Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business, the time to be charged to the time allotted for cloture. I will probably take up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the first thing I want to do is take a minute to publicly thank the majority leader for the kindness he extended to me earlier when he announced the fact that I have cast the second-highest number of votes of any Senator from the State of New Jersey.

Mr. President, I am as surprised as anybody in this Chamber that this event took place and that kind of longevity has been extended to me by the people of New Jersey. I now enter the middle of my 23rd year in the Senate and I want to continue to serve. But that is a discussion for another time.

The majority leader was very generous in his comments about me. Coming from a person who has provided so much by way of leadership and contribution to the country as Harry Reid, it is a touching experience. We are busy, but Senator Reid took time out of the business of the day to note the fact that I had achieved that record.

The biggest surprise of all is, for me, the fact that I have been in this Chamber as long as I have been. I spent 30 years building a company with a couple of colleagues.

That is the legend of America--what can happen even if you are born poor but you have some assistance. I wore the uniform of this country proudly during World War II. I was a beneficiary of the GI Bill of Rights. That is how they defined the educational opportunity that was given.

Mr. President, my surprise--my awe, if I may--was that I was able to go to Columbia University, a distinguished educational facility, which was something I never dreamed possible because of the humble roots that my family had. They gave me values--nothing of value but values. My parents' admonition throughout my life was to always be honest, always tell the truth, always work hard, and remember one thing, son: There are people as poor as we are. As difficult as it is at times, there are always people less fortunate.

My grandmother had a little bank in the house, which we shared with her many times, in which we would put small coins, to be used for--I cannot say charity but for others who were less fortunate.

So I stand in this Chamber at this moment, and I want to talk about something related to roots--to my roots. My father and my mother struggled to make a living. My father worked in the silk mills of Paterson, NJ, a textile city. Others like my dad and mother were brought to this country by their parents, hoping for an opportunity to make a living and to have some degree of opportunity.

My father worked in the silk mill with a dear friend of his who was later very active in union organization. My father made a plea to his foreman for a holiday off. It was an important religious holiday. He wasn't looking for any pay, Heaven forbid. He just wanted to have the time off for observance of the holiday. He and his very close friend asked the foreman if it would be all right if they took the day off for the observance of the holiday, which was the week following. The reply was very quick: Oh, sure, you can take the day off, but don't come back to work here anymore. With that, you can imagine the view of my father and his friend not being able to continue a job that was scarce and difficult to get. So they waited, hat in hand.

In those days, people would wear hats to work in common labor at a mill. They described that, hat in hand, the two of them nervously waited for the owner of the company to come by. They would not let them go into the owner's office. Heaven forbid, that is no place for people like you. But the owner was a kind, generous man. When he walked out, they stopped him and explained that they desperately wanted to take the holiday off, but they needed their jobs. The owner was a kind, sympathetic person, and he said: Take the time off, and you are going to be paid for that holiday.

That was the beginning days of union representation in this country-- very active, very confrontational, very difficult, and sometimes violent. But my father saw and his friend saw that they had to have a better way to do things than stand hat in hand and beg for a day off. Fortunately, they found a kind man who listened and gave them the day off. But the experience was searing, and they never forgot that working people had to have representation.

Both of them then became active in union organization. Those were difficult days. We have all heard stories about employees who wanted some representation, wanted a voice in how they were paid, wanted a voice in what conditions were like.

My father worked in a mill. My father was a health faddist even in those days. He took very good care of himself. He was a man with muscles. He would go to the gym, and he would lift weights. He belonged to the local Y. He never smoked, was light on coffee, and no liquor. He died when he was 43 years old. He contracted cancer when he was 42. The cause was almost undeterminable, but they realized that there were materials they used when they worked with the silk to keep the silk brittle and to keep the machinery working that ultimately caused my father's cancer. His brother died at age 56 also from cancer. Their father died at age 52 also from cancer induced by the environment at the factory in which they worked.

The fact is that people who work in places like this should have a voice--and we see disparities, such as taking 10 years to raise the minimum wage.

It is time to give unions, to give working people a chance to have a voice in their work or their opportunity to take care of their families, or the opportunity, as my father said, to

hold your head high, be proud, be proud you are a worker, be proud you are contributing something to your country.

What we see now is distressing, which is why we are discussing freedom of choice for workers, to give them a chance have their voice heard without having to go through a hassle about whether they are organized. I have seen what happens. I ran a very big company. When I left the company, it had 16,000 employees. Today it has 40,000 employees, a company I started with 2 other poor kids from the neighborhood. We were always very conscious of our responsibility to our employees. That is why the company was so successful. It had the longest growth of any company in American history of 10 percent or more on the bottom line.

We had a case in New Jersey where a bus driver was fired for being a union supporter and giving testimony to the National Labor Relations Board. Even as we gather here, we see that employers are still using all kinds of tactics to harass, threaten, or fire workers who try to exercise their right to form a union. Ninety-two percent of employers make their employees sit through one-sided, anti-union presentations, according to a study by Cornell University.

The Cornell study also said that 78 percent of employers have supervisors hold repeated closed-door, one-on-one meetings with workers to intimidate them to oppose the union.

I don't think those kinds of tactics are appropriate. Decent jobs are ever more scarce in this country as we ship so many jobs abroad, as technology--and I come from the computer business; I know something about technology--as technology takes jobs away from people whose only skills are manual skills, and they need a way to make a living. You don't have to be a new immigrant to need a job where you use your hands, use your body, or use your strength to make a living. But these jobs are going further and further afield because of the technology.

We should not allow employers to prevent workers from having a greater voice in their workplace on issues of pay and benefits and working conditions.

We can improve this situation by passing the Employee Free Choice Act to protect workers and to protect their rights--again I use the expression--hold their heads high, know they can provide for their families, know they don't have to apologize to their kids for having to work as hard as so many do, two jobs in many cases.

The bill that is in front of us will let employees select a union if a majority signs cards saying they want representation. They don't want to take over the ownership of the company. They don't want to deprive senior executives from making their salaries or their benefits. When we see what is happening in America today, there is a frightening specter out there, and I talk as someone who came from the corporate boardroom. I can be accused of being a tree hugger because I care about the environment. I can be accused of other things. But I can't be accused of not understanding what it is like to run a business, a successful business.

If people want representation, when we see that there are people in this country making $1.8 billion for a single year's work, and many others earning $240 million or more. The salaries are adequate enough, as they said in an article in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago, that if you took the combined wages of people who made $240 million or more in the year, you could pay 80,000 school teachers in the city of New York for 3 years.

There are disparities, and what has to happen is that people who work for a living have to understand their work, their effort, their contribution to the country. We have Tom Brokaw here for lunch right now. He wrote a book, ``The Greatest Generation.'' What was it? It was working people who made the contribution. It was working people who on D-Day--I didn't arrive in Europe on D-Day; I arrived a little bit later--those who were there, those who were the heroes, those who saved their companions, working people. They are entitled to be heard.

Workers cannot be hassled or harassed to be kept from expressing their interests in a union. This bill says employees can select a union as soon as a majority signs a card saying they want representation. Current law allows for this majority signup, but only at the employer's discretion. The employer can instead demand an election and use that time before that election to scare workers away from joining a union.

The Employee Free Choice Act will protect and enhance the right of workers to join a union, and there is good reason for some to choose a union. As President Bush helps the wealthy get wealthier, helps the corporations develop ever more earnings, I see nothing wrong with that as long as there is a fairness, an equity. When a company such as ExxonMobil earns almost $40 billion in a year, and Americans pull up to the pump and very often they are giving away a significant part of their purchasing power at that gasoline pump, we have to be sure we don't totally demoralize the working people of this country.

Union wages can help low- and middle-wage workers earn their way to new opportunities and financial stability. Everybody knows it costs more to live these days. It costs more to send a kid to college. It costs more to get health care. It costs more for gasoline. It costs more for mortgages. It costs more for everything.

We have to make sure that the people who work for a living, who do the building, who do the lifting, are able to make a living.

When it comes to wages, union wages are almost 30 percent higher than nonunion wages, and union workers are almost twice as likely to have employer-sponsored health benefits.

In 2005, 1.3 million New Jersey residents were uninsured for health. That is 300,000 more residents than 5 years ago. Union membership can make a huge difference to them and their families. Hard-working Americans deserve these benefits. We need the Employee Free Choice Act so workers can express themselves without intimidation. They have to be certified if they make that kind of choice. But we also want employers to be accountable when they violate the law. This bill will strengthen penalties for employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act so that employers are deterred from breaking the law.

Workers deserve an atmosphere where they can choose a union without intimidation or coercion. They need a strong law to allow them to make their own choice without interference from management. The Employee Free Choice Act is that law. It will give employees a stronger voice in shaping the workplace and will help employees earn more money, benefits, and improve their futures.

I am proud to support this bill for New Jersey's and America's current union members and for those who want to unionize.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Permit people to make their choice and make it freely and not have to be worried about intimidation or harassment. If you want to join a union, simple: Fill out a card. Why should they be deprived from doing so for their future? I don't think they should be.

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

Mr. President, right now, people are at gas stations across America, filling up cars and trucks to get to work, take their kids to school, and run their errands.

In May of 2002, a gallon of gas cost $1.40. Today that same gallon of gas costs $3.22. In just 5 years, the price of gas has more than doubled.

Gas isn't the only energy cost that has spiked in the last 5 years. In New Jersey, individuals, families, and businesses are paying 25 percent more for electricity than they were just 5 years ago. These high prices are hurting our families--families whose budgets are already stretched thin.

We also know that our energy policies are hurting our environment. The emissions from our cars and trucks, electric utilities, and factories are causing global warming--a fact recently verified by a United Nations Panel on Climate Change. The energy bill before us marks the first serious attempt in years to address our energy crisis.

First, it takes a measured but appropriate approach to improving CAFE standards governing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks. Right now, Japan leads the world in fuel efficiency. Many of their cars and trucks get more than 40 miles per gallon. The United States is far behind. Our passenger cars have been stuck at CAFE standards of 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990--and our light trucks get just 21.6 miles per gallon. We must do better, and with this bill, we will.

Our energy bill calls for increasing fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. As we improve our fuel efficiency, we decrease both the amount of gas Americans have to pay for and the greenhouse gases our cars emit. But despite what many think, greenhouse gases don't only come from cars and trucks. Buildings have a significant impact on the environment and on the health of every American-- accounting for nearly 40 percent of America's greenhouse gases. The Federal Government is the largest owner and renter of buildings in the Nation and is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.

In addition, poorly designed schools can cause the air inside to be unhealthy. This poor air quality increases childhood asthma.

More than 67 percent of schools have a design problem that contributes to asthma. For those reasons, I introduced the High Performance Green Buildings Act, which is now included in the Energy bill. This legislation focuses on making our Federal buildings ``green'' and improving the environmental and health impacts of our schools. I worked with our former colleague, Senator Jeffords, on this bill in the past--and the language now in the Energy bill represents a collaborative effort between myself, Senator Boxer, and Senators Snowe and Warner.

In comparison to standard buildings, the average green building has better air quality, uses 30 percent less energy, and results in nearly 40 percent fewer emissions. Green buildings also have smaller electric bills, which saves owners and tenants on their bottom lines.

The Federal Government must lead by example and achieve those results for its buildings. Accordingly, my green buildings bill will direct the General Services Administration to use a green building certification that all Federal buildings should achieve. It also provides grants and voluntary guidelines for schools to lessen their environmental impacts--and improve the health of the students, teachers, and staff inside them.

Finally, the bill calls for demonstration projects to show the public that green buildings are environmentally sound, benefit people's health, and are both cost-effective and practical.

The States are doing their part. New Jersey and 21 other States have already signed bills similar to my legislation. Many private companies are doing their part as well. For example, Bank of America is building a new highrise office tower in Manhattan--a building that will be entirely green. It is time for the Federal Government to do its part.

We need a solution to our energy problems: one that protects the American pocketbook, improves our CAFE standards, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and promotes green building. This energy bill will be an important step forward toward achieving these goals.st

amendment no. 1792

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak tonight as we get close to the point hopefully of passing an energy bill here in the Senate.

I first acknowledge the leadership of both Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici. When we look at where we are today on energy, much of it started, the bipartisan cooperation, between Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, in the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. I know there have been critics of that act, but it was a creation that was put out in a bipartisan fashion, a significant step forward on energy.

This legislation that came out of the Energy Committee, which is included in the bill which we are about to vote on, in large part is a very good step forward in terms of trying to address the goals we had in that particular legislation.

I also congratulate both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I think when you think about the people who have made such a mark, an imprint on the Senate today and on our country, two of our national heroes are Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye. I never get tired of hearing the story of Senator Inouye and his service to our country. Every time I see him and I remember his great contribution and sacrifice to our country, I remember those are the greatest of the greatest generation, and certainly both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye embody that greatness.

I also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their great work. As a member of the Finance Committee, we worked very hard to come up with legislation that would help us move forward in dealing with the reality of getting energy independence.

While I am disappointed that part of the package is not included as we move

forward toward final passage here, it nonetheless represented the best of our thinking about how we could invest in this new imperative of America, and gets us to a new energy future for the 21st century.

I also thank the rest of my colleagues who were involved in some of the discussions that have been underway today. Let my say that from my point of view, there is no more important issue we must deal with here in Washington, here in the Congress, than the issue of energy.

If we look at the big issues of our time in the 21st century, I think in my mind there are three issues we have to deal with. We have to deal with the issue of foreign relations and how we put the world back together again and restore America's greatness in the world.

We also need to make sure we embark on a new clean energy future for the 21st century.

We also need to deal with other issues that are very difficult, the enormous challenge that we face with the health care in America today. That issue is bankrupting America's families and America's businesses day by day. So how we move forward with those three issues is very important.

But tonight we are at the doorstep of taking a significant step forward on one of those huge issues; that is, the issue of energy and moving forward to establishing a clean energy future.

Now, when I often talk about energy, I think back to what happened in the early 1970s and through the 1970s with both President Nixon and President Jimmy Carter, where President Nixon declared the need for us to be energy independent, and coined that term.

Then following him, President Carter spoke about energy independence as being something that was the moral equivalent of war. Well, the fact is that in those days the driver for those statements and the coining of that term came from the economic volatility that was caused by the formation of OPEC and their ability to be able to influence the world markets on oil.

I think today we have three inescapable forces that drive us to look at the clean energy future as the imperative of the 21st century. Those inescapable forces are, first and foremost, our national security. When we see what is happening in the Middle East with Hezbollah and in Lebanon with Hamas in the Gaza, you know that terrorist organizations such as those are being funded by the very oil that is being consumed by the free world.

So for us to become energy independent is our way of making sure we are not held hostage to those kinds of organizations, to the oil barons and sheiks of this world. It is an imperative we do that from a national security point of view.

Secondly, I think it is now beyond argument in our world today that the issue of global warming is here, and we will have some debate that will come on down the road with respect to how we address the issue of global warming here in America and across the world.

It is inescapable that we must do something about global warming if we are to save civilization for our children and grandchildren and save this planet we have been given the humble privilege of inhabiting. That is an inescapable force that will drive us to a clean energy future in the 21st century.

Last is the economic opportunity and dealing with the economic volatility that happens when you are hostage to someone who controls supplies such as OPEC can today. The economic opportunity is one that you already see happening throughout our great Nation.

In my State of Colorado, where 2 years ago, before passage of the 2005 act, there was really nothing going on in terms of renewable energy, we have totally turned that around. We have now ethanol plants in places such as Fort Morgan and Yuma. We have a number of other ethanol plants springing up in Windsor and Devon, down in the southern part of the State, places which were part of the forgotten rural America which had been hanging on by a shoestring just to keep their communities alive. There is a new breath of activity, a new breath of hope and opportunity and optimism in rural America, in large part because we believe we can grow our way to energy independence.

I believe strongly we are headed in the right track with the legislation that has been put forward. I am hopeful that we will move forward and conclude our effort on this energy legislation tonight.

I want to go back for a minute and reflect upon the legislation that came out of the Energy Committee which was led in a remarkable fashion by Senator Bingaman, with the support of Senator Domenici. It was a bipartisan effort that focused on three major issues, all of which are included in the underlying legislation.

The first of those was moving forward with alternative fuels. If you think about what we have done with the renewable fuels standard, we will be quintupling the amount of energy we create from biofuels. We will be opening a new chapter with cellulosic ethanol that will make the biofuels targets a reality.

Secondly, the efficiency measures are important to make sure we stop wasting the energy we consume. When we look at what the experts tell us, from the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Lab, we know we waste 60 percent of the energy that is consumed in America today. Therefore, the lowest hanging fruit for all of us is to move forward with efficiency measures. We are doing that in the part of the legislation that was created in the Energy Committee. We also are doing it very much with the CAFE standards, the fuel efficiency standards that were negotiated today with the leadership of Senators Stevens and Inouye, Senator Feinstein, and many others who were involved. That will help us achieve the oil savings targets and goals we have set forth in this legislation.

Finally, we take some movement forward in terms of dealing with the issue of carbon by making sure that we are dealing with carbon sequestration mapping in the United States and that we develop the way forward in terms of how we sequester carbon. There has been debate about coal. Not everybody agrees on how we ought to move forward with respect to coal. I believe it is important that we look at coal as a possible resource because it currently generates about 50 percent of our electricity today and it is the most abundant resource we have in this country. We have enough coal resources for the next 200 years of energy for America's use. Coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia. So it is important that we not turn a blind eye and say we are a nation that is not going to look at all at coal.

Some of the new technologies we have with respect to IGCC--the creation of electricity in a way that can help us with the hybrid plug- ins--will open a whole new chapter today and build on the 2005 act. That will all be very important. Carbon sequestration needs to be a part of the equation. We know there are formations throughout this country where, in fact, we can sequester carbon. The technology is not all that complex. The enhanced oil recovery efforts and the technology we have with EOR is technology that has been used in the oilfields for decades. We know there are formations out there where we can, in fact, store carbon. So we can find ways of utilizing this abundant fuel we have in the United States to help us fuel the energy needs of the country.

In addition to the many Members who have worked on making this a possibility--and I hope we do get the 60 votes we need--there have been a lot of people on many staffs on both the majority side and the minority side who have worked to make this happen. I thank each and every one of them for getting us to the point we are today. I know the countless hours and nights and days they have spent working on this issue. Without them, we would not be where we are tonight.

I thank the people in my office who have been working hard on this legislation for a long time, both in the Energy Committee and in the Finance Committee. I say thank you to Steve Black, who has been an enormous player on the energy issue, in 2005 as well as today; Matt Lee-Ashley, Suzanne Wells in my office, Grant Leslie, and Sam Mitchell, who have done an enormous job pulling all of this together.

This is a major step we are about ready to take. I look forward to being a part of the celebration when we get this all done, hopefully in the not too distant future before we go into the wee hours of tomorrow morning.

Efficiency Title

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the improvements to vehicle efficiency that are included in H.R. 6. It is time for us to make reasonable, achievable, and meaningful increases to the corporate average fuel economy standards.

In the past 2 weeks I have spoken repeatedly about the national security, economic security, and environmental security implications of the energy debate that we are holding. The converging and growing risks of our overdependence on foreign oil are well understood among Americans, who see the impacts of our failed energy policy on a daily basis.

At the gas station, consumers see prices spike at OPEC's whim or with the threat of supply disruptions in countries like Venezuela or Nigeria. In their businesses, Americans feel the pain of soaring oil prices--fuel prices for farmers are so high that some do not know if they will be able to complete the harvest in the fall. And in their land, air, and natural surroundings, Americans are beginning to understand the impacts that global warming could have over the coming decades.

This week we have already made significant progress in our quest to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not only is the underlying bill an important step forward, but we have passed several amendments that strengthen the foundations of a new, clean energy economy for the United States.

So far we have increased the oil savings targets in this bill by 50 percent, so that by 2016, we are saving as much oil as we are currently importing from the Middle East. We have passed provisions from the DRIVE Act that will bring high-efficiency vehicles, such as plug-in hybrids, to consumers. And we set a goal of producing 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025. These are important improvements that will accelerate the pace at which we are moving toward energy independence.

Today, though, I want to talk more specifically about a provision of this bill that has been a point of intense debate for some time. Vehicle efficiency standards in this country have been stagnant for too long. Although our vehicle manufacturers have made impressive improvements to the safety, strength, and power of our vehicles, the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks was actually lower in 2006 than it was 20 years ago. Passenger cars sold in the U.S. only get around 27.5 miles per gallon on average.

The result? American consumers and businesses are suffering disproportionately from $3-a-gasoline. $50 and $80 visits to the gas station are now the norm, and transportation costs are taking a growing slice out of family budgets.

People who live in rural areas are hit the hardest by low fuel- efficiency standards. They drive around 15 percent more miles than people who live in cities, they rarely have the choice of using public transit, and they use work vehicles, like pickups, that get fewer miles to the gallon. As a result, gas bills in rural households have risen almost $1,300 in the past 5 years.

The question of how to improve vehicle efficiency standards is not an easy one, and is not to be taken lightly. But today the path forward is clearer than it has been in some time. Not only is the need for improved efficiency evident, but we have the technological know-how to make these changes to our vehicle-fleet in a safe and cost-effective manner.

The bill before us raises the CAFE standards for cars and light trucks to 35 mpg by 2020. This is a reasonable and appropriate goal for efficiency. The bill also gives manufacturers tremendous flexibility to meet the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, will have the ability to set a national fleet-wide average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020 that will be tailored to the weight, size, type of use and towing capabilities of each car type. Under this flexible system, the standards for light trucks will likely be significantly lower than the standards for passenger cars, and standards will vary for passenger cars: smaller cars will have higher standards than larger cars.

The bill also includes an important exemption for work-trucks between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds--these are the trucks that are essential to the daily operations of farmers, ranchers, and small business owners.

The CAFE standards in this bill are achievable by incorporating a group of modest, proven conventional technologies into vehicles. The technologies would add about $1,100 to the price of an average vehicle in 2019, an investment that would be recovered in less than 3 years of driving, assuming that gasoline costs $2.00 per gallon. Over the lifetime of the vehicle the owner would save a total of more than $3,600 in gasoline costs.

And the technologies are only getting better. Our national labs and universities are making breakthroughs in research that will allow us to make even greater advances in fuel efficiency. At the Colorado School of Mines, for example, researchers are developing a way to cast metal alloy composite materials for high strength, lightweight vehicle parts. This technology will reduce the weight of vehicle components by as much as 60 percent without compromising vehicle performance, cost, or safety.

While I am a champion for the responsible development of our domestic energy supplies and I firmly believe that we need to make smart investments in a renewable energy economy, improving efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest and quickest way for us to extend our energy supplies, get a handle on rising gas prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I am proud of the responsible, bipartisan approach we have taken to improving vehicle standards. I want to again thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici for their leadership on this bill and I look forward to passing it as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, as the new Congress begins work, I am pleased to join with Senator Domenici in addressing one of the most serious and intractable problems facing the Nation--restoring the long- term fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare.

Today we propose a bipartisan, independent and permanently existing commission to return these essential programs to solid financial footing for generations to come.

Our legislation mandates the periodic, comprehensive review of Social Security and Medicare to ensure their present and future solvency. By a year from the date of enactment, it requires the Commission to devise and recommend to Congress and the President a benefit and revenue structure that allows Social Security and Medicare to become, once again, stable and effective.

A key aspect of the bill is that its mission is ongoing indefinitely. Every five years the Commission returns with new recommendations--small tweaks or larger adjustments, whatever is necessary--to keep these entitlement programs in actuarial balance.

Since 2005, the President, Congress and the Nation have stalemated over the issue of privatizing Social Security. The issue remains contentious. Recent press articles suggest the Administration would be prepared to drop carve out accounts as the price of overall reform.

Meanwhile, the Social Security funding shortfall is projected to balloon to roughly $4.6 trillion over the next 75 years to pay all scheduled benefits. This unfunded obligation has increased by $600 billion alone over the last year. Medicare is in far worse shape, needing $11.3 trillion over the next seventy-five years to close the gap and remain in balance.

The 2006 report from the Trustees of Medicare and Social Security is alarming to say the least. They describe the current path of spending for both as ``problematic'', ``unsustainable,'' ``severe'', and in ``poor fiscal shape.'' In sum the Trustees say that ``the problems of both programs are driven by inexorable demographics, and, in the case of Medicare, inexorable health care cost inflation, and are not likely to be ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing.''

Simple numbers tell the story: growing cash flow deficits will exhaust the Medicare trust fund in 2018, and Social Security reserves will be overcome in 2040, according to the Trustees report.

Our legislation takes a new approach and is bipartisan to the core. Instead of emphasizing the merits of one proposal over another, we wipe the slate clean.

Fifteen experts, some of whom are Members of Congress from the committees of jurisdiction, are appointed. They take a full year to conduct town hall meetings nationwide, assess these trillion dollar programs from top to bottom, and rationalize their cost structure through intensive evaluation.

We advocate an open process, where all American voices can be heard. We have learned in the last two years that these issues effectively surpass the Congress' and President's ability to reach a compromise.

Relying strictly on elected officials to meet privately and out of the public view to negotiate a multi-trillion agreement I believe risks more failure. We have no demonstrated track record since 2005 of being able to achieve bipartisan consensus. And there are no new developments of late that suggest a different outcome than more partisan gridlock.

I know Majority Leader Reid is instructing on certain members of the Senate to gather and discuss these issues in the coming months. I hope it works. But I basically share his outlook for the prospects of a bipartisan deal: ``It's a tremendous long shot. If you were a Las Vegas bookmaker, you'd put the odds pretty [long] for being able to do that.''

The Commission we propose would not be offering one-time solutions that get tossed aside and collect dust. Far from it: the Commission's detailed analysis, nonpartisan recommendations and findings are provided in writing and take the form of legislation that Congress formally considers.

The Senate and House, in turn, through expedited legislative procedures, will hopefully be poised to amend if need be and then enact the changes into law.

Compromise, in the form of increasing payroll tax revenues or other fees and cutting benefits, is the inevitable reality which we face. Senator Domenici and I are focused on creating a pathway to reach that compromise. We do not hold out, today, certain ideas that we believe Commission Members ought to consider.

We rely on their independent expertise and motivation to derive what is best for the Nation. Then we let the chips fall where they may from there.

The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said two years ago that we had little time to waste in fixing Social Security. He endorsed the notion of establishing a Commission, much like the one he led in 1983 that led to historic changes in the program. His congressional testimony bears repeating:

This is not a hugely difficult problem to solve . . . And I

guess what is missing is the fact that at this stage there

has been a rather low interest in actually joining, in

finding out where some of the agreements are, and I have a

suspicion that when that occurs, that will happen. It may

well be that some mechanism such as that which we employed in

1983 may be a useful mechanism to get groups together and

find out where there are agreements. I tend to think what

happens in these debates is nobody talks about what they

agree about but only about what they differ about. And

something has got to give soon because we do not have the

choice of not resolving this issue.

Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right that it is only a matter of time that we implement Social Security reform. That is because 48 million people, or 1 out of every 6 Americans, depend on it. And by 2050, an astounding 82 million Americans will receive this guaranteed benefit.

For more than 20 percent of retirees, Social Security is it: their only source of income.

For half of those 48 million, Social Security keeps them out of poverty. And for almost two-thirds, Social Security makes up more than half of their total income.

4.8 million widows and widowers rely on Social Security, as do 6.8 million disabled workers and 4 million children.

The long-term challenges are significant. It is not a crisis, we have time to implement gradual reform over time, but we need to get started.

While the current projected shortfall for Social Security amounts to about $4.6 trillion, the fact of the matter is that 100 percent of benefits can be paid until 2040 by some estimates (Social Security Administration) or 2046 by

others (CBO). Beyond that time horizon, 73 percent of benefits can be paid.

So the bottom line is, there is time, the know-how, and the resources to be able to maintain the current system, with phased adjustments occurring over many years to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The key, of course, is coming to a rational consensus--Democrats and Republicans united--in the effort to make Social Security solvent from this day forward.

Most budget experts agree that the Social Security problem pales in comparison to the enormous shortfall facing the Medicare Trust Fund (Part A)--over the next 75 years a total of $11.3 trillion. The various technical estimates are that Medicare is projected to become insolvent far sooner than Social Security.

In fact the most recent Medicare Trustees report confirms that the trust fund will be exhausted in 2018, yet the number of beneficiaries skyrockets upwards--from 42.7 million now, a number which will double by 2030--as the Baby Boom generation ages.

Compounding the problem, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare spending will rise to 11 percent of the gross domestic product by 2080, up from 3.21 percent of GDP in 2006.

And the number of those paying into the system gets smaller and smaller: in 2000, 4 workers supported every Medicare beneficiary. That number shrinks to 2.4 workers per beneficiary by 2030.

The plain truth is that surging health care costs need to come under control or Medicare faces a dire situation. Because the program is financed through payroll taxes on working Americans, and general tax revenue, the pressure is building now on working Americans, given the huge demographic changes we expect when Baby Boomers retire.

In closing let me share one pertinent fact from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees and their 2006 report: ``to the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required.'' The time to act is now, and Senator Domenici and I believe that our legislation represents a reasonable and good faith step for curing what ills these vital safety net programs.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Inouye, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, and Collins to close the SUV loophole.

This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would increase the combined fleet average for all automobiles--SUVs, light trucks and passenger cars--from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2019.

The high price of oil is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S.

India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely.

This legislation is an important first step to limit our Nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment.

If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 2.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, almost the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf.

It would also prevent about 350 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from being emitted into our atmosphere by 2025. This is an 18 percent reduction, the equivalent of taking 60 million cars--or 50 million cars and light trucks--off the road in one year.

This bill would also save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.

CAFE standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars.

Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.

The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2013 that passenger cars meet today.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks.

In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said.

With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so. As a first step, by model year 2010, passenger cars must meet an average fuel economy standard of 29.5 mpg, and SUVs and light trucks must meet 23.5 mpg. By way of comparison, passenger cars in model year 2005 averaged 30 mpg, light trucks averaged 21.8 mpg, and the overall combined fleet average is 25.2 mpg.

The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.

We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming.

We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States.

Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe.

It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy.

And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector.

The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly.

Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent.

On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year.

The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.

We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Baucus amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against cloture.

There are only two things wrong with the Baucus amendment: One, it raises taxes in the wrong places; and, secondly, it spends these taxes on the wrong policies. I want to make two points upfront before I start my remarks.

When we speak of American big oil, let me remind people that America's five big oil companies hold less reserves than Hugo Chavez, the state-owned company of Hugo Chavez in his country.

My second point is, very seldom does the United States tax businesses that are in competition overseas. Let me repeat that. We in America hardly ever tax American businesses that are in competition overseas. Of course, that is exactly what we have done here, and what is going to happen is not going to be good. It is not going to help the American consumer one bit.

There are only two things, as I indicated, that are wrong with the Baucus amendment. I would repeat: It raises taxes in the wrong places, and then it spends them on the wrong policies.

I cast this vote, and I think it is an informed vote based on my experience. It is with a deep sense of responsibility to do what is right, with a keen interest and understanding of energy policy, because I have been forced to work on it with many who know a lot about it. With a real appreciation of the importance of this vote, I will oppose cloture.

The tax provisions in this bill will increase the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans, increase electricity bills for families, and work severe hardship on our natural gas supply. Additionally, this amendment could seriously harm our economy. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently noted that: A significant increase in energy prices can simultaneously slow the economy, and raise inflation.

I cannot vote for that consequence. I urge that my colleagues not do so either. I do not cast this vote lightly, and I arrive at the decision after a great deal of reflection. There are many good and important provisions contained in this amendment. In the area of renewable energy, while there may be questions about how long certain tax credits should be extended, there should be no doubt that in the past I have supported renewable energy.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with Senator Bingaman, we passed the largest tax incentives for renewable energy, a variety of renewable energies, than we ever have in American history. My friend and colleague Senator Alexander has often referred to the bill that we passed as the ``Clean Energy Act.'' He is right. In 2005, in the Energy Policy Act we provided renewable energy production tax credits, automobile tax credits, and we can keep going. We provided tax credits for energy efficient improvements, biodiesel, and for ethanol. We included tax credits for installing alternative refueling property, tax credits for the installation of solar. The world demanded cleaner energy, and the Energy Policy Act answered the call.

Between 2004 and 2006, global private capital investment in clean energy rose from around $30 billion to $60 billion a year. It rose because we set the framework into law, and it was invested on the private side. In the public market and in venture capital and in private equity, in corporate research, development, and demonstration, and government research and development and asset financing, the answer has been the same. Both the private and public sector are excited about the future of clean energy, and they are busy, under our 2005 act, investing heavily in it.

The weakness is in the amendment I am talking about. Without question, some of the tax incentives in this bill could have a positive impact on the landscape of American energy future. To deny that would be to debate unfairly the merits of this amendment.

Cellulosic ethanol production credits, plug-in hybrid vehicle credits, and clean coal energy bonds are smart financial incentives, and those tax policies complement many of the goals we have sought to achieve in the previous legislation. I think that is good.

Supporting the great things that we accomplished together in the Energy bill 2 years ago made us all feel good. However, the tax incentives in this bill focus on too narrow a field of energy policy. The Finance Committee has reported this amendment with a pricetag of $32.1 billion, a very large tax increase. In a few minutes I will speak about the troubling revenue-raising proposals in this amendment.

But, first, I ask myself and I ask others, so our people would get a feeling of what $32.1 billion is, what it can be better used for or what it might be used for in the American economy if it were free to be invested or other things bought with it: $32.1 billion would purchase 15 biorefineries, 16,000 barrels-per-day coal-to-liquid refineries, 5 gasoline refineries, and 4 nuclear powerplants, 10 bio-energy research centers, and 500 miles of transmission lines.

Now, I am not suggesting we would buy them with this bill, but I am suggesting that everyone should know the huge size of this tax, taken out of the economy, and what it would invest in similar dollars, that it could invest in the American economy. I just told you what they were.

We could use this money for commercial demonstrations in oil shale, fund demonstrations for energy from coal using IGCC, and we all know we must do that. We do not have any money to do them, and we are having difficulty getting loans from the Government, and here we are taking $32 billion and not providing anything for these kinds of investments that we must do if we are going to keep pace with China, which is going full speed ahead with all of those things, including nuclear power, and nuclear powerplants in this country. We must get there also.

But in the meantime, we are taking an awful lot of revenue flow out of the economy, right away from the energy companies that know how to invest it, where to invest it, how to pick up reserves, and how to keep the price of oil as much within bounds as the world market will permit.

Without question, the revenue-raising proposals in the amendment will increases the cost of exploring for and producing our Nation's oil and gas and natural gas. As a result, Americans will pay higher prices for gasoline at the pump, and we will suffer increased electricity costs as our Nation's natural gas supply is weakened. We will pay higher prices, obviously, for natural gas.

The excise tax on oil and gas exploration increases taxes $10 billion over 10 years on producers on our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. Frankly, I believe that entire tax is wrong. We should not be taxing the most productive--the places where more money is being put for exploration than anywhere else, the Outer Continental

Shelf. Yet one-third of the taxes here come from imposing a fee, a very high fee, on the Outer Continental Shelf. Who would have thought it? The place in America where we have a chance of producing, we have imposed a heavy tax. Proponents of this amendment claim these tax provisions only affect the five largest U.S. oil and gas companies. Not true. But I have already told you who they are and what they represent in the world markets.

In fact, there are 40 lessee companies. Nearly 75 percent of all entities leasing on the OCS hold leases that would be subject to a 13- percent punitive tax. I hardly thought I would see that on the floor of the Senate. Yet here it is, bragged about as a very big source of money that we can do other things with, without regard to the prices the American people are going to pay in the increased prices for oil and gas coming from the shelf.

This is the lifeblood of our domestic oil and gas production. It makes absolutely no sense to advocate for independence from foreign oil, and then turn right around and raise taxes on our domestic companies that are producing America's oil and natural gas. It will mean higher prices for consumers.

Oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf amounts to approximately 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, and 12\1/2\ billion cubic feet of natural gas. Annually, this production equals approximately 600 million barrels of oil per year and 4.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year.

Now, that is good. They are doing fine. So why don't we put a tax on them of 13.5 surtax? It makes no sense. The price will go up, production will come down. These amounts produce 30 percent of our domestic oil production per year, and 23 percent of our domestic natural gas. Placing a punitive tax on this production is serious business backed by very serious facts, and I say serious consequences.

Activities on the OCS provide an average of over $6 billion a year in revenue to the Treasury. In the future the offshore will be even more important. The Minerals Management Service estimates about 60 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States are located where? Where might you guess? In the Outer Continental Shelf, upon which we are going to place a very stiff, very high tax.

Furthermore, the intent of the OCS excise tax and the effect of this tax is crystal clear. The provision charges 13 percent of the removal price of taxable crude oil and natural gas, with a credit available to those who have price thresholds on their oil and natural gas leases. In plain English, this amendment seeks to legislatively breach valid contracts from 1998 and 1999, because the Clinton administration failed to include a term in these agreements.

In other words, there was no fault of the companies. The Clinton administration either made a mistake or did not want to put the fee on; it just didn't happen. So for those 2 years, we have royalty leases with no royalty thresholds.

Congress cannot rewrite contracts after the fact merely because we do not like the contracts or the results. I predict when we are all finished, the courts of the land are going to say: This part of this tax is illegal and unconstitutional, and out the window will go a very large portion of this tax because the rights are clearly there. We have to think about it and think about what we are doing.

I do not like the idea of the United States of America going back on its contracts. It sounds and looks and smells like some foreign country. But we are close to doing it here in the name of some new answer, and at the same time saying it is going to yield revenues for us to use for various things in this bill.

As we consider this amendment, the Senate should be on notice that legal precedent would not be on our side. The U.S. Supreme Court and Federal circuit court precedents suggest that the Government cannot avoid the obligations of its contracts by using its taxing power to take back benefits it has given up pursuant to an agreement. I suggest to the Senate that a Federal court will recognize this tax for what it is and, therefore, this $10 billion we are counting on in this bill will be lost.

The Department of the Interior has already testified before Congress expressing its concern about protracted litigation over this issue and the potential for a loss of billions in revenue as well as the delay of oil and gas production.

There are 2 other provisions among the revenue raising proposals that are very troubling. One provision would amend the Job Creation Act of 2004, which created tax relief for more than 200,000 U.S. corporations and businesses. This proposal increases taxes by almost $10 billion over 10 years.

Instead of the Jobs Creation Act, we could call this provision the Jobs Destruction Act.

Finally, the increase in taxes by the U.S. Government on American companies competing overseas--through the foreign oil tax provision-- increases taxes $3.1 billion over 10 years.

This amendment also attacks American interests and cedes control to foreign interests. It says we would rather buy energy from the likes of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela than produce it ourselves.

To put the proper context on this, Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian state-owned oil company, has nearly 3 times more daily output per million barrels per day than the largest U.S. oil company and holds nearly 10 times the oil and natural gas reserves.

To make it more difficult for American companies to compete overseas for this global commodity at a time when oil prices are nearly $70 per barrel is simply wrong. The Senate should reject this political expediency that will hurt American businesses, and the American consumer.

I began my remarks by conveying to this Senate the seriousness with which I cast this vote.

In my judgment, this amendment will have significant negative consequences on America's energy security. The Baucus amendment will increase the cost of producing oil and gas in America and will undermine the ability of American businesses to compete against state- owned oil companies run by foreign governments. The result for our Nation will be a greater reliance on crude oil from hostile regions of the world and an increase in the price of gasoline for the American people.

That is an unacceptable consequence and not what the American people expect of us.

For the reasons that I have stated, I must vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. President, I wonder, while the Senator is still standing, if I could ask him a question. I was standing someplace where I caught an echo on your last 2 or 3 minutes. Could you maybe repeat it, because it hit my ear wrong. I did not quite get it. What did you talk about when it went to the House and came back and what?

When is that? When you come back from the House?

The same people who voted here will vote again then, will they not? Are you expecting some Senators to leave in the meantime from this side?

I see.

I see. Well, it would be good if you would add to that there might be a little opportunity to work together on that, too, you know. If you get a few people a little anxious, you might find you could not get cloture again. That could happen.

Yes.

Well, you are inviting some of us not to approve anything tonight, to have another cloture, and you have nothing going to conference.

Senator, you know, you and I have been here long enough that we go through these tragedies every now and then. But they get worked out. Then as long as you do not try to defy reality--there were a lot of people who didn't want this to happen; a lot of people did. That is the Senate. Now we will see.

So do I.

Well, there is no doubt in my mind we are going to move ahead. We have had some terrific movement ahead in the past 3\1/2\, 4 years. Some of us who are questioning how you think it is going to happen have been part of that over the last couple of years. We are not--nobody is going to sit here and say: There is one way, only one group of Senators knows how to do this. We did our share in this pretty good bill you voted for a couple of years ago. Had we implemented the provisions of that with financing that went with it, we would already be a long way toward the development of both supply and conservation; supply of the type you want, and supply of the type some others want. We would already have that going. Instead, we do not, because we haven't financed it. We should have. You were with us on the financing. It should have happened.

Mr. President, this is a very interesting series of statements we have heard in the last 15 minutes, half hour, statements basically trying to lead Americans to believe that this Finance Committee tax package, as well as the provisions of the tax package to pay for incentives so we can wean ourselves away from OPEC, away from all these countries, is going to result somehow in some cataclysmic event; namely, gasoline prices are going to go up, according to statements we have heard. We have also heard that we are going to reduce domestic exploration and development of American oil companies; we are putting ourselves in the hands of foreign countries. The fact is, the exact opposite is the case. These statements are amazing. It is good political rhetoric, but it has nothing to do with the facts.

First, it is more important that people understand that the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, basically delegates to the Secretary of Energy whether $30 billion worth of tax provisions will be enacted. I am astounded that anybody in the Senate wants to delegate that decision to the Secretary of Energy instead of the U.S. Congress deciding whether the tax needs to be imposed.

The Kyl amendment basically says that unless the Energy Secretary can determine that the effect of this will not increase the price of gasoline at the pump, that he, the Energy Secretary, or she, the Energy Secretary--whoever the Energy Secretary is--will automatically be forced to rescind the pay-fors in this bill. That is astounding. It is basically delegating to the Energy Secretary a policy which should be made by the Congress, and that is a huge dereliction of responsibility. I am appalled that anybody would dare suggest it. But that is a fact.

Second, if we look at the whole bill, the Finance Committee package in the Energy bill and also the Kyl amendment, several things are striking. The first is the major underlying Finance Committee bill is designed to accomplish the objective that the Senator from Idaho is complaining about. The Senator from Idaho is complaining that this amendment transfers power to Venezuela or to Saudi Arabia, other countries. The whole point of this bill is the exact opposite. It is to wean ourselves away from OPEC, wean ourselves away from those countries, so that we Americans are in a better position to determine our own destiny, in a better position to get more energy production here in America.

How do we do that? The committee bill does that through all kinds of incentives. It reduces taxes in lots of different ways for alternative energy, renewable energy, cellulosic development, encouraging more American clean coal technology so we can tap into our vast reserves of coal. It has lots of ways we could help America be more self-sufficient and wean ourselves away from these very high gasoline prices we are forced to pay partly because OPEC is forcing us to pay those prices; the truth is, partly because the major oil companies are charging whatever the market will bear. That is why they are charging such high prices to the American consumer. What evidence do I have of that? It is very simple and direct.

I was stunned because of the candor of the CEO of ExxonMobil when he made this statement. This was last year at a Judiciary Committee hearing. I was not there; I was watching on C-SPAN. At that hearing, the exchange was essentially between the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the CEO of Exxon. I think Senator Kohl asked the question. This was an open hearing.

He said: Sir, why are gasoline prices so high now?

The answer: Well, Exxon has to pay more because OPEC is charging us more. So we to have pay more, and we transfer those price increases down to the American consumer.

The Senator from Wisconsin asked the head of ExxonMobil: Explain this to me, please. At the same time, your profits have exploded. They have gone up about $35 billion this year. Your profits have expanded.

Senator Kohl said: I am a businessman. Ordinarily, if my costs go up, my profits go down. Please explain to me why you would say your costs are going up because OPEC is charging you more and yet your profits are going way up. Why?

His answer was very illustrative of the point here. He said, in all candor: Senator, my responsibility is not to the American consumer; my responsibility is to my stockholders. I will charge whatever the market will bear because I have a duty to protect my stockholders and get whatever I can for my stockholders. I am going to charge whatever I can.

That is why profits are so high, because Americans can't put milk in their car or their truck. They can't put in water. They have to put in diesel fuel or gasoline. Americans are stuck. The majors are passing on through their distribution system these very high gasoline prices because they can get away with it and because it fattens profits and because they are beholden to stockholders, not the American consumers.

What about these provisions which the Senator from Arizona wants to strike. There are three of them. It is very simple, and there is a reason why they are there and why they will not have the disastrous effect the Senator from Arizona claims.

The first one is to rescind a tax break we gave to the five major oil companies back in 2004. It is called section 199.

We gave that tax break, frankly, to all American domestic manufacturers, including the oil companies. It was as a response to a WTO ruling a year or two earlier which said our American tax laws-- which gave incentives for American products to be exported--were WTO illegal. So we came up with a backup plan. The backup plan was basically section 199 in the code, enacted in the 2004 Jobs Act, which says, OK, we will give an extra little break to domestic production in the United States. If they export the products, fine; if they do not, that is fine. We will still give them a break. That is what that is.

What has happened to domestic oil production in the United States since that was enacted in 2004? Well, one would think it probably increased a little bit because the major oil companies get a little tax break. The fact is, the exact opposite has happened.

Let me quote a couple statistics. In 2004, when that provision was put in effect, domestic production was about 170 million barrels a month. It was 170 million barrels a month in 2004. Well, you would think it would go up because of that tax break for domestic production. Oh, no, that is not what happened. It actually went down. It is down to about 160 million barrels.

Look at the price of oil. Back in 2004, the price of oil was $40 a barrel. Now it is about $65 a barrel. Well, gee, you would think--that is more money in the oil companies' coffers--they would want to use that for more exploration, more development. No. Again, there is less domestic production, even with the price of oil so high over that period of time and even though they have had a tax break. I might add, too, the price of gasoline at the pump back then was about $2 a gallon. Today, it is above $3 a gallon. So that did not help.

So, gee, we thought: We will take that away. It did not help, so we will take it away. So, therefore, it seems to me it is not going to cause an increase in the price of gasoline at the pump.

I might say, the statistics cited by the Senator from Arizona are based on the Heritage Foundation. I am not going to get into the question of who financed that study--I have an idea who financed that study; and, therefore, it drove the results they would like to get--but that is the same organization that said Iraqi oil is going to pay for Iraq reconstruction too. They were dead wrong then, and they are dead wrong now. They are an organization which, frankly, I think is not the most objective, independent organization in the world. That is the first one. That is why we made that first change.

The second provision in the Finance Committee bill the Senator's amendment wants to strike is a loophole closer. We are trying to close a loophole. The Joint Committee on Taxation said--that is a bipartisan organization, the Joint Committee on Taxation, which serves both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats--their independent study shows there is a big loophole the major oil companies take with respect to foreign tax breaks in this area; that is, ordinarily a company gets to reduce its income taxes in the amount of the foreign taxes that company pays to a foreign country.

Now, the law is different between exploration costs and distribution downstream costs. The companies game the system. They offset one against the other. Joint Tax saw this big loophole. Let's close it. That is the second provision. Also, I do not see how anybody could argue against that. It is a big loophole closer. It makes the Tax Code more fair.

Then we get to the third provision. This is the so-called confiscatory excise tax on the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's be honest. First of all, the President of the United States, himself, believes there is insufficient revenue paid to Uncle Sam on these OCS leases. The best evidence: The President of the United States, himself, has enacted a 6\2/3\-percent royalty on all new leases in the gulf. He thinks they are not paying enough. He has increased the current royalty--it was 12 percent. The bill has a 13-percent severance tax. The President, himself, has enacted a whole new higher royalty provision on new leases in the gulf. He thinks they are undertaxed. Right now it is about a 12-percent royalty. This provision in our Finance Committee bill says a 13-percent severance tax.

Clearly, Congress has the power to enact a tax. The royalties paid by any company are credited against the 13 percent, and so it is a net lower than what the President thinks the amount should be in revenue paid by the oil and gas companies in the gulf.

I might also say the General Accounting Office has done a study of how much America taxes oil and gas compared with how other countries tax oil and gas. What is the result of the GAO study? The result of the GAO study is we Americans basically tax oil and gas less than other jurisdictions around the world--or other States. The State of Alaska is taxing more. Other countries tax more now. We Americans are pretty easy and soft compared to other countries on how much we tax oil and gas revenues.

So this argument that somehow, oh, my gosh, America is going to tax oil and gas companies with these provisions--that it is confiscatory; they are going to go overseas--it is just nonsense. It is just total nonsense because, already, oil and gas revenue in the United States is not taxed as much as it is in other jurisdictions. It seems to me, therefore, it is not unfair to enact this provision.

The main point is if the Kyl amendment passes, then the Finance Committee tax title of this bill is dead because we are not paying for it, effectively. That is because the Energy Secretary, under the Kyl amendment, probably would rule that maybe prices might go up at the pump, given the politics of it all, and that means we do not have a bill anymore.

Therefore, I urge Senators to say: OK, let's do what is right. Let's start to wean ourselves from OPEC. Let's start to give some incentives to American domestic producers of alternative fuels, renewable fuels, and have more conservation measures to help America again take control of our own destiny.

This is not a perfect bill. Nothing is perfect. But it is a good bill. It is a very good bill. It helps put America back on track, helps America turn the corner toward more energy independence, and enhances our national security so we are less reliant upon OPEC, less reliant upon those countries to which some Senators say this bill gives a break. It does not. This bill does the exact opposite. It helps America become America again.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I very much thank the chairman of the Energy Committee who I think has put together a very good energy bill. I thank him very much for his instructive comments here. They are very helpful.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes and--how many seconds?

I yield 2 minutes 10 seconds to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, I will take the remaining 2 minutes. This whole debate boils down to something pretty simple and basic; that is, do we as Americans want to begin to become more self-sufficient in our energy production? Do we want to be less reliant on OPEC? Do we want to give incentives to new clean energy industries to develop in America-- not just renewables and alternatives but also clean coal technologies and other ways to help America be more self-sufficient?

Congress, for many years, has provided some very significant tax incentives to the oil and gas industry to help America be strong, to make sure we as Americans have a strong industrial base and a strong energy base to fuel our industries. That was probably the right thing to do over the years from 1926, and the various provisions that have helped America. I think the time has come for us to give incentives to other industries, alternative energy, renewable fuels, clean coal technologies, cellulosic, and so forth--the same kinds of incentives that the oil

and gas industry have enjoyed for decades and decades.

We are not taking away these incentives from the oil and gas industry at all. We are just saying the time has come for us to give incentives to make America more self-sufficient in the production of energy. This bill helps accomplish that result, and the way we do that is very fair and balanced. It will not have the horrible results that are claimed here. I urge our colleagues to begin to take--we will still have huge breaks for the oil and gas, but we give help on the margin to new independent energy sources in America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to Senator Bingaman regarding a study by professors of law John Leshy and Brian Gray.

Mr. President, I raise a pay-go point of order that the pending Kyl amendment would worsen the deficit, in violation of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, for the sake of our security, economy and environment, America needs a comprehensive energy policy that is independent of foreign energy sources and weans America off of fossil fuels.

Last year, I introduced comprehensive energy legislation that would address the many challenges across our economy to achieving sustainable energy independence. I am very hopeful that this Congress will soon take steps to bring forward a comprehensive energy bill that will address many of the areas I believe are essential to this effort. I have cosponsored many of the individual planks of this comprehensive effort, and today I want to address how we can ensure that this energy policy does not have an expiration date or fall short of its laudable goals.

Today I am introducing the Energy Independence Act.

The Energy Independence Act will deliver energy independence to Americans by providing an energy plan that has the capacity to change with innovation. My bill will ensure that our energy policy will increase the efficiency and decrease the environmental impact of America's energy policy, and encourage our energy policy to adapt to our needs and abilities.

My bill will set a congressional goal of achieving energy independence by 2017. ``Energy independence'' is defined as meeting all but 10 percent of our energy needs from domestic energy sources. The bill will also set a congressional goal of achieving independence from fossil fuels by 2037.

My bill will also create a Blue Ribbon Energy Commission, which will meet every two years starting in 2009, to evaluate our progress in efforts to become energy independent, and to recommend changes to be made in reports to Congress.

These are achievable goals.

Petroleum, mostly used for transportation, accounts for 84 percent of our imported energy. Transportation accounts for roughly 28 percent of our energy use. I support raising CAFE standards, and have cosponsored S. 357, legislation by Senator Feinstein which would raise these standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. Studies show that raising CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon would save over 36 billion gallons of gas per year, and creating efficiency standards for replacement tires would save more than 7 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. Creating incentives for commuting by train or bus, and funding upgrades and new starts in public transit services, such as the purple line of the DC metro, will also make a difference--in an average year, the round trip to work uses over 250 gallons of gas and creates about 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

As part of a comprehensive energy bill we should also be mindful of the long-term effects of our energy policy on the environment, our landscape, and our health. I cosponsored S. 309, legislation by Senators Sanders and Boxer that provides for an economy-wide emissions cap and trade program. Enacting an economy-wide cap and trade program will ensure that our energy policy will be truly sustainable.

America currently gets only 6.3 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources. Current ideas for addressing this problem focus on trying to make the large up-front investment in infrastructure required to produce renewable energy less daunting, by creating a long-term market for renewable energy through increasing the Federal Government's use of renewables and creating a Federal renewable portfolio standard to make utilities offer renewable energy to American consumers, and by making incentives like the renewable production tax credit permanent. I support creating Federal renewable portfolio standard, and will cosponsor legislation to be offered by Senator Bingaman to do so. I have also cosponsored S. 590, Senator Smith's legislation that would extend solar tax incentives through 2016, while expanding these incentives to cover more of the up-front investment required to use solar energy.

In order to get to energy independence we must substantially increase our investment in energy research. I cosponsored S. 761, Senator Reid's America COMPETES Act, which will increase R&D funding for the Department of Energy, increase the DOE's emphasis on advanced energy research to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy technologies, and implement recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences report Rising Above a Gathering Storm.

I will be advocating other areas of energy policy reform, including increasing funding for weatherization, providing incentives for telecommuting, and providing additional energy efficiency standards for appliances.

We can do better, and the one overarching theme in the quest for a sustainable, long-term energy policy is the need to be able to be flexible and change our energy policy to suit our needs, capacity, research and development. My bill will give us the ability to provide long-term, bipartisan solutions that will address our energy policy going forward, and give us the flexibility, and the considered solutions of experts, to give the American people the energy policy they deserve.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for joining me in this effort. This is an important bill for tens of millions of Medicare beneficiaries, for the physicians, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals who treat them, and for the future of the Medicare program.

At the end of this year, providers will again face the prospect of an across-the-board cut in their Medicare reimbursements. The scheduled cut for 2008 is the largest ever, 9.9 percent. These cuts are the result of a flawed reimbursement system created in 1997 that uses the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, or SGR, to determine an acceptable increase in the growth of provider expenditures.

Medicare reimbursements increase when the previous year's payments do not exceed a target level that is based on the growth of our economy. However, when the previous year's payments exceed that target level, reimbursements are cut. According to MedPAC, the SGR formula would reduce Medicare provider reimbursements by 40 percent over the next eight years if Congress does not act. MedPAC is also concerned that over the next several years these reductions ``would threaten beneficiary access to physician services over time, particularly those provided by primary care physicians.'' MedPAC recognizes the importance of provider participation in the Medicare program, particularly in our rural and underserved urban areas where the decision to not accept new Medicare patients can make all the difference in seniors' access to medical care.

Congress recognizes this as well, and so we have intervened to prevent scheduled cuts resulting from SGR from taking effect. For all except the newest members of this body, this process of enacting a ``physician fix'' is a familiar scenario. For the past four years, Congress has acted to prevent these cuts to providers, usually through a last-minute provision added to a must-pass bill.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced bipartisan legislation implementing MedPAC's recommendations and calling for Congress to repeal the SGR formula and update provider reimbursements by the cost of care. Replacing SGR will require a thoughtful and protracted process involving the input of lawmakers and the provider community, and it is costly, but it is something that we must do.

The most recent ``fix'' was made to the 2006 Tax Relief and Health Care Act, Public Law 109-432. That law froze payment rates, staving off an across-the-board cut of 5.1 percent. Congress also added a quality reporting system called the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative program PQRI, which made providers eligible for a bonus payment of 1.5 percent of their total allowed Medicare charges if they report to HHS on certain quality measures starting in July 2007.

This new system is also known as ``pay-for-reporting,'' and it is based on the concept that physicians should receive an increase in Medicare reimbursement only once they have participated in extensive quality reporting. Across my State, I have heard serious concerns that this will lead to a mandatory reporting system in the near future, and that we will soon see an untested ``pay-for-performance'' system in place.

Now, I think all my colleagues would agree that our seniors deserve the highest quality care. But in our quest for improved quality, we must answer two questions here: should we proceed with an untested system of reporting requirements just for the sake of reporting, and will we actually achieve better care for our seniors via the PQRI.

I am very concerned about implementing reporting requirements that have not been tested. I believe that we must have the right process in place for defining a quality reporting system for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by health care professionals. We should not be establishing reporting requirements for health professionals just for the sake of reporting, and we should not be moving forward with this system until we have adequate time to evaluate each stage of its development.

Current law does not provide sufficient time to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of this new system. Nor do they take into account the fact that most physicians and other health professionals have no experience in quality reporting and do not have in place the necessary health information technology and administrative infrastructures to participate in a reporting system.

The bill I am introducing today will assure that health professionals will be at the center of the process for defining areas where quality measures are needed, as well as for defining the relevant measures themselves. Why is this important? Health professionals must be actively engaged in developing and implementing an effective reporting system because they are on the front lines of health care delivery, and they best understand the nexus between care delivery and quality measurement. The development process for quality measures must be transparent and consistent for all health professionals because they are the ones who will determine its successful implementation.

Additionally, quality measures should be tested across a variety of specialties and practice settings before they are included in a reporting system because measures must be clinically valid to be relevant for defining quality, and because physicians and health professionals practice in a variety of settings, for example: small vs. large practices, urban vs. suburban vs. rural locations, office-based vs. hospital-base practices.

Most importantly, we should not be using hastily devised quality measures to justify reimbursement cuts. There are some who advocate pay-for-performance as a way to slow the growth of physician spending. They think we can accomplish lower physician expenditures by setting arbitrary standards and then cutting payments to physicians who fail to meet them. But across America, there are practices that would face tremendous obstacles in meeting such standards: they lack of the information technology necessary to document and report standards in a timely manner; they see patients with economic and language barriers that will result in higher noncompliance rates; they treat a patient population for whom ethnic and racial differences require different clinical interventions than for other patients. Ignoring these considerations will not only fail to dramatically improve quality, it will significantly penalize providers who treat traditionally underserved populations.

This bill provides an opportunity to thoughtfully and carefully develop effective quality measures that reflect differences in practice patterns, to share our findings, and to determine and encourage the most cost-effective methods of providing the highest quality care.

Rather than moving forward precipitously in 2008 with a permanent Medicare quality reporting system after a transitional 6-month period this year, as current law requires, our bill, the Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007, instead would establish a more realistic timeline for quality measure reporting by health professionals. It does so by:

Requiring the Secretary first to evaluate the 6-month transitional reporting system and reporting findings to the Congress by June 1, 2008;

Requiring the Secretary to undertake demonstrations for defining appropriate mechanisms whereby health professionals may provide data on quality measures to the Secretary through an appropriate medical registry;

Allowing physicians and other eligible professionals to continue reporting to the Secretary quality measures developed for 2007, in order for the Secretary to refine systems for reporting quality measures;

After completion of the evaluation, phasing in a permanent Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Program, with implementation beginning January 1, 2010, based on a consistent set of rules that define an orderly and transparent process of quality measure development;

Requiring that the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement of the American Medical Association be the beginning point for the designation of clinical areas where quality measures are needed;

Having the Consortium, in collaboration with physician specialty organizations and other eligible professional organizations, develop and propose quality measures to a consensus organization such as the National Quality Forum for endorsement; and

Prohibiting the Secretary from using any measures that have not been recommended by the Consortium and endorsed by the consensus organization.

I am confident that with all of these measures we will achieve a successful and effective quality reporting system that will truly make a difference in the quality of care that our Medicare beneficiaries receive. At the end of this year, as Congress moves forward to address the physician reimbursement issue, I urge my colleagues to support this rational approach to promoting quality and guaranteeing access to care.

Mr. President, resuming debate on the amendment which I offered, the amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that notwithstanding the tax increases, $28.6 billion in tax increases in the amendment pending on the floor, they shall not take effect unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that those tax increases will not increase retail gasoline prices or the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy.

The point of the amendment is to make it clear that sometimes tax increases on business can be passed on to consumers. If that happens in this case, we are going to see higher gasoline prices at the pump, not lower prices. One of the concerns many of us have with the underlying bill is it doesn't produce any new energy. Yet it spends $28.5 billion. To make up for that spending, it taxes an additional $28.6 billion.

Somebody has to end up paying that tax. Most people in America know that when you put a tax on a business, that gets passed on to the consumers who buy the product--in this case, gasoline. So instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill, if the underlying amendment passes, is going to add to the cost of gasoline.

Yesterday I mentioned a Heritage Foundation study that confirmed that what I was saying was not simply my opinion but the facts as a result of a study that the Heritage Foundation had done. I would like to expand on that a little bit because we actually have the figures for two States, the State of the chairman of the committee, Montana, and my State of Arizona, to illustrate the point.

The study projects that gas prices in Montana, for example, in May averaged at $3.17 per gallon. They would be $3.48 per gallon next year as a result of the Energy bill before the Senate. A Montana taxpayer would see spending on gasoline increase by $1,632.95 next year, as a result of the bill.

In Arizona, we are paying about $3.09 per gallon. That would go up to $3.40 next year as a result of this bill, so Arizona taxpayers will see spending on gasoline increase by $1,140.51 next year as a result of this Energy bill. That is a huge increase in consumers' payment for gasoline. When we realize that for many people driving is not a luxury, it is a requirement--to get to work or perform work--it is clear we are costing the American consumer a huge amount of money that is important for our economy and for them to make a living. That is an unintended consequence of the tax increases embodied in this bill but real nevertheless.

What we are saying is, if that is the result of tax increases, then those tax increases would not go into effect. I think that is an important principle for us to establish.

I would like to respond to a couple of points made by opponents of my amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee argued the tax increases in the underlying bill are simply loophole closers, but that is not true. The largest tax increase in the bill is a brandnew tax. It is not a loophole closer, it is a new 13-percent tax on new oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. How is that going to help bring down gasoline prices? I suggest it is not. It will help to raise prices.

The second largest tax increase in the bill raises the corporate tax rate. That is not a loophole closer either, it is simply needed to pay for the other costs of the bill, so it was a ready source of revenue that they decided to tap.

This is a raise in the corporate tax rate for oil and gas companies, which would then make it higher on those companies than others in manufacturing--something we were trying to promote when we passed the bill 2 years ago.

Raising the corporate tax rate is obviously not a loophole closer. I suggest when you raise marginal tax rates, you either get less production or higher prices--more likely, both--not good results from raising taxes.

Finally, the Senator from Oregon argued yesterday that with oil over $55 a barrel, oil companies should not need incentives to drill for new oil and gas. I certainly agree with that; they do not need any new incentives to drill for oil and gas. I have always been against those kinds of targeted incentives or taxpayer subsidies for any form of energy. But imposing a new tax or raising the corporate rate is not the same thing as repealing targeted incentives, which is what we should be doing. Moreover, with oil over $60 a barrel right now, renewable energy companies should not need any further taxpayer subsidies either. The market is providing all the incentives necessary to produce hybrid cars and advanced fuels.

These tax increases are not necessary. They are going to be counterproductive to our economic growth. They are going to hurt our producers vis-a-vis foreign producers, they are going to further increase our dependence on foreign oil and, most importantly, they are going to raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for American consumers.

All my amendment says is if that happens, then these tax increases should not go into effect. If it doesn't have that effect, then the tax increases would go into effect.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would be happy to take half of my time right now and then let the Senator from Montana close, and I will close after that.

Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the arguments that have been made. First, I do appreciate the candor of both the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Iowa. Rather than arguing that these tax increases are loophole closers, as has been suggested, they candidly acknowledge the reason for the tax increases is to pay for the costs of the bill. As the Senator from Iowa said, we want to avoid offsets, but we can't. We have to pay for the costs of the bill. So, so much for the argument that these tax increases are loophole closers. They are, very plainly, necessary to pay for the cost of the bill, so they are tax increases. I appreciate that.

Another bit of candor: The Senator from Montana quoting--or paraphrasing, anyway--the former chairman of Exxon Oil Company, essentially argued that it is OK to add these taxes on oil companies because they make too much money, and they make too much profit, so we are justified in taxing them.

I am not going to argue with that theory. If they make too much money,

we are going to tax them, if that is the argument for imposing these new taxes. All I say is as long as it doesn't raise the price of gasoline for American consumers, then I guess the question would be: Who cares? But if they do raise the cost of gasoline for American consumers, then I think we should care. That is all this amendment does. It says: If it doesn't raise the cost of gasoline, go ahead and impose the tax. If these oil companies are making too much money, go ahead and tax them. But if the result of it is not just to hurt the oil companies but to hurt the American consumer, then Congress says: Wait a minute; not so fast. We are not going to allow that to happen. That is all this amendment does. So we don't say you can't tax. What we say is, you can't tax if it has a negative impact on the American consumer.

Now, there was a question about the Heritage study. I noticed there was no attack on the numbers, no refutation of the numbers, just: Well, who paid for the study? I don't know who paid for the study. I presume Heritage paid for the study. It is their study. What does it say and why is it such a burr under the saddle of those who oppose my amendment? Well, it found that the tax provisions in this bill, setting aside the other mandates, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents per gallon over the next 8 years, and taking all of the provisions of the bill together, it can increase the price of regular unleaded gas from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon in the year 2016, over the next 10 years. That is a 104-percent increase.

If that is the case, even if it is only half that much, it is a huge hit to the American consumer and we shouldn't even be thinking about that kind of a hit on the American consumer.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America. It is dated June 20, 2007.

This is a letter from R. Bruce Josten, who makes the point that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the tax increases in the bill and supports the amendment which I offer, which would condition that tax increase on not hurting American consumers.

He says:

This amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to

certify that the tax provisions included in H.R. 6 will not

lead to increased reliance on foreign oil or higher gasoline

prices for American consumers.

As a result, they support the amendment, and I believe they will key it as a key vote.

He goes on to say:

The Chamber strongly opposes the tax title of this bill

because it contains many proposals that amount to little more

than a modern-day Windfall Profits Tax. When that tax was

enacted in 1980, it resulted in higher prices for consumers,

long waits at gasoline lines, and increased consumption of

foreign oil.

That is what we are concerned about here. If the tax increases don't have that effect, then nobody has to worry about it. But if they do have that effect on the American consumers, they would not go into effect.

My penultimate point is the argument that we have to do something to wean ourselves from OPEC, so what do we do? We slap a new 13-percent tax on the production of new oil. How does that help wean us from OPEC? What it does is to say to the producers of oil: You go out and find some, and by the way, if you do, we are going to hit you with a new tax. This is a perverse incentive, not a proper incentive.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, I note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Americans For Tax Reform I expect will also key vote the Kyl-Lott amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, in closing the debate on this amendment, I will respond to the point that both the Senator from Vermont and the chairman have just made, and that is the need to promote renewable energy and to give incentives to those producers. That is a fine sentiment, but my amendment has nothing to do with that. My amendment doesn't affect these incentives one iota. It doesn't speak to them at all. So that is a straw man, just as it is a straw man to argue that we ought to have the right to sock it to the oil companies because they are making huge profits. I am not arguing that proposition. In fact, yesterday, I offered an amendment to eliminate a real loophole in one of those subsidies that one oil company is going to be taking advantage of, and both of the Senators whom I mentioned voted to support that subsidy. I voted to eliminate it.

I am not trying to protect the oil companies, obviously. I am trying to protect the American consumer. My amendment says if the American consumer comes out OK, tax the oil companies. My amendment says if the American consumers are going to lose, then we say no, and then there are unintended consequences to these sentiments of socking it to the oil companies, creating subsidies for renewable energy producers and so on, fine. But if it adversely affects American consumers and increases our dependency upon foreign oil, then does anybody argue that we should do this? Wouldn't they instead try to find another way to achieve the objective? I think the answer is yes.

My amendment says: Do what you want to do here, but if it adversely affects the American consumer or increases our dependence on foreign oil, that is where we say no, we need to find another way to do this.

My amendment doesn't affect the underlying subsidies and doesn't say that you cannot impose additional taxes. These arguments are straw men. All I say is, if the American consumers end up being the losers, as they sometimes have been with our tax policies, if these are the unintended consequences and we become more dependent upon foreign oil, then we say no. That is all this amendment does.

I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I hope they will support my amendment. We are going to vote on it right now, but first I think the chairman wants to raise a point of order. I yield the floor at this time for him to do that.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable points of order with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 and I am joined in doing so by a number of my colleagues including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate HELP Committee, Senators Kennedy and Enzi. The bill we are introducing today represents a triumph of bipartisan collaboration--true consensus-building which is so vital to achieving substantive action for our constituents. Such efforts are certainly not always easy--as so many here today know--I have worked with many of you for more than 10 years on this issue.

Today we are on the threshold of a new era, as for the first time, we act to prevent discrimination before it has taken firm hold. Indeed, Senator Gregg described this legislation so well when he said it is, truly, ``the first civil rights act of the 21st Century.''

And that is what makes this legislation so unique. For in the past Congress has had to act to address existing discrimination. But today we are acting proactively to address genetic bias, before discrimination becomes entrenched.

This type of discrimination is so different than other forms. Because most discrimination is a response to an obvious trait, such as one's gender or the color of your skin. But discrimination based on one's genetic makeup involves actively looking for information on which to discriminate. Because it is so deliberate, one cannot even argue it was--on any level--subconscious or unintentional.

It used to be difficult to find such information on which to discriminate. You might be asked if you had a family history of a disorder. But today things have changed dramatically.

We have long known about a small number of genes which play a role in some diseases--such as Huntington's Disease, and early onset Alzheimer's. Yet the progress of discovery and study was so slow and tedious. But the Human Genome Project changed all that. Today, with new technology we are seeing an explosive increase in our understanding of genetics and human health.

That growing genetic knowledge offers the potential of disease cures and even customized therapies. Even more promising, genetic advances will enable us to actually prevent the development of disease. But this potential . . . and the billions spent in discovering genetic relationships and developing treatments and preventive agents . . . will certainly be in vain if Americans do not avail themselves of these advances.

To do so, Americans will need to take genetic tests. But would you do so if you knew that the information about your genetic makeup would be used against you--to deny you employment or health coverage?

Some say that kind of discrimination is but a future possibility-- that we can afford to wait until genetic discrimination begins to take a toll. But it already has done so. I learned from the real life experience of one of my constituents, Bonnie Lee Tucker. In 1997, Bonnie Lee wrote me about her fear of having the BRCA test for breast cancer, even though she has nine women in her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast cancer, and she herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear of having the BRCA test, because she worried it will ruin her daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. And Bonnie Lee isn't the only one who has this fear. When the National Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to take it citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. Mr. President, what good is scientific progress if it cannot be applied to those who would most benefit?

And we have seen cases where some attempted to mandate genetic testing. Even when this is done to improve the delivery of health care, it must be recognized that once that information is disclosed . . . and is unprotected . . . a future employer or insurer may not necessarily use that information in such a benign way. Yet we recognize that if an individual can avail themselves of a genetic test, they may be able to take action as a result which prevents disease or premature death, and reduces the burden of high health costs. And wouldn't everyone want to see that?

I recall the testimony before Congress of Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, without whom we wouldn't have reached this day. In speaking of the next step for those involved in the Genome project, he explained that the project's scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to do this, Dr. Collins said, ``we need a vigorous research enterprise with the involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a particular outcome.'' Well, this effort cannot be successful if people are afraid of possible repercussions of their participation in genetic testing.

The bottom line is that, given the advances in science, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by health insurers. The second is to prevent employment discrimination based simply upon an individual's genetic information.

Some of us saw this danger 10 years ago and the threat it could pose to millions of Americans. I think back to when Representative Louise Slaughter and I first introduced our bills to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance back in the l04th Congress. At that time the completion of the human genome seemed far away. But the science has certainly out-paced Congressional action.

The following year, with the commitment of Senators Frist and Jeffords to address this issue, I introduced a bill to ensure we would effectively provide the needed protections to prevent genetic discrimination in the health insurance industry. In turn, that bill was the basis for an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords, to the Fiscal Year 2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 58-40.

While that victory was a notable step forward, unfortunately, it was not followed by the enactment of our bill. It did, however, re-spark the debate--which helped lay the foundation for our subsequent efforts.

Indeed, in March of 2002, I was again joined by Senators Frist and Jeffords in introducing an updated version of our bill with the added support of Senator Gregg and Senator Enzi. That bill not only addressed what had become the real threat of employment discrimination but also captured the changing world of science as this was the first bill to include what we had learned with the completion of the Genome Project.

In June of 2003, after sixteen months of bipartisan negotiation, we achieved a unified, bipartisan agreement to address genetic discrimination. Today we again introduce the legislation encompassing that agreement, which the Senate has twice passed . . . unanimously.

The bill we are introducing again today addresses genetic discrimination in both employment and health insurance based on the firm foundation of current law. With regard to health insurance, the issues are clear and familiar, and something the Senate has debated before, in the context of the consideration of larger privacy issues. Indeed, as Congress considered what is now the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we also addressed the issues of privacy of medical information.

Moreover, any legislation that seeks to fully address these issues must consider the interaction of the new protections with the privacy rule which was mandated by HIPAA--and our legislation does just that. Specifically, we clarify the protections of genetic information as well as information on the request or receipt of genetic tests, from being used by the insurer against the patient.

Because the fact of the matter is, genetic information only detects the potential for a genetically linked disease or disorder--and potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. At the same time, it is critical that this information be available to doctors and other health care professionals when necessary to diagnose, or treat, an illness. This is a distinction that begs our acknowledgment, as we discuss protect patients from potential discriminatory practices by insurers.

On the subject of employment discrimination, unlike our legislative history on debating health privacy matters, the issues surrounding protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is not as extensive. To that end, our bipartisan bill creates these protections in the workplace--and there should be no question of this need.

As demonstrated by the Burlington Northern case, the threat of employment discrimination is very real, and therefore it is essential that we take this information off the table, so to speak, before the use of this information becomes more widespread. While Congress has not yet debated this specific type of employment discrimination, we have a great deal of employment case law and legislative history on which to build.

Indeed, as we considered the need for this type of protection, we agreed that we must extend current law discrimination protections to genetic information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law and considered what sort of remedies people would have for instances of genetic discrimination and if these remedies would be different from those available to people under current law--for instance under the ADA or the EEOC. The bill we introduce today creates new protections by paralleling current law and clarifies the remedies available to victims of discrimination. Ensuring that regardless of whether a person is discriminated against because of their religion, their race or their DNA, these people will all receive the same strong protections under the law.

Indeed, I believe those who have questioned the need for this legislation will see that if we can provide these protections, then individuals can avail themselves of medical knowledge which will not only improve their health, but will reduce health care costs. For employers attempting to address the escalating cost of coverage, isn't it essential to utilize our investment in advancing medical knowledge to prevent disease and disability? Isn't that just the sort of action we need to encourage to reduce health costs and make our businesses, large and small, more competitive?

Indeed we have seen the business community recognizing the critical importance of putting our medical investment to work to reduce health costs . . . not discouraging employees from undergoing tests that could prevent disease or death. To that end, I noted during the last Congress that IBM pledged to not use genetic information in its hiring practices or in deciding eligibility for health insurance coverage. This demonstrates an admirable understanding of how such discrimination can harm both individuals and business.

It has been more than six years since the completion of the working draft of the Human Genome. Like a book which is never opened, the wonders of the Human Genome are useless unless people are willing to take advantage of it. This bill is the product of over a year of bipartisan negotiations and is a shining example of what we can accomplish if we set aside partisan differences in order to address the challenges facing the American people. Certainly this bill was only possible due to the commitment of members working together--setting aside partisanship--and for that I am grateful.

I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that it is my hope that we shall see this bill again receive the unanimous support of the Senate and that this will allow the House of Representatives to act swiftly to pass this legislation so that the President can sign this bill into law and finally ensure the American public is protected from this newest form of discrimination.