Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Stevens and Inouye, the Travel Promotion Act of 2007. We seek with this bill to increase travel to the United States and rebuild the country's place in the global travel market. After 9/11, the number of overseas travelers to the United States decreased dramatically and has still not recovered. Travel and tourism are a crucial part of our export industry, but other countries have gained market share to our detriment. Foreign travelers are going elsewhere.

The absence of federal leadership in travel promotion has resulted in States having to step in to fill that void. An example is the effort made by my home State of North Dakota, where tourism is the State's second largest industry, with visitors spending $3.36 billion in 2004. The investment that North Dakota made to encourage travel and tourism has reaped enormous benefits, with the State getting a return of investment of almost $82 for each dollar spent on travel promotion.

While States have made inroads to attracting travelers, the lack of a coordinated federal campaign creates a comparative disadvantage with countries that have centralized ministries or offices to encourage international travel to their countries. The example of North Dakota should be a lesson for the entire country. The United States offers unique and diverse destinations for travelers--a small investment in national coordination has the potential to create a significant windfall for our economy.

The Travel Promotion Act of 2007 will promote travel to the U.S., including areas not traditionally visited, highlighting the United States as a premier travel destination. The bill

will improve communication of United States travel policies and perceptions of the process. Negative perceptions can often deter foreigners from traveling to the United States. Our communities will benefit from growth of this multi-billion dollar industry. With an increase in visitors they will experience an increase in jobs and expansion of local economies.

The bill initiates a nationally coordinated travel promotion campaign established in a public-private partnership to increase international travel to the United States. It creates a Corporation for Travel Promotion, an independent, nonprofit corporation, to run the travel promotion campaign. The program will be funded equally by a small fee paid by foreign travelers visiting the U.S. and matching contributions from the travel industry.

This is a great country, and we should welcome visitors to our shores to meet our people and experience our culture. I thank the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for joining with me to develop this campaign and promote travel to our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on law enforcement in Indian Country.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

committee on rules and administration

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

Mr. President, I wish to comment on a couple of issues dealing with the Energy bill this morning. We will be back on the Energy bill starting on Monday. Before I do, I wish to mention as well the Washington Post column by Robert Novak yesterday entitled ``Dorgan's Poison Pill.'' Mr. Novak once again stops just about a page or two short of good research. He has the opportunity on the op-ed page of a major paper to make his case, and we are so seldom offered that same opportunity by the Washington Post that I thought I would at least use the floor of the Senate to describe accurately what Mr. Novak was trying to write about.

He talks about an amendment I offered to the immigration bill. He calls it a ``poison pill'' in the title, and then he says: Dorgan pushed his ``killer amendment'' by voicing the Great Plains populism of his own State. That is sort of sniffing down your nose at the Great Plains populism that exists in some parts of this country.

Let me describe what this amendment was. The immigration bill is a bill that is complicated, it is controversial, it is a very large bill, and it has a lot of moving parts to it. One part of the bill deals with the issue of bringing in guest workers--people who aren't now here, who are living elsewhere in other parts of the world--bringing them in to take American jobs.

Now, I have great difficulty with the immigration bill as it is written. My feeling about immigration is we have a problem with illegal immigration. That is true, we certainly do, and we ought to try to address that problem. I think the first way and the thoughtful way to address that problem is to decide we are going to provide border security and border enforcement--just do first things first. First of all, provide border enforcement, and then we can do the other things.

That is not what this bill does. This bill brings in about six or eight moving parts, and in order to sign up support for it--for example, in order to get the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to support it, they also include a temporary or guest worker program that says we have people who are not now in this country whom we want to bring into this country to take American jobs because we don't have enough American workers, they claim.

In fact, they put together this Byzantine approach that says guest workers will come in, they will be able to bring their family with them and stay for 2 years. They have to go home for 1 year, take their family home, and then they can come back for 2 more years, then go home for 1 year and come back for 2 more years. So they can be here a total of 6 years, with 2 years gone, and their family with them their first or second tour. And by the way, no one knows whether they are going to go home once they get here. Who is going to keep track of people coming in three times in 6 years for 2-year periods each of the three occasions?

I offered an amendment on that particular issue of guest and temporary workers who would come in to take these jobs. My amendment was very simple. It said: Let's sunset that provision after 5 years and try to understand what has happened as a result of it, what has happened to American workers as a result of bringing in all these temporary workers. Is there downward pressure on American wages? Has this hurt American workers? My guess is it will. What if 80 percent of the people who come in under the temporary worker program never leave? Then they are here as illegal immigrants. Maybe that ought to matter. Maybe we should sunset this in 5 years and take a look at it.

That was my amendment. It passed by one vote on the floor of the Senate and is described by Mr. Novak as the ``poison pill,'' the ``killer amendment.'' That is unbelievable. I know where he got the language. He got the language from my colleagues here who were part of the ``grand bargain''--a group of 14, I think it was, who went into a room, reached a grand bargain putting together this Byzantine immigration bill, brought it to the floor, and behaved as if they were the only people out of 100 Senators who had any ideas. There are 14 of us who have this idea, they believed, and anybody who offers amendments would not have an idea that would be worthy of improving it; therefore, we must resist and oppose all amendments.

That is the way this immigration bill went on the floor of the Senate. But it was not a poison pill or a killer amendment or anything of the sort. It was a kind of commonsense approach to try to say: Why don't we do this the right way?

Mr. Novak points to my colleague, Senator Kyl from Arizona, in his column. It is interesting. Mr. Kyl was part of the grand compromise and, of course, described my amendment, I think, as a ``poison pill.'' Mr. Kyl voted for the identical amendment 1 year ago. I offered the identical amendment 1 year ago, and Senator Kyl voted for it then.

But those are just facts that Mr. Novak missed because, as I said, when you stop one page short of good research, you are not going to have the entire story.

Energy

Mr. President, let me now talk just a bit about the Energy bill. This is important.

We live on this little old planet, we circle the Sun, and we have about 6.4 billion neighbors. We live in this little portion of the planet called the United States, and we have built an economy that is extraordinary. We have expanded the middle class, created an economic engine that is almost unparalleled on this Earth.

In this planet we stick little straws and suck out oil. We suck out about 84 to 85 million barrels of oil every single day. One-fourth of that oil must come to the United States and be used here because we need it. We use one-fourth of all the oil every day that is pulled out of this earth, and 60 percent of the oil we use in this country comes from outside of our country. So we use one-fourth of the oil on the Earth every day, and over 60 percent of it comes from elsewhere. It comes from the Saudis--Saudi Arabia--Kuwait, Iraq, and Venezuela. Some troubled parts of the world--very troubled parts of the world--produce a substantial portion of the oil we need for our economy to work. If, God forbid, one morning we woke up and terrorists had interrupted the pipeline of oil to our country from troubled parts of the world, our economy would be flat on its back, and that is reason we have an energy bill on the floor of the Senate.

I think this is the first time we have debated the Energy bill in which we have come to an intersection in understanding that energy and climate change are intertwined, energy and climate change meet at the same intersection.

So we discuss all of these things. We discuss renewable electricity standards. Should we require that 15 percent of all electricity produced in this country be produced with renewable energy--wind energy, biomass, geothermal, solar energy? I believe the answer is yes. I feel very strongly about that. We will have a vote on that next week, and I think it will be very close.

Standards that would increase the efficiency of automobiles, we will have a vote on that, and it will be very close. We haven't had a change in the CAFE standards for automobiles for 25 years--25 years. Everything else about an automobile has changed. There is more computing power in a new automobile than there was on the lunar landing that put Neil Armstrong on the surface of the Moon. There is more computing power in one new car than was in the lunar landing. Everything has changed--cup holders, music systems, keyless entry-- everything has changed about these vehicles except efficiency.

My wife purchased an automobile some years ago. She purchased an automobile that had a certain mileage standard on the window sticker. After 10 years, she was going to buy another car, and she looked at the new version,

the new car version of exactly what she purchased 10 years earlier. The mileage standard on the new car, 10 years later, was identical to the mileage standard of the car she had purchased, identical. Everything about the car had changed--the color, the look, I am sure the springs, the suspension--almost everything was changed, and it has cup holders and a better music system and keyless entry.

By the way, all those car companies opposed seatbelts and airbags and have always opposed CAFE standards.

But the point is, regarding efficiency, nothing is changing. So the question is this: If we are consuming all of this oil--much of it from troubled parts of the world--because we have such an oil-intensive economy and we want to be less dependent on the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and others, and 70 percent of our oil is used in vehicles, then don't we have to insist that this change and that vehicles become more efficient?

The automobile industry is doing full-page newspaper ads in my State--and I assume other States as well--telling people things about the proposal on the floor of the Senate that just aren't true--just not so. I think it was Will Rogers who said:

It is not what he knows that bothers me so much, it's what

he says he knows for sure that just ain't so.

Well, some of the advertising that is going on around the country is just wrong. They have these screaming ads saying somebody is going to take your pickup truck away. It is not true. The new CAFE standards--or any efficiency standards--aren't like the old ones where if you produce too many pickup trucks, you have to cut back on pickup trucks and produce far more subcompacts. That is not the case.

These new approaches say that for every class of vehicle--and there are eight, including the big, heavy trucks--every class of vehicle must have efficiency. You must have increased efficiency for each class, not measured against another class. You must have increased efficiency in that class, and, yes, that includes pickup trucks. But those who are buying pickup trucks--and a lot of people are--ought to expect more efficiency. It is not a case where someone is going to say that you are not going to be able to find a pickup because we have to produce more subcompacts.

In my part of the country, it does occasionally--only on rare occasions--get cold. In North Dakota, when a rancher is going out in late March, and there is a blizzard and the wind is blowing 40 miles an hour and the temperature is 30 below, and he or she is out checking on the calves because it is calving season and they are trying to figure out what is going on--they don't want to go out in 40-mile-an-hour winds, with temperatures 30 below; that rarely happens, but occasionally--they do not want to go out driving in a Chevette or some subcompact car trying to figure out where they are going to move in the pasture to find those cattle. They want a substantial vehicle. So they want four-wheel drives and pickup trucks, and I understand that. That is why this CAFE or this automobile efficiency standard has been changed and changed in the right way, requiring all classes of vehicles to be more efficient. We don't measure them against other classes. Every class is required to meet greater efficiency standards.

So that will be debated next week. I know there are people who will come and oppose it because the automobile industry is taking a position of: Yesterday forever; let's just keep doing what we have been doing, and that will be just fine. It is not just fine as a matter of public policy for this country. This country needs a changed agenda with respect to energy, and part of that changed agenda is increased efficiency for automobiles and for vehicles.

With respect to the renewable energy standard, the renewable electricity standard, I regret and I have said from time to time that my political party--we are not as good at developing titles and labels as the other party. No matter what they come up with, they are good. They come up with something that is probably going to even cause more pollution, and they call it Clear Skies. They come up with something that will cut down trees, and they call it Healthy Forests. They are good at labeling.

We come up with something called renewable portfolio standard. We talk like twits. So we need to improve that. I call it homegrown energy or renewable electricity standards.

Let me describe what that means. It means we produce a lot of electricity, and we use it. We get up in the morning and the first thing we do is turn on a switch and that switch makes all things possible for us. It allows you to get hot water from a hot water heater, it allows you to plug in an electric razor, allows you to have the lights in your bathroom as you get ready for work. All of these things happen, but it is not automatic. Somebody is out there producing electricity in a coal-fired generating plant perhaps, or a generating plant that is fueled by natural gas.

What we are saying is, we want to set a standard of 15 percent of our electric energy to be produced with renewable energy. We now have unbelievable turbines that can take energy from the wind and turn it into electricity. Yes, you can advance your electricity issue with that or, an experiment I have in North Dakota that I am very excited about, you can take the energy from the wind, produce electricity, and with that electricity in the process of electrolysis, separate hydrogen from water and store hydrogen as a vehicle fuel; the wind to hydrogen, all renewable.

You can do the same with respect to the renewable electricity standard by requiring that 15 percent of the electricity we produce comes from biomass, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal, and more. We should do that. I know it is a close vote. I know some oppose that. We should do that because it will advance this country's interests.

I want to make one additional point. There are some who say: You are out here talking about increased efficiency standards, you talk about renewable electricity and so on--what about more production? In fact, I just had a person call me a few minutes ago who said the same thing. What about more production? I believe we ought to have more production of energy. I have supported, along with my colleague, Senator Craig from Idaho--bipartisan--the two of us have supported something called the SAFE Act, which proposes and calls for more production from that area offshore that has the greatest potential. No, it is not Alaska, not California; it is the gulf, the Gulf of Mexico that has the greatest potential.

I was one who helped open lease 181, which was just opened. But I believe much more can be done to increase the potential on the Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico. I support that. I filed an amendment--we have not called it up because I don't believe we have the votes for that--but Senator Craig and I are discussing that issue. I support increased production because I believe it is a necessary part of a balanced energy strategy.

I think all of these issues are important. I know there are some who probably do not think the Energy bill is as important as it really is, but it is at the root of this country's future economic opportunity. This engine of ours, this economic engine of ours cannot and does not work without energy, and our energy policy has not been a particularly thoughtful policy. We waste a prodigious amount of energy in every way, every day. We can make buildings more efficient, we can make automobiles more efficient, we can make appliances more efficient. We should produce more. We should conserve more. There is so much we should do in energy policy.

Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, who are the chair and ranking member of the Energy Committee--I am a senior member of that committee--but with their leadership they have put together a bill that is now on the Senate floor, and I think it will advance our interests. But we need to do a couple of things.

No. 1, we need to support the CAFE standards. By the way, that comes from the Commerce Committee on which I serve. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens are to be complimented for what we were able to do in the Commerce Committee with respect to CAFE standards. Senator Boxer and the leadership of the EPW committee has also contributed to this bill. But we need to have a 15-percent standard of renewable fuels coming with respect to the production of electricity, and we need to support the CAFE standards that have come from the Commerce Committee.

I do not believe there are others who wish to speak. Let me do a couple of unanimous consents.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the record remain open today until 1 p.m, notwithstanding an adjournment of the Senate, for the submission of statements, cosponsorships, and introduction of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 18; that on Monday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that following morning business the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the order for adjournment and morning business, it be in order for Senator Collins to call up an amendment with respect to H.R. 6, and that the consideration of that amendment and her statement thereon be printed in the Record as if the measure was pending, and that at the conclusion of her remarks the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to speak in favor of the Bingaman amendment. I have worked with Senator Bingaman not just in this iteration of our energy policy choices but also previously as a member of the Energy Committee when we put together an EPAct 2005.

My belief is we ought to manifest change here, and the change with respect to the proposal offered by my colleague, Senator Bingaman, is to require that 15 percent of the electricity that we would generate in the future would come from renewable energy sources. That is change.

I do wish to say to my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, we work together on the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee, and we have a good working relationship. I do not believe he needs to in any way injure or demolish the Bingaman amendment in order to achieve his goals because, frankly, Senator Domenici has pushed very hard, for example, to advance the nuclear energy industry in this country.

In conversation with him, as I have told him, I believe we are going to see additional nuclear energy power in this country because we now come to a different intersection. That intersection includes energy and climate change. As a result of climate change being a part of this calculation, I think there will be some additional nuclear energy in our country. I might say that Senator Domenici has made a substantial amount of progress in recent years, both on the policy side and also the appropriations side, in advancing those issues.

So the point I would make is this: I do not think one has to in any way injure what Senator Bingaman is doing in order to accomplish the other pieces that Senator Domenici wishes. Because of that, I do not support the Domenici amendment which I think injures the center of what Senator Bingaman is trying to do, because I support the renewable portfolio standard. I do not particularly like that name because it is not a very identifiable name. I used to call it homegrown energy. But whatever it is, it is saying: We need a change.

What is that change? Well, let's decide that a portion--15 percent-- of our electric energy in this country shall come from renewable sources. We have the capability of producing renewable energy from a variety of sources: wind energy, biomass, solar, and others. There is great promise in a number of these areas. Take a look at what Europe is doing in solar energy. Some of the very large solar energy applications are very promising and exciting, bringing prices down with substantial widespread development.

Let me just mention wind energy for a moment. I know some have said this is only about wind energy, but that is

not the case at all. But wind energy does have substantial potential. Taking energy from the wind, using the new, advanced, highly capable turbines, and using that energy to produce electricity--what a wonderful thing that is. In fact, it is not even a new idea. Go to a farmstead that has long since been abandoned and take a look at what the homesteaders did on their farmsteads. They used their wind and their wind-charger devices to pump water to produce some electricity. This is not a new idea, but the new part of it is the unbelievable technology leap in turbines, to be able to put up these wind towers and take from the wind the energy through these turbines to produce electricity and extend America's energy supplies.

Frankly, you can do even more with them, if you like. For example, we have a project in North Dakota that I have helped create that I am very proud of. We are taking energy from the wind to produce electricity and using that electricity in the process of electrolysis--separating hydrogen from water and creating a hydrogen fuel and storing the fuel. So think of that. Use a turbine to take energy from the wind and produce hydrogen fuel. That is pretty remarkable. There is so much we can do. Now, I am talking about wind, but you can talk about biomass, you can talk about wood chips, you can talk about all of the biomass that is available in all parts of the country.

I know some have said, when talking about wind, that there are certain parts of this country that have a fair amount of wind, other parts do not have as much, and in any event, it is an intermittent source of energy. That is true, but that does not deny the fact that there are other kinds of renewable sources of energy, including biomass and other forms of energy, that can be used to meet this new standard we ought to be embarking upon. For example, we ought to be encouraging solar energy. That is why this amendment by Senator Bingaman makes so much sense.

There is this old saying: If you do not care where you are, you are never going to be lost. Well, that is true. I mean, if you do not set some standards, you are never going to wonder whether you got there. If you did not decide where you were going and did not care where you were, I guess you will never come up short, will you? But I think the entire goal here of trying to put together a new energy policy ought to be change, and change with respect to the production of electricity, in my judgment, would be to say: Let's require 15 percent of our electric energy to come from renewable energy.

Now, frankly, a lot of the utility companies around the country are moving aggressively in those areas. I mean, they are moving aggressively in pursuit of that kind of policy. I commend them. Boy, I think many of them are moving in a way that is something they deserve great compliments about. They understand renewable energy. Yes, even intermittent sources of energy, if you put them together in different ways, can provide almost a stable source of baseload.

So I think this amendment is one of the most important amendments on this Energy bill because it represents profound change. We have only 2 or 3 percent of the electricity in this country now produced by renewable sources of energy. We can just blithely go and act as if, you know, things never change and we don't have to worry, we can just be happy and decide we don't want to change in this area, or we can decide now that as we debate the policies, let's try to develop fundamental change. That is what the Bingaman amendment does.

I understand the resistance to it. I understand there is always resistance to change. That is just a fact. There was an old codger who was once interviewed by a radio station. He was 80-something years old. The radio reporter said to him: Well, you must have seen a lot of changes in your long life. He said: Yep, and I have been against every one of them. Easiest thing in the world to be against change. In many ways, it is the most natural thing in the world to be against change.

There are two changes here. The change with respect to the 15 percent--that change makes great sense. Senator Domenici is also pursuing change in a different way. I think that makes some sense, moving in other areas, but that should not be done in a way that injuries the Bingaman amendment because I think, as I indicated previously, this issue of clean energy, which represents the addition of more hydropower, which I support, which represents the understanding we are going to have additional nuclear energy, which I think most in this body understand given the intersection now of climate change and energy--but that ought not and does not have to come at all at the expense of what Senator Bingaman is promoting with respect to fundamental change in the construct of the electric energy that is delivered around this country.

Mr. President, it will be a profound disappointment if we go through a second round of energy policy discussion on the floor of the Senate-- we did it a couple of years ago; we are doing it now--it will be a profound disappointment if we are not able to enact what is called a renewable energy standard or renewable portfolio standard. I think one would be able to look at this and say: Well, yes, you talked about energy. Yes, you did some things that were good. But you missed a very important opportunity. This legislation was brought the floor of the Senate on a bipartisan basis; that means the absence of partisanship.

Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, both people who know a lot about energy, both have been leaders of the Energy Committee--I have worked with both, and have great regard for both of them. So we did not, in the Energy Committee, push this amendment to have a renewable portfolio standard because we knew it would cause a division in what was brought to the floor of the Senate. I think it was almost unanimous in the Energy Committee, Republicans and Democrats. Now there is a division. I don't think so much that it is Republican or Democratic, but there is a division with respect to this larger question: Should our electric energy reflect a change in how it is produced? Should we require those who produce electricity in this country to produce 15 percent of it from renewable sources--solar, hydro and wind and biomass and so on? The answer ought to be a resounding yes. It ought to come in a chorus from this Senate because it reflects exactly the right kind of change.

The question my colleague, Senator Domenici, is asking with his second-degree is one that, in my judgment, I would prefer he ask without injuring the Bingaman proposal. I don't think we have to try to defeat a 15-percent requirement in order to say we believe there are constructive choices ahead of us with respect to other forms of energy.

That is why I hope--I know there is this discussion about, we ought not to have two votes, a vote on the Bingaman amendment and a vote on what I believe is a second-degree, and each should require 60 votes. I don't support that at all. That does not make any sense. Let's try now to do two things. Let's try, in this area of constructing energy policy, to pass the Bingaman amendment which reflects real change. The construct of our electric production in this country ought to be 15 percent from renewables. If we cannot do that, then we are not going to make great progress in changing energy policy. After we do that, I would hope we could talk about Senator Domenici's aspirations. Could we use more hydropower? Sure. Do I support that? Yes, absolutely. Are we on the road to additional nuclear energy? Absolutely, and much to the credit of his work in the authorizing and the Appropriations Committee. But that need not be done at the expense of a policy that says: We ought to, as a matter of course in this country, require 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources.

You know, this whole energy issue is interesting. I mentioned the other day that we just take it all for granted. Every single day, we get up in the morning and we just flip a switch; normally it is down, we put it up. All of a sudden, there are lights. We plug something into a wall which looks like an ordinary wall, with a couple of holes in it, and all of a sudden, you can shave or you can run a hair dryer, you can run an electric toothbrush. Through the rest of our entire day, it is all about energy. We just take it for granted until it does not exist. When that energy does not exist, our lives change.

The water is not hot--there are so many things in our lives that come from energy, and we just take it all for granted.

Sixty percent of our oil comes from off our shore, much of it from very troubled parts of the world. We want to deal with that. We produce a substantial amount of electricity, and we now understand there is an intersection between the energy production and also climate change in our country that we have to address, not just in our country but on this planet. So we bring a bill to the floor that has portions of each. This is not so much a climate change bill as it is an energy bill, but it reflects in the bill itself--recognizes where we are headed as a Congress with respect to all of it.

I have said previously and I believe that we will continue to use fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas. That is just the fact. The question is not whether we use them; it is how we use them. That is why some of us are offering amendments. I will work on the appropriations side on the issue of clean power and the issue of clean coal technology and so on. But even as we do that, as we decide we will continue to use fossil fuels, we should not embrace the same old nonsense we have heard for decades around here; that is, real men dig and drill. If you are a real man, you dig and drill. If you are talking about renewables, somebody can pat you on the forehead and say: Good try. Its kind of a softheaded thing to be talking about, but it does not have the equivalence of understanding that you need to dig and drill for America's future. Yes, we need to dig some. Yes, we need to drill some. We are going to use fossil fuels. But we need to understand that renewables are no longer just some sort of sideshow. Renewable energy is a significant part of our capability. If we do not exercise that capability and use it in a way that benefits our energy supply and also benefits the climate change issues we confront, then we will have fallen far short of what we should do.

I see my colleague from Idaho is here. I wanted to mention that he has spoken on the floor about the need to increase supply, and he and I agree on that. We introduced a piece of legislation called the SAFE Act which supports increased automobile efficiency. It also supports increased production of fossil fuels, of oil.

I see Senator Craig in the Chamber. He and I are filing an amendment that deals with the increased production recommendations we had previously made in legislation that is called the SAFE Act, Security and Fuel Efficiency Energy Act. It would authorize additional production, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico where the greatest potential production exists. From my standpoint, Senator Craig and I have had long discussions about this. We have filed the amendment. My expectation is I would not call that particular amendment up. From what we have learned in the Chamber, I don't think we have the capability to get the votes for that particular amendment.

I believe filing it is important to say this: We need to do a lot of things well, and we need to do a lot of things right in order to address the energy issue. Part of it is conservation. Part of it is efficiency. Part of it is production. There exists substantial additional production capability in the Gulf of Mexico that is untapped that I believe we ought to consider for additional production. Senator Craig and I have worked on that.

The amendment is filed. It is likely we will not call it up for consideration because we do not have the capability to get that enacted in the Senate. Everything has a maturity date, and this is short of that date. But because the Senator from Idaho came on the floor, I wanted to mention that important issue.

Energy legislation that works for this country is balanced legislation which balances a range of issues.

I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, let me thank my colleague. I have been pleased to work with him. Both of us have been putting together a piece of legislation we introduced earlier this year. We believe there needs to be some significant balance. We support conservation. We support efficiency and additional production, all with appropriate safeguards and restrictions.

Finally, the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, I believe Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, have done a good job in bringing a bill to the floor that allows us early on this year, in June, to debate an energy policy so we can get something through the Congress. This is a good bill. It is not the best bill, necessarily, but it is an awfully good bill. I commend their work. I believe we will lose something important if we get involved in this debate about the Bingaman amendment, the 15- percent RPS, and we decide we can't move in that direction.

There is a Cherokee Indian chief who once said: The success of a rain dance depends a lot on the timing. Timing is everything. That is especially true in a public policy debate. We have been at this for a long while talking about a requirement, a mandate that a certain portion of what we produce for electricity come from renewables. The only way we are going to get there is to pass legislation to do it. Senator Bingaman proposes--and I support, as do others--a 15-percent requirement. It adds to the bill. It creates an important public policy change that will add to this bill in a way that tells the American people: We are about constructive change for energy security. I hope very much we can pass this amendment.

People need to understand, while Senator Domenici has offered his as a second degree, some of what he is trying to do makes a lot of sense to me and is being done in other venues and should be done in other circumstances and can be done exclusive of the Bingaman amendment. What he aspires to do and what I support, in many cases, ought not be done at the expense of obliterating the 15-percent RPS that Senator Bingaman and I and others are trying to get done. I hope we can move on at some point, have an up-or-down vote on the Bingaman amendment, and add something in policy to this energy bill that all of us will be proud of in the future.

There are many utilities moving in this direction, probably not quite this aggressively, but they are moving in this direction because they too believe this is essentially good public policy. My hope is the Bingaman amendment will be approved by the Senate, perhaps today, and all of us will believe we have significantly strengthened the Energy bill we are considering today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Saturday July 7, Hettinger, ND, population 1,574, a town near where I grew up, will celebrate its centenary. In honor of that historic date, the entire community is hosting a week of parades, speeches, dances, picnics, concerts and all kinds of entertainment.

Along with all the other centenary events, Hettinger has set aside time with a choir and a band to honor America's veterans. During the program the community will recognize the service of LTC Darel Leetun, a local son who earned the Air Force Cross and lost his life in Vietnam.

Darel Leetun's service is typical of the dedication and sacrifice that American veterans have exhibited throughout our history. But his individual story is remarkable. And I would like to spend a few minutes to tell you some of it.

Darel Leetun was born in Hettinger on December 24, 1932. He was raised in North Dakota and graduated from Steele High School and North Dakota State University. He served as a county agent, spent a year in India and then joined the Air Force and became a fighter pilot. He was sent to Vietnam.

On September 17, 1966, then-Captain Leetun took off on his 96th mission, leading a flight of F-105 Thunderchiefs against a high priority target near Hanoi. It was heavily defended and Captain Leetun had to lead his flight through intense and accurate flak, surface-to- air missiles, and MiG fighters.

On the bomb run, Leetun's Thunderchief was hit by ground fire. According to witnesses, his F-105 become a flaming torch and nearly uncontrollable. But Leetun remained in formation and delivered his high-explosive ordnance directly on target.

After releasing his bombs, Captain Leetun's plane went out of control and was seen to crash approximately 10 miles from the target area.

Other pilots in the flight saw the jet crash, but did not receive emergency beeper signals or see a parachute.

For a long time, his family did not know what had happened to him. They didn't know if he was killed in the crash or if he was a prisoner of war.

The Air Force declared Darel Leetun missing in action and promoted him twice. But finally, in 1975, the U.S. Government declared Lieutenant Colonel Leetun dead.

In 1995, remains that were believed to be Leetun's were found on a hillside by a joint U.S.-Vietnamese search team. It wasn't until 2005 that they were positively identified by American forensic experts in Hawaii.

Darel Leetun was buried with full military honors on July 8, 2005, at Arlington National Cemetery. I attended his funeral.

Darel's grandchildren Joni, Jack, and Jane sang ``America the Beautiful'' at the memorial ceremony in the Arlington chapel. Then eight Army horses drew his caisson down a twisting road to the grave site, where MG Charles Baldwin presented Darel's son Keith with the American flag that covered the casket.

The service ended with a 21-gun salute, followed by the playing of ``Taps.''

Darrel Leetun was awarded 14 medals for his military service, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star, the Air Medal and the Purple Heart. He is the only North Dakotan from the Vietnam war who received the Air Force Cross for extraordinary heroism, which is the second highest medal for valor in combat.

Keith Leetun was only six when his father was shot down. He barely knew his father and he didn't know much about how he died.

But one day in 1992, Keith met his father's wingman on the golf course, completely by accident. They happened to be the only golfers on the first tee at 7 a.m. No one was around except the greens keeper. They started chatting and learned of their mutual connection to Darel Leetun.

When he found out that Keith was Darel's son, the wingman said, ``Your father was my mentor, best friend and the `heart and soul' of the squadron. He was the life of the party and we called him `Gravel'. He was a substitute pilot the day he got shot down. He went the extra mile and hit his target as his jet was on fire!''

Since then, Keith Leetun has been driven to share his father's story with other Vietnam veterans and to get them to share their own stories.

After the main veterans program in Hettinger, Keith and the rest of Darel Leetun's family will host a smaller program about Darel's life and military service called ``My Way Back.'' They are doing that not just to commemorate Darel, but to honor all Vietnam veterans and to encourage them to share their stories and experiences with each other and with the public.

Most Vietnam veterans were drafted into service. But they served honorably. Nearly 60,000 of them didn't come home.

By the time the Vietnam conflict ended in the 1970s, the war had split the Nation. In the ugliness of it, the returning veterans were often derided for their part in it.

Many of them were treated horribly. Much of the general public spurned them, and their government ignored them.

Fortunately, times have changed.

In 1982 the Vietnam Memorial Wall was dedicated with the names of the fallen etched into black granite. That has gone a long way toward healing the wounds of Vietnam.

And with today's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our country is beginning to pay more attention to the needs of all veterans. It is ironic that the Vietnam veterans who were cheated of their welcome home parades have been loud advocates of seeing that today's veterans get theirs.

LTC Darel Leetun is an example of the courage and sacrifice of all those who have followed orders and gone into harm's way in defense of our country. This Nation's survival depends on present and future generations of Darel Leetun's kind of soldier.

I wish to join the citizens of Hettinger, ND, in thanking Darel Leetun and all of America's veterans for their service to our country.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleagues for their strong voice on trade.

I note this morning in the Washington Post that they have written one more ``don't confuse us with the facts'' editorial on trade. It is a creed that we see often in this newspaper. And this one is under the guise of criticizing Senator Clinton for saying that she opposes the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

In fact, let me read a part of the article. It says: If ratified, this Korean free-trade agreement, would be the most far-reaching trade agreement since the pact with Mexico and Canada.

Oh, really? Well, the pact with Mexico, we actually negotiated that when we had a trade surplus with Mexico. We have turned that into a $60 billion-a-year deficit. The trade with Canada, we had a small deficit with Canada. We have turned it into a giant deficit.

So if the Washington Post compares this with the NAFTA and the Mexico and Canada trade pacts, they ought to go back and look at the facts.

But let me just say, if they choose to applaud this trade agreement as the

ideal of what trade agreements ought to be like, I think they have chosen the wrong tent pole.

Here is what is happening with trade. This is what the Washington Post is supporting: an avalanche of red ink, dramatic trade deficits, which means we have shipped American jobs overseas. I believe we have begun to undermine this country's economy.

With respect to automobile trade and Korea and this agreement, let me say we have already negotiated two agreements with Korea in the 1990s. They have not abided by either of them. They say: Yes, yes, yes. They sign up for the agreement, and they do not do anything with respect to the enforcement.

Here is what we have with Korea. Last year, they sent us 730,000 Korean cars to be sold in the United States. Guess what. We were able to sell 4,000 cars in Korea. Let me say that again. They shipped 730,000 cars to be sold here. We were able to sell 4,000 cars in Korea.

Fair trade? I don't think so. Ninety-nine percent of the cars driving on the streets of Korea are Korean-made because that is the way they want it. That is the way they will keep it. Go read the story about the Dodge Dakota pickup that we tried to sell in Korea, and how the Korean government blocked that. You will know all you need to know about Korea auto trade.

So when the Washington Post criticizes Senator Clinton for standing up for this country's economic interests, I think it is a curious kind of thing for the Washington Post to do.

This issue of trade is about jobs, real jobs. And the people who have those jobs are the people who know about second shifts, second jobs, second mortgages. They are American workers trying to make a go of it in a global economy, supported by the Washington Post, that puts downward pressure on their wages, and says let's sign up for any trade agreement, even if it is unfair to this country's economic interests.

A group of us proposed that we do benchmarks with trade agreements. Let's find out whether there is the kind of benchmark and accountability that will meet the test of progress on the other side with respect to trade agreements. But this administration opposes that as well.

The reason I wanted to take the floor today was to talk about the Korean free-trade agreement. We could talk about most others, as well, but the editorial this morning criticizing Senator Clinton is unbelievable, and deals with the Korean deal.

This is the weakest possible point the Washington Post could make, or those who support these trade agreements could make. The Koreans send us 700,000 cars. They will allow only 4,000 of ours into their marketplace. That is fair trade? So they say, let's sign up for a third agreement with them. How many bitter lessons do we have to learn? What about accountability? What about benchmarks? Why won't this administration agree to benchmarks on trade agreements so that we can see whether we really are standing up for this country's economic interests?

Mr. President, in my judgment, it is not just the Washington Post but so many others here I think are experiencing a triumph of hope over real experience when they support trade agreements that we know to be bad agreements from this country's economic standpoint.

Mr. President, I wish to say a word this morning about a column that was printed in the Washington Post this morning on the op- ed page that was taking the majority leader of the Senate to task, and doing so, I think, unfairly and certainly inaccurately.

The column criticizes the majority leader for saying the Senate's time was ``too precious'' to expend on what would have been unlimited debate on an unlimited number of Republican amendments to the immigration bill.

The intent of this column in the newspaper is to say that the majority leader was responsible for failing to allow consideration of the immigration bill.

I don't know what Mr. Will, who wrote this column, was watching last week. I know Paris Hilton was being taken back and forth between her house and the sheriff's office and court and jail, apparently, and the country must have been riveted on that story. But C-SPAN would have availed a columnist of a pretty good look at what the Senate was doing, and not just for last week but for 2 weeks the Senate dealt with the subject of immigration.

I happen to come to a different conclusion on that subject than the majority leader. I know who supports that legislation, and he has supported that legislation. I watched the last day of consideration when the majority leader came to the floor and offered a proposal where each side would get four amendments. That was objected to. He then proposed that each side would get three amendments. That was objected to. Each side would get two amendments. That was objected to.

I don't have the foggiest idea why Mr. Will would write a column suggesting somehow the majority leader was responsible for that not going forward after 2 full weeks of debate and being blocked in every circumstance of having additional amendments considered.

But what brought me to the Senate floor is not my support of consideration or further consideration of the immigration bill, but the charge that the majority leader was somehow responsible for scuttling it. That is not the case, No. 1. And, No. 2, Mr. Will says in his column that, in fact, it was taken off the floor in order to bring up legislation that would quintuple the mandated use of corn-based ethanol, apparently upset about the fact that we have an energy bill on the floor at this point that would dramatically increase the use of biofuels, corn-based ethanol and also cellulosic and other approaches because we believe we need to find somehow, some way, some point, someday to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil.

Over 60 percent of the oil we use in this country we obtain from troubled parts of the world overseas--60 percent of it and it is growing: the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, Venezuela, Iraq, and the list goes on. If tomorrow, God forbid, somehow that source of oil would be shut off to our economy, this economy, this American economy would be flat on its back. We need to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. We use 70 percent of the oil we bring into this country in our vehicles. We run them through the carburetors and fuel injectors of our vehicles.

We are doing a lot with this legislation. We haven't had an increase in the efficiency standards for vehicles for 25 years, and the auto companies, I know, object to that. They objected to seatbelts. They objected to airbags. They have given us better cupholders. They have given us better music systems. They have given us keyless entry. But they haven't in 25 years given us greater efficiency, and they should. That is in the bill.

We also increase the supply of alternative energy with renewable fuels called the biofuels, ethanol, corn-based ethanol; yes, cellulosic ethanol, yes. If Mr. Will and others think that is irrelevant, they miss the point. This country doesn't have a choice. We must find a route to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil.

One approach, in my judgment, is to make the vehicles more efficient. Another approach is to produce renewable fuels. I was the author of the only standard that exists for renewable fuels, a 7.5-billion-gallon-a- year standard. We did that 2 years ago. I think we are at 7.5 billion gallons already. We were hoping to get there by 2012. Now we have a bill that will take us to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels. As a measurement, we use 145 billion gallons of fuel a year. We want to go to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels that we can grow in our farm fields, among other things.

It is easy to write a column, I guess. If the ink is inexpensive, you can say anything you want. This is not an accurate reflection of two things. No. 1, it is not an accurate reflection of the immigration bill, and it is not an accurate reflection, in my judgment, of the merits of biofuels to extend America's energy supply.

While I am up, I want to make one more point. There are others who talked about the amendment I offered to the immigration bill suggesting that somehow it would have been responsible for killing the bill. I want to describe it very briefly.

The immigration bill was put together in a room by a group of people who said: Here is what we think we should do to deal with immigration. The proposal was put together in a room by some 14 Senators, which meant that 86 others were not involved. So the product was brought to the floor of the Senate, and we were told: If you have a different idea, the group of 14 are going to oppose it. That group of 14, or whatever it was, creating a grand compromise, they had a responsibility to oppose anything that the rest of the 86 Members of the Senate believed could add to or improve the bill.

Among other things, the bill provided a temporary worker provision which said there are millions of people outside this country--400,000 a year originally, 2 years on, 1 year back to their home country, 2 years back, 1 year back to their home country, 2 years back a third time. My colleague from New Mexico reduced that to 200,000 a year. But it was ultimately the same circumstance. It would have been a massive number of new people who don't now live here who would have come in and taken jobs in this country. I did not support that guest worker program. I believe at least we should sunset it after 5 years to evaluate the consequences, what impact it has had on our country. Has it had an impact of downward pressure on wages, which I think it will have, which I don't support? Has it had an impact of bringing in a lot of immigrants who will not leave afterward and, therefore, be here without legal authorization? If so, should we consider that issue and how to deal with it?

I think these are very complicated issues, and the guest worker program should be sunsetted after 5 years. My amendment won by one vote, and then it was as if the sky was falling. This is going to kill the bill, they say. I don't agree with that at all. I just don't agree.

As I have indicated many times, they brought that out here suggesting that anything that was done that would change it would kill the bill. Again, it is the argument we hear all the time: the lose thread on the cheap sweater; pull the thread, the arms fall off.

I come back to this point that I think the column today is unfair to the majority leader. It unfairly suggests that he is the responsible party for not moving forward on immigration. We spent 2 full weeks on immigration. It wasn't incomplete because of anything the majority leader did. He is the one who brought it to the floor in the first place.

Second, it is unfortunate--certainly well within the columnist's right, but unfortunate--to suggest that somehow renewable fuels cannot play a significant part in this country's energy future. That is a significant part of this bill. Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, myself, and many others have worked on renewable fuels for a long while. We set a standard that I think is going to be very exciting for this country to meet, and I think it will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil, will make us much less dependent than we are now, and I think it will advance this country's security and energy interests.

I am pleased to be a part of that effort and support it and felt especially that I ought to say a word in response to this column that I think unfairly treats the issue of biofuels.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here supporting a piece of legislation which I think advances this country's energy interests. I am a member of the Senate Energy Committee. I have worked with Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici not only on the previous Energy bill in 2005 but on this Energy bill, and I think this is a good bill. We are going to improve it some on the floor of the Senate, but it came out of the Energy

Committee as a bipartisan bill and one I think will improve the energy policy in this country.

Energy is a very important policy. We don't think about it much. I know most all of us get up in the morning and we just flick a switch someplace in our house. That switch turns on lights and we turn on the television set, it turns on all the things we use all day. While we are sleeping, the air-conditioner is running. We have all these conveniences, and we do not necessarily understand that all of it comes from somewhere beyond a switch. So energy has been pretty easy for this country. Now we are running into some interesting questions and challenges. We have to develop a more thoughtful, more sensible energy policy for the long-term future.

There is an airplane which is now parked in a museum. I believe it was tail No. 27,000, an old 707 that used to be Air Force One. It was the Air Force One that flew President Reagan around, and others. It was the Air Force One that was in Dallas, TX, in fact, the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. One of its last trips before it was retired to a museum was a trip to Asia. I was a member of that delegation, going to meet with the President of China and others.

In a cabin on that little old airplane flying over the Pacific one night, about 10 or 11 o'clock at night, one of our Senate colleagues, John Glenn, was sitting there with us. I was peppering John Glenn with questions about his circling the Earth as an astronaut back 40 years prior to that time. I was a young kid and I had been listening to the radio that day, and I listened to this account of this astronaut circling the Earth. The whole world was focused on what this astronaut, up alone in Friendship 7, a tiny little capsule, was doing.

I asked him a lot of questions about it that evening. I had the opportunity as a new Member of the Senate with my colleague John Glenn to pepper him with a lot of questions. One of my questions was this. I said: My understanding back then was that the city of Perth, Australia, when you were orbiting the Earth that night, turned on every light in the city as a signal to the astronaut flying alone orbiting the Earth. Do you remember the ability to look down and see the lights from Perth, Australia?

He said: I do, I do. I remember this brilliant light coming up from Perth, Australia, where all the citizens decided to shine up a light to this astronaut flying alone on Friendship 7.

The only evidence of life on Earth as he orbited the dark side of the Earth was energy, light--human beings turning on a light switch and lighting a city to light the way for an astronaut orbiting the Earth.

Energy is a significant part of our lives every single day and virtually in every way. As I said, we take it pretty much for granted.

Let me talk about the challenges, if I might. One of the significant challenges is oil. We have this big old planet of ours. We have roughly 6.5 billion neighbors on this planet. We circle the Sun. We have this prodigious need for oil, so we stick straws in the earth, called drilling rigs, and suck oil out of the earth. We suck about 84 million barrels of oil a day out of this planet of ours--84 million barrels a day we suck out of this earth.

We use 21 million barrels in this country alone. In this little patch of ground called the United States of America, we have built an unbelievable economy, dramatically improved the standard of living over a long period of time, and we have an unending thirst for oil. So one- fourth of all of the oil used on this planet is used in this country, this place on the globe.

Unfortunately, a substantial amount of the oil is under the sands of the Middle East and in unstable parts of the world. Here is what happens. When we import oil, here is what we use the oil for: 67 percent is used for transportation. So nearly 70 percent of the oil we use in this country is used in the vehicle fleet or for transportation. One of the things we are discussing here in the Energy bill is this issue of trying to make these vehicles more efficient. If we use 70 percent of the oil in this country for transportation and we have had very little change in efficiency of vehicles, then the question should be and is, Should not we make vehicles more efficient?

Here is an example. This is a chart you can't see particularly well: Auto Fuel Efficiency Versus Performance. Do you see what has happened on the blue line, performance--zero to 60 in a nanosecond? Increased performance, more power, more speed. What has happened with respect to miles per gallon? Just like that, right flat across.

Part of that is the consumer. The consumer wants to buy big, heavy cars, fast cars. I understand that. In fact, here is a survey. I was very surprised. CNW Research pointed out that overall fuel economy-- this is a couple of years ago--is No. 12 in concern by consumers. I am sure it has changed now. But cupholders and sound systems ranked above the issue of overall fuel economy. I expect that is not the case now when you are driving up to the gas pump and in some vehicles putting in $40, $50, $60 or $70 worth of gasoline into that vehicle. So perhaps that has changed.

But this legislation does a lot of things with respect to energy. It requires an improvement in the efficiency of vehicles. I know automobile companies came here last week. I had a chance to talk to the CEOs of the three big U.S. auto companies. I know they are taking the same position they have always taken--not now, not us, not today.

The fact is, we must, it seems to me, insist that our vehicle fleet be more efficient. Because nearly 70 percent of the oil we use in this country is being used in our vehicles, the only way we are going to try to extract ourselves from being addicted to foreign oil is to begin to make changes in a range of areas, and that includes making cars more efficient. That means a higher mileage per gallon standard.

We have a circumstance, as I indicated, where a substantial part of the oil is put in one place on this planet and the dramatic need for oil is in another place. Much of where we get our oil is in very troubled parts of the world. We could, one day, wake up with terrorists attacking a refinery somewhere and a shutoff of the oil to this country from foreign sources, and this country would be flat on its back. This country would have its economy in tatters. That is why we need to be much less dependent, we need to find a way to be independent of the need for oil from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela--all the places in the world that are unstable, where we have a great reliance on oil. That is at least part of what this bill is about.

I am going to talk about several other things as well, but I, along with my colleague, Senator Larry Craig, a Republican--I am a Democrat-- we joined in introducing something called the SAFE Energy Act, Securing America's Future Energy. The Energy Security Leadership Council is a group of really interesting people including some CEOs of major corporations and flag officers in the U.S. military. They studied these issues for several years and put together a plan.

That plan is recommendations to the Nation on Reducing Oil Dependence; trying to make this economy of ours less oil intensive.

I introduced a piece of legislation with Senator Craig that implements most all of these recommendations. I would commend it to my colleagues because I think it makes a lot of sense. It talks about expanding the supply of energy, especially renewable energy; also talks about finding additional supplies. We believe we ought to be able to explore and drill more in expanded areas, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, because there are substantial reserves of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico that are attainable without ruining anybody's view or creating other problems.

We believe that in addition to renewable energy and the production of renewable energy, all of the biofuels are necessary. We believe that CAFE standards, or at least automobile efficiency standards, are necessary as well. This piece of legislation brought to the floor of the Senate includes all of them.

Let me continue to talk about oil for a moment and say that when I was a little boy, I remember they drilled one oil well near my hometown in southwestern North Dakota. I lived in a town of 300 people. There wasn't a lot to do, obviously, in a town of 300 people.

So when they brought in a drilling rig and constructed a drilling rig and

started to drill for oil about 3 miles from town, I will never forget as a little boy going out there in the evenings in my parent's car. We saw all these lights on the oil rig at night. We sat there and looked at it. That was entertainment.

We did that night after night. We figured at some point they were going to strike oil. We didn't want to be too close to the rig, because the movies showed that when you strike oil, you get a gusher.

But we watched. We would drive out there and park, the whole town would go out there and park. We would watch that oil well. Nothing was happening, of course, nothing you could see. We saw the lights. That was a whole lot more than was going on in town.

Well, it turns out it was a dry well; never drilled another one. But that was my experience. As a young boy, my father also managed a gasoline station. So I pumped a lot of gas as a young boy. Some say that my occupation hasn't changed so much being in the Senate, but I contest that, of course.

My point is this: Oil is central to our lives and will remain central to our lives, but we need to find a way to reduce our dependence on the sources of oil that come from very troubled parts of the world.

In North Dakota, for example, in western North Dakota, we now have what is called the Bakken Shale, which could, we hope--the U.S. Geological Survey will determine this--but it could contain dramatic amounts of recoverable oil.

Incidentally, I was in western North Dakota visiting with Marathon Oil that is now drilling. It is unbelievable what they are doing. They drill 2 miles down--2 miles down--then take a giant bend and drill 2 miles out. One drilling rig. They go down 2 miles and then bend it and then drill 2 miles out. It is unbelievable technology.

We hope there is additional production here in this country. That is one way to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil. We can take a look at where you can get additional oil. I mentioned the Gulf of Mexico is a substantial opportunity for us as well. But there are a lot of things for us to do and do well, if we are going to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil, also, if we are going to have an energy policy that has much more credibility than our current policy.

Now, the Congress passed what was called the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We did a number of things there. I was one of the Members of the Congress who, at that time and since that time, one of I guess four or five of us in the Senate who tried to open up what is called Lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. We succeeded in doing that. It is a smaller tract than we had hoped, but that also will contribute to the production of additional energy here at home.

Some say our energy strategy for the future must be ``digging and drilling.'' I call that yesterday forever, digging and drilling. Yes, we are going to dig and, yes, we are going to drill. But if that is all we do, we lose. Everything we use in this country every day needs to be more efficient. Our refrigerators, our air conditioners, our vacuums, everything needs to be more efficient. That is No. 1.

We have had very big debates on strange-named things such as SEER standards. I mean how many people have heard of SEER 13 standards for air conditioners. But it makes a big difference in the number of powerplants you have to build in this country based on the standards for efficiency for all the things we use with respect to appliances.

In addition to all that, we at the same time have to rely on other sources and other types of energy; wind energy as an example. Well, my colleague from Tennessee apparently does not like wind energy. God bless him. He has a right not to like wind energy.

It seems to me it makes a lot of sense with a turbine, the much more improved turbines and technologically capable turbines, to extract the energy from the wind and turn it into electricity. Yes, it is an intermittent source of electricity because you do not produce it when the wind is not blowing. But in some States, my State in particular, which is ranked by the Department of Energy as having the largest wind energy potential, taking energy from the wind and producing electricity with that energy makes a lot of sense.

We have an exciting experiment going on in North Dakota that I have been involved in: taking energy from the wind through a wind turbine, turning that energy through a turbine into electricity, using electricity through the process of electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water. You use an intermittent energy source to produce hydrogen and store the hydrogen. That is pretty unbelievable. Yet we can do that. We can do that, and it is going make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Now one of the proposals that will be offered by my colleague, Senator Bingaman, which I intend to be here and support, and I believe several have spoken in opposition to it, is what is called a renewable portfolio standard. Not a very sexy name, in fact we should rename it, renewable energy standard of some type.

But it is simply this: With respect to electricity that we are creating in this country, 15 percent of that electricity should come from renewable sources. Establishing a national standard, a goal, what is it we want to meet? Where do we want to go? An old saying: If you don't care where you are, you will never be lost.

Well, I mean, if we do not care where we are, we will never have a standard that we will miss. But how about ascribing a standard for this country that forces us to reach a little bit and says that, for every kilowatt hour of electricity we are going to use, 15 percent of what we produce is going to come from renewable sources of energy.

Once again, it relieves and begins to withdraw our heavy dependence on foreign sources of oil because a substantial amount of our electricity now comes from fossil fuels, from natural gas and coal and so on.

Now, the issue of the renewable portfolio standard, I understand, is going to be controversial because some do not want the Federal Government to be involved in requiring something such as this. But, frankly, I don't think we have much choice. The other issue that will be involved in with this bill, which I support, is a renewable fuels standard. That renewable fuels standard is one that calls for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. Now, I helped write the last renewable fuel standard. It was the first one we ever established. It was 7\1/2\ billion gallons by 2012.

We are going to be at 10 billion gallons, exceeding that standard in a year or two. We believe we should aspire to achieve much more; a renewable fuels standard, using the biofuels; yes, the production of ethanol; growing energy in our farm fields on a renewable basis, you can do that year after year; the ethanol that can come from cellulose that I believe has great capability in our future. All of that is good for this country.

It is good for our farmers, good for our consumers, it is good for beginning to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Now, we have a lot of issues we are going to be discussing, some controversial, some perhaps not, but my hope is that in the coming week and a half or so we can finish this Energy bill.

I wish to show a couple of charts again. First of all, the amount of oil we use in this country. Those are million barrels per day. I mentioned we suck 84 million barrels of oil out of this little planet of ours. Look at what we use in the United States. Our population uses one-fourth of all the oil that is taken out of this planet every single day.

I mean, that is an oil intensity for our economy that, in my judgment, needs to be changed. Then, finally, let me say again, if 70 percent of that oil, nearly 70 percent is used in that vehicle fleet. If in that vehicle fleet we have seen all those improvements in acceleration, for example, and no improvement with respect to miles per gallon, then we better figure out how we address this in a different way.

One other item I am going to talk about for a moment is something called SPR. One of the problems with this life is there are so many acronyms and so many shorthand names for things, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are doing something that makes a lot of sense to me. We are taking oil and sticking it underground and saving it for a time when we might need it, a security reserve of oil. The Strategic Petroleum Reserves makes sense to me. In fact, we increased the

amount of that SPR authorization in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. But with respect to our original goal, we are 97 percent there--97 percent. I do not think it makes any sense at this point to increase it, despite the authorization, I do not think it makes any sense, when the price of oil is where it is, very high--the price of gasoline is extraordinary-- I do not think it makes sense to be taking any oil out of the supply chain and sticking it underground.

Yet our Government continues to do that. I know we have not been purchasing oil at this point. They suspended that through the summer driving season. But we are still taking about 8 or 9 million barrels of oil and putting it in SPR as part of the payment for royalties in kind. I do not support that either.

The President is asking for a near doubling of SPR in the next appropriations cycle. I am not going to support that. I am going to write the bill. I will be writing the bill as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds that. I am not going to increase that because I think at a time when gas prices are going through the roof, the last thing we ought to do is take oil out of the supply, because all that does is put upward pressure on gas prices. So I believe that is another thing we might wish to consider in this discussion.

Finally, the issue of energy is one that I know consumes perhaps less attention from time to time than others, because we take it for granted. We turn the light switch on, we get in our car, we do all these things, all of it powered as a part of our energy need, and we do not think much about it. But if, God forbid, somehow all of it were turned off, and we had an example a few years ago, I think we were out of energy in the capital region for 5 or 6 days, then all of a sudden we understood what energy means to our daily lives.

If ever we would see gas lines around the block again, we would understand what this addiction to oil means for our daily lives. Now, I said earlier that if our entire approach with respect to energy is digging and drilling, that is yesterday forever. I do not mean we will not continue to use fossil fuels, I believe we will. Fossil fuels will be a significant part of our future.

That means oil, coal, and natural gas. I am going to spend a lot of time and money as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee dealing with this issue of clean power and clean coal technology because we have to be able to continue to use that resource. But it is also the case that we have so much more to do. Because for decades we have been told that you cannot do renewables, renewables are a pat-on-the-head sort of thing. If you are talking about renewables, good for you, God bless you, but you ought to go to a library someplace and visit with your two or three friends about these things; it does not matter to America's future. That is total nonsense.

Renewable energy is very important for this country. It is long past the time that we get about the business of dealing with it. Yes, it is hydrogen and fuel cells, which I feel very strongly about. It is wind and solar. It is geothermal. It is a wide range of issues dealing with renewable energy that I believe will contribute to this country's energy security. I believe it will give us a much better and a much stronger energy policy.

I see my colleague from Idaho is here. As I indicated earlier, he and I have introduced a piece of legislation that a fair part is included in the bill that was reported out of the Energy Committee. I am also on the Commerce Committee, which has reported a portion of this bill as well.

I believe we need do a lot of things well in order to make this country less dangerously dependent, as we now are, on foreign sources of energy. That is our goal.

I believe our plan does that. I believe the bill that is brought to us from the Energy, Commerce, EPW, and Foreign Relations Committees advances this country's interest.

My hope is, in the coming week or two, perhaps a week and a half, as this is being considered, we can improve the bill even more.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wanted to follow my colleague, Senator Boxer, to talk just a bit about the automobile efficiency standards that are in this bill. I played a role in the Commerce Committee in helping to write a portion of that.

Before I do that, let me say it is often the case that a piece of legislation brought to the floor of the Senate dealing with an important issue is described as something that is very significant, earthshaking. And in most cases it does not turn out to be quite that significant.

My dad once told me: Never buy something from someone who is out of breath. There is always kind of a breathless quality to reform packages that are brought to the floor of the Senate. I must say, however, that I think what we have on the floor of the Senate, perhaps with some amendments, is a significant change with respect to an issue that we should address; that is, energy.

Let me talk about the automobile efficiency issues and the issues of renewable fuels and renewable energy. Now, I noted that the OPEC countries have weighed in the last few days. This is dated June 7. It says: OPEC--that is the cartel--those are the countries that have formed a cartel. They produce a substantial portion of our country's energy, the world's energy. About 40 percent of global oil production comes from the eight OPEC countries.

Here is what OPEC says. OPEC, on Tuesday, warned Western countries that their effort to develop biofuels as an alternative energy source to combat climate change risks driving the price of oil, ``through the roof.''

The Secretary General of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said: The powerful cartel was considering cutting its investment in new oil production in response to moves by the developed world to use more biofuels.

So let me say again what this is. This is the OPEC cartel, which, of course, would be illegal in our country, getting together and saying to the United States: If you begin to produce more biofuels, ethanol and so on, we may well cut our production of oil, which would have the capability of then putting upward pressure on oil and gas prices; almost certainly it would do that. An interesting and I think also disturbing message from the OPEC countries.

But this underscores why we need an Energy bill. I mean we are held hostage by a group of people sitting in a room, called OPEC ministers, deciding how much they are going to produce, at what price they want to produce it. They close the door, make judgments in secret in a secret cartel that would be illegal in this country. They say to us: Oh, by the way, if you want to get out of this box that you are in, by producing more of the energy yourself in the form of renewable fuels, good luck. By the way, tough luck, because we may well decrease our own production.

Well, if I might just point out that this bill itself, it has some titles. Let me read the titles of the bill. I am sure my colleagues have done that: Title 1, Biofuels for Energy Security, it is a very important title; title 2, Energy Efficiency, there is substantial energy to be gained in the efficiency standards; title 3, Carbon Capture, Storage, Research and Development; title 4, Cost-Effective, Environmentally Sustainable Public Buildings. All of this is important.

With respect to the biofuels, I was thinking as I was sitting here, about a young guy who came up to me one night. He was about 21 years old. He came up to me at a community meeting in North Dakota and said: I just came in from the west coast. I drove a pickup truck from the west coast on vegetable oil. He was fueling his pickup truck using vegetable oil.

Here is a kid that is working for alternative fuels groups out on the west coast someplace with stars in their eyes and dreams about finding alternative fuels that work.

I said: Well, how does it work when you use vegetable oil?

He had modified his engine in his pickup truck and drove across the Northern Tier using vegetable oil. He said: It worked great until they got to Montana, by the way, no offense to the Montanans here. He said it worked great until we got to Montana when it got kind of cold. Then the viscosity of that vegetable oil thickened up and they could not quite use it for a while.

But the point is, there are a lot of people doing inventive, interesting, fascinating things fueling their vehicles, creating modifications to vehicles. We are talking about creating a very substantial and aggressive standard for what are called biofuels, particularly ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, and so on.

Now, my colleague from California talked about automobile efficiency, and the automobile efficiency standards that we have created. Let me make the point first that there has been no change in 25 years to these standards. None. I have actually been persuaded in years past by those who say: Well, let's have NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation, develop these new standards.

The fact is, that is an excuse for doing nothing. It is pretty evident to me now that nothing will happen if that is what we continue to do. So we, as a Congress, on a bipartisan basis, have said: We need more efficiency with respect to our vehicles.

We use about 145 billion gallons of fuel a year in this country, 145 billion gallons of fuel. If we blended every gallon with ethanol, that would be a market of 14\1/2\ billion gallons of ethanol. We have created a renewable fuel standard of 7\1/2\ billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. I was one of the authors of that just a couple of years ago. We are going to exceed that very quickly. We are probably at that level now, and going to be at 10 billion gallons in 2 or 3 years.

So now we are going to go to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels. The OPEC countries say: Oh, this is awful. The roof is going to come in. We may decrease production of oil if you decide you are going to move in another direction.

Even as we do that, believing that with 70 percent of the oil that we import into this country being used in vehicles. And, understanding then we must make the vehicles more efficient if we are going to become less dependent on the OPEC countries and less dependent on foreign sources of oil from whom we now get over 60 percent of our oil, then we have a CAFE standard in this bill.

Now here is the result of the CAFE or the automobile efficiency standard in my State's newspapers, and I assume others by the auto industry. This is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. They are putting full-page ads in the newspapers, and they are also doing direct mail to constituents: Say no to extreme fuel economy increases. Make sure you don't pass these increased automobile efficiency standards.

Well, that is what they have been saying for 25 years, and nothing has changed. I have told this story repeatedly, and I will again because I think it is important. The first car I purchased as a young boy in high school was a 1924 Model T Ford for $25. It had been sitting in a grainery for decades. A guy sold it to me for $25. I spent 2 years trying to get it to run.

I restored that old Model T Ford. What I discovered was you put gasoline in a 1924 Model T Ford exactly the

same way you put gasoline in a 2007 Ford. Everything else about the vehicle has changed. Everything. There is more computing power in a 2007 brand new car than there was on the lunar lander that put the astronauts on the moon. Everything about these vehicles has changed except you still have to stick a gas hose in the tank and start pumping.

We did that in the 1924 model car, and you do it today in a 2007 model car. I would like to see us move and pole-vault to a new future. I happen to believe we ought to move to a hydrogen fuel cell future, where you have twice the efficiency of power to the wheel and put water out the tailpipe.

What a wonderful thing that would be. And hydrogen, of course, is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. You can take wind energy, produce electricity from the wind, use the electricity through the process of electrolysis, separate hydrogen from water, store hydrogen for vehicle transportation.

There are so many things we can do, but let's start, let's at least start, with the current vehicle fleet, saying to the automakers that we intend and expect you to produce more efficient automobiles.

The CAFE standards we have created that are in this legislation are called ten-in-ten. It is not unreasonable to believe that we should expect greater efficiency in these vehicles. Yes, we know the improvements that have been made in vehicles: better cupholders, more adept sound systems, all of the wonderful things that come with all of these new cars. But what about more efficiency? Nothing has changed.

A friend of mine looked at an identical vehicle they purchased 10 years prior. They loved the vehicle. So 10 years later they are ready for a new vehicle. They looked at the sticker on the window and discovered that in 10 years, the efficiency of that vehicle had not changed by 1 mile per gallon, not 1.

That describes the failure. We ought to certainly expect better than that.

Let me say also, in addition to supporting the automobile efficiency standards we will be voting on--standards that are bipartisan, standards that are reasonable, standards that have an off ramp so if they are not achievable, the industry will not have to meet them--they will have to demonstrate they are not capable scientifically of doing so.

In addition to that issue, which is so important, I wish to mention the issue of fossil fuels. We are, in fact, going to use fossil fuels in our future--coal, oil, and natural gas. I am a big supporter of renewable energy sources and renewable fuels. I believe that strongly. Whether it is wind, biomass, geothermal, renewable fuels, all of those are critically important. We will continue to use fossil fuels. It is important to me that we find ways to unlock opportunities to continue to use coal in a way that doesn't degrade the environment.

We have now finally come to an intersection. That intersection includes energy policy and climate change. We need to find a way, through clean coal technology and other issues--I will be working on that in the appropriations subcommittee which I chair--to continue to use those resources, particularly coal.

My colleagues have included, with my support, the efficiency titles of this legislation which are very important. Everything we do every day, from turning on a light switch to using appliances, everything we do every day and in every way uses energy. There are dramatic advances in lighting and dramatic savings to be had with respect to lighting standards in this bill. We fought for a long while about an obscure term called SEER 13 standards for air conditioners. We fought tooth and nail. The requirement for SEER 13 standards on air conditioners is very important and will require us to build fewer new energy plants because of the savings and the conservation that comes from that efficiency standard.

There is a lot to commend in this legislation. The next important step will be an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman that I will cosponsor with others called the renewable energy standard which will require 15 percent of our electric energy to come from renewable energy. That is an important standard and one I hope the Congress will embrace and support.

I am going to be speaking on other amendments as well. I again commend Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici. We have a good start. I come from not only the Energy Committee but Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye on the Commerce Committee on which I serve, Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe and others who have worked on this legislation. We are off to a start that can be a very important policy change and a new direction for the country in energy policy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the coming weeks the Senate will debate our national energy policy. An important part of that debate will involve tax and other incentives to encourage development of our abundant domestic energy resources. This debate will affect the lives of every American.

During that debate we must find a way to encourage greater use of renewable energy sources, advanced clean coal technologies in the generation of electricity, and accelerate efforts to move that clean energy to markets by building large transmission projects. Furthermore, we need to find alternative ways to produce energy, such as through fuel cells and other distributed generation.

For too many years, Congress has sent mixed messages about the importance of energy independence, security, diversity, and reliability, especially in the area of renewable and distributed energy and the opportunity for using advanced clean coal technology. The Congress has lacked the commitment, or perhaps understanding, about the major role that renewable energy and clean coal can play in helping our Nation meet its future electricity demands without seriously impacting the environment.

This is despite the fact that policymakers have been told repeatedly by energy developers that certainty about the availability of incentives is absolutely essential before they can commit the capital needed to move forward on a major energy project. Yet Congress has passed energy incentives that, in many cases, are available for as a little as one year or two.

In my judgment, the hood ornament for this start-and-stop, boom-and- bust energy policy is the tax credit for facilities that produce electricity from wind and other renewable resources. This credit has been extended for short periods five times, and shamefully has been allowed to expire three times, since it was enacted in 1992. The Tax Code is replete with other energy tax incentives that Congress made available for just a year or two, and that will expire before their full benefit can be realized.

It is imperative that we provide a clear signal to the marketplace that we are committed to the development of renewable sources of energy and advanced clean coal technologies. That is why I introduced the Clean Energy Production Tax Incentives Act to make these incentives available for 10 years.

The vast majority of energy facilities and infrastructure are owned, developed, and operated by the private sector. We must work closely with industry and other stakeholders to provide incentives so that these steps can be taken. For example, I am very supportive of a whole range of clean energy technologies and resources. North Dakota epitomizes that with its coal, oil, gas, wind and other renewable resources. We can and must utilize them now and into the future. If we want secure, clean, and reliable energy resources in the future, we must work with the private sector to help achieve our goals. This bill has the support of National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, Xcel Energy, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, the American Wind Energy Association, and Otter Tail Power Company.

I also believe we must advance our energy interests in a fiscally responsible manner. The costs of the clean energy tax incentive investments in this legislation would be offset by closing

down tax loopholes that allow profitable U.S. multinational companies to avoid paying their fair share.

Over the years, I have heard a few clear messages from the investment community, Federal and State regulators, energy industry, and environmental and local community interests. It must be clean so that we are incentivizing an environmentally sustainable energy option. We need to send the right market signals with duration, with a sustained commitment, and with certainty so that the best investment decisions are made.

I believe this legislation is an important step in that direction.

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

Mr. President, today a piece of legislation is being sent from this Congress to the President dealing with stem cell research called the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

On the way to the White House is a piece of legislation called the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Now, I know there are some who say: Well, what does this mean to our lives? Well, the research in stem cells is some of the most promising research in medicine we have seen in our lifetimes. We have a lot of people in this country today who are suffering. They suffer from dread diseases. They suffer from Alzheimer's. They suffer from Parkinson's disease, cancer, heart disease, diabetes--so many ailments and so many difficulties.

Research occurs in this country to try to address these issues and find cures, to unlock the mystery of these diseases. One of the most promising areas of research has been stem cell research.

Now, the President has indicated he does not support Federal funding for certain kinds of research in stem cells. He says he will veto this legislation. I hope he changes his mind. He has a right to veto the legislation. We then would try to override the veto. But I think it will be a significant setback if the President vetoes the legislation.

This legislation deals only with a specific area in stem cell research. It deals only with stem cells from embryos that were created for fertility purposes by the in vitro fertilization process. Those embryos that are created in the in vitro fertilization clinics--they create more of those embryos than are needed, and then they throw them away if they are not needed.

We have had about 1 million people walking on this Earth now in the last 25 years who were conceived, in many cases, in a test tube or a petri dish in the process of in vitro fertilization--nearly a million people. It was big news when the first such conception occurred, but now it is relatively routine for those couples who are unable to conceive to go through in vitro fertilization and conceive. When doing that, there are embryos created--a sperm and an egg create an embryo; a fertilized egg creates an embryo--and there are more embryos created from the in vitro fertilization process than are used. Some are then stored frozen. After a period of time, when it is clear they are not going to be used, they are simply discarded. They are thrown away.

The piece of legislation that goes to the President, saying let us proceed with additional research, deals only with those embryos that otherwise would be thrown away. These are the embryos that could be used instead for this critical area of research. Rather than throwing the in vitro fertilization embryos in the garbage, it is much more life affirming, I think, to use them to better understand and to treat some of the devastating diseases and illnesses--diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's.

I know there is great passion about this issue. Often, the issue is cast in terms of: When does life begin? But that is not about this debate on this bill. These are embryos that are about to be discarded and could instead be used to search for the cure for these diseases and to enhance life, to extend life.

I am sure there are desks in this Chamber--perhaps every desk-- occupied by someone who knows a friend, a loved one, a neighbor, an acquaintance who is suffering today from one of these awful diseases.

A former colleague of ours asked a question. I wish to put it up on a chart because it is such an interesting way to address this issue. One of our former colleagues, former Senator Jack Danforth, from Missouri, who is also an ordained Episcopal priest--he was a Senator, yes, but is an ordained Episcopal priest as well--here is what he said about this issue. He says:

It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish

are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible

diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only

explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish

to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine

into statutory law.

Senator Danforth is a Republican, an ordained Episcopal priest-- interesting person and legislator. I served with him in the Senate, and I think he puts it well.

Nancy Reagan says:

Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell

research, which may provide our scientists with answers that

have so long been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we

can turn our backs on this--there are just so many diseases

that can be cured, or at least helped. We have lost so much

time already, and I just really can't bear to lose any more.

Nancy Reagan. We know, of course, her husband, the late Ronald Reagan, suffered from Alzheimer's disease. In fact, he sent a message to America in which he announced he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He entered into a long period of darkness from this terrible disease that is affecting more and more people in our country.

There are about 400,000 embryos frozen in in vitro fertilization clinics. It is estimated that about 8,000 to 11,000 of these embryos are going to be discarded, thrown away. This debate is about whether we should, with the consent of those who own those embryos--or from whom those embryos were created, with their consent--whether we should use these embryos that would otherwise be discarded for research that has the potential to cure diseases and save lives.

There is a young woman in North Dakota. She has recently come to Washington, DC, with her mother. She is a young woman who suffers from diabetes--a very significant form of diabetes. She has had a pretty aggressive time dealing with it. Her name is Camille--Camille Johnson. This is a picture of Camille, with her clarinet and her two friends who play in a middle school band. Camille has nearly lost her life on more than one occasion as a result of having to battle this disease. Her mother Andi and Camille have told me it is fine to use her picture because she has worked very aggressively in the juvenile diabetes area to try to address these issues and say to the Congress: Won't you please--won't you please--give us the opportunity to proceed with stem cell research to unlock the mysteries of these terrible diseases?

So there are thousands--there are millions--of Camilles and people with different names, young and old, who rely on this Congress and rely on this President to do the right thing.

This is a quote from Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the Director of the National Institutes of Health for this administration. He says:

From my standpoint, it is clear today that American science

will be better served, and our nation better served, if we

let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines.

That is from the President's own adviser on these issues. Yet the President says he is going to veto this legislation.

I care deeply about this issue for a lot of reasons. I lost a beautiful 23-year-old daughter to heart disease, and I decided, not just for her sake but for the sake of others in my family who are gone as a result of devastating diseases, that we must do everything-- everything--possible to find a way to cure these terrible diseases that take so many lives. Some say: Well, you

don't have to use these embryos. There are other things much more promising, such as adult stem cells. There are adult stem cells you can use. The fact is, we have been working on adult stem cell research for decades--for decades. Yet, while I support that, it doesn't show nearly the promise that embryonic stem cells show in the ability to respond to some of these diseases.

Let me go through just a couple of them. One day, I was on an airplane, and I was talking to a man who is called the father of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins. He told me of some fascinating research that is going on. They induced heart attacks in mice, severe heart attacks in mice, and I believe, as I recall, there were a dozen and a half or two dozen mice in which they induced severe heart attacks. Then they extracted stem cells and invested those stem cells back into the heart muscle of those very same mice, and in a matter of weeks, a good number of those mice--in fact, I think the majority of those mice--had no evidence of a damaged heart. These were hearts which had been severely damaged, and in a matter of weeks, the investment of stem cells that could build new heart muscle, and those hearts showed no evidence of damage.

At Johns Hopkins University, paralyzed rats partially regained the use of previously immobile hind legs in studies where they injected the rodents with stem cells from mouse embryos. At the University of Wisconsin, they have turned stem cells into nerve cells carrying the messages between body and brain offering the possibilities for repairing damage caused by ALS, by spinal cord injury, and other nerve- related disorders. At UCLA, at the AIDS Institute, they were able to coax human embryonic stem cells into becoming maturity immune T cells. This discovery might suggest new ways to fight immune disorders such as HIV and AIDS.

Until now, it is impossible to study the complete progress of Alzheimer's disease, which robs both memory and life. We don't know how or even when it exactly begins. With human embryonic stem cells, we might be able to isolate the disease and observe its progress from inception to death on human tissue--excuse me, on human tissue cells-- not necessarily on the human beings themselves, and find a cure for this terrible disease.

The ability for embryonic stem cells to transform into any cell type gives them the potential that adult stem cells simply do not have. We just have not had the capability with adult stem cells that we have with embryonic stem cells.

So those patients in this country who are struggling and are suffering today with these terrible diseases, looking to the Congress, looking to science, say: Don't lock in areas that prevent research from continuing, but expand opportunities for research; yes, with ethical guidelines; yes, with a sensitive understanding that there are issues you have to resolve, but proceed. Don't stop them. Proceed ahead to conduct this research and give us hope.

There are so many patient groups and scientific organizations and foundations and others that support this Federal research. I know they, too, believe what Congress has done here is a breath of fresh air. It is the right thing to do. I know they hope the President will not keep his promise to veto this legislation. That is one promise he should not keep. It is exactly the wrong thing for the President to do. By a wide majority, the American people believe that, rather than discard those embryos, rather than simply throw them away, they ought to be used for life-affirming research, with the consent of those from whom they were created. That is what this bill does. That is why this bill is so important.

As I end, let me say again, this is about giving life, affirming life, saving life. My hope is that the action today by which we move this legislation from Congress to the White House will be seen as great hope for a different approach and a more aggressive approach on this stem cell research, and my hope is the President will take another look at this and decide what we have done is the right thing for us and especially, most especially, for those in this country who have waited so long for this kind of approach taken by the United States on stem cell research.

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

I was not intending to speak at this moment, but I listened to several of my colleagues talk about the immigration bill. We apparently will cast another cloture vote this evening and perhaps votes beyond that, depending on how that cloture vote turns out. But because of a number of statements by colleagues this evening, I wanted to make a couple of comments.

There is a suggestion by a number of our colleagues who brought a plan to the floor, what is called a grand bargain or the grand compromise. This is a group of people--self-appointed, I guess--who spent a lot of time in rooms together, with the White House accompanying them, and produced a plan they brought to the floor of the Senate and said: Here is our immigration plan. And by the way, if you try to change it, you will destroy it.

Most Members of the Senate were not part of these meetings and not part of this grand compromise. A number of us have offered amendments. A number of our colleagues have tried to offer amendments. I am thinking of Senator Webb, who has waited for 2 weeks to offer an amendment. It is problematic whether he will be given an opportunity to offer an amendment. He wasn't part of the group, wasn't part of the grand compromise, but thinks he could improve the legislation. But, because those who have brought the bill to the floor have done so with arms locked together, believing that anyone who could try to improve on their work would be destroying their compromise, we have people who are not able to offer these amendments.

There is also some implied suggestion here that those who do not support this grand compromise are not sensitive to the issue of immigration, are not willing to look and understand that there is a real, serious problem here which needs to be addressed. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, while I have substantial difficulty with the plan that is brought to the floor of the Senate--I think it is a flawed plan--I happen to think immigration is a very serious problem in this country.

The first and obvious answer to our immigration problem is to try to provide some real border security. We have about 12 million--perhaps more--people who have come into this country without legal authorization. Why? Most of them wanted to come to the United States of America to work. Most of them wanted to come here because they believe there is hope and opportunity here. They want a job here.

It would be wonderful if our country, having over a century lifted the middle class up with good wages and good jobs and benefits--it would be wonderful if we could say: We have created on this planet something very special here called the United States, and we would like to share it with everyone right now. We, of course, cannot do that. We would be overrun. We have immigration quotas. We allow 1.5 million people in our country every year legally. There is a legal process by which we do that.

But we are on a planet here that circles the Sun, and we have 6.4 billion neighbors. One-half of them live on less than $2 a day, one- half of them have never made a telephone call, and one-half of them do not have access on a regular basis to clean, potable water. It is a challenging planet. We have a lot of neighbors who live in great difficulty.

In this little spot on this planet which is labeled ``the United States of America,'' we have created something pretty special. I have described it at great length, how we did it and why we did it over the last century, lifting America up, providing good jobs that pay well. It is not surprising to me that on a little planet on which we all travel, where, if you are in India, the average hourly wage is 11 cents an hour--in China, it is 33 cents an hour; if you live in Honduras, the average hourly wage is 33 cents an hour; it is not surprising to me that people who are living in poverty in other countries, making a pittance for a long day's work, would like to come to the United States and find a job and improve their life and make a better life for them and their family. That is not surprising to me.

I would like it if we could say to them: You know what. Come on, join us. Just think for a moment if we decided we have a new immigration law in this country, that new immigration says: You know what, this country is wide open. You want to come join us from anywhere, anytime, anyplace? Come on. Come and live with us. Come and work with us. Come and be part of our country right now. No restrictions. Come and stay. Come and work.

We would be overrun. Millions and millions and millions of people would try to find their way to this wonderful country of ours because we have created an economy that lifted the standard and broadened the middle class.

We cannot do that. We instead have a process of legal immigration that allows about a million and a half people a year to come into this country. They apply. They are part of the quota from their country. They wait. They wait a year, they wait 5 years, they wait 10 years. If they are lucky, they reach the top of that list and they are able to come to this country through this legal system of immigration quotas.

Now, my colleagues have brought to the floor the ``grand compromise.'' And what they have said is this: Well, we do not have much border security. We have got a lot of people coming into this country illegally now, without legal authorization. So I will tell you what. They say: We will pass a piece of legislation that says anyone who came to this country by at least December 31 of last year--that includes, we think, 12 million--anyone who came here by December 31 of last year, you are going to be legal. We are going to decide that you are here legally and you get a work permit. You are no longer illegal; you are legal.

Now, we have people overseas in their home country who thought this was all

on the level. They applied to come to the country as part of the quota. They have waited 6, 7, 8 years. They discover they made a mistake. They should have come here last December 20 or December 31 and snuck across the border someplace because then they would be described by this bill, by the folks who created this grand compromise, then they would be described as legal citizens, not citizens as having legal status, I should say. Well, is that fair? No. No, it is not fair. Is it right? No.

But more than the issue of dealing with those 12 million, this legislation also says we should have more people who do not live in this country come into this country to assume jobs with something called temporary workers or guest workers. Now, I happen to be sensitive to this issue of those who have come here without legal authorization. Some have come here decades ago. There are people, I am sure, who have been here 20 years without legal authorization to be here.

They have probably raised a family. They have worked. They have been model citizens. They have been neighbors. They have been good people. Should we round them all up at this point and deport them? Of course not. But should we, on the other hand, decide: If you snuck across the border on December 31, good for you. You are now declared legal? I don't think so.

My colleague, Senator Webb, has an amendment that I think would move a long way toward addressing some of these issues in terms of the time that you have been here to try to be sensitive about those things which I support. But this legislation says: If you showed up last December 31, you are given legal status.

But the issue I raised last evening, and the amendment that I offered that prevailed by one vote was on the guest worker provision, temporary worker provision. My colleagues have said, the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Massachusetts have said, you know, we need to have a temporary worker provision because if we don't have a temporary worker provision to bring in people who are not now here to assume jobs in this country, they are going to come anyway. They are coming across anyway.

They will come in as illegal immigrants. Well, I said: I don't understand that. You say that this bill would strengthen our border, provide border security, and stop illegal immigration. Now you are saying that in order to stop illegal immigration you have to have a guest worker provision because, if we do not have a guest worker provision, they are going to come anyway. Maybe you are misrepresenting this issue of border security, are you not?

So the Congressional Budget Office comes out with a report. Guess what they said. This bill, the grand compromise, means those who come across the border illegally, 75 percent will keep coming under this bill; 75 percent will keep coming under this bill. Yet the proponents of the bill are out here with big banners and trumpeting that this is a big border security bill. It is not. It is not that.

I have raised the question about American workers because there is no discussion of American workers. You know they have a role in this debate. We are told, in fact, my colleague from New Hampshire said there are not enough workers in this country, so we need to bring in workers. There are not enough workers to assume the jobs that are available.

Well, that is a line that I understand. I don't agree with it, I understand it. I understand where it is coming from. We have got a lot of businesses in this country that have decided that workers are like wrenches. They are like wrenches. You just use them up and throw them away. Don't worry too much about them. Make sure you hire them for as little as possible. By the way, keep downward pressure on that income because workers are disposable.

If you wonder about that, by the way, just go back and read the paper from a few weeks ago when a company called Circuit City decided they were going to layoff 3,400 of their workers. Why? Were they bad workers? No. It was not that at all.

This is a company with a chief executive officer who made $10 million a year, and his workers made an average of, I believe, $11 an hour. They wanted to have a workforce that was paid lower than that. So they said to 3,400 of them: We are going to get rid of you because we want to rehire people at a lower rate.

So if you wonder about this wrench analogy, just check the newspaper one of these days. But we have a lot of people in this country who work at the bottom of the economic scale, bottom of the ladder.

I told a story yesterday about a company from Georgia. The story was from the Wall Street Journal. This was a poultry company. I believe they had roughly 700 workers. Three-fourths of them were illegal immigrants working in that company. They were paying them a pittance. I don't remember the exact wage, but they were paying them a small amount of money. Then they were raided by the immigration folks. It was discovered they had all of those illegal immigrant workers, so they had to get rid of them.

So then they had to hire other workers. Well, guess what. They went to the newspaper and put a help wanted ad in the newspaper. They said: We are now paying higher wages. Immediately they got a lot of applicants because they were paying better wages. So they filled those jobs.

A few years later they began, that same company, to contract with one of those temporary worker groups that was able to bring together illegal workers and package them and sell them to companies. They started doing the same thing one more time. Why? So they could push down wages.

Now, my point today and yesterday was, I think this is an interesting discussion about a serious problem, immigration. But I think there is a party that is not at the table, and that is the American workers. Nobody wants to talk about that. We are talking about 12 million people. What about 140 million people? What about the people, especially that part of our workforce who, this morning, got up with great hope, got dressed, went to work, worked hard, got paid the minimum wage, and then finished after 8 hours of back-breaking work and went to the second job and did another 6 or 8 hours at the minimum wage, and then went home exhausted because they are trying to make do with two jobs at the minimum wage for their family.

Increasingly, by the way, those workers are women. What about those workers? Do they matter? Does it matter when you bring in people through the back door who are willing to work for lower wages, that you then begin pressing down and pushing down wages in this country? Does that matter?

I have spoken at great length on this floor about the larger economic interests who want to export American jobs to China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Singapore and various parts of the world in order to search for lower wages.

I have spoken at length on the specific companies who left our country, why they left, where the jobs are. I have spoken at great length about Huffy bikes. Huffy bikes fired their workers, moved their production to China. I know where they make Huffy bikes. Yes, I know where they make them now. They don't make them in Ohio. They used to. All of those folks got fired. They make them in Shenzhen, China. They are made by people who make 30 cents an hour. They work 12 to 14 hours a day 7 days a week.

Why do I say that? Because exactly the same economic interests that are searching the globe for low wages, to move jobs to where they can find the lowest wage, are some of the same economic interests that want to bring cheap labor through the back door for the jobs that are left to put downward pressure on American wages.

Now, the American worker has been more productive. Productivity has increased substantially in the recent period. Yet their wages have not kept pace. The reason is obvious. There are all kinds of ways to put downward pressure on the wages of American workers.

Alan Blinder is no radical economist. He is a mainstream economist. He used to be Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. They all wear gray suits all the time. Alan Blinder is a guy who I am sure supports free trade--supports what is called free trade. That is kind of the mantra these days. But he wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs. Here is what he said, the former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He said

that there are over forty million American jobs that are tradeable, which means subject to being moved offshore in search of lower wages. He said not all of them will go. They won't. But even those that remain here are going to have downward pressure on their wages because they are competing with others in other parts of the world who are willing to work for less.

My point is simple. This immigration issue and guest worker issue is the reverse side of the same coin; the outmigration of American jobs and the inmigration of cheap labor. This is about money. It is about profits for big economic interests. It is sold as something else on the floor of the Senate. We are hearing about compassion. Boy, I don't lack compassion for anybody who is mistreated in the workplace. I know they are.

But for a moment, instead of just talking about the immigrant worker who came here without legal authorization, let me talk about the worker who is here. Let me talk about a woman who lives in a used trailer house with no running water, with an outdoor toilet, trying to raise four kids and walking to work for the minimum wage.

Do you know how they heat that trailer house? A wood stove with a pipe sticking out the window of the living room of a used trailer house. A wood stove, mind you.

You want to talk about deplorable conditions. There are plenty of them in this country for people at the bottom of the ladder struggling, just trying to get ahead, trying to get a better way, to be lifted up providing for their family. There is no discussion of that at all. This entire discussion is about another group, a group of immigrations who have came here without legal authorization.

Let me tell you, my ancestry came here from somewhere else. I am a product of immigrant ancestors. We all have these stories. I am very sensitive to them. I want people to be able to do well and to participate in this American dream of ours.

Let me describe one side of my ancestry who was a woman named Caroline who came from Norway. She came with her husband to the new country. She ended up homesteading 160 acres of land. What happened was they landed in Minneapolis-St. Paul as immigrants, and her husband died of a heart attack.

This Norwegian woman got on a train with six children, they went out to the prairies of North Dakota with six children, pitched a tent and homesteaded 160 acres and raised a family and ran a farm.

One can only think what must be in the inner strength of someone to do that alone in a new country. All of us have those stories. They are wonderful stories about immigrants. This is not pro- or anti-immigrant. This country is refreshed as a result of immigration. It has always been. That is why we have a process of legal immigration. A million and a half people come here every year, plus more for agricultural work. That is what this process is about.

The dilemma is this: When I described this spot on the planet called the United States, this spot on the planet is different. It is different because we created something very different. Starting about 100 years ago, we began to lift up this country, expand the middle class, provide worth to the workers of this country, understanding they were part of the productive capability that could lift this country's economy and provide opportunity for more Americans.

We did that in a remarkable way, and it was not easy. I have spoken on the floor about James Fyler. James Fyler, I said, died of lead poisoning. Well, actually, you know, he was shot 54 times. That is probably lead poisoning. It is also being killed by 54 bullets.

You know why James Fyler was killed almost a century ago? He believed people who went underground in this country to mine for coal--hard work, dangerous work--he believed people who did that work--underground mining for coal--ought to be paid a decent wage, ought to be working in a safe coal mine. For that he gave his life, was shot 54 times.

Well, from James Fyler on forward, decade after decade after decade we made progress, demanded progress, safe workplaces, child labor laws, fair wages. We demanded progress--the right of workers to organize.

We lifted this country up because we expanded the middle class. More and more Americans had opportunity. From that opportunity came prosperity. That is a subject that has largely been ignored in the Senate in the last couple of weeks.

What is the impact of all of this? I asked the question yesterday about the American worker: Where is the American worker in this discussion? What is their interest? Who represents their interest? The answer is, the American worker is not a part of this discussion at all. The American worker is left behind. I described them the other day as those workers who understand seconds. They understand second mortgage, second shift, second job. They understand second place, all of them, struggling to make ends meet. Yet they are not a part of this discussion. But this discussion does impact this country in many ways, about working standards, standards of employment, wages, opportunities to continue to expand the middle class.

I think there are claims on the floor of the Senate that if you don't support this grand compromise, you just don't understand it, because it is a wonderful piece of work. It provides border security. It provides employment sanctions. It provides temporary workers to fill jobs for which there are no Americans available, we are told. Let's look at that.

Border security doesn't need new legislation. In 1986, the last reform bill passed on immigration said: We will have border security. They stood up and said: This is going to provide for border security. We are going to stop illegal immigration. The problem is, the mask is off the myth here as of yesterday, when the Congressional Budget Office says the bill they brought to the floor of the Senate is a bill that will allow 75 percent of the illegal immigration that now occurs to continue. What kind of security is that? Apparently not much.

How about employer sanctions? We have already done that as well. That is already the law. We don't need a new law for that. We have employer sanctions. In 2004, the Bush administration took action against four companies in the entire United States for hiring illegal workers. What does that tell you? That tells you they said: We surrender. We have no intention of administering this law. We have no intention of enforcing the law. We surrender.

We don't need a new law to do that. All we need is some determination that we are going to enforce employer sanctions.

With respect to temporary workers, that is the biggest ruse of all. The temporary worker provision in this legislation is simply a request for big business from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce saying: We will support this bill if you give us the opportunity to bring some cheap labor through the backdoor. That is what this is about. Don't take it from me. Go to some of the newspaper columns that describe this grand bargain and why the big economic interests have said: We will support this if you allow us to bring in some immigrant labor legally under the position of temporary workers. Apparently those who are part of the grand compromise said: We will do that. That is a fair thing.

How do they do it? In the worst possible way. Even if you were inclined to do it, you wouldn't do it this way. I am not inclined to believe we ought to do it. Most of the folks who are trumpeting this proposal are people who would talk about supply and demand. Let the marketplace govern. The marketplace; right? I used to teach a little economics. I know about the supply/demand curve. Except the marketplace doesn't work very well, does it, when in fact if you can't find a worker for a job, you might have to advertise that job at a little extra price, a little higher wage. People who are carrying the bedpans in the hospitals on the midnight shift, people making the beds in the motel early the next morning, people across the counter at the convenience store, maybe if you can't get them for the minimum wage, maybe you will have to pay an extra 50 cents an hour. That is the supply-and-demand relationship. But if you can bring someone else in who says, I am sorry, I will take that job, you don't have to pay anybody more, I will take that job for the very minimum, you can keep downward pressure on wages. And that is

the strategy here. That is what this is about. Apparently supply/demand is a good theory, but it doesn't work in a circumstance where the big economic interests want you to keep putting downward pressure on wages.

So you say: OK, let's bring in some temporary workers. Here is the way they did it. Follow this for a moment. They wanted 400,000 a year. Senator Bingaman reduced that to 200,000 a year. Here is the way it would work. You can bring in 200,000 the first year. They can stay for 2 years. They can bring their family, if they choose. Then they have to go home for a year and their family has to go with them. They can come back for a third year, stay for a fourth. They have to go home for a fifth. If they never brought their family at all, they can come back for a sixth and then a seventh year. And each year below that you can get another group of 200,000 coming. If you didn't understand that, you are not alone. No one understands that. That defies any kind of logic at all. Yet that is exactly what was stuck in this legislation.

I offered an amendment last evening that passed by a vote of 49 to 48. There are people here having an apoplectic seizure about that. They have spent most of their day gnashing their teeth and wiping their brow, trying to figure out how to deal with it. It was simple enough, it was a sunset after 5 years of the temporary worker program. We say after 5 years, let's take a look. It is a new a program, a new approach. Let's take a look and see what the impact is. What if we find out it has a tremendous depressing impact on wages, which it very likely will? What if we find out that 75 percent of those who were brought in under the temporary worker program refuse to go home and have stayed here illegally? Would you maybe want to make some adjustments? Why not sunset it in 5 years so you are required to evaluate that it doesn't work?

We are told: If you do that, you will be killing this legislation. This is a poison pill. We have locked arms on this grand compromise. You are going to kill this bill.

As I said yesterday, it is like the cheap sweater. Pull a thread, the arm falls off. God forbid, it is going to destroy everything we have done.

It is unbelievable. It is as if nobody else has an idea around here except those who were in a room someplace in the Capitol called the grand bargainers.

I have been here long enough to see many of these grand bargains. Sometimes there are two of them. Usually not two, because that wouldn't be called grand. But maybe six, sometimes 10, sometimes they call them a gang. It is a gang of 12 or a gang of whatever. Every time it happens, what you find as a result is terrible legislation. I guarantee you, you get a gang or a group or a gaggle or whatever it is who go into a room someplace and close the door and start developing this sense of self-importance pumped up by a little more helium or hydrogen, and all of a sudden, they get out here and they say: Here is the answer. And you may not change it. Because if you do, you destroy this carefully balanced work of ours.

So here we are--it is 7 o'clock at night--having to work 2 weeks on a piece of legislation that, A, won't secure our borders, unfortunately. I wish it would. I think we should. In fact, that is what we should be doing. What we ought to do is have a bill that deals with border security. Once we have done that, we come back, after we have border security, and say: Now the next step, which is as important but you do it next, is to provide for the status of those who are here without legal authorization. We should do that. I wouldn't do it by saying the people who came across December 31 of last year are given legal status and a work card. That is not how I would do it, but I would be sensitive to a lot of people who have contributed to this country for a long time, even without legal authorization to come here. But that is not the way this works. It is not what was brought to the floor of the Senate.

So now we will have a second cloture vote tonight. I don't know how that will work. Whatever the Senate will decide tonight on a second cloture vote, if cloture is invoked, then we have 30 hours postcloture. We will see. There are a good many amendments that have been prevented from being offered. I mentioned Senator Webb has one. Senator Webb has a very important amendment. He has been prevented from offering that amendment. I know Senator Tester has one. If we are in a postcloture period, my hope is we will relent and decide there are ideas in the Senate that exist at every desk, not just a couple of desks. If we believe that, maybe we will get the best of what each has to offer rather than the worst of what most have to offer.

I wanted to make a couple comments because I heard a substantial amount of discussion that we don't have enough Americans for the jobs here, so we need to bring people in, all these interesting, in some cases very convoluted, approaches to supporting legislation that is not just imperfect but falls far short of that which is necessary to address a very serious problem.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders) The Senator from Florida.

Darfur