Floor Statements

Mr. President, I stand to join with all other Senators, in fact, to join with all the American people, in offering our strong support for all of the hurricane victims Senator Cornyn talked about.

In fact, there is enormous devastation, enormous loss and continuing suffering in those parts of the country,

particularly in southeast Texas, hit hard by Ike, following right on the heels of Hurricane Gustav. Our hearts go out to all of those folks. Our best wishes, our prayers are with them and our intent and focus here in Congress to meet their basic needs, their key needs, is here as well.

Representing Louisiana, of course, I have spent most of the last 3 weeks touring Louisiana and looking at hurricane damage there. Of course we were first hit by Hurricane Gustav, which had enormous winds, caused major power outages, significant wind damage in many parts of the State. And then right on the heels of that came Hurricane Ike. While Hurricane Ike slammed into southeast Texas, it pushed floodwaters in the Gulf all through coastal Louisiana, from the western edge at the Texas border all the way to the eastern edge, Plaquemines Parish, where Louisiana meets Mississippi.

We are still struggling with those challenges. But again, I want to acknowledge the even greater suffering, the even greater devastation that others face from Hurricane Ike, particularly folks in Galveston and southeast Texas. Our hearts and prayers go out to them and our commitment to help in every reasonable way possible goes out to them as well. I trust Congress will act on that key priority as those folks face a true moment of crisis and extreme need.

As we act in that regard in the next couple of weeks, I also hope we notice something Senator Cornyn mentioned, that part of our country, the gulf coast, the Gulf of Mexico, particularly the western gulf, is enormously vital in terms of meeting our nation's energy needs. We are proud to offer that service to the Nation. We have a long, storied tradition in terms of that. We are very proud of that tradition. We want it to continue. But, quite frankly, we do not want to continue to be the only part of the country that meets our Nation's energy needs right here at home. We need to expand that activity. We need to bring that same activity to other parts of the country, diversify, if you will, have more activity and more places so we are not so singularly vulnerable to gulf hurricanes and storms as we are now, as we have lived through with the experiences of Katrina and then Rita, and now Gustav and now Ike.

So as this Congress responds to the immediate needs of hurricane victims in southeast Texas in the gulf coast, including Louisiana, I hope we also continue to focus and start acting on energy, and what remains a top priority for all of America.

I know there is a great rush to get out of here for the elections. I know the leadership is pushing to adjourn for the elections as early as the end of next week. But before we do that, we need to address the Nation's business. We need to pass immediate relief for suffering hurricane victims, and we need to act, not just talk, not just debate, certainly not fight or finger-point, but act on energy. Even in that limited time period, I believe we can do all of those things in a substantial way.

With regard to developing an aggressive national energy plan, I have four key priorities, and all of those priorities, I believe, are absolutely achievable, even in that very tight timeframe.

No. 1, we must lift the current moratorium on offshore oil and gas production. The American people have spoken in a clear and resounding way. They think that current moratorium is crazy. They think we are nuts to take 85 percent or more of our domestic energy resources off the table, not allow energy companies and producers to access or touch them.

The way you change that is lifting the current moratorium under Federal law. Now, as we all know, that does not take action by Congress, it simply takes inaction by Congress. We need to make sure that that moratorium, which expires on its own October 1, is not renewed.

I urge all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to listen to the clear, crystal clear, clarion call of the American people: Do not extend that moratorium. We cannot put that moratorium in any continuing law such as a continuing resolution. We must lift that moratorium and allow the American people to access their own energy resources right here at home.

No. 2, I think we should match aggressive action in that regard with aggressive action with regard to new forms of energy, including renewables. And the most significant, quickest thing we can do with regard to that is pass the major tax incentives that virtually all of us support with regard to new technology, new forms of energy, renewables.

As we all know, that robust package of tax incentives is a major component of the so-called tax extenders bill. We need to come together around a bipartisan version of that tax package, including those important incentives for new technology and renewable energy and pass that into law.

Again, even in this very tight timeframe in which we operate, we can do that. We must do that. We must act for the American people.

Third, I believe we should pass revenue sharing for offshore production to create an incentive for more States to get into that business. As we lift the moratorium, as we open up all of our offshore to potential energy production, we should give participating States an incentive. And that powerful incentive would be royalty sharing, revenue sharing, so they get 37.5 percent of the royalties produced from offshore production.

We set that policy, we set that precedent 2 years ago, with regard to new production in the Gulf of Mexico. We should expand that precedent. We should expand that policy as we allow and encourage offshore production in all parts of the country: the western gulf, the east coast, the west coast, and elsewhere.

Finally, let me end with a fourth key point. My fourth key priority is something that is very important. It is not something we should do, it is something we should not do. If we are serious about domestic energy production, if we are serious about energy independence, getting away from our reliance on foreign sources, we should not raise taxes on domestic energy production.

The first rule of economics is that if you want more of something, you do not tax it. Because when you tax something, you get less of it, not more. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, not to increase taxes in a significant way on domestic energy production. We want more domestic energy production, we do not want less. So it is simple economics that we do not tax what we want more of in a more onerous way because that will produce less of it.

This is not an economics theory, this is history and practice. This is our experience. President Jimmy Carter passed a windfall profits tax during his tenure as President. What did that produce? It produced exactly what one might expect, less domestic production, less energy.

The proposals that are being floated now with regard to section 199 and other energy tax provisions are a windfall profits tax by another name. They will have precisely the same effect. They will drive down domestic energy production when we want to drive it up. They will discourage activity at home in the energy sector when we want to encourage and expand it. It simply does not make any sense.

So I urge us not just to talk, not just to debate, certainly not to argue and finger-point and play partisan politics. I urge us to act. I urge us to come together in a bipartisan, responsible way and act as the American people want us to act.

They support hurricane victims in East Texas and elsewhere who are devastated by these storms, and we should support those victims too through concrete, responsible action. The American people support energy independence. They support doing more for ourselves right here in this country with regard to energy. We should reflect their wisdom and act in that regard as well.

Specifically with regard to the four points I mentioned, No. 1, we must ensure that the current moratorium on offshore production is lifted, that it is not renewed. All we have to do there is let the moratorium expire and not renew it.

No. 2, we need to encourage new technology, renewables, through a robust set of tax incentives in the tax bill. We need to pass that and do it now. We need to act.

No. 3, we must create an incentive for more States to get into the business of offshore oil and gas production through revenue sharing. We must expand that policy which we started 2 years ago in new production in the gulf.

No. 4, the last thing we should do if we want to increase domestic energy production is tax it at higher and higher rates. Let us not pass a new windfall profits tax by another name. Let us not discourage the domestic energy sector and discourage domestic energy production, when we all profess that we want to do the opposite.

I will be fighting for these four key priorities. We can accomplish all of them in the next 10 days. Let us show the American people we do get it, that we are responsible, that we can come together and work together, and that we can act in positive ways for their benefit.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Vitter amendment No. 5280.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats as well as Republicans, to come together on this important amendment to ensure that we have robust, full missile defense capabilities in this era of real threat, real uncertainty from terrorists, rogue nations, and others.

Tomorrow is September 11. It will mark the 7-year anniversary of one of the most tragic days in our Nation's history--a day in which 19 radical Islamic extremists believed their actions could cripple this great Nation. The good news is that those 19 extremists were wrong. Rather than cripple our Nation, they focused our Nation on the threat we face. They brought our Nation together with new resolve and with new strength. They gave our generation a new central and defining challenge to work to prevent any future attacks, particularly on our soil, and to make sure that terrorists and rogue nations never acquire weapons of mass destruction.

As part of facing this clear and present danger, the American public understands that we need a robust missile defense system. According to a national poll released today by MDAA, 87 percent of Americans believe the United States should have a robust missile defense system--the highest percentage of support ever recorded. The poll also showed that 58 percent of Americans believe there is a real threat from missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction, and that missile defense is a preferred option over preemptive military action.

Rogue nations, regardless of sanctions or disarmament deals, continue to pursue ballistic missile technology capable of one day carrying nuclear weapons, and this poses an enormous threat. On July 9 of this year, Iran tested nine ballistic missiles as part of their escalation in terms of military exercises and political rhetoric, and they are a clear example of this threat I am talking about. Currently, the United States has fully operational, deployed missile defense systems that can stabilize the region that Iran sits in--the Middle East--but we need to make sure we have the full capability to bring to bear to do this. In this situation, missile defense can stabilize a situation, can provide enormously important defense for our country and for our allies, and can avoid much more widespread war. That is the reason 26 countries of NATO have fully endorsed this missile defense plan, with a third site in Europe. It is the reason the Czech Republic agreement on missile defense is valid and is moving forward. It is the reason why 11 Congresses and 4 U.S. Presidents have moved forward on this important part of our national defense. The Vitter amendment No. 5280 will move that part of our national defense forward in a significant way.

What does it do specifically? Specifically, this amendment provides $271 million to the Missile Defense Agency so that it responds to near- term--very near-term--ballistic missile threats to the United States, our deployed forces around the world, and our allies. This amendment is fully offset within the bill.

The Senate Armed Services Committee itself noted in its committee report that the Joint Capabilities Mix Study conducted by the Joint Staff concluded that the United States needs about twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile 3 interceptors as the number currently planned. So we need twice as many as what is currently planned. Yet, at the same time, the committee unfortunately cut $411 million from the budget of the Missile Defense Agency. This Vitter amendment would reinstate $271 million of that cut. It would do that in four areas in particular:

Aegis cruisers. It would authorize $54 million to accelerate upgrade with an additional two Aegis cruisers to equip it with ballistic missile defense systems.

It would authorize an additional $100 million for THAAD fire units 3 and 4 interceptor and ground component advanced procurement.

SM-3 Block 1B risk reduction. It would authorize another $30 million to reduce SM-3 Block 1B schedule and technical risks.

Targets. It would authorize $87 million to implement a rolling target spare and maintain minimal inventory to have full targets for our testing and production capability.

This is sorely needed so that we ensure our citizens that we have the missile defense deployed that we need in this very dangerous world.

Again, this concept was first developed by President Reagan when the Cold War was still raging, when the Soviet Union was still our primary threat in the world. Obviously, the world has changed in fundamental ways since then, but it has only changed in ways that make missile defense even more important than ever before, because the threat from rogue nations, from terrorist States, and from terrorist groups has grown enormously and missile defense is even more important in light of that growth.

I urge all of my colleagues to come together in light of that on the eve of September 11, on the eve of the seventh anniversary of that tragic attack on our Nation. We must restore this $271 million, at a minimum, in this bill to the Missile Defense Agency. As I said, the committee itself noted that the Joint Chiefs report says the United States needs about twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile 3 interceptors as the number currently planned. Yet the committee cut $411 million from that missile defense budget. We must restore at a minimum this $271 million to continue to meet this vital need for our citizens' safety.

With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, if I could also respond briefly, again, I simply disagree with my distinguished colleague from Florida that $411 million is

pocket change, de minimis, doesn't make a difference. It will make a difference in terms of missile defense, our capability, and the defense of the American people.

It is important to restore a good part of that, and specifically this amendment proposes restoring $271 million. That is real money. It makes a real difference. And in today's world of threats such as North Korea and China and Iran, this is a top defense priority.

Secondly, I appreciate the Senator's support of very crucial systems. He is exactly right, they are bottom-line crucial systems such as THAAD and Aegis. But again, the committee didn't cut those programs. It put some more money into those programs but not enough to meet the need that the committee itself recognized. In fact, even this Vitter amendment doesn't get us the whole way there. The committee itself recognized, citing reports of the Joint Chiefs, we need about twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile-3 interceptors as the number currently planned. The committee's bill doesn't get us there. In fact, even this Vitter amendment doesn't get us fully there, but it goes much further down the line in terms of getting us there, in terms of immediate near- term needs, such as THAAD, such as Aegis. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Florida, those are crucial programs with real near-term impact.

Third, all the possible offset cuts that the distinguished Senator from Florida mentioned are not allowed under this amendment. Every example he gave cannot be used as an offset cut under this amendment. Under this amendment, this $271 million can only be offset with cuts to defense-wide accounts, not program-specific accounts, not service- specific accounts. Therefore, every one of those examples was a program-specific account, was a service-specific account and can't be cut, will not be cut. We are talking about broad defense-wide accounts, such as administrative accounts, O&M accounts. I appreciate the Senator's concern, but those specific examples cannot come to pass. Those programs cannot be cut.

Fourth and finally, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Arizona. This isn't an ideological amendment. This is a practical amendment in defense of the American people. When we look around the world today, in a very dangerous time, with all sorts of new looming threats, this is bottom-line practical. The three examples the distinguished Senator from Arizona gave are perfect examples. North Korea, with nuclear capability, with ballistic missile capability. It is very practical to make sure we have a robust defense against that very unpredictable country in a time of dangerous leadership transition.

China, as my colleague from Arizona said, is a power that is coming into its own, but there are real dangers there because, as the Senator from Arizona said, it doesn't have the communication capabilities it needs to match the enormous force and strength of its military. So there are real threats and real possibilities of accidental or unauthorized launch.

The best example, the most worrisome example of all, is Iran. We debate, with increasing frequency, the choices we may have to make, sooner rather than later, in terms of Iran's march to be a nuclear power. Whatever we think about what measures we should consider, nonmilitary as well as military, however we come down on that very difficult issue, certainly we should all agree that having a robust missile defense system is something that is useful and important to have in that scenario on the military side. Certainly, that is better than simply being more limited to offensive-only capabilities, only the capability to take preemptive action. Certainly, we can all agree it is better to have that robust missile defense capability rather than purely offensive or preemptive capabilities.

So with North Korea and China and Iran, this is very practical. This is setting the right priorities in terms of looking around the world and understanding a wide array of very worrisome threats. And $411 million is real money. We don't restore all of that. We restore $271 million. It goes to specific uses that, again, will help advance important systems such as THAAD and Aegis toward the full capability the committee itself recognized and that is fully offset and paid for within the bill.

Mr. President, I will return to my pending Vitter amendment. I ask the majority side, and perhaps the distinguished Senator from Florida is the appropriate person on the floor to give consent to a modification of the Vitter amendment, which is in the last paragraph, only to clear up any uncertainty and confusion about this offset issue which we have discussed.

This modification, which I provided to the majority side, would make crystal clear and ensure that the full offset of this amendment would have to come out of research, development, test, and evaluation accounts only, and therefore it could not come out of O&M. It could not come out of procurement. It could not come out of any of those broad categories about which the Senator and others were most concerned.

I ask unanimous consent for that modification so that there is certainty on that issue.

Pending that answer, Mr. President, I will withdraw the request and look forward to that response so that we can modify the amendment. It is a good-faith attempt to address and clear up any possible ambiguity about some of the issues we discussed on the Senate floor. I think this modification would do that by, beyond argument, limiting any offset to research, development, test, and evaluation accounts.

I yield the floor.

I would like to go first, and I may reserve some time.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment pending before us and would ask all my colleagues to look favorably upon this amendment.

The committee had decided to cut $411 million from the Missile Defense Agency budget. That is a significant amount of money. This amendment would not restore all of that; it would restore $271 million of that amount. I think that is very justified considering the significance of missile defense, particularly in a post-Cold War world, with threats such as North Korea and Iran and even the technological uncertainty of the Chinese military.

In addition, the committee itself noted that the Joint Chiefs staff report said that we need about twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile-3 interceptors as the number currently planned. This amendment would help get us to that point.

Mr. President, I rise to urge action on what is clearly the single top priority, the single top challenge for American families; that is, sky-high gasoline prices and energy prices.

In the real world, in every State of the Union, families are struggling with this enormous additional burden. Gasoline prices, the prices at the pump--all energy prices have obviously gone through the roof in the last several months. Yet, even faced with this true crisis, even faced with this outpouring of hurt on the part of the American people and call for action, we are not yet acting. We are not yet acting as grownups. We are not yet coming together. We are not yet acting on the issue. I urge us to do just that and to simply act in a full, bipartisan, and balanced way on what is clearly the single biggest challenge facing Louisiana and all American families.

The good news is that at least there has been an energy-related bill on the floor of the Senate which has been the pending business that I think goes back to Tuesday, July 22--almost 2 full legislative weeks ago. The bad news is the distinguished majority leader has blocked all attempts to have an open debate and an open amendment process about energy.

That bill--his bill--about the limited issue of speculation--and I urge us to act on speculation, but we clearly must act on other things as well--that speculation-only bill has been the business at hand on the floor of the Senate for almost 2 legislative weeks, and yet we haven't had a single amendment considered, certainly not a single vote on an amendment. What an enormous lost opportunity. What an enormous example of pure obstructionism in Washington and the sort of gridlock people are sick and tired of when the country truly faces a crisis. American families face enormous challenges based on energy prices. We need that real debate.

We need that open amendment process. We need to act as grownups. We need to come together and act on energy.

It is in that vein that I suggest two very specific things. First of all, in less than 24 hours, I assume there is going to be some move for us to go home for August. I don't think we should until and unless we take some reasonable action on energy. I believe it is a derogation of our responsibility to go home for any length of time when this crisis is hanging out there and this institution is failing to act. I think we should stay here and work. We should stay here and act in a fair and in a balanced way.

We should consider a host of issues--yes, including speculation, but also fundamental issues that go to supply and demand on both sides of that equation: conservation, yes; greater fuel efficiency, yes; new technology, yes; renewable sources of energy and alternative sources of energy, yes. Also, we should be doing something on the supply side: finding more here at home and using our resources we do have right here at home. So I am against going home, going off on vacation, going on the August recess--however you want to put it--when we are not acting on the top priority and concern of the American people.

Secondly, I certainly oppose moving off this topic, which has been what the distinguished majority has tried to get us to do over and over again. We will have an upcoming vote--his latest attempt to get us off this topic. He has filed a motion to invoke cloture to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. Defense is an extremely important issue, particularly in this time of war and terrorist threat. However, I can tell my colleagues the reaction the American people have to this choice of energy versus Defense authorization. They have the same reaction I have: Staying on energy, acting on energy in a meaningful, bold, positive, balanced way, is the single most important thing we can do to improve our security, to improve our defenses. Quite frankly, that is far more important for national security and for defense than any Defense authorization bill. So surely we should reject that attempt to move off the subject to take this vote and move to the Defense authorization bill when the single biggest issue that not only faces American families and hits their pocketbooks but also the single biggest national security issue is energy.

So, again, I urge us to reject that attempt once again to move off the subject. We need to stay on energy but, more importantly, we need to act on energy. We need to reject that cloture vote. I urge us to stay here and work and act rather than go off on any August recess. We must address this crucial energy issue.

As so many of my colleagues, I have important amendments on the topic. I specifically filed seven amendments. Those amendments address a number of key issues and a number of key questions, but they are balanced. They are not just about drilling because we can't just drill our way out of the problem. They have us use less and find more at the same time. That is exactly the sort of balanced approach we need, as I said a few minutes ago. Yes, use less. Yes to conservation. Yes to greater efficiency standards. Yes to new technology. Yes to renewables. Yes to biofuels. Yes to alternative fuels. Also, at the same time, yes to accessing greater supply right here at home, to accessing that energy we have here offshore, in Western States in shale deposits and elsewhere, to help ourselves rather than have to go beg, hat in hand, to Middle Eastern countries to cut us a break. We need to do all of the above. We need to act on the demand side and the supply side to stabilize, bring down prices, and help American families with this, their top challenge and their top concern.

I have seven amendments. Unfortunately, under the rules of the game that the distinguished majority leader has laid out, I haven't come near any opportunity to call any of those amendments up, and certainly I have not been able to have a vote on those amendments. The majority leader at one point offered four votes on the entire issue; none of them would have been on my amendments. He then rescinded that offer, so we are back to an offer of zero amendments and zero amendment votes.

Let's get serious about a serious challenge facing American families. Let's not only be on the topic on the Senate floor--so what. Let's act on it in a grownup way, in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way, addressing supply and demand, using less and finding more right here at home. Let's take up not just my amendments but any good ideas for debate and consideration and votes, and let's act on the single greatest challenge facing Louisiana families whom I represent and American families across the Nation. Surely we shouldn't vote to move to any other topic when we still have this tremendous challenge not acted upon.

I think we shouldn't run home for the August recess to vacation or even to talk with our constituents when this enormously important pending business is not acted upon. Let's stay here. Let's work. Let's come together. Let's act for the American people. It is perfectly obvious to them that this is our greatest national challenge. This is their greatest personal and family challenge as they try to live their real lives in the real world. We have to get that message and act on it here in Congress.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I also come to the Senate floor to join so many of my colleagues in urging the distinguished majority leader to allow a full and open debate and an open amendment process so we can address the single top issue in the hearts and minds of the American people; that is, gasoline prices--energy. We all know it is beyond discussion, it is beyond debate that this is the concern, this is the top challenge the American people face.

In my home State of Louisiana, I hold townhall meetings all around the State on a very regular basis. For months, this issue hasn't been the first question at each and every one of those townhall meetings, it has been the first 10 questions. That is no different from any other State in the country. Gasoline prices, energy prices are hitting all of our neighbors' pocketbooks. It affects every Louisiana family, every American family. So they ask a simple question: Why isn't Congress acting? Enough talking, enough political maneuvering. Why don't you come together and act?

That is what we should do. That is what we should do right here and right now on the floor of the Senate. So I urge the majority leader to lift his block of all amendments on the pending energy bill so that we can have that full and open debate, that full and open amendment process.

The last two times this body considered the issue of energy in a significant way, we had that sort of open debate.

In 2007, we were on an energy bill for 3 whole weeks. We took 16 rollcall votes on amendments, 22 rollcall votes on the entire bill. The total number of amendments proposed was 331, and actually 49 of those were agreed to, some by unanimous consent, others through those 16 votes I alluded to. That was when the price at the pump was about $3 a gallon, not $4 a gallon as it is now.

Before that, we also debated energy in 2005. We had 19 rollcall votes on amendments over a period of 2 whole weeks. We had 23 rollcall votes on the bill overall, 235 amendments were proposed, and actually a total of 57 were adopted. That is when the price at the pump was $2.26 a gallon, not at four bucks as it is now.

So now that the price is about $4 a gallon, now that it is the top concern of the American people bar none, why can't we have that open process and open amendment process as we have in the past? The American people want action.

I have filed seven amendments specifically, and I wish to outline them briefly.

My first amendment, which has been so far barred from coming to the floor, would develop alternative energy offshore in the gulf and other places where there is the ability offshore to develop new alternative energy, including wind farms.

My second amendment would increase domestic production offshore. It is a version of my ENOUGH Act and would also have that alternative energy offshore component of it tied into the second amendment.

My third amendment would repeal the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf production outright and would also have the alternative energy offshore piece as a part of that amendment.

My fourth amendment would repeal outright the moratorium Congress passed several years ago that blocks shale activity in the Western States--exactly the activity my distinguished colleague from Colorado was talking about--as well as the alternative energy offshore piece attached to it.

My fifth amendment would streamline the permitting process for refinery expansion. Refinery capacity is just as important an issue as exploration and production, and we need to do a lot better to increase refinery capacity in this country domestically.

My fifth amendment to do that is by streamlining the permitting process for existing refineries to expand, which is a good place to start.

My sixth amendment would also streamline a regulatory process, the permitting process for offshore leases, because every person in the business I talk to says even when they get access--of course, blocking access is the biggest issue--the Federal permitting process is way too long and cumbersome and uncertain. We need to streamline that in a reasonable way.

My seventh and final amendment would expand the seaward boundary for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to match the seaward boundary of Texas to the west and Florida to the east. Right now, those two States, Texas and Florida, enjoy a seaward boundary of 9 miles from the coast, meaning the first 9 miles of the gulf off of the coast is State waters. But for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, that is only 3 miles. That is unfair. We should expand that to 9 miles to match Texas and Florida, which will have the impact of spurring production in those waters because the State regulatory process is far less onerous, unreasonable, and cumbersome than the Federal process.

Mr. President, other Senators have good ideas. I strongly support, obviously, my seven amendments. I have worked hard on them. I have cosponsors and I have introduced them. There are other good ideas as well.

The main point is we need an open process. We need the ability to call up amendments, to debate amendments, and to have votes on these good ideas because the American people want us to act like grown-ups and act on this single most important issue they face in their everyday lives.

Mr. President, what I find frustrates citizens back home more than anything is this impression they so often have that what we do here is in a different universe from the real world and is divorced from their everyday struggles and everyday lives. I am afraid the distinguished majority leader is reinforcing that notion by not allowing these amendments, these votes, not allowing an open process on the single top issue Louisiana families and all American families face.

I urge the majority leader to reconsider so we can truly come together and do the people's business on what is the single top issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I stand to recognize the six Air Force B-52 crew members of Raider 21 who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. I would like take a few moments to honor their courage and heroism.

The crew was based at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and was deployed to Guam with the 20th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron as part of the U.S. military's continuous bomber presence mission in the Pacific. The unarmed bomber crashed Monday, July 21, during a swing around the island as part of Guam Liberation Day celebrations, marking the day when the U.S. military arrived to retake control of the island from Japan during World War II. The B-52 had been scheduled to conduct a flyover in a parade. The six crew members assigned to the 2nd Bomb Wing included MAJ Christopher M. Cooper, 33, aircraft commander; MAJ Brent D. Williams, 37, navigator; CPT Michael K. Dodson, 31, copilot; 1LT. Joshua D. Shepherd, 25, navigator; 1LT. Robert D. Gerren, 32, electronic warfare officer; and COL George Martin, 51, flight surgeon, who also was the deputy commander of 36th Medical Group at Anderson Air Force Base.

B-52s have been the backbone of the U.S. military's manned strategic bomber force for more than four decades, used for missions from attacks to ocean surveillance. They are capable of dropping or launching the widest array of weapons in the U.S. inventory, including cluster bombs and precision guided missiles. B-52s were first placed into service in 1955, and 93 remain in the Air Force's fleet. The Air Force has been rotating B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers through Guam since 2004 to boost the U.S. security presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Search operations continue in the Pacific Ocean sadly, they are primarily for the recovery of debris that may aid in the investigation of the crash. The 8th Air Force Museum in Shreveport, LA, has created a memorial to the crew members that will be at the museum for 30 days. Those wishing to express condolences and pay tribute to the crew are welcome to sign a remembrance book. The book will be shared with the families and eventually presented to the 20th Bomb Squadron. In addition to the book, the memorial consists of framed photographs of each of the crew members, six pairs of flight boots and six flight helmets as well as other items from the 2nd Bomb Wing.

There is no doubt July 21 was a tragic day, not only for the families of the fallen crew members but for the B-52 family, the community, and this Nation. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families of these airmen and our hearts grieve for their loss.

Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

Madam President, I too rise to talk about the single most important issue, bar none, facing American families--gasoline prices, energy. Again let me restate the obvious. This is the single most important issue facing all Louisiana families I represent, facing American families across the country. In that context, for families who struggle every week, particularly when they go to the gas station to fill up, particularly as they try to take family vacations in the summers or they struggle with their basic needs of commuting to work-- those folks in ag, or transportation, doubly hit with diesel costs--we need to act, not talk but act in a meaningful way on this issue.

Let me first congratulate the majority leader. He has finally allowed a bill on the floor which at least touches on this issue. He has a bill before the Senate right now, the issue on the floor, that deals with speculation in energy, particularly oil and gas. That is an issue we should address head on and I applaud that.

But there is a big problem with how he has gone about running the Senate in this instance; that is, he has not allowed any meaningful amendment to that bill so that we can have an open debate and open amendment process about gasoline and energy.

Again, I am happy to look at the speculation issue and act on the speculation issue. I support provisions that do that. But I do not know a single American who thinks that is nearly enough, that it addresses the bulk of the issue, that we should not move on to other crucial issues revolving around supply and demand.

Like virtually every Member of this body, I have introduced significant amendments that go to the heart of the matter, that impact supply and demand, that try to make us use less, bring down demand, conserve more, have greater fuel efficiency standards, new technology. But that would also have us find more right here at home. We have those resources here. Yet because of the ground rules laid down by the distinguished majority leader, we are not being allowed to call up any of those amendments, have that open debate, consider my ideas or the ideas of the 99 other Senators on both sides of the aisle. I urge the majority leader to abandon that approach and to get back to the best traditions of the Senate--open debate and an open amendment process. Specifically, in that vein:

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider S. 3268 in the following manner: that the bill be subject to energy-related amendments only and that amendments be considered in an alternating manner between the two sides of the aisle. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill remaining be the pending business to the exclusion of all other business other than privileged matters or items agreed to jointly by the two leaders.

I ask unanimous consent that the first seven amendments to be offered on the Republican side of the aisle by either the Republican leader or his designee be the following: an Outer Continental Shelf amendment, including a conservation provision; an oil shale amendment, including a conservation provision; an Alaska energy production amendment, including a conservation provision; the Gas Price Reduction Act, which has 44 cosponsors, myself included; a clean nuclear energy amendment; a coal-to-liquid fuel amendment, including a conservation provision; and a LIHEAP amendment.

Madam President, I am obviously not surprised, but I continue to be disappointed. Gasoline prices--energy--are the single greatest challenge facing every Louisiana family. I know they are the greatest challenge facing Missouri families and families all across this country. Yet we are not acting on what most concerns folks about our collective future, our economic future, the future for our families. We must act.

The American people have a lot of sound common sense and they know there is no single answer, there is no silver bullet, there is not one thing that does everything, there is not one thing that can stabilize and immediately lower gasoline prices.

They know we need to do a number of things. Most of the American people, like me, are perfectly willing to look at speculation and act on that issue. I support provisions to do that. But the American people also want to look at supply and demand. They want to decrease demand through conservation, through greater efficiency, through new technology, but they also want to increase supply, including finding more energy right here at home.

That includes a lot of oil and gas resources we have right here at home that we need for the short term and medium term. We need to do a number of these different things.

As I mentioned, I have introduced seven specific amendments. My amendments do a number of different things, both on the demand side and on the supply side, because we need to act on both sides of the equation. But, again, the ground rules the majority leader has established shut all that out so far. I certainly hope he reconsiders and changes those ground rules.

Those ground rules are offensive, quite frankly, to the traditions of the Senate. I came from the House. When I did, I heard the Senate was fundamentally different from the House; that the Senate was about open debate and open amendments and not controlled with limited debate and limited amendments such as the House.

Well, I found out the Senate, under this leadership, is different from the House. In the House we had a handful of amendments on every bill. In the Senate, we are even denied that. That is not the tradition of the Senate, and it is not how we have acted in the Senate on energy legislation in the recent past.

The last two times we considered energy legislation were in 2007 and in 2O05. In 2007, when the price at the pump, by the way, was about $3 a gallon, we spent 3 whole weeks on the bill, on the issue on the floor of the Senate, 3 weeks, nothing but that.

We had rollcall votes on 16 amendments. We had 22 rollcall votes total. We adopted a total of 49 amendments because several of those amendments were accepted without a vote. There were a total of 331 amendments proposed. That is when gas was $3 a gallon.

A little further back, 2005, we also considered energy. By the way, at that time, gas was $2.26 a gallon. We spent 2 whole weeks on the Senate floor, 2 entire weeks focused on nothing other than that, even though the price was almost $2 per gallon less than it is now.

We had 19 rollcall votes on amendments; 23 total rollcall votes on the bill. We adopted 57 amendments and 235 were proposed. That is serious legislating on a serious issue.

Yet has energy gotten less serious since then or more? Well, you can track that with the price at the pump. It has gone from $2.26 during that first debate, to $3.06 during the second debate, to $4, at least, now. The issue is more important than ever and merits our attention more than ever and merits a serious response more than ever.

That means real time on the floor and--more than time obviously--the ability to have an open amendment process and to consider serious, substantive legislative proposals.

Again, I have seven amendments offered. They attack both the demand side, to lower demand, and also the supply side, to increase supply, including in the short and medium term.

We need to attack both sides of the equation. We need to do both those things. But, fundamentally, we need to act. The American people are sick and tired of our never acting on issues that are important to their lives, never taking up what hits them in the pocketbook, what their families are concerned about, what threatens their future.

Unanimous-Consent Request S. 3248

So we need to act. So in that vein, I again urge us to act. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider S. 3248, in the following manner: that the bill be subject to energy-related amendments only; that amendments be considered in an alternating fair manner between the two sides of the aisle.

I ask further unanimous consent that the bill remain the pending business, to the exclusion of all other business other than privileged matters or items agreed to jointly by the two leaders.

I ask further unanimous consent that the first seven amendments to be offered on the Republican side of the aisle by either the Republican leader or his designee be the following:

An Outer Continental Shelf amendment, including a conservation provision; an oil shale amendment, including a conservation provision; an Alaska energy production amendment, including a conservation provision; the Gas Price Reduction Act, which has 44 cosponsors, including myself; a clean nuclear energy amendment; a coal-to-liquid fuel amendment, including a conservation provision; and a LIHEAP amendment.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Again, I am very disappointed--not surprised, very disappointed. The American people want action. The American people deserve action on what is the single greatest threat and issue in their lives right now.

I urge all of us to come together, not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans, to act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Councilman Kevin Kingston, Sr. of Slidell for his dedicated service to the State of Louisiana. I would like to take a few moments to remark on his accomplishments.

Mr. Kingston was born in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, but resided in Slidell since 1979. His nickname was ``Kingfish,'' and he was truly a man of the people. He owned Kingfish Seafood Market on Pontchartrain Drive and also ran Lil' Ray's Seafood Restaurant for 18 years until the 1990s. Mr. Kingston had gusto for life and food; however, it was his service on the City Council that gave him his greatest pleasure. He was elected in 1998 in District D representing west-northwest Slidell and in 2006 was elected to serve as Councilman-at-Large representing the entire city. In the past year, he took a special interest in helping a handful of residents replace their storm-damaged mobile homes. His measure, which passed on the council's third try in almost 2 years, amended a section in the city's zoning code that prohibited people from placing new trailers in the city even if the old ones were destroyed by an act of God. A popular public servant and caregiver, he would often pay people's water and light bills, gestures that displayed his big heart and kind spirit.

Kevin Kingston passed away Thursday, July 3, after a long battle with liver disease that included a liver transplant in 2003. He is survived by not only family members but also the grateful city of Slidell and council who have lost a great man and great leader. Mr. Kingston opened his heart to everyone he came in contact with and his generosity and friendship will be deeply missed.

Thus, today, I honor a fellow Louisianan, Kevin Kingston, Sr., and thank him and his family for his dedicated service to our State and Nation.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to indicate when I have used 8 minutes.

I thank you the Chair.

I am very glad we are finally taking significant time on the floor of the Senate to debate and hopefully to act on the single most important challenge facing American families, and that is gasoline prices and energy. I have been urging all of us in the Senate to do this for some time, and finally we are on that key topic.

Let me restate the obvious: This is the top challenge facing American families across our country, certainly including Louisiana. This is the core of everyone's uncertainty and concerns about our economic future. To get to the heart of the matter, this is what hits people in the pocketbooks every week because they gas up every week. They go to the gas station. They need gas to get to work. They want to be able to take family vacations during the summer. This hits everybody where it hurts: in the family pocketbook.

That is why it is crucial we attack this problem head on. That is why I am hopeful we are going to act in a meaningful, broad-based way here on the Senate floor. I urge all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to come together to bring every good idea they have related to gasoline prices and energy to this debate so we can act in a broad-based and meaningful way; not just talk and not just debate and certainly not just point fingers and be partisan but come together and act for the good of the American people. The American people are hurting. They are jolted by the dramatic rise in gasoline prices and they want us to act.

It is also in the best traditions of the Senate that we have open and full debate and an open and full amendment process. I urge all of us-- again, Democrats and Republicans--to come together and demand and rally around the concept of the best tradition of the Senate being an open and full debate and amendment process. The American people want this because they not only understand this is the greatest challenge facing their families, they also understand there is no single answer. There is no silver bullet. There is no magic wand. We need to do a number of things, and we need to do them now. In fact, we needed to do them yesterday--last year, 10 years ago--but certainly at this point we need to act now. We need to act on a number of fronts.

The majority leader's bill on the floor is a narrowly drafted bill about speculation on oil and energy in the marketplace. I certainly support addressing that, among other issues, as we try to stabilize and bring down gasoline and energy prices. Again, the American people get it. They understand there is no easy or single answer. There is no magic wand or silver bullet. We need to do a number of things, both on the demand side and the supply side. We need to use less and we need to find more right here at home.

Today I am filing seven amendments for consideration and votes in this debate. We need to do a number of things that are significant to help stabilize the price of gasoline, to help develop a rational energy policy, and we need to act both on the demand side and the supply side. We need to use less and we need to find more right here at home.

Let me speak about exactly what those amendments are. My first amendment would increase domestic production of oil and gas offshore as well as develop alternative energy sources offshore. It is based on a freestanding bill I introduced several weeks ago, the ENOUGH Act--the Energy Needed Offshore Under Gas Hikes Act. It allows for increased domestic production of oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf when a particular State's Governor, with the concurrence of the State legislature, petitions the Federal Government for this activity. It would also provide an incentive for States to do that by offering revenuesharing. Specifically, while 45 percent of the royalties on that production would still go to the Federal Treasury, 37.5 percent would go to the producing State involved, 12.5 percent would go to the Federal Land and Water Conservation fund, which I strongly support, and 5 percent would go to historically producing States which have produced for 50 years or more and never got revenuesharing for all of that commitment to meeting the Nation's energy needs.

This amendment is not only about producing more; it is also about alternatives. In addition, this amendment develops alternative energy offshore by establishing a grant program for offshore alternative energy production, by converting existing offshore energy infrastructure into alternative production facilities--for instance, turning old lease areas into new offshore wind farms--and for allowing revenuesharing in that alternative energy production offshore as well. I urge my colleagues to look favorably on this positive amendment.

My second of seven amendments would flat out repeal the present congressional moratorium on activity in the Outer Continental Shelf. Last week, President Bush took a very positive and necessary step forward. He lifted the existing Executive moratorium that had been in place for the Outer Continental Shelf. However, as we all know, there is a congressional moratorium at the same time, so his action wasn't good enough to allow us to develop those resources. My amendment, my second amendment No. 5090, would lift the existing congressional moratorium. It too includes developing alternative energy offshore-- that package of proposals I enumerated--to develop new, clean, alternative energy sources offshore.

My third amendment is somewhat akin to the second amendment which lifts the congressional moratorium on the OCS. My third amendment would lift the present congressional moratorium on shale production in the West. As we all know, Congress placed a moratorium on final regulations for the development of oil shale in the western United States. That puts to a halt all of that positive productive activity that could lead to major energy finds in the western United States on land--oil coming out of that western shale.

I thank you the Chair.

It is very important that we lift that counterproductive congressional moratorium and move forward with regard to western shale. There are enormous energy resources there. We need to tap those. To do that, the first step we need to take is lifting that current congressional moratorium on all of that activity.

My fourth amendment is to develop alternative energy offshore--that package of proposals I mentioned a few minutes ago which is also part of the first three amendments.

My fifth amendment is to streamline the permitting process so we can expand refinery capacity. We would start with existing refineries which have the ability to expand. As we all know, we need to find more energy here at home, but we also have a refinery capacity issue and we need to address both sides of that coin. So it is crucial we streamline the permitting process for refineries right here at home. It is far too cumbersome and uncertain and complicated. My fifth amendment would allow us to expand refinery capacity here at home in a way we sorely need to do.

Finally, my final amendment would streamline the permitting for offshore leases. Excuse me. That is No. 6, to streamline the permitting process for offshore leases, which also is far too cumbersome and complicated and takes far too long, to allow producers and developers to get in the field and actually produce energy from those offshore leases.

My seventh and final amendment would change the seaward boundaries for the Gulf States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

I thank the Chair.

Under current law, Florida and Texas have State waters for 9 miles from their coastline, but in stark contrast to that, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama's State waters are only the first 3 miles from their coasts. This is grossly unfair. In addition, expanding the State waters of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to match their neighbors to the west and the east--Texas and Florida--would help promote more production in the gulf because it is a far easier, less cumbersome process to produce, get permitting, and move forward on State waters than on Federal lands.

With that in mind, I certainly hope we can have the full, open debate and open amendment process to consider these and other good ideas.

In that vein, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate proceeds to S. 3248, it be limited to energy-related amendments only; further, that the amendments be offered in an alternating fashion between the two sides. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill remain the pending business to the exclusion of all other business other than privileged matters and other matters that the two leaders might agree upon.

Correct.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the very serious energy situation. There is a crisis focused around gasoline prices that we face in our country. I want to start by complimenting the distinguished Senator from Iowa for doing the same, for focusing on this crucial priority that every American is facing, is struggling with in terms of dealing with the family budget. I certainly agree with my colleague, this is the No. 1 concern of every American I talk to. Literally everyone I talk to says this is the top priority. This is a true crisis. This isn't just hitting me in the pocketbook every day, every week, every month. This is threatening our future. This is threatening our economy.

Given that, there is an obvious question that those same Louisianans and Americans are also asking. The question is, why isn't Congress acting? They hear us talking and making speeches and squabbling back and forth, but the obvious question they are asking is, why isn't Congress acting on this crisis that all of us face every day, every week, every month, that threatens our families' futures, that threatens our economy?

I don't have a good answer. Congress should not only talk and make speeches and jabber about this, but Congress must come together in a bipartisan way and act. Congress must take the advice of the distinguished Senator from Iowa and not do either/or, this or that, no just this, no just that. We need to do all of the above. Our energy situation is so dire, we need to use less and find more right here at home. And we have the ability to do that. So, once again, why aren't we acting?

Unfortunately, right now this question could not be clearer because while Americans in every State of the Union face this challenge every time they go to the gas station, every time they look at their family budget, the Senate is doing something very different. The distinguished majority leader is planning to turn from the legislation on the Senate floor now regarding housing and next take up not energy, not gasoline prices, but a bill that would triple the level of foreign aid that we send overseas in terms of AIDS relief. AIDS is a very serious worldwide problem. But let me say two things. First, under President Bush's leadership, the United States has led the world in addressing that issue, particularly in Africa, in a very aggressive way. I support that. President Bush has led that, with others in the private sector such as Bono. But we are doing that.

The question I am bringing up is, is it really appropriate now at this moment to take up a bill to more than triple that foreign aid rather than taking up a bill to address energy and gasoline prices by using less and finding more right here at home?

I can tell you what the American people would say. Everyone in the State of Louisiana, everyone I know across the country would say: that is not a close call. That is not a close call. Global AIDS is a huge problem, and we have acted aggressively to help address it. The United States has led in that effort. But what is hurting us every day, every week, every month, every time we go to the gas station, every time we have ever more painful discussions at the family kitchen table about the budget, what is impacting us is gasoline prices and energy. They would say that is not a close call.

In this context, I urge the majority leader to turn to what is clearly the top priority of the American people. It is real simple. They elect us to come to the Senate, to come to the House and act together as grown-ups in a bipartisan way to solve real problems. It is also real simple: The biggest very real problem they face is gasoline prices and energy. Why aren't we acting? They are asking that over and over. Yes, we talk and speechify and jabber and often finger point, but why aren't we acting?

I believe the solution is simple. As soon as we finish the matter which we will hopefully wrap up today, the housing bill, we should turn to what is by far the top priority, worry, concern of

the American people. We should turn to legislation to directly address gasoline prices, the energy situation, by both using less at home and finding more right here at home to lessen our dependence on foreign sources.

Again, that is a pretty clear choice. What do we go to next? The distinguished majority leader's suggestion is a bill to more than triple the foreign aid we already send overseas for HIV/AIDS relief. Again, that is a serious issue and a serious problem. We have been addressing it in a serious way: $15 billion for that program under President Bush's leadership. But the question is, what do we do next? Turn to a bill that would more than triple that or turn to a bill to address the top concern, bar none, of the American people, gasoline prices and energy? I would obviously suggest the latter.

There are lots of ideas around about what we need to do on the energy front. The first consensus we should reach is that we should do a whole lot of these ideas. It is not either/or, one side or the other. It is not just conserve or just drill. It is, as the distinguished Senator from Iowa said, all of the above. We need to use less and find more and produce more right here at home.

Many of us, well over 40 in this body, have come together around such a bill. That bill is S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act. That bill is aimed to directly address this current gasoline price crisis and the current energy situation. It would do it in a broad-based way, not everything under the Sun. It is fairly focused, but it would do it in a broad-based way by both using less and finding more, producing more right here at home. It has four main components, each of which is important.

First of all, let me mention the component I worked very hard on. I drafted this component as a stand-alone bill, but the main outline of the provisions was also adopted in the broader bill; and that would be to open our vast, significant resources of oil and natural gas that lie in our ocean bottoms off the coasts of the United States.

When I explain this to most folks in Louisiana, they are stunned that we have major, significant untapped resources in our ocean bottoms well off our coasts, but Congress has acted in the past to take almost all that off the table. In fact, of all those oil and natural gas resources we have in our ocean bottoms off our coasts, Congress has said we cannot touch 85 percent of it.

Fifteen percent, yes. That is mostly in my part of the world, in the Gulf of Mexico, and mostly the western gulf. But for 85 percent, Congress has said: No. Can't touch that. Can't get that. Yes, it will lessen our dependence. Yes, we can do it in an environmentally sensitive way. Yes, we have new technology. Yes, we have lateral drilling, horizontal drilling, and the like, but you can't touch that. Eighty-five percent of that is off limits.

The first component of our bill, S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, would say we can go after those resources that are 50 miles or more off our coasts if the host State involved wants us to do that, and if we give a fair revenue share of 37.5 percent to that host State to compensate that host State for any difficulty and involvement and partnership involved.

In so doing, that would be expanding on a very important precedent, a very important policy we set 2 years ago when we established that historic revenue sharing specifically--37.5 percent--in opening new areas of the gulf. So that is part 1 of the bill.

Part 2 of the bill turns to the enormous resources we have on land in the United States. It turns to States in the Western part of the United States, where there are enormous shale resources, and says: We will allow production of energy in those shale deposits. If you think it is maybe the wrong policy to put 85 percent of our resources offshore off limits, in the instance of Western shale, it is worse. Congress has put 100 percent of that energy off limits because of a bar, a moratorium, Congress has set saying: We cannot use any of that energy.

Once again, the American people are stunned. They do not get this. They face a real crisis in terms of energy. They know more supply, particularly here at home, can stabilize prices, can increase our independence, and yet a majority in Congress is saying: 100 percent of that is off limits. That does not make sense. So part 2 of this bill, S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, would allow exploration in those Western shale deposits.

Part 3 turns to the demand side because it is not either/or. It is not just one thing or just another. It is not drill, drill, drill, and do nothing else. But we also need to conserve and use new sources of energy. So title III of the bill would create major new incentives to push forward technology and bring it to market more effectively in terms of electric and plug-in cars.

That is a very exciting technological development that is progressing. But we can push it along. We can create tax and other incentives to hasten the development of larger batteries so these plug- in cars can be part of the answer in terms of our transportation issue, can lessen our use of gasoline, can lessen our reliance on dangerous foreign sources. The third part of the bill does that. It creates major incentives. It is a major push to the development of more plug-in, electric, and related technology cars that can lessen our demand.

Then, the last part of the bill, part 4 of S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, would look at this very worrisome issue of speculation. It would give new power, new authority to the agency that has authority and a role in the regulation of speculators. It would put more policemen on the beat, if you will, to make sure there is not inappropriate, out-of-control speculation that may be running the price up even more than the normal forces of supply and demand.

So that is part 4 of the bill, addressing legitimate concerns about speculation, putting more cops on the beat, giving more authority to those regulatory bodies which are supposed to be looking after that issue.

These four components of this bill are not the only four good ideas out there. There are plenty more good ideas. There are plenty of other things we do need to do. I would like to open up ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I would like to put additional incentives in place for fuel efficiency and conservation and new sources of energy. There are a lot of exciting possibilities in my own State of Louisiana for certain biofuels, including that produced from sugar, that produced from new crops with sorghum, and other very promising biofuels that do not have nearly the significant impact on food and commodity prices as ethanol does.

So we need to do more. These four parts of this bill are not the only four good ideas out there. But we need to have this debate in a grownup, bipartisan way. We need to come together with all the good ideas out there and present them in the best tradition of the Senate, which is open debate and open amendments, and then--and this is the most important part--and then we need to act. We need to stop simply speechifying, simply posturing, simply talking, and act.

So I believe we must turn to this top concern and priority of the American people next. I believe we should not move from this housing bill which we are on right now to a bill that would more than triple our foreign aid that currently goes overseas to combat the very serious problem of AIDS and HIV. But instead we should turn to the top priority of the American people: gasoline prices and energy.

With that in mind, I offer a very simple and straightforward unanimous consent request. It would say: Yes, this is the top priority of the American people, so we are going to turn to it, and we are going to have an open debate, and we are going to let amendments come to the floor, we are going to have an open process and actually have debate and votes on all those amendments, and then we are going to act because that is what the American people want.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3202

So, Madam President, in that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of H.R. 3221, the housing legislation, the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 854, which is S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, a bill to address record-high gas prices at the pump; and I further ask unanimous consent that there be 4 hours of general debate, equally divided, and upon the use of yielding back of that time, the Senate then proceed to consider amendments to the bill in a full and open amendment process, as is the tradition of the Senate.

Madam President, reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my time, let me say that is very unfortunate. I am sure the American people are excited to hear that Congress might get to it someday. The problem is, they have been straining under these record-high prices for months and they have been looking at Congress and they have been seeing a lot of hot air and no action. Now what they see is the Senate taking up a bill to more than triple foreign aid that we send overseas for HIV/AIDS relief rather than taking up what is the most important challenge and crisis they face every day: High gasoline prices and our energy situation.

In my mind, nothing could underscore more clearly how out of touch the distinguished majority leader is from the concerns of the American people. We need to turn to this--not sometime, not in the future--we need to turn to this now. We need to recognize--not sometime in the future--that this is an issue. We need to recognize now that this is the top issue, bar none, of the American people, and we need to act.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. My only question, which I propose through the Chair to the distinguished Senator, is, I am excited to hear we might turn to all these issues sometime in the future. I would like to know what that timetable will be. Specifically, will the majority leader give us assurance that we will turn to this in a full way, in an open amendment process, before the August recess?

Would the Senator yield for another question?

That would be the second part of my unanimous consent request which is very important for consideration of these issues, to involve a full, open amendment process on the floor of the Senate, rather than the distinguished majority leader doing what he has done every time in the recent past, which is filling up the tree and blocking amendments.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the housing bill before this body now and to speak about an important omission from the managers' amendment that is before the Senate. This is just one piece, one narrow issue, but it is an important one that will affect many folks in the housing market and throughout America. I am talking about the need to provide a transition period for the implementation of the new GSE regulatory structure in the bill.

A large part of this legislation on housing recovery is devoted to GSE regulatory reform. GSE means ``government-sponsored enterprises''-- regulatory reform regarding those entities. This is a huge undertaking, with wide-reaching consequences for the mortgage and housing industries and our economy generally.

This GSE reform title would combine the regulatory authority and personnel of three distinct agencies--HUD, the FHLB, and the OFHEO--to create an entirely new GSE supervisor with broad, far-reaching powers over this $3 trillion part of our economy, the housing finance system. The effects of new regulatory powers would not be limited even to the housing industry, as big as it is. The vast global investment in GSE securities and the 8,000 member banks that obtain liquidity and other services from our Federal Home Loan Bank system would also be significantly affected.

Given the far-reaching and very significant impact of this part of the bill--this very significant consolidation of three separate agencies--I think simple common sense would dictate that implementing that sort of measured change should be done with great care and over some reasonable time period. That is why the House in its legislation recognized the need for an orderly transition. Their bill included a uniform effective date of 6 months after enactment to allow the President to begin the appointment process immediately but to give that 6-month transition to a very new regulatory structure.

Unfortunately, the bill before us in the Senate today does not include this transition period in this language.

Under the Senate substitute amendment, the powers of the new agency would be effective immediately, potentially destabilizing our housing market, causing real concerns among many in that important market.

I am very concerned about this. I think it is a significant omission, a significant problem, a significant issue. Making the powers of a new agency effective immediately, before the three existing agencies are combined and before expert personnel can be transferred and this new agency staffed is putting the cart before the horse. At a time of great instability in the mortgage and housing markets, we should use care to preserve consumer and market confidence by ensuring a smooth transition and regulatory stability.

That is why I am strongly urging the adoption of the House approach with regard to this specific issue. It would ensure a gradual transition of no less than 6 months, allowing for careful and efficient consolidation. In our push to make the housing and mortgage markets stronger and more responsive to the American people, let's also make certain we don't break what we didn't need to fix in the first place.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt this commonsense, reasonable, balanced House approach with regard to a 6-month transition.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I stand in recognition of Dr. Ed Renwick, who served as director of the Loyola University Institute of Politics for more than 30 years, until his recent retirement on June 1, 2008. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments as director and recognize his contributions to the Louisiana community.

As the director of this unique educational program, he served as a mentor to many future politicians and political experts. His keen ability to explain the nuances of Louisiana politics made him particularly extraordinary and provided his many students with a unique insight into our State's storied history. His teaching methods were groundbreaking as they focused on the empirical ends of Government rather than their theoretical origins. In particular, Dr. Renwick focused on the way in which political theory works in practice, how it actually affects the daily decisions of elected officials and political candidates.

In addition to his service as director, he also served as a respected member of the political science faculty, which he will continue to serve following his retirement. As both an administrator and an educator, Dr. Renwick was well known for his insights that jumpstarted the political careers of many Louisianans. In choosing his fellows, he targeted individuals from diverse political, economic and social groups, in order to force bipartisan efforts to work through complex issues important to Louisiana. Thus, he taught them the importance of finding common ground rather than letting them crumble under their differences.

I was fortunate enough to be a fellow under Renwick, and I can confidently say that I am still benefitting from the knowledge and experience I gained during the program. Dr. Renwick's innovative methods helped reveal the idiosyncrasies of Louisiana politics to his students.

Thus, today, I am proud to honor a fellow Louisianan, Dr. Ed Renwick, for his distinguished service to the Loyola University community and the State of Louisiana.

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

Mr. President, I have townhall meetings all around Louisiana on a very regular basis. At these meetings we discuss a number of crucial issues facing all of us. Lately, of course, it has been dominated by sky-high gasoline prices and the need for a coherent energy policy. But what I hear more than anything else as I reach out to my constituents all around the State, the biggest, most important sentiment I hear is: When are most folks in Congress going to stop playing political games and actually act? When are most folks in Washington going to stop posturing and arguing just toward the next election and take care of the people's business? Unfortunately, I believe this exercise we have going on on the Senate floor is yet another example of the posturing and of the political gamesmanship that feeds that understandable frustration.

We are going to have a vote coming up later today on the Democratic tax extenders bill. This is a pure political exercise and a pure waste of time. Whether you are for it or against it, whether you like most provisions in it or not, one thing is perfectly clear: This Democratic partisan bill is going nowhere. It doesn't have the support in the Senate. In addition to that, there is a veto threat--a very crystal- clear veto threat--from President Bush. That is for substantive reasons. There are significant objections to the bill--I share most of them--with what is included in this package, things such as a huge earmark to build a train in New York, a new tax break for trial lawyers, expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act, and $55 billion of taxes.

The point isn't the substance. Whether you agree with the substance or not, the point is this bill is going nowhere, and therefore to call it up again and again and to posture and to make speeches is just a political exercise and a waste of time. It is perfectly clear from the vote we took last week that this package doesn't have near the 60 votes required in the Senate to pass it through the process.

If that weren't enough, it is perfectly clear that President Bush will veto the bill. Of course, to override a veto doesn't simply take 60 votes, it takes two-thirds of the Senate--67. So it is perfectly clear that it is going nowhere, and here we are again posturing, making political speeches and political points on the floor.

I have a radical idea. Let's come together in a bipartisan way. Let's come around a consensus bill and actually pass it through the process and get it signed by the President. I believe the Grassley bill, which has been introduced in the Senate, is the basis for that sort of bipartisan discussion and real work.

This is particularly important for many of my constituents in Louisiana because many of those Louisianans, as well as folks in Mississippi and elsewhere, have been suffering from a very unfair situation. They are actually paying a tax penalty because of the enormous losses they suffered during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. What am I talking about? It is this: In 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the gulf coast with enormous ferocity. A few weeks later, Hurricane Rita struck southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. Of course, as we all know, many folks suffered enormous and tragic losses. Many folks I know personally lost their entire homes and virtually all of their belongings. Of course, folks in that situation legitimately could take a big loss on their next tax return. As a result, in 2005, people did what you would expect them to do: They filed loss deductions on their tax returns for that year because of these enormous and tragic losses.

Push forward to 2007. The good news is that the American people responded to the enormous tragedy and Congress responded, representing the American people. One of the most important things the American people funded, one of the most important things Congress passed, was help for these folks I am describing who suffered uninsured losses. In Louisiana, it became known as the Road Home Program. In Mississippi, there was a similar program called the Housing Assistance Program-- grants, help from the American taxpayers to help cover uninsured losses.

So what is the problem? The problem is that under present Federal law, the IRS says that you have to add that check many of these folks got in 2007 to their income and pay taxes on it because under present Federal law that is taxable income. If it was simply a matter of counteracting, equalizing the tax benefit these same individuals gained by claiming a huge loss deduction in 2005, that would be fair, but it went far beyond that in many cases. It increased many of these individuals to a higher marginal tax rate. Because of the size of the help, it pushed them into a whole other tax bracket. It subjected many taxpayers to the AMT, which they would not have been subjected to otherwise. It phased out certain deductions for them. It even subjected some individuals' Social Security benefits to additional taxation. It made many taxpayers ineligible for Federal student loans. So it didn't simply counteract and equalize the tax benefit some folks got in 2007 by claiming a very large loss deduction; it went beyond that in thousands upon thousands of cases.

So on top of Katrina, on top of Rita, on top of unimaginable--to most of us--personal tragedy, what happened is these folks got a tax penalty. That is ridiculous. We need to fix that. There is a clear sentiment and a clear majority in Congress to fix that. That fix for the Road Home Program in Louisiana and for the Housing Assistance Program in Mississippi is included in this Grassley tax extenders bill, which can be a bipartisan product, which can garner bipartisan support, which can gain far more than 60 votes in the Senate, and which can and would be signed into law by the President.

This is enormously important for tens of thousands of Louisianans. This is enormously important for many folks in Mississippi. These aren't simply run-of-the-mill folks; these are by definition folks who suffered through some of the worst losses due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In that context--as they wait year after year simply for a fix so that they aren't penalized by the tax man on top of everything they suffered through because of the hurricanes--in that context, how dare anyone play political games. How dare anyone posture and make political speeches rather than simply trying to come together and do the people's business. But again, that is what is going on here on the floor.

We have a tax extenders package which has provisions that many folks, including myself, have major objections to: A huge earmark to build a train in New York, a new tax break for trial lawyers, an expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act which would hurt our economy, and $55 billion of tax provisions. I cannot support that Baucus package because of those clearly objectionable items. More importantly, about half of the Senate can't support it for that reason, and therefore the Senate isn't near the 60 votes required to pass that on in the process. Even if it were, as I said before, President Bush has made it crystal-clear that because of these controversial provisions, he would veto the bill. So this package is going nowhere. To revote on this package is to waste time and play political games. I don't know why the majority leader is determined to do that, but he is doing that today. He has even talked about doing it a third time.

I urge the majority leader and all of my colleagues to act for the good of the American people, to come around a consensus package that can be passed and be signed into law, not to simply try to score political points, make more speeches, and waste even more time on the Senate floor.

All of the American people deserve that. But, surely, folks who suffered enormous losses because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita deserve that even more. Surely, those folks deserve the relief contained in both bills, but also the relief that can actually be passed and signed into law in a bipartisan consensus package.

Let's do the work of the American people. Let's put people before politics, and let's pass this important legislation by moving on to a consensus bill that can gain far more than 60 votes in the Senate and be signed into law by the President.

With that, I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, I appreciate his comments. I would be open for that path forward if there was assurance from the majority leader that there would be that full opportunity for amendments, particularly on the crucial objectionable items that I outlined. Unfortunately, to date, there has been absolutely no assurance in that regard. In fact, the majority leader, through his actions, has taken the opposite course time after time after time, as the Senator knows, by filling up the tree. So if we could take that path forward, with the assurance to have votes on amendments regarding those clearly objectionable matters, that might be productive. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the assurance the majority leader has offered to give, and it hasn't been his practice.

I only say to the distinguished Senator, if the majority leader would come to the floor and guarantee amendments on the substance of the bill, on the train to New York and the Davis-Bacon provision and down the line in terms of all those highly objectionable issues I outlined a minute ago, which go to the substance of the bill, I will be all ears. Unfortunately, that has not been his practice on prior issues or in this situation.