National Improvised Explosive Device Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2008

Mr. President, during consideration of the reauthorization of the FAA, a great deal of conversation has gone on on this floor about energy and the cost of energy. It is appropriate that we talk about it at a time when our airlines are struggling and we are attempting to reauthorize FAA. Part of the reason our airlines are struggling is the unprecedented aviation fuel prices. It is only one of the many reasons they are having difficulty today, but clearly the doubling of their costs are putting at risk their corporate structure and their ability to serve an American public.

But it is not just the airlines that are at risk. Every American consumer and every business is finding the tremendous increase in the cost of energy a significant problem. For example, just a few minutes ago, my BlackBerry buzzed. My wife Suzanne is out in Boise, ID. I got an e-mail about the temperature, which is 31 degrees in Boise this morning. At the bottom of the e-mail, she said regular gas just hit $3.53 a gallon. That is a lot of money. Now, that is not as much as others are paying across our Nation, but when an Idahoan fills their tank and they go from community to community, oftentimes they drive hundreds of miles--not just a few miles but literally hundreds of miles. Idaho is a great big Western State. Our distance is oftentimes a significant part of our commerce and our ability to conduct economic activity, and fuel prices have always been significant and important.

Idaho is also a large agricultural State. The cost of the production of foods today has gone up dramatically because of the cost of diesel, if you will, the cost of fertilizer, and all of those components that go into the production of food and the transporting of the food.

Part of the reason food is going up on the retail shelf of the supermarket today is the cost of getting it there, let alone the cost of producing and refining it. Many truckers are saying that just to fill up their truck now can be as much as $1,000. They are not able to change their freight rates to adjust as quickly to the high cost of energy, and they simply have to--this is the term--``eat it.'' Well, they cannot afford to eat it. Oftentimes, those trucks are simply turning off their motors and sitting idle.

So the impact of energy costs on our economy can be dramatic. I came to the floor yesterday to talk about it and to say that, in large part, the American consumer, in their frustration, is saying: Whom do we blame? I don't think they have to look any further than the U.S. Congress and the failure of this Congress--the House and Senate--over the last 20 years to do the things that were necessary to continue production, to ensure refinery capacity, to ensure exploration and the development of reserves, while we were doing all of the other things in conservation, in CAFE standards, assuring that we had a new form of transportation energy. But, no, we have failed to do the right things, and as a result of that, the American consumer is, in fact, paying a great deal for our failure.

What do we do to change that? Instead of just wringing our hands, there are all kinds of ideas out there about changing it.

Some would suggest that you just tax the big oil companies; if you just tax those big oil companies and put that money somewhere else, that will solve the problem. There is an old adage in economics that is quite simple: You usually get less of that which you tax. In other words, the higher you tax something, the less you are going to get from it. Do you want to, by taxation, nationalize America's independent oil companies? Is that a way to get production and more oil and gas at the pump? Remember, there are not any gas lines out there today. There aren't the kinds of lines we saw in the 1970s during the last energy crisis. There is supply. It is the cost of supply that we are frustrated about and the impact that cost is having on our economy.

Here is one of the problems we have. I talked about a Congress that failed, a public policy that failed, a policy that failed to continue to produce as demand went dramatically up--not just in this country but around the world.

The blue line on this chart is the supply line. As you can see, in the 1990s it peaked and it began to drop. That is, of course, U.S. production versus U.S. consumption. In other words, as a nation we began to produce less and less crude oil into our refineries.

Today, we are near 60 percent dependent upon other sources of energy, from outside our country, to come into our refineries and to go out of the gas pump to the consumer. In fact, you can see that the red line-- demand--has gone up dramatically as our economy continued to grow over the years, as more people were driving cars, and as more cars consumed more gas.

The only way you are going to keep price down is when the supply line and the demand line are somewhat in concert, somewhat tracking each other. That simply stopped in the 1950s, as we began to grow increasingly dependent upon foreign nations.

We passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but it wasn't really directed at transportation fuels. Last year, we added to that and we began to address transportation fuels. We brought ethanol into the market by subsidizing that and allowing our farmers, and those who take corn from them, to produce ethanol to become increasingly effective in the market. That is working to some degree. In fact, it is estimated today that 20 cents would be put on the price of gas at the pump if

it wasn't for national and rural ethanol production. Now, it has caused other problems. Some would argue that it has caused problems in the food chain, and it probably has. I think the marketplace will work that out. So there are things we have been doing.

But I think, most importantly, it is the things we have not done. It is the failure of our country to recognize the increased dependency we were developing from other countries around the world. I think that has become one of our greater frustrations. While you have some on the campaign trail today talking about taxing the big oil companies, the big oil companies don't own the oil. It is the cartels. It is the nations. It is not oil companies, it is oil countries that we have to worry about today.

I didn't coin the phrase, but I use the phrase quite often, ``petro- nationalism.'' If I am a country and I am small but I am sitting on a pool of oil, I become rich overnight. The reason I become rich overnight is because Americans will come and buy my oil. If I want to form a cartel and I want to control the supply of that oil, then they will pay even more for it because Americans quit producing for themselves.

Here is a statistic that I find fascinating, and some have said that if we don't stop this in the near future, we will spend our Nation into poverty as we spend all of this money on oil. We are now spending well over $1 billion a day outside our country to buy oil. That is a phenomenal figure. Our neighbors to the north, we send them $280 million a day; to Saudi Arabia, we send $190 million a day; to Venezuela and Dictator Chavez, we send $160 million; to Nigeria, we send $140 million; to Algeria, we send $70 million. Do Venezuela and Nigeria and Algeria have our best interests in mind? I don't believe so. They have their own interests in mind. We are literally making them wealthy because we are buying their oil.

Many of us talk about energy independence, and last year when we passed that legislation I was talking about, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, we did some very good things in it. As I said, we looked at increasing production by conservation, by CAFE standards, and by renewable fuels standards. We said to the automobile industry: You have to design cars that burn less, and in doing that, we will improve our overall position on dependency by dropping it significantly by 2030. But it takes a long time to redesign a car, make it efficient, produce it, and then sell it into the market.

Those are the realities of a problem where you cannot just fix this tomorrow. We cannot just change the price of gas at the pump tomorrow because we cannot fix the underlying problems instantly. But as I said earlier, if Congress is at fault, the problem in this, then Congress ought to be doing more about it. And it is not just wringing your hands and wanting to tax. It is doing things that get us back into production while we learn to conserve, while we have cleaner automobiles, while we look at alternative fuel sources, while we get more hybrid cars and electric plug-in cars in the market. That is all coming, but that is 10 years, 15 years, and 20 years out.

What do we do in the interim? I believe there is something we can do, and we ought to do. In America today and in our territorial waters we are sitting still on a lot of oil, a dramatic amount of oil. Some would argue under old U.S. Geological Survey analysis that we are sitting on at least 100 billion barrels of oil. If we are sitting on it, why aren't we using it? Once again, the politics of Congress and the politics of States enter into the debate.

A couple of years ago, I began to talk about an issue I called the no zone. What was I talking about at the time? I was talking about that area of the United States and Outer Continental Shelf of waters that we knew had large volumes of oil. But California said no. We said no in Alaska. We have said no off the east coast. We have said no around Florida. Because we have said no, the American consumer today is paying the highest price for gasoline ever. That is a fact. It is a simple reality. Our dependency on foreign nations grew. As I just expressed, over 60 percent of our oil is coming from outside the continental United States when we know there is a significant amount of oil outside the continent.

When I introduced this chart a couple of years ago and I began to talk about the no zone and there were a few folks wringing their hands, we went to work. We went to work and we looked at oil sales in the gulf and the development in the Outer Continental Shelf in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Thanks to our effort, we did something. The American consumer needs to know we went into lease sale 181 off the coast of Florida. We looked at and found a tremendous amount of capability there and we began to develop it and we are developing it today. We have allowed other lease sales to occur. That is tremendously important. We are beginning to tap some of that oil supply that we know is out there and about which we ought to be doing more. That is what I think is important, and that is on what I think we ought to be focused.

To sit and wring our hands and tell the American people there is nothing we can do, and all we are going to do is go out and tax and tax, which will not produce--we ought to be talking about production. The legislation I have introduced today talks about production. It talks about production in a positive way.

I mentioned a few moments ago the action we took last year in lease sale 181. We were successful in bringing Florida along in their cooperation and understanding, which was phenomenally important.

We know there are millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas out there. What is most significant about oil development in this region is that the infrastructure is in place. What do I mean? Refineries, pipelines, capacity. We don't have to wait 5, 6, and 7 years just to build the infrastructure. It is there, and the oil is under it. That is why we did lease sale 181. But there is a lot more we can and should do. That is why the legislation I have introduced today does just that. It doesn't start drilling, but it says a couple of things that are quite simple.

As we have heard others talk about the fact we are putting money into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this time, we are buying oil off the market and putting it underground in the salt domes in the South for a time of necessity, I suggest we stop doing that for the time being, and I suggest we take that money we are using for those purposes and we modernize our inventory of our known reserves, our unknown reserves, and our capacity because the true SPR--SPR means Strategic Petroleum Reserve--the greatest reserve in the world is to know what we have, where it is, and how we can access it. That is one of the most important things we can do for the consumers of America today.

I know it frustrated some of my Floridian friends when I talked about our inability because of policy to allow our companies to go in to the northern area off Cuba and drill because Cuba was allowing other countries to come in and develop. Just 90 miles--45 miles until you hit the zone--90 miles off our coast on the extreme of the Florida Keys there are foreign nations drilling oil today. India is there, and India has now discovered oil. China is there, and China has now discovered oil. We are not there today because our policy is 45 years old and still says: No, no, Americans cannot get involved with Cuba, even though we believe Cuba has phenomenal potential oil reserves. Shame on us.

America, listen up: It is Government policy today in large part that has caused you the pain at the pump, and it is very important that Government act today to reduce that pain.

The legislation I am offering would create an inventory that would do just that. It would allow us to know what our reserves are.

We have moratoriums off the coast of Florida, and yet we know there are huge oil reserves out there. Why are we not doing something about it? Well, it is local politics. It is national politics. It is green politics. It is politics. That is why we have the price of oil we have today, nothing more and nothing less but politics, and our economy is growing more fragile by the moment because of it.

Is it demagogic to say that? I don't think so. I don't think so at all. I pulled out the sign, the no zone. The no is a result of politics, whether it is the politics of the State of Florida or the

politics of the State of California or whether it is the national politics of this Senate that will not allow for us to drill for the reserves in what is known as ANWR, the Alaskan national wildlife area, where we know there is phenomenal abundance.

It was all done, all of this no, this political no was all done in the name of the environment. There was some reason at the time these old ideas were put in place. We had the oil spills off the coast of Santa Barbara, and as a result of that, Americans were concerned. So California said no more drilling there, and then we followed up.

A few years ago, we had a great national tragedy in the gulf area of our country. That tragedy was called Katrina. She came rolling up and through the gulf. We know what she did in New Orleans. She did something else nobody wants to talk about today. She knocked offline hundreds of oil wells that were producing out in the gulf--knocked them off. She even set some of the drilling rigs adrift. But not a drop of oil was spilled. Why? Because modern technology today and American know-how and a concern for protecting our environment has produced one of the cleanest deepwater oil drilling industries in the world. We are producing in this area of the gulf off the coast of Texas, off the coast of Louisiana, off the coast of Mississippi, and with 181, we just brought into or soon will be bringing into production off the coast of Alabama. Why not off the coast of Florida? Why not off the coast of California? Why not off the coast of the Carolinas, Virginia, and on up where we believe there is significant gas and oil reserves?

It is old politics of the past that is caught in the ghosts of Santa Barbara of decades ago. Yet our technology today will take us there, but our politics will not take us there. That is why I have introduced the legislation I have. The least we can do is inventory with modern technology to know where our oil is.

I notice the president of Shell said in a press release the other day: If Americans sent a message to the world that we were going to start drilling our own reserves and bringing them into production, the price of gas at the pump would drop dramatically, 25 or 30 cents a gallon or more. That is significant stuff, both short term and long term, to the economy of this country.

I say to my colleagues, I say to our country, and I say to our consumers: Is it a time to act? You bet it is a time to act. While some suggest we tax the big boys out of existence, we do not produce anything by doing that, while we can create all kinds of other structures. Do we produce more, do we build refinery capacity, and do we assure the American public while we are transitioning into hybrid cars and electric cars and hydrogen cars and all of those kinds of activities that we support and are doing research and development on today that they will still have an abundant supply of energy? That is our job. That is the job we failed in doing over the last good number of years, and that is the job we ought to stop and start over and do it right and reward the States that are the boundary States to the production of the Outer Continental Shelf.

We have huge oil reserves in this country, and yet we are letting the rest of the world have our wealth. Why not keep our wealth in this country by the development of these reserves?

The first step is the legislation I have introduced today. Let's at least in the next few years do the inventory, the modern, sophisticated seismographic inventory that USGS can do to let us know how much is out there because what we know today is simply old stuff. Those efforts were done years ago. Already out at the edge of this green line in the deepest waters in the gulf under the newest drilling technologies, we are finding phenomenal oil that just a few years ago we did not even know we could get to. We are getting to it. We are producing it. It is clean, and it is environmentally sound. We ought to be doing that everywhere else.

I have joined my colleague from Louisiana who just came to the floor, who introduced legislation that says when oil gets to $125 a barrel, we ought to give the States the option to allow the development of the Outer Continental Shelf off their State. You darn bet we ought to, and those States ought to be rewarded for it.

There is so much this country can continue to do instead of standing still and wringing our hands and trying to blame somebody else for our failure over the last 20 years to continue to allow this great country to produce for its consumers.

I will be happy to yield to the senior Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Virginia. He is absolutely right. When I think oil, I think gas because, obviously, in lease sale 181 and in other areas where there is gas, there is oftentimes oil, and oftentimes where there is gas, there is no oil. We believe that to be the case off the coast of Virginia.

The Senator from Virginia has been a leader, without doubt, in that very kind of effort to allow at least the seismographic effort, the exploration that would determine for us the kinds of reserves we have and may have for the future.

I thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership in this area.

Without question it is there today, and we know that. We are the leaders of clean drilling in deep water for the world, no question.

I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Florida.

I am more than happy to.

I do recognize that. I do appreciate what our military has said.

I also understand a few years ago we took offline a naval training area in Vieques. Why? It was no longer a popular thing to do.

If there is oil under this area--and we believe there is--and it is a training area, why couldn't we train here? Or why couldn't we train over here? The reality is, what is at this time more valuable?

It is very easy to say don't do it. Or is it possible to say can we do both? There are a good many experts and professionals in the field who said that. We can have a military training area, and guess what we also can do. We can pull the oil out from under. How do you do it? Quite simply. You put a location, a location and you slant drill thousands of feet and you do not have to pepper the area with all kinds of drilling rigs.

Today's technology is amazing. It is politically comfortable, I appreciate that, and I understand the State's politics and I do not deny that--but this is not the oil of the State of Florida. This is the oil of the citizens of our country. It is the politics of Florida today that deny us the oil, not the politics of America. So it is a simple question: Should we inventory it? Should we know what it is? And should we, under modern technology, reward the State of Florida for the potential benefit?

It is ironic we did not move at all to stop drilling 45 miles off the Florida coast. We could even take a 45-mile zone here, or more, consistent with what is going on in Florida today and still protect this.

But the Senator is right. It is a military area. Guess what. I am kind of a modern guy. I believe in technology taking us where we can go and having the best of both worlds. But right now the American consumer has the worst of the world we have created for them--a scarcity of a supply that is driving costs and impacting our economy in a significant way.

I suggest the legislation I have introduced, while it will not impact the State of Florida, will give us a base and an understanding and knowledge of what we have as a reserve. We are spending millions of dollars a day to buy oil and put it in the ground when, in fact, we ought to spend a few million dollars and find out about all the oil we already have.

Mr. President, I have a few remarks about the energy situation I would like to share with the Senate. Two months ago, I came to the floor to deliver a series of speeches on the State of our Nation's energy security. I said then, unequivocally, that our Nation's economic strength had been put in great peril by our growing dependence on foreign oil.

I have been a member of the Energy Committee for 30 years and have served as chairman of that committee, as well as the Budget Committee, for a long period during that time. I have seen my share of serious debate on energy and the economy, and I recognize how vital these issues are to our Nation's well-being.

Unfortunately, in these times of high gas prices and an approaching election, I have also seen my share of not-so-serious debate. The American people deserve better than false promises of short-term fixes, driving season gimmicks, and empty threats to the Middle East.

I said in February--and I say it again today--the American people deserve serious, thoughtful, long-term solutions to our ever-growing energy crisis. If there are short-term solutions, or short-term aids, we ought to share those, too, and get on with adopting them.

Investigating, taxing, and threatening our American oil and gas companies will do nothing to reduce the stranglehold foreign oil dependence has put on our economic strength, national security, and foreign policy agenda.

To blame either side of the aisle for the trouble this Nation is in misses the point. The American people did not send us here to cast blame on one side or the other, and they certainly didn't send us here to put bandaids on serious illnesses that threaten our Nation.

My first year in the Senate was during a Republican administration, when a President set out an aggressive agenda to reduce our Nation's oil imports.

At that time, we were importing 6 million barrels of oil a day, which represented 35 percent of our total oil consumption.

Fast forward 36 years to today. The aggressive agenda through several administrations and Congresses under the control of both parties has failed time and again. Today, we are more than 60 percent dependent on foreign oil which comes from some of the most hostile regimes in the world. Over time, our consumption has grown at a moderate rate, but our imports have more than doubled to 13.4 million barrels per day. The result is a rising cost of energy, a rising threat of disruption in our energy supply, and a rising anger among our already burdened constituents.

As I said today, the average price of gasoline is $3.62 a gallon, an alltime high for the 17th straight day. Crude oil closed above $113 per barrel last night. The average approval rating of Congress has plummeted to 22 percent, and yet we continue to point fingers back and forth.

In the past few years, Congress has achieved significant success in addressing long-term energy security. We passed a 2005 bill that will bring us a nuclear renaissance, a 2006 bill that will bring us greater domestic oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, and a 2007 bill that will bring us increased fuel efficiency. That is a dramatic change in the CAFE standards.

These were not little things, and they were hard to do. They were done without finger-pointing and with bipartisan support.

To face this new challenge, however, we must do even more. Debate about energy, oil, and the environment has reached a fever pitch. The challenge of our time will be how we meet a rising demand for energy from the literally billions of new consumers who wish to share in the benefits of a global economy. I think we all know what that means. That means India, China, and other countries are adding to the demand part of the supply-and-demand cycles in mammoth ways. Already, China is moving ahead as one of the largest importers of oil and users of oil in the whole world. Just 10 years ago, or 12, they were hardly on the map. For our Nation's future energy security and the world's, we will need to ensure our supply of energy is reliable, affordable, and abundant.

Today, I introduced the Domestic Energy Production Act of 2008. I ask unanimous consent that title be changed to the American Energy Production Act of 2008.

I ask that the clerk so change the bill, if they can. If not, the Senator from New Mexico asks for the right to change it.

Madam President, the policies set forth in this bill will begin to move us in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support its passage and to look at it seriously.

First, the bill allows for States on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to petition the Federal Government to opt out of the broad moratorium that for two decades has locked up America's assets and forced us to turn toward unstable foreign nations to power our lives. I believe it is time that we ask the Atlantic and Pacific coastal States to take a real look at whether we could drill distances from their shores without doing any harm and adding substantially to the American supply for all our citizens, not just the coastal citizens. I believe the time is ripe. I believe right-headed people will consider that might be a reality. If we were to do it, we were told just that contains literally millions of barrels of crude oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas for the American energy future.

First, this bill allows these Atlantic and Pacific coasts to petition their Government to opt out, as I said, and these are large quantities of assets that are American. Together, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans contain oil reserves, and here are the numbers, what we know without doing a detailed reconnaissance. There are reserves of up to 14 billion barrels and natural gas reserves totaling 55 trillion cubic feet. Those are big enough for the American people to demand that everyone who represents States in this Senate look at this, whether they are coastal State Senators or not. America needs an honest evaluation because with these States, if there was no damage--and I believe we can drill without any damage today--we might move in a direction, an honest direction, of reducing dramatically what we must import overseas.

Opening them to leasing would literally bring billions of dollars to the Federal Treasury and billions of dollars to the coastal States because they would share in it 37 percent, as we did with the coastal States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas when we, 2 years ago, did the same thing for Gulf States and opened those areas for drilling. Those States abutting were positively impressed and helped by it because they wanted development and they also wanted to share in the royalties. The new way we build platforms and drill is a far cry from 20 years ago when coastal States were so worried. Actually, we can do it with little or no footprint, little or no seepage or damage, there is no question about it.

Next, the bill opens 2,000 acres of the 19 million acres of the Arctic plain, or ANWR, for oil and gas leasing. In 1995, President Clinton vetoed an ANWR bill, and the price of oil was $19 a barrel. As a result, 1 million barrels of oil continue to sit beneath our ground each day instead of in our gas tanks. I believe the ultimate find, if we are permitted to drill, would be much more than the million barrels, without a question. The footprint is so small, the new directional drilling is so accurate that I believe it deserves an opportunity for the Senate to look again and think again and for the American people to look again and think again with us on what should be done. The price of oil is now $113 a barrel. When we last voted, the price was somewhere above $50 but certainly nothing like this.

Yesterday, I heard a colleague on the other side of the aisle urge OPEC nations to release 500,000 barrels of oil to the global market. Today, in introducing this bill, I respond to my colleagues to release more than 1 million barrels to that supply, from our own lands, by supporting my bill. We don't know how much more we will get if the coastal States join in and begin lifting the moratorium. We may be able to send a message that more than the 500,000 barrels my colleague on the other side sought and far more than the 1 million we would get from Alaska would be released into the American market.

This bill provides for a consolidated permitting process to ease constraints on building refineries in this country. While we improved the capacity over years, we consistently hear the criticism that no new refinery has been built in our country for over 30 years. Our Nation cannot afford to go 30 more years without building additional refineries.

The bill also provides a small measure of relief by suspending delivery to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I ask my colleagues to consider their views on certain issues. I remind them that this issue I have reconsidered on my own. I believe it is appropriate in this pricing environment that we stop filling the SPR for up to 6 months, thus providing 70,000 additional barrels of light sweet crude per day. That might have an effect. Although it will be minor, it might be recognizable on the price of oil. I think it is time to do that.

I told the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, with whom I serve and was the principal sponsor of this, that I would join him in this when he was ready to move on the Senate floor.

By its very nature, this is just a fraction of the oil that will be gained through OCS production. OCS is what I am talking about in the bill I introduced today, and ANWR, oil shale production, and coal-to- liquid production are in this bill. In today's environment, any small amount helps the people of this country.

In the area of alternative resources, this bill requires studies on ethanol to help ensure that smart decisions are made as we move toward cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. This bill provides incentives for the advancement of breakthrough energy technologies, such as battery-powered vehicles. That is important. It is obvious to everyone that we have not moved ahead as rapidly as we should in battery development, and we ought to push hard with our greatest scientists because a change in the right direction there would be a dramatic change in the right direction for automobiles that would be electric- motored and that would be good for our country.

Our Nation is often called the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we should use that domestic resource to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This bill creates a mandate for up to 3 billion gallons of clean coal-derived fuels over the next decade and 6 billion gallons over the next 14 years. This will provide diesel and jet fuel to help power our economy and create jobs throughout our coal-producing States.

Additionally, this provision requires that the mandated fuels have life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions no greater than conventional gasoline.

This is a win-win for our economy and our environment. I don't know why it is so violently opposed by some in America. I think they just don't want us to use our own if it means we are going to use it in automobiles, diesel trucks, or the like. I don't understand. If we don't do it, we will be using foreign oil unless and until we find a total new substitute, which will be years from now.

This bill also allows for the long-term procurement of synthetic fuels by the Department of Defense and repeals section 526 of last year's Energy bill.

That provision ties greenhouse gas emission requirements to the types of fuels our Air Force can purchase. The practical translation is that in a time of war, this policy would direct our military to purchase oil from the sands of the Middle East rather than the oil sands of Canada.

While this bill takes many steps to strengthen our Nation's energy security, it also repeals several provisions in last year's appropriations bills that threaten to damage our Nation's energy security. At this point, most everyone knows what they are. I will merely mention one of those that is big, and that is a mandate that was imposed on oil shale development in America.

Somebody in conference--I think we know which one but need not say since it is not certain--put a rider on that bill that said the final regulations for shale development have a moratorium imposed. That comes at a time when Shell Oil and others are exploring the great potential of shale converted to oil. I don't see why we should do this. I believe we should take that off and let them proceed. They will be bound by the laws of our land, and obviously, with the high price of crude oil, it is clear to me that they are going to find a way to make oil shale equal to conventional oil and thus usable by Americans as American- produced oil. We should let that happen as rapidly as possible and not deter it. I know some will not agree, but I would think that debate, carried to the American people, would be voted overwhelmingly in favor of letting it happen. That is why we put it in this bill.

Finally, this bill repeals a $4,000 fee for drilling permits. These costs, slipped into a large Omnibus measure without notice or debate, hit the smallest oil and gas companies in our States. Making it more difficult to produce domestic energy for domestic use will only serve to further increase the prices we pay at the pump.

As I complete my final year in the Senate, I look back on the many accomplishments this body has achieved for the American people. This great work has often been done when Members reached across the aisle after thoughtful deliberation, serious debate, and reasoned judgment. I hope, as the Congress makes a serious effort to tackle the energy challenges of our time, that we will address these challenges in the same spirit.

As I said a few months ago on this floor that America faces a serious energy crisis with vital implications for our national security, economic strength, and foreign policy. The American people deserve a serious debate, for our present challenge will require thoughtfulness, vision, and judgment--not just today, but when the cameras are off, the elections are far away, and gas prices subside.

Mr. President, I am introducing today, with my colleagues Senator Coleman and Senator Obama, the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act. This bill tackles a longstanding homeland security problem involving inadequate State incorporation practices that leave this country unnecessarily vulnerable to terrorists, criminals, and other wrongdoers, hinder law enforcement, and damage the international stature of the U.S.

The problem is straightforward. Each year, the States allow persons to form nearly 2 million corporations and limited liability companies in this country without knowing--or even asking--who the beneficial owners are behind those corporations. Right now, a person forming a U.S. corporation or limited liability company, LLC, provides less information to the State than is required to open a bank account or obtain a driver's license. Instead, States routinely permit persons to form corporations and LLCs under State laws without disclosing the names of any of the people who will control or benefit from them.

It is a fact that criminals are exploiting this weakness in our State incorporation practices. They are forming new U.S. corporations and LLCs, and using these entities to commit crimes ranging from terrorism to drug trafficking, money laundering, tax evasion, financial fraud, and corruption. Law enforcement authorities investigating these crimes have complained loudly for years about the lack of beneficial ownership information.

Last year, for example, the U.S. Department of the Treasury sent a letter to the States stating: ``the lack of transparency with respect to the individuals who control privately held for-profit legal entities created in the U.S. continues to represent a substantial vulnerability in the U.S. anti-money laundering/counter terrorist financing, AML/CFT, regime. . . . [T]he use of U.S. companies to mask the identity of criminals presents an ongoing and substantial problem . . . for U.S. and global law enforcement authorities.''

Last month, Secretary Michael Chertoff, head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, wrote the following: ``In countless investigations, where the criminal targets utilize shell corporations, the lack of law enforcement's ability to gain access to true beneficial ownership information slows, confuses or impedes the efforts by investigators to follow criminal proceeds. This is the case in financial fraud, terrorist financing and money laundering investigations. . . . It is imperative that States maintain beneficial ownership information while the company is active and to have a set time frame for preserving those records. . . . Shell companies can be sold and resold to several beneficial owners in the course of a year or less. . . . By maintaining records not only of the initial beneficial ownership but of the subsequent beneficial owners, States will provide law enforcement the tools necessary to clearly identify the individuals who utilized the company at any given period of time.''

These types of complaints by U.S. law enforcement, their pleas for assistance, and their warnings about the dangers of anonymous U.S. corporations operating here and abroad are catalogued in a stack of reports and hearing testimony from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and others.

To add insult to injury, our law enforcement officials have too often had to stand silent when asked by their counterparts in other countries for information about who owns a U.S. corporation committing crimes in their jurisdictions. The reality is that the United States is as bad as any offshore jurisdiction when it comes to responding to those requests--we can't answer them because we don't have the information.

In 2006, the leading international anti-money laundering body in the world, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering--known as FATF--issued a report criticizing the U.S. for its failure to comply with a FATF standard requiring countries to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations formed under their laws. This standard is one of 40 FATF standards that this country has publicly committed itself to implementing as part of its efforts to promote strong anti- money laundering laws around the world.

FATF gave the U.S. 2 years, until July 2008, to make progress toward coming into compliance with the FATF standard on beneficial ownership information. That deadline is right around the comer, but we have yet to make any real progress. That is another reason why we are introducing this bill today. Enacting the bill would bring the U.S. into compliance with the FATF standard by requiring the States to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations formed under their laws. It would ensure that the U.S. met its international commitment to comply with FATF anti-money laundering standards.

The bill being introduced today is the product of years of work by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which I, Senator Coleman, and Senator Obama serve together. As long ago as 2000, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, at my request, conducted an investigation and released a report entitled, Suspicious Banking Activities: Possible Money Laundering by U.S. Corporations Formed for Russian Entities. This report revealed that one person was able to set up more than 2,000 Delaware shell corporations and, without disclosing the identity of the beneficial owners, open U.S. bank accounts for those corporations, which then collectively moved about $1.4 billion through the accounts. It is one of the earliest Government reports to give some sense of the law enforcement problems caused by U.S. corporations with unknown owners. It sounded the alarm sounded 8 years ago, but to little effect.

In April 2006, in response to a Levin-Coleman request, GAO released a report entitled, Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and Available, which reviewed the corporate formation laws in all 50 States. GAO disclosed that the vast majority of the States don't collect any information at all on the beneficial owners of the corporations and LLCs formed under their laws. The report also found that many States have established automated procedures that allow a person to form a new corporation or LLC within the State within 24 hours of filing an online application without any prior review of that application by a State official. In exchange for a substantial fee, two States will even form a corporation or LLC within one hour of a request. After examining these State incorporation practices, the GAO report described the problems that the lack of beneficial ownership information has caused for a range of law enforcement investigations.

In November 2006, our Subcommittee held a hearing further exploring this

issue. At that hearing, representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, DOJ, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, testified that the failure of States to collect adequate information on the beneficial owners of the legal entities they form has impeded Federal efforts to investigate and prosecute criminal acts such as terrorism, money laundering, securities fraud, and tax evasion. At the hearing, DOJ testified: ``We had allegations of corrupt foreign officials using these [U.S.] shell accounts to launder money, but were unable--due to lack of identifying information in the corporate records--to fully investigate this area.'' The IRS testified: ``Within our own borders, the laws of some states regarding the formation of legal entities have significant transparency gaps which may even rival the secrecy afforded in the most attractive tax havens.'' FinCEN identified 768 incidents of suspicious international wire transfer activity involving U.S. shell companies.

In addition, last year, when listing the ``Dirty Dozen'' tax scams for 2007, the IRS highlighted shell companies with unknown owners as number four on the list, as follows:

``4. Disguised Corporate Ownership: Domestic shell

corporations and other entities are being formed and operated

in certain states for the purpose of disguising the ownership

of the business or financial activity. Once formed, these

anonymous entities can be, and are being, used to facilitate

underreporting of income, non-filing of tax returns, listed

transactions, money laundering, financial crimes and possibly

terrorist financing. The IRS is working with state

authorities to identify these entities and to bring their

owners into compliance.''

That is not all. Dozens of Internet websites advertising corporate formation services highlight the fact that some of our States allow corporations to be formed under their laws without asking for the identity of the beneficial owners. These websites explicitly point to anonymous ownership as a reason to incorporate within the U.S., and often list certain States alongside notorious offshore jurisdictions as preferred locations for the formation of new corporations, essentially providing an open invitation for wrongdoers to form entities within the

Mr. President, there is an issue that has been festering in our military ranks for quite some time that we must address now.

America's warriors voluntarily leave the comfort of their homes and families to serve the greater good under very difficult conditions. They are fighting an incredibly complex battle on an asymmetric battlefield, against an enemy that is not bound by rules of war or human decency. They are courageously protecting our freedoms--each and every day--against those who seek to do us harm. As the father of a two-tour Iraq War Veteran, this issue is very close to my heart, and should be at the forefront of the Senate's day-to-day business.

Many of our military service members bear the physical scars of war. Thanks to advances in modern medicine and the efforts of brilliant medical personnel in the field, many of our war-wounded are able to return to a relatively normal life. Our practice of compensating disabled veterans financially helps our heroes reintegrate and assume again civilian status.

A growing concern revolves around those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who return home with invisible injuries, the psychological wounds of war that have had a huge impact on a large percentage of our military forces.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injuries, TBI, are not quickly diagnosed because we cannot see them. But we know they exist, and they often manifest years later and wreak all sorts of havoc on our military, on our military families, and on our society.

The recently-released Rand Study and American Psychiatric Association studies acknowledge the issue and paint a bleak social and financial future. The question is: What are we doing to help these men and women? The answer now is: Not enough. There are simply not enough resources available to our combat veterans to deal adequately with the problem.

Today we are proposing legislation that will address this crisis. Our proposal will address both short- and long-term solutions for those suffering from PTSD and TBI. We will increase our troops' access to qualified behavioral-health specialists and increase the number of those specialists annually in an effort to treat our men and women and help them cope with their ailments.

My staff has worked closely with the VA on these proposals and our legislation has the support of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' Association and Veterans for Common Sense.

First, our bill improves veterans' access to care by expanding the use of our Vet Centers. Currently, our Active, Guard, and Reserve military personnel do not have access to the VA's Vet Centers, community-based counseling

centers which are successfully providing mental health care to veterans.

An estimated 30 percent of troops return from combat suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury, or other mental health problems. But there are grossly insufficient numbers of military behavioral health specialists to provide the care our troops need. Recent testimony from all military Surgeons General highlighted the shortage of mental health professionals service-wide.

This legislation will give our troops the same access to Vet Centers our veterans receive for mental health care, which not only opens the door to additional resources but also lightens the load on our currently over-tasked specialists. Additionally, the legislation will reduce the stigma associated with behavior disorders by allowing troops to seek treatment outside of conventional military channels.

We also propose to enhance the recruitment and training of Military Behavioral Health Specialists through a scholarship program that targets former service members or service members preparing to separate from the military.

This legislation, overseen by the Veterans Health Administration, will provide incentives for retiring or separating military personnel and veterans to pursue an education in the behavioral health field. Over time, that will alleviate the shortage of behavioral health specialists who serve our troops and veterans.

The estimated cost to recruit an additional 80 to 90 behavioral health specialists a year is $1.5--$2 million annually. This program would pay for itself if it were to save just one veteran from developing 100 percent service-connected PTSD.

We also propose extending the survivor benefits for Service Members who commit suicide and have a medical history of PTSD or TBI.

We know that mental-health issues often manifest long after the service member has left active duty. As a result, Congress has extended free health care to five years for recently-discharged veterans with any condition that may be related to their combat service.

Unfortunately, survivor benefits have not kept up with this logic. Current coverage for veterans who commit suicide does not take into account the time it takes for PTSD and TBI to manifest.

This legislation guarantees benefits for any Service Member who commits suicide within two years of separation or retirement from the military, provided they have a documented medical history of a combat- related mental-health condition, including PTSD or TBI.

The Service Member's survivor will be entitled to the same Social Security, Survivor Benefit Plan, Veteran's Affairs Benefits, and active duty burial benefits that they would have received had the Service Member died on their last day of active duty.

Our legislation also creates a grant program for non-profit organizations to provide support services to the families of our deceased Active, Guard, and Reserve Military personnel and Veterans.

The psychological impact associated with the loss of a loved one in a combat zone is tremendous. Unfortunately, there are not adequate numbers of military Casualty Assistance Officers to serve surviving families. While norofit organizations have professional staff that provide long-term and peer-based emotional support, Department of Defense Casualty Assistance Officers are only temporarily detailed to these duties and often are unfamiliar with the regulations or the emotional needs of surviving families.

This legislation establishes a competitive federal grant program for nonprofit support organizations to provide vital support services to the surviving families of deceased military personnel.

Next, our legislation will ensure the fair treatment and care of all of our military personnel, including those whose discharges may have been caused by combat-related mental-health condition, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury.

Many of those who are forced to leave the military because of performance issues such as substance abuse or anger problems have underlying mental health conditions such as TBI or PTSD that are not being properly diagnosed.

In many cases the military has inappropriately discharged these veterans, and they subsequently lose access to VA care and other benefits.

No veteran that has served this nation in combat should be denied the benefits they earned on the battlefield. This provision allows the VA to screen the veteran's discharge, and, if the veteran is found to have been improperly diagnosed, to take action to correct the problem accordingly.

Specifically, this legislation would reinstate the provision repealed from the law in 1996 giving the Vet Centers the authority to help the new generation of war veterans to resolve any problems presented with the character of their discharges.

Finally, our legislation will better prepare our troops for combat through the creation of a pilot program at Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Carson, Colorado. We will provide comprehensive training to educate U.S. military personnel on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder--how to prevent it, how to recognize it when it occurs, and what to do about it when it happens. We hope to build resiliency, enhance performance, and mitigate stress among the troops.

The rise in PTSD cases demands a new approach to preparing U.S. military personnel and their families for the stresses associated with combat.

The pilot program is designed to enhance the individual's neurophysiological understanding of stress and trauma resolution and to equip them with performance-enhancing skills drawn from both the military special-operations community and the elite sports world.

The program will train and support an Army Brigade Combat Team and their families at all stages of a soldier's tour: pre-deployment, mid- deployment and post-deployment.

Addressing PTSD head on through self-awareness training will teach military personnel to cope better with combat-related issues and reduce the need and cost for long-term treatment.

The long-term effects of untreated mental illness are severe: drug and alcohol abuse, job and marital problems, even suicide.

We can prevent much of this unfortunate legacy by prompt and effective treatment when our troops come home.

We are all the beneficiaries of the sacrifices of others. Our responsibility is to continue to improve the ways in which we support our troops and their families.

They do not take our freedom for granted; we should not take their sacrifices for granted.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these proposals.

Mr. President, today I will introduce, along with Senators Klobuchar, Tester, and Harkin, the Election Day Registration Act of 2008, which would significantly increase voter participation by allowing all eligible citizens to register to vote in Federal elections on Election Day.

In many ways, the machinery of our democracy needs significant repair. We live in an age of low turnout and high cynicism. The American people have lost faith in our election system, in part because they are not confident that their votes will be counted or that the ballot box is accessible to each and every voter regardless of ability, race, or means.

What we see instead are long lines at polling places; faulty voting machines; under-trained, under-paid, over-worked poll workers; partisan election administrators; suspect vote tallies; caging lists; intimidation at the polling place; misleading flyers; illegal voter- file purges; and now, the Supreme Court approving discriminatory voter ID laws. If people cannot trust their elections, why should they trust their elected officials?

Two years ago, Professor Dan Tokaji, a leading election law expert, called for a ``moneyball approach to election reform.'' Named after Michael Lewis's book about the Oakland A's data-driven hiring system, Tokaji's approach is quintessentially progressive, as that term was understood at the turn of the century. ``I mean to suggest a research- driven inquiry,'' Tokaji wrote, ``in place of the anecdotal approach that has too often dominated election reform conversations. While anecdotes and intuition have their place, they're no substitute for hard data and rigorous analysis.''

This bill embodies the moneyball approach to election reform. In stark contrast to many so-called election reform proposals, this bill addresses a real problem--low voter turnout--it targets a major cause of the problem--archaic registration laws--and it offers a proven solution--Election Day registration.

The bill is very simple: it amends the Help America Vote Act to require every State to allow eligible citizens to register and vote in a Federal election on the day of the election. Voters may register using any form that satisfies the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act, including the Federal mail-in voter registration form and any state's standard registration form. North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, is exempted from the bill's requirements.

The bill itself is simple, but it addresses a significant problem: the low voter turnout that has plagued this country for the last 40 years. We live in a participatory democracy, where our Government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a consent embodied in the people's exercise of their fundamental right to vote. It is self evident that a participatory democracy depends on participation.

This may be a government of the people, but the people are not voting. Since 1968, American political participation has hovered around 50 percent for Presidential elections and 40 percent for congressional elections. Even in 2004, a record-breaking year, turnout was only 55 percent of the voting age population. The U.S. may be the only established democracy where the fact that a little under half of the electorate stayed home is considered cause for celebration.

In fact, our predecessors in the Senate would be surprised to find us celebrating such low turnout: a 1974 report by the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service bemoaned the ``shocking'' drop in turnout in the 1972 election. And what was the number that so troubled the Committee--55 percent.

The report went on: ``[i]t is the Committee's conviction that our disquieting record of voter participation is in large part due to the hodgepodge of registration barriers put in the way of the voter. Such obstacles have little, if anything, to recommend them. At best, current registration laws in the various states are outmoded and simply inappropriate for a highly mobile population. At worst, registration laws can be construed as a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who desperately need entry into the decision-making processes of our country.''

What a shame, that the Committee's findings are still valid. Our archaic registration laws have been reformed, but they are still archaic. We have passed a number of important bills designed to combat low turnout, but turnout is still low. America is even more mobile than it was in 1974, and yet our registration laws are still out of touch with the reality that more than 40 million Americans move every year. Worst of all, our registration laws still fall especially hard on the young, the old, and the poor.

We have long known that complicated voter registration requirements constitute one of the major barriers to voting. In fact, many States adopted voter registration in order to prevent certain segments of the population from voting. Alexander Keyssar, the preeminent scholar on the history of the right to vote in this country, writes that although ``[r]egistration laws emerged in the nineteenth century as a means of keeping track of voters and preventing fraud; they also served--and were intended to serve--as a means of keeping African-American, working-class, immigrant, and poor voters from the polls.''

It is time for a fundamental change. A large body of research tells us that unnecessarily burdensome voter registration requirements are the single

largest factor in preventing people from voting. Simply put, voter registration restrictions should not keep eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote. The solution to this problem is Election Day registration.

Decades of empirical research confirm Election Day registration's positive impact on turnout. As one academic paper states, ``the evidence on whether EDR augments the electorate is remarkably clear and consistent. Studies finding positive and significant turnout impacts are too numerous to list.'' Studies indicate that Election Day registration alone increases turnout by roughly 5 to 10 percentage points.

In general, States with Election Day registration boast voter turnout that is 10-12 percentage points higher than States that require voters to register before Election Day. Turnout in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which implemented Election Day registration over 35 years ago, has been especially high: in 2004, for example, 78 percent of eligible Minnesotans and 75 percent of eligible Wisconsinites went to the polls. The last time national voter turnout was above 70 percent, it was 1896, there were only 45 States, and the gold standard was the dominant campaign issue.

Critics might worry about the possibility of fraud, but Election Day registration actually makes the registration process more secure. Voters registering on Election Day do so in the presence of an elections official who verifies the voter's residency and identity on the spot. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's Secretary of State, points out that Election Day registration ``is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you--not a postcard in the mail. That is a no- brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.''

In contrast to most election reforms, the cost of Election Day registration is negligible. A recent survey of 26 local elections officials in six EDR States found that ``officials agreed that incidental expense of administering EDR is minimal.'' In fact, Election Day registration may actually result in a net savings because it significantly reduces the use of provisional ballots. Provisional ballots, which are required by the Help America Vote Act, are expensive to administer. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that provisional ballots cost State and local governments about $25 million a year.

In some states the number of provisional ballots cast is surprisingly large. For example, in 2004, more than 4 percent of California's registered voters cast provisional ballots--that's 644,642 provisional ballots. In Ohio, 157,714 provisional ballots were cast, about 2 percent of all registered voters.

In contrast, in 2004 only 0.03 percent of voters in EDR States cast a provisional ballot. In Wisconsin, only 374 provisional ballots were cast. In Maine, only 95 provisional ballots were cast. In fact, only 952 provisional ballots were cast in all the EDR States combined in 2004. To be sure, this bill is no cure-all: it does not address long lines, deceptive flyers, and faulty voting machines. Other bills, good bills, address those issues.

The bottom line is this: the Election Day Registration Act would substantially increase civic participation, improve the integrity of the electoral process, reduce election administration costs, and reaffirm that voting is a fundamental right. It has been proven effective by more than 30 years of successful implementation in Minnesota and Wisconsin and decades of empirical research. Election Day registration is good for voters, good for taxpayers, and good for democracy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.