Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have the highest regard for the distinguished junior Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott, but on this issue I disagree with him. I believe we have to move forward on energy legislation any way we can. If it is piecemeal, let's do that. The people of the State of Nevada are suffering from high gasoline prices. We have the second or third highest gas prices in all America.

For example, the bill we are going to take up next week, the FSC bill, in that bill I think very importantly the managers of that bill added to that some very important tax provisions that deal with energy. There are some short-term solutions I will speak to briefly, but there are some long-term solutions we must address.

Senators Baucus and Grassley in the FSC bill address that. What have they done? They have provided tax credits for alternative energy. The tax credit for wind has expired. They are going to add, if we pass that legislation, a tax credit for solar, a tax credit for geothermal. This is the solution to the energy problems we have in this country. It will happen. It is only a question of time, when it is to happen. We need not depend forever on the vagaries of what OPEC does. We have to depend on what we can do.

People come to this Senate floor and say we need to produce our way out of the problem we have. We cannot do that. The United States has, even counting ANWR, less than 3 percent of the entire oil reserves in the world. Ninety-seven percent-plus of the oil is someplace other than the United States. So it is common sense that we cannot produce our way out of the problems we have today. We can do some things with the oil that we do have. We can make it better. We can have some of our smaller producing wells produce a little more. We can do some with exploration. But the answer is not that. We cannot produce our way out of the problems we have with oil.

So what can we do? The one thing we can do is do something with alternative energy. The Nevada test site in the deserts of Nevada has been the site for almost 1,000 nuclear explosions, some above the ground, some below the ground. At the Nevada test site, if you put solar panels on the Nevada test site you could produce enough electricity to serve the entire United States. The Nevada test site with solar panels could produce enough electricity to satisfy all the needs of this country.

We know that wind energy is doing very well. In the Midwest there are some farmers making more money on their windmills producing electricity than they are from the crops they produce. We know that Nevada has been said to be the Saudi Arabia of geothermal. We have, not unlimited, but huge amounts of geothermal power in the State of Nevada. You can drive places in Nevada and see steam coming out of the ground naturally. It is because of geothermal. Some wells have been tapped. The problem with tapping the resources we have with geothermal is the people have no tax credits to do it like they had for wind. If we did that, there would be immediately, in Nevada, a tremendous surge in the production of electricity which would feed our state, California, and other parts of the West with badly needed electricity. There would not be any pollution. The same, of course, applies to solar. So we need to do that.

There are some other solutions to problems we have. Of course, among the long-term solutions I did mention is more fuel-efficient vehicles. We certainly need to do a better job in that regard.

In recent years, there have been two major releases of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--during the Clinton years and during the first Bush years. It was done because it brought down the price of oil.

For example, in January 16, 1991, there was a decision made to release oil from our petroleum reserve. The next day crude oil prices fell from $32 to $21 a barrel. Of course, it dropped. We have done it on two separate occasions--during the Clinton years and the first Bush years. It made a difference.

A second release occurred. After that second release, within a week of the time the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was being used, the price of oil dropped from $37 to $31 per barrel.

Right now the price of oil is near $40 a barrel. Why doesn't the President release this oil from the petroleum reserve? I don't know. I know one thing. It would certainly be a help if that happened. It would increase the supply in this country. As supply is increased, we would have a lessening of prices.

The other thing which I think is extremely important is that we recognize there are other ways of bringing down the cost of oil. One thing the President could do is use his bully pulpit and his influence, which we understand is significant with the Saudis. Bob Woodward just published a book that said they knew about the war before anybody in the Congress knew about it.

Also, of course, we have been told the President has been assured that in September they will start releasing more oil. That will also bring down the cost of oil. I suggest rather than waiting until this fall the President do something now to pressure the Saudis into releasing more oil. They have cut by 10 percent their production of oil which began on April 1.

These countries are supposed to be our friends. We have young Americans giving their lives in Iraq right now to make that part of the world safer and more stable. It doesn't seem right the Saudis and other OPEC nations are not recognizing what we are doing for them.

We also know there are other things that can happen. The bill that was defeated on the Senate floor last year had a lot of problems with it. Senator McCain referred to it as a ``hooters and polluters'' bill because of all of the ornaments that have been attached to the so- called ``Christmas tree.''

There are things which we need to do. People have said, Well, these things the President can do now do not matter. Getting the Saudis to increase the supply of oil would matter and, of course, having more oil come out of our strategic reserve would matter. The other thing the President could do is say let us stop buying oil to be put in the SPR right now. Some analysts suggest prices will only go down by 10 to 20 cents a gallon. That is significant.

In Nevada where the prices are approaching $2.50 a gallon, it seems to me that would be a help. Anything would help. As far as I am concerned, that is a good enough reason to do it.

Consumers need immediate relief. We are talking about as much as a million barrels of oil a week. That is about how much we put in the SPR which we are buying from the OPEC nations when they cranked up the price of oil. It doesn't make sense to do that. This isn't the huge supply of oil that comes into this country on a weekly base, but it still is a lot. It will make a difference.

The latest price spike in Nevada was caused, they say, by the shutting down of the refinery in northern California

which produces only 165,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5 million barrels a week. If that is the case, that is the same amount of oil we are buying from OPEC to put in the SPR. That logically would indicate the price should come down.

I think if we are going to do anything for energy in this country, we have to take it piecemeal: Do ethanol, and do what we are going to do next week with the legislation that has been crafted by Senators Grassley and Baucus to give tax credits to the people who will produce good, clean energy.

The President in his State of the Union message said he wanted to move to a hydrogen economy. If we are going to depend on a hydrogen economy, we have to do something about producing hydrogen and use something other than fossil fuel to produce it, which only compounds the pollution. The only way you can have a hydrogen economy is produce the hydrogen by using alternative energy--sun, wind, or geothermal.

I hope we can, as Senator Dorgan has indicated, move forward very quickly and dispose of this legislation. If people vote the way they did the last time, this should go away very quickly. For people who say, I voted for it once, I am not going to this time because it is different form and it is stand alone, it seems to me it should be easier to do it that way than when it was in the bill which had so many different problems.

I commend and applaud the Senator from South Dakota for moving this particular piece of legislation which will improve the energy needs of this country.

I hope we look long term and do things other than what we have been doing; that is, try to produce our way out of the situation that is so desperate for the people in Nevada who have the third or fourth highest gas prices in America.

I object.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Can the Chair give the Senator from Nevada an idea of how long it would take to read the amendment?

I object.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

It is not in order?

Reserving the right to object.

I object.

I object. I don't know what ``temporary'' means.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from New Mexico is asking that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided; following that, the reading of the amendment will continue?

Mr. President, it goes without saying, but I will say it again, I have worked with Senator Domenici during my entire 18 years in the Senate. During more than half of that time, he and I have worked as the chairman or ranking member, as the majority of the Senate goes back and forth, on one of the most important subcommittees there is in the appropriation process, Energy and Water, so we have worked very closely together.

We are partners in that legislation, and he is my friend. However, on this energy bill let me say this: First, today of all days is a day when the Supreme Court of the United States was hearing a most important case, a case the Vice President of the United States has stalled for 3\1/2\ years. He had meetings during the transition period after President Bush and he were elected, meetings with people from the energy field, oil companies, automobile manufacturers, but we are not certain, people from the nuclear industry.

All the American people have asked for in 3\1/2\ years is tell us who they met with, what they talked about, and when the meetings took place. He has refused. Now this matter has gone to the Supreme Court, and that argument was held today. These were secret meetings, I guess is what they are, and if there was ever a time in the history of the country where we need to debate the energy crisis, as some refer to it openly, it is today. The first step to that would be to find out who the Vice President met with, why he met with them, what he talked about, and how long the meetings took place. He has refused to do that.

I also say that this country has arrived at a point in time where we are not going to be able to do major legislation. Let me give some examples with rare exception. Take, for example, the endangered species bill. The endangered species bill has caused problems in the State of North Dakota, and I know this because I have heard my two colleagues from North Dakota talk about the problems of the endangered species law in North Dakota. But it is not limited to North Dakota; the endangered species law is a problem for most States in the country. The State of Nevada ranks 34th in the number of listings for endangered species.

A number of years ago Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator Kempthorne and I tried to do a major revision of that bill. We could not do it. In that same Environment and Public Works Committee, there was a decision made that we needed to do something about Superfund. We could not. We have tried. Senator Smith, Senator Lautenberg, and others on that committee tried. They were at loggerheads. They could not come up with a major revision of that bill.

So the decision has been made by most legislators that the way to improve the Superfund law that now exists is to improve it by bits and pieces. The way to improve the endangered species law in this country is to do it by bits and pieces. The Energy bill is the same thing.

I say to my friend, we are not going to pass a bill that the Senator from Arizona referred to as the hooters and polluters bill. Why was it referred to as the hooters and polluters bill? Well, many of us think it did nothing to clear up the environment. Where did the hooters come in? One of the ornaments attached to the Christmas tree bill was to give a financial stipend to a Hooters operation some place in the southern part of this country. That is where it got its name.

We are not going to pass major legislation on energy in the near future. What we can do, though, is pass the part on which there is general bipartisan agreement. Ethanol is an example. More than two- thirds of the Senate voted for that legislation. It seems to me entirely logical that we should dispose of that matter. It would do some good to help the energy crisis we all acknowledge is in this country.

As I spoke about earlier today, I throw bouquets to Senators Baucus and Grassley for having done what they did in the recent FSC bill by including in that something that is extremely important--section 45, production tax credits for renewable resources--that expands and extends a credit for wind, geothermal, solar, and biomass. That is important. We should pass that measure next week. I think we are going to do that. We should do the ethanol bill now.

My friend from Arizona, the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, asked, What is going on in the Senate?

I ask that the Senator from Nevada be given an extra 4 minutes and the Senator from New Mexico be given an equal amount of time.

It is possible. I will think about it after.

I ask unanimous consent that I be given 4 additional minutes, an extra 4 minutes be given to the Senator from New Mexico, and then we go back to reading the amendment when I finish.

Mr. President, what I was saying is the Senator from Arizona asked, What is going on in the Senate? I mean, can anyone imagine--and I am paraphrasing--they offered an amendment to energy on a bill that deals with the Internet tax?

My friend from Arizona, who is one of the most astute politicians this country has ever seen, knows what is going on. We are in the Senate. This has been going on for more than 200 years. We have the right to do that. In years past, no one ever considered it anything out of the ordinary.

The problem we have in the Senate today is we do not do anything. In the last 4 weeks, we have voted 11 times. Why? Because amendments are offered to important legislation like FSC and there is a desire to have a vote, for example, on overtime. How much time does Senator Harkin want to debate that? He will take 10 minutes and vote on it. We have not been given that privilege.

So what is going on in the Senate today is what has gone on for 200 years. The difference is, nothing is ever brought to conclusion because people do not want to vote. The majority has made a decision they do not want to vote, so we do not vote.

So I say to my friend from Arizona, we are doing what has been historically done in this body. Some may ask, Well, Senator Reid, why would you ask this amendment be read? Because I feel that offering this amendment of some 800 to 900 pages is only a message that says we are going to continue doing business in the Senate the way we have all year long and do nothing. Everybody knows that we are not going to pass this. It is the same as the endangered species. It is the same as Superfund. We are not going to pass a hooters and polluters bill.

We can take bits and pieces out of that legislation and do some good for this country. I repeat: To do the section 45 production tax credit would be a tremendous boon to this country. We would be able to start producing energy alternatively. It would help the capital markets. There would be construction jobs. I think it is the right way to go.

I am disappointed that my friend from New Mexico, who has worked hard--as my friend from North Dakota said, no one has worked harder on this energy bill than my friend from New Mexico, the distinguished senior Senator, but I say to him, someone I should not be giving advice to because he has far more experience than I have, this bill is not going to pass. I repeat for the third time, look at what we have tried to do with endangered species, look what we have tried to do with Superfund. Those are only two of the numerous other pieces of legislation we need to work on, but let's do them piece by piece. That will be my suggestion.

I will give some thought to taking away my objection to reading the amendment, but I am going to give some thought to that because I think offering this amendment is only a way of preventing our moving forward on this important legislation. I have spoken to the manager of this bill. He thinks that working with Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, that we can come up with a compromise in a reasonable period of time. It is totally appropriate that we dispose of Senator Daschle's amendment. People should vote it up or down. More than two-thirds of the Senate approved it at one time. Why should that change?

I would like an additional 1 minute on our side with the same rule in effect

Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has stated the bill he offered is not the so-called hooters and polluters bill, so named by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, but in fact it is a slimmed down version of that bill.

I ask through the Chair of my friend from New Mexico, is that, in fact, the case? Could you answer that yes or no? The bill that is now before the Senate is a slimmed down version of the so-called hooters and polluters bill?

I ask, does this bill have in it the section 45 production tax credit?

I ask my friend from New Mexico, would you support-- supporting your bill here, that is the one I have offered as an amendment, would you support the FSC bill with the section 45 production tax credit in it?

Mr. President, I am going to, at this time, that being the case, recognizing that what the Senator has offered is a slimmed down version and is not the original bill, and that he would support the provision in the FSC bill--I think a combination of those two might make some interesting votes here in the next day or two--I withdraw my objection to waiving reading the amendment.

I know the Senator from Virginia wants to speak on the underlying bill. I will be as brief as I can.

What I told the Senator from New Mexico, through the Chair, is that it was my understanding that the bill that was offered in the form of an amendment was nearer the original bill that was offered and cloture was not invoked on it previously. I have been told by my staff and others that it is a slimmed down version of the original bill. That was confirmed by the Senator from New Mexico.

I further went on to say, to ask the Senator from New Mexico if it had the section 45 production tax credit in it. He said no. I then went further and said, would he, the Senator from New Mexico, support the FSC bill, which does have the production tax credits in it, and he said he would.

I then said, that being the case, that we have a smaller version of the original Energy bill than I originally thought, and, further, that he would support the FSC bill, including the production tax credit provision that was placed in there by Senators Grassley and Baucus. I then said I think that is going to make for some interesting votes in the next few days.

I would assume the alternatives, I say through the Chair to my friend from New Mexico. I assume the majority has a number of alternatives. They can debate endlessly the amendment you have offered, the amendment the Senator from Arizona has offered, and we already have cloture having been filed on the minority leader's amendment--so it is possible, I don't know if the majority has made that decision, they could file cloture on your amendment.

They could file cloture on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. That is why I said in a couple of days. It takes 2 days for these cloture motions to ripen. Maybe Thursday we could have a vote on all these matters, and I said it would make for some interesting votes.

Mr. President, if the distinguished leader will yield for a brief comment, as I said to Senator Domenici this afternoon, this scenario that has been set up is going to create some very interesting votes because if we move down the road where we come to a McCain cloture vote, if cloture is invoked, then Daschle and Domenici fall. At least that is my understanding. If that is the case, then that part of the Energy bill would be gone. But anyway, that sets up some interesting dynamics here.

We do at least have out here, in addition to the FSC legislation, pieces of the original Energy bill. Who knows, we might wind up doing something on energy.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate J.A. Tiberti on his selection by the Boulder Dam Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America for the 2004 Good Scout Award. His philanthropic ventures and contributions to our State's economy have long made him a valuable part of the southern Nevada community.

The Good Scout Award recognizes an individual who exemplifies Scouting's ideals through professional leadership, community involvement, and personal commitment to excellence. This award reflects the personal character, dedication, and generosity of the recipient, and I can think of nobody more deserving than Mr. Tiberti.

As founder and chairman of Tiberti Companies, Mr. Tiberti has served as a prominent leader in southern Nevada's business community for the last 60 years. The company's construction of schools, hotels, banks, grocery stores and department stores has helped meet the needs of southern Nevada's growing population.

He also contributed to the region's dramatic growth by serving on the Las Vegas Planning Commission for 25 years and as a director of Nevada Power Company for 36 years.

Mr. Tiberti has also been a noted philanthropist, giving generously to many worthwhile causes. In 1979, he contributed $1 million to create the College of Engineering at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. This generous gift expanded the opportunities for higher education available to Nevadans and helped UNLV become one of our Nation's leading universities.

Mr. Tiberti and his family also have longstanding ties with the Boy Scout program and were instrumental in the development of Spencer W. Kimball Scout Reservation, Camp Potosi.

Please join me in congratulating J.A. Tiberti on this well-earned honor.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), are necessarily absent.

I know the Senators who are concerned about this legislation are trying to make a decision as to what is going to happen next, what they are going to do next. It would be to everyone's best interests if we had some time when we could go to the bill tomorrow.

I direct this question through the Chair to the Senator from Tennessee: When do you think you will be in a position to decide whether we can have a time certain to go to the bill or whether we will work off the 30 hours postcloture?

This is a unanimous consent request. I will not take time from the distinguished Senator from Colorado. Under the half hour that has been allotted to the Democrats in our morning business, we would dispense that by giving 10 minutes to Senator Kohl, 10 minutes to Senator Leahy, and 10 minutes to Senator Lautenburg, not necessarily in that order; whoever is there, 10 minutes each.

Madam President, there is no one here from the majority. I know this is time that has been set aside for morning business, and we have assigned speakers on this side. Senator Durbin came over early this morning and expressed a desire to speak regarding Mary McGrory, who was a friend of a number of people in this body and thousands of people around the country. Senator Dorgan also came here to speak on her behalf. We have some extra time now.

Since there is no one here--and if the majority needs additional time, we will give that to them--I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 10 minutes in morning business so that Senators on this side may speak about Mary McGrory. We also add that time in morning business for the majority. That will be an additional 20 minutes if, in fact, the majority wants that time.

I personally express my appreciation to Senator Durbin for his remarkable words on behalf of a tremendously interesting woman. I did not know Mary McGrory when she was a young woman; I only knew her when she was an older woman. She would come to my office and say: You have got more to tell me than that.

She was a wonderful person, and I was a newcomer to her fruitcake society gatherings, but I do say that one of the things that did break her heart was the defeat of Max Cleland. She talked to me about that more than she talked to me about many other things. She cared a great deal about Max, and of all of the unfairness in life that she had seen that was at the top of her list.

Mary McGrory is somebody who stood for fairness. A lot of people in the world are for fairness and level playing fields, but very few people are gifted. She was gifted. There are gifted athletes in the world. She was a gifted writer. She could write and you would say to yourself, that is how I feel, why can I not express it the way she does?

I will miss Mary very much. She was a wonderful woman, someone I will always remember as a person who not only believed in level playing fields but created many level playing fields during her lifetime.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the quorum call run equally against both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I say to my friend from Montana, that is true. We extended your side an additional 10 minutes. Your time was gone, but now you have additional time. As to when it is used now--you were to get the first half; we were to get the second half. It is kind of a jump ball right now, so you have the floor for 11\1/2\ minutes.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Following the use or yielding back of the time, the Chair just announced we will vote on this measure; is that true?

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Leahy still has time remaining under his control.

How much time?

Mr. President, using Senator Leahy's time, I will proceed.

Mr. President, during this lull, prior to the vote on this legislation that has been changed from a constitutional amendment to a statute, I would like to take a few minutes hopefully to clear some of the confusion about the record of my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry. This relates to the PATRIOT Act.

First of all, everyone should understand John Kerry voted for the PATRIOT Act. This, of course, is a man who volunteered to fight for our country in the jungles of Vietnam. He risked his life to keep America safe. He was wounded on three separate occasions, received two medals for heroism for his acts above and beyond the call of duty. These were all in an effort to keep our Nation safe and strong.

Like most of us who voted for the PATRIOT Act, Senator Kerry believed it gave law enforcement officials essential tools they needed in the war against terror.

He not only voted for the PATRIOT Act, he actually authored parts of it. Senator Kerry helped draft the money-laundering provisions of the PATRIOT Act. He believes that provision should be strengthened to include nonbank institutions and increase funding for information gathering and sharing. These provisions have helped choke financial support to terrorist groups.

When Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act we gave it a sunset clause so we, the Senate, the Congress, and the American people, could see how it worked. We understood we were giving the Government unprecedented power and we would want to come back later and fine-tune the balance between the power of Government and the personal rights of citizens.

Some parts of the PATRIOT Act will expire in approximately 20 months. Frankly, with all the important issues and business this Senate has yet to address, I don't understand why we have had a series of speeches on the Senate floor about making permanent the PATRIOT Act. It will not expire, as I have indicated, for 20 more months. At some point we will have to decide which parts of the PATRIOT Act should be reviewed, renewed, expanded, or in some way limited in some instances.

Senator Kerry wants to extend more than 95 percent of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. That is, so everyone is very clear, Senator Kerry believes 95 percent of the PATRIOT Act should remain as it is. But keeping America strong, as Senator Kerry believes, also means protecting our individual rights and privacy. Keeping America free means keeping a rein on the power of Government, so Senator Kerry does support some adjustments to the PATRIOT Act along with a number of other Senators, including the ``liberals'' Craig and Sununu. I say that facetiously because Senator Craig and Sununu are anything other than progressives.

I am also a cosponsor of the amendment Senator Kerry suggests should make adjustments to this act.

Nobody has ever accused any of these Senators--Senators Craig, Sununu, or Kerry--of being soft on terrorism. They are resolute in their commitment to protect our Nation from terror. But they are also resolute in their commitment to protect our individual rights and our freedom--just like John Kerry.

Senator Kerry believes we need to improve the PATRIOT Act by making some changes in the provisions of a

couple of wiretaps, sneak-and-peek warrants, and the seizure of business and library records.

He isn't alone. The House of Representatives voted 309-118 to ban funds for these so-called ``sneak and peek'' searches, which allow government agents to surreptitiously search the homes of citizens, without ever notifying them.

Senator Kerry wants to strengthen the Patriot Act in other areas, by adding new legal and organizational tools to fight terror.

He has been and will be tough on terror, and he will keep America safe. He knows that the Patriot Act is just one of the many weapons we need in that fight against terror.

Senator Kerry understands that we need to improve the lines of communication between different intelligence agencies, and between federal and local officials. He believes that appropriate state and local authorities should have immediate access to national terrorist lists and 24-hour operations center should be created to link local and federal law enforcement. It is called communication.

Senator Kerry has called for tighter protection of chemical factories that could be targeted by terrorists. I am a cosponsor of that legislation. Bowing to the chemical industry, the Bush administration has opposed common sense measures to improve security of 123 chemical plants where the EPA says a terrorist attack could kill or injure one million people. John Kerry knows that we have to do a better job protecting these potential targets.

Senator Kerry understands that we must give our police, firefighters and other first responders the equipment and training they need to respond to terrorist attacks. Right now, they aren't getting everything they need, and the result could be tragic.

Finally, Senator Kerry knows that we aren't doing everything we should to keep our seaports safe. Ninety five percent of our trade outside North America moves by sea, and most of that is concentrated in a handful of ports. Senator Kerry understands that our economy and our national security both depend on keeping our ports safe. We need to develop security standards for our ports, invest in a system of container security and provide more customs inspectors.

These are common sense measures to protect our homeland. Every day that we delay, we leave ourselves open to potential acts of terrorism.

I hope my colleagues won't impugn Senator Kerry's commitment to national security just because he is concerned about safeguarding our personal rights and privacy.

I understand we don't all agree on the need for measures like ``sneak and peek'' searches of American citizens or improving security at our seaports.

Let's debate those differences--but let us never suggest that any Member of this body is not committed to keeping America strong and safe.

I apologize to my friend from Arizona. It is certainly not his fault. I told him it had all been cleared. I thought it had. Senator Feinstein has cleared it; obviously, there are a couple more people.

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

Mr. President, how much time remains on this matter now before the Senate?

Mr. President, I yield back the time of the Senator from Vermont.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield to me for a question?

Senator Landrieu has been waiting for the vote to end. She has to pick up her children, but she first wants to speak about her children for a couple of minutes. Would the Senator allow her 2 minutes prior to beginning his speech?

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 2336 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I introduce a bill on behalf of myself, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Lautenberg.

We are very fortunate to live in a democratic nation where we can express our opinions freely. That is what America is all about. We can attempt to influence the policies of our Government and even criticize them without fear of retaliation. We can debate important issues without fear of retaliation by anyone.

One of the most heated debates in the last two decades has been the issue of abortion. People on both sides of the issue feel extremely strong. They have argued, demonstrated, and protested with much emotion and passion. The issue is not going to go away soon. I doubt that one side will be able to suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs.

However, there is a need and even an opportunity to find common ground. We can move toward a goal we all share, reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in America. It is possible. And it is necessary to come together and enact effective legislation to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, and address the unmet health care needs of American women.

We can only find common ground by being honest with each other. We can find not only common ground but also common sense solutions in this legislation which I am introducing entitled ``Putting Prevention First.'' I am pleased that Senators Chafee, Boxer, Murray, Corzine and Lautenberg are joining me as cosponsors of this legislation.

The Putting Prevention First Act will help reduce the staggering rates of unintended pregnancies in America. It will reduce the rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases, reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to health care for women.

Specifically, the Putting Prevention First Act will: No. 1, end insurance discrimination against women; No. 2, improve awareness and understanding of emergency contraception; No. 3, ensure that rape victims have information about emergency contraception and access to emergency contraception; No. 4, increase funding for the National Family Planning Program; No. 5, provide funding to allow States to implement a comprehensive approach to sexuality education that includes information about both abstinence and contraception; No. 6, expands teen pregnancy prevention programs; and, No. 7 allows States to expand Medicaid family planning services to low-income women without having to apply for a waiver from the Federal Government.

Nationwide, about one-half of all pregnancies are unintended and half of those end in abortion. This is not just a health problem; it is a public health tragedy. But it does not have to be this way. Most of the unintended pregnancies and resulting abortions can be prevented. We must work together to make that happen, we can find a common ground.

One of the most important steps we can take to prevent unintended pregnancies is ensuring that American women have access to affordable, effective contraception.

I have been on national radio call-in shows and talked about legislation I have worked on with Senator Snowe for so many years to provide for contraceptive equity. One time, a woman called and said: I don't believe in contraception. Well, my simple answer to her was: Then don't use them. But don't prevent others who have different beliefs from having the ability to use these contraceptives.

Today, numerous forms of safe and highly effective contraception are

available by prescription. If used correctly, they could greatly reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies.

One of the greatest obstacles to the use of prescription contraceptives by American women is their cost. Women are educated. They know that they work. They simply do not have the money.

Again, on a radio program, a woman called in and said: I have diabetes. I am pregnant. I didn't want to become pregnant. It is not good for me. She said: But my husband's insurance doesn't cover the pill.

It is amazing, but many insurance policies do not cover prescription contraceptives for women. But they do automatically cover tubal ligations, vasectomies, abortions, and other such things that are much more expensive than prescription contraception.

Now, we have made progress. Federal Employees have access to prescription contraception through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. But we shouldn't limit this benefit to just federal employees.

We know that women on average earn less than men, and yet they must pay far more than men for health-related expenses. According to the Women's Research and Education Institute, women of reproductive age pay 68 percent more in out-of-pocket costs for medical expenses than men, and, of course, that is largely due to their reproductive health care needs.

Because many women cannot afford the prescription contraceptives they would like to use, many go without. Far too often, this results in unintended pregnancies.

The high cost of prescription contraceptives is not just a problem for the millions of women without health insurance, but also for millions of American women who do have health insurance because many insurance plans that cover prescription drugs do not cover contraceptives. So women are forced to either do without contraceptives or pay for them out of pocket and, as I have given an example or two, many families simply cannot afford it. This is unfair to women and their families and it is a bad policy because it causes additional unintended pregnancies and adversely affects the health of women.

Since 1997, Senator Olympia Snowe and I have worked to remedy this problem. Today, as part of the Putting Prevention First Act, I am again proposing common-sense legislation that has received bipartisan support.

The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act-- EPICC, as we call it--requires insurance plans that cover prescription drugs to provide the same coverage for prescription contraceptives. We are not asking for special treatment, only equitable treatment within the context of an existing prescription drug benefit. This legislation is simply the fair thing to do for women.

And making contraception more affordable and more available will enable more women to use safe and effective means to prevent unintended pregnancies. As I said, it is a goal we all share.

Contraceptive coverage is much cheaper than other services, including, as I have said, abortions, sterilizations, and tubal ligations that insurance companies routinely cover. The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which has provided contraceptive coverage for several years because of an amendment offered on this floor, has proved that adding such coverage does not increase the cost of a plan.

This commonsense, cost-effective legislation is long overdue. Promoting equity in health insurance coverage for American women, while working to prevent unintended pregnancies and improve the health of women, is by any means the right thing to do.

We should also take additional steps that would improve access to women's health care for poor and low-income women. Public health programs such as Medicaid and title X provide high-quality family planning services and other preventive health care to underinsured or uninsured individuals. Yet these programs are struggling to meet the growing demand for subsidized family planning services without corresponding increases in funding.

The Putting Prevention First legislation would increase the authorization for title X, and it would allow States to expand Medicaid family planning services to women with incomes of up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level without having to apply to the Federal Government for a waiver.

This commonsense approach has long been championed by Senator Lincoln Chafee. My friend and cosponsor of this legislation knows that contraceptive use saves scarce public health dollars. Every $1 spent on providing family planning services saves an estimated $3 in expenditures for pregnancy-related and newborn care for Medicaid alone.

The Putting Prevention First Act would increase the awareness and availability of emergency contraception, an important yet poorly understood form of contraception. Approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration, emergency contraception pills work to prevent pregnancy, and they cannot disrupt or interrupt an established pregnancy. The emergency contraception pills work to prevent pregnancy, not to interrupt and disrupt a pregnancy. The availability of emergency contraception is very important for women who survive a sexual assault.

I can remember a young woman who worked for me, a teenager. She came to me and said: Could I see you in your office?

I said: Sure. What is the matter?

She said: I was jumped.

She was driving through a part of town alone. Some people pulled her car over and they raped her. I sent her to another friend of mine who is an OB/GYN.

It is difficult to imagine the physical, psychological, and emotional pain endured by a woman who is raped. In addition to the violent attack, she must also worry about the possibility she could become pregnant.

The availability of emergency contraception is important for women who survive a sexual assault. A woman could use emergency contraception in an emergency, such as if she has been raped and doesn't want to become pregnant.

Compassion is a word we have heard a lot from political leaders in recent years. Actions speak louder than words. Surely it would be compassionate to make emergency contraception available to a woman who is raped so she doesn't become impregnated by the thug who brutalized and traumatized her.

The Putting Prevention First Act includes a provision that has been advocated by Senators Corzine and Murray. This provision would require hospitals receiving Federal health dollars to provide information about emergency contraception and make it available to sexual assault survivors who are treated in the emergency room. Simply put, emergency contraception should be made available in an emergency room.

Emergency contraception and emergency rooms go hand in hand. Women who are the victims of rape should be informed of all their options, including emergency contraception.

If they choose that option, it should be available to them right then.

Emergency contraception has been studied extensively and is regarded as a safe and effective method to prevent unintended pregnancies. Its use has been recommended by leading medical authorities, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. An FDA advisory panel has recommended emergency contraception be made available without a prescription. This could prevent 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions in America each year.

Unfortunately, however, emergency contraception remains for the most part a well-kept secret. Most of the women who would use this to prevent an unintended pregnancy are unaware of its existence, and they don't know it is available, if it is available. Even many health care providers do not understand what emergency contraception is, how it works, and who can use it.

To reduce unintended pregnancies by raising awareness about emergency contraception, the Putting Prevention First Act includes a provision championed by Senator Murray that will provide funding to develop and distribute information about emergency contraception to public health organizations, health care providers, and the public. I commend Senator Murray and appreciate her allowing me to include this in my legislation.

These are some of the simple but necessary steps we can and should take to prevent unintended pregnancies. We should embrace these measures to protect the health of American women, prevent unintended pregnancies, and reduce abortion. It is time to put prevention first.

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

Mr. President, will my friend yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, under the Democratic-controlled time, Senator Boxer be recognized for 15 minutes, Senator Jeffords be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and Senator Harkin be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.

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

Mr. President, will the Chair notify this Senator as to how

much time is left on both sides for morning business?

I say to the Chair, I will just wait until we get to the motion to proceed. I assume, because I certainly cannot yield back the Republican time. It is my understanding the Presiding Officer wishes to speak at some time.

I would be happy to relieve the Presiding Officer.

I will just let the time wind down then, and we will get to the bill in 5 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President. I understand the time would run evenly, but if we have no time left, it would just run; is that right?

Mr. President, I withhold that. Probably it would be best to ask unanimous consent that the Republican time be reserved and I be allowed to speak for whatever time I may consume.

If the majority wants more time, consent could be easily obtained.

Mr. President, I want to talk about gasoline prices in the country and in Nevada. This is a terribly difficult situation. It is a story about the wild west, but it is not about Wild Bill Hickock or cowboys or mining or claim jumping. It is about gasoline. Some refer to it as black oil.

This chart illustrates how the gasoline prices in Nevada have skyrocketed. The prices are as of April 5. Prices now are at least 5 cents higher. I was in Nevada last week. Gas prices were approaching $2.50 a gallon in some locations. This has been a burden on the people of Nevada and visitors who come there. The average price on January 5 of this year in Nevada was $1.64 a gallon, which was pretty high compared to the rest of the country. But now it is much higher. This chart, as I have indicated, is as of April 5. We have had an increase in the State of Nevada of about 50 cents a gallon. We can't keep up with the increases in the price with our charts.

This is outrageous. Let me put it into perspective. In a truly bipartisan spirit, the Senate passed a $318 billion highway bill. The bill would create at least 1 million jobs, rebuild and improve our transportation system, and provide a tremendous boost to the economy. In the House of Representatives, Chairman Young proposed a highway bill with a price tag of $375 billion. The White House opposes Chairman Young's proposal to add 5 cents in taxes to a gallon of gasoline and to index future tax increases to inflation.

Meanwhile, the oil companies have gouged--I use that word purposely-- consumers by 10 times the amount of what Chairman Young proposed for an increase in the tax, a half dollar a gallon.

This is ironic. The President doesn't want Americans to pay more at the pump, does he? There is no way the administration can shake the mantle they have assumed of being close to the oil industry. Both the Vice President and the President have been in the oil business. We have been litigating for 3 years whether the Vice President has to disclose who he met with, when he met with them, and what he talked about; that is, the oil companies. He has fought this every step of the way. He has fought it through the court system. It is still going on.

Then there is the fact the President won't call upon Saudi Arabia to increase their supply unless, according to Bob Woodward and his book, the President makes a deal with Prince Bandar to do this in September when it would have more of an impact on the elections. Time will only tell. I would hope if they have made an arrangement with the Saudis, they will start doing it now rather than wait until September.

Nevada gets all of its gasoline from California, so any problem with supply in California is a problem for Nevada. There has been a lot of talk and a lot written about the tight California gasoline market, where prices are typically 20 to 30 cents above the national average. We hear about the lack of refineries. We hear about boutique fuels and reduced inventories contributing to higher prices. I am sure each one of these has some bearing on higher prices. All of these things I have talked about need to be addressed.

I met with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. There are reports there are as many as 300 separate boutique fuels. He thinks there are around 100. But there are lots of them, and that could be a problem. We realize the need to reduce the number of specialty fuels.

We also hear about supply and demand. One thing I have been pushing is something the first President Bush did and President Clinton did, and that is to release oil out of our petroleum reserve to bring up the supply to reduce prices. I know the law of supply and demand cost Nevada ratepayers nearly $1 billion during the western electricity crisis 3 years ago. While Enron was reaping windfall profits--and there must be a better name for that than windfall profits; it was even bigger than windfall profits--it told consumers it was all a matter of supply and demand. But, of course, it turned out Enron was really manipulating the supply. So it wasn't supply and demand.

Based on this bitter experience which is still being litigated in the courts, I was concerned Nevadans might be getting ripped off again when gasoline prices went through the roof this year. I asked the Federal Trade Commission, along with Senator Ensign, to investigate these wild price increases, particularly with an eye toward any possible manipulation in gasoline markets. I needed to assure the citizens of Nevada that gasoline markets were operating fairly and not being manipulated to maximize the profits of oil companies.

It is easy for domestic oil companies to boost their profits by squeezing the supply of gasoline. A combination of refinery capacity reductions and corporate mergers has concentrated control of prices in only a handful of companies. Again, this chart shows how prices have risen steadily in Nevada since the first of the year.

A major spike occurred in February 18, due to a power outage at the Tesoro refinery in northern California that supplies 20 percent of the refined gasoline to that region. In a matter of days, prices in Nevada topped $2 a gallon. The refinery came back on line only a week later, and the supply was restored. But as the chart shows, prices at the pump didn't recover. They had a power outage that slowed that refinery for a week. Prices skyrocketed. The refinery came back on line. Prices stayed high. Actually, they went higher. Prices at the pump didn't recover. Families were still paying an extra half dollar a gallon every time they filled their tanks.

So in case anyone is worried about the impact of a refinery shutdown at Tesoro, they can rest easy. Refiner margins of profits were 70 cents higher a share this quarter; 60 percent higher than analysts had expected. The stock at Tesoro is at a 52-week high.

Let me show another chart, the price of a gallon of gasoline in Nevada. Here is where we arrived at $1.64. The bottom number is important: Crude oil price, 77 cents; refiner margin, that is cost plus profits, at a quarter; dealer margin, 10 cents; taxes, 52 cents. That is the way it is. There's ample profit for the oil companies at $1.64. Anything above that is just additional profit.

In order to understand what drove gasoline prices in Nevada to record highs and why they stayed high even after California refineries temporarily reduced their wholesale price, we need to understand what goes into the price we pay at the pump for a gallon of fuel. As indicated, this chart shows the price of a gallon of gasoline has four main components: cost of crude oil; refiner's margin, which is cost plus profits; the dealer's margin, which is cost plus profit; and fuel taxes, both Federal and State. We must pay attention to the word ``profits.'' It figures big in this discussion.

The chart shows the typical numbers we have come to expect in the Nevada

gasoline market. Crude oil, let's say 77 cents, or $32.34 a barrel; refinery margin, 25 cents; dealer margin, 10 cents; and taxes, 52 cents. These are prices we might expect, but they are already too high because of the extremely high price of crude oil.

Nevada's gas prices are the third highest in the Nation behind Hawaii and California. I am sure we are gaining on them. So these are locked in prices.

Let's go to chart 3, which shows that the latest Nevada gas price increases are not caused by taxes or crude oil costs. Taxes are constant. Crude oil varies only by a small margin. Crude oil used in California refineries is 64 percent from the Alaska North Slope. The majority of our oil doesn't come from Saudi Arabia. So if you look at the contribution of taxes and crude oil to the price of a gallon of gasoline in Nevada during the first 3 months of the year, taxes are constant at 52 cents a gallon, so that does not contribute to a 46-cent increase since the first of the year.

According to data supplied by the California Energy Commission, the price of crude oil acquired by California refineries varied by only 8 cents over the first 3 months of the year, from 78 cents to 86 cents a gallon. That is equivalent to crude oil prices varying by about $3 per barrel.

The reason that price doesn't vary much is the California refineries get 64 percent of their crude oil from the Alaska North Slope and the California fields. So they don't feel the full impact of the more volatile OPEC or west Texas intermediate crude markets.

There is no doubt that the price of crude oil has contributed to higher gasoline prices in Nevada and throughout the country in the last few years. However, it is not the reason why west coast gas prices have skyrocketed in the first 3 months of the year.

If we subtract the 8-cent increase that can be attributed to crude oil, we still have to explain a 38-cent increase in the price of gas. The number I use is smaller than what the real price is in Nevada. These are as of April 5. As I have indicated, they are at least a nickel higher now. That leaves us with dealer and refinery margins, or what is referred to as the domestic ``spread.''

(Mr. Ensign assumed the Chair.)

I also alert the Presiding Officer that prior to the Senator from Nevada becoming the Presiding Officer, I mentioned his name regarding a meeting we had with the Chairman of the FTC.

I would like to go down to chart 4. It is easy to determine refiner margins, which is simply refiner costs plus profits. You simply take the published spot or wholesale price of gasoline and subtract the price of crude oil. I have chosen the spot price in Los Angeles because L.A. supplies the Las Vegas market.

Bear in mind that the cost of refining oil into gasoline will vary by only a few cents. Like taxes, it is pretty much a fixed cost. Consequently, any increase in the refiner margin is actually an increase in profits.

The April 5 Oil Price Information Newsletter, a publisher of industry data, says California fuel blends averaged $10.80 a barrel over crude during the decade.

That is a historical refiner margin of 26 cents for every gallon of gas.

So this chart shows that the refiner profits have recently peaked nearly 50 cents above that historical level.

These estimates are conservative. They are actually lower than the estimates of the California Energy Commission.

Can you imagine these profits? Take the normal profit that a refiner makes on a gallon of gas; now add another half dollar to every single gallon. Nevadans use 2.3 million gallons of fuel a day. Area-wise, it is a very big State. Many people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs--I will read letters indicating that is the case--or they take their kids to school.

When you figure the refiners are making an extra 50 cents of profit on every gallon of gasoline purchased in Nevada, Nevadans alone are paying an extra $1.15 million every single day, or almost $35 million a month--$35 million a month just in the State of Nevada. If ``outrageous'' is not a strong enough term, I don't know what term to use. If this isn't price gouging, it doesn't exist anyplace in the world.

I am for free markets. But it is not a free, competitive market when refiners can exercise this degree of control and manipulation over the supply and the cost of something that is not a luxury but a necessity on which every family must depend.

People have to put fuel in their vehicles. They have no choice. Is the California-Nevada gasoline market truly competitive when the wholesale price of refined gasoline is largely controlled by what a few refiners are willing to sell for and what the markets are forced to pay?

It looks to me as if the market has been manipulated and consumers have been gouged. If you think the worst is over, think again. The spot and refiner profits increased again in early April.

Mr. President, my information, from which I prepared these remarks, and this chart, go back to April 5. It is now the 21st and prices are higher. I returned, as I have indicated earlier, from Nevada and prices there are approaching $2.50 a gallon for some fuels.

Let me go to another chart. This will detail and outline refiner profits. I believe this chart will clearly show that refiner profits drove gas prices in Nevada to $2 a gallon. On this chart, I am simply adding the refiner margin data. It is clear that prices in Nevada were driven to $2 a gallon on a wave of refiner profits. Keep in mind, $2 a gallon doesn't do the trick anymore. If this chart were as of today, we would be up here, the next line on the chart. But we will use this chart for illustrative purposes.

It wasn't taxes; those don't change. It wasn't the cost of crude; that only went up 8 cents a gallon. It had to be refiner profits. There is nothing left.

There is the one last question to be answered: Why have prices remained high, even as refiner profits returned to more normal levels during the first couple weeks of March? Refiner profits dropped a full 30 cents. Why no relief at the pump?

That brings us to the dealer margin, the fourth and final component that determines the price of gasoline.

This last chart I wish to talk about shows that dealer profits added to refiner profits led to a sustained $2.10 per gallon at Nevada pumps. Again, dealer profits added to refiner profits led to a sustained $2.10 per gallon at Nevada pumps. The historic margin is 35 cents. Again, I repeat, they are even higher now by as much as 4 or 5 cents a gallon than they were before. So it is very clear what this shows. Dealer margin is the cost to acquire, store, and sell gasoline, plus profits. This chart shows that dealer margin takes a beating when the refiner rapidly increases spot or the wholesale price of gasoline. The dealer needs to pay up front to acquire fuel before the gasoline makes it to the marketplace.

Once this gasoline is distributed, dealer profits increase dramatically and sustain the price of gasoline at the pump. During March, dealer profits rose to 35 to 40 cents a gallon in Nevada. That is two or three times the historic levels of 10 to 15 cents a gallon.

The combined total of refiner and dealer profits has kept the price of gasoline in Nevada at an astronomical level.

If the wholesale price stays down long enough, the hope is that both dealer and refiner profits will retreat to more normal levels. That is not the case, unfortunately.

Refiner profits are spiking again, and we can expect another round of sustained high gas prices.

Make no mistake, this is a win-win deal for refiners and dealers. In the gasoline business, they say prices shoot up like a rocket and float down like a feather. This is the dynamic that keeps the price of gasoline high, and enables refiners and dealers to gouge consumers.

Let me show you what is on the next chart. I want to be able to show that Nevada gasoline prices are clearly driven by refiner and dealer profits.

This bar chart summarizes the four components of the price of gasoline in Nevada during the first 3 months of the year--a gallon of gasoline would be more specific. It shows that dealer and refiner profits increased the price of gasoline in Nevada from $1.64 to $2.10 per gallon since the first of the year.

With the recent increase in the spot price in early April, we can expect a new round of increases in refiner and dealer profits. The roller coaster ride

of gas prices is becoming a ratchet, moving ever higher, threatening the fragile budgets of working families.

We picked out a few letters I received in my office. I will read only a few of them. Here is one:

I filled up my gas tank today and prices were $2.18 per

gallon for the mid-grade fuel. This is just not acceptable

any longer. I am a single 58 year old female who is working

for ridiculously low wages at UNLV and living on extremely

limited budget. Between the cost of medications, heat,

communications, and other living expenses, now I can't afford

to even get to work. Please, please, please do something to

stop this now. A constituent from Las Vegas.

I am going to read part of another letter, but it is sad, to say the least:

Senator Reid: I have had to cut my grocery budget by $100

per month, and we're already eating cereal for dinner, 28

cent macaroni and cheese, and hot dogs. We also eat hamburger

when we can afford it. It cuts into the lunches I have to

provide for my children since no school lunch program exists

at Virginia City, and I need to insure that my daughter has a

decent lunch . . . in her lunch pail.

This is the same person:

There is something very wrong with our system when our

President fails to act on behalf of the American people.

Protecting us against terrorism is only part of the job. When

he fails to act changing the entire American way of freedom,

choice, and an affordable living, then he's not doing his

job. Somebody needs to get off their duff and do something

about the gas prices, production, and our being held hostage

by OPEC and the Oil Companies. . . .Do something to help us,

so that single parents like me don't have to put our

children's lives and futures at risk by having to move closer

to our jobs and all because of gas prices.

This is signed by a constituent from Dayton, NV.

Another letter:

This is about gas prices. Is there anyway that you can work

a little faster on this? My husband works at Primm, and it

costs us now $100 a week in gas. We were trying to save $20 a

week since he got a pay raise. We have a family of 5 and he

is the only worker. We are in debt because they don't give a

lot in pay raises, and when they do, it seems like the phone

company, electric, gas, and anyone else says ``we need extra

money.'' You give them all that they need, but the poor

people trying to make it on 1 income or even 2 are getting

screwed. We watch every penny and it seems to be gone. We are

having to make a hard choice of what not to buy at the store.

We already don't go out to the movies or anywhere else. I can

see why President Bush doesn't do anything about the gas

prices, since he has an interest in his cut. Thank you for

your time. A constituent from Las Vegas.

Another constituent from Las Vegas:

Thank you so much for looking into the gas price increase.

This has been a very big concern for my husband and myself.

We are a large family and my husband works out at one of the

state prisons. This means a 120 mile round trip every day. .

. .If gas prices increase like they are this is going to hurt

our family a great deal. It in turn could hurt our state as

he is a 13 year state employee, this could mean looking for

another job in town. I do hope and pray you are able to help

our state with this crisis.

Another letter:

Dear Senator Reid: I currently reside in Las Vegas, NV. I

am disabled and live on a fixed income. I am writing you

today outraged by the ever growing cost of living we face

here in Las Vegas. Every day the price of gasoline continues

to rise, while large oil companies like Exxon Mobile and

Chevron Texaco are recording breaking profits, I hate to

say on the backs of the average citizens in this country.

I have heard all of the stories of fuel shortage due to

the harsh winter in the eastern United States, the

blockage of shipping lanes, and the list could go on and

on with excuses. This still does not explain these record

profits. No other segment in our economy, especially the

small businessmen, experience this rate of profit. Costs

continue to rise from gasoline, to utility cost, to

grocery bills, while incomes are not rising. The middle

class is slowly being eroded with all these rising costs.

Signed by a constituent from Las Vegas.

This is a small smattering of the letters we have received. I have asked, along with the junior Senator from Nevada, the Federal Trade Commission to look into possible market manipulation and price gouging. After 5 weeks, the FTC responded to us by saying prices in Nevada were ``unusually high'' and above predicted norms. An informal FTC investigation is still looking into the cause of the price spike, but they are having a hard time showing collusion and market manipulation.

I do not need an investigation to tell me big oil profits have soared at the expense of working families. We all understand the forces of supply and demand, but in the gasoline market, control of the supply is concentrated in a handful of oil companies and dealers. Seven oil companies control 94 percent of California's gasoline production, so they can push prices up faster and keep them higher than they would be in a competitive market.

These markets are not competitive because they provide no incentive to refiners to maintain adequate supplies and physical infrastructure. Every accident, power outage, pipeline break in the market triggers a price shock, and profits mount.

The structure of this industry allows price manipulation at the pump. These charts show how refiners and dealers manipulate markets to sustain high, exorbitant gas prices. If this is not anticompetitive, it is certainly anticonsumer. The profits of oil companies are at record levels. I am sure this makes their shareholders happy.

The FTC has been AWOL, like FERC was a couple years ago during the electricity crisis when consumers were ripped off. As a nation, we need to demand both the supply and demand of this equation to promote a truly competitive market.

On the demand side, we have to increase the fuel efficiency of cars. That is very long term. We need to promote public transit. That is long term. But in the short term, we need to have this administration weigh in against the OPEC nations and do what they can do to have the OPEC nations produce more oil. They have turned the spigots down. They have done it openly. I hope the reports in the Woodward book are false. I hope the President would not enter into a deal with Prince Bandar in saying we are going to increase the supply of oil in the fall. I hope that is absolutely false. But I do say the President has to exert more pressure on our so-called allies to produce more oil. That is short term.

What also needs to be done on a short-term basis is we need to start releasing oil from our oil reserves. As I stated before, it was done by the first President Bush and it was done by President Clinton. This President needs to do the same.

In the long term, we need to increase the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy resources, but we must also provide for true competition in the oil and gas markets.

Oil companies have little incentive to build or improve their infrastructure and increase their inventories. They can simply dominate tight markets where any disruption allows their profits to soar.

Through use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or some other mechanism, oil companies should be required to maintain adequate stocks of crude and refined product to prevent price spirals.

At the very least, we should not be filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when markets are not able to meet consumer demand at reasonable price levels. Any rapid price increase should draw immediate and intense public scrutiny and trigger investigations.

Energy in America is essential to the well-being of our Nation and its citizens. This is part of our Nation's security, to have adequate energy. Remember, the United States of America, even counting what may be in ANWR, would only have 3 percent--in fact, it is less than 3 percent--of the oil reserves of the world. We cannot produce our way out of our problems. Ninety-seven percent of the oil in the world is someplace other than the United States.

The citizens of the State of Nevada have been rocked with a one-two punch over the last couple of years by manipulation of the electricity market and now the gasoline market. This cycle of price gouging must stop. Even in the wild, wild west, we have to make energy markets operate properly.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Wyoming for his courtesy in allowing me to go before him.

How much time is remaining for the majority for morning business?

I say to my friend from Wyoming, he has 4 minutes 15 seconds. Does he need more time?

When I spoke, I indicated I would be happy to agree to that. Would the Chair indicate again how much time I used?

I ask unanimous consent that the time for morning business on the majority side be extended 29 minutes.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the majority leader is on his way.

I will withhold and ask the distinguished majority leader to do the close and then allow me to finish my speech.