Floor Statements

Mr. President, this bill is worth spending 10 minutes on tonight. This is the Defense authorization bill. For heavens' sake, can we not set aside the frustrations we all have on this other issue and at least support our troops and come together and unify behind our troops?

Can we not at least set a time to take up the Defense authorization bill, which is critically important? We cannot do this on the appropriations bill. It would be legislating on an appropriations bill. This is a pay increase, special benefits, the BRAC implementation. This has to do with whether families are going to get support, whether we are going to hire nurses. This is the men and women in uniform who are in harm's way.

The suggestion is, we cannot spend 10 minutes to debate on whether to take up an authorization bill. We have never not passed an authorization bill. By law, we must pass an authorization bill or else all the authorities which are critically important to the men and women in uniform are not going to be passed.

This cannot just be another vote, another vote which divides us Republicans from Democrats. We have to unify behind this bill. Senator Warner and I and the members of the Armed Services Committee have worked month after month after month to get this bill up. This bill has been on the calendar for 3 months.

If we do not decide to take up this bill or have a place fixed to take up this bill when we get back, we are going to have 3 weeks of an ongoing debate on a critically important subject, I agree, energy, but then we will never get to the men and women in uniform.

This is not our bill. This is their bill. Let's vote to take it up and set a place, a firm place, where we can protect the men and women in uniform. They are overstretched. The equipment is running out. It is worn out. We owe them this. Set aside these differences for a few minutes, just a few minutes, and agree to take up this bill.

If we cannot take it up now, fix a time when we can take it up. That is my plea. I know Senator Warner will join in this plea. This cannot be a partisan vote.

May Senator Warner be recognized for a few minutes?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, after more than a decade of decline, the number of children and teens killed by firearms is again increasing. I would like to take a moment to break down some of the statistics that contribute to this alarming fact. An analysis of firearm violence data by the Children's Defense Fund found that 3,006 children and teens were killed by guns in 2005. This marked the first time that more than 3,000 kids were killed by firearms in many years and the first yearly increase in the number of children's deaths since 1994. Broken down, this amounts to 1 child or teen dying every 3 hours in America, 8 children a day, or 58 children every week.

Firearms are the cause of death of more children between the ages of 10 and 19 than any other cause except car accidents. In 2005 alone, a shocking 69 preschoolers were killed by firearms. Between 1979 and 2005, gun violence took the lives of over 104,000 children and teens.

A closer look at these 3,006 tragedies show 1,972 children and teens were homicide victims, 822 children and teens committed suicide, and 212 children and teens died in accidental or undetermined circumstances; 2,654 were boys and 352 were girls; 404 were under the age of 15, 131 were under the age of 10, and 69 were under the age of 5.

More than five times as many children and teens suffered nonfatal gun injuries during the same period.

Mr. President, these staggering statistics cannot and must not be ignored. We must strengthen our gun laws to limit children's assess to guns. As a father and a grandfather, I urge my colleagues to take up and pass sensible gun safety legislation so that this frightening trend will not continue.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I join with Senators Biden, Lugar, Lautenberg, Warner, and Leahy today in submitting the Libya Claims Resolution Act.

During last year's consideration of the Defense authorization bill, I joined with Senator Lautenberg and 31 other cosponsors in unanimously adding a provision which allowed victims of terrorism to seek redress in U.S. courts against foreign states whose officials or agents commit acts of terrorism, by establishing a private right of action under the sovereign immunity exception for state sponsors of terrorism.

I supported the Lautenberg amendment to the Defense authorization bill out of concern over Libya's backing out of a settlement agreement with the victims and families of victims of the 1986 bombing of the La Belle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany. On April 5, 1986, Libya directed its agents to execute a terrorist attack in West Berlin for the sole purpose of killing as many American military personnel as possible. The La Belle Discotheque was known to be frequented by large numbers of U.S. military personnel. The bombing of the discotheque occurred at a time when 260 people, including U.S. military personnel, were present. When the bomb detonated, two U.S. soldiers were killed and over 90 U.S. soldiers were injured.

Since shortly after the National Defense Authorization Act was enacted in January 2008, and in direct response to the Lautenberg provision, the Libyans approached the State Department about securing a comprehensive settlement of claims against Libya brought by American victims of acts of terrorism.

Under the proposed international agreement the United States would receive sufficient funding to pay the two large outstanding settlements with Libya--the Pan Am 103 families' settlement and the La Belle Discotheque settlement--as Congress has requested in previous legislation. In addition, Libya would provide sufficient funds to ensure fair compensation of the other pending claims for acts of terrorism.

In return for this comprehensive claims settlement, the United States will need to assure Libya that it will not face further terrorism- related litigation in U.S. courts. This legislation, the Libya Claims Resolution Act, will restore Libya's sovereign immunity--once the United States has received the agreed funding.

With the enactment of this legislation, the international agreement can be concluded quickly and the money channeled to American claimants. According to the State Department, the Pan Am and La Belle claimants should receive their settlements shortly after the agreement is signed, ending years of waiting for just compensation form Libya.

I commend the State Department for its efforts to bring these claims to a resolution.

Mr. President, I commend GEN Richard A. Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, for his outstanding service and commitment to excellence throughout his 36 years of distinguished military service to our Nation. General Cody will retire in August 2008 with the gratitude and well wishes of the Nation and particularly of the soldiers and families to whom he has devoted his life.

General Cody is originally from Montpelier, VT, and began his service as a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy. He graduated from West Point in 1972 and became an Army aviator. General Cody has long been widely regarded as the Army's premier attack helicopter warrior and pilot with over 5,000 flying hours.

For more than 20 of his 36 years as a soldier General Cody has been entrusted with the command of troops in well known combat units including the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment and several assignments with the 101st Airborne Division . Most notably, in 1991 then-Lieutenant Colonel Cody personally led the Apache attack helicopters of Task Force Normandy, the joint aviation task force that fired the opening salvoes of the gulf war, that destroyed Iraqi air defense sites and, as GEN H. Norman Schwarzkopf recounted, ``plucked out the eyes'' of Sadaam Hussein's air defenses.

Over the last 6 years, as one of the most senior leaders of the Army, General Cody has dedicated himself to ensuring that American soldiers are the best-trained, best-equipped and best-led force ready for the complex challenges of the global war on terror. As a result, in part of his determined leadership and uncompromising support, soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world have met those challenges.

General Cody's insight and leadership has also been a force behind the Army's transformation, which has set the Army on a path to provide the Nation with an Army that is more lethal, agile, deployable, and flexible; capable of fighting and winning this Nation's wars in the 21st century.

General Cody has been an example to soldiers throughout his great career; an example shared by his proud Army family as well. His wife Vicki will forever be a strong voice and tireless worker for soldiers and their families. Their brave sons Tyler and Clint, also Army officers and attack helicopter aviators with six combat tours between them, have answered the same call to duty and continue to serve the Nation.

General Cody is an American hero, unflinching in war and tireless in peace. President John F. Kennedy once said, ``When at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment of each one of us-recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities, we will be measured by our answers to 4 questions-were we truly men of courage were we truly men of judgment were we truly men of integrity were we truly men of dedication?'' I believe that when history judges the service of General Cody, the Army's 31st Vice Chief of Staff, it will be clear that this was truly a man of courage, judgment, integrity, and dedication.

The Nation is honored and grateful to have had the service of GEN Richard Cody and his family. As he and his wife start this next chapter of their lives, we wish them all the best for a day of rest well deserved and earned.

Mr. President, by now, all Americans are well aware of the record-high gas prices that have reverberated through our economy, hitting pocketbooks and inflating the price of everything from food to manufactured goods. An issue that receives far less attention, however, is the ever-increasing price of utilities for home heating and cooling. During the next 2 years alone, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, estimates that utility costs will increase substantially. In 2008 and 2009, average residential electricity prices are projected to increase by 5.2 percent and 9.8 percent, respectively, while natural gas will increase by 16 percent and 34 percent. Home heating oil is projected to soar by an astounding 63 percent in 2009 alone.

During these difficult economic times, no one has been more adversely affected by high energy prices than low-income households and the unemployed, who have been hit with the double whammy of paying for skyrocketing gas prices and increased home heating and cooling bills at the same time. Since President Bush took office, the average price of a gallon of gasoline has nearly tripled, and residential energy prices have shot upward by astounding amounts, financially crippling lower income households, forcing many of them to choose whether to pay for essential food and medicine, or to keep the heat on during the dead of winter. In my home State of Michigan, my constituents are worried about how they will pay for natural gas, home heating oil and propane for the upcoming winter.

That is why increased funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, is critical. LIHEAP was created in 1981 to help low-income families, elderly individuals on a fixed income and the unemployed pay their energy bills. Even before recent and projected increases in energy prices, my home State of Michigan--like other States--started off with less funding in this fiscal year than was required to meet the need. There have been significant efforts over the last couple of years to provide full funding for the LIHEAP program-- consistent with that authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005--but these efforts have been thwarted by an administration unwilling to support this program at the necessary level.

The bill before the Senate--the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, S. 3186--would significantly strengthen LIHEAP. These additional emergency funds would go a long way toward providing households with the necessary assistance in dealing with soaring energy costs. I am an original cosponsor of this critical legislation, and I am pleased to support it. I look forward to its swift enactment into law.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a speech on July 15 by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign here in Washington, DC. In this remarkable speech, Secretary Gates makes the case for the improvement of the Nation's diplomatic and developmental capabilities-- what he calls the ``tools of persuasion and inspiration''--that are as ``indispensible'' to our security and prosperity as are our Armed Forces.

If we have learned anything over the last 7 years it is that turning to our capable and proven military cannot be our only or dominant way of dealing with the challenges of a dangerous world. Secretary Gates warns us of the ``creeping militarization'' of our Nation's foreign policy.

Too often, and especially in a crisis, we turn to the military as the only agency with the capacity and resources necessary and available for meaningful action. Secretary Gates acknowledges this reality but challenges us to make the changes that will improve the capacity, readiness and availability of the Nation's nonmilitary agencies.

Secretary Gates calls for increasing the Nation's investment in the capacity and capability of the Department of State and other development agencies. I agree; we have undermanned and underfunded them for too long and we realize today more than ever the unwelcome consequences of that neglect. This is a striking observation coming from the Secretary of Defense and should demand our attention.

More money alone, however, is not enough to bring our diplomatic and development agencies up to the capability and capacity levels needed for the complexities and scope of the dangers around us. Secretary Gates also calls for a greater integration of diplomatic and developmental agencies with the military, international partners, and private groups. Current operations have demonstrated the disappointing results of the lack of a fully integrated planning and execution system that takes appropriate advantage of all the tools--diplomatic, developmental, military, international, and private--necessary to resolve conflict.

Secretary Gates has laid before the Nation a very thoughtful and convincing assessment of where we are and where we need to go in achieving the right balance of diplomatic, economic, and military capability to deal with an uncertain and threatening world. I commend his remarks to all Senators and ask unanimous consent that the July 15, 2008, speech of Secretary Gates before the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign in Washington, DC, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have voted for cloture today because unless we end the Republican filibuster and act on this legislation, we will continue to experience the record-high oil and gasoline prices that are badly hurting millions of American consumers and businesses. Without action on this legislation, these record-high prices will continue to reverberate throughout our economy. I have spoken at length in the last couple of days about the investigations conducted by my Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the importance of acting now to address excessive energy speculation as a way of bringing down the extraordinary high energy prices, which are not the result of ordinary operation of supply and demand.

Today, I would like to speak more broadly on energy policy and the need to decrease our dependence on oil. We need a long-term comprehensive energy policy that will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our climate change emissions while at the same time promote use of renewable energy sources and environmentally responsible domestic production of conventional energy sources. We need a balanced portfolio that includes energy from a broad array of sources--renewable technologies such as solar, wind, and biomass, as well as more conventional sources such as coal and natural gas--and we need to develop new and advanced technologies that will allow us to use that energy in a clean and responsible fashion. I am a strong advocate of advanced technology and believe that the Federal Government must play a key role in the development of that technology, both in providing funds for development and in being an early adopter of advanced technology. Equally important to the successful development of advanced technologies are tax incentives for these technologies across the energy spectrum--including energy efficiency

technologies, renewable energy technologies, advanced clean coal technologies, advanced vehicle technologies, and development of clean and renewable low-carbon and carbon-free fuels.

The Congress has passed significant energy legislation three times in the last 4 years. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included provisions that increased the diversity of our Nation's fuel supply, encouraged investment in infrastructure and alternative energy technologies, increased domestic energy production, improved the reliability of our Nation's electricity supply, and improved energy efficiency and conservation. In 2006, Congress enacted legislation to increase the supply of natural gas in the United States by opening up new areas of the Gulf of Mexico to development. In 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act, which contained several measures to lower our dependence on oil and reduce our energy consumption, including an ambitious increase in fuel economy standard for cars and light trucks, an increase in the renewable fuel standard, and significant new energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs and for a wide range of appliances. I supported all of these measures because each one moved us toward a sounder energy policy and greater energy security and efficiency for the United States.

Far more must be done, however. I regret that we are unable to move forward with this legislation today because it offered us a vehicle not only to address excessive energy speculation but also to address other critical energy issues--such as development of advanced automotive technologies and advanced batteries, development of new wind and solar energy technologies, assured funding for home energy assistance under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and diligent development of areas on Federal land that are already open for oil and gas leasing. These are all issues that were addressed by Senator Bingaman's amendment, which we will not have an opportunity to consider because of the Republican filibuster.

Senator Bingaman's amendment will take significant strides toward development of the advanced automotive technologies that are needed to meet new fuel economy standards and to reduce our oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We need strong Federal efforts to make revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technology, and we need to invest in leap-ahead technologies such as advanced batteries and plug- in hybrid vehicles that will reduce our dependence on oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce what we pay for fuel at the pump. Two provisions of Senator Bingaman's bill would have taken important steps in this regard--first, by providing funding for direct loans authorized in 2007 for retooling of manufacturing facilities to produce these new technologies; and second, by requiring a new interagency Federal effort to develop advanced battery technologies. I believe it is critical that this Congress support Federal assistance for retooling of our existing manufacturing facilities and Federal assistance for development of the advanced battery technologies that will be required to support plug-in hybrids and other advanced vehicle technologies. Without this support, our companies will simply not be able to compete with their global competitors who benefit from significant support from their governments and we will not be able to reach the goals for reducing our dependence on oil that we all share. I applaud Senator Bingaman's efforts to put these issues before the Senate. Indeed, we have similar advanced battery provisions in the Defense authorization, which we approved in the Armed Services Committee many months ago and which awaits Senate consideration.

Finally, I would like to address the importance of Congress acting this year to extend existing tax credits for renewable production of electricity and for energy efficiency technologies. Renewable technologies such as wind and solar are becoming more economical every year, and our manufacturing sector can play a major role in the production of these technologies. Extension of the tax credits that will expire this year, or in some cases have already expired, is critical to the development of these technologies and critical to our developers' and manufacturers' ability to commit to projects that will utilize these technologies. Also included in the so-called tax extenders package is an extension of the tax credit for alternative fuel pumps and establishment of a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles. These tax incentives are key not only to the development of these technologies but also to consumer acceptance of these vehicles. We have been unable, so far, to pass these critical tax provisions because the Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster the bill. I hope that we will overcome that filibuster and extend these provisions.

I object.

Madam President, yesterday the minority leader suggested an analysis of the staff of my Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations ran counter to the legislation which has been offered by the majority leader, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act. In particular, the minority leader cited a statement in the staff analysis that ``there is no credible evidence that simply amending the [Commodity Exchange Act] to regulate energy commodities as if they were agricultural commodities will lead to lower energy prices.''

The minority leader was in error. The energy speculation act offered by the majority leader does not ``regulate energy commodities as if they were agricultural commodities.'' The proposal to do that was offered by a law professor at the University of Maryland but is not contained in the majority leader's bill. Rather, the energy speculation act, which the majority leader did introduce and which is before us, contains a number of other broader measures aimed at controlling and limiting excessive speculation in the energy markets.

First, the energy speculation act would close the London loophole so that traders in the United States would no longer be able to avoid limits on speculation that apply to trading on U.S. exchanges by routing their trades on to foreign exchanges through a U.S.-located trading terminal or computer. The energy speculation act would also close what is often called the ``swaps loophole'' so that traders in the United States would not be able to avoid oversight and Commodity Futures Trading Commission authority by trading in over-the-counter markets because it would require the CFTC to be provided with the information about large trades, and it authorizes the CFTC, if appropriate, to order traders to reduce their holdings in the over-the- counter market in order to prevent excessive speculation or price manipulation.

The bill would also give the CFTC more resources to oversee the energy markets in that it would require the CFTC to obtain and publish better data on speculative trading in the futures markets.

Finally, the findings and recommendations of the subcommittee staff reports on energy prices give strong support to the core premise of the energy speculation act, that speculation has played a significant role in high energy prices.

In June 2006, the PSI issued a report, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put a Cop on the Beat,'' finding that the traditional forces of supply and demand didn't account for sustained price increases and price volatility in the oil and gasoline markets. The report concluded that in 2006, a growing number of trades of contracts for future delivery of oil occurred without regulatory oversight and found that market speculation had contributed to rising oil and gasoline prices, perhaps accounting for $20 out of a then-priced $70 barrel of oil, in other words; speculation contributed from 25 percent to 30 percent of the prices.

So the work and reports of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations provides solid support for the legislation offered by the majority leader. The subcommittee's work demonstrates the significant role played by speculation in high energy prices and the need to adopt measures to control that speculation.

Mr. President, today we recognize the 60th anniversary of one of the momentous steps forward for equality of opportunity in our Nation's history. On July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman, signed Executive Order 9981. That order read, in part:

there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all

persons in the armed services without regard to race, color,

religion or national origin.

While equality, as a concept, is deeply rooted in our Nation's founding, equality in practice was exceedingly rare in our Nation's armed services before President Truman's action. His order reversed nearly 175 years of discrimination, segregation, and exclusion from the armed services based on race, dating back to the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.

The order benefited the armed services as well as the countless men and women--of all races--who have subsequently served in integrated units. Further, the diversity of our servicemembers has contributed to its being the most capable, strongest military force that the world has ever known.

In an amici brief for the U.S. Supreme Court, former officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps as well as civilian leaders and former Secretaries of Defense agreed that integration of the military was the result of ``a principled recognition that segregation is unjust and incompatible with American values,'' and further that the military's ``efficient, effective deployment required integration.''

While we all appreciate President Truman's action today, appreciation was not always widespread. The integration order was met with criticism from many who were accustomed to segregation. And, as 1948 was an election year--Truman's first, after he succeeded President Roosevelt many felt that Truman was all but giving away the election by fracturing his party. The doubters and critics make Truman's steadfastness all the more noteworthy.

In the decades that followed 1948, the civil rights movement pushed the entire Nation to make enormous strides towards ending segregation and integrating everything from schools to neighborhoods.

From the Emancipation Proclamation, to the integration of the armed services, to Brown v. Board of Education, to the Civil Rights Acts, progress towards racial equality in America has marched forward unceasingly. The integration of the armed services was one of the enormous and critical steps in that march.

Mr. President, in 1831, the great chronicler of early America, Alexis de Tocqueville, explored the Great Lakes. As he passed through Lake Huron, he observed of the empty, undeveloped expanse: ``This lake without sails, this shore which does not yet show any trace of the passage of man, this eternal forest which borders it; all that, I assure you, is not grand in poetry only; it's the most extraordinary spectacle that I have seen in my life.''

Nearly 2 centuries later, the Great Lakes remain one of the most extraordinary spectacles in the world. The sheer size of the Great Lakes is impressed upon anyone who has stood on their shores, or who has seen the outline of the Michigan mitten, which the Great Lakes make one of the most distinctive shapes and recognizable shapes on maps or satellite photographs of the earth. Beyond their awe-inspiring appearance and enormity, the Great Lakes help fuel an economic engine that stretches from Minnesota to New York, producing some of our nations most celebrated and relied-upon goods and agricultural products.

This morning, my colleagues and I are introducing a joint resolution to ratify an historic agreement to manage Great Lakes water, the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact. While the existing Water Resources Development Act law provides sufficient protection and authority to prevent diversions, the Great Lakes Compact will provide an effective means for Great Lakes states jointly to safeguard water for future generations. The compact will ban new diversions from the Basin with certain limited exceptions, and those exceptions would be regulated. Further, the compact keeps the authority to govern our water in the hands of the Great Lake States.

The compact states that ``the protection of the integrity of the Great Lakes Ecosystem shall be the overarching principle for reviewing proposals.'' For the first time, water conservation goals will be developed to deal with any water diversion proposals.

Beyond that, the compact would specifically address withdrawals and diversions of both ground and surface water. This would represent an improvement over existing law because there are differing opinions on whether the current law addresses ground water diversions.

Additionally, because the compact would provide a scientific method for determining whether to allow a proposal to divert water from the Great Lakes, it makes our efforts to protect the lakes more clearly compliant with international trade agreements.

This agreement has been in the making for close to decade, following the mistaken issuance of a permit for bulk water diversion by the Province of Ontario. In the 2000 WRDA, Congress directed the governors to negotiate a water management policy, and in 2005, the eight Great Lakes Governors and two Canadian Premiers came to an agreement.

I have heard that some people believe that there is a water bottle ``loophole.'' The compact prohibits water in a container larger than 5.7 gallons to be diverted outside the Great Lakes basin. Though the compact would not prohibit water withdrawals in containers less than 5.7 gallons, individual states would retain their authority to regulate bottled water in any size container.

I believe that the Great Lakes Compact is beneficial and will provide greater protections for the Great Lakes than the status quo. However, as is explicitly stated in this joint resolution, the Great Lakes Water Compact does not imply that it is necessary for Congress to pass the compact in order for the Lakes to be protected from diversions. WRDA gives each Great Lakes governor veto power over certain types of diversions by any Great Lakes state. While this authority is clear, additional safeguards and standards will be helpful in the years ahead.

Tocqueville further observed during his journey in Lake Huron, ``Nature has done everything here. A fertile soil, and outlets like to which there are no others in the world.'' Nature has, indeed, given us so much in the Great Lakes. We need to take this important step to pass the Great Lakes Water Compact so as to make sure that we conserve this precious resource as best we can, ensuring sensible use now so that future generations can benefit from the Great Lakes as we do. I support passage, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. President, in 1831, the great chronicler of early America, Alexis de Tocqueville, explored the Great Lakes. As he passed through Lake Huron, he observed of the empty, undeveloped expanse: ``This lake without sails, this shore which does not yet show any trace of the passage of man, this eternal forest which borders it; all that, I assure you, is not grand in poetry only; it's the most extraordinary spectacle that I have seen in my life.''

Nearly 2 centuries later, the Great Lakes remain one of the most extraordinary spectacles in the world. The sheer size of the Great Lakes is impressed upon anyone who has stood on their shores, or who has seen the outline of the Michigan mitten, which the Great Lakes make one of the most distinctive shapes and recognizable shapes on maps or satellite photographs of the earth. Beyond their awe-inspiring appearance and enormity, the Great Lakes help fuel an economic engine that stretches from Minnesota to New York, producing some of our nations most celebrated and relied-upon goods and agricultural products.

This morning, my colleagues and I are introducing a joint resolution to ratify an historic agreement to manage Great Lakes water, the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact. While the existing Water Resources Development Act law provides sufficient protection and authority to prevent diversions, the Great Lakes Compact will provide an effective means for Great Lakes states jointly to safeguard water for future generations. The compact will ban new diversions from the Basin with certain limited exceptions, and those exceptions would be regulated. Further, the compact keeps the authority to govern our water in the hands of the Great Lake States.

The compact states that ``the protection of the integrity of the Great Lakes Ecosystem shall be the overarching principle for reviewing proposals.'' For the first time, water conservation goals will be developed to deal with any water diversion proposals.

Beyond that, the compact would specifically address withdrawals and diversions of both ground and surface water. This would represent an improvement over existing law because there are differing opinions on whether the current law addresses ground water diversions.

Additionally, because the compact would provide a scientific method for determining whether to allow a proposal to divert water from the Great Lakes, it makes our efforts to protect the lakes more clearly compliant with international trade agreements.

This agreement has been in the making for close to decade, following the mistaken issuance of a permit for bulk water diversion by the Province of Ontario. In the 2000 WRDA, Congress directed the governors to negotiate a water management policy, and in 2005, the eight Great Lakes Governors and two Canadian Premiers came to an agreement.

I have heard that some people believe that there is a water bottle ``loophole.'' The compact prohibits water in a container larger than 5.7 gallons to be diverted outside the Great Lakes basin. Though the compact would not prohibit water withdrawals in containers less than 5.7 gallons, individual states would retain their authority to regulate bottled water in any size container.

I believe that the Great Lakes Compact is beneficial and will provide greater protections for the Great Lakes than the status quo. However, as is explicitly stated in this joint resolution, the Great Lakes Water Compact does not imply that it is necessary for Congress to pass the compact in order for the Lakes to be protected from diversions. WRDA gives each Great Lakes governor veto power over certain types of diversions by any Great Lakes state. While this authority is clear, additional safeguards and standards will be helpful in the years ahead.

Tocqueville further observed during his journey in Lake Huron, ``Nature has done everything here. A fertile soil, and outlets like to which there are no others in the world.'' Nature has, indeed, given us so much in the Great Lakes. We need to take this important step to pass the Great Lakes Water Compact so as to make sure that we conserve this precious resource as best we can, ensuring sensible use now so that future generations can benefit from the Great Lakes as we do. I support passage, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. President, day after day record-high oil and gasoline prices are hurting millions of American consumers and businesses. Unless we act, the record-high prices will continue to reverberate throughout our economy, increasing the prices of transportation, food, manufacturing and everything in between, endangering the economic security of our people and our Nation.

The price of crude oil recently reached a record high price of about $147 per barrel. Sky-high crude oil prices have led to record highs in the price of other fuels produced from crude oil, including gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. The national average price of gasoline is at a record high of about $4.11 per gallon. Jet fuel costs nearly $4.30 per gallon. The price of diesel fuel, which is normally less expensive than gasoline, has soared to a record high of nearly $4.85 per gallon.

Rising energy prices greatly increase the cost of getting to work and taking our children to school, traveling by car, truck, air and rail, and growing the food we eat and transporting it to market. Rising energy prices greatly increase the cost of producing the

medicines we need for our health, heating our homes and offices, generating electricity, and manufacturing industrial and consumer products. The relentless increase in jet fuel prices has caused airline layoffs, fare increases, and service cuts. ``If fuel continues to go up, this industry cannot survive in current form,'' the president of the Air Transport Association said recently. Rising diesel prices have placed a crushing burden upon our Nation's truckers, farmers, manufacturers, and other industries.

My Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has conducted four separate investigations into how our energy markets operate. Last December, we had a joint hearing with Senator Dorgan's Senate Energy Subcommittee on the role of speculation in rising energy prices. As a result of these investigations and hearings, I have proposed several measures to address the rampant speculation and lack of regulation of energy markets which have contributed to sky high energy prices.

These investigations have shown that one key factor in price spikes of energy is increased speculation in the energy markets. Traders are trading contracts for future delivery of oil in record amounts, creating a demand for paper contracts that gets translated into increases in prices and increasing price volatility.

Much of this increase in trading of futures has been due to speculation. Speculators in the oil market do not intend to use oil; instead they buy and sell contracts for crude oil in the hope of making a profit from changing prices. The number of futures and options contracts held by speculators has gone from around 100,000 contracts in 2001, which was 20 percent of the total number of outstanding contracts, to almost 1.2 million contracts, which represents almost 40 percent of the outstanding futures and options contracts in oil on NYMEX. Even this understates the increase in speculation, since the CFTC data classifies futures trading involving index funds as commercial trading rather than speculation.

There are now, as a result, 12 times as many speculative holdings as there were in 2001, while holdings of non-speculative or commercial futures and options are up but 3 times. According to the basic law of supply and demand, the more demand there is to buy futures contracts for the delivery of a commodity, the higher the price will be for those futures contracts.

Not surprisingly, therefore, this massive speculation that the price of oil will increase, together with the increase in the amount of purchases of futures contracts, has, in fact, helped increase the price of oil to a level far above the price that is justified by the traditional forces of supply and demand.

The president and CEO of Marathon Oil recently said, ``$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market. It has to be speculation on the futures market that is fueling this.'' Mr. Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer and Company describes the oil market as ``a farce.'' ``The speculators have seized control and it's basically a free-for-all, a global gambling hall, and it won't shut down unless and until responsible governments step in.'' In January of this year, as oil hit $100 a barrel, Mr. Tim Evans, oil analyst for Citigroup, wrote ``the larger supply and demand fundamentals do not support a further rise and are, in fact, more consistent with lower price levels.'' At the joint hearing on the effects of speculation we held last December, Dr. Edward Krapels, a financial market analyst, testified, ``Of course financial trading, speculation affects the price of oil because it affects the price of everything we trade . . . It would be amazing if oil somehow escaped this effect.'' Dr. Krapels added that as a result of this speculation, ``There is a bubble in oil prices.''

The need to control speculation is urgent. The presidents and CEOs of major U.S. airlines recently warned about the disastrous effects of rampant speculation on the airline industry. The CEOs stated ``normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.'' The CEOs wrote, ``For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities.''

As to reining in speculation, the first step to take is to put a cop back on the beat in all our energy markets to prevent excessive speculation, price manipulation, and trading abuses. In the spring of 2001, when my Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations began investigating our energy markets, the price of a gallon of gasoline had spiked upwards by about 25 cents over the course of the Memorial Day holiday. We subpoenaed records from major oil companies and interviewed oil industry experts, gas station dealers, antitrust experts, gasoline wholesalers and distributors, and oil company executives. We examined thousands of prices at gas stations in Michigan, Ohio, California, and other States. In the spring of 2002, I released a 400-page report and held 2 days of hearings on the results of the investigation.

The investigation found that increasing concentration in the gasoline refining industry, due to a large number of recent mergers and acquisitions, was one of the causes of the increasing number of gasoline price spikes. Another factor causing price spikes was the increasing tendency of refiners to keep lower inventories of gasoline. We also found a number of instances in which the increasing concentration in the refining industry was also leading to higher prices in general. Limitations on the pipeline that brings gasoline into my home State of Michigan were another cause of price increases and spikes in Michigan. The report recommended that the Federal Trade Commission carefully investigate proposed mergers, particularly with respect to the effect of mergers on inventories of gasoline.

The investigation discovered one instance in which a major oil company was considering ways to prevent other refiners from supplying gasoline to the Midwest so that prices would increase.

In March 2003, my subcommittee released a second report detailing how the operation of crude oil markets affects the price of not only gasoline, but also key commodities like home heating oil, jet fuel, and diesel fuel. The report warned that U.S. energy markets were vulnerable to price manipulation due to a lack of comprehensive regulation and market oversight.

For years I have been working with Senators Feinstein, Dorgan, Snowe, Bingaman, Cantwell, and others on legislation to restore some regulatory authority in the energy markets that had been exempted from regulation because of an ``Enron loophole'' that was inserted at the last minute into an omnibus appropriation bill in December 2000. For 2 years we attempted to close the Enron loophole, but efforts to put the cop back on the beat in these markets were unsuccessful, due to opposition from the Bush administration, large energy companies, and large financial institutions that trade energy commodities.

In June 2006, I released another subcommittee report, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put a Cop on the Beat.'' This report found that the traditional forces of supply and demand didn't account for sustained price increases and price volatility in the oil and gasoline markets. The report concluded that, in 2006, a growing number of trades of contracts for future delivery of oil occurred without regulatory oversight and that market speculation had contributed to rising oil and gasoline prices, perhaps accounting for $20 out of a then-priced $70 barrel of oil.

That subcommittee report, again, recommended new laws to provide market oversight and stop excessive speculation and market manipulation. I coauthored legislation with Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Cantwell, Bingaman, and others to improve oversight of the unregulated energy markets. Once again, opposition from the Bush administration, large energy traders, and the financial industry prevented the full Senate from considering this legislation.

In 2007, my subcommittee addressed the sharp rise in natural gas prices and released a fourth report, entitled ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' Our investigation showed that speculation by a single hedge fund named Amaranth had distorted natural gas prices during the summer of 2006, and drove up prices for average consumers. The report also demonstrated how Amaranth had shifted its speculative activity to unregulated markets to

avoid the restrictions and oversight in the regulated markets, and how Amaranth's trading in the unregulated markets contributed to price increases.

Following this investigation, I introduced a new bill, S. 2058, to close the Enron loophole and regulate the unregulated electronic energy markets. Working again with Senators Feinstein and Snowe, and with the members of the Agriculture Committee in a bipartisan effort, we finally managed to include an amendment to close the Enron loophole in the farm bill that was then being considered by the Senate. Although the CFTC's new enforcement authority over these electronic markets was effective upon passage of this legislation, much of the CFTC's new oversight authority will have to be implemented through CFTC rulemaking.

Although the legislation to close the Enron loophole is important to reduce speculation in energy markets, it is not sufficient because a significant amount of U.S. crude oil and gasoline trading now takes place in the United Kingdom, beyond the direct reach of U.S. regulators. So we have to address that second loophole too.

One of the key energy commodity markets for U.S. crude oil and gasoline trading is now located in London, regulated by the British agency called the Financial Services Authority, FSA. However, the British regulators traditionally have not imposed any limits on speculation like we do here in the United States, and the British do not make public the same type of trading data that we do, i.e. it is less transparent. This means that traders can avoid the limits on speculation in crude oil imposed on the New York exchanges by trading on the London exchange. This is what is referred to as ``the London loophole.''

The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act--Energy Speculation Act-- which the majority leader and others recently introduced to address high prices and reduce speculation, includes a number of provisions that will help stop rampant speculation and increase our access to timely and important trading information and ensure that there is adequate market oversight of the trading of U.S. energy commodities no matter where the trading occurs. One of the key provisions in the Energy Speculation Act would close the London loophole.

The Energy Speculation Act would close the London loophole by requiring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to determine whether a foreign exchange imposes comparable speculative limits and comparable reporting requirements on speculators that the CFTC imposes on U.S. exchanges prior to allowing traders in the U.S. trading U.S. energy commodities to access that exchange through a terminal located in this country. It would also give the CFTC authority to take action, such as by requiring traders to reduce their holdings, in the event that traders exceed these limits.

The legislation in the Energy Speculation Act to close the London loophole is very similar to legislation I previously introduced with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, Dorgan and Bingaman, S. 3129, to close this loophole. The legislation we introduced was also incorporated into legislation introduced by Senator Durbin, S. 3130, which, like the provisions of the Energy Speculation Act, would give the CFTC more resources and to obtain better information about index trading and the swaps market.

After these two bills were introduced, the CFTC imposed more stringent conditions upon the ICE Futures Exchange's ability to operate in the United States--for the first time insisting that the London exchange impose and enforce comparable position limits in order to be allowed to keep its trading terminals in the United States. This is the very action our legislation called for.

Although the CFTC has taken these important steps that will go a long way towards closing the London loophole, Congress should still pass the legislation to make sure the London loophole is closed. The Energy Speculation Act would put into statute the conditions the CFTC has stated the London exchange must meet before it will allow it to operate its terminals in the United States, and it would ensure that the CFTC has clear authority to take action against any U.S. trader who is excessively speculating through the London exchange or manipulating the price of a commodity, including requiring that trader to reduce holdings.

There is also concern that some large traders may be avoiding the limits on holdings and accountability levels that apply to trading on the regulated futures exchanges by trading in the unregulated OTC market. In the absence of data or reporting on the activity in the OTC market, however, it is difficult to estimate the impact of this large amount of unregulated trading on commodity prices. Moreover, even if we were to get better information about unregulated over-the-counter trades, the CFTC has no authority to take action to prevent excessive speculation or price manipulation resulting from this unregulated trading.

The legislation to close the Enron loophole placed OTC electronic exchanges under CFTC regulation. However, this legislation did not address the separate issue of trading in the rest of the unregulated OTC market, which includes bilateral trades of swaps through voice brokers, swap dealers, and direct party-to-party negotiations.

I recently introduced, along with Senator Feinstein, the Over-the- Counter Speculation Act, legislation that addresses the rest of the OTC market, a large portion of which consists of the trading of swaps relating to the price of a commodity. Generally, commodity swaps are contracts between two parties where one party pays a fixed price to another party in return for some type of payment at a future time depending on the price of a commodity. Because some of these swap instruments look very much like futures contracts--except that they do not call for the actual delivery of the commodity--there is concern that the price of these swaps that are traded in the unregulated OTC market could affect the price of the very similar futures contracts that are traded on the regulated futures markets. We don't yet know for sure that this is the case, or that it is not, because we don't have any data or reporting on the trading of these swaps in the OTC market.

The Energy Speculation Act introduced by the Majority Leader and others includes this legislation to give the CFTC oversight authority to stop excessive speculation in the over-the-counter market. These provisions in the Energy Speculation Act and in our Over-the-Counter Speculation Act represent a practical, workable approach that will enable the CFTC to obtain key information about the OTC market to enable it to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation.

This legislation will ensure that large traders cannot avoid the CFTC reporting requirements by trading swaps in the unregulated OTC market instead of regulated exchanges. It will ensure that the CFTC can take appropriate action, such as by requiring reductions in holdings of futures contracts or swaps, against traders with large positions in order to prevent excessive speculation or price manipulation regardless of whether the trader's position is on an exchange or in the OTC market. The approach in this bill is both practical and workable.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote to proceed to the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act. This legislation contains several important provisions that will address the problem of excessive speculation that has been contributing to high commodity prices.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.