Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to honor the Monroe Rotary Club, which is celebrating its 90th anniversary this month, and I would like to take a few moments to publicly recognize their great history.

The Rotary Club of Monroe was founded on April 29, 1918, with a membership of 31; however, they did not receive their charter until June of 1918. The stated purpose of the organization is to bring together business and professional leaders to provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. In order to carry out its service programs, Rotary is structured in club, district, and international levels.

In furtherance of the goals of Rotary, the Rotary Club of Monroe has sponsored many local projects including, scholarships at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, Goodfellows, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Monroe Youth

Baseball, The Food Bank of Northeast Louisiana, Camp Quality, The Salvation Army, and Girl's and Boy's State, to name a few. In addition they also sponsor Interact Clubs at Neville High School and River Oaks High School and sponsor two students each year to attend District 6190's Camp RYLA--Rotary Youth Leadership Award, a program for young people intended to develop qualities of leadership, good citizenship, and personal development.

Each year the members of the Rotary Club of Monroe also open their homes to members of the Rotary Foundation's Group Study Exchange program. They have proudly participated in this program for many years hosting teams from India, France, Norway, England, Brazil, Australia, Scotland, Belgium, Japan, Austria and several other countries. Additionally many of their members have traveled abroad as a part of the Friendship Exchange, where Rotarians seek opportunities to visit other districts throughout the world.

Today, I applaud the Rotary Club of Monroe on their 90th anniversary and thank them for their continued service to the state of Louisiana and the rest of the world.

Mr. President, in light of the comments of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I ask unanimous consent to use the remaining Republican time plus an additional 3 minutes.

Madam President, today I stand to recognize Army SGT Eric Moser, the son of Ken and Karen Moser of Lake Charles, LA, and to commend his courage and service to our Nation and his brothers in arms.

On May 22, 2008, Sergeant Moser was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the U.S. Army's second highest military decoration, making him one of only nine soldiers to have received this decoration since September 11, 2001.

Sergeant Moser, I know how proud your parents are of you, and all of Louisiana shares in their pride. Your actions truly exemplify patriotism, service to country, and spirit of the Army's famous 82nd Airborne Division, a unit that has distinguished itself on countless occasions from the beaches of Normandy, the jungles of Vietnam, to the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan.

On August 26, 2007, while serving with the 82nd's Charlie Company, Sergeant Moser was attached to a sniper team that also included SGT Josh Morley of North Carolina, SP Tracy Willis of Texas, and SP Chris Corriveau from Maine.

The team was tasked with securing a defensive perimeter around a block in Samarra, Iraq, while members of Charlie Company's 3rd Platoon conducted search operations on a location that was suspected of being used to manufacture improvised explosive devices.

Soon after their arrival on their positions, Sergeant Moser and his team found themselves under attack, their presence having been alerted to by an al-Qaida informant. Pinned down from fire from multiple terrorists, Sergeants Moser and Morley held their positions and returned fire until Sergeant Morley was killed while crossing a building rooftop in search of the team's radio.

Sergeant Moser and the remaining team members fought off the insurgents who were attempting to make off with Sergeant Morley's body. Despite struggling with a weapon that repeatedly jammed, Sergeant Moser was able to return fire and protect Sergeant Morley's body during a firefight that ultimately claimed the life of a second team member, SP Tracy Willis.

The two remaining members of the sniper team, Sergeant Moser and Specialist Corriveau, continued to fight off the terrorists and were able to protect the bodies of their fallen comrades. As they established contact with another Airborne outpost, the insurgents fell back and began to retrieve their dead.

Sergeant Moser and Specialist Corriveau then directed a GPS-guided bomb to the position where the surviving insurgents were hiding. It was later confirmed that more than 15 of an established 40 al-Qaida terrorists were killed during the fight.

We honor Sergeant Morley and Specialist Willis for their ultimate sacrifice, and we pay tribute to their families. SGT Josh Morley is survived by his wife, his family, and a daughter whom he never had the chance to meet. And SP Tracy Willis leaves behind a loving family of his own.

We also honor SP Chris Corriveau for his heroism. He was also awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his gallantry on August 26, 2007. His actions also exemplify that of a hero and a paratrooper.

In the face of death and without regard to his personal safety, Sergeant Moser brought great distinction on himself, the U.S. Army, and the 82nd Airborne Division. I am sure he would be hesitant to acknowledge himself as a hero, and he does not need to do so. His actions distinguished him as such when on a rooftop in Iraq, he risked his own life to ensure that no man was left behind.

Sergeant Moser, thank you for your service and heroism and God bless you and your entire family.

Madam President, I wish to acknowledge Councilman Leland Robichaux of Houma for his dedicated service to Louisiana and the United States of America. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments.

Mr. Robichaux started his career in oilfield services in 1964, traveling the world with his family as a result. He helped found the South Central Industrial Association 10 years ago, serving as the business organization's president from 2003 to 2004. Also active from the beginning in membership initiatives and infrastructure issues, he earned the SCIA's Tillman Esteve Award last year for his contributions. Outside his job as a salesman for Oil States, an offshore oil-and-gas manufacturer, he traveled annually with the Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce to Washington, DC, to lobby for hurricane protection for the past 8 years.

Mr. Robichaux was elected to the Terrebonne Parish Council District 6 seat last fall. He represented the parishes of southwest Terrebonne, Donner, Gibson, parts of Bayou Black and

neighborhoods between La. 311 and Bayou Black Drive. The week before he was sworn into office, Mr. Robichaux learned he had two tumors on his brain, caused by cancer that started in his lungs. Despite his illness, he continued to serve his constituents and was open about his cancer diagnosis, and when asked about his progress, he shared information about his treatments and his determination to press on.

Leland Robichaux passed away Sunday, June 1. In his roughly 4 months on the council, he helped work on coastal-restoration and levee projects. He is survived by not only family members but also the grateful city of Houma and council who have lost a great man and great leader.

Thus, today, I rise to honor a fellow Louisianan, Leland Robichaux, and thank him and his family for his dedicated service to our State and Nation.

Mr. President, in the year 64 A.D., there was a tremendous fire in Rome, and legend has it that the Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Well, I am afraid that if we continue to fiddle in the Congress while gas prices continue to go up and up and hurt all of our constituents in a deep abiding way, Nero will outpace us in terms of his legendary action compared to our inaction.

We are truly fiddling while this enormous crisis of rising gasoline prices hits every family we purport to represent. We are doing nothing significant, nothing important to address this crisis.

Why do I say that? Well, when this new Democratically led Congress took office a couple of Januaries ago, prices at the pump were about $2.33. That new leadership of the Congress--the Democratic leader in the Senate as well as the Democratic leadership in the House--said that this was unacceptable. They vowed that this was a major issue they would address, that they would attack in a focused, meaningful way. Well, a year and a half later, things have changed. The price at the pump is now about $4 a gallon. It has gone up and up, and this Congress has done little to nothing.

To add insult to injury, the Democratic leadership in the Senate proposed legislation today that centered around major measures that can clearly change the price at the pump, such as a windfall profits tax and language to sue OPEC. I find this insulting, and I believe the American people do, because that sort of political demagoguery and posturing is no substitute for real energy policy.

Yesterday, I was in my home State of Louisiana. I had two townhall meetings. About a week before that, I was all around the State; I had nine others. Folks asked again and again: When is Congress going to act? When is Congress going to do something meaningful about these escalating gasoline prices? I laid out my ideas. They were reacted to in a very positive way, particularly the need for us to do more for ourselves right here at home to produce more energy.

Certainly nobody in those audiences had very kind words to say about OPEC. Nobody was standing up and lauding the big oil companies. But by the same token, they know the difference between political rhetoric and posturing and real energy policy. They certainly know that a bill to sue OPEC and try to impose a Carter-era windfall

profits tax on big oil companies isn't going to do a darn thing, at least on the positive side of the equation, to stabilize and lower gasoline prices at the pump. It is going to have no meaningful impact, certainly, to produce more energy and bring those prices down.

So I come to the floor to urge all of us--Democrats and Republicans-- to come together to get real and to act in the face of what is a true economic crisis for millions upon millions of American families.

As I say, it is easy to agree that OPEC or big oil is a cheap political target. It is easy to agree that it may be popular superficially to kick them around and to politically bash those easy targets. But I truly believe the American people are smarter than that and can distinguish between political posturing, political rhetoric, and a real energy policy. I think it is particularly true with the windfall profits tax proposed by the Democratic leadership today.

Now, why do I say that is not a real energy policy and it won't lead to stabilizing and reducing prices? Well, there are three main reasons:

First, the entire notion of a windfall profits tax is a misnomer. Oil company profits are very big when you look at them in dollar terms. Why is that? Mostly for one simple reason: Oil company activity-- exploration and production--is enormously expensive. As a result of that, the major oil companies are enormously big companies--big economic actors--so the dollar terms we bandy about having to do with their activity is enormous. But, of course, when you talk about profit, you can't talk in simple dollar terms; you have to talk in percentages.

So what are those percentages? Are they, in fact, windfall profits? Well, the last year for which we have data is full calendar year 2007, and in that calendar year oil and gas companies' profits were, on average, 8.3 percent. How does that compare to everybody else? Well, for all of the U.S. manufacturing sector--a sector we always decry as in decline, being outsourced, being out-competed by competitors such as China and India coming on line--that entire sector had a profit of about 7.3 percent. If you take out U.S. auto companies, which have historically low profits, unfortunately, then the entire U.S. manufacturing sector made a profit of 8.9 percent. So these outrageous windfall profits folks talk about of the oil companies are, in fact, very much in line with that: the whole manufacturing sector, 7.3 percent compared to 8.3 percent. Take out auto manufacturers, and, in fact, then the profit rate is higher, 8.9 percent compared to 8.3 percent.

The second reason this entire focus and argument is silly and not real energy policy is when you look at whom you are hurting. Now, the proponents of these sorts of measures talk about going after windfall profits as if oil company executives own it all. Well, they own some-- 1.5 percent of the companies we are talking about. Who owns the rest? Well, over half of oil company shares are owned by mutual fund companies which are widely owned by Americans. That manages to account for nearly 55 million American households. Median income of these households, by the way, is $70,000 or less.

Pension funds, both public and private, hold 27 percent of the shares in the energy industry. That means 129 million pension fund participants, who have accounts worth an average of about $63,000, own the companies we are talking about. Twenty-eight million of those pension funds are for public employees, including teachers, police, fire personnel, soldiers, and government workers. So these are the folks who own these companies that we are supposed to go after.

The final and most important and compelling reason this notion of a windfall profits tax is a red herring is that it won't produce more energy. It won't stabilize or lower prices at the pump. It won't help the situation. It will, in fact, make it worse.

Why do I say this? Because we have historical experience to turn to to see what happened. Under President Carter, we tried this experiment. In terms of boosting energy production, stabilizing or lowering prices, it was a miserable failure. From 1980 to 1988, we had a windfall profits tax. That reduced domestic oil production by up to 8 percent, while dependence on foreign oil grew over that time up to 13 percent.

So instead of this sort of tax approach to the oil companies' tax approach to energy, we need to produce more energy, more supply, to stabilize and lessen prices. As my colleague from Alabama mentioned a few minutes ago, one of the first rules of economics is, if you tax an activity, you are going to drive it down, lessen that activity; you are not going to drive it up.

If somehow this tax plan--windfall profits tax--or the myriad other tax proposals the Democratic leadership has brought to the floor would help solve our energy problems, I would be all for it. But it is going to make us produce less energy, not more. What will that do? That won't stabilize or lower gasoline prices at the pump. It will drive them up.

Let's get serious for once. As the American families we represent face a true crisis, let's put people ahead of politics. Let's put sound policy ahead of political posturing. Let's focus on what can make a positive impact. We need to do much in this regard, on the supply side as well as the demand side--conservation, greater efficiency, more R&D, and new fuel sources. But at the same time we need to focus on the demand side, on what can help us produce more safe, clean energy here at home. We have those resources here at home. We can access them safely and in an environmentally friendly way. But in order to do that, Congress needs to get out of the way and allow States and private industry to do just that.

Offshore is a big piece of that puzzle. That is why I have brought to the Senate floor my proposal that says if these outrageous prices at the pump actually hit $5 a gallon, then we will allow exploration and production in our ocean bottoms off our U.S. coast--but only if two things apply: First, the host State involved would have to want this activity. So the Governor and State legislature in that host State would have to say, yes, we want this activity off of our coast, we want to be part of the solution to help meet the Nation's energy needs. Secondly, that host State would get a fair share of the royalty, or revenue, from that ocean bottom production, 37\1/2\ percent, building on the precedent, the policy we set 2 years ago in opening some limited new areas in the Gulf of Mexico. That actually does something about energy. That actually would increase supply right here at home, would lessen our dependence on dangerous foreign sources, would help stabilize and bring down prices at the pump--something the political posturing of suing OPEC or putting in a windfall profits tax, a Carter- era idea, on the big oil companies would not do.

Let's not fiddle while Rome burns. Let's get serious. Let's act respectfully to the situation, the real crisis so many Americans face. Let's come together in a bipartisan way and act, not posture, and debate and talk but act with real energy solutions. We need to do this, as I said, across the board, on the supply side and on the demand side to lessen demand through conservation, increased fuel efficiency, and new energy sources.

We need to come together and act now, rather than simply giving political speeches and endlessly posturing and going after easy political targets.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to discuss this very important climate change legislation and amendments I would have brought to the Senate floor for consideration. Now, unfortunately, I said ``would have brought'' because this entire process has been short-circuited, cut off, blocked by the actions of the distinguished majority leader. I find that very regrettable.

Whatever side of the debate we are on, whatever we think about this bill, it is beyond debate that this is enormously significant legislation that would have dramatic impacts on our economy. I believe it is the most significant bill that would have the most drastic and dramatic impacts on our economy of any since I have come to the Senate, which has only been about 3 years, but we have considered a lot of bills. Yet we are operating, apparently, under a procedure now where not one amendment will be considered before the significant cloture vote tomorrow morning. The distinguished majority leader has filled the amendment tree, so not a single amendment could ever be considered without his acquiescence and consent. That is flat out ludicrous. That is flat out offensive.

I came to the Senate from the House. In doing so, I heard from so many different sources so many stories, so many examples of how the Senate is a place of great unlimited debate; the ability to bring ideas and amendments to the Senate floor on the big issues of the day, in contrast to the House. Unfortunately, our distinguished majority leader has turned that on its head. He has made that exactly the reverse, where debate is completely shut down, where we have no amendments possible to be considered before the cloture vote on the most dramatic and significant bill to impact our economy that I have been able to consider here in the Senate. That is ludicrous.

On this topic, former Vice President Al Gore made a very famous movie: ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' I ask what the distinguished majority leader is afraid of. Why not have a full debate. He seems to be concerned about an inconvenient debate or a series of inconvenient amendments. Again, I express extreme regret that we are having a cloture vote tomorrow morning before a single amendment is called up on the floor to be debated, before there is any opportunity--any security--for amendments to be considered, at least unless they have the majority leader's acquiescence and support.

I would have called up at least three amendments. These three amendments go to the heart of my concerns about the legislation. When I look at virtually all legislation, I look at the costs of the legislation and the benefits, and I ask: Do the benefits outweigh the costs. In this case, I believe the costs are very severe. First, costs relating to gasoline. The Louisianans whom I represent, as Americans are all over the country, are struggling under the weight of enormously high gasoline prices right now. They have risen from about $2.33 when this Congress came into office, to almost $4 at the pump now. Yet this bill could increase that burden significantly by as much as a dollar a gallon. That is a big cost.

I also look at the cost of other energy prices: natural gas prices, electricity prices. Again, that is a big additional cost this bill would be putting on American citizens.

Finally, I look at the cost of shipping more jobs overseas, because this bill would put dramatic onerous controls on American industry, American businesses, and American jobs, but wouldn't do anything comparable with regard to jobs overseas, including China and India. Those are big costs. The benefit? Well, the benefit, I believe, would be slim to none because of the factors I have mentioned, because of what this bill would do to burden our industry, our companies, our jobs. Those jobs would be pushed overseas, largely to countries without these controls--to countries that would not change their policies, that would not follow our lead, particularly China and India.

So what would we do with regard to the global issue of climate change? It is certainly global and not localized. We would be accomplishing virtually nothing.

My amendments, had I been allowed to offer them, would have addressed these onerous costs. First, I would have presented an amendment that said if the price of gasoline at the pump reaches $5 a gallon--forget about $4 where we are already--if it reaches $5 a gallon, then we would allow exploration and activity on our ocean bottoms off our coasts, but only under two conditions: first, if the host State off whose coast that activity would happen would want the activity; the Governor and the State legislature of that State would say yes, we want this activity off our coast, we want to help meet the Nation's energy needs. Secondly, if that happened, that State would get a fair revenue share-- 37.5 percent--building off the precedent we set 2 years ago with revenue sharing in the Gulf of Mexico; and important Federal programs and important Federal priorities, such as LIHEAP and the Highway thrust Fund and the Adam Walsh Act, would also get guaranteed funding. That is a significant and important amendment that should be part of this debate.

My second amendment would discuss electricity prices, particularly natural gas, and it would say that if natural gas demand went up, if the price went up because of this bill, then again it would pull a trigger and allow that exploration and production on our ocean bottoms off our coasts under the same conditions that I outlined with regard to host States.

Finally, my third amendment would address the significant jobs cost that this bill presents. Natural gas-intensive sectors of our manufacturing industry would be particularly hard hit by this bill. So my amendment, had I been allowed to present it, would have said that we will have annual reports describing whether this bill would displace more than 5,000 employees in natural gas-intensive sectors of the manufacturing industry such as the fertilizer industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry. If that happened, if we went over that threshold, then the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, would have to increase the number of allowances necessary to preserve those jobs.

Those are important topics in this debate. Yet they were completely shut out from consideration on the Senate floor. Once again, I have enormous regret and concern for this body based on the precedent the distinguished majority leader has set. This is an enormously important topic and bill, yet not allowing a single amendment to be called up and considered before our vote on cloture tomorrow morning, and filling the amendment tree so not a single amendment could ever be considered without the acquiescence and support of the majority leader himself.

As I said a few minutes ago, Al Gore talked about an inconvenient truth. I believe the majority leader is concerned about an inconvenient debate, inconvenient amendments, but that is exactly what the American people deserve: a full and fair debate and consideration of amendments.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Deborah Glickson, a fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges during the debate on this bill.

I need about 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I have been allotted 8 minutes, and I ask the Chair to notify me when 6 minutes of that 8 have expired.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, like my colleague from Missouri, last week I traveled all around my home State. I had about nine townhall meetings and many other meetings of all kinds in every part of the State.

In these townhall meetings, gas prices--the price at the pump--was not the first question that always came up. It was the first eight questions that always came up. In fact, of all of the discussion I had in all of these townhall meetings put together, about two-thirds of that entire discussion--that entire time--was about rising gasoline prices and energy prices. It is obviously affecting folks all across the country, certainly including in my home State of Louisiana.

In early 2006, when this new Democratic Congress was sworn into office and came into power, the average price at the pump was $2.33 a gallon. The new leadership vowed they would do something about those sky-high prices. Well, apparently they did because now the average price at the pump is $3.98 a gallon--a staggering increase in a relatively short amount of time.

So in this context, when Americans all over our country, certainly including Louisiana, are suffering from these sky-high prices that continue to rise--as they go into the summer driving season, many hoping to take family vacations, realizing they cannot this summer because of these costs--I think a very reasonable question to ask is, What is this Lieberman-Warner climate change bill going to do to an already dire situation with regard to energy prices?

Unfortunately, I have concluded it is going to make that already dire situation much worse. It is going to add on to gasoline prices, as my colleague from Missouri has stated. It is going to add on to electricity and other energy prices significantly.

On the job site, it is going to also encourage and exacerbate a very worrisome trend of exporting jobs to other countries. After all of that, it will do little or nothing with regard to the fundamental climate change challenge because it mandates nothing on the part of other industrialized powers such as China and India.

Several economic studies have specifically examined these questions. Let's start with the price at the pump.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that this bill will cause gasoline prices to increase--in addition to everything that is going on now--between 41 cents a gallon to $1.01 a gallon by 2030. Now, again, we are facing dramatically rising prices at the pump now, and there seems to be no end in sight, in large part because we in Congress have not acted in a bold manner to increase supply and do other things to help ourselves at home. Yet this bill would move us even further in the wrong direction: between 41 cents and $1.01 more per gallon by 2030.

According to the EIA, the average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year. The average vehicle is driven more than 12,000 miles per year. So even now, at $4 a gallon, a 12-gallon gas tank costs over $50 to fill, and we are going to increase that significantly? That is moving in the wrong direction.

What about electricity and other important sources of energy? According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this bill will increase those prices--electricity prices--by 44 percent by 2030. Again, our consumers are struggling under energy prices right now, including electricity.

Winters are a tough time for folks in the Northeast. In my part of the world, summer is the time of peak electricity load, and that is a real price burden right now. Yet we are considering a bill that is going to increase that, an already challenging and dire situation, by 44 percent?

Then, what about the jobs picture. We debate in this body all the time how we can keep and expand and grow manufacturing jobs in this country, how we can get away from the trend of exporting those jobs overseas. Yet this bill will only make that problem worse as well.

The higher energy prices caused by the bill will force U.S. manufacturers to compete unfavorably with lower cost countries overseas. Realistically, companies will move their manufacturing base out of the United States to an even greater extent, and many American jobs will leave with them.

This country has already lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. We cannot afford to lose more. But what does the rigorous analysis of this bill's impact show? Well, the National Association of Manufacturers says up to 1.8 million jobs additionally--in addition to all of those figures I have already quoted--could be lost by 2020 and 4 million jobs additionally could be lost by 2030.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Switching from coal plants to natural gas will drive job loss, particularly in the chemical and fertilizer industries. The chemical industry is extremely important to my State. Over 100,000 chemical jobs have already been lost in the last 5 years due to the high price of natural gas. Out of 120 new chemical plants under worldwide construction, only one is being constructed in the United States.

So like the price of gasoline, like the price of electricity, on the jobs front we have a very dire, challenging situation already, and this bill would make it far worse.

The real kicker to all of this is that after all of that damage to Americans, to their lifestyles, to our economy, what would this bill do in terms of climate change?

I am very concerned it would do little or nothing because, of course, it mandates no action on the part of other major powers and energy consumers around the world, specifically China and India. Think about it. As we push these jobs overseas, out of our country, where are those jobs going? They are going to countries such as China and India that would not be taking similar action, that would be continuing to build coal-fired powerplants and use outdated technology, that would contribute to the climate change problem. So much higher gasoline prices, much higher electricity and other energy prices, significant job loss--and what impact on the problem are we trying to address? In my opinion, little or none.

Mr. President, I hope all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle hear from the American people, hear from them about the challenges they face right now as they fill up their automobiles, as they try to take summer vacations, as they struggle with other energy prices, as they hope to keep their jobs right here in America.

If our colleagues hear that message, I am confident they will vote down this dangerous bill.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of that portion of the emergency funding bill we will be voting on in about 35 minutes. The reason I do so is because it is absolutely essential to deliver the help the President has committed--that the Nation has committed--to our continuing recovery in Louisiana.

First, let me begin by thanking all my colleagues and, perhaps even more importantly, the American people, the American taxpayer, for an unprecedented outpouring of support for our recovery. True, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, a devastating one-two punch, were unprecedented disasters, the biggest natural disasters--particularly when put together--that the country has ever faced. Still, it is very significant, very important to acknowledge that the American people have also stepped to the plate and made an unprecedented response. The people of Louisiana are deeply grateful.

The provisions in this bill are an essential part of that commitment and that response. Very soon after Hurricane Katrina, I sat in Jackson Square, in the middle of the French Quarter, and heard the President deliver his live address to the Nation from Jackson Square, right in front of St. Louis Cathedral. It was a strange, eerie night because New Orleans had not yet recovered, in significant ways, from the storm. It was only a few weeks since Hurricane Katrina. The whole French Quarter was dark--no electricity. The only light, lighting a small portion of that part of the world, was from light trucks sent in so the President could speak from that historic point to the American people.

The President made a clear and a firm commitment to the full recovery of our region. I thanked him for that. I thank him for that today.

A big part of that commitment, of course, was strong, meaningful hurricane and flood protection for southeast Louisiana, building at a minimum a 100-year level of protection and building it quickly enough to sustain a storm that you might expect to see only once every 100 years.

Again, I thank the President for that commitment. I thank the American people for that commitment. But this funding in this bill passed now is absolutely essential to keep that commitment.

The Corps of Engineers itself says, if they do not have this money by October 1, they will slip from their schedule and that rebuilding and that level of protection for southeast Louisiana will not be here in the promised timeframe for the hurricane season of 2011. We cannot allow that schedule to slip. We cannot allow that solemn commitment of the President not to be fulfilled in a real and a timely manner. That is why these funds in this emergency funding bill are so essential.

I know many of my friends who have fiscal concerns, as I do in general have concerns about this bill. I would simply say with regard to these funds for our recovery, the President has asked for 95 percent of these moneys. The President himself has asked that those moneys be emergency spending. So this is hardly some Christmas tree on which we are trying to put ornaments for needs that are not there, that the President has not requested. At least 95 percent of this recovery package is what the President himself has explicitly requested and even requested be made emergency funding.

Let's follow through on that solemn commitment of the President, of the Congress, of the American people, and let's be sure to do it in a timely way so this enormously important protection

system is built in time for the hurricane season of 2011. This is very important to our recovery.

Besides levees and hurricane protection, it also addresses, in a small but important way, hospital needs, criminal justice needs, relocating businesses from the MRGO so that hurricane highway can finally be closed and we do not have a repeat of the devastation it helped cause in eastern New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish. Again, this is our opportunity to do this this year in a timely way.

I respectfully again thank all of my colleagues for their support in our recovery and ask them to support this essential step in meeting the President's commitment, meeting these needs in a timely way.

I yield back any remaining time.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important provision to New Orleans in the supplemental and to thank the Senate Appropriations Committee members for their strong and continued support for Louisiana during the long and difficult posthurricane recovery process.

Included in the emergency supplemental bill before the Senate is $70 million for emergency funding for 3,000 rental subsidies, which will provide permanent supportive housing in Louisiana for its most at-risk residents. These are the individuals who normal housing assistance programs are most likely to fail or miss, or who are unable to take advantage of available assistance without extra support. They are the homeless, the elderly in need of additional outside care or supervision, and individuals with severe disabilities. For them, permanent supportive housing can mean the difference between being exposed to the streets or having a secure, stable home environment.

The permanent supportive housing funding is the final piece of a three-prong initiative in Louisiana to address the post-storm needs of its most at-risk population. Louisiana has already dedicated significant resources toward this project: Louisiana's Road Home recovery plan will provide the necessary supportive services funding for the first 5 years of the initiative and some capital funding and the State has already invested in 800 to 1,000 permanent supportive housing units through existing affordable housing programs. All that remains now before this initiative can become a successful reality is the rental subsidy funding, which would provide Louisiana with the 2,000 project-based voucher and 1,000 shelter plus care units that will finally bring the services and housing to the people that need it most.

However, without the $70 million in rental subsidy funding included in the supplemental, this important initiative will fail. This is an issue that transcends politics and party affiliation. It enjoys the bipartisan support of myself and Senator Landrieu, as well as the support of the Appropriations HUD subcommittee chair and ranking member, Senators Murray and Bond, and the committee leadership. The Louisiana House congressional delegation supports the funding and wrote the House appropriators to advocate for it. In fact, Louisiana's new Governor, Governor Jindal, signed that letter as a Congressman and has since written the House and Senate leadership last month urging its adoption.

As of the latest count last year, the homeless population in New Orleans had almost doubled to approximately 12,000 persons compared to the period prior to the storm. This is an opportunity to bring the most disadvantaged and at-need home. I urge Congress take this critical step of providing the necessary housing funding for this important Louisiana recovery initiative. And, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this funding in negotiations with the House of Representatives to ensure its inclusion in the final funding package.

Yes, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Enzi, the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, I object.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the need for dramatic, bold health care reform in this country, so every American has real access to good, affordable health care. In doing so, I wrap up a project I began 8 weeks ago with six of my Senate colleagues to highlight our proposed solutions to reforming health care in America.

I start by thanking those colleagues, Senators Coburn, DeMint, Thune, Isakson, Martinez, and Burr for joining me here on the Senate floor and in other venues to talk about this enormously important challenge for all of us.

We have reaffirmed what I think virtually every American knows, that we are in a health care crisis in this country, and there are some fundamental things broken, some fundamental things wrong with our present health care delivery system.

I want to reaffirm what was said: We need not just tinkering at the edges but some bold, dramatic reform to fix that system and give every American access to good quality and affordable health care.

But I also want to reaffirm there are clear choices to be made, dramatically different alternatives. We have laid out our positive choices in contrast to the other large alternatives, the single payer socialized solution that several of our colleagues here in this body have long advocated.

Our message, my colleagues and mine, Senators Coburn and DeMint, Thune, Isakson, Martinez, and Burr, has been simple at its core: The health care system must be centered on the doctor-patient relationship. Health care plans must be flexible and there must be real choice. Americans must be able to own and control their own plans and decisions and choose how those plans work for them, and Washington should not control or run or mandate all of this.

We believe individuals and families should own their own health insurance, and we oppose the Government managing or rationing people's health care. We believe individuals are capable and are better than bureaucrats at choosing that coverage which is best suited for their own needs.

We are opposed to forcing people to enroll in a plan versus providing incentives to encourage individuals and families to choose to enroll. We believe existing Government programs can be improved and modernized so they provide more efficient quality care to serve the purpose of their enactment.

In contrast to that, we oppose attempts to expand these specifically targeted programs and make them a Trojan horse for broader overreaching socialized medicine and sickness management by the Federal Government.

Instead of looking to put more people on Government health care, we should assure that the truly indigent have health coverage. My friends and colleagues who tried to rationalize a dramatically expanding SCHIP, for example, the ability to offer Government health care to already insured children, argued we have to put children first. But last year this Senate unfortunately and overwhelmingly rejected an amendment by Senator Coburn that would have assured that all children in the United States would have health care coverage before funding special interest pork projects.

We believe we should open and expand the health insurance marketplace to Americans so they can shop for health care across State lines and let insurance companies compete to provide quality, cost-effective care.

We oppose increasing the number of costly mandates that price individuals in so many cases out of the market and restrict consumer choice and access.

As my friend from South Carolina stated, there are almost 2,000 individual mandates in health care, covering in some cases acupuncturists and hair prostheses.

These mandates obviously drive up the cost of health care. In fact, according to the CBO, for every 1 percent increase in the cost of health care, 300,000 people lose their insurance. So there is a real human cost to so many of these mandates. This is supposed to be a free market society. I am perplexed as to why a consumer in South Carolina should not be able to shop for cheaper health insurance if that product is offered and sold in Louisiana.

This is commonsense reform to drive down mandates to a reasonable level. It would force insurance companies to compete with each other across State lines to offer cheaper quality plans. Americans are able to purchase or invest in almost anything in any State of the Union. This does promote competition. It encourages companies to offer better prices and better quality and more attractive interest rates for savings and better service. Why can't we bring that positive aspect to the market of health insurance?

My colleagues and I who join together in this discussion recognize that seniors have increasingly turned to Medicare Advantage plans because they offer better value, more choice, a higher quality of care than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. We oppose attempts to cut Medicare Advantage and reduce health care choices for seniors. Again, unfortunately, too many folks in this body are moving in the other direction. In fact, the chairman of the Finance Committee has indicated that the majority side of the aisle will offer a Medicare package that will likely significantly cut funding for the popular Advantage plan.

I have heard from thousands of Louisiana seniors who are overwhelmingly pleased with their Medicare Advantage plans. I hope we can preserve this option for seniors and find a reasonable compromise so we don't cut Medicare Part C and negatively affect those seniors.

We believe we should dramatically reform the tax treatment of health care by providing powerful incentives that will increase access by allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money to pay for health care. We oppose tax increases that do the opposite, that seize American money from American families to pay for government-run and government-dominated health care. That limits access to doctors. It lowers the quality of health services. Addressing health care through our Tax Code would fundamentally change the health care market, if we do it in the right way. By letting Americans keep more of their money for health care through refundable tax credits, we can empower Americans with more resources to obtain and access care.

We have seen the results of increased utilization of health savings accounts. We want to see that when given the freedom to keep their tax- free money for health care, Americans will make conscious efforts to stay healthier, make better health care decisions, and shop for more cost-effective care and services. HSAs, health savings accounts, are a newly implemented concept and one that is working. Americans want choice, and tax advantage options such as HSAs allow for more choice in health care. We know our proposals would reform a broken system into one that is patient centered, high quality, lower cost, and where families choose and own their own health care plan. Government-run health care does not work and limits access and choice for families.

If you do not believe that, look to our neighbors. To the north we see Canada, which has a weekly lottery to see which of their citizens, in essence, can go to the doctor. Look to our friends across the Atlantic, to the British. The British National Health Service recently promised to reduce the wait time for hospital care to 4 months. That is supposed to be a dramatic improvement under that model, under Great Britain's national health care system.

Is that the kind of health care we want Americans to have? I sincerely hope our proposals over the last 8 weeks will be some part of promoting this badly needed debate. I sincerely hope that important debate leads to action, to results in the Senate and the Congress, results for the American people. Health care is one of the most important issues for American families today. It is time we actually do something instead of sitting on our hands in Washington. We need to go back to the

States to talk about how we need to reform the American health care system. It is time to embrace the challenge of health care reform and do something now, not just punt to future Congresses, future Washington politicians, future Presidents.

I hope our discussion over the last 8 weeks helps promote that, not just debate but debate leading to action to improve the lives of all Americans with regard to health care.

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

Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this consensus, bipartisan farm bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to show strong bipartisan support.

I support this bill fundamentally for three reasons: First, as the last farm bill, it establishes predictability for our farmers, a stable environment so they can plan and prosper in the future. Second, it does that in a fiscally responsible way--no tax increases, payment limit reform, and other reforms--to move us down the path of fiscal responsibility. Third, it does some very crucial and important work for Louisiana farmers in particular in a number of different areas.

In the area of sugar, we have a three-quarter of a cent loan rate increase, the first such loan rate increase since 1985. It is long overdue.

In the rice industry, the industry requested changes to the uniform loan rate for different types of rice to make that more uniform and helpful to the industry, and we have done that.

In the area of timber, there are tax provisions that reduce maximum taxes on gains from certain timber from 20 percent, the capital gains rate, to a maximum of 15 percent. That is enormously important.

In the area of milk, as my colleague from Pennsylvania mentioned, there are important improvements and provisions, changes to the MILC Program that will help domestic dairy farmers.

There are plenty of good, solid, responsible reasons to be for this bill. Fundamentally, it will create that predictability, that stability our farmers need to plan into the future and to prosper into the future, which is good not just for them but for all Americans, including Americans as consumers, which, of course, is all of us.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. I encourage President Bush to reconsider his veto threat and not veto the bill. But certainly, if it is necessary, I will stand and vote to support overriding that Presidential veto. I encourage my colleagues to also be firm in that regard.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished ranking member for the courtesy.

Motion To Instruct

Madam President, I have a motion I send to the desk.

Madam President, if I could briefly explain this motion, it attempts to, again, get us to deal directly with the enormously important issue, the real crisis that consumers across America face; that is, the high and escalating cost of energy, including gasoline at the pump.

This will finally suggest to the American people that we get it, that we understand their plight, that we feel their pain, if you will, to use an often used phrase, and we are actually going to do something about it. We are going to act.

This motion to instruct the conferees would show the Senate is serious about increasing energy supplies and doing that to decrease gasoline prices.

The motion is very simple. It would instruct the budget conferees to include a reserve fund for future legislation that we would be expressing an intention to pass. That legislation would allow a Governor, with the concurrence of his or her State legislature, to petition for increased energy exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf off of that State.

It would also allow for revenue sharing coming from such exploration and production, to give producing States a fair share on new areas of production and new leases made available.

Specifically, I would suggest that we follow the precedent and the policy we set a few years ago. As we opened new areas of the gulf, we said the producing States will have a fair share, will finally get revenue sharing--37.5 percent of the revenue from that new production.

Finally, this would only happen if the price of regular gasoline in the United States reaches $5 a gallon at the pump.

The American people are wondering right now if we understand what their daily lives are all about because as gasoline prices at the pump are high, and higher the next day, and much higher the next month, we seem to want to do absolutely nothing about it.

This Congress, under Democratic leadership, came into power in January of 2007. As that happened, the Democratic leadership of this new Congress was very clear that an absolute top priority was to deal with sky-high energy prices.

At the time fuel prices were about $2.33 a gallon at the pump. Well, if that was sky high then, I do not know what adjective to use for today because since that time, from January 2007 to today, we have gone from $2.33 a gallon at the pump to about $3.72 a gallon--a 61-percent increase. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any real end in sight.

Now, the American people get this because they live it. They go to the gas pump weekly. They live it. They see that bill for filling up their tank go higher and higher. They have to wonder if we get it because we talk a lot on the Senate floor, we debate a lot, but what have we done? In my opinion, very, little on this crucial challenge-- even crisis--facing the American people.

When I look at this issue, I go back to economics 101: supply and demand. Price is set by the intersection of demand and supply. So you can try to stabilize or lower prices in two ways: You can try to decrease demand; you can try to increase supply.

I think our energy situation is so dire, so challenging, the escalating prices are so great, the pace of escalation is so staggering, that we need to take action on both sides of the equation. We need to do everything possible on both sides of the equation.

We need to lessen demand or at least mitigate increasing demand from other countries worldwide, such as China and India. We cannot control what they do. Their demand is increasing enormously. But at least we can try to mitigate that with demand reductions in our own economy. I support those measures: greater efficiency, greater conservation, moving to alternative forms of fuel and energy. That is all absolutely crucial. We need to do that. We have done a little of it; we need to do more.

But as we do that, we cannot ignore the supply side of the equation. We need to address both sides at the same time. We need to do everything reasonable we can on both sides of the equation at the same time.

That brings us to supply. For far too long, Congress has absolutely ignored the supply side of the equation, has absolutely refused to do anything to increase supply in this country--by increased exploration and drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf or in Alaska or anywhere else.

I do not know how long we are going to wait. What does the price have to get to before we hear the American people and before we finally act more on the demand side, yes, and more on the supply side?

Again, my motion to instruct would address this challenge head on. It would say, if the price at the pump gets to $5 a gallon--we are not there yet. We are below $4, but if it gets to $5 a gallon, is that high enough to get us to act, to get us to do something, to get us to, yes, address demand but also address supply?

I think the American people think that is plenty high enough to get us to act. If we push past that point, then under my motion to instruct, we would support a reserve fund for legislation to allow exploration and production off our coasts on the Outer Continental Shelf.

But, again, I want to emphasize there would be two important rules we would have to follow with this increased exploration and production. No. 1, the host State coast we are talking about would have to want that activity to happen. That Governor and that State legislature would both have to say: Yes, we believe this is good for the country; we believe this is good for the State; we want this activity to happen.

Secondly, when the activity does happen, that host State would get a fair share of the revenue, would get the same share as we set for the host States in the gulf when we opened new areas of the gulf a couple years ago: 37.5 percent. That host State could then use that revenue for its priorities: education, K-12, higher education, highways, environmental cleanup, beach restoration.

In the case of my State, Louisiana, it is perfectly clear what our priority for that money is. We have already passed not only legislation but State constitutional amendments regarding how we are going to use that money. It is to address the crisis that is happening on our coast, to battle coastal erosion, to enhance coastal restoration, to build hurricane protection, and to build hurricane evacuation routes.

To me, that is a very commonsense consensus approach. The price of gasoline has been rising astronomically. As I said, from the start of this Democratically led Congress, it has already risen 61 percent. The Democratic leadership of this Congress began in January 2007 saying this is a top priority. Yet little to nothing has happened, as that price has risen 61 percent.

Are we finally going to hear the pleas of the American people? Are we finally going to act on all sorts of fronts to try to stabilize and bring down these prices? This is a sensible solution on the supply side that can have a real impact.

Let me reiterate. We need to do everything conceivable, both on the demand side and the supply side, because our challenge is that great. I support demand side measures. I supported increased efficiency standards. I supported the measure we passed a couple days ago temporarily ceasing filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So we decrease demand in that very modest way. We need to do more in terms of fuel efficiency, conservation, and new forms of fuel and energy.

But as we address much more aggressively the demand side of the equation, we cannot ignore the supply side. We need to increase supply, particularly domestic supply, at the same time. We have enormous reserves in this country off our coasts, as well as in Alaska, as well as places on shore to do that. What we have not mustered so far is the political will and the votes in Congress to allow our people and our industry to do it.

My motion would say $5 a gallon--if we get there, we sure as heck need to act. We sure as heck need to do all of those sensible things on the supply side, just as we should on the demand side.

I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this sensible measure. The leadership of this new Congress has been talking about energy prices since the Congress came in in January 2007. The only thing that talk has done is be concurrent with the rise in prices at the pump of 61 percent, from about $2.33 a gallon to $3.73 a gallon.

Talk is not good enough. The American people deserve action. They deserve action on the demand side, much more aggressive action than we have taken to date. They sure as heck also deserve action on the supply side to increase our domestic supply, which can have a major impact on price at the pump.

I urge my colleagues to support this sensible motion in that regard.

I yield back my time.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, if I can briefly respond on my own time-- and I invite a conversation or colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Florida--I hope the distinguished Senator realizes that in this proposal, in order for any offshore drilling to take place, both the Governor and the State legislature of the host State have to say, yes, we want it. That is an absolute requirement under this proposal. The distinguished Senator from Florida knows Florida politics far better than I, but based on everything I know, that is not going to happen in Florida, including under Republican Governors and Republican legislatures, anytime soon. So I don't understand why he considers this a threat to the State of Florida, because they are in absolute control of their own destiny under the details of my motion. If the Senator has a response to that simple fact, I would love to hear it and engage in a discussion.

Mr. President, if I can reclaim my time.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute since I seemed to cede all my time.

I thank the Chair.

Quite honestly, I am not sure I understood that response. My simple point was that Florida under my motion is in control of its own destiny, and if Florida doesn't want drilling, the Governor and the State legislature, Florida doesn't get drilling.

There is a little bit of caveat to that. I think the Cubans are going to drill off Florida if we do nothing. That is moving forward anyway. Or the Chinese through Cuba. But otherwise, Florida doesn't get drilling.

My other response is, here we are caught in a stale debate again. It isn't either/or. It isn't oil and gas or alternative fuels. Our energy picture is so challenging it clearly has to be both. We need a future of new fuels and new technology. We also need to get to that future in the short and medium term. We need to do both things on the demand and the supply side. Let's start acting for the good of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this motion is very straightforward. It creates a reserve fund in support of the following bill, a bill that would say: If the price at the pump, the price of gasoline reaches $5 a gallon--if it reaches $5 a gallon--then we are going to allow exploration and production off our coasts in the Outer Continental Shelf, but only if two conditions are met. No. 1, the host State wants it; the Governor and the State legislature of the host State say yes, we want that activity; and No. 2, the host State gets a fair revenue share of 37.5 percent which is the policy and the precedent we set about 2 years ago.

It would also ensure that nothing in this bill would disrupt military training, military activity off the coast, and that also a host State could decide to do natural gas only.

We can't drill our way out of this energy problem, but increased domestic supply is part of the solution. We need a new energy future, but we also need to get to that future.

Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have consumed 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I also rise on the Senate floor today to talk about the crisis we face in terms of gasoline and energy prices and the need for us to act in terms of this true crisis that affects every Louisiana family I represent and every American family this body represents.

When this new Congress, led by Democratic leadership, took office, energy prices, gasoline prices were supposed to be a top priority. At the time, the price at the pump was $2.31. Yet today it has risen to $3.76 a gallon. That is a 61-percent increase.

If this was such a priority at $2.31, if we have had this dramatic increase, the fastest, the most dramatic, the most onerous on the consumer in history, why isn't this leading to action? The simple reality is that it is not.

This Congress has been tangled in inaction, unable to take significant action on this issue, and that has to end for the good of the American people.

As my colleague from Texas reiterated, this is not overly complicated. Price is set by the equation of where supply meets demand. That is economics 101. That is the first lesson of economics. So we need to do everything we can to reduce demand, mitigate worldwide demand, which is clearly increasing, particularly from rapidly growing countries such as China and India, and we can do that through conservation, fuel efficiency, and new sources of energy. But we also need to increase supply. We need to do both at once because our energy picture is so challenging and so dire.

So I rise to join my colleagues who are saying we need to act, we need to break out of this gridlock, we need to act on energy prices which affect all American families.

Unfortunately, we had that opportunity in the last several weeks and, once again, the Senate passed on the opportunity, shut down the opportunity to take real action.

Again, this is an enormous challenge, and we need to do everything we can, both on the demand side--and I support those measures: increased energy efficiency, increased levels of conservation, development of new technology and new energy sources. We have done a little bit of that, but we need to do more. But we also need to act on the supply side, increasing our supply of energy, particularly our domestic supply which increases our energy independence, lessens our dependence on unfriendly foreign nations.

Several weeks ago, we were on an FAA bill, and I had an amendment at the desk that would constitute real, meaningful action. It was very simple. It would have established a trigger at the price of $126 per barrel of oil. When the price reached that mark--and we are, unfortunately, perilously close already--then the trigger would have been pulled, and we would have been able to explore and produce off America's Outer Continental Shelf, where we have vast resources of energy. But we would only do that with two significant caveats, with two significant demands.

The first is that the host State involved, wherever we were proposing drilling, would have to want that activity. The Governor and the State legislature would both have to affirm that they wanted to produce off their coast. It is very important, very fair, respecting State sovereignty and States rights.

Secondly, my amendment would have built on provisions we passed several years ago to give those host States significant royalty sharing so anything produced off their coast, 37.5 percent of that royalty would go to the State for the State to use on its top priorities, whether they be highways or higher education or, in the case of Louisiana, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, hurricane evacuation routes. That was a very sound, sensible policy we set a couple years ago as we opened new areas of the gulf.

My amendment, which I had at the desk for the FAA reauthorization bill, would have expanded on that good policy initiative. Unfortunately, we couldn't have a full debate on that amendment. We couldn't have any vote on that amendment because the Democratic majority leader filled the amendment tree, took up all opportunity for amendment for himself and blocked all other amendments from coming to the floor.

That is unfortunate on any issue. It is particularly unfortunate, again, on the top concern of the American people, when prices at the pump are sky-high and continuing to rise, when they have risen from $2.31 a gallon at the beginning of this Democratic Congress to $3.76 a gallon today--a dramatic, onerous, 61-percent increase.

Yesterday, we had another opportunity to break through the gridlock and act, and it was by adopting the McConnell-Domenici amendment. That amendment proposed a number of measures, including something very similar to my Vitter amendment regarding the Outer Continental Shelf.

I thank the Chair. That McConnell-Domenici amendment included a number of measures, something very similar to my proposal with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf. It would have dramatically expanded our domestic supply. It would have done something real, concrete and meaningful and have a significant impact over time on the price at the pump.

Yet again, the Senate refused to act, refused to move forward with that significant proposal that would do major things on the supply side and would couple it with other actions we are taking and further actions we need to take on the demand side.

Instead, we did something extremely modest. We said: For now, we are not going to continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I supported that move. It is true that will free up 70,000 barrels of oil to put into the open market versus pumping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but that is very modest. That is hardly going to make a dent on the price at the pump.

In contrast, all the provisions of the McConnell-Domenici amendment, all that extra supply domestically would have meant 3 million barrels in contrast to 70,000. Yet again, the Democratic leadership and the Senate overall refused to act, refused to address this issue, the most serious that Americans are facing today, the one that hits their pocketbook over and over, causing them real concern about their family budget and how they are going to make it.

I urge the Senate to get out of this do-nothing attitude. I urge the Senate

to act on this crucial issue for all American families.

Again, this is not brain surgery. This is economics 101, supply and demand. It is not either/or. We need to do everything we can to lessen demand, and I support those measures to increase efficiency, to increase efforts at conservation, to increase new technology efforts that will lead us to new fuel sources. That is absolutely necessary. But it needs to be coupled with action to increase supply, particularly domestic supply, by tapping those vital reserves, particularly on our Outer Continental Shelf.

I join the Senator in Texas in asking, if we are not going to do it now at $3.76 a gallon, when are we going to act? Are we going to wait for $4? Are we going to wait for $5? We need to act now. This is a serious issue for all Americans. This hits the pocketbook of every American family. We need to act now. We need to act not with political demagoguery, not with pure rhetoric. We need to act with measures that have an impact, both on the demand side and the supply side. I hope the Senate and the Congress move to do that.

Mr. President, I wish to also speak on Israel's 60th anniversary. It is a very important date for a truly remarkable country and a remarkable people who, in a mere six decades of existence, have built a vibrant, successful, modern democracy out of almost nothing.

When I was still a student, I had the opportunity to visit Israel with my sister. She had a college friend who had moved to Israel after graduation. Even back then--I was very young--I couldn't help be impressed by the determination and perseverance of all the people I met and their effort to build a vibrant, democratic state, to create a safe, secure homeland for all Jews, no matter where they may have originally been from around the world.

I had a second opportunity to visit Israel as a Member of Congress many years later. It was a very different sort of trip, very different itinerary, a very different set of meetings than when I was a student. But I left with the same strong feelings of respect and admiration for all the people of Israel, the same recognition of their determination and unflagging faith in their nation and countrymen. Their belief in the importance of their mission had not faded at all in the years between my visits.

What makes today especially notable is it is the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. There is wonderful hope in this celebration of the 60th anniversary, and there is also sober appreciation of the challenges that remain.

On the hopeful side, on the impressive side, is that in a mere 60 years, as I have said, Israel has created a nation characterized by strong democratic principles, a compassionate and determined people, innovative industry, especially in technology, medicine, and science, a competitive global economy.

In a mere six decades, Israel has built all that tremendous innovation, tremendous economic prosperity and progress virtually out of nothing, virtually out of the sands of the desert. It has become a beacon of freedom and democracy in a region that has very few examples to speak to. Israel is the only fully developed democracy in that sense. It represents to all peoples what can be achieved when people come together in a common cause, set aside differences, work together in a very determined way to make life better for them and their children. I recognize this important anniversary.

I yield the floor.