Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said: What is it?

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

I said: OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just did. I thank the Senator.

Gas Prices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

part of the supply-and-demand equation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

From: Pat Taylor

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

To: Alexander,Senator

Cc: Susan Luker

Subject: Gas Prices Affect Meals On Wheels In East Tennessee

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

Director for Douglas Cherokee Economic Authority Senior

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

hundreds of elderly and disabled citizens in the counties of

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

writing to you on behalf of all of these homebound clients

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

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

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

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

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

mileage reimbursement they receive desperately needs to be

increased in order for meal delivery to continue.

Anything you can do will be greatly appreciated. Many

elderly and disabled Tennesseans are able to avoid being

institutionalized because of the daily contact and nutrition

provided by the Senior Nutrition Program.

Sincerely,

Pat Taylor,

Director, Douglas Cherokee Economic Authority, Senior

Nutrition Program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a celebration today of the 40th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I want to acknowledge that important occasion by announcing two bills I am proposing today that will expand protection for some of Oregon's most special places and will lock in their preservation for generations to come.

The first bill is the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act, which will secure protection for a stunning piece of Oregon that includes natural treasures both above and below the ground at the Oregon Caves. The Oregon Caves has a unique geologic history and is particularly known as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide. With the bill I am introducing today, we will be creating the first subterranean wild and scenic river, a perennial stream at the monument known as the River Styx. This river is an underground portion of Cave Creek that flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the national monument.

The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification for the Oregon Caves National Monument many times. They did it first in 1939. They did it again in 1949 and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law. I was born in 1949. It seems to me that after this effort has gone on literally for decades, it is time to secure this protection for generations to come. I want to make sure the new Wyden twins, William Peter and Ava Rose, are going to enjoy it with millions of Oregonians. That is why it is important that this action be taken and taken quickly.

Expanding this boundary will allow us to further protect the stunning majesty of both the underground and the above-ground treasures found at this national monument.

Established by a Presidential proclamation in 1909, the Oregon Caves National Monument is a 480-acre natural wonder located in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. It was originally set aside because of its unusual scientific interest and importance. Oregon Caves has a unique geologic history

and is particularly known as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide.

A perennial stream, the ``River Styx''--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the national monument. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state- sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared bats and several cave- adapted species of arthropods, insects, spiders, etc., found only in the Oregon Caves and nowhere else. The caves possess a significant collection of Pleistocene-aged fossils, including jaguar and grizzly bear. Grizzly bones that were found in the cave in 1995 were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old, the oldest known from either North or South America.

Today, I am proposing legislation that will enhance the protection of the resources associated with Oregon Caves National Monument and increase public recreation opportunities by adding surrounding lands to the monument. My bill would expand the monument boundary by 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek Watershed, management of which would be transferred from the United States Forest Service to the National Park Service. In addition, my legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as wild, scenic, or recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first subterranean wild and scenic river, the River Styx. This bill would also provide authorization for retirement of existing grazing allotments.

When the Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the years, however, scientific research and technology have provided new information about the cave's ecology, and the impacts from the surface environment and the related hydrological processes. The current 480- acre boundary is insufficient to adequately protect this cave system. The National Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification numerous times, first in 1939, again in 1949, and most recently in 2000. Today, I am happy to propose legislation to enact that boundary adjustment into law.

The Oregon Caves National Monument makes a unique contribution to Southern Oregon's economy and to the national heritage. The monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually, and is the second smallest unit of the National Park System. A larger monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed monument boundary. In addition to the numerous subsurface resources, the monument's above-ground lands in the Siskiyou Mountains possess a beauty and diversity that is unique in America, and indeed the world. The extensive biological diversity stems from the unique geology of the region and the range of temperatures, fire regimes, and climates found in the area that create a region rich in endemic plants, fish-bearing streams, and the most varied conifer forest on the planet. The Oregon Caves National Monument's approximately 500 plants, 5,000 animals, 2,000 fungi, and over a million bacteria per acre that make the spot have one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere.

Expanding the monument's boundary will also preserve the caves' resources by protecting the water that enters the cave. Water quality has been a major concern and the activities on the adjacent lands can affect the water quality and the caves' precious resources. By granting the National Park Service the ability to safeguard these resources, and by providing for a voluntary donation of grazing permits, my legislation will be able to better protect these resources. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. Over the decades, the number of allowed livestock has diminished, but the livestock still has an impact on the drinking water supply and the water quality of this natural gem. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, such as my legislation will allow to proceed.

I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers and supporters in the local business and conservation community in Southern Oregon, to Phil Krouse for his commitment to Oregon's natural resources, and to Craig Ackerman, the former Superintendent of the Oregon Caves National Monument. My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer and Wu will be introducing companion legislation in the House today and I look forward to working with them to advance this legislation.

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

Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I introduce today is the Lower Rogue Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Rogue River is a much beloved piece of Oregon's beautiful landscape. This bill will protect the waters that feed it.

Protecting the wild and scenic tributaries to the Rogue River is a critical step in protecting the backbone of one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. In 2008, the American Rivers Organization named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in our country. I am hoping to change that today by introducing this legislation which would protect 143 miles of wild and scenic tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold, clean water.

The Rogue River is one of our Nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for its free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities. The headwaters of this great river start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park-- and ultimately empty into the Pacific Ocean near Gold Beach on the Southwest Oregon coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the United States. The Rogue River is home to runs of coho, spring and fall chinook, winter and summer steelhead--and it has the special distinction of being one of only several rivers in the country with runs of green sturgeon.

The Rogue River received its first protections in the original Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, in 1968. A narrow stretch of land was protected along the river banks. Since that time, a great deal has been learned about the importance of protecting the tributaries that feed into the main stem of the Rogue. Protecting the wild and scenic tributaries to the Rogue River is a critical step in protecting the backbone of one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries.

In 2008, American Rivers named the Rogue and its tributaries as the second most endangered river in the U.S. I'm hoping to change that today by introducing legislation to protect this river and its tributaries. My proposal would protect 143 miles of wild and scenic tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. The protected tributaries would include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch--and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue.

By protecting the tributaries that feed this mighty river, I will seek to protect the Rogue River for future generations so they can enjoy the Rogue River as we do today. My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives DeFazio, Hooley, Blumenauer and Wu will be introducing companion legislation in the House today. I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of Southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these waters and enable the outdoor recreationists to use and enjoy these rivers. I look forward to working with my House colleagues and the bill's other supporters to advance our legislation to the President's desk.

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

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

Mr. President, if you travel into Maryland or Illinois or anywhere across America and ask people what is on your mind, they are going to tell you it is gasoline prices. Why? Because they have to fill the tank each week and cannot believe how much they are paying with the credit cards and cash in their wallet going out in record amounts to fill their cars and trucks and try to get on with their daily lives.

Then you go driving down any street in America, there is that big sign right in your face: $4.08, $4.25. It is a constant reminder of the problems we face. We have tried, on the Democratic side, to move some legislation to deal with this situation. We tried last week to deal with the energy security bill that would have found a way, we think, to start creating an environment to bring down these prices.

It was an effort that most people agree is long overdue. There is a $17 billion subsidy to the oil industry. Why would you do that when this industry is recording record profits, not just for their industry but for any American business?

We have also tried to deal with energy tax incentives for wind power and solar power and things that are the source of power and energy for America's economy in the future. Twice now, not once but twice, the Republicans have refused to join us in even bringing these measures to the floor. They keep stopping us cold.

The Senate's 51 Democrats and 41 Republicans, with absences, with a 60-vote requirement for most major legislation, is within the power of the Republicans to stop debate. They have done it repeatedly.

There is also a concern across America because the response from the Republican side, not just from our colleagues in the Senate but from Senator McCain as well as the President, has been to call on us to drill our way out of this problem.

I am afraid people who suggest we can drill for more oil in America and take care of our problems do not understand basic math. The United States uses 25 percent of the world's oil supply; we are big users for a big economy. Do you know what we have in oil reserves out of all the known oil reserves in the world? We have 3 percent, 3 percent of the reserves and 25 percent of the usage. You cannot drill your way out of the situation.

They do not understand as well that currently there are Federal lands available for drilling that are not being put into production; lands that have already been leased by oil companies. These are lands owned by the people of the United States, and the right to drill for oil and gas has been leased to a private company that sits on it and does nothing.

You say to yourself: Well, it cannot be too much because we need oil, it is so valuable these days. Oil and gas companies--let me show this chart--hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of Federal land that are not producing oil.

This land could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil every day. That is six times the peak production of any drilling in Alaska for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Every time you ask a Republican what is the problem, they say: Man, if we could drill in Alaska, everything would be just fine. Do you know how many acres are in Alaska? There are 1.5 million. The oil companies are sitting on leases for 68 million acres now that they are not drilling.

If they did not think they were valuable, they would not have bought the leases. But they did. They wait year after year, sitting on these leases and keep throwing in our face: Alaska, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not telling us it would take 8 to 10 years to bring the first barrel of crude oil out of Alaska, and it would have a minimal impact on the price of gasoline.

Let me show you some charts which kind of tell the story about these 68 million acres in more graphic terms. There are 68 million acres leased to oil companies. These are offshore, 33.5 million leased acres unused offshore; 34.5 million leased acres unused onshore.

Take a look at the Gulf of Mexico region. I know it is hard to pick this up in my presentation. But the red areas are areas currently under lease that are not producing oil and gas, owned by the Federal Government, leased to private oil companies, and not in production.

The blue dots are in production. Look at all the opportunity. So when the President has a press conference, or Senator McCain has a press conference, and says: We need to have offshore drilling, the obvious question, Senator, Mr. President, is: What about all these lands, 68 million acres of which are under lease right now for drilling and not being used?

Take a look at this as well. I see Senator Dodd has arrived on the floor. He has been one of the proponents of this particular point of view. I thank him for this. He is welcome to take a look at the charts and use them at any time in the future.

Here are 34.5 million acres leased to companies on the onshore site. Look at the Western part of the United States. All this red area is Federal land currently leased to oil companies for production not in production. Now take a look at Alaska, 1.5 million acres. That is what they cannot wait to get into.

The honest answer is the oil companies have opportunities now to produce

more oil and gas. It is time for us to stop hearing the excuses. We have to look to the reality. The reality is the oil companies are making profits at recordbreaking levels. The reality is speculation is driving up the price of oil, and the reality is the President of the United States has yet to call the oil company executives into the Oval Office to tell them they are wrecking the economy.

He has yet to call them in and say: For goodness sakes, start drilling on the land you already lease from the Federal Government. Instead, it is always the next horizon--if we could just get into Alaska, if we could just get into the Outer Continental Shelf.

We shouldn't have to compromise our health or our environment to make sure our economy is strong.

I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes in morning business and that time not be deducted from the already reserved morning business of 2 hours on each side.

Have no doubt, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge isn't going to have a dramatic impact when it comes to the world's supply of oil. Even the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration admits that. By the time the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be at peak production, which wouldn't take place until the year 2030, 22 years from now, refuge oil would make up only six-tenths of 1 percent of the world's oil. If one listens to some of the political rhetoric, they would think there is this vast resource of oil in Alaska that is going to come to our rescue. It is not. It is a drop in the bucket when we consider today's high gasoline prices. In fact, the effect at the gas pump wouldn't be felt for over 20 years, and then it is only pennies a gallon.

The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is one of America's last pristine, untouched areas. It is home to more than 200 wildlife species, including polar bears, musk ox, and caribou. President Dwight Eisenhower set this area aside over 50 years ago and said: This is something we need to preserve. This is a once-in-a-lifetime-and-beyond opportunity to protect some treasure for future generations.

I am happy to yield.

That is my understanding.

The Senator from Maryland is correct. There is 68 million acres currently under lease to oil companies, Federal land owned by the people for which oil companies are paying money each year for the right to drill for oil, 68 million acres and no drilling taking place. So when the President announces: We just have to find more Federal land to drill on, the obvious question is, why aren't they drilling on the 68 million acres offshore and onshore they currently have under lease?

If we consider the 1.5 million acres on which they want to drill in ANWR, it is 50 times.

That is not fuzzy math. This 68 million acres would be the size of my home State of Illinois and its adjoining State of Indiana together. That is how much they currently have under lease to drill for oil that they are not touching.

That is clearly what they are doing. Anyone who has had a crying baby knows what a pacifier is. You try to get the pacifier in the baby's mouth so they will calm down. They may still be hungry or crying for some other reason, but you try to quiet them down. That is what we are hearing in response.

When people say drill in Alaska or drill offshore, they want to quiet us down because when we look at the numbers, the numbers do not compute. If we are going to be honest about energy sources, there is a limit to how much we can drill in territory controlled by America. There is much more we have to do to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We are talking about domestic sources--ethanol, biofuels, diesel. We are talking about renewable and sustainable sources of energy such as wind power and solar power that would not destroy the planet with global warming. That is the big challenge.

Sadly, for 7\1/2\ years, this administration has ignored it. Now we are in a terrible situation. I wish this President would show leadership and bring in the oil company executives, sit them down in the White House, and tell them they can't keep demanding these high profits at the expense of American families and businesses. Tell them to start drilling on lands they are currently leasing; try to challenge America to move forward in a fair way to have affordable energy.

I am glad the Senator from Maryland joined me in this conversation. I know she has an important agenda she will initiate now.

I yield the floor.