Floor Statements

Mr. President, I don't think, with all due respect to my good friend, the majority leader, who decided to bring up this bill, that discussing one of the most massive bills we have seen is a waste of time. I don't think 30 hours is too long. The Wall Street Journal, which he dismisses--I don't dismiss it--said:

This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme

since the income tax.

That was today's Wall Street Journal editorial. I wish to say, this is not a matter that should be lightly dealt with. Thirty hours is not enough. We need to spend a lot of time talking about what the provisions are in this legislation, what we can do, as the majority leader says--and I agree, there are a lot of things we can do and we can do now--but what we ought not to.

I have to defend my friend, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican

leader, who objects to this legislation, and his statement that the Democratic leadership is out of touch. I have been traveling my State. I travel it a lot. I talk with a lot of people, and I hear one point: People are concerned about gasoline prices and energy prices. They know it is hurting their family budgets. Families are paying $50, $100 a month more this year for the same number of gallons of gasoline they were paying 2 years ago.

Where is that money going? Sixty percent is going to foreign nations where our oil is coming from. We are transmitting from our Nation $500 billion a year in wealth to foreign countries to buy this oil. So we need to do something. This wealth transfer is the largest in the history of the world. We have never seen anything like it, and it is, in my view, impacting our economy adversely.

I certainly believe we ought to do everything we can to create energy sources at home at reasonable prices and that we ought to seek to serve a lot of different interests.

I wish to respond to this sort of putdown of Mr. Charles Krauthammer. I think he is a fabulous columnist, a brilliant man, and a commentator. I believe the Wall Street Journal is one of the most sophisticated editorial pages in the country. I read an article in the Washington Post, from Mr. Robert Samuelson, pointing out the flaws in the legislation that is before us today. Patrick Michaels, in the Washington Times, and others are talking about the difficulty with this legislation. It is not a good idea, and it should not be done in this fashion, in my opinion.

We must be good stewards over this marvelous Earth over which we have dominion. It is also true that energy is a powerful force for good in the world. It has been estimated that in countries where electricity is readily available, the lifespan of the citizens are twice that in places where it is not. Electricity energy is the fabulous entity that has provided for the marvelous expansion of our lives, the quality of our lives, the health of our children and families, and without it, we would not be the people we are today. We would be still be hauling water in buckets from the spring.

It makes no sense that we would see this in any other light than as a good thing--how we can create more of it, cleaner, with less adverse impact on the environment and less adverse impact on our economy--and is something we ought to do.

Many are convinced and cite a great deal of scientific evidence that the world is warming and the time is short and the danger is great. But I think few would dispute the immensity of the Earth and the complexity of forces that are at work in our climate. So the warming experts have developed the most astounding, complex computer models to study and explain these forces and to monitor the warming trends that have been occurring for some decades, although apparently not the last 10 years. These computer models predict a continually abnormal warming trend in the long run. Many of our best scientists are convinced these computer models are fact, though others have questioned the extent of their accuracy of expected rise in temperatures and the negative consequences if it were to rise.

In a recent article by a senior fellow at Cato, Patrick Michaels, he noted there are some legitimate questions. I say this because I think there is certainly a majority view that we are, by emitting particularly carbon dioxide, warming our planet and that can have adverse consequences. But he made these points a couple of days ago. One point he made was that it is certain that the Earth has not warmed since 1998. That was a warm year, a very warm year. And it hasn't warmed since 2001 either. So it raises some questions.

Another study he quoted was published in Nature magazine by Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science in which he predicts no additional global warming ``over the next decade.'' So the question is, if we haven't had any in the last 10 years, and he is predicting another decade in the future, it suggests that we need to be thoughtful about how we handle this program; that we need to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce pollution, and we need to take strong steps, which I would support, but we need to do it in a thoughtful way.

Should we take action? Absolutely. Should it be a purely marketplace solution? I don't think so. I don't think we have a purely marketplace economy with regard to energy today. I believe government policies can impact what happens in the energy world, and I think there are things that we as a nation can do. So I would say, yes, I propose that we see and agree upon actions that can be taken now that will make a positive difference. And we can do that, I am convinced, in a way that does not drive up unnecessarily the burden on families or that mother who is trying to take care of her children and fill the gas tank and add another $1.50 a gallon.

By the way, that $1.50 a gallon increase on gasoline as a result of this cap-and-trade bill was an analysis done by the Environmental Protection Agency--our own EPA--a group that certainly has earned its reputation for being a fierce advocate for the environment. The National Association of Manufacturers also has scored it. They think it could be as much as $5 a gallon. And the Heritage Foundation has higher numbers than the EPA. So I don't know what it is, but I will tell you that on top of the rise in prices we have already seen, this legislation would drive up prices further. Not a single study suggests or says anything other than it will drive up the price of fuel on the American consumer.

Now, I will be frank with you. I participated in a hearing a couple of years ago in the Energy Committee on the cap-and-trade system in Europe. It sounded like something we might consider. I was interested in the hearings. I had believed that the sulfur dioxide emission cap and trade had worked in the United States and that this might work too. But after hearing the Europeans and business people and experts, I came away from that hearing in the Energy Committee very troubled.

Then, just a few weeks ago, we had another hearing on the economic cost of it, and it was very troubling indeed. So I have concluded that those are not the right steps. This kind of legislation is not the right step for us to take. I do not believe we should go down this road with this cap-and-trade proposal.

I want to note parenthetically, Mr. President, that the Environment and Public Works Committee that reported this bill to the floor never had a hearing, never had a hearing on how the trillions of dollars in cost that this bill will impose on working Americans and on businesses in this country will impact our economy. They never discussed that.

So I thank Senator Bingaman, the Democratic chairman of the Energy Committee, for at least having one hearing, with a few government experts who ran some of the numbers and pointed out the cost that could occur from this legislation.

So I have concluded that the cap-and-trade program is not going to work. It just will not work. It will create more lobbyists than ants in our country. It will, without doubt, sharply raise the cost of gasoline and electricity in America. It will make American businesses less competitive in the world, and it will surely damage our economy. It will also be, as everyone who looks at it will admit, a secret, sneaky tax. It is a tax of about $7 trillion on the American people, with the money going to some sort of funds and unelected persons to be spent in ways that we are not able to know right now how it will all be spent.

George Will, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, called it ``a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions.''

Now, is he an extremist? He is good with words, I will admit. I think that is maybe too kind for this legislation. In reality there is an element of power about it, and money. If the persons who propose this-- at least those from the outside, particularly, who are advocating it-- can overwhelm us at this point and overwhelm our common sense and our natural sense of caution, it may be that Congress will then turn over to them virtual control over the greatest engine of human progress the world has ever seen, and that is the American economy.

If this cap and trade becomes law, there will be politics, campaign contributions, corruption, promises, and lobbyists--yes, many lobbyists. It is

perfectly natural. When the Congress takes control of large segments of the productive capacity of our Nation and commences to pass legislation, and bureaucrats begin to issue tens of thousands of regulations, the Congress will then be picking winners and losers. And businesses, union members, workers, cities, counties, States--special interests--all do not want to be losers. They want to be winners. So they must exercise, therefore, their right to petition Congress concerning a host of matters they had heretofore never considered to be a matter they would hear from Washington about. But now they have to be engaged.

I can go on, but you can see the picture, and it is not a pretty sight. So I have decided this is not the right way to go forward to deal with the challenges that we face. It would be a calamity, I am convinced, to impose this process on the American economy and the American people. So I urge those who are listening today to pay close attention because those masters of the universe are at it again. They are ignoring the legitimate needs of the middle class and the poor for low-cost, clean energy. They think they can just repeal the law of supply and demand if we turn this economy over to them; that they can create energy and produce technological breakthroughs just by passing a law or by simply putting pretty words on a piece of paper. It is not going to work that way.

The ones who bear this cost will not be the Nobel prize winners living in huge mansions but people who drive their cars and trucks to work every day, who fight our wars, who contribute to their churches and other noble causes, and raise their children right. They are the ones who will pay this cost. So I propose we get away from this concept. It has not worked well in Europe.

Scientific American, last November-December, did a fabulous study. This premier scientific journal, which believes in global warming, says we ought to take strong action. You know what they say about it? From memory, my best recollection of the quote is:

A simple tax is the best way to deal with this problem. But

because politicians don't have guts to impose a tax on

carbon, what they are going to do is pass this cap-and-trade

legislation, and it will be a below-the-radar-screen tax. And

as a result, it causes many, many problems in implementation.

They pointed out those, one after another, in that important piece. So I propose we look for things that work by getting busy now, accelerating into production the ideas that may take us further and faster than we could proceed without government policy. In my view, common ground can be occupied on a need to deal with important issues along with global warming.

I think we need to deal with national security--our dependence on foreign oil. We need to continue to reduce pollution. We need to make sure we do not drive up cost and imperil our economy. We need to reduce CO2 global warming gases. We ought to focus on all those issues, not just one, and we should take actions that will work by promoting hybrid automobiles, which we have done. We have promoted ethanol, and that has jump-started that industry. We can proceed to producing hydrogen fuel cells. We are not there yet, but it is possible.

What about diesel automobiles? They get 35 or 40 percent better gas mileage. Conservation across the board should be a new ethic in this country as far as I am concerned. Wind, biofuels, especially cellulosic fuels can be beneficial, and I personally have seen that. We need more American production of natural gas. Natural gas is much cleaner than coal, and geothermal. But most particularly, I would note we are not going to reach our global warming goals, as Prime Minister Brown in Great Britain announced recently, without nuclear power. He reversed their policy and said they are going to add five new nuclear plants.

We haven't built a nuclear plant in this country in 30 years. Nuclear emits no CO2. It is economically more productive and not more expensive than other sources of energy. It emits no pollution into the atmosphere, and it certainly is an American-made product that provides for our independence from foreign intervention. We must do that. Any legislation that does not deal or does not enhance nuclear power--and this one does not--is not going to help us solve this problem.

So I would propose that we create an Apollo program, as we did in 8 years when we were planning on going to the Moon. My friend, Senator Alexander from Tennessee, proposes a Manhattan project--well, OK--in which we move in quick order on a host of actions that could actually help us meet our global warming and our energy independence and our economy's needs. We can do that.

Not a dime--not a dime--should unnecessarily be spent on bureaucrats, bean counters, technicians, regulators, lawsuits, or lobbyists. You think we would not have lawsuits with this legislation? The effort and money should be spent on doing what works, and doing that now, the things we know will work. I will support that.

I think we need a new department in the Department of Energy that will focus exclusively on implementing a historic, coordinated effort to bring forward the many improvements that can make us more energy independent and more secure; that will reduce pollution, strengthen-- not damage--our economy, and quickly begin to reduce CO2. I know that can be done.

I have been in Alabama this week traveling the State and taking a look at energy projects. Wood and switchgrass are being burned right now in a coal plant generating electricity. I saw a new clean diesel engine at the Mercedes plant that can get 35 to 40 percent better mileage than gasoline. The Europeans, by the way, have half their cars in diesel because it gets much better gas mileage. There is sustained work at the University of Alabama's Transportation Center on hybrids and plug-in hybrids. You plug in your car at night, at 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., and charge your battery from a nuclear powerplant emitting no emissions, and you can drive and commute back and forth to work without using a drop of oil.

That is the kind of thing that is within our grasp, that is not too far away, and we ought to look at it. Hydrogen fuel cells and other ideas were also presented at the university. Then, at Auburn University, I saw a transportable cellulosic gasification unit that will be brought to Washington on June 19, and they are going to receive the top award in the Nation for that. Wood goes in one end, it is heated, and out comes gas or liquid fuel, and at a price we believe can be competitive. It is clean energy, American energy, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and because it is from a plant--cellulose-- it is not increasing the net CO2 in the atmosphere.

I visited a small Christian school where students are working on algae as a source for gas for fuel. It has promise--trust me. I visited Huntsville, where, since 1984, they operate an incinerator to burn garbage for steam that operates the military's base at Redstone. This is proven. It is working. No other city in Alabama has such an incinerator. Another Alabama plan would take municipal waste and make ethanol from it. We were briefed on that. I visited the Jenkins Brick Company near Birmingham recently, and the heat they use comes from captured methane that comes off a landfill. So they are heating and cooking their brick with an energy source that, if leaked into the atmosphere, would be a particularly pernicious greenhouse gas. We have seen the collection, in Fairhope and Hoover and other places, of cooking oil for biodiesel instead of throwing it in the landfill. These are all actions that work.

I say let's forget this legislation, let's get busy doing things that will work. I and the American people are fed up with a dependence on foreign oil and the resulting high prices driven by the OPEC cartel that meets to decide how much they want to tax the American economy. They want to fight back. They are willing to take strong action now. But they are not understanding what this bill does. They do not expect the Congress to pass a bill that is going to cause them to pay even higher prices; that is going to create a huge bureaucracy with more regulations, lawsuits, lobbyists, and trillions of new taxes going to people who are not accountable to the American people--and they should not.

Snuffy Smith, the old cartoon guy who, in my youth, lived up in the mountains--he was a pretty good ethanol maker himself; maybe Senator

Webb would know that neighborhood--used to say, ``Great balls of fire, time's a wastin'.'' I say time's a wastin'. Let's get busy now, but let's do the things that work. Let's not create a bureaucracy that will be counterproductive.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise today to tell you about a wonderful and humble man, William Peyton Harris of Camden, AL, who died on February 25, 2008.

Mr. Harris was born October 22, 1909. He was a man who loved adventure and a man of many talents. He survived the Great Depression and worked some weeks for $5 per week. He grew up in a time when good morals, good manners, and discipline were the norm.

He was very fortunate to have married Lois Sutherland who was the perfect life partner for him. She was with him for 62 years. They had one son, my friend, Billy, three grandchildren and seven great- grandchildren.

At the age of 12, he rode a horse 2\1/2\ miles to see the last steamboats loading cotton bales on the Alabama River. Then, in the early 1960s, he salvaged an old steamboat that sank in 1850 and his discovery revealed lost treasure.

He was well known in his later years for his artwork of Old South scenes and wildlife, especially the wild turkey, which he also loved to hunt. His art studio was in the back of an old country store he owned and operated for many years in Possum Bend. The store was known as the ``Social Center'' of Possum Bend. After renting out the country store, he concentrated more on his art. His popularity grew and in 2001, he was interviewed by CNN and the interview aired on national television. Buyers for his art increased and more visitors stopped by his studio. No matter how busy he was, there was always time for his friends and customers. Good conversation occurred on subjects from politics to weather, and from grandchildren to divorces and if you were down and out, or had a cold, he would always offer you a little of his special ``remedy.''

As a son of a store owner in a nearby community myself, I remember some of those times very well when as a young boy I observed such scenes, but times have changed. We are much ``busier'' now, though not necessarily wiser. The old store stands vacant. Only fond memories remain of the life of a wonderful man who was one of the last of a great generation.

Mr. President, I wish today to pay tribute to BG Neil Smart, former battalion commander in the Battle of the Bulge in World War II and Director of the Veterans Administration Regional Office in Montgomery, AL. General Smart's service to this nation was long and distinguished.

Smart was commissioned a second lieutenant in the ROTC department of the University of Alabama in 1938. He left Active Duty as a lieutenant colonel and continued to serve in the National Guard. After General Smart completed his military service, he continued to serve the Nation's veterans in his work with the Veterans' Administration. He led the VA in Alabama in an exemplary manner from 1958 to 1974.

General Smart also loved to share stories of World War II. He felt this was a legacy his generation should leave younger generations. He really liked to tell the story about an unscheduled inspection he and his battalion had to undergo during World War II. The inspectors were GEN Dwight Eisenhower, GEN Omar Bradley, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

This 94-year-old was also a key fundraiser in the efforts to build a memorial honoring the American effort in World War II. He was scheduled to visit the World War II Memorial with an Honor Flight group from the Prattville and Montgomery area of Alabama this past Saturday. My wife and I were there at the memorial to meet this group of heroes. When the group arrived, we were told the sad news that General Smart had died just hours before their departure.

So, Mr. President it is my honor to pay tribute to this great Alabamian and American. He served his State and Nation well.

Reserving the right to object, I was thinking I was supposed to speak at 4 o'clock and the Senator was to speak after me. I don't know how long it might be if she continues. I have a conflict coming on my

schedule too. I need about 10 minutes. So my inquiry, before I object, might be how long the Senator might expect to proceed.

I don't object to that, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I think most of my colleagues may not yet be aware, and would probably be shocked to learn, that late Thursday afternoon during the Appropriations Committee markup, 110 pages of controversial immigration provisions were added to the war supplemental package in the form of four very significant Senate amendments to the House messages. It has been less than a year since the resounding defeat of the Senate immigration bill on June 28 of last year, where cloture failed by a vote of 46 to 53. The proponents of that legislation hoped to get 60 votes, and we walked down there in front of the American people and only 46 voted for it and 53 voted against it.

Yet the amnesty proponents--those who want to enact legislation that legalizes their status and forgives criminal activity, as opposed to creating a lawful system of immigration--are obviously continuing their determined effort to override the will of the American people and legalize the illegal alien population, without Congress acting to fulfill its responsibility to secure the border and create a lawful system of immigration.

That is what it is all about. This is a determined effort to push through the amnesty and the legalization status for people who have entered this country illegally subsequent to our 1986 bill, in which we said we would never have amnesty again, and they continue to seek ways to do that. So now they are seeking to attach their plan to a bill that provides necessary funds for our soldiers in Iraq. The 110 pages of immigration provisions now hidden in the supplemental war bill are offered in the

form of several amendments. Together, these amendments would legalize approximately 3 million illegal alien workers and their family members. They called it AgJOBS light. It is very bad policy, bad legislation, and should not become law. I don't think most of the Senators know this, and I ask that you pay attention to this. It would increase by up to fivefold the number of low-skilled temporary workers who will come to the United States over the next 3 years--5 times the current legal rate of 66,000 workers under that H-2B program.

Some way, we have been allowing more in under that program. Yes, when the economy was booming, we did get up to about 120-some-odd-thousand. This was on that basis even to be at least 2\1/2\ times the highest amount we have ever admitted under H-2B, at a time when people are being laid off. I understand the experts expect maybe today or tomorrow a higher unemployment rate to be demonstrated in our country. So why are we going to increase 2\1/2\ times the immigration under that bill?

It would also increase the number of employment-based green cards that will be given out over the next few years by 218,000. It is called green card recapture. I note that a green card, in effect, gives permanent legal status to a person who has a green card, and a guaranteed path to citizenship, as long as they don't have some felony offense. It would reauthorize the Foreign Investor Visa Program. That program probably deserves consideration for renewal and reauthorization. I just thought we certainly have not discussed it in the Judiciary Committee, where I think it is supposed to be coming forward. No hearings have been held on it. It was stuck in while the appropriators were considering funding our military men and women in Iraq and in other places. It was stuck into that without any real debate.

The merits of each of these provisions, I suggest, are worthy of discussion. I have proposed--and I think Senator Saxby Chambliss has agreed with me--a genuine temporary AgJOBS worker program that I think could be the foundation for improvement in this area. But that has been flatly rejected by those in the West, who seem to be obsessed with a program that guarantees people a permanent residence in America, and maybe even a pathway to citizenship--those who came here illegally. We have not had hearings on this in the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, of which I am a member.

I guess the question is, why would they do this? I think it is like we have had time and again--and I hate to say it. It is an effort to bury major alterations in our policy of immigration in legislation that is rushed through the floor of the Congress, without full consideration by the Senators and a full evaluation by the American people. That has been the problem. They tried to bring up the bill last summer in 1 week. We were able to demand and have some votes and some amendments and discussion. When the American people found out what was in it, they put an end to it. So many phone calls came in, the entire Senate switchboard shut down. That is when votes started changing from aye to nay.

I think it is distressing, and it is one reason there is a lack of public confidence in the Congress, because we say one thing in public, and we say something else in committee meetings when, apparently, people are not looking so closely.

Last summer, the words were: We got the message, America. We understand now that you do want a legal system of border security first, before we go through an amnesty proposal. That was what we talked about. That was what I think everybody on both sides seemed to agree was the message of that debate. It was the right answer. That is what the American people instinctively favored. The American people were fundamentally correct on that all along. It was Congress that was out of step with morality, law, and propriety. The American people spoke to them last summer, and I thought we had gotten the message. But oh, no, here we come again.

You don't see any amendments slipped into these appropriations bills that would actually help us improve the legal system in America, that would actually help this country establish a system of immigration that is generous and fair and serves the national interests. Those are not introduced. It is always a way to do a back-door amnesty.

Let me say this. We provide each year over a million green cards to people who want to become American citizens. A green card gives them a guaranteed permanent residence in America. It puts them on a path to citizenship if they avoid any serious difficulties in the next several years and answer a few English and history questions. This is a generous nation. We have temporary worker programs that work pretty well. But why is it we seem to be incapable of going on and closing the loop and creating a lawful system that actually works? It is frustrating to me. This is not acceptable. This is not an acceptable way to do business. We do not need to have the war supplemental tied up in this kind of controversial debate. I hope my colleagues will see what they can do to make sure our troops are funded in a way that does not create an AgJOBS lite legislation that is fundamentally unacceptable.

What does this AgJOBS do? It is 101 pages. It passed by a 17-to-12 vote. It would grant 3 million illegal aliens--1.35 million workers, plus approximately 1.62 million family members--a 5-year amnesty, or if you would rather call it so, a 5-year legalization to live and work in the United States. For almost all legal purposes, the amendment requires that these legalized illegal aliens be treated as lawful permanent residents. They get basically the same status as green card holders do, except they do not have guaranteed permanency.

Illegal aliens who qualify for the 5-year amnesty are those--get this; this is all it takes to qualify, that you perform agricultural employment for 863 hours or 150 days, 3 months' worth of work, have earned $7,000 from agricultural employment over the course of a 4-year period, anytime from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2007. That is just last year. This is just last December 31.

It is particularly galling to me--just think about this--this Nation says it is serious about controlling illegal entry into America. Every Senator I know has repeatedly said: I am for a legal system; I am not for illegal entry into America, I don't approve of that. But we would propose legislation--get this--that if you came in last July, and you were able to break through the border barriers that have been put up, the fences, or avoided the National Guard and got into our country illegally, you will be given a 5-year legal status in America. See what this is as a matter of consistency and morality? It is an undermining respect of law at its most basic level. It indicates we have not gotten the message from the American people.

There is no requirement in this amendment that the illegal alien prove they paid their taxes on the wages they obtained when they were here. Examples of who would qualify for this legalization includes any illegal alien who arrived as of the end of 2007 and earned $7,000 in agriculture that year. Mr. President, $7,000; what is that, 3 or 4 months?

Also covered are illegal aliens who arrived as recently as July of 2007 and worked 150 days in agriculture before 2008. It covers illegal aliens who arrived years ago and earned a mere $1,750 for a 4-year period in agricultural employment. They will qualify. It covers aliens who arrived illegally years ago and worked a mere 37.5 days in agriculture a year for 4 years. It will not matter that for the other 327 days a year, they were not working at all or they were competing illegally and improperly with American workers for other jobs that might be available in the economy.

I have seen these bills time and time again. We point out these loopholes in the legislation. But I just want to tell you, Mr. President, I am pretty well convinced now, having seen it time and time again, that this is no drafting error. This was a deliberate attempt to provide a huge number of persons the opportunity to obtain legal status, even though they had a most peripheral connection to agricultural labor.

It also allows spouses and children to receive 5-year visas, allowing them to live and work--and work--in the United States. Illegal aliens whose spouses and children are not already illegally present in the United States

would be encouraged under this amendment to come to the United States. They would be encouraged to bring them to the United States because the application period does not start for 7 months after enactment.

Spouses and children who are in the United States by the time the illegal alien applies for and receives this amnesty will also qualify. Do you see? So a person makes the application, and he has a powerful incentive to bring in his family.

Astonishingly, if the spouse or child is caught crossing the border illegally--we have to think about this in terms of our commitment to the rule of law. I ask my colleagues to think about it. If a spouse or a child is caught crossing the border trying to come into America illegally in violation of our laws, the bill actually prohibits them from being deported, as long as they make a claim they are eligible for this amnesty also.

Spouses will be given permission to work in the United States in any job, not just AgJOBS, even if they were not previously working. The amendment's flaws are not cured by the fact that the visa sunsets in 5 years. They say: Don't worry, it is only a 5-year amnesty, a 5-year legalization. I can ask seriously, I say to my colleagues and friends in the Senate, what will Congress do 5 years from now when a person has now brought their family here for 5 years, they have had 5 years in the school and it will become far more painful to confront their circumstance than if we had not created this legal status to begin with?

A real temporary worker program, which I think we can establish and is important for America, would allow workers to come for less than a year, but without their families, and to work for a period of time but will return home. That is a temporary worker program, and we could make that feasible. But, no, that is not what this is. It is 5 years with your family, digging and putting down roots, and it is not going to be anything Congress wants to wrestle with to ask them then to leave America. They will have quite a number of arguments why they should stay.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert Byrd, was correct when he stated in the committee markup: ``This amounts to amnesty.''

Although the amendment stopped short of giving all illegal aliens who get the 5-year amnesty visa an automatic pathway to citizenship, it specifically--get this. This really must be a great lobbying group. We need to find out who lobbies for these people. It stopped short of getting most of the illegal aliens who get the amnesty visa an automatic pathway to citizenship, but it specifically creates a pathway to citizenship for sheepherders, goat herders, and dairy workers.

Why were they picked out, please tell me? Does this make sense? They would get a 3-year visa which converts to a green card, which is a permanent resident status, and with the right within a few years to apply for citizenship.

It is most distressing, and most distressing to me at the most fundamental level. We have to think about this. This is just another attempt to take action that will eviscerate the rule of law, will eviscerate the respect we have gradually been gaining. And we could have done it a lot more, but we have made some progress in convincing the world that our border is not open, that it is a lawful system, and if they want to come to America, they must come lawfully.

I think this is bad national policy because it undermines respect for law. It says to the rest of the world: Yes, we say we have the National Guard there, we say we are building fences, we say we put more Border Patrol agents down on the border, but we really don't care. If you can just get in and work here a few days, then you are guaranteed to stay with your family, if you can get them in. Even after you apply for this 5-year amnesty, you can bring your family, and then maybe we will talk about what will happen to you 5 years from now.

I note also that one of the key points that ought not to be dismissed by the American people is that there is not one provision--not one provision--in this AgJOBS lite to further enforcement--not one--but everything there is about ignoring and erasing the consequences that naturally flow from violating the laws of America. That is most distressing.

I will take a minute to encourage my colleagues to be aware of the H- 2B returning worker provisions that have been made a part of the war supplemental, also that have no business being part of that bill. It allows any person who has worked in the United States as an H-2B worker--that is a low-skilled, nonagricultural foreign worker--in the past 3 years to return for another year without counting against the 66,000 annual numerical cap.

The exemption would last through 2011, which is important, and the result could easily be a very large increase in the number of low- skilled workers who enter the United States over the next 3 years, and these are not agricultural workers. They will be competing for jobs with American workers.

Under the current law, a total of 198,000 workers will enter the United States on H-2B visas over the next 3 years, 66,000 per year. If this amendment becomes law, the number of low-skilled foreign workers invited into the United States will soar. Up to 300,000 H-2B workers will enter the United States in fiscal year 2009 alone, up to 366,000 will enter in 2010, and up to 432,000 will enter in fiscal year 2011, for a total of up to 1 million workers entering over the next 3 years. That is more than a fivefold increase over the number expected under current law. These workers will be competing with American workers in construction, food production, manufacturing industries, and any other industries of that nature in a time when we have a softening economy and job market.

Some say we have expanded those numbers to 66,000 and we have gotten up to 120,000 some-odd workers, so this is not such a huge increase. It is about 2\1/2\ times in a time when the unemployment rate is going up in America.

How did this get in? Did we have any hearings on it? Was the American community asked whether they think it is healthy? Did we have any experts talk about what an impact it might have on wages? No, it was just slipped in.

Hopefully, somehow we can move the war supplemental in a way that does not create a debate over immigration in the Senate. I don't think it is the right thing to do. This legislation should not be attached to it. I oppose the AgJOBS lite as vigorously as possible, and I believe the H-2B returning worker number is far larger than it needs to be. I have discussed trying to work out something of a reasonable nature previously, but I was surprised to see this broad piece of legislation be attached to the war supplemental.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to make some remarks today about Alabama's State champion and national finalist in the ``We the People'' competition. Vestavia Hills High School placed fourth in the national We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national finals, held in Washington, DC. This impressive competition, headed by the Center for Civic Education, engaged young people in the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government.

Members of this remarkable team from Vestavia Hills included Diana Chen, Colleen Cusick, William Desmond, Felipe Goncalves, Lauren Hammonds, Pei-Ann Lin, Tyler Martin, Robert Nuttall, Shannon O'Sheal, Thomas Oliver, Sean Sapp, Curry Stevenson, Andrew Swindle, Wesley Vaughn, Jay Watson, Ylia Wilson, Shin Xu, and Zaka Yazdi.

I would like to congratulate Amy Maddox, the teacher who led this fine team. Teachers shape the future, and I appreciate Ms. Maddox's investment in these students. As a former educator and the father of three children, I have a great admiration for educators, and I am grateful that educators like Ms. Maddox are making a difference.

I would also like to thank Janice Cowin, the executive director of the Alabama Center for Law and Civic Education.

I applaud the efforts of students, teachers, and community leaders who made this accomplishment possible. Vestavia Hills High School is an exceptional school and has represented Alabama well. I encourage these students to continue pursuing a deep understanding of the Constitution and our Government. It is important that we raise up quality leaders that will serve our country in years to come.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the question of updating GI bill education benefits for our veterans and service personnel is something that we need to do. I think all of us agree on that. I have to say that how we do it, however, is very important.

The Webb-Warner bill, as written, fails in some very important ways, ways that make it poor legislation. We need to be honest about that.

I believe the bill offered by Senators McCain, Burr, and Graham is much better legislation. Frankly, I thank Senator McCain for having the gumption to stand up and see the problems with this legislation. He said he knew it was important and he was willing to take some political heat here to try to do the right thing.

Let me read you what the Congressional Budget Office has said about this legislation.

This is what they say about retention. We heard that in remarks from some Senators earlier, but retention deals with how many people re-up and decide after their initial tour of duty is up to make a longer--a new commitment to stay in the military for a longer period or even make it a career. We are in a career military, and I could not be more proud of them. They are performing so exceptionally well. No person who has been around the military for a few years would ever want to go back to the system we had before. This one is working surprisingly well, beyond our expectations. And even in this war where if you reenlist you are likely to be sent abroad, retention continues to be very high.

What will this bill do? According to the Congressional Budget Office, S. 22, as amended, would, in effect, result in ``a 16-percent decline in the reenlistment rate.'' I am telling you, those of us who have been watching the reenlistment rate as members of the Armed Services Committee--and I have been on that committee since I have been in the Senate, and I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Pryor, is on that committee and knows these issues--reenlistment is critical. This Webb amendment has the perverse effect of paying people to leave the military. We should not do that. We should create incentives as the Burr-McCain-Graham bill does. It encourages people to stay in and gives even more rewards if they stay in and their family more rewards if they stay in. That is the right thing for us to do. I wanted to mention that point.

I am also troubled by how the money is allocated. We have done a calculation. The way it is set up under the Webb amendment, if a person were to take advantage of this GI bill benefit under his provision, a University of Alabama student could receive $13,569 per year and a student at Auburn University would receive $13,355 a year, but a student at the University of Michigan would receive $22,413. That is an $8,000 difference. That is a lot. Is this what we want to do? I don't know what they would give somebody who is an Arkansas Razorback. They would probably give them less than that. No, that is a great university. I don't see any need for me to be supportive of a bill that is going to discriminate that much between State universities. In fact, if the McCain legislation were to pass, students at Alabama and Auburn would receive an additional $400 and $500 under his bill. It would be more generous to students in my State under the McCain bill.

I say to my colleagues, I think Senator Webb and others who supported this legislation are on the right track. It is time for us to improve the GI bill benefits for our soldiers and their families. We can do that. We ought to put some money in it. I understand our budget is tight, but I am prepared to vote some resources to improve this idea. But I do not believe we should ever consider--please understand--ever consider setting a policy that would essentially encourage and pay people through subsidies to leave the military. We ought to create educational benefit programs that affirm them, affirm their families, as they make the military a career. That is what our current involvement is.

Before I yield the floor, I will say that is why I have chosen to not support the Webb approach and have chosen to support the McCain approach. I think it is preferable.

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

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to my friend, former Congressman William Louis ``Bill'' Dickinson, who recently passed away after an extended illness. He represented the Second District of Alabama as a Member of Congress from 1965 to 1993.

Bill was born in Opelika, AL, on June 25, 1925. After graduating from Opelika public schools, he enlisted in the Navy, serving from 1943 to 1946 and then joined the Air Force Reserves.

After graduating from the University of Alabama Law School, Bill returned to Opelika where he practiced law before becoming an Opelika city judge. He later served as a judge of the Lee County Juvenile Court, and as a judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of Alabama.

In 1964, Bill was elected as a Republican to Congress for the Second District of Alabama. He was known to his colleagues on both sides of the aisle as an honest and collegial statesman and a first-rate legislator. The people of southeast Alabama were proud of Bill's work in representing them in Congress, as evidenced by his election to 14 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Bill never wavered from his conservative principles. It would be difficult to count the ways that Alabama and our Nation benefited from Bill's time in Congress. Though we did not serve together, I knew him well, campaigning for him when I was in college and benefiting from his strong support and wise advice since I have been in the Senate.

As a long standing member of the House Armed Services Committee, he worked arduously for our men and women in uniform. His work was decisive in supporting military bases in Alabama that have become strong, enduring installations like Maxwell Air Force Base and Fort Rucker. He was a fixture on the Armed Services Committee, serving 10 years as ranking member. Indeed, it was ironic that if he had chosen to seek another term, he would have been the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. As the committee's leading Republican, he gave his support to President Reagan's defense buildup in the 1980s which helped to bring down the Soviet Union. Our Nation's military continues to reap the benefits of programs and policies adopted under his watch.

There are times when our Nation has to defend itself and Bill Dickinson fully understood that reality. That knowledge made him a steadfast advocate for the proposition that the best way to peace was through strength.

Finally, despite all of his accomplishments, Bill's family and his many friends will miss his wit and humor. As we say in the South, he was ``good company''. People loved to hear him speak. The smiles on the faces of the audience would start even before he reached the podium. His humor and a realistic approach to life were surely great assets to his work.

He is survived by his wife, Barbara, four children, and grandchildren. They have all been superb citizens, and I am proud to say that his son, Bill, worked for me when I was attorney general doing a great job for the people of the State of Alabama.

Our State and our Nation are better places because of Bill Dickinson's leadership. Let his service be an example for those of us who continue to serve in public office.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his work on the Agriculture bill. It is time we get this bill done. I hope we can do so. I am sure he would agree with some of the statements the Bush administration has made with regard to the question of ethanol that it is not the driving force behind the increase in food prices. This administration has never been overwhelmingly in favor of ethanol, but they have concluded that 2 percent to 3 percent of the increase in food prices deals with ethanol.

We certainly made some progress in reducing the number of gallons we import around the world, sending wealth around the world because we have farmers and American workers who are producing this ethanol. Iowa is in the center of that, and I congratulate the leadership of the Senator from Iowa over the years. It is a net positive for the country.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about energy prices because this is a national crisis; it is a matter this Congress needs to deal with.

Prices are at record highs. According to AAA, the average price of regular unleaded gasoline this morning was $3.71 a gallon. For an average family with two cars, that could well mean $70 to $100 a month extra money out of their budget to get the same number of gallons they bought 2 or 3 years ago. This is particularly troubling since 60 percent of the oil we import comes from abroad, and a big portion of that money the American family pays is going to foreign governments hostile to the United States, in some instances. And, it is just not healthy. In my view, it also cannot be disputed that this wealth transfer is a major factor in the economic slowdown we are experiencing today.

The question we in Congress have to ask is, What are we going to do about it? I believe there is a simple answer with many complex parts. The simple answer is, let's get busy doing what works, what we know will work. Certainly, let's not do things that make the situation worse, that is going to drive up the price of energy even more, and that is being proposed in this Senate. It is time to take a long road back to a sound energy policy that can and will bring down the price of gasoline. Permanently? I don't know. We see economies around the world growing, nations such as China that have about one automobile for every 20 people, and we average two automobiles per family in the United States. They are coming into that. They are going to continue to grow, have more cars. South America is growing. Other areas of the world are growing. They are utilizing more energy. They have bigger houses and they have more automobiles and the supply is not going to be able to continue to increase.

I want to talk about the reality today and the fact that I believe energy prices are higher than they need to be, and there are some things we can do to improve them.

Congress has done some things. We increased fuel efficiency. Last year we passed, and the President signed into law, the Energy Independence and Security Act. Among its provisions, this measure raises the CAFE standards, the automobile mileage standards, to 35 miles per gallon for an automobile manufacturer's entire fleet by 2020. That is moving. We think we can do that. I supported it. I believe we can get to that goal. I am confident we can.

Prior to this step of going to 35 miles per gallon, CAFE standards were just 27.5 miles per gallon for automobiles and 22 miles for light trucks and SUVs. So raising the standard to 35 miles overall will certainly reduce oil demand by ensuring that we travel further per gallon of gas, we get more benefit from each gallon of gas.

I hope Americans, looking at the prices and looking at our national interest and not being so dependent on foreign oil, will seek ways in their own families to save money for themselves and help America by reducing unnecessary utilization of energy. Yet reducing demand through increased efficiency is not the only solution. Our population is growing, and other factors are at work. We are not going to be able to conserve our way out of this problem. We use more energy as the population grows and as people make more money. In order to produce this additional energy, more must be done to increase clean American production of energy. We can do that. The United States has significant reserves of oil at home, and this Congress has the ability to allow these reserves to be produced.

According to the Department of Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey, approximately 119 billion barrels of oil exist on and offshore in the United States. Remember, we produce 40 percent of the energy we utilize today for automobiles. That is liquid energy, and we can produce more of it. It will have an impact on the global price if we increase in the months to come the amount of oil we produce at home.

Developing traditional energy sources of oil is not the only way to increase the supply and reduce the cost of gasoline. The United States has an immense supply of unconventional oil called oil shale. The Congressional Research Service--that is our independent research service in Congress--estimates this country's oil shale reserves to be the equivalent--hold your hat--the equivalent of approximately 2 trillion barrels of oil--trillion barrels. We utilize about 5 billion a year. That is eight times the amount of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. And we also have an abundant supply of coal which can be converted into gasoline using technology currently proven in South Africa.

This is a step we need to work on and to take. We realize we have to do clean coal, we have to do clean technology in the oil shale area, and we have to understand that it will probably create more CO2 than just producing a barrel

of oil from Saudi Arabia and burning it in our automobiles because it has to be heated. But in the short term, we are very unwise, as we transition away from oil, if we do not consider coal to oil and shale to oil, both of which, I am told, can be brought in for around $50 a barrel, less than half the world price. We simply have to consider that as we go forward.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Government, the people of the United States, spent $237 billion on imported oil in 2007. It is estimated this year, 2008, we will spend $412 billion on imported oil, and the price seems to continue to go up. Indeed, 12 months from today, it may well be over $500 billion for imported oil. This is money that could be churned in our economy paying American workers good wages.

Yet Congress has consistently blocked the development of this Nation's oil resources. I have been here for 12 years. I know how it went down. I have been part of the debate over ANWR and gulf offshore drilling. We finally, 2 years ago, were able to open some areas in the Gulf of Mexico. But we have huge reserves of oil and gas off our coasts throughout America, and we need to do a better job of allowing that to be available so we don't have to buy so much from abroad.

Biofuels can play an important role in keeping the cost of energy down. Despite the claims of detractors, ethanol and biodiesel do reduce our dependence on foreign oil to a significant degree. They keep money at home because this energy is generated here and, as I indicated with Senator Harkin, it creates jobs in Iowa, in Alabama, and keeps that wealth at home.

The American people may ask: Why aren't we producing American energy if it can reduce the price of gas? And I think improved efficiency and conservation, combined with an increase of supply, can have more of an impact in breaking this boom of oil prices than a lot of people think. It does not have to be unprecedented reserves of oil coming on the market in a short period of time, but a lot of this is speculation, a lot of this is a shortage of supply, and if the demand drops down because people conserve and we can get the supply up a measurable degree and get above that demand with our supply, the ability of these foreign nations and oil companies and speculators to manipulate the price falls completely. The reason they are successful in seeing prices surge is because we have too tight a margin between demand and supply.

The opposition to producing more oil and gas at home has been hypocritical, frankly. While opponents of American energy--the same ones who complain the loudest about high energy costs--they also object to producing more gas and oil in the United States, but they do not object to producing it, apparently, in places such as Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. It is all right to import it and buy it from them. And while they object to production--and by a narrow margin we were able to open the gulf this summer, finally, some--but while they object to production offshore in so many areas of our country and in Alaska, citing environmental concerns that I don't think are realistic and I think are exaggerated, they show no regard, I suggest, for the production of oil offshore in places such as Nigeria or Indonesia or production in the Caspian Sea or the Persian Gulf or the North Sea or off Venezuela and in a lake in Venezuela.

Indeed, we have a great record of environmental stewardship, far superior than most of these countries. Our oil companies would operate their production under the strictest environmental rules in the world.

Even during Hurricane Katrina, not too far from my hometown of Mobile, AL, out in the gulf, not one of the oil platforms leaked. Their safety systems worked as they were designed to, safely shutting off the wells below the surface. Most of them are back up and running today. Producing American energy creates funding for environmental projects throughout America, throughout Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. These are the four States that have agreed to offshore production. Our States are able to obtain environmental moneys as a part of that agreement we approved 2 years ago. In Alabama, this funding has been used for wetlands preservation, restoration, and educational purposes. Instead of sending our wealth to foreign countries to build palaces for rich sheiks, and hotels that have few occupants that are some of the finest in the world, and skyscrapers, we are using funds from American offshore production to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to complete other much needed environmental projects.

Tomorrow, this Senate will vote on the American Energy Production Act of Senator Pete Domenici. This measure--and I cosponsored it, and others have--is a step in the right direction. It is not the complete solution, but it is something we can do now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute to wrap up.

This is a step in the right direction. It would suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, invest money in establishing new batteries that will allow us to move to more fuel-efficient electric automobiles--plug-ins, hybrids--utilizing nuclear power. It will produce more offshore and in Alaska and help reduce that $400 to $500 billion wealth transfer that is occurring in our country today and that is impacting adversely our national economy and impacting adversely the family budget.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I see Senator Thune, who wanted to have 4 minutes to file an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized when I finish my remarks.

Mr. President, I so much appreciate the remarks of Senator Domenici. He has given his career in the Senate to dealing with energy issues. There is no one here who is more deeply steeped in those issues and the history of how we got here and how we could be in better shape today than Senator Domenici. We don't want to be in a blame game. We don't want to be saying, ``I told you so.'' In fact, I will admit that I have made decisions, when the price of a barrel of oil was $30 and $40. It is different when it is now $120, as the Senator from New Mexico pointed out. We are facing a crisis, and we need to do some things. We don't need to do a piece of legislation that is pending on this floor, that came out of the EPW Committee, that not only won't help us deal with our crisis in energy but will actually surge the cost of energy, which is the only big piece of legislation I know relevant to the question that is now pending, other than legislation Senator Domenici offered.

Gas today is over $3.60 a gallon. That is well over what it was 2 years ago. People are spending $60 to fill up with a tank of gas. The average family who has two cars is spending no doubt $50 to $100 more a month for the same amount of gasoline they were purchasing the previous few years. It is an enormous cost to that family. It is an impediment to economic vitality. It is a very significant, if not the most significant, factor in the economic slowdown we are dealing with. Electricity also will be going up. One expert has said that we could basically be seeing a $100-a-month increase in the average family's electricity bill. If we pass this cap-and-trade bill, it will be a lot more than that. Diesel priced fuel is up--too high, in my view. I can't understand why it is consistently 60 cents more per gallon than regular gasoline. An airline official told me not long ago that jet fuel is double.

So we have a problem. We really do. I know everybody has goals and visions about how we can solve this problem. Senator Domenici and I share a deep belief that nuclear power can be a primary source in the years to come to deal with this crisis. In fact, he has written a book about it. We have advocated this for some time. I think that reality is beginning to dawn more clearly on us today. But it is going to be maybe 7, 8, 10 years to get a new nuclear plant up and running. But we can generate large numbers of them if we follow smart procedures and have that come on line. But the point I think we are trying to make is: That is 10 years down the road. It may take 10 years to do ANWR. We can bring on coal-to-liquid technology. That can happen, but it takes some time. But we need to get started.

We are so hopeful we can do more with conservation. I supported the bill last year to raise our fuel standards, CAFE standards, automobile mileage standards up to 37, 35 miles per gallon, the entire fleet, including trucks. That is going to be difficult to achieve, but it will conserve a tremendous amount of fuel and be good for us. But that is not going to solve our problem either.

So what must we do? I think we must have a long-term policy. I believe that policy should focus on investing in the ideas and concepts that have potential to be breakthrough technologies to confront this problem. There are a number of them out there.

Hydrogen. President Bush pushed hydrogen for our automobiles, but from what I can understand, that is coming along slower than we would like. There are a number of very difficult technical problems with hydrogen. It takes some time. We would love to see the hybrid automobiles be able to be converted to plug-in hybrid automobiles, and progress is being made in that regard that is pretty exciting. We may be getting closer there than we think. That would convert from liquid fuel that runs our automobiles to electricity. We can utilize electricity generated in nuclear plants that emits no CO2, no pollution into the atmosphere, and do that at night when they are not fully engaged and be able to drive, for most people, all they need to drive that day on a battery charge at night, utilizing no fuel in their automobile. What a great thing that would be.

We also have, as Senator Domenici has pointed out, though, great reserves of oil and gas and energy in our country. The sad fact is, we are not going to be able to get away from fossil fuels in the next few decades. We are just not going to be able to get away from that. People seem to have no problem that we buy it from foreign countries, some of which are not friendly to us. We can just buy from them. But if you talk about producing that oil and gas here in the United States, in our country, they get, for some reason, to objecting. We have seen it time and time again.

I was so pleased that last year, under Senator Domenici's leadership--the year before last, I guess--we passed legislation to open 8.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. But we left closed to drilling huge areas in the Gulf of Mexico, some of which have tremendous reserves of oil and gas. We have opened

none off the Pacific coast, where there are huge resources, and none off the Atlantic coast. We have shown in the Gulf of Mexico that even with this powerful hurricane, these billion-dollar rigs can sustain the storm and not provide economic destruction or damage to the gulf. We can do that around the world. So the question is, Are we going to take that step? This legislation helps us go in that direction.

We have seen and shown you can convert coal. We have huge reserves of coal-to-liquid that can burn in our automobiles. That is technology which is ready to go today basically. We just need to prove it out in a large commercial area, and the Government should help establish that technology. But the point I would like to make is that would produce huge amounts of energy we can utilize in our vehicles and keep the money at home.

So there are many other things we can do and are doing.

I believe the concerns over ethanol raising food prices are exaggerated. Even President Bush, who has been somewhat skeptical of this--his own administration said they thought about 2 percent to 3 percent of the price of food was as a result of ethanol being produced from corn and soybeans for biodiesel. It is not the main factor in the rise of farm prices. But it certainly helped us not to have to import lots and lots of foreign oil into the United States.

I will recall for my colleagues that according to the Congressional Research Service, this year we will import into America $400 billion- plus worth of oil. Probably, the next year from this day--the next 12 months--it would be over $500 billion worth of oil. This is the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world. It is money we have, as American citizens, that is ending up in the pockets of countries--small countries, some of them, building more skyscrapers than they have apartment complexes--unbelievable displays of wealth. We can do better about that. We need to produce more energy here at home, energy that we have. If we do so, we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And if we can reduce that amount through conservation, through local American production, the result could be that we could knock down the high demand that is out there, and we might even see the price of oil drop more than people think. Historically, it has been boom and bust in the oil industry. Some say we will not have a bust again because of the world demand, and they may be right. But I think there are some realistic possibilities we can.

So there are biofuels and solar and wind and biomass and new batteries. All of this is good, and I would support research and development on them. But I do not believe we ought to press down on the brow of the American working man some theoretical beliefs about clean energy that will not work or are exceedingly expensive and create only a burden on working families in America. We have to be careful about that.

So I am excited about the proposal that has been put forth. I believe we have great potential to produce more American oil and gas off our Continental Shelf. I have seen it right off from the coast where I live in Alabama. I have seen that production come in for decades now.

We know ANWR has great potential. It could reduce our imports by as much as 10 percent if it is brought on line.

We know coal-to-liquid can be done today for far less than the world price of oil. We know oil can be produced from these huge oil shale deposits in the West for less than the world price of oil today.

We know nuclear power has the potential to help us transform our vehicular traffic from fossil fuels to electricity. But we have to get busy doing it. We have not built a nuclear plant in 30 years. Since I have been in the Senate, for 12 years I have talked about nuclear power, how critical it is to our future. We have done nothing really to make that happen--until Senator Domenici, 2 years ago, as chairman of the Energy Committee, finally pushed through some legislation that took us from having zero applications for nuclear plants to over 30 today.

I think we have the potential to see a renewal of nuclear power. The British just announced they are going to build five new nuclear plants. France has 80 percent of their power or more from nuclear power. Japan does.

We also need to figure out how to deal with the question of recycling, which is not at all impossible to do. The British, the French, the Japanese, the Russians recycle. We want to work on legislation to create recycling of nuclear waste. That will both help us create more fuel and reduce the danger of the waste that is left.

These are things we can do. But it is time to get busy and do it, not have a policy of creating a massive bureaucracy, some cap-in-trade bureaucracy that has not worked in Europe. It just has not worked. A massive tax increase is what it amounts to in sheep's clothing.

So, Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Yes.

Mr. President, I know it was less, but I do not know.

Nineteen.

That is six times as expensive.

It has increased six times in price since you first began to discuss it.

I could not agree more, I say to Senator Domenici.

It is very troubling to me. I say to the Senator, I know you also are knowledgeable--I do not know if you have a minute; I think you mentioned it in your remarks. But you have pointed out, as I understand it, in the West, in the shale oil areas of the West, we can actually produce shale oil for far less than $120 a barrel; is that correct?

Under current technology. I assume it will get better in the years to come, but even right now with the technology we have?

That keeps the money at home, hiring American workers who pay taxes to the United States of America.

Senator Domenici has some interest. We have had talks about coal to liquids. It is my understanding--is it yours--that we have technology today that can take our massive coal reserves and convert that to a good liquid fuel for our automobiles at less than $120 a barrel, the world market price of oil today?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski for her comments and agree with them very

strongly. This is not a matter that she just raised. Her distinguished father, who chaired the Senate Energy Committee, was a champion of ANWR production when he was in the Senate.

When I came here almost 12 years ago, I believed that was the right thing then. I understood then that it did have the capability of maintaining wealth in our country and helping to ease the surging price of oil and gas. I believe, as history has proven, she is correct.

That is the way it is. We steadfastly--vote after vote after vote, for the last 12 years I have been in the Senate and before that--tried to produce the tremendous reserves of oil and gas that are contained in a small part of ANWR. We have been blocked.

It is odd that those who blocked it, and seem unphased by the fact that we are importing huge amounts of oil and gas from nations around the world that are often hostile to us, such as out of that great lake in Venezuela. Nobody is worrying about the environment in Venezuela--it is all right to bring it from Venezuela or other places but not from the United States.

After many years since I have been in the Senate, we finally were able to open up more lands in the Gulf of Mexico, where huge reserves exist. It is not an academic matter only. We are talking about gasoline that has risen to the price of $3.61 a gallon as of this morning. One year ago, it was $2.84 a gallon; and 2 years ago, it was $2.74 a gallon. As a result, the American family, with two cars, is paying about $75 a month more for the same amount of gasoline they were buying previously.

This impacts our economy adversely. It is a transfer of wealth. T. Boone Pickens--himself an oil producer and one of America's most successful entrepreneurs--recently talked about the fact we are buying over 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries at the cost, he estimates, of $600 billion a year. We are sending $600 billion a year to foreign countries to import the oil we utilize. T. Boone Pickens referred to that, in an American Spectator article recently, as: the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.

Do we have the ability to do something about it? Are we just totally hopeless? Do we have an ability to do something about that? Absolutely, we can do some things. I supported ethanol, although we clearly are pushing the limits on that. But if we could do more cellulosic ethanol, we could do better. I supported the increase in the gas mileage, which we did pass, which will have a significant reduction in our demands.

But as the population of our country is growing, even if we reduce our own individual use, we are going to have high demand in our country for years to come. It is a question of: Where are we going to get it? I support hybrid automobiles. I support diesel automobiles. In fact, diesel is as clean or cleaner, in terms of CO2, and gets 30 percent better gas mileage than gasoline automobiles. Europeans utilize diesel automobiles. Fifty percent of their cars are now diesel. They actually get the same gas mileage and emit the same or less CO2 than hybrids. Did you know that?

So somehow we have fiddled around here and ended up not promoting diesel in an effective way and have seen the price of diesel fuel, which should be cheaper, be 60 cents more per gallon at the pump. I would like to know more about why that is happening. I think it has to be a combination of things, but I think Congress needs to look into that. I hope, in the Energy Committee, we will have some hearings on that particular question.

But let me talk about some of the reserves we have in our country.

In 2005, this Congress directed the Department of the Interior to study our reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf. I am from Alabama. We are a gulf coast area. They found that 8.5 billion barrels of oil are currently known to exist off the Nation's shores. In addition, the study estimated that approximately 86 billion barrels of oil also exist in those areas that have not been charted yet. The U.S. Geological Survey and private industry also estimate that approximately 25 billion barrels of oil exist onshore in the lower 48 States and in Alaska.

This amounts to approximately 119 billion barrels of oil available to the United States in our country or off our shores alone, for which we do not have to pay any foreign nation. Any production we get, as Senator Murkowski of Alaska stated, can create profits that come to the United States and not to foreign countries, and we can use it to accelerate nuclear power, plug in hybrids, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, wind and solar, and those other kinds of energy forms. But apparently we have those who just steadfastly block this and prefer to send our money to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Now, there are some additional sources of oil in our country of immense proportions, and at these world prices, it has proven to be already economically feasible to develop them. One is oil shale. The Congressional Research Service, our own independent research service, estimates this country's oil shale reserve to be equivalent to approximately 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, or 1,800 billion barrels of oil in oil shale. The largest oil producer in the world, Saudi Arabia, is estimated to have only 267 billion barrels. We are talking about 1.8 trillion in the United States, and it can be produced for less than $100 a barrel--some say $60 a barrel--and the people who produce it would be Americans paid salaries by the American Government, who would pay taxes to the U.S. Treasury, keeping our wealth at home and not transferring $600 billion to a foreign country.

In 2005, Congress recognized the potential--I want my colleagues to understand this--we recognized the potential of oil shale in the Energy Policy Act we passed, which was a good bill. It made a number of good steps forward. We identified it as strategically important and called for its further development. Yet the new Congress, under the new leadership, has acted to block the development of this abundant resource despite the record price of oil. They undermined the 2005 Energy Policy Act. In the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act, the majority inserted language into the bill prohibiting any Federal agency from contracting to procure any alternative or synthetic fuel that produces greater life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than those produced from the ground, those produced from Saudi Arabia. This language prohibits the Federal Government from contracting to produce oil shale. They knew exactly what they were doing, and that was exactly the purpose of that language. It really should be repealed. It is misguided. It is wrong.

The Energy Act of 2005 directed the Bureau of Land Management to lease Federal lands for oil shale research and development projects. Yet the Congress, in this same bill, acted to block the development of this provision. So we passed it in 2005, and they came along and blocked it. Language was inserted, actually, this time in the Consolidated Appropriations Act--that is, the Omnibus appropriations bill at the end of last session--that prohibited funds from being used to implement the leasing program which Congress directed BLM to implement in 2005. It should be repealed. That is not the right thing for us to do.

So there is much more we can say. We need technology. We need advancement in our ability to conserve energy, and at the same time, while we are making that progress, we do not need to be devastating our economy by transferring $600 billion a year to foreign countries when we can produce so much more here at home.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Klobuchar for her comments. I agree with so much of what she had to say. When you go out and talk to real people and see the impact on their lives of these huge prices, you begin to analyze where we are.

That sounds fine to me. I did not hear that. I yield the floor, before I complete bragging on the Senator's comments.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and Senator Klobuchar for her comments. These things just take time. I fully understand that.

I would share with her a question as to why we would continue to pour large amounts of petroleum into our Reserve when we are clearly at high, even peak prices that seems to me not a good idea. It would help relieve some pressure on price and on supply if we were to suspend that. I also share her concern that on the world market, we are not in a free marketplace. Those experts who said they thought the price ought to be $50, $55 a barrel, I don't know what the prices ought to be, but I know OPEC meets and decides what the production level will be. As a prosecutor myself, that is a cartel. That is price fixing, as I understand it. Somehow, we need to make it a part of our sustained national policy to stand up to this.

In one sense, what OPEC does when they drive up the price by limiting production, what they are doing is taxing the United States of America. They just decide how much they are going to tax us for the oil we use. One expert has said that the cost of producing a barrel of oil in those fabulous oil sands in Saudi Arabia is less than $10 a barrel. So we see what the profit margin is when it hits $120 a barrel on the world market. Many factors are in it. I know the decline in the dollar and other factors are involved.

But I just want to say that I do think we are moving into a new era of government-controlled oil more than we ever have. Most people think oil companies control it. But recent studies show about 85 percent of oil is owned by nation states. For example, Mexico owns all of its oil and will not allow private industry to participate in its extraction. Because the Government is inefficient and unproductive, their production has fallen, whereas Mexico has huge reserves. Venezuela's production has fallen. Aramco, the Saudi Arabian company, owns theirs, and their production has fallen. As a result, we continue to see shortages on the world market, driving prices up, allowing certain people who are clever and smart and who have invested wisely or aggressively to make billions of dollars.

We have a serious energy problem in the United States. The high costs are impacting the lives of American citizens and farmers and others. There was an article in a local paper--I believe the Mobile Press Register--that I saw today where an individual who has a shrimp boat parked his boat at the dock and said: If the price of shrimp doesn't go up or the price of fuel drop, I cannot make a profit. There is no way I can go out and do this. He docked his boat. There was a similar article in the Florence Times talking about farmers and the increasing cost farmers see from the fuel they use.

Increased demand from India, Southeast Asia, South America, with decreased production around the globe, has created the opportunity for prices and profits to grow for certain people who are wisely positioned.

During my last trip to Alabama for a week, I had townhall meetings and visited with people throughout the State. Energy prices were the No. 1 thing people talked to me about. It is having a real impact on their family budget. The price of regular unleaded gasoline climbed to $3.50 a gallon. A year ago, it was $2.84, and 2 years ago, it was $2.74. That is a 28-percent increase in 2 years. This helps explain the economic doldrums and slowdown we are in. The typical American family with two cars is paying about $750 to $1,000 more per year for the same amount of fuel they were buying the previous year. That represents $70, $80 a month of disposable income that previously they could use for other things for their family. It is now going to buy the same amount of fuel they were using the year before or 2 years before. This represents a huge economic hit to the American family.

There is another adverse, serious problem for America as a nation: More than 60 percent of the fuel we utilize in our vehicles comes from places such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and Russia and Mexico, some of which countries are not friendly to us. That represents a $400 billion transfer of wealth on an annual basis from this country. Businessman T. Boone Pickens, in a recent interview in the American Spectator, referred to this as ``the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.'' That is a pretty smart guy. He is an oil man himself. He said we have to do something about this. It is not something we can just ignore.

Of course, there is no silver bullet to solving the problems, but there are some basic principles we should respect. We must increase supplies in our own country, increase production in our country, which we certainly can do and which I regret to say we have attempted in this Senate and in the House more than once, to be blocked by various groups that seem to complain about high energy prices but don't want to do anything to allow us to produce more in the United States. We must conserve more energy. I supported the increased gas mileage standards which represent a substantial improvement. Maybe we can even do more. We certainly must try to use more biofuels, if we can, although under current technologies, we are reaching the limits. But I think other technology will help us in the future to expand the amount of biofuels we can use. We must use the fuel we have more efficiently.

The Government does have a responsibility to ensure that we have fairness in the world marketplace and in the American marketplace and to make sure these cartels openly fixing the price of oil do not succeed. As I will discuss in a minute, I think we should take a serious look at establishing a policy with regard to diesel fuel. I will mention that in a moment.

I know the problem for gasoline is hitting American families directly. But at this moment, I would like to share some specific thoughts about diesel fuel and those high costs.

Recent spikes in diesel fuel prices don't get a lot of attention in the media, but it has a huge impact on consumers and businessmen and truckers and shrimpers and farmers.

Today, I had the pleasure to meet with six independent truckers who are here in Washington to bring attention to the skyrocketing cost of diesel fuel. They had press conferences, and they talked to a number of people. I invited a group to come to my office.

Over-the-road trucks, 18-wheelers, heavy equipment, and agricultural trucks almost exclusively use diesel fuel. This month, diesel fuel prices climbed to $4.14 a gallon. Two years ago, it was $2.72. That is a 52-percent increase in diesel fuel, substantially greater than the increase in gasoline. That is putting a huge stress on trucking companies--independent truckers, particularly--small businesses, and farming and fishing operations.

Among automobiles and pickup trucks, 98 percent of the people drive vehicles that use unleaded gas. So you might say: I am not a trucker or a farmer. Those prices don't really affect me. But that is just not so, really. There are two ways the market for diesel fuel affects the average person's pocketbook. When diesel prices go up, the cost of transporting goods, consumer products, and food goes up. That increase is passed to consumers. Secondly, we have an opportunity, through improved diesel technology, of making diesel engines cleaner and more efficient than ever before. Mercedes, for example, Daimler-Chrysler, is offering consumers a range of vehicles with its blue tech diesel engine that is built in my home State. So we should spend a few minutes looking at our policies and how they affect diesel prices.

I hope the Energy Committee, of which I am a member, will have some hearings on this issue. It would be worth our having some time set aside exclusively to this problem. Nearly all trucks and delivery vehicles utilize diesel fuel. The price of diesel fuel affects our country in so many ways. Trucking currently uses 75 percent of the total diesel fuel used in the United States. Only 3.5 percent of the automobiles in America use diesel. But in Europe, approximately 50 percent of the automobiles are diesel. And in the United States, one action we took that may have had some impact on not using so much diesel fuel but had a good impact, perhaps, for the environment was to demand very clean, low-sulfur diesel fuel. Our diesel fuel is lower sulfur than the Europeans, and that is because of environmental reasons.

But did you know this? Diesel automobiles run approximately 30 percent farther on diesel fuel than similar gasoline-powered automobiles. Diesel engines get 30 percent better mileage than gasoline engines. Diesel-powered automobiles also get more miles per gallon even than hybrid automobiles, or about the same. Some insist it is better, but they are pretty much equal. In addition to being fuel efficient, diesel-powered automobiles emit fewer CO2 emissions than similar hybrid and gasoline engines. A lot of people don't know that. Of course, that is why 50 percent of the automobiles in Europe, which has analyzed this more carefully than we, it appears, are now diesel. The European Union has emphasized diesel engines because it takes 30 percent less fuel to run a diesel engine.

The average price of diesel fuel used in motor vehicles has historically been lower than the price of regular gasoline. According to the Department of Energy, the average price of diesel has been higher than gasoline since 2004--as a matter of fact, substantially higher.

So for some reason, even though diesel fuel traditionally has been less expensive and requires less refining effort than gasoline, it has been averaging 64 cents a gallon more than gasoline.

Now, like I said, I believe in a free market. I am loathe for the Government to intervene. But let me ask this question: Why is that? Why? Why would a product that should be cheaper be consistently, since 2004, more expensive than the other product? I, frankly, do not know. But it does appear our country has made a determination to shift to a gasoline economy and a hybrid economy.

I think it is fabulous we are utilizing large numbers now of hybrid vehicles--large numbers. We certainly have enough on the roads today to be able to find out how well they work, to make their capabilities more sophisticated, to improve their lifespan, to improve their efficiency, to work out the bugs.

A lot of people are finding that the savings in gas alone will help pay for the somewhat more expensive hybrid engine. So I am not against the hybrid engine, and I am delighted we are leading the world in the effort to utilize hybrid engines.

What I am asking is, how have we gotten ourselves in a situation in which the less expensive diesel fuel, that gets 30 percent better gas mileage, is not readily available and is costing 64 cents more a gallon? Something is awry as far as I can see.

I say, let's get busy. Let's do something about it. Let's stand up to OPEC. Let's use every political influence and pressure we have to encourage them to increase productivity to reduce these shortages. Let's stop, at least temporarily, depositing to the petroleum reserve. Let's expand biofuels, and particularly biodiesel, which is a fabulous fuel that, unlike ethanol, is just as productive as diesel fuel and actually is even cleaner than diesel fuel.

We need to figure out how to get more production domestically from our own reserves. I will not go into the arguments we have had about ANWR, all the oil shale in the West, and offshore drilling. We simply have not done enough of it, and we still have large reserves available to us in this country. So when those reserves are produced, that wealth does not go to foreign nations but is kept within the United States, creating jobs in our country.

So we need more production, and we need to look at this question of refineries. I do not know what the problem is, but we need to ask some questions. I have already asked the Congressional Research Service and the Department of Energy some questions. But I intend to look at this more as to why we do not have sufficient diesel fuel being produced in the country and we continue to have shortages of it.

So that is what I think we need to do. I am not unaware and I understand completely that the surging cost of energy impacts working Americans directly. It hits their pocketbook. Those are the people who have the least disposable income, and it is like a hidden tax.

Yes, oil is more valuable today than it was. Mr. T. Boone Pickens, in his article, said he thought we were at a peak oil situation in the world while demands are going up worldwide. I do not know that we are yet at a total peak. I doubt we are, frankly. But we are getting close to that. So the oil is just a more valuable product. I understand that. But we need to execute the policies we know will work to help contain the price increases that are hurting Americans.

I will add this one thought: We need to be careful about cap and trade and other pieces of legislation that focus solely on CO2 emissions because we know those actions and those pieces of legislation will only drive the cost of fuel higher. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, which has just completed a study of the cap and trade bill that the Environment and Public Works Committee just reported to the floor a month or two ago, that bill would raise the price of gasoline 50 cents a gallon. It could raise the price of electricity maybe as much as $100 a month for a family. Who is going to pay that?

So we have to be very careful when we pass cap-and-trade, global- warming-type legislation, that when we do, we do not dump huge costs on working Americans, on low-income Americans which they do not deserve and they are not justified. So I think that is a matter we will need to consider in the weeks to come.

I thank the Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. I appreciate very much the truckers who were in my office today. I enjoyed talking with them. They told me stories of people who are having to park their trucks and not being able to continue to work. They told me stories of people who were going to go into bankruptcy; they could not continue to make their payments.

So it is not an academic matter. It is a very real thing. We need to take action consistent with our great heritage of freedom in our country to see what we can do to confront this rising cost of energy.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Menendez, for his courtesy. I will adhere to that timeframe. I ask to be notified in 4 minutes.

I would express my appreciation to Senator Stevens for his service to his country during World War II, and Senator Inouye, our decorated World War II veteran himself. Both served in harm's way for their country. We do value their opinions on so many important issues.

John Little, a native of my hometown of Mobile, AL, a product of UMS High School, a good high school in Mobile, graduated from Southern Methodist University with a BA in history,

got his juris doctorate from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, AL, a fine law school.

He interviewed and then joined my staff 9 months into my term, just as I had come to Washington. We hired John, and we told him he would have to start at the bottom. And he did. He handled judiciary issues and correspondence with constituents back home. But within a year, using his excellent writing and research, it was obvious he was destined to take on more responsibility.

John had great talent, and we made him our legislative counsel and gave him the responsibility of several issues, including education, labor, drug caucus work, welfare, and campaign finance reform.

In 2000, John was promoted to legislative assistant and counsel and he dove right into the largest issues of our time, at that point the Elementary and Secondary Education Act debate. We were dealing with a very important issue in education, in particular, the special ed or IDEA reform, the need to create a thoughtful, disciplined standard and reform for students and teachers in the classroom. It was a big problem. We were hearing a lot about it. John spent countless hours of work on this project as my legislative assistant and helped foster the strong reform that eventually would be accepted in the IDEA reform bill which was signed into law that is affecting positively every school in America today.

After 2 years spent on education, labor, and welfare and judiciary issues, I promoted him to my deputy legislative director and counsel. His portfolio grew on a whole host of issues. He also became a key point man in my office on nominations issues.

So after the departure in 2003 of my legislative director, John was the obvious choice to take over and manage the day-to-day legislative operations of my office. He and I spent countless hours together working on IDEA reform and other issues that were so important.

He spearheaded my efforts to promote our plans for a strong national defense, lower taxes, less regulation, and the thoughtful application of commonsense conservative values to promote and pass good public policy.

After the elections of 2004, a new Senator, my good friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Mel Martinez, heard of the outstanding work of my young legislative director and counsel. I suppose he heard about that because he called me to ask if he could interview him. And I certainly agreed to that.

I think he sought out John's leadership, know-how, interpersonal skills, and a command of the inner workings of the Senate, and he eventually asked if he could bring John on as his chief of staff.

Although I would lose a strong counselor and a legislative leader and friend, my loss was indeed Senator Martinez's gain. So it has been for the past 3 years that John has been at the helm with Senator Martinez as his chief of staff.

He will leave the Senate family now but will be taking on another important challenge in the corporate world. I know John Little well and the values and high ideals he holds dear. He truly loves the Senate and respects her traditions. He loves America. The Senate was a better place with him here.

Thank you, John, for your friendship, your strong personal support, and your service to the Senate and our great country. It has been a pleasure and an honor to work with you. We wish you every success in your chosen endeavors.

I yield the floor.