Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the American economy. I think most of us are talking about it. Most everybody is thinking about it. With the financial markets in turmoil, the confidence of investors and consumers across my home State of Missouri, the Nation, and the globe is being challenged. Most of the media focus is on the struggles in Wall Street. My concern is for American families, anxious about their security, the security of their savings, their retirement, their assets, and their pensions.

I was disappointed to see that Leader Reid, just a day or so ago, said no one knows what to do at the moment. There are steps taken in an emergency matter. The fire department in this matter has been the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. We will look at and evaluate their judgment, but it appears they have at least stemmed the tide at this point.

But there are a lot of things that we ought to be talking about doing now. There are changes that need to be made. There are changes that need to be made in regulation, there are changes that need to be made by legislation, there are changes that need to be made in attitudes.

If you want to get into the blame game, I assure you there is plenty of blame to go around. This concept, the original concept of government-sponsored enterprises, well, that is one that certainly got off the track. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle sponsored GSEs. But they got themselves trapped way out in financial derivative speculation and got outside their charter. The regulation was inadequate. There are some of us who called for a strong regulator. Others who were defending the GSEs said: No, no, no, we like having an ineffective regulator. There are a lot of examples of that. But this is not the time to point fingers. The American people want solutions because these are serious and difficult times for everyone. As I said, families are worried about their personal finances and savings.

American families are already struggling with the housing crisis as well as high energy prices, which lead to food and other cost increases, as well as health care and education. Those have to be foremost in our minds. I understand. I have listened to the people in my State. I have heard their concerns.

These families need to know that the country's leaders take their concerns seriously and are working together to make the right response to this crisis. We have to instill confidence in the public that our actions are also driven by the best interests of taxpayers so they and future generations are not saddled with debts driven by unnecessary bailouts and that Government has a plan to avert similar future crises. To instill confidence, we must show true leadership and, I would hope, put aside the politics of blame and partisanship. We have had enough of that already. The American people have had too much of that. Enough. That ought to be it. Leadership should be about bringing people together and coming up with real solutions driven by the best interests of our families and country.

Leadership is needed now more than ever. I call for my colleagues in the Senate, the House, the administration, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, and others in the public and in the private sector to come together to share ideas and discuss them.

Let me share some of the ideas I laid out in a letter I sent out yesterday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, SEC Chairman Chris Cox, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the House and Senate chairmen and ranking members of the Banking Committee, because everybody needs to be in it.

First, we must all recognize that America's financial system is struggling under the weight of greed, laced

with regulatory loopholes, and compromised by complexity. Only fundamental reform of those excesses will prevent abuse from returning. We need reform to provide greater oversight, transparency, and accountability so that our economy, housing system, and consumers are adequately protected. The status quo is clearly unacceptable, and taxpayer-funded bailouts are not the answer. It is time that we reform our antiquated regulatory system to close loopholes to prevent the same type of problems we are currently experiencing, by taking a number of actions to address our regulatory system, ensure better market stability, and protect consumers.

Regulation needs to be carefully considered because there are very strong arguments that some of the problems today where some of the major institutions were put in a trap are the result of the post-Enron wave of trying to make everything bad illegal. Mark-to-market accounting was one of the things that has been instituted well depending upon how you apply it when you are in a meltdown. Right now, the value of a house covered by a mortgage may have declined 10 to 20 percent. But if nobody is buying that mortgage, if there is no market today for that mortgage, it might be marked to zero--to zero--when, in fact, the real value is probably no less than 75 or 80 percent. That puts a hit on the balance sheets, and that has repercussions throughout the system. That may be part of the cause. We need to look at that.

We need to see if excessive regulation in mark to market has put businesses at risk that should not be at risk, that should not be pushed into bankruptcy. Just as the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, designed to curb excesses--which were actually punished under existing law--has driven many of our financial institutions offshore, we have to be concerned about what the impacts of the regulations are. But I firmly believe that corporations must be held accountable for their bad decisions.

Similarly, we must find a way to prevent the use of golden parachutes to reward executives for their failed leadership. I think we were all outraged to hear the golden parachutes that were going to be given to the leaders of the GSEs who had been responsible for their institutions being wiped out essentially and put into conservatorship. I do not want a single taxpayer dollar going to pay them bonuses. If a baseball manager does a bad job, he gets fired. When we have a bad job being done by a financial institution head, the taxpayers sure ought not be called on to give that executive millions of dollars in a golden parachute.

But we also must find a way to restore personal responsibility in society. Responsible investors have an obligation not to enter into investments they do not understand. Responsible private citizens have an obligation not to take on debt they cannot afford.

Mortgage brokers should no longer receive special treatment allowing them to escape regulation and licensing requirements standard for brokers of other financial products. The Treasury's Regulatory Blueprint issued last March contains many positive recommendations, such as the creation of a new Federal commission, the Mortgage Origination Commission, which I support. I plan to introduce legislation to establish the Mortgage Origination Commission.

The Federal Government must step up its efforts in financial literacy and education, and pre- and post-purchase housing counseling. Most borrowers made responsible decisions in selecting appropriate financing vehicles for purchasing their homes and other major assets. Unfortunately, a large number of borrowers either knowingly or unknowingly agreed to loans that were detrimental to their families and their credit.

Mr. President, I stand ready to work with my colleagues here in the Senate on working on real solutions so that our Nation has confidence that we are here for them.

We have talked about the American dream. There are some who, in the name of the American dream, have pushed home ownership on people who could not afford it. Clearly, home ownership is part of the American dream, and in assisting families and individuals, we should do all we can to achieve that. I have worked for that as lead appropriator on housing on this side of the aisle for many years.

However, we have seen that American dream become the American nightmare when people have been given too-good-to-be-true offers for mortgages and asked to take on mortgages that consume all of their available income.

Well, I will tell you something, having a little experience in owning homes. Along with home ownership comes some potential financial responsibilities. A couple of weeks ago, we had to have our basement pumped out. That costs a lot of money. In the winter, I have had furnaces go down, or if we have a family emergency, that may make the mortgage payments unaffordable. We must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, people understand that the benefits of home ownership are balanced against the risks and the costs to the homeowner, the neighbors, the communities, and even the financial marketplaces. Home ownership must be promoted, not on the basis of getting the number of homeowners up to an arbitrary level but in a responsible manner focusing on the best interests of families and not on investors or others pushing mortgages.

You can live in rental housing until you have the funds to buy a house. I have lived in rental housing. Many people live in rental housing. Before you decide to buy a home, if you are not financially well experienced, there are a lot of good counseling concerns around that can help you determine if you can buy a home and help you determine how much you can afford to pay and what kind of mortgage you can afford to take on.

I worked with Senator Dodd last year to get $180 million for counseling for homeowners facing foreclosure. Well, that is working, and we are seeing a tremendous need for that counseling. I have visited with homeowners being counseled by housing counselors, with housing advocates, with community leaders, local officials who are worried about their communities going down, and the one thing every one of those people say is: We need counseling not just at the time of possible foreclosure but before they purchase the house so they do not get in the crack of foreclosure.

Well, I think we have to strengthen the oversight, the regulatory oversight of the housing finance market. The creation of a new regulator with more expansive powers to oversee the two mortgage government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if they continue to exist, was a long overdue and necessary step.

While the importance of making this legislative change cannot be understated, I emphasize the critical need to ensure that the new regulator not repeat the same mistakes made by its predecessor. That regulator did not examine, did not look at the practices, did not call attention to the practices that the GSEs were engaged in, which may have provided some short-term profits to their shareholders and certainly healthy returns for their executives, but they failed to identity and said that these were sound operations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter I referred to earlier printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we have heard a very powerful Presidential campaign speech by my good friend the majority leader. He asked what has brought us to this point. What has brought us to the point that farmers are suffering, families are suffering, truckdrivers are suffering--all of us are suffering from the high prices of energy.

It should be no secret to anybody who knows what is going on around here that for the last 20 years, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have instituted a policy of ``don't drill, don't refine, don't develop nuclear power.'' Our gas and oil prices have gone through the roof because we have artificially constrained the amount of energy we can produce.

What we are asking for and the American people are asking for every time I go home is some common sense. Impose our good, strong environmental regulations. We have the strongest environmental regulations of any nation on the Earth on producing oil and gas. We can pay high sums of ransom to foreign powers, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Vladimir Putin in Russia or Ahmadinejad in Iran, and get oil and gas that has not been produced with the same environmental protections we have.

Today, the price of oil is only $92 per barrel. A gallon of gas on Friday, before Hurricane Ike, averaged only $3.65. It has come down some now with the unwinding of the Lehman investments in long-term energy futures. But the problem is still there. We have not solved the problem. We have taken some steps that I believe will give the market some encouragement. But if you think oil at only $92 per barrel is good enough, if you think gas falling to $3.65 a gallon is good enough, then you must be one of these people who support the Pelosi plan, the Gang of 10 proposal. You must be one of those people who think we can get away with giving just a little bit of opening of our tremendous oil reserves and gas reserves.

What I can tell you is that the price of oil falling only a little bit is not good enough for the families of Missouri, the farmers, the small businesses in Missouri, the truckers, all of the people who have been hit hard by the high price of gas. The price for a gallon of gasoline falling only a little bit is not good enough for my workers and families in Missouri or the workers and families in the United States. That is why opening a little bit of new oil production is not good enough for our farmers and workers. Missouri's families and farmers, workers and small businesses, like the entire Nation, deserve as much relief as we can responsibly give them from the high gas prices, and we need to do it now.

The suffering of our families in today's tough times is certainly not over yet. The mortgage crisis brought on by speculation in the housing finance market is still ravaging our neighborhoods. High food prices are still ravaging household budgets. High health care budgets are ravaging lifetime savings. High education costs are still crimping our retirement funds. Missouri farmers are still struggling with the high fuel costs they pay to run their farm equipment. Dairy producers are struggling with the surcharges they pay to ship their milk to markets. Our food processors in Missouri and across the Nation are struggling with high transportation costs to obtain their raw goods. Grocers in Missouri and across the Nation are still struggling with high shipping costs. That is the high cost of the price of food--the off-farm fuel costs that go to transportation, driving, and other procedures. And Missouri truckers are suffering from high diesel costs. Missouri airline workers are losing their jobs because of high jet fuel costs. So why would anyone think that just a little price relief is OK? Why would anyone think we just have to lower gas prices a little bit? Our families don't just deserve a little relief; our families deserve as much gas price relief as we can give them. Our truckers don't deserve just a little relief; they deserve as much diesel relief as we can give them. Our farmers don't deserve just a little relief; our farmers deserve as much fuel price relief as we can give them. That is why we should not open just a little bit of offshore oil production. We should open as much new offshore oil production as we can, have it produced in an environmentally responsible manner to drive oil and gas prices as far down as we possibly can to provide as much relief to families and workers as we can.

The proposal we will consider from the Gang of 10 will not open as much new offshore oil as we can, so it will not drive down oil and gas prices as much as we can. It plans to open a handful of sites in southeast Florida to offshore production, but it leaves closed to the American people east coast and Northeast States. It leaves the entire Pacific coast of America closed. Seventy percent of America's offshore areas, off lower 48 States, would still be closed to the American people and the energy they need under the Gang of 10 plan. Eighty-five percent of offshore areas are currently off limits. So how is opening only 15 percent more in offshore production going to provide relief to the American people?

On the other side, the Speaker's plan does not provide relief to the American people either. It opens certain areas of the east and west coasts of America but does so only outside the 50 miles from shore.

There is a funny little statistic that maybe people would be interested in, and that is that most of the oil off the Pacific west coast is less than 25 miles off the shore. More of it is within 50 miles off the shore. So no more than 3 to 5 percent of the oil off California and the west coast would be opened. It leaves closed to the American people the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico where almost of all the new oil in the east coast lies.

So the Pelosi plan may well be described as opening everywhere that oil is not and leaving closed and off limits to the needs of the American people everywhere the oil is. The plan will do almost nothing to bring the American people gas price relief.

Let me talk about the Gulf of Mexico. We wish everyone--Texas, Louisiana, across that part of the country--Godspeed in their recovery. We prayed for you during the storm. We now pray for you as you put your lives back together. But we are also putting the Nation's oil infrastructure back together.

Hurricane Alley, as the western Gulf of Mexico is often known, is also the port of entry for 64 percent of our imported oil and most of our refineries. Rolling right down Hurricane Alley, Hurricane Ike has shut down 63 percent of our oil rigs, idled 73 percent of our gas output, closed 8 refineries, and stopped 96 percent of gulf oil output. Mother Nature can only tell us we asked for it by concentrating so much oil production in the western gulf, by concentrating so much oil refining in the western gulf, by forcing so much oil importation through the western gulf.

We have only ourselves to blame when we keep other parts of our ocean closed to production. We only have ourselves to blame when we keep the other parts of our shores closed to refining. We have only ourselves to blame when prices spike 17 cents in a weekend, as they did over this weekend. We have only ourselves to blame if we continue the Democratic policies of ``don't drill, don't refine, don't use nuclear resources.'' And if we vote for proposals that still keep most all of our shores off limits, we will have only ourselves to blame for not providing American families, workers, and small businesses the relief they need. We will have only ourselves to blame if we do not provide American families the relief they deserve.

I urge our colleagues to consider American families when we vote to give them as much energy, gas, oil relief as we can--not just a little bit more relief but a lot more relief, finding not just a little bit of oil production but as much new oil production as

we can. Our American workers, American farmers, American small businesses--all of us in our American economy deserve no less. We must produce what we have, and we must do it now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I begin by commending the chairman and the ranking member on working very hard on an extremely important bill. I rise in my position as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee to ask consent that we be able to add an amendment which deals with the intelligence portion of the Defense authorization and appropriations bills that I feel must be addressed.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up amendment No. 5387.

Mr. President, I am not surprised. I am disappointed that my effort to simply call up one of seven amendments I filed to the Defense authorization bill is being denied. Our very distinguished, articulate majority leader has said it is not his fault if people can't get votes. I should note that he has filled up the tree, a procedural move that denies a vote on any nonmajority leader-approved amendment.

I now will explain why I think these provisions are vitally important. These are measures that have been dealt with and approved by this body and the other body in some instances, by this body in some instances, and by the Intelligence Committee in other times.

The amendment I tried to call up, as well as the other six I filed, is important not only for the intelligence community but for congressional oversight as we continue to fight this war on terror.

Unfortunately, for reasons that make no sense to me, I have been informed there is a desire not to entertain any amendments relating to the intelligence community on the bill. We have seen from the 9/11 Commission and most other observers of the legislative process that the one area of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, on a bipartisan basis, that has not been adopted has been to combine the intelligence authorization and appropriations process. I am here today to offer some amendments that would effect that coordination.

I join with my other colleagues who have indicated they refuse to acquiesce in a UC agreement until such time as we can work out a reasonable accommodation. I want to see this bill passed. Obviously, it is critically important, but so is stopping the waste of billions of dollars and improving the operations of the intelligence community. It is a mistake, and I cannot agree to a UC agreement until we have had some resolution of these questions.

It is certainly no surprise to the occupant of the chair, who is a valued member of both the Defense authorization committee and the Intelligence Committee, that the intelligence community has been without essential oversight as ordinarily provided in the authorization process.

Our efforts in the Intelligence Committee to have a bill signed into law last year were derailed by partisan provisions that ultimately resulted in a Presidential veto. The same poison pills were put into this year's intelligence authorization bill. So it will not move forward. As vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I believe it is time to take partisan games out of the intelligence oversight. I believe it is high time to return to congressional oversight of intelligence activities by the executive branch.

It is ironic that some of my colleagues have been so vocal, and at times biting, in their criticism of the administration's intelligence spending programs. Yet when we now have the opportunity to seek congressional oversight over them, they seek to deny us the opportunity to do so. It is almost as if some would rather have a reason to criticize the system rather than the opportunity to fix it.

I am here today to ask for the opportunity to begin to fix it. So I filed these amendments--good, sound provisions that have good bipartisan support and I believe will improve not only our oversight but the work of the Intelligence Committee.

Each one of these amendments was included in the Intelligence Committee's 2009 authorization bill, and almost all were part of the 2008 bill. So there are no surprises here.

First among them is amendment No. 5387 that authorizes funds for the intelligence community's budget. How much more fundamental can we get? That sets out the parameters for the intelligence community, just as the overall Armed Services Committee bill sets out parameters for appropriations by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on defense issues.

The first amendment combines five sections from the Intelligence Committee's 2009 authorization act and authorizes different types of funding for the intelligence community--the National Intelligence Program funds, funding of the intelligence community management account, and funding the CIA's disability and retirement accounts.

These are all basic budgetary authorizations on which I hope we can agree. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

My remaining amendments include a number of what I can call, I believe without challenge, ``good government'' provisions. These provisions will ensure that the Director of National Intelligence has the authority he needs to manage the intelligence community and will ensure that American taxpayers are actually getting the best bang for their buck and not wasting billions and billions of dollars, which I have addressed on the floor previously.

The next amendment is No. 5388. What is this good government amendment? This amendment is aimed at discouraging cost overruns on intelligence satellites and other expensive intelligence programs and is modeled after the longstanding Nunn-McCurdy provisions that apply to Department of Defense major acquisitions.

Last week I stated on the floor that billions and billions and billions--I won't tell you how many because it is classified--of dollars have been wasted on overhead programs because they were not effectively managed.

The next amendment, No. 5389, requires the DNI to conduct vulnerability assessments of our major systems used by the intelligence community. This provision has been in the past two intelligence authorization bills. It requires the DNI to conduct initial and subsequent periodic vulnerability assessments of each intelligence community major system. These assessments should identify system vulnerabilities and exploitation potentials and should make recommendations for reducing risks.

We all know there are those who seek to do us ill who have the ability to compromise many of our programs. Those of us who are familiar with it know how many ways this can happen. I am not going to give anybody any ideas by telling them how to do it. Too many people already know. If we have learned anything during this election cycle, it is that the American people are tired of having their money wasted. They are demanding better spending habits and better accountability from their Government, which brings me to my next amendment, accountability reviews by the Director of National Intelligence. Amendment No. 5390 allows the DNI to conduct accountability reviews of elements of the intelligence community or personnel of such element in relation to a significant failure or deficiency within the intelligence community.

My amendment, agreed to by the Intelligence Committee, would strengthen the DNI's authority and influence in this area, as well as congressional oversight. This amendment confirms the DNI's ability to recommend disciplinary action against persons within the Office of the DNI who have failed to measure up to expectations and are under his jurisdiction. I believe this is a reasonable place to start.

The next one is a future-year budget plan, amendment No. 5391. I think it is reasonable for Congress and our intelligence community to stop wasting billions of dollars on intelligence programs that prove too costly to complete. How does this happen? One reason is that we have never required the intelligence community to show us the full cost of these expensive programs in the budget. My fifth amendment would ensure that this would not happen again.

Now, I will tell the occupant of the chair and my fellow Intelligence Committee member, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, as well as the chairman of the committee who has staff who sits in as frequently as he can on our Intelligence Committee oversight hearings, that there are many wonderful programs that come to us with maybe a couple- hundred-million-dollar budget expenditure the first year. But when you look out to the future years, that number goes up, potentially swallowing the entire intelligence portion of the budget.

I think we in Congress ought to say: Wait a minute. Before we spend that first couple hundred million dollars, tell us what the cost is going to be and what it is going to take out of the budget in future years to accommodate it.

This amendment would require the intelligence community to provide Congress with a future-year intelligence plan that is a 5-year budget and a long-term budget projection that covers 10 years beyond the future intelligence plan. These requirements would ensure that Congress would not appropriate or legislate in the dark without knowing what these wonderful new ideas--and there are some great ideas--are going to cost in the future and how we are going to pay for them.

Next, my final good government provision, No. 5392, requires annual personnel level assessments for the intelligence community. As with most all of my amendments, the provision has been included in the last two intelligence authorization bills.

So why the need for this amendment? These assessments will help Congress get a better sense of the personnel growth in the IC before we mark up annual authorization bills. For some time now both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees have been concerned with rising personnel growth in the IC.

Finally, I have also just filed an amendment relating to a classified technology demonstration program. I talked about that last week. My amendment, which has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and has been passed by both bodies in the past, will ensure that billions of taxpayer dollars that have been wasted through poor management and oversight will not be followed by more in the future.

This amendment, as I described last week, would say that before the National Reconnaissance Organization embarks on spending billions of dollars on a program, it needs to do a demonstration program in the millions of dollars category to see if all the systems work so that we have a good idea before we get a system that has wasted billions and billions of dollars to find out only then that it can't work.

I think Congress has a reasonably high expectation of the DNI and of his ability to reform the intelligence community, but we cannot expect great results if we don't give the authorities and the support he needs to demand performance and accountability. My amendments will give him these authorities and will also allow Congress to perform our real effective oversight duties.

These amendments have been vetted with the Intelligence Committees over the past 2 years and most were contained in the 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act that passed both Houses of Congress. I believe and I think my colleagues' votes over the past 2 years have shown that they make sense and are reasonable.

If there is no consideration of including these amendments or simply allowing a vote on the budget amendment, which is the most important of all, then I am left with little choice but to continue to object to any UC agreements on this bill.

I thank my distinguished colleagues, the Chair, and the ranking member, for listening to my comments, and I look forward to being able to work out with them a reasonable accommodation of these very important matters that I think are essential to ensuring effective intelligence oversight of the money that we spend in the National Intelligence Program.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes and that I be advised when 13 minutes of that time has expired.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues and all Americans in solemn observance of the loss of 3,000 American lives on September 11, 2001, truly the greatest tragedy on American soil in our recent history. Our thoughts and prayers are with these victims and their families.

We all know that al-Qaida terrorists declared war on the United States 7 years ago today. These vicious attacks claimed American lives and brought great concern and destruction across our country. While America has remained safe from another attack on our soil since 9/11/ 2001, it is by no accident.

It is fitting that as we observe the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, al-Qaida has been dealt a significant defeat in Iraq, both tactically and most certainly morally. It has been handed such a defeat in what its own leaders claim was the central front in the war against the United States. This victory was achieved at the hands of our brave troops and the people of Iraq.

As the result of new leadership under General Petraeus, his counterinsurgency strategy, and the surge, we are seeing our troops come home on success, including my son Sam, a marine who served two tours in Iraq. I heard about the success from the troops on the ground in my visits to Iraq, and our military leaders testified about this success before Congress, but now even the New York Times and Washington Post are writing about our return on success.

Look at some of the facts:

Anbar Province, once considered lost, has now been reclaimed by the Iraqi people. Not just in Anbar, but across the country, the Iraqis are leading operations to seek out al-Qaida--from Mosul to the Diyala Province. Across Iraq, violence is at its lowest point since the spring of 2004, and civilian deaths, sectarian killings, and suicide bombings are all down. For the Iraqi people, life is returning to normal. Markets are open and thriving, students are going to school--including girls, for the first time--and professionals are returning to work in Iraq. This win in Iraq is not only critical to the Middle East, but it is critical to our own Nation's security.

Defeat in Iraq would have given the terrorists who launched the 9/11 attacks a safe haven to exploit terror worldwide. It is fitting that on this day we honor the memory of the victims of 9/11 and their families, that we take a moment to thank our troops fighting the al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq.

Our troops fought in Iraq so that future generations of Americans will not have to fight them on our own soil. I am proud of these brave men and women who sacrificed so much in defense of freedom and security here at home. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid.

Our troops are also fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan. Troop increases are now making a difference. But it will also take smart power, a careful blend of kinetic and nonkinetic power of the United States and its allies to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere; efforts to build institutions in education, rule of law, infrastructure development, roads and power; efforts such as our Missouri National Guards's agriculture development teams. These teams are training the Afghanis in sustainable agriculture methods and techniques that will help them build a more secure and stable society.

It is critical that Pakistan continue to partner with the United States in defeating the terrorists who plague Afghanistan. The Taliban and other terror fighters hide in Pakistan's remote borders. We all hope that the country's newly elected democratic leaders will seek out and destroy these terrorists, not only for the security of their country but to prevent the terrorists from gaining a haven to plot and carry out attacks on America and our allies.

As we thank our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing the terrorists before they can attack the homeland, we also thank the many patriots who fight unseen and unheard to keep our Nation safe. As the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know all too well the dangers facing us.

I also know that in addition to our troops, our intelligence operators are on the front lines of the war on terror. Our intelligence officers and law enforcement efforts work tirelessly to stop attacks before they happen. We all owe the brave Americans who work to keep us safe, and the firefighters and first responders who come to our aid when disaster strikes.

In Congress, it is our job to ensure the intelligence community has the tools it needs to detect, disrupt, and prevent attacks on America, our troops, and our allies, which is why it is important that here in Congress we never forget the critical lessons of September 11--that our intelligence proved inadequate to stop the mass murder of innocent Americans on our own soil.

As we honor these lives lost, we must continue to work to improve our intelligence capabilities to keep a similar tragedy from ever happening again. Since 9/11 we have strived to strengthen our intelligence. My proudest accomplishment in 22 years in the Senate was the passage of the bipartisan Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--our Nation's early warning system to alert us of attacks. It was a long fight, but we now have a terrorist surveillance law that allows our intelligence operators to listen in on foreign terrorists.

We have also made other important changes in our laws and priorities related to the threat of international terrorism, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, intelligence reform measures, and implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act. But Congress has not done enough.

On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, it is noteworthy that there remains one unaddressed 9/11 commission recommendation, and that is to reform the legislative branch's oversight of intelligence and terrorism activities which the commission rightly described as ``dysfunctional.''

The 9/11 Commission stated:

Of all of our recommendations, strengthening congressional

oversight may be among the most difficult and important.

Yet here we are 7 years after 9/11 and 4 years past the issuance of the 9/11 commission report, and that most significant recommendation for change remains unaddressed. The Senate tinkered around the edges by adding term

limits for Intelligence Committee members, but it has not addressed the fundamental structural dysfunction regarding the fiscal oversight of the intelligence.

The 9/11 commission made two bold recommendations to fix the problem: either consolidate authorization and appropriation functions into a single committee in both Houses or create a bicameral intelligence committee. Both of these approaches were considered and rejected by the Senate during consideration of S. Res. 445 in October of 2004. But many of us believe there is a better, less disruptive way to achieve reform through a carefully constructive intelligence appropriations subcommittee.

This approach was endorsed earlier this year by all but 1 of 15 members of the Intelligence Committee in a letter sent to the majority and minority leaders along with an endorsement from the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland and Government Affairs Committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at this time.

This approach embodies the spirit of the 9/11 commission recommendation, yet poses less structural change to the Senate and could be accomplished easily during this Congress simply by creating a carefully designed subcommittee on intelligence within the Appropriations Committee. The necessary parameters of this new committee are contained in the Senate resolution that I will submit momentarily. We believe these stipulations in this resolution would effect the change sought by the 9/11 commission and enable us to bring intelligence spending under effective oversight.

Now, some of my colleagues may ask themselves why I decided to file this Senate resolution today. The answer is simple. Here we are on the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and more than 4 years after the 9/11 commission's final report was issued, and we still haven't addressed the recommendation that they considered most important. Furthermore, I have tried to work within the system for 5 years now to bring about adequate change to no avail.

I believe we should no longer delay the implementation of this crucial recommendation. Congress has insisted that others reform, but we have not yet adopted any meaningful reform ourselves. The hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by members of the 9/11 commission or by the families of the victims whom we honor today. The time has come for us to put our House in order, and I believe a carefully designed appropriations subcommittee on intelligence is the proper way to implement the spirit of the 9/11 congressional oversight recommendations.

I am concerned about wasteful spending, not just in the billions of dollars, but in the dozens of billions of dollars, that the public does not know about because it is all classified. I am concerned about technology programs that consume billions of dollars for a number of years and never get off the ground. Our current Director of National Intelligence boasted publicly about killing one such program early last year. But that was a program that our defense and intelligence leaders trumpeted for years as a silver bullet before finally throwing in the towel because it did not work. The intelligence acquisition system is hard to change, and the DNI and the intelligence community need Congress's oversight and accountability.

As for Congress, when the Intelligence Committee looks at an issue of great import for several years, and when the Armed Services Committee does the same and agrees in its assessment, yet the appropriations process is so disconnected from them that billions of dollars come to naught because the executive branch is not having its feet held to the fire, then the American taxpayers are ill served, and billions of

dollars that could have been used elsewhere are wasted.

Another example of disjointed oversight happened again yesterday in the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee markup. After years of billions of dollars having been wasted by the intelligence community and the National Reconnaissance Office I proposed a much cheaper, multifunctional approach to sustain our satellite constellation.

This approach is advocated by outside experts and scientists and officials within the intelligence agencies. It also was adopted 2 years in a row by the Intelligence Committee and by the Armed Services Committee in its bill that is on the floor before us today.

Yet, in the Defense Appropriations markup yesterday, even though multiple Senators who have been studying this issue on other committees for years spoke in strong support of it, the old system kicked in and the measure was shut out; that is a structural deficiency the 9/11 Commission pointed out.

In a classified session I can give examples upon examples from other services.

Those who have the time and mandate to study the issue extensively need to be the ones whose discernment is brought to bear on those matters--this is case in point of what the 9/11 Commission said must happen in this specific area of national security, with intelligence. It is in this one area, in our front line of defense against terror, where this has to take place.

Having tried to work within the system and failed, I cannot remain silent about this sort of thing any longer.

We hear a lot today about needed change and reform coming to Washington. Let us prove to the American people that we do not need to wait for an election to start that process.

At this point, lest anyone get the wrong idea about the problems I am addressing here, I must say something about the leadership of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The American people all know about our war hero from the Senate, John McCain, who is running for President, but I want to draw attention to another one of our war heroes who served 2 wars before Senator McCain did in Vietnam, and that is Senator Dan Inouye from Hawaii, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Senator Inouye is a true American hero whom I have the utmost admiration for, and I greatly commend him for the manner in which he has led, and is leading, the Defense Subcommittee. He ensures that America's priorities on defense are put in the right place.

I also commend my good friend Senator Stevens, another true American patriot and veteran. His leadership has been invaluable on this subcommittee for over two decades. And I commend my good friend Senator Cochran also, who has recently been sitting in for Senator Stevens as ranking member on the subcommittee and has always listened patiently to my concerns over the years.

I cannot say enough about these three men who are true leaders; they have acted with wisdom and discernment in how they have led the subcommittee. They are good friends, they are esteemed colleagues, and I am honored to serve under their leadership. So let me make it very clear, that the problem I am addressing today is not the people; these men lead with dignity and discernment in putting together the most complicated funding bill in the Congress.

The problem rather that I am addressing is structure. With a nearly $500 billion Defense appropriations bill, of which less than 10 percent is for intelligence, and with only a handful of committee staff on hand to look at intelligence matters and barely enough time for just a few hearings on intelligence squeezed between all the defense hearings and briefings throughout the year, there is simply no way they can pay adequate attention to intelligence, it is just not possible.

They are rightly consumed with the other 90 percent of their budget that focuses on defense matters. On the Intelligence Committee, however, we spend several days each week poring over intelligence matters and receiving briefs on all aspects of the intelligence community, and with a cadre of 50 professional staff at our disposal we are able to dig real deep into a number of disciplines.

We know that change is needed, and I appreciate the leadership that Chairman Rockefeller and the rest of my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee have shown on this issue. I am also grateful for the support expressed by other Members of the Senate who recognize the importance of this issue to our esteemed body.

I recognize that we are quickly running short on legislative days to get this done. However, I would ask my colleagues to give serious consideration to this Senate resolution. I stand ready to discuss its details and debate its merits. If we are not able to act in this Congress, then I expect to address this issue again first thing in the new Congress.

As we reflect on the horrible events of the September 11 terrorist attacks, I suggest to my colleagues that we all ask ourselves whether we can do more to improve congressional oversight of intelligence. I think we would all agree that the answer to that question must be an emphatic ``yes.''

If we agree that we can do more, then why don't we?

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the remarkable success story in the fight against terrorism and narcotrafficking that I believe very strongly needs to be told. It is a story that has largely gone unnoticed because it has not taken place in the Eastern Hemisphere or east of here, where most of the world's attention is focused today. It comes, rather, from the Southern Hemisphere in a country where protagonists have surged ahead of narcoterrorists militarily, while simultaneously improving the overall security and safety of the civilian population. What is most important is they have done so while ensuring that protection of human rights and adherence to international humanitarian law are fully integrated into the daily life of every member of the security forces.

I am speaking about Colombia, of course. I visited there just a couple of weeks ago. I visited Bogota. I also visited Ecuador to find out what was going on in Latin America. I was greatly encouraged by the tangible evidence I saw in Colombia of a country in complete transformation. Most of us probably realize that just about 6 years ago, in 2002, as much as 40 percent of the area of Colombia was controlled by terrorist groups and ruthless narcotics trafficking. Many of my colleagues visited Colombia at the time and brought back grim reports, as they should have, of a country apparently descending into chaos, with a dim future, as Colombia was on the verge of becoming a failed state. The security situation was bleak, the economic outlook was decidedly negative, and drug trafficking threatened the very culture of Colombia and its people.

The situation had been slowly deteriorating in Colombia for decades. Even before the United States experienced the dramatic acts of terrorism of 2001 that would change our national perceptions forever, Colombians were dealing with an increasingly dangerous, deadly, and brutal form of terrorism that threatened to tear the country apart. Drug cartels were controlling larger and larger swaths of territory and had turned Colombia into the world's leading exporter of cocaine. Much of the cocaine was finding its way into the United States. Insurgent groups we have come to know as the FARC or the ELN were turning Colombia into a war zone, negatively affecting the economy and threatening the very stability of the nation.

That was the situation in 1998 when former Colombian President Pastrana conceived Plan Colombia, a 6-year plan to end long-armed conflict, to eliminate drug trafficking, and promote economic and social development. As you may recall, the United States agreed to take a gamble and invest in Colombia. President Clinton, a Democrat, led the way, and he was followed by President Bush. Both were strong supporters. The good news is that since 1998, the United States has continued to be the principal contributor to the plan, mostly through the Andean Counterdrug Initiative but also through foreign military financing and the central counternarcotics account of the Department of Defense.

Today, our mutual objectives in support of Plan Colombia have evolved from a strict counternarcotics focus to encompass counterterrorism activities as well. Our investment appears to have paid off with dividends. I am happy to report that with U.S. aid to Colombian security forces and assistance in trade preferences under the Andean Trade Preferences Agreement, or the ATPA, the Colombian people have

been positively transforming their nation. We owe a great debt of gratitude, as the people of Colombia do, to President Alvaro Uribe because his programs and policies have dramatically improved the security situation in Colombia and demonstrated his personal commitment to being a strong and capable partner in fighting drugs, crime, and terror.

Since Uribe took office in 2002, the Colombian Government reports that homicides have dropped by 40 percent, murders of union representatives have been reduced by 80 percent, kidnapings have declined by more than 80 percent, and terrorist attacks are down by more than 70 percent. That is a pretty amazing set of numbers, Mr. President. They are evidence of nothing less than a complete turnaround that has given the people of Colombia hope and a new country to live in, one free from constant fear of killings and kidnapings.

Now, in July of this year, the world watched with admiration and amazement as President Uribe and his administration, with their security forces, scored an impressive triumph against the Marxist terrorists of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the full name of the FARC. Members of the Colombian military successfully rescued 15 hostages, including 3 Americans, being held by FARC. They did it through guile, without any armed combat, and with great boldness and risk to the members of the participating team. Weeks later, more than 1 million Colombians marched in their nation's streets, calling on the FARC to release its remaining hostages and stop practicing terror.

Today, President Uribe's approval rating has soared above 90 percent, and the FARC, still holding 700 hostages, is now faced with increasing evaporation of its now limited popular support base.

As their security has improved, so has their economy. Last year, Colombia's economy saw the largest growth rate in nearly three decades, and unemployment and poverty are at the lowest levels in a decade. Improvements in security, stability, and economic development are adding to Colombia's reputation as a vibrant democracy with a history of free elections and solid opposition political parties.

Americans can be proud that U.S. assistance has been at the center of this historic turnaround. Americans can be prouder still of our partners in the Colombian Government who have ensured that while Colombian military and police forces have made significant strides against the FARC and taken back much of the territory once held by them, they have done so while completely overhauling their human rights programs, policies, and enforcement mechanisms.

In January of this year, the Colombian Minister of Defense released the integrated policy of human rights and international humanitarian law, a comprehensive policy that directs the integration of human rights and international law into all military instruction, stronger compliance and controls, legal defense of military personnel, specialized treatment of vulnerable groups, better integration with the civilian judiciary, and closer consultation with civil and international groups on human rights issues. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia called this a key step in promoting respect for human rights in the military.

I was told by members of our U.S. country team, at our embassy in Bogota, that this policy is a written encapsulation of the remarkable changes that have been made over the past several years in the Colombian security forces.

For example, the Defense Minister, Juan Manuel Santos, assigned seven colonels as inspector delegates for each division of the Army with authority to oversee investigations of human rights abuses committed by military personnel in their divisions, including the commanders. As a result, U.S. Embassy officials report impressive signs of progress in the suspension, arrest, or conviction of military and former military violators of human rights, including several general officers and greater civilian access and handling of human rights cases involving the military.

In addition, the Colombian Army has now installed judicial coordination offices as well as operational legal advisers in all units to advise commanders on human rights and international humanitarian law, to coordinate with civilian judicial authorities, and to conduct liaison with national and international organizations about ongoing cases. These legal advisers are present during the planning of any military operation to ensure that the targets are legitimate, that civilian casualties are avoided, and that the human rights of any captured terrorists are protected. The armed forces have designated human rights officers in all their battalions to support human rights training and instruction at the lowest level of the military. Operationally, I am told the Colombian armed forces have changed the nature of their missions on the ground against the FARC. What may have once been pure military operations conducted to kill terrorists and seize territory have become surgical operations specifically designed to protect lives and gather evidence for prosecution of terrorists in the Colombian judicial system. Legal advisers and prosecutors are present during every operation to begin, at the earliest possible time in the operation, the difficult task of evidence collection and prosecution under the law.

Mr. President, this is nothing short of an amazing turn of events. I have to stress, however, the message our people on the ground and the Colombians themselves have delivered to me. They emphasize that while the turnaround is dramatic, they are not out of the woods just yet, and critical challenges remain.

The terrorist and paramilitary groups are weakened but not yet defeated. Violence still threatens all sectors of Colombian society and continues to cause displacement and economic hardship. Defense Minister Santos told me they have already come a long way, but they have a little ways yet to go until they can stand fully on their own two feet. In other words, in the season of football this fall, we would say they are on the 10-yard line, and they need our continued support to cross the goal.

As a result of our investment in and support of President Uribe and the Colombian Government, Colombia has emerged as possibly our most successful bilateral partner in Latin America. It would be hard to find a greater friend, a bolder leader, and one who has made more progress than President Alvaro Uribe. The Colombians have worked hard in fighting against terrorists and drug traffickers, and they have done everything we have asked of them.

Mr. President, since Plan Colombia began in 1999, the United States has given nearly $6 billion in assistance to Colombia. Yet there is one more thing we can do to help them cross the goal line and ensure their success for the future. The Senate can and must cement America's long- term strategic partnership with Colombia by approving the one thing every Colombian official, every U.S. Embassy official, everybody we talk to who is in America--the U.S. businessman or others have told me that they must get--the free-trade agreement. This would be a great deal on several accounts for America.

Our two-way trade with Colombia reached $18 billion last year, making Colombia our fourth largest trading partner in Latin America and the largest export market for U.S. agricultural products in South America. As a representative of an agricultural exporting State, we need to get into that country. We need to get into that country without tariffs making our products less competitive. Exports to Colombia, despite the tariffs that they impose, reached $8.6 billion in 2007. The United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement would open this growing economy further to U.S. goods and services. U.S. companies are already doing business with and in Colombia. There are 112 U.S. companies operating there. All seven of America's largest employers have active commercial relations with Colombia. The Colombia Free Trade Agreement would definitely benefit U.S. businesses. Upon entry into force of the agreement, over 80 percent, close to 90 percent, of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Colombia would enter duty free. U.S. farmers and ranchers would benefit by the immediate elimination of Colombia's duties on high-quality beef, cotton, wheat, soybeans, key fruits, and many processed foods.

Exports diversify our economy, shield it from shock in the domestic

market, and help to close the trade deficit which we continue to hear so much about. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. exports to free-trade countries are at twice the rate of non-free-trade countries.

Frankly, Mr. President, through the ATPA we already offer Colombia the advantages, the trade advantages, coming in largely duty free. The FTA with Colombia is one-sided. It knocks down their tariff barriers to our exports and I am at a loss to explain why we would not quickly approve it when our exporters, our farmers, our workers in manufacturing sectors, our people in the IT industry, and people working in the food industry, all have so much to gain. One might ask why the Colombians want this FTA when America would see most of the benefit. They gave me the answer to that question when I was in Bogota a few weeks ago. They believe the FTA will send a strong signal that the United States remains committed to its friends and is supportive of a continuation of positive reforms in Colombia, such as those I have already mentioned.

On the flip side, they believe--and I am afraid from everything I have seen it is true--if we fail to do it, if we send an adverse message, if we do not approve the FTA, it would be bad news, for we would be, in effect, telling our best ally we are not as close a strategic partner as they thought, and Hugo Chavez, Raoul Castro, and other Marxists in the region will have their heyday ridiculing the Colombians for having turned to the United States. To continue to delay the United States-Colombia free trade agreement would be a refutation of our strong friendship of the Colombian people, a dismissal of the blood and treasure spent over the last decade to help Colombia and eliminate terrorism and improve its economy, and a signal to our allies that no matter how hard you cooperate with the United States you will be abandoned in the end. As the Colombians told me, if we do not approve the FTA, Hugo Chavez and Raoul Castro will rub their noses in it, saying: This is the way the devil pays his friends.

We saw another side of that yesterday in a good op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Mary Anastasia O'Grady, ``Latin Americans Want Free Trade.'' In that op-ed piece she pointed out what happened the last time we imposed tariffs, and when we cracked down on trade with Latin America. She quoted Sebastian Edwards that ``protectionist policies based on import substitution were well entrenched and constituted, by far, the dominant perspective'' in the downturn of Latin America. It:

. . . made a mess out of the region, and not only because

spiraling tariffs and nontariff barriers blocked imports and

destroyed the export sector. They also . . . had a

deleterious effect on politics too, as closed economies

spawned powerful interests which seized not only on economic

but political control and grew entrenched.

That is one of the reasons we have so many problems with so many countries in Latin America that are not realizing their full potential.

In sum, a Colombia FTA seems a simple but effective way to help solidify our image as a nation committed to helping our strategic allies in the world, in the Western Hemisphere, and standing shoulder to shoulder with us fighting those who attack our freedom. I urge my colleagues to consider seriously the importance of passing a Colombia FTA before this Congress ends in a few short weeks. This may be one of the few strongly bipartisan actions in the Senate before this session ends and, for our Colombian friends who know how important it is, this action would be unforgettable.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece to which I referred as part of my remarks be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I am here today to point out what I believe everybody in this body knows, certainly everybody back in the heartland, where the occupant of the chair and I live: America is suffering a gas price crisis. I regret to tell the people back home that the Senate is in a crisis of its own.

It appears that Democrats are desperate to deny real gas price relief. They are apparently united behind the misguided policy of the presumptive Democratic nominee for President who says: Don't provide any new sources of supply. They are doing anything they can to block the one real solution to this gas price.

Opening new offshore drilling will bring suffering American families 18 billion barrels of new oil supplies. News of America's commitment to new supplies will drive prices down immediately. We saw with the suggestion that we would be opening offshore when the President lifted the Executive moratorium on offshore drilling, that the prices came down immediately $10 and then came down roughly $20 because the price of oil today is influenced by the long-term judgment of what the price will be in the future.

Airlines, trucking companies, and others have to go out in the futures market to buy the oil they need in the future. Those who bought futures contracts at $90 turned out to be prescient. They saved money from the $145 a barrel oil we see today. But right now there are too many hedgers, too many investors, and, yes, even some speculators, too many investors, including the Public Employee Retirement Systems of California, and of local governments that are saying: Hey, if we don't open oil supplies, we are going to see that $145 a barrel oil go to $175 and $200 and $250.

Regrettably, if the policy of the Democrats being acted on in the Senate today holds, we will see those oil prices going above $200 a barrel and over $5 at the gas pump. The Democrats, in lockstep with their Presidential nominee, are doing anything they can to block the one real solution: News of America's commitment to new supplies and oil will drive down the prices immediately. New supplies, 10 years' worth in the case of offshore reserves, will drive prices lower for years to come.

Some may say it will take a long time to bring it on line. That is what President Clinton said in 1995 when he vetoed the authorization to open ANWR, which could have been producing a million barrels of oil a day. He said it wouldn't happen for 10 years. Well, it is now 13 years past that veto. We surely could use that additional million barrels of oil a day.

The Democratic leader, when it comes to lowering gas prices with new offshore supplies, says: ``No, we can't.'' Actually, in the case of the Senate Democrats, it is ``No, we won't,'' reflecting the views of their Presidential nominee.

Earlier this month, I tried to join with my colleagues to repeal the legislative moratorium preventing new offshore drilling off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. With the high gas prices facing our families, it is time to end the offshore drilling ban included each year on the annual appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior.

Much to my surprise and regret, the Democratic leadership canceled the planned business meeting to consider and write the Interior appropriations bill. We thought we would succeed. We thought people would understand that bringing gas price relief to America's families by reversing the current ban on offshore drilling could meet the cry from our people back home to do something about the price of gas. But the Democratic leadership canceled the meeting to prevent the will of the people through their Senators from being heard.

Now we have confirmation. We have seen a statement from the Appropriations Committee that the Democrats thought they would lose the vote and fail in their attempt to keep new oil supplies from the American people. It came from the Appropriations Committee itself saying they did not want to see the offshore opened for drilling. That is not the way this body is supposed to work.

We disagree with a lot of things, but we at least ought to come to the floor and have a vote. Those who are for it and those who are against it, let them take their stand in public and let the people judge.

Now we are on the floor of the Senate trying to move to a bill supposedly on energy. We have asked for a debate and a vote on measures in addition to their measure on speculation, because speculation is a small part. What we need to do is get more supplies.

The plan of Republican Senators and our presumptive nominee for President, the Senator from Arizona, is to enact additional measures that will lower gas prices through additional supplies from offshore oil reserves, tap billions of barrels of oil in Rocky Mountain oil shale deposits, provide clean nuclear-powered electricity that can drive our next generation of hybrid cars and trucks, and give financial help to jump-start our U.S. manufacturing supply base for hybrid car batteries to bring their prices down and put people in America to work.

But now the Democratic leadership has gone back on this offer. They have reneged on this offer. It is like Lucy with the football. The American people, we feel like Charlie Brown and the football is lowering gas prices. They are offering to let Charlie Brown kick the football to get a vote on opening offshore oil reserves and see if he can score a goal for lower gas prices. But, wait, the leadership of the Democratic Party on this floor has yanked the oil supply football away, only to let the American people swing and miss. The Democratic leadership apparently instead wants to move the goalposts back to pay for new wind and solar incentives.

I support wind and solar incentives. The whole Senate voted for wind and solar incentives earlier this year, adopting an amendment by over 80 votes. How many times do you have to do that? But the Democrats yanked the football away as well. They added new taxes to that measure. I guess they figured something so popular would be a good opportunity to raise taxes. That seems to be the policy of their nominee for President.

I can tell you that the people of Missouri do not want higher taxes. They do not want us to make it harder to find and produce oil. More wind and solar power is not going to get gas prices down now or anytime in the future. Not a single trucker in Missouri will pay less for diesel because we pass a bill for wind power. Not a single Missouri family will suffer less pain at the pump because we pass a bill for solar power. Not a single farmer will pay less to run his tractors or less to send his produce to market.

The only real thing that will work to get gas prices down is fundamental--more oil supplies to scare away the speculators and meet the demand.

Missouri does not need more hot air from the Democrats. Energy summits where Washington politicians talk about how much they claim they care about families will not get the gas prices down. And yet, the Senator from Illinois, the Democratic presumptive nominee for President, was in Missouri, and he had a solution for the gas price crisis. He said we need to keep our tires fully inflated.

I agree with keeping our tires fully inflated. I am told by the studies of the Department of Transportation that can save 6 to 12 gallons of gasoline a year. So please keep your tires inflated. But suggestions to inflate our tires fully are not going to make a significant difference in the gas price.

America deserves more than Democratic hot air. Here it is hot air to inflate our tires. On the floor of the Senate, it is hot air to tell us everything

else but increasing supplies may have an impact.

America deserves real action with real solutions. We should not abandon the American people to this gas price crisis. We need to move back to the bill on speculation and include amendments that will bring real gas price relief.

I have an amendment, No. 5121, to open 18 million barrels of oil reserves off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts--10 years of new oil supplies for the American people.

My amendment would also authorize more than $1 billion a year to jump-start a U.S. manufacturing supply base for hybrid car and truck batteries. Funding would go to hybrid battery research and development, battery manufacturing equipment and capabilities, and re-equipping, expanding, and establishing U.S. domestic manufacturing facilities or hybrid vehicle batteries.

Why do we need it? We need it to get the supply of batteries. I have visited factories in Missouri where they are producing battery-powered cars, hybrid cars, such as the Ford Escape, the Claycomo plant. General Motors is working on these products. These are tremendous gas savers. We need to move to more plug-in vehicles.

In my hometown of New Mexico, MO, my good friend who sells modified golf carts is selling street-ready vehicles now, and they are popular. We can have full-size vehicles if we have the batteries to power them. But most of those batteries are being made in Asia, and American car manufacturers get second call. We need to have those batteries manufactured in America to supply our automobile industry.

This amendment would force gas prices down, find more oil and use less. The amendment would provide new oil supplies and new sources of oil conservation. But the Democratic leadership doing the will of the Senator from Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is blocking consideration of this amendment and all amendments.

As I said before, this is very disappointing to me, to the people of Missouri, and to the people of America. Missouri and America deserve more than half measures that will only produce a few days or months more of oil supplies. We deserve more than the Senate attempting to abandon them in the gas price crisis by moving on to other issues.

Missouri and America deserve real action now to lower gas prices. That means new offshore supplies to get prices down. That is the position the Republican Senators and the Republican Senator from Arizona, our nominee for President, are pushing for: new offshore oil supplies for American families, new offshore supplies for our farmers, new offshore supplies for our truckers. That is the only real hope for gas price relief.

I beg the Senate leadership to let us move now. Failure to do so will assure the American people that they will go another month while we are out of session and have done nothing but talk hot air and suggest putting hot air into car tires.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for filling in for me while I was caught up in a radio interview.

We are here today to talk about a real crisis, a rural America crisis. Rural America is suffering a gas price crisis. Rural America deserves action now to get gas prices down. Rural America knows this fundamentally is a problem of not enough supply to meet demand. We need to find more oil and use less to bring the real gas price relief rural America needs. Families, farmers, truckers across rural Missouri, my home State, are suffering record pain at the pump. At kitchen tables in the farmhouses of rural Missouri, farmers, dairy producers, and cattlemen are facing a gas price crisis. Farm costs are higher than ever. Farm fuel to run tractors and farm equipment is at record levels. Transportation costs to get goods to the market are at a record level. The ability of consumers to buy products is under record pressure. People are seeing higher food prices because food has to travel. The average item on the grocery shelf travels 1,300 miles. Record-high

diesel prices are adding to the price of food goods in the store.

All this means real suffering for rural Missouri and its farmers. Down country roads of rural Missouri, rural families are facing a gas price crisis. They have to cut budgets hit hard by high gas prices. Many of these families live in rural areas because they are of modest means. Maybe they are looking for cheaper housing than offered in big cities. Maybe they are fixed-income retirees staying in their own hometowns. Either way, when it comes time to cut the family budget, the cuts will go extra deep.

What will these rural families cut because of higher gas prices? With the school year coming, they have to get the kids to school. Will a rural family give up buying new clothes for their kids? Will struggling fixed-income seniors cancel doctors appointments or cut back on medication?

Truckers across Missouri are facing a gas price crisis. Many trucking firms are based in rural areas, where land and fuel were cheaper, but record diesel prices are hammering truckers and trucking companies. Mom-and-pop trucking firms are laying off drivers. Some are even going into bankruptcy. Many rural families and workers also depend on airlines for service and jobs. Airlines are facing record-high jet fuel prices. That is forcing airlines to lay off workers and cut back service. Many of the blue-collar workers who moved back to maintain planes and service airports are being affected.

American Airlines, for example, is set to eliminate some 6,500 jobs because of record-high oil prices. Airlines also cut low-volume routes to rural areas first. Airlines are trying to manage rising fuel costs by using the financial markets to hedge against risk. But their experts tell me the main problem is a fear that there will not be a supply there in the future. They say if the U.S. Government would take steps to increase supply, it would bring about a huge change in the market and bring prices down immediately. Why? Because the current price being paid on the hedging market for oil to be delivered in 3 years depends upon their expectation of what the demand and supply will be in the years ahead. Right now there is every reason to think that if we do nothing, if we are prevented from getting a gas price reduction bill that provides more and allows us to use less through this Senate, the price will not be just $140 a barrel. The price will not just be $185. It will be $200 or $250. So people's retirement plans, such as CalPERS, California Public Employees Retirement System, are bidding up the price in the future because they don't expect supply to go up. Bringing that price down will make a difference. It will make a difference in the price of oil today, just as President Bush's ending of the Executive moratorium on offshore drilling brought the price down from $145 to $120.

Bringing the price down could make a real difference between keeping jobs and service in rural America and letting go thousands of workers. The suffering of rural Missouri families, farmers, and truckers is why we are fighting so hard to lower gas prices. We are fighting to open new supplies of oil needed to get prices down. Real action to lower gas prices is the most important thing we can do to help rural America and rural Missouri. Fighting for real action to lower gas prices is the most important thing I could do to help rural Missouri. I have amendments to force gas prices down by opening new offshore oil reserves waiting for us. I filed an amendment to lower gas prices by opening access to the 18 billion barrels of oil waiting for us off America's Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These reserves could supply America with 10 years of additional oil supplies, if we would only allow ourselves to use them to change a 30-year policy the Democrats have imposed, that Senator Obama continues to champion, of no drilling, no refineries, no nuclear power. The decision to open our offshore oil reserves would immediately cause the price of oil to fall.

We know that because this happened earlier this month, when President Bush reversed the Executive ban and brought the price of oil immediately down $10 and, now, $20 a barrel. Nothing hurts speculators bidding up the price of oil more than news of additional oil supplies coming in the future. Congress must do our part to lower gas prices even further by opening new offshore reserves. However, the Democratic Party is blocking the Senate from considering my amendment to tap offshore oil reserves, even as I speak. I also cosponsored an amendment with several Senate colleagues to tap offshore oil reserves in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. There are almost 3 billion barrels of oil in the eastern gulf waiting to help bring gas prices down for rural Missouri. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is also blocking consideration of this amendment.

I also agree we must help America use less oil. I have an amendment that would relieve the pressure on gas prices by increasing conservation. My amendment would aggressively promote advanced vehicle batteries and their production in the United States for hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles. My amendment would provide new funds for hybrid battery research and development, battery manufacturing equipment and capabilities, and reequipping, expanding or establishing U.S. domestic manufacturing facilities for hybrid vehicle batteries. U.S. domestic mass production of hybrid batteries would get battery prices down, getting the hybrid vehicle prices down. But most importantly, it would give our auto companies access to the batteries we need. Right now many of the batteries have to be brought in from Asia. As the demand for more batteries goes up in Asia, I can assure my colleagues that American auto companies will not necessarily be first in line to get that production. We need to put American workers to work building the batteries, the advanced batteries that will go into the electric cars, the plug-ins, and the hybrid plug-ins. This would not only conserve oil. It would give jobs to blue-collar manufacturing workers and help the environment. It is going to be good for Missouri when we do it. The question is when.

Missouri is a national leader in hybrid car production, in batteries, and advanced vehicle batteries. We make traditional batteries across the State because we are the leader in lead. We mine a lot of lead in Missouri. When you are talking about environmental dangers, yes, lead has some dangers to it. There is only one simple reason we mine lead in Missouri, and that is because we have 90 percent of it in the United States. When people tell me they don't want to drill for natural gas because they don't like the sight of natural gas wells, but they have the natural gas, I say: If you will trade us your natural gas for our lead, I would be happy to let them drill in my backyard.

But Missouri, with all the battery specialists, the technical workers we have, the scientists, is on the cutting edge of battery technology, with firms developing safer, stronger lithium ion batteries. We are also home to a hybrid SUV assembly plant in Kansas City. This success does not have to be limited to Missouri. Communities across America can share in the drive to establish a domestic manufacturing supply base for mass hybrid car construction.

Rural communities, especially, can benefit from the good-paying manufacturing jobs that U.S. mass battery production would provide. Rural school districts would benefit from new tax revenues. Rural police and firefighters would benefit. Unfortunately, as I said, Democrats are blocking Senate consideration.

Now, what answers do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for rural America? Well they propose making things worse by suing oil-producing countries.

Folks back home in my part of rural Missouri may not know much about antitrust laws--most folks don't--but anyone with common sense would know, if you sue someone, they would likely take what they have and sell it to somebody else.

I guess this was an idea cooked up by trial lawyers who are eager to sue anybody they can. As you might imagine, there are not too many trial lawyers in rural Missouri.

Democrats also proposed raiding our emergency oil supplies in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Putting aside the fact that these emergency reserves are only meant to be used in times supply is cut off, such as during a war, this plan would only produce 3\1/2\ days of additional oil.

So while Republicans are offering rural America 10 years of additional oil

supplies, Democrats think rural America should get by on only 3\1/2\ days of extra supplies. This lack of sympathy for taking real action may be based on the fact that a lot of Democrats are fine with higher oil prices.

After all, the Democratic nominee for President, Senator Obama, said the problem was not that gas prices were so high, the problem was merely that gas prices had risen so quickly. That is akin to telling people it is OK to drown as long as the water rises slowly.

Today, in Springfield, MO, the Democratic nominee suggested we all make sure we properly inflate our tires. Big deal. I believe in all tires being fully inflated. But, frankly, that is the kind of hot air-- this hot air being into tires--that we have been hearing too much of on this floor.

Rural Missouri is suffering record pain at the pump, and the best thing he can come up with is more hot air--this time for our tires. Rural Missouri deserves more than the hot air from the Illinois Senator.

Senator McCain has come out very clearly and strongly in support of drilling, of exploring, of developing nuclear power.

We tried last year. Congress passed the largest increase in auto fuel efficiency requirements in a generation to bring down gas usage. Well, that did nothing to prevent record-high prices. That is because it will take years before more fuel-efficient cars are required. The Democratic candidate for President must want us to suffer through record-high gas prices until those conservation measures kick in.

I support increasing conservation, but we must not force a prescription of pain on America while we wait years for these conservation measures to kick in.

The Democratic candidate for President has suggested another stimulus package to help drivers through this price crisis. I am sure Missouri rural families would be happy to receive a few hundred dollars more in stimulus relief. But what they want is not to get a check from the Government--after the handful of tanks of gasoline that money could buy is spent--they want to bring down the price. They will be right back where they are, paying the full price of record-high gas prices, and we will do nothing but increase our deficit.

Rural Missouri and America deserve more than a prescription of pain to address the gas price crisis. We deserve more than half measures that will only produce a few days or months more of additional supplies. Rural Missouri deserves more than a Senate attempting to abandon them and this gas price crisis by moving on to other issues.

Rural Missouri and the people of America deserve real action now to lower gas prices. That means new offshore oil supplies to get prices down, new offshore oil supplies for Missouri families, new offshore oil supplies for Missouri farmers, and new offshore oil supplies for Missouri truckers. That is our only real hope for real gas price relief.

I urge my Senate colleagues to let us act on it and act now.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the St. Louis Roadies soccer team on their recent participation in the Homeless USA Soccer Cup. The Roadies were the first team ever from St. Louis to participate in this special event, which was held last month here in Washington, DC. I had the privilege and honor to meet personally the entire team and their coaches from Peter and Paul Community Services in my office here on Capitol Hill before their competition. While the team did not capture the title, I am proud of their performance and representation of the St. Louis community and my home State of Missouri. However, I am even prouder of their personal perseverance and commitment to self-improvement after experiencing the terrible plight of homelessness.

According to the organizers of the Homeless World Cup, about 77 percent of participants in the 48-team tournament go on to better their lives through employment, housing, education and/or drug and alcohol treatment. The founders of the event believe that it provides an opportunity for these men to express actively themselves through organized competition to build character and positive individuality. Based on their performance, I agree.

The six-man team from St. Louis was made up of men who were recently homeless. Unfortunately, many others suffer from the plight of homelessness. It is frankly a national tragedy that we can and must end. Nevertheless, the spirit of the Roadies and others who participated in the Homeless Soccer USA Cup gives us significant hope that we can end homelessness.

All six men and their coaches deserve high praise. I personally congratulate the six players, Oscar Grandberry, Daniel Blue, Doug Carter, Labon Smith, Marcus Davis, and Vince Steiniger; and the coaches, assistant coach Dena Emmanuelle, coach David Flomo, and coach Keith Deisner.

Let me highlight one of the players named Oscar Grandberry who played goalie for the Roadies. His play earned him a spot on the U.S. national homeless team as an alternate. He is an amazing story of determination. Oscar is a native Liberian and former child soldier who is now on his way to completing a second master's degree from St. Louis University. Oscar and Team USA will travel to Melbourne, Australia, later this year to compete in the sixth annual Homeless World Cup and I wish them my best.

The Roadies placed third in the beginners' bracket of the USA Cup and earned the Cup's Fair Play Award. This award is annually granted to the team ``showing the best in human spirit and embodying what the tournament is all about.'' As an addition to the already exceptional sporting culture of St. Louis and the State of Missouri, the Roadies are an inspiration to, and an excellent representation of, the great people of St. Louis.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from North Carolina for sharing with us those very memorable words from a brave American who gave the ultimate sacrifice. His words and his example ought to be something we keep in our hearts and our minds every day. I thank my colleague for saying it.

I wish to talk about a crisis--a crisis we are going to have to address in the coming week on this floor. The gas prices are a crisis; $4 and up gasoline prices are hurting Americans.

In my State of Missouri--and I trust in every State in the Union-- families, farmers, truckers, and small businesses are suffering record pain at the pump. We deserve real action now to get prices down.

Fundamentally, it is a problem of not enough supply to meet the demand. It is economics 101. We need to find more oil and use less.

My amendments and the measures I support will bring Missouri and America the new oil supplies and conservation we need to bring those prices down, to get the supply we need.

Instead, the Democratic leadership in this body is desperate to deny the people of America the relief they need.

One amendment I have, No. 5122, would lower gas prices through opening opportunities to explore for oil supplies in the United States offshore, the off-coastal drilling area, 50 miles out.

The amendment to the bill currently on the Senate floor--and I plan to stay until I can offer it--would open a potential for 18 billion barrels of oil, a 10-year supply currently off-limits off America's shores.

The bill would give States the choice to opt into production at least 50 miles off their coasts and share lease proceeds with the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is currently blocking this amendment and the gas price relief it would bring to all Americans.

I am cosponsoring another amendment with my colleagues to open oil production in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. There are almost 3 billion barrels of oil in the eastern gulf waiting to help bring prices down for Missouri and America. The Democratic leadership is currently blocking consideration of this amendment as well.

Not only do we need to produce more, but we need to use less. So I have an amendment, No. 5123, to help America use less oil. It would aggressively promote advanced vehicle batteries for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles. That way, you could avoid using gas--or at least avoid a lot of gas usage. This amendment, when we pass it, will drive down the price of advanced vehicle batteries for hybrid and plug-in vehicles.

My amendment will provide significant new funding for hybrid battery research and development, manufacturing equipment and capabilities, and reequipping and expanding or establishing U.S. domestic manufacturing facilities for hybrid vehicle batteries.

U.S. domestic mass production of hybrid batteries would get their prices down and get the price of hybrid vehicles down.

Right now, we depend largely on supplies from Asia, and there is not enough supply to meet the demand. We need these batteries to conserve oil, give jobs to blue-collar manufacturing workers, and help the environment. But the Democratic leadership is blocking consideration of this amendment.

There is a bill before us to address abusive speculation. I agree we should deal with the areas of speculation that are abusive. We need to cover the over-the-counter market. Fundamentally, it is a problem of too little supply to meet demand. Exports know this. The American people are smart enough to know this.

I don't understand why the Democratic Party continues to block our responsible efforts to get gas prices down through new oil production. The American people deserve better. The people of Missouri deserve better. I think they know better.

We have to get gas prices down. We need to open offshore supplies, and we need to provide ways of using less. I believe the people of our country need and deserve no less.

housing

Mr. President, I voted against cloture on the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which we concluded.

I commend Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for working long and hard to address the housing crisis, the need to reform regulatory oversight of the mortgage government-sponsored enterprises, and to modernize the Department of Housing and Urban Development's FHA. The bill also includes emergency authorities for the Government to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I support the Government's involvement in helping struggling responsible homeowners. In fact, I support many key provisions of the legislation, such as a stronger regulator of the GSEs, additional housing counseling funding, increased bond authority for State housing finance agencies to refinance troubled loans, elimination of seller-financed downpayment programs, and improved disclosure and transparency in the home-buying process. That was in the bill I introduced on the floor--the bill that left the floor and went to the House. Unfortunately, I cannot support--and I urge my colleagues not to support--H.R. 3221 because it is a major bailout for subprime lenders and potentially a budget buster for the taxpayers of America.

I am strongly opposed to the proposed expansion of FHA with a new program called the HOPE for Homeowners loan program.

As I explained during our last floor debate about the Senate's version of the bill, the HOPE Program is fatally flawed since it provides limited help to troubled homeowners, while allowing lenders to dump their worst subprime mortgages on an already stressed FHA. Further, the program will result in HUD becoming a huge landlord of foreclosed properties, which we know is an extremely bad outcome for communities and other homeowners based on the Department's history of being unable to manage the real estate it owns.

The CBO estimates that under this program, ``mortgage holders would have an incentive to direct their highest-risk loans to the program.'' This means lenders who were, in a number of cases, either fraudulent or negligent in their treatment of borrowers, will be able to clear out many of the biggest problem loans. Not surprisingly, CBO estimates that a cumulative default rate for the HOPE Program would be 35 percent-- meaning that one out of every three loans refinanced would fail. In other words, over 130,000 homeowners would still go into foreclosure, and FHA would be the inept administrator of those.

FHA is significantly limited in plan managing and implementing its loan activities, which have been documented by the HUD inspector general and GAO for several years. Not too long ago, the entire department was on the GAO's high-risk list.

Unfortunately, FHA's history of problems is going unheeded. I am further concerned that we are setting up this new program when FHA is playing a growing role in assisting distressed homeowners. And to add 400,000 of the worst new loans to FHA's portfolio would create a perfect storm for failure. We can do better.

We have characterized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as being too big to fail. I believe this 694-page bill has become too big to succeed.

We have to address the solvency of Fannie and Freddie, but it must be done responsibly. We must address the GSEs' management and a new regulator with new personnel must ensure that the GSEs act consistently with their mission and better manage risk. CBO's cost estimate of the GSE rescue plan reported that the ``riskiest loans, known as alt-A and subprime mortgages, account for about 15 percent'' of the GSEs' portfolio. Not surprisingly, a significant portion of the subprime portfolio was likely originated by lenders such as Countrywide. According to Fannie Mae's annual report, filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ending December 31, last year, its top customer was Countrywide. The report states that Countrywide accounted for 28 percent of Fannie Mae's single-family business volume in 2007, which was actually higher than its volume in 2006. No one can deny that holders of Countrywide paper will be the biggest beneficiaries of this bill. It will not be homeowners. They are not bailing out homeowners; they are bailing out the banks that hold the Countrywide paper and the other financial institutions that hold them.

The legislative process was supposed to be a compromise, but this compromise is unacceptable. Let me state for the record that I have great respect and confidence in our current Treasury Secretary. He has stated he would take care to protect the American people, and I believe in the months he has left in that office he will do so. But this GSE rescue authorization will continue for a full year after he leaves. This is a huge gamble we are taking, and this compromise does not address that issue. It provides too little benefit to struggling homeowners, too much benefit to the subprime lenders, such as those who hold Countrywide paper--who contributed to the housing crisis--and it provides too much risk to the American taxpayer.

I cannot support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week marked the end of a distinguished and honorable career in Government service for one of the most widely respected professional staff members on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Today, I wish to pay tribute to this gentleman--Mr. Don Mitchell.

For over 24 years, Don Mitchell devoted his life to public service. Remarkably, except for a 2-year period when he served as the Director of Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council, 22 of those years were spent here in the Senate, first as a national security legislative assistant for Senator John Glenn and then as a professional staff member for the Intelligence Committee. Senator Glenn knew a good thing when he saw it, so in 1989, he asked Don to move to the Intelligence Committee staff. As they say, the rest is history .

In a world where politics often seems to define who we are and with whom we associate, Don transcended those barriers. He earned the respect of Members and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. His work ethic--often evidenced by long days and late nights--was admired by all. It comes as no surprise that Don's reputation is well known not only here in the Senate but throughout the intelligence community with whom he worked so closely through the years. During my tenure on the Intelligence Committee, and in particular since becoming the vice chairman, I have benefited from Don's expertise and seasoned judgment in analyzing some of our most sensitive national security programs. We have been fortunate to have him for so many years.

We all know that the demands of working here in Congress often take the greatest toll on those who support us and sustain us in life--our families. For selflessly giving Don to us for so many years, his wife Grace, son Logan, and daughter Ella deserve our gratitude. We thank them for their sacrifices through these many years.

Ensuring our great Nation's security is a high calling and one of tremendous responsibility. Through his service to the Intelligence Committee, the Senate, and the United States of America, Don Mitchell has answered this call

with characteristic professionalism, integrity, and perseverance. We wish him the very best in his future pursuits. May God bless him and his family.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. President, America is suffering a gas price crisis. In response, our Democratic colleagues are blocking our attempts to get gas prices down for new oil supplies. Yesterday, Senate Democrats went so far as to cancel an Appropriations Committee markup over fears that an amendment to open offshore oil production would succeed.

Senator Hutchison of Texas and I had announced our intention to offer an amendment to rescind the continuing moratorium in appropriations bills that currently blocks new oil production off our Atlantic and Pacific shores. With the support of Senators Domenici, Alexander, and all the committee Republicans, we would have given the Appropriations Committee a chance to reverse the annual law blocking America from new oil supplies. I suppose they were afraid we would win the vote, and that is why they canceled the meeting. How undemocratic can you get? You are afraid to lose a vote? Cancel the vote.

We have been struggling all year with Democrats blocking Republicans from offering amendments on the Senate floor. Democrats are saying currently that they will block Republicans from offering amendments to lower gas prices by increasing oil production. Afraid to vote on the floor? Block the vote. Cancel the vote. Block the vote.

What is next? Will Democrats try to disband the Senate or have the majority leader act as a Rules Committee so only what he says can be voted on on the floor? That is not the way this Senate acts.

Why is this so hard? Why are Democrats so desperate to deny the relief the American people need and are demanding? Maybe things are different in New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, and California, but I can tell you Missouri families are struggling with record pain at the pump. Not just families, Missouri truckers and small businesses and charitable institutions and local governments are suffering from record-high prices. Diesel prices are driving truckers out of business. Missouri farmers are fed up with high energy costs. They do not need to hear, as our Presidential candidate from Illinois said, that the problem is not that gasoline prices have gone up; the problem is they went up too quickly. I can tell the Senator from Illinois that the people of Missouri are fed up with both the speed and the level of gas price increases. Four-dollar gasoline is as popular in Missouri as a Belgian company trying to buy out Budweiser.

Missourians know this is a fundamental problem. We all learned it in economics 101. Prices are high because there is not enough supply to meet demand. We need to find more and we need to use less. There is plenty out there to find, if only they will allow us to go and get it.

We have heard the numbers before, but let me repeat them again. At least 18 billion barrels of oil are waiting for us in the waters off our Atlantic and Pacific shores. That is 10 years of supplies we can give ourselves. Republicans plan to add 10 years of new supplies versus a Democratic plan to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which would give us, by that rate, 3.5 days more oil supply.

Today's new Democratic half measure--it is not even a half measure, it is not a quarter measure, it is not an eighth measure--is to swap sweet crude for heavy crude in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, again to get a little more gasoline when the oil is refined. It still takes refining capacity. It is still a Band-Aid that is not even well placed over the wound.

These Democratic ideas for ``new supplies'' keep getting smaller and smaller, weaker and weaker. They say: Well, drill where you have leases. It is called exploring. And when you explore, you did not find something, you do not drill, it goes back to the Government. That is already the law. Give us a break.

At prices as they are today, if there is oil out there, if they see an opportunity to get it, the oil companies are going to go after it, because that is how they make money. That is how they make the money they invest in developing more oil supplies.

We are not forgetting that the biggest thing we can do, the boldest thing we can do, the most aggressive thing we can do is to increase domestic oil supply. And that is exactly what we will need to end this gas price crisis.

Yes, there are other things--using less. I come from a battery State. We need a major American battery manufacturer, because right now most of the batteries coming in for hybrid and hybrid plug-in cars come from Asia. We need to put Americans to work in a large facility or facilities making batteries that will run electric cars.

These are the big ideas. American people do not deserve small Democratic ideas. They do not deserve modest Democratic ideas. They do not deserve timid Democratic ideas. The American people deserve bold action, the American people deserve aggressive action, the American people deserve real action. It is time we get real about gas prices.

We need to stop putting offshore oil off limits. Give us a vote to open more offshore oil production. That is what we propose. That is what we demand. That is what the American people deserve. We cannot fulfill our duty to the American people by walking away from half a loaf, a half a small loaf solution without giving the American people the right to see where their elected Senators are going to vote in terms of providing the big relief we need for a big problem. We need to have votes and we need to move on that oil bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, following up on the comments made by the majority leader, the American public is suffering record pain at the pump. Missourians are struggling with higher gas prices. They have said in poignant and perceptive letters to me that they are hurting.

Carol Shoener, in Braymer, MO, northeast of Kansas City, wrote my office asking that the Senate take action swiftly to stop rising fuel prices. She has to drive 25 to 30 miles to the nearest town with a hospital, dentist or pharmacy.

Juanita Highfill, of Bolivar, in southwest Missouri, is retired on a fixed income. She writes that the cost of gasoline is a real hardship for her family. Her son, a kidney transplant recipient with few job skills and limited ability, drives 30 miles one way to work a minimum wage job. His net monthly income is under $400, with gas taking $250 of that, leaving him with $150 per month for his life's expenses.

Anthony Meis, of Pacific, MO, west of St. Louis, is on a fixed income too. He follows the markets and knows that ``once we pump more oil in our country, the speculators . . . won't have the same leverage of driving up oil prices.''

It is time we get real about gas prices. The Democratic leader pointed out that there are areas where there is tremendous suffering across the country. Maybe it is time he realized we need to take some substantive, comprehensive approaches to the gas price problem. No more of these show activities, these empty promises, these peripheral issues. Let us hope he meant it when he said he would allow us to debate the issues and offer amendments. That is the problem.

The majority leader has been acting as a Rules Committee such as the House has, which says we can only vote on the things he wants us to vote on. He is going to try to cram a package down our throats with a whole bunch of bills--and many are good ones--without having an opportunity to vote. I want cloture and I want to talk about an energy bill. I want to vote on it and have people go on the record and show whether they are for dealing with this crisis--the gas prices and oil prices and a whole range of energy prices.

No more saying, no, we can't, to real action on gas prices. No more saying, no, we can't, to providing American families the relief they need. No more saying, no, we can't, to going after every option available, including increasing production.

We must say, yes, we can, to real action on gas prices. Any plan that has a real chance of lowering gas prices must say, yes, we can, to increasing production; yes, we can, to increasing conservation; and, yes, we can, to addressing speculation.

We Republicans have a plan that says, yes, we can, to each of these ways to increase production, increase conservation, and address speculation.

I hope the other side will join us to allow our plan for real gas price relief to go forward. I hope we don't get shut out. I hope the majority leader doesn't fill the tree, as he has in the past. I hope they will let us act on these important measures.

I hope the Members blocking real relief for the American people finally listen to what we are hearing from home. I hear it every day from constituents back home. Farmers, truckers, and families are all suffering from gas price increases. Families from the cities to the suburbs to our rural areas are all cutting their budgets to pay higher gas prices.

At stake are good jobs in places far from affordable hospitals, the ability to live near good schools and the ability to share in the American dream. All of these need affordable energy solutions.

Why are we refusing to help families any way we can? We are tired of hearing the other side of the aisle tell suffering families: No, we can't.

Farmers--the great symbol of American bounty--are suffering. They provide for us. Why are we refusing to provide for them? They need affordable fuel to run their farm equipment, store their harvest, and ship their goods to market.

One of the biggest costs of food is that of transportation. Why are we telling those who produce our food, package it, ship it--why are we telling them, no, we can't help them with their energy costs?

Truckers across the country are suffering. Many trucking companies are small businesses. They are laying off workers and some are going bankrupt. Why are we telling struggling truckers, no, we can't?

The American people understand what is going on. They are smart enough to know that if you don't have enough of something, you go out and get more of it. It is economics 101. If prices are too high, it is because there is not enough supply and too much demand. Yet the leadership on the other side of the aisle, and the Democratic Party, have done everything they can to prevent more production of the bountiful gas and oil resources we have in our country. Of course, there was the 1995 veto by President Clinton of the Republican authorization to open drilling in ANWR. He said it would take 10 years to produce oil. Well, 10 years was probably longer than it would have taken, but that time has long past. We are missing out on a million barrels of oil a day that would have come from ANWR.

The Republicans have a plan. Our Gas Price Reduction Act takes real action on oil supplies. Right now, there are, at a minimum, 18 billion barrels of oil waiting for us off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. That is 10 years of supply we are blocking from ourselves, stopping ourselves from producing.

The Gas Price Reduction Act will open these offshore areas and allow us to put the American oil to use for Americans.

For those who say it would take years to get, they ignore the immediate price-lowering effect of the news of new supplies. It happened last week. After the President announced suspension of the Presidential moratorium on offshore drilling, prices are down $16 a barrel. It is now up to us in Congress to get off our duffs and do the same thing and bring immediate, long-term, lasting relief to American families and farmers. When Congress finally gets its act together and gives the go-ahead, we can see new wells being brought on, some in relatively short periods of time.

For those States concerned with opening drilling off their shores, our plan would allow States to opt out. If California doesn't want to participate, that is fine. But that should not block States such as Virginia and Alaska, where they want to drill.

For those concerned about the environment, as we all should be, the modern oil drilling technology the United States requires is so much more environmentally safe now than decades ago; it is so much safer than that which other countries require, and our environmental concerns can best be satisfied by allowing American production to go forward.

The terrible tragedy of Hurricane Katrina at least proved that modern offshore drilling is environmentally safe.

That hurricane blew over thousands of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, with scarcely a drop or a bucket spilled.

Some say we need to use the oil leases we have before we can issue new leases. Well, welcome to the party, folks. That already is a requirement placed on current leaseholders. If the oil companies do not produce from a lease in 10 years--or even less in some leases-- then that lease goes back to the United States and somebody else can try it. Many of the people making that argument lack a basic understanding of the lease program. There is a reason they call it exploration, because a lease is no guarantee that oil is actually present. You have to go out and use technology to find out if there is a good chance--drill a prospecting hole, after getting permits, to see if there is oil there.

A lot of leases have no foreseeable production on them. Some would call them goat pastures because they are good for pasturing goats, not producing oil.

Some claim their plans offer new supplies of oil. But they are only offering false hopes and half measures. Excuse me, I misspoke in calling them half measures. Half measures gives them far too much credit.

One Democratic plan is to raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and divert 10 percent of its volume to consumers. Putting aside that the reserve is only for national emergencies, such as times of war, and there are great dangers where we might need that oil, their plan would provide us exactly 3\1/2\ days' worth of oil, and then we would have no reserve for extreme emergencies.

The Republican Gas Price Reduction Act would provide struggling American families and workers the equivalent of 10 years of new oil supply versus a 3\1/2\-day supply. That is the most substantive production idea I have heard from the Democrats.

The facts are clear. The Gas Price Reduction Act is the only plan that will lower gas prices with real amounts of new oil supplies. Of course, there is much we can and we must do to use less oil and increase conservation.

The Gas Price Reduction Act includes incentives to foster domestic manufacturing supply base for hybrid vehicle batteries. I am particularly proud of the leadership role Missouri is playing in advanced vehicles and batteries.

We make hybrid cars and trucks at Ford and GM in Kansas City. We also have world leaders in advanced batteries in Kansas City. We know more cars and trucks partially running on electric power would save more oil. We would conserve more.

Kansas City autoworkers know the good pay such manufacturing jobs would bring. These families know the health care and retirement benefits those jobs bring. I wish to see us create more good-paying, middle-class-supporting manufacturing jobs making advanced batteries in the United States.

Right now, most all of the advanced batteries that go into hybrid cars and trucks are made in Japan, China, and Korea. With Asia controlling the battery market, supplies are tight and prices are high. The availability is not always there.

As we know, when prices are high, we need to increase the supply to meet demand. That goes for batteries as well as oil and gas.

The Gas Price Reduction Act provides new financial incentives to increase the U.S. domestic manufacturing supply base for hybrid vehicle batteries.

Mass producing hybrid vehicle batteries in the United States will get battery prices down, provide jobs for U.S. manufacturing workers, and reduce the demand for oil, helping us to conserve more and use less.

We should also address excess speculation, and the Gas Price Reduction Act does that. While a lack of new oil supplies is the biggest reason for high prices, we should make sure speculators are not distorting or abusing the markets.

When you look at the price of oil and the prospect of it going up, is it any wonder retirement funds are investing in long-term oil futures? CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, has invested billions of dollars for their public employees in a bet that over the long term, $145 oil would go to $200 to $250. Other public employee retirement systems are making similar investment decisions. We need to increase supply so they will not do it.

Our farmers and commodity traders need buyers and sellers to make the market work. But we should never allow purely financial interests to abuse the market and make people suffer.

The Gas Price Reduction Act addresses potential speculation problems by putting more commodity cops on the beat to make sure our rules are respected.

We can also consider how to close loopholes that have sprung up to escape trading rules as markets have become ever more sophisticated and complicated.

Most important, anything we do must not make things worse. So foremost on my mind will be protecting farmers, producers, and consumers who depend on commodity markets. Airlines depend upon being able to get future supplies.

They have to be able to go after futures and not have them driven up by the expectation that there will be no more production out of the United States.

It is time for us to say, yes, we can to real action to lower gas prices. The Gas Price Reduction Act says, yes, we can to new production, increased conservation, addressing speculation. The American people deserve this real relief. I urge its immediate adoption.

I hope the Democratic leader will make good on his promise to give us the opportunity to have everybody vote on issues that will make a real difference; no more playing Rules Committee, no more saying I don't want this amendment or I am going to fill up the tree or I am only going to let you offer amendments I like.

Let us debate it. Let us have votes to see who is real about getting gas prices down and who wants to go through a show of motion to pretend they are doing it and hope to fool voters.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am grateful to the majority leader for moving to a discussion of energy. Energy is one of the most important subjects I hear about when I go back to Missouri.

Americans are suffering record pain at the pump. They want help now. It is clear, if you are listening to the people at home, they are saying: We are all suffering. Farmers, truckers, families, and small businesses are suffering from record-high prices. Farmers are telling me their costs for farming and transportation have gone up. Nitrogen, drying--those costs have gone up. Truckers, small trucking company operators are laying off people. They are shutting down because the prices are so high and they are not able to pass along all the full costs. Families are telling me they have had to change their family budgets, their plans, because their budgets will not accommodate it. They will not accommodate $4-plus gas, going to $5. They are telling me--they are telling us--stop fighting, stop the gimmicks, stop half- measures. Do something now that will bring gas prices down.

So this morning, I ask my colleagues in the Senate: Let's get real about lowering gas prices. Any real plan that has a chance to lower gas prices must increase production, increase conservation, look at speculation and marketplace impacts. That is what I support. That is the Gas Price Reduction Act that more than 40 of my colleagues and I have introduced, and we hope more will join us.

It is like a three-legged stool: without all three legs, it will not stand up, it will not pass the test. Too many plans, such as the Democratic leadership's speculation-only bill, have only one leg. We know how long a one-legged stool will hold up.

Fundamentally, we must find more and use less, as the Senators from Texas and Georgia said. It is economics 101. It is amazing how well the American people out in the real world--where we live when we are not here working--understand that when prices are going up so rapidly, that is because demand is outstripping supply. We need to find more oil to relieve the pressure and get prices down.

The Gas Price Reduction Act will supply more oil. Right now, there are at least 18 billion barrels of oil waiting for us off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Many think there are many times more. That is a 10- year supply we are blocking from ourselves by our legislative action. The Gas Price Reduction Act will open those offshore areas and allow us to put American oil to use helping America.

For those who say it will take years to get, they ignore the immediate price-lowering effect of the news of new supplies. It happened this past week. Since the President announced the suspension of the Presidential moratorium on offshore drilling earlier this week, prices have fallen $10. It is now up to Congress to do the same thing and bring immediate and long-term, lasting relief to the American families and workers. The fact that we do that will bring prices down.

For those States concerned about opening and drilling off their shores, we allow States to opt in or opt out of the program. If California does not want to participate, that is fine, but that should not block the people of the State of Virginia from saying: We want to explore for oil and gas and share in the revenues and provide our people the benefits of a greater supply, which will bring the prices down.

For those who are concerned about the environment--and I hope all are; we should be--one only needs to look at how environmentally safe modern oil-drilling technology has become. We put in all kinds of standards and controls. I have seen oil drilling above the Arctic Circle, at Prudhoe Bay. The caribou, the birds, the flora flourish. Even the mosquitoes love it. It has caused no environmental damage. Please note that when we compare our environmental standards to those in other countries, our standards for development, exploration, and refining are much higher than other countries.

Some people want to go beg OPEC to produce more. Does anybody think they are going to be concerned about the air emissions, which affect the entire world, as we are in the United States? Do you believe Venezuela or Iran is going to have the same high standards we have? No, they will not.

Here in the United States, the terrible tragedy of Katrina at least proved that modern offshore drilling is environmentally safe. There was no significant spillage of oil when the hurricane blew over thousands of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. It shut them down, drove the prices up, with no environmental damage.

Some say we need to force the oil companies to use leases we have before we issue new leases. They want to say: Use it or lose it. Well, welcome to the party. Guess what. That requirement is already in the leases. The leases are 6, 8, 10 years, and if they do not find any oil, then they go back to the Government. Maybe somebody else can. But they pay. They take the chance. They go into areas they have not explored, not done any seismic testing. If they do not find it, then they do not do it. That is the reason they call it exploration, because a lease is no guarantee that oil is actually present. They have to take an eyeball look at it and guess. Only after they sign the lease do they have the permission to begin seismic exploration. There is a lot of land. The oil people tell me they have a lot of goat pastures. Goat pastures are oil leases which appear to be good but are great for raising goats because they won't produce any oil. Most of these leases show no prospects for oil that is worth extracting.

Now, I would be happy to lease them a few acres in my backyard. I would be happy to have them look for it. Unfortunately, we have not had any history of having oil there, but I would be happy to have them explore for it. If they find it there, I would welcome their drilling in my backyard.

But instead of real plans to supply the American people with significant amounts of oil, we get half-measures that will do little, although calling them half-measures is probably giving them too much credit.

One plan from Democrats in the House is to raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and divert 10 percent of its volume to consumers--70 million barrels. Putting aside that the Reserve is for national emergencies, such as in times of war, that plan would only provide 3\1/ 2\ days' worth of oil. We consume over 20 million barrels a day.

What would have made a difference would have been if President Clinton had signed the authorization we passed in Congress in 1995 to explore in ANWR. The best estimates are--well, he said at the time: It will not do anything for 10 years. That was 1995. Ten years was up in 2005, and we would have been getting at least a million, and probably more, barrels a day.

But we have introduced the Gas Price Reduction Act that would provide struggling families and workers the equivalent of 10 years of new oil supplies versus the 3 days of new supplies from raiding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The facts are clear: Only real relief will come from the Gas Price Reduction Act.

Of course, there are other things we can and should do to cut our oil use down the road and ensure there is no abuse. We are already using renewable fuels, lots of corn ethanol and beginning soy diesel. When we get the project right, I agree with my colleague from Georgia that cellulosic ethanol will be a help. But corn ethanol is not the reason why food prices are up. Eighty percent of the price of food is off farm. Corn production went up by 2.6 billion bushels last year. Only 900 million went into ethanol. Stop scapegoating ethanol. It is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I will reserve the rest of my remarks for later, and I appreciate the chance.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.