Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act

I say to my Senate colleagues, to the American people, there is both good news and bad news. The good news is we are now on a subject that the American people are interested in. The bad news is, it only deals with a very tiny part of the overall problem we confront.

We know that over 80 percent of the American public believes we ought to expand domestic production of oil and gas, both onshore and offshore. We know a speculation-only bill, while interesting debate as to what part of the price of gas at the pump speculation involves, we know that alone is not going to deal with the core problem, which is we do not have enough supply of oil and gas.

As the most famous rich Democrat in America, Warren Buffett, said: We do not have a speculation problem, we have a supply and a demand problem.

As T. Boone Pickens, who has been liberally quoted on both sides of the aisle here, and has been in town this week, has repeatedly pointed out to us, his view is we ought to do everything we can to both expand domestic production and to conserve. But he too does not believe speculation alone has anything to do with the core problem.

The dilemma we have now is that we have a very narrowly crafted measure that the majority leader has made impossible to amend, that no experts in the country think would have a real impact on the core problem. Senate Republicans find that unacceptable.

The American people are pounding the table. They are angry as they gas up their cars every week and see the pricetag. They are saying: Do something and do something now that will make a difference. This is the biggest issue in the country since terrorism right after 9/11, and our response: A no-amendment approach. That is simply unacceptable and inconsistent with even the recent history of the Senate when preventing amendments by the minority has become all too common.

Look back to last fall or last year. We did an energy bill on the floor of the Senate, an important energy bill that, among other things, raised the corporate average fuel economy of automobiles. We spent 15 days on the floor. The price of gas at that point was $3.06 a gallon. It is a full dollar or so higher now. It was not the biggest issue in the country at that point. Although it was a big issue, it was not the biggest issue. We had 16 rollcall votes. We agreed to 49 amendments; in 15 days, 49 amendments when the price of gas was $3.06 a gallon.

In 2005, when this side of the aisle contained the majority, we had an energy bill, an important energy bill. The price of gas at that time was $2.26 a gallon, which we all felt was entirely too high then. We spent 10 days on the floor on that debate, we had 19 rollcall votes on amendments, and we adopted 57 amendments.

Both of those measures ended up becoming law. They were clearly not one of those check-the-box exercises where you put everybody on record and move on. I think the American people would be appalled and will be appalled as they learn that the plan here is to not do anything serious about the biggest issue in the country.

There is a lot of dodging and weaving going on. We know the Senate Appropriations Committee decided not to function out of fear that amendments would be offered relating to offshore drilling. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I gather, was rather candid about it: We are not going to meet because we might have votes on the No. 1 issue for the American people, which is to expand domestic supply.

Now, we have said repeatedly on this side that we do not think expanding supply is the key. We think you should both find more and use less--do both. As T. Boone Pickens repeatedly told us this week, both sides of the aisle: You need to do all of these things. You need to do all of them quickly. ``Get about it,'' he suggests.

I am sure he said to the Democrats, as he did to the Republicans, that he is 80 years old, he wants to see some results soon. He said he was running out of time. Well, the American people are running out of time too. So my suggestion is we proceed with this bill, the most important issue in the country, in a way that will get a result for the American people. A proven way to get a result, demonstrated last year when the Democrats were in the majority and in 2005 when the Republicans were in the majority, is to have a process that is fair to both sides, that allows all Members of the Senate to participate in writing a bill on an important subject.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3268

Now, in that regard, I have indicated to my friend the majority leader that I was going to propound a unanimous consent agreement that I think would be reasonable, related to the subject, and begin to move us in the direction of having an accomplishment and not a check-the-box exercise.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the pending measure in the following manner: that the bill be subject to energy-related amendments only; provided further, that amendments be considered in an alternating manner between the two sides of the aisle, first an amendment on one side, then on the other. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill remaining be the pending business to the exclusion of all other business other than privileged matters or items that are agreed to jointly by the two leaders. I ask unanimous consent that the first seven amendments to be offered on my side of the aisle by the Republicans, by either myself or my designee, be the following: an Outer Continental Shelf amendment, plus the conservation provision; an oil shale amendment, including a conservation provision; an Alaska energy production amendment, including a conservation provision; the Gas Price Reduction Act, which has 44 cosponsors; a clean nuclear energy amendment; a coal-to-liquid fuel amendment, plus conservation; and a LIHEAP amendment.

All this would do would be to indicate what the Republicans have in mind on those seven amendments related to the subject, and would give notice to the other side that were we permitted to do so, those would be the first seven we would offer.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that that be adopted.

Well, Madam President, the good news is we are on the subject the American people are interested in. Republicans believe it is important to talk about the biggest issue in the country. We have agreed that speculation is something we are willing to take a look at.

As the majority leader pointed out, it is part of the Gas Price Reduction Act. But we need to do a lot more than that, and we will be arguing during the pendency of this issue that we ought to open this bill, give all Senators on both the Democratic and Republican side an opportunity to turn this into a serious, comprehensive energy proposal, debated and amended, consistent with Senate tradition.

That, we know, will lead to an actual law. What happens when you go through these expurgated, slimmed-down, check-the-box exercises is, you do not get anything done. The American people are out of patience. Maybe this is one of the reasons this Congress has a 14-percent approval rating, which makes the President's approval rating look pretty good. They sent us here to do something, and I think I can safely speak on behalf of the Republican conference that we are ready to do something about the most important issue in the country.

We are pleased to be on the subject matter, and I see my good friend from Arizona on his feet.

Madam President, I would be happy to.

Well, Madam President, I would say to my friend from Arizona, of course not. Members of our conference, as we know because we worked very hard on this, believe that the four provisions of the Gas Price Reduction Act--offshore drilling, oil shale moratorium--I see the Senator from Colorado here--battery-driven cars--I see the Senator from Tennessee here--and an important provision on speculation are a good place to start.

We would like to have that vote. But there are other members of our conference--I see the Senator from Alaska here who feels very strongly maybe this is a good time to debate and vote on ANWR or maybe a good time to discuss the proposal about which the other side has been talking about part of her State that is currently open that may or may not end up being productive.

The fundamental point, I say to my friend from Arizona, is, everybody in the Republican conference believes, since this is the most important issue in the country, we ought to spend some time on it and try to get it right. That is what we ought to be doing.

I see my friend from Tennessee on his feet. Does he have a question?

Madam President, I am happy to yield.

Madam President, I would say to my friend from Tennessee that is precisely what we had hoped to do. And that is the reason I outlined the way the Senate dealt with the broad subject of energy last year under a Democratic majority and 3 years ago under a Republican majority.

If we want to make a law around here, the way you do it is you give both sides an opportunity to amend and debate. That is not for the purpose of not going forward with a bill. That is for the purpose of going forward with a bill and getting a result. I think clearly I can safely speak for every single member of the Republican conference: We would like to get a result to make a difference.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Tennessee, I think I am hard pressed to think of a particular example of any conservation measure that virtually every Member of our conference is not in favor of. Every Member of our conference has said, as the Senator from Tennessee has indicated, that we would like to both find more and use less, and we are confident that we cannot have an accomplishment that actually makes a difference unless we do both.

So I think the Senator from Tennessee is entirely correct. Our goal here is to find more and to use less and to actually make a law and make a difference rather than trying to make an issue.

The only time I heard that suggested was by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who think maybe you can only do half of that. But I am unaware of any American people who believe that. The American people get this. The reason this issue has jumped way up the charts is because they understand the law of supply and demand. They understand we both need to find more and to use less.

And I do not understand the reluctance here. I really do not. In a Congress enjoying a 14-percent approval rating, I do not understand what my good friends on the other side are afraid of. What is the problem? Why don't we join hands and do something?

Every one of our amendments may not pass; we do not know whether they will. But what is the reluctance of the majority to tackle the No. 1 issue in the country? I am perplexed by the strategy. I do not know why we should be afraid. We are all familiar with these issues. We wrestled with many of them in 2007 when we passed an energy bill. We did it in 2005 when we passed an energy bill. Most people think both of those bills made a positive difference for the country. It obviously is not enough.

If not now, when? When? Now is the perfect time to get started. And it is never a good answer to say if we do this or we do that it will not make a difference tomorrow. Almost none of these things make a difference tomorrow, unless collectively we do something that is so applauded by the rest of the world and by the markets that they think, my goodness, maybe these Americans are serious about getting on top of this problem and doing something about it.

So that is our goal, I would say to my good friend, the majority leader. There

is nothing tricky about it. There are no gimmicks involved. This is a serious effort and an overwhelming interest on our side to make a law-- a law that will make a difference, and to do it not tomorrow, not 3 weeks from now, not in November, but now. The way forward toward an accomplishment for our country is to get started. We have the opportunity to do that.

If my good friend on the other side would like to engage in further discussions off the floor about ways in which we can agree to sets of amendments that are fair to both sides and go forward, we are happy to do that. But we are relieved to be on the subject, and we think we ought to stay on this subject because the American people expect it of us.

Madam President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire for a question.

Madam President, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, of course we would be happy to agree to time agreements on our amendments. We want to go forward. There is no effort to slow this down. We want to make progress. Frequently, as my friend from New Hampshire points out, the way you make progress when you offer an amendment around here is, you agree to a time agreement. There is a certain amount of risk involved because you do not know whether you are going to win or lose, but you move forward.

That, I assure my colleagues, is the way we handled the energy bill last year, it is the way we handled the energy bill in 2005, and it is the way to make a law and to make a difference for our country.

So I would say to my good friend, the majority leader, that is where we hope we will end up, in a position where both sides can have their fair say on this important issue and just maybe come together and do something important for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a little over 3 months, Americans will make a very important choice on the future direction of the country. We will go to the polls, we will select a new President. Americans will also vote on roughly one-third of the Senate and all the Members of the House of Representatives.

According to public opinion polls, economic issues will be among the most important matters voters will consider when they go to the voting booth in November.

Everybody knows that the Federal Government affects economic issues, and we do it through Federal fiscal policy. How we deal with Federal fiscal policy can be viewed as two sides of a ledger: On one side is tax policy, and on the other side is spending policy. The choices about how we as a nation want to balance each side of the ledger will have very important consequences and implications on our economic future.

Most economists agree that high taxes dampen economic growth. Too much spending, just like too much taxation, can also dampen economic growth. As elected representatives of the American people, we have an obligation, as the Constitution directs us, to spend those tax dollars for the common defense and also for the general welfare of the Nation. We all have a stake in a growing economy, and we will all suffer from a shrinking economy.

As ranking Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, I believe it is my obligation to explain the choices and the consequences of those fiscal policy choices; therefore, I wish to focus on tax policy as it relates to the choices Americans will face this fall.

In all of the discussion about vague notions of change and vague notions of hope, there are some substantive issues Americans will be facing in the fall. The big question will be how much is the Federal Government going to take out of the American taxpayers' pocketbooks. We will need to evaluate before the election what we are being told on the campaign trail--not just what we are told, compare it with what is likely to occur starting at high noon, January 20, 2009.

I think from history we have some pretty good indicators that tell us what will happen based upon the choices of the American people in the next election. To do that, we must look at our current tax burden. Then we need to take a look at what Senators McCain and Obama are telling us about how they will change the tax burden. Finally, we have to consider the ability of each candidate to deliver on promises. Each taxpayer is going to have to make choices, choices about what these candidates will do on tax issues once they get into that position of power. Every American taxpayer and every American family budget will be impacted by the new President and the agenda of the Congress. Elections have consequences.

Today, I wish to consider future tax policy and do it in the context of the Congressional Record over the last 3 decades.

First, I want to compare the actions of Congress on tax hikes and tax cuts in relation to each party's hold on the White House and do it from the congressional as well as the White House basis. As a baseline, I will show a scorecard of tax hikes and tax cuts for each 4-year Presidential term since 1981.

I have a chart here. The chart shows three things. They start, as I said, with the year 1981. As you will note, the years are divided into Presidential terms, so we start with President Reagan's first term and work our way through to the present, which is the last year of President George W. Bush's second term. You see the bottom lines across there, the ones that have red and blue, and the years there for the Presidential terms.

Right above the line for the Presidential terms, we have a thick line. It is a three-part line. The line shows relative power of Democrats and Republicans. The top third of the line, if red, shows Republicans holding the White House. The middle third of the line shows who held the Senate majority for a certain period. If red, then Republicans held the Senate; if blue, the Democrats held the Senate. Then the bottom line, that is in regard to the House majority. Like the other two lines, if red, it means the Republicans held the majority; if blue, it means Democrats were in charge of the other body.

If you move up the chart, there is a running total of how much on a yearly average that particular Congress and President agreed to raise or reduce taxes. The lines going up or down are in regard to the tax raises or tax decreases. This data is not mine; it was drawn from the Treasury Office of Tax Analysis report that was released--the most recent one in 2006. The amounts are derived from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimates of each of the enacted bills Congress passed during that 26-year period of time.

Let's take a further look at the chart so you get some specifics.

President Reagan made tax relief a cornerstone of his successful 1980 campaign. His election helped Republicans attain a narrow majority for the first time in over a generation. The House, of course, remained in Democratic hands.

In 1981, President Reagan proposed and Congress agreed to a large tax cut. So you have it. The first green line goes there. On average, if fully implemented, it meant that you would have a tax cut of almost $111 billion per year. Over time, the Democratic House pushed for and President Reagan reluctantly agreed to some smaller tax increases, and they are the second line where the tax increases come down toward the zero line there.

For the 1984 campaign, President Reagan made revenue-neutral tax reform a central part of his campaign for reelection. Republicans held a majority in the Senate for that election, and President Reagan had built a case for reform. Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the House agreed, and the chart reveals tax reform for 1986 of a small amount, as you can see there, but still tax reform. It is significant, I would say.

But in 1986, Republicans lost control of the Senate. I happen to remember that because I was on the Finance Committee for my first 6 years in the Senate. We didn't have enough Republican seats after that, I didn't have enough seniority, and so I lost my seat on the Finance Committee.

Congressional Democrats insisted on and obtained, after their success in that election, a tax increase in 1987. You can see that tax increase there for 1987.

In 1988, as you recall, President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush campaigned, in 1988, and included a pledge not to raise taxes. President George H.W. Bush won that election, but congressional Democrats solidified their majorities, and, as a part of a deficit- reduction package, President George H.W. Bush forgot about his campaign promise and agreed to a tax increase. And here it is. You can see the big tax increase--in 1989-1990, it was. Shortly after that tax increase went into effect--there are consequences of policy made here in Congress--the American economy went into recession that year.

Then you get to the 1992 campaign. Bill Clinton, in response to the recession, campaigned on a middle-income tax cut and tax increases on higher income taxpayers. President Clinton was elected, and Congress Democrats retained a very comfortable majority in the House and Senate, as you can see by the blue lines there, during those years.

In 1993, less than a year later, on the force of the Democratic votes alone, the largest tax increase of modern era was enacted. There you can see it very definitely, a big tax increase at that period of time. You will note it is at the highest point on the tax increase part of the chart.

Republicans claimed majorities in the House and Senate in the 1994 election.

President Clinton agreed to a revenue-neutral small business tax relief package in 1996. During that campaign, President Clinton campaigned once again on middle-income tax relief. President Clinton was reelected, Republicans increased their majority in the Senate, and we retained a majority in the House.

In 1997, congressional Republicans and President Clinton agreed to a significant tax relief package. It was the first tax relief law since the President Reagan administration, and it averaged about $13 billion a year. There you can see it in the year of 1997.

George W. Bush campaigned on a broad-based tax relief plan for 2000, or in the 2000 campaign. He was elected then, obviously. The parties split the Senate 50-50, with Republicans in control because of Vice President Cheney's tie-breaking vote for organization. Republicans held their House majority.

In 2001, President Bush and Congress agreed on the largest comprehensive tax relief package since President Reagan. Here it is, as you can see, the big tax reduction of 2001, averaging about $82 billion per year.

As things happen around here, I was chairman of that committee for only about 5 months because Senator Jeffords switched from being a Republican to a Democrat, and in the wake of 9/11, corporate scandals, and other events, President Bush, a Republican House, and a Democratic Senate agreed on an economic stimulus package that averaged about $12 billion a year.

Republicans regained the Senate majority in 2002. So in 2003, President Bush and the Republican Congress continued to significantly reduce the overall tax burden.

So here you can see in the 2003 and 2004 tax bills a combined about another $82 billion a year reduction in taxes. If you look at President George W. Bush's first term, enacted legislation totaled roughly $174 billion per year, on average. Republicans held the House for all of that term. Republicans held the Senate for most but not all of that term.

In 2004, President Bush campaigned for reelection by emphasizing the permanence of the lower tax burdens secured during his first term. Republicans increased their House and Senate majorities.

So in 2006, President Bush and the Republican Congress extended the tax relief in the first term through the year 2010. It is shown here. It averages about $22 billion per year. In 2006, the situation now, as a result of that election, Democrats gained majorities in both the House and Senate.

Despite the opposition of the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, Congress passed and President Bush signed an ``unoffset'' alternative minimum tax. That legislation averaged $13 billion in tax relief.

This year Congress and the President agreed to $34 billion in temporary economic stimulus. At present, the Democratic Congress and President Bush are in a stalemate on an AMT patch extension and other expiring tax relief matters. The reason for the stalemate is the House and Senate Democratic leadership's opposition to passing these bills ``unoffset.''

I want to use one chart to sum up today's discussion. This chart shows a tax thermometer. We have got it up there. The heat side is the tax increase side. This chart shows the relationship between party control of Congress, Presidency, and tax hikes or tax relief.

If Republicans control the Presidency and Congress, then lowering the tax burden, which is a tentative Republican philosophy, is virtually certain to be put in place. So you can point to that point in the chart there that demonstrates having both a Republican President and a Republican Congress is a certainty to have a lower tax burden for the American people.

If Democrats control both the Presidency and the Congress, then an increase in the tax burden is certain to occur. That is what history of the last 25 years shows. So it is a virtual certainty, regardless of campaign rhetoric to the contrary.

If the parties split control of the Presidency and the Congress, the record is, as you might expect, mixed, though generally against tax relief.

So if you look at the median picture there, you see that we have about three decades of history backing this up. I would encourage everyone to take a look at this thermometer chart. When folks go to the voting booth on November 4, they will need to consider the probability of a change in fiscal policy. They will need to consider the potential change to their family budget, from higher or lower taxes, because elections have consequences. They will have to also think about the broader economic effects of higher or lower tax burdens on business or investment, because tax policies by the Congress of the United States do have consequences, some ways good, some ways bad. My view is, higher taxes are bad for the economy.

That change could be dramatic if the vote is for one party to control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. There would be consequences then,

lower taxes if that is House and Senate Republicans, Republican President; House and Senate Democratic, Democratic President, higher taxes.

In my next discussion, which will not be today, I will follow up this one with a detailed examination of what happens in the last bit of history most like the present. I am referring to the 1992 campaign and the legislative record that followed in 1993.

The reason I do that is I think I see the same thing evolving in this campaign. We ought to learn from history, and the voters need to take that into consideration before November 4.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I want to take a moment to speak about one of the most important issues facing our country right now, and that is the energy crisis, in terms of the high cost of energy and the fact that people will be suffering very significantly this coming winter--in fact, this summer--if we do not address it.

In that regard, on June 24, I introduced S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, to provide immediate relief to millions of senior citizens, families with children, and the disabled, who are struggling to pay their home energy bills. Specifically, this bill would nearly double the funding for the highly successful Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly called LIHEAP, in fiscal year 2008, taking LIHEAP from $2.57 billion to $5.1 billion, a total increase of over $2.5 billion.

I thank Majority Leader Reid for completing the rule XIV process for this important piece of legislation and placing it directly on the Senate calendar. My understanding is that we will have this bill on the floor before we recess for the August vacation. It is important we do that, and I thank Senator Harry Reid very much for allowing us to move forward in that direction.

I also thank the 26 Senators who are cosponsors of this tripartisan legislation. This bill absolutely is a tripartisan piece of legislation. At this point, we have 18 Democrats on board, we have 8 Republicans on board, and I expect more will be coming on in the coming days and weeks. I thank Senators Obama, Coleman, Leahy, Smith, Durbin, Snowe, Murray, Sununu, Landrieu, Collins, Murkowski, Clinton, Lugar, Cantwell, Gregg, Kerry, Cardin, Kennedy, Schumer, Brown, Klobuchar, Menendez, Casey, Bingaman, Stabenow, and Lautenberg for their support.

This legislation not only has strong bipartisan support here in the Senate, it is also moving in the House, and it also has been endorsed by numerous groups all across this country, including the AARP, the National Grange, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Community Action Foundation, the National Association of State Energy Officials, the Alliance For Rural America, the Northeast Public Power Association, the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Fuel Funds Network, and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America.

I think we are going to show more and more support in coming weeks, but there is a widespread understanding that we are facing a crisis in this country and that the President and the Congress have to act.

Let me read a support letter I received from the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons. As you know, the AARP represents over 39 million Americans, and this is what the AARP said.

AARP fully supports the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer

Act. This legislation will provide needed relief for many

older persons who may not receive assistance--despite their

eligibility--due to a lack of funding. Older Americans who

are more susceptible to hypothermia and heat stroke know the

importance of heating and cooling their homes. They often

skimp on other necessities to pay their utility bills.

However, today's escalating energy prices and the Nation's

unpredictable and extreme temperatures are adding to the

growing economic hardships faced by seniors. LIHEAP is

underfunded and unable to meet the energy assistance needs of

the program's eligible households.

I thank the AARP very much for their strong support of this legislation.

Let me also quote from a very recent New York Times editorial. This is what the New York Times said the other day.

A bill just introduced in the Senate would provide about

$2.5 billion under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

Program. Half would be released to the States to help low-

income residents pay their energy bills and half would sit in

a contingency fund that could be tapped at the discretion of

the President. When the bill comes up for a vote, likely

later this month, Congress should approve it and President

Bush should sign it into law. As the economy slows and oil

prices rise, helping Americans who cannot afford to heat

their homes is a matter of public health and safety as well

as a moral imperative. People without adequate heat are

vulnerable to illness, and people struggling to pay the

heating bills may be tempted to skimp on medicines and even

food. No one should have to choose between heating and

eating. If they act this summer, as they must, before the

Presidential and congressional campaigns send everyone home,

Congress and President Bush can help make sure that nobody

has to make that choice.

That is from the New York Times, and I appreciate the support of the New York Times on this issue.

Make no mistake about it, we have an energy emergency in Vermont and all across this country, and it is about time the President and the Congress treated this as the emergency it is. As many of my colleagues understand, the price of heating oil skyrocketed last winter, making it extremely difficult for some of my constituents and people all across this country to stay alive, especially when the temperature dropped well below zero. Next winter will even be worse.

At this time last year, heating oil prices were about $2.50 a gallon. Today, they are about $4.50 a gallon. Fuel dealers in Vermont are telling me that if this trend continues, heating oil prices could surpass $5 a gallon by December. I must tell you, Madam President, that all across my State people are very worried about how they will in fact be able to adequately heat their homes next winter.

Meanwhile, LIHEAP funding is 23 percent less than it was 2 years ago, completely eviscerating the purchasing power of this extremely important program. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, the Federal Government spent more money on LIHEAP 20 years ago than it is spending today. So we have a real crisis we have got to address.

It is not an exaggeration to say this is a life-and-death situation. People use that phrase often, but in this sense we are describing the reality facing a number of people. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 1,000 Americans all across this country died from hypothermia in their own homes from 1992 to 2002, the latest figures we have available. Over 1,000 Americans died from hypothermia. In other words, they froze to death in the United States because they were unable to afford to heat their homes. How many of these deaths were preventable? Well, the answer is, all of them, according to the CDC.

We will probably not know for several years how many Americans died last winter because they could not afford to heat their homes, but clearly one death is too many. And everything being equal, if we do not act, I think we can reasonably expect the number of people dying of hypothermia in this country will only go up. If heating oil even approaches $5 a gallon by next winter, we will have a public health emergency throughout the northern tier of this country, and this is something we have to address.

I wish also to point out that, although I come from a cold weather State--and I hope and expect all of my colleagues understand this-- LIHEAP does not only help constituents in the northern part of our country stay warm in the winter, it also helps people in the South and the West stay cool in the summer. Right now, many people in the southern and western States are suffering with temperatures frequently soaring past 100 degrees while their electricity prices are rapidly increasing.

I was in Nevada last week, and the temperature there was something like 110 to 115 degrees. That is hot. I cannot imagine a frail or elderly person, somebody who is ill, trying to survive in that kind of weather. Those people are going to need help today as much as people in the North will need help when the winter comes.

Recently, USA Today ran a headline on its front page and it said:

Price jolt: Electricity bills going up, up, up.

That was a headline, front-page story. According to this story:

Utilities across the USA are raising power prices up to 29

percent, mostly to pay for soaring fuel cost. . . . The

spikes come after rising fuel prices already have driven up

utility bills nearly 30 percent the past 5 years, the

sharpest jump since the 1970s energy crisis.

Let me give an example of why LIHEAP funding is vital, right now, for these hot-weather States. Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Florida have either exhausted all their LIHEAP funding or are on the verge of running out of funds. In other words, they will have absolutely no support from the Federal Government to help millions of senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with kids or the disabled stay cool this winter. They are running out of funds right now.

As I have indicated, with the price of electricity going up and up, with the economy in the tank, people are having a harder and harder time paying their electric bills, air-conditioners are run on electricity, and if you don't have your electricity, you don't have your air-conditioner, and if you are old and you are frail and you are sick, you are in a lot of trouble.

From 1999 to 2003, over 3,400 deaths in this country were due to excessive heat. All these deaths were preventable, and air-conditioning is the best way to prevent these deaths from occurring, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In fact, more people in the United States--and this is an interesting fact that I think many people are not aware of--more people in the United States have died from the extreme heat than from floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes combined, since 1998.

CNN may not be in a senior citizen's bedroom when she expires because of heat exhaustion. They are there with the floods and hurricanes and cyclones and tornadoes--we understand that. But we need to reiterate that more people in the United States have died from the extreme heat than from floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes combined.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government spends less money preventing these deaths from occurring than any other natural disaster we face, according to the CDC.

My point is, hurricanes and floods certainly are emergencies. I have always supported efforts to address these emergencies. I want my colleagues to know that when the weather gets 20 below in Vermont and Maine and New Hampshire, that is an emergency. When the weather gets to 110 degrees in California or Nevada, that is also an emergency. We have to act.

My legislation will begin to move us in the right direction. If this legislation becomes law, as I certainly hope it will be, the State of Arizona would receive over $24 million, the State of Kentucky would receive over $34 million, the State of Georgia would receive over $70 million, and the State of Florida would receive over $80 million to keep their residents cool this summer.

The point I am making is, I don't want anybody to think that because I represent Vermont and we are from the Northeast, that this is simply a cold-weather issue. It is not. It is an issue for every region of this country.

In addition to all that I have said, it is important to understand that tens of thousands of Americans have had their utility and natural gas service shut off this year, and millions more are in danger of having these services cut off because they are at least 1 month late in paying their bills. There is a lot of attention, obviously, on housing foreclosures that we have been focusing on. But let us not forget that as people lose their jobs, as people's wages decline, as utility bills go up, we are looking at utility cutoffs in a very dramatic way.

Increasing LIHEAP funding will allow these Americans to turn their electricity and other essential utility services back on right now so they can cool their homes this summer and heat their homes next winter. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, a record 15 million American families, or nearly 15 percent of all households, are at least 30 days overdue in paying their utility bills.

Let me conclude by thanking the 26 cosponsors, including 8 Republicans, who are onboard this legislation. Let me thank AARP and the many national organizations that are supporting this. Let me thank Senator Reid for completing the rule XIV process.

I hope very much that in a week or two, certainly before we break for the August recess, we will be voting on this legislation. I hope we win it by a very large majority.

I thank Majority Leader Reid and all my colleagues who are supporting this legislation and look forward to, in the very short term, reassuring people throughout this country that we are mindful of the impact high energy costs are having on their lives, and we are here to do something about it.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to talk for a few minutes about two subjects. First of all, the legislation, one of the two pieces of legislation that came before us today dealing with speculation in the oil markets, I wish to talk a little about that. And then maybe a word or two, if time permits, on the housing legislation, which we have taken another step forward toward enacting.

On this chart, we see a couple of numbers mentioned. In a moment, I hope they will be clear why they are relevant to this discussion, with respect to oil prices and the availability of oil.

The first number is 25 percent. We consume, as a nation today, this week, this month, this year, roughly 25 percent of the oil that is consumed on our planet, 25 percent. But we have, within this Nation, onshore and offshore, less than 5 percent of the world's oil reserves. When people wonder why are prices running up, this is one of the reasons.

When people say we ought to simply drill, whether it is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or on the Outer Continental Shelf, drilling is part of the answer, not necessarily in those places, but drilling is part of the answer.

But when you are consuming 25 percent of the world's oil every day, and we have less than 5 percent of the world's known oil reserves, there is a mismatch here. That suggests to, among others, T. Boone Pickens, a long-time renowned Texas oilman, that this is a problem we cannot drill ourselves out of.

While drilling is part of the solution, it is by no means the entire solution. What we need is a comprehensive strategy. I wish to talk a little bit about that this morning.

We have had any number of hearings in recent weeks, actually in recent months in the Senate, that focused on why are oil prices, why are gas prices going up. I keep coming back to three major reasons. The first of those is supply and demand. There is a limited amount of oil that is being produced. The nations that have most of it in their control do not want to produce a whole lot more. They do not want to increase supply dramatically.

Demand meanwhile continues to rise. We are a country in love with our cars, trucks, and vans. For every 1,000 Americans in this country today, there are about 800 vehicles. Pretty amazing. There are 800 vehicles for every 1,000 people who live here.

Over in China, for every 1,000 people who live there, they have 16 cars, trucks, and vans. I do not know that they want to get to 800 right away, but they are going to have a lot more than 16 per 1,000. They may have 116, 216, 316. But they want to buy and they want to be able to have their own vehicles. They are adding dramatically to the number of vehicles on the road.

That, along with the growth in the economy and other aspects of the economy in China, places such as India, we have seen a dramatic increase in demand, and we are going to continue to see that increase in demand.

The second thing that is going on is the drop in the value of the dollar. The dollar today, we all know, is not worth what it used to be. Some friends of mine returned from traveling in Europe, and they told me how unfortunate they felt in having gone this year instead of about 3 or 4 years ago because the value of the dollar has dropped by roughly a third against most of the European currencies. In fact, it has dropped dramatically in currencies around the world.

And we see, it takes more dollars because oil is traded in dollars. These countries that have all this oil, they want to make sure they are getting their money's worth. As a result, they raise the price of oil to offset the drop in the value of dollars. So that is part what is going on.

The third thing that is going on, and we have heard from people a lot smarter than I on these issues, but the third thing that is going on is there is a lot of trading in oil futures, people who do not have any intention of ever taking possession of a barrel of oil, but they see it as a way to make money--not buying oil and refining the oil and selling the product, but they see a way to make money by speculation and trading in these futures, and they hope the value of the price of oil will go up, they will make money and not take possession of the oil.

In the meantime, we as consumers are paying more for oil. Not every day. We have seen some trending down in the at least week, which is good, but this is part of what is going on.

Is speculation 10 percent of the problem, 20 percent of the problem, 30 percent of the problem? I do not know. I do not know that anyone knows. But as we can be convinced that that supply and demand is part of the problem. It is not the whole problem. The drop in the value of the dollar is part of the problem. It is not the whole problem. And neither is speculation. But each of them is a contributing factor in the runup in the price of oil. If we want to bring down or stabilize the price of oil, to keep the price from getting any worse, we need to work on supply, we need to work on demand, we need to do some things here at home to restore the value of the dollar, to prop it up, to strengthen the dollar, and we need to do something with respect to speculation.

I wish to mention a thing or two about the legislation I supported, introduced by the majority leader on speculation. Without getting into the weeds on the legislation, the bill that is designed more than anything to provide greater transparency, not to come in and command control the way the markets are being run but to make sure we have a little better disclosure, a little better transparency into that operation.

The legislation did not pass. I think most people here actually favor doing something similar to that. For reasons that are maybe more political than practical, we could not move that legislation today because we did not have the 60 votes to break a filibuster.

Let me talk a bit about supply. Along with Senator Voinovich of Ohio, we are privileged to lead a subcommittee of the Environment Committee that focuses on, among other things, clean air and on nuclear power.

Part of the answer to our supply situation is growing in our fields the fuels that we need. I am not suggesting that taking kernels of corn off an ear of corn and turning that into ethanol is a smart idea, at least in the long haul. I do not think that it is. It disrupts our food system, our food chain, makes the prices of meat, poultry, and milk more expensive than it needs to be.

But there are things going on with respect to biofuels that I think are very encouraging. I wish to mention a couple of those. Our folks up at DuPont, they are headquartered in my State, they have a research center. At the research center they have been working on cellulosic ethanol for 3, 4, 5 years.

They have launched joint ventures on cellulosic ethanol with another company. They are going to be building out in the Midwest a refinery to be able to create, in some quantities, a biofuel that will be much better than ethanol; have better energy content than ethanol, travel better in pipelines than ethanol, mix better with gasoline than ethanol.

They are coming up with a biofuel called biobutanol, partnering with our friends from BP, and actually they are test marketing the product over in England this year. Again, biobutanol, better energy density than ethanol, travels better in pipelines than ethanol, mixes better with gasoline at different temperatures than does ethanol.

There is another company called Coskata, C-o-s-k-a-t-a. I had not heard of them before this year. But they are a small startup biofuels company. They have interesting technologies that enable them to take plant waste, corn, corn hulls, cornstalks, corn leaves, corncobs, woodchips, switchgrass, any variety of products, and turn it into a biofuel.

And they not only can take that plant waste, they can take municipal waste and transform it into a biofuel. They can take the old tires off cars, trucks and vans and turn that into a biofuel as well. They use about maybe less than a gallon of water to create a gallon of biofuel. Again, they can create this biofuel from a variety of sources without disrupting the food system.

The energy content of the fuel they create, the biofuel they create is about

seven times greater than the amount of energy that is used to create the biofuels.

The amount of CO2 that is released in burning this biofuel is about 85 percent less than the carbon dioxide that is created by burning gasoline, and they can create it for maybe about a buck a gallon.

They are going to be creating it in more significant quantities about 2011. Coskata is an example of one biofuels company that has an exciting technology that I think portends hope, should convey hope to all of us as we try work on the supply side.

Some people ask me why I believe nuclear power can actually be helpful on the supply side too. I always say, the answer is two words: Chevrolet Volt. Chevrolet Volt is a vehicle that GM is going to launch toward the end of 2010. This is a flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicle. Plug it into your electric outlet at your house, charge it overnight when electric prices are low, leave the next day, drive away, you can you go 40 miles with a charge on your battery.

We are working hard to develop a lithium ion battery. The Federal Government is helping to partner the research on that. The idea is to go out, run the first 40 miles on your battery, and then when your battery runs low, to recharge the battery with an alternative power source aboard the vehicle. It could be a fuel cell, it could be a low- emission diesel, it could be a traditional internal combustion engine. Those power sources, auxiliary power sources, recharge the battery, and then the battery continues to run the vehicle.

The opportunity to get 80, 90, even 100 miles per gallon off a Chevy Volt flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid is not unrealistic. And it is a source of great encouragement. The question is where are they going to get the electricity to charge the battery.

Today, nuclear provides about 20 percent of our electricity in this country. I think 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity that is produced comes from nuclear. We have about nine new applications in. We have not built a new nuclear plant in 30 years. We have nine applications in right now to build about 14 more. We expect next year maybe another dozen or so applications and the opportunity for a renaissance in nuclear power.

As we go forward, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has their hands full, as you might imagine, making sure that the 104 powerplants we have in existence today are run well, safely; relicensing a number of those powerplants so their life can be extended for another 20 years, and then saying grace over all these new applications for new powerplants that are coming in.

It is important for us in this body to make sure the NRC has what they need so they can oversee a safe renaissance in nuclear power. And that renaissance will help us on the supply side, especially as we move toward electric vehicles.

On the demand side, in talking about the Chevrolet Volt, a vehicle that if it gets 80 to 90 miles per gallon, helps us on the demand side, I think that is pretty obvious. There are other things we can do on the demand side as well. For my home, we went out, about a year ago, and bought a new air-conditioning unit. It is one that sits up about this high. It is pretty big. It is a SEER 18; we have energy efficiency ratings on our appliances.

But one of the things we can do is buy more energy-efficient appliances. We basically have cut our electricity bill in half since we went from a SEER 10 up to about a SEER 18. As we buy new appliances, we need to continue to do those sorts of things.

Gee, as I look at the lights in the Senate Chamber, and as we change out the light bulbs in our offices, in our homes, we can buy more energy-efficient light bulbs, change out the ballast systems in our lighting systems, put in new lighting systems. There is a lot we can do in terms of lighting.

The drop in the value of the dollar is coming from a couple things. One of the things it flows from is the uncertainty in the housing market, the collapse in housing prices, great uncertainty about the banking system, the mortgage financing system with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

One of the things we can do--and hopefully we will take the final step tomorrow--is provide a strong independent regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We do that in this legislation. We take steps to make sure people who are facing foreclosure--and it is not something they have done wrong or no malfeasance involved, because we don't want to reward bad behavior--are given an opportunity to avoid it. We make the FHA relevant in the 21st century. We are going to provide housing counselors for thousands.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Grassley for focusing again on the importance of lower taxes and promoting a better economy and higher standard of living in America.

It is disturbing, as we talk about energy and high gas prices, to hear from our Democratic colleagues in the House that they are actually considering raising taxes on gasoline 10 cents or more per gallon at a time when it is already a crushing cost to Americans on energy.

The energy debate has been very helpful. I think for years Americans have known, at least many Americans, that the Democratic Party has blocked the development of energy supplies, America's own energy supplies, from the time of Jimmy Carter stopping nuclear generation to President Clinton vetoing the legislation that would have opened some oil reserves in Alaska, to constant votes by our Democratic colleagues to stop the opening of oil and natural gas which is plentiful in America.

Americans do not trust Congress to fix this because they know it is the inaction by Congress that has caused the gas prices, and we see that the Democratic leadership is going to do everything they can to keep amendments and an open and honest debate about real energy development in America from happening.

Housing

The same thing has happened on another bill that is going to be interjected into this energy debate, this massive housing bill, this massive mortgage bailout that is going to come back to the Senate floor for a vote. This is another situation where the American people know that the mortgage crisis, the foreclosure crisis, the problems with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are caused by incompetence and gross negligence by this Congress and past administrations.

We suspect, and there is every evidence, that part of that negligence has come from the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby Members of Congress and other watchdog groups to keep them from focusing on the reforms that were needed.

When this housing bill comes back, I have proposed one amendment. I asked for one amendment in this process, that if the American taxpayers put their money on the line to back these private companies, that these private companies should no longer be able to spend millions of dollars lobbying Members of Congress to keep them from implementing the reforms that are so important.

Last night I made an offer to the majority leader. I suggested we could have one vote under a time agreement to allow my amendment to prohibit lobbying and political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We could have been done with the bill last night. If the majority leader tabled the amendment, the bill would have been passed and sent to the President last night. But I do not think he wanted his Members to have to vote on that.

If the amendment had been adopted, the bill would have been immediately sent to the House, passed and sent to the President, probably today. The only thing that prevented this from happening was the objection of the majority leader last night, because the majority leader was intent on blocking this amendment to prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from lobbying.

The bill will likely pass the Senate on Saturday and will not reach the President until next week. So the argument that my one amendment is slowing this down is not true. Let me state again one more time, to be clear. This Senator was prepared to vote on the housing bill last night. I do not support the bill. I do not think it should become law. I simply wanted one amendment.

My constituents sent me here to Washington to clean up this place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade to block commonsense reform, which could have been prevented. We could have prevented the debacle that we are faced with now if Congress had not been blind to the problem. But because the leader was intent on filibustering my amendment, blocking me from doing what my constituents sent me here to do, the housing bill will be delayed until next week. This is fine with me, because there is a lot wrong with the bill. But the decision to delay the bill was made by the majority leader and him alone.

I wish to offer one more opportunity here for the majority to expedite the housing bill and to give me the one vote on this amendment and then we can proceed to a final vote.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3221

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the consideration of the housing bill, the pending Reid amendment be withdrawn and the only amendment in order be a DeMint amendment which I will send to the desk. This is a measure to address lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. President, the majority clearly will not permit this or any other amendment on the bill. He says he does not want anything to delay it. As I have already pointed out, however, I think his own obstruction is delaying the bill.

I wish to make one more proposal. I will explain it, and if the majority is willing, then I will read the technical language. But I am very willing to offer a unanimous consent request to move immediately to a final vote on the housing bill, and then once the energy debate is completed, that my amendment, then in bill form, be allowed a straight- up vote in the Senate.

This may be several weeks from now. But if the concern by the majority is that my amendment would slow the bill down, they should certainly agree that if we can move to housing and pass it straight up, and finish the energy debate, whatever time that is finished, then we could have a simple vote at the scheduling of the majority leader to vote on this lobbying amendment.

I would be glad to put this in unanimous consent form if the majority is interested in entertaining this. If I could get some indication from the speaker or the leader over there. Would you be interested in that unanimous consent request?

I thank the Senator. Clearly there is no need to continue to try to get this housing bill expedited. It is clear my Democratic colleagues do not support this reform, and apparently they are going to do everything they can to protect their relationship with these Government entities.

The majority leader suggested yesterday that he would be happy to join me in sending a letter to these two entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to request that they be more transparent in their lobbying. Well, I am not interested in sending a letter to the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That would be as effective as sending a letter, which has been suggested by my Democratic colleague, to Saudi Arabia demanding lower gas prices. I am not interested in transparency in their lobbying or political donations. The lobbying contracts need to be terminated and their PACs should be disbanded.

The majority leader disagrees. In fact, his staff sent out a blast e- mail to their lobbyist friends asking for help in defeating my amendment.

I want to protect taxpayers and end the culture of corruption in Washington, but I am afraid in this case, the majority clearly does not want to join me.

All I am requesting is one amendment on a 694-page bill that spends

anywhere from $25 billion to hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bail out two companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I believe my amendment is essential to considering the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have spread their wealth around Washington for years to buy Government influence and to cover up their problems. The housing legislation that will be before us authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to use taxpayer money to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it does not include an immediate end to their lobbying and political activities.

If American taxpayers are forced to bail out or buy out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their lobbying and political activities should stop. Our Nation has a longstanding tradition of preventing American tax dollars from being used for lobbying and for soliciting and making campaign contributions. There is no doubt that this housing legislation crosses that line. Under current law, the Department of Treasury cannot retain high-powered lobbyists or make political contributions to candidates. This rule should apply to Fannie and Freddie. There may have been some doubt as to whether a government guarantee existed for Fannie and Freddie before, but now with this legislation, that guarantee is made very explicit. They are, in effect, government entities and should be treated as such.

The Politico newspaper recently reported on how Senators and Congressmen are benefiting politically from propping up these two mortgage giants. The article said:

If you want to know how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have

survived scandal and crisis, consider this: Over the past

decade, they have spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and

campaign contributions. But the political tentacles of the

mortgage giants extend far beyond their checkbooks. The two

government-chartered companies run a highly sophisticated

lobbying operation with deep-pocketed lobbyists in Washington

and scores of local Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored homeowner

groups ready to pressure lawmakers back home.

One thing that should get our colleagues' attention, this chart is a copy of an invitation by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and other groups for a big party at the Democratic National Convention. There is one very similar to this for the Republicans. They will continue to lavish entertainment on those of us in Congress until we stop it.

National Public Radio reported that in the first 3 months of the year alone, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent a combined total of $3.5 million on lobbying and hired 42 outside firms.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been such prolific donors to political parties, candidates, and PACs that they are the No. 1 and No. 3 top contributors in the mortgage industry and rank in the top 100 political donors of all time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I thank the Chair. I can see I have more to say than I have time to say it.

Let me close by encouraging my colleagues. There is no need for this issue to be partisan. Clearly, if we are going to put hard-working taxpayer dollars behind our bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we should not allow them to continue to throw millions of dollars around for political activities. It just makes good common sense.

On a bill that is this large and this important and that probably not one Senator has read even half of, the opportunity to have at least one amendment and a limited time for debate seems to be a small request. Unfortunately, the majority is not going to give us any amendments, and apparently they are going to turn a blind eye to this obvious problem on which the Wall Street Journal and news media all over the country have been focusing. The American people know about it. I think they would trust the Senate much more to make the proper reforms for housing and mortgages and Fannie and Freddie Mac if they could see that we were eliminating a conflict of interest that has clearly existed for a number of years.

I thank the Presiding Officer and encourage my colleagues to ask the majority leader to reconsider and give us the opportunity to have a vote on this one amendment, and then we could speed the housing bill through.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 835, S. 3186, a bill to provide for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Reserving the right to object, the matters the distinguished Republican leader has outlined are part of their proposal that they offered before, I think they call it the Gas Price Reduction Act. Everything he has talked about here is part of that legislation, and it is part of an alternative we have also. Senator Bingaman has worked for more than a week with the assistance of other Senators on this side of the aisle coming up with different amendments which, of course, have the Alaska energy production. That is part of ours. We have the oil shale amendment as part of ours. We have the LIHEAP, of course, which is now or shortly will be before this body.

It is very obvious that the Republicans, especially when they want this to be the exclusive matter we deal with, that is this energy bill, that they want this to go on, as a lot of things have this year, into oblivion. That is why they had 84 filibusters and we have had to file cloture 84 times.

These are the first seven amendments. I hope everyone heard that; the first seven amendments they want to offer. We know that the drilling amendment is a subterfuge. We know that John McCain, the Republican nominee for President of the United States, has said it will do nothing for short-term oil supply. He said it is psychological. That is what the Republican nominee for President has said.

We said what we wanted to do is have a vote on speculation, which is a very big deal. Now I know my friend keeps bringing up Warren Buffett's name, said he does not think speculation has anything to do with it. I have great respect for Warren Buffett. I consider Warren Buffett a friend. I have talked to him many times and have met with him on many occasions. By the way, he told me the best business he has ever had in his whole life is a furniture store in Las Vegas.

We read into the Record today numerous scientists, economists, regulators, who said that speculation is from 20 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil.

We believe that is an important issue. My friend said: It is only a tiny part. Only a tiny part? Twenty to fifty percent of the cost of a barrel of oil a tiny part? Remember, it is very interesting. It is interesting that their so-called Gas Price Reduction Act that they introduced with 42 cosponsors--part of that is a provision dealing with speculation. So speculation is not a tiny part.

This morning, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire said he thought there should be a vote on oil shale. I said: Fine, we will have one. He said he thought it would be great to have a vote on nuclear power. I said: We have not built a plant in 40, 50 years. I am sure that is not much of a short-term solution to the energy problem facing people buying gasoline in Las Vegas or Reno. But we said we would do that.

So, Madam President, this is nothing more than what the Republicans have done from the very beginning. They are not concerned about speculation. Drilling, as their Presidential nominee has said, is only psychological. We want to

do something to certainly focus on speculation.

I would say, as LIHEAP is part of it, they are going to have that opportunity. We are going to take up LIHEAP. People have come to me and said they think this is an important issue. Well, join with Democrats because we also believe it is an important issue. They will not let us do anything on speculation. Maybe they will let us do something on

Madam President, my friend, the Republican leader, said this is a good place to start. That is the problem with the minority. They have a lot of good ideas to start but never finish anything. That is the way it has been. They have had 84 filibusters this year.

This is really kind of like the ``Twilight Zone.'' The Republicans are saying now that they want to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf. The Republican nominee for President, John McCain, says that is psychological and won't help. Now, today, to show they are not tracking very well with John McCain, they come and say they want to drill in ANWR. Now, John McCain is opposed to that. He stated so publicly. So they have two issues, one of which the Republican designee for President says is just psychological, but they want to have a vote on that. They also want to start drilling in ANWR--something their Republican nominee for President totally opposes.

My friend from Tennessee said: Don't we want to do something about the $4 gas prices? Please, Madam President, let's not laugh out loud. We have brought matters before this body in detail more than once to do something about gas prices long ago. The Presiding Officer played an essential part in one piece of legislation. It was called the Consumer First Energy Act. That matter was brought up in June of this year. It was a good piece of legislation. It said we should tax the windfall profits of these oil companies, which last year, by the way, made $250 billion. It repeals the section for major oil and gas companies that were using foreign tax credits on oil that they shouldn't have. It suspends the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We had to force the President to do that. That part of it was ultimately adopted. It punished price gouging. The American people understand that.

So to say we haven't done anything on gas prices is not because we haven't tried. Again, our Republican colleagues have said: Well, that is a good place to start, but we are not going to do anything about that.

We also talked, even in that legislation, about excessive speculation in the oil markets. We also had another piece of legislation the American people identified with which was recommended as part of our Consumer First Energy Act by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin and Republican Senator Specter of Pennsylvania. Why not make OPEC--this huge organization which is in control of most of the oil in the world today--why not make them subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. That is what a Democrat and Republican thought was important, and we put it in this bill. So no one needs to talk about us not trying to do something about gas prices. We have been trying for a long time.

We also believe the American people understand that global warming is here. We tried to move to that. The Republicans said: No, we are ready to start, but that is a little tiny thing. We want to have an open amendment process. Then, bang, a couple more cloture motions.

The goal of the Republicans is to stall, and that is what they are doing, and they are pretty good at it. I asked the Democratic whip to meet with his counterpart last week to see what we could do about having some amendments to move forward on this speculation bill. The distinguished Republican whip told the Democratic whip they had 28 amendments and they would probably have more.

This is not a serious effort to legislate; this is a serious effort to stop everything. They are willing to stop housing again. We are going to have to go through all of this process of housing, causing at least 45,000 or 50,000 people in the next few days to get foreclosure notices. That is part of what they are stalling on tonight. We know we are going to move to LIHEAP. LIHEAP is something important. We must do that, because there are senior citizens around this country, disabled people, who are having a difficult time in the summer, but winter makes it brutal. We want to move to that. They are stalling us on that. That is three more cloture motions we have had to file, so now I guess we will be up to, by the end of this week, 87 filibusters.

I know there are a lot of Senators here who wish to speak. I think it would be appropriate that we enter into some kind of order if people want to speak here so it is not a jump ball.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

I say to my friend, the answer is yes. But now they have a new deal. The new deal is they want to do some interesting things that haven't been brought up before. They want to drill in ANWR, even though it was resoundingly defeated in the Senate a couple of years ago. Even though McCain is opposed to it, they are in favor of it. They want to do something that is psychological. Not only do they not want to move with their package that we thought was what they wanted

to do--they introduced it, whatever the name of it is--now they want to split that off piece by piece and have one piece, two pieces, three pieces, five pieces, whatever is in it, so they can stall some more.

So what I say to my friend is, yes, we were willing to have a vote on their package, and we would have our package. We are very proud of our package.

I say to my friend it is obvious that the situation is they think this is a tiny part of what we are doing. Speculation, which is 20 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil, is a tiny part, and they will skip that for now and go on to something else. Drilling? The McCain special, the psychological cure for the problems of this country, they decided maybe they don't want to have a vote on that. Maybe what they will do is add on 27 other things.

I say to my friend through the Chair, you can't. I didn't mention--and I appreciate very much the distinguished Democratic whip mentioning this--also they have turned us down on alternative energy. They voted that down, the extenders, which included a 6-year tax credit for solar and all of those good things that Boone Pickens and others said we must move to.

In addition to turning us down on energy price relief, the Consumer First Energy Act--they turned us down on that--they turned us down on the extenders. They do not want to legislate. They obviously aren't concerned about the 85,000 people who are going to be given foreclosure notices in the next few days. They obviously are not concerned about moving forward on LIHEAP quickly. They obviously are not concerned about setting up a registry for Lou Gehrig's Disease so people can find out how to cure that disease. They are not concerned about the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act. Those are all being stalled because of this subterfuge of what is going on here.

Madam President, as I said, there are a number of people on the floor. I know the Senator from New York has been waiting, and the Senator from Illinois has been staying here a while. I see now the Senator from Colorado. I am wondering if we can enter into some kind of a consent agreement. The suggestion has been made that Senator Voinovich be recognized for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Clinton for 15 minutes, and then we will alternate back and forth. I think it would be appropriate if we did 10-minute timeframes, so I ask unanimous consent for that to be the case.

OK. The Senator from Ohio needs 20 minutes? We were going to have 10-minute blocks, but do you think you could do it in 15?

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich be recognized for up to 20 minutes, followed by Senator Clinton for up to 20 minutes, and following that, we go in 15 minute-blocks. Senator Allard would be next recognized and someone on our side would be next.

Madam President, on behalf of the Democratic leadership, who intends to bring a comprehensive bill to deal with gas prices to the floor, I have to object at this time.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand we are in morning business?

Let me ask another parliamentary question: I am free to speak at this point without limitation?

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I am going to speak on the motion, and that is the main purpose of my coming, but I do wish to say that, in fact, we will be having a gas price bill and dealing with those issues on the floor very soon. I know the Senate Democratic leadership intends to bring such a bill, but it will be a bill that is, hopefully, comprehensive in its nature and creates real opportunities to reduce gas prices and meet with the challenges.

One of the factors we have today that we could get going on already is the 68 million acres that the oil industry already has access to and is largely not drilling on. So before we ask for more, why don't they move on that which they already have to drill on?

Secondly--

Madam President, after I make my statement, I would be happy to.

Secondly, I think Americans would be shocked to know that a lot of the domestic production in the country is sold abroad. It is not used here at home. That is something we want to deal with as well, and that will be part of a comprehensive bill that will come forward.

Those are two items that could be dealt with immediately. I think it is critical, and one of those two does not even need a legislative response, although, unfortunately, it is going to have to get one because the industry is not pursuing 68 million acres they already have. So that is alarming.

I am glad to hear that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle finally agree that market speculation is a critical part of this issue. We have been at this for some time, and this is the first time we have heard that is a critical component. It is a big part of what many of the oil industry executives have testified to before Congress.

Finally, I would note it is interesting to me, we brought bills here on critical extenders in the area of making sure that renewable energy sources were incentivized and brought to the mass market concentration we need so we can break our dependency on oil, period, whether it would be foreign or domestic, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected. So you cannot have it both ways.

I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.

Madam President, reclaiming the floor, I will be happy to give my observation. I do not pretend to speak for the majority leader in this regard, but I do believe that, in fact, we will see such action before this recess is over, maybe as early as next week. So I am very hopeful, and believe very much so, that it is every intent of the majority to deal with this in very short shrift.

I would be happy to yield for one more question before I get to the focus of my statement.

Reclaiming my time on the floor, let me simply say, it is always the majority leader's desire to have a full and open debate of the Senate. However, there are those of our colleagues who wish to use that full and open debate to pursue amendments that have nothing to do with reducing gas prices and dealing with our energy crisis or to be able to pursue a course that can bring conclusion to a bill and would give that type of relief to the American people but string it out and string it out on issues that are not relevant. That is when the majority leader has faced the necessity of moving in a different direction.

So I do have the expectation that we will have a good debate and, more importantly, we will have a good bill that will be comprehensive and that will give relief to the people, and I am happy to have answered my colleague's questions.

The main purpose for which I come to the floor as we debate the housing bill is to rise again to be a voice for those who have no voice in this housing crisis. Certainly, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seems to not to hear the cries of children who are being, in one respect, punished through no actions of their own--2 million of them in this country.

I am not talking about homeowners, although I am certainly pleased that the bill we are considering today will have a powerful impact on our Nation's families. I am not talking about those on Wall Street, as they seem to be the first group the administration rushes to support. I am talking about our Nation's children.

I rise on behalf of nearly 2 million children who will be directly impacted by the mortgage crisis. These children are not only taking a huge hit as padlocks get put on their front doors, but now they are likely taking another hit, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle threaten to block a critical amendment that could give them relief.

My amendment authorizes $30 million in additional funding to the existing McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program to support these children. By the way, these children didn't decide to go out and get a mortgage. They had no legal authority to make those decisions. They are the ones who get swept up in this process. They are, for all intents and purposes, the worst victims of this process.

As I said, an estimated 2 million children and young people, including 50,000 children in my home State of New Jersey, 20,000 in South Carolina, to mention one other State, and over half a million Latino children nationwide

will be directly impacted by the foreclosure crisis, placing them at risk of poor school performance, behavioral problems, and other challenges as well. What happens is they lose not only their home, they lose the school they go to. They get moved around. They don't have a home and they get moved from school to school. If you are a student-- and it is not so long ago that I can't remember--and you get yanked in and out of school, in and out of school, your ability to perform is simply undercut dramatically.

In one school district in New Jersey, the number of homeless students doubled--doubled--this year, from 200 last year to 423 this school year, and that is only in one school district. The foreclosure crisis is clearly having an impact, and the time is now to stop any more schoolchildren from being affected.

An infusion of funds into the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program will help to ensure that students who become homeless and are forced to move from their homes do not also have to leave their schools.

There are some who may be able to shrug this off as a small sacrifice. They are the victims of this process or they are the calamities or casualties of this process, but there is nothing small about the impact of changing schools during this type of crisis. These children are less likely to perform at grade level in math and reading, more likely to be held back, less likely to graduate. There are long- term consequences to what for some may seem a short-term crisis.

They are likely to have behavioral issues. One study found that kids forced to move frequently were 77 percent more likely to have behavior problems than their peers. Another study found they were 20 percent more likely to have violent behavior. Now, what is the cost going to be to us collectively in our society when that happens?

At the end of the day, these children are forced to say goodbye to not only their home they grew up in and have had to leave their friends behind, but they also have had to leave behind familiar schools and supportive teachers and return to a strange home at night where their lives are often turned upside down. All stability is gone. They are thrown into a riptide with no lifevest, while we sit here in Washington hoping they survive the storm. Hoping is not enough. We have to do more than hope for them; we have to give them a lifeline. This funding would actually help these children.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program provides homeless students with a variety of supports such as transportation to school, tutoring, and counseling.

Children are the voiceless victims of the foreclosure crisis. As we lower interest rates, as we support the home building industry, as we reform mortgage lending practices, several children's organizations and education organizations have asked for this amendment as a modest way that our Nation can support the nearly 2 million children who are suffering the consequences of decisions made completely outside of their control.

The foreclosure crisis is damaging our economy, yes, but let us not forget the children are the real victims of this crisis, and--even worse--they are the silent victims. They can't speak up for themselves. They have no lobbyist here in Washington roaming the halls, advocating for them. It is not fair that these children get lost in the paperwork. They deserve our full support.

This amendment is cosponsored by several of our colleagues, including Senator Murray and Senator Brown, and it has the full support of Senator Kennedy. I wish to thank Senator Enzi, who worked with me on the language for this amendment to make it acceptable, and Senators Dodd and Shelby, the chair and the ranking member of the committee, who agreed to include it in their provision in the managers' amendment. Had I known that in fact we were going to have the objection of one of our colleagues to a bipartisan package, I would have sought an individual vote, but I am beyond that ability today.

In conclusion, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune have all written about this critical issue, and a number of respected groups also support this amendment, including First Focus, the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, the National School Boards Association, and the National Education Association, to name a few.

We have an opportunity to do something for these children. I hear great speeches on the Senate floor about family and values and the value of families and the value of our children and how our children are, in fact, our No. 1 asset, and that is true as a nation. They are also our most vulnerable asset. Yet when it comes time to be able to help these children, the question is: Is Congress going to listen?

Our colleague on the other side of the aisle seems to not be listening to their challenges and their pleas. One Member is likely going to block this and other important amendments, and the result is that our children, once again, are going to be unheard and are going to be the victims of something they had no role in creating; something that, in fact, where they are going to find themselves not only homeless but also having the foundation of their educational opportunities completely disrupted in a way that will more likely create failure than success.

I hope my colleagues who talk about family values understand the important value of helping our children in this regard. We have to reconsider our priorities, and I, for one, don't intend to rest until these children receive our help and get our support.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is obviously a lot of discussion and even frustration on the floor, certainly from our side of the aisle. It appears as though there is not going to be a meeting of the minds on this important legislation.

It is deeply disturbing because as we have been speaking today, in my State of New York, a lot of people finished work, started driving home, looked at their gas gauge, and realized they were going to have to stop and fill up either for tonight or for going to work tomorrow. They experienced what people are experiencing across America: the shock of the rising gas prices which in New York are now an average of $4.27 a gallon. That is more than $1 higher than a year ago. Every extra dollar per gallon costs the average family of four an extra $1,500 a year. That is $1,500 that can't be saved for college or retirement. That is $1,500 that can't be used to buy groceries, clothes, or school supplies. That is $1,500 that can't help pay for health care or house payments. That is $1,500 that the people I represent don't have. It not just lying around waiting to be used or spent on some luxury. It really goes to the heart of whether people are going to be able to meet their daily obligations.

Statewide in our State, every dollar that gas prices increase costs the New York economy $6 billion in added expenses for our drivers. That is $6 billion that can't be used to grow local economies, to support local businesses or stimulate new jobs.

Our farmers are hurting as higher energy costs shrink profit margins, even with higher market prices. Our commuters and our truckers are hurting. Tourism is hurting. I am hearing from New Yorkers every day who depend on tourism at local marinas, for example, where the money has dried up.

Meanwhile, we are sending $1.7 billion a day out of our country, more than $600 billion a year. We know where that money is going. It is going to places that are unstable, to governments that use our dollars against us, our allies, and our interests around the world.

Clearly, we need a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy. That should be self-evident. In the short term, we have to lower these prices and get relief to the farmers and the truckers, the small businesses, the hard-working families. In the long term, what is required is nothing short of an energy revolution. But there is no way for us to do that energy revolution unless we have the political will to begin acting now.

I believe this debate is too important to be sidetracked by slogans or proposals such as opening our coastal waters to drilling. So if the question is, as it should be, what can we do to help lower gas prices right now, drilling is the wrong answer. It will do nothing right now. It is literally a shell game or an ExxonMobil game. It is designed to serve the political interests of vulnerable Republicans and the financial interests of profit-rich oil companies. Average Americans will not see a dime. That is not just my opinion. The Bush administration's own study found that drilling would not have an impact for more than 20 years, and in 20 years, the impact on prices will be insignificant.

If the question is, as it should be, what can we do as a nation to end our dependence on foreign oil and begin to harness clean, renewable energy, drilling is the wrong answer again. Even if we drill for oil off our east and west coasts, the most oil we could generate, when the rigs come online in the year 2030, is 200,000 barrels a day. We import 12.4 million barrels a day; 200,000 barrels is barely a drop in that barrel.

I heard one of my colleagues, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, speaking on the floor earlier today, say that 200,000 barrels a day could be achieved right now by increasing the pressure in the tires of the cars and the trucks we drive.

So what are the answers? First, how do we help reduce gas prices right now? That is what my folks are asking me. They want relief now, not next year or in 30 years but now.

I believe we can lower gas prices in the very near term by taking smart,

practical, sensible steps to address rampant oil speculation. We have all heard recent testimony from financial experts, oil industry executives, the airline industry, consumer advocates--virtually everyone has said that speculation in oil futures is driving up prices beyond what supply and demand justifies. Some experts believe speculation accounts for as much as 50 percent of the current price of oil. Others argue it is less. But many experts still agree it is having a significant impact.

I recognize there are companies that use oil and need to use futures markets to hedge against price spikes. All of us in this Chamber believe in free and open markets. But when speculation is allowed to run roughshod over the economy, with little oversight and even less transparency, when backroom deals line the pockets of speculators while sending gas prices soaring, literally taking money out of the pockets of consumers, then we have to do something. We have to ensure that our markets are honest, open, fair, transparent, and accountable. That is why I support granting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission greater authority to regulate trading in these markets.

I urge my Republican colleagues to join in this effort. We could pass a bill tomorrow and have it on the President's desk before the recess that would immediately give agency watchdogs new tools to crack down on unfair, unbridled, unregulated speculation.

While we are relieving pressures on the markets as a whole, we need to target relief directly to people who are struggling. I am proud to support $2.5 billion in energy relief to low-income families in New York and across America. It is shameful that after all the hand- wringing about gas prices and energy prices, Republicans in the Senate blocked this bill last week. We need to move ahead with this legislation, and I hope we will do so before the August recess.

Second--and this question is tougher--how do we break the bonds of the fossil fuel economy? I believe America will and it must embrace this historic challenge because it is a historic opportunity. We can create at least 5 million new jobs, green jobs, we can tackle climate change, and we can end our dependence on foreign oil.

Last year, we passed landmark legislation to increase fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years. That will save millions of barrels of oil a day. It is an important step forward, but what we need is a giant leap.

I have proposed a $50 billion strategic energy fund paid for by eliminating tax breaks for the oil companies and making sure they pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. The fund could be used to support the deployment of wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, and other clean energy technologies available right now. The fund would invest in new ideas and new research to encourage our best and brightest to think outside the box and outside the tanks.

But that is just the beginning. Let's create the right tax incentives to promote renewable sources of electricity production. That is something on which Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens agree. If that is not consensus, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, Republican opposition in the Senate prevented the passage of energy tax reform, and the American economy is paying the price. One study found that blocking these kinds of tax incentives will cost 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment in 1 year alone, while we fall further and further behind in the race to lead the world in clean energy technologies.

Let's accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid vehicles by investing in research and consumer tax credits. Electricity is generated nearly 100 percent from domestic sources, and we have enormous untapped renewable resources we can use to create electricity without contributing to climate change. A recent study showed that a vehicle powered by electricity releases one-third less global warming pollution into the environment than a gas-powered vehicle even if the electricity comes from mostly coal-fired powerplants. This will save the American people money. According to one estimate, to travel as far as you would on $4-a-gallon gas, you only need $1 of electricity, and that is a bargain.

We don't need to create a whole new infrastructure the way we would for natural gas or hydrogen. A recent study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that 70 percent of the 220 million cars, light trucks, SUVs, and vans on the road today could be run on power drawn from existing powerplants and grids. This is an important point. Drilling may produce 200,000 barrels of oil each day at most in 2030, but if we used electricity to power our passenger cars by moving toward plug-in vehicles, we would save 6.5 million barrels of oil every single day, fully half of our oil imports. So let's move toward a stronger, smarter, more flexible electricity grid that increasingly relies on wind, solar, and other renewables, while employing smart-grid technology to reduce peak demand and conserve energy.

These are solutions that will work. They are solutions that embrace the challenge instead of ignoring it or postponing it, solutions that harness our creativity and talent that have the potential of creating 5 million new, good green-collar jobs. It is the calling of our time. It is, as one of my colleagues and friend on the other side said, the Moon shot. There isn't anything we can't do if we make our mind up to do it. That is who we are. We are Americans. We solve problems. So enough of the fatalism and the defeatism and more of that can-do spirit to tackle this problem.

We know President Bush and Vice President Cheney have a different approach. The oil companies say drill, and the President and the Vice President say, how deep? I don't think that is the smartest, most effective answer, and I hope we will be able to work out a way forward between our two sides.

I know my colleagues on the other side have a very strong view, as we do, but the American people are depending on us to choose a different course.

So let's cut through all of the talk, let's cut to the chase, let's try to cut out the politics, and let's take those bold steps that will relieve pressure now on gas prices at the pump and oil prices in the open market, and let's lead our Nation to embrace the great next American endeavor--a national effort to change the way we produce and use energy. It will serve our economy, it will strengthen our security, and it will bring us together as a Nation. And we sorely need that.

I look forward to working with my friends on the other side to come up with solutions that will actually work now. Give us the opportunity to make it clear to the American people we can act, we can see results, and we can move forward together.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to pick up on what the Senator from Vermont is saying because I feel very strongly that we do need to move forward with additional funding for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. In fact, I have offered an amendment to this--or I have filed it. I haven't offered it, because no amendments have been allowed by the majority party, but I have filed an amendment to the Energy bill, which is the logical place that we should put the LIHEAP language, which would do three things. It would double the amount of funding for low-income energy assistance, increasing it by $2.5 billion, which is the essence of the bill of the Senator from Vermont, which is exactly what we need to take care of the increased prices for energy according to the Energy Office in New Hampshire.

Secondly, it would add $25 million to the weatherization program. I think weatherization makes a lot of sense because it takes homes which lose a lot of their energy through lack of adequate windows or adequate insulation and helps those homes, especially low-income individuals. Further, it does something else which is important. LIHEAP is directed to low-income people, but middle-income families today, with the cost of energy doubling and tripling, have a serious problem. Folks who are working for a living but are still on a fairly tight budget or a fixed income are going to get hit hard this winter when their energy bills double and triple. So this bill sets up a tax credit dealing with the first $1,000 for an individual who is purchasing energy at fairly moderate income levels, so it doesn't benefit high-income individuals, and allows people, to the extent they buy oil to heat their home, to take that tax credit to assist them in the effort of reducing the cost of that oil.

All of this is paid for. My bill is entirely paid for. I think that is also a critical element because what we are talking about here is buying a consumable product for today--oil to heat your home--and then, unfortunately, if you don't pay for it, you are passing the bill for that oil on to our children and our grandchildren by adding to the debt of the United States, and that is not fair. Our children and our grandchildren are going to have their own tough time heating their homes; they don't need to have the debt that is included in paying for that program.

So my bill is entirely paid for by eliminating a tax--what I consider to be an inappropriate tax break for basically large, integrated oil companies known as section 199. This tax break was not directed at those companies originally when it was passed--and it should be--but it is being taken advantage of, and it is certainly not needed when oil is selling at $120 or $130 a barrel, and the incentives to produce oil are significant enough by the cost of the marketplace.

I feel very strongly--and I think this is an important point to make--that we need to have a comprehensive approach relative to people who are going to be impacted this winter, and it needs to be a paid-for approach, and that is why I made this suggestion.

I also feel strongly that if the majority leader calls up the bill which he filed, which is the bill from Senator Sanders, in an attempt basically to take down the Energy bill so that we are not going to debate it any longer, that is not the right approach. Because the real way you get to the issue of energy and the cost of energy for low- income people in New Hampshire this winter--or for moderate income people in New Hampshire this winter--is to reduce the overall cost of energy, to bring the price of energy down. How do you do that? You produce more and you consume less.

We on our side of the aisle have a series of ideas as to how you should produce more. Use the oil that is in the Outer Continental Shelf, drill in the Outer Continental Shelf. Use shale oil. We have 2 trillion barrels of shale oil sitting there--more reserves than in all of Saudi Arabia and many of the Middle Eastern countries combined. Use those resources. Bring them on the market. Take away the impediments which we as a Congress--the Democratic Congress specifically--have put in the way of using Outer Continental Shelf oil.

There is language which has passed this Congress which was put in by the Democratic Congress that says you can't drill in the Outer Continental Shelf. There is language which says you can't use oil shale from Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah--this huge reserve of energy. That language should be removed so that those sources of oil can be used.

Once you show the world we are willing to bring on line as a nation additional production from our resources, that will reduce the price of energy, because these prices which we are seeing today are speculative prices based on what they expect to occur in the future, and they expect demand to go up, but supply to stay stable--to not go up. Well, if we prove we are willing to bring more supply on line, and we are willing to use other sources such as nuclear power to reduce our reliance on oil, that will cause these prices to come down. That is the most significant thing we can do. If we could bring the price of a barrel of oil down to $100, even, that would dramatically take pressure off of people buying home heating oil this winter in New Hampshire.

So this bill we are debating right now, this energy bill, has to be completed before we move on to Senator Sanders' bill. In the debate of this bill, we should take up the LIHEAP amendment which will be offered, I suspect, from our side of the aisle--probably by Senator Sununu or myself. At the same time, we should take up these other ideas of expanding the use of our reserves as a nation on the Outer Continental Shelf, in the shale oil reserves, using nuclear power.

We should be expanding these reserves. Why? Because that will cause the price of oil to come down. In addition, the secondary benefit of this, of course, is that we won't be buying energy from people who don't like us. We won't be buying as much energy from Venezuela if we are producing American oil. We won't be buying energy from Iran if we are producing more American oil.

So clearly this is what we should do. We should produce more and we should consume less. At the same time, we should be promoting--and there will be an amendment from our side of the aisle on this bill-- promoting the use of electric cars and development of electric batteries, promoting more conservation ideas, promoting more renewable ideas. These are initiatives which need to be pursued. More importantly, they need to be discussed and a genuine bill needs to come out of this Congress. A bill such as the majority leader has presented--or the Democratic side has presented--which deals only with one small sliver of the problem, which is the potential for speculation, does nothing to increase supply and it does nothing to increase conservation, the two things we need to do in order to get the price of oil down.

The simple fact is this bill should be available and open to amendment. In an attempt by the majority leader to basically sidetrack this bill, to throw it in the ditch, so we can't go forward with amendments which deal with addressing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, which deal with bringing on more shale oil, which deal with nuclear power, which deal with more conservation--I am not going to vote for something that tries to accomplish that. I am going to vote to try to make sure we come out of this debate with a comprehensive policy, something that drives this country toward creating more supply that is American-created while at the same time using less.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

I believe I have 10 minutes. If the Chair would advise me when I have completed 10 minutes, I would appreciate it.

On another topic, we are going to take up tomorrow hopefully the housing bill. This is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. It is a big leap for those of us who are fiscal conservatives to say the Government should step into this arena as aggressively as this bill suggests we do but, unfortunately, it is a necessary step. It accomplishes two things which are absolutely critical in the present context of our economy.

Today there are a lot of people losing their homes through foreclosure as a result of taking part in what was known as the subprime lending process and having their ARMs reset, their mortgage rates reset. This bill sets up a process where people who live in their primary residence who have the wherewithal, the ability, to pay a reasonable mortgage can restructure that mortgage so they can afford it and so they don't lose their home, and so there isn't a foreclosure. That is very important. It is important not only to those individuals, but it is important to the marketplace to start some activity in the marketplace in the area of mortgage lending and home sales.

Secondly, and equally important, this bill addresses the fundamental strength of our financial institutions. We have some financial institutions in this country which are a bit unstable--unstable. We need to make sure they are stable. Why? Because these institutions, such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are essentially at the center of the strength, whether we like it or not, of our banking industry. We need to set up a process so the marketplace knows these institutions, specifically Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are going to survive and are going to be stable and are going to be able to have the capital and the wherewithal to continue to lend and to continue to have the market, to turn over mortgages so you can have liquidity in the lending markets. This is critical.

Some will argue it may be expensive. My argument is if we don't take this step, we know it will be expensive. We know from the FDIC----

Insurance that we will incur--as a result of bank failures that we will be paying a massive price. So although I don't like the idea from a concept as a matter of practice, this is something we are simply going to have to do in order to assure the fiscal solvency and resilience of our credit markets.

Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response to the outrageously high cost of fuel all across this country, and the fact that people both in the southern part of America and the northern part of America are very worried about how they are going to stay warm next winter and stay cool this summer, I introduced S. 3186, the Warm In Winter And Cool In Summer Act, which will provide immediate relief to millions of senior citizens, families with children, and the disabled who are struggling to pay their home energy bills. Specifically, this bill would nearly double the funding for the highly successful Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, that is the LIHEAP program, in fiscal year 2008, taking LIHEAP from $2.57 billion to $5.1 billion, a total increase of $2.53 billion. I mention that is, in fact, what this program is authorized for.

I thank Majority Leader Reid for completing the rule XIV process. My hope is that this legislation, this bill, will be on the Senate floor either this week or next week because it is imperative that we move it as quickly as possible.

There are many Members of the Senate, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, who have been active on the LIHEAP issue for a number of years. I want, at this time, to announce that we have now 40 Senators who are cosponsors of this tripartisan legislation. That includes 10 Republicans. It includes 30 Democrats and 1 Independent in addition to myself, making 2 Independents.

The cosponsors of this legislation are Senators Obama, Snowe, Majority Leader Reid, Smith, Durbin, Coleman, Murray, Sununu, Landrieu, Collins, Leahy, Murkowski, Clinton, Gregg, Cantwell, Lugar, Kerry, Dole, Kennedy, Bond, Schumer, Levin, Cardin, Brown, Klobuchar, Menendez, Casey, Bingaman, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Baucus, Lieberman, Salazar, Rockefeller, Wyden, Jack Reed, Dodd, Whitehouse, and Tester.

In other words, we have very strong tripartisan support, from the northern part of our country, from the southern part of our country-- all over. People look at the degree of partisanship that takes place in Congress. I am happy to say this bill is bringing all kinds of people from all kinds of ideologies together to say we have a crisis now; that in the United States of America people should not freeze to death in the winter; in the United States of America people should not be dying of heat exhaustion in the summer.

In addition to engendering widespread tripartisan support in the Senate, another bill, exactly the same, is being circulated in the House with very good cosponsorship. Furthermore, I am happy to say we have over 200 groups, national and local groups from all over the country, that are supporting this legislation. They include, among many others: AARP, the city of Phoenix, AZ, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, the American Association of People with Disabilities, et cetera, et cetera--tremendous grassroots support from all over the country.

Let me quote from the AARP which, as you know, is the largest senior group in this country. This is what they say:

AARP fully supports the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer

Act. This legislation will provide needed relief for many

older persons who may not receive assistance--despite their

eligibility--due to a lack of funding. Older Americans who

are more susceptible to hypothermia and heat stroke know the

importance of heating and cooling their homes. They often

skimp on other necessities to pay their utility bills.

However, today's escalating energy prices and the Nation's

unpredictable and extreme temperatures are adding to the

growing economic hardships faced by seniors. LIHEAP is

underfunded and unable to meet the energy assistance needs of

the program's eligible households.

That is from the AARP. I reiterate, Mr. President--what I know you know--there are some Americans and maybe even Members of Congress who do not know that when we talk about LIHEAP, we are not just talking about the problems that occur in my State where the weather gets 20 below zero or in your State. We are talking about problems that take place in Arizona and Texas, where temperatures get to be 110, 115 degrees. With a declining economy and escalating utility bills, many people--seniors, disabled, lower income people--cannot afford their electric bill. Their electricity is being disconnected. You are finding elderly people, people with illnesses, in a very horrendous position.

This is not just a northern State issue. It is not a New England issue. This is, in fact, a national issue and that is why we have cosponsorship for this bill from all over the country.

I have talked in the past and will talk again, obviously, about what LIHEAP means for northern States such as my own, but let me say a few words about what it means for southern States. Let me quote from the city of Phoenix, AZ.

This is from Phoenix, and the person there is saying:

I am writing to express my support for the Warm in Winter

and Cool in Summer Act. Currently Arizona can only provide

assistance to 6 percent of eligible LIHEAP households. To

make matters worse, Phoenix continues to experience extreme

heat. In the past month alone we have had 15 days with

temperatures at or above 110 degrees. This extreme heat is

especially hard on the very young, the elderly and disabled

who are on fixed incomes and can no longer afford to cool

their homes.

Arizona Public Service reported that there was a 36 percent increase in the number of households having difficulty in paying utility bills and an increase of 11,000 families being disconnected compared to a year ago. Rising energy and housing costs are placing enormous strains on households across Arizona.

Now, imagine being ill or elderly, having your electricity disconnected with temperatures day after day after day being 110 degrees. That is a serious health problem. But the issue obviously is not only in the South.

In my State there is a newspaper called the Stowe Reporter. This is what they say, very briefly, in an editorial:

It could be New England's own Katrina disaster. Hundreds of

homes rendered uninhabitable, families' finances stretched to

the limit, some driven away altogether to take

shelter with friends or family. But unlike Katrina, this

calamity is clearly visible on the horizon and we have months

to prepare.

With home heating oil prices nearly twice what they were

one year ago, and no price relief in sight, thousands of

Vermonters will be struggling this winter to keep their homes

warm. The financial effect of an additional $500 to more than

$1,000 on the winter's oil bill will force many to choose

between heat and other necessities, such as food.

So what we are looking at in the northern tier of this country is our own Katrina, if you like: people being forced out of their homes, people becoming ill, people leaving the northern part of this country because they cannot pay these outrageously high energy costs. This is, in fact, a life-and-death issue. Unlike hurricanes or tornadoes, you are not going to see CNN there. But as my friend from Maine, who is just walking in, understands, in her State and in my State, we are seeing people struggle in a life-and-death fashion. This is very important for people to know, because it does not get a lot of publicity, but according to the Centers for Disease Control, over 1,000 Americans from across the country died from hypothermia in their own homes from 1999 to 2002, and those are the latest figures we have available.

In other words, they froze to death because they could not afford to heat their homes. How many of these deaths were preventable? Well, according to the CDC, all of them were preventable. If people were living in homes that were adequately heated, those folks would not have died. It is important to understand that it is not only heating oil prices that are skyrocketing but electricity prices are also soaring.

Recently, USA Today ran a headline on its front page that said: ``Price Jolt: Electricity Bills Going Up.'' According to this article, utilities across the United States are raising power prices up to 29 percent, mostly to pay for soaring fuel costs. In other words, the situation that exists in the southern part of the country is that the electricity is disconnected because you cannot afford the huge increases in your electric bill, and if the temperatures are 110 degrees in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, you are in serious trouble.

Before I yield to my friend from Maine, I did want to mention some information in our southern and southwestern States. Due to a lack of LIHEAP funding, the State of Texas only provides air conditioning assistance to about 4 percent of those who qualify. Recently I received a letter from Shawnee Bayer, from the Community Action Committee in Victoria, TX. In her letter, Shawnee Bayer told me that LIHEAP funding for their elderly and disabled clients ran out on May 1 of this year. As a result, they have had to turn away over 500 elderly and disabled families seeking assistance with their air conditioning bills.

According to Ms. Bayer:

The temperatures in our area have been 100 to 110 degrees

for 16 consecutive days. I fear it is going to be very tragic

at the current pace we are going with so little funding

available. There are so many who need our assistance, like

the elderly lady in her 80s who recently almost died due to

kidney failure; now she doesn't want to use her air

conditioner because she is afraid she won't be able to pay

the bill and that we won't have funding to assist her when

she needs us.

She just called me last Thursday and has pneumonia; she

could hardly talk. Last year she was placed in the hospital

in ICU due to a heat stroke as a result of using only a fan,

not the air conditioner. I see children every day who have

not eaten because the parents, grandparents and in some cases

great grandparents are just trying to keep the electricity

on. The electric bills in our area have tripled.

I assure my colleague from Pennsylvania, I was listening carefully to his comments. He has traveled worldwide, and I am certainly interested in his viewpoints. I hope I didn't make him feel rushed at all, and I appreciate what he had to say.

Housing

Mr. President, this week, tens of thousands of homeowners traveled here to the Nation's Capital, and lined up for hours--and even days--in hopes of taking advantage of a mortgage counseling workshop through the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.

These homeowners came from as far away as Boston or Miami--all because they are struggling to hold onto their homes, and they need help with their mortgages. Many others are now steps away from foreclosure because they have seen their mortgage rates rise out of control, or because their mortgage now exceeds the value of their home

because property values have plummeted.

Now, while many of the homeowners who came to DC this week were able to get help, there are millions more across this country in the same position who are still in need of assistance. Nearly 8,500 families file for foreclosure each day. And as many as 2 million homeowners could lose their homes this year. Fortunately, we will have a bill before us soon that will enable the Federal Government to lend a helping hand to many of those families.

The housing package that passed the House on Wednesday includes a variety of provisions that would restore stability to the housing market, provide assistance to communities hurt by this crisis, and help prevent thousands of foreclosures. We have considered much of this package before, but it has been blocked by Republicans who have preferred to drag their feet than to address this crisis. We now have another chance, and I have come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support this legislation and get help into the hands of the homeowners and communities that need it.

Those of us who go home each weekend to talk to their constituents know how worried our families are about the economy--and about whether something will happen to threaten their ability to keep their homes.

It is hard to overstate how serious the housing crisis has become. There are communities across this country where people are literally abandoning their homes because they can't afford their mortgages, and they can't find a willing buyer. As I said, as many as 2 million families could lose their homes to foreclosure this year. And reports estimate the number of families facing foreclosure is higher than at any time since the Great Depression.

At the beginning of this crisis, many of those people were subprime borrowers who received adjustable-rate loans or who were the victims of loan scams. But as home values have dropped across the country, the problem has spread. Families with strong credit, who received fixed- rate mortgages, have seen their homes drop in value by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past couple of years. Their mortgages are now under water, and thousands of them are at risk for foreclosure too.

This is a problem even in regions that have been relatively healthy, like my home state of Washington--where more and more people tell me they are worried that they will be stuck with homes they can't afford.

The housing legislation that we will consider soon may be one of the most important steps we take this year to help our faltering economy because it addresses the root of the problem--the housing crisis. So I want to take the next couple of moments to talk about three of the main provisions of this bill to explain why we must act now.

First, the bill provides $180 million to give counseling agencies the resources to reach out and help struggling homeowners. Counseling is one of the most cost-effective tools we have to help families who are on the verge of foreclosure. Counselors can help families negotiate with their lenders, readjust their payments, or learn how to budget their expenses better.

And it is incredibly important that we provide the resources now so that we can help families before they reach the crisis point.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet a single mother from Ohio who had fallen on hard times, which in turn led her to fall behind on her mortgage. Luckily she was able to talk to a counselor, and she and her children were able to stay in their home. She explained that when she got behind, she was overwhelmed. She told me she didn't know what to do. She said, ``This isn't something they teach you in school.''

This bill would help more families like hers get help. Despite the numbers who traveled to Washington, DC for help this week, far too many homeowners still don't know they have options when they get behind on their mortgages.

I fought alongside Senators Mikulski, Schumer, and Brown to include this counseling funding back when this bill was first debated in April. It comes on top of a $180 million initiative that my ranking member, Senator Bond, and I included in the 2008 Transportation-Housing Appropriations Act. And I want to thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for helping to protect the funding in the most recent package.

Next, the bill makes some important changes to help modernize the Federal Housing Administration and enable it to help more homeowners refinance their mortgages. First, it raises the loan limit to take into account the increase in home prices over the last several years. This is very important because in many communities, home prices are higher than the current loan limits, meaning FHA mortgages aren't an option.

It also provides $300 billion to enable the FHA to back loans and help as many as 400,000 homeowners at risk of foreclosure get more affordable--and less risky--mortgages. These changes will help stabilize the housing market and encourage more mortgage holders to give borrowers a more affordable loan that will enable them to keep their homes.

Now, while I support these measures, I want to add--as chairman of the Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee--that this bill is also putting a lot of new responsibility into the hands of the FHA. That agency currently has close to 300 vacancies and it has the money to fill them. Unfortunately, it has been burdened by the painfully slow hiring processes at HUD.

It is my understanding that FHA Commissioner Montgomery, and our new HUD Secretary, Steve Preston, are determined to reverse this hiring record and get more people on board soon. I certainly hope they succeed. But I also recognize that as we head into the new fiscal year, we may need to take measures to boost the salary and expense funds provided to the FHA as well as get money to the agency to improve its computing capabilities. I intend to address those needs when the Appropriations Committee marks up the next Supplemental Appropriations bill in September.

Finally, I want to caution my colleagues on the Banking Committee that we will all need to continually monitor the lending activity and the funding balance of the FHA's existing mutual mortgage insurance account as well as the new homeownership preservation entity fund established in this bill. None of us wants to saddle taxpayers with unnecessary risk as we try to help homeowners. This bill establishes a new board that will face the daunting challenge of deciding which homeowners can and can't be helped under this new program.

But Congress will also need to do its part to monitor the fiscal health of both the new and old FHA accounts to ensure that the taxpayer isn't guaranteeing loans that have no hope of being repaid. The whole hope of this legislation is about calming the housing markets and using the FHA guarantee to entice mortgage holders to give borrowers a better break--an affordable loan that will keep them in their home. But we must ensure that taxpayers don't end up holding the bill for unsalvageable loans.

Finally, the bill would take important steps to strengthen Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by establishing a new regulator. It also provides temporary authority to allow the Treasury Department to take action when needed to keep them stable. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the foundation of our system to finance homeownership in the U.S., and it is absolutely critical that we take decisive action to help quickly restore confidence in them.

We started work on this bill in February because Democrats wanted to get help into the hands of homeowners who need it. But despite the desperation people feel in communities across this country, some Republicans have preferred up to this point to stall and block this bill. Now, I was very happy to see President Bush finally drop his opposition this week. And I hope my Republican colleagues will help us get this bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

Especially when it comes to helping people keep their homes, timing is everything. A family that gets access to housing counseling before they start missing mortgage payments can still save their home. And I hope we will finally be able to make that possible for thousands more families in need.

I hope when we finally get this bill out of here, we will be able to make it

possible for more families to feel secure in this country again.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and look forward to the vote tomorrow morning.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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