A resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to prohibit filling the tree.

Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the Warm In Winter and Cool In Summer Act as the lead Republican cosponsor, along with 52 of my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle.

I first thank the Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, for his tireless leadership on this vital issue of heating and cooling assistance and for his steadfast vigilance throughout the last few months in pressing for this debate on energy assistance when there is not a moment to waste in preparing for what could be the worst winter in a generation, given the historic cost of energy today. At a time when skyrocketing energy prices are at the forefront of our national agenda--when heating oil prices have increased from about $2.77 per gallon a year ago in my home State of Maine to a staggering $4.81 cents a gallon today, and when electricity has risen 3.6 percent in the last 12 months, and gas prices have jumped from $3.05 a gallon to $4.05 in the last year--as we know, it should come as no surprise that countless American families are faced with choices that, frankly, no family should have to make. Indeed, as a direct result

of spiraling energy costs, 70 percent of low-income Americans are buying less at the grocery store, 31 percent are purchasing less medicine, and 19 percent say they have changed plans for the education of their children. Even now, in the midst of July, in truth, Americans--and certainly Mainers across my home State--are wondering how exactly they will pay for the fundamental necessity of heating their homes this coming winter, just as many others cannot afford the costs for critical cooling during these dangerously hot summer months in so many States. In fact, in South Carolina, electricity services have been suspended to 39,000 homes that are falling behind on their bills, leaving these individuals with no assistance to alleviate the stifling heat. In Arizona there has been a 40-percent spike in shutoffs for residential electricity users. The bottom line is this issue knows no boundaries regionally or politically.

The reality is the stunning effects of these astronomical energy costs are not a regional problem, they are a national problem requiring national attention and a national solution. In fact, as I think about it, with the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program pending before the Senate--at least the motion to proceed; and I hope we will proceed, Mr. President and Members of this body, because I think we ought to be translating words into action--I think there is no better place to start than on this very crucial and vital program. In fact, if I recall, it was back in 1979 and 1980 when we first had the debate on whether to create this program called the Low-Income Fuel Assistance Program, and it was my first term in the House of Representatives. I, along with the late Speaker O'Neill, testified before the then House Appropriations Committee to create such a program. It was born out of the energy crisis that was engulfing our Nation at that time when we had gas lines here in the District of Columbia and across this country.

It was interesting to think that at that time, in the midst of an energy crisis, that previously--6 years previously or 7 years previously--we had another energy crisis and, unfortunately, didn't learn from that event. Out of that crisis in 1979 and 1980, we created the Low-Income Fuel Assistance Program in order to give low-income families the ability to heat their homes and to cool their homes in other parts of the country. That is how this program was created. So I think this program was created as a result of a crisis--as a result of the failure of this country to create and enact a comprehensive energy plan. I think too today, 30 years later, we are in the same circumstance, regrettably and tragically, and the people who rely on this program should not be the victims of our inability, or our unwillingness, to address the energy problem. That is what we should come to terms with here in the Senate, that we should proceed to consider this legislation and have it become law. I think absolutely it is our responsibility and obligation to give peace of mind to our constituency as they are despairing about the oncoming winter and how they are going to meet the costs of home heating oil that is now close to $5 per gallon.

I think we do have an obligation to continue to support this social safety net that is so essential. It is a matter of life and death, and I don't think they should be the victims of our political failure or our failure to address a comprehensive energy policy. That should happen. No doubt it should. Frankly, I hope we can reconcile our rhetoric here on the floor of the Senate with legislative action that becomes law that has an actual, direct impact on people's daily lives. They deserve that. They deserve for us to take action. Irrespective of the time or place we are in, in the Senate--whether or not it is a political year--we ought to reconcile our differences to do what is right for America on this mighty challenge that is facing so many across this country, including my constituency.

Here we are in the third energy crisis of recent times, and we see that the program was at least designed to minimize the burden for the least fortunate for years and has provided a level of funding. However, as you can see, with the historically high home heating oil prices you see over time, and yet, even though we have provided funding for low- income fuel assistance basically on a consistent basis, it never addressed the gap between the level of funding and the costs for home heating oil. So we are seeing, as you can see in the recent times, in the recent months, what has happened to the cost of home heating oil. Yet at the same time the level of funding for low-income fuel assistance has leveled off.

That is why we need the legislation that is pending before the Senate. My colleague Senator Sanders is absolutely right, we need to double this funding. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee as well for doubling the authorization. I appreciate his leadership on this question because we are in very different times, and that is the reason why we need to increase the level of support for this valuable program.

This program is for the most vulnerable. We are talking about income limits of $17,680 for an individual, and the average individual recipient earns around $13,000 per year. Think about it. The assistance we are providing is for those who have income eligibility of somewhere between $17,000 and $13,000 on an individual basis. That is who we are talking about when it comes to the income eligibility standards for low-income fuel assistance--$13,000 for an individual and as high as $17,000, and for a family of four the limit is $36,000. In Maine, in terms of the projected costs for paying for a household for home heating oil during the course of a winter, based on today's prices, is close to $5,000, just to keep warm this winter--$5,000. So if the eligibility standards are $33,000--$36,000 for a family of four, and for an individual it is anywhere from $13,000 to $17,000, it costs $5,000 to heat one's home or residence for a winter. These are hard- working individuals and families who, quite frankly, were in desperate need of assistance back in 2006 when we witnessed the first major increase in home heating oil. So we were able to provide additional funding at that time of $1 billion for a total of $3.1 billion. At that point, again, it was a crisis that, given the sharp hike, New Englanders were paying about $2.39 per gallon. Well, fast forward 2 years to today and you will see, based on our charts we have provided, that oil costs $4.81. That is a 75-percent increase in only 2 years--75 percent.

So we augmented the funding back in 2006 up to $3.1 billion when home heating oil was $2.39. Today, it is at $4.81, and of course we are in July, so we have no idea in terms of what we can anticipate or expect for home heating oil costs when it comes to winter. So a 75-percent increase as we know it today. So when winter actually arrives, New England could spend, under today's prices, more than $19 billion on home heating oil--$19 billion on home heating oil alone. That is a staggering price increase compared to back in 2006 when it was approximately $9 billion. That gives us a dimension of the escalation of the problem as we face it today and still not knowing what we can expect when winter approaches.

As we see on this other chart I have presented, here is the cost of home heating oil, and as we have seen, it has increased 147 percent since 2004. So basically, in the last 3\1/2\ years, we have seen an increase in home heating oil of 147 percent. Yet when you look at the wage increase, it has only been 17.1 percent. So you see that the cost of home heating oil in Maine has outpaced wages by 174 percent. Prices are now well ensconced in the stratosphere, with the legitimate fears that the sky may not, in fact, be the limit. It is a huge disparity when you see how little wages have grown over the last 3\1/2\ years and what has happened with a basic commodity such as home heating oil having increased 147 percent.

Yet given all of these alarming numbers, what has happened to the level of low-income fuel assistance? It has actually dropped. It has actually declined to $2.5 billion from the $3.1 billion that we provided and that I sought, very actively, back in 2006, when the prices had spiked. So we were able to augment, as I said, that funding by an additional billion dollars to reach $3.1 billion, but unfortunately, the funding for low-income fuel assistance fell back to $2.5 billion. So it obviously doesn't make sense. We are actually regressing in terms of a level of funding at a time when home heating oil is actually skyrocketing and we don't know where the boundaries are, we don't know where

the limitations are. As I said, the sky could be the limit, given what the unknown presents for the future with respect to home heating oil.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Small Business that Senator Kerry and I convened last month to discuss the dimensions involving small businesses and home heating oil and what the impact would be in our region, I had an individual from my State--her name is Jennifer Brooks--who is the community relations manager at Penquis Community Action Program. They are on the front lines of providing critical services to Maine in multiple counties during these difficult times.

Last year, the community action program provided fuel assistance to more than 9,000 Maine households. The average benefit received by each household was $736. In order to qualify for low-income fuel assistance this upcoming heating season, a family of four must earn less than $31,800. So under the best case scenario, if a household does qualify for LIHEAP and benefits remain constant, a household on average can expect to receive 158 gallons of oil for the season, which isn't even enough to fill a 250-gallon tank one time.

We know it takes, on average, to get through a Maine winter, 850 gallons of heating oil--850 to 1,000 gallons--and it costs $4.81, which we know is the price today. When you look at what is available in the low-income fuel assistance program, if we fail to take action and increase funding, as this legislation would prescribe, to $5.1 billion, our lowest income families will receive a mere 19 percent of their home heating oil costs through this program--the lowest in the program's history.

Now, it is unbelievable to think people can anticipate this winter facing, at the minimum, spending close to $5,000 for home heating oil. Yet given the dimensions of this program, we will only be able to provide support for 19 percent of the entire cost for the entire winter. As you can see from the previous support of this program, the percentages have declined over the years. Over the last 25 years, the average Maine low-income fuel assistance recipient received assistance that provided 41 percent of their heating oil costs. Last year, that started eroding, and it declined from $3.1 billion to $2.5 billion. For the nearly 50,000 Maine households that received benefits, they were only provided 35 percent of the entire cost for the season.

At today's prices, if we fail to increase or double the funding of the low-income fuel assistance program to $5.1 billion, then we can only provide 19 percent of the entire cost of winter for home heating oil. Obviously, I think that speaks volumes, in terms of the dimension of the problem we are facing and what families are facing in my State, in New England, and across the country. Whether you are living in a cold- or hot-weather region, you depend on this program either for air- conditioning or heating during the winter. It is a basic social safety net program.

I think it is absolutely incumbent upon us to do everything we can to double funding for this program and to do it now and provide the assurances, instead of the rhetoric about what we will do sometime down the road. I think we do have a responsibility, individually and collectively, to make the process work in the Senate and in the Congress, with the President, to do what is right for this country, for these families who are agonizing over the anticipation of what next winter will bring in terms of costs. Here, with this program, we are talking about the lowest of incomes. When it comes to $13,000, $17,000 for a family of four, or even $31,000 or $33,000, we need to help these families and these individuals, without question.

As my constituent Jennifer Brooks said in her testimony before the Small Business Committee:

If the average person on fuel assistance makes about

$14,000 a year and the benefit only pays for 158 gallons of

oil, I don't know how they come up with any more money . . .

they can't, with the cost of food and the cost of gas and

everything else. There is no money left over to pay even in

the summer months . . . there is talk [of having] ``warming

places'' so people can shut their furnaces down real low

during the day and go to libraries and stay warm during the

day . . . we are in a crisis.

Last year, I heard many stories. After we were expecting $2.50 to $2.70 a gallon for home heating oil, I heard stories of desperation then. One TV station, channel 13, in Portland, ME, decided they would initiate a program where they would provide a few hundred gallons of heating oil to four families requiring assistance. They were asked to submit e-mails or letters if they believe they qualified for this assistance. They received an astounding response, with more than 2,000 requests.

Again, there is no doubt as to the magnitude of the problem. That was for last winter. One hesitates to think about what we can expect for this winter, when prices have increased by more than $2 since last winter. Here we are in July. So we must step up to our responsibilities in this crisis and fully fund the low-income fuel assistance program at the $5.1 billion. That is the least we can do. It is not that it will address all the problems or fulfill the needs for all those individuals who rely on this program, but certainly it will be a very important step forward. We must do it now. We should be proactive and preemptive and prescriptive in our measures, not reactive, and not wait until after the August recess and continue to dither and talk but fail to take action.

We have a responsibility to provide assurances to those people we represent in this country, to take the strong measures, and to take those actions that are so vital and instrumental to providing peace of mind during these very difficult times when people are facing these mighty challenges.

There are many ways to debate this energy problem. Certainly, we should have a comprehensive energy solution, no doubt. I don't think we should place the burden on those individuals who rely on this program, who are concerned--deeply concerned--and anguishing about the future because of our failure to reconcile our differences to reach out across the political aisle. I question as to why we cannot do it. I don't think we should live in an all-or-nothing world because that is not the world our constituents live in. These issues are not mutually exclusive. It is not that we cannot do one because we were haven't done the other. How about starting someplace? We can start with this program, which was born because of an energy crisis 30 years ago. We are in a similar circumstance today.

These people should not bear the brunt of our political failures or unwillingness or inability to resolve these differences.

I think the Senate should not be a roadblock to results but a pathway to hope. What I see here today, regrettably, is, again, my way or the highway. Here, at a time when we are dealing with monumental challenges confronting this Nation--and they are affecting our country simultaneously. Look at our economy and the job picture, the housing, energy, and we are in a war in Iraq and in Afghanistan and we continue to dither, to remain intractable, intransigent about achieving results. Truly, it is not in keeping with the legacy of this institution, which has done so much throughout our history.

That is why Senator Nelson, from Nebraska, and I sent a letter to the President, along with 14 other colleagues, asking the President for a bipartisan summit. After all, we think these times demand it. The President should convene a national energy summit, bringing together the congressional leadership, on a bipartisan basis, and other Members of the House and Senate from the committees of jurisdiction, environmental leaders, industry leaders and scientists, to sit around a table to see what we can do for the good of this country now.

It is immaterial that we are in an election year, that we are 7 months away from the election. The American people deserve to have us honor our obligations as elected officials. After all, there was an election in 2006, as I recall. We promised our constituents we would work on the problems facing this country. Here we are today with an abysmal 14 percent approval rating. I don't know, that may be the lowest approval rating in the history of Gallup Polls.

We all bear a responsibility, individually and collectively. We should care how Americans feel about this institution and what can we do every day to

make it better. Some days, I wonder if we wake up and say: Well, this is going to be another ``can't do'' day. We are not going to achieve anything for the people. We are going to see if we can continue to be a roadblock to results and action. We are going to do everything we can to be a barrier to solutions. We will wait for the next election or next year or maybe some other time.

Yet people are suffering. They are losing their jobs. They are wondering how to heat their homes next winter. They are losing their homes. This is a time for us to step up to the plate and demonstrate to the American people that we can do it. Frankly, we are experiencing a crisis in confidence in America, in a variety of institutions, not the least of which is Congress. People are not only despairing about their individual situations, they are also despairing about the inability of elected officials in our political institutions to address these problems. It is not so much that America has these problems, it is the question of our inability to address them and to reach across the political aisle.

I hope we can find a way to extricate ourselves from this confrontational morass and not constantly engage in all-or-nothing politics and scoring political points, making it all about the election, and not live up to the expectations the people rightfully have of their elected officials and political institutions to address the mighty challenges confronting this Nation.

Without question, we can and we must have answers to this national emergency. That is why I thought it would be an important step forward if the President convened an emergency energy summit. There are short- term and long-term solutions. There are many pieces to the energy pie. The low-income energy assistance program is a critical aspect of that in terms of mitigating the impact on the most vulnerable in our society. We have an obligation, at a very minimum, to address that for these individuals. It is not their burden and it should not be; they should not have the responsibility of our failure to address the energy problem. That is why we need to double the funding for this critical program.

Yes, we should pass legislation with respect to speculation. It is something most of us agree on. Why can't we do it? There are other aspects to energy policy we have failed to address. Everybody is agreeing we should extend the tax credit for renewables. So why haven't we done that? It should have been part of the stimulus package--and it was, to a point. But, regrettably, again, there were those who opposed it. Yet it could have very well been stimulative to this economy. It would have created up to 100,000 jobs. In Maine, we get $1.5 billion for wind projects, but we didn't extend the tax credits for renewables beyond this year. Why couldn't we do it? Everybody talks about it. Yet we failed to address that problem. We keep postponing, deferring, delaying, and denying that the problem exists. Yet this is something that could be readily accomplished.

My constituents are looking into alternatives; for example, wood pellet stoves or other energy-efficient means of heating our homes. Yet the tax credits for those have expired. They expired at the end of last year. So they cannot even resort to that as an alternative because, regrettably, we have not extended that tax credit.

The question is, Why? Why are we at an impasse on those issues upon which we agree? I think that is the most startling dimension to the problems facing this country--that in the Senate, where we should be taking and adopting the can-do approach, why can't we do the right thing and address this energy crisis? We all agree extending tax credits for renewables is something we should do. So why aren't we doing it? Because individuals or companies or entities aren't going to make investments in renewables if they don't have the assurance of tax credits. That is abundantly clear. They have no way of knowing how long or whether they are going to be extended. They are not going to put themselves on the line financially without the certainty of knowing they will be extended.

Why are we not doing that? It will create jobs and, certainly, we need job creation in America, at a time when unemployment is rising at high levels.

We should be concerned about creating jobs, and that is one dimension. We should be concerned about creating alternatives, creating incentives, inspiring innovation, entrepreneurial spirit. We should do all of that and more, and we hesitate and fail to take action on issues on which we agree, which is truly dismaying and disconcerting, most certainly to the American people who depend on us to take those measures and those steps that can begin to resolve effectively the problems that are at hand.

We can do all of these things. We are certainly capable of doing them, unless we are stuck in the status quo and the gridlock that constantly is where we try to score the political points time and time again to no avail.

I hope we can proceed and take action on this very basic social safety net program for the most vulnerable in our society and demonstrate that we do have the opportunity, these rare moments, to reach across the political aisle and proceed to double the funding for this program at this moment in time because, certainly, it is one program that is of immense value to the people of my State and throughout this country, and it is certainly at the very least, at the minimal, what we should be able to accomplish.

I hope we can do more. I hope we can find the political wherewithal to search within ourselves to reach across the political aisle so the monkey wrenches don't continue to grind down the deliberative process with polarization and partisanship that yields no achievements, no accomplishments, no opportunity, and provides no hope for the people we represent.

The American people deserve more than what they are receiving today. Frankly, I cannot believe that we would adjourn for the August recess without addressing the energy crisis--this program, speculation, and much more. The American people do deserve to have a comprehensive approach. They do deserve to have their elected officials stay here as long as it takes, as much time as it requires for bold action that will be so essential and can measure it with the problems we are facing in this country today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to start off by saying how much I agree with my distinguished colleague from Maine. I think the LIHEAP program is one that is essential. There is a real possibility if we do not deal with the LIHEAP program, fellow Americans across the landscape of this country will find themselves in the cold, literally and figuratively, and they will be in such a situation where they will have to make desperate choices in their lives.

So this is something, among other things, on which we should be reaching across the aisle. As one Democratic Senator, I want the Senator from Maine to know that we are absolutely in agreement with her, and we believe this is essential to move forward.

I appreciate her comments about coming to common ground and common cause on those things on which, in fact, we can agree. There is much, at least from listening to the speeches on the Senate floor, that, in fact, we supposedly can agree on. We see there are elements of the Republican package that deal with market speculation. That is the essence of the underlying bill we are debating. Let's come together on that. Let's come together on the renewable energy tax credit extenders, something that we began, that existed, and we need to extend if we want to get the marketplace not depending on oil, whether it be foreign or domestic. Let's agree on that. That is apparently something we can agree on from speeches I heard. We should come together in that respect.

I heard conservation about using less. We agree on that issue. Let's come together on that. I agree with the Senator from Maine that while there may be differences, there are a lot of elements together that we do agree on, and if we can begin to move on those elements, maybe we could come to a point in which we could move forward on other items as well.

But why not allow those things that ultimately can make a difference in the short term and in the long term for our collective constituents? When you are cold, it doesn't have a Republican or Democratic label to it. When you

have to make a choice between a gallon of gas or putting a gallon of milk on the table, it doesn't have a Democratic or Republican label on it.

I agree with the Senator from Maine. I am glad to have been on the floor to listen to her. She is a voice of reason, and I appreciate where she stands on these issues, and I agree with her. Hopefully, we can move in that direction.

Coastal Drilling

Mr. President, I have come to the floor various times over the last couple of weeks to discuss opening our coastline to drilling. This is part of one of the marvelous beaches in New Jersey. You have to get off the New Jersey Turnpike to understand.

I had some colleagues say: Why are you so fixated on this drilling issue? Isn't your State one big refining place? They obviously never got off the New Jersey Turnpike.

If you get off the New Jersey Turnpike, you will see one of the most incredible parts of the United States coastline where not only millions of New Jerseyans go, which they consider a birthright, but people from throughout the region. Canadians come down and contribute to our economy because they want to go to the New Jersey shore.

The Presiding Officer, the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, understands what that Florida coastline means to his State and his economy. That is why he has been such a vigorous voice on the floor of the Senate.

Ever since I have been having to come down to the floor, ever since we have had these two oilmen in the White House, the Presidential candidate they support, and many on the other side of the aisle--not all but many on the other side of the aisle--have begun a very hard sell to the American people over an absurd notion that opening our coastlines to drilling will ever lower gas prices. They have grabbed on to a source of fear and frustration among American families, and there is no question that there is frustration and pain for our American families. But they are using that frustration and pain to pull a fast one on the American people.

Exploitation of pain at the pump to grab more land to build up stock prices, that is what this is all about. They are using it to sell a plan that in reality will bring absolutely zero relief to Americans but instead represents one last great big handout to oil companies that are already making astronomically staggering profits.

We just saw the beginning of that parade with ConocoPhillips, an incredible increase in profits. On one hand, you have American families who are getting absolutely slammed by high gas prices. On the other hand, you have oil companies counting their money, sitting on 68 million acres of public land that are not being put to use and focusing way more on taking that money and using it on stock buybacks that ultimately drive up the value of their shares than exploration or innovation.

It is not because I say that. Listen to what the President of the American Petroleum Institute said when he was asked: Why can't you create more production?

He said: We don't have the infrastructure and the rigs and the drills and all the pipeline and everything that is necessary to create more production. He didn't say why. One of the reasons is they haven't been investing the money to do that.

So all the suggestions to lift the moratoria and tomorrow out sprouts oil and, therefore, gasoline and prices plunge is simply not true. They cannot even pursue the 68 million acres, the extra area in the gulf, the extra area off the Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska that is not subject to any moratoria right now. They cannot even do that and haven't done it. What an incredible falsehood perpetuated on the American people. But I believe the American people know better.

If we listen to these proposals, you would think--I have seen some of my colleagues shake the legislation and say: There is no oil in here. Guess what. There is no oil in their proposals either. That is really laughable.

Who do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle choose to help? The oil companies have more money than the eye can see, and you don't even hear them talk about the oil companies. They never invoke their name unless it is to say: Oh, we need to give them more. We need to do more for them. We need to do everything for them. The average American wishes they were in the role of the oil companies--record profits, huge amounts of money. Let's give them more. Let's give them more.

We never hear from our Republican friends talking about the oil companies having any responsibility--I am not saying the responsibility, any responsibility--for some of our lack of production. I have just heard one too many speeches that are apologies for the oil companies. Multibillion profits--I am not going to be an apologist for the oil companies.

As we try to pass legislation to crack down on greedy oil speculation which could lower gas prices quicker than anything, they just say no, even though they include it as part of their proposals.

Back at home, people who are hearing these debates say: They keep talking about speculation. I know what speculation generally means.

What does it mean in the context to the average person? What it means is traders buy huge quantities of oil online, many times intentionally inflating prices. They then turn around and sell those very orders to other traders at even higher prices. These traders never intend to use the oil. This is not a purchase of oil because they are going to ultimately use it in distribution in the country and make sure people have, for example, home heating oil or they are going to refine it and have gasoline. No, they use these constant trades bidding up the price so they can ultimately cash in.

But who gets stuck with the bill every time we have to pay to fill our tanks and heat our homes? It is the American consumer.

We Democrats want to do something about it. For those who keep saying--even though it is part of their plan--oh, no, this is really not a problem, let me read to you from an article that appeared today, July 25, in the New York Times:

Firm said to manipulate oil market. Commodity regulators in

Washington have accused a Dutch trading company of making

roughly a million dollars in illegal profits by manipulating

the prices of crude oil, heating oil--

What we are going to be using this winter--

and gasoline--

Over what period of time?

over an 11 day period of time.

One million dollars in 11 days in illegal profits. Oh, it is not a problem; speculation is not a problem.

In audio tapes uncovered in their investigation, regulators

said one defendant described the scheme as an effort to

``bully the market''--

Bully the market--

by making a large number of trades at or near the end of the

trading day to move closing prices.

But this is a marketplace that cannot be bullied. Therefore, we don't need to do anything about the speculative nature and unbridled speculation. Well, guess what. One million dollars in 11 days, with their own voices saying that this is an effort to ``bully the market.'' Moreover, unlike many manipulation cases, this one accuses the defendants of actually succeeding in moving prices that were used as benchmarks for consumer markets--actually moving the benchmarks that are used for consumer markets, in essence, saying not only is it our intention to bully the market, but the regulators are saying yes, and they did bully the markets. They did bully the markets.

Now, the complaint that was filed in the Federal District Court in Manhattan says at least two of those attempts resulted in, guess what, higher prices for gasoline and crude oil. But our Republican friends say: Oh, no, market manipulation and speculation isn't a problem. But here is only one example, and this has been a reluctant regulator to pursue this. When they have heard the speeches on the floor and they have heard this going on for some time now, all of a sudden we grab one of these companies, 11 days, $1 million, bullying the market and doing it successfully.

That is why we need the legislation Senator Reid and the Democratic majority brought to the floor and that others only talk about, saying it is part of our package. Well, join us. Join us before more market speculation takes place.

What are Democrats trying to do about it? We are trying to add 100 new cops on the beat to the commission that oversees these traders. We are trying to create greater transparency, for the first time requiring--for the first time--detailed reporting of previously undisclosed trades. And oversight--stopping speculators from inflating oil prices by playing domestic and foreign markets off of each other.

We had testimony before the Congress, sworn testimony, as a matter of fact--and it is not often we have sworn testimony--from oil company executives. They were challenged as to why we are having these high prices. You tell us, in fact, it is the demand and the supply side. We said we have heard a lot of talk about supply and demand, and that largely over the last 2 years they have traced each other pretty closely together. Well then, what is the issue? And what is their response, these very oil company executives? Their response is: market speculation. But no, we don't have to go after that. It is not one of the most important issues, something that can be done now. So they say no.

I have to hand it to my colleagues for their political talent, to take an issue so vital to the daily lives of Americans and convince them they want to do something about it with a proposal that is more about oil company stock prices than gas prices. That is quite a feat, if you can pull it off. That is talent. But here is the problem. The facts always come out, and the facts ultimately always win.

It has been tremendously important to me, as a Senator from New Jersey, to come down here and give the facts about coastline drilling. It is not just the facts about drilling and gas prices, although that is how they initially make their plan popular, it is also the facts about oil spills, which they say are virtually impossible with today's drilling technology, virtually impossible.

That is exactly what they told us about the tanker industry that carries the oil. We don't have any rigs that I know of in the country, along the coastal waters of the United States, where there is drilling, that either don't have a pipeline system or don't ultimately have a vessel. And we were told: Don't worry about our tanker system. In fact, it is impossible to have any spills.

This is what happened with that impossibility. Workers there are cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound--a lot of oil there, obviously, a huge disaster. So if we could say that, and if it were true, that would surely be nice for the eastern and western coastlines of the United States. If it were true, in fact, that it is virtually impossible to have no spills, that surely would be nice for the $200 billion that our coasts generate each and every year in fishing and tourism revenues--$200 billion. And it surely would be nice if it were true for my home State of New Jersey and the millions of people who end up on the Jersey shore each summer and the half a million jobs in the State of New Jersey supported by the economy there between recreation, tourism, and the commercial and recreational fishermen.

It surely would be nice if an oil spill off the coast of Virginia didn't have the potential to affect the coastline from South Carolina up to New York. That surely would be nice, if it were true. But the facts always come out, and at the end of the day, the facts always win.

Earlier this month, the distinguished minority leader made this statement, echoed by several of his colleagues as part of their hard sell to the American people: ``Not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina.'' Not a drop of oil. Well, that surely would be nice, if it were true. But the fact is, we can see here from this U.S. Coast Guard photo that was published in the Washington Post on July 14 of 2008 what was happening with this spill and how they were trying to burn the spill up in order to try to deal with the disaster. Oh, but not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina. I guess this picture must be a fabrication of the Coast Guard.

Last month Senator McCain said: ``Not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage.'' Well, the same picture from the U.S. Coast Guard. That surely would be nice, if it were true. Last time I checked, 7.7 million gallons of oil is pretty significant, pretty significant.

And then in the last 24 hours, there was a stroke of poetic justice. Senator McCain was ready to fly out to an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico to stage a photo opportunity. He was ready to show how safe it is to drill for and transport oil these days. Nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, he should have known better, because the facts always come out, and the facts always win. Just as he was set to do this yesterday, there was an accident on the Mississippi near New Orleans in which a freighter rammed a barge and spilled 419,000 gallons of fuel oil. Next thing you know, the McCain photo-op was postponed. It seems they realized it is hard to make the case that oil drilling and oil transportation is completely safe when there are 419,000 gallons of oil floating around and washing up on the shore nearby.

Of course, now his representatives are saying it was postponed because of the hurricane that hit the southern tip of Texas yesterday that this event was cancelled. I thought: Well, that might be a legitimate reason. But then I checked the National Weather Service forecast. And what did the National Weather Service's detailed forecast say, which I have right here--satellite images?

The National Weather Service made the following forecast today for the Louisiana gulf coast: Partly cloudy. Scattered thunderstorms, mainly in the afternoon. Highs in the lower 90s. Southeast winds 5 to 10 miles per hour. Chance of thunderstorms, 30 percent.

I think the Presiding Officer has a pretty good sense that this is pretty tame weather conditions for this time of the year--certainly not hurricane weather.

So if you look up ``irony'' in the dictionary, I think you will find possibly that it might describe cancelling an oil drilling photo-op because a massive nearby oil spill took place. Having to cancel your big oil drilling photo-op because of a massive oil spill is like cancelling a crime safety photo-op because the house next door got robbed. In selling this absurd coastline drilling plan to the American people, Senator McCain and others have time and time again pointed to advanced technology that would supposedly eliminate the threat of massive oil spills. Well, this is the oil fire after Katrina. As he can now personally attest to, even with the most modern technology, we can't prevent massive oil spills such as the one currently devastating the Mississippi, just as we couldn't prevent a 7.7 million gallon oil spill after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And that is the type of straight talk we need about oil drilling and the type of talk the American people need to hear and that they deserve.

As to the claim that coastline drilling will lower gas prices, we know it simply won't. That is clear when we realize there are millions of acres already subject to oil exploration that aren't being pursued. In fact, the American Petroleum Institute president says: Well, we don't have the infrastructure and the rigs and the drills to pursue it. We can't do that overnight.

We know we have reduced 800,000 barrels a day in demand because of high gas prices. The Saudis have produced 500,000 barrels a day in extra production--a 1.3 million barrel a day shift in barrels of oil-- and yet gas prices have done what? They have gone up. We opened the gulf--181--and gas prices have gone up.

So if 1.3 million barrels in either reduced demand or increased production haven't done anything about gas prices, imagine the very large sum of 200,000 barrels in the year 2030 at this risk. If 1.3 million barrels can't do it, how does 200,000 do it, and yet accept this risk? Accept this risk to this environment and to the $200 billion that is generated by the coasts of the east and west.

And, by the way, that 200,000 would mean that every State would have to agree, assuming we would give States an option, and we have already heard the Governor of California say: No way. They are one of the biggest parts of the coastline. I doubt you will get Oregon and Washington in that respect. We have heard some of their distinguished colleagues say that is not going to happen. New Jersey won't do it. So by the

time you are finished, you are nowhere near even the 200,000.

Now, what is it we can do? Well, I agree with the comments of the distinguished Senator from Maine, who said: Let's do what is possible and what we agree to. And what is possible and what we agree to is very significant.

The Republicans say they are for a renewable energy source, and are providing the tax credits that existed and expired and should be brought back to life. They say they are for that. Well, they have said ``no'' twice, though. Twice we have brought that forward, and twice they have said ``no.''

The fact is that passing the tax credit extenders would create the incentives that are necessary to move us in a direction in which oil is not the issue, and risking the coastlines and the $200 billion economy is not the issue, and where we could do things in a tighter timeframe and better timeframe than the year 2030. That would move us toward renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and cellulosic ethanol, plug-in hybrids, which are critical. All of these things would move us in a direction long before 2030, which is when all of this production would take place, if it takes place.

We supposedly agree on moving forward on that, but our Republican friends have said ``no'' twice. Republicans say that speculation is part of their package. I talked about that earlier. We saw already one company being pursued--$1 million, 11 days, bullying the market and succeeding in doing it. Well, it is time to move on speculation. Yet that is the very essence of the underlying bill. We can't seem to get them to agree on that. Most of the speeches I have been hearing is that they pooh-pooh speculation. When it made a difference in oil and gas prices, as that case suggests, I would simply say that is certainly not anything to be pooh-poohed. It is real and it is consequential, and even the testimony of the oil company executives says it could produce anywhere up to $50 per barrel more.

Republicans say that conservation is part of their package. We agree. So why not join us in that respect as well, with the conservation proposals we have put forward?

There are three very significant areas: renewable energy tax credits, speculation, conservation. Let's move forward. But instead, what we have is a series of noes. Then we have 18 amendments filed by Republicans, all to do what? To open the coastline of our country, which, as I have already discussed, will not achieve anything. But do you need 18 different amendments even to pursue what you think is an appropriate energy policy to open the coastline to drilling, to risk the consequences of this? OK, the majority leader said: Go ahead, we will give you an amendment. But you cannot take yes for an answer. We have to have 18 different amendments to do virtually the same thing.

You can repeat a big lie over and over. We have seen that in the history of the world, that you can take something that is not quite true, repeat it over and over, and try to give it the life it otherwise does not deserve--try to make it true. But saying it over and over doesn't make it true, saying over and over that drilling is the panacea, the solution to bring down gas prices.

The way I hear it, I hear: Pass the legislation, have the President sign it, tomorrow oil sprouts up, gas gets made, prices go down. I give a lot more credit to the American people than that.

The truth, crushed down to the floor, springs back up. The truth is that, in fact, we have the wherewithal to move our country in a much different direction. It is the can-do spirit of America. It is the pioneer spirit of America. It is the spirit that gets going--the tough get going when the going gets tough. That is the spirit we have. That is the spirit we should pursue. That is the renewable energy from tax credits. That is the conservation. That is stopping the speculation in the marketplace. That is ensuring that, in fact, we move to necessary renewable energy sources. That makes for a great America, a new economy--and do something about global warming all at the same time that we deal with the challenges of gas prices in the short term and liberate ourselves in the long term. That is what the debate is all about.

I will be happy to yield.

I have. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Florida pointing it out. The words are powerful because there it is not a Member of the Senate saying this, not a Democrat saying this. This is the official report. I have used the pictures because a picture speaks better than a thousand words, and you cannot deny it as you cannot deny the report. The fact is that we had massive oilspills after Katrina and Rita.

This is a Coast Guard picture. That is the reality. The fact is, we were told we have the most highly technologically advanced--it is impossible to have any spills as a result of tankers.

The Exxon Valdez.

It simply is not true to suggest that there was not. How is it that it has been quoted here--

Not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause

significant spillage . . .

At least that says ``significant spillage.''

Not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina . . .

It is pretty tough to say that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina. This is why we have to be so cautious about risking the coastlines, the economy, the environment, when it will not produce a drop of oil for over a decade, it will not do anything about gas prices now or in the future, but can create an enormous consequence.

We need to be honest with the American people, and I hope this opportunity to get to the floor and talk about some of the facts and show some of the photos from the Coast Guard will make it very clear.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I came to the floor yesterday to talk about how our Nation must move forward on a new energy future and explain how even if we drilled off all our coastlines it would still meet only 1 percent of our future oil needs. Instead we should be moving toward a renewable energy future and new energy technologies that could actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil by over half.

But today I come to the floor to talk about the proper policing of oil markets because we are in a crisis that is literally bankrupting families and businesses and even threatening entire industries.

Now, I don't often agree with President George Bush, but I have to say in his latest economic analysis, I actually agree with him, because I think it explains part of the reason why we are in a crisis today.

That is right, the President said that ``Wall Street got drunk.'' That is right, the President acknowledged that something was wrong with Wall Street and that ``Wall Street got drunk.''

Now, I don't know if the President meant to say that publically, but it got captured on the Internet. I don't know if he plans to keep saying that or all the intentions he has about trying to sober up Wall Street. But I know elaborating on the President's point, White House press secretary Dana Perino explained:

Well, you know, I actually haven't spoken to him about

this, but I imagine what he meant, as I have heard him

describe it before in both public and private, was that Wall

Street let themselves get carried away and that they did not

understand the risks that the newfangled financial

instruments would pose to markets.

That is what she said.

I don't know why the Bush administration and the regulatory team that they put in place wasn't doing something about this situation. We do know the administration supported deregulation of the financial markets.

And to me, the issue is that while Wall Street was getting drunk, it's really America and the American middle class that is feeling the hangover.

Today the Federal Reserve is struggling to contain what is almost one of the most severe credit crises since the Great Depression, and American families and businesses are paying dearly for the poor decisions and inactions of this administration.

During the past decade, the financial economy seems to have repeated some of the excesses our country has gone through before. So I wonder when we are going to learn the lessons of history and make sure that we in Congress do our job and that regulatory agencies do theirs.

In many ways, today's situation is a repeat of the 1920s when too much borrowing to underwrite too many speculative bets using too much of other people's money set up an the entire economy up for a crash.

Well, in 1999, Congress repealed key parts of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It allowed banks to operate any kind of financial businesses they desired. And it set up a situation where they had multiple conflicts of interest. And several economists and analysts have cited the repeal of this Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis. In fact, Robert Kuttner, cofounder and co-editor of the American Prospect magazine wrote in September 2007:

Hedge funds, private equity companies, and the subprime

mortgage industries have two big things in common. First,

each represents financial middlemen unproductively extracting

wealth from the real economy. Second, each exploits loopholes

in what remains a financial regulation.

Then, in 2000 we also deregulated a new and volatile financial derivative that is at the heart of today's housing credit crisis-- credit default swaps. As White House press secretary Dana Perino would describe it, these newfangled financial instruments that posed a risk to the market actually grew into a $62 trillion industry.

And Warren Buffett has called these credit-swaps financial weapons of mass destruction. So the proliferation of these newfangled financial instruments has resulted in huge profits and losses without any physical goods changing hands.

So now, I come to the floor asking my colleagues when are we going to learn the lessons of the past? When are we going to realize that the the 1929 stock market crash has the same root cause as the recent housing bubble? Both were financed by dangerously, highly leveraged borrowing, and after the crash many banks failed causing a ripple effect that devastated our Nation's economy. Well, after the 1929 crash, Congress stepped up and changed the banking laws to eliminate some of the abuses that had led to the crash.

That is right, only after the crisis did Congress act. What I want to know is whether we are going to learn that vital lesson and legislate consumer protections in advance, or only after a bubble bursts.

The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s when 747 savings and loan associations went under provides a similar lesson. Like before, much of the mess can be traced back to deregulation of the savings and loans which gave them many of the capabilities of banks, but failed to bring them under the same regulations as banks. Congress eliminated regulations designed to prevent lending excesses and minimize failures.

Deregulation allowed lending in a distant loan markets on the promise of higher returns, and it also allowed associations to participate in speculative construction activities with builders and developers who had little or no financial stake in the projects.

The ultimate cost of this crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160 billion, with U.S. taxpayers bailing out the institutions to the tune of $125 billion. This, of course, added to our deficit of the early 1990s.

So I ask my colleagues: When are we going to learn this lesson?

As George Soros wrote in his book documenting the credit crisis:

At the end of World War II, the financial industry--banks,

brokers, other financial institutions--played a very

different role in the economy than they do today. Banks and

markets were strictly regulated . . .

Unfortunately, today's banking and credit crisis teaches us we have failed again to learn the hard lessons. We have failed to see that oversight and transparency are always critical, and when Congress makes reforms, they cannot disregard these important fundamentals.

The only encouraging news I have seen lately is that Treasury Secretary Paulson is now working to increase regulation over investment banks, hedge funds, and other financial institutions.

I could go on and on for my colleagues on my own personal experience with the western energy crisis that happened in electricity in 2000 and 2001. We saw that during the electricity deregulation experience which started in the mid 1990s, people argued that electricity was just another commodity. But it is really a very vital element to our economy. Many experts cautioned that electricity was too vital a part of our economy and way of life to let these markets go without the transparency and oversight that is essential.

We all know the rest of the story. We saw that deregulation set the table for some of Enron's spectacular manipulation schemes of 2000 and 2001 among other bad actors, which all told caused more than $35 billion in economic loss and over 589,000 jobs were lost because of this crisis.

Again, only after the crisis was over, Congress stepped in and gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and now the FTC more regulatory authority on energy markets. But again, Congress is doing its job after the fact.

So I ask my colleagues: When are we going to learn? When are we going to quit deregulating these critical markets without much thought to the transparency and oversight that is critical for markets to operate and function correctly? When are we going to learn that when we give Wall Street an inch, as the President says, Wall Street gets drunk?

We are here today. We are here today to talk about the oil futures market and hopefully enact some meaningful legislation. But the real reason we are here is that we deregulated the energy futures market in 2000, which helped spark today's price bubble that is driving our markets to no longer be based on supply-and-demand fundamentals. In one fell swoop, this deregulation did a number of things that enabled today's perfect storm to brew.

We let newfangled financial instruments--called credit default swaps--go

unregulated and made it too easy to use bad debt to finance home mortgages. We also let newfangled crude oil trading--called energy swaps--go unregulated and essentially allow Wall Street to trade without any transparency. And we allowed electronic trading of energy commodities to emerge as a new form of trading. In a nutshell, we let Wall Street rewrite the rule book for all the traditional exchanges, like as NYMEX and the Chicago Merc, which were previously subject to considerable CFTC oversight.

The consequences of allowing these energy speculators to move into this market, as my colleagues on the floor have said, in spades, shows it is similar to a casino game, instead of playing in the legitimate trading market. And the consequences are the American people paying hand over fist for our lack of regulatory oversight.

Why are we talking about the futures market? Because it should be a key price discovery method to establish the true price based on supply and demand. As the Government Accountability Office has said:

The prices for energy commodities in the futures and in the

spot or physical markets are closely linked because they are

influenced by the same market fundamentals in the long run.

That is right, the prices for the energy commodities in the futures and in the spot or physical markets are closely linked because they are influenced by the same market fundamentals in the long run. So why is that so important? Well, it is important because the facts are clear: Speculation, and excessive speculation, have driven up oil prices over 100 percent in a year, and energy market experts are telling us the price should be more like $60 a barrel.

So people are questioning why the futures market is so high, driving the price people pay at the pump today. Well, as Ed Wallace, with the Dallas Star Telegram, said:

Record high prices without record low oil inventories,

analysts saying that so much money flows into the oil

commodities that it gives the impression of shortages, when

in fact no shortage exists.

So that is to say that when you have record-high prices without the record-low inventories, and I note we haven't had a supply disruption, so much money flows into the oil commodities it gives the impression of a shortage when, in fact, a shortage doesn't actually exist.

Now, I learned this phenomenon the hard way because that's how Enron manipulated the electricity markets coming up with various names for these various schemes--Darth Vader, Get Shorty--where Enron created the perception in the futures market that there was somehow not enough supply and then went in the physical market and signed people up for contracts at exorbitant rates. Thank God, through the hard work of people in my office, a little utility in Washington state actually recovered a tape of a trader talking to one of the individuals from Enron doing a contract and actually saying on the phone: No, this isn't true about the future price, but go ahead and tell your buyer it is so they will sign this contract.

So now we are seeing the same thing happening again. To quote again from the Dallas Star Telegram, in an article called ``ICE ICE BABY'':

Investors know that if they invest huge amounts in the

commodities futures, they can create a shortage on paper,

driving prices up just like an actual shortage.

That is right, investors know they can invest huge amounts in commodities futures and they can create a shortage on paper and drive up the price just like an actual shortage. So, yes, we are concerned.

In fact, that article goes on further, speaking about the Intercontinental Exchange, better known as ICE--that this ICE platform has been a big problem because we have allowed it to operate in the dark without the same regulator oversight as other exchanges. Ed Wallace is also quoted in that article as saying:

What kept traders from cornering the market in the past

where the government's anti-manipulation rules.

He is talking about what kept bad actors in check in the past, but once we deregulated in 2000, they didn't have the same tools in place to keep the manipulation from happening. So we are here today, on the floor now, talking about whether we are going to move ahead on a speculation bill to deal with this problem.

Compounding this problem is that we have a CFTC and an administration that is watching out more for Wall Street than for Main Street. It is up to us to make sure we are going to pass legislation that puts transparency and tough rules in place to make sure the markets work for consumers and that both the future price and physical price of oil today are truly based on supply and demand.

Americans may be surprised to learn that our oil futures markets were further deregulated--besides this 2000 Act. I am talking about a CFTC decision made by staff behind closed doors who decided to take no action against a London-based trading exchange that actually trades U.S. oil products. As my colleague from Maryland likes to call it, the London loophole. It is like driving on a U.S. highway but only applying the same speed limits as the German Autobahn.

It is abundantly clear to me that the CFTC is doing everything it can to continue to operate this way without thinking about its job, which is to protect the American consumers from oil price manipulation. So that's why I am making no secret of the fact that I am holding up the renomination of CFTC commissioners. And I am holding up new appointments to the CFTC until Congress gets to the bottom of this and we can get Commissioners who are going to enforce the law on the books.

Hardworking Americans are counting on us and are suffering in this crisis. Congress is their last resort as an oversight agency to make sure there are functioning markets and not the manipulation of supply based on the fact that we have created dark markets without proper oversight. But don't just listen to me on this subject about the CFTC. Listen to what other people have said about our CFTC, our Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Others have been critical as well. In fact, William Engdahl, who is an expert and an author on oil markets, wrote in May of this year:

The CFTC seems to have deliberately walked away from their

mandated oversight responsibilities in the world's most

important traded commodity--oil.

So there is one expert who doesn't think the CFTC is doing its job. Another expert, Steven Briese, who is a futures market analyst and author of the ``Commitments of Traders Bible,'' which is a futures market trade publication, wrote in May of this year as well:

Congress has provided the CFTC the power to control this

unlimited speculation--the law is very specific about

establishing position limits. The problem is they have

abdicated this role.

He is talking about the ``behind the closed door'' situation where the CFTC said: We are not going to enforce the laws we have on the books.

We have heard from other people, Mark Cooper, of the Consumer Federation of America, recently testifying before Congress, because the Consumer Federation of America focuses on protecting consumers. He had something to say about the CFTC's poor performance. In fact, he said the CFTC's poor performance is ``the regulatory equivalent to FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina.''

What he is basically saying is they dropped the ball, at least at the beginning of this crisis, and have not responded.

So there are other people who have said things, like the trucking industry. They have a big stake in making sure the markets function properly. They say: ``There's oversight that's lacking or not taking place--so the private market is taking advantage of that.''

So, Madam President, I am not the only person. I know The Washington Post has also talked about this. They said, in an article: ``The CFTC has exempted these firms from rules that limit speculative buying, a prerogative traditionally reserved for airlines and trucking companies that needed to lock in future fuel costs.''

So it is clear the CFTC has abdicated its authority and responsibility. It has abdicated its authority and responsibility, and we have been trying to clean this up and to push forward on important efforts in this regard.

Madam President, I would like at this time to reference for the record a document prepared by Professor Michael Greenberger that responds to information from the Senate Permanent

Subcommittee on Investigations. I know the SPI staff analysis of Professor Greenberger's recent testimony before Congress on this topic has been discussed on the floor, and I would like to make my colleagues aware of his rebuttal to that PSI staff report.

Now, I am sure many of my colleagues probably didn't realize I was going to come and talk so much about the history of Congress deregulating markets, the crises that have ensued--billions of dollars paid by taxpayers--and Congress finally coming in and doing its job and making sure oversight agencies are performing their proper role and responsibility. But I thought it was important context so that we do not repeat the same mistakes.

Some of my colleagues today talked about the CFTC's recent investigation that uncovered oil market manipulation, which underscores the point. The CFTC could only take action against traders that are using exchanges regulated under their purview. What we need to ask is: what are we going to do about the dark markets, the markets that operate within the United States with U.S.-traded products that have been given an exemption and loophole in oil futures that we are not regulating and are probably also causing the problem? We want to know what they are doing about that.

So what is the American consumer saying about this? I know my colleagues have been saying a lot about Americans and what their preferences are. But it is clear to me that the American public wants us to act. In fact, 80 percent of the American public believes that oil commodities speculation and manipulation of the oil markets are taking place. That is right. They want Congress to act. Eighty percent of Americans polled said they believe oil commodities speculators are manipulating the price of oil. So Americans are very concerned.

Two-thirds of Americans believe we should pass legislation that creates new regulations governing all oil speculators. They want us to put back in place the rules we had before we threw them out in 2000. So two-thirds of Americans polled believe we should pass legislation that creates the necessary regulations, and that is what we need to be doing today.

I wish to make sure I am clear to my colleagues. We have done a great service by having an open debate on these issues. And just this week, experts said the Senate action is one of the reasons prices have fallen $20 below where they were, because we have had this discussion what a more regulated marketplace should look like. But I want to make sure my colleagues are clear that we need to pass legislation that really will crack down on excessive speculation. We cannot have a study bill, we cannot punt this to the future. We have to pass a bill that really addresses all areas of potential for excessive speculation. We need a bill that has aggregate speculation limits across all exchanges. It has to be transparent, and it has to be enforced on all markets.

We cannot have a bill on the Senate floor that has all the right words in it but none of the important words in the proper places. That is what I am going to continue to fight for. I am going to continue to fight to make sure we put real teeth back into the law, to make sure the American consumer is protected from the manipulation of oil markets in the future.

We can give the CFTC the tools it needs, and we must insist that it use them, but we will have to do our job here and pass this important legislation. Wall Street may be drunk, but it is America that is suffering the hangover, and we must help them recover. We need a new, tough law on the books, and it is imperative that we learn from the past mistakes of Congress in their attempt to lighten the load on some of these financial institutions with tools, only to find it wreaking havoc with housing oil speculation bubbles that is causing our country great distress. I hope we get this right in the next couple of days, and I am going to continue to fight until we do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is an unusual day in the Senate. I have been in this body for a while. I have never seen the floor so crowded. I have sought, since early morning, to find a little floor time and have waited more than an hour at the present time, past the time I was scheduled to speak. I am glad to listen.

I am beginning, on my consideration of the pending legislation, the energy speculation bill, to note what is happening on the Senate floor. There has been a lot of talk, a lot of talk in the Senate for the last 4 days, and really no action--only one vote on Tuesday morning on a procedural matter to invoke cloture to proceed to the consideration of the bill. What has happened? We have been talking a great deal but not considering anything which would advance an energy policy for the United States.

We are engaged in a process which is a little difficult to understand, but I think it is important for the American people to know what is happening. A procedure has been utilized recently--the past couple of decades--where the majority leader exercises his rights as leader to take a procedural step which precludes anybody from offering amendments to the bill.

This is an opportunity. The Senate Chamber is empty, which it is frequently, certainly past 7 o'clock on a Thursday evening, but it is very hard

to convey this information so that people would understand why no action is being taken in the Senate. There is no doubt that it is a do- nothing Senate and has been for some time as a result of political gridlock. That is why the ratings of the Senate have plummeted.

We have a situation which really started to percolate back in 1992, and it has been a practice of both Democrats and Republicans. Customarily--really invariably--when there is political blame in this body, it is attributable to both political parties. You can divide it right down the center aisle, and it is evenly split. But this procedure to preclude amendments is of fairly recent origin.

In the 101st Congress of 1989 to 1990, where Senator Mitchell was the leader, he did not use this procedure on any occasion. But by the 103rd Congress, 1993 to 1994, Senator Mitchell employed it on nine occasions. Then it was picked up in the Republican tenure of Senator Lott in the 106th Congress, in 1999 to 2000, when Senator Lott used it nine times. Then, in the 109th Congress, 2005 to 2006, Senator Frist, the majority leader, used it nine times. In this Congress, the 110th, 2007 and partly through 2008, Senator Reid has used it 13 times.

What does this mean so that it can be understood by the American people who have such a vital interest in having the Senate function? Let me illustrate it with a bill on climate change which was called up in June of this year.

As soon as the bill was called up, Senator Reid exercised his rights as leader to get first recognition. In the Senate, Senators are recognized in terms of who first seeks recognition, but in case of a tie it goes to the leader. He then offers an amendment and then another amendment so that procedurally no other of the 99 Senators can offer any amendment.

The global warming bill was a very important bill. There has been a demand to deal with this issue which poses great threats to our environment. There was legislation pending, legislation which Senator Bingaman and I had introduced, the Bingaman-Specter bill, legislation introduced by Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner on a very complex subject.

Early in the week of June 2, I came to the floor and spoke about some amendments which I wanted to offer. I wanted to offer an amendment on emission caps. I wanted to offer another amendment on cost-containment safety valve--a price cap. I wanted to offer a third amendment on energy-intensive manufacturing competitiveness and a fourth amendment on steel process gas emissions. Of course, that was only one Senator, at the beginning of what I wanted to have considered. But I was foreclosed from offering any of those amendments by the procedure which Senator Reid used to fill the tree.

Then Senator Reid moved for what is called cloture; that means to cut off debate in order to proceed to final passage of the bill.

I wanted to consider the global warming issue, but I certainly was not about to agree to cutting off debate and proceeding to final passage before I or others had had an opportunity to offer amendments.

Now, what happens as a result? The result is that Republicans complain about what Senator Reid has done on precluding amendments, and Senator Reid complains about it being another Republican filibuster in response to the Republican's inability to offer amendments.

So there is finger-pointing. That is what we are really good at these days. And the American people do not understand anything except that nothing is being done. Now, we have had consideration this week on a bill called the energy speculation bill. We all wonder why the cost of oil has gone through the roof, causing gasoline prices of more than $4 a gallon.

There is no doubt about the anguish and difficulties that the American people are suffering as a result of these costs, of these prices. And there is concern about the speculators who may be involved. Maybe they are. There are some indicators that part of the problem is caused by speculation.

Well, we haven't dealt with the issue in a logical, factual way; that is, for Senators to come to the floor and address the substance of the bill which is pending or offer amendments to modify the bill which is pending.

Now, Senator Reid, the majority leader, has followed the same course of action. He has filed cloture. We are going to have a cloture vote tomorrow. It takes 60 votes for cloture to cut off debate. It will not happen. When the motion for cloture fails, Senator Reid is going to go to his podium over there, and he is going to blast the Republicans for shutting down the bill at a time when the American people need relief, at a time when the American people need a decision as to what the speculators are doing.

I want to offer an amendment on bringing OPEC within our antitrust laws; something that I have been pushing for years. Right now, the OPEC combine has an exemption under our antitrust laws. The OPEC nations get into a room, they decide how much the production is going to be, they limit supply, and the price of oil goes up.

They have what is called sovereign immunity. Well, they ought not to have it. The Congress of the United States has the authority to change that. We can bring them within our antitrust laws so that the Attorney General can take action against them.

They are subject to jurisdiction in the United States because they do business here, and they have a lot of assets here. If we brought OPEC within our antitrust laws, you would see a change in their policy. They have argued for a long time--Saudi Arabia--that they cannot have any greater production. But about a month ago, when there were some signs of change in our consumption of oil, some fear that their preeminent position in their monopoly was in some jeopardy, somehow they increased their production.

If they increase their production, if the supply goes up, prices will come down--the inexorable law of supply and demand, one of the few laws that works.

So here we are, with an enormously serious problem with what is happening with the issue of oil prices and gasoline prices, and here we have a bill on the floor which addresses an issue of grave concern to the American people, and my hands are tied. My hands are tied with 99 other Senators because procedurally we are blocked.

Then the next move is going to be to invoke cloture. It is not going to be invoked. Debate is not going to be cut off; 60 votes will not be received. Then the majority leader will remove the bill from the floor, and he is going to blame Republicans for obstructing, and the American people are not going to have any opportunity to understand what went on, except for the few who were watching on C-SPAN.

I made this speech during the consideration of the global warming bill. There was not a word in the newspapers about it. Why? Well, it is too complicated. It is too arcane. It is too ``inside the beltway.'' But until the American people understand it and send a message to Washington that they are not going to tolerate it, we are going to have to continue to have this gridlock.

When the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans controlled the Senate, during the time when Senator Frist was the majority leader, he invoked this procedure on nine occasions. Senator Reid and the Democrats were very unhappy about it, as well as Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd.

This is what Senator Dodd had to say about it:

This chamber historically is the place where debate occurs.

And what Senator Dodd is referring to is that the Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, Senators have been able to offer any amendment on any subject at any time. And that is one of the great beauties about the Senate because any one of us can bring up an issue and call the attention of the American people to it, and with sufficient public backing, sufficient newspaper coverage, radio, TV, a little broader than C-SPAN2, there can be some action. But that has been foreclosed.

Senator Dodd was very emphatic about it back on May 11, 2006, when the Republican leader, Senator First, had filled the tree. Senator Dodd had this to say:

To basically lock out any amendments that might be offered

to this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of this

body. When the amendment tree has been entirely filled--

He called it filling the tree when the procedure is used--

when the amendment tree has been entirely filled, obviously

we are dealing with a process that ought not to be. The

Senate ought to be a place where we can offer amendments,

have healthy debate over a reasonable time, and then come

to closure on the subject matter.

Well, what did Senator Reid have to say about this subject on March 2, 2006, when we were debating the PATRIOT Act? Senator Reid said:

Do not fill the tree. That is a bad way, in my opinion, to

run this Senate.

What did Senator Reid have to say about the subject on February 28, 2006, on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, speaking about filling the tree.

This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic

nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free

speech and open debate.

What did Senator Durbin have to say about it, the assistant majority leader for the Democrats, on May 11, 2006, when the Republican majority leader had filled the tree and precluded amendments?

The Republican majority brings a bill to the Senate, fills

the tree so no amendments can be offered, and then files

cloture which stops debate; we cannot offer amendments.

So Senator Durbin outlines it as I did: The Republican majority leader fills the tree and then files cloture. Well, cloture was not adopted, and then these important issues are not considered and the American people wonder what is going on.

Well, I have taken a little longer to explain the subject, but it is very hard to get it across. I am going to keep trying. I have acted within the Senate to try to get the rule changed. A year and a half ago, I filed a rule amendment to try to get the rule changed. On February 15, 2007, I introduced S. Res. 83, and so far, I have not been able to get an answer from the chairman of the Rules Committee about what action she intends to take.

I might say to my colleague from Washington that I have been waiting an hour. I have limited time. But I am always a little wary when I see a colleague waiting. But there are some other subjects I want to talk about, so I want to give you some advance notice.

May the record show that Senator Murray has graciously given me a hand signal, sort of like the Patriots used in the Jets game, a hand signal, understanding that I am going to talk a little more. I will try to be brief, but there are some subjects I do want to address.

Iran

I am very encouraged by what the administration has done as noted in the Washington Post within the past few days. The President has sent his first high-level emissary to sit down with Iran and has agreed for the first time to set a time horizon for withdrawing troops from Iraq and has authorized the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to join the North Korean diplomats at the Six Party talks about ending that country's nuclear weapons program.

I would urge the President, in the course of these talks, to exercise flexibility in the dealings with Iran. There is no doubt that on the international scene the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is the most serious international threat there is in the world today. No doubt about that. It is intolerable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon when its President talks about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth. And when Iran flouts international law by supporting international terrorists, no doubt about the threat that would pose.

It has been my urging of the administration that the United States not impose a precondition on the talks. The object of the talks is to stop Iran from continuing to process nuclear weapons and to abandon their effort to get nuclear weapons. They should stop their activities on processing uranium.

It seems to me where the object of the talks is to stop Iran from processing nuclear materials, that ought not to be a precondition of the talks. It is very difficult to go to a sovereign nation, it seems to me, and say: Before we begin the talks, we want you to have a freeze on processing nuclear materials, which is the object of our talks.

We have to approach anybody in any situation with a certain amount of dignity, with a certain amount of understanding about the other person's position, if we are to find some way to solve the problem. The administration talks about a freeze for freeze, but the freezes are very different. The freeze demanded by Iran is for them to stop a process which they have been engaged in, which they have asserted they have a right to as a sovereign nation. We don't like what they are doing. If they become a sufficient threat under the U.N. charter, article 51, there are circumstances where the threat is sufficiently imminent to take preemptive action. We all hope we never get to that stage. But until you have that situation, they are a sovereign nation, and they are engaging in activities which sovereign nations do.

The freeze we are offering is a freeze to not impose sanctions to take negative action against Iran. It is the projection of the six powers, led by the United States, that we have suggestions to make to Iran on a package of economic, political, a variety of incentives to stop Iran from processing nuclear material. It seems to me the best way to get on with it is to start to discuss with Iran what we have to offer specifically, to see if what we have to offer will be sufficient on the talks or to engage in the discussions and in the negotiations. We do know that notwithstanding the grave difficulties in dealing with North Korea, that when the United States was willing to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea, we made some progress. We thought the North Korean leadership was impossible, but we were able to work through it.

Similarly, in dealing with Libya and Qadhafi, we were able to work out an arrangement where Libya, Qadhafi, stopped the development of nuclear weapons. Qadhafi is the greatest terrorist in the history of the world; with very heavy competition, the greatest terrorist in the history of the world. He blew up Pan Am 103. It was proved that he did it. He made reparations to the passengers. He blew up a discotheque in Germany, killed American soldiers. Yet through discussions, through talks, he has been brought back into the so-called family of nations. Libya has a seat on the Security Council. It is hard for me, frankly, to understand how we have gone that far with Libya, but that goes to show how far we can go.

As these talks proceed, it would be my hope the United States would show flexibility. When the Secretary of State talks about their having 2 weeks to respond, I don't think that is the way negotiators deal in putting on time limits. Iran responded, apparently, according to the media reports, with a long written statement which was not understandable. But they have quite a number of points which they want to make. I have had the opportunity, and have discussed this on the Senate floor at some length, of having a number of discussions with the current Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. and the previous two Ambassadors. There are people from Iran whom you can talk to in a sensible way. But a demand on a precondition that they stop processing nuclear material, which is the object of the talks, seems to me to be totally counterproductive.

I have raised these issues at some considerable length over the course of the past year and a half, going back to an appropriations hearing on February 27, 2007, when Secretary of State Rice was before the committee, posing the issue with her as to why the precondition. I had an extensive discussion with her, similarly, with Secretary of Defense Gates, in hearings before the Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It is worth noting that when Secretary of Defense Gates was on the Commission evaluating United States-Iranian relations, he was a party to recommending discussions with Iran. These discussions, these lines of questioning and responses are lengthy.

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

Mr. President, there is one further subject I wish to discuss. This will be not relatively brief, but brief. That is a discussion which is pending between Syria and Israel with Turkey acting as an intermediary. It would be my hope and suggestion to the President that he extend the flexibility which he is now showing as to Iran and North Korea and Iraq to assist in the Israeli-Syrian negotiations. The United States was instrumental in negotiations back in 1995, when Prime Minister Rabin almost came to terms with Syria on the Golan Heights. It is a very difficult subject that I don't believe anybody should tell Israel or suggest to Israel or in any way pressure Israel as to what to do about the Golan Heights. It is a decision Israel has to make for itself on their security. But it is a different world than it was in 1967, when Israel took the Golan Heights. Now we have a world of rockets, and security matters are entirely different.

Again, the United States participated extensively in the Syrian- Israeli talks in the year 2000. I have made many trips to Syria since 1984. I got to know President Hafez al-Asad and traveled to the Middle East extensively and recommended to a number of Israeli Prime Ministers the desirability of my view--at least in one man's opinion--to have the negotiations. Right now there is a unique opportunity which could impact on Lebanon. Syria is opening an embassy in Lebanon, treating Lebanon as a sovereign nation which is quite a shift. Syria has enormous influence on Hezbollah. It is a very complex subject in Lebanon, with Hezbollah having significant power in the government, a veto in their Parliament. Syria has considerable influence with Hamas. If the circumstances were right, there is a great opportunity to separate Syria from Iran, a great opportunity to get some assistance with Syria on some major problems. It is unknowable whether that can happen. But I do believe dialog is the way. It would be my hope the President would show he still has muscle. He is going to be in the White House for 6 months. What he has done with respect to North Korea and Iran and Iraq shows he is not taking his last 6 months with a view that there are things he can accomplish. I refer to an extensive article I have written on this subject which summarizes a good many of my activities and views in the Washington Quarterly for 2006-2007.

I thank my colleague from Washington for her patience, if, in fact, she has been patient. It is always difficult with Senators having the right to speak. But it took me more than an hour to get the floor after waiting most of the day. As usual, Senator Murray is gracious and nodding in the affirmative. I thank her and the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about a practice that is being employed on a widespread basis, which I believe undercuts the fundamental institutional integrity of the Senate. I am referring now to a procedure known as filling the tree. That is an expression used inside the beltway--inside the Senate Chamber--for action taken by the majority leader to establish a procedural situation where no Senator can offer any other amendment.

The long tradition of the Senate has been it is an institution that encourages, harbors, fosters open debate, the presentation of issues, the discussion of matters, to bring not only in this limited Chamber, or beyond on C-SPAN2, if anybody is watching, but to the entire country.

That is what distinguished the Senate from the House of Representatives, for example. In the House, they have what is called a rule, and Members may offer amendments only in a very limited, circumscribed way and then in a limited period of time. But under Senate rules, any Senator may offer virtually any amendment virtually at almost any time on any subject and speak in an unlimited way, as long as he retains the floor.

Last week, the Senate took up legislation of great importance on global

warming. There are many complex issues involved in that subject. We started off with legislation which had been offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner that had been modified by Senator Boxer, the chairperson of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and there were many other proposals in the wings waiting to be considered. One of those proposals was legislation prepared by Senator Bingaman and myself, the Bingaman-Specter bill.

In the consideration of global warming, there were many complex matters. I don't intend to go through all of them now, but illustrative of that is the issue of technology. Is the technology adequate to accommodate the goals and standards of Lieberman-Warner? What would be the economic impact on the provisions of global warming in terms of encouraging foreign countries to ship to the United States on exclusions where they might not have the same limitations?

For example, in the steel industry. On that particular subject, I testified before the Finance Committee last February 14 about the need for the United States to be a leader on global warming, but at the same time not to sacrifice our industry to foreign goods, and noted that the Chinese wanted a 30-year exemption. If they had gotten that, there would not be any steel industry. But there were many issues.

I came to the Senate floor a week ago today to speak on the subject on June 2. And then I returned to speak again on June 3. Then, by Wednesday, June 4, I found out that we were on our way to having the tree filled. Actually, I spoke on June 2, 3, and June 5 and found when there was no opportunity to offer amendments, I filed four amendments.

I bring up that matter because then there was a cloture motion on Friday. A cloture motion requires 60 votes. If we are going to do it on a Friday, it is extremely difficult to find enough Senators to have an adequate showing as to what it means.

In any event, the cloture motion vote was held, and the cloture motion fell far short. The majority leader took the bill down, and now we are no longer considering the question of global warming. That is a matter which, in my judgment, warrants very considerable time by the Senate. I don't know whether it is 2 weeks or 3 weeks or how many weeks it is, but I know it is a lot more than 4 days. And now it is gone.

Regrettably, it is not just global warming which is involved. Not long ago, we have had the issue of the so-called Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, S. 1843, legislation which would change the statute of limitations on enforcing employment rights for equal pay. This bill was introduced because the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-to-4 decision, enforced a 6-month statute of limitations on a woman who wanted to claim her Federal rights to equal pay.

It seemed to me the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States was wrong. The plaintiff was being foreclosed an opportunity to go to court to get equal pay when she didn't even know she had the cause of action or the right to do that.

This issue then was the subject of a cloture motion. The motion to proceed failed on cloture 56 to 42. The bill was given no process. There was no committee referral, no debate, no opportunity for amendments, just talking points for Democrats, an illustration where cloture was filed.

The tradition of the Senate has always been to have legislation offered, to have it debated. If there is objection, people oppose it. If people are very determined not to allow it to come to a vote without a supermajority--that is, getting 60 votes for cloture--then they filibuster. But in the course of that process, there is an awakening of the American people about what is going on.

A good illustration would be the historic civil rights debates which went on in this Chamber for very protracted periods of time. But the American people hardly have any idea about what is involved in equal pay for women when the matter is called to the Senate floor and in a virtual nanosecond is dispensed with.

Had the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act received extensive debate, had there been opposition, had there been discussion, had there been some idea by the American people about what was going on, there could have been some public opinion registered on that as a very important matter.

The great difficulty is this is not a machination of the current majority leader. This is a practice which has been building up for a considerable period of time and, as with the case of so many matters, it is a matter of equal blame on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats.

In a survey by CRS, going back to 1985, it was used infrequently. Senator Dole used it five times in 1985 and 1986; Senator Byrd, three times in 1987 and 1988. Senator Mitchell did not use it at all in 1989 and 1990. Then in 1991 and 1992, Senator Mitchell used it one time. Then in 1993 and 1994, Senator Mitchell used it nine times. In 1995 and 1996, Senator Dole and Senator Lott used it five times. In 1997 and 1998, Senator Lott used it three times. In 1999 and 2000, Senator Lott used it nine times. Senator Daschle then used it once in the next 2 years. The following 2 years, 2003 and 2004, Senator Frist used it three times. Then in 2005 and 2006, Senator Frist used it nine times. And in the 110th Congress, so far, Senator Reid has used it 12 times. Every time that it is used, it totally undercuts the ability of the Senate to function in its traditional way.

Senator Reid had this to say about this practice when he was not the majority leader but when he was the leader of the minority, the leader of the Democrats back on February 28, 2006. He was speaking in defense of a fellow Democrat's ability to offer amendments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Senator Reid of Nevada said this:

Of course, even a good bill can be improved. That is why we

have an amendment process in the Senate. I am disappointed

that he has been denied that opportunity by a procedural

maneuver known as ``filling the amendment tree.''

Senator Reid goes on:

This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic

nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free

speech and open debate. Rule XXII establishes a process for

cutting off debate and amendments, but rule XXII should

rarely be invoked before any amendments have been offered . .

. I will vote against cloture to register my objection to

this flawed process.

Senator Reid made similar comments a short time later on March 2, 2006, saying:

Don't fill the tree . . . That is a bad way, in my opinion,

to run this Senate.

Senator Durbin, speaking on May 11, 2006, on the 2005 tax reconciliation conference report said:

The Republican majority brings a bill to the Senate, fills

the tree so no amendments can be offered, and then files

cloture which stops debate. So we cannot have this

conversation. We cannot offer other amendments.

I cite Senator Reid and Senator Durbin with particularity because they are the two leaders of the Democrats at the present time.

An eloquent statement on this subject was made by Senator Dodd on May 11, 2006. Senator Dodd had this to say when he was speaking about health care legislation:

I want to point out to our colleagues why I am terribly

disappointed with the procedures we have been confronted with

this evening dealing with this legislation . . . This is the

Senate. This Chamber historically is the place where debate

occurs. To have a process here this evening . . . to

basically lock out any amendments that might be offered to

this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of this body

. . . if you believe the Senate ought to be heard on a

variety of issues relating to the subject matter--when the

amendment tree has been entirely filled, then obviously we

are dealing with a process that ought not to be . . . the

Senate ought to be a place where we can offer amendments,

have healthy debate over a reasonable time, and then come to

closure on the subject matter.

I could go on at considerable length with other Senators making the same point. But here we have issues of gigantic importance which are not being considered. They are not being debated. They are not being explained. They are not being subject to questioning on the Senate floor, one Senator on another.

The educational process of telling America what the alternatives and prospects are for legislative change is not being explored. Not surprisingly, it is bipartisan. About the only thing that is bipartisan around this place is various mechanisms to gain political advantage.

We have had furious debates over the issue of confirmation of judges, a subject on which I have spoken repeatedly

and have noted that in the past 20 years, every time the Senate is controlled by a party opposite the President, there is a slowdown of the confirmation process. It happened during the last 2 years of President Reagan's administration in 1987 and 1988 when Democrats won control of the Senate in the 1986 election. It happened in the last 2 years of the administration of President George H.W. Bush, and during the administration of President Clinton where we Republicans controlled the Senate for the last 6 years, it was exacerbated. It was even worse in blocking President Clinton's nominations.

As I have said on this floor on occasion, I voted with the Democrats. I thought the Republican caucus was wrong and said so. But each time it has been exacerbated and become more intense.

Then this body saw a very sharp debate in 2005 where there was the consideration of the so-called nuclear or constitutional option, which would have changed the filibuster rule from 60 to 51. Now we are, again, in a period of gridlock. There is no doubt that the very low public opinion ratings of us are due to the public realization, the public disgust about all the bickering that goes on here. The public sees it on many items, the partisanship and the effort at a partisan advantage. But I do believe the public does not have an understanding of these arcane rules, like filling the tree. They can hardly have an understanding since most Members of this body don't understand exactly how it works.

Mr. President, this is not a matter that comes to me this afternoon or yesterday or the day before. I have been watching it for a considerable period of time, and 18 months ago, on February 15, 2007, I introduced S. Res. 83, a resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to prohibit filling the amendment tree. So far there has not been a hearing and not been any action on that, but I intend to press this issue. I intend to try to bring some understanding to the American people beyond the confines of this Chamber.

I don't think I am going to have a whole lot of effect on my colleagues this afternoon because there are none of my colleagues here this afternoon, except for the--no, no, I know the distinguished Senator from Maryland is here--except for the distinguished Presiding Officer. And I compliment my colleague, Senator Ben Cardin, on his fast start in the Senate. Of course, he had a lot of advanced training having come from the House of Representatives and been a leader in the Maryland Legislature. I work with him on the Judiciary Committee, and he is a first-class Senator. That extract can be used--let's see, you ran in 2006--you can use it in 2012, 2018, 2024, and 2030, Senator Cardin, but beyond 2030, I am reserving my judgment.

But Senators are busy, and I am not in any way critical of Senators not being here, but I intend to speak on the subject repetitively. I don't know that will do any good, but I intend to do that.

For years, Senator Proxmire used to stand at his seat on the aisle speaking about genocide. Every day he came to the Senate floor, and he was motivated because there was no television at the time he was speaking about genocide. I think television came while he was still speaking on the subject. Senator Proxmire was a remarkable Senator in many ways. My recollection is that he had 17,000 votes, which he didn't miss. I am not sure about the exact statistic, but I am sure he spoke extensively on genocide, and he had an impact. And now we know that genocide has been picked up as a crime against humanity and has been the subject of prosecutions under the War Crimes Tribunal.

So I intend to speak about this subject with some frequency, and I intend to press for a hearing on my resolution. I intend to press to see if we can get some action because if the American people knew what was going on, the American people would not like it. The American people live under the illusion that we have a United States Senate. The facts show that the Senate is realistically dysfunctional. It is on life support, perhaps even moribund. The only facet of Senate bipartisanship is the conspiracy of successive Republican and Democratic leaders to employ this procedural device known as filling the tree. It is known that way to insiders, and it is incomprehensible to outsiders.

Once known as a unique legislative institution, the Senate was referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body because any Senator could introduce almost any amendment on virtually any subject and get a vote on it. That was, as noted, the distinguishing feature from the House of Representatives, which is tightly controlled by the Rules Committee to restrict the parameters on what amendments are in order.

A principal reason, perhaps the main reason for the use of the procedural device of filling the tree, was to save the majority from taking tough votes. That backfired on Republicans in the last Congress, where the filling the tree rule was used in order to avoid bad votes. And, of course, we know the procedure backfired pretty hard for Republicans to lose control of the Senate. In the 2006 election we had to lose seven seats, a virtual impossibility, but we managed to do it.

But more important than the partisanship, more important than the increased use by both Democratic and Republican majority leaders is the impact it has on this institution. And more important than that is the impact it has on the legislative process and the working through legislation, which ought to be considered and, where warranted, enacted for the benefit of the American people.

Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.