Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived.

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

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk, and I ask that it be reported.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. President, it seems that the Republicans have two tools in their obstruction and delay kit. It is a tool kit that has worked quite well for them. First, they prevent the Senate from getting to bills. The Republican leader uses this tool when he can convince enough of his caucus to kill legislation before the Senate debate even begins.

Second, when a bill is so popular that the Republican leader is unable to convince enough of his colleagues to kill it before debate can begin, he switches to his second tool--claiming the process is unfair. That is what we have before us today.

The Republican leader requests an unlimited or virtually unlimited number of amendments on which he is unable or unwilling to provide specifics. When these requests are not accepted in their entirety, as the Republican leader knows they cannot be, he then turns to his caucus and asks them to oppose any further action on the bill.

Regardless of which tool the minority leader uses, the result is the same. The Republicans refuse to let us address the most critical priorities of the American people.

This situation reminds me of a story I learned as a young lawyer that has now become somewhat legendary, which says: If you have the facts, you pound the facts. If you have the law, you pound the law. If you have neither, you pound the table.

That is exactly what is happening today and has happened on many other occasions. Unfortunately, it has happened, Mr. President, a record number of times this session--84 filibusters. That is obstruction at its zenith.

Republicans would love to muddy the issue by claiming that the Democratic majority won't let them be heard, but that is simply not the truth. Democrats have proposed a comprehensive plan to address our energy crisis, starting with speculation. The Republicans, if they do not like our speculation legislation, let them offer something to the contrary. The Republicans have been talking about their plan for weeks and weeks now. That plan is to drill, to drill, and to drill.

Now, both parties want more drilling. It is not something that simply the Republicans want. We Democrats believe that increasing domestic production is certainly a big part of the problem, and we should do something about it. But, Mr. President, realistically--and we all know this--realistically we have a situation where we have, counting ANWR and all the offshore oil, less than 3 percent of the oil in the world. We use more than 25 percent of the world's oil every day. So we can't produce our way out of the problem. We can certainly increase domestic production, and we should do that, and we have a comprehensive plan to do that.

Our approach is different from theirs on drilling. We believe our approach is more responsible because we basically force the oil companies to take a look at the land and do an inventory of it and tell us why they are not using certain pieces of land. That is 68 million acres in addition to about 25 million acres in Alaska that are available with the signing of the President's pen. That increases it up to, as you know, about 90 million acres.

We have offered our plan to the Republicans. They say they want to drill. They have talked about what their drilling plan is, and we have said: Let's have a vote on it. But they have said no. They can't take yes for an answer. So it is very clear. The only conclusion the American people can reach from this is that the Republicans would rather talk than act. They would rather score, in their own minds, some kind of political points with the oil companies than accomplish something for the American people.

The Republican leadership has refused our offer of votes on drilling, so I am going to now, Mr. President, file cloture on this piece of legislation before us--the speculation legislation. I think it is very important that we do that, and it is important for a number of reasons.

I should mention that one of the things they refuse to take yes for an answer on is their drilling proposal. But I am confident the American people are seeing what the Republicans are doing, and have been doing, for 18 months--talking and talking about drilling and then running for the exits when we give them a vote on what they have asked to do.

I am equally confident, when given a choice of who to send to Congress, the American people will choose to send people who want to get things done and not those who seek delay, obstruction, and the failed ways of the past.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I apologize to everyone. I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything in my script.

I now send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to commit the bill to agricultural committee with instructions to report back forthwith, with an amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have an amendment to the instruction at the desk. I ask now for its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I now have a seconddegree amendment at the desk. I ask the clerk to report the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to H.R. 3221, which is the housing legislation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message:

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the

Senate to the amendments of the House to the amendment of the

Senate to the bill (H.R. 3221) entitled ``An Act moving the

United States toward greater energy independence and

security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing

carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers,

increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing

our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of

renewable energy and energy conservation'', with an

amendment.

I move to concur with the amendment of the House to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

cloture motion

I ask the mandatory quorum call be waived.

I now move to concur in the amendment of the House to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, with an amendment which is at the desk.

amendment no. 5103

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

I ask that no motion to refer be in order during the pendency of this message.

I say to my friend, you are the one who pretty well determines when we vote on these things. It will probably be--it will be Friday.

I say to my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, that this bill is so important. We have filed--I kind of lost track, but because of your side we have had to have four cloture motions. This will be the fifth on this most important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that has been promoted and the administration has prodded us to get this done weeks ago.

Of course, if your amendment is made part of what we are going to do here and this legislation is changed, it goes back to the House again. Then we have a process that seems never ending.

I have no problem with the intent of the Senator from South Carolina. I think there would be, perhaps, support on both sides of the aisle for your amendment.

That being the case, I think it would be a real travesty at this time. I don't know if there is a day that has gone by this week--it is only Wednesday, so probably not--a day that has gone by this week that I haven't received a call from someone in the White House, including on several occasions the Secretary of Treasury, saying please do not hold this up at all. This has to be done.

So I say to my friend again, in no way denigrating the intent of the offer because I think the intent is sincere, I hope you would not force us to do this.

Speaking on behalf of President Bush--and I don't do that very often--I don't think we should do this. I don't think we should send this back to the House. I think we should complete it here.

I will be happy to consider joining the Senator in a letter to the two entities regarding some way to make sure they are transparent in any lobbying they do. I would be happy to do something on this. But I feel constrained not to slow this very important legislation, which is well over a month overdue at this time. Every day that we do not do something--every day there are 8,500 people who get foreclosure notices; 8,500.

It may not seem like much, but if we send this back to the House, we would complete it sometime late next week. During that period of time, we would probably have about 45,000 people who would have entered foreclosure proceedings, when this legislation will allow, some say, up to 1 million people to be able to save their homes.

I hope the Senator would not press us on that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I offered a unanimous consent request, the last one I offered, and my friend from South Carolina reserved the right to object, so I withdraw that.

Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 835, S. 3186, a bill to provide for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Reserving the right to object, the matters the distinguished Republican leader has outlined are part of their proposal that they offered before, I think they call it the Gas Price Reduction Act. Everything he has talked about here is part of that legislation, and it is part of an alternative we have also. Senator Bingaman has worked for more than a week with the assistance of other Senators on this side of the aisle coming up with different amendments which, of course, have the Alaska energy production. That is part of ours. We have the oil shale amendment as part of ours. We have the LIHEAP, of course, which is now or shortly will be before this body.

It is very obvious that the Republicans, especially when they want this to be the exclusive matter we deal with, that is this energy bill, that they want this to go on, as a lot of things have this year, into oblivion. That is why they had 84 filibusters and we have had to file cloture 84 times.

These are the first seven amendments. I hope everyone heard that; the first seven amendments they want to offer. We know that the drilling amendment is a subterfuge. We know that John McCain, the Republican nominee for President of the United States, has said it will do nothing for short-term oil supply. He said it is psychological. That is what the Republican nominee for President has said.

We said what we wanted to do is have a vote on speculation, which is a very big deal. Now I know my friend keeps bringing up Warren Buffett's name, said he does not think speculation has anything to do with it. I have great respect for Warren Buffett. I consider Warren Buffett a friend. I have talked to him many times and have met with him on many occasions. By the way, he told me the best business he has ever had in his whole life is a furniture store in Las Vegas.

We read into the Record today numerous scientists, economists, regulators, who said that speculation is from 20 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil.

We believe that is an important issue. My friend said: It is only a tiny part. Only a tiny part? Twenty to fifty percent of the cost of a barrel of oil a tiny part? Remember, it is very interesting. It is interesting that their so-called Gas Price Reduction Act that they introduced with 42 cosponsors--part of that is a provision dealing with speculation. So speculation is not a tiny part.

This morning, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire said he thought there should be a vote on oil shale. I said: Fine, we will have one. He said he thought it would be great to have a vote on nuclear power. I said: We have not built a plant in 40, 50 years. I am sure that is not much of a short-term solution to the energy problem facing people buying gasoline in Las Vegas or Reno. But we said we would do that.

So, Madam President, this is nothing more than what the Republicans have done from the very beginning. They are not concerned about speculation. Drilling, as their Presidential nominee has said, is only psychological. We want to

do something to certainly focus on speculation.

I would say, as LIHEAP is part of it, they are going to have that opportunity. We are going to take up LIHEAP. People have come to me and said they think this is an important issue. Well, join with Democrats because we also believe it is an important issue. They will not let us do anything on speculation. Maybe they will let us do something on

Madam President, my friend, the Republican leader, said this is a good place to start. That is the problem with the minority. They have a lot of good ideas to start but never finish anything. That is the way it has been. They have had 84 filibusters this year.

This is really kind of like the ``Twilight Zone.'' The Republicans are saying now that they want to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf. The Republican nominee for President, John McCain, says that is psychological and won't help. Now, today, to show they are not tracking very well with John McCain, they come and say they want to drill in ANWR. Now, John McCain is opposed to that. He stated so publicly. So they have two issues, one of which the Republican designee for President says is just psychological, but they want to have a vote on that. They also want to start drilling in ANWR--something their Republican nominee for President totally opposes.

My friend from Tennessee said: Don't we want to do something about the $4 gas prices? Please, Madam President, let's not laugh out loud. We have brought matters before this body in detail more than once to do something about gas prices long ago. The Presiding Officer played an essential part in one piece of legislation. It was called the Consumer First Energy Act. That matter was brought up in June of this year. It was a good piece of legislation. It said we should tax the windfall profits of these oil companies, which last year, by the way, made $250 billion. It repeals the section for major oil and gas companies that were using foreign tax credits on oil that they shouldn't have. It suspends the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We had to force the President to do that. That part of it was ultimately adopted. It punished price gouging. The American people understand that.

So to say we haven't done anything on gas prices is not because we haven't tried. Again, our Republican colleagues have said: Well, that is a good place to start, but we are not going to do anything about that.

We also talked, even in that legislation, about excessive speculation in the oil markets. We also had another piece of legislation the American people identified with which was recommended as part of our Consumer First Energy Act by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin and Republican Senator Specter of Pennsylvania. Why not make OPEC--this huge organization which is in control of most of the oil in the world today--why not make them subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. That is what a Democrat and Republican thought was important, and we put it in this bill. So no one needs to talk about us not trying to do something about gas prices. We have been trying for a long time.

We also believe the American people understand that global warming is here. We tried to move to that. The Republicans said: No, we are ready to start, but that is a little tiny thing. We want to have an open amendment process. Then, bang, a couple more cloture motions.

The goal of the Republicans is to stall, and that is what they are doing, and they are pretty good at it. I asked the Democratic whip to meet with his counterpart last week to see what we could do about having some amendments to move forward on this speculation bill. The distinguished Republican whip told the Democratic whip they had 28 amendments and they would probably have more.

This is not a serious effort to legislate; this is a serious effort to stop everything. They are willing to stop housing again. We are going to have to go through all of this process of housing, causing at least 45,000 or 50,000 people in the next few days to get foreclosure notices. That is part of what they are stalling on tonight. We know we are going to move to LIHEAP. LIHEAP is something important. We must do that, because there are senior citizens around this country, disabled people, who are having a difficult time in the summer, but winter makes it brutal. We want to move to that. They are stalling us on that. That is three more cloture motions we have had to file, so now I guess we will be up to, by the end of this week, 87 filibusters.

I know there are a lot of Senators here who wish to speak. I think it would be appropriate that we enter into some kind of order if people want to speak here so it is not a jump ball.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

I say to my friend, the answer is yes. But now they have a new deal. The new deal is they want to do some interesting things that haven't been brought up before. They want to drill in ANWR, even though it was resoundingly defeated in the Senate a couple of years ago. Even though McCain is opposed to it, they are in favor of it. They want to do something that is psychological. Not only do they not want to move with their package that we thought was what they wanted

to do--they introduced it, whatever the name of it is--now they want to split that off piece by piece and have one piece, two pieces, three pieces, five pieces, whatever is in it, so they can stall some more.

So what I say to my friend is, yes, we were willing to have a vote on their package, and we would have our package. We are very proud of our package.

I say to my friend it is obvious that the situation is they think this is a tiny part of what we are doing. Speculation, which is 20 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil, is a tiny part, and they will skip that for now and go on to something else. Drilling? The McCain special, the psychological cure for the problems of this country, they decided maybe they don't want to have a vote on that. Maybe what they will do is add on 27 other things.

I say to my friend through the Chair, you can't. I didn't mention--and I appreciate very much the distinguished Democratic whip mentioning this--also they have turned us down on alternative energy. They voted that down, the extenders, which included a 6-year tax credit for solar and all of those good things that Boone Pickens and others said we must move to.

In addition to turning us down on energy price relief, the Consumer First Energy Act--they turned us down on that--they turned us down on the extenders. They do not want to legislate. They obviously aren't concerned about the 85,000 people who are going to be given foreclosure notices in the next few days. They obviously are not concerned about moving forward on LIHEAP quickly. They obviously are not concerned about setting up a registry for Lou Gehrig's Disease so people can find out how to cure that disease. They are not concerned about the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act. Those are all being stalled because of this subterfuge of what is going on here.

Madam President, as I said, there are a number of people on the floor. I know the Senator from New York has been waiting, and the Senator from Illinois has been staying here a while. I see now the Senator from Colorado. I am wondering if we can enter into some kind of a consent agreement. The suggestion has been made that Senator Voinovich be recognized for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Clinton for 15 minutes, and then we will alternate back and forth. I think it would be appropriate if we did 10-minute timeframes, so I ask unanimous consent for that to be the case.

OK. The Senator from Ohio needs 20 minutes? We were going to have 10-minute blocks, but do you think you could do it in 15?

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich be recognized for up to 20 minutes, followed by Senator Clinton for up to 20 minutes, and following that, we go in 15 minute-blocks. Senator Allard would be next recognized and someone on our side would be next.

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

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

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the energy speculation legislation. Sometime after 11 today, the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to proceed to the bill. The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 in order to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons. Tomorrow, there will be a classified briefing for Senators in S-407 from 4 until 5:30 p.m. with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

I ask unanimous consent that the final 20 minutes prior to the cloture vote today be divided between Senator McConnell and me or our designees, with my controlling the final 10 minutes.

Mr. President, S. 3297 is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, the code word is that all Democrats want to do something ``perfunctory.'' That is code for blocking another bill. We are up to 83. They have blocked those. Obviously, they are now going to block this oil legislation.

Look at this picture. The Republicans introduced their bill on what to do about the energy problems. Part of that bill deals with speculation. We, the Democrats, think speculation is part of what is driving up these oil prices. But we didn't just dream this up. Academics, economists say that the cost of oil is 20 to 50 percent speculation. My friend the Republican leader said it is a little issue, speculation. If the price is 20 to 50 percent speculation, according to which economist or academic one talks to, that is a pretty big deal. If you lower the price of oil by 20 percent, that lowers gasoline well below $4 a gallon; 50 percent knocks it to $2 a gallon. That sounds like a pretty big issue to me.

I don't think it is just by chance that once we introduced this bill, oil prices started to drop, because much of the speculation takes place by people who have no inkling they will ever use the oil. Prior to 2006, it was against the law, but the Republican-dominated Congress passed a law saying you don't have to take possession of the oil; you can just go ahead and buy it. That is what has happened. That is why speculation is an important piece of legislation.

Let's assume that is all we did, nothing but speculation. Remember, it is part of their bill, and we think it is a big part of what is the problem in America today. Let's assume we only did that. That would seem to be a pretty big step in the right direction, if we were able, with a piece of legislation, to lower the price of oil even by the small amount of 20 percent and maybe by the 50 percent some say. But they obviously do not want us to do that.

Let's go to the next step.

We see ads being paid for all over the country by whom? Oil companies. Oil companies are saying: Join with our Republican colleagues in the Senate and drill more, drill more, drill more. You get the picture? Oil companies, Republicans in the Senate? Republicans are looking at these ads paid for by the big oil companies, full-page ads.

They can afford them. They made $250 billion last year.

We Democrats are not opposed to drilling. Right now, there is 68 million acres available onshore and offshore. In addition, there is a lot of oil in other places. All the Interior Department has to do is lease the land. They have the authority to do that. There is no moratorium on any of that. In Alaska alone, there is 25 million additional acres which oil people say is a gold mine for oil. They can go drill there now. What the Republicans want--and we see what they are doing here--is to protect the oil companies. Just as Bush and Cheney have done for 8 years, the most oil-friendly administration in our history is now being supported by their friends, as they have for 8 years, Republicans in the Senate.

Republicans in the Senate, the oil companies, they want yesterday forever. We want to change. That is why someone like T. Boone Pickens has joined with Al Gore. Get that picture again. T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore? They have joined together saying: Oil is not where it is. We have to get away from our addiction to oil. We have to get rid of our addiction to oil. Al Gore says that. He lays out the problem very well. Here comes T. Boone Pickens with a solution. He says we should have a little bridge, after a few years of using natural gas, and then it should be all renewable energy.

We have tried now for months to get a renewable energy tax credit. Senator Durbin asked me to meet with one of his constituents yesterday. I was so impressed with this man. He is an immigrant to the United States from the Ukraine. He has made a couple fortunes. He is now a big player in windmills.

He has 2,000 megawatts of electricity being produced from windmills. That is a lot of electricity--a lot of electricity. It is much larger than the coal-fired generating plant which was one of the largest in the country in Mojave in Nevada which just closed because it was so dirty. It is bigger than that. It is huge what he is doing. But he came to us and said: I am about to lose everything--everything--because the banks are going to withdraw my loans because the tax credit is not here next year.

So here is the picture--again, talking about a picture for the third time. The Republicans have obviously told us they are going to block legislation dealing with oil. We have said: Let's do speculation. They have talked now for weeks about drilling. They have talked about what the oil companies are advertising they want to do with full-page ads. They want to drill. They want to leave the decision to be made by the Governors.

We have said now for more than a week: Let's vote on that. No, that is not what we want to do. The Republican whip yesterday told the Democratic whip they have 28 amendments. That is not a serious effort to move forward on this legislation. They have been saying and following the lead of the oil companies saying: We want to use less, drill more. And we are saying: Let's vote on your proposal. They are saying, no, no way, because we are filibustering another piece of legislation--83.

So the American people understand we have people over there on that side of the aisle who have joined with big oil. They are very happy they are running the ads. They are saying: No, we are not going to do anything about speculation, and even though we have talked about this great panacea to all the problems America faces, we will drive down prices immediately with our amendment on drilling. We are saying: Fine, let's vote on your amendment. They say: No, thanks.

Mr. President, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I would say to my friend, if it is the first time you have heard it, with all due respect, you have not been listening to what has been going on on the Senate floor. I am not the only one who has said it. Many people have said it. I would be happy to place in the Record--and the first person we will place in the Record is somebody who was a high-ranking official with the commodity futures trading organization, where he says it is 50 percent. Now, that is in the Record already. I will be happy to repeat his name, and we will spread this all through the Record. He says 50 percent. Many others say it is 20 percent. That is why we believe speculation is an important piece of this legislation.

I say to my friend from Texas, as I said earlier, if the man who says it is as much as 50 percent wrong, and it is only 20 percent, that is still a big chunk out of this, and it must mean it is worthwhile pursuing because in the Republicans' proposal you have in your proposal a speculation piece.

Before I leave the floor, Mr. President, I will simply say that Warren Buffett is a great guy. I like him very much. But keep in mind, he has not made his money in oil. He has made his money selling furniture and insurance and other things of that nature. Warren Buffett is a great person. I have great respect for his ability to make money. But he has not made it in oil. I think we need to look at some of the other experts in this regard.

I repeat, there must be some substance to it. The Republicans have it in their legislation.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 10 minutes under the order. I yield 5 minutes of that time to the Senator from Washington.

I ask unanimous consent to use leader time to complete my statement over and above the 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the American people, I am sure, viewing our proceedings here in the Senate or from the visitors gallery or on C- SPAN must think they are watching an episode of the ``Twilight Zone.'' The reason I say that is yesterday morning, Senator McConnell and I both opened with statements about our national energy crisis. We both talked about the plan we had and the pain that high gas prices are causing the American people.

Recently, I mentioned a public school teacher--he delivered the Saturday address for us--and his wife who live in upstate New York who are now spending all of the money they saved for their children's college education to pay for gasoline.

Senator McConnell, for his part, talked about the frustration of truckers, stay-at-home parents, commuters, and vacationers. Anyone watching our two sides talk about the gas prices must have gotten a little confused. They must have been saying to themselves: If they both agree on the problem, why can't they work together to find a solution? The reason for that is very simple: Republicans and Senate Republicans refuse to join in negotiating in any way. They refuse to legislate. They, in fact, refused to take ``yes'' for an answer. We are shortly voting on cloture to proceed on legislation to stem the excessive speculation on Wall Street that is contributing to high gas prices.

Is this the only problem? Of course not. But it is a problem, absolutely. Democrats have said from the start that curbing speculation is not a panacea and will not solve all of our energy problems with the snap of our fingers.

But there was a Republican Senator on the floor today who asked a question: Who is saying this speculation accounts for 20 to 50 percent of the price of gasoline? We have laid those names in the Record. There is no doubt that it is a major part of the problem. The Republicans acknowledged that by putting that provision in their so-called energy bill.

But with experts saying that speculation accounts for 20, 30, even 50 percent of the price of gasoline, there is no doubt there is a major problem. How does excessive speculation drive up prices in the short term? Wall Street traders simply buy oil, sell it, and I repeat, as they do: They buy, they sell, they buy, bidding the price ever higher. They never intend to actually own or use the oil they buy, they only keep buying and selling and pocketing the profits. The problem is the American people are stuck paying the bill every time we fill our gas tanks.

This kind of unlimited energy speculation was not even legal 8 years ago for traders who never intended to buy or sell or use the commodity. Back then you would have to actually take delivery of the oil you bought or face position limits on your trading. Few Wall Street firms wanted tankers pulling up to their front doors with barrels of oil.

The market price of oil was decided by honest people in the marketplace, the so-called supply-and-demand factor. Then the Republican Congress stepped in and allowed oil to be traded back and forth without even delivery of the oil. That effort was led by former Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, a long-time member of the Finance Committee, the same Phil Gramm who served as Senator McCain's economic adviser until yesterday, and recently called America a nation of whiners.

This is the same guy who has set forth his speculation aspect of what is hurting the market so badly. Senator Gramm's bill created a mouse click; that is, you touch your computer and you can buy lots of oil you will never use and never want to use.

The Bush administration has done nothing to oversee this. Now the American people are suffering the consequences. Nothing is ever certain in the energy market. But if our legislation to provide new consumer protections on speculation becomes law, it should immediately and sustainably lower prices.

Democrats are not the ones who think so. I do not know the party affiliation of the people whose names I am going to list, the experts: Former CFTC Trade Division Director and current economics professor at the University of Maryland, Michael Greenberger. He says the price is from 20 to 50 percent because of speculation.

Consumer advocate Mark Cooper says the same. And even the senior vice president of ExxonMobil, Stephen Simon, says speculation is part of the problem; even Exxon. We have a man who serves as the chief executive officer of United Airlines, Glenn Tilton. Here is a man who was president of Texaco, vice chairman of Chevron, and he says speculation is a big problem and we have to do something about it and do it right away.

So my Republican colleagues who say speculation is not an issue, here are a few of the people who agree with us. And obviously, the Republicans must have thought in the old days, a couple of weeks ago, that it was a problem because they stuck it in their legislation. Now they say it is not important.

But my friends on the other side of the aisle have said in speeches and press conferences that we should do something about speculation-- that is what they used to say. It has been a component of their energy plan. In fact, Senator McConnell said on the floor yesterday, ``strengthening regulation of the futures market is a worthwhile piece of the legislative effort.''

The American people must be thinking, Democrats and Republicans do not agree on much, but they seem to agree that curbing excessive energy speculation is part of the solution. If we did nothing else but pass the speculation bill, the American people would be very happy, and the markets would be struck quickly and the price of oil would go down.

Yet now that a reasonable and responsible speculation bill has reached the floor, Republicans seem to be scurrying into the corners and shadows of this Capitol complex. Now that we have an opportunity to actually do something to deliver some relief to the American people, all Republicans want to talk about now is drilling. They are so happy that the oil companies are running full-page ads about drilling.

Democrats have shown how serious we are about addressing this problem. We have said to the Republicans: Along with our speculation bill, let's vote on your offshore drilling. That is what you said is the problem. Let's drill some more. Let the Governors decide what should happen on the Outer Continental Shelf. They said that is what the problem is. Let's do something about it.

And we said: Okay, let's vote on that. Well, they say: No, that is not a good idea. Even though we believe in that and we have talked about for months how important drilling is, we want 27 other amendments. We do not want to do anything about speculation, and we do not even want to have a vote on drilling unless you give us 27 other amendments.

Let's assume that Republicans would allow a vote on their amendment, and we have a vote on a Democratic drilling amendment. You see, we are not opposed to drilling. Democrats are not opposed to drilling. We believe the future is ahead of us, and we believe the oil companies should use the 68 million acres they now have; the 8.3 million acres that we worked on less than 2 years ago to give them the ability to take a look in the Gulf of Mexico. They said it was so important to do that. They have not done anything about that. I do not think they have gone fishing out there, let alone doing any exploration out there. There are 8.3 million acres; they have not done a thing with it. We have 25 million acres in Alaska that are subject to being drilled right now. All the White House has to do is let some more of these leases.

So we are not opposed to drilling. But we are saying: Use the 68 million acres. Take a look at all the other land available. This drilling is a political thing for the Republicans. Simple math indicates we control, counting ANWR--which, by the way, McCain is now against; he does not want to drill in ANWR. But let's assume you take ANWR and all the other offshore issues they are talking about. That is less than 3 percent of the oil in the world. We use more than 25 percent of the oil every day. We cannot drill our way out of the problems we have.

So we think it does not make sense to start giving up more acres of American coastline in addition to the 68 million, plus the 25 million acres in Alaska. We believe it makes sense to open more coastal areas for drilling. We say: Go ahead and do that. The President has the authority to do that.

Time Magazine this week, the one that is on the newsstands today--I tore a page out of it: The offshore waiting game. They have a little piece of literature here. They say it is going to take a long time. Here is why: It will take up to 2 years for oil companies to survey sites and bid on available leases. It will take up to 2 years for the highest bidders to do seismic tests and analyze the results. It will take up to 3 years for exploratory drilling. It will take up to 2 years if oil is discovered; plans for platforms and pipelines are submitted for Government review. It will take another year to review that. It will take up to 3 years for oil companies to build platforms and pipelines. And finally the oil is pumped out.

Add those numbers together and it is about 15 years. Well, what we say, we are not opposed to drilling, but there are lots of places we can be drilling right now. So the American people cannot wait all of these years. Increasing production is important, but even Republicans must admit it will do absolutely nothing to lower prices in the near term.

Nevertheless, Republicans have called for a vote on their offshore drilling plan. We are willing to give them what they want. They are not willing to take ``yes'' for an answer.

I hope all Senators, Democrats and Republicans, would vote to invoke cloture on the speculation bill, that we can go forward with that, have a vote on their drilling, and we have read all of the ads the oil companies have paid for, and the Republicans have followed step by step what the oil companies want. We are willing to give them a vote on that. I do not know how we can be more fair than that. All we want is the opportunity to vote on what we think is important too.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, today I am introducing along with Senators Leahy, Lieberman, Feinstein, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, and Biden, an important bill, with provisions in a variety of areas--from advancing medical research in critical areas, to cracking down on child exploitation, to promoting important U.S. foreign policy goals, to helping improve America's understanding about the oceans. What unites this diverse package of bills? One thing--unprecedented obstructionism.

The bills in this package include initiatives that have broad bipartisan support. Initiatives that have passed the House by 411 to 3; by 422 to 2; by 416 to 0. Many of these initiatives had such strong bipartisan support that they passed the House and Senate Committee by voice vote or even by unanimous consent.

Under normal circumstances, they would have passed the Senate through a simplified and expedited unanimous consent process and become law. Maybe some would have required a period of brief debate before passing the Senate.

But, instead of allowing the will of the Congress and the American people to be heard, Republicans have obstructed one bill after another. Here are just a few examples of the legislation that this bill includes--and that Republicans are preventing from becoming law:

The Emmitt Till Unsolved Crimes bill: Would help heal old wounds and solve crimes that have continued to be unsolved and unpunished since the Civil Rights era.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth bill: Would provide grants for health care, education and workforce programs, and housing programs for runaways and homeless youth.

The Combating Child Exploitation bill: Would provide grants to train law enforcement to use technology to track individuals who trade child pornography. Establishes an Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force within the Office of Justice Programs.

The ALS Registry bill: WouId create a centralized database to help doctors and scientists treat and hopefully find a cure for ALS/Lou Gehrig's Disease, which afflicts 5,600 Americans every year.

The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act: Would enhance cooperation in research, rehabilitation and quality of life for people who suffer from paralysis. Not only will this bill accelerate the discovery of better treatments and cures, but help improve the daily lives of the 2 million Americans who await a cure.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. These bills address important American priorities, have broad--virtually unanimous--bipartisan support, yet, all have fallen victim to just one or two Republicans.

Senate Democrats are not willing to allow this obstruction of a few to block the will of the Congress and the American people any longer. Republicans will have a choice: Will they join the side of the American people, or continue to stand beside one or two colleagues intent on blocking progress? I hope Republicans will end their obstruction and work with Democrats this week to pass this crucial and long-overdue legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing along with Senators Leahy, Lieberman, Feinstein, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, and Biden, an important bill, with provisions in a variety of areas--from advancing medical research in critical areas, to cracking down on child exploitation, to promoting important U.S. foreign policy goals, to helping improve America's understanding about the oceans. What unites this diverse package of bills? One thing--unprecedented obstructionism.

The bills in this package include initiatives that have broad bipartisan support. Initiatives that have passed the House by 411 to 3; by 422 to 2; by 416 to 0. Many of these initiatives had such strong bipartisan support that they passed the House and Senate Committee by voice vote or even by unanimous consent.

Under normal circumstances, they would have passed the Senate through a simplified and expedited unanimous consent process and become law. Maybe some would have required a period of brief debate before passing the Senate.

But, instead of allowing the will of the Congress and the American people to be heard, Republicans have obstructed one bill after another. Here are just a few examples of the legislation that this bill includes--and that Republicans are preventing from becoming law:

The Emmitt Till Unsolved Crimes bill: Would help heal old wounds and solve crimes that have continued to be unsolved and unpunished since the Civil Rights era.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth bill: Would provide grants for health care, education and workforce programs, and housing programs for runaways and homeless youth.

The Combating Child Exploitation bill: Would provide grants to train law enforcement to use technology to track individuals who trade child pornography. Establishes an Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force within the Office of Justice Programs.

The ALS Registry bill: WouId create a centralized database to help doctors and scientists treat and hopefully find a cure for ALS/Lou Gehrig's Disease, which afflicts 5,600 Americans every year.

The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act: Would enhance cooperation in research, rehabilitation and quality of life for people who suffer from paralysis. Not only will this bill accelerate the discovery of better treatments and cures, but help improve the daily lives of the 2 million Americans who await a cure.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. These bills address important American priorities, have broad--virtually unanimous--bipartisan support, yet, all have fallen victim to just one or two Republicans.

Senate Democrats are not willing to allow this obstruction of a few to block the will of the Congress and the American people any longer. Republicans will have a choice: Will they join the side of the American people, or continue to stand beside one or two colleagues intent on blocking progress? I hope Republicans will end their obstruction and work with Democrats this week to pass this crucial and long-overdue legislation.

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

Madam President, following the remarks of the two leaders-- I have talked to Senator McConnell; my remarks are longer than his, and I thought it would be appropriate that he go first, so he will go first, and when he finishes, I will say a few words--we are going to resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the energy speculation bill. As we have announced before, there will be no rollcall votes today. The cloture vote will take place before noon tomorrow.

In addition to considering the energy speculation bill, we are going to return as soon as we can to the housing reform legislation. That has to be finished in the House. I understand they will do a rule tomorrow and perhaps vote on that on Wednesday or maybe on Tuesday.

There will be a classified briefing for Senators at 4 o'clock on Wednesday with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley in S-407.

As Senators have known now for well more than a month, we are going to work this weekend. We have work to do this weekend. Exactly what we will be doing depends a lot on what happens during the week, how time sequences out because of cloture and other such things, but we will be here this weekend. There is a lot to do.

Madam President, we have a very busy week ahead of us. I have announced some of the work we are going to do, but we really do have a lot to do. I look forward to this being a very productive week. I hope things work out as well as I anticipate.

Madam President--I am sorry that I referred to you as ``Mr. President.'' That is pretty standard when you just have--as I mentioned last week, we sure have a lot more women than when I first came here. When I came here, we had Senator Mikulski. Now, on this side alone, we have 11 Democratic women, which has made the Senate a much better place.

Madam President, as Senators Obama, Reed, and Hagel travel through Iraq today, there is one conclusion they will undoubtedly all reach: our troops--about 150,000 strong--have done a remarkable, heroic job under nearly impossible circumstances.

This war has been going on for a long time--more than 6 years-- approaching about $1 trillion having been spent. Today, we are spending $5,000 a second in Iraq. We have more than 3,000 double-amputees. We have a significant number of returning veterans who are blind, paralyzed, and, of course, the traumatic head injuries they have had have been significant. It will be a legacy of this country for a long time to pay for all that. But because of the valor of these troops and their sacrifice, a war that was irresponsibly planned and incompetently waged by President Bush has now shown signs of improvement, and that is good. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can take any credit for that. Every ounce of credit goes to our men and women in uniform, and we are grateful to them beyond words to describe.

It would be impossible to fully repay our troops for the sacrifice they and their families have made. But this Congress took a historic step forward--over the President's objection and over Senator McCain's statement that the bill was too generous--and we passed, in spite of McCain's objection and the President's objection, a new GI bill of rights--the largest expansion of veterans' benefits since the original GI bill after World War II.

As Senator Obama visits Iraq to listen to our troops and commanders and meet with Iraqi leaders, it is becoming clear that America, Iraq, and the world are coalescing around Senator Obama's plan to end the war.

I spoke yesterday to someone I know very well. He has had three tours of duty in Iraq.

I said: James, what do you think of Senator Obama going to Iraq?

He said: The troops love him.

For someone who has had three tours of duty in Iraq, I think he has the credentials to say that.

That plan sets a responsible timeline for redeploying American combat brigades, transitions the responsibility for securing Iraq to the Iraqis--as Senator Levin has said for many years: Take the training wheels off and let them run their own country. It restores America's military readiness. Right now, because of this long war, our military is in very difficult shape. Estimates of bringing the military to what it was before the war started is now approaching at least $150 billion. Finally, it takes the fight to America's No. 1 enemy, Osama bin Laden.

This weekend, Prime Minister Al-Maliki spoke in favor of the Obama plan. Today, despite pressure from the White House, Iraqi Government officials publicly reiterated their support. They want us out of their country. If you take a poll--and there have been many taken--80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of that country. They have suffered significantly during this war.

We are all glad Saddam Hussein is gone. But they do not know definitely the number of Iraqis who have been killed. There are wide- ranging estimates from 150,000 to 600,000. We know that millions have been displaced. There are 2 million out of the country. There are a million and a half wandering around inside of Iraq who are displaced.

The American people have known for years that our national security interests require us to carefully bring our troops home and call on the Iraqi people to take the reins of their own sovereign nation. The vast majority of Iraqis, I repeat, are eager for the day to come when they control their own destiny. They are ready for the war to responsibly draw to a close.

Even President Bush--even President Bush--who bears the primary responsibility for this incompetently managed war, is now belatedly and gradually moving toward some elements of key Democratic positions on Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The President has labeled his new position for Iraq a ``time horizon.'' Try to figure out what that means. We don't know. But at least he is recognizing there must be some timeline set. No one knows yet what a ``time horizon'' actually means, and it is clear that President Bush has no plans to draw down the war before he packs his bags in January. This critical national security decision will fall to the next President.

While it is becoming increasingly clear that the American people and Iraqi leaders strongly support the Obama plan to bring our troops home, Senator McCain is stubbornly clinging to his open-ended commitment to endless war.

Senator McCain has called upon Senator Obama to listen to our troops and commanders in Iraq. He criticizes Senator Obama for not going to Iraq again. And he criticized Senator Obama for going to Iraq. Senator Obama is, though, listening to our troops and commanders, and it is clearer than ever that his position was right from the beginning.

Now it is time for Senator McCain to listen to the American people. If he does, he will discover a nation desperate for a responsible path out of Iraq. If Senator McCain fails to join the chorus of calls for a responsible path out of Iraq, the choice in November will be even more clear than it is now.

Madam President, I want to talk about energy speculation, about energy generally.

This weekend, Senator Murray delivered the weekly Democratic radio address. In her remarks, the Senator from Washington said that her last gas fill-up in the State of Washington was $4.35 a gallon. Nevada is not far behind.

I have spoken on the floor about gas prices on countless occasions, and each time the crisis has grown worse. Last month, we heard from a public school teacher, who gave the Democratic response to President Bush, a teacher in Auburn, NY, who has had to spend all the money he and his wife used to save for their children's college tuition on gasoline. All across our country, billions and billions of dollars that rightfully belong in the pockets and savings of American families are being funneled instead to oil companies and oil-producing countries. That diversion of savings from American families to foreign governments and oil companies is nothing short of a national crisis.

When our country is in a crisis, Congress must be ready to take action. We Democrats in Congress, working with Senator Obama, have tried to take action again and again. We have proposed both long- and short-term solutions--short-term solutions to bring down gas prices now and long-term solutions to attack the root of the problem: our growing addiction to oil.

We had something called the Energy First Act. It would end the billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies whose executives have been hauling in record profits while we pay record prices. Last year, the oil companies made $250 billion net.

Second, in that piece of legislation, we would force the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy--the Sun, the wind, geothermal, biofuels.

Third, we protect in that legislation the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.

We also, in that legislation, among others things, stand up to OPEC and countries that are colluding to keep oil prices high.

One of my friends is a foremost antitrust lawyer in America. His name is Joe Alioto, Jr. He has painted the picture very clearly that there is a conspiracy going on. We have a bipartisan approach to that. Senator Kohl of Wisconsin and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania have joined to have OPEC subject to American antitrust laws.

Of course, we have been blocked on all four of these issues by the Republicans.

We have found with our efforts to do something about these energy prices that the Republicans have not been willing to participate in the legislative process. They have taken their cues from President Bush and, of course, from Senator McCain that the solution to gas and oil prices starts and ends with more offshore drilling. Democrats have made it clear that we support more domestic production.

We have, counting ANWR and all the offshore potential that exists, less than 3 percent of the oil in the world. We use more than 25 percent of the oil in the world every day. So there is no question domestic production is part of the answer, but it is only one part of the answer. The minority would like us to believe that the moment we open more of our coast to the oil companies, gas prices will come tumbling down.

Less than 2 years ago, here in the Senate, we passed a bill that was signed by the President. We were told by the oil companies and others that if we opened the Gulf of Mexico to more drilling, it would really be good for our economy, good for oil production. But we allowed 8.3 million more acres in the Gulf of Mexico to be drilled, and here it is, almost 2 years since we passed that legislation, and not a single drill bit has been placed in that water.

So it seems to be kind of a hollow cry to say we need more places to drill when they have not used the places we gave them to drill. Sixty- eight million acres they have, and they have 8.3 million acres we gave them less than 2 years ago that they have not touched.

The truth is, it would take years--and even decades--for offshore oil to be explored, drilled, and distributed. Just to set up an oil rig would take more than 2 years. Equipment is not available. So in the short term, drilling would do absolutely nothing.

We have expressed our willingness to consider more drilling as part of any comprehensive short- and long-term package, but Republicans so far have not been willing to entertain other solutions.

We will begin this week by working on legislation that would have an immediate impact on gas prices. I heard my friend, the Republican leader, say: Well, speculation is not such a big deal. I do not think it is just fortuitous that once we started talking about doing something about speculation, the price of oil dropped. I think this speculation is way out of hand, and I am not the only one who feels that way.

We need legislation to rein in Wall Street traders who are unfairly driving up oil prices. These traders have no regard for the well-being of American families. The only thing they care about are their own profits. Prior to 2000, you could not speculate in oil. It was not allowed. But a Republican Congress led the charge, and now you can speculate in oil even if you are not going to use that oil. The only thing, it seems to me, that these speculators care about is how much money they can make, which they secure by bidding up the price of oil, buying huge quantities just to sell it at an even higher price. They have no plan to actually use the oil they buy. All they want to do is buy, sell, and repeat, leaving American families to pay the bill.

Now, there are wide-ranging suggestions as to how much this is. Twenty to fifty percent of the cost of oil is in speculation. Not all speculation is bad. Sometimes it helps the market determine a fair price for a commodity. Speculation in the oil market has gone on throughout the Bush administration with virtually no oversight, and it truly has gotten out of hand. Experts say this speculation is responsible, as I have indicated, for 20 percent--up to as much as 50 percent--of the price we pay at the pump. These are figures with actual people making those suggestions and those calculations: Academics, economists, and people who used to work for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

Democrats have proposed legislation--the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act--that would set a fair amount of oversight on this out- of-control trading. The Republicans have said in speeches and press conferences that they agree with us that speculation is a problem. They have kind of now backtracked and said it is a problem but not a big problem. I assume they have been getting a lot of calls from Wall Street, as have we, but we are not going to be intimidated by them. We believe they are part of the problem, and we need to do something to make them a part of the solution.

To show that the Republicans believe that speculation is important, the bill they have before this body has a provision in it dealing with speculation. I would hope they would look at our speculation bill and join us. If there is something wrong with it, we are happy to take a look at any reasonable suggestion that would make it a better piece of legislation. It stands to reason this would be a chance for Democrats and Republicans to work together. So far, however, we have seen, sadly, more of the same from the Republican side: nice rhetoric, no action.

We had to file cloture again. We are now up to 83 Republican filibusters--83. As I have said before, it has gotten so there are so many of them, we now have Velcro numbers here. We can peel them off and put the number four up here. Hopefully, we will not have to do that too soon. This breaks all records ever in the history of our Congress, more than doubling the number of filibusters. We have made it clear that we are willing to work with the Republicans on compromise. Legislation is the art of compromise. We want to work together on energy legislation that both sides feel good about.

They keep talking about their drilling amendment. That has been their hue and cry for weeks now: We want to drill. We want the Governors to determine where you should drill off the coasts of their States. So we are saying we are willing to work with them. If they want to offer a drilling amendment, we will offer an alternative. Both measures would receive a vote. That is how the legislative process is supposed to work, but the latest Republican obstruction tactic has left us with no choice but to file cloture again on the speculation bill, and this chart is what that represents: 83. Otherwise, this important issue would fall off the legislative map. By forcing us to file cloture, Republicans, I believe, are wasting precious time when prompt action is necessary. So I hope in the morning we get cloture on this bill. I hope after we get cloture on the bill, the Republicans will work with us and say: OK, we want to offer our drilling amendment. That is fine. We are happy to work with them. What we have had in the past is that the rhetoric is not reality: Well, we really want to do the drilling amendment, but you are not letting us offer unlimited amendments, so we are not going to support you on anything.

The American people will certainly be waiting to see whether Republicans are willing to take yes for an answer. They have said they wanted a vote on drilling; let's see if they will take yes

for an answer and legislate on the energy crisis.

In the near future, we are going to turn to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--LIHEAP. This is one of the best programs we have ever done in Washington. It is a great program. This energy crisis is difficult. If you are a man or a woman, a mother, a father and you have a job and you have to drive to work, there are ways, as difficult as it might be, that you can alleviate some of the burdens of high gas prices. You can take public transportation, in some instances. You can carpool. There are things that can be done. If you are a soccer mom or dad, you can carpool the kids. There are things that can be done to work with this high price of gasoline: Change the time of the practices and do all kinds of things such as that.

However, if you are a senior citizen--and here we are with August fast approaching and cold weather hitting parts of our country in October--it must be stark recognizing the limitations of being able to heat your home. It is significant. If you are old and on a fixed income, this is very scary, and that is what LIHEAP is all about.

This legislation would provide immediate relief to millions of senior citizens, families with children, and the disabled, who are struggling to pay their home energy bills, a crisis that will only worsen in the winter months ahead. LIHEAP has been highly successful, but the breathtaking rise in energy prices is making the program far less able to help those in need. That is why this legislation is supported by AARP, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Alliance for Rural America, and dozens and dozens of different farmers groups and consumer groups and other organizations.

I was approached by one of my Republican colleagues the other day who said: I hope you will bring this up. We are going to bring this up. It is a bill we should pass. I hope we don't have to jump through all the hoops, all the steps procedurally. I hope we can get this bill passed. The high price of oil and gas is making headlines. This LIHEAP legislation addresses those energy problems as well as the rising prices of propane, kerosene, natural gas, and electricity.

This legislation is important now, when high temperatures are creating health risks for the elderly and people with disabilities. It is interesting. I have been told there are more homeless dying in the summertime than the wintertime because of exposure. We talk about the cold winters--and that is very important to talk about--but for those of us who live in the West, these hot summers are very difficult. Old people need their homes cooled. So this LIHEAP legislation is important now. It is important now as we plan to prevent a major crisis that may come if gas prices do not fall significantly before winter.

We are going to introduce another package of critical bills that have been blocked by mostly one Senator. As the Presiding Officer knows, one Senator can have tremendous power in the Senate. We are going to turn to a package of critical bills that have passed the House of Representatives, have cleared the committees in the Senate, enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support, and have been blocked by one Senator on occasion--sometimes two.

A few examples of the kinds of bills that this one individual, or a couple of his friends joining with him, have prevented us from passing and becoming law are, for example, the Emmett Till Unsolved Crimes bill. For people who lived through that era, they believe there is something that needs to be done to help heal old wounds and provide the Department of Justice and the FBI tools needed to effectively investigate and prosecute unsolved civil rights era murders.

So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, this is important legislation, and it should not be held up as this has been held up. This is authorizing legislation. There is no reason in the world to hold this up.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth bill would provide grants for health care, education and workforce programs and housing programs for runaways and homeless youth. Why wouldn't we pass this? It has passed the House. It has been reported out of the committee overwhelmingly.

The Combating Child Exploitation bill would provide grants to train law enforcement to use technology to track individuals who trade in child pornography.

On the Senate floor, we may not think pornography is a big issue. We should. Years ago, when I was a practicing attorney, one of my clients was Dr. O'Gorman. Dr. O'Gorman was a psychiatrist in Las Vegas. He was a prominent physician. He became president of the State Medical Society. I was preparing a contract for him. We were waiting while the secretary typed the final part of it. I said to him: Doc, what is the biggest problem people come to see you about? Remember, we are in Las Vegas more than 25 years ago. What is the biggest problem people have who come to see you? He said pornography. I was stunned. Pornography? Yes, he said, pornography. He went on in some detail to tell me how pornography ruins people's lives, breaks up marriages, and is so destructive. We have a bill dealing with grown men, mostly, who trade in child pornography. Now, shouldn't we be able to pass that legislation? It establishes an Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force within the office of Justice Programs. This is something that should be matter of fact. It is being held up. We should pass this.

I don't know how many have had the experience--I think every Senator has had a friend or a relative or a neighbor who has been struck with Lou Gehrig's disease. It is devastating. From the time this disease is discovered until you die is about an average of 18 months. The ALS Registry bill would create a centralized database to help doctors and scientists better understand, and hopefully find a cure, for Lou Gehrig's disease. It afflicts 5,600 Americans every year.

Why is a registry important? When I first came to the Senate, I had three women come to visit me in my Las Vegas office. Those three women wanted to be someplace else, but they swallowed their pride and their embarrassment to come and visit with me. Why did they come to see me? Because all three of these women had a disease called interstitial cystitis. Ninety percent or more of the people who get this disease are women. The pain is best described as shoving slivers of glass up and down someone's bladder--excruciating pain. When these women came to see me, most all doctors thought it was psychosomatic.

Well, the first thing we did with this disease is we worked to establish within the National Institutes of Health a registry so people could gather information and have it set up so people who are physicians in one part of the country could look and see what was going on in other parts of the country and the scientists could go to work on it. Tremendous progress has been made with interstitial cystitis. Doctors can now more easily diagnosis this. There is now a medicine so that 40 percent of the people who have this disease have no pain--they are symptom-free.

One of the people who worked hard on this with us was a woman who was a professional golfer. To show you how difficult this disease is, this was a professional golfer who had been a great athlete her whole life. She was stricken with this disease before she was 30 years old. For her to try to complete a round of golf, she would have to go to the bathroom 25 or 30 times during 18 holes of golf. Well, she is one of the lucky people. The medicine helped her. She went on to win a number of tournaments. She is a success story. So why shouldn't we be able to start with Lou Gehrig's disease, as we did with this dread disease, interstitial cystitis, which now people clearly recognize is not psychosomatic.

Another piece of legislation in this package is the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act. We all know ``Superman'' was in a horse accident and was paralyzed. This legislation would enhance the cooperation of research, rehabilitation, and quality of life for people who suffer from paralysis. Not only would this bill accelerate the discovery of better treatments and cures, but it would help improve the daily lives of 2 million Americans who are awaiting a cure.

So I would hope that we, moving forward on this legislation, will get support from colleagues on this side of the aisle. We should not have one or two Senators stop everything from moving forward. People say: Well, why don't you do something about it? Madam

President, this is why we don't do anything about it: 83 filibusters. As to each one of these, when we finish and get the vote on a motion to proceed, it takes 30 hours; once we get on the bill and file cloture again, into cloture invocation, another 30 hours. We can't do this. We have about 40 bills in this package, every one of them similar to the 5 I have mentioned.

So I hope people will work with me so we can give the American people some recognition that the Senate isn't going to be a graveyard for important pieces of legislation. Emmett Till, runaway homeless youth, pornography, Lou Gehrig registry, and the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act.

I think the Republicans are going to have a choice. They can join the side of the American people or they can continue to stand beside a colleague intent on blocking virtually everything.

I hope we can work together as Democrats and Republicans to make this a week of progress, so the American people can recognize we are trying to do something to alleviate some of the problems facing this country. There are a lot of them.

Mr. President--Madam President, following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority will control the next 30 minutes.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act.

We have a number of issues we wish to talk about for a short time this morning. First, this gas crisis is really a crisis. If someone in Las Vegas, for example, becomes concerned, as many people are, about how much it costs to drive to work every day, there are things that can be done. Maybe they can carpool, maybe there is public transportation. At least there are some alternatives. If you live in rural Nevada, the problem becomes a little more difficult, because you have to drive such long distances. But there are ways that extra travel can be avoided. If you are a mother or father, taking children to soccer games or basketball games, there is a way you can avoid that by going with your neighbor, by working out arrangements so more than one family goes in a car.

But if you are a senior citizen on a fixed income, and you see winter approaching, there are no alternatives. The alternatives are very bleak. If you cannot afford the fuel in your tank or heating oil in the Northeast, it is very difficult. You are subject to freezing and getting sick. That is why we have to do something with LIHEAP.

I have had Democrats and I have had Republicans come to me: When are you going to do something on LIHEAP? So I have a couple of unanimous consents I am going ask on LIHEAP.