A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule set forth as requirements contained in the August 17, 2007, letter to State Health Officials from the Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the State Health Official Letter 08-003, dated May 7, 2008, from such Center.

Madam President, I am very pleased to have a chance to speak today about the problem of health care in our country.

We are coming into a potentially very exciting time, when a new President and new administration will open up new opportunities to reform our ailing and broken health care system. It is a matter of urgency that we do so. It is also a matter of urgency that we get it right.

I have spoken on this issue on a number of occasions on the floor and elsewhere, and I often describe the marks

of failure of our health care system, which are many. For example, the number of uninsured Americans is now climbing toward 50 million people. The fact is that despite the best doctors, the best nurses, the best medical equipment and procedures, the best medical education in the world, as many as 100,000 Americans are killed every year by avoidable medical errors. In the United States, our life expectancy, our obesity, and our infant mortality rates are an embarrassment compared to other nations.

The health care system cost is over $2 trillion. The last report I saw was at $2.3 trillion, and it is anticipated shortly to reach $4 trillion. At this point, we are spending 16 percent of our gross domestic product on health care, which is far more than any other nation; the closest nation comes to 11 percent. The average of the European Union countries is only 8 percent. So we are putting twice as much of our national product into our health care system as our European competitors are.

Within our own system, the insurance companies' overhead eats up 31 percent of private insurance health care expenditures. In the battle between insurers and providers over getting paid--which is becoming increasingly an arms race--$20 billion per year gets burned up and lost.

More American families are bankrupted by health care emergencies and health care expenses than any other cause. It is not just uninsured families who are being bankrupted. It is the insured as well because of the thinness of so much of our coverage. There is more health care than coffee beans in Starbucks coffee. There is more health care than steel in Ford automobiles.

So when you look at it from that perspective, you truly see a troubled system.

The Commonwealth Fund has recently put forward a report that drills into the problems of our system even further. I would like to take some time to share with my colleagues the findings from the Commonwealth Fund study. They are quite impressive, but not in a positive way.

They found that Americans spend more on health care expenses than any other of the countries they tracked. This axis of the graph shows total health care spending. This axis of the graph shows the out-of-pocket spending in addition to the insured health care spending. You can see that the United States stands as an extreme outlier to all of these other nations, including France, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, and the average of the OECD countries--a group of 30 market economy countries that are very competitive with ours.

It is astonishing. We cannot remain competitive when total health care spending is this much above those countries, plus out-of-pocket demands on individual Americans, in addition to that national health care spending, is so much greater than those other countries.

People who spent more than $1,000 out of pocket for medical care in 2004 when the study was done: In the United States, nearly a third of the above-average income people; a quarter of below-average income people, compared to the United Kingdom, 2 percent and 5 percent; New Zealand, 4 percent and 6 percent; Canada, 10 percent and 12 percent; Australia, 8 percent and 21 percent. We are not even close.

Spending on physician services: In the United States, we pay $1,362 every year per capita on physician services. In the Nations with which we compete: Japan $563; OECD, the average is $482; Australia, $436; France, $371; Canada, $319; Germany, $307. That is a quarter of what we spend. And they are not receiving bad health care in those countries.

Pharmaceutical spending is a little bit more even but, once again, who has to spend the most? Good old USA, more than twice what the OECD average is or The Netherlands; about twice what Australia is. Over and over, we see persons punished by the cost of the health care system.

Here is what I mentioned earlier, the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care: America, 16 percent; the next highest is just under 11; OECD, the average is 8.7 percent. This is not a sustainable situation.

Health care spending per capita, $6,102 for Americans, compared to the competing systems: Canada, $3,165; France, $3,159; The Netherlands, Germany, Australia, OECD, UK, Japan, New Zealand, down to $2,083, about a third of what we spend in the United States of America. And they have very decent health care systems and, in many cases, better health care outcomes.

This is similar to the other graph showing that $6,102 goes per capita per year to support our health care system. This shows that if you break it up into public spending in the yellow, out-of-pocket spending in the white, and private insurance spending in the blue, if you take the private and out-of-pocket spending, it is more than every other country with which we compete. That entire $2,572 per person in private insurance spending is all above what everybody else has to pay for health care in their countries. No wonder facts such as these emerge.

Physicians perceive that patients often have difficulty paying for medications: 51 percent of American doctors have observed in their professions that we Americans have difficulty paying for our prescriptions--51 percent. In New Zealand, the next highest, it is 27 percent; Canada, 24 percent; Germany, 23 percent; Australia, 15 percent; UK, 13 percent; down to Netherlands, 7 percent. Wouldn't we be better off as a country if only 7 percent of physicians reported that their patients often had trouble paying for medications?

And for all of that, look at some of the results we get. Deaths due to surgical or medical mishaps per 100,000 population: America leads the nations with .7 mishaps per 100,000; .6 for Germany; .5 for Canada and France, all the way down to .2 for Japan and The Netherlands. We pay more, but we don't get better results.

This one makes me cringe to look at. Infant mortality rate for our country: 7 deaths per 1,000 live births. Look at the countries that beat us in infant mortality: New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Australia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Iceland, with many countries with an infant mortality rate half our country's, despite the fact we are spending twice as much on health care.

If we look at potential years of life lost to circulatory illness, which means dying younger than you should have, America leads: 825 potential years of life lost per 100,000 population; Australia, 419; France, 411, half as much. It is embarrassing.

Potential years of life lost due to diabetes: In the U.S., again, 101, down to Japan, 25, four times better. Look at how we are outliers against the rest of our competitors and against these other developed nations.

Diseases of the respiratory system: Here we go again. Who is the worst? The USA.

Obesity: This is a huge indicator of future illness and future health care expense. Again, who is the worst? Madam President, 30.6 percent in the U.S., down to 9.5 percent in France; 10.9 percent in The Netherlands; 12.9 percent for Germany; the OECD average, 13 percent. We are twice as bad as the OECD average.

Look at the system that is backing it up. Patients reporting any error based on the number of doctors they have seen: If they have 4 or more doctors, 48 percent of American patients reported errors; with 1 doctor, it is 22 percent. We are worse than all the other countries again and again.

It is similar for medical, medication, and lab errors. Who is the worst? The United States, with 34 percent compared to 22 percent in the UK; 23 percent for Germany; 25 percent for New Zealand; 27 percent for Australia; 30 percent for Canada.

Incorrect lab and diagnostic test or delay in receiving abnormal test results: Again, who has the worst record? The U.S., 23 percent. The Germans managed to get that down to 9 percent. We are more than twice as bad as they are.

Coordination of care, vitally important for people who have multiple illnesses and multiple treatments, reporting of coordination problems: The U.S., 43 percent for those with 4 or more doctors; 22 percent for those with 1 doctor. That is again, worse than all of our competitors that were in the study.

Difficulty getting care on nights, weekends, and holidays without going

to the ER: It has become standard in America that the place you get care on nights, weekends, and holidays is the emergency room, and that is why 61 percent of adults who sought care reported it was very or somewhat difficult to get care without going to the emergency room. In Germany and New Zealand, they managed to get that to 25 percent and 28 percent respectively, another measure that the system is not serving the American people.

Test results or medical records not available at the time of appointment: 23 percent compared to 11 in Germany. Again, we are the worst on the table.

Doctors who report they routinely receive alerts about potential problems with drug dosage or drug interactions: In the United Kingdom, 91 percent report they receive alerts about a potential problem with a drug dosage or interaction; 97 if you include those who use a manual system; 93 percent total in New Zealand; 95 percent in The Netherlands; 90 percent in Australia; 51 percent in the United States. We are not even close by a lot of these measures.

Here is our public investment per capita in health information technology, which is probably the platform to the solution of our health care dilemma: United Kingdom, 192 bucks per person in 2005; Canada, $31; Germany, $21; Australia, $4.93. Here is what we invest in the U.S.: 43 cents--43 cents--to develop health information technology. No wonder we are getting those results we saw.

And here they are, primary care doctors' use of electronic patient medical records: 98 percent of primary care doctors use electronic patient medical records in The Netherlands; 92 percent in New Zealand; 89 percent in the UK; 79 percent in Australia; 42 percent in Germany; and look at us, 28 percent. It is pathetic.

And where are the financial incentives to encourage doctors to do it? Why is it at 28 percent? Look who reports they have financial incentives for quality of care improvements: 95 percent do in the UK; 79 percent in New Zealand; 72 percent in Australia. Who, again, is the worst? Who again is trailing the civilized, developed world? The United States of America. Again, it is embarrassing.

If you are managing patients with chronic disease, which is where the big money is and where the biggest health risks are, how many primary care doctors get financial incentives for quality of care improvement: 79 percent do in the United Kingdom; 68 percent do in New Zealand; 62 percent in Australia; in The Netherlands, 47 percent; in Canada, 37 percent; in Germany, 24 percent. Look at us, 8 percent. And we wonder why there is a problem.

We are not even happy about the system and our interactions dealing with it. Does your doctor always listen carefully? Who comes in last? The U.S.

Does your doctor always explain things so you can understand them? Who comes in last? The U.S.

Does your doctor always spend enough time with you? Who comes in last? The U.S.

I know I have taken everybody through a lot of graphs. There are a lot more in the overall study by the Commonwealth Fund. This is the wrap-up of the ranks for 2004, 2006, and 2007 of the six nations. Who is last every year? Sixth place for six; sixth place for six; sixth place for six; and for $6,102 per person compared to about $3,000 or less for almost every other one of our competitors.

This is what it leads to. This is spending on health per capita. Back in 1980, all the nations were grouped fairly closely together. The other nations have remained fairly closely grouped. But look at what has happened to our cost profile, and it is going to continue to go up and up and up and up, and we are going to come to a breaking point.

David Walker, the former Comptroller General, has said the cost of the unfunded liability we bear for the future costs of entitlement programs is $53 trillion. I come from Rhode Island. We don't deal in trillions of dollars. Our whole State budget is a little over $5 billion.

What is $53 trillion? If a penny is $1 billion and 5 pennies is a stack about this high, which will be the entire State of Rhode Island budget, $53 trillion is a stack of pennies more than 250 feet high, through the roof of this building and hundreds of feet into the air.

What we are going to have is a health care calamity. We have two choices as to how we deal with it. We can wait around. We can wait until the wolf is at the door and then we can decide we cannot afford $53 trillion. We can make fiscal adjustments to that. We know what fiscal adjustments we can make. We have done some already. You pay providers less. You throw more people off health care. You make insurance coverage thinner. You raise taxes to pay for it. But we have gone down all those roads already. We have gone too far down those roads already. And if we are left with only those tools in the toolbox to solve this health care problem, we will be doing one of the gravest disservices this Congress has ever done to the country we are here to serve. Instead, we have to go and look at the health care delivery system and repair it so it provides better results.

The good news from all the bad news on those charts is that there is enormous room for improvement. We can substantially reduce the cost. There are three important ways I think we can go about doing this. The first is to improve our health information technology. We need to have a national health information technology infrastructure. The RAND Corporation values having a national health information technology infrastructure at somewhere between $81 billion and $346 billion per year. That type of savings is worth spending some serious money to achieve--not the 43 cents per person we saw on the graph. We have to engage in a national urgent construction project of a health information technology infrastructure.

The second thing we have to address significantly is the problem of quality and the underinvestment in prevention in our system right now. There are enormous savings to be reached there. In a project we are doing in Rhode Island, copying the Keystone project in Michigan, we are seeing significant savings in our intensive care units and improving quality of care. In Michigan, in 15 months, they saved about 1,500 lives, and they saved about $150 million. And it wasn't even in all the intensive care units in Michigan. There are huge savings from quality improvement if you can set up the incentives so people will do it.

When we set this up in Rhode Island, the hospitals came to me--I was attorney general then--and they said: we will do this, but it is going to cost $400,000 a year. And I said: Yes, but it saves money. Keystone showed that. We think it will save $8 million. That is a 20-to-1 return. Go. And they said: No, no, no, you don't understand how it works in the health care system. That $400,000 comes out of our expenditures. That is a negative on our bottom line. That $8 million savings comes out of our revenues. We get reimbursed for that care. So we will lose $8 million in revenues if you ask us to spend this $400,000. That is a big hit.

They agreed to do it, but I have taken aboard in my mind and my heart the lesson of how badly our health care system supports providers when they try to improve the quality of care in this very tough financial environment they are in.

That brings us to the third piece. Health information technology was first, quality prevention investment in ways that will save costs is second, and the third is to reform the reimbursement system so the price signal that gets sent into the market by our health care system directs people in ways we want.

We can't do this on a piecemeal basis any longer. These three ideas can dramatically reform our health care system. They have one problem. They will take some time. You can't turn the switch and make them go. We have some work to do to develop the strategy, to implement it, and to build what new infrastructure has to be constructed to make it work. I would guess, based on an experience I had in Rhode Island with a similar reform, that it is a 10-to-15-year lead time to have the full effect begin to show itself.

And you know what, if you dial back from the time when that $53 trillion fiscal tsunami is going to hit this country, that 10 to 15 years is probably right now. So not only is a new administration with a new President and new energy and new opportunities a great chance in the coming year to begin to

get this work done and to open a substantial reform of our health care system, but it is also, in many respects, a deadline.

You can go by a highway exit and it is too late to come back to it, and I am afraid that is where we are right now. So as I prepare to conclude my remarks and yield the floor, I want to say to my colleagues: we are going to have to work very hard together to fix our health care system in the coming year. I know the financing problems and the access problems are real, but I urge and implore you to consider that it is not enough to repair the finance and the access problems of our health care system. We need to get into the delivery system and fix it so it provides better, less expensive, more efficient health care for Americans.

I believe we can do it, and I believe it is not a partisan issue. It is a question of right versus wrong, smart versus stupid, wasteful versus efficient, and not right versus left or Republican versus Democrat. So I challenge my colleagues to join me in this fight, and I look forward to the important results from it that America needs.

I thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about an issue that weighs heavily on the minds of every Ohioan--the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. There have been many elaborate theories bandied about on the floor of the Senate in the last month as to why gasoline is so expensive. We have heard that investors are driving up the cost of oil by 20 to 30 percent. But businessman Warren Buffett has said ``it's not speculation, it's supply and demand.'' And Paul Krugman wrote in an op- ed, ``the hyperventilation over oil market speculation is distracting us from the real issues.''

Madam President, I will insert for the Record an article which appeared in the July 7-14 Newsweek edition by Robert Samuelson titled ``Let's Shoot the Speculators!'' The quote I want to make as part of my speech is:

Gosh, if only it were that simple. Speculator-bashing is

another exercise in scapegoating and grandstanding. Leading

politicians either don't understand what's happening or don't

want to acknowledge their complicity.

There have also been calls to increase production in the 68 million nonproducing acres that are already leased. Some of my colleagues are claiming that hundreds of small, medium, and large oil companies are colluding to not drill on their current leases because they want to restrict the supply so they can increase profits. At the same time, those same colleagues accuse the industry of wanting to open ANWR and the OCS to more drilling to increase profits by increasing supply. That makes absolutely no sense.

I think we can all agree this is a complicated issue with moving parts. Congress cannot afford to address the factors contributing to the high gas prices individually as we are doing today. We must look at the pieces comprehensively and find solutions to combat this crisis from all angles, and we have to act now.

Over the past months, I have heard loudly and clearly from thousands of Ohioans how this crisis is directly affecting them and their loved ones. In fact, this past July 4 recess I was talking with folks about high gas prices. They are frustrated and angry--frustrated at the high cost of gasoline and angry that Congress wasn't getting off its you know what to do anything about it. They told me about how the price of gasoline is affecting them where it hurts--right in their pocketbook. It is affecting vacation plans for those families who planned to take long trips this summer. It is affecting people who have to drive long distances for a living. And it is particularly affecting people who live on the financial edge.

The truth is, with the high cost of natural gas, and the high cost of gasoline and food, the standard of living of millions of Americans is being impacted substantially.

Other Ohioans have written to me, and one letter I think about quite often was from Mary Keener, who works at the James Cancer Center in Columbus. She wrote to my office to tell me about her concerns for patients living in Ohio's Appalachian region. She says:

Patients call our office and say: ``I know I need this

cancer treatment to live, but I can't afford to buy the gas

to get it. Can you help me?''

Every day, more and more Ohioans contact me and it is becoming clear that they get it. They realize we need to increase our oil supply and develop a comprehensive energy strategy.

Sadly, this crisis could have been averted. We have known for years that we need a comprehensive energy strategy, and I have been calling for one since I came to the Senate in 1999. In 2002, after the Senate failed to pass the provision that would have opened ANWR and dramatically increased our domestic energy production, I said:

As we go down the road, I think those that voted against

this amendment will regret their vote when we face the

sticker shock at the gas pump and the eventual impact that

continued dependency on foreign oil will have on our national

security, economy, and our foreign trade deficit.

Since that vote, gas prices have increased more than 200 percent. Meanwhile, it took 5 years and 6 weeks of floor debate for Congress to pass the 2005 Energy Policy Act, a bill that only provided limited strides forward. And while the bill took modest steps to improve national energy efficiency, boost research and development funding for advanced energy technologies, and promote increased use of biofuels, it did not go far enough toward increasing our domestic energy supply.

For years, the gap in the United States between demand and domestic supply has been widening. In fact, U.S. oil production has steadily declined since 1970, when it was nearly 10 million barrels per day, to 5.1 barrels in 2007. So with less domestic resources available, we have been forced to seek energy abroad.

In 1973, the United States imported 6 million barrels of oil per day, or 34 percent of our total supply. By 2006, net oil imports were 12.4 million barrels per day, or 60 percent of our total liquid fuel use.

This chart gives you an idea of what has happened. Our domestic oil production has gone down and our need for imported oil has gone up. You can see the gap that exists. And the only way we are going to make any progress is to reduce that gap that is so pronounced today.

While Americans understand we need to increase the supply of oil, I am not sure they fully realize to what extent our life is threatened by our reliance on foreign sources of oil. Every year we send billions of dollars overseas for oil to pad the coffers of many nations that don't have our best interest at heart, such as Venezuela, whose leader has threatened to cut oil off to the United States.

In fact, in 2007, we spent more than $327 billion to import oil. Sixty percent of this, or nearly $200 billion, went to the oil exporting OPEC nations. In 2008, the amount we will spend to import oil is expected to double to more than $600 billion, $360 billion of which is going to go to the OPEC nations. Let's take a moment to put those figures into context, when compared to our fiscal year 2008 budget for our national defense, which was more than $693 billion. The $600 billion we will spend to import oil in 2008 is nearly equal--it is nearly equal--to the entire defense budget of the United States.

Our dependence on foreign oil has serious national security implications. In addition to funding our enemies, as I explained, we cannot ignore the fact that much of our oil comes from and travels through the most volatile regions of the world. A couple of years ago I attended a series of war games hosted by the National Defense University. I saw firsthand how our country's economy could be brought to its knees if somebody wanted to cut off our oil, as was done in 1973.

Do you know that 80 percent of the global oil routes flow through unstable countries, such as Iran? Over 40 percent of the world's oil travels through the Strait of Hormuz.

Just to give an idea, this graph reflects where we are getting our oil. Here is Venezuela--Chavez, the dictator down there who is working against our interests constantly in South America. He is no friend of ours. The Middle East. We know what we have over in this unstable part of the world. Our concern about Iran is also impacting on the price of oil, because people are not certain what is going to happen in terms of Iran.

Our dependence on foreign oil is even more troubling when you consider our Nation's financial situation. The decline of the dollar has had a direct effect on increasing prices of gasoline. In fact, many experts say we are paying substantially more to export oil today because of the weak dollar.

We cannot overlook our national debt. Today, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors, mostly foreign central banks. That is up from 6 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 70 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Department of the Treasury.

Who are these creditors? According to the Treasury Department, the three largest holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and OPEC. This is insane. It has to stop. We cannot afford to allow at this time countries that control our oil and our debt to control the future of the United States of America.

We need to enact an energy policy that broadens our base of energy resources to create stability, maintain reasonable prices, and protect our Nation's security. It must be a policy that will keep energy affordable, and it must be a policy that will not cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield environmental protection technologies for the future.

We need a second Declaration of Independence to move us away from foreign sources of energy in the near term and away from oil in the long term.

This is not going to be easy. As you know, oil is not easily found nor substituted, and it will remain an integral part of our economy in the short term. But we must make investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow. To do this, I believe we must increase our supply, reduce our demand through alternative energies, and conserve what we already have.

We are trying to get folks to understand that if we want relief from high gas costs, we must begin to make investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow. We talked a lot in recent weeks about finding more and using less. If we had accomplished this 10 years ago, I would not be here talking about the high price of gasoline and the suffering of Ohioans in my State.

In order to stabilize our Nation's energy supply, we must enact policies to increase development of domestic oil. While these resources will not physically come on line for a number of years--and people better understand it--moves to expand the development will send a clear signal to the market that we are serious about meeting our future energy demands and immediately begin to drive down the cost of oil because our investors will know that gas will not be worth as much in the future, and therefore they will sell it off today. It will have an impact on the price.

The fact is, we have more energy resources in the United States than any other country in the world. We are the No. 3 oil producer in the world, but the majority of our oil resources are locked up. Madam President, 85 percent of our offshore acreage and 65 percent of our onshore acreage is off limits. I was embarrassed that we have gone to Saudi Arabia with our hat in our hand to beg them to increase oil production. Rather than begging the Saudi Government, we need to be utilizing our own resources.

The other day I said if I were King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, I would say to President Bush: Mr. President, why do you come to me asking for more of our oil when you have great resources in your country? You want to use all of our resources. In Alaska you have more than 10 billion barrels of oil. You had a chance to open ANWR to responsible environmentally friendly oil exploration in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it. Your country could be producing an extra 1 million barrels of oil today, an increase of 20 percent over your current production.

Did you know that Prudhoe Bay, located west of ANWR, has cleanly delivered billions of barrels of crude oil since the 1970s, providing a strong example of the drilling that can be done safely with minimal environmental impact with today's technology and environmental safeguards.

You could also give your States the option of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. These reserves are believed to equal 8.5 billion barrels of oil, and undiscovered resources could equal 10 times that. That is 85 billion barrels of oil. But a moratorium currently prohibits access to the OCS.

By the way, I commend President Bush for lifting the executive moratorium. I will just keep talking for King Abdallah.

I know some of your environmentalists are concerned, but it is my understanding that there has not been a significant oilspill on the gulf coast for nearly 30 years, and in 2005 Hurricane Katrina passed overhead nearly 4,000 rigs without causing a significant spill.

You could make use of your vast reserves of oil shale. There are currently 800 billion barrels of oil, technically recoverable reserves, in the United States. That is three times larger than the total proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Think of that, three times as much.

The Rand Corporation noted that:

If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of United

States' demand, 800 billion barrels would last for more than

400 years.

Again, you passed a moratorium that prohibits access to these reserves--regulations even to go in there. Your friend up north, Canada, has some of the largest tar sand reserves in the world. A Congressman named Waxman passed a provision that jeopardizes access to those resources.

Don't forget coal. You have 250 years of coal in the United States, more than any other nation in the world. You are being prevented from using coal to liquid. As a matter of fact, in the State of Ohio, Baard Energy is planning a coal-to-liquid and biomass facility that will produce 53,000 barrels a day of jet and diesel fuel and other production from coal and biomass feedstocks.

Advances in carbon capture sequestration technology would lower the greenhouse gas emissions, but again, because of Congressman Waxman, your coal-to-liquid industry has slowed the Air Force's plans to run their entire fleet on synthetic fuel by 2016.

We ought to realize this. How did the Germans stay in the war effort when they had no oil? They took the coal they had, they converted it to oil, and that is how they kept their war machine going. It seems to me we ought to at least give recognition to the fact that we should make sure that our defense has all of the resources it needs in terms of oil.

I think we have to get real. We say to all these other countries that we want them to use their reserves, increase their supply. Frankly, they should say: Why don't you do it yourself? Why don't you do it?

The other thing we have to do is we have to use less. It is long past time for our Government to provide the spark to rekindle our Nation's creativity and innovation. Following Russia's launch of Sputnik, President Kennedy challenged us and said we are going to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, and we did it. By golly, if we could put a man on the Moon in 10 years, we can figure out how we can become the country that uses oil the least in the world. We do need a new Apollo project to encourage further advances in ethanol to cut consumption and the development of more efficient, hybrid electric and plug-in vehicles. I hope my grandchildren will be using plug-in vehicles. They will not be using any oil at all in terms of their transportation. If half our fleet of 240 million vehicles were converted to electric hybrids, we could reduce our oil imports by 4 to 5 million barrels a day.

Last week I chaired an energy forum and had the opportunity to hear from David Vieu, president of A123 Systems, which company is developing American-made battery technology. He explained that this technology is already commercially viable.

We are making some headway. We have to make up our minds that we are going to get the job done. We have to let the world know. Can you imagine what we could do? Let the world know we are going to go after every drop we

have available, in terms of our supply, and we are going to do everything we can to reduce our demand. We are going to do everything we can to conserve what we have. I believe that will send the fear of God through those individuals, and we will see an impact on the cost of oil in this country, even though it is going to happen in the future.

Do you know what is funny. These folks are betting that we will not do what we ought to do because they have watched us. They have watched us. They have seen that we have not used our resources. They have watched us and seen that we have not used the best technology to reduce our demand for oil. They have watched us as we have not conserved as we should have been doing during the last number of years.

I think the chickens have come home to roost. High gas prices are hurting Americans. The problem we have had in this country is, we haven't had an energy policy, but we have not harmonized our environment, our energy, our economy, and our national security. I am confident we can come together on a bipartisan basis and work something out so the American people understand that the Senate and Congress have come together on an issue that is of crisis proportion to our fellow Americans, and that we care more about them and our country's future than we do about bickering with each other.

I go home all the time, and people just say: the reason your numbers are so bad is because we think you guys, men and women, are more interested in partisan politics and bickering than you are in getting together and getting the job done.

I have to say, from my perspective, it is very frustrating. I was the mayor of Cleveland, an 8-to-1 Democratic city; 21 councilmen and the most powerful council president. We worked together. We figured out how to move the city of Cleveland ahead for 10 years.

I became the Governor of Ohio, and Vern Rife was the speaker of the house 24 years, the most powerful Democratic speaker we had. After he discovered I was Governor after 6 months--it took a while--Vern and I sat down and said: You know what. Let's work together and move Ohio ahead.

I think it is time we got together and said: Republicans and Democrats, let's move America ahead. Wouldn't it be great for our children and grandchildren to one day celebrate the time America put aside its differences and came together to reaffirm its independence a second time and rekindled the American spirit of self reliance, innovation, and creativity to usher in a new era of prosperity?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Newsweek article by Robert Samuelson be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I shall be joined by a number of colleagues and the purpose of our taking this time is as follows: We have decided to put in an amendment to H.J. Res. 20, amendment number 259 which will be printed in today's record. This amendment mirrors S. Con. Res. 7, a resolution prepared by myself and others sometime last week, which expresses certain concerns we have with regard to the President's plan as announced on January 10 of this year.

This amendment, to H.J. Res. 20 is cosponsored by Mr. Levin, Ms. Collins, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Biden, and as other Senators return to town, we may have further cosponsors.

We are concerned that the fighting rages on throughout Iraq, and particularly in Baghdad. It is very important that the Senate should, as the greatest deliberative body--certainly in matters of war and peace--in a prompt way address the issues regarding Iraq.

Our men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting bravely in that conflict, as they are in conflicts elsewhere worldwide. Our concerns are heartfelt, not driven by political motivation. As we gathered as a group in the past 2 weeks to work on this, we took note of the fact that the President, on January 10, in his message to the Nation explicitly said that others could come forward with their ideas. I will paraphrase it--the exact quote is in the amendment we are putting in today--that he would take into consideration the views of others. So in a very constructive and a respectful way, our group said we disagreed with the President and we gave a series of points urging him to consider those points as he begins to implement such plan as finally devised throughout Iraq but most specifically in Baghdad.

We are very respectful of the fact that the plan put in by the President was in three parts: a diplomatic part, an economic part, and a military part. We explicitly stated in the resolution our support for the diplomatic and economic parts, and we are hopeful it can be put together in a timely fashion. There is some concern as to whether the three main parts can progress together, unified, in this operation, given the short timetable to implement it. So two parts of the program we wholeheartedly support and so state in this amendment.

The concern is about the military section. We state the explicit nature of our concerns. Some Senators have suggested the resolution expresses matters which I can find no source whatsoever in the resolution for those complaints. Nevertheless, I will address in the course of this time each and every one of those concerns.

Indeed, on the weekend talk shows, one Senator said: My problem with the Warner proposal and others that criticize the surge is, what is your plan? All right. That is a legitimate question. I say that our amendment states a clear strategy. It says as follows:

The Senate believes the United States should continue

vigorous operations in Anbar Province specifically for the

purpose of combating an insurgency including elements

associated with the al-Qaida movement and denying terrorists

a safe haven.

Secondly, the primary objective of the overall strategy in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political compromises that will foster reconciliation and strengthen the unity government, ultimately leading to improvements in the security situation.

Next, the military part of the strategy should focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, conducting counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability, supporting the Iraqi efforts to bring

greater security to Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security.

Likewise, another part of our amendment states:

The United States military operations should, as much as

possible, be confined to these goals and should charge the

Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating

sectarian violence.

The United States Government should engage selected nations

in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally

sponsored peace and reconciliation process. Overall,

military, diplomatic, and economic strategies should not be

regarded as an open-ended or unconditional commitment, but

rather, as a new strategy, hereafter should be conditioned

upon the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks that must be

delivered in writing and agreed to by the Prime Minister.

Then we spell out a series of benchmarks. Such benchmarks should include, but not be limited to, the deployment of that number of additional Iraqi security forces as specified in the plan in Baghdad, ensuring equitable distribution of resources of the Government of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the oil resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner, and the authority of the Iraqi commanders to make tactical and operational decisions without political intervention.

Further, some Senators have indicated, again incorrectly, that our resolution either fails to recognize, or disagrees with all aspects of the President's plan, namely the political and economic aspects, in addition to the military part of his plan.

In fact, our resolution acknowledges directly that the President's plan is multi-faceted. Our resolution states, whereas, on January 10, 2007, following consultations with the Iraqi Prime Minister, the President announced a new strategy, which consists of three basic elements: diplomatic, economic, and military.

As such, our resolution disagrees only with the military aspect of the President's plan, and actually supports the diplomatic and economic aspects of his plan.

Finally, some Senators have suggested that our resolution either fails to support the troops, or threatens a cut-off in funding. Actually, our resolution does neither. It states forcefully our support for the troops: whereas, over 137,000 American military personnel are currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the United States Armed Forces, and are deserving of our support of all Americans, which they have strongly; whereas, many American service personnel have lost their lives, and many more have been wounded, in Iraq, and the American people will always honor their sacrifices and honor their families.

And our resolution, specifically protects funding for our troops in the field and states: the Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

In sum, our resolution aims not to contravene the Constitutional authorities as Commander-in-Chief, but, rather, to accept the offer to Congress made by the President on January 10, 2007 that, ``if members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust.''

It is clear that the United States' strategy and operations in Iraq can only be sustained and achieved with support from the American people and with a level of bipartisanship in Congress.

The purpose of this resolution is not to cut our forces or to set a timetable for withdrawal, but, rather, to express the genuine concerns of a number of Senators from both parties about the President's plan.

It is not meant to be confrontational, but instead to provide a sense of bipartisanship resolve on our new strategy in Iraq. It follows many of the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report by focusing on what is truly in our national interest in Iraq, and spells those goals out in detail.

I want to divide our time between colleagues. I will ask at this time that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, be recognized and that, following his comments, I shall be recognized again to give the remainder of my remarks. I say on a personal note to the Senator how much I valued our conversation over the weekend, together with our distinguished colleague from Maine, after which we decided today to put the language of S. Con. Res. 7 in as an amendment to the pending matter before the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point?

We had in our discussions, and Senator Collins joined in this discussion--that we could not conceive--and that I, this Senator from Virginia, could ever participate in a cutoff-of-funding in regards to this situation in Iraq.

But back to historical precedents. I have this volume, the ``Encyclopedia of the United States Congress,'' compiled by 20 eminent historians in 1995. And on this subject that the Senator addressed, they said the following:

Another informal power of the Congress in the foreign

policy field is the passage of resolutions by the House or

the Senate, often called a sense-of-the-House or sense-of-

the-Senate resolution. Although not legally enforceable, such

resolutions are often taken seriously by the President and

his foreign policy advisers because they are useful

indicators of underlying public concern about important

foreign policy questions. Moreover, as a general rule, the

White House wants to maintain cooperative relations with the

Congress and to give legislators the impression that their

views have been heard and have been taken into account in

policy formulation.

Clear documentation of the Senator's points in this very erudite resource of the history of the Congress. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I have another point of history. I find this fascinating. I hope, hereafter, colleagues, pundits, and writers will at least recognize that, and I repeat it. Senate Historian documents confirm the Senate has been posing sense-of-the-Senate resolutions since 1789. Thus, our Framers of the Constitution and those who served in the early Congresses recognized the value of this type of resolution.

I yield the floor. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine, again, for her steadfast support and advice throughout this entire process today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if I could ask our colleague a question before she departs? She made reference to her trip and the discussions that she had with the senior commanders. I would like to bring to her attention testimony that came before our committee, of which the distinguished Senator from Maine is a member, at which time we heard from the Commander of the United States Central Command, General Abizaid.

In the course of his testimony to Congress on November 15, 2006-- right in the timeframe the Senator made her trip--I will quote him, General Abizaid. The general said:

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, Corps

Commander, and General Dempsey--we all talked together. And I

said, ``In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in

more American troops now, does it add considerably to our

ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' And they all said no.

And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's

easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I

believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

I say to my colleague, that quote captured my own visit, which was just barely a month before that, when I came back and I described in my public comments that the situation in Iraq was drifting sideways.

That was a very serious summary. But I said it because I felt obligated to our troops who were fighting bravely and courageously and with a level of professionalism that equals the finest hour in the 200- plus-year history of our military--and the support their families give them. I felt ever so strongly that we were obligated as a country to reexamine our strategy and I called for that reexamination of strategy and it has been done.

But I say to my colleague, General Abizaid's summary about the need for more forces, does that not summarize what you learned on your trip?

Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if at this point in the colloquy--and then I will yield the floor because I know other Senators are anxious to speak--but we, the United States, the military, and the taxpayers have trained and equipped over 300,000 Iraqi security forces composed of the professional Army, police, border security, and a group of others. The thrust of our resolution originally, and this one that is here, the amendment which is identical, was to give the Iraqis this opportunity, which the Prime Minister himself called for. He said: Give us the opportunity to show that we can do this operation.

That is the basis on which we drew up the resolution. And in our resolution we said two things: The responsibility for Iraq's internal security and halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces. Then, specifically we said in the conclusion: The United States military operations should, as much as possible, be confined to the goals that are enumerated in the previous paragraph and should charge--I repeat--charge the Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating sectarian violence, and that is in the Baghdad operation.

So I think those facts, our resolution, now referred to as an amendment, absolutely parallels what we learned firsthand on our trips into that region.

Mr. President, I see other Senators are waiting. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine.

I ask for 2 minutes.

I thank the Senator from Maine. The Senator mentioned the bipartisan spirit. I am very pleased to state that Senator Levin, whom I spoke with this afternoon, Senator Ben Nelson, who has been with us steadily on this, and Senator Biden allowed with very extensive enthusiasm to

have their names attached as cosponsors.

I thank my colleagues who have come over and participated in this debate and others who have listened. I thank the distinguished Senator, my good friend from Nebraska, for working so hard on this amendment. We will fight on.

We may be idealists, but we will fight on for what we believe in and the integrity of this institution because we firmly believe, to the extent we can, forging a bipartisan consensus is the extent to which we can hopefully regain the full confidence of the American people on what we are doing in Iraq.

I agree with the President, we should not let it slip into a chaotic situation, but we do have some different constructive thoughts as to our strategy ahead.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I want to commend the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, for his unparalleled leadership, because it is borne of a tremendous credibility based on his military and professional experience on these vital issues, and that precise credibility lends the kind of expertise to the Senate, to the Congress, and to our Nation that is so vital at this point in time. But I think in the final analysis, it is something we have to honor as we consider the most consequential issue of our time.

I am very pleased the Senator has offered an amendment that reflects his resolution that was modified and that was supported by both sides of the political aisle. I am pleased to join my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, because this is a critical issue. It is one of the issues that is the most significant of our time.

As we begin this week, it is regrettable we don't have the Iraq debate before the floor of the Senate in the form of considering a resolution. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is going to proceed. They are going to proceed to debate a resolution in opposition to the troop surge proposed by the President of the United States. They will have that debate this week. The question is when and if the Senate is going to have that debate on a specific resolution, on specific issues, with specific votes.

Unfortunately, what we are witnessing today is the shrinking role of the Senate when it comes to the war in Iraq, a war that has been ongoing for 4 years. I am dismayed because I don't see any evidence. I don't see any evidence of working on a bipartisan basis to coalesce around an issue and on a position where it has been demonstrated there is a majority of support in the Senate to have negotiations, to have consultation, to work it out. I don't see any evidence of that. Have we come to the point in the Senate where we haven't been able to determine procedurally how to move forward on a nonbinding resolution? It is hard to believe the Senate would be marginalized on that point.

Now I am speaking from experience. This is my 13th year in the Senate--my 13th year. I served in the House of Representatives for 16 years. I served for more than 20 years--I think about 24 years--on Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and currently the Intelligence Committee. So I speak from experience. You have to work across the political aisle. And there wasn't a time when we didn't discuss these issues: Lebanon, Persian Gulf, Panama before the Persian Gulf. We had Bosnia and Kosovo. We were able to work it out. The fact is I well recall a statement I had drafted back in 2000 illustrating examples of bipartisanship here on the floor of the Senate, one of which I said about the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, in working across the aisle with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, on the issue of Kosovo.

That has been the hallmark of the Senate. Does it mean that we disagree on a major issue of our time? No. There are differences of opinion, but what is the Senate afraid of? What are we afraid of? To debate and to vote on various positions, whether it is on our position on the troop surge, whether it is on the position of cutting out funding, the troop gaps, a new authorization? Some of those issues and positions I would disagree with. But does that mean to say the Senate cannot withstand the conflicting views of various Members of the Senate? It is not unheard of, that both sides of the political aisle will have differing views.

I came to this debate a few weeks ago when we were getting prepared ostensibly to work on this issue, to debate, which is consistent with the traditions and principles of this institution, which has been its hallmark. That is why it has been considered the greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, it is not living up to that expectation or characterization, regrettably. But I joined with the Senator from Nebraska in his effort across the aisle with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because I wanted to send a message that here and now, there will be those of us on this side of the aisle who disagree with the President on the troop surge. So I wanted to send that message. I read the resolution. I know there are some on this side of the aisle who didn't accept that language. But I thought it was important to do that. I cosponsored that resolution.

We had many meetings, as the Senator from Nebraska would note, with Chairman Biden and Chairman Levin, to work through this issue: how we could work with the Senator from Virginia, because we knew we had a majority on both sides of the aisle that could work it out, who were opposed to the troop surge. So how is it we couldn't get from here to there? And we met in good faith to negotiate, working out even the procedures. We agreed: Let's have an open, unfettered, unrestricted debate, which is consistent with this institution that is predicated on our Founding Fathers' vision of an institution based on accommodation and consensus. You have to get 60 votes. So we said: Let's work it out, and the good Senator from Virginia worked it out. He incorporated our concerns in his modified resolution so we could enjoin our efforts.

Now, it is not surprising on this side of the aisle that there are strong views that support the President, that don't believe we should have a vote. But does that mean to say we can't move forward and the House of Representatives can? So the House of Representatives is going to be debating this issue this week, and the Senate is going to be dithering. While our troops are on the front lines, the Senate is sitting on the sidelines.

I am amazed we have reached this point in the Senate. We should be embracing this moment. We are the voice of the American people. Constitutional democracy is predicated on majority rule, but a respect for minority rights. I don't see any ongoing negotiations and discussions. Maybe I missed something. I don't see that happening across the political aisle. If historically we took the position: You missed your chance, that you missed your chance with a vote--2 weeks ago--you mean that is it in the Senate? How did we pass major pieces of legislation, major

initiatives without saying: That is it; there is no room for discussion, there is no room for negotiation, there is no room for compromise.

Oftentimes I am challenged on this side because I work so much across the political aisle. Senator Hagel did the same thing, as did Senator Warner. We worked across the political aisle to make it work. But I do not see that mutual trust to say: Let's see how we can move forward on the most profound issue of our time. It is unimaginable that we cannot develop a strategy for deliberating on this most consequential issue.

We are expecting to adjourn next week for a recess. I thought to myself: Why? Why, so we will get back to Iraq before we know it? That is what we have heard: Just wait. The troop surge isn't going to wait. The Iraqi war doesn't take a recess. Our men and women aren't taking a recess. Why can't we debate now and vote on these issues? Are we saying we are simply not capable of talking?

That is what the Senate is all about. It is based on consensus. It is based on compromise. It is based on conciliation. It is based on the fact that you have to develop cooperation in order to get anything done. It is not unusual. If historically we took the position: You missed your chance because there are disparate views, so that there would be no opportunity to further discuss or negotiate--we missed our chance? Are we talking about scoring political points? Are we talking about what is the best policy for this country with respect to Iraq at a time when men and women are on the front lines; at a time when the President is proposing a troop surge which I and others joined with Senator Warner because we oppose that; at a time in which we are almost a year to the anniversary of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra?

In fact, Senator Warner and I paid a visit just days after that, the first congressional delegation, and we saw all the manifestations of what exists today in the most pronounced way. And we are saying we can't get it done in the Senate. Is this about scoring political points? I read every day: Who is winning politically? Because that is what it is about. It is about winning politically on a policy with respect to Iraq where we have been mired for 4 years with a strategy that hasn't been working. And we are saying, who is winning politically? Isn't it about Iraq? Isn't it about our men and women? Isn't it about what is in the best interests for this country?

We have given so much. Our men and women have sacrificed immeasurably. As Senator Collins indicated, we lost another from Maine this weekend, SGT Eric Ross, 26. These men and women have put themselves on the frontlines. Yet we sit and hesitate to talk about what is in their best interests. Some say it is a nonbinding resolution that has no impact. I daresay, if it doesn't have any impact, then why is it we are not voting? What has a greater resonance in America? Is it silence or is it taking action on the most consequential issue of our time? I can only imagine, if we had an overwhelming bipartisan vote on Senator Warner's resolution--that is bipartisan, I might add--because those Members strove to make it bipartisan in the Senate, many strive to do that, so we can send a message that would be profound, that would resonate. To have a strong vote in the Senate or silence, which would have greater resonance? I think we know the answer to this question.

I am concerned we are taking a political U-turn away from the message in the last election. I was in that last election. I heard loudly and clearly. I don't blame the people of Maine or across this country for their deep-seated frustration. They are right. There was too much partisanship and too much polarization.

What we need now is leadership. We need leadership for this country. They are thirsting for a strong leadership, an honorable leadership that leads us to a common goal. No one expected unanimity in the Senate but we would give integrity to this process to allow it to work and not cynically say who is winning and who is losing today politically, so we have 30-second ads that will be run by outside groups or we are seeing them now. We are not shedding the political past. We have made a political U-turn. We are returning to it.

This isn't about party labels. This isn't whether it is good for Republicans or good for Democrats. It is what is good for America. It is not about red States and blue States. It is about the red, white, and blue.

I am dismayed we are the second month into a new Congress, after the American people resoundingly repudiated the politics of the past, the partisanship and polarization, creating a poisonous environment. They repudiated all of that. Here we are, back to the same old approach. Instead of giving confidence to the American people that we will speak, we are their voice, we give voice to their fears and to their hopes, to their concerns that they rightfully have because we are not making the kind of progress, we are moving in a different direction on Iraq that obviously has been exemplified by the continuing and ongoing sectarian warfare.

Fifteen months ago when Senator Warner came to the Senate and offered a resolution, 2006 was going to be the year of transition to Iraqi sovereignty. It was 2006 when we would turn over all the security to the Iraqi security forces. But 2006 has come and gone. We haven't made any measurable progress.

As I said, when I was there a year ago, we saw the manifestations of the sectarian warfare, a vacuum had been created politically because no new central government had been created. That took months. We allowed that vacuum to continue. We got a new government. Yet they have been hesitant--indeed, they have been an impediment--to quelling the sectarian violence and confronting and demobilizing the militias.

I heard a year ago about the graft and corruption that was running rampant in the ministries, as we saw recently with the Deputy Minister of Health funneling money to support the sectarian violence and the militias. We have seen and we have known all of that.

So Senator Warner got that resolution passed. We united around him. In June of 2006, we passed a resolution as well that called for a regional conference so we would begin the diplomatic offensive the Iraq Study Group spoke to. But that has been ignored as well. I know the administration has had a number of strategies in Iraq. They had the national strategy for victory that was also 15 months old, that represented all the issues Senator Warner has embraced in his resolution, to which they only paid lip service, regrettably.

So we are here today. We want to give voice to the concerns of the American people who want us to move in a different direction, not to commit additional troops at a time in which we have a government in Iraq that hasn't demonstrated a measurable commitment to controlling the sectarian violence and make the political changes within its Government that demonstrate a good-faith effort--whether it is the oil revenue-sharing distribution money, the provincial elections and, as I said, the demobilization of the militias; in fact, impeding our efforts to capture people who were responsible for some of the genocide and the warfare. But here we are.

I hope we can find a way. What could be of higher priority than to be able to debate and to vote on our respective positions, to give a vote on the Warner resolution that is so important that a majority of Senators support? I know we can build the threshold for the 60. It is imperative we do it. It is inexcusable, frankly, that on the process for debating, we cannot reach an agreement. We are failing the American people on a colossal scale. We are held up by arcane procedural measures that could be worked out, if only we reached across the political aisle.

Mr. President, I am introducing two pieces of legislation today, S. 3280 and S. 3281. In one bill I join with my colleagues in proposing legislation to open new development in ANWR, offshore, the Rocky Mountain oil shale, and preserves access to development in the Canadian tar sands. It also contains my Gas PRICE Act, which streamlines, implements deadlines, and offers EDA grants to communities to encourage development of refineries involved in coal liquification or coal to liquids processing, renewable fuels, and crude oil and other petroleum products. It also includes accelerated depreciation for cellulosic biofuel plant property for facilities and equipment used to produce switchgrass and other dedicated energy crop seed for the developing cellolosic biofuels industry. Finally, it includes a third title which I am also introducing as a free standing bill, the Drive America on Natural Gas Act.

The Drive America on Natural Gas Act expands RFS Definitions.

The bill expands the definition in the Renewable Fuels Standard to allow the use of CNG and LNG fuels to meet the mandates.

The current corn based ethanol mandate is overly aggressive with mounting questions surrounding ethanol's effects on world food prices, livestock feed prices, its economic sustainability, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its water usage, and numerous other environmental issues.

By broadening the scope of the Renewable Fuels Standard to include natural gas, we encourage the use of a proven, clean, and economical alternative fuel and also make the current RFS mandates achievable.

Additionally, it sends a signal to the Nation's automakers and fuels industries that natural gas is a competitive option as a mainstream transportation fuel.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler already make natural gas powered vehicles, yet they don't sell them in the States. GM alone already makes 18 different NGV models. But, Honda is the only current manufacturer which sells a natural gas vehicle in America--the Honda Civic GX.

Broadening the RFS will encourage more auto manufacturers to sell these vehicles domestically which will help our struggling auto manufacturing industry.

The bill broadens the Alternative Vehicle Tax Credit to include bi- fuel vehicles.

Currently only ``dedicated'' vehicles or vehicles which solely run on natural gas qualify for this credit. This narrow definition actually discourages the sale of bi-fuel vehicles--those which can run on both conventional fuels and natural gas fuels.

Americans need the flexibility to use conventional gasoline as a back-up if there are no natural gas refueling stations in a given area.

By encouraging bi-fuel natural gas vehicles, less gasoline and diesel would be consumed. How?

Today, the largest hurdle facing the NGV industry is the lack of natural gas refueling stations available to the public. However, a device is now manufactured and sold, called the Phill, which allows a person to fill up their natural gas powered cars at home.

Installed in one's garage, the Phill is connected to a home's natural gas line.

Once plugged into a CNG car, it slowly compresses natural gas into the car's tank.

Similar to the idea of plug-in hybrids, the Phill allows consumers to refuel at home. Unlike plug-in hybrids, this technology is not a few years away--it is here today.

By encouraging bi-fuel vehicles, more Americans will be comfortable purchasing natural gas powered cars which can also run on conventional gasoline for that occasional long distance trip from home.

Expanding the Alternative Vehicle Tax Credit to include bi-fuels will greatly incentivize the use of NGV's and give consumers the flexibility they require.

The bill establishes a Natural Gas Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration program.

Several years ago, the Department of Energy had a robust Natural Gas Vehicle Research Development and Demonstration program. This bill once again establishes that program to research, improve and develop the use of natural gas engines and vehicles.

The program will assist manufacturers in emissions certification, will develop and improve nationally recognized safety codes and standards, will examine and improve the reliability and efficiency of natural gas fueling station infrastructure, and will study the use of natural gas engines in hybrid vehicles.

Additionally, it requires the Department of Energy and the EPA to coordinate with the private sector to carry out the program.

The bill directs the EPA to establish a State demonstration program to streamline the regulations and certifications currently required for the conversion of vehicles to natural gas.

Today's regulatory burdens are daunting for those in the business of converting vehicles to run on CNG or LNG. Currently, the EPA imposes virtually the same certification requirements on NGV aftermarket conversion systems as they require on automakers.

Since NGV systems are inherently cleaner than gasoline systems, these regulations impose huge unnecessary costs on these conversion system makers.

This bill directs EPA to establish a State demonstration program to streamline the current certification process for NGV conversions. It also directs EPA to waive unnecessary requirements for the continual recertification of conversion kits and to waive emission certification for conversion of older vehicles.

Most importantly, the Drive America on Natural Gas Act doesn't dictate that consumers, businesses, or States must use natural gas as a transportation fuel.

To the contrary, this bill actually adds more flexibility to the current RFS mandates.

It removes the disincentives for auto manufacturers to produce bi- fuel vehicles.

It streamlines and eliminates the government bureaucracy and red tape on the conversion of vehicles to operate on natural gas.

The Drive America on Natural Gas Act will allow natural gas to compete on its own merits. Americans can ultimately choose whether natural gas powered vehicles are right for their own individual and business needs.

The promise of natural gas as a mainstream transportation fuel is achievable today, not 15 or 20 years from now.

Currently, over 25 different manufacturers produce nearly 100 models of light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines for the U.S. market. However, only Honda sells a domestically available CNG car.

Over 10,000 transit buses in the U.S. are natural gas powered and the market is growing; nearly one-in-five new transit buses on order is specified to be natural gas powered.

There are over 7.5 million NGVs on the road worldwide--more than double the number in 2003. The International Association of NGVs forecasts that, by 2020, there will be 65 million NGVs worldwide.

In April, the Department of Energy reported that the average nationwide price of a gallon of gas equivalent of CNG was just $2.04 per gallon.

In some regions of the country prices are even lower--CNG costs in Rocky Mountain states average just a $1.26 per gallon.

Many state and local governments, businesses, and consumers have cut their fuel bills by more than half when utilizing natural gas as a transportation fuel.

In my hometown of Tulsa, OK a person can refuel their CNG powered cars for just 90 cents per gallon. Regular gas currently costs $3.95. That's more than a $3 savings per gallon.

Just last month I was pleased to visit Tom Sewall of Tulsa Natural Gas Technologies, Inc. As a small business owner who installs natural gas refueling stations, he is one of the most knowledgeable and vocal leaders in this growing industry.

America has a huge natural gas supply base. In 13 of the last 14 years, the amount of new natural gas discovered in the U.S. has exceeded the amount that has been extracted.

Raymond James Equity Research recently reported a ``bearish outlook for U.S. natural gas prices.'' After examining the future supply of domestic production, they released a May 19, 2008 energy report which concluded ``we continue to see unprecedented growth in U.S. gas production that will eventually overwhelm the U.S. gas markets.''

Thanks to advancements in oil and gas exploration, drilling, and production technologies, America is producing huge amounts of natural gas from tight shales, coalbed methane and tight gas plays, in areas such as: The Barnett Shale in North Central Texas; the Marcellus and Huron Shales, which run through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York; the Haynesville Shale in Northwest Louisiana; the Fayetteville Shale in central Arkansas; the Woodford Shale in southern Oklahoma; the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah field in Wyoming; and the San Juan Basin CoalBed Methane play in northern New Mexico.

These and numerous other emerging gas plays promise to deliver decades of abundant domestic natural gas supply.

From compressed natural gas--CNG--powered cars, to 18-wheelers running on liquefied natural gas--LNG--no other commercially viable fuel burns cleaner.

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has rated the natural gas powered Honda Civic GX as ``America's Greenest Car'' for the past 5 consecutive years--even greener than any available hybrid.

On a well-to-wheels basis, NGVs produce 22 percent less greenhouse gas than comparable diesel vehicles and 29 percent less than gasoline vehicles.

In 2007, NGVs displaced 250 million gallons of petroleum in the U.S. In the next 17 years, the industry's goal is to grow that to 10 billion gallons.

NGVs are the pathway to a hydrogen transportation system. Every NGV fueling station is a potential hydrogen fueling station. Every auto garage or maintenance facility that has been made NGV-compatible can quickly and cheaply be made hydrogen-compatible.

The medium-germ solution to today's gas price crisis is to explore and produce oil from ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, the Rocky Mountain oil shales, and preserve our access to the Canadian oil sands. That is why my comprehensive bill includes opening all these areas for exploration, along with a program to increase our refining capacity.

But, in the mean time the best way to bring down the price at the pump immediately is to pass this bill and run more cars on natural gas. Of course, the democrats have objected to increasing supplies of oil and gas for decades. They don't want more supply. There should be no objection from the democrats, and frankly I cannot think of any justification for opposing my Drive America on Natural Gas Act.