, but there was not 60 votes.

What was in that tax extenders bill? One of the things that was in it was a renewable energy tax credit extension, a continuation that would put more energy in the marketplace.

As shown on this chart, we can see what happens when we have the wind energy tax credit. The yellow bars indicate that. The orange bars indicate when it does not happen. If we have the wind energy tax credit, wind energy production goes up, and there is more

energy in the marketplace. When we don't, it does not.

Because of the vote that was taken earlier today, you will see a decrease in wind energy production--a big mistake for this country, not very visionary.

Because of the vote that took place earlier today, we not only will see wind energy grind to a halt, we will see geothermal--which we have a tremendous opportunity for throughout the country, particularly in Montana--we will see biomass, landfill gas--we have an electrical cooperative in northwestern Montana, Flathead Electric Cooperative, that is talking about capturing methane gas off the landfill to produce energy, getting something from nothing--we will not see any of that stuff go on because of the defeat of the tax extenders bill.

In that tax extenders bill, there were also long-term extensions of tax credits for solar energy and fuel cells. Solar energy: getting our energy from the Sun to help replace some of that oil from the Middle East--not going to happen. Folks talk about corn ethanol and how they don't like it. I am not one of them. But I do think we need to get the second generation of ethanol production, cellulosic ethanol. There was a credit for property in that tax extenders bill that was not agreed to earlier today. That will not happen; a biodiesel tax credit. I have talked about a camelina provision in the farm bill for biodiesel, and there are other opportunities in all sorts of oilseeds out there. The biodiesel tax credit does not happen because we did not pass that bill Senator Baucus offered earlier today.

Carbon capture and storage technology to make our coal burn cleaner. In Montana, we are the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal. We have an incredible opportunity. But without good technology to capture carbon and store it, we will never be all we can be. It would make us more energy independent.

Talk about producing more here at home: Drilling is part of the equation. But an even bigger part of the equation could have been to pass that tax extenders bill earlier today.

Let's talk about using less.

In that tax extenders bill, there were energy efficiency tax credits to help make our homes more energy efficient. It is not going to happen. There was a credit to reduce idling for truckers--that we all see happen--to save transportation fuel. It is not going to happen.

You want to talk about using less? There was a bicycling tax credit for those folks who want to ride their bicycle to work rather than to drive. It will not happen.

There were incentives for geothermal heat pumps in our homes that use less energy with more consistency. It is not going to happen.

There were energy conservation bonds for States and local school districts. The list goes on and on and on.

I ask myself: Why? Why does it have to be this way? Why aren't we looking to the future? Why are we not talking about more than drilling? The fact is, we are drilling. We are drilling an incredible amount of land in this country. It needs to be a bridge. But it needs to be a bridge to somewhere this time. If we put forth the renewable energy components that are in the tax extenders bill, we will have a future. We will have a future of affordable energy.

I ask my comrades to pass that tax extenders bill. It is incredibly important. It is not just because of energy that it is important.

Secure Rural Schools

Finally, I wish to talk about the security of rural schools. These are payments to Montana's rural communities and forested counties that have an incredible amount of public lands.

The Secure Rural Schools dollars are important not only for the school but also for our roads and our rural counties. Montana is rich in public lands. Consequently, it puts more pressure on property taxes of private property in those counties. With the Secure Rural Schools money, it gives those rural and forested counties the opportunity to meet the needs of the kids in these rural districts and to meet the needs of the transportation industry in those rural districts. We all know that less money for rural schools means lower teacher pay, bigger classroom size, fewer activities, and students start to fall behind.

County road workers right now are being laid off. I spoke with the head of the Montana Association of Counties. He said to the counties: Take your budgets and utilize them as if this money is not going to happen because it is not until we pass the tax extenders programs.

We had the opportunity in this body today and yesterday to pass a good bill that meets the needs of America's families, small businesses, and the economy. It was not passed. There are all sorts of excuses for it, but they are simply that: excuses. We need to move forward with some proactive thinking in this body. I hope the next time this bill hits this floor, it is passed and passed by a large margin.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION AND HUMAN

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Today we recognize the contributions of two members of that original committee, the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and Republican Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. Both made and continue to make contributions in the war on hunger.

It was 40 years ago that CBS television aired a landmark documentary entitled, ``Hunger in America.'' This documentary exposed the magnitude of hunger that existed all across the Nation. For the first time, Americans got a closeup look at the true faces of hunger--pregnant women and children who were malnourished, infants dying of starvation, starving tenant farmers living just miles from this Nation's Capitol. Their stories and their faces moved the Congress to try to end hunger.

It was just last month that I was privileged to have the opportunity to sit down with Senator McGovern to talk about the challenge of combating hunger still today. As we were sitting talking, he related to me a story, 40 years later, that still has had a profound effect on him all these years later. The evening of that CBS television documentary broadcast I spoke of, the evening that was on, Senator

McGovern and his family were gathered around the television set watching the documentary. Senator McGovern still vividly remembers the effect one particular image from this documentary had on him at that time.

The image was that of a school-age boy leaning against a wall while most of his classmates ate lunch. The interviewer in the documentary asked the boy how he felt standing there, day after day, watching the other children eat.

His answer was not that he was angry or bitter but, rather, that he was ashamed.

At that moment, Senator McGovern recalls telling his family that he, George McGovern, as a Senator, and not that boy was the one who should have been ashamed. I think what that shows is the humility and decency of George McGovern, first of all. But I think what he tried to convey to me in our conversation was that young person's response in that documentary--a person who was a victim of not having enough to eat-- that response had such a profound effect on Senator George McGovern that he returned to the Senate the very next day and began working on a resolution to establish a committee to address hunger in this country. Forty years ago today, that resolution was, indeed, enacted, establishing the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs.

Senator McGovern chaired the committee from the time of its inception in 1968 until 1977, when the committee was absorbed into the Agriculture Committee, the committee we know today as the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, chaired by Senator Tom Harkin.

Senator McGovern was committed to exposing the failure of Federal food assistance programs at that time and making reforms to ensure that these programs were reaching those most in need. But knowing this was a goal he could not achieve on his own, he reached across the aisle to form a key partnership with Senator Bob Dole, a partnership and an abiding friendship, I might add, that continues to this very day. Despite their differences, both these men share the conviction that ending hunger is a moral imperative. Working together, Senators McGovern and Dole set out to end hunger in America. Their work helped educate the Congress, the Federal Government, and the Nation at large about the sheer magnitude of hunger in the United States. Over the next decade, they and other members of this unique Senate committee developed a bipartisan response to hunger and laid the foundation of our current food assistance programs.

Among their chief successes was reforming the Food Stamp Program, culminating in the passage of the Food Stamp Reform Act of 1977. This act made the program more efficient and more accessible to those most in need by finally eliminating the requirement that Americans pay for a portion of their own food stamps.

They expanded the National School Lunch Program and made the School Breakfast Program, the Childcare Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program permanent programs in our Government; and they established the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known today by the acronym WIC.

Forty years later, the programs that Senators McGovern and Dole championed and shepherded through the Senate have succeeded in eliminating the most serious chronic malnutrition in the United States. Today, nearly 28 million Americans receive food stamps, more than 17.5 million low-income children receive free or reduced school meals, and more than 8 million women and children receive WIC benefits.

The legacy of Senators McGovern and Dole is truly a testament to what can be achieved when we work in a bipartisan fashion on shared priorities that address the basic needs of the American people.

These two men came from vastly different ends of the political spectrum and vehemently disagreed on many other issues, but they came together and both agreed that hunger was and is an issue that transcends partisan politics. The bipartisan spirit with which these two men collaborated to fight hunger has certainly served as a model and a inspiration to me and I know to many others in Congress.

Following their example of bipartisanship, this year on the farm bill we were able to provide a record level of nutrition funding to reform and strengthen Federal nutrition programs. We were able to make key improvements to the Food Stamp Program itself, and we were able to strengthen the domestic food assistance safety net by providing significant increased funding to increase commodity purchases for local area food banks.

But we all know the war on hunger requires constant vigilance and we must recognize that unmet needs still exist in America. Despite the existence of Federal food programs, hunger continues to be a serious problem plaguing more than 35.5 million Americans, including 12.6 million children.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of hunger. Even mild malnutrition can have adverse impacts on health, development, behavior, school attendance and performance and self-esteem as well. In the coming year, we will have an opportunity to have a direct impact on combating child hunger with reauthorization of the National School Lunch Act. This legislation, which is set to expire September 30, 2009, authorizes all Federal child nutrition programs.

One of the most important reforms that can be enacted is to expand the school breakfast program. With 30 million children a day participating in the school lunch program, only one-third or 10 million children receive a school breakfast. We must find innovative ways to reach more of these children to get them breakfast.

There is a direct link between school breakfast and academic achievement, and if the United States is going to compete effectively in a new world economy, we must educate our children and to do that we must provide the best possible nutrition at school.

We must also recognize that many low-income working parents with children are struggling to afford even the low fees charged for reduced-price school meals. According to the School Nutrition Association, approximately 1 million children in this country are eligible for reduced-price meals and yet are not participating in the program due to the cost barrier. We must devise ways to ensure these children, too, are receiving proper nutritional assistance at school and do not fall through the cracks.

But providing adequate nutrition to the children during the school year is only part of the answer. Congress also needs to implement changes to ensure that the millions of children who rely upon school meals are not left behind during the summer. Currently, only 2 in 10 children who benefit from school meals also receive meals during the summer months. We must find ways to make programs such as the Summer Food Service Program more accessible to children, not only in metro areas but in rural areas as well.

Data from the USDA's Economic Research Service shows that as far back as at least 1970, the percentage of children living in poverty in rural areas consistently exceeds that of children in metro or urban areas.

A bill I have introduced with Senator Specter, my colleague from Pennsylvania, S. 1755, the Summer Food Service Rural Explanation Act, would lower the threshold for feeding sites in rural areas to qualify for this program.

We hope to help to ensure the availability of summer meals for more of these children living in poverty who happen to live in rural areas. We know that hunger itself does not take a vacation, and we owe it to these children to ensure that the Food Assistance Program does not take a vacation either.

Finally, Congress must continue to improve the quality of all nutrition assistance programs. One of the great ironies of the current challenge is to recognize that hunger and obesity can exist at the same time.

While we recognize we are facing huge Federal deficits, we must refuse to let funding challenges serve as an impediment to these critical changes. There is not a more important domestic social objective facing us in the coming years than to provide adequate nutrition to children across America.

Finally, Senators Dole and McGovern blazed a path 40 years ago when they joined to help fight the war on hunger. They put aside partisanship to bring light to the darkness of hunger. Now is

time for a new generation of leaders to pick up that mantra on behalf of the more than 35.5 million faces of American hunger.

I therefore call upon my friends in Congress, both Chambers, both sides of the aisle, to join me and millions of advocates across this country in a mission to end hunger.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today with much dismay over the fact that we were not able to pass the energy extenders, the tax extenders, the package of important provisions for our country's economy because of this obstructionism on the other side.

Let me tell my colleagues why this was so important to me. We only got four Republican votes for this package. I think it is outrageous when you look at what we are dealing with. This week we are going to be memorializing the tragic, tragic, tragic fall of the bridge in the middle of Minnesota. I am going to speak to that tomorrow and do a fitting tribute, along with Senator Coleman, to the victims of that bridge collapse and to the first responders who saved so many lives, and to the reconstruction work that has gone on thanks to the help of this Senate. I live six blocks from that bridge, so it means a lot to me.

I said the week the bridge fell down that in America, a bridge shouldn't fall down in the middle of the Mississippi River, especially not on an eight-lane highway, especially not on one of the most heavily traveled bridges in the State, especially not at rush hour in the heart of a major metropolitan area. Unfortunately, however, it took that disaster to put the issue of infrastructure funding squarely on the national agenda, and it is long overdue. That is why I was so disappointed that in this important bill was $8 billion to replenish the highway trust fund of this country, to replenish that fund. Mr. President, 400,000 jobs in this country are at stake in that bill that was voted down by the other side.

Look what is happening in this country with our infrastructure. Let's take the issue of bridges. Nationwide, bridges are deteriorating far faster than we can repair or replace them. About 78,000 bridges across the Nation are structurally deficient. What does structurally deficient mean? When inspectors evaluate a bridge, they examine the bridge's deck, superstructure, and substructure. Each of these components is ranked on a scale of 0 to 9, with 0 being failed and 9 being excellent. If the deck, superstructure, or substructure is given a 4 or less, the bridge is classified as structurally deficient.

In June of 2006, the I-35W bridge's superstructure--meaning the physical conditions of all structural members--was rated at a 4. The bridge's deck was rated at a 5, and the substructure, comprised of the piers, the footings, and other components, was rated as a 6. A bridge is shut down if any of its parts are rated at a 2.

Then we have another 80,000 bridges across the Nation which are functionally obsolete. What does functionally obsolete mean? That means they don't meet today's design standards, they don't conform to today's safety standards, and they are handling traffic far beyond their design. Fully one-quarter of America's 600,000 bridges have aged so much that their physical condition or their ability to withstand current traffic levels is simply inadequate. These bridges require immediate attention.

I can tell you since our bridge fell on that summer day on August 1, we have had a number of bridges shut down, close down in our State, including one

that handled a lot of traffic in St. Cloud, MN. There was one in Winona, MN, that was actually on the Federal stamp from our State that was temporarily closed down and is going to have to be rebuilt.

We are seeing this across the country. We are seeing a need for infrastructure funding. At a time when our economy is facing such difficult times, I see this as an investment, not only in the long-term viability for our country's transportation system but also in jobs. That is why I am so disappointed that the other side was willing to turn their backs on 400,000 existing jobs, much less add new ones, by turning down that $8 billion replenishment of the highway trust fund.

It was President Kennedy who once said that building a road or highway isn't pretty, but it is something our economy needs to have. I can tell you beyond the bridges in metropolitan areas, nowhere is that truer than in rural America. We are seeing a rejuvenation because of the energy economy right now in rural Minnesota as we are in so much of rural America. Senator Tester from Montana talked about this. We are seeing biofuels, whether it is biodiesel, ethanol, moving to cellulosic ethanol; whether it is wind or solar. We are third in the country in Minnesota with wind energy--third in the country.

I have seen jobs such as in Starbuck, MN, where a group of 10 people decided to quit their jobs and go work for a solar panel factory. They were so proud of their work they had me jump up and down on those solar panels to show that they can withstand hail damage, and they did.

I can tell you this: We are seeing these jobs and we need courage in Washington that matches the courage of these employees in Starbuck, MN, or in Pipestone--the courage of these employees who are willing to see a better energy future, while this body on the other side is willing to shoot it down by shooting down those tax extenders for energy. This is the wave of the future. This is the way we are going to be investing in homegrown energy and in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels in the Mideast.

So it is about the energy extenders for me in my State and across the country, but it is also about the transportation funding that came in replenishing that highway trust fund. When you start building this energy economy, with the wind turbines and with the biofuels in the trucks going across these roads, you are going to put more stress on the roads and the rail in rural America. If we are going to move to the next century's economic system, we can't be stuck in the last century's transportation system.

I will give some examples. The ethanol plant in Bentsen, MN, now has over 525 fully loaded semis hauling the ethanol from their plant every week. This is a 45-million gallon facility. Their production falls about in the middle of our biodiesel facilities in Minnesota.

SMI Hydraulics is a company in rural southwestern Minnesota that manufactures the bases for the wind towers you see all across our country. This is a company that started as a barn. The wind towers they manufacture actually come out of the side of the barn as they are employing dozens of people right in this little town. The heavy trucks that bring the steel to the company put a heavy burden on the road as they travel and are putting durability to a test. This truck travel and the need for more rail travel is part of our transportation future, but when the other side shoots down our ability to even replenish the highway trust fund, we are not going to be moving in the right direction for our economy. We are not going to help these rural people to develop the true energy economy they need to develop.

In his 1963 ``Memoir for Change,'' President Eisenhower famously said:

More than any single action by the government since the end

of the war, this one would change the face of America.

He was talking about the interstate highway system. Its impact on the American economy, the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up were beyond calculation. Well, he was right. Just as he was right back in 1963, we know he is still right in 2008. So the gall to turn down the replenishment of that highway trust fund and to stop America as we try to head to the new energy future--other countries are leapfrogging us because they have government policies in place that mandate these green jobs and move in the right direction--is plain wrong.

The one last thing I wish to say is there is one way--as we look to jump-starting the economy right now, as we look at solving our oil crisis and our dependency on foreign oil and our spending of $600,000 a minute on foreign oil--and that is the President. He doesn't need the Congress. He can complain about Congress all he wants, but the President of the United States can actually release barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He can do it right now. He could do it in the next hour. We can look at what has happened in the past: 1990 to 1991, 11 million barrels were released; 1996 to 1997, 28 million barrels were released to reduce the Federal debt. In 2005, 21 million barrels were released after Katrina. We can look at how full the petroleum reserve has been. In 1993, 79 percent full; in 2001, it was 74 percent full. Well, right now, in 2008, it is 97 percent full. So this President, on his own, could simply release the barrels of oil from that Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

We are the home of Northwest Airlines in Minnesota. The CEO there, Doug Steenland, has spoken with me many times. Tens of thousands of customers have sent e-mails saying we want to stop this speculation and we want to do something about helping Americans and helping these companies with oil prices. One way to do this immediately is to release some of the barrels of oil, 97 percent full, from that Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If you even go down to 90 percent, you could inject $6 billion into the American economy and help to bring those oil prices down. This is up to the President. He could do it with one signature on one document. He doesn't need us passing a bill to have to deal with these guys and their filibuster. He could do it himself.

So in addition to passing these tax extenders, to getting our green energy economy going and doing something about that highway trust fund so another bridge doesn't fall down in the middle of America, this President, himself, without even one vote from Congress, could release barrels of oil into the American economy and help not only customers but also help the businesses in this country who are finding it harder and harder to compete as we see the price of oil escalate.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment that has been filed, which may or may not be offered. I wanted to alert the Senate to the possibility of an amendment that deals with moving companies--companies that move families, move furniture, et cetera, from city to city and across State lines--in fact, move them all over the country.

This amendment touches on a bipartisan provision that the Commerce Committee handled 3 years ago, which was, I guess, led by Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lott, and myself. We basically acknowledged that there has been a problem in the moving industry for quite some time. I don't want to go into great detail, but I will be glad to if Senator Bond comes down and offers his amendment.

I want to give a little bit of background. Basically, if you look at the statistics, since 2001, there have been about 25,000 official complaints with the Department of Transportation related to household good carriers transporting goods in interstate commerce. These complaints do cover a wide range of abusive household good carrier practices--everything from fraudulent cost estimates to lost and even damaged goods. So they really do cover the waterfront. However, the most outrageous of these complaints, in my view, is what they call ``hostage goods.''

What happens here is a moving company will move goods, and they will hold a consumer's possessions hostage until they pay thousands of dollars in excess of the original estimate. It is hard to believe that people would treat each other this way, but we have seen this thousands of times around the country, where a moving company will hold goods hostage because they want to chisel more money out of the customer.

Three years ago now, in the Commerce Committee, we looked at this situation. We understood the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration only had five employees assigned for the entire Nation when it comes to household goods and those complaints. Obviously, we had a problem. We worked on a solution. Again, this was a very bipartisan solution.

Part of the solution was to authorize State attorneys general and State consumer protection officials--they are not always AGs; it depends on the State. Usually they are attorneys general offices, but they don't have to be. It would allow the State to enforce certain Federal household goods consumer protection laws and regulations as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. This set up a partnership between the State governments and the Federal Government. We think it has been working well. We are hearing positive feedback.

State attorneys general, back in January of 2004, sent a letter, signed by 48 State attorneys general, saying they would like to have this authority. Let me tell you why. Probably, they have had similar experiences that I had when I was in the attorney general's office in Arkansas. I had a friend of mine who had moved from Florida back to Arkansas; he was moving back with his family, et cetera, et cetera. Literally, his goods--everything he owned--were held hostage by one of these unscrupulous moving companies. Naturally, as the attorney general, I thought surely we could help him. We started looking at it and learned that we were preempted by Federal law. I think he filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation, but let me ask my colleagues, who is going to be better at enforcing this and doggedly pursuing relief for their citizens, the State attorney general or the U.S. DOT in Washington--again, with five employees for the whole Nation? That is a pretty easy answer, and that is the State AGs. This is something we crafted, and we believe it is balanced. It came out of committee unanimously. There was compromise. Two Democrats and two Republicans worked together to get compromise language that we believed was fair and, we thought, served the purpose, and we believe it is good law.

I think it is important that it did come out of the committee unanimously. Again, Senator Lott took a real leadership role, and Senator Stevens was involved and Senator Inouye was involved and I was involved. We worked hard to get this done for the committee and for the Senate and for the American people.

As part of all this, we listened to industry complaints. We really did try to go the extra mile with the industry. We even had a hearing held by Chairman Lott on May 4, 2006. We brought in witnesses and allowed moving companies to come in and talk about the situation. Basically, at the conclusion of the hearing, the committee found strong support for our safety provision, including the endorsement of the U.S. DOT inspector general and the FMCSA.

So this has been something that has been vetted, has been agreed to, has been passed by the committee and by the Senate, and it has been signed into law. We think it is a good provision.

Obviously, if there is an amendment on this today, this would not be a technical correction, this would be a big shift in policy. I think that is an important factor for colleagues to consider as they look at this.

Also, if it is offered and if, in fact, I have a chance to come back to the floor and talk about it further, I know there will be a little bit of a comparison to the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Consumer Product Safety Commission bill that we filed a few weeks ago, and we passed it on the Senate floor 79 to 13, I believe it was.

I know there will be a little comparison, but this is very different. This is different in a number of ways. It is similar in some ways, but it is different also. And that is, with a consumer recall and with the State being able to enforce a consumer recall once that decision has been made in Washington, there may be thousands, tens of thousands, possibly millions of units of that product out in the American marketplace that has been recalled. Those products may be in warehouses or they may show up on the Internet. There are a lot of different ways they can show up. It can take literally years to get all those products out of the stream of commerce.

The moving industry is very different than that. Almost always what happens with one of these moving companies is something goes on during the move which more often than not is over a few days' period. Oftentimes, it is from one State to another State. The fact situation here is very different.

One of the reasons we are seeing an increase--and even though we passed this law, we are still seeing a fairly steady increase in these types of complaints--is the proliferation of the Internet. You can get on the Internet right now--I did this yesterday as an experiment. I clicked on something such as ``cheap moving companies.'' I don't know exactly what I typed. Several came up. With many of these companies, what you do is click a couple of little buttons to tell how many rooms you have in the house, or something very rudimentary, and you get a quote.

For folks who know about moving, it takes a lot more than that. You cannot make a couple clicks on the computer and think you are going to get an accurate moving estimate.

My experience has been with these large companies, they have written contracts and they have procedures in place. They come out to your home, or wherever you may be, and they look at your goods. They measure, they offer various services for crating, boxing, and all this kind of jazz. They can look, do their measurements and calculations and give you an estimate down to the penny. More often than not, those estimates are very accurate.

The problem is not so much the name-brand companies. I am sure there are occasional problems with them. But the problem we are trying to get to is these companies that are fly by night, many based on the Internet, many of them you do not know with whom you are dealing.

What we are trying to do is clean up this industry and help the American public in any way we can.

Since we passed this legislation, you would think you would see an amazing drop in statistics. We have seen the numbers grow a little bit. Again, it has been fairly steady. We feel as though

we do not have accurate numbers yet. We are actually going to request a GAO study to allow them to do their analysis and see how our provision is working. I think what we will find, once the numbers come in and are analyzed, is some good movement in the right direction.

One point that is important is that under SAFETEA-LU, the FMCSA did not add that many employees. It went from 5 employees to 11 employees. That is still a very small number of employees to do this all over the country. Hopefully, the State attorneys general will be able to help resolve these matters that are very good for the people in their States.

Madam President, I don't know if Senator Bond is going to offer his amendment. He told me earlier he thought he would. I hope he does not. If it does require a vote, certainly I will ask my colleagues to vote against his amendment. If he, in fact, does offer his amendment, I would like to have a chance to respond to Senator Bond. I know Senator Boxer and a few others have indicated their interest in doing that as well.

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

I would say that the Senator from New Mexico knows the answer to that.

And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be allowed to proceed through our remaining time in a colloquy.

So the answer is no, to the Senator from New Mexico, and I think it is important to go back to when we first started talking about this matter.

I think it might be useful to the people who are watching the Senate and wondering how we do things--maybe they have been watching C-SPAN and thinking: Well, these Senators sure know how to make a lot of fine speeches. And that is what we have been doing for the last 10 days, making speeches. But we haven't been doing anything more. But that isn't what we have wanted to do or what we do want to do now. What we want is a serious debate on legislation to lower gas prices that looks at ways to find more and use less.

The Senator from New Mexico is exactly right. We understand high gasoline prices are the product of a law we learned in economics 101. I don't know how the Senator from New Mexico did in economics 101. I imagine pretty well because he is one of our most intelligent Senators. But economics 101 says the price of a commodity, such as oil--or it might be hay or wheat or anything else--is determined by the supply as well as the demand. So what we said in our Republican caucus was that we wanted a balanced approach; that we wanted to increase the supply-- ``find more''--and we wanted to reduce the demand--``use less.''

So if I may say just for a moment, we do talk a lot about finding more.

Because that has become the issue between the two sides, really. We want to do both, and many of them don't. They want to use less, and we want to use less. But it is hard getting many of our Democratic friends to agree that even in the next 30 or 40 years we will need to use significant amounts of new American energy if we want to keep our lights on and drive our cars and heat our houses and have good jobs. It is hard for them to agree with that.

But let me be very precise about our using less. Our ``finding more'' idea was really offshore drilling and oil shale, and our ``using less'' was plug-in electric vehicles. T. Boone Pickens thinks he has a pretty good plan, and he has bought a lot of television time to advertise it, and it is pretty simple: natural gas and windmills. Ours is about as simple: offshore drilling, oil shale, and plug-in cars and trucks.

But let's talk about the ``use less'' part. That will do more for us than the ``find more'' part will. That is the Republican proposal.

We import, I believe, Senator Domenici, about 12 or 13 million barrels of oil a day. We use about 20 million barrels a day, or a quarter of all the oil in the world. So if we could find a way to use less, as well as find more, we could affect the price.

I had a visit just this afternoon from the utility manager in Austin, TX, and we talked about plug-in electric vehicles--our way of using less. What I am trying to do is make the point that there is not anybody over here on this side of the aisle who just wants to drill alone. We know we have to use less.

Now, why do we say plug-in cars and trucks? When I first started talking about that, people thought I had been out in the sun too long. I was far from the first to talk about it. Senator Hatch has introduced legislation on this issue, and it has been supported by a number of Democratic Senators as well. The director of the Austin, TX, utility started talking about it with me earlier today, and here is what he says can happen.

In Austin, TX, they have about 1 million cars and light trucks in his utility district. His judgment is that they can get up to about 10 percent of those cars--100,000--on electricity, where you just plug them in at night at home, within about 5 to 8 years without much trouble. He believes it is a reasonable goal in Austin, TX, to get half of those million cars and trucks on electricity in 10 to 15 years.

Now, Senator Domenici, if we could help the United States take half of our 240 million cars and plug them in instead of filling them up with gas, we could cut our import of foreign oil by 4 million barrels a day and stop sending money overseas. And that is our way of using less. So we want to use less.

We have other ways to do that as well. The problem is, we can't persuade our friends on the other side of the aisle to find more because when we say offshore drilling, they say: No, we can't. If we say oil shale, they say: No, we can't. Even if we say nuclear power for plugging in our cars and trucks with clean energy, they say: Sorry, not a proponent of that.

So the answer to your question is, no, we are not just for more drilling--we are all for the demand side and using less. We know that makes a difference. We would just like to have a debate and a bill about both, and we are for both. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side are not. It seems to me they are kind of repealing the supply half of the law of supply and demand.

Then there is the other half of the cars and trucks that are presumably still running on gas.

The Senator from New Mexico is right, and you are not the only one who thinks that. I picked up the New York Times a couple of days ago, and in their editorial--and they do not always agree with the Republican side of the aisle, I will have to concede--but they basically said the speculation bill is not a solution to high gas prices. Warren Buffett, who is a pretty good observer of the American economy, has said it is not speculation, it is supply and demand.

I know for people who may be watching the Senate, they may ask: What are you hung about up about in the Senate? Why don't you work across party lines and come up with some good ideas about supply and some good ideas about demand and put them in a piece of legislation and vote on it and go home and you will have taken a big step in the right direction?

We have said that is what we want to do: oil shale, offshore drilling, and plug-in cars.

The problem is, we haven't been able to do that because the Democratic leader, for some reason, is reluctant to do the supply part of supply and demand.

I would say to the Senator from New Mexico, that is 1 million barrels a day using less. What we are saying, with plug-in cars and trucks, we can cut out another 4 million barrels a day over a few years. But if we use offshore drilling and oil shale, we can add 3 million. So we can reduce by one-third our imported oil and change the price of gasoline. And I would say to the Senator from New Mexico that some people say: Well, changing the price is way off in the future. I thought that today's price is based upon the expected supply.

And the expected demand. From the day the world thought that we might increase that by a few million barrels a day, or reduce that by a few million barrels a day, the prices started going down. Am I wrong about that?

The Senator says we could have done that in maybe a week.

We could have agreed to a large number of amendments and said: Let's have an hour on each amendment and let's have a vote, and we might win some or lose some. But may I remind the Senator that Senator Reid brought this to the floor nearly 2 weeks ago. Could we not have started on that day to have amendments from the Republicans and amendments from the Democrats, limiting debate to 1-hour per amendment with all amendments germane to energy? Wouldn't that be a normal way for the Senate to work?

That is the single most important step Congress could take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, according to experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Congress did that last year.

It seems as if our job, Senator, the way I always remembered it, was to look ahead 5 or 10 years.

What if President Kennedy said we can't go to the Moon because it might take 10 years or Benjamin Franklin said we can't have a republic because it might take 50 years? And we also said--you just said it: From the day we pass legislation that includes oil shale, offshore drilling, plug-in cars and trucks--from the day we do that, then the buyers and sellers of oil say: It looks as if there is going to be a larger supply and less demand, and maybe we will pay a little less for oil.

And there has been a remarkable change today just because of that legislation 4 years ago.

For nuclear powerplants.

It is the only source of large, dependable amounts of energy with no carbon, no sulphur, no mercury, no nitrogen. It is our cleanest. And as the price of coal goes up and natural gas goes up, it is the least expensive of our reliable forms of energy.

Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?

Let me ask the Senator from New Mexico on our last minute and 7 seconds, one of the descriptions I like is his description of how we need to produce more American energy as our bridge to the future when we will have a different kind of energy.

Ten to fifteen years, half of them.

Mr. President, for the next few moments, I wish to change the pace of our debate on the floor of the Senate. I am pleased the Senator from Montana is now the Presiding Officer in the Senate because I want to tell that Senator I am a cosponsor of a piece of legislation he and the Senator from Wyoming have introduced that would provide grants to Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, and to tribes and other States, at the discretion of the

Secretary of the Interior, to support landowner actions to prevent livestock predation, and to compensate landowners for a loss of livestock by gray wolves and other predator species.

Why would I come to the floor of the Senate and want to talk about wolves? Well, let me tell you what happened in the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in 1995.

In my opinion, the Secretary of the Interior at that time, Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Secretary to the administration of Bill Clinton, did something that I said at the time I believed to be a direct violation of Federal law and congressional intent. He allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to go into Canada, collect Canadian gray wolves, bring them into the lower 48, and in the late fall or early winter of 1995, he dropped 15 of those wolves into a wilderness area in Idaho-- certainly satisfying the wishes of a lot of environmental interests, but, in my opinion, directly violating the language of an Interior appropriations bill, language that I and the then Senator from Montana, Mr. Conrad Burns, had put in the bill saying: None of these moneys shall be used for the purposes of introducing gray wolves into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Well, Bruce Babbitt did it, with great fanfare, with great public attention, and with a very large smile on his face.

Then, in 1996, he introduced another 20 wolves into central Idaho. What is the end result of what happened? This was the effort to do what we called the introduction of an experimental number of wolves back into a habitat that wolves once roamed wild in. It was supposed to be a limited experiment of what we called an experimental herd or pack, or packs, of wolves, an experimental species, and it was to be limited. We said at that time that when the number reached a certain number--at least 100 breeding pairs in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming--it would no longer be experimental, and it would no longer be endangered, and the extraordinary protection of the Endangered Species Act would come off.

That simply did not happen. Today, we literally have thousands of wolves roaming the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Some would say: Oh, isn't that wonderful, and isn't that exciting, and isn't that natural? Well, it may be natural in relation to 1880 or 1890, and it may be wonderful for some who behold the dream of an unoccupied great West. But to those of us who live in the West today, who live in an occupied area, where domestic livestock graze, and where the human species loves to camp, we have a problem. Our problem is quite simple. Wolves protected have no predator. The human species is the only predator. And in the absence of our ability to control them, they multiply very rapidly in an unlimited area with an unlimited feed source. Their feed or food source--their prey base--happens to be what was once the great elk herds of Idaho along with our deer population. And now, as they have begun to decimate those populations, they are beginning to pick off domestic livestock, both cattle and sheep, that graze on these public lands.

This map I have in the Chamber demonstrates, from the 35 wolves that were dumped into Idaho in 1995 and 1996--in approximately this area-- the phenomenal spread that has occurred across the entire State of Idaho, into Montana, and down into Wyoming, in areas where we believe there could well be more than 3,000 wild roaming wolves.

So the Department of Interior then said: It is now time we delist these wolves. We thought that was going to work until again a judge, who probably knows nothing about wolves, listened to a couple environmental groups, and said: I don't think we ought to allow that to happen. As a result, all of that effort was stopped. But still the taking of domestic livestock--both cattle and sheep--continues to this day.

I have served on the Appropriations Committee. In the absence of us doing the right and responsible thing, I kept adding money every year not only for the management and the shaping of these wolf populations, but also to offer some compensation to ranchers--both cattle and sheep--who were losing their livestock.

The Senator from Montana, who is presiding at this moment, the Senator from Wyoming and I have joined--they have introduced the legislation; I am a cosponsor--to hopefully bring about a stabilized fund to offset the literally hundreds of thousands of dollars our ranchers are now losing, all in the good name of Secretary Bruce Babbitt of the Clinton administration, who had the wonderful dream that he could take a West once unoccupied by the human species and repopulate it with a wolf.

Need I say more? A wolf is not a kind, sweet, and cuddly little animal. They are large. They are aggressive. They drag down elk, moose, deer. And they are now beginning, as I have said, to take domestic livestock.

A week ago, a young man, who was out training his hounds by chasing bear, ran into a pack of wolves. The wolves chased the guy off and killed all the hounds. Some of these well-trained hounds are worth $4,000 and $5,000 apiece. There was absolutely nothing that gentleman could do. Could he shoot the wolves? No. No, it is against the law, the Federal law, that he dare touch them. So he had to watch his beloved dogs eaten.

That is happening more and more every day in Idaho, as this map grows more and more covered with incidents of packs and individual and collective numbers of wolves. It is true in my State of Idaho. It is true in the State of the Senator from Montana. It is certainly true in Wyoming.

As we try to bring these wolf populations under control, we have interest groups and a Federal judge who raps his gavel and says: No.

The State of Idaho is attempting, under this Secretary of the Interior, and others, to take reasonable and responsible control of them, and to once again shape these populations of wolves so wolves can once again be in Idaho and, at the same time, to recognize the need to maintain populations of elk and deer is what we want to do. And it is what the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Commission and Fish and Wildlife agencies were doing in a responsible way--until, once again, a Federal judge intervenes, who knows little to nothing about the species itself, or probably the law, and says: I guess maybe that environmental group is right. Maybe we need more wolves so we get a genetically clear balance. We are more interested in the genetics of the wolf than we are the decimation of the elk herds, the deer populations, and the domestic livestock.

I have said with great trepidation, but I say in all sincerity: Do we have to wait until a wolf drags down a human species before there is a sense of alarm? Because they have now penetrated all of Idaho. They are literally in our backyards. Yet the romance goes on about this great dream of a wild West where you can hear the lonesome wolf howl at night. And they are howling. They are howling loudly right in our backyards. And a blind Federal agency and a blind Federal judge and a romantic environmental theory says that is OK.

It is tragic for the wolf because, ultimately, these populations will have to be brought under control. It is tragic for Idahoans and folks in Montana and Wyoming to see their pets and their domestic livestock dragged down and killed, with little if anything they can do about it.

I hope my colleagues would support S. 2875, as a minimal stopgap to provide these domestic livestock operators with some compensation for the losses they are now taking because Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior under the Clinton administration, had a wonderful and wild western dream.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time is left?

Nine and a half minutes. I thank the Chair.

Energy

Mr. President, it is no doubt that the American people are engaged on the question of energy, and gasoline prices primarily. But they are worried about their country. They are worried about their own budgets. They are worried about the direction the Nation is heading and the fact that we are becoming more and more dependent on foreign sources of energy. It impacts our national security as well as our economy.

We know that now $600 billion, perhaps $700 billion a year of American wealth is transferred abroad on an annual basis to purchase the 60 percent of

imported oil we utilize in America, in our transportation system primarily. That is a wealth transfer the likes of which the world has never seen. It is not good for our economy.

The average family--and I have calculated it based on a two-car family driving 24,000 miles a year--is paying $105 more per month for gasoline than they were 1 year ago using the same number of gallons of gasoline. This is a big deal. There is no doubt about it. After our families pay their taxes, after they pay their Social Security, after they pay their house payment, their insurance, their retirement, and their other bills, now $105 more every month is hitting them because of increased gas prices, and 60 percent of that money is going abroad to purchase the gasoline in a wealth transfer that is adversely affecting our economy. This is a national crisis. There is no doubt about it.

This Nation needs to do something real. We need to take action that will work. I am, frankly, very open to a lot of different ideas that we might be able to adopt. I think both parties have ideas that would work. We need conservation. We need biofuels. We need more production of energy at home. All of those things, it seems to me, are quite possible. This Government should accelerate it and make it a reality. Yet we remain here, unable to act in any way it seems.

For example, agriculture. Yes, crop prices, commodity prices are up, but the fuel that is utilized on the farm has doubled. Fertilizer prices, which come so often from natural gas, have also doubled. Our chemical industry, most of it is a worldwide industry. They have plants, these big chemical companies do, all over the world. When they decide where they are going to make a new chemical, they ask who has the lowest price for energy. Natural gas is often a component of new chemicals and because of prices--we have seen a flat or declining chemical industry and an expansion of it in other places where the price of energy is lower.

I believe the future of the American economy is at stake. We must carry out conservation efforts. I see my esteemed colleague, Senator Bingaman, here. He had a hearing a week or so ago and he has had some of the best hearings on energy. I am honored to serve on his committee. We had some fabulous hearings with some wonderful witnesses. The hearing I refer to included Dr. David Green at the Oak Ridge Center in Tennessee, a National lab, a Federal lab, as a witness, and he made a series of suggestions for immediate actions on energy. This is just to increase the miles per gallon that we get. His first thing is driver behavior. He contends that the average driver, if they drove better, could save 10 percent. Curb aggressive driving, observe the speed limits, don't carry extra weight in your car, have vehicle maintenance, have realistic speed limits. For every 5 miles per hour over 55, the fuel economy, Dr. Green says, declines 7 percent.

He talks about heavy trucks. Improved aerodynamics on the truck could save up to 600 gallons per year--just doing that--and other suggestions he made--low-rolling resistance tires. Better tires get better gas mileage. Driver training can be a big asset, updating fuel economy standards, the labeling of used cars. When people go out and buy a used car, it wouldn't be hard to have posted the mileage of all used cars so that the person could see what that mileage would be if they bought that particular used vehicle. He goes on with a number of other things.

I say that just to point out that he was just one witness in one area: automobiles and vehicles. There are many more things we can do to conserve fuel and I support this.

I believe we ought to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible. I believe we should get away from them as much as we possibly can and reduce our imports. This would include, for me, supporting investment in and promoting hydrogen vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. I think natural gas vehicles do have a role to play. Produce more diesel vehicles that get 35 to 40 percent better gas mileage. Half the cars in Europe are diesel; we only have 3 percent. Why is Europe doing that? They get better gas mileage. They tax diesel less in Europe; we tax diesel more. We have a new sulfur diesel fuel that is extremely clean.

All right. I think we are in a position--and I think the Presiding Officer understands this--the American people want us to do something. We need to reach across the aisle and accomplish something.

How much time remains, Mr. President?

I have to conclude that this is the problem. I don't believe it is the Democrats I know in Alabama, or I don't believe it is all the Democratic Senators and Congressmen I know in Washington, but let me tell my colleagues what is happening and where we are and how we have reached an impasse that has to be broken.

Former Vice President Gore, a former Democratic nominee for President of the United States, made a speech recently and said that within 10 years, we should generate all of our electricity without any fossil fuels. Half of our electricity today is coal. Twenty percent is natural gas. He would eliminate all of that and replace it with biofuels, with solar, wind, and the like. That is a radical proposal--a proposal that is not within the realm of possibility. It is a stunning idea that simply cannot be achieved that fast. I would favor it as soon as we could, but we have no way of doing that.

Senator Obama, the Presidential nominee now, praised that speech. He didn't adopt everything in it, thank goodness, but he did praise Gore and his speech. He has indicated he opposes further drilling, and he is at best lukewarm, if not unfavorable, to nuclear power.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said she wanted to save the planet. She has been opposing any production through drilling or shale oil or clean coal or offshore production. Our own leader, Senator Harry Reid, has said sometimes he favors production, but his only proposal he has brought forth on the floor of the Senate is to sue OPEC for not producing enough oil. I would suggest we could sue the Congress for not producing enough oil in America. He wanted to tax oil companies, which means you certainly would not get any more oil doing that. Now, we have a speculation bill. Not one of those three pieces of legislation actually would produce any energy.

So let's get out of this. This is not a position the Democratic Party can take. It is not a position a majority of Democrats in America believe in. I am prepared to meet halfway. Let's move to hybrids any way we can. Let's do more biofuels. I think that can work. Let's go to wind, producing as much and as fast as we can. I am for whatever works if it is reasonable and not placing an unfair burden on the American people.

All I can say is, we are seeing a position here that is not acceptable. It is radical. It is damaging our economy. It is saying we will not do the things necessary to create a bridge to get us to nuclear power, clean fuels in the future that can get us off fossil fuels.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.